The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part

The Lego Movie garnered acclaim from showing how funny and touching a movie based on a licensed property can be. The implication being that most license based media tends to care more about sales rather than quality which many people can attest to from personal experience. (Have you ever played E.T. on Atari, Superman 64, or the My Little Pony Farmville clone?) They praise the ironic use of tropes, the self aware gags, the stunning animation which mimics what stop-motion Lego films look like, the clever writing showing a child’s perspective on the father refusing him access to Legos, and the real life objects referencing the hacks of real world master builders.

    

The more important and understated lesson of both the first and second Lego movies comes from noticing that their limitations did not prevent their creativity as artists, it improved it.

    

A common theme of writing film reviews comes from the auteur school of thought where to create a verbal shorthand for creative decisions we assign one person the metaphorical power of making every decision. This one auteur we assign rarely has that much creative control, but we write as though they do so we can write about a movie having major themes and all the minutiae cooperating to support those ideas and interpretations of ideas presented. But films don’t always feel unified, or even sometimes finished.

Which leads to the collaborative partner of the auteur the studio exec, the bean counter, the man. One simply has to imply a narrative of this producer and his score of surveyors, censors, chart enthusiasts, and red tape dispensers opposing an auteur’s decision and the audience will fill in the gaps. Partially because this situation happens frequently, and partially because we as film enthusiasts write as though it’s the only reason this film must have failed or does not deliver to the same level I expect from this creator and his team. Even though without the bean counters, these directors would not have the resources to display their visions on the scale that they can. Distribution and effects alone mean they would have to make B-movies out of their garages, and no one wants that. Even though Joss Whedon has done that.  Twice.  Successfully.

This common theme either leads to or come from a central assumption that limitations prevent creativity. If we didn’t have to make animated films for kids because people assume animated equals kids film, or if we didn’t need to please the censor by not swearing, or if representing a gay couple having relationship issues wasn’t taboo or financially unviable, we could make something brilliant. Free us from the man and we’ll make the crowd pleasing, award winning, timeless classic you expect of me. But this simply isn’t true.

More often than not, more problems come from refusing to recognize limitations than from being let loose. Disney’s Beauty and the Beast from 2017 chose to cast Emma Watson and market itself on having real-time singing from that recording of that scene, a la Les Miserables from a couple years prior. But Emma Watson’s not as good a singer as the part required. Rather than cast someone who could sing that well, or dubbing over later, they used autotune to try and mask their limitations rather than admit them. Not to mention the writing stuck so close to the animated version to the point every audience members asked themself, “I already own this exact movie, why am I not watching that instead?”

Now you’re probably thinking that instance proves that limitations squash creativity and doesn’t that disprove my point? Actually, no. I have seen different iterations of the Broadway musical version of Beauty and the Beast which repeats the film verbatim while adding new songs and I certainly did not feel my time was wasted by those excursions. Those Broadway versions of Disney films have two major limitations- needing to stick to the script of the animated version, the change of medium to live performance, and not having the same cast. Three. Three major limitations. Yet those bring a new spirit to the piece despite the limitations to create memorable moments that do not remind one of the animated version, from set and costume design to the original songs to the unique physicalization and inflections they give these characters.

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part contains limitations galore. The animation still needs to mimic Lego stop motion animation, everything needs to be made of Lego or a real world substance, the film continues immediately from the first-meaning they have to follow up on their own 10 second sequel bait/hook, the writing still needs to have that child-like perspective and sound of the first while also changing because the humans grow and age, every recurring character has previously established personality traits that must remain consistent, the film has an audience expecting another home run so they can’t just be a surprise hit like before, every cameo and joke needs to be family friendly and approved by higher ups at Warner Brothers, Lego, and DC, and doesn’t have a series canon to make fun of like Lego Batman and Lego Ninjago had. Breathe.

The Lego Movie had a scene where the character needs to breathe because it’s in the instructions and they have to animate it as though done in Lego stop-motion. So they had the character bend backwards until his legs and back form a 90 degree angle. It’s hilarious because we don’t expect it and because we also expect and know that Legos move in blocky ways. The Lego Movie 2:The Second Part features a character who morphs to fit the circumstances, so they have her made of normal blocks that reconstruct piece by piece into the approximate shape of what appearance she desires, whether a horse, a hand, or a statue of a reclining figure.

The movie even limits itself further by having the crew in a brown dusty Mad Max style Apocalypse-burg where the color choice is limited, and having Emmet remain his positive upbeat self which is difficult to continue for a main character and prevent from turning into an annoyance. And the movie addresses this by showing why being positive may be a self-created limitation, but more so showing why we shouldn’t despise those who continue to be happy and positive despite the changing circumstances of our lives. We may not choose who comes into our lives and what difficulties life gives us, but we do choose our attitude and how we react to change. Likewise, the film creators can't choose all the limitations they are given, but they can choose to deal with limitations creatively.

The film can’t choose the circumstance of its birth and purpose, but it can choose to play off of the limits it is given, whether that’s a throwaway line about Marvel not returning their calls (since Marvel is owned by Disney) or creating a time travel paradox for the impossibly happy ending.

--Clyde E Northrup (@QLeeches)

Netflix's New Carmen Sandiego: A Redo Done Right, or a Flimsy Attempt?

General Impressions

The show is actually pretty quick-witted and very fast-paced with the animation and gets into the story very quickly. This is a very good thing because it allows the viewer to learn and grow along with the characters. The problem is that what happens is that the secondary characters that we're supposed to be rooting for are introduced so late in the game we don’t know a lot about them; I’d like to know more about them personally, but maybe that’s for the second season. My first impression of season one is that it is relatively simple, but is also effective in its various communication styles.

I like that they didn’t go with the stereotypical action hero female, which is basically just, you know, a guy with female parts. Like that’s stupid and always has been stupid. What I like is that Carmen San Diego's intellect helps her get through all of her problems and all of her trials. That’s not to say that she isn’t very physically athletic and active, but her greatest asset is her intelligence, which is one thing that I really like. I wish they would use that more often with female characters.

Her intelligence is actually what makes her heroic, so she’s able to outmaneuver her opponents because she’s smarter than them--not because she’s stronger than them, or more physically imposing then they are. She’s just very smart and he uses that to her advantage, especially when it comes to topics of geography, culture, the lay of the land, or psychology. So her best weapon is her brain.

The New Show Compared to the Original

The show has a lot of the spirit of the original in its sense of mystery and its captivating nature. What I will say is that I like how the new show does it better than I like the original. Frankly, the original kind of had that 90s cartoon feel to it, which was very popular at the time, and was meant to educate more than it was to entertain per se. With that, this new one has a story that is a lot more fleshed out and that takes place in a much better developed world. I think that’s very effective, building up of a long running series with an over arching plan to it, as opposed to one that's very episodic, constantly leaving us to ponder: "Where in the world is she? No, really, we've barely caught up to her at all... Still looking for answers here. None? Okay..." The problem with the original is that it had too much build up with not enough payoff. This new one, however, has a good amount of build up that actually pays off. And when you see the pay off, you get more breadcrumbs bringing you to the next mystery, whereas the end the other one had a huge problem with not giving you the reward it just kind of strung you along for what felt like decades. I still don't know where in the world she was...

Comparing the Animation and Artistry of the Two Series

The old one had more detail in the art and it was more of the traditional, detail-oriented animation style, while the new one is more of a defined lines art style similar to Samurai Jack. I have to say I like both types of animation styles but in different ways. So I like the details in shows like Cowboy Bebop for instance where it has detail and has a certain artistry to it, but I also like the ED quickness and the fluidity of the new animation which is kind of reminiscent to what you see if a comic book was taken from the pages and transposed into film. I mean both styles are good for more artistic animation, but I think the story is the real driver of the new Carmen San Diego show--not the animation necessarily.

With that, 90s TV shows existed largely to sell toys and merchandise and to educate, whereas shows nowadays are largely meant to entertain or to make you think about larger artistic concepts. I have to say I like the newer way much more because it holds children's hands far less and allows them to think for themselves and to develop their creativity in new and exciting ways.

The Music in Both Series

What are the differences between the music in between both series? Well, both are honestly pretty similar; I had no problem with the original and I have no problem with this one either. Also, I think that the music in both shows, though mostly similar, is done stylistically different. For me, both styles work in their own ways, but I really like that the style of the music in the new show is based on the music in the original series, but it has a more modern twist to it. Tasteful decisions all around in this area, in my opinion.

Theme from Carmen San Diego (2019)

Theme from the the original show

Rating and Recommendations 

Paper Star

Season one of the 2019 Carmen San Diego was a good introduction for the younger generation to the world of Carmen San Diego that us older folks enjoyed in the 90s. The creators of the show seem to be build up and the basic conflicts and the mysterious tone that the show has always had. It’s everything I wanted to see in a reboot of the popular series, and it had a good twist at the season's end (which I will not spoil--it just had a great twist at the end and the way it concluded was very satisfactory. It also got me super excited for the next season).

As for the next season, I really don’t know what it has it in store yet, but I feel like we will at least see a lot more of Shadowsan (the samurai guy) and Paper Star (the origami girl). I have a hunch that we'll also find out more about the Boston siblings (Zach and Ivy). I really love their characters and I think they are very fun, frankly. I also really want to see more of the the secret evil society (V.I.L.E.) as well because I think that the characters in it are very colorful and interesting.

Ivy and Zach, Carmen's trusty sidekicks.

On to the rating. I would give this show up to an 8.5 out of 10 because, while I really like it, I wouldn't necessarily call it a masterpiece. Overall, however, I recommend the show to anybody, but I think it's more suitable for someone over the age of 10, as it can get slightly scary and/or confusing for younger audiences.

Thanks for reading, Pragmus fans! Let us know what you think of the show if you decide to watch it.

--Logan Christensen

New and (Mostly) Improved Rocky and Bullwinkle

Although a common reference point culturally, most people never see the original Rocky and Bullwinkle show from the 1960s. Not that most people would enjoy the show now. Jay Ward Productions made endless puns, endless arcs, and endlessly recycled animation. The stories carry with them the pace and ideas of a cold war America while maintaining a unique charm and sense of humor that grows on one gradually and only improves with age--not the age of the show, but the age of the audience. Fractured Fairy Tales give more of the source material's details than any other version, Mr. Peabody and Sherman educates children on various historical figures in a roundabout sarcastic way, Dudley Do-Right gives a pastiche on pantomime, Aesop and Son cleverly adapts the idea of a fable, and Rocky and Bullwinkle themselves shows optimism and courage despite the soap opera levels of crazy situations. Though dated and niche, they remain peerless in their niche.  Until recently.

Enter the Dreamworks/Amazon collaborative project Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle. What it retains from the original includes Bullwinkle's idiot savant personality, pastiche of spy thrillers, Boris and Natasha's penchant for costumes, and bizarre love of puns and continuity. What's changed is the self-aware manner in which they tackle the overuse of puns and continuity, the pace quickening, and the more fluid animation while keeping the design and texture similar to the original series. Whereas one cannot recommend the original series to general audiences, one can with the new series available on Prime. The story arcs have less continuity between but escalate and resolve faster than the original. The first story arc of the original series happened over 100 episodes (and you all thought anime had problems!), whereas the new series each arc stays around 5 episodes.

Though brilliant at adapting the show's core into a modern cartoon format, the way they've changed Rocky's character remains questionable. Tara Strong does the voice perfectly, but the way the character is written feels inconsistent. Sometimes acting as much the ignorant jock as Bullwinkle, sometimes the fearless squirrel of the original series, and most of the time a case study for anxiety. Although the original's Rocket J. Squirrel showed concern for Bullwinkle and was slow on the uptake, he was neither portrayed as ignorant or anxious. Original Rocky fearlessly rescued Bullwinkle and others like an ambulance worker if they also studied acrobatics. This new squirrel shows severe fright at public performance, gets seasick, runs from monsters, babbles when distressed, and suffers anxiety for Bullwinkle's safety and their social standing. If the writers made his anxiety more specific (for instance, social ostracization) this problem would sort itself out overnight.

