The Disney Boys: The Classic Coming of Age Trilogy

I'm finally getting back into the Disney animated lineup that I started like nine years ago. This week I take a look at the classic films Pinocchio, Peter Pan and The Jungle Book.

I'm treating these three films as an unofficial trilogy, as they all revolve around a male protagonist of a prepubescent age as he searches for his place in a world that wants to eat him. As all three of them were made directly under Walt Disney's supervision, it's probably fair to suggest they contain within a sense of how Walt viewed his own childhood.

Pinochle (1940)

Man, that's got to suck being brought halfway to life and getting sent to school the next day. It's no wonder Pinocchio wasn't ready for the real world, which in this case involves a single pair of anthropomorphic animals who may be stuck in hybrid form from dipping into the Pleasure Island formula.

Okay, so straight up. There are two movies I generally accept as Walt Disney's masterpiece, Pinocchio being the animated one and Mary Poppins being the predominantly live action one. Compared to Snow White, Pinocchio simply has a lot more going for it. The source material is a novel as opposed to a short story, so there's really no padding out of the plot. The animators have gotten even better with some of the most effective ocean waves ever hand drawn.

Let's talk characters, since that's what ultimately counts for me. Pinocchio is on the nose (and my personal Jiminy Cricket is cussing me out for that one). He's purely naïve and optimistically trusting of a world which proves not to deserve it. Perhaps he's inherited it from Geppetto, who seems to have been so distant from the outside world for so long that he forgets to prepare the puppet for predators.

And boy are there predators. Honest John Worthington Foulfellow and sidekick Gideon are on hand twice to lead Pinocchio into a profitable demise. Stromboli is an absolute tyrant. And of course there's Monstro the whale who is more a force of nature than an actual villain, but he certainly seems to express a conviction about what he does.

And then there's the epitome of evil himself, the unnamed coachman. None of the villains in the film receive any kind of comeuppance, but this is the guy whose continued existence out there in the world really bugs the hell out of me. Selfish motivations in the short run can certainly cause harm, but they're rarely sinister. This guy has a whole system designed to turn boys into donkeys. It's a true psychological horror, and there's no happy ending for them or the off-screen families who never know what happened to their children. Disney.

Really the only weak point is the Blue Fairy, who is nearly as boring as Snow White was; although the way she feigns gullibility to Pinocchio's lying is a bit indicative of a deeper character under the surface. But overall the movie is flat out amazing.

And yet, I have no interest in ever owning it or even rewatching it. I'm still trying to figure that one out. Perhaps Pinocchio is meant to be a one-time experience that you just kind of get and are comfortable moving on from. During my time at Walt Disney World, I got to experience life inside the heads of three characters from the film (Geppetto, Foulfellow, and Stromboli) and I never really looked forward to any of them. So to summarize, I don't particularly love Pinocchio but I respect the hell out of it.

It's a curiosity that both Jiminy Cricket and Figaro the cat found life outside their film in Disney's VIP lineup.

Pester Pain (1953)

Out of all of the classic Disney stories (and I'm referring to the ones made directly under Walt's influence) this is probably my least favorite. It's probably because I've never found the character of Peter Pan to be all that engaging. I mean, yeah, he does stuff that we all fantasize about doing but who is he?

What's interesting about children? (Here's a hint: a lot less than grandparents think.) But usually the stories about children that have any entertainment value are about the way they try to connect with the world around them, and often fail embarrassingly. So then you have Peter Pan, who clearly has the ability to connect with the world 'out there' but is making a conscious choice and expending every effort to avoid doing so. So what's left in the character to explore if he already has what he wants?

This is actually a running problem with the different versions of Peter Pan that I've seen. Robin Williams's Peter Banning was way cooler than his reversion to Pan. In fact, the one portrayal of Pan that I've really been blown away by was Robbie Kay on Once Upon a Time and that had to do with him playing Pan as a villain. Really, it's up to the characters around Pan to connect with him in order to tell the story, and in the case of the Disney film I found the Darlings to be one note personalities.

Which means that the real show belongs to the charismatic Captain Hook and the emotions-on-her-sleeveless-dress Tinkerbell. Disney probably could have relegated the Darlings into supporting roles to focus more on these two characters. They have a lot more in common than either one realizes. Each has an unhealthy obsession with Pan and tends to make decisions based on feelings. You'd think if she'd go with Hook they'd both be happier. I've long held the theory that Hook used to be Peter Pan before the punk kid usurped him.

So is the movie worth seeing? Yeah, sure, whatever. I mean, the flying scenes are spectacular. But the bits that work really don't add up to much. When you consider how laced with metaphor the source material is, you'd think the Disney film would actually feel like it's about something.

The Juggled Book (1967)

It could make for a fun debate as to which Disney adaptation is least like its source material (my money is on Pocahontas), but The Jungle Book clearly took some creative liberties. On the one hand it's a pity, because the well-timed encounter with the vultures could have made for a really great death allegory. But on the other hand, there's some truly great things happening in this movie.

I'll work backwards. There's the bittersweet ending, which is kind of a rarity for Disney. Shere Khan (the primary threat and plot instigator) has been overcome and Mowgli has his wish to stay in the jungle fulfilled, but then puberty hits. The girl is cute and all but the jungle has better songs. Really, the ending is the inevitability of growing up, which only sucks a little less than not growing up.

Then there's Shere Khan, who has been name dropped for two thirds of the film before making an appearance and he still owns the screen. The tiger could have been a threat on brute strength alone, but when you factor in the arrogance and noble idioms, this is a beast destined to utter the line "Good-bye Mr. Bond."

The casting of Sterling Holloway as Kaa was a stroke of genius. You'd never have imagined the voice of Winnie the Pooh as seductive, but Kaa's "Trust in Me" number is worth the movie ticket alone. There is also the legendary battle of wits between Shere Khan and Kaa, where neither villain backs down and it still ends in a draw. The stuff of legend.

But the real brilliance of Disney's version comes from the moment Baloo has to go back on his promise to Mowgli in letting him stay in the jungle. To a child, there's no difference between speaking too soon and lying, and the blow-up which follows is felt for the remainder of the film. Prior to Baloo's arrival, the kids in the audience automatically attach to Mowgli while the adults relate to the underestimated Bagheera. Baloo represents that convergence somewhere between the two that everyone can empathize with. In other words, he steals the POV right out from under both of them.

Out of the three films on this blog, The Jungle Book is the one I recommend the most. It was the last animated film that Walt himself really had his hands on, and you can spot his fingerprints. Some of my close friends just don't care for The Jungle Book and that's honestly fine. The film has a pretty strong flavor. But if you haven't seen it in a while and can really only remember it for "The Bare Necessities" you might want to give it another shot.

Conclusion (2015)

Peter Pan and The Jungle Book both received theatrically released sequels during Disney Co.'s direct-to-video epidemic. Word has it that both of the sequels were meant for a purely video release, but the high ups decided that they were both good enough to go to the cinema. They weren't.

It's not that continuing either character's story was inherently a bad idea, but Disney simply doesn't have the brass to push the boundaries on their franchises. Both sequels accomplished literally nothing. Thank God John Lasseter cancelled Pinocchio II.

If you line these three films up in chronological order there's a distinctive rite of passage at work. Pinocchio is practically a horror film with its happy ending the result of a lucky divine intervention, much the way young children feel about the slobbering razor-clawed terrors that nest under their very beds at night. Peter Pan is a bit more akin to an eight-year-old's mentality, where you're taking a certain delight in asking questions which challenge previously held notions about the nature of the world. Here is the smug superiority in knowing that the guy at the mall isn't the real Santa Claus (or perhaps you've cracked the code entirely, but you've realized that your gift intake remains intact through feigning gullibility).

Peter Pan as a character is most likely older than Mowgli, but his refusal to accept his age places The Jungle Book squarely on the cusp of that unwanted disease called adolescence. But change is inevitable, and that final film reflects the acceptance of things beyond your control. In fact each film in the trilogy could just as easily represent the time capsule for Walt's artistic journey in the company. Pinocchio came very near the beginning, Peter Pan during the company's recovery period from World War II, and The Jungle Book came right during Walt Disney's own death.

The Jungle Book may have been his final gift to his audience.

Super Mario P.I.

This was another one of my puzzle games for the Hoover Public Library's game night in a similar vein to the jaunt into Aperture's lab that I presented in a previous few blogs (you're more than welcome to experience Part One, Part Two and Part Three of GLaDOS's escape at these conspicuous links if you're so inclined).

Predating Aperture by a month, Super Mario P.I. was the first time I'd attempted to create a kind of system of puzzles. My template was Goofy's Mystery Tour, which was an awesome event that the Walt Disney World Resort used to put on (and possibly still does, I'm out of the loop). I've always been a huge fan of puzzles, particularly the ones from the golden age of GAMES Magazine that managed to weave some semblance of narrative into them. For a few vastly superior examples of this relatively untouched subgenre, may I suggest The Puzzling Adventures of Dr. Ecco by Dennis Shasha and the egregiously incredible The Maze of Games by Mike Selinker.

I'll admit I used an online program to help with the word search in Stage Four and the Criss-Cross of Stage Five, but as I mentioned it was my first time designing puzzles; you have to make the mistakes to learn from them. Daisy's Stage Two puzzle took me a lot longer than it probably should have, but even though the difficulty isn't really there I'm quite proud of my flower. But my favorite one was Peach's Stage Three recipe. Again, the difficulty factor isn't really there but the convolutedness of it really makes me smile. And I had a really good time trying to infuse the dialogue bubbles with the different characters' personalities.

So I'm actually stalling here because blogger will paste the images below on top of the archive listing on the right if I don't pad the paragraphs out. When I presented the game at Game Night, it was mildly successful. I seem to remember a few people figuring out who the culprit was (with a small amount of shortcut abuse).

Nobody found the Star Road on their own. Any takers?

This Week's Shiny Object (with Guest Blogger Sarah DeArmond): Quiverfull and the Duggars

I don't regularly discuss my faith because of the few but poignant times in my adulthood that the topic has led into a bit of a hornet's nest, but it's worth a mention for this week's blog so you'll understand where I'm coming from. I'm a Christian; raised Methodist, but not really part of an official denomination at this point in my life. I believe in God (which probably could have been implied already) but I understand why so many of my close friends don't. It doesn't bother me that intelligent and well-meaning people draw different conclusions about the nature of the unseen universe than I do. We'll know for certain when we die.

But I have a problem (with an emotional charge on it) when I hear about someone (or group) who profess to be "of faith" who use their beliefs for dishonorable purposes. At one end of the spectrum are the individual assholes who merely give themselves a sense of superiority at the expense of another person's pleasant day. Assholes of course are universal and there's probably the same percentage of them in any group, be it Christian, Pagan, Atheist, etc. But as mentioned before, the harm an individual asshole can do is typically within the scope of ruining your day.

But then there are the organizations. That's where my tolerance for human stupidity really feels stretched, and it's also where I see the greatest potential for real damage being done. This may not actually be the case, but it feels like it's a predominantly Christian-related trapping. And every time the news latches onto a new story about a Christian organization demonstrating no understanding of what Christianity is I just rub my eyes and mutter "Shit, here we go again."

The latest entry in the sad history of Christianity's delusional offshoots is the Quiverfull Movement, recently given a spotlight by the Duggar family on 19 Kids and Counting and pushed into the message boards by son Josh and the allegations of molestation. Now, I write fiction so I don't really keep up with details. But my wife excels at the information side of writing, so I'll turn the Chromebook over to her to summarize what the Quiverfull Movement is and what the situation with Josh is.

Over to you, honey.


Thank you. The Quiverfull movement is a movement where families take the Bible to be literally true and they consider all children to be gifts from God. They consider any type of birth control to be sinful and will have as many kids as God will give them.

I could write a book on what the Quiverfull movement entails, but to break it down on very simple terms, boys are trained to be the heads of the house and breadwinners, while girls are trained to be their husband's "help mates." They will be full time homemakers and and mothers. They will also follow whatever the husband chooses to do. The husband is in charge of the household, period. 

In the case of Josh Duggar, what has happened is that not only has he molested girls when he was fourteen, but he recently admitted to viewing pornography and cheating on his wife, Anna Duggar. Josh has given many apologies and has admitted to sinning, but he's barely talked about how he has failed as a son, brother, father, husband and human being.

To put it lightly, from what I know about the Quiverfull movement, they will no doubt be blaming Anna behind closed doors. I am sure that they will tell her that she didn't meet Josh's sexual needs and didn't perform her duties as a wife. Josh's mother, Michelle Duggar was once quoted as saying,"'Be available. Anyone can fix him lunch, but only one person can meet that physical need of love that he has, and you always need to be available when he calls.'" 


So I guess the best place to start is with the Quiverfull movement itself. I don't have a problem with people wanting to have large families. I personally would find the environment to be sheer misery but not everyone is a withdrawn introvert. My problem is when people try to justify what they want by claiming it's what God wants because of an ambiguous passage in the Bible that they've decided is the Da Vinci code revelation.

If you don't use birth control and you have sex, you stand a strong chance of conceiving an embryo. That's common sense. Just like if you walk into traffic you stand a strong chance of being hit. People of the Quiverfull movement are suggesting it's somehow God's will that they are having children by...you know...TRYING TO HAVE CHILDREN. So right off the bat, I suspect we're dealing with people who are in the habit of abandoning common sense.

Moving into the gender-role pigeon holes Quiverfull dictates, we have the traditional family unit where the man is in charge and the woman is in a subservient position. In one of the documentaries we've been watching on this topic, they site author Mary Pride as the driving force behind the movement. Pride (and she couldn't have a better name) was a former activist in the feminist movement before converting to conservative Christianity in 1977. As such, she became very outspoken against feminism while issuing a call to conservative values.

Okay. First off, let's take a look at the housewife role. When feminism found its footing, the housewife archetype took a bit of a beating. It's understandable since women were historically expected to assume that role. The seeds of bitterness are there. But even today, the housewife still has a bit of a bad reputation. The problem was never with a woman being a housewife, it was with a choice being made for her that she would assume that role.

The Quiverfull movement is laced with decisions being made for the children of the families about what roles they are going to have when they grow up, and it's truly offensive. And for the record it goes both ways; maybe not in equal doses, but there is a male side to this. If someone told me that, as a man, I was expected to 'head' the household, my reaction would be "I don't WANT to be the f**king head of the house!" And it's true. I never wanted to be part of a marriage where one member outranked the other. Thank God I married a woman who felt the same way.

But the point is, somewhere in this pyramid scheme of children there are some kids who naturally gravitate towards conservative values, because there are different kinds of people in the world. But there are invariably going to be some kids who feel differently about it. And they are stuck being trained for roles they really don't want. There is going to be a blow up in many Quiverfull families that they are simply not equipped to handle. And when that happens, I truly hope they interpret it as 'God wanted your kids to grow up hating you'.

I've yammered on a bit longer than I planned, but we really need to get into the core of this story, which is Josh molesting his sisters, cheating on his wife, viewing porn, and receiving absolution from his 'claimed' Christian value upholding parents. And this topic is best addressed from a female voice first. So here is my wife again.


I have personally been in a similar situation to Anna Duggar's. I have had more than one boyfriend view pornography behind my back. I've also had a boyfriend make comments about of friend of mine's chest and followed up his actions with, "I'm sorry. I'm a guy!"

This is something that I've often found disturbing both in the Quiverfull movement and in some churches, which is that guys can't help who they are and that women shouldn't dress or behave in a way that will lead them to sin. As a devout Christian, I'm sick of it. If you read the teachings of Jesus and Him alone, you'll see that He was both loving and respectful toward women. He was not at all judgmental and and had an embracing attitude. A lot of people, Quiverfull followers included, ignore the teachers of our perfect Savior and take things out of the Bible that were only put in there because that's what the times called for. So, if you want women to be a husband's help mate, then maybe you should look at other parts of the Bible, like not eating shrimp, adultery and....I don't know...lying, just to name a few! 

Look, different situations work for different marriages. Some work better if one person is in charge, while others work better when the couple functions as a unit. Do what works best for you and your spouse. Just don't let some random books that took a tiny passage out of the Bible tell you how to live your life. The bottom line, look to JESUS. Don't look to a random book that gives roles to husband and wives and specific instructions with what they should be doing with their children. I bet you if Jesus were to come down here and see some of this being done in His Holy Name, He'd be in tears.


And back to me.

I really think it's time to retire the bullshit excuse that guys simply do things like succumb to (what they perceive as) temptation because of their Y-chromosome. Either we have to agree that men are the weaker gender with no will power, or that our history of cultures has tolerated a lack of responsibility from men regarding their actions because the men have made those rules themselves.

Jim Bob Duggar has gone on record saying that molestation is pretty common in the Quiverfull movement, and I don't know which is more disturbing; the fact that it happens with such frequency that Jim Bob doesn't think it's a big deal, or that he's naïve (excuse me, -stupid) enough to expect the rest of the television audience to also shrug it off with a 'boys will be boys' mentality. But no. This isn't going away. Josh is only the first public case. There are more coming.

I've been searching online for a statement from Mary Pride about the whole thing, but so far I haven't turned anything up. I really can't imagine this is what she had in mind. She apparently denies her role in creating the Quiverfull movement, but she doesn't really seem to be speaking out against it either. Now's the time Pride. I know you're not reading this, but reality has never stopped me before. There is a small window of opportunity for you to come out against this movement that you inspired which treats the female as subservient, whose purpose is to satisfy the male and to reproduce, and for whom the act of molestation is barely thought of as a simple slip-up. Speak now, or that will be your legacy.

And to Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, your son is a criminal. He belongs in jail. Those are his actions and he's responsible for them, but he turned out exactly the way you raised him. Has he made you proud?


My wife Sarah is a contributor to the International Bipolar Foundation, HollywoodJesus, and Birmