Robin Hood: Men in Tights

Listen to the podcast here:

Robin Hood: Men in Tights (PG-1)
48% rotten tomatoes

Is it safe to assume we all know who Mel Brooks is? After the recent traumatic passing of Stan Lee, I’m almost afraid to invoke his name, lest his body remember it’s 92 years old. Just in case any of you are 14 (if you are, please know that this content is not curated for you and is very inappropriate; nevertheless, we love a rebel so hello), Mel Brooks is a titan of film comedy. He is responsible for such classics as Spaceballs, Young Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles, Dracula: Dead and Loving It, Life Stinks, History of the World: Part I, and of course, Robin Hood: Men in Tights. As a side note, I, as a lover of people who use grammar and syntax to their full potential, enjoy how many of his titles have colons in them, and how much additional information he’s able to give with just a three word clause. But wordplay is one of his signature motifs, and I am here for it. I dare you to find a five minute stretch of Mel Brooks that doesn’t include a double entendre.

the man, the mensch, the legend

So what perfect alchemy of nature brings forth a comedy savant like Mel Brooks? He was born Melvin Kaminksy in 1926, in Brooklyn NY. And as we all know, the 20’s transitioned right into the 30’s without any kind of hiccup, right? Wait, what? You mean… oh… Oh noooo. We’ll come back to that, yikes.

Back to finding out how to reproduce the conditions that created Mel Brooks (which kind of could be the premise for a Mel Brooks movie). Well, I can’t find any specific details about Brooks’ childhood, but from what I can gather, he grew up poor, but in a very loving home. He was the youngest of four boys, and his father died when he was two. His mother got a job working ten hour days out of the house, and then continued working at home. When his brothers were old enough (12!!) they went to work as well, in addition to going to school. These mid-WW folks are some serious badasses. I’m so soft I complain about my forty hour a week job that pays well and comes with a chair.

look at those lil baby Depression ties!!!

Brooks talks about his experiences as a kid with a lot of brevity and humor. He jokes about running across a particular bridge scared, because if you fell in, none of the other Jews would be able to save you (the implication is that Gentiles wouldn’t WANT to save you), because Jews in his neighborhood couldn’t swim. The only place to swim was in a non-Jewish part of town, and they would be chased away if they tried. Additionally, he recounts a suicide in the neighborhood and being terrified that it was his mother. She had, unbeknownst to him, worked late that night and since there were no telephones in poor areas, much less cell phones, he just had to sit and wait, wondering if she would come home. He wasn’t impervious to the constant near-tragedy of his life, but even from an early age he seemed to develop a “why cry when you can laugh” attitude as a coping mechanism. So maybe that’s it – you get a kid who has the funny gene already, put him or her in some shitty living conditions, but make they have the support of the family. And since we’re heading for a new great depression, let’s take a moment to review, shall we?? We need to be prepared.

Okay, so you know how a meth binge makes you feel like you can do anything and anything you do is the greatest thing ever, but then when it’s done you spend the same amount of time feeling like pure shit? I mean… so I’ve heard. That was pretty much the stock market from the 20’s through the 30’s. The 20’s were just one great big meth party (I assume that’s why it’s called the Roaring Twenties), and then when the economy couldn’t take any more rich old white men taking advantage of it, she crashed. Hard. You know, let me rephrase that – we’re not victim blaming the economy here. Let the record show the guilty party was … yeah rich old white men. Okay fine, they weren’t all old. Here’s how it went down:

All throughout the 20’s, there was a ton of speculating being done. What is speculation? Well if it’s done honestly, it’s just being really good at guessing. You look at a bunch of cheap stocks and think *deeply* about which ones might become valuable stocks one way or another. I really don’t know how people come to these conclusions, and I personally find investing so boring that I couldn’t bring myself to find out. Anyway, I don’t understand everything that happens next (see above: my unwillingness to find out) but I gather that people were speculating on the stock market itself at some point. Like instead of betting on a card game, you bet on the casino winning that night (can’t lose, right?). But when everyone starts betting on the casino and stops betting on the card games, the casino doesn’t make any money. And then instead of trying to regroup by betting moderately on more card games, the bettors pawned their chips off on someone else as fast as they could and ran. Those were the lucky assholes. The unlucky ones were unable to find anyone to buy their chips, so they had to just stand there with their arms full of useless chips while the casino burned to the ground from the chaos and looting that was started by the first wave of panicked rich white guys ditching their chips.

OH BUT IT GETS WORSE. Right before the shit hit the fan, the rich assholes who owned the banks saw that some of the peasants were getting interested in speculation on card games, too. So what do banks do to poor, uneducated people? That’s right – they prey on them. They make it super easy for those peasants to borrow a lot of money. Lord forgive them, they knew not what they signed. Society was telling people everywhere they looked that they could get rich this way. It’s kind of like when everyone was investing in commercial real estate in the 90’s. Or am I the only one who remembers that being a thing. Anyways, banks were offering chips “on margin” which meant that the peasants could put a little bit of their own money towards the card games and borrow the rest. You know. Like how you buy a house. Ahem. So when they saw this demand, the players already at the tables of course increased their bids way higher and also dragged in a shit ton more tables. Inflation. Greed. Good christian values in our good christian country.

And to be fair, things had been really good in the village for the peasants for a long time. They all had jobs and food, and places to live. We’d been post-WWI for about a decade now. The only thing missing was a shitload of cash from winning at the casino. They were soft and coddled. They weren’t afraid of things going badly because things had gone so well for so long… except for farmers, who had been struggling for a while, actually. So anyway, some say that the tipping point was when casino management upped the rates for playing the game (the federal reserve raise the interest rate by 1%). So… the one thing articles skip over is WHAT DOES IT MEAN when the stock market crashes – not contributing factors, not financial climates – what are the events that happen – how do you know the stock market just crashed? Do you know where I actually got the answer I was looking for? WIKIPEDIA.

So here’s the deal. Direct quote: “Stock market crashes are social phenomena where external economic events combine with crowd behavior and psychology in a positive feedback loop where selling by some market participants drives more market participants to sell.”

It’s basically like someone yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre. One bettor in the casino was like “Whoa, management just upped these rates, and I’m not even sure what this shit is worth anymore – these companies are making massive amounts of terrible shit. I’m out” and then the player next to him is like “oh man, I’ve heard some things about the drought affecting crops, and the interest rate just went up – I bet that guy knows something I don’t. I’M SELLING OUT, BITCHES” and so on. Then the fucking media sensationalizes the whole thing and it’s turned into a runaway train by this point. A perfect storm of events. So basically, it’s the exactly the same as what caused the surge, but in reverse. It’s Newton’s third law, applied to societal constructs.

♪ It seems no one can help me now / I’m in too deep / There’s no way out ♫

Back to real life. Recap: Everyone’s like “WOOOOOO EASY MONEY!!!!” and then banks were like “HEY PEASANTS, GET IN ON THIS HERE’S SOME MONEY***” and then some cocaine crazed proto-yuppies started screaming “BET IT ALLLLLL” and smashing guitars against the wall and then people were like “uh oh there’s too many people here and it’s not cool anymore” and then no one wanted to play and everyone lost their keys in the club. Onward!

Everyone was in a panic to sell all their stock but no one was buying it, so the value plummeted. I think we have a naive trust in the system – not trust meaning that we think any big system has our best interest at heart, but a kind of trust that it just is what it is. Corn is yellow, the ocean is salty, stocks are based on demonstrable value. NOPE. It’s all made up. The value of stocks are based on demand, or how much people want it. It’s why I do not understand stocks at all. I had always labored under the delusion that valuable stocks were from successful companies, but that’s only half the story since there are people out there gambling on whether a particular business, or industry at large, is going to be successful. I still don’t know how someone plays stock on an entire industry, like solar power. I mean… which companies??? More than half of them are going to suck, right??? Do you just invest in all of them?? ARGH I’M ALREADY SO BORED.

Okay, let’s flash forward just a little bit. The market has entered refraction (hee hee hee). People have lost their fortunes and their jobs. Companies have lost their investors and shut down, or shut down because all these newly broke people didn’t have money to buy their unnecessary shit anymore. People who worked there have lost their jobs and couldn’t pay back the banks for the stock game money they borrowed. If you had money to get in the bank, banks couldn’t give it to you, cause guess what. They invested it in the stock market. And they couldn’t make their money back on loans, cause… oh right. Unemployment. Just a big circle jerk of misery.

Oh wait – there’s more. In 1931 or thereabouts, we get the Dust Bowl. Did you think to yourself “well why don’t I just pack up and move to the Midwest, where I’ll become a farmer? At least we’ll have plenty to eat!” EEEEHHHHHHH. So sorry, the American Midwest has decided to stop raining. Here’s some dust wind, though! Now, there were dumbasses who didn’t know how to farm trying to farm long before the market crashed. The government used to hand out grants to people to settle the huge tracts of land they stole, so of course immigrants and fourth sons and what not took advantage. I mean, why would you not? You figure it’s one of those things you’ll just pick up as you go along.

My point is, the Dust Bowl was bad enough on its own, but the Midwest had been only settled by these folks for the past 70 years or so, and they weren’t the most experienced at it. If you stay in a historically continually populated place like France, and there’s a drought or something like that, the collective knowledge about how to weather the season and get as much as you can out of your fields is going to be greater than what we had going on in the Midwest and southern plains. We had people, plenty of whom may not have come from farming families (at least originally), and who didn’t have a lengthy knowledge of the land. Keep in mind, we’d already driven out the First Nations populations, and I feel they’d likely have been disinclined to help us anyway.

So there’s a money shortage, and now there’s also a food shortage.

By 1933, the unemployment rate was 25%. The Great Depression officially lasted from 1929-1939, but for many families, this would shape an entire generation. Heading back east, we have had the great industrialization of the 19th and earlier 20th centuries exploding populations in cities and the surrounding areas, and then suddenly it all comes to a halt. There are now tons of people in crisis, all in a generally small vicinity.

This seems like a good time to briefly recap early 20th century history:

  • 1914-1918 we have Sandbox Scuffle I – 15-19 million people killed
  • 1920’s are pretty decent tbh, even though Prohibition is enacted in 1920; constraints can be freeing and folks get creative
  • 1922 – Stan Lee is born in Manhattan
  • 1926 – Mel Brooks is born in Brooklyn
  • 1929 – Stock market crash
  • 1931 – Dust Bowl
  • 1933 – Record Unemployment, but bonus! No more Prohibition!
  • 1939 – Great Depression unofficially ends, butttttttt… Sandbox Scuffle II kicks off, resulting in 50-80 million deaths by the time it ends in 1945.

You know, for being called the silent generation, these folks ^ sure made some loud history.

Can you imagine growing up in this kind of environment? Can you imagine being a WOMAN in this environment? The ban on birth control (Comstock Act) wasn’t lifted until 1938, and the birth control pill wasn’t approved by the FDA until 1960 AND STILL WASN’T LEGAL FOR UNMARRIED WOMEN UNTIL 1972!!!!!! PS – this was only shortly before the Vietnam war ended. I image that for a very long time, women felt like they were bringing children into the world just to starve or die in war. I can’t fathom trying to raise four boys on my own – mother of shout outs to the titanic fortitude of Mel Brook’s mother. And they were Jewish, to boot, so also racism in the mix!

this shit is too depressing, so here’s a happy dog with happy flowers

Okay, so onto more fun stuff. Mel was a soldier in Sandbox Scuffle II (at 17 years old, mind). He did some camp shows during this time and really got to flex his showman muscles, and after his time in the war was done, he bounced around until he found

In an interview done by Playboy in 1975, Brooks responded to allegations that his comedy is undisciplined and “anarchic,” which he waves away with a joke. This is definitely what I appreciate about him the most. He does things you’re not supposed to do. The fourth wall breaks, the actors break character, the jokes are often in poor taste, but in the charmingest way. Brooks’ movies are nothing if not full of mirth and whimsy, and self deprecation, and exploiting ridiculous things. It’s fun in the way that kids have fun – it doesn’t make sense. I don’t want to reduce him to just a product of his environment, but I can’t see what about real life would make sense to a boy that grew up in the 30’s. So why not turn everything into a parody – especially things that people have decided to take very, very seriously. Like space operas. And Shakespeare. And gothic horror. And Robin Hood.

In an article in the Atlantic, the author points out that he has an “endless fascination with such primal experiences as fear and cruelty, accident and death.” It’s not an uncommon fascination to be sure, but how Brooks manifests it is so unique and somehow light-hearted. Rob Reiner once asked him how he differentiates between tragedy and comedy – Brooks said, “If I’ll cut my finger, that’s tragedy. … Comedy is if you walk into an open sewer and die,” and then denied bastardizing the David Hume quote. Classic Mel.

So – on to Robin Hood. What do we know about him? He probably wasn’t a real dude. He might have been the Tooth Fairy, but for grownups. That belief we have that someone else is going to come and solve our problems; make the bad guys go away. (spoiler alert: that shit is the pipiest of dreams. Vote, mutherfuckers).

The legend seem to originate at the tail end of the medieval period, in the 13th century. You might say he was the original anarchist, but he probably wasn’t. We love a good political rebel, though. William Wallace, Pancho Villa, pirates, Spartacus, Boudica, the American colonies, dudes who wear socks with sandals. The latter excepted, we like people who break stupid rules. Robin Hood and his Band of Merry Men robbed and murdered rich assholes, and redistributed the wealth to poor people. Was it wrong? Legally, yes, but they were rebelling against a legal system that was never going to be beneficial for the poor. Was it wrong morally? If you take out the murder, then I don’t see the big deal. Yes they were stealing, but if you take the “laws” out of the equation, the money taken from peasants did not represent a fair return on investment. And guess what happened in 1381?? A Peasant’s Revolt! See, the peasants felt they were being unfairly taxed, among other things. Why is every organized government since the dawn of time convinced that overtaxing the poorest population is a solution? I mean, I understand the greed, but I just don’t see how they think, “oh, but this time it’ll work!” Ugh. Anyway.

Later stories liked to portray Hood as being a nobleman himself, but I prefer the idea that he was a commoner who tried to take the reins of destiny. Power to the people and all that. It feels more honest to me if it’s a man of the people. When it’s a lord who’s lost his home to the same dirty leaders that have been abusing the peasants for years, and it’s only then that he looks around and goes “huh – this is fucked up” it feels too selfish. Don’t tell me you’re doing it for justice, Robin. You’re doing it for your old feather bed and 2,000 acres. So in this way, Mel Brooks has given us the standard post-medieval version of the Robin Hood story – good little nobleman breaks bad.


But put yourself in some medieval shoes. The forest would have been the most valuable resource after water. You gots wood to make your houses and tools, li’l animals to eat, weird plants to munch on and use as medicine, shelter for outlaws on the lam. You know, the necessities. But usually these kinds of laws were meant to keep huge areas of undeveloped land EMPTY so the king or regional leader and his cronies could go hunt without any peasants getting in the way or reducing the game population (cause they like everything to be easy; more deer = less effort). It’s the theme of greed and powers – the convenience of the few is more important than the survival of the many.

You can see why a figure like Robin Hood would be appealing. Hell, it’s appealing now. It’s kind of like how we’re all hoping Anonymous is going to swoop in and save the day. So when there are historical records of outlaws in Northern England using a surname from the Robin Hood legends it’s tempting to jump to conclusions. But this doesn’t mean that they’re likely the real Robin Hood or his descendants, but it’s more likely a wishful Dread Pirate Roberts situation. These men were desperate, and taking his surname was a way they could convey that their actions were not done in malice, but in service to the ideology of Robin Hood. This is not to say there wasn’t an actual Robin Hood, but it makes it even more complicated to try and figure out what’s what. Like that one part in The Dark Knight Rises where all those hockey dads kept dressing up like Batman.

There is one possibility, apparently. There was a Robert Hod held as prisoner in 1225. He had lived in York, which is indeed in the North of England. The timeline, proposed by John Major in 1521, states that this Robert Hod was Robin Hooding in the 1190’s, had become a proper outlaw by 1225, and died in 1247 (there’s a grave that supposed to Robin Hood’s in the place where the legend says he died). Also helpful is that the legends usually mention King Richard and Prince John. That would be King Richard the Lionheart (ruled 1189-1199). He was a great warrior, but an absent king. He was off templaring with the knights on crusades more than he was at home being king. Prince John ended up being King John (ruled 1199-1216) and he sucked in the opposite direction, and was also much less handsome. John did try to steal the throne before he “earned” it, which is often a big part of his character’s political machinations in the stories. He was a real asshole as a king, more so than a normal king. He like… invented red tape and bureaucracy for medieval England. There was great record keeping, but come the fuck on. He also micromanaged everything. They kind of go together. As does a fee schedule for getting out of military service, or for getting expedited legal services and shit. Oh, and he cared more about creating revenue for military adventures than he did about his people being able to eat. Not like – we’re at war, but like, I really want this territory. But it’s cool. He got excommunicated, he never took those territories he wanted, his court rebelled against him (his northern courtiers, I should mention), and he died of dysentery. This seems like the perfect set up for Mel Brooks. A scheming schmuck, an unlikely hero, and a disgruntled populace. Just throw in some love triangles and some visual puns (as well as verbal puns) and you’ve got a comedy.

