incarnation initial

anonymous asked:

Do you have any posts on what you don't like about Movie Bellatrix, or could you explain why? I thought movie bellatrix was ok. Love the blog by the way xx

Thanks so much!

Apologies for the amount of time this response took. I couldn’t actually find many posts on the topic (besides this HPC - if anyone knows of other book!Bellatrix vs movie!Bellatrix posts, I would love to be linked to them) so I slapped one together myself.

Disclaimer: This post is not about Helena Bonham Carter not being a good actress (she is) or about which version of Bellatrix people personally liked more.  This is a mixture of book-vs-movie fact comparisons and personal opinion.

  • In the movies, Bellatrix is ‘crazy’ in a hammy sort of way. A kooky woman with floofy hair who ran around on tabletops - silly, out of control, and with an occasional childlike insolence.  She literally says “Blech!” when Voldemort mentions Wizard-Muggle intermarriage, and shouts, “Somebody needs to do the washing!” when Voldemort invites Neville to be a Death Eater. Not only does it seem like she’s trying to be the comic relief, she’s also practically interrupting Voldemort mid-speech.
  • Helena Bonham Carter falls into a small group of actors on the Potter films who looked perfect for the role on paper, but Something Happened and they ended up quite different from their initial book incarnation, despite the actor’s likely capability to portray the character to perfection if properly scripted and directed. (I’m looking at Ralph Fiennes, and possibly Emma Thompson, Timothy Spall, and Natalia Tena. Tena should have been let loose a little; Carter perhaps reined in a bit more. Helen McCrory, who was originally meant to play Bellatrix and ended up as Narcissa Malfoy, recently took a literal blood bath in Penny Dreadful. It makes one wonder how she would have done in the role.)  As with a lot of characters in the movie adaption, the subtlety in Bellatrix was lost.
  • Or to put it another way, Carter basically ended up playing a version of herself, as occasionally tends to happen in her movies….
  • She wasn’t styled well either - the books never mention a rat’s nest of hair or any tooth problems, which could likely have been fixed by magic and don’t suit her background as a proud aristocrat. Those problems are on the makeup team, though.

A lot of this is how she was scripted, of course, which gave her much less gravity than she had in the books:

Movies: ‘Cissy, put the boys in the cellar! I’m going to have a conversation with this one, girl to girl.’

Books: ‘You need more persuasion?’ she said, her chest rising and falling rapidly. ‘Very well - take the smallest one. Let him watch while we torture the little girl. I’ll do it.’

Movies: ‘Neville Longbottom, isn’t it? How’s mum and dad? ‘

Books: ‘Longbottom?’ repeated Bellatrix, and a truly evil smile lit her gaunt face. ‘Why, I have had the pleasure of meeting your parents, boy.  [….] No, let’s see how long Longbottom lasts before he cracks like his parents….”

Movies:  ‘How dare you speak his name! YOU FILTHY HALF BLOOD!’

Books: ‘You dare speak his name?’ whispered Bellatrix. [….]   ‘Shut your mouth! You dare speak his name with your unworthy lips, you dare besmirch it with your half-blood’s tongue, you dare - ’  

Bellatrix in the books -

  • - as shrieking and prone to baby-talk as she was - wasn’t so funny. She had an arrogance that oozed her blue-blood upbringing (a woman with thick, shining dark hair and heavily hooded eyes, who was sitting in the chained chair as though it were a throne). She spoke in a grandiose fashion at times (”You dare speak his name with your unworthy lips, you dare besmirch it with your half-blood’s tongue…“) and before her imprisonment was calm and self-assured in her fervor (“The Dark Lord will rise again, Crouch! Throw us into Azkaban; we will wait!”). 
  • There’s only a few times we really see her lose composure - when someone has insulted Voldemort (“He dares - he dares - ’ shrieked Bellatrix incoherently, ‘he stands there - filthy half-blood - “) and when she thinks Voldemort is going to be angry (‘LIAR!’ she shrieked, but he could hear the terror behind the anger now. ‘YOU’VE GOT IT, POTTER, AND YOU WILL GIVE IT TO ME! Accio prophecy! ACCIO PROPHECY!’‘).
  • Ultimately, Bellatrix should been more weighty character; she should have been terrifying rather than campy; she should have commanded a sense of real power as Voldemort’s second-in-command. And I didn’t get any of that from her movie adaption. :)

anonymous asked:

TFW your icon vanishes from the story without explanation.

What do you mean?

Magane’s plans were resolved completely in the previous episodes. I guess its fine to be a little disappointed she didn’t get a nod and a wink in the final episode, but she didn’t strictly need one.

In episode 20, Magane is at an airport- An airport is a clear announcement that she plans to leave the country. Furthermore, her speech with Sota in 18 tells us everything we need to know about her world views and plans for the future.

Magane wouldn’t be able to live with herself going back into the story she came from. Her creator is dead- (And she probably didn’t kill him!) - her story won’t be the same going forward, if it even does. 

Magane’s core philosophy simply involves enjoying passion, struggle, and stimulation in life. She genuinely, innocently loves when people try their best, watching people strive for something.  And there is no better place for her to do that than in the creator’s world with its information depth, billions of unique people. In a story, she is so limited. In reality, Magane is freed from her role, and has so many options.  Her goal ever since things settled down a bit during the production of the Elimination Chamber Festival has been simply to experience the world; to see new things. If you ask me, she is even tired of being a villain.

