Saturday, November 30, 2019
Seuss Saturday, One Face, Two-Face
One-face, Two-Face, Red Face, Blue Face,
Black Face, Blue Face, Old Face, New Face.
This one has a little fun.
This one has a little gun.
Say! What a lot of Face there are.
Yes. Some are red, and some are blue.
Some are old, and some are new.
Some are sad, and some are glad,
And most are very, very bad.
Why are they sad and glad and bad?
I do not know, go ask your dad.
Some are thin, and some are cute.
The old one has a two-toned suit.
From there to here,
From here to there,
Crazy guys are everywhere.
Jason makes me rather ill.
all he does is kill, kill, kill.
I will not have this one about.
When he comes in I put him out.
Cassandra's quiet as a mouse.
I like to have her in the house.
The Twisted Christmas Series: Old Shelob is Comin' to Town!
You better watch out,
You better not die!
You better stay put,
I'm tellin' you why!
Old Shelob is comin' to town.
She's makin' a list,
And checkin' it twice.
Gotta find out
who tastes very nice!
Old Shelob is comin' to town.
She sees you when you're sleepin',
She knows when you're awake.
She knows if you taste bad or good
So stay put for goodness sake!
You better watch out,
You better not die!
You better stay put,
I'm tellin' you why!
Old Shelob is comin' to town.
You better not die!
You better stay put,
I'm tellin' you why!
Old Shelob is comin' to town.
She's makin' a list,
And checkin' it twice.
Gotta find out
who tastes very nice!
Old Shelob is comin' to town.
She sees you when you're sleepin',
She knows when you're awake.
She knows if you taste bad or good
So stay put for goodness sake!
You better watch out,
You better not die!
You better stay put,
I'm tellin' you why!
Old Shelob is comin' to town.
Thursday, November 28, 2019
Happy Thanksgiving!
I hope you have a happy Thanksgiving!
Enjoy the work of the greatest chef in history, a true inspiration for all!
Enjoy the work of the greatest chef in history, a true inspiration for all!
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Whosday: The Stolen Earth/Journey's End
Loosely based on The Daleks' Master Plan, The Stolen Earth shows the RTD-era Daleks at their most powerful. Filled with action and plot complications, it could have potentially have been so complicated that it would have failed as a finale, but ultimately, it didn't. In fact, it proved to be one of the single strongest RTD finales!
It worked far better than Doomsday and Last of the Time Lords, no unwanted additional monsters, and no deification of the Doctor. He was basically almost on the same level as many of his own companions, a nice change of pace from how the Tenth was often treated previously.
Monday, November 25, 2019
Musical Monday: Insane (in Da Brain)
This video is filled to the brim with cultural references, but the lyrics themselves seem to value the sense of rebellion and emotional independence that was most especially popular at the time ("every time you call, you think I'm your freakin' doll, but I'm not your freakin' doll...").
Saturday, November 23, 2019
The Doctors Ranked Objectively
For the show's anniversary, the Doctors will be ranked as objectively as possible, my emotional opinions will be wholly ignored.
I will not include the Thirteenth Doctor or the War Doctor, simply due to a lack of exposure to their full material; the Thirteenth Doctor only had one season so far.
Ranked in Terms of Writing
12. The Sixth Doctor
JUST!
11. The Fifth Doctor
He's kind of dependent on the dynamics of his companions in order to have much going for himself, unable to stand on his own.
10. The Third Doctor
Not as exciting as he could have been, the Third still was loveable and commanded staying power, only sometimes undermined by the occasional inconsistency (Robert Sloman often wrote the Third Doctor rather differently from the other writers), and the fact that the role was originally written very much for Jon Pertwee in particular.
9. The Eighth Doctor
Because we only got one movie, I decided to cheat and reference the novels, which seem the closest to the intended characterization of the telemovie and the events that led to the Ninth Doctor, but most fans prefer the audio plays because of their use of authentic actors and superior plots. However, in terms of characterization, the novels are probably the best.
8. The Twelfth Doctor:
His problem is that he's too inconsistent, changing too frequently.
7. The Eleventh Doctor:
His problem is that the window dressing of deity status that the Revived Series introduced was a little too intrensic to his character.
6. The Seventh Doctor
The only real problems with this Doctor were firstly, that the intended window dressing was by far too intricate to his character, and that secondly, he's a bit of a Mary Sue, not in terms of being as admired as the Tenth or leading as perfect a life as the Eleventh, but rather in terms of being a total reflection of the author's beliefs. However, the fact he is so dynamic in some ways strongly suggests that maybe being a Mary Sue isn't the biggest sin an author can commit.
5. The Fourth Doctor:
Better-written than often given credit for, he's mostly undermined by how the producers switching around came to remove some of the character arcs intended for him.
4. The First Doctor
Probably the best balance of being truly dynamic but also truly consistent, his only major problem was sometimes a lack of character depth in some of the early individual stories.
3. The Second Doctor
Probably gifted with the single most deep and insightful characterizations out of any of the Doctors, he simply lacks a more clear sense of direction for this character, a very rare case of a character being so fleshed out that there is little place to take him.
2. The Ninth Doctor
His only major problem was that he didn't always interact with the plots as much as he could have, but usually he played a part in resolving the conflict.
1. The Tenth Doctor
Probably the best on value of the overall sense of direction that so many others lacked, his character clearly going from one place to the next in response to the events that happened. He's only undermined by the garish window-dressing of god status that Russel T. Davies sometimes assigns him, but this is only surface detail, and behind it, one finds a man struggling with the implications of the lofty status of being the last of the Time Lords.
Ranked in Terms of Acting
12. Sylvester McCoy
He got WAY better with Big Finish, but on-show, it had room for improvement.
11. Jon Pertwee
His problem was that he often overpitched the subtlty, coming across as underconcerned half of the time.
10. Matt Smith
I think he overpitched the swagger at first, and still got a little too silly at times.
9. Colin Baker
While not the worst actor, Colin Baker had to break into his role over time.
8. Paul McGann
I think he didn't always seem like he understood his character at times, but he was very good at appearing enthusiastic when he had to.
7. William Hartnell
While he overpitched the swagger at first, he later got better about conveying sorrow and pain as the series progressed.
6. Tom Baker
A stronger actor than often given credit for, it's still hard to neglect the fact that often his method acting occasionally went too far, especially during the Graham Williams era.
5. Peter Davison
One of the few actors who mastered the art of always being subtle without ever underacting.
4. Christopher Eccleston
It's like he himself said, he overpitched the comedy, but besides that, he managed to be one of the best at conveying a tortured soul.
3. Patrick Troughton
His only problem was that towards the end, he was clearly getting somewhat bored with his role, and thus he lost some of his touch.
2. Peter Capaldi
The best method actor of the bunch, Peter Capaldi's only weakness is a relative lack of communication with the eyes.
1. David Tennant
He probably had the largest range and was the best about communicating with the eyes, a very important part of classical acting.
So, in conclusion, the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Doctors are probably the best written and acted ones if you take everything into account.
But that's the funny thing; they're not exactly my favorites. That's because on an emotional scale, I prefer Doctors with a more subtle mystique, hence I love the Fourth Doctor the most. But it's hard for me to resist good writing and good acting, so the Tenth is, probably, objectively the best one on the most critical fronts.
I will not include the Thirteenth Doctor or the War Doctor, simply due to a lack of exposure to their full material; the Thirteenth Doctor only had one season so far.
Ranked in Terms of Writing
12. The Sixth Doctor
JUST!
11. The Fifth Doctor
He's kind of dependent on the dynamics of his companions in order to have much going for himself, unable to stand on his own.
10. The Third Doctor
Not as exciting as he could have been, the Third still was loveable and commanded staying power, only sometimes undermined by the occasional inconsistency (Robert Sloman often wrote the Third Doctor rather differently from the other writers), and the fact that the role was originally written very much for Jon Pertwee in particular.
9. The Eighth Doctor
Because we only got one movie, I decided to cheat and reference the novels, which seem the closest to the intended characterization of the telemovie and the events that led to the Ninth Doctor, but most fans prefer the audio plays because of their use of authentic actors and superior plots. However, in terms of characterization, the novels are probably the best.
8. The Twelfth Doctor:
His problem is that he's too inconsistent, changing too frequently.
7. The Eleventh Doctor:
His problem is that the window dressing of deity status that the Revived Series introduced was a little too intrensic to his character.
6. The Seventh Doctor
The only real problems with this Doctor were firstly, that the intended window dressing was by far too intricate to his character, and that secondly, he's a bit of a Mary Sue, not in terms of being as admired as the Tenth or leading as perfect a life as the Eleventh, but rather in terms of being a total reflection of the author's beliefs. However, the fact he is so dynamic in some ways strongly suggests that maybe being a Mary Sue isn't the biggest sin an author can commit.
5. The Fourth Doctor:
Better-written than often given credit for, he's mostly undermined by how the producers switching around came to remove some of the character arcs intended for him.
4. The First Doctor
Probably the best balance of being truly dynamic but also truly consistent, his only major problem was sometimes a lack of character depth in some of the early individual stories.
