Update

Hi everyone, I'm officially back from an unexpected hiatus with a brand new laptop to resume making some articles. I have a lot planned for everyone to check out soon, so expect a new article for Theoretical Inquiry and Random in the coming weeks.

-Kwan

Random: Are Sequels & Reboots worth it?

Sequels: Often regarded as a follow-up or continuation of another movie, sequels have received mixed views from audiences who were both excited as well as disappointed by how well the film was produced. There has been a plethora of viewers claiming originals are always better than the sequel, even though more often than not, this statement has been proven false. Great examples of this are; Dark Knight and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Many sequels are able to surpass the first film in the franchise due to having a pre-existing figure and story which provides them with opportunity to create a new chapter in the series. In the process, much of a character's history or origins can be expanded upon which can add more depth to the narrative as well as the film series in general. Sequels also work as a catalyst for providing characters with growth in a similar fashion to people maturing from past events. However, sequels are far from being perfect. Many of them have continuity issues, often contradicting source material introduced by previous films and some have absolutely no link to the original movie at all except for the name being used in it's title. Another problem with sequels come whenever a franchise expands beyond the second movie. The main reasons as to why they fail after the second film usually depends on whether or not the following films are nothing more than a half baked attempt to re-create their original one. Once a franchise begins working from that angle, much of it's series turns out to be repetitive.


As we move forward, current times have shown us just how well a sequel can be if enough care is given to a story's narrative, development of characters, along with great dialogue. When it comes to films continuing where their first left off, there will always be a bunch that misses their intended mark, but for each miss, we can be sure to find one winner able to hit a home run right around the corner.



Reboots: Many of the reasons people love reboots generally comes from the nostalgia they feel from the original, wanting to re-live that exhilarating experience, but in a new way. It is for this same reason alone, people also hate them. Reboots are amazing for breathing life into a dying or already dead franchise, re-imagining a story, filling it with a brand new twist. Because of this, a large portion of the original films fanbase becomes a hard bunch to please since their nostalgia goggles are always present, scanning for any changes that seem too much of a drastic departure from what it's message was. At the heart of the matter, reboots are necessary for reviving any franchise for another generation to experience their own piece of cinematic gold, so it's not just about pleasing the generation who is familiar with it's source material. Several have failed to capture the original's essence simply because what was achieved in the past had become known as the first of it's kind. It held an advantage since it was original and different from what audiences were expecting; leading to it becoming a host for their own nostalgic fantasy, but does that make them worthy of attention?


Despite the shortcomings of what any Reboot attempts to regain and bombs in the process, when the script is able to recapture what the original content had aimed to create with actors who understand their character well enough, a director who respects source material and finds an incredible way to enhance or put an intriguing spin on it, it becomes something even greater than the original, improving anything the first of the franchise may not have been able to present because of limitations found in the era it was created. So, in a sense reboots are worth seeing, but you must be willing to look beyond nostalgia to embrace it's potential of creating a home in your hearts and fondest memories. Of course there will always be many installments that will not live up to it's hype, but even if only a handful will deliver what has been claimed; a few gems will always be better than none at all.

Coming soon...

After the last article I wrote for Theoretical Inquiry, I began brainstorming ideas for the next one. Here's a list of topics I have planned to explore:

Twilight: Why Bella is good  example of how some desperate women overlook red flags.

What's The Real Message Behind "The Butler "?

  Lilith: Evil Demon or Iconic Symbol for Feminist?

Random: Can Batman Beat Anyone He Faces?

Batman was created by Bob Kane and is regarded as one of the best comic book characters. Over the years he has been known for taking on impossible odds for any human to face, often winning each time, but can he really beat anyone?

As much as I love Batman comics, movies, and TV series, too many fans have this absurd notion that he can beat anyone if given prep time. Granted, Batman is one of those types of heroes who has the ability to outsmart a multitude of villains or other heroes using strategy, detective skills, martial arts, and technology, but even with all this in his favor there are several characters he will never be able to beat who are either superior to him in these areas or have way too much power for him to compensate for. Many of the people he has faced often showed signs of having an exploitable weakness which he would be able to capitalize on at some point during the fight.