Simply put, Magane’s been behind “True Incarnation” since before the initial fighting even stopped. And with Meteora- episode 22 shows us that nothing special is even required to do this. All that needs to be done is to stay- and their powers will fade away, leaving them as normal humans.

Magane doesn’t need her powers for what she wants to do. They are less important than her philosophy.

I was satisfied enough with her role in 20, and I think it pretty comprehensively tied up her arc. She got to involve herself critically in one of the most influential and important schemes on the planet, and get away scot free. Her role as a strengthening influence on Sota, foil to Meteora, and position as a neutral chaos party was fulfilled. She grew as a person, expanded as a character, and adapted her worldview, changing how she acts subtly.

And now she is free to travel the world on her own as some kind of wandering trickster god.

30 Day Video Game Challenge [x] - Day 18: Favorite Protagonist

Ownership of Spyro has changed hands a lot over the years, and while I enjoy the different personalities and stories he’s gotten to go through, his initial incarnation under Insomniac will remain my favorite video game protagonist of all time.

From Swiss pikemen to Swedish mobile artillery

The impact of gunpowder in combat formations and battlefield tactics in Europe

The Swiss Pike Phalanx became a popular formation around 1500, or so. Prior to that, medieval and renaissance armies (especially in central Europe) focused primarily on heavy cavalry and elite infantry. These usually consisted of nobles, and were supplemented by poorly armed peasant levies. Think Battle of Agincourt here, elite semi-noble and noble French troops against English peasants and nobles.

The Swiss relied on citizen armies, all armed to an adequate standard. And to maintain relevance on a battlefield dominated by heavy cavalry, the Swiss implemented a heavily modified version of Alexander’s Phalanx. By mixing in long-reaching melee units, the Swiss Phalanx was more maneuverable, more sturdy, and all around better than either Alexander’s armies, or the infantry forces which had preceded them. Especially in France, Swiss mercenaries plied their trade and dominated all comers for decades.

However, they were challenged by German mercenaries, who initially copied their style. The German Landsknecht was essentially a heavily modified version of the Swiss Phalanx. One of the major, early, innovations of the Landsknecht was the introduction of several different kinds of long, reaching weapons, including the famous Zweihander two-handed sword. These weapons, in either Swiss or German employ, were used to cut down attackers before they broke the Phalanx, as well as cut the heads off of the enemy phalanx before launching their own assault. The Germans increased the ratio of pike to other weapons, and made their formations more versatile.

However the crucial innovation, and the one which would spell the end for the dominance of the Swiss, was the Landsknecht’s willingness to accept gunpowder weapons into their forces. Early in the 15th and early 16th centuries, during the hay-day of the Swiss, gunpowder weapons were expensive and rare. Thus, the Swiss incorporated very little of this new technology. But the Landsknecht, iterating on the Swiss design, incorporated these new weapons on a much larger scale. They might have between 15-25% gunpowder troops, which far outnumbered the Swiss. This allowed the Landsknecht to harry, demoralise, disrupt, and weaken the opposition well before they could respond (especially if it was a Swiss unit facing them!). Yet the Swiss never really integrated gunpowder weaponry on the same scale as the Landsknecht. Part of it was that the two forces rarely met in battle, and part was that the Landsknecht quickly proved themselves the superior style of mercenary. Only France, due to the preferable terms the Swiss offered the French king, really clung to the older model of army, and with poor result! In the few occasions where Swiss and German met, the Landsknecht regularly proved their superiority, especially in terms of firepower.

However, by the late 16th century, both the Swiss and the Landsknecht would find themselves outclassed by a new formation, the Spanish abomination.

In many regards, the Tercio is weird. For most of human history, armies lined up in a roughly linear fashion to fight each other. The lines might look different, be different sizes, and have a different organisation, but the linearity of war has been relatively constant. The Tercio, on the other hand, rejected that. The Spanish formed their phalanxes into giant squares, surrounded by musketeers. Anywhere from 3-5000 men made up the formation in its initial incarnation, and three or four of these Tercios (as one block was called) would form a wedge or diamond on the battlefield. It would go forth, and smash huge holes in the enemy formation, while maintaining a steady stream of fire against all comers.

The Tercio had several advantages, which made it useful across the Habsburg domains (Spain and Germany mostly, though the Tercio would eventually travel to Eastern Europe and elsewhere). Firstly, the Tercio was easy to command. With all those men, packed tightly into a huge square, orders could be easily communicated. Next, the Tercio concentrated a huge number of men in one spot. At any given time, the Tercio could be confident that it could bring more men to bear than an enemy, arrayed in the classic linear fashion. Further, the Tercio (ideally) maintained a constant volley of fire whenever it moved against the enemy. Within that belt of musketeers, the men were arranged roughly into lines, or waves. As the Tercio entered weapon range, the first line would fire their weapons, then move rearward. The second line would fire, and also move rearward. The rear lines would reload, and when their turn came, also fire. Theoretically, this meant that the Tercio would always be shooting, and wearing down the enemy.

But the Tercio too had many problems. Its movements were sluggish, and clumsy. 3000 men are hard to move around, especially when the musketeers were performing their evolutions. And with precious few officers to control the chaos, even veteran musketeers found the Tercio difficult to handle. Further, when moving to the attack and defence, the pikemen of the Tercio had to somehow switch places with the squishy musketmen on the outside. Especially on the attack, when the pikemen had to leave their cocoon and push forward, those manoeuvres sowed chaos and confusion in friendly ranks. Further, because the Tercio was so big, the men in the center and rear were often deaf and dumb to pressing danger. Rather than run, they blindly pushed forward against the front ranks, who had no choice but to press on. In the early days, this made the Tercio seem invincible; this dynamic meant that the Tercios almost never routed. But too, this was a doubled edged sword. At Rocroi, the Tercios should have retreated when they had the chance. Instead, they were annihilated. And on the subject of men in the back pushing, the men behind the first few ranks almost never saw any action. Other than pushing forward, many of the Pikemen of the Tercio rarely contributed to the outcome of the battle. Unlike in a classically linear formation, the Tercio locked men away in tight blocks. It was a hugely inefficient formation.

Only the Spanish really ever employed the Tercio to its maximum effect. But, by the Thirty Years War and the Dutch Revolt, many European powers had solved the Tercio problem, and had again iterated with new tactics.

During the Dutch War, the Dutch found themselves fighting the Spanish Tercio. But they had a problem, many of the Catholics living in Southern Holland (modern Belgium) didn’t want to fight with Protestants, against their trading partners, at the risk of having their farms and estates burned. That left the Dutch without aristocrats, and in 16th century terms, that meant no officers! (Traditionally, the nobility served as the kings officer corps. They were appointed based on wealth and power, not merit. The Dutch had no king, and the nobles abandoned them. That meant William the Silent had to adopt a new kind of army to fight the Spanish).

If the Swiss solved the cavalry problem by harkening back to Alexander, then William the Silent went back to Caesar for his inspiration. The Dutch formed their army around citizen soldiers which were organised into centuries and cohorts, later companies and brigades. Each unit was organised in a standard fashion, and had a standard complement. That meant a general could always know exactly what 2 brigades meant, it was x number of pikes and x number of guns, and that helped the Dutch standardise their army.

In terms of unit composition, the Dutch also radically increased the numbers of muskets v. pikes, to perhaps 30-40% of their army. They arranged these units in a roughly Roman formation (that classic checkerboard), with each brigade alternating:

Pike-Shot(gun)-Pike-Shot-Pike-Shot, etc.

In combat, the musketeers would soften the enemy up (either on the offensive or defensive) while the Pikes would manoeuvre into position. At the critical moment, the pikes would rush forward and attack the enemy, or defend the musketeers (who would retreat and seek a new firing position).

But the innovation was incomplete. It would take a Swede, Gustavus Adolphus, to carry the new formation into its final form. Prior to 1630 and Sweden’s entry into the Thirty Years War, Adolphus had waged a long war against Poland. Poland fought wars radically differently than the central and western Europeans: they relied more on peasant levies, pure pike armies, and the legendary heavy cavalrymen, the Winged Hussar.  In Germany and France, the Swiss and Landsknecht had killed the heavy, lance-armed, cavalry which had dominated the in the renaissance. Instead, cavalry fought much like musketeers did in the Tercio.

The Caracole manoeuvre had cavalry charge the enemy and, at the last second, fire a pistol or carbine before turning away and riding back to the rear to reload. Both complicated and ineffective, the weapons of the time, fired from horseback, simply could not reliably produce the damage and confusion required to break an enemy. But the charge of a Hussar, with their heavy wooden lance, could do just that. Adolphus adopted the Hussar, and used it as his corps of decision. When he was ready to end a battle, he would launch his Hussars at the enemies’ weakest point, where they would have the worst possible chance of stopping the heavy cavalry. And, once broken in one spot, the enemy army often quit the field in whole cloth.

Adolphuses other innovation was much simpler. He designed and employed a series of light artillery pieces, and gave them to his individual brigades. While they were inaccurate and often inefficient, no other army had given control of the precious artillery pieces to smaller units before. The Adolphan brigades thus had a lot more firepower than their opponents did, and the Tercios did.

Adolphus brought his new army into the field against the Austrians, who had adopted Spain’s Tercio. But the Austrians had never mastered it, and found themselves repeatedly checked and defeated by Adolphus. It signalled a paradigm shift, and many European armies (especially among the protestants) adopted the new style. Even France switched to this new model. And at Rocroi, when the veteran Spaniards met the new French armies in battle, the Tercio was finally broken, and the cream of the Spanish army was laid to waste. This new model would persist, with some modification, into the reign of Louis XIV.

The central concepts, heavy cavalry, brigadisation, and a mixture of pike and shot, would be adhered to until after the War of the League of Augsburg, when socket bayonets replaced the Pike. Yet, even before then the ratio of Guns to pikes continued to expand. During Adolphus’ lifetime, his army likely grew to around 50-60% guns. By the W. O.T. League of Augsburg, that ratio was around 75%. And obviously, by the W. O. Spanish Succession, just a few years later, that ratio had grown to nearly 90-100% (with the bayonet). 

This is the general flow of battlefield tactics in the Early Modern Period. The real secret to warfare during the 16-18th century was the gun. Each formation successively brought more firepower to bear than the last one. Guns were useful in many situations, both on the attack and the defence, but the Pike was only useful as a weapon of last resort (ie, close-in fighting) and as a last shock action to cement a victory and route the enemy. The formations which brought more gunpowder to bear did better than those that incorporated less. And this arms race would continue into the early 1700s, when armies finally adopted the socket bayonet, which turned guns into makeshift pikes, and finally made armies 100% gunpowder affairs.