So. There are a lot of movies out there about him. I looked it up on Wikipedia and counted 79. That’s just movies and dedicated TV shows – that’s not including Robin Hood themed episodes of stuff. And there are at least half a dozen projects currently in development. What is it that makes this story so enduring, and if it’s relatability, how are we no better off than we were 800 years ago? The details are a little different, but the resources are still being horded by a small but powerful percent of the population. We rebelled and made our own country to get England to quit it, and we’re getting right back to where we started. The majority of our country isn’t represented in our government, so maybe we all need to tap into the Robin Hood that lives in our hearts.

What did YOU think of the topics we discussed? We’d love to hear from you!


Listen to the podcast here:

Speed (R)
93% rotten tomatoes

Li’l baby Keanu was 30 years old when this movie was made. LOOK AT HIS LI’L BABY FACE AND HIS LI’L BABY BUZZCUT!


Ack, okay down to business.

1994 and thereabouts is a special time in movie history. This is kind of the last time we get movies without a major CGI component. All of the effects here are just standard trickery and deceit.


CGI was definitely a thing by 1994, but it wasn’t extensively used like it is now. In fact, Jurassic Park was the first physically textured CGI, and that was in 1993. What is physically textured CGI you ask? I’ll tell you. It’s Level Three computer magic. 2D computer animation is Level One (beginning in 1972), 3D computer graphics is Level Two (beginning in 1976). That is the extent of my knowledge. Okay, okay. I can’t find a really good description of the processes, but from what I can understand of what I did read, computer graphics prior to Jurassic Park were just kind of layered over whatever was shot on film. The difference in the physical texturing is the use of green scenes to implant the computer images into the final product.

Some additional landmarks – Toy Story was the first full-length CGI film (1995). Starship Troopers had the first big ol’ CGI battle scenes (1997). Fight Club first used something called photogrammetry, which is using photographs to measure things (1999). Perception/timing alteration – The Matrix (1999). First use of motion capture GOLLUM from LOTR: The Two Towers (2002).

The point is – all the action in the old action movies has a different kind of feel to it, prior to all the CGI. I’m not saying CGI is bad – it’s great, but it’s different, that’s all. Two things can be different but still equally lovable.

A note on the script – the characters in this movie are all unexpectedly well-developed. Well guess who wrote the dialogue for the movie? JOSS WHEDON. You know he has a great talent for inter-character relationships. Buffy. Firefly. All have casts with crackling chemistry and very believable human interaction.

Okay, so let’s do a short plot recap. Keanu Reeves and Jeff Daniels are super cops. Not like Robocop, but since they’re the focus of the movie, we’re led to believe they’re better than other cops. Even the other SWAT cops. And we’re right, obviously. The movie starts out with them foiling a disgruntled ex-bomb squad guy’s plan to extort money by trapping hostages in an elevator.


Side note – being trapped with a random selection of people inside an elevator in peril is an excellent way to see someone’s true colors. It’s a good first date idea. Keep that in mind.

Okay, so ex-bomb guy is like, oh yeah? How about I DIDN’T actually blow myself up like you thought – I escaped, because I’m an evil genius. And by the way – if that wasn’t elaborate enough for you WATCH THIS. I’m going to blow up a random bus when it’s right in front of you, just to get your attention so I can tell you that I’ve rigged a random city bus with a BOMB. But not just any bomb, oohhhhh no. This is an extra special, needlessly intricate, super dramatic bomb. It’s just going to chill under this bus. BUT – once the bus gets up to 50 mph, then it’s ARMED. And once it’s ARMED, the bomb will go off if you let that bus get BELOW 50 mph.


So our super cop Jack finds a way to get on that bus dammit, because that’s the only place he can solve the problem. Using a walkie-talkie (cell phones were neither widely available nor affordable in 1994), he can communicate with other super cops and make all the right turns to avoid LA traffic so they won’t slow down and explode. Here comes a series of obstacles: panicked guy shoots the driver. A panicked woman tries to get off the bus with the injured driver and oh ho ho – ex-bomb squad guy thought of everything because he already has a tiny bomb under the bus stairs for just such an occasion. He explodes the stairs and panic lady gets crushed under the bus because that’s the punishment for panicking.

Jack, because he’s so young and level-headed, decides he’s going to get under that bus, goddammit. So that’s what he does. And what does he find??? A FAKE BOMB. The peasants rejoice. But then finds the MUCH BIGGER REAL BOMB. The peasants despair. But what’s this??? A clue??? A shitty gold watch OMG THE BOMBER MUST BE EX-POLICE BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY THE SHITTY GOLD WATCHES WE GIVE TO COPS ON THEIR WAY OUT. So based on this and other context clues, I guess, they figure out this guy used to be on the Atlanta bomb squad. No word on why he’s in LA. I guess because at the time Atlanta wasn’t a big filming destination, and he couldn’t be from LA because then the cops would have known who he was.

So Jack’s beloved partner goes on a raid to dude’s house and – I have to pause here for a moment. This fella has been blowing stuff up all over the city, right? So you’re gonna just walk up in his house. Cool – so they get blown up, and now Jack is devastated that his partner has been blowed up. So of course he’s going to redouble his efforts, because REVENGE.

Buncha stuff happens, but let’s skip forward to – the end. Everyone is off the bus now except for Jack and Annie. They couldn’t get off because of reasons. So they find a pipe laying around, jam it on the pedal, hurl themselves off the bus, and watch it crash into a plane and explode. I assume the plane was empty.

Now Jack has to chase down the money they left for Atlanta guy, but Atlanta guy is so far ahead of them – he’s anticipated every move (because he’s an ex-cop and he knows how they think, ya know), so he’s gotten the money away, but he RESURFACES AND KIDNAPS ANNIE because women is bait, y’all. So he puts a suit made of bombs on her and takes her as a human shield to the subway, then handcuffs her to the subway.

He’s making his getaway on the subway when he decides it’s time to fondle that sweet dough. There’s a dye pack in there though, and it explodes in his face, and makes him super mad. He hears Jack stomping around on top of the subway car and goes up there to finish off that meddling kid. But instead he gets decapitated.

So now Jack and Annie are in a runaway subway car that’s going too fast and being conducted by NO ONE. He takes off her suit made of bombs but can’t manage the handcuffs. (?) So he derails the subway car on purpose, which results in it being jettisoned out onto the street where it turns on its side and all the windows break and Annie is THROWN on top of Jack (lucky) and also they kiss. The end.

So what is the point of all this, you ask? Good question. A good action movie has to have a good bad guy motivation, otherwise it just drowns in its own preposterousness. On the surface, Howard Payne is pissed because his thumb got blown off and he was forced to retire. But… you have know when you join a bomb squad that you might get maimed. It seems like it’s probably on the job application. I’m not sure why the amount of money he wanted was 3.7 million, but it’s possible I just missed it hidden somewhere in the dialogue. I think the reason this movie doesn’t feel ridiculous and contrived, even though it is, is not so much Payne’s motivation, but rather his dedication. This fool is very determined to get his money, and the elaborateness is him giving a big “fuck you” to the career that spurned him. As someone who appreciates vengeance, I can fully buy into this villain.


As you may know, Speed has been called “Die Hard on a bus” and I am inclined to agree. Why you ask? There’s lots of broken glass in this movie. So many explosions. Underground tunneling. Bomb complications. Hero embroiled in a situation far more intense than he’s trained for. Villain always three steps ahead, and has complex plans – in short, he’s a respectable equal to the hero, instead of a bumbling brute. Villain kidnaps the hero’s woman. Villain dies a grisly death. Speed is Die Hard on a bus.

Okay, enough gushing. Let’s get to poking holes. The scene where the bus jumps the gap in the road. We all know that’s physically impossible, yes? Let’s explore.

I got details from a couple of physics focused websites.

Here are some physics basics – gravity has no horizontal effect, so as soon as the bus leaves the road, it is falling. It’s completely up to its horizontal velocity as to where it’s going to end up.

SO – the gap is 50 feet, or 15 meters. The road from which they jump appears to be mostly flat, about a 5 degree incline. The bus launched into the air traveling 67/68 mph. In reality, the front bumper of the bus would have smacked onto the other side of the jump, and then would have plummeted to the ground, killing everyone, unless the bomb went off first, which would also have killed everyone.


Just install some hydraulics to give your bus that extra lift before charging over certain death

In order for this jump to have worked, the following changes would have to take place: The bus would have to be travelling at 78.3 mph, and would have to take off from a 30 degree incline. That’s quite a bit different than what was depicted.

But let’s talk about physics some more, shall we? What always bugged me as a kid – while the bus is mid-air, there is no friction against those spinning wheel, yes? So what would the speedometer actually read? Would it drop or spike up? Does it matter if she kept her foot on the gas? What happens when you touch back down if you have it floored in midair? Then I realized I actually have no clue how a speedometer works, so INTERNET.

Let’s find out how speedometers work, shall we? Speed is just how long it takes you to go a certain distance, which sounds like it’s measured after the fact, right? What your speedometer tells you is your instantaneous speed – how fast you’re going right now. We know the basic car mechanics, right? Fuel combusts, pistons pump, engine turns over, which engages the driveshaft, and then the wheels go.

So apparently, there’s a li’l speedometer cable attached the driveshaft (it can also show up in other places). The speedometer cable spins a magnet inside something called a speed cup, which creates eddy currents in the cup that spins it as it tries to keep up with the magnet. There’s a hair spring on the drive shaft between the magnet and the speed cup, and it tightens, which keeps the the cup from turning all the way. The pointer on your speedometer is based on how far the hair spring lets that cup turn. Which leads me to wonder how do we ever know how fast we’re actually going.

Electronic speedometers use magnets positioned to pass each other on the drive shaft and create a little current. A circuit measures the time between those pulses and converts it to a speed reading, just FYI.

Okay, so this is all good to know but it doesn’t really answer my question, so the next obvious step is consult an expert car guy. Enter James – ex-Marine, current mechanic, all-around cool dude.

He told me that in addition to this sensor system, some newer cars will have a GPS mechanism to read speed. I don’t think that applies in 1994, so we’ll stick with the mechanical system.

Whilst in the air, the speedometer would have shown higher than their actual instantaneous speed because of the reduced load on the drive train due to the absence of friction on the tires. This makes sense now. Additionally, he says the bus would have slowed down in reality, yes, because the drive train has nothing to push against. So as long as the bus didn’t slow down to under 50 during it’s descent, and was able to keep moving swiftly once it was on the other side of the road, it’s plausible that the bomb wouldn’t go off – ASSUMING – he says, that the bomb was wired to the speedometer, and not something weird that would measure the actual speed of the bus. In which case kablooey.

Apparently, people who worked on this movie thought it was going to be an epic failure, but it turned out to be rousing success, as well as other movies like it. I feel like it was a changing of the guard of sorts. We’re moving out of the 80’s action movies that were very campy, and so sweaty. Die Hard came out at the end of the 80’s, in 1988, so it acts as the vanguard for change.

Let’s review. The 80’s were full of movies starring jacked dudes just tearing shit up. Terminator, Robocop, Predator, Rambo, Commando, Mad Max, Conan, Escape from New York, Road House, Bloodsport, Lethal Weapon, etc. The big names were Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steven Segal, Chuck Norris. I will admit I’m being a little selective. I’m not including horror/sci-fi or adventure movies, like Alien and Indiana Jones. I’m focusing on the manly action movies.

To be fair, a lot of these guys were still kicking around in the next decade, but additionally, the 90’s were full of movies starring Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Jean Claude, Tom Cruise. The new class of action heroes were still buff, but not on steroids. The fighting shifted from brute strength and huge machine guns to very skilled combat. We looked for action stars to not only be physically capable, but mentally agile and cool under pressure as well. We’ve got a lot of movies where an average guy gets caught up in some crazy stuff – Point Break, The Fugitive, Independence Day, Con Air, The Fifth Element, The Matrix, Face/Off, Desperado, Cliffhanger I guess, Universal Soldier, etc. That’s not to say these things were absent in other decades, but the concentrations were shifting.

In conclusion, here are some rippling forearms:


What did YOU think of the topics we discussed? We’d love to hear from you!

The Mummy

Listen to the podcast here:

The Mummy (PG-13)
57% rotten tomatoes

So this is actually a remake of a 1932 movie called… The Mummy, which starred Boris Karloff and damn he looks awesome. I’m a sucker for old movies regardless, but this one looks really good. And you can’t go wrong with Karloff; he’s a master.

But back to 1999. DID YOU KNOW – Brendan Fraser almost actually died for real in that scene where his character is hung? Something went wrong with the rope, and he died for many seconds and had to be resuscitated. WE ALMOST LOST BRENDAN FRASER. 

It was a close call.

So, to the meat of the thing. We (meaning white people) have been obsessed with Egypt for a long time. Popular opinion is that this started in the 1920’s when King Tut’s tomb was found, but in fact the obsession goes all the way back to the Greco-Roman era. The obsession was heightened when Howard Carter opened Tutankhamun’s tomb, but it was nothing new. Plus, in the 20’s we had movies and popular pulp fiction books and whatnot, so it was more accessible to everybody. You didn’t have to go to a fancy pants museum to see artifacts and relics.

ADDITIONALLY – King Tut’s tomb sparked a sensational news cycle for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this tomb was a goldmine. Most Pharaoh’s tombs had been looted and stripped of anything valuable way before Carter arrived. But Tut’s tomb was intact and untouched. This was a huge win for Carter, who by the way, had arrived in Egypt in 1891 and worked in several different burial sites for different backers and people. In 1907 he entered into a business relationship with Lord Carnarvon, an Egypt enthusiast (see <the obsession was always there>), to excavate Egyptian nobles’ tombs. Eventually in 1914, he assigned Carter the job of putting a team together and digging where King Tut’s tomb was expected to be. But… hey guess what else happens in 1914? That’s right, Sandbox Scuffle I! If you haven’t listened to our episode on The Neverending Story that won’t make any sense to you. So I’m not going to explain – go listen to the episode. It’s funny.

Fast forward a few years and they can get back to work. They spend a few years coming up empty, and Lord Carnival or whoever is thinking about pulling the plug. But then a little boy, digging in the sand with a stick, found something none of the archaeologists had been able to – A STONE STEP. So, they dig. A few weeks later, and they’re able to get into the tomb, and several months after that, they finally reach the innermost chamber, which holds King Tut’s sarcophagus. All told, it took ten years until the excavation was completed, so there was undoubtedly frequent news reports and updates to people back in the west, and it would stay in the public consciousness for that span of time at least.

Amid the excitement of the excavation, was the even more salacious excitement of the PHARAOH’S CURSE *insert creepy music* So I don’t know how this curse story got started, but it makes sense when you think of human nature – we try to attribute meaning to just about anything. And so I’m thinking that some people figured that since this tomb had escaped the looting of the previous century, there must be some Very Good Reason. Like maybe if you open the tomb you’ll die a slow and horrible death? Sounds right if you don’t think too hard about it.


