Rina Arsen

This article is spot on for everything. I remember watching this show with my sister, and when the girl opened her car door, I said something along the lines of “What the hell is she doing?!”, to which my sister answered “Being a girl in a horror movie.” Which, true. Also, for the last point, I keep flashing back to the joke in Scream about how being gay increases your chances of survival in a horror flick (ha, right), and I’m suck wondering if the lesbian death is a gendered thing or instead a modern phenomenon (see: the rise of killed queer and poc characters in TV) stemming from a misguided attempt at “equal” (hear: disproportionately violent) treatment of characters and/or shock value. Meaning, as discussed here the lesbian death syndrome is a growing problem, but does the joke from Scream not apply here because of the gender of lesbians or because of the age in which the show is written (which is later than the Scream movie)? Are all characters from the LGBTQ community also portrayed as martyrs to the same extent as lesbians?

Incredible incredible article, I’ve been reading and rereading it again and again and I think the content and research that has made its way into it is phenomenal! Many have criticized the popularity the YA series got, but few have stopped to wonder what exactly about Twilight managed to engage with thousands upon thousands of readers worldwide. While I’ve waited to see people discuss its impact and mythical origins in dept for a while now, this article goes beyond that in order to discuss its historical and literary precedents, which is fantastic. What I’m left wondering, then, is what the gradual changes in the theme mean about the changing mass imagination of generations, and where these changes are bound to take us. Are vampires, as well as other traditionally dark characters, going to continue being romanticized and glamorized beyond (or because of) their dark natures (Teen Wolf, Twilight, IZombie etc) or can we expect a rebuttal and a return to the hyper-villainous depictions of these monsters?

I think you are completely right with your analysis. Spectre, while not exactly a bad movie, was conflicting in its nature and role within the whole James Bond series, which resulted in a conflicting and confused reaction from the viewers. The previous movie had been an incredible addition to the legacy, and the dialogue and plot, while still retaining the classical super villain vs antihero themes, still brought a breath of novelty, especially when the previous hyper-hetero 007 was crushed by Bond’s non-revulsion to homosexual topics. However, while the previous movies managed to perfectly balance the classical themes and new ideals, the newest addition seems instead divided and undecided, and would have definitely required some more polishing. In the end, it is clear that neither the viewers nor the writers seem completely sure of what they expect from the character.

I think another aspect that is worth noting is that while the content and execution of the movie itself left quite a lot to be desired, on a marketing and competitive basis the movie also had to rival with the recent and upcoming Marvel releases. For instance, Civil War also depicts the crashing of two mythic heroes, but it involves the cameo of many more renown heroes, which tones down the excitement fans might have felt at seeing the single Wonder Woman. Moreover, the human bonds you mention in your article are much more obvious in the Marvel movie, and the plot was better executed as well. With both movies being released so close together, fans and critics alike could directly compare both movies together, on top of comparing BVS with the previous famous cinematic takes on the heroes, which probably made this DC movie look even worse than it was