Russell Weigley, Age of Battles
Frank Tallett, War and Society in Early Modern Europe
William McNeill, The Pursuit of Power
Peter Paret, Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age
David Chandler, Oxford History of the British Army

So in case it wasn’t super obvious, I got really into that last episode of Second Citadel. 

This is pretty new for me, because the Second Citadel stories haven’t exactly been my favorite parts of The Penumbra Podcast. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see more of Marc, Talfryn, Sir Caroline, and Angelo, but those episodes never really engaged me the way the Juno Steel episodes did, or the way this last one did.

((This might be a good time to mention that this isn’t me trying to harp or get nitpicky– it’s very much me trying to feel out the things that suck me into other people’s writing so I can incorporate that more in my own. I’m shameless that way.))

Comparing the Second Citadel stories to each other, the big thing that pops out at me is the quality of its villains. 

Keep reading

kokiri85  asked:

How do you think Trump's attack on Syria compares with past presidents in terms of overreaching war powers? Is it really any more extreme than the norm?

Yes and no. In a lot of ways it’s similar to recent executive overreach in foreign policy (I wrote about that history here). 

Where it’s unique, at least in terms of the post-9/11 wars, is that it’s 1) an attack on a state actor and 2) it’s not remotely covered by any declaration of war or authorization for use of military force. 

The first point the — fact that this involved regime targets — makes it different from current U.S. intervention in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia. In all of those fights, U.S. troops are opposing non-state actors including the Islamic State (despite their own claims, ISIS is not a government in the way the Bashar al-Assad regime is a government), al Qaeda, the Taliban, AQAP, and al Shabaab.

The second point — lack of any congressional authority — applies to all of the United States’ present military interventions, but it applies doubly to this attack on Syria. 

You see, the 2001 (Afghanistan) and 2002 (Iraq) Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) allowed the president to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 and the Saddam Hussein regime, respectively. Those missions are long over.

Now, the 2001 AUMF in particular has been stretched to cover warmaking against basically any Islamic terrorist organization anywhere in the Mideast or Africa with any connection to al Qaeda ever, even if the organization in question didn’t exist back in 2001. 

That’s ridiculous — in practice it means an unlimited, endless war on terror waged at presidential whim — but it’s not nearly as ridiculous as the suggestion that either of these documents could somehow authorize an attack on a sovereign (and, yes, brutal and inhumane) government with which they are obviously not concerned.

The closest comparison is the 2011 NATO/U.S. intervention in Libya, which was likewise sold in its initial incarnation as a humanitarian endeavor against a bad government mired in civil war. 

The analogy is not exact, of course, but it is instructive to look at how poorly that turned out: The grim result is an ISIS-filled power vacuum, continued chaos, and good evidence that U.S. involvement prolonged and deepened civilian suffering. Syria has nearly four times Libya’s population in a tenth of the space. If the same thing happens there, it will be much worse.

EDIT: Whoops, just noticed I accidentally linked to this post from The Onion in my first line. Look at that too, but this Politico piece is what I intended to reference.

Overcoming the twin flame separation - accept invisible

I’ve recently overcome the twin flame separation which in fact was only an illusion my mind had produced due to a fear of abandonment and based on past relationships. It kept me in pain for about 7 months, day by day with a few days of peace. It had been triggered however, by the physical separation due to LDR, but love has been there, always, yet we knew we had to come back to our countries for the time being. During 7 months, the Universe made all my fears come out for healing and made my trust pass a few spiritual tests. Now I radiate, I’m myself again, we talk again. There was no help, no coaching, no support, no medicine, no new relationships, just me, a lot of mental & physical activity, and my twin flame with constant, unchanged love, but in spirit. I ran, chased and stayed due to personal issues. He ran but into professional work to develop what his self needed to achieve. This year 2014 is not for love but for doing a research & healing selves while preparing for the next meeting, which will be a more mature extension of our first.

Keep reading

Clexa Fic Rec

I Keep seeing people asking for fics to read so I compiled a list of my favourite complete and some incomplete fics. There’s a mix of some pretty old fics and some newer fics. The list will be updated as I read and find fics I love and or remember fics I have previously read. 

Fics are put in three categories: Canon Based, Oneshots, and Alternate Universe.

Information about fics includes:

  • Title
  • author
  • link to fic
  • status of fic
  • word count
  • and my thoughts on it

Feel free to talk to me about any of the fics you read and suggest ones to add to the list. You can also check my clexa fanfic tag for some fics written on tumblr. Happy reading!

[Last Post Update: 24 Decemeber 2016]

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Hey so I'm aware that Christmas is NOT at all a pagan holiday, at least I think I'm right there, but I don't really know why???? As it is the season where people start speculating on the origins of holidays and suchlike, could you maybe post a few links or something of the sort for people like me to educate ourselves? Thank you!

this is a pretty good overview of the early Church and the migration of cultural traditions in general.

to paraphrase; Christmas is placed where it is in the year (coinciding with Saturnalia) because it was very dangerous to be a Christian in the Roman Empire (especially before the conversion of Constantine in ~313, during which time Christians faced ten major persecutions under a variety of Roman Emperors).

under Nero ( x )

Besides being put to death they [the Christians] were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beast and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. [page 2]

under Marcus Aurelius ( x ) ( x )

…he considered the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul, with its moral consequences, as vicious and dangerous to the welfare of the state. A law was passed under his reign, punishing every one with exile who should endeavor to influence people’s mind by fear of the Divinity, and this law was, no doubt, aimed at the Christians.