Regardless, once the dogma has been established, the confirmation bias will swoop in to make sure those ideas stay firmly fixed in our heads. Here are nine (non-Egyptian) folks who supposedly fell victim to the curse (they’re all archaeologists unless otherwise noted):

  • Lord Carnival (or whatever his name was)
    • Dude cut himself shaving and died of blood poisoning. This isn’t that unimaginable considering that we were still about ten years away from antibiotics, and they weren’t living in the most hygienic conditions. NEXT.
  • Sir Bruce Ingham
    • Howard Carter gave him a mummified hand as a paperweight (… I have follow up questions…), and dude’s house burned down. Then he tried to rebuild and it flooded. That is either some very bad luck, or homeboy’s got enemies.
  • George Jay Gould
    • He visited the tomb once, then got really sick, stayed sick for a long time, and died of pneumonia. I would like to point out that Gould was an American, and many visitors to countries not their own encounter diseases they don’t have any immunity against and die. Especially before antibiotics. NEXT.
  • Aubrey Herbert
    • He never visited the tomb or had anything to do with it, but he was Lord Carnival’s half brother. He was kind of a hot mess. He was born with a degenerative eye disease that eventually left him blind, but he also had really disgusting rotten teeth, and his dumb ass doctor thought maybe if we pull your teeth out your eyes will get better. I kind of think maybe his doctor made it up because he didn’t want to look at his teeth anymore? Anyway, he got sepsis from the tooth extraction surgery and died. This was half a year after Lord Carnival bit it, also from blood poisoning. Again, no antibiotics, no sterile scalpels, questionable medical degree…
  • Hugh Evelyn-White
    • So, this one is weird. I think he might have been a highly suggestible type. He freaked when “two dozen fellow excavators” died, so he hung himself and left a cryptic note about succumbing to a curse. This one, if it’s true as told here, could be due to a mental break, or some sort of delirium caused by illness maybe? Dunno. NEXT.
  • Aaron Ember
    • This was a totally preventable death. He was an Egyptologist present when the tomb was opened. His family’s house burned down, and he didn’t escape because he was saving a manuscript he’d been working on called “The Egyptian Book of the Dead.” I would callously say he did it to himself, but his wife went to get their son and I don’t think any of them made it. Sad next.
  • Richard Bethell
    • He was Lord Carnival’s secretary who was smothered in his room at a gentleman’s club, but apparently he’d previously had some house fires? I don’t know about curses, but I’m thinking it was some kinky stuff gone wrong. The old timey gentleman’s clubs were places dudes could go and do weird stuff in private. Also, I wonder if fire insurance was a thing in the early 20th century?
  • Sir Archibald Douglas Reid
    • He was a radiologist (with a title of nobility???) who x-rayed Tut before he went into the museum. He became very ill and died three days later. MAYBE YOU SHOULDN’T BREATHE MUMMY DUST – I DON’T KNOW?? People weren’t great at washing their hands in the 30’s???
  • James Henry Breasted
    • He was an Egyptologist there when the tomb was opened. Here’s where the story line gets meander-y. When he got back home he found that his pet cobra had eaten his pet canary, and was still in the canary cage, chilling over the bones of his vanquished prey. So you know canaries are thought of as harbingers, canary in the coal mine and all that. The cobra was used as a motif in the garments of Egyptian royalty, so – I guess you can make something out of that. But he didn’t die. Until over ten years later, after he went on another trip to Egypt. I don’t even know why he’s included.

Howard Carter, who was chiefly responsible for organizing the search, died without any connection to the curse – he had lymphoma. Maybe from breathing all that mummy dust. But popular belief is that the pharaohs spared him from the curse, as well as native Egyptians, of course. All those laborers died of normal causes, like negligence and poor working conditions.

You know what I like though? Science. Math and science. When they get married, they have a baby named Statistics. The British Medical Journal did a study in 2002, I’ll spare you the details, but the gist of it is that the survival rates for those Westerners in the excavation crew present when the tomb was opened or examined did not differ significantly from those who were not present. Regarding Carnarvon’s death (remember he cut himself shaving), some theorize that there could have been dangerous mold and bacteria growing down there, but experts say no, he was chronically sickly (as evidenced by his grisly half-brother). Also, if there were these dangerous miocrobe-yinhabitants in the tomb, the deaths would have been much quicker. Who knows.

So, speaking of native Egyptians… it’s us, so you know we have to say “white people ruin everything” at least once a podcast. It hasn’t not been true yet. But the ancient Egyptians had a strong belief in the importance of these tombs, and everything that was done in preparation for  a deceased ruler being sealed inside was intentional and meaningful. So in come some foreign white dudes and they’re like ‘hey we wanna dig up your ancestors and put them on display in a different continent – how bout a little help?’ It’s probably safe to assume that not every Egyptian in the 19th and 20th centuries was overly concerned with the ancient rituals, but on some level you’d think it would be hard to see your native story dug up, interpreted, and displayed by strangers. I don’t know any of the politics surrounding this, and frankly I’m so sick of politics that I didn’t even want to look it up, for fear of discovering some fresh hell, but whether legal or not, it’s shady as hell.

National Geographic has an article covering the general idea around when it’s cool to dig up human remains. It’s a sticky subject. We can learn a lot from these efforts, but at the same time, these were human beings who never consented to having their bones dug up and put on display for some bored grade-schoolers to gawk at. In many cultures, it has historically been criminal to mess with remains. In more recent-ish history, this has been partly to prevent grave robbing, a) because that’s a shitty thing to do, and b) because doctors in training had to sneak around to get bodies to study because autopsy was considered immoral, sacrilegious, and/or illegal.

Some of the arguments are that in many cases we don’t know what an individual’s religious beliefs were; even in an area that’s predominantly one thing or another, you can’t be sure. Is it okay as long as you rebury the remains when you’re done studying them? Scientists get into some raging nerd fights over this issue of sending remains back to the country of origin for reburial. (I say nerd fights with love, btw). One bioarchaeologist called the loss of future academic opportunity re-burial would present the same as “book burning.” The First Nations community has won federal legislation demanding the return of these remains, but it’s not enforced, apparently. Of course. Another bioarchaeologist states that the concerns of a group of people for their dead have to be considered more important than scientific exploration.


The same article lists some benefits that have come from studying human remains: we know more about the types of labor people performed, injuries suffered, foods people ate (and by extension, we learn about the plants and animals in the area at the time). DNA can connect remains to other remains, and help us learn migration patterns of groups of people. We can learn more about historical events, like the Black Death, which had a huge impact on the world (20% of Europe’s population died). Studying these historical diseases can help us understand modern diseases and maybe offer solutions.

Also, continuing research means that you don’t just dig up a body, test it, study it, and then you’re done with it forever. New researchers come up with new studies or technologies, and need to re-examine the remains for something that hadn’t been looked at before.

Now for some bad things about digging up bodies. SHOCKING – there’s a history of racism. Just one example: in the 1800’s, First Nations bodies were dug up so white people could prove that they were superior, presumably to make themselves feel better about stealing the land and being huge dickholes.

Also, like I mentioned before, grave robbing was a big concern. Not just because valuables were taken, but because family members didn’t want their loved ones being dug up and then cut up in some medical student’s dark lab. If you factor in religious concerns about the body into their anxiety, you can see why people took pains to prevent this from happening.

Currently, there are ethical considerations that scientists have to abide by, and they vary by culture. Each country seems to have their own way of regulating excavations. I get the sense that the majority of the argument is about what has already been done in the past. DeWitte, quoted in the article, stresses that for populations that have been historically “marginalized and exploited,” they need to be given more consideration as far as handling their ancestors’ remains, for obvious reasons.

So, coming back to how modern Egyptians may have felt about the white dudes taking their dead away – does it really matter if they okayed it? The ancient Egyptians had strong reverence for the dead – we know this without a doubt. So this is one situation in which we don’t have to guess at the beliefs of the people we exhumed. And I feel pretty confident that they would not be cool with it. Just because a lot of tombs were looted by assholes – does that give us the right say “damage is done” and continue disturbing their dead? It’s not like Howard Carter found King Tut and we were all like “cool, we’re done with Egypt now!” Scientists are still over in Egypt digging stuff up, so we know the Egyptian government is okay with it as long as they’re following the rules, but I think we know that the ancients wouldn’t have wanted that, and that’s what makes me feel weird about it.

Along those lines, I found some stuff stated somewhere but didn’t save the links, but the sentiment was that the difference between digging up bodies being cool or not cool is whether the civilization as a whole is dead. So the First Nations or Native American remains are protected because they are very much still alive and kicking it. But the ancient Mayans and Egyptians – even though Egypt and Peru are still populated, are considered dead – just like we don’t think of modern day Italy and ancient Rome as being the same culture. It’s a thinker, for sure, and luckily it’s not my problem to solve – there’s no right answer here, and there’s no way everyone will be happy.

Moving on!

This movie kinda starts and ends with Imhotep, who was a real dude, many thousands of years ago (he was alive in the 27th century, bce, which would make him like… 4500 years old or something). So, he did everything – he was an architect, astrologer, minister, magician, medicine guy, etc. He was considered a genius – Leonardo DaVinci comes to mind for me when I read about him – and was held in high esteem. He was second in command under the king Djoser. He is thought to be the architect of the step pyramid at the necropolis in Memphis (Egypt). It’s currently the oldest example of “hewn stone” and thought to be the first pyramid.

At only 100 years after his death, he was considered a demi-god of medicine (which was pretty fast, and also remarkable considering he was born a commoner – LIKE DAVINCI). Then in the 1st century bce, he was elevated to a full deity. He’s still revered by physicians because apparently he was less of a quack than other old-timey doctors, like Pliny. He rejected magic, and his writings contain the first known descriptions of anatomical details and medical procedures, such as trepanation (relieving pressure on the brain but cutting into the skull). He may also be the first to develop plant-based medicine. In fact, since he was so awesome, people didn’t think he was a real person until the late 1800’s when proof of his existence was found. And since we’re talking about tombs – Imhotep’s burial place has never been found.

Okay, so. I kept reading about him but I couldn’t find any reason that he would be converted into what we see in The Mummy,  in either 1932 or 1999. There’s no mention of his love life anywhere, or any reference to the dark arts. I’m assuming the ancient Egyptians would have considered resurrection rituals dark magic, on account of how they treated their dead, but I don’t know for sure.

Well, turns out Hollywood just used dude’s name. The fictional Imhotep was around in 1290 bce, and was high priest under Seti I, who was a real dude (son of Ramses I, father of Ramses II). And speaking of remains, you can view his online, if you so wish. So, Seti built a memorial temple and dedicated it to Osiris, so I think that’s why Imhotep is called a high priest of Osiris in the movie. Seti was considered the greatest king in Egypt’s history, and is speculated to have been incredibly handsome. I looked at his wife (Tuya) to see if I could find any kernels of drama  with Imhotep, but there’s nothing there.


Now, if you recall your ancient history, Nefertari was the wife of Seti’s son, Ramses II, and that is who Evelyn is a reincarnation of in The Mummy, which would be Imhotep’s boss’s daughter-in-law, it seems.

Now for Anck su namun. There was a real woman whose name is pronounced the same, though spelled a little differently (Ankhesenamun). She was born to Nefertiti and Akhenaten, and was married to her half-brother Tutankhamun. Fun fact – she’s thought to have also been married to Tut’s successor after his death, who was HER GRANDFATHER. And then maybe after her mother’s death she was married to HER FATHER before she married Tut. Now – these may have been symbolic marriages and not sexual ones, since it was common for kings and pharaohs to have more than one wife. But maybe not. Gross. Anyway – she would have been alive at the same time as Seti I, so it fits, though Seti I would have been king after Tut. It should be noted that records of her disappear after marriage to her grandfather.

These folks were alive in a time of religious upheaval in Egypt, which maybe inspired some of the magical plot points in The Mummy? Regardless, the 1932 movie, on which the 1999 movie was based, was inspired by the discovery of King Tut’s tomb, so it makes sense that they would craft a story based around him (kind of). And to be fair, since the tomb was just discovered, there may have been a lot of information they didn’t know then that we know now.

Supposedly, the original script was loosely based on Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes story “The Ring of Thoth,” but was later changed so that instead of running around murdering women that look like his long lost love, he’s trying to bring her back from the dead. With the Scroll of Thoth. Much more romantic.


So the Scroll of Thoth is made up for the story, but Thoth was a real person, who is believed to have authored The Book of the Dead, and who is supposed to have brought Osiris back from the dead when Isis asked nicely. So now the Osiris reference is making more sense.



He’s so beautiful. So he’s Israeli, but he lives in the US now. Probably somewhere in Southern California.


I looked on his Wikipedia page, and his father is listed as a geophysicist and a marketing executive, which sounds pretty random but very cool.


Anyway, we just need to clone him and make a bazillion of him.


Enough to go around.


So long as the clones are willing, of course.


Okay, everybody leave now.

What did YOU think of the topics we discussed? We’d love to hear from you!


Listen to the podcast here:

Predator (R )
80% rotten tomatoes

Now, Predator does not take place during a war, but I always think of Vietnam when I see it. Maybe because it’s jungle-y, but it just LOOKS like the footage from Vietnam. We’re here in South America, and NOT in Vietnam, but still. In my defense, the Vietnam War was twenty fricking years long, so it’s safe to say that it stayed with the public consciousness for a while. “Hey, where can we drop these soldiers off in a place that makes sense? The jungle you say? That sounds right.” We just can’t stay away from war, can we?

Before we jump in, let’s give some background: Predator and Alien (and unfortunately Prometheus (and Blade Runner!!)) all exist in the same universe. Predator hunts Alien – Alien hunts Predator. The grand culmination – one of the first of many mainstream franchise crossovers – was Alien vs. Predator in 2004. Freddy vs. Jason beat it out by one year.


BUT BEFORE ALIEN VS. PREDATOR – we have Dutch and Sarge running around on a mysterious covert mission in South America and their team being picked off one by one as an alien monster with unfair advantages (such as laser cannon, thermal vision, and knowing about it’s existence) hunts them. Do the lesser humans triumph? You bet your sweet ass they do. Except… there’s kind of an unnerving appropriated (yes) laughter that happens at the end that is not expected of something that’s just been defeated. What does he know that we don’t??? So much. So much…

Fun fact: Jean Claude Van Damme (JCVD) was originally supposed to play the Predator, which would have essentially turned him into an alien ninja. I am glad this did not happen. A couple of things ensured this most fortunate failure – they couldn’t get the makeup and prosthetics to work in the jungle, and also they were afraid Predator would seem puny next to all the enormous bodybuilders. That’s a legitimate concern. Ultimately Predator was voiced by Peter Cullen, who did the voice for King Kong and also OPTIMUS PRIME, and played by mime and actor Kevin Peter Hall.


look how sweet and normal he is!!

Remember back when I said JCVD wasn’t big enough to realistically intimidate the likes of Carl Weathers and Arnold schwarz? Kevin Peter Hall was 7’2”. He wasn’t bulky like the other cast members – if you look at pictures of him he seems very long and lean – he’s built like Kareem Abdul Jabbar, who is also 7’2”. But that’s still a YUGE human. Unsurprisingly, he played basketball in college and also professionally for awhile. Since he was so tall, he often played monsters. He was Harry in Harry and the Hendersons, and did some horror movie stuff, and he was ALMOST cast as Geordi La Forge.

Ready for some heartbreak? Hall died at the age of 35. He had complications from AIDS, which he contracted from a blood transfusion. In an interview, you can watch some footage of the behind the scenes of Predator, which include some of the hilarious earlier versions of the monster suit.

Hall says that he tried hard to give all of his costume characters the same motivation and mental nuance and attention that he did to his regular human characters – he didn’t just think of it as a physical role. AND – in contrast to JCVD having hissy fits about the motion capture outfit from the first attempt – the make up effect artist said that Hall was very professional and nice, and everyone had great things to say about him so obviously this man did not deserve to die such a horrible death and the universe should be ashamed of itself. One warning – if you watch this interview you will see Carl Weathers without his mustache and it’s not pretty. That means needs a mustache at all times so he doesn’t look like a middle-aged baby.

Let’s put that sadness behind us and talk about something cool: Predator’s abilities and gadgets.

The invisibility effect in this movie is probably still my favorite invisibility effect because it seems like how it would actually look. There’s just a little bit of blurry movement, but if you blink you’ll miss it. I’m going to link an article that goes into details, because I don’t understand it enough to rephrase it. But basically Hall would wear all red, to contrast with the green/blue color scheme of the jungle and do a thing, then the camera would do an identical take, so i assume they were using some kind of rig that they could ensure would repeat exactly what they’d just done. Then they filmed the same shot again, but with a wider lens. They then used magic to put all three shots together, which made it look like light was bending around Hall figure. It’s beautiful nerdy stuff.

Fun fact – science is getting pretty good at making invisibility cloaks. There are more and more items that come up where scientists have figured out some way to scatter light and reflect another point onto the thing with lenses. It’s only a matter of time until I can say “I’m in your kitchen eating your food” and it will actually be true.

So earlier I mentioned his laser cannon, but the proper term is plasmacaster. It sits atop his shoulder, and sights a target using three beams of light (called a laser rangefinder) from the helmet that create a triangle of death. Because the laser rangefinder comes from the helmet, the plasmacaster will sight as Predator moves his head. Then it shoots plasma at variable blast powers to stun or explode you, or anything in between. Can also be unmounted and carried in the hand.

