Equestria is run by a Big Eastern Syndicate · 1:04am Mar 28th, 2016
A few things have happened with me since my last post, but I’ll talk about the only one that might be of interest. I’ve officially joined a Dungeons and Dragons gaming group at work weeks ago. I’d never played the game before despite the fact I’m a fan of a few webcomics that feature it like The Order of the Stick and The DM of the Rings, and having enough knowledge to get the jokes and even make references. But it was enough for me to actually try the game out.
Currently, we’re playing second edition and I’m presently in a party of six (five players and a npc cleric) as a level 2 Gnome Illusionist (my low level being that I joined later than everyone else, not to mention our Dungeon Master’s method of dealing with leveling up pretty much eschews experience points). While I can certainly say I enjoy the game (last session, I saved a team mate from striges by using a sleep spell and killed a lizardman by casting sleep on him, causing him to fall in and drown in a pool of water), there are two thoughts that concern me. One is that you need a really good Dungeon Master in order for it to be more than just good. You can have a group of great players, but they will be bogged down by a mediocre DM with little imagination and inability to play more than just the rules (not that a good DM can improve upon a bunch of mediocre players who just want to kill stuff). I’m fine with the one I’ve got, but I can imagine one. Two, I haven’t really gotten into my character. Currently, my illusionist was originally a slave by orcs that was eventually obtained by some dark dwarfs that eventually chucked me into the party because I couldn’t supply them with the magic them wanted (it’s complicated and I won’t go into more detail), and so he takes a strong stance against slavery and the killing of the unarmed prisoners, evil or otherwise (something the rest of my party is willing and has done). But I haven't gone much beyond that, nor I have really separated the player and the character knowledge. Honestly, I'd be happy to take advice.
Anyway, below are my thoughts on the season 6 opener and a long-delayed piece on a holiday special.
The opener for season 6 premiere featured a minor change to it that gives a hint of what was to come here and after. During the brief photo shoot, Starlight Glimmer can be seen in the group. I doubt this is news to anyone, the confirmation that she is to have a presence for this season. Specifically, as Twilight’s pupil to learn about friendship, just like Twilight once did herself. That similarity actually showed itself in ways that were not just expected like Starlight’s own insecurities about making friends being like Twilight’s, but even in ways I didn’t see. Not only was Kelly Sheridan (her voice actor) actually listed above Tara Strong (Twilight’s) in the (longer and more thorough than previous ones) credits (as was Ian Hanlin, the voice of Sunburst in the second part), but the two were also starting to sound alike (don’t ask how, it might have been just a mental trick on my part). I doubt that was a conscious choice on anyone’s part, but it did serve to confirm that Starlight is basically the new Twilight. I’m not sure that’s an idea I really want to see come to being.
I suppose Starlight Glimmer isn’t the worst choice for a new regular (at the very least, she’s better than Trixie), especially if they’re trying to transition Twilight into a teacher (something that I’m also not really thrilled about, but get nevertheless). But unlike with Discord, the other originally a crazed villain and then reformed into a non-enemy semi-regular, I found the new her to be concerning. Starlight's character is so overwhelmed with self-doubt that it renders her rather boring, and in a way, it makes the gap between villainous portrayal and the new one large enough to the point the two feel like completely different characters*. And this is unfortunate, because it also robs Starlight Glimmer of victory to change herself into a better mare that succeeds at getting friends. If Harber had portrayed her as more than a nervous, insecure sinner with low self-worth, this wouldn’t be a problem. But I worry for how the character will be later on.
*The Jabberwock’s succeeds in comparison for one big reason: he was still rather antagonistic. Whenever he was taking the role of teacher/mentor, he was passive-aggressive in his help and praise, while if he was taking that of learner (like in the season 4 finale or Make New Friends but Keep Discord), he was still self-centered and not really caring if he offends anyone (besides Fluttershy). He wasn’t a particular good friend nor interested in learning how to be so. All this meant we always felt guarded with Discord because there was always a sense he could revert to his old self (which he did in the season 4 finale, so obviously won’t happen again, but the other non-Fluttershy characters don’t completely trust him). This all kept him interesting (it also makes him feel in-character). Not that I think Starlight Glimmer should be written the same (that is hint she might become evil again), only that she should still be interesting.
