28. Predator

Listen to the podcast here: http://notyourmom.libsyn.com/28-predator

IT’S OUR ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY PODCAST, WHICH IS SLIGHTLY LATE!!! To commemorate such a momentous occasion, our podcast topic is PREDATOR – our first viewing of which was essentially a distillation of our friendship, for reasons that will be explained during the show.

We give you the deets on all that super cool Predator tech, why it makes sense that Dutch’s entire team was buff af, and how it’s super (not) weird that Predator is sexy.

Articles/sites referenced in the show:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/20/health/invisibility-cloaks-research/index.html

http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Plasmacaster

http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Bio-Mask

http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

http://mentalfloss.com/article/62249/15-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-predator

http://www.indiewire.com/2012/06/25th-anniversary-5-things-you-might-not-know-about-predator-109412/

Favorite quote: “This stuff will make you a goddamn sexual tyrannosaurus, just like me.” – Blain

Please rate and review us! Become a Patreon patron to unlock exclusive content.
Like us on facebook for news and events.
Subscribe on iTunes and leave us a review!

Legend

Listen to the podcast here: http://www.notyourmom.libsyn.com/27-legend

Legend (PG)
1985
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.

Fantasy:

  • 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.

legend-zelda-breath-wild-gold
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!

27. Legend

Listen to the podcast here: http://notyourmom.libsyn.com/27-legend

Nikki and Sher discuss yet more devil imagery, and really intend to stay on track, but get distracted by comic books villains and also Zelda. It’s all related!

Articles/sites referenced in the show:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/jul/03/tim-curry-legend-ridley-scott-role-model

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/legend-ridley-scott/tom-cruise-making-of/

Favorite quote: “The dreams of youth are the regrets of maturity.” – Darkness

Please rate and review us! Become a Patreon patron to unlock exclusive content.
Like us on facebook for news and events.
Subscribe on iTunes and leave us a review!

26. Outlander 1.8 – Both Sides Now

(The Outlander series of podcasts is not researched or prepared in advance the same way as our regular podcasts. Because of this, our accompanying blog posts will not contain notes/transcripts.)

Listen to the podcast here: http://notyourmom.libsyn.com/26-outlander-18-both-sides-now

Episode 1.7 “The Wedding” – original air date September 27, 2014

Starz network

Nikki and Sher launch a sub-series! We’ll be reviewing all the episodes of Outlander, beginning with the beginning, in honor of droughtlander. We’ll continue reviewing episodes until the end of the series!

Nikki and Sher ask for forgiveness for not doing Legend as planned, then bash the Masters and criticize Jamie and Claire’s foreplay.

*Warning – this episode, and all others in the series, will contain SPOILERS, both for the television series and for the books. You’ve been warned!

Favorite Quote: “Turn away from the darkness that beckons you, and go back into the light.” – Reverend Wakefield

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

Goldfinger

Listen to the podcast here: http://notyourmom.libsyn.com/25-goldfinger

Goldfinger (PG)
1964
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.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/03/film.hayfestival2005

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.

I AM NOT SAYING HE SHOULDN’T WRITE ABOUT WHATEVER HE WANTS, I AM DOING A THING CALLED CRITICAL ANALYSIS WHERE WE TRY TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT WE’RE CONSUMING BOTH FOR PERSONAL GROWTH AND FOR A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTEXT, INFLUENCES, AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE AUTHOR.

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.

WHICH BRINGS US TO

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!

Hellboy

Listen to the podcast here: http://notyourmom.libsyn.com/24-hellboy

Hellboy (PG 13)

2004
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…

MOVING ON

 

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.

https://thedebrief.co.uk/relationships/dating/dark-triad-attracted/

https://www.healthyplace.com/personality-disorders/psychopath/psychopath-vs-sociopath-what-s-the-difference/

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.” (https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq)

Satanism revolves around the following seven tenets (https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/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!

SHOULD WE TALK ABOUT THE NEW HELLBOY AND HOW WE’RE SCARED/EXCITED?

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!

22. The Neverending Story

Listen to the podcast here: http://notyourmom.libsyn.com/22-the-neverending-story

 

Nikki and Sher depress you with talk of the Cold War (explained in playground terms), reminisce about childhood trauma (mostly caused by this heartless movie), and then inexplicably lecture you on the importance of vaccines and the scientific method. Enjoy this hour of tears!

Articles/sites referenced in the show:

http://notyourmomshow.com/2018/02/14/the-cold-war-explained-through-a-sandbox/

https://www.ic.org/wiki/german-communities-in-the-60s-70-and-80s/

https://www.ic.org/wiki/german-communities-in-the-60s-70-and-80s/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamiejones/times-falkor-the-luck-dragon-gave-us-eternal-hope?utm_term=.alqvBYgb6#.rfJy631qL

https://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/the-neverending-story-why-adults-should-never-watch?utm_term=.sxM9VWm4l#.ssKgjQveJ

http://www.dorkly.com/post/75705/reasons-the-neverending-story-is-a-psychological-horror-show

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

Please rate and review us! Become a Patreon patron to unlock exclusive content.
Like us on facebook for news and events.
Subscribe on iTunes and leave us a review!

17. Blade

Listen to the podcast here: http://notyourmom.libsyn.com/17-blade

Nikki and Sher discuss the many different kinds of vampires represented in media, make fun of 90’s CGI, discuss the overwhelming whiteness of vampire movies, and bring everybody down with Vietnam talk.

Articles/sites referenced in the show:

https://www.wired.com/2014/10/vampire-evolution/

http://www.hammerfilms.com/about-hammer/

 

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!

Please rate and review us! Become a Patreon patron to unlock exclusive content.
Like us on facebook for news and events.
Subscribe on iTunes and leave us a review!

25. Goldfinger

Listen to the podcast here: http://notyourmom.libsyn.com/25-goldfinger

Nikki and Sher discuss war games, how we overlook the many sexual assaults Bond has committed, and how Ian Fleming’s military life affected his work.

Articles/sites referenced in the show:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/03/film.hayfestival2005

https://www.newstatesman.com/society/2007/02/1958-bond-fleming-girl-sex

https://maketheconnection.net/events/transitioning-from-service

https://www.refinery29.com/2015/10/96347/james-bond-sexist-misogynist

http://theconversation.com/james-bond-is-still-a-sexist-dinosaur-but-audiences-love-it-50092

http://jamesbond.wikia.com/wiki/Goldfinger_(film)

https://www.007james.com/movies/goldfinger.php

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5625843/inside-real-life-3m-goldfinger-lair-designed-by-man-who-inspired-james-bonds-most-infamous-villain/

Favorite quote: “Let’s have a little fun with Mr. Goldfinger!” – James Bond

Please rate and review us! Become a Patreon patron to unlock exclusive content.
Like us on facebook for news and events.
Subscribe on iTunes and leave us a review!

24. Hellboy

Listen to the podcast here: http://notyourmom.libsyn.com/24-hellboy

Nikki and Sher talk bad boys, Satanism, and go on a drunken rant about Christianity. Also, we get around to talking about the upcoming remake. Join us!

Articles referenced in the show:

https://thedebrief.co.uk/relationships/dating/dark-triad-attracted/

https://www.healthyplace.com/personality-disorders/psychopath/psychopath-vs-sociopath-what-s-the-difference

https://www.bustle.com/p/6-women-reveal-why-they-became-satanists-2984953

https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq

https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/tenets

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

Please rate and review us! Become a Patreon patron to unlock exclusive content.
Like us on facebook for news and events.
Subscribe on iTunes and leave us a review!