redwoodalchan

Soooo, in the many, many years I've spent as an anime fan, I've come across many, many people who complain about the fact that English-dub voice actors just can't seem to get anime characters' names right. And, inevitably, if you try to point out that Japanese people mispronounce English names all the time there's always someone ready to say "But Japanese has so many fewer syllables than English so OF COURSE they can't be blamed for mispronouncing the names, unlike we English-speakers!!!" I've always been bothered by this response, but I've never really had much in the way of a counterargument--until now.

( Read my response )

 In this last episode of Season 1, Michael and Ralph competed to win their own restaurant. They got to decorate the restaurant to their liking, and several of the contestants from earlier were brought back to serve as their teammates helping them cook their meals. Michael set up his restaurant in a more modern style whereas Ralph fashioned his to look like a 1920's-era New York steakhouse. Although both teams fumbled a little, Michael because he wasn't always assertive enough and Ralph because he sometimes left the hot plate to cook, ultimately both pulled off an immensely successful service. In the end Michael was made the winner, and Gordon Ramsay was so impressed that he gave him the opportunity to train with him in the UK, which he gladly accepted.

Now that Michael and Ralph were the only two players in the game, their personalities suddenly became much more apparent than they were originally. It seemed as if they were specifically chosen as foils to one another, with Ralph as the more hot-headed and Michael as the more calm and soft-spoken. Each had its advantages, but the real turning point for Michael was when he started being more assertive with his teammates, who thus far had not been acting much like a team. Interestingly, Michael at one point broke the fourth wall when he scolded Jessica by telling her she'd been in the game for "months," implying that the game has been going on a lot longer than you can tell just by watching the episode. 

I have to wonder now if I misjudged Michael a little bit. At first I had thought he already had an established career as a chef but this episode he was treated as a sort of young upstart  by both Ralph and Gordon Ramsay. Maybe he was an underdog we were supposed to root for all along, and I just didn't notice. He was also more sympathetic this episode than I remember him being all season, but on the other hand, maybe I just didn't know what I was missing--he seems like an absolute saint compared to some of the guys from later seasons of the show! I also couldn't help but notice a lot of comments on the video noting that the contestants in this season appeared much nicer to one another than the contestants from later seasons, which seems pretty funny.

 In this episode, the contestants stopped being two separate teams and each became one team, with the understanding that it was everyone for themselves. The first challenge involved learning to make a flambe dessert. Jimmy won the challenge, much to everyone's surprise, and so he got invited on a helicopter date with Gordon Ramsay (shhh...!). He invited Michael to come along, seemingly to pay him back for not eliminating him earlier when he had the chance. However, Elsie somewhat cynically remarks that Michael only passed over Jimmy for elimination in favor of Chris because he knew Chris was his biggest threat. And I have to wonder a little bit if Jimmy knew this, and that's the real reason why he chose Michael--to protect himself from Michael if he's ever in a position to eliminate him again.

This dinner challenge was the first time they were cooking without the help of the sous-chefs, so it was pretty hard going. Elsie was relegated to the dining room, preparing salads and flambe desserts for the diners. She struggled a bit at first but eventually got the hang of it. Meanwhile, both Jessica and Jimmy got into fights with Gordon Ramsay because he was dissatisfied with their performance. As such, when Gordon Ramsay called upon Ralph to pick people for elimination he picked Jimmy and Jessica, with Jimmy being the one who got eliminated. I wasn't terribly surprised, but his departure was genuinely heartwarming, with a reflection on how much he's grown as a chef, and how Gordon Ramsay really is proud of him for getting that far.

Interestingly, Elsie displays some signs of flagging, and has begun to question whether this is something she really wants. She even asked Ralph to put her up for elimination at one point! I guess, realistically, she doesn't have much of a chance of winning either, seeing as she already has a job and kids to worry about.

I also can't help but wonder if the show is trying to ship some of the contestants a little bit. I'm sure it's all pretend, but it's pretty funny to see Michael and Jimmy going on a helicopter date together, complete with champagne (for example). Jessica also has a conversation with Michael while the contestants are waiting for Ralph to select people for elimination, in which Michael seems to question what Jessica's relationship with Ralph actually is (she insists he's just a mentor, of course). I wonder just how much of that is deliberate, but I can see it adding another layer of drama if it's ever played up at any point.

Speaking of Michael, it's implied (but never outright stated) that he hid some steaks Jessica was supposed to cook, which slowed her up and caused her to get in trouble with Gordon Ramsay. They really do seem to be setting him up as a villain, don't they? Between the group psychology of the game and the fact that audience members don't like players who turn on or sabotage their teammates, I wouldn't be surprised if Michael ends up eliminated the second he drops the ball (if indeed he does).

 Why, you might ask? I was inspired by this video about the Hunger Games, which explains all about how similar the Hunger Games is to reality shows we watch today. I have no particular interest in or experience with reality TV beyond "The Amazing Race," which I watched for a number of years in middle and high school (and probably isn't the best show to prove my point anyway, since the way it's structured seems like it would make things more difficult to stage and manipulate). "Hell's Kitchen" is perfect because it combines a topic I'm interested in with the sort of reality-TV atmosphere that the video above is referring to.

So far I've watched the first episode of the first season. First all the contestants had to cook a meal for Gordon Ramsay, some of which he appreciated more than others. The contestants took the opportunity to say a little bit about who they were and where they came from. Then they were split up into two teams, Red and Blue, and had to serve a restaurant full of people. I think the people who cooked the worst dishes initially were sent out to serve the guests.

Ultimately the Red Team lost the competition, and so Elsie, the best of the worst on that team, had to pick two people to potentially eliminate. The one who ended up being eliminated was a lady named Carolanne (or something), who could actually cook but had no experience in a professional kitchen. I suppose Gordon Ramsay thought it wouldn't be believable if she won the game. The other person considered for elimination, Dewberry, was depicted as having a nice conversation with Elsie ahead of time, and he claims that if he's ever in a position to choose someone for elimination he might pay Elsie back for trying to throw him out. I rather suspect that some part of that was staged, or at least manipulated to make it look like a bigger thing than it was. Elsie, for her part, is someone who was depicted as fairly sympathetic early on (she's apparently a mother of a fairly large blended family) but might become less so in light of her having to eliminate someone. There are some people who are fairly resoundingly unsympathetic, though (on both teams), and I'll be interested to see how long they last.

Also, I counted no fewer than three contestants from New Jersey. Represent! XD

Have they forgotten that my Harry Potter Abridged series isn't meant to be a serious discussion of the books? Like, I tried to make a joke about Voldemort emulating Hitler in the first chapter of DH and they just had to turn it into a thing about how the Nazis bombed the orphanage he grew up in. Yes, that's a theory that's out there, and it does make sense; but a) it's fanon, not canon and b) it's not half as funny as mocking Rowling's utter inability to write her villains as convincing Nazis! What's it to them whether it finds its way into my parody or not?

And I'll admit I've been known to incorporate bits of fanon I like into my Abridged series, but the focus, first and foremost, is on making fun of the stupid crap that's in the books, not on rewriting the series to account for every theory the DTCLers have ever entertained. If I really think a fan theory is important and want to talk about it, I'll write an essay on it!

Also, I wish they'd stop fighting each other about what this or that Slytherin or Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw is really like, when the essential problem is that we have no way of knowing what Slytherins and Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws are really like or really think or feel about anything because we never get anyone but the Gryffindors' side of the story. To be fair, that's not limited to DTCL, but it's still stupid and I wish people would stop (this might make a good rant in its own right, thinking on it...).

 So there's a YouTuber called Film Theory who did a video on how Christian Grey treats Ana the same way cult leaders treat their victims. It's quite interesting.

( Warning: Abuse, rape, etc. (obviously) )

( Read more... )

Iron Maiden, everyone!!

 So just last week, I finally realized, definitively, just how much I hate dead baby comedy. It just hit me. I don't know if it was all the soul searching I'd been doing, or the time I'd spent in sporking circles, or watching internet reviews; but finally I found myself confronted with it. I'd seen plenty of examples of dead baby comedy before, and I remember finding them uncomfortable; but I'd mostly just assumed that I was overreacting, or lacked a sense of humor, or something of that nature. But just this past week, I came across some of it courtesy of a few friends, and was finally forced to acknowledge just how very, very much I hate dead baby comedy.

( Contains discussion of extreme violence and disturbing concepts (not depicted) )

 I get Chapters 17 and 18. It looks like they're the chapters where we learn about the heroine's dark, tortured past. Also she and her man are domestic together and this author spends way too much time describing what they wear and eat, and has them come up with eye-bleedingly awful nicknames (Angelfucker?! REALLY?!). And her man sounds like my mom, on days when I'm recovering from some great physical or psychological ordeal. 

So upon further consideration, a large chunk of that rant is her going "Making my favorite characters die is bad bad bad! Oh but I don't have a problem with these OTHER deaths because X Y and Z!" Like that time she talked about how it was okay for Goku to die because it feeds into Japanese spiritual beliefs--something that could be said to apply to Jessie and James as well, were one so inclined. It makes me wonder if that rant might have been more sensible and acceptable if she'd simply spelled out, "Look, my favorite characters are super precious to me, so just don't kill any of them in any stories you send me, plzkthnx," and left it at that. But that would require a level of self-awareness that she didn't seem to possess at the time.