3. The Second Doctor
Probably gifted with the single most deep and insightful characterizations out of any of the Doctors, he simply lacks a more clear sense of direction for this character, a very rare case of a character being so fleshed out that there is little place to take him.
2. The Ninth Doctor
His only major problem was that he didn't always interact with the plots as much as he could have, but usually he played a part in resolving the conflict.
1. The Tenth Doctor
Probably the best on value of the overall sense of direction that so many others lacked, his character clearly going from one place to the next in response to the events that happened. He's only undermined by the garish window-dressing of god status that Russel T. Davies sometimes assigns him, but this is only surface detail, and behind it, one finds a man struggling with the implications of the lofty status of being the last of the Time Lords.
Ranked in Terms of Acting
12. Sylvester McCoy
He got WAY better with Big Finish, but on-show, it had room for improvement.
11. Jon Pertwee
His problem was that he often overpitched the subtlty, coming across as underconcerned half of the time.
10. Matt Smith
I think he overpitched the swagger at first, and still got a little too silly at times.
9. Colin Baker
While not the worst actor, Colin Baker had to break into his role over time.
8. Paul McGann
I think he didn't always seem like he understood his character at times, but he was very good at appearing enthusiastic when he had to.
7. William Hartnell
While he overpitched the swagger at first, he later got better about conveying sorrow and pain as the series progressed.
6. Tom Baker
A stronger actor than often given credit for, it's still hard to neglect the fact that often his method acting occasionally went too far, especially during the Graham Williams era.
5. Peter Davison
One of the few actors who mastered the art of always being subtle without ever underacting.
4. Christopher Eccleston
It's like he himself said, he overpitched the comedy, but besides that, he managed to be one of the best at conveying a tortured soul.
3. Patrick Troughton
His only problem was that towards the end, he was clearly getting somewhat bored with his role, and thus he lost some of his touch.
2. Peter Capaldi
The best method actor of the bunch, Peter Capaldi's only weakness is a relative lack of communication with the eyes.
1. David Tennant
He probably had the largest range and was the best about communicating with the eyes, a very important part of classical acting.
So, in conclusion, the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Doctors are probably the best written and acted ones if you take everything into account.
But that's the funny thing; they're not exactly my favorites. That's because on an emotional scale, I prefer Doctors with a more subtle mystique, hence I love the Fourth Doctor the most. But it's hard for me to resist good writing and good acting, so the Tenth is, probably, objectively the best one on the most critical fronts.
Oh the Places You'll Go! (Doctor Who Edition)
Congratulations!
You're in the right place!
To travel my TARDIS
Across time and space!
With the brains in my head,
And the feet in your shoes,
We can steer ourselves,
Any direction we choose.
We're on our own, on Jelly Babies chewing,
And there's no one in the Universe who can do what we're doing.
You'll look up and down some worlds, look them over with care,
And some of you will say "I don't choose to go there."
With your head full of brains, (all of course from me),
You're far to clever to visit Metebelis III.
And you might not find any worlds
That bring joy that will last
We can just go back and time,
And see deep into their past.
The TARDIS is waiting,
So get on your way!
You're in the right place!
To travel my TARDIS
Across time and space!
With the brains in my head,
And the feet in your shoes,
We can steer ourselves,
Any direction we choose.
We're on our own, on Jelly Babies chewing,
And there's no one in the Universe who can do what we're doing.
You'll look up and down some worlds, look them over with care,
And some of you will say "I don't choose to go there."
With your head full of brains, (all of course from me),
You're far to clever to visit Metebelis III.
And you might not find any worlds
That bring joy that will last
We can just go back and time,
And see deep into their past.
The TARDIS is waiting,
So get on your way!
Friday, November 22, 2019
The Ultimate Snoke Theory
We all know that Snoke is a new character...or is he?
What if he is not a new character, just a character who is new to Stars Wars?
He has a bald head, favors bright yellow gold attire, and often acts cranky and cruel.
Don't you see?
Snoke is Caillou!
What if he is not a new character, just a character who is new to Stars Wars?
He has a bald head, favors bright yellow gold attire, and often acts cranky and cruel.
Don't you see?
Snoke is Caillou!
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Whosday: Ranking the Doctors
This blog post is about personal opinions, and these are subject to change every single time I pull one out. In fact, tor the anniversary post this Saturday, I will shoot for the more objective lists ranking them based on what could be considered the very best writing and what could be considered the very best acting, to keep it more objective, but this is not such a list. Rather, this is a list of strictly personal opinions, manifest for your enjoyment!
16. The Valeyard
Not particularly exciting by the standards of incarnations of the Doctor, the Valeyard is admittedly really cool as a villain...but, as I cannot stress enough, not really that cool as the Doctor.
15. The Thirteenth Doctor
Her problem is not that she's a woman; I always saw the Doctor as being truly alien beyond measure. Her real problem is that she's written to be such a generic Doctor that she's really, in her current state, not particularly much to write home about. However, the same could be said about the Seventh Doctor during his first season, and look how that turned out!
14. The Shalka Doctor
A bit more amusing, the Shalka Doctor could be a mite flat and generic at times, but full of whitticisms that never cease to amuse the viewer!
13. The Third Doctor
Really a fascinating character, but far removed from what the Doctor had ought to be most of the time.
12. The Sixth Doctor
His problem was that he was not really allowed to interfere with the plots of his stories, resulting in a character who was hard to like at times simply due to not ever giving the audience a sense of shared experience.
11. The War Doctor
The War Doctor is mostly just on a low spot on this list solely due to the lack of use of the character, so we don't get to see more of him.
10. The Fifth Doctor
A bit of a flat, wet fish by current standards, the Fifth Doctor remains a favorite of mine regardless.
9. The Eighth Doctor
Perhaps more of a basket case than often given credit for, the Eighth Doctor nevertheless is a perfectly loveable incarnation of the Doctor.
8. The Seventh Doctor
Sneaky, tricky, manipulative? All of these things and more, this is the Seventh Doctor! But he's also so soulful at times.
7. The Eleventh Doctor
Whacky as they come, his only real problem is that this is all that really defines him at times.
6. The Twelfth Doctor:
Maybe if Steven Moffat stopped confusing constant dynamism with great writing, he'd be an even better version of the character.
5. The First Doctor
Where would we be without the beginning? It's often forgotten just how funny and warm this Doctor could be once he began to trust his first companions.
4. The Second Doctor
Of course, this is the one who redefined the series.
3. The Ninth Doctor
Christopher Eccleston's version of the character is easily one of the most underrated.
2. The Tenth Doctor
I absolutely loved how much he just owned being the Doctor!
1. The Fourth Doctor.
My favorite. The best one, with everything to love about the First and Second combined in him, with several brand new traits that transferred to the rest of his incarnations, particularly the Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Twelfth Doctors! He's got a lot of loveable qualities, silly and scary all at once!
16. The Valeyard
Not particularly exciting by the standards of incarnations of the Doctor, the Valeyard is admittedly really cool as a villain...but, as I cannot stress enough, not really that cool as the Doctor.
15. The Thirteenth Doctor
Her problem is not that she's a woman; I always saw the Doctor as being truly alien beyond measure. Her real problem is that she's written to be such a generic Doctor that she's really, in her current state, not particularly much to write home about. However, the same could be said about the Seventh Doctor during his first season, and look how that turned out!
14. The Shalka Doctor
A bit more amusing, the Shalka Doctor could be a mite flat and generic at times, but full of whitticisms that never cease to amuse the viewer!
13. The Third Doctor
Really a fascinating character, but far removed from what the Doctor had ought to be most of the time.
12. The Sixth Doctor
His problem was that he was not really allowed to interfere with the plots of his stories, resulting in a character who was hard to like at times simply due to not ever giving the audience a sense of shared experience.
11. The War Doctor
The War Doctor is mostly just on a low spot on this list solely due to the lack of use of the character, so we don't get to see more of him.
10. The Fifth Doctor
A bit of a flat, wet fish by current standards, the Fifth Doctor remains a favorite of mine regardless.
9. The Eighth Doctor
Perhaps more of a basket case than often given credit for, the Eighth Doctor nevertheless is a perfectly loveable incarnation of the Doctor.
8. The Seventh Doctor
Sneaky, tricky, manipulative? All of these things and more, this is the Seventh Doctor! But he's also so soulful at times.
7. The Eleventh Doctor
Whacky as they come, his only real problem is that this is all that really defines him at times.
6. The Twelfth Doctor:
Maybe if Steven Moffat stopped confusing constant dynamism with great writing, he'd be an even better version of the character.
5. The First Doctor
Where would we be without the beginning? It's often forgotten just how funny and warm this Doctor could be once he began to trust his first companions.
4. The Second Doctor
Of course, this is the one who redefined the series.
3. The Ninth Doctor
Christopher Eccleston's version of the character is easily one of the most underrated.
2. The Tenth Doctor
I absolutely loved how much he just owned being the Doctor!
1. The Fourth Doctor.
My favorite. The best one, with everything to love about the First and Second combined in him, with several brand new traits that transferred to the rest of his incarnations, particularly the Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Twelfth Doctors! He's got a lot of loveable qualities, silly and scary all at once!
