Talking Down to Children: a Look at Family-Friendly Dinosaur Cinema

Posted on by Colin McMahon

Dinosaurs are awesome. From their initial scientific discovery back in 1824, dinosaurs have captivated human imagination. The idea of an entirely different ecosystem, filled with fantastic creatures, that lasted millions of years has rightly secured a place in our collective cultural imagination. Dinosaurs lived on Earth, they were real. Yet somehow their world was almost completely alien. It is only natural that such creatures occupy a place in cinema as well, one of the few ways dinosaurs can actually still “come to life.” Yet when they are reborn, just how glorious is it? This article will look at three of the more major family-oriented dinosaur films over the past thirty years. Cinema has presented the complex world of the dinosaurs as brutal, harsh, and in some cases completely childish.

1. The Land Before Time (1988)

Oh course if we’re talking kid-friendly dinosaurs, we gotta talk Littlefoot and The Land Before Time. Steven Spielberg came up for the idea of this film, and he and his collaborator George Lucas had an interesting idea: no talking. Like Fantasia, The Land Before Time was originally envisioned as a silent film with no strong plot to drive it forward. Instead, it would simply tell the story of five young dinosaurs growing up. An interesting idea but Universal felt the film needed more appeal. Dialogue was added to help the audience relate to the characters and the dinosaurs were anthropomorphized (given human characteristics) to make them relatable. Did this detract from the science of the film, of course. Yet I highlight Land Before Time as an example of pandering done right. Was the film made more kid-friendly: yes, but that did not stop it from portraying the tragic nature of survival:

Now obviously the science in The Land Before Time is woefully outdated today, but at the time this was really well done. The decision to make the film easier to follow did not cripple it, or take away from its educational aspects. Let’s move on:

2. Dinosaur (2000)

Ready for déjà vu? When Dinosaur was first conceived, it was going to be a harsh story set at the end of the dinosaur era, with no dialogue. Instead of Universal, Disney CEO Michael Eisner was the one to make the call to make the film lighter and to add dialogue. Did lightning strike twice, as with The Land Before Time? It did not. Sadly Dinosaur became a very generic story with ideas and plot basically carbon-copied from the Land Before Time. The Great Valley became the Nesting Grounds, Sharptooth became a Carnotaurus, Littlefoot’s band of friends got replaced with another band of less interesting friends… the movie thoroughly existed without braving anything new. What makes it worse is that the science was lacking this time around. Not trusting its saurian stars, Disney added present-day lemurs to the cast. Bizarre. The initial trailer revealing Dinosaur‘s visual splendor remains the highlight of this theatrical endeavor:

An intriguing idea that turned into just another movie. Still, it can get worse.

3.Walking With Dinosaurs (2013)

When Walking with Dinosaurs first debuted as a show in 1999, it was heralded as a state-of-the-art dinosaur experience. For any out there curious to learn about the world before our own, this show was a good start. Fast-forward fourteen years… and you’re better off going with the show. Walking with Dinosaurs 3D is as brainless as its name sounds. Starting off as (say it with me now) a film with no dialogue, Studio interference once again turned the tale kid-friendly. This time, however, it appears that production was further along. All the dialogue is merely “thoughts” meaning that there is no animation for the dinosaurs speaking. This was supposedly done to keep it accurate, but my title was inspired from this movie. Talk about taking out intelligence with the lame excuse of “it’s for kids.” Which kids, I wonder? I do not think of myself as a child prodigy, but if I saw this film at six… I am pretty sure I still would have found it dumb. Using a name that brings to mind intelligence (courtesy of the original series) Walking with Dinosaurs has maybe one or two nuggets of education within its short (but still too long) 88 minute run time. Couple with that, this was a film made in 2013. Our understanding of dinosaurs has changed drastically in the past twenty years and Walking with Dinosaurs reflects none of that.

There are cool visuals to be had. It is a pity that there are more poop jokes than facts, however. For the kids. You know... cause poop is more important.
There are cool visuals to be had. It is a pity that there are more poop jokes than facts. For the kids. You know… cause poop is more important.