The humor fits with the original, despite the faster pace of a more modern cartoon, and the references that show up don't halt the show and just reward the eagle-eyed observer with a belly full of laughter. Feeling like a cartoon version of Police Squad (In Color) with the frequency and absurdity of jokes, make sure you're watching and not just listening or you'll miss half the fun!

--Roz (@QLeeches)

Ralph Breaks the Internet: Ralph Breaks the Plot

Films today follow a general writing guide called the three act structure, with the first act setting up the world and main conflict, the second features the trials and tribulations leading to a darkest hour, with the third act featuring the overcoming of weakness, final climax, and resolution of all the plot threads. Some use this convention as a start, others as a crutch, and those that play screenwriting doctor with the guide as a healthy comparison.

Ralph Breaks the Internet features countless jokes and references to internet culture and portrays the relationship between Ralph and Venelope as they discover the internet, bemoan having different dreams, and try to fix the Sugar Rush machine that they broke. But that description already begs the question, what’s the main conflict? The major conflict should begin in act one and not resolve until act three, yet none of the conflict matches that description. 

Discovering the internet and the multitude of positive and negative aspects it brings out in everyone doesn’t enter into the story besides one scene. They do accidentally pay too much for the steering wheel and Ralph discovers the comments section but they have an incredibly easy time with even spam and viruses treating them with respect if not courtesy. Discovering the internet happens during act two with a resolution near the end of act two and while the internet leads to the majority of the humor it does not come close to the main conflict.

Venelope and Ralphs’ conflicting dreams and their relationship provides a lot of conflict, as Veneope loves the new open world GTA V rip-off and Ralph just wants the machine repaired so things go back to the way they were; the way he liked it. But that doesn’t begin until act two, either at the funniest scene near the end of act two or if you really stretch it, the moment they exit and she suggests returning, in the middle of act two. Although she suggested earlier wanting something new in act one there’s nothing about her desire that suggests she wants to leave the arcade permanently that brings her and Ralph’s desires into conflict.

The conflict that kicks off the movie, that should bring the plot and characters into conflict, the broken steering wheel, begins in act one but half the conflict gets brushed aside like nothing and the other half resolves before act two finishes. Their money making efforts get the steering wheel with only minor hurdles. But the other half of the conflict, how the hundreds of characters lose their home and it’s Ralph and Venelope’s fault, just never surfaces. The characters have a gag about joining another game’s background or being adopted by Felix and Calhoun, and bear no ill will towards Venelope and Ralph despite the circumstances. They took away and did not return control to the player resulting in the broken steering wheel. The previous movie’s villain specifically caused problems not just from jumping games, but from the crashing and taking away control from the player, resulting in two games getting unplugged. Ralph takes time he should show up in his game to build a new track, and Venelope refuses to let the player steer her to the 1st place victory she loves so much.

While not necessary, having one major conflict as a thread through the whole movie brings drive and consistency. While still entertaining and interesting for juggling multiple conflicts, the film feels somewhat lopsided and confused, either from the lack of a single major conflict, the ignoring of continuity, the dearth of video games on their internet, or the missed opportunity of addressing negativity on the internet, especially within online gaming.

Although it already contains the best after credits sequence ever, may I suggest an alternative; 

Venelope: “There’s voice chat? Let’s listen to this 11 year old boy  . . .”

Tafata: “Why’d you return to Sugar Rush?”

Venelope: “WHAT?!”

Roz -  Twitter: @QLeeches

Fuller House Season 4: Mom Jokes, the Show

Hey everyone! Thanks for visiting the blog.  Sign up for email updates on the right to see more awesome content. 😉

A while ago we reviewed the first three seasons of Fuller House, recognizing that the show has a lot of flaws, but is decent for the most part. Season 4 has been very consistent with this Full House and Fuller House formula, but I feel that season 4 was much better than season three. I'll tell you all about this and more about the show below!

So, season 3 felt awkward and made some pretty hard passes at characters like Fernando, who others in the house thought of as strange. Season 4 still made fun of certain characters, but was more sensitive to their humanity, which I appreciated. For example, although people still made jokes about Fernando, we actually got to know him better and started to actually feel like he's part of the Fuller House family. I really appreciated this.  Actually, I think he's the funniest character on the show, so I liked that they sort of recognized this and put more eggs into the Fernando basket.

One major critique I have is that most of the jokes on the show felt like they were either written for or by moms/dads, which is understandable because the protagonists are all mothers. However, the mom jokes spilled over into almost all aspects of the show, which I thought made it somewhat bland. At the same time, the fact that almost all the jokes were the same (and frankly not very funny, if at all) made the few actually LOL-worthy jokes stand out and made the good comedy in the show more recognizable. But I do have to ask myself if there should be so many jokes that miss the mark that make me desperate for a joke that's a hit. Overall I thought the comedy needed to be written better. This is something I hope they do better at in the next season!

Also, I am so freaking grateful that the Steve, DJ, Matt love triangle is OVER! That lasted way too long and got very annoying, culminating in an awkward trip to Japan in season 3.  Season 4 felt a lot less cringey because they finally were over with a plot point that I feel was not worth their time. Btw, I was more in favor of DJ choosing Matt over Steve anyway, as that would have opened SO many doors for the show to break away from the nostalgia at least a little bit. So, that whole fight over DJ really irritated me. This season however, there was the best plot point yet--Stephanie's baby being born. The birth of Stephanie's child was a really great, modern event, and brought up some important issues about using a surrogate to bring a child into the world. I thought this was really cool to watch, but the fact that Kimmy and Stephanie live with one another caused some competition over the baby duties. I'm wondering if this will be an issue in future seasons? I mean, where Stephanie and Kimmy both feel like they're the mother of this new kid. That will be really interesting to watch. And a good breakaway from relationship drama!

The fact that Stephanie and Kimmy, the biological and surrogate mothers respectively, live together makes the potential upcoming story very unique as well. The reason why this may be is because one of the most famous TV surrogate moms we know of, Phoebe from Friends, was related to the biological parents of her surrogate children, but they hardly ever saw Phoebe. So, she didn't really have the option to feel like the true parent of the triplets she gave birth to. On the other hand, there's Kimmy, who has already voiced some desire to parent the kid and who sees Stephanie all day every day. This could create some actually intriguing drama coming up.

Another critique I have of season 4 is that, just like its preceding seasons, it was very predictable. True, it's just like Full House, but I almost feel like the latest Fuller House episodes don't know what to talk about that's not predictable and so try to create strange excuses for musical numbers and what not. Kudos to the show for being more self aware of this, but they basically said "we know this is weird--deal with it" in their self aware comments. I wasn't the biggest fan of their decision to stick to the same type of strange events in season 4, but I do like that they've dialed it down from season 3.

Also, the kid who plays Jackson was written suddenly as a football star this season. Okay, the actor doesn't look at all like a football star, and should have been written as something else. By the way, that would have been so much cooler if he was written as something else, especially since the big football player has been done so many times. And there is also the fact of the actor's inability to even act like a football player. All of that characterization was a complete miss. They should have gone more with what that kid could actually do and would realistically be good at. For example, he could have started a really great band, or joined the cheerleading or dance team. That would have seemed more appropriate and would have been more interesting to watch.

One more complaint that I have is that, although it's great that the original actors return frequently for appearances, I am really sick of the audience applauding them every time they come on screen. They may as well make characters like Jesse, Joey, and others regulars so we don't have to give them a round of applause just for entering the scene every time.

Although I don't have a high opinion of the writing this season (it's probably a 3 or 4 out of 10), the show did make improvements from prior seasons. That said, there are glaring issues that could have been avoided and should be made note of. In my last post, I give the show a 5/10 (season 3 being a much lower score on its own) because it does some things right, but not enough to be very entertaining. I'm sticking to 5/10 for this season too because the quality wasn't amazing and didn't make so much of an improvement on all prior seasons to be considered for a better overall score.

That's all for now! Thanks for reading, Pragmus fans. :)

--Corey Cherrington