Even though it can be argued from another point of view that we all have an exploitable weakness and anyone who is smart enough can use this information against us in the real world, but in the world of comics this is not always the case nor is it always going to be something you're fully able to utilize against them. This is also true for Batman. The reason most people feel as though he can beat anyone comes as a result of him winning in a fight against Superman. Another reason for this belief comes from events that take place in the Tower of Babel story. In 2000, DC comics released JLA: Tower of Babel; a six part storyline involving Ra's Al Ghoul stealing secret files from Batman that documented the strengths and weaknesses of several members of the Justice League. This story served as a catalyst to display Batman's lack of trust for the League and superhumans as a whole, showcasing  his willingness to take them down if necessary.

As a result, many fans have used the story as evidence to prove he can beat any character in a debate. Although his files managed to work on his team mates, none of what he accomplished implies he can destroy every character in existence. Many fans tend to forget that each file containing information on his team was a result of knowing them on a personal level and would not have been successfully executed without specific circumstances.
With all the amount of praise given to the dark knight, some of his more enthusiastic fans overlook the fact no one can beat everyone, even Bruce Wayne has his limits. In reality, Batman only beat the man of steel because he had access to some thing he knew would diminish his natural power, making him weak in the process. (also a result of the pain) So, technically his win doesn't count. Not much strategy was needed for what he did in this fight. Depending on how you play it, anyone could beat Superman when he's like that. If Superman did not have Kryptonite as a weakness, the dark knight would have been killed or would be left with no choice but to escape. In a similar scenario, if we were to replace the man of steel with another opponent, such as Galactus, or Thanos; Batman would easily lose this fight because they simply have no exploitable weakness he could use to beat them. No amount of preparation, technology, or human physicality can compete with a being who is light years beyond average or Olympic levels of power, specifically godlike entities. Another point worth noting is Bats' track record against foes smarter and more skilled then him. He has been beaten many times by Slade Wilson a.k.a. Deathstroke, Lady Shiva, and a few others throughout his career which he has never outsmarted or beaten in a fight.

As he stands, Batman is a symbol, he embodies many of the good qualities as well as physical and even mental abilities we can all strive to achieve in reality, but with good qualities also comes terrible shortcomings. He may be regarded as one of the greatest comic book characters of all times, but he is not invincible or unbeatable.

Media Dissection: Zombies

In fiction, Zombies are considered to be animated corpses that plague humanity with the intent to feast on human brains. Today, Zombies are one of the most over used, repetitive forms of undead creatures seen in movies, becoming all too predictable and boring. In nearly all forms of media they appear  in, zombies haven't done anything significant to differentiate themselves from previous installments in the genre. Because of this revelation, I never could understand how something like this phenomenon would grow to the heights it was able to reach, when most of the movies about them were pretty much mediocre with a seriously weak, basic plot; survive the mindless flesh eating creature. Despite this, many still love these creatures and revere them as a horror movie staple, along with Vampires and Werewolves. To be fair, they have earned that right.

In recent years, zombies have been receiving new films as well as a TV series; further  proving Zombie lore is still relevant and interesting to the mass majority of it's viewers. I myself have never been particularly intrigued by the concept of a walking corpse who tries to devour your flesh, carrying with it the potential to infect others to become just like them after I reached a certain age, so much of it held no true importance to me, but for many that was not the case. Once you break it down, as repetitive and one dimensional as the concept has become, Zombie lore is clever for one reason; the survival aspect. Due to the nature of their films, zombies play off our natural fears when it comes to our own preservation of survival. As a result, the concept also personifies viruses; which can elevate to the same magnitude of a plague, often presenting  themselves as the embodiment of what a plague means.

For many fans of the genre, blood and gore had always been a consistent factor, however, this is only a fraction of what the atmosphere presents to it's viewers. As a result, audiences across the globe are given an opportunity to observe a unique phenomenon; experiencing, a plethora of harsh, relentless, and disturbing, survival methods. Due to the atmosphere of their films, zombie lore allows one to ponder, "What if they are real?", "How would I survive"? Resulting in some who go to great lengths to create their own methods for each situation, both mentally and physically; whether it's for the purpose of excitement or based on superstitious fear, while others regard their existence in the media as a metaphor for humanity's growing dependence on technology.