But if I had problems with the character, I didn’t have as many with the subplot involving her trying to renew her friendship with Sunburst as her first friendship assignment by Princess Twilight (if there’s anything that makes making friendship a chore, it’s turning it into a homework assignment), conceptually. I remember there were people who did feel they should have be reunited, and complained as such when it wasn’t done in the season five finale to tie up a thematic loose end. While I might be one of the few that doesn’t share that attitude**, if one believes Starburst getting back together is that important, then having that renewal as a subplot for a two parter is better than the quick rush it would have gotten had it been added to the tail end of the season five closer. But it was slow going (Starlight delaying the meeting might make sense in-character, but didn't help), and to be honest, seeing the pair act awkward with each other was a failed attempt at humor (I also felt it was too easy to see through Sunburst's lie of being an "important wizard", and even though this is for kids, I don't think they're that dumb). But it had the second-best part of the episode, Spike (his constant presence with Starlight as an assistant of sorts only served to remind me of her status as the new Twilight), who had some rather enjoyable lines. It even avoided a pitfall. Twilight making a list that includes a bunch of pointless steps is a humorous Twilight like action ("Before they see each other, be sure to highlight the importance of the meeting."), but I worried that it would also take away from the duo's rekindling, with the two just following the steps. While it’s true her list did have the solution ("And if all else fails, ask them to share an embarrassing moment from their past, maybe even something they regret!"), I also felt that both Starlight and Sunburst reached it on their own, which satisfied me***. (I also liked that Sunburst made the point that the princess probably wasn’t looking for them to solve their problem with magic magic; I still find the existence of such spells disturbing though, plus how he showed little reaction to Starlight’s whole cult and screwing up the time line things).
** I think one of my reasons why I never agreed with that sentiment has to do with how I view Starlight Glimmer’s character motivation. A big part of Glimmer problem (as I saw it) was her inability to let go of the past; that is she never really accepted the fact that she and Sunburst went their separate ways. Having her come to terms with the idea that she may never see her former best friend again and move on seemed to me the better way for her to mature. That doesn’t mean I think Starlight should not have tried to rekindle their friendship if they bumped into each other again (which would certainly not have been a bad episode idea, but that also makes me think it should have been saved for later).
*** I admit though it was an unusual solution but friendship can be caused and cured by many different things. There’s no fixed solution.
The reason I’m focusing mostly on Starlight’s part is because the other subplot (getting the baby ready for the crystaling and saving the Crystal Empire) is a reverse fillet (all bone, no meat). There’s action and humor in it, but there’s also nothing to take away from it and it really isn’t the heart of the episode (Starlight and Sunburst getting back together actually deals with the show’s mantra). The events happen because they need to happen and because Hasbro needs to advertise its new Flurry Heart toys. As such, I actually found it to be very boring. It also has the weakest parts of the episode such as when the ponies try to get the Crystalvians (what exactly do we call the residents of the Crystal Empire again) to leave (apparently these ponies, who are supposed to know that snow shouldn’t be blowing into their city, react to it with the intelligence of a garden hose because seeing the Crystalling is too important; also AJ’s complaint that they weren’t listening when part of the problem was she wasn’t being direct). And even solution to fixing the crystal heart was a little incredulous. Somehow Twilight Sparkle, personal protégé to the Matriarch of the Sun and grade A student from the Celestia’s School for Gifted Unicorns, has no knowledge of, but apparently a guy who was not great at school (he knew the how, but not the do) does.
So, I can’t say that I enjoyed or liked The Crystalling. But I also didn’t leave with ill feelings, either. Plus, this episode did allow me to geek out, given that we finally got hear Twilight and Shining Armor’s parents speak (which ranks after seaponies, good episodes, and countries that can be considered equal to Equestria as the things I want to see most in season 6).
One last thing, I feel like I should comment on the whole baby has wings and a horn deal and the fact it’s stated that one hasn’t been born in Equestria before, and the implications of it given they sort made a deal that the combination it has to be earned, but really, what is there to say? Twilight’s own ascension was botched already and we’ve never been told how the others got theirs (in the show; I’ve believe other sources do go into detail, but I’m not treating them as canon). At this point, it barely means anything nor does any more damage. I suppose we’ll have an episode (maybe the season finale) where the baby’s status and powers will be important (probably involving the changelings, especially when you realize what the creature is supposed to be and the little hint shown at the episodes, and an ancient prophecy). But until then, it’s hard for me to want to exert my energy complaining about.
This is actually something I was writing for my blog long ago, but I didn't complete it until after Christmas. That made it seem awkaward to devote a post by itself, so I waited until I had something else to go with it. Now I do, so enjoy.