What else. Thermal vision? Yes please. I’ve always wanted this. I think it’s because I have glasses and am always looking for an ocular upgrade. This seems to be packaged as part of a “detect life forms” module, because we hear heartbeats when we see the hot bodies (huh huh huh huh). How do you cover your hammering heart with cold mud, Arnold? Oh, you work out so much your resting heartrate is 5? Okay then, sorry I asked.

Well it IS a module and it’s called the bio-mask. These masks allow Predator to see in thermal (infrared), health stats mode, or xenomorph mode. In a subsequent movie, we see a predator put a sample of a substance into his bracelet, ‘scuse me, Wrist Gauntlet, and have it update his bio-mask to highlight that substance, so the possibilities are kind of endless here. It’s kinda like the Sheikah sensor in BOTW.

And of course, how could we forget the ultimate universal translator. You would think a civilization that has such amazing technology would have better things to do. Or maybe that’s the point – they’ve achieved such a level of competence and efficiency that this is what they do to feel challenged and engaged.

There are a bunch more weapons and tools Predator has, and you can check them out on Xenopedia. I find that fandom websites are extremely useful for this sort of detail-oriented nit-pickiness.

Okay let’s talk about these dudes. They’re huge dudes. How do you get that many huge dudes to fit in one choppa? Well, they didn’t actually have to worry about how many would fit in the helicopter, turns out (huh huh huh huh). The reason they all look like action figures is because the characters’ looks are based on Sgt Rock comics. All you have to do is look at the covers and you’re like “yeah I get it.” It’s all machine guns and tank tops and punching. They’re DC comics, so I assume they’ll bring you down and leave you depressed. I did not read any as part of this episode’s research.


Supposedly the director, McTiernan was trying to be subversive. I don’t think a lot of it comes across, likely because of meddling on the part of others. He said that firing all those bullets into the jungle was supposed to be set up so that nothing was back there; hitting nothing was supposed to point out how “impotent” guns are (I don’t think that’s the argument we need), but a producer ended up changing it so there are bodies in there. I don’t know know it would have played differently – there are so many other extremely macho elements that this subtle dig probably would have gone unnoticed, but who knows. McTierney also directed Die Hard- and I still think of these movies – these two specific movies – as possibly the most stereotypically macho action movies ever made. If there’s any sneaky progressiveness or depth in here, I don’t see it. I love these movies – don’t get me wrong, but when I want to think deeply, they’re not my go to.

What did YOU think of the topics we discussed? We’d love to hear from you!


Listen to the podcast here:

Legend (PG)
42% rotten tomatoes

Here we are with hell and devils again. It’s kind of like when you’re searching for a new trashy romance novel and want something different, but all the ones without demons and shit are super boring and annoying. That’s life without Tim Curry – boring and annoying.

The man is a god among men. His face, his voice, his physicality – all flawless in any role he’s ever done. Ever. Here he is in all of your favorite movies/shows:

Dr. Frank-n-Furter in The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Wadsworth in Clue
Dr. Petrov in The Hunt for the Red October
Pennywise in It
Captain Hook in Peter Pan and the Pirates
The voice of Hexxus in Fern Gully
The voice of Taurus Bulba in Darkwing Duck
The evil concierge in Home Alone 2
Sir Gawain in The Legend of Prince Valiant
He played a family (yes, a family) in an episode of Tale from the Crypt
Cardinal Richelieu in The Three Musketeers
He played several characters on Dinosaurs
He was MAL on Captain Planet and the Planeteers
He was Dr. Anton Sevarius on Gargoyles
Major Vladikov in McHale’s Navy
He was several voices on Aaahh!! Real Monsters
Gomez Addams in Addams Family Reunion
Big Brother on Johnny Bravo
A voice in an episode of Samurai Jack
Voices on Batman Beyond and Voltron: The Third Dimension
He was even on a couple episodes of Roseanne, Monk, Will & Grace, and a bunch more shows, either as an visual actor or a voice actor
Annnnnnd Darkness, in Legend

He has also done quite a few albums and plays. Looking at his body of work, I don’t think he’s ever taken a day off. His youth was spent traveling and moving around a lot, and though he was very young for much of it, I wonder if the experiences didn’t affect him in some way and aid his impressive characterizations. Also, he apparently didn’t have television until he was 10; up to that point he only had radio, which he credits for his fondness of voice acting.

The point is – he’s done everything that’s cool and awesome. Or he’s MADE everything he’s been in cool and awesome, at least as much as possible. If we’re being honest, he’s the only good thing about Legend besides the unicorns (I know, I know). An article from The Guardian, written by Toby Moses, points out that this movie, directed by Ridley Scott, btw, was an epic failure, and tells us exactly why: Jack has absolutely no depth and is impossible to empathize with, and Lili is very stupid and they make awful decisions in order to advance the plot; in other words the movie has terrible character development and very bad writing. BUT DARKNESS. He’s the bright spot in this movie, ironic since he wants endless night. From the first moment we see him on screen, we’re captivated. We know we want the happy streams and trees to survive, but as Moses points out, we kind of feel like Jack and Lili deserve annihilation, and Curry is so god damn compelling that we root for him instead because at least he’s not flat and empty.

Now I would like to point out here Toby Moses is a man. I assume. We recently had an in-depth discussion of why we women love bad guys, and also what exactly that means, so we don’t need to rehash that here. You can go listen to our episode on Hellboy for all the juicy deets. In that episode though, we never considered the effect of the bad guy on the male viewers. In this article, Moses is telling us how he not only looked to Darkness for a role model, but also General Zod, and Kiefer Sutherland in The Lost Boys, and Christian Slater in Heathers. So it seems the gentlemenz aren’t immune to the pull either, which makes me think it has more to do with human nature and societal pressure.

He points out the same things we’ve noticed – the villains get the best lines. The villains seem to have the most realistic perspective. The villains generally look more badass. In good movies, the villains also make the most sense. In legend, the villain is just despotically trying to destroy day forever I guess because he’s Evil? I don’t see a motivation or driving backstory for Darkness, but since he looks the way he does I assume we’re supposed to just assume that he’s out to ruin everyone’s good time. The 80’s: the pinnacle of stereotyping people by their looks.

In a better version of this movie, Darkness would have some only slightly skewed reason for wanting perpetual night, something that would force us to confront our own morality constructs. This is what I love about the rebooted comic book universes. All of the villains have been elevated from cartoonish stand-ins for wartime enemies or personifications of socially immoral proclivities to surprisingly cogent guerrilla reformers.

Okay, The Telegraph did this whole thing on Legend. I’m not sure it’s the greatest source, however, because the article describes Ridley Scott as moving away from sci-fi and fantasy after Legend… and going on to direct Alien and Blade Runner… now I’m no genre expert, but…

Okay okay okay, but according to The Telegraph, Legend was the final nail in the coffin of sword and sorcery movies. The articles says that Legend, following such FAILURES (ugh, really???) as Conan the Barbarian, The Dark Crystal reinforced the idea that this kind of thing had no place in the movies – it brought an end to the era of 80’s fantasy. It wasn’t until Peter Jackson hit mega-success with the LOTR trilogy that this idea was overturned (the first of which came out in 2001, so that’s 15 bleak years). I spent some time racking my brain to see if this was true, and I can’t think of anything to refute it. I feel like the 80’s and 90’s were full of science fiction, and some magic, but usually witchy stuff or curses and hexes. Like board games that take on a life of their own.

Was it really that bad? I have always had – and will always have – a ‘weird kid’ sensibility, so I’m probably not the best judge. I loved Xena Warrior Princess and Hercules, I loved Hey Dude and Salute Your Shorts and the Adventures of Pete and Pete. I love Star Trek and Disney movies – I kind of loved everything except the popular stuff. I didn’t get into John Hughes movies until I was in college. I didn’t get all the teen romances – I just didn’t understand the dynamics and the politics in those. The prime directive is super easy to understand. Going on a quest to save humanity is a very understandable motive. A teen boy trying to get laid who has the whole community behind him is very confusing. And I was too young to truly appreciate 80’s action movies.

Let’s take a break from this upsetting allegation  and talk about genre terminology. Here is the nerd trifecta: sci-fi, fantasy, and sword and sorcery.

Science Fiction:

  • Heavily features technology and scientific understanding, computers, robots, machines, space/time travel, aliens, genetic manipulation. Can include fantasy elements. Can be plausible or wildly imaginative. Many sub genres: Apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic, Hard sci fi, soft sci fi, space opera (space-faring lifestyle), Punk/cyberpunk/postcyberpunk/retropunk/dieselpunk/steampunk/clockpunk/biopunk ETC.


  • Uses magic or supernatural forces feature heavily. Can include sci fi elements as well, especially if it’s a modern setting. Subgenres – urban fantasy (fantasy in an urban setting), dark fantasy (elements of horror), fables, fairy tales, epic/high fantasy (highly developed – like LOTR), heroic fantasy (King Arthur), science fantasy (scientifically explainable magical elements (equal hybrid of sci fi and fantasy)
    • Sword and sorcery – subgenre of fantasy, blends heroic fantasy, adventure, and some light horror. Usually has a barbarian warrior pitted against supernatural and human adversaries

Back to this guy’s review. Here is a direct quote: “…something in the way [Jack] elongates his words suggests a fleeting intimacy with the English language. Throw in unicorns, wisecracking goblins, tittering fairies and a chair that bleeds black puss and the result is a carnival of queasiness.”

I don’t get it. All of that sounds awesome to me. AND APPARENTLY – we didn’t even get the best version of the movie. The original vision Scott had for Legend was even more sexually charged. Here’s another quote: “In the first draft, one of the unicorns is shot with a crossbow – it jumps up and scratches the princess on the shoulder…later, she notices hair sprouting out of this nasty wound in the shoulder. She wanders to a pond and sees her reflection in the moonlight. She turns into a beast. Darkness looms behind her and basically seduces her. They are coupling frantically when Jack and the fairies break in to save her.

… THAT SOUNDS LIKE A WAY BETTER MOVIE. A frigging producer nixed it. Clearly they don’t know what they think they know about the female demographic. AND ALSO in the US, Fox cut an amazing orchestral soundtrack for a frigging LSD sounding hippie band – Tangerine Dream. Also a really big important set burned down before they were done using it, so… it’s safe to say that this is not the movie that Ridley Scott first envisioned. Our movie is 89 minutes – there’s a directors cut out there that’s 114 minutes. Supposedly all that was cut was by the production company and made little sense to people actually working on the film.

But you know what – lots of movies from the 80’s that were critically dissed have become nerd canon. So poo poo. And I think it’s hard to make a serious fairy tale movie. Disney is aiming for kids – that’s different. But look at Alice in Wonderland – Red Riding Hood – Snow White and the Huntsman – Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters – Jack the Giant Slayer – Cinderella etc. All not great.

So now for something really, really exciting…. IT’S SUPPOSEDLY THE INSPIRATION FOR THE LEGEND OF ZELDA – NO WONDER I LOVE IT SO MUCH and the first Zelda game was released in 1986, so that’s totally plausible.

Le sigh… so much world-saving to do… so little time…

What did YOU think of the topics we discussed? We’d love to hear from you!


Listen to the podcast here:

Goldfinger (PG)
97% Rotten Tomatoes

It’s a Bond movie, but it’s also a HEIST movie! <Stefan voice> This Bond has everything, gambling, body paint murder, a midget who castrates people with lasers, a golden Pussy…

Sean Connery was 34 in this movie. My age. He looks like an adult, in a way I don’t think I ever will. He looks like he has a stock portfolio, a budding wine collection, and maybe a second property on a lake somewhere. Did you know – Sean Connery had a one-year-old at the time this movie came out, and that son ended up being married to Mia Sara for a while, who played Sloane in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off? And they have a kid named Dashiell? Which is the coolest name ever? And he’s 21? Which is closer to the age Sean Connery was when he made this movie than Sean Connery is now?

Okay so you know how Bond villains names are either ridiculous or badass? This guy’s name is Auric Goldfinger. Auric being an adjective that describes something as gold. As in: “the dragon’s cave full of hoarded treasure let off an auric glow.” This is also the movie that features Pussy Galore. I think Ian Fleming was just phoning it in on “name the characters” day. Or maybe it was partially a grudge. But first! Some backstory on our intrepid author!

Ian Fleming was a rich kid, and in the early 20th century, as it does today, this meant that he got an excellent education and many opportunities to meet future leaders and captains of industry. Apparently Fleming’s school performance was unremarkable, and he wasn’t overly fond of the experience. After school, he bounced around aimlessly for a while before being recruited as assistant to the Director of Naval Intelligence. He excelled at military administrative work. The man he worked for was not friendly at all, and so Fleming would be sent in as proxy to liaison between different agencies, and he was good at it. I think this is where the eventual James Bond charm began to bloom.

Being a personal assistant in the military was not the same as being a secretary now. Fleming held a naval reserve commission as a commander, and seemed to have some autonomy in planning and scheming, something his imagination no doubt aided. He referenced a book written by a man with a career path similar to his, with a suggestion (from that book) that they essentially borrow a corpse from a field hospital, stick fake messages in its pockets, and then drop it from a plane. No one questions dead bodies in a war zone, right?

At least one operation he was involved in would go on to bestow its name to one of his books: Operation Goldeneye. He’s very inconsistent – Goldeneye is quite lyrical for a military operation, but then there’s Operation Ruthless which seems to be just starkly descriptive, in the more expected military style.

So – using his very exciting military experience (which essentially consisted mostly of sitting in an office and scheming up ways for other people to creatively risk their lives in the field – not to disparage him; he was good at it, and held himself accountable for doing a good job, but it’s interesting that he chose to write the field agent rather than the orchestrator), he decided to finally write the spy novel he’d wanted to for some time. Thus, Casino Royale was born.

Here’s the frustrating thing about the Bond-iverse: you can’t really watch them in chronological book order without a few jarring transitions. The movies tend to be episodic rather than serialized, so it doesn’t really matter what order you watch them in, but the Daniel Craig era changed all that. There have been some off-canon shakeups that I’m not sure I’m 100% behind. It makes everything exciting in a Bourne Identity kind of way, but part of the charm of Bond was that cartoonish circularity, where everything was the same at the end as it was at the beginning, minus some coerced young woman’s virtue, but who cares about that? Hahahahaha!

So here is the order of publication (of the novels Fleming wrote):

  1. Casino Royale
  2. Live and Let Die
  3. Moonraker
  4. Diamond are Forever
  5. From Russia with Love
  6. Doctor No
  7. Goldfinger
  8. For Your Eyes Only
  9. Thunderball
  10. The Spy Who Loved Me
  11. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
  12. You Only Live Twice
  13. The Man with the Golden Gun
  14. Octopussy and the Living Daylights

Here is the order of movies:

  1. Dr. No (1962) (Connery)
  2. From Russia with Love (1963) (Connery)
  3. Goldfinger (1964) (Connery)
  4. Thunderball (1965) (Connery)
  5. You Only Live Twice (1967) (Connery)
  6. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969) (Lazenby)
  7. Diamonds Are Forever (1971) (Connery)
  8. Live and Let Die (1973) (Moore)
  9. The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) (Moore)
  10. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) (Moore)
  11. Moonraker (1979) (Moore)
  12. For Your Eyes Only (1981) (Moore)
  13. Octopussy (1983) (Moore)
  14. Never Say Never Again (1983) (Connery)
  15. A View to a Kill (1985) (Moore)
  16. The Living Daylights (1987) (Dalton)
  17. License to Kill (1989) (Dalton)
  18. Goldeneye (1995) (Brosnan)
  19. Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) (Brosnan)
  20. The World is Not Enough (1999) (Brosnan)
  21. Die Another Day (2002) (Brosnan)
  22. Casino Royale (2006) (Craig)
  23. …etc

We would get a very modern Craig, and then some Moore, then some Connery, then Moore, then Connery, then Lazenby, then Connery again… very hard to keep track of what spy tools the technology affords Bond. Although, Q aside, some of the lasting charm of Bond is his ability to get by with just about anything.

Let’s talk about funny British names, shall we? We all get the giggles for Percy, and Basil, and Cecil, but our friends across the pond have a true talent for naming things. Here are some names of real people that Fleming drew from for his books:

  • Hoagy Carmichael, who inspired much of Bond’s described looks (actor/singer)
  • Biffy Dunderdale, who inspired some of his style (spy)
  • Scaramanga (man with golden gun villain) was the name of an school enemy
  • Admiral Sir Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax had the Moonraker villain named after him (Navy bigwig)
  • Boofy Kidd had one of the bad guys in Diamonds are Forever named after him (a friend of his)
  • Goldfinger was a real architect who Fleming hated (more on that later, also he’s not British)
  • One of the producers was a man named Albert (Cubby) Broccoli.

