september's coming soon

I'm going to assume that people picking up the years-later oneshot sequel to a decades-running comic will already be familiar with the original, so google SiP if you want the summary. Given that nobody I have ever come across online even knows about SiP, I'm going to assume no-one will ever read this, but hell. Reviewing ended up being how I process the media I consume, and this in context with the Utena sequel means I'm having thoughts.

SiP: XXV more or less starts where the original ended: The Parker Empire is gone for good with Tambi devoted to making sure it stays down, Katchoo finally has peace and her happily ever after with Francine. But oh no oh no, some ex-Parker girl is getting into apocalyptic military science secrets and the fate of the world rests on the shoulders of one Katina Chovanski who has to hunt her down to keep her family safe.

Content, as such, is familiar territory for those here from the original. There's a lot less romantic drama, naturally, and all the more James Bond. Which on the one hand is a kind of a weird choice, given that I deeply suspect that the drama was what endeared this story to most readers. I can't begrudge it, though, because the kind of clunky story flow that always bothered me with SiP is absent here. Granted, this is also a shorter format than the one in which I read SiP (the pocket collection), so it's possible that the shorter length just made it easier to digest. Unlike the original, I never was confused about the chain of events, here.

The story is old, and that is of course perfectly fine. The only thing I could fault it for is possibly the ending, which took a turn for the mystic that's not entirely off-brand for this universe, but still kind of dissonant with the genre. (and honestly the plot engine is fifty degrees of spaced out but seriously, who cares). Some might also complain about the relative absence of Francine in this story, or the fact that she and Katchoo are together for like... three pages, total. Some might even note that David is never as much as alluded to, except for being included in a collection of character sketches at the end of the book. Both of these are things that someone concerned with pleasing fans would've probably shoehorned in, but I'm happy Moore didn't - because it would be shoehorning, and I prefer my stories well told. We got BAMF Aunt Libby in exchange.

Visually, Moore is still a brilliant artist, and I wonder if part of the improved story flow isn't that he's toned down the experimental parts of his comics. The larger format certainly opens up for enjoying the artwork all the better, and the artwork was always the absolute highlight of this story, for me. I particularly liked the way he used landscapes here, and particularly the parts set in Scotland were gorgeous. The one "untraditional" thing I noticed here was Moore's brilliant use of vertical panels and whole-page frames. They're sparing, but man, are they good.

Should you read it? If you liked SiP, this is more of the same, and - I'd argue - better narrated. If you want to get into SiP, this is probably a decent introduction to the universe, though be aware that there's a considerable amount of comedy and romantic soap opera in the original that are almost entirely absent here.

I'm not an objective critic here. My tendency for obsessing with fictional works slightly preceeded my entering fandom, and it was absolutely a THING before I found the TRHQ2 forums the autumn of the year of our lord 2000.

Because that summer, I attended some municipality-run class on making websites, and I made my very first one about the amazing Sunset Beach. And one afternoon, I had my dad videotape a film from the telly becaues I'd miss it because of said class, and also because I knew I knew I KNEW that I had to see it.



It's probably the most-watched VHS tape I've ever owned. I remember being vaguely confused by the lack of story, but who cares, becaues I was absolutely in love with the music, the dances, the costumes. I was fifteen. I still know the names of probably some 2/3 of all the named cats, even the ones without songs. I've seen a tour production live, I've bough the West End OST, and no derr was I going to see this film.

TL;DR IT IS AMAZING AND I LOVED IT.

For a bit more objectivity: My standard of measurement between an "okay" film and a GREAT film is whether or not I find myself checking the time at any point in it. Depending on genre, a further indication is going to be wether or not I catch myself grinning like an idiot at any point in it.

"La La Land" had my actively regretting the money I paid for the tickets, and that was nominated for bloody Best Picture. But Cats? Oh, Cats had no less than three "oh wow I'm really grinning like an idiot here" moments. And I'm totally going to see it again on Tuesday.

I haven't been reading a lot of the bad reviews this film has gotten, because I was going to see it anyway and I was more than willing to forgive it A LOT. I didn't have a lot of expectations, because adapting "Cats" as a feature film faces two fundamental problems that I did not see how they could overcome:

1. This show is about SHOW, not story. It has like three minutes of plot that's so pitiful that you just wonder why they even bothered in the first place. The theatre audience clearly embraced the musical for what it was (furries singing and dancing), but to court the mainstream film audience, you'll need a mainstream film. And "Cats" just... can't be that.