I wish I was better qualified to talk about A Charlie Brown Christmas, which celebrated its 50th anniversary on Wednesday, Dec. 9th 2015. Charles Schulz’s Peanuts is one of the (if not the) best-known newspaper comic strip, and I’ve written a little about it before on this blog. But I can’t say that I’ve delved as deeply into the comic as I wish, nor do I own any copies of the various reprints that Fantagraphics has been publishing that could allow a good reminder. Thankfully, Gocomics.com does have reprints and even better of the years I’m interested, but it’s a pain reading a strip in five seconds and then waiting ten seconds just for the next one to load means I had to settle for just December of each year.
A Charlie Brown Christmas is not the first TV Christmas special (both Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol and Rudolph the Red-Nose Reindeer aired before it), animated or otherwise, but it is one of the earliest, along with being the first real Peanuts special (A Boy named Charlie Brown the documentary which includes animated clips by the people who would also work on Christmas doesn’t really count). So the formula for both hadn’t really been settled down yet. It is perhaps for that reason that there’s probably truth to what wiki (and the various articles it sources) says about this special having trouble getting on the air, in spite of the Hollywood like underdog story that often accompanies these “making of”s. The bare outline (which includes “winter scenes, a school play, a scene to be read from the Bible, and a sound track combining jazz and traditional music" and was little changed over time) that became the special was written by Schulz and with input from producer Lee Mendelson (who approached the cartoonist about such a special) in less than a day and they only had six months for the entire production (that includes the writing, the casting, the music, and the animation, which is said to have had only four months) at only a budget of seventy-six thousand dollars to create a half-hour long special (it’s hard to fathom that it was originally meant to be an hour).
Little time and low budget makes itself most apparent with the animation. This was directed by Jose “Bill” Melendez, who worked as an assistant at Disney and later as animator at Schlesinger/Warner Bros and includes the talents of various people of other veteran animators such as Rudy Zamora and Bill Littlejohn. Their talents don’t show up here. I don’t think A Charlie Brown Christmas is badly animated; there are few parts I feel that are jerky in movement. It is, however, clearly limited and not pretty to look at. Animated cycles (scenes where previous drawings are repeated) show up quite, a bit not just in walks or snow falling, but also scenes that could have benefited from more unique drawings. The famous bit where all the characters dance (if a zombie walk can be counted as dancing) on the stage for their play (with what has become recognizable as the Peanut’s theme) goes on for about half a minute at one point, and shows up elsewhere as well. There are also problems that I feel would show up in any Peanuts adaptation. As a general unwritten rule of animated adaptations of comics, the designs have to closely match that of the original cartoonist’s. This is due to not just reference material given to the production crew for them to use as a basis, but I also think it has something do with familiarity, people recoil at characters (and people) that are too different (whether that too few or too many features) than they’re used to seeing (don’t believe me, think about the shock you get when some one changes their look too much like a new haircut or shave). Schulz was rather limited as cartoonist with a minimalist style and little variation in his character’s basic design (take off the hair and clothes and every human character looks mostly the same). That may have helped make the production possible (less time has to spent drawing and animating things like hair and eyes), but it also meant that the characters don’t have many possible expressions and feel blank when they act (the Grinch, by comparison, is a more evocative character). More emphasis has to be placed on the voices and the writing to care the load.
If there was one thing that struck me while watching A Charlie Brown Christmas, it’s this: the writing was clearly the work of a newspaper cartoonist. It’s not just the fact that Schulz lifted dialogue and scenarios from his newspaper strip for the special (such as these two), but also the general way the special plays out. Many parts I can easily imagine be broken up into a four panel comic strip or a longer Sunday strip, such as when Lucy hands out parts for the play and the responds she gets (seen here and here), with the whole being one long storyline. I suspect this was natural for Schulz, but it does cause problems. There are parts like the scene involves Lucy repeated telling Schroeder to play Jingle Bells despite the fact he already is (he only adjusts it a little each time) that feel like padding. The other big consequence is the awkward change between these bits. Take for example the second clip, when Lucy asking Snoopy playing a few animal parts and then him her yelling at the cast (and his miming of her) to obey the director. I could imagine the first being it’s own daily strip and the second being a separate one as well, and this would work because each is meant to stand on its own. But here there has to be a link between these two in the special, and it never works for me because Lucy’s words should be directed at Snoopy, not at the rest of the cast because of that transition. It’s not the only one, sadly. I wouldn’t go as far as accuse A Charlie Brown Christmas of “Medium Misplacement”, but I can say that I enjoyed the strip version of many gags more than the special.
A Charlie Brown Christmas opens up slow and low-key, and this (and the nature of the holiday) cause people to think of it as gentle and even cute. What I don’t think most see is that Peanuts was a rather dark strip and that does carries over to the special. It’s not just as stated on Playtpus comix’s bit on Cricket on the Hearth when describing the more famous Christmas specials as “… full of failure and mean people and how sometimes things just don't go right…”, but also down to the comic’s nature. Think about the next most famous Peanuts special, It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown ends getting nothing but rocks from trick-or-treating and humiliation from Lucy and her football, the Great Pumpkin fails to show up for Linus and reward him and this causes him to double down on his conviction in the belief that the problem was due to a lack of faith, and Sally realizes that she nothing to show for Halloween: she has no candy from trick-or-treating nor fun from the party because she skipped out to be with Linus to get closer to him, but that doesn’t work either, and Snoopy gets shot down by the Red Baron. All the main characters end up being let down for one reason or another, often due to faults of their own. A Charlie Brown Christmas does not end on such a downer, but doesn’t mean it isn’t bleak at times. Charlie Brown receives no Christmas cards, bemoans the general attitude to the holiday (more on this later), has trouble getting anyone to listen to him when he tries to direct the play, is ridiculed for his choice of a Christmas tree and gives up when he puts one ornament on it that causes it to droop, thinking he’s killed it. Quite a bit does originate from Charlie Brown himself, although some is due to antagonism from others. They’re interconnected either way in one vicious cycle; Charlie Brown is the kind of person with a somewhat warranted reputation as a screw-up and while most of the lip he gets is unjustified, it’s not like the reaction to him directing to play is surprising given his general negativity. And that’s actually one of the best parts of it; it grounds the special into a reality that would be familiar to a kid like the newspaper comic itself. Childhood is not always a thing of joy, it can also be uncertain, unwelcoming, and even cruel. The strip is very much like that. I also believe it benefits from the use of the three main characters: Charlie Brown, Linus Van Pelt, and Lucy Van Pelt. All three them represent a different view of the holiday a kid might have; Charlie Brown finds unhappiness in because he can’t help by finding something false about it but still maintains a level of optimism that eventually he’ll find something to deal with his melancholy, Lucy is the acceptance and embracement of that falseness but is actually really clueless about it all (if her psychobabble of pop-Freudianism wasn’t the first hint) made worse by bullheadedness, and Linus works as a voice of reason and a voice of kindness that understands the religious significance.
It’s also one of the few Peanuts’ specials and movies that doesn’t lean too heavily towards Snoopy. True not everything that would make Snoopy annoying had been introduced yet (like the character of Woodstock), but there are aspects here that make Snoopy feel out of it. Part of the appeal of Snoopy, at least in his early years, was that he clearly a dog, and one that was unhappy about the fact he was a dog and much like Charlie Brown, his fantasy escapes from that fact were just as doomed to failure. But because he couldn’t talk, he could not truly interact with the other characters, and yet Snoopy is too much a part of the kids activities. No one to questions the strangeness of a dog playing a guitar or even decorating his doghouse, but yet no one also treats him as more than a dog either. At the same time, because Snoopy doesn’t talk, his inner monologues can’t be replicated here. So I don’t find Snoopy enjoyable, he neither works as a dog with super intelligence, nor human that happens to be in the body of a dog. I think all the parts with Snoopy, whether he’s imitating Lucy, styling up his doghouse, dancing on Schroeder’s piano, or skating on the ice like a pro are the weakest bits of A Charlie Brown Christmas, but they’re still better than in The Great Pumpkin, where too much time is spent on him flying and that doesn’t advance the plot.
While this is an excessive simplification, I do like to separate Christmas specials, along with any kind of media dealing with the holiday, into two groups: Team Jesus and Team Santa. The first group focuses on the nativity and the whole reason for the celebration of the holiday is the birth of Jesus Christ, king of kings, lord of lords, and forgiver of sins; (examples would be carols like Joy to the World and Hark! The Herald Angels Sing, specials like The Little Drummer Boy). The second group on the other hand is an embracement of joyousness bouts of merriment and festivity, and just getting away from the cold winter to be with others. These have a rather irreligious view of the holiday that has Santa at the center (here one would include songs such as Here comes Santa Claus and Deck the Halls, specials like Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer). This is again broad and probably ill-defined grouping method. I do think it’s, at least for this piece, an okay divider of specials. I say this because A Charlie Brown Christmas is clearly on Team Jesus.