There is a definite pattern here. It seems like no theatrical dinosaur movie will ever see the light of day without first being tailored down for audiences. Is this overly tragic: not really since the information can be found elsewhere. It is simply said that “for the children” is used as an excuse to make things dumber. Oh it is for the next generation? Yeah, they don’t need to know facts.

The other trouble is that the (currently known) world of dinosaurs is more fascinating than Hollywood makes it out to be. These creatures probably never even looked like the giant lizards we see on-screen, but that is how we still see them. Maybe the future will hold a smart dinosaur film that is “for adults”…

Then again, maybe not.

NFL Journalism: Where Balls Matter More than Women, Children, and Brains

Posted on by Colin McMahon

The New England Patriots are worse than Hitler. That is, if you believe the overwhelming negativity directed at the Patriots within the past week. The reasoning behind this: after last Sunday’s AFC Championship game against the Colts, reports surfaced of an investigation against the Patriots with regards to ball inflation. This basically means that the Patriots are being ACCUSED of cheating. Not a game-determining cheat mind you, nothing as serious as that, but still – cheating is cheating and the integrity (scoff, excuse me) of the NFL sport must be protected. I don’t mean to undermine what the Patriots MIGHT have done. Cheating is cheating and, IF found guilty – they should face appropriate consequences. “Deflategate” as it has come to be called, has called back into question much more serious issues of integrity, however, in my mind at least. The integrity of major sports journalism is under question… and it might be doing worse than the Patriots.

Even with the ball deflated, players (Colts and Patriots) agree that it had little-to-no impact on the game.
Even with the ball deflated, players (Colts and Patriots) agree that it had little-to-no impact on the game.

This article will focus primarily on ESPN and Sports Illustrated, two of the larger and more trusted sources of sports journalism in America – and specifically their handling of the DEVELOPING Deflategate situation.

The Patriots are not liked around the nation. One does not have to look far to find evidence of this. Part of the hatred has foundation. In 2007, the New England Patriots were found guilty in Spygate, essentially cheating by recording more signals than they were supposed to from the other team. Were they the only culprit of this: probably not, but still – cheating is cheating and I, as a New England Patriots fan, found the punishment fair. No one is above the rules.

The New England Patriots cheated 8 years ago. This does not make all current and future allegations against them immediately true.
The New England Patriots cheated 8 years ago. This does not make all current and future allegations against them immediately true.

Part of the hatred comes from something else though: the Patriots are a good football team. No, that’s an understatement. They are a great football team. Bill Belichick and Tom Brady might be the best coach-quarterback combo in the history of the game. I don’t say that just as a fan, there are numbers to support this.

Okay, cool – the Pats rock, how does this matter? Well, sports journalism is made up partly of former players: people who have played largely within the past ten years… also known as: a lot of people the Patriots beat. If you think this does not matter, if you think that athletes and former athletes do not have huge egos – you are fooling yourself. So right away, the POTENTIAL exists for bias. I am not going to accuse anyone of anything without evidence…

Want some evidence?

Let’s talk about Jerome Bettis, an excellent former player who now does analysis for ESPN. I have zero issue on Bettis reporting facts. Here is a link to his video discussing the Ray Rice incident, which occurred at the beginning of the season. Wow, okay – he is very supportive. Granted, all the facts were not known at that time but he appears to be approaching the situation with an open mind. Cool…

Here he is on the Deflategate INVESTIGATION:

Holy f*ck. What happened to the calm, thoughtful, contemplative Bettis that we saw earlier? Patriots are known felons? Sir, even by the loftiest of standards: the Patriots have never broken the law. Rules, yes – but not law. These are both videos taken from (at the time) ongoing investigations. One is about balls being properly inflated, one is about a woman being beaten unconscious. Excuse me for saying but: your passion appears misplaced.

Now let’s talk about Michael Rosenberg, a New York journalist who writes for Sports Illustrated. Rosenberg has a past of putting things in perspective. He fairly called out and condemned the handling of the Adrian Peterson situation from earlier in the year. Rosenberg has struck me as an intelligent and thoughtful journalist, but one of his articles goes much too far. I would bother to tear apart the piece he wrote on the Patriots after INITIAL REPORTS of Deflategate surfaced, but someone else beat me to it. Journalism is not about reporting thoughts, or rumors, or making wild accusations based on what you read on the Internet. That’s what blogging is for. Journalism is about reporting the facts. Judgement is left to others. There is not one fact in Rosenberg’s list of wild accusations against New England, and yet this was posted on a very reputable sports site.