Monday, November 18, 2019
Musical Monday: The Light
It's nice how long and strong Disturbed has been going, and this is probably one of their most underrated songs, perhaps because it's not what their fans exactly asked for, but I loved both the melody and the lyrics.
I've been struck by personal tragedy in the past, some of it by my own making, some of it not, but no matter how it happened, I was deeply affected by the loss.
It can be hard, dealing with things, like being cut off from your best friend, or losing somebody really close to you. Sometimes, the memories continue the haunt you, and all you want is for them to come back.
And yes? Sometimes, the best thing you can do is try to seek out the light, and to help others going through the same problems.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
Seuss Saturday: Fried Spider-Ham
I am Man
Spider-Man!
That Spider-Man,
That Spider-Man,
I do not like
That Spider-Man!
Do you like
Fried Spider-Ham?
I do not like it
Spider-Man.
I do not like
Fried Spider-Ham!
Would you eat him
Here or there?
I would not like him
here or there,
I would not eat him
anywhere
I do not like
Fried Spider-Ham
I do not like you
Spider-Man!
Friday, November 15, 2019
Why E. Annectens Should Be Renamed
This is all just opinion from a hobbyist, and not a
professional paleontologist, but I studied this intensely, and I think Edmontosaurus annectens should be called Anatosaurus, though Edmonotosaurus regalis can keep its name...
...and here is why.
First of all, I'm under the opinion that they shouldn't
share a genus name because Edmontosaurus regalis and Edmontosaurus
annectens were separated by nearly six million years of time and
evolution. Edmontosaurus regalis was excavated around Campanian layers, deeper, older rock, and Edmontosaurus
annectens has been found around Maastrichian layers, about the same time
the dinosaurs went extinct. By then, the
likelihood that they would still be biologically compatible is quite slim. Typically, with living animals, while it's
true that a "genus" and a "species" are at least in part
convenient constructs, true, but they are also there for another reason:
Typically, if an animal can breed with another animal, and they can produce
offspring that will most likely grow up to be fertile, then they are of the
same species. If two animals can breed
but the offspring isn't likely to be fertile, then they probably share a genus
but aren't of the same species, like when [i]Equus caballus[/i] and [i]Equus
asinus[/i] mate and produce a mule; same genus, different species. If two animals probably can't breed in the
first place, then they probably don't even share a genus.
The significance of this is that six million years of evolution
is usually sufficient time for most terrestrial warm-blooded animals to evolve
beyond biological compatibility with their ancestors. For example, if modern humans went back in
time and tried to breed with Australopithecus-like apes, they likely wouldn't
make any offspring in the first place.
According to Robert T. Bakker, one of the more reliable paleontologists
(except for his extinction theory, a disease killing all the dinosaurs is
unlikely because dinosaurs didn't just die out, so did sea life), rapid
evolutionary turnover is a common trait of terrestrial warm-blooded animals,
probably in part because with the major exceptions of humans and elephants,
most terrestrial warm-blooded animals that we know of today hit sexual maturity
faster in proportion to the adult body size than cold-blooded ones, which we
know a lot of hadrosaurs did (if my memory serves me correctly, some hadrosaurs
took about eight years to reach sexual maturity at the most, and we know this
through growth rings on their bones, which were weak and widely spaced like
warm-blooded animals today). Another
reason why rapid evolutionary turnover is common among warm-blooded animals is
because when a metabolism is high, you need to eat a lot, and this can drive
the animal to be an aggressive competitor with similar animals for its niche,
like how African Lions and Spotted Hyenas end up competing with each other for
food. When faced with such dilemmas, you
either adapt or you die out.
With these details in mind, if there is a mutation that can
benefit the population, it will most likely spread fairly quickly, only over a
course of thousands of years. Given
enough beneficial mutations, and enough time, a population will be sufficiently
different from it's ancestors.
[i]Edmontosaurus annectens[/i] had more than enough time for that, it
had nearly [i]six million years[/i]! Six million years is twice as much time as
we took to evolve beyond most chances of being able to make offspring with our
most probable ancestors, and the [i]Homo[/i] genus is one that's actually very
good at [i]defying[/i] or [i]delaying[/i] evolution due to the fact that we
take forever to reach maturity and are too intelligent to easily fall victim to
the elements, we form societies basically made to protect us from some of the
things that the Earth can dish out, like storms. Edmonotosaurus didn't have these kinds of
advantages, so it probably evolved quite a bit over six million years.
Moving past age and evolution, I also looked at the skulls,
and observing the skeletal morphology has only gave me further cause to adhere
to my opinion.
These are, apparently, adult E. regalis skulls.
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Edmontosaurus_regalis_skull_and_jaws%2C_Near_Drumheller%2C_Alberta%2C_Canada%2C_Late_Cretaceous_-_Royal_Ontario_Museum_-_DSC00020.JPG[/img]
[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/13/article-2523106-1A14687300000578-125_634x346.jpg[/img]
This is a reconstruction of an adult E. regalis skull based
on the fossils we have here.
[img]http://www.paleofile.com/imges/Dinosaurs/Ornithopoda/Edmontosaurus%20regalis%20USNM%2012711%20s.JPG[/img]
These are fossils of adult E. annectens skulls:
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Edmontosaurus_annectens_skull.jpg[/img]
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Edmontosaurus_annectens_-_National_Museum_of_Natural_History_-_IMG_1968.JPG[/img]
This is a reconstruction of an E. annectens skull based on
the fossils we have here.
[img]http://www.paleofile.com/imges/Dinosaurs/Ornithopoda/Anatosaurus%20UMP%20128374%20s.JPG[/img]
These differences seem to be far too numerous and obvious
for them to be merely different species under the same genus. See, this is how similar two skulls of two
species under the same genus tend to be:
[img]http://www.equine-dentist-scotland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/horse-skull.jpg[/img]
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Cr%C3%A2ne_%C3%A2ne_donkey_skull_mus%C3%A9e_v%C3%A9t%C3%A9rinaire_Maisons_alfort_1a.jpg[/img]
One's a horse skull, and the other's a donkey skull. The mandibles certainly are different, but
obvious differences end there. They are far more similar to each other than the
two "species" of Edmontosaurus.
This is normal for species with a shared genus; they tend to be alike
because they have much of the same genetics.
Meanwhile, the nasal cavity of E. regalis doesn't seem to
grow as it matures, in fact, it tends to give the appearance of shrinking
because the rest of the skull grows as it matures. E. annectens, on the other hand, has a nasal
cavity that continues to grow as its maxilla (upper jaw) stretches out with
maturity, making it look more ducklike as the bill continues to stretch. Such obvious differences seem to suggest that
they are more distantly related than that.
It's also unlikely one is an adult version of the other,
because we have documented the adolescent and young adult specimens of both, as
seen here:
[img]https://evanslab.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/edmonto-skull-summary.jpg[/img]
Furthermore, It's also very unlikely that one is the female
version of the other, again, due to the six million year separation. And once more, it seems unlikely that they
are different species sharing a genus, because, again, they're far too different
and have been separated by over six million years of evolution. E. regalis was a lot older than E. annectens
(not to mention that a very likely sexual dimorphism – a small headcreast - has
been found on E. regalis, but it sure isn't E. annectens!).
Since they likely shouldn't share a genus, which one should
be renamed, and what should it be called?
Edmontosaurus regalis was the first species named
"Edmontosaurus" found, so it can keep its name, only Edmontosaurus
annectens needs to be renamed. What to call it though? Surely not Trachodon
or Diclonius, those specimens were known only by teeth, and thus can't be
confirmed to be connected to any dinosaur, so each of those names is a [i]nomen
dumium[/i]. Surely not Claosaurus, that
genus was already claimed by another hadrosaur rather distantly related to
Edmontosaurus. The oldest viable name is
Anatosaurus. That name was derived from
more complete specimens. It's an apt
name too, because it means "duck lizard", which is an accurate
description of the pronounced bill of the dinosaur, and as a lot of hadrosaurs
are commonly called "duckbills", and as "Edmontosaurus" has
been commonly used as the main example of hadrosaurs, it's probably for the
best that it's named "Anatosaurus".
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Whosday: The Identity of the Valeyard
You know how you may ask "who is the
Valeyard" and somebody says "he's the Doctor dumbass!" and you
feel annoyed? Yeah, I know that feeling.
Though to be frank, the answer is to be half-expected, because you
worded the question wrong. You shouldn't
have asked "who is the Valeyard?" but rather, "what is
the Valeyard?" And that is
something that as thus far, nobody actually knows.
Well, we do know that the Valeyard was
created by two Doctor Who writers, Robert Holmes and Eric Saward as a
villain scheming to take the Doctor's remaining regenerations and overthrow
Time Lord society, but that only explains his story function; what is he
in-Universe?
A lot of people may not realize this, but
the Master's description of the Valeyard at 1:15 is far more vague than you
might think:
For one thing, thanks to the Moff,
"Twelfth and Final" is "anything goes from Tennant and onwards
goes" now, since the Doctor has a new regenerative cycle. Also, is he a physical incarnation who just
has all of the Doctor's negative personality traits, or is he really some
psychic manifestation of the Doctor's evil? And is he a fully-fledged
incarnation, or is he a splinter incarnation, like a rogue Watcher? It seemed
for a while that there would never be answers...
...However, I think I found a very likely
(but not definite) answer from a combination of the Target Novelization of The
Ultimate Foe and the simple notion of the Grandfather Paradox, so we may
actually get a good hold on what the Valeyard is...or at least a narrowing down
of the correct answers.
First of all, it's true that the Big
Finish audio dramas have implied several times that the Valeyard's a splinter
incarnation, created from all of the Doctor’s darker moments throughout his
incarnations as a weapon, but the audio dramas also show the Valeyard as being
a compulsive liar, so we can't be that sure. If rule #1 is that the Doctor lies, rule #2
should be "The Valeyard never tells the truth." This is a little different than "The
Doctor Lies" because it implies that he doesn't lie all the time but he
lies sometimes. The Valeyard
never telling the truth, on the other hand...well, it speaks for itself.
So now that that's out of the way, what is
the Valeyard really? Well, the novelization of The Ultimate Foe actually
gives a better definition than the Master did on the show: The Valeyard was
described as the penultimate incarnation between the twelfth and thirteenth
regeneraions , and the novel and original script drafts only served to confirm
this further rather than deny it, which confuses most fans a lot, but I think I
understand it perfectly. Regenerations
and incarnations are not the same thing.
A Time Lord has thirteen incarnations, and regeneration is the
transition between incarnations, meaning a Time Lord has twelve regenerations
and thirteen incarnations in a normal regenerative cycle. That would mean that if he came after the
twelfth regeneration and before the thirteenth, the Valeyard would be the
Thirteenth incarnation. However, that
should be his last incarnation, right? He shouldn't have a thirteenth
regeneration, right?
Wrong.
A regenerative cycle can be renewed, often by resurrecting a dead Time
Lord, and also, if Rassilon as depicted in The
Five Doctors is anything to go by, it's entirely possible to turn a Time
Lord into an immortal, god-like being, not that most Time Lords have ever had
the privilege (typically, no matter how many times the regenerative cycle is
renewed, a Time Lord is expected to die and stay dead sooner or later). Presumably, the Valeyard wanted to not only
renew his regenerative cycle, but become immortal.
So Steven Moffat, who suspects that the
Valeyard was just the Matrix Keeper impersonating the Doctor to have an excuse
to steal his lives, is wrong, the Valeyard's quite literally the Doctor after
all.
In fact, that was precisely what Robert
Holmes and Eric Saward, the creators of the Valeyard, were going for, but John
Nathan-Turner thought it would give the Doctor too clear of an ending (Michael
Grade kept trying to cancel Doctor Who
and replace it with a soap opera, Eastenders
- no joke - so JNT had to avoid anything that looked like a definite ending to
keep Grade from stopping the show), so he tried to make the Valeyard's nature
more foggy in the scripts. But for all
intents and purposes, as depicted in that earlier draft, the Valeyard is not
only from the Doctor, he literally is
the Doctor. He really is a physical,
tangible, and frighteningly quite "real", incarnation, who just
happens to have every single bad trait the Doctor ever had or will have.
But we already had a thirteenth(-ish)
incarnation who frankly turned out pretty damned well and almost as un-Valeyard
as they come, right? And now we have a Thirteenth Doctor who is even further
removed from the Valeyard, and a woman no less!
That's where the talk of alternate
realities comes in.
While it's possible that the Valeyard
could be the Thirteenth incarnation of a later regeneration cycle, perhaps the
one the Doctor is on, this can't be so in the mainstream reality because of the
Grandfather Paradox. This is the
Grandfather Paradox: If you kill your grandfather before he diddles your
grandmother for the first time, any chances of your parent and therefore your
existence are erased, thus you'd either erase your existence at that point, but
also causing your granddad to be alive again, meaning that you are born, but
you live on to die in the past from erasing yourself, or you'd simply be
permanently stranded in an alternate reality in which you technically now
aren't supposed to exist in...yeah, timey-wimey.
Murdering yourself would be at least as
bad - in fact, it might actually be even worse.
If you went back in time to murder an earlier self, God only knows what
nightmares that would cause! The problem is, that's precisely the Valeyard's
scheme! To drain an earlier self of his life-force and have more life in his
body. How the Hell is his supposed to
succeed and survive that?
Remember, Time Lords have tremendously
long lives and regenerate into different forms.
Also, remember, reality is like a river, it can branch from the same
point based off of choices. So what if
the Valeyard were to create another reality in which his earlier self went in a
different direction in life, and he could drain his alternate self's life? If
the Valeyard could somehow reality-jump, killing an alternate him and
surviving, it might actually work, so long as the Valeyard was careful that he
started to start the process of murder sometime after the realities began to
branch and not at the source that he'd share with the Doctor.
Here's an example: Let's say that the
Sixth Doctor's life was the point in which the reality of the mainstream Doctor
and the Valeyard began to diverge into two realities. That would mean the Valeyard can't kill the
First Doctor, the Second Doctor, etc., but he can kill the Sixth Doctor, the
Seventh Doctor, the Eighth Doctor, etc. because he wouldn't be attacking a
point in that reality's time that would count as his own past.
So how would he control this?
Now here is something important: The Trial
of a Time Lord takes place in a space station outside of space and
time. Nobody knows what would happen if
you went to a place outside of space and time, but presumably, if the Valeyard
were to go to such a space station, and then pluck an earlier incarnation from
space and time and bring him to the same location, then a possibly likely
result would be that the earlier self's timeline would start to diverge from
his own, and yet he'd survive the paradox because again, he's outside of time
(though it might mean that by doing so he'd either make the Doctor's reality
inaccessible, or his reality inaccessible).
As the Valeyard is a master planner, so it was probably all designed
precisely like this, so that he could cannibalize the remaining life-force of
his past self, who was now an alternate past self, and have a chance at
surviving without a Grandfather Paradox.
And then he'd crush all of the Time Lords who he so hated.
[url=http://doctorwho.org.nz/archive/tsv16/dilemma.html]Here
is a website link[/url] with a description and a graph to help you understand
this better.
Now one more thing: What about the
"Valeyard" of Trenzalore?
That was supposed to be an alternate fate
for the Eleventh Doctor, so I guess that was just the Eleventh calling himself
the "Valeyard" because "Valeyards are cool!" Remember, it's
a Gallifreyan word for "prosecutor", so it's just a title.
So we narrowed it down; the Valeyard is
probably either an alternate future Doctor or a splinter incarnation from an
alternate future Doctor. Whatever the
case, it's highly unlikely he's from the reality that the new series is part
of, because we know too much about where he (probably) fits in the regenerative
cycle and it's also highly unlikely he'd survive the subsequent Grandfather
Paradox if this wasn't the case. If the
Valeyard didn't create the events of The Trial of a Time Lord, the Sixth
Doctor would have kept on regenerating and living his lives in darker hues all
the time, incarnation after incarnation, until he became the Valeyard. But because he deliberately tried to make a
separate reality, starting at the Sixth Doctor's timeline, and then failing,
now post-Trial Six and all Doctors afterwards are living their lives in a
different pattern than the one that created the Valeyard, meaning that the
mainstream Doctor won't turn into the Valeyard...
...or more accurately, the mainstream
Doctor won't turn into the same Valeyard we know.
Nobody said anything about the Doctor we
know eventually becoming a new version of the Valeyard! Perhaps the Valeyard's
still to come after all!
Even so, that does not address the simple
problem that in the end of The Ultimate
Foe, the Valeyard took the position as the Matrix Keeper and likely still
lived in a way, probably the same reality as the mainstream Doctor's...
You know what that means, don't you?
The Valeyard’s still out there! (Unless
you count The Last Adventure as canon, in which case not only can the
Doctor not become the Valeyard, but the original Valeyard is also not going to
come ever)
The Original Ansem Twist
Ever wondered what Tetsuya Nomura was thinking when during the production of Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories and Kingdom Hearts II, and why he made the twist to the character of Ansem, making it so that he was just an imposter? Ever wondered what he originally intended?
Well, wonder no more, because I think I have the answer!
We knew the main villain from Kingdom Hearts was Ansem, the Head of State and the director of various scientific research programs of Hollow Bastion. He became concerned about and curious about the Darkness, and in the process, he accidentally created the Heartless, and when he studied them and the Darkness, this Darkness began to influence his mind to the point in which he was driven to sacrifice his body in order to learn more.
As a matter of fact, back in those days, I think the only real areas for debate for him was what his plan was, and whether or not he actually properly turned himself into a Heartless in the process of losing his body. He was surely, soundly defeated by Sora, but fans were surprised to learn that he was coming back when CoM and KHII were announced, and fans welcomed his return.
...And the fans were surprised that "Ansem" was, basically, not. That it wasn't his real name, that the Ansem we fought was some imposter named Xehanort all along!
But was this what Tetsuya Normura originally intended while developing KH: CoM? Yes, it was definitely not the intention of the very first Kingdom Hearts game, but just how last minute was this decision?
My research has led me to conclude that this was a far later decision than almost anybody could have ever guessed, and that Tetsuya Nomura intended something simpler and different for Ansem as late as CoM, and that this was only changed at the very last minute for KHII.