In closing, Zombie films as well as their TV series have become predictable, repetitive, and highly overrated. However, these creatures deserve praise for what the concept was able to achieve, exploiting our primal instincts, challenging us mentally, and personifying human fears, which provides us with more insight in the form of a psychological experience presented in one of the best metaphorical exhibitions found in this genre. Despite their flaws, surviving zombies as a theme in any form of media, captures our natural curiosity, and fuels our need to survive.

Random: Is the movie "IT" really scary?

Welcome to Random, a brand new section that will take a look at a variety of topics to analyze. Unlike Theoretical Inquiry, this section may be shorter (depending on the topic) and will be more of an open exploration. In many ways, it could be considered a quicker, easier to write version of Theoretical Inquiry with no structural restrictions.



Stephen King's IT, was a two part miniseries/movie based on the classic 1990 novel of the same name. In recent years, the film is regarded by many fans as something scary or creepy, but loved all the same in comparison to horror flicks of today, but is it really? I would have to say yes and no. When it comes down to it, the movie has it's fair share of creepy moments, however nothing about it is realistically what anyone can truly classify as scary. At best, it gives off vibes of being disturbing much more than anything else. Much to my surprise, I have heard people were terrified by the movie, even today rather than simply enjoy it for the sake of nostalgic value. The central reason for this is none other than; Coulrophobia.  Coulrophobia is fear of clowns. Some have speculated the fear most likely developed during the 80's when clowns had become more prominent in a wide assortment of mediums; One of which was horror. Some might ask how the hell does an adult develop this kind of fear? Well, to put it simply; their childhood. As I stated above clowns were in some horror movies during the 80's prior to, It, and the majority of kids who have seen it when they were young had become terrified by their appearance, actions, and overall attitude. For the most part, depending on a kids age as well as their level of maturity, something as simple as a clown can appear menacing given proper setting or actions with a semi-horrific atmosphere. Much of this can be said for why many find it to be scary despite it only being mildly creepy or downright annoying or just plain crazy.

Some of the very same reasons people like clowns are also why people are scared of them. Generally they are depicted as dopey, fun-loving individuals with either a corny sense of humor or a great sense of humor (some times....) , and yet they also present a visual image of an odd, unfathomable, disfigured, diseased looking human/creature hybrid. The confusion as to what it is, causes the kid to be uneasy. Making matters worst, everything about a clown is unpredictable. So, in a sense, clowns creepy look can be enough to scare a child, but if you remove the fear of clowns out of the equation, IT, is only mildly creepy with dark elements built within it. Other than that, the other things added such as balloons for eerie mystique, fail to present a menacing visual. Although it works well with the character, it doesn't do anything except ruin the eerie mystique.

In conclusion, the movie might be scary only to a certain age demographic who had been previously exposed to clowns and developed a fear of them, without these hanging in the balance, we can see that "IT" isn't the least bit scary. Creepy, a bit dark, bizarre as hell, annoying as fuck (in the second half... wanted to shoot his ass in that one scene... you know the one), but not scary.

Aaron Loves Angela: a movie reflection

In the early 1970's, Blaxploitation films reigned supreme. During this era, the genre had been known for producing great movies like Shaft, Foxy Brown, and Coffee just to name a few. The genre was notable for casting black people in leading roles as well as centering mostly around a majority of black people in general. Among most films in this era, one continues to capture my admiration, filling me with laughter as well as warming my heart; that movie is, Aaron Loves Angela. What set this flick apart from the others had more to do with it's main focus: Aaron's romance with Angela. What truly adds a great amount depth to the movie is how their story is portrayed as a cross between Romeo & Juliet and a West side story. The story itself is about a black man, (Aaron) played by Kevin Hooks, who falls in love with a Puerto Rican girl (Angela).



Highlights: Moses Gunn does an amazing job playing as Aaron's father who is now a former athlete, owning his own bar. His role also helps to add a balancing touch of real life issues he's been going through which relates to the absence of Aaron's mother having to raise his son himself as well as reflecting on failures in his past career.


The chemistry between Aaron and Angela is instantaneous as well as genuine, eventually it develops into a strong passion on both ends. Even though there are some bumps along the road, they manage to pull through in the end. Another aspect it focused on was the prejudice tension between blacks and Puerto Ricans during this particular time period.

Willie (played by Leon Pinkney) is Aaron's hilarious best friend. Some of the best moments in the film center on his interactions with Aaron and others. By far, he is without a doubt, the most funniest character there.