Later, there is record of “new decrees” making it easier for Christians to be accused and have their property confiscated.

and so on. to avoid being tortured, exiled, murdered, and otherwise mistreated, Christians were forced to “act the part” of loyal citizens, which included taking part in (or seeming to) major holidays.

while the rest of the Empire celebrated Saturnalia, early Christians would secretly be celebrating the birth of Christ. naturally this involved participating in traditions such as decorating one’s house with garlands of holly (a plant sacred to Saturn [page 28]) and exchanging gifts [page 52].

as Christianity spread outward and into Europe, practitioners encountered, among other things, the Germanic festival of Yule. since the celebration of Christmas was already established around the same time of year, Yule traditions were absorbed into Christmas festivities - most especially by converts who brought along old cultural traditions to their new religion.

the specific date of December 25 was chosen to reflect a nine-month time period between the Annunciation and the Nativity; however Christmas had already been celebrated around this time for several hundred years before the date became official.

the Annunciation (the celebration of Gabriel’s visit to Mary, informing her that she would conceive and become the Mother of God) on March 25 initiates the Incarnation of Christ and begins the remembrance of Christ’s Passion, which is known to have taken place in the spring.

Regarding the future

First off, I’d like to thank everyone for the warm reception to Undertale 2: Overtale. What started as a joke and ended as a more elaborate joke seemed to make a lot of people laugh, even if it was admittedly a bit of a mess. Seeing people’s reactions to the game as they play through it warmed my cold heart.

That being said, it’s time to talk about what the future holds for Torgus Interactive. A new project is underway. Crunching to meet the stated release date was the main reason U2:O proved so buggy in its initial incarnation, so I’m not going to give a concrete launch window yet, but rest assured that Torgus Interactive’s next project will be larger, more ambitious, and possibly even dumber than its last. Please look forward to…

Before We Begin: Let’s Agree To...

After some reading many more posts and watching vlogs about Pokemon GO, I’ve come to think of a new question about Pokemon Go. How are we going to react to Pokemon GO once its released? Now before the next trailer or the announcement of closed Beta Testing, I think there is a standard of rapport we should follow before downloading. We’re all human, I get that. But we should at least check ourselves before we wreck ourselves. 

So without further ado, here are the top five things we should do before playing.

#1. Accept there may only be the first 151 pokemon.

I get this is a tough one. I know many people don’t particularly like gen 1 pokemon, either because of how the pokemon can be trained, or aesthetic taste. But due to the nature of character rendering, and the fact the trailer only conveyed the original 151, its safe to assume the launch of Pokemon Go will have the 151 for some time. I keep seeing funny post about the Eon Legendaries flying near planes, or going to an Ex’s house to find a Garbador, so I would hate to see people disappointed with only the first 151. We may not be able to capture gen 3 pokemon until a year after GO’s release–and that should be fine. I see it as a way of learning to love certain pokemon we didn’t like at first. Were it not for my FireRed Nuzlocke challenge, I wouldn’t love Vileplume or Weezing.

#2. Pay attention to your surroundings when roaming for Pokemon.

This really should be common sense, but if we all had common sense, we wouldn’t have texting and driving laws. Now I’m not gonna lecture on playing Pokemon GO while driving, because quite frankly all those who can drive already know that having your phone in your palm can lead to a traffic ticket–and thats just a minor problem. If you do so, and somehow kill someone–I hope you’re a big enough person to say, “This is my fault–not Pokemon,” because honestly, when that does happen there will be people who will condemn the game, leading to a lawsuit–thereby bankrupting pokemon, and harshing everyone else’s buzz. 

This also applies to those who walk, bike ride, roller skate, or take public transportation. In the preview we see a Trainer in Tokyo spotting and interacting with a Pikachu possibly 20+ feet away. This leads me to believe we can encounter pokemon anywhere, but does not require such a close range to interact with. If you spot an Eevee in the center of a four way intersection, please be smart enough to not run in the middle of the street to be close to the action. And those who rely on a bus and spot pokemon, be mindful of where you are. Public areas are not your own personal domain. Meaning you’re not 100% safe to geek out and and catch a snorlax. 

For those that don’t live in suburban, peaceful towns, please remember the real world is not the pokemon world. If you lock eyes with a Bike Gang Member in the real world, please do not expect, or hope, they’ll only want to battle you to gain exp for their Ekans. Chances are they want to jam their Ekans down your Cloyster (this applies to any gender). Heck, all Team Rocket would do is try to steal your pokemon. Real criminals will steal your phone if you’re not cautious or observant enough. 

#3. Display good sportsmanship.

Remember how sometime we would try to get to one destination, like, asap, but couldn’t because a Hiker Gilbert locked eyes with us. I hated that. And I’m sure you all did too. So if you find a trainer, and you choose to engage them in battle. Don’t get pissy because they choose not to battle. We do have lives–hard to believe, but it’s true, I promise–and sometimes certain things have to take precedence. We don’t live in that kind of world–yet. 

Also, in a battle, if you lose, don’t be sore. This game will not be like regular consoles. Many a time in Pokemon X and older, when I would battle onlineI would come across players who would disrupt the battle, thereby ending the game. That’s totally uncool. Admit defeat. I mean, it’s one thing ending a battle when real pokemon are battling. I would only forgive a disruption, if I saw a flesh and blood Dragonite destroy an Oddish.

Another thing, I have to begrudgingly add–no showboating. You don’t want to put out your cockiness out to the universe. Because you will get what’s coming to you, and I’d hate to see that in the streets. Now I do know the difference between celebrating victory and throwing a win down an opponents face. Point is, all that I’ve explained, don’t dish what you can’t take.

#4. Help your fellow trainers. Show kindness.

So in the world of Pokemon, like the anime. Trainers are invite to home, with warm meals, in exchange for some pleasant interaction. Now I’m not saying let a person run through your house just because they’ve spot an Articuno. (If you want to that’s cool, but I don’t expect you to. Privacy is key.) But if you happen to come across a budding trainer who might be walking down an unsafe area–let them know. If you don’t like Jolteon, or Raichu, maybe give your Thunderstone, or at least offer it for trade. Or don’t, just put some good out into the world. We all want to live in a peaceful world where we’re happy. But that world will not be found unless we search for it. I could go on and on about examples.

#5. Grow the community. Make the Real World the Pokemon World.

Be creative people. Make Gyms!! Host tournaments!! Make actual PokePageants! Coders, find a way to make the game more awesome than it’s initial incarnation. Petition for city wide wifi in cities and towns. Make Pokemon the Disney of Games. 

We know little about the game, as of now. But we should still prepare for this exciting gem that will, no doubt, be the next platform for Pokemon. 

Jay Baruchel Talks How To Train Your Dragon 2
From The Human Centipede to the origin of ‘Useless reptile’

Jay Baruchel is an immensely engaging human being. Smart as a whip and with a mouth that can spit words quicker than a Hookfang can blast flame, he is a journalist’s dream interview: funny and not afraid of the odd swear or two. Here, in an interview that ran in part in issue 160 of Empire back in February, the voice of Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III talks about everything from the word “bud” to what the original version of the first How To Train Your Dragon was going to be like before the new directors, Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders, came in and changed almost everything…

How was the original How To Train Your Dragon first pitched to you when it was that initial incarnation?
Oh, holy Moses. Going back six years or maybe more. It was a lot lighter and a bit sillier. It did have any of the gravity or nuance that the movie eventually had. I don’t have a ton of memories of what it was like back then, but it wasn’t half the epic that it became.

And back then Toothless was very small, and Hiccup didn’t fly him?
That’s right. The whole thing was just a bit goofier in a lot of ways. I don’t want to be disparaging, because I was interested in it in the first place. That being said, I guess in its first incarnation it would have been diversion, at best. Then once [co-directors] Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois got involved, it became a proper movie.

Would it be fair to say you stumbled into this? You signed on for one thing and it evolved into this epic…
[Laughs] No, it’s pretty awesome. I am very, very aware of that fact. I’m so absolutely psyched. To be honest, if you want to get real macro about it, every gig is something of a crapshoot. Some you have a better idea of what it could be going in, others you’re just winging it. The chances of any movie succeeding are about the same in my experience. Although by “succeeding” I don’t necessarily mean financially, I just mean them being… good. But yeah, I signed up for something that I thought would be kind of fun, something I hadn’t done before, and I ended up getting to be a part of this pretty massive flick that means a great deal to a lot of people.

In the very beginning, I would never have imagined that it could be somebody’s favourite movie. That’s not to say that I thought it would be bad. It’s just… that kind of impact just wasn’t even a possibility, and then it came out, and went off like an atom bomb.

Okay, well, not the first weekend but the second weekend it caught fire, and everybody started to connect to it. Then I had this wonderful realisation about movies that I dug when I was a kid… that experience is like nothing I like I have now. When you’re into something when you’re a child you just love it – you connect to it in such a pure, impactful way. And what you’re really passionate about when you’re little, it often steers you towards what’ll eventually be your life, your career. When I saw the way that How To Train Your Dragon connected with people, it blew me away. I had a small hand in making something that a lot of kids would dig and mean something to them… All this to say, I’m a lucky motherfucker.

When you see fans, do they recognise you? And how do they talk to you? Obviously, you’re not Hiccup, but people must want you to be. Yeah, the little ones want me to be Hiccup, anyway. I’ve left a few voicemails and may have recorded a few videos for kids of people that I know. No, it’s weird, there seem to be two ways that I get recognised – one is that it’s either kids see me (or people, period, see me) and they’re like “Oh, it’s that fucking guy from all those things.”

But what’s happened in the last couple of years that’s even weirder is that people that won’t even be looking at me and they’ll know “who I am”. I’ll just be out in public and I’ll ask “Where’s the washroom?” or “Can I get a Big Mac with large fries and a coke?” and then I’ll see people turn towards me from my periphery.

For better or worse, my voice is… distinct if nothing else. [Laughs] All the same, there aren’t that many people out there who sound as nasal and Canadian as I do, I suppose. So, yeah, it’s been kinda weird. The most awkward, though, is when I’m with friends of mine, friends who have kids who have seen and loved the movie, and the parents will ask them “Hey, do you recognise this voice?” And the kid is just like “What the hell? What? What do you mean? Why would I recognise…?” And then they’re like “Say something!” So I’m say, er, “How’s it going? Pass the pickles.” I don’t know what I’m supposed to say, y’know. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I’m just like “Why are you asking?” And then the kid is just on the spot, devoid of answers, asking “Why’s everyone staring at me?” Nobody wins in those situations.

And there’s no Hiccup catchphrase to help…
No, I know! The closest thing I have is “Thanks for nothing, you useless reptile”, which usually seems to make a few bells go off.