To understand what Nomura most probably intended, it must first be understood that Tetsuya Nomura has confessed to making twists for the sake of making twists, so while it's obvious that Ansem wasn't always meant to be Xehanort, he probably had a story intended that few could have imagined, and might have made the change even closer to the eleventh hour than we could have guessed.
For those of you not in the loop, in Kingdom Hearts cosmology, when somebody gives up their heart
to Darkness, sometimes, if the Heart and/or will is strong enough, a Nobody is created as well.
Now it must be remembered that the first KH established that being turned into a Heartless is a very reversible state, not only for Sora, but quite possibly for other characters as well. It seems very likely that all of the residents of Destiny Islands besides Sora, Riku, and Kairi turned into Heartless, but at the end of the game credits, Tidus, Wakka, and Sephie are playing on the beach happily, completely non-Heartless. Perhaps in the canon of the first game before later games retconned it, when you first strike down a Heartless with a Keyblade, and then open and close the Door to Darkness (essentially pushing the reset button), Heartless that have been struck down by the Keyblade are also "reset", turning back into normal people (the surviging Heartless of KHII were not reset by shutting the Door to Darkness because they were not struck down by the Keyblade, and as for Nobodies, all you need is for a person to lose a heart to Darkness to make a Nobody, turning back to normal doesn't make the Nobody go away, one thinks of Roxas).
Now Ansem was not exactly struck down by the Keyblade, but he was exposed to pure light from Kingdom Hearts, which is essentially perishing in the same way, as Keyblades are composed of Light. So assuming he was a Heartless even without the subsequent retcons, then surely the same rules must apply to him, that being "killed" by Light and then having the Door to Darkness that leads to Kingdom hearts "reset" wouls surely "reset" Ansem as it does to other Heartless who have faced similar circumstances.
Some of the readers have probably already figured out where I'm going with this by now, but I might as well explain the rest, to further verify my hypothesis.
Now we go to Chain of Memories, and of course, the mysterious DiZ, who was introduced in Riku's storyline there. I noticed an interesting pattern in how DiZ looked in the sprites.
We knew the main villain from Kingdom Hearts was Ansem, the Head of State and the director of various scientific research programs of Hollow Bastion. He became concerned about and curious about the Darkness, and in the process, he accidentally created the Heartless, and when he studied them and the Darkness, this Darkness began to influence his mind to the point in which he was driven to sacrifice his body in order to learn more.
As a matter of fact, back in those days, I think the only real areas for debate for him was what his plan was, and whether or not he actually properly turned himself into a Heartless in the process of losing his body. He was surely, soundly defeated by Sora, but fans were surprised to learn that he was coming back when CoM and KHII were announced, and fans welcomed his return.
...And the fans were surprised that "Ansem" was, basically, not. That it wasn't his real name, that the Ansem we fought was some imposter named Xehanort all along!
But was this what Tetsuya Normura originally intended while developing KH: CoM? Yes, it was definitely not the intention of the very first Kingdom Hearts game, but just how last minute was this decision?
My research has led me to conclude that this was a far later decision than almost anybody could have ever guessed, and that Tetsuya Nomura intended something simpler and different for Ansem as late as CoM, and that this was only changed at the very last minute for KHII.
To understand what Nomura most probably intended, it must first be understood that Tetsuya Nomura has confessed to making twists for the sake of making twists, so while it's obvious that Ansem wasn't always meant to be Xehanort, he probably had a story intended that few could have imagined, and might have made the change even closer to the eleventh hour than we could have guessed.
For those of you not in the loop, in Kingdom Hearts cosmology, when somebody gives up their heart
to Darkness, sometimes, if the Heart and/or will is strong enough, a Nobody is created as well.
Now it must be remembered that the first KH established that being turned into a Heartless is a very reversible state, not only for Sora, but quite possibly for other characters as well. It seems very likely that all of the residents of Destiny Islands besides Sora, Riku, and Kairi turned into Heartless, but at the end of the game credits, Tidus, Wakka, and Sephie are playing on the beach happily, completely non-Heartless. Perhaps in the canon of the first game before later games retconned it, when you first strike down a Heartless with a Keyblade, and then open and close the Door to Darkness (essentially pushing the reset button), Heartless that have been struck down by the Keyblade are also "reset", turning back into normal people (the surviging Heartless of KHII were not reset by shutting the Door to Darkness because they were not struck down by the Keyblade, and as for Nobodies, all you need is for a person to lose a heart to Darkness to make a Nobody, turning back to normal doesn't make the Nobody go away, one thinks of Roxas).
Now Ansem was not exactly struck down by the Keyblade, but he was exposed to pure light from Kingdom Hearts, which is essentially perishing in the same way, as Keyblades are composed of Light. So assuming he was a Heartless even without the subsequent retcons, then surely the same rules must apply to him, that being "killed" by Light and then having the Door to Darkness that leads to Kingdom hearts "reset" wouls surely "reset" Ansem as it does to other Heartless who have faced similar circumstances.
Some of the readers have probably already figured out where I'm going with this by now, but I might as well explain the rest, to further verify my hypothesis.
Now we go to Chain of Memories, and of course, the mysterious DiZ, who was introduced in Riku's storyline there. I noticed an interesting pattern in how DiZ looked in the sprites.
I kept flipping through the image and saw that they had the exact same head shape, the same eye color, and the same similar skin color. Even in KHII, their appearances align very well, meaning that their character models might have been made before the twist was made.
This is hard to gauge now, because many of his features were changed to match those of the other Xehanort incarnations in the HD ReMixes. As a result, ironically, it seems that now DiZ more closely resembles the original Ansem model than Ansem does now as a result of changing Ansem to look like the other Xehanort incarnations. Anyway, you can see the similarities between the original Ansem model, and DiZ. Aside from the same head-shape, and dark skin and orange eyes, as I have I pointed out before, they have the same eye-shape, like sideways diamonds.
It seems like what what Nomura intended after the events of KH, Ansem turned into a complete person again, and realizing that all of what he believed was disproved by failing against a kid with a Keyblade, and that therefore what he did was wrong, Ansem decided to atone for his sins by trying to undermine Organization XIII, which was being led by his own Nobody, under a new name, DiZ, disguising his features.
Then KHII came out and Tetsuya Nomura further retconned things, changing this simpler story into a more complicated one, making things so that not only was DiZ the real Ansem, but that the Heartless and Nobody never belonged to the real Ansem as he must have originally intended, but now belonged to a completely separate guy named Xehanort, and the real Ansem didn't look like the Heartless and Nobody at all.
That’s my theory, and those are my thoughts!
Now my question now is, let’s say that Tetsuya Nomura stuck this plot twist before he changed it: DiZ is the complete Ansem, and the Seeker of Darkness was his Heartless, and Xemnas was his Nobody. So if this particular plot twist was kept, how then, would that have changed post-KHII games like Birth by Sleep and Dream Drop Distance?
Tell me your thoughts in the comments below!
Monday, November 11, 2019
Musical Monday: God Bless the USA
God bless our great country, and God bless all those who do so much for it.
Post for Veteran's Day
Today was a day when one of the bloodiest wars in history ever ended. Today is a day to pay respect to those who serve our country. Today is a day to remember what they're sacrificing for the rest of us. Today is a day to honor the best of us.
Thank you, for your service, and for everything else too.
I just hope you know that there is much love and support from us here, and we will always be grateful for what you do for us.
Sunday, November 10, 2019
Seuss Saturday: The Wizard in the Hat
The Wizard in the Hat
The sun did not shine
It was too wet to play
So we sat in the house
All that cold, cold, wet day.
I sat with Mister Frodo.
We sat there, we two,
And I said, “How I wish,
We had something to do!”
To wet to go out,
And too cold to kill Orcs.
So we sat in the house
Like a couple of dorks.
So all we could do was to
Sit!
Sit!
Sit!
Sit!
And we did not like it,
Not one little bit!
And then,
Something went bump!
And that bump made us jump!
We looked,
And we saw him,
Step in on the mat
We looked,
And we saw him,
Gandalf in the Hat!
And he said to us,
Why do you sit there like that?
I know it is wet,
And the sun is not sunny,
But we can have,
Lots of good fun, that is funny!
I know adventure we could have”
Said Gandalf,
“I know some magics!
A lot of good tricks!
I can show them to you!
And Bilbo
Will not mind at all if I do!”
But we didn’t know what to say,
Mister Bilbo was out of the house for that day.
But Gollum said, “No, no!
Make that thing go away!
Tell that nasty creature
You do NOT want to play!
He should not be here
He should not be about
He should not be here
While Baggins is out!”
“Now! Now! Have no fear.
Have no fear!” said Gandalf
“My tricks are not bad,”
Said Gandalf in the Hat.
“Why, we can have lots of good fun like a chimp
With a game I call
UP-UP-UP with the imp!”
“Put us down!” said Gollum.
“This is no fun at all!
Put us down!” Said Gollum.
“We do NOT wish to fall!”
“Have no fear!” said Gandalf.
“I will not let you fall.
I will hold you up high
As I stand on a ball.
With my staff in one hand!
And a cup on my hat!
But that is not all I can do!”
Said Gandalf…
“Look at me!
Look at me now!” Said Gandalf
“With bow and a dwarf
On top of my hat
I can hold up TWO staffs!
I can hold up the imp!
And a ittle sharp sword!
And some beer in a dish!
And look!
I can hop up and down on the ball!
“Look at me!
Look at me NOW!
It is fun to have fun
But you have to know how.
I can hold up the rum!
And the beer and the dwarf!
I can hold up these staffs!
And the Imp on an animorph!
I can hold the sharp little sword!
And a little blond Elf!
And look! With my foot
I can hold a Geek fan!
I can fan with the fan
As I hop on the ball!
But that is not all.
Oh no.
That is not all…
That is what Gandalf said…
Then he fell on his head!
He came down with a bump
From there up on the ball.
And Frodo and I,
Saw all the things fall!
And Gollum came down too,
He fell into a pot!
He said, “Do we like this?
Oh no! We do not.
This is not a good game,”
Said Gollum as he lit.
“No, we do not like it,
Not one little bit!”
“But I like to be here.
Oh, I like it a lot!”
Said Gandalf in the Hat
To Gollum in the pot.
“I will NOT go away.
I do NOT wish to go!
And so,” said Gandalf in the Hat,
“So
So
So…
I will show you
Another good game
That I know!
Thursday, November 7, 2019
Explaining the Jurassic Park Raptors
A common explanation behind the “Velociraptors” is “they are
Utahraptors! Duh!”
But what if the answer is not as simple as that? Because it
probably isn’t.
Let’s start with the main thing: In the novel, Henry Wu says
that the main genetic sample for the Raptors “came from China”. Utahraptors did not live in China. Another factor is that they are far too small
to be Utahraptors. In the novel, they
are described as “six feet tall” and in the film, they are almost 15 feet
long. Utahraptors stood slightly taller
than that height, but were almost 21 feet long.
So if they aren’t Utahraptors, what are they?
A lot of fans guessed Achillobator, and the truth is, I sincerely
congratulate them for coming to this conclusion. However, this is not likely the case. Michael Crichton specifically stated that he
modeled them after Deinonychus antirrhopus, and going by the rules of Paleo
sci-fi, we have to assume that they are from the species that paleotologists
knew existed at the time. So why are
they so tall? In the novels, Circhton seems to make them roughly six feet tall
and eight feet long, fitting the more cube-like proportions Deinonychus antirrhopus
was generally given back when it was given a more upright position than it is
today, and back then, Deinonychus was classified by Gregory Paul as a kind of
Velociraptor, and a common sci-fi rule about writing dinosaurs is to treat all
species in the same genus as identical, so even though Crichton identified his
creatures as Velociraptor mongoliensis, he gave them the features of
“Velociraptor” antirrhopus.
So while technically the “Velociraptors” were just products
of the knowledge of paleotology at the time (they don’t even have feathers for
crying out loud!), we can still gauge a reasonably believable answer from the
clues that we have in Jurassic Park media.
Aside from the fact that they are based on two Dromaeosaurs, Velociraptor
and Deinonychus, there is much cause to believe in both novel canon and film
canon that they are transgenic organisms.
Henry Wu in the novel explains that he used in a wide variety of DNA
samples to complete the genomes of the dinosaurs, and the novelization of
Jurassic World claims that the “Velociraptors” were actually created from
multiple dromaeosaurs. So if they’re
transgenic, why are they bigger than most Deinonychus and all Velociraptors?
The answer lies in real-world hybrids. Ligers and mules tend to be particularly
gigantic in comparison to either parent.
The two main reasons are that with any given animal, especially with
hybrids, the genetic potential for size lies primarily in the mother, an
unevenness called genomic imprinting, and without a male mate of the same
species to provide growth inhibiting or promoting genes, the hybrid offspring
will have problems with growth dysplasia, especially if the mother belongs to a
larger species than the father. It’s
plausible that the two main donors of the “raptors” were Velociraptor mongoliensis
and Deinonychus antirrhopus, and while the fusion might have been achieved via
something like CRISPR, the Deinonychus still somehow had a more “maternal”
genetic contribution than the former, at least in terms of size, and without
any growth regulation from another Deinonychus, the subsequent Raptors grew
almost beyond the maximum size of the Deinonychus donor, just like with Ligers
and mules.
When viewed from this perspective, it ceases to be any
wonder that the Raptors became so completely out of control: They not only did
they not know what they actually had, but they didn’t know what they made
because they made something completely brand new. They crossed over countless species, but they
primarily crossed over two dromaeosaur species and made a dangerous, unstable
hybrid.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Whosday: How the TARDIS works
For today's Whiosday, we'll discuss how the TARDIS works!
Perhaps the biggest question is how it can travel in time, forwards or backwards: Answering how it can travel forwards is a fairly easy part, and it can even correct some continuity problems as we explore these questions.
One such continuity problem is Susan claimed that she coined the name "TARDIS", short for Time And Relative Dimension In Space, but in fact all similar devices used by the Time Lords are also callsed TARDIS-es.
It is entirely possible that these are two different acronyms, and they just make the same name as a coincidence in our human languages, which the Doctor and Susan do not actually speak. Their Gallifreyan words are translated for our benefit.
What the Time Lords have created is probably properly called a Traversible Achronal Retrograde Domain in Spacetime, a TARDIS, but Susan gave it her own name, Time And Relative Dimension in Space.
It's fueled by an Eye of Harmony, a Gallifreyan term for a black hole, which would provide unlimited energy due to the constant motion of black holes, best exemplified here:
The TARDIS is dimensionally transcendent, which might explain why it flat-out disappears when it moves; a higher dimensional object would most likely be hard to see unless it stood perfectly still.
Why does it look like a police box, even though it isn't?
The TARDIS is likely made out of tons of nanobots that are all connected to the TARDIS data core, which commands them to assume particular exterior structures.
Perhaps the biggest question is how it can travel in time, forwards or backwards: Answering how it can travel forwards is a fairly easy part, and it can even correct some continuity problems as we explore these questions.
One such continuity problem is Susan claimed that she coined the name "TARDIS", short for Time And Relative Dimension In Space, but in fact all similar devices used by the Time Lords are also callsed TARDIS-es.
It is entirely possible that these are two different acronyms, and they just make the same name as a coincidence in our human languages, which the Doctor and Susan do not actually speak. Their Gallifreyan words are translated for our benefit.
What the Time Lords have created is probably properly called a Traversible Achronal Retrograde Domain in Spacetime, a TARDIS, but Susan gave it her own name, Time And Relative Dimension in Space.
It's fueled by an Eye of Harmony, a Gallifreyan term for a black hole, which would provide unlimited energy due to the constant motion of black holes, best exemplified here:
The TARDIS is dimensionally transcendent, which might explain why it flat-out disappears when it moves; a higher dimensional object would most likely be hard to see unless it stood perfectly still.
Why does it look like a police box, even though it isn't?
The TARDIS is likely made out of tons of nanobots that are all connected to the TARDIS data core, which commands them to assume particular exterior structures.
Monday, November 4, 2019
Musical Mondays: The First of Me Lyrics
Musical Monday: The First of Me Lyrics
For today’s Musical Monday, we will discuss The First
of Me, a song by the rock band Hoobastank, and boy, is it a doozy! This one
song will be the subject for multiple Musical Mondays, but for now, we will
focus on the single most obvious aspect of it: The lyrics.
But first, you should listen to the song itself!
Some songs say more about people than their mouths
ever will, and this song’s lyrics can be truly poignant, because it’s about a
dilemma we all face, the pressure to be what is more widely acceptable, and the
desire to express what you really are.
In the specific context provided in the lyrics, it’s about how musicians
are often expected to focus on the marketable subjects, so often things about
inspiration, breakups, victimhood, and sex, among other things…but some people
just want to talk about things that are completely…off the wall, I suppose,
with their music, one thinks of Emilie Autumn and her work.
However, one can apply something similar to our
everyday lives. How many of us held
back, hiding what we really were in order to fit in with others, or rather,
what we just assumed others expected from us? The ironic thing is that if we
look back, we can often see that we were wrong anyway, that we probably would
have been accepted if we just presented ourselves as that from the very start,
but by being fake, not only do we cheat ourselves of opportunities to be who we
really are around others, but we also cheat ourselves with
self-dishonesty. Yes, I do think the
whole “keepin’ it real” culture takes it too far at times, which will be
articulated in a later post, but in general, I see nothing wrong with being
your most real self around others, and it’s usually the right thing to do.
And that’s partly what this blog is all about, to
express who I really am for all to see, and to support others who are accepting
this path as well.
On Both Cinematic Versions of Venom
I like both Venoms.
Yep, it's true, I like both cinematic depictions of Venom!
To which some might say, "but Grant, one is comic-accurate, and the other isn't!"
To which I say?
"Depends on the comic."
The fact is that the infamous Spider-Man 3 depiction of Venom, which is widely cited as comic-inaccurate, is almost every bit as accurate as the Tom Hardy Venom, just accurate to different comics.
To be frank, in some ways I recognized the Grace Venom more than the Hardy Venom, not because the Grace Venom was really any more accurate, but rather, because I was more familiar with the version of Venom the Grace Venom was based on: The Todd MacFarlane Venom.