The rush to judgement has caused many Patriots' fans to tune out the allegations, or make fun of them completely.
The rush to judgement has caused many Patriots’ fans to tune out the allegations, or make fun of them completely.

Okay, back to ESPN. Over the past week, I have seen headlines like “Don’t Believe Brady” (later changed to “Hard to Believe Brady”). Again this gives the impression that the Patriots have already been found guilty. The have not. In fact, if you’re wondering why I haven’t gone more into the facts of the case, it is because they keep changing. I will get to that in a sec, but I wanted to draw attention to one more fun article from ESPN first.

This one.

Let me be beyond clear: truth is not an opinion. It never has, nor never will be influenced by the common consensus. So why does this article exist? Maybe to show that around the world, people are not taking the Patriots at their word? Hard to believe that ESPN readers wouldn’t trust them after reading headlines like those I just mentioned.

The point is that the coverage has been horrible. Want the facts of the case? Colts defensive player D’Qwell Jackson DEFINITIVELY started the investigation into the possibility of deflated balls… until he didn’t. Bill Belichick was DEFINITELY the mastermind behind the cheating… until it was (and currently is) DEFINITELY Tom Brady. With all this disbelief going around – against the Patriots, against the NFL, it seems that no one is levying it against the people who are reporting the news. What is going on? How do we even know there was ever a scandal and not some accident?

During his press conference, Tom Brady denied all involvement in the SUPPOSED scandal. He was then asked several times if he was sorry. HE JUST SAID HE DIDN'T DO IT!
During his press conference, Tom Brady denied all involvement in the SUPPOSED scandal. He was then asked several times if he was sorry. HE JUST SAID HE DIDN’T DO IT!

Let’s say (and this is just a scenario based on known facts): 36 balls were inflated for the game, 11 of them came out below the guidelines. Tom Brady, being the hometown quarterback gets first pick. Brady, who has already stated his liking of under-inflated balls, chooses those he feels least inflated (not knowing that it is below league regulation). Then Andrew Luck chooses, then the remaining 12 go to special teams. Saying this happens is admitting that NFL officials made a mistake (hard to believe I know, especially in this playoff season). But it is just that: a mistake. Doesn’t sound nearly as sexy as a cheating scandal, but this may be the truth.

“Things are going to be fine — this isn’t ISIS, no one’s dying.” Tom Brady said this and it is a fair point. This isn't even Baltimore or Minnesota: where actual crimes happened.
“Things are going to be fine — this isn’t ISIS, no one’s dying.”
Tom Brady said this and it is a fair point. This isn’t even Baltimore or Minnesota: where actual crimes happened.

The truth that does not appear to matter since the Patriots were found guilty by the media on day one. Come on guys, we get that you don’t like us. I don’t like the Yankees, the (New York) Giants, or either of the Manning brothers – but I would never call any of them cheaters without all the facts.

For anyone wondering: the NFL is currently finding a hard time linking the deflated balls to any purposeful wrongdoing. Doesn’t matter, ESPN and Sports Illustrated have already ensured that the Patriots reputation has suffered. Guilty until proven innocent… and if innocent then conspiracy. Hey journalists, I know you might take offense from a Patriots-fan and internet blogger telling you this… but do your jobs.

The appropriate punishment, as long ago determined by the NFL, is a $25,000 fine by the way… in case anyone was wondering. Rules should not ever be broken… but you can kill someone or you can go 5 miles over the speed limit. This is the latter.

 

Hobbit Changes Part One: In Defense of Tauriel

Posted on by Colin McMahon

Well, it is done. Peter Jackson’s Hobbit movies are out. Love them or hate them: the journey is over. Now comes the time for internet reflection. As with any hyped production, there were a lot of gut reactions to The Hobbit. One casting decision in particular appeared to irk some fans. In 2011, Evangeline Lilly was announced as Tauriel, a wood elf of Mirkwood. To say that the majority of people reacted with a “hmmm, that’s interesting, let’s wait and see” attitude would be a bit of an overstatement. The immediate reaction came more in the form of comments like these. There was even a wonderful little song put together, have a look:

Fun fact: that video was published on December 15th of 2013, just two days after The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug was released. Either these artists were very moved to write, shoot, edit, and release a song in two days or… it was made before any of them had even seen the film. For the record, there is nothing innately wrong with this. People are allowed to have opinions and reactions of any kind to fictional characters – there are bigger problems in the world to deal with.