Auric Goldfinger was named after and inspired by an architect named Erno Goldfinger. Side note – he has living descendants who reportedly suffer from a lot of prank calls. Fleming despised him. Goldfinger was a communist (the bad kind), and a bully. He got a lot of prank calls himself after the movie came out, and he ended up suing Fleming. But supposedly the real reason Fleming disliked Goldfinger was a matter of aesthetics. He didn’t Goldfinger’s style. Fleming’s publisher paid Goldfinger’s court costs and put a note that all characters were fictitious in future editions. Fleming then wanted to change the name of the character to Goldprick (which Mike Myers essentially did in Goldmember), but the movie production had already advanced too far.

Critics did not care for Fleming’s books, and as we know, critics always have their fingers on the pulse of the people. Fleming’s books never caught on and Hollywood saw no reason to make movies out of them. The end.

Just kidding, critics are jerks who spend their time ripping things apart because they can’t make their own. If you’re in the mood for a historical hissy-fit, look up Paul Johnson’s review of Dr. No. I might have written the same thing if I was in his time, because concerns about Bond are valid, and he makes digs at the fact that Bond and Fleming are both part of the Establishment. Here are some selected excerpts:

“I have just finished what is without a doubt the nastiest book I have ever read.”

“There are three basic ingredients in Dr No, all unhealthy, all thoroughly English: the sadism of a school boy bully, the mechanical two-dimensional sex-longings of a frustrated adolescent, and the crude, snob-cravings of a suburban adult. Mr Fleming has no literary skill, the construction of the book is chaotic, the entire incidents and situations are inserted, and then forgotton[sic], in a haphazard manner.”

“I have summarised the plot, perhaps at some wearisome length, because a bare recital of its details describes, better than I can, how Fleming deliberately and systematically excites, and then satisfies the very worst instincts of his readers.”

“…the social appeal of the dual Bond-Fleming personality has added an additional flavour to his brew of sex and sadism.”

I kind of don’t disagree with Johnson, but I will still watch Bond, even with all its misogyny, rape, and racism. That’s the mirror you have to look in when you want to enjoy entertainment from a bygone era. You have to be able to suspend your disgust, and pretend you’re a resourced white man who’s entitled to whatever he wants, and who could have it too, if it wasn’t for the goddamn feminists. Just make sure you take those goggles off when you’re done.

Ian Fleming died pretty early – he was not yet 56. But he was a very heavy drinker, and a heavy smoker, and had heart disease as a result of that lifestyle. More Bond books came after Ian Fleming’s written by Raymond Benson.

So should we talk about PTSD?

So of course I found myself on a PSA type website for transitioning soldiers that featured short videos of veterans telling the story of how they started recovering, or how they struggled alone, or how they discovered an underlying issue. They’re very good and give faces to this war that we keep churning.

I think that the ‘public we’ has misconceptions about soldiers and consequences of wartime trauma. Most of us have only a framework of understanding, presented to us by the media we consume. Some of us have more experience if we’ve had friends or family deployed to war zones. Some of us have lived it as soldiers. It’s impossible to really understand it unless you live it. That’s why good veteran therapy is run by veterans. One man says that, “Just because you’ve left the combat zone, it doesn’t mean your war is over.”

I gather from this site that the transition out of the combat zone might be harder than the transition in. One man explains it like this: “Getting out of the military is scary. You have this whole life that you learned. I was in an infantry unit and I have to all of a sudden go be a civilian.” He talked about being alienated, and feeling like he had nothing in common with people. He talks about the intensity that he would pour into ordinary situations, because that was an attribute that made him a successful soldier – taking everything as life-or-death serious. This is a man who had nearly been blown up many times, but he was sure he didn’t have PTSD because he couldn’t think of one specific event, something that would give him nightmares, that would signal to him that he had an issue. Recurring nightmares are often depicted as a PTSD symptom in movies and TV. He said he wasn’t turning his house into a bunker and sandbagging it waiting for an air raid. This is also a common media depiction of people with PTSD. PTSD kind of gets all the attention, and that’s the only thing he was assessing as a risk. But what he actually had was a traumatic brain injury from all the nearly-being-blown-up events. Once he was diagnosed, he was able to start recovery through therapies.

Another veteran talked about the difficulty of switching off certain parts of your brain that get activated. Being in a combat zone is so high stakes. One bad decision and your squad is dead or close to it. This mindset carries over when you go home. He talked about how hard it was to drive; how everything he saw in the road immediately presented to him as a potential explosive. Simultaneously, his friends and family just wanted him to be normal, and so he felt very isolated. Instead of his family being a source of comfort, he felt like a burden. I got the feeling this was an especially hard blow, especially after being part of such a tight brotherhood, where everyone was in the same situation.

Now, I don’t know from personal experience, but I think that the experience of a soldier in the combat zone is different from a high level decision maker who stays clear for the most part. I can’t say that one is harder than the other, but I think they’re probably different. It would have to be, right? In one scenario you carry a lot of risk of personal injury, and in one you don’t. On the ground, you’re looking people in the eye on a daily basis, and you’re all responsible for each other’s lives, really. One person fucks up, and you’re all goners. High level muckety mucks may never see the chess pieces they’re moving around, but they are responsible for a whole lot of lives. I’m sure there are some cold robots out there, but I have to assume the majority of these people know that they’re putting humans on the line, humans that have value, and humans with families and friends who love them.

So here’s what I find a little concerning – the Bond movies, and I assume the books, from which the tone of the movies is taken, has a nostalgic sort of soft spot for World War II. Here’s the paradox of good men who find out they’re good at, and enjoy doing, dastardly deeds. This is a theme that comes up often in movies and tv, but usually it’s confronted more directly. Fleming seems to lack any self-awareness of the circumstances he’s glorifying.

Let’s take a look at the facts – Fleming was not an in-the-trenches soldier; he was running ops from headquarters and thinking up clever spy tricks to gain intelligence or plant false intelligence. These are not socially acceptable activities except for very specific situations, and so not many people have the opportunity to discover that it’s a talent of theirs.


As I said, this theme comes up. If you’ve been watching The Punisher, you might remember the scene where Frank Castle tells his frenemy Micro that he was good at being a Marine and sometimes he’d rather be in battle than with his family. That’s a hard truth to reconcile. How do you abhor the necessity of war – the concept of it, but also take pleasure in the execution of it? I don’t think we see enough of this nuance, but I may not be the best judge because I don’t watch a lot of war movies – I have a hard time with them.

We have a lot of depictions of the reluctant soldier, or the honorable military man who dutifully serves with the idealist goal of ending a war, or the sadist who uses the military for opportunities to be cruel. I don’t think we see, or at least I haven’t seen, the soldier who is passionate about his work and loves what he or she does. That is a goldmine of conflict, both internal and external, with really rich contexts. Most of the time though, we get Jason Bourne, who was essentially job-raped. He’s incredibly talented, but he’s trying desperately to get out of the game. I want to see more characters who are incredibly talented and love what they do. So maybe what I’m saying is that this is some of the appeal of James Bond, and he might be how Fleming channeled his zest and talent for war games into something productive after the war was over.

HOWEVER, and this is something that I can’t really speak to with a lot of competence, is that the Bond world seems to be, at least pre-Craig, kind of a low stakes environment. It’s very black and white – the bad guys are bad, and the “love” interest is playing a double-cross 75% of the time. The reality of soldier or government agent activities, I imagine, is a lot murkier. But Bond remains so glib, and so unaffected. And it’s so very popular, which I think does a disservice to people who are routinely given orders that have them hurting or killing other humans. He’s pushed as the pinnacle of manly representation, which sets an expectation, conscious or not, for how a man is supposed to deal with the very natural and real turmoil involved with being a soldier, whether you like or not. It encourages the idea that a “real man” can go to war and come home and be fine, because they don’t have feelings or give it a second thought. That prejudice still keeps people from getting treatment if they need it. Us ladies have got G.I. Jane, which maybe isn’t a ton better, but still. As I said, the Craig era movies have an added depth to them, which is good. But he’s still a horndog.


The rapey feel of the Bondiverse. Let’s just take this movie, for right now. James Bond straight up sexually assaults Pussy. They’re in a barn, for reasons, I guess, and they exchange some sassy quips. (Sassy quips are part of Bond canon. Can’t have a Bond movie without them flying around.) She tries to leave, and he grabs her and stops her, several times. Then she starts doing spy moves on him, flipping him around, so he reciprocates. This continues for an absurdly long time, likely because it arouses him that she’s strong enough to get the edge on him. So of course the scene ends with him flipping her onto her back and falling on her like a pig, while she tries unsuccessfully to push him off. He puts his face closer to hers, and she turns away. SHE’S NOT INTO IT. Then he forces his mouth onto hers, and she stops struggling and starts kissing him back. Very unrealistic, very engineered for the male fantasy. I don’t want to say sexual fantasy has no place in movies, but… at the very least, she could be consenting. It’s not manly to have to conquer a woman to get her to love you. It’s a good way to get stabbed while you’re sleeping, though.

Now here’s the thing – I totally get the appeal of this world to a man. 100%. I get it. You may think women have an easier time attracting companions than men do, but I think you’re mistaken. Attractive people have an easier time attracting companions. Why do you think Tarzan was such a popular movie? It was terrible. But it was amazing. We allll use movies to see our sexual fantasies played out by more attractive people, but the thing that strikes me about “female” perspective love arcs is that usually in our fantasies, the guy is REALLY into us. Like, slightly TOO into us. Look at Twilight. Very unhealthy. Look at all those romantic comedies from the 80’s and 90’s where the guy would finally come to the realization that he couldn’t live without Meg Ryan, and do some over-the-top gesture to prove how big his love for her was.

But it’s always like Bond is proving a point, right? It would get boring if the women just fell into his lap all the time. Sometimes you have to remind everyone why you’re The Man, I guess. Again, I don’t think there needs to be some regulatory ethics board that judges movies. Leave that to the internet. But these movies are just so POPULAR. And since it’s rated PG, we can assume a lot of younger viewers out there, male and female, watched this exchange between Bond and Pussy and seeing how much the women love Bond, and how much the men want to act like him, and start to develop ideas about appropriate sexual signals. If these kids had good parents who teach them how to be good humans, it’s probably not a problem, but that not a realistic expectation. Especially for the ‘60’s.

In a Refinery29 article, Lauren Le Vine points out that the Bond girls names often “signal their intended utility and utmost purpose. One need not be a Mensa member to discern what Pussy Galore has to offer the world.” She’s right. Other Bond Girl names: Xenia Onatopp, Holly Goodhead, Honey Ryder, Plenty O’Toole, Mary Goodnight, May Day, Molly Warmflash??? She goes on to give Daniel Craig credit for emphasizing in interviews that Bond is fictional, and his attitude toward women is not to be admired. I’m quoting a quote here: ““Many men admire Bond for his way with the ladies,” the interviewer began (gracelessly). “But let’s not forget that he’s actually a misogynist,” Craig replied. “A lot of women are drawn to him chiefly because he embodies a certain kind of danger and never sticks around for too long.””

The article goes on to say that the interviewer tried to back-pedal and said that Bond has become more chivalrous, to which Craig said that’s because the female roles have been written better, and they push back. You guys should really read this article because it’s great. I can’t really do anything but keep quoting it because I can’t say these things any better than Le Vine has. She also brings up how Craig himself has been harassed and sexualized in interviews. The Bond-iverse is a horny teenager with word vomit, I guess. But I think part of her point is that the media needs to take responsibility (I mean for soooooo many things but let’s keep this limited in scope) for gluttonously feeding off low-hanging fruit that appeals to people’s basest natures. There’s so much opportunity in this universe – this man, and the team around him, are so highly specialized and talented. They have access to incredible technology, they travel everywhere, but he’s usually reduced to a caricature of Inspector Gadget if he was a sex tourist. With guns. I do think the movies since Casino Royale have taken him more seriously, and tried to make a meal out of the movies instead of just giving us junk food.

Though the movies are improving, they’re still very problematic, but that has not stopped us from eating them up.

Matthew Mokhefi-Ashton writes that it’s the formula we love. He says that people are comfortable getting more of what they know, and we know James Bond brings us “a cocktail of girls, gadgets, violence, and exotic locations.” He says the reason that the films have failed to change the Bond girl trope, as they have been promising since the 70’s, is that they haven’t yet been moved from plot device to actual character. They don’t add anything to the movies except exposition, or function as damsels in distress; no matter how competent they are, they need saving by 007, and when he fails, his motivation for getting the bad guy is recharged. Also, Mokhefi-Ashton says, stealing the bad guy’s girl emphasizes his superior sex appeal.

Jumping off from his article, I wonder what Bond movies would look like if he had a female partner over a number of movies. We know what this COULD look like – Mr. and Mrs. Smith had two great spies, who were both great characters, and had a relationship, to boot. The focus of that movie was more relationship based obviously, but it was very popular, and so it’s not a matter of us needing to see such a masculine dominance in spy movies. I think it’s just the industry’s unwillingness to try something new with Bond. It’s easy to just keep churning out more of the same.

Moving on!

Goldfinger is the third Bond movie, but really the first one that enjoyed widespread success. Coincidentally (maybe), it’s also the first one that featured a lot of gadgetry. Apparently the crew had a lot to do with the gadgets in the car itself, an Astin Martin DB5. It took six weeks to trick it out, if you’re interested in a DIY project, which we do not recommend.

Another change was the laser. When the book was written (1959) lasers weren’t a thing, and Goldfinger’s murder attempt involved a circular saw. Lasers were cool and new during filming however, so they switched it out with the help of some Harvard nerds consulting. That’s how new lasers were – they needed smarty pants consultants.

Other production tidbits – Goldfinger surrounds himself with many variations on gold, including women, who are mostly blonde. There’s a lot of yellow and metallic gold in the costumes as well. One woman is even murdered with gold skin paint; supposedly the paint clogged her pores so her skin couldn’t breathe. However, it’s unlikely this would have killed her unless she was in a situation where she could overheat; since she wouldn’t be able to sweat, she wouldn’t be able to regulate her body temperature. So, that would be an appropriately stupid and needlessly theatrical way for a villain to commit murder in the genre! I dig it.

So we said that Goldfinger was the first Bond hit. Accounting for inflation, it grossed around $850 million worldwide. There was a lot of hype and marketing surrounding the release. One of the producers orchestrated pictures of the actress who played Pussy with Prince Philip, so they could get her name out of the way. The film (back when we used real film, kids) was packaged in gold canisters, and delivered by models wearing gold outfits (hey, human trophies! I mean women!). Honor Blackman, who played Pussy, wore a gold finger on her pinkie. People ate that shit up then, just like they do today.

We talked earlier about this film’s relationship to architecture. WELL I HAVE BIG, AND COINCIDENTALLY TIMELY NEWS. A futuristic home designed by the real Goldfinger is up for sale, and The Sun claims that it reeks of Bond villain, due to the nearby golf course (a very common rich asshole hobby), and glass windows, convenient for spying on neighbors and checking your perimeter. It’s duly private as well, with greenery keeping others away. If you check out the pictures of it, it does look very Bond villain-esque – it’s very modern, and has a bunch of extra shit that’s not necessary.

What did YOU think of the topics we discussed? We’d love to hear from you!


Listen to the podcast here:

Hellboy (PG 13)

81% Rotten Tomatoes

Hellboy is a Dark Horse comics character, introduced in 1993. He’s much beloved, but not terribly popular with the masses. That’s fine. More Hellboy for the nerds. Speaking of nerds, Hellboy was directed by Guillermo del Toro, who directed Pan’s Labyrinth, Crimson Peak, Blade II, Cronos (also starring Ron Perlman), Mimic, The Hobbit movies, and a berjillion more. And no he is not related to Benicio del Toro. I checked. Guillermo hails from Mexico, and Benicio was born in Puerto Rico. Both beautiful countries, but very much separate places. From what I can find, they’ve never worked on a movie together, which I assume would be like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters. That would be bad, but it would be so worth worth it.