2. I've long suspected that my love of the theatre is connected to my love of animation. Where mainstream film is mimetic, both the theatre stage and the animated film KNOWS that they'll always be unrealistic, and so they embrace it. They get to exaggarate and blatantly disregard reality and to use symbolism and visual metaphors for carrying their themes, and that's why I love them both. This is why I'll always mentally pat you on the head for insisting that Harry Potter and the Cursed Child sucks because it read like fanfic. Oh sweaty, it might have, but it was a story that wasn't made to be READ in the first place, and I trust that the people giving the play all the awards know more about theatre than your average Harry Potter fan does. (also, you can wrestle Scorpio Malfoy out of my cold, dead hands) "Cats" obviously depends on the same suspension of reality: These aren't cats, they are people in unconvincing cat costumes singing and dancing on two legs. You can sell it on stage, or the film-of-the-stage, as the case might be. You could've sold it as animation, but animated cats would lose 50% of the appeal of the show - the dancing. It is exceedingly difficult to sell it as something working as live action film, so I can only admire the fact that they had the balls to even try.

As the reception of the trailer made clear, the last problem was the BIG one, since it became a meme in the bad way and probably most people less sentimentally hooked on the musical and/or less nerdy about non-mimetic narrative devices than me probably weren't inclined to ever give it the chance in the first place.

What truly surprised me was that the film in fact overcomes both these complaints, to a degree. The plot is still paper-thin, but expanded upon enough to give us somewhat of a narrative: Meet Victoria, who as the story starts is dumped by her owner in what turns out to be the Jellicles' territory. The run-up to the Jellicle Ball is given a twin motive: Introduce Victoria to the Jellicle cats as she observes the cats campaigning to be chosen for a new life, while Macavity lurks in the shadows (for a reason, not just be a troll! omg) The rest of it is pretty much singing and dancing, becaues that's what this is about.

My one criticism of the film would be the visual designs, but not what everyone else is complaining about. I didn't have any uncanny valley moments with neither the faces nor the two-legged dancing, but I did take a bit of issue with how the chorus cats were all a pretty uniform mass here. On stage, they're all distinct and infamously, a lot of them are named. In the film, I honestly don't know if it was Bombalurina and Demeter which sang "Grizabella", because they all looked the sodding same. The furry faces and the human dancing? Psh, I'd forgotten about them two minutes in.

( More commentary, likely presuming you know at least the stage musical but honestly how can you spoil something that doesn't have a story )

The title is a lie. She's only a bunny girl for maybe half the first episode.

( It's pretty good but the polarized reception is more interesting than the series itself )

Me being who I am, it's interesting that the only version of Mary Poppins with which I'm completely familiar is the first novel. I never saw the film until I caught the last half of it on the TV a year ago, and I've seen the beginning of the stage musical (thank you youtube) and listened to the soundtrack.

Going into Mary Poppins Returns thus means I'm going back to a story that has neither particular nostalgia value nor a whole lot of thematic ressonance for me, because I know it as fragments, mainly musical, and not really as a complete story.

Said story is pretty much a remix of the last one. The Banks Family is mildly dysfunctional, The Bank Is Being Mean, Mary Poppins teaches them to fix things by bringing a healthy dose of insanity into their lives. The music is also pretty much a remix of the last one. There's a new "Jolly Holiday" sequence, a new "Step In Time", a new "Let's Go Fly A Kite". There are, of course, numerous smaller callbacks to the first film. Interestingly, Mary Poppins II also borrows from the stage musical: "Cheery Tree Lane" is a musical motif that pops up a couple of times, and Step In Time 2018 also seems to draw more from the stage version than the sixties film. We can debate the merits of trying to be a new Mary Poppins to the extreme where you're just painting a new layer of varnish over the old story. Somehow, the stage adaptation of the story is far more transformative than the sequel is, and I don't think this is doing the sequel any favours. When it recreates the original piece by piece, it lays itself open to the inevitable comparisons - and it doesn't come out on top.