Schulz doesn’t hold back here, and actual comes across as more forceful here than he does in the comic. Charlie Brown at various points laments the materialistic nature of Christmas, whether it be the fact he’s depressed about Christmas in spite of liking that he gets gifts and decorates the tree, Snoopy decorating his doghouse for a contest, his sister wanting Santa to bring her “tens and twenties”, his outcry that he won’t let the play become commercial (in response to Lucy’s comment, said with a smile, that “We all know that Christmas is a big commercial racket. It's run by a big eastern syndicate, you know.”), or his decision to chose a small, unappealing stick for a Christmas tree as opposed to the brighter and nicer looking aluminum trees he’s told to get (the hollowness of that side emphasized by the sound it makes when Linus knocks on one). There’s nothing subtle about this, and that preachiness is increased when Linus, to help Charlie Brown learn the meaning of Christmas, starts citing Luke 2:8-14 (perhaps because he didn’t think a rubber mallet was enough, Schulz switches to a brick by having Linus cue the lights first). Do I have a problem with the idea of Schulz’s message? No. Do I think it was well was presented or put together? Yes and no. Charlie Brown’s response to not letting commercialism ruin his Christmas is to decorate the tree with ornaments from Snoopy’s prize winning doghouse. One could read it as that Charlie Brown has accepted that there’s nothing he can do about what Christmas has become and just to ignore it knowing that, thanks to Linus, he’s learned the real point of Christmas. Plus the other characters turn over a new leaf and decide the twig wasn’t a bad tree after all and decorate it up into something very presentable. But at the end of the day, there’s not much disparity between a real tree and an aluminum one. I think my other problem is there’s nothing that passage about being a better person. There’s plenty of things in that that I can see as connecting to hope, joy, and other things we relate with the holiday that are worthy of celebration, but there’s nothing I really can see that would make Charlie Brown (and by extension the other kids) turn a new leaf. This is where things get more personal, and have to admit I struggled with this passage the most [and probably was the biggest reason for the delay]. But my review, my opinion.
Yet, there’s a degree of irony here, A Charlie Brown Christmas was sponsored by the Coca-Cola Company (see this bit from the original showing), one of the corporations most identified with the commercial side of Christmas that the special decries. I don’t question Schulz’s sincerity (although, Melendez and Mendeleson who were said to be nervous about including the Bible quotes, is a different story), but it makes it harder for me to look at this with utmost seriousness. Of course, Schulz’s himself would eventually get into that commercial arena as well when the strip became popular, Snoopy became the star, and with it became the snoopy dolls that filled the shelves. Never one comes out clean for too long, as hard as the man might have resisted.
Having said all this, I’m surprised that a the special has last as long as it has and not just because for reasons that are unrelated to its quality. It’s neither the best Christmas nor Peanuts’ special, let alone the best work that Charlie Brown and co. appeared in. There are a number of things that aren’t good about A Charlie Brown Christmas, but there are a number of things that it gets right and makes it more enduring than most Christmas specials. I do enjoy more than I would think it first. Yeah, I said the story is preachy, but it’s also mostly lacking in sentimentality. And that’s saying quite a bit because this is a holiday that encourages that emotion. It’s funny and Like I said, this is a actual a rather down to earth like presentation of childhood (even if Schulz’s characters are anything but normal) that I can really only compare to (off the top of my head) the first episode of the Simpsons. Even the change at heart bit at the end is more believable than other, arguably better Christmas stories like A Christmas Carol, or How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Whether or not it will be remember in 2065 is another question, but for now, it’s enjoyable enough, flaws and all.
One constant across RPGs is that the game is only as enjoyable as the DM makes it. Some games (e.g. 4th ed D&D) are carefully designed so that even a totally uncharismatic and uninspired person can run something at least marginally playable, though this often ends up hamstringing DMs who don't need quite so many crutches; others (e.g. Toon) are virtually unplayable without someone who's good at running a group--but when you do have that person,they're a blast.
Sometimes, I find it easier to reverse-engineer a personality. Do a few off-the-cuff things in the next game, without regard for how much sense it makes (for his character, not in absolute terms; I'm assuming you're past the "lol I stab the king" stage of player development), and then at the end of the session think about how everything you've done so far can be combined into a coherent whole. Allow that new whole to guide you forward.
No promises that that works either, though. Character crafting is a lot like writing; everyone does it differently, even when they do it the same way