Ron Perlman – I’m not sure if I’m madly in love with him or if I want him to be my protective uncle. It’s very confusing. If you don’t know who Ron Perlman is, you probably shouldn’t be listening to our podcast because you wouldn’t like who we are very much. Just in case you need a primer, Ron Perlman has had an impressive career of doing really cool stuff. He was in the original Beauty and the Beast tv show, Sons of Anarchy, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, etc. He’s been a voice actor on Adventure Time, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Family Guy, Archer; he’s done voices for Call of Duty: Black Ops, some of the Fallouts, some of the Halos; the list goes on and on. He’s one of those actors who’s always working.

A lot of his more popular roles, for some reason, feature him in a lot of heavy prosthetics. I think this has to do with his big hulking frame and his incredible talent. He’s 6’1” and built like a wrestler, but he’s a terrific actor who can play not only humorous and violent, but vulnerable and complicated. This all adds up to him being able to play monsters that have depth, and complex emotional stories. That’s a special niche. This is not to say that Ron Perlman is himself monstrous – he’s got a very affable, pleasant face. At least to me. He has a gravelly deep voice that makes you feel warm and fuzzy, unless you’re on the wrong side of it. And he’s sooo goooood. He disappears into his roles; he’s so engaging and sincere.

Sidenote – So I was looking up pictures of him as a young man, and there was one where he’s got a little girl clinging onto his back, and in one of the comments a person said how this would have made an awesome Bioshock movie and I, in terms of instantaneous mood swings, became elated at the perfection of Ron Perlman as a Big Daddy, and then furious that the timing hadn’t worked out, and then deeply depressed that this movie would never exist. The image is from, I think, a 1995 movie called The City of Lost Children. I mean I guess he still could – the Big Daddies are kind of cyborgs who are mostly metal…



What I find hilarious, laughable, ridiculous, is that all these Nazis, in a desperate move to turn the war back in their favor before they’re defeated, put all their energy and resources into opening a portal to hell in order to unleash an army of demons on the allied forces – but all they manage to conjure up is a baby demon. A baby. A li’l tiny red baby demon. How disappointing that must have been for the Nazis. More importantly – how was that baby in hell if it had a human mother? I’m missing something the comics can probably fill in.

Lucky for us, the Allied forces (Professor Broom to be specific) rescued baby Red from the Nazis and raised him to be a tortured good guy with a love of cigars and cats. Now, as any supernatural kid raised in the human world will tell you, there’s some angst there. He’s not like the other kids. Not just the human kids, but he’s not like the merman kid, either. It’s hard to conceive of the absolute loneliness that comes from being the only one of you, and half EVIL DEMON at that. Especially with the way he looks, there’s no chance people won’t make a snap decision about him.

But we get to skip all that and go straight to adulthood. Hellboy is a crusty, stoic loner who would very much like you to leave him alone to smoke and drink in piece. In del Toro’s hands, his curmudgeonly attitude is charming, but if you’d plopped this character down into a movie like Sin City, he would be moody and dramatic. So I think a lot of credit goes to both Perlman and del Toro for striking a balance of duty and vulnerability, and snark and sincerity. Abe Sapien is pretty much the polar opposite of Big Red, and we need them both.

And it’s important to point out that Hellboy is not at all mean, he’s walled off for sure, but he doesn’t have a narcissistic self-destructive personality where there’s a martyr or victim complex. He’s got some pretty significant issues, but he keeps doggedly doing what needs to be done, even though he gets beat the fuck up in the process. In this way he reminds me a lot of Constantine. Also a grump, and also made extremely lovable because who can hate Keanu? He’s like the best person on the planet. He’s going to be reincarnated as a thousand dogs. He might be a thousand dogs reincarnated, such is his lovableness. And they’re both wise-asses. And they both have lady problems.

Now raise your hand if you thought his fully grown out horns were sexy as hell. Yeah, me too. Why are we so attracted to demonic figures? Trying to find the answers to this question is maddening. There are a number of rabbit holes that skirt around the issue, but none that really stare it in the face. Google thinks the best match is “why are women attracted to bad boys?” and when you click on a couple of those links it gets gross pretty fast. There are a number of sites out there listing the attributes women find attractive, and saying that all we want is money or power, and here’s how to project that confidence and assholery. I assume these are men who get rejected a lot, and so are pitching the blame onto women, instead of developing a decent personality and sense of humor. These are probably the guys who cry about the friend zone, as though women owe them sex and aren’t actual humans you could just be friends with.

The whole “women like bad boys thing” is not new, and honestly it’s not wrong. But… and let me be perfectly clear here, this phenomenon is generally limited to eye lust. Or lust in general. Sure, James Dean looks good in that leather jacket, smoking a cigarette, and being all “fuck tha police”. But we know what happens if we settle down with that guy. You get Marlon Brando from a Streetcar Named Desire. He’s hot, but he’s a dick. Not worth it.

Apparently there’s something called a Dark Triad of personality traits. This collection of traits have their roots in Machiavelli’s The Prince, but show up everywhhhhhhere in literature (now and throughout history) as well as film and tv and real life. Women have these traits as well, but we see them most often in men. Here are the traits: narcissism, which is an extreme self-interest and self-love that goes way beyond healthy self-esteem; Machiavellianism, which is essentially manipulation of other people to get an outcome most beneficial to oneself; and psychopathy, which is a lack of conscience and empathy. Psychopathy is different from sociopathy in that sociopaths do have a conscience and empathy, but they’re shriveled and weak, like atrophied muscles. You would almost be right if you said they were the same, but psychopathy is a more severe form.

BUT SHOULDN’T WE ABHOR THESE TRAITS? Well, sociopaths and psychopaths aren’t necessarily evil people – some of them might just be very socially awkward people. You’re actually more likely to be charmed by a psychopath. They can go full hog into manipulation; lying and telling you what you want to hear to without any emotional baggage. Sociopaths will struggle a little more with this, especially with people they care about. That’s really the hallmark of the triad – manipulation. All of these traits stacked on each other equals a person you absolutely cannot trust, but who designs situations in which you really want to trust them. They’re attractive to us because they’re smooth as melted butter over a well-worn river rock. They’re confident because they love themselves so much, and after a few forays into manipulation with positive results, they exude even more confidence, which is reassuring to others. They’re often ambitious – because of the narcissism they believe they deserve greatness – and so you become quite convinced that they ARE in fact the next big thing. If a man like this has you in his sights, you feel special, even magical, because you know he can have any woman he wants. Aaaaaaaaaaand because of this we tend to overlook their terrible, awful behavior, believing that since we are so special to have been chosen, we are the ones who can change them. Well, some of us. The rest of us see right through these assholes, and try so hard to get our friends to see the light. TO NO AVAIL.

Spratt (the author of the article referenced), says that these men are often very hard to call out on their lies, because their self-deprecating sense of humor protects their ego by essentially giving them plausible deniabilty – “whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Oooooobbbbbbbviously I was joooooooking. Of course you haven’t caught me in a liiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeee.”

She goes on to state that nurture may play a greater role in creating a dark triad personality than nature. Childhood difficulties such as absent parents or abuse play a great role; it seems to be a response to not being valued by others, so they over-value themselves, take care of their own interests ahead of all others since that was the model they saw of adulthood.

So that’s the Dark Triad – what I’m going to call the worst case. But the spectrum varies from damaged with a heart of gold to outright psychopath (lacking empathy and a conscience). A better way to look at them (and what they say about us) is their alignment, which marks out good or evil, and chaotic or lawful.

So we have the chaotic good (bad boys): Often considered anti-heroes. These are pretty much all the rebel-rebels in the rebel forces in the Star Wars universe. They are rule breakers, like the bad guys, but they do it in the confidence that the rules they’re breaking are merely a hindrance and not really meaningful. They’re on a mission to do good, and rules be damned if they get in the way. They follow their own set of moral guideposts, not society’s.

Examples: Constantine, Jon Snow, the Punisher, the Crow, all of the Watchmen, Khan (from his perspective, he’s doing good for his people), Wolverine

And then there are the chaotic neutrals (bad at friends): These are truly independent characters with no ties or loyalties to anyone but themselves. They will throw you under the bus; they will work both sides if they’re getting something out of it. They’ll lie, cheat, and steal, but they generally don’t hurt people unless they have a reason. Whether they do good or bad, it’s because they feel like it that day. The next day may be completely different.

Examples: The Winter Soldier (eventually), any pirate, Deadshot, Dexter Morgan, Jax Teller, Snape, Zach Morris, Sherlock Holmes, Eric Northman (even though he holds a position of authority within an established bureaucracy, comments are made constantly about how he goes rogue, so I’m keeping him chaotic), Han Solo, Jack Burton, Marv (Sin City), Mal (Firefly), Wolverine (he’s very mercurial)

Chaotic evil (bad guys): Essentially out for destruction, and extremely self-interested. Seemingly evil just for the sake of being evil, as though it’s as arbitrary a trait as hair color. He rules his small band through fear and force, and is violent and unpredictable. Also, they have the best quips.

Examples: Negan, Kurgan, Joker, Damon Salvatore from season 1, Anton Chigurh, Hannibal (some put him in lawful evil, but he doesn’t dominate or orchestrate a large power structure – he’s an independent agent), Loki

But that’s not really what I’m asking. If we want to get philosophical:

Here’s Christianity in a nutshell, at least biblical Christianity, and most centuries after that: women caused the fall, women are evil, they’re weak, they’re temptresses, their brains are dumb, but we keep them around because we made being gay a sin. Adam is the poor, self-sacrificing hero and I’m the villain in the story.

As a woman, it’s hard not to feel that antagonism, and we’ve all had those accusations hurled at us at some point or another, used in an argument for female inferiority. It sucks.

Here comes satanic imagery. Well… I mean… there’s no question who the villain is here. The big red guy with the horns and tail. (Yeah, I know, it’s a stretch.)

But that’s still not what I’m asking – I want to know why I look at Hellboy, or Satan from Legend, or the gargoyle devil guy from Fantasia and lust.

Let’s go back to the bible. I know, I know. But we won’t respect it very much, okay? The fall of Lucifer, we have been taught, was brought about by his pride. He was God’s right-hand-man, the second-in-command. All the hyphens. And then along came Adam. Lucifer didn’t want to be less valuable to God than humans, and because of this pride, God and Satan waged war on one another, one which Lucifer and his army lost. I should say, it’s suggested that a third of the angels were on his side; that is not insignificant. All these pious, godly angels thought Lucifer’s arguments had merit.

Lucifer and his minions were then cast out of heaven, and Lucifer fell to earth in a blaze of beautiful self-righteousness. I’m embellishing, but you get the point. Now – Let’s flip that perspective a little bit. Lucifer just wanted daddy to love him. He had been with God through a lot, and he felt that he was being cast aside in favor of the new puppy. He just wanted to feel valuable and loved by his father. Can you really blame him for being upset? God is kind of an ass in this story. He basically used Lucifer, then iced him out after he created humans, WHO HE GAVE FREE WILL, then said Lucifer was declaring war by demanding he not be neglected, and THREW HIM OUT OF THE HOUSE.

Lucifer is often painted as petulant and vain, but viewed through the lens of the Christian doctrine, Lucifer’s story can be seen as social control for the masses back in the early days (and… the present). Know your place, defer to those closer to God in the hierarchy, take what you’re given and like it, otherwise YOU’RE JUST LIKE SATAN KING OF ALL THAT IS EVIL AND BAD. So UH OH – now Satan is a brooding, misunderstood figure doing the best he can under impossible circumstances. Classic bad boy material. Good job, organized Christianity. You just turned Satan into a sexy, sympathetic figure.

Let’s talk Satanism. Contrary to popular belief, Satanists don’t worship Satan – they just really like blasphemy. But more than that, they’re for intellectual freedom, and that feels like a direct dig at organized religion (at least Christianity) where you’re beholden to the rules of this sky-man, interpreted by humans and corroded down through translations over history. Often, society paints Satanists as evil-doing sex fiends who follow the cult of Anton LaVey, but really a lot of their organized activities revolve around protesting oppression, which are kind of their missionary quests.

The major difference between the LaVeyan Satanism and The Satanic Temple (TST) is that TST is atheistic, and also more engaged in scientific evolution (accepting that scientific understanding will change over time, and beliefs may need to change with it). Anton LaVey, from what I understand, was a drama queen, much like L. Ron Hubbard. TST has taken all the ridiculous stuff out and kept the more Humanism stuff (they differ from Humanists because Humanism doesn’t place such a major emphasis on individual sovereignty and non-conformism).

So if they’re atheist, why call themselves Satanists? They are named for Satan because, “Satan is symbolic of the Eternal Rebel in opposition to arbitrary authority, forever defending personal sovereignty even in the face of insurmountable odds. Satan is an icon for the unbowed will of the unsilenced inquirer… the heretic who questions sacred laws and rejects all tyrannical impositions.” (

Satanism revolves around the following seven tenets ( They’re pretty badass, and essentially you don’t have try too hard if you’re a decent human:

  • One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
  • The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
  • One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
  • The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.
  • Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
  • People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
  • Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written of spoken word.

There’s really nothing I disagree with in those tenets. I get to decide what to do with my own body? Hell yes. Scientific understanding of the world should shape our beliefs? Fuck yeah. Make your mistakes right? WHAT A CONCEPT. The thing I love about these tenets that I find is missing in Christianity is the emphasis on individual agency and responsibility. It’s basically my mantra of “don’t be a dick” but with more details, whereas Christianity is more “don’t be a dick because god said so and you might go to hell if you are a dick and also you should make everyone else not be a dick in the exact same way you’re not a dick.” Satanism is like “if you want to come not be a dick with us, that’s cool, otherwise bye.”

Bustle did an article on six women who’ve joined Satanism. One woman joined for the community of non-theistic, like-minded people. One joined because of Satanism’s emphasis on educating yourself. One woman said it’s a refreshing change from her Christian upbringing, which taught her to keep her head down and take the abuse. She says that Satanism’s core beliefs empowered her. “[Satanism] teaches you that you deserve everything the world has to offer…and you should never feel guilt or shame for getting these things.” Another woman joined for the strong social justice support for issues that affect LGBT persons and reproductive rights, while another woman enjoys the support for gender equality. The last woman interviewed said that Satanism offers encouragement and support for finding your way, whereas her Roman Catholic upbringing gave her only restrictions and guilt.

Notice that none of these women joined because they’re drawn to evil or lust after Satan. So maybe this is still not the answer I’m looking for.

Now, comic book stuff that’s not really addressed in the movie:  Hellboy is important. His destiny is to bring about the apocalypse. Well. Says Rasputin anyway. And as a distant relative of King Arthur, he’s also technically the ruler of England. Well. Says Morgan Le Fay, anyway. Neither of these are terribly reliable sources, so I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if the fire and brimstone ever come.

Also in the comics, he’s even more crusty and anti-social, from what I understand, and the demons he fights know what he is (the end of all things), so that comes up a lot more in the comics, but it’s said that the first Hellboy movie was based on some of the actual comics but didn’t stick too closely to them. I haven’t yet read any of the Hellboy comics, but the internet gives me the impression that the comics are kind of like episodic detective stories, with this supernatural-hell element being the focus of their investigations. The comics don’t reveal a whole lot about Hellboy’s personal life or past, so when del Toro adapted it for the screen, he had to fill in a lot of context and motivation for the characters that’s necessary for a unified story told over an hour and a half. And the creator of Hellboy, Mike Mignola, worked with del Toro, and so the movie still has the look and feel that he wanted, as far as possible. This is why you never hear me bitching about the differences between movies and books, or comics. They have to be different. It’s one thing if a movie based on a book just plain sucks, but if it doesn’t suck, don’t knock it just because it’s not exactly like the book. You wouldn’t want to sit through a twelve hour movie, would you? We have a culture where everyone who has no experience doing a particular thing loves to shit all over it. Stop shitting on things!


It’s coming in 2019. At first I was pissed because Hellboy stands as a perfect movie. But then I saw the cast – Chief Hopper (David Harbour) will play Hellboy. And then I found out that Milla Jovovich and Ian McShane will also be in it and I decided not to be pissed anymore. And then I saw a picture of new Hellboy and it looks amazing, so now I’m excited. Cautiously, but excited. Also it’s supposed to stick closer to the comics, but I don’t know what that means, really. AND I REALLY DON’T WANT CHIEF HOPPER TO HAVE A SMALLER ROLE IN THE NEXT STRANGER THINGS SEASON. So I’m really conflicted.

Favorite quote: “I’m fireproof.” – Hellboy

What did YOU think of the topics we discussed? We’d love to hear from you!

The Neverending Story

Listen to the podcast here:

The Neverending Story (PG) – 1984
82% Rotten Tomatoes

The Neverending Story is perhaps one of the mostly fondly remembered movies of 80’s and 90’s kids youth, but it is without a doubt one of the most fucked up upon re-watching.

So, we start off with Major Dad telling his young son to get over his mother’s death, and man up. This kid is probably 8 years old? He’s clearly depressed and struggling with his feelings. The dad may be as well, but is doing the baby boomer stoicism thing that they feel is far superior but in actually leads to an early death caused by alcoholism and hypertension. Naturally, the sad kid also has no shortage of really dedicated bullies (perhaps because Major Dad named him Bastian Balthazar Bux), and so the daily walk to school becomes a gauntlet through hell.

Ducking into a mysterious bookstore that you would assume he’d have noticed before today, he snatches a book and hides in a criminally underused school attic. This is where the story grabs hold of you with its relatability – all of us losers and misfits found solace in fantasy worlds, whether they were books, fantasy games, or movies. The make believe world full of dragons and fairies and orcs was a lot safer and more comfortable than the real one, fraught with danger of a different kind. EXCEPT THIS ONE IS A HELLSCAPE OF HORROR AND CHAOS.

*Carrie Bradshaw voice* So I had to wonder… what kind of fucked up mind dragged this misery into existence? And how is it still so goddamn lovable?

Cue: Germany. Michael Ende wrote Die unedliche Geschichte in 1979. This is pre-Berlin Wall coming down. The English translation became available in 1983, and the movie we all know and love was made in 1984. Which is still pre-Berlin Wall coming down. SINCE WALLS ARE THE TALK OF THE FASCIST TOWN LATELY, let’s talk about this one for a while.

The Berlin Wall was a large, expensive symbol for the Cold War, which is a very looooong period of continual post-WWII political disagreement between western Europe (and “The West” in general) and eastern Europe. The generally agreed-upon date range is 1947-1991. That’s 45 years of tension and hatred. Unfortunately for Germany, Berlin was the line of demarcation between the two “blocs” or groups of allied countries, basically. After WWII, there were some countries disgusted by capitalism, and capitalist waste, and capitalist greed, and capitalist ego, etc. and with Hitler gone there was a power vacancy. So when the Nazi bully gets taken out, another will soon step in. We’ll call him Boris, and he is a hulking monster, with his back-up bully friends made up of everyone in his periphery. You can kind of understand their position – look on any map. The Soviet Union was HUGE. Russia is HUGE. It looks like it has more land mass than frigging Africa. If Boris is your neighbor, you’re pretty much going to do whatever keeps Boris from invading.

See a more detailed, sarcastic explanation of the Cold War here.

Okay, so the author of The Neverending Story wrote it right smack in the middle of this era when East and West Germany were separated (1961 -1989). You couldn’t just identify yourself as German, you had to also declare which side, and then be assigned with a lot of political baggage which may not be what you believe as an individual. A bad modern example of this is when white people ask non-white people where they’re from. They don’t really mean in what country were you born, they’re asking where do your ancestors hail from. The white person feels like this is a crucial piece of information that will help them understand the person of color, but it rarely has any bearing on the individual standing in front of them.

Within this context, you can kind of understand the father’s stoicism, and his push for his son to have the same stoicism. Germany saw a lot of tragedy during a 60 year span. That’s an entire life cycle – people were born in a war era and died before the cessation of Cold War hostilities in their homeland. There’s no way that doesn’t leave a mark on at least a couple of generations. And it gets worse if you factor in WWI ending only 20 years before WWII started. And things were bad before the official start of WWI. It’s not like these things just happen overnight. Nor does the end of war mean things go right back to normal. So these are three huge political and military events directly affecting Germany, it’s economy, it’s government, it’s outlook on fricking life. Can you blame someone for having a perspective where bad shit happens all the time and you just have to suck it up and move on because life is pain? I think we should all cut Major Dad some slack.

Any arts or literature produced in Germany during this time is pretty much earmarked as either West or East German, because the political and social context is important for understanding what you’re consuming. With that said, Ende was a West German. Not that it was all sunshine and flowers, but it was probably a hell of a lot better than the other side. In the 60’s, post WWII orphans were now adults and figuring how to create communities within a fractured country. It started out as finding your tribe; seeking out the community where you would belong. Later communities, or communes (ironic, right?) were more politically motivated and so became targets of frequent raids or shake-downs. Force begets force, and so eventually a lot of communes became havens for less than above-board military forces. I can imagine it felt to many people like the inexorable force of war would eventually roll over and crush you, no matter how hard you tried to stay out of its path.

We can see a lot of this helplessness and loneliness in Bastian. He’s a child; what we think of as an innocent without agency – with almost no control over what happens to him. He’s at an age where he’s aware but naive; he just wants everything to be better, but with no real idea of what better would even look like. He knows you can’t go back in time and bring your mother back, so how do you create for yourself a future where that wound has healed and you feel like a whole person again? As a kid, with no one willing to help you?

In Germany in the 70’s, a lot of the social focus was on squatters. Communal housing projects were organized for young homeless people, a lot of whom were orphans. This was not a government sanctioned thing (the government was busy), so these were namely large groups of people, mostly young, not all of them in poverty, that would go and squat in buildings, opening the way for street folks to join them, with the protection afforded by their larger numbers (police raids were common on squatters; you’d think they’d have other things to do). This was generally an artist thing to do – painters, musicians, poets; dreamers and romantics.

We see a lot of this romanticism and idealism in Bastian as well. He’s skipping school to read a stolen book with a flashlight during a thunderstorm in an attic, for crying out loud. And he’s extremely invested in Atreyu and his quest so save Fantasia from blinking out of existence. Fantasia has seen so much strife for such a long time, it’s nearly crippled under the weight of it, unable to carry on in a such a way (sound familiar?). The Nothing here can be seen as the endless grinding waste of War; the Childlike Empress is the human spirit, the dying light trying so hard to hold back The Nothing, by continuing to remember what is it that makes us worthwhile (her dumb name). So who is Atreyu? Atreyu to me has always represented the action of the individual – the choice we all face of whether to do good, or to lay down and do nothing while bad things happen. Bastian is our inner monologue, questioning our ability, our determination or worthiness. The rest of the cast of characters are the helps and hindrances that we all encounter on our way. Falkor the luckdragon – with his big dumb grin, reminding us of the pure joy of the wind on our faces; that moments of happiness during great tragedy are precious. Rock Biter – who has been overcome with grief and despair for the things he is powerless to fix. Artax – the spirit of steadfastness and loyalty, who bears the crippling punishment of the Sadness so that the self can carry on unhindered by it.

Ultimately, all is lost (nearly) when Bastian fails to act. I mean, Atreyu dies so what the actual fuck, Bastian. YOU HAD ONE JOB. FALKOR TOLD YOU NEVER TO GIVE UP, AND SO YOU FUCKING GAVE UP. GAAAAAAH. It’s a cautionary tale that the success of many can depend on a single player at any given moment; it’s not just about you. Sacrifices may be necessary. It also emphasizes the consequences of that old age: “evil prevails when good people do nothing.” Bastian didn’t literally fire the last shot, but the results are such that he may as well have.

Now here’s where fantasy takes over: the Childlike Empress gives Bastian a do-over. If he can overcome his damning personality flaw that allowed the destruction of all things, then all things can be restored. He must do what he failed to do earlier: he must believe. So he does, and then everything is fine, his bullies get roasted by a dog-dragon and his dad is nice to him (probably). The end.

Now, a lot of people argue that Bastian represents the childlike innocence of joy and freedom, and The Nothing represents the melancholy and social shackles that settle over adults. This is fine – I can definitely see that aspect at work in the movie. But after looking more deeply, part of me wonders if there’s not more to it, given the environment that Ende would have grown up in. Childhood would be short, and losses would be many. Adulthood would not have this dragged-out adolescence that we enjoy, but would likely require a constant calibration of loyalties and demands; always waiting for the other shoe to drop. Or maybe I’m just being dramatic.


Falkor the luckdragon is arguably the most beloved character in the movie. He’s made of clouds and dreams and pearls and warmth, and is really probably the only thing we all remember fondly when we think back on this throat-stab of a movie. Ever encouraging, ever brave, ever accepting of all that is. He’s the unconditional love that keeps the human spirit buoyed and fresh.

Except… and maybe this is for the best, we don’t really know what happens to Falkor when the rest of Fantasia is destroyed. We don’t see him swallowed by the Nothing, but neither do we see him fly away to safety, back from whence he came. Obviously once Bastian fixes everything with his Tinkerbell magic, everything is put to rights, but it still would have rent our collective hearts in twain to have to see such a good and pure creature cease to exist without a trace. It’s too much. If it weren’t for the book, I would say that at this point in the preliminary viewing an executive would have stormed out and demanded the Falkor demise scene be cut, screaming “IT’S TOO FUCKING SAD, KEVIN.” (I don’t know who Kevin is.)

Here’s the best news: there is a place in Germany where you can frickin’ ride Falkor the luckdragon. It’s in Munich and it’s called Bavaria Filmstadt.

Some hilarious further reading to stem your sobbing:

Favorite quote: “Confronted by their true selves, most men run away screaming!” – Engywook

What did YOU think of the topics we discussed? We’d love to hear from you!


Listen to the podcast here:

54% Rotten Tomatoes

I don’t know HOW this movie only has 54% on rotten tomatoes. It’s inconceivable, but I suppose there’s no accounting for taste.

It’s safe to say that Blade was responsible for my sexual awakening. This was my first introduction to vampires. I knew of them, of course, but I had never read any vampire literature or seen any other vampires on TV, unless you count The Count from Sesame Street. One: ah, ah, ah. If I’m remembering my Nikki history correctly, yours was Lestat?

Let’s look at some of the different types of vampires out there. I’m going to summarize from an article in called “The Wild Evolution of Vampires, from Bram Stoker to Dracula Untold” which deals mainly in film and television vampires, and I’m going to add a few of my own observations from modern literature. I ain’t touching video games with a ten foot pole – let’s just leave it at boobs and guns. I may have played around with some of the category names, but I’m essentially summing up Devon Maloney’s points:

The Original: Count Dracula (1897)

It’s not actually the original, but it’s definitely the most popular, and is the origination for how we think of vampires. The cold-blooded, paper-skinned creep Dracula first appeared in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Dracula has been tied to a few different origins, but who cares at this point. Vlad Tepes has his own grisly mythology, even without vampirism in the picture. What Stoker’s original work gives is the core elements of vampire: creepiness, alluringness, eccentricness, sex stuff, and a vaguely threatening pall cast over the whole thing. Well, sometimes overtly threatening. The more I think about mid to late 19th century literature, the more parallels I see with our current times. Everyone was afraid of everything – outsiders, a changing moral code, advancements in science and technology, epidemic diseases, the crumbling class structure. GEE sounds familiar. Maybe that’s why vampires made such a resurgence in the last fifteen years.

The Lesbian Vampire: Carmilla

The actual original! Never heard of this one, but apparently in 1871, this was a “safe” way to explore homosexuality, since vampires aren’t real, and Stoker had already established them as immoral and wicked. The Wired article calls the tenor of the time “moral terror”, and if you’ve spent any time at all reading Victorian literature, you recognize this. Picture our current obsession with celebrity reality TV, now replace it with an obsession over evil, powerful creatures bent on influencing the innocent into a life of sin. I suspect this kind of anxiety had to do with the weakening power of institutionalized religion, but in the late 19th century, no one was even burning witches anymore! Science and medicine were burgeoning into respected and trusted fields, and were just starting to be seen as a source of truth about the world; a position previously held only by philosophy and religion. What’s surprising about Carmilla (apparently) is that it’s not a denunciation of homosexuality – Carmilla is bad, but the text doesn’t condemn the lesbian relationships.

The Classic Film Vampire: Bela Lugosi’s Dracula (1931)

This is notable for being the first horror movie and also for Bela Lugosi’s precedent setting portrayal of a vampire. This movie really freaked people out, and a few years later the movie industry started enforcing the Hays Code (basically the morality police for movies), and so the horror movie genre was watered down almost as soon as it was created. Luckily for us, by the 60’s the Hays Code had become unenforceable and was abandoned. Take that, people who force others to live by their own particular set of religious hang ups. Naturally, chaos ensued, and in the 70’s the rating system we’re familiar with was created, so that people could choose their level of explicit and debaucherous content. (

The Fancy Vampire: Christopher Lee’s Dracula (movies from 1958-1976)

“Hammer movies” was a term I heard often but never understood. If you are like me and had no idea what movie buffs were talking about but didn’t want to seem ignorant so kept your mouth shut, I am here to help you. Hammer Films is a movie studio founded in 1934 that chugged along, making all kinds of movies. WWII pretty much shut down operations, but post-war England (and America) saw an increase in prosperity and for the first time in a long while, people had pocket money and could indulge in entertainment. The movie industry blew up and Hammer thrived. In 1955 they released a movie called The Quartermass Xperiment, a horror movie about alien viruses or something. People lost their shit; they loved it, and so Hammer decided to really go for it in the horror genre. They spared no expense on gore, which pissed of the censors, but titillated audiences. Cornering the market on horror, they produced movie after movie featuring big theatrical baddies and full of gratuitous everything, and also sequels to their features, which all became their stamp on the genre. The golden age of Hammer was over by the 70’s when television became commonplace fixtures in homes. Moping around for a decade, Hammer finally figured out that television was also a thing they could do, and so they were back, baby, but as a TV house now, instead of a movie house. That changed again in 2010 with Let Me In, and they have resumed making horror films once more. We should consult a horror nut to see if they’re as good now as they were then. Christopher Lee’s portrayal of Dracula represents this era of campy and overdone yet marvelously enjoyable horror.

The Teen Dreamboat Vampire: Dark Shadows (1966-1971; 2012)

Dark Shadows was a supernatural soap opera marketed to young people, and from what I can gather the first time vampires were shoved into the pants of pre-teen and teenage girls. As Wired points out, this is the Vietnam era, and a time of relentless political unrest, so this seems like a safe way to work out some anxieties about young people’s experiences with horrifying situations, made light. Armies are made up of young men (true at the time), and those young men knew other young people that stayed behind. Reading letters from soldiers and trying to understand what was happening to them was likely a difficult and emotionally taxing process, so you can see how it would be appealing to a young woman whose lover was suffering an affliction she couldn’t help him out of (being subjected to the horrors of war). She could easily relate to a governess stuck helping a family with a lot of big, unmanageable problems.

The Blaxploitation Vampire: Blacula (1972)

Oh, the 70’s! If you haven’t watched any Blaxploitation, you’re missing out. May I suggest Coffee, starring Pam Grier. I watched it in college in a film class, and I loved it. Speaking of Pam Grier, she was in the sequel to Blacula. Wired suggests that Blacula may be somewhat responsible for inspiring Blade, so we owe him a huge debt of gratitude. But seriously – Blacula, and Blaxploitation films in general, served to point out just how very white movies were. There were no other black vampires in the movies at the time. The vampire genre is still overwhelmingly white, but Blade did establish a solid cultural reference to a vampire of color.

The Genteel, Self-Loathing Vampire: Lestat (1976 (Interview with the Vampire: 1994))

As mentioned earlier, it seems that every time the world experiences a scary change, we also get a rise in supernatural or sci-fi media? I will assume these genres have a built-in helplessness against a big bad enemy of undue proportions. The big baddies in the 70’s was war, civil rights, and feminism. War is never bad for the establishment, but upsetting the balance of power by granting access to women and people of color is absolutely terrifying. Anne Rice, being a woman, contributed some new vampire attributes. They were more powerful, more charming, more able to fit in with society. Lestat and company were not relegated to a creepy cave mansion where they lured innocent victims to seduce/prey on them – they mingled with high society. They could fly, heal, and make do on animal blood when necessary. They didn’t have any of the ridiculous and arbitrary vampire weaknesses like garlic and crosses. In short, they were well-suited to survive and thrive. There were vampires coming out of the shadows and into your face, and maybe they weren’t sooooo terrible. Just like women and black people! Wired points out that Anne Rice’s vampire archetype is more heavily borrowed from in subsequent depictions than Stoker. This marks the beginning of the era of more glamorous vampires. It was only a matter of time before glitter was added. Side note – I think the Vampire Diaries fits into this category as well.