It's a fun spectacle, but suffering a light case of the La La Land syndrome: A flashy display that is too sleek, too polished, and so becomes forgettable afterwards. La La Land was much worse in this regard, mind, and this film is absolutely fun and charming and more memorable. But where the sixties film (or I mean, at least the half of it that counts) is a masterpiece, this one is merely good enough. Being not-as-good as a masterpiece obviously doesn't mean it's bad. I had fun! Unlike La La Land, I wasn't regretting the money I spent on the ticket and the time I spent on watching it. I'll probably get the two-in-one BD that is sure to be released come autumn, so that I can finally see all of the first film too.

Minor hicups:
- Odd casting choice in the dub (if they're going to use period-accurate forms of polite address that the target audience are fourty years too young to remember in use, they could've used the period-accurate sociolectal differences rather than having Jack speak the only dialect considered so embarassing that people stop speaking it when they move away)

- Super awkward attempt at unncessary romantic subplot. It would've just been annoying if they hadn't made him make Those Eyes at both Mary and Topsy and not, I noted, the woman he holds hands with in the final number. Come on, he obviously likes them at least thirty years older.

- The emotional turning point of the film does not come across as believable. Particularly given the fact that children ARE liars and the world would've been a better place if more parents would acknowledge it. Of course, the fool is me hoping for Disney to acknowledge that the nuclear family isn't by essence a beacon of truth and goodness

- is nineteen thirties London really the right place to belt out an ending moral about how the only way things can go from here on is upwards?

It's "YA fantasy gothic romance", apparently. I have no bloody clue where no less than two of the people writing blurbs found the 'gothic'. The romance does very much not play the narrative role you expect from something defined within the genre, and the fantasy is... somewhat the same, honestly. It is, however, written for teens, so... one out of four?

This isn't a problem with the novel as such, but with the way people are trying to sell it. You should definitely give it a try if the description below appeals to you, because I enjoyed it a lot. The "a lot" because of admittedly dumb spoilery reasons I'll detail under the cut. Overall, it is funny and occasionally touching and I liked all of the main cast.

The best summary I can give is probably this fine illustration, greeting you as you turn the page to the first chapter:



In more detail: Neglected British child goes to ~magical school~, keeps on being somewhat of an outsider there and spends his days with genius girl who is also somewhat of an outsider, and part of every summer holiday with the cheerful family of a boy who is very much a part of the establishment.

Or: Blaming the victim is always wrong but even slightly-shorter-than-average-for-his-age Elliot Schafer knows that he'd have an easier time if he wasn't compulsed to sass popular kids who taller and stronger than him. And at least he's not beat up in diplomacy classes in The Border Camp of The Otherlands, where he elected to stay because of the hot elf babe Serene-Heart-In-The-Chaos-Of-Battle. Unfortunately, Serene has attached herself to Luke Sunborn, who is tall and strong and popular and Elliot is most certainly not his friend, don't be disgusting.

Yes the core of the plot is inescapably Potter, but that's about as far as the similarities go. The standard fantasy plot of "ending a war and saving the world" is nominally there, but takes a definite backseat to Elliots social and romantic going-ons. Elliot, Serene and Luke are about as far removed from Harry, Hermione and Ron as you get. Elliot is bookish but otherwise unremarkable, Serene is a culturally out-of-sync warrior. Luke is... an inversion of Ron Weasly, mostly: the kind and polite and introverted and unconsciously popular kid who excells at everything concerning sports and martial arts, descending from one of the most revered families in the land. Also, there's this thing about Elliot worshipping the ground on which Serene walks so loudly and so out of character for him that no-one thinks he means it. There's his on-going, one-sided contempt of everything that is Luke Sunborn. The dynamics are so different that you'd be hard-pressed to get Hogwarts flashbacks except for the few reminders that Elliot's dad is a dick.