The subplot centered on Beau, the local drug dealer/pimp (played by Robert Hooks) beautifully ties in with the main plot of the film adding more depth to the overall story. The whole story itself was nicely constructed, giving an equal amount of romance, action, and comedy with a great dose of drama. The main characters (excluding the villains) are all likable. Also worth mentioning was the acting; there were many good performances throughout the movie. I must also mention how incredible their script was, with amazing sense of quality as well as it's firm hold on realism leaving a great amount of structure.



Fails: honestly there really aren't any real issues with this movie that I could classify as bad. At times some of the lines projected come off as a bit forced, certain aspects of the emotional scenes also give off this vibe, some parts seem a bit awkward or off, like the sex scene, but I mostly contribute these problems with the era, so I don't take too much from it  into account.




                                                                

                                                                        Final thoughts:
                                                                      
                                                             
Overall, I can truthfully say; Aaron Loves Angela is an amazingly well written romance/drama worthy of praise. The few shortcomings of the film are outweighed tremendously by the large amount of time, effort, and passion each cast member had devoted to this project. In many ways, Aaron Loves Angela actually captures the essence of how two young adults can fall deeply in love with each other, defying all odds, conquering all obstacles that stand before them. This movie is a classic, I highly recommend for anyone into romance.

Update

If you haven't already, check out the latest article of Theoretical Inquiry. This one is an in depth analysis of whether or not Psychic Sylvia Browne was a fraud in the first part of my special Psychic Watch edition of Theoretical Inquiry. If you missed any of my other articles for Theoretical Inquiry, as well as the one I just mentioned; check the page listings on your right and enjoy. Also, due to software issues I will be pushing back the movie review of Paranormal Activity until further notice.

Alvin and the Chipmunks Trilogy: A Reflection

At the start of the new year, I took on the task of watching all three, Alvin and the Chipmunk movies for the sake of curbing some Nostalgia that surfaced as a result of their 1980's cartoon show catching my interest once again. In the end I both enjoyed them as well as despised them at the same time, so I decided to reflect on what I've seen; hope you enjoy.

In 2007, Alvin and the Chipmunks was produced by singer, voice artist, record producer, Ross Bagdasarian, Jr. and his spouse; Janice Karman. Much like the 1980's cartoon series, also produced by the duo, the film centered around three singing chipmunk brothers; Alvin, Simon, Theodore.


Highlights:

Some of the best scenes are due in part to effects displayed by having all three brothers in CGI. Because of this incorporation for their live action films, it allowed them a chance to grab a hold of more creative, inventive, forms of comedy as well as pulling off top tier level of acrobatics added to performances. The first film in the trilogy focused heavily on all three brothers singing career as well as their relationship with adoptive human father; David Seville. Though it cannot be considered as an origin story of how they grew prior to meeting Dave, considering much of their past is somewhat of a mystery that for some reason is left unexplored, but it is however an origin story in the sense it shows us how they met Dave and how they became famous. To some degree, the movies manage to satirize the music industry. In their sequel we are introduced to their female counterparts; Brittany, Janette, and Eleanor; the Chipettes. 

Fails:

Much of the issues found in this trilogy can also be attributed to the main attraction: the CGI. In their defense, this aspect of the films was doomed before it had even started. When it comes down to it, Bagdasarian and Karman envisioned  a live action feature length film, with that in mind; making them look more like actual chipmunks as well as designing them to fit the same height as real chipmunks was in reality the best and quite possibly the only way it could have been done. Sadly even with it's creativity included, at best, none of it can truly be considered innovative or new, I dare say half of it was recycled from other more inventive programs done to a lower degree of success in execution. As with most live action films based on cartoon characters; it suffers from having poor acting when it comes to the human cast.

                                                          

                                                       Final thought

Despite all it's shortcomings the film series isn't all that bad; certainly not spectacular by any means, but it is good in a sense that it reaches it's target audience and in doing so it became a commercial success. Throughout the series, characters received a good amount of growth which in turn helped to shape them as many returning fans of the cartoon series can remember, with the third film in the trilogy cited for having the most shown in character development for both Chipmunks and Chipettes. It may not be the greatest film trilogy in the world, but in a sense it does it's best to re-capture most elements found within the cartoon, because of this the trilogy is something the family can enjoy during holidays.