The Angsty Teen Vampire: The Lost Boys (1987)

The 1980’s was undoubtedly the era of John Hughes – teens were very much at the center of the film world. We were all obsessing about the plights of the almost-adults. The Lost Boys preyed on the fears of parents – what if we lose our children? To drugs, to gangs, to predators, to theatre school. Also, this gives the popular kids the malevolent nature that all misfits feel exuding from them. It also speaks to misfits because you have a group of teens living outside of polite society, as well as never having to reach adulthood and deal with grown up life (the title is a Peter Pan reference). It’s a movie for everyone, and helped bring the genre even closer to teens.

The Feminist Vampire Love Interest: Buffy (movie: 1992; show: 2007-2003)

WE GET A LADY HERO?? WHAT?? Oh wait, she falls in love with the bad guys. Siiiiiigh. Way to be a stereotype, Buffy. But it’s not all bad. Buffy is a competent, intelligent young woman who we can take seriously as a heroine. Rather than being an overconfident buffoon who gets in too deep and has to be rescued from her own stupidity, this woman has the skill and ability to carry out her duties. Even though she’s blonde and pretty! GASP! And Joss Whedon is great, so the writing and production were good enough to be taken seriously as well. Much like Blacula, Buffy gives us a female entry in the genre. While she’s not a vampire, she is a presence.

The Human Protector Vampire: Blade (1998-2004)

Blade is half-vampire, called dhampir. He is a Marvel character, and frankly should get more attention all the time. I think he’d work perfectly in the Defenders. Get that bratty privileged Iron First out of there and give us Blade.

So, the comparisons to Blacula are obvious – they’re both black. But Blade is a little more serious. Okay, a lot more serious. I don’t think he smiles throughout the entire movie. He has an incredibly well-constructed back story (I guess vampirism is a virus that crosses the placenta?), the full emotional gamut for his motivations and world view, and he has sophisticated weapons and chemical warfare gadgets.

Even though he’s a halfling, his vampire nature seems to define him more than his humanity, though it’s a struggle he’s been locked in his entire life. He deeply resents his vampire thirst, and has an unmitigated hatred other vampires, which granted, are uniformly evil. He’s cleansing the earth of evil in a subconscious attempt to save his mother. The self-hate coming off of Blade in waves is masterfully portrayed by Snipes – he’s not mopey or pitiful like some Cullens I know. He’s pissed, and channeling all that rage into a productive purpose. And wearing a badass trench while he does it.

The Sexy Progressive Vampire: True Blood (books and movies: 2001-2014)

This universe that Charlaine Harris has created, is pretty much an alternate universe where vampires/werewolves/witches/fairies/etc are a stand in for non-straight, non-WASP societies. The main threat of vampires, eating humans, has been removed by a synthetic blood substitute – essentially tofu for vamps, so now they can re-enter society and confront the prudes with all kinds of not subtle societal issues: vamp/human relationships stand in for bi-racial relationships. Using vampire blood as a way to get high stands in for the opioid addiction epidemic. The politics, my god the politics, stand in for the party politics we all have become so passionately in hate with. All this is set in the deep south, noted for it’s progressive and accepting attitude of a changing moral compass and upsetting of the status quo. So instead of just being a show about shredded vampires, it’s really a story about people treat other people, just with fangs and lots of white makeup.

Also, RIP Nelson Ellis, you magnificent man. You gave us Lafeyette beyond when the books killed him off because you made that character AHMAZING.

The Innocent, Self-Loathing Vampire: Twilight (2005-2012)

So, we’ve seen a lot of rebellion against social norms and mores in vampire culture, but Twilight turns that around. These are super beautiful vampire people, but our heroic Cullens are basically a sweater set and and Volvo in humanoid form. Ultra conservative, Edward refuses to have sex with Bella before they’re married, despite Bella’s insistent and repeated attempts to change his mind. Also, the family is very much patriarchal. Dr. Cullen created this family against their will, and then demands that they live according to his strict moral code, which is horrendously difficult as it goes against their nature. Nothing like being set up to constantly disappoint your parents.

BUT – Twilight did serve to introduce vampire lust to an even younger generation of girls. With PG content, it’s not exactly inappropriate, though it is problematic. Edward is essentially a possessive, controlling stalker. Bella is entirely too eager to give up everything about her life and let Edward completely consume her (both literally and figuratively). It’s quite a step down from Buffy, but being an adult woman with an already mature brain when I first read it, I still liked it. But as an adult, I understand the purpose that the fantasy of books serves. I can only hope that young girls know the difference between fiction and reality as far as relationship goals.

The Philosophical Vampire: Only Lovers Left Alive (2013-2014)

This one I have never seen, but from what Wired told me, we are to be sympathetic to the vampires in this. The story is told from the point of view of a vampire couple, always on the run from the humans out to get them and also removing themselves from the temptation of eating them. It’s an interesting idea, and speaks to how long the vampire genre has been around that we’re now feeling bad for the poor, misunderstood monsters.

The Warrior Vampire: Dracula Untold (2013-2014)

This is supposed to be the origin story for Dracula, and by extension vampires in general. And again, we were supposed to be sympathetic to the vampire, and to empathize with him. This movie sucked, and not even Wired has that much to say about it.

Those are the categories of vampires that Devon from Wired identified. Ima add some here:

The Ancient Religion-Affiliated Vampire: Dark Hunters

This is a series of books written by the prolific Sherrilyn Kenyon. They feature an army of immortal revenge-seekers, turned so by the goddess Artemis to fight Daimons, a race of demon-type guys who eat the souls of humans so they don’t expire and die. While dark hunters don’t need to drink blood to survive, they can if they want to, though they would be outcast if they did so. They share most other vampire traits – the sun is deadly to them, though it’s because of Artemis’s feud with the sun god Apollo; they’re pale, and they have super strength and sexiness, gifts bestowed on them by Artemis so they can get the job done.

Most vampires are turned by a bite or some other fluid exchange. The selection process is a little different for dark hunters. If you suffer a terrible betrayal and then die because of it, Artemis will come to you at the moment of your death and ask you if you want to stick it to those that did you wrong. If you agree, her price is your soul and your freedom; you’ll be in her service until such time as you die (for real this time), or you negotiate for your soul back after a few hundred or thousand years of service, which is a difficult and risky prospect not offered to many. If you say yes, you have 24 hours to maim some mother fuckers before you officially report for Dark Hunter duty.

The I’ve Accepted My Fate and Am Cool With It Vampire: The Mortal Instruments

Cassandra Clare has a couple of loosely-connected series set in her delightful universe. She’s got quite a cast of characters; there are nephilim, demons (of ALL shapes, sizes, and substances), warlocks, vampires, werewolves, mermaids, selkies, faries, and on and on. What I like most about her series was the emphasis on individuality. Each type of being has their own community and culture, but they’re as individual as any human. Being a vampire doesn’t make you bad, just as being a nephilim doesn’t make you good. There is a lot of bigotry; those on both sides that would rather an entire species (or all but their own) be wiped from existence than have to continue tolerating them. The vampires in the story have a complicated hierarchy of leadership, but otherwise are no different from humans except for the fangs and the blood and the sun avoidance. It’s aimed at young adults, but Clare’s writing is incredibly thoughtful. Even within the different groups there are characters struggling with LGBT issues, childhood abuse, drug addiction. She doesn’t shy away from anything, and treats all of her subject matter with respect while still being funny and an excellent story teller.

The Detective Vampire: Samantha Moon

Written by J.R. Rain, the Samantha Moon novels are about a former federal agent who was attacked and turned into a vampire. Her marriage crumbles, she nearly loses her children, she struggles to figure out how to manage to still be a parent while coping with the lifestyle changes now necessary. She lives in terror that she’ll someday harm her children. No longer being able to go out during the day, she becomes a private detective so that she can set her own hours. Her psychic abilities and strength definitely come in handy while she’s solving cases.

Rain’s story is different because this woman is a mother, and instead of going off and starting a new life full of drama and adventure, she is firmly tethered to domestic life. This creates a lot of opportunities to reflect on what life would be like if you WERE turned into a vampire since it’s somewhat more realistic.

Vampire literature provides a lot of variations on the theme, but the most common traits that show up in an individual afflicted are: a very strong thirst for blood and harm (of some sort) from the sun. Other traits which vary by author: garlic allergy, no access without RSVP, harm from crosses, holy water, sacred ground, fangs, shape-shifting, super strength, mind control, psychic abilities, healing abilities, coffins?, grave dirt from their homeland… am I missing any?

The blood thing I totally get – these are dark magic creatures, technically dead, and so you can make the logical leap that blood sustains their life force. And by logical leap, I mean within the confines of the supernatural horror genre. But the sun – I don’t get it. I get why Superman has a strong reaction to our yellow sun (which actually isn’t yellow, btw); he’s an alien and his genetic makeup is different. I guess with vampires, it’s to emphasize the “creature of the dark” aspect of vampires and give a physical framework to the social and emotional alienation they experience. And it gives them an excuse to be super creepy. Also, sexy stuff happens in the dark, so I think for writers, everyone wins.

Consent, or Why Being Turned Into a Vampire is Often Rapey

Occasionally we will see people who beg to be turned into vampires. Based on some of the later depictions, it actually sounds like a pretty sweet deal if you don’t mind avoiding the sun and slurping pig blood. There are times I have thought those are perfectly reasonable sacrifices to make in order to gain strength, beauty and healing. Plus all vampires seem witty, if they’re not mopey. But the vast majority of vampire shows and books and movies are people who are desperate NOT to be turned into a blood-thirsty ghoul. Similarly, most depictions of vampires turning a human are of women. Now, we know that men are turned vampire, because… well because there are male vampires. But we choose to depict stories of women being forced to submit to the big strong man with the teeth. Or we see a woman desperate for Mr. Teeth to turn them into a vampire. The act of biting is often a metaphor for sex – seemingly the forbidden kind. “Oh nooooo, society doesn’t want us to be together, this is so hot!” or “That girl left her house after dark, of course she was abducted and bitten.”

Ah, life.

Favorite Quote: “There are worse things out tonight than vampires.” – Eric “Blade” Brooks

What did YOU think of the topics we discussed? We’d love to hear from you!

The Fifth Element

Listen to the podcast here:

The Fifth Element (PG-13) – 1997
72% Rotten tomatoes

Directed by Luc Besson, a Frenchman. He also directed Leon: The Professional and wrote on the Transporter and Taken movies. Plus a ton of others. This fella is prolific. And perhaps a prodigy. He wrote an early draft of The Fifth Element as a teenager. By all accounts he was an extremely creative child, and found film as a way to express all aspects of his creativity. This skill may have come from his early years travelling the world with his parents, avid scuba divers. All that aquatic exploration may have shaped his imagination from an early age. His latest venture is the space opera, Valerian, which I’m frankly not too excited about, but I’ll guess we’ll see.

The elements (;

The fifth element referred to in the title is life. It’s a combination of the four classic elementals: earth, water, fire, and air. These elements were designated by, like so many other things, the ancient Greeks. They decided that these elements made up everything in the universe, and these four things were all essential for life. Aristotle, always a rebel, argued for a fifth element, one he called aether, that supposedly composed stars. The elements led scientific thinking for millenias. All four elements were present in everything, but in different proportions. A good example of this is taken from a bunch of ancient Greeks arguing this theory, courtesy of

You take a stick and burn it.

  • Since the stick burns, it obviously contains fire.
  • A dirty residue is left behind once the stick has burnt, so the stick also contains earth.
  • The residue is damp, so water must be present.
  • The burning stick gives off smoke, and thus air is in there too.

When the Middle Ages rolled around and people couldn’t box everything into these four properties, alchemical science was founded, which added three more elements to the original Aristotelian four: quicksilver, brimstone, and salt. Alchemy is a real shit show, and never did anyone ever good, but it makes for entertaining reading and script writing.

Back to Aristotle and his dusty cave. The elements were also used to describe the different temperaments of people. This is where Hippocrates got the principle of the humors, the forces of the human body responsible for health and well-being. Balanced humors meant a healthy person; an imbalance resulted in illness or disease.

This all sounds like malarkey, but the Greeks turned out to be kinda sorta right. The modern states of matter are solid, liquid, gas, and plasma, which if you stretch you can say equate to earth, water, air, and fire, respectively. They also thought the nature of change was due to compelling and repelling forces, which is kinda sorta what happens at the atomic level, buutttttt it’s another stretchy one.

Enough about bad yet historically important science. Let’s fast forward to the future science fiction! There’s a lot of futuristic stuff going on in The Fifth Element. We have flying cars, gnarly weapons, a boat load of aliens, suspicious architecture, flashy clothes and weird half masks, and lots of space travel. I have a favorite on that list. Yep. The weapons.


I don’t know if you remember, but when we did Big Trouble in Little China, we discussed some racist characters that often show up in movies. One was the cowardly/incompetent black sidekick, and the example given was Chris Tucker’s character in The Fifth Element.

It’s a pretty pervasive problem in Hollywood. This is no surprise. Straight white men have been dominating the screen since the beginning. As a matter of fact, one of the first films ever, D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation (1915) is extremely racist. The movie depicts black people as animalistic: violent and hyper-sexual, and it’s overtly sympathetic to the Klan and seems pretty pro slavery. It depicts anti-miscegenation, which also came up in Big Trouble in Little China, not surprisingly, because it’s a predictable result of a racist system. The point is, racism in entertainment is not a new problem. But you would think that 100 years later we would have come to our senses, right? OF COURSE NOT. The #oscarssowhite was in reaction to predominantly black movies not being given consideration for Oscar nominations, as well as men and women of color not receiving acting nominations at nearly the same proportional rate as white actors, especially for the biggest categories. In 2015 and 2016, there were NO people of color nominated in the four biggest Oscars categories. Hopefully this Twitter campaign will have helped to bring awareness to diversity in Hollywood, and the 2017 award for Moonlight, Mahershala Ali, and Viola Davis (who won in the supporting categories) won’t be just an empty placation gesture. According to The Guardian, Halle Berry is still the only non-white woman to have won for Best Actress, and only 7% of the Best Actor winners are men of color.

So what does this have to do with Chris Tucker? Well, he’s an example of how people of color are pigeon-holed into particular roles. The same Guardian article lists the stereotypical roles typically available to people of color. Some of these overlap with the list we used in Big Trouble, but there are some new ones here.

  1. The magical Negro – again, John Coffee in the Green Mile, Whoopi’s character in Ghost, etc.
  2. Thug – these are either aggressive characters (Boys in the Hood), or they’re the kids with potential that live in a bad environment (Dangerous Minds)
  3. Superhuman Athlete – Typically found and nurtured by a white guys: Cool Runnings, Jerry Maguire, Creed
  4. Super rich evil Arab sheikh – always out to nab white women. Or kill them.
  5. Awkward de-sexualized Asian – Kal Penn in Van Wilder, any movie with nerds
  6. Mammy – This is a woman who is a servant in a white family’s home, who appears to have to life or ambition of her own except to counsel and nurture these white idiots and their drama: Gone with the Wind, The Help, It’s a Wonderful Life
  7. Jaded older police office – Like… any movie where Morgan Freeman is a cop. Or Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon.
  8. Eternal sidekick – “limited usefulness” and whose help is often accidental, this character’s only purpose in the movie is to entertain the audience, often at their own expense, while they move the white lead forward.
  9. Sassy confidant – basically the black friend in any romantic comedy.
  10. Terrorist – We all know what this is.

The thing I find most interesting when I’m watching a movie that has a mostly white cast is WHY. Nothing about Leeloo’s character makes it necessary for her to be white. Same with Korbin. Same with many, many, many characters in many movies and TV shows. Why is there such a preference to cast white actors? I think it has something to do with the idea that white movies are for everybody, but if you have a “black” movie, then only black people are going to go pay for a ticket to see it.


So, you would think that in the 2200’s things would change a bit. Well, they have. Cross dressing seems to be totally acceptable, but it’s combined with stereotypically flaming behavior, and this gets Ruby Rhod alllll the … ladies? So it seems that acceptable gender norms for men have expanded. What about the ladies??? Oh. They’re still reduced to sex objects. Cool. Speaking of stereotypes, we have a few here. There are the sexy secretaries, the nagging mother, the diva. Leeloo is the female that breaks the mold, and she is supposedly the perfect woman. But what does that mean? Thigh gap. Gorgeous. Preternaturally intelligent and athletically gifted. Empathetic. Speed reader. Polyglot. Looks good in orange. But…. also treated and depicted as a child, as Sarah Hensel points out. She’s infantilized at every turn. Granted this is complicated, since technically she is kind of a newborn. But she’s also sexualized. It’s a little gross.

Favorite quote: “Bzzzzzzzz. Bzz bzz bzzz.” – Ruby Rhod

What did YOU think of the topics we discussed? We’d love to hear from you!