Todd MacFarlane may or may not have created Venom, but he was certainly important for getting the character started, a huge driving force for the character's earliest appearances. His now almost obscure depiction of the character does many things that many Venom fans would probably not be particularly familiar with.
The MacFarlane Venom actually often alternates between saying "I" and "we", singular and plural, because it's Eddie speaking for the Symbiote, and sometimes himself, and the speech bubbles he's given seem to imply a fairly human but somewhat crazed voice. Regardless, it's strongly implied that he and the Symbiote are permanently bonded, and thus separating them would be lethal, their bio-chemistries were being fundamentally changed, to the point where his Venom face was appartly not a mask, but rather a result of full fusion of himself and the Symbiote. Still, he never had a tongue hanging out, a currently more famous part of the sheer image of Venom, but that's not the oddest thing about the old MacFarlane Venom.
What makes this Venom even more unusual by contemporary standards for the character is that he only fully cares about the innocent if they don't have any positive relationships with Spider-Man. In fact, he acts like a textbook case of some kind of Cluster B personality disorder, right down to doing everything he can to deny responsibility for his actions, his trademark trait during the MacFarlane run.
Sounds familiar? Because it should. That was pretty much the Topher Grace Venom; he was probably based primarily on the MacFarlane of the character.
But what about the Tom Hardy version?
Who said that he wasn't based on any existing version of Venom? Who said he wasn't valid? I didn't. As is well known to many, he's as valid as the Topher Grace Venom! Maybe even slightly moreso, if we're going to take all of the character's subsequent comic history into account, instead of specific eras and individual depictions. But to be as specific and accurate as possible, he seems to be most heavily based on David Michelinie's take on the Venom character of the 1990s. Michelinie was probably the main force behind reinventing Venom into something completely different, and yet far more familiar to most Venom fans.
Michelinie's depiction of Venom speaks only in plural, with speech bubbles that imply no insanity, but don't indicate a human voice to speak of, as if it's the Symbiote speaking for both himself and Eddir Brock, a team of two separate individuals who could potentially exist without each other, but choose not to. With that in mind, the Venom face doesn't seem to be what Eddie's face morphs into, but rather, a "mask" that the Symbiote superimposes over Eddie's face, complete with a long tongue that hangs out, proud and true.
To which some might say, "but Grant, one is comic-accurate, and the other isn't!"
To which I say?
"Depends on the comic."
The fact is that the infamous Spider-Man 3 depiction of Venom, which is widely cited as comic-inaccurate, is almost every bit as accurate as the Tom Hardy Venom, just accurate to different comics.
To be frank, in some ways I recognized the Grace Venom more than the Hardy Venom, not because the Grace Venom was really any more accurate, but rather, because I was more familiar with the version of Venom the Grace Venom was based on: The Todd MacFarlane Venom.
Todd MacFarlane may or may not have created Venom, but he was certainly important for getting the character started, a huge driving force for the character's earliest appearances. His now almost obscure depiction of the character does many things that many Venom fans would probably not be particularly familiar with.
The MacFarlane Venom actually often alternates between saying "I" and "we", singular and plural, because it's Eddie speaking for the Symbiote, and sometimes himself, and the speech bubbles he's given seem to imply a fairly human but somewhat crazed voice. Regardless, it's strongly implied that he and the Symbiote are permanently bonded, and thus separating them would be lethal, their bio-chemistries were being fundamentally changed, to the point where his Venom face was appartly not a mask, but rather a result of full fusion of himself and the Symbiote. Still, he never had a tongue hanging out, a currently more famous part of the sheer image of Venom, but that's not the oddest thing about the old MacFarlane Venom.
What makes this Venom even more unusual by contemporary standards for the character is that he only fully cares about the innocent if they don't have any positive relationships with Spider-Man. In fact, he acts like a textbook case of some kind of Cluster B personality disorder, right down to doing everything he can to deny responsibility for his actions, his trademark trait during the MacFarlane run.
Sounds familiar? Because it should. That was pretty much the Topher Grace Venom; he was probably based primarily on the MacFarlane of the character.
But what about the Tom Hardy version?
Who said that he wasn't based on any existing version of Venom? Who said he wasn't valid? I didn't. As is well known to many, he's as valid as the Topher Grace Venom! Maybe even slightly moreso, if we're going to take all of the character's subsequent comic history into account, instead of specific eras and individual depictions. But to be as specific and accurate as possible, he seems to be most heavily based on David Michelinie's take on the Venom character of the 1990s. Michelinie was probably the main force behind reinventing Venom into something completely different, and yet far more familiar to most Venom fans.
Michelinie's depiction of Venom speaks only in plural, with speech bubbles that imply no insanity, but don't indicate a human voice to speak of, as if it's the Symbiote speaking for both himself and Eddir Brock, a team of two separate individuals who could potentially exist without each other, but choose not to. With that in mind, the Venom face doesn't seem to be what Eddie's face morphs into, but rather, a "mask" that the Symbiote superimposes over Eddie's face, complete with a long tongue that hangs out, proud and true.
Sunday, November 3, 2019
Top Ten Godzilla Movies
After having seen Godzilla: King of the Monsters, I
have to admit I’m rather pleased…but also kind of disappointed.
I would be foolish to be ungrateful for the
adaptations of traditional Toho kaiju and the use of Akira Ifukube’s music in
tandem with the adaptation of the Blue Oyster Cult song.
However, I would be equally foolish to not admit that
the dialogue and characterizations needed more work, and that for all of the
variety of kaiju, basically all three fights are Godzilla against King
Ghidorah, and that the “nature” themes were mere decoration at this point.
Many would argue that this is all we should care
about, monsters fighting and silly dialogue.
I would argue that Godzilla has been done better than
this, on a minimum of ten occasions.
10. Godzilla: 2014
Explained Badly: Two young lovers wreck the cityscape
and wake up a grouchy elder.
Explained Better: Currently the only truly great
American Godzilla movie, and admittedly one of the greatest ones of all time, this entry is something of a military film, with a
parachute scene my dad just won’t stop talking about.
Part Godzilla vs. Hedorah, part Godzilla vs. Megaguirus, but far better than either movie, this entry depicts Godzilla as essentially a hero who balances out the ecosystem. The plot is as simple as its two points of reference, so the perhaps the plot is too simple: The main antagonists threaten the human race, and humanity must choose between fighting the monsters directly, or just accept their inability to fix the problem themselves and have faith in a new monster, Godzilla.
The acting and dialogue are generally better than that of King of the Monsters, especially, obviously, on Bryan Cranston's part. Sadly, only three characters were fleshed out in engaging ways.
The combat choreography was not quite as engaging as that of King Kong vs. Godzilla or Terror of Mechagodzilla, but it keeps one interested far more than Godzilla Raids Again and Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla, with Godzilla fighting a bit like a bear against angry charging MUTOs.
The soundtrack for this movie could be underwhelming at times, but using Georgy Ligeti's Requiem for Godzilla's theme was a most inspired decision!
Part Godzilla vs. Hedorah, part Godzilla vs. Megaguirus, but far better than either movie, this entry depicts Godzilla as essentially a hero who balances out the ecosystem. The plot is as simple as its two points of reference, so the perhaps the plot is too simple: The main antagonists threaten the human race, and humanity must choose between fighting the monsters directly, or just accept their inability to fix the problem themselves and have faith in a new monster, Godzilla.
The acting and dialogue are generally better than that of King of the Monsters, especially, obviously, on Bryan Cranston's part. Sadly, only three characters were fleshed out in engaging ways.
The combat choreography was not quite as engaging as that of King Kong vs. Godzilla or Terror of Mechagodzilla, but it keeps one interested far more than Godzilla Raids Again and Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla, with Godzilla fighting a bit like a bear against angry charging MUTOs.
The soundtrack for this movie could be underwhelming at times, but using Georgy Ligeti's Requiem for Godzilla's theme was a most inspired decision!
9. Godzilla vs. Biollante
Explained Badly: A man’s grief causes Japan to develop
a weed problem.
Explained Well: The second entry of the Heisei series,
Godzilla vs. Biollante was proof that Godzilla was fully ready to enter the
modern era, by storm, featuring far more creativity and a more believable premise than was expected by anybody at the time.
The plot is very complicated, perhaps a bit too much, but it adequately covers many of the potential concerns involving the misuse of bio-technology.
It probably has the best acting in the Heisei series, and Ken Satsuma is clearly more comfortable in his role as Godzilla than he was in this movie's predecessor, The Return of Godzilla.
The fight choreography is incredibly simple, but also reasonably effective. Biollante can't exactly properly wrestle Godzilla, which poses a problem, but she can dish out new powers bit by bit, which makes the fights brief, but fairly riveting!
The soundtrack choices were odd, but Biollante's theme does successfully convey the tragedy behind the character.
The plot is very complicated, perhaps a bit too much, but it adequately covers many of the potential concerns involving the misuse of bio-technology.
It probably has the best acting in the Heisei series, and Ken Satsuma is clearly more comfortable in his role as Godzilla than he was in this movie's predecessor, The Return of Godzilla.