External image

How To Train Your Dragon 2: Hiccup and Toothless in full flight

When the project got reimagined by Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders, how did they explain their new take?
There were omelettes involved… I mean, it was over a breakfast, when they told me these things. Okay, it wasn’t an omelette, but it was definitely something good and eggy. Anyway, I think they just started talking about the different angles they wanted: the coming-of-age aspects, making it more Star Wars-y, all that Joseph Campbell-y stuff they wanted to put into it. How they saw that it could be really cute and funny, and still be this big adventure. It was like the movie went from being in 4:3 to widescreen.

Once the first film was a success and the franchise evolved into a trilogy, how did Dean expand upon this original pitch?
We had talked, years before the first one even came out, because there’s a whole bunch of books. I think the series goes on for a bit. There was always talk that there was more of this world and Hiccup’s life to be explored. But when he first starting telling me about How To Train Your Dragon 2, it was clear that – and being a filmmaker myself I knew this already, and I need to put this in quotations – the sequel would be “the darkest” one of the series. And when I say “the darkest”, there are no decapitations, or necrophilia, there’s nothing fucking awful. No-one’s mouths are being sewn to strangers’ anuses. But, all the same, it’s the second act, and so it’s a bit more complicated.

It’s just that the answers aren’t as easy, and we have to amp everything up. So, in every way that the first one succeeded, the second one has to succeed more. The basement of this one has to be as good as the first one, ideally better. The best thing about the first movie was that it’s fun, it’s really charming and incredibly compelling, but also unexpectedly heavy at parts. And so all those same things are the essence of the second one, but amped up. The stakes are higher. We knew that we were doing our Empire Strikes Back.

Dean DeBlois has mentioned that there was idea originally that Hiccup would be facing off against his mother towards the end of the second film, before he realised you can’t really have a kid fight his mum.
Yeah, no, no, um. If it was a Dogme 95 movie or something, then potentially. But not with this particular franchise, no! [Laughs]

What is it like when you’re being directed in the sound booth?
Well, what’s awesome is that over the years that I’ve gotten to know Dean we’ve obviously developed something of a shorthand. Actually, we’d be pretty fucked if we hadn’t by this point.

So I kind of know what he wants and can push back on some stuff. I mean, obviously he knows these movies better than anyone, but I also wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t take ownership of my character. Which is what he wants. So in the moments when I feel it’s not exactly the way it should be, or could be, then he allows me to chime in with that stuff. It all depends on what the scene requires. It sounds really hokey and company line-ish to say this, but the truth is that we’re all just serving this story. So whatever the story requires we work backwards from that.

External image

How To Train Your Dragon 2

With Dean being a writer-director, do you have much opportunity to put in lines of your own or put twists on his words?
Oh god, yeah. That’s one of the coolest things. Unfortunately, much to the chagrin of whoever hires me, that’s part of the deal. Whether or not they choose to use any of it – the shit that I spool out, I mean – is completely up to them. But I’ll be ad-libbing pretty much regardless. I just can’t help it, I have a real big mouth.

Throughout the first one and this one I was always encouraged, if I had my own way of saying things or my own ideas, to chime in with them. It was neat-slash-weird seeing your ad-libs in a massive movie, where people had to take the time to animate the mouths to say to say this stupid spiel. It’s just cool. It’s just really crazy and cool.

Was “reptile” one of yours?
Er… fuck. That’s a good question. It might have been, it actually might have been. You know, yeah, I think that one might be.

Are you behind “bud”?
Oh, god, of course, yeah. That’s just like the Canadian version of “man” or “dude”. That a great example of one of my hooserisms working their way into the movie.

Do you have a similar level of influence in the TV show?
I mean, in terms of how Hiccup reacts and the way he communicates, yes, definitely. They’ve been really cool about that. I was Hiccup before there was a TV show. And to everybody who was involved in that show’s credit, I was always viewed as an attribute, as a benefit to the show.

So I wasn’t ever sitting there fucking holding my arms going “You know, guys, Hiccup wouldn’t do that…” Once or twice that would come up, but I would tell them why “No, I can’t say this, because this is not how he communicates. This is the guy that we’ve created. This is the guy we’ve cracked.” So as a result there hasn’t been too much of a distinction, and that way the TV show connects to the movie in a very good way. We’ve allowed it to have a certain kind of continuity because they were cool enough to just let me be Hiccup.

Have you been given notes on what might happen in the third film?
Yeah, sort of. It’s an ongoing conversation over the better part of the last six years. I have inklings, I kinda know where it’s meant to go. I know where the books end up, I know some of the mile markers, I know what the end results will be. How we go about getting there though, that’s all the fun part to look forward to, once Dean is done creating.

WORDS: Ali Plumb

My action plan to justify flying to Australia to see Nathan Page in a play - Day 120 - The Final Post

One hundred and twenty days ago, I bought a ticket to see Mr. Nathan Page in a play - in Melbourne. This inexplicable, out-of-character act has led me on an incredible journey. Last night was the culmination of this journey. Not only did I get to see him in The Distance at the Southbank Theatre in Melbourne, I got to share in an phenomenal meeting with him, post-performance. (Thank you to Sam McAdam-Cooper for making this meeting possible, and to @phrynesboudoir for helping to organize the event.) One hundred and twenty days of cycling. One hundred and twenty days of blogging. One hundred and twenty days of consciously appreciating my husband. It all led to this day. 

Was it worth it?


First the play. I LOVED the play. Although last night was the second time I had seen it, there were discernible differences between the two performances. Nathan was wonderful both times, but the energy he brought to the final show was particularly strong. I would like to take a moment to outline the layered irony surrounding the fact that it was THIS play (The Distance) I came to Melbourne to see:

1. In the play, the main character (Bea) travels from Melbourne to London.
(I travelled from London to Melbourne.)

2. She left her wonderful husband and two children behind, for selfish reasons. (Ditto.)

3. Bea, frustratingly, does not communicate with her family back home, despite their frequent attempts to reach her. (Not only have I been bad at writing posts since I arrived in Australia, I have been HORRIBLE at taking the time to communicate with my family. Except when my son desperately needed to talk to me at the exact same time on April 5th as I was supposed to meet Nathan Page. I chose my son, without hesitation. I have witnesses.)

4. Bea does not fully understand what conflicting factors within herself have compelled her to make the journey, and is trying to come to terms with this fact. 
(Ugh. Yeah. TOTALLY.)

5. Bea’s best friends do not understand her behaviour in leaving her husband and children to fly to London. (I have not talked about this is at all in my posts, but, although I have the full support of my wonderful husband, my closest friends and my mother all think that I have fallen out of my tree and landed on my head. They do not understand why I needed to go to Australia, and I have stopped trying to explain it to them. I don’t really blame them. They are extremely risk-averse. My behaviour does seem irrational and has often NOT been well thought out.  I am so grateful for the support of the women of the Phrackdom. I could not have done this without you.)

6. One character in the play (Kate), is a complete control freak. She is not adequately appreciative of her charming, adorable, and even-tempered husband, is efficient when booking travel, and holds epic grudges. (This character was excruciatingly difficult for me to watch, as I see so much of myself, at least pre-Action Plan, in her. Oh, her poor husband. Oh, MY poor husband. Agh.)

7. Nathan Page plays the character of Vinnie, a wise, loveable “loser” who is the catalyst for a life-changing self-examination and long-overdue behavioural and attitudinal change in the character of Kate - the control freak. (We have already established that, in early December, I was Kate incarnate. Nathan Page, initially playing the role of Jack Robinson and subsequently playing the role of himself, has been the catalyst behind my Action Plan, which has had an even more dramatic transformation on my life than the changes experienced by Kate. There is one notable difference here. Attaching the label “loser” to Nathan Page? Um, NO.)

4. The chef in the restaurant adjoining the Southbank Theatre (where most of us ate before attending Saturday’s performance) is named “Vinnie Robinson.” Seriously. I have photographic proof.

5. A great quantity of wine was consumed by the female characters in the play. (Lol. The recycling will have to be taken out again here again tomorrow, in the Phrack Cave.)

6. There is a teenaged boy character in the play (Liam) who has a lot of knowledge about wilderness survival because of a camp he went to. (I have one as well).

7. One of the characters in the play (Alex) is smitten with Vinnie and spends most of the play snogging him offstage in the “summer house.” (Sadly, this is where the similarities end. Not the smitten part - God knows that’s true - the summerhouse part. However, the beautiful Mr. Page was certainly liberal with the (entirely appropriate - get your phracking minds out of the gutter - cheek kisses during his post-performance meeting with our group.)

Now - the meet-up with Nathan Page following the performance. For once, I am not going to try to put an intellectual or philosophical spin on this whatsoever. I am going to do something you all know that I almost NEVER do. I am going to “fangirl it” and tell the honest truth.

Nathan Page is a mythical creature. He has piercing blue eyes that make you feel like your soul has been turned inside out, and, when YOU try to talk and he is listening to you, the intensity of his focus can literally make it difficult to breathe. It is impossible that he can be as genuinely nice and generous a person as he seems to be, but he’s doing the best damn impression of middle-aged male perfection that I ever hope to see.

On the night of the closing of his show, with all of his fellow cast mates and crew present in the same room, Nathan Page took the time to have a meaningful dialogue with each and every one of us. He signed programs, posed for pictures, and could not possibly have been more charming or wonderful. It will take days for any of us present to even THINK of removing the rose-coloured glasses with which we are currently viewing the world. 

And that, my friends, is connection in a nutshell. My wonderful, crazy mid-life crisis, which seems so much less batty when it is labeled as an “Action Plan,” has evolved from a silly reaction to an impetuous decision into a contemplation of the idea of CONNECTION. Like Bea in “The Distance,” I was feeling adrift in my own life, back in the fall, despite the fact that, to all outward appearances, my life appeared to be pretty damn awesome. There was a hole in my soul that I needed to first acknowledge, and subsequently take steps to begin to fill in. Seeing Nathan Page in the role of Jack Robinson struck me like a thunderbolt. My reaction was immediate and somewhat frightening. I needed to find some way to understand my response. 

After 120 days, the simplified answer to the questions I have been asking is that, through his approach to playing the character of Jack Robinson, and his own personal philosophy of meeting life head on, “doing what scares the shit out of you,” Nathan Page has offered me a window into what was missing for me - connection - with my husband, my family, my friends, complete strangers, and the world around me. Unknowingly, he has offered me a possible road map for getting from where I was, to where I want to be. I’ve already come a long way, and it’s been one hell of a ride.

So thank you, my wonderful Phrackdom, for your kindness and support. And thank you, Mr. Page. I will always be grateful.