The illustration hints at the tone. In Other Lands follows Elliot through ages thirteen to seventeen, for his education in ~magical school~. Since Elliot is a precocious bookworm full of salt and vinegar, his narrative is a running line of snark about most everything - that is, when he's not lapsing exceedingly poetic about Serene's virtues. Four years are crammed into fourhundredandsome pages, and it's hardly a surprise that the fantasy keystones of "worldbuilding" and "political plot" take a definite backseat here. More than anything, this is a novel about growing up and becoming a better person, and I - at least - certainly think that shit is more entertaining if it comes through mermaid fanboying and casual elvish sexism ("A woman's experience of blood and pain is, naturally, what makes womenkind particularly suited for the battlefield. Whereas men are the softer sex, squeamish about blood in the main. I know it's the same for human men, Luke was extremely disinclined to discuss my first experience of a woman's menses.")

There's a plotline about a theatre club setting up the Romeo and Juliet of The Otherlands. For god's sake.

Yes, this is essentially a high school AU set in Narnia. It was not terribly surprising, when googled, that this started out as an "online novel". And wouldn't you know it: On the author's webpage, the commentaries she'd made to her work as she initially published it was links to good ole' eljay.

I have to talk about that, of course. Because I definitely suspect that part of the reason I enjoyed this book so much, was that there are elements of this book that definitely read like fanfic. Less so than The Captive Prince, for what it's worth.

SPOILERS BELOW THIS POINT.

( i shipped it from like page two )

This one goes out to every person who has ever complained about how the film/series/anime "cut out so much from the novels". You got what you wanted with this one. I deeply suspect that not a single line of dialogue has been cut.

Formative childhood literature aside, I watched it because it's Studio Ghibli's first take on a TV anime, directed by Miyazaki Jr. I was knocked out by either a mild flu or the cold from hell, so something slow and simple was just what my brain needed.

( It grew on me. Slowly. )

I have absolutely no idea where I caught wind of The Captive Prince, but it must've been online and it was probably fandom. This is very fitting, of course, since you won't have to search long to discover that this trilogy began on LJ, and I'm 80% certain the author has a background in fandom. Remove the context of paper, ink, blurbs and the author's full name, and you might as well be left with the AO3 tag set of Damen/Laurent fantasy au, slow burn, slavery kink, enemies to lovers. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but it reads incredibly fanfic-y.

Which means it went down in like three or four days, of course.

( It's better than it sounds )

Here's the shocker of the year: I'm at episode fifteen of Samurai Flamenco, and am low-key upset that I'm visiting relatives with no wi-fi and will have to wait until I get home to see watch the rest.

I didn't expect to like Samurai Flamenco. The reviews I've read have agreed that it starts out okay and becomes a mess in the second half, so maybe it's just the low expectations that made this unexpectedly fun? Rest assured, I won't be the person who tells you that this is a great anime. But I did find it lovable.

One review made the point that this series is really several different series, thanks to a number of WTF plot twists and story arcs with wildly different focuses. This is true, but it's also a description that makes it sound like the plot twists are bigger than they felt like to me. But in order to discuss how successful it was at being several different shows in one, I'm going to discuss the first of those plot twists. So: Spoilers for episode seven ahoy, but I honestly think you'll need to know about this one to know what you're getting into anyway.

If you don't want that, then this is what I took away from it: Samurai Flamenco might be a parody or homage, but for people who aren't familiar with Super Sentai beyond that it exists, it's really hard to tell. So for us, it's ridiculous. But I had fun watching it anyway. Also, did I mention the lesbian OT3?

( show me the show with a lesbian OT3 that isn't ridiculous )

1. It's really pretty and regretably boring

2. And I mean regretably in the sense that it's gorgeously animated, that it's about a genre of music that is so very near and dear to my heart, that it's about women and women's friendship and oh my god that festival scene and don't lie, you KNOW that this would've had a fandom to rival Free! if they had been boys instead

3. I'm torn between celebrating the bari sax representation and feeling offended by it being played by a Japanese teenage girl using a neckstrap, not a harness

4. I mean, this IS pretty much just the girl equivalent to Free! with Makoto as the MC and Rin and Haru merged into one character

5. Nagisa/Midori OTP y/y?

6. If you ever wondered if fandom really loved women as much as it claims it does, look no further than to the fact that this has like five pages of fic on AO3

7. Not that I expect you to care, but Nagisa somehow became the "always opposite sexuality as all the other boys" to me so either he's the gay one or he's the straight one, and I really need that Nagisa/Midori fic okay