The fight choreography is incredibly simple, but also reasonably effective. Biollante can't exactly properly wrestle Godzilla, which poses a problem, but she can dish out new powers bit by bit, which makes the fights brief, but fairly riveting!
The soundtrack choices were odd, but Biollante's theme does successfully convey the tragedy behind the character.
8. Terror of Mechagodzilla
Explained Badly: A guy attempts to liberate a Femcel
from her crippling anxiety. It ends
poorly.
Explained better: The end of the Showa series, Terror
of Mechagodzilla was cited by none other than Akira Kurosawa as the
exemplification of Ishiro Honda’s capacity to emphathize with others. Emphasizing the tragedy of the various
characters, from Katsura, to Dr. Mafune, this movie had to have been directed
by a true empath.
Hardly a Godzilla movie, just a movie with Godzilla in it, Terror of Mechagodzilla is really about the human characters, but in the best way possible, as most of the human characters are memorable and loveable save perhaps for most of the protagonists (but it’s hard to not see Ichinose and Katsura, and not have an impression). As a result, it was the favorite kaiju project of many of the actors involved because of how deep their characters were compared to the rest of the 1970s projects.
Hardly a Godzilla movie, just a movie with Godzilla in it, Terror of Mechagodzilla is really about the human characters, but in the best way possible, as most of the human characters are memorable and loveable save perhaps for most of the protagonists (but it’s hard to not see Ichinose and Katsura, and not have an impression). As a result, it was the favorite kaiju project of many of the actors involved because of how deep their characters were compared to the rest of the 1970s projects.
This entry, along with King Kong vs. Godzilla, has
some of the best combat choreography out of any existing Godzilla movie, and memorable monsters and destruction sequences.
The soundtrack is more repetitive, of a generally smaller scale, than was usual for Akira Ifukube, but the movie carries it out so wonderfully well, each theme fitting each monster perfectly.
The soundtrack is more repetitive, of a generally smaller scale, than was usual for Akira Ifukube, but the movie carries it out so wonderfully well, each theme fitting each monster perfectly.
7. Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah
Explained Badly: A bunch of extreme globalists go back in time
to drown a dinosaur. They fail.
Explained Better: Underrated because of poorly
explained time-travel mechanics, what many fans didn’t observe about this movie
was that this movie otherwise had the most linear plot out of the entire Heisei
era. Besides, we have not one, but TWO
good explanations behind the time travel.
So why complain? This movie is great!
Starting here, it’s going to be hard to talk about
these movies without mentioning politics and social issues, something that
Godzilla movies are very famous for.
If King Kong vs. Godzilla and Terror of Mechagodzilla
have the best combat choreography, then this and GMK have the second best
sequences of combat choreography; all major fight sequences were fully
riveting, and proved that Godzilla doesn’t always need help from another kaiju
in order to have a satisfying fight with King Ghidorah.
The soundtrack marked the return of composer Akira Ifukube, who had not composed a single theme for Godzilla in nearly two decades before this movie was released. It has one of the single best soundtracks of the Heisei series as a result of his welcomed return.
The soundtrack marked the return of composer Akira Ifukube, who had not composed a single theme for Godzilla in nearly two decades before this movie was released. It has one of the single best soundtracks of the Heisei series as a result of his welcomed return.
6. Godzilla, Mothra, & King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack
Explained Badly: Japan’s Nanking Denial presents a
much bigger problem than China asking for compensation...
Explained Better: Probably the only truly great
Millennium entry (though GXMG was pretty good too!), GMK focused heavily on
problems that really mattered. Japanese
historical revision comittees were getting press attention in the previous
year, so naturally it became a major subject for a lot of media, including this movie.
Everybody's done differently than usual: Godzilla is truly evil instead of a force of nature, and King Ghidorah is a protagonist. However, this movie does it remarkably well, no matter how jarring the concept is!
5. Shin Godzilla
Explained Badly: Thanks Obama
Explained Better: An answer to not only the lack of
government response to Fukishima, but also the growing concerns among Japanese
people about the potentially looming threat of North Korea (at the time) that
the Japanese government would surely be unable to act against, Shin Godzilla
emphasizes a bogged-down bureaucracy that must surrender to younger, fresher
faces as they race against time to defeat Godzilla, a living nuclear disaster.
Filled with only the most heart-wrenching themes, and showing Godzilla as in serious pain from his increasingly twisted body, Shin Godzilla depicts the tragedy of Godzilla in only the most poignant way possible.
4. Mothra vs. Godzilla
Explained Badly: An attempt to win the annual Easter Egg ends in
am unwanted snuggie for Godzilla
Explained Better: Widely regarded as one of the better
entries, Mothra vs. Godzilla was probably the most expensive Showa Godzilla
movie ever produced, and it shows, with the best suit of the Showa era, using
only the most meticulous molding and only the highest quality material
available at the time, as well as a huge Mothra egg prop for the human
characters to touch, and giant objects to make the Peanuts (the performers who
played the Shobijin) look smaller than they really were. No expenses were spared on its special
effects, save the relative lack of miniatures for some kaiju sequences, but
Toho wasn’t all about cityscapes back then, especially given that King Kong vs.
Godzilla proved that you only need one major full cityscape miniature scene in
order to be a decent kaiju film that can attract massive crowds. The same could be said about Mothra vs.
Godzilla.
This features some of the more subtle human acting of the
franchise, perhaps the best short of the 1954 movie, making what would have otherwise been annoying muck-raking speeches incredibly poignant, and it also features Godzilla suit-actor Haruo Nakajima adding more color to his character.
3. King Kong vs. Godzilla
Explained Badly: Two foreign tourists go ape and fight
each other as an act of community service.
Explained Better: Underrated because “Godzilla should
have won”, many miss the point of this movie: King Kong is often juxtaposed
against imagery of primitive societies in-tune with the natural world. Godzilla is often juxtaposed against imagery
of the Soviet Union and the United States, the two main nuclear powers at the
time. The Japanese version of this movie
even emphasizes that Godzilla was “a product of the atomic bomb”. Essentially, Godzilla represents the major
nuclear powers, and King Kong represents the countries they fought in proxy
wars. Think Hetalia, but with giant
monsters. Screenwriter Shinichi Sekizawa
accurately predicted that the Soviet Union and the United States would eventually get far
more than they bargained for from their proxy wars; he was proven right, given that the USA lost the Vietnam War and the Soviet Union lost the Soviet-Afghan War.
It also, along with Mothra vs. Godzilla,
probably had one of the single most technically sound scripts of any existing
Godzilla movie to date, with a tight, evenly paced plot that takes all of the
elements introduced in the story and adequately resolves itself. But if there’s one thing film critics and G-Fans
agree about, it’s that we really don’t rank Godzilla movies strictly on how
technically sound the script is. So
while I love this one, and have to say that it has the best-written screenplay
in terms of plot, it’s not my favorite, and it’s not the favorite of many
people either.
It also features, along with Terror of Mechagodzilla,
the absolute best combat choreography, providing a highly engaging battle
between Godzilla and King Kong.
2. Invasion of Astro-Monster
Explained Badly: The world gets saved by the most
annoying sound in the world (or at least, the most annoying besides Rebecca
Black’s voice).
Explained Better: Alan Moore looked at the Golden Age
and Silver Age of comics and praised the “imagination” put into them. This movie is pretty much that, like an
American comic from before the 1970s, with a cool sci-fi premise, tons of
worldbuilding, and a strange brand of camp that actually aged well rather than
poorly the way most of the more campy Godzilla movies did. It’s actually milder than the Adam West
Batman camp, and sits better with most than the camp of , so it’s often easy
enough to ignore or enjoy.
The combat choreography isn’t a whole lot to write
home about, but it’s far more memorable than any fighting moves you’re going to
see in Godzilla Raids Again, Son of Godzilla, and Godzilla vs. Hedorah, and
generally succeeds at its main goal, to be thoroughly entertaining.
1. Godzilla (1954)
Explained Badly: Not sure if I can. It’s too hard to explain badly.
Explained Better: This is the easy part. This movie has quite the history. When Tomoyuki Tanaka was unable to get a
big-budget Japan-Malaysia co-production movie released, he looked over the sea
from the plane he was flying in, and saw the ocean below, he thought of the
Lucky Dragon, a fishing ship that got soaked with radiation. From there, he got the idea that he could
make a movie about a radioactive monster.
Having commissioned Shigeru Kayama
The human acting is very heavy and intense, probably
the best of the franchise in general; thanks to the acting, every single major human scene is perfectly memorable and impactful.
This entry features the absolute best destruction
sequence of the whole Showa series, and maybe even Godzilla as a whole, save
perhaps the destruction sequence of Destroy All Monsters.
There are no fight scenes, because it only features
Godzilla, and fighting really isn’t the point of this movie.
As you can see, I’m a huge Showa fan. I remember back when it strictly remembered
for camp and childishness. Strangely, as
somebody who grew up with it, that’s not what I remember. I remember a ton of imagination and passion
being put into these stories. I remember
elaborate commentaries being woven into the stories. And I remember something that most other eras
did not: Memorable, loveable human characters, especially, but not exclusively,
in the 1954 film. Then again,
So, what are your top ten Godzilla movies? Let me know
in the comments below!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