One of the many more important problems gripping our world.
One of the many more important problems gripping our world.

But that said, there is also an innate problem of jumping to conclusions and facing new material with a closed mind. Also I titled this blog post with “in Defense of Tauriel” so I am going to defend her inclusion in this Hobbit trilogy. While Tauriel “may not be in the book,” she brings many improvements to the story of The Hobbit. First and most obvious is the addition of a woman in a world where vaginas are more mythical than dragons.

Eowyn is great but it is nice to see that there was more than one active woman in Middle Earth.
Eowyn is great but it is nice to see that there was more than one active woman in Middle Earth.

Now that I got my cleverness out-of-the-way, let’s dive into the more substantial contributions. When Tolkien wrote the Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings did not exist. In short: the Hobbit was written in a vacuum that has not existed since (and never will again). As with any simple story that was later expanded into a full universe, there are inconsistencies. For starters, let’s talk about those wood elves: what a bunch of dicks.

Seriously, how are these people good guys? When reading the Hobbit, the wood elves are terrible. The are greedy, selfish, and imprison the dwarves for basically no reason (starving dwarves stole food, can you believe their nerve?). Sure they don’t want to directly kill them like the goblins do, but is rotting in a cell really that much of an upgrade over a quick death? And once the dragon is dead and the dwarves and men are having a stupid (but kinda legitimate) battle over the treasure, the elves show up and pretty much declare it is theirs because….

They’re assholes.

"I'm sorry, I can't hear you over how pretty I am."
“I’m sorry, I can’t hear you over how pretty I am.”

As much as some people like to claim that the Hobbit is a perfect book and that all problems came from Satan (Peter Jackson), the reality is that this was one of the biggest problems in the story. If we are to believe that the elves are good guys (and Lord of the Rings seems to say so) then they cannot be so easily compared to the bad guys.

A good way to do this while staying true to the book is to keep Thranduil a jerk while adding two elf protagonists who are a bit more relatable. Enter Legolas and Tauriel:

People can make jokes but this is the scene of the movie that argues that the elves should actually you know, do something positive.
People can make jokes but this is the scene of the movie that argues that the elves should actually you know, do something positive.

Sure, neither one is in the book but where else (as prince of the Mirkwood elves) would Legolas be and again, it is nice to have a character calling the elves out on their hypocrisy.

The other great contribution that Tauriel makes is Kíli . Now, I say this as a huge Tolkien fan and as someone who loved the book: I never gave a sh*t when Fíli and Kíli died. I know I know, burn me at the stake. The Hobbit was a book about Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, and twelve other dwarves with different names who were all basically also Thorin. There was no real difference between them. Yes, some were fatter and some were taller and some were older but really: who cared. It is a mark of poor storytelling to have so many named characters with so little character between them. Yes, I just criticized Tolkien: deal with it.

Even with three movies, can you name all the dwarves?
Even with three movies, can you name all the dwarves?

When I saw the Battle of the Five Armies in theaters, I heard something I did not expect. Gasping. People gasped when Kíli died. Now, people who read the book would not gasp since they would know it was coming. Generally also, people do not gasp at the deaths of characters they do not care about. What then could be the reason?

Tauriel made people care. The love story made people care. Was it a perfect love story? Not by any stretch, but it was better than Twilight and it worked the way that Jackson had designed it to. By including a new character, he was able to add to the character of the dwarves.

Okay... I will give you that. The dialogue in this scene sounded right out of high school.
Okay… I will give you that. The dialogue in this scene sounded right out of high school.

So while she was a lady, Tauriel was added for more than just her gender difference. She improves upon weak areas of the book and allowed for people who have never read the Hobbit as children to care a little bit more about this Middle Earth journey. Was the addition a successful one? Maybe or maybe not (that’s a matter of opinion), but it was a defensible one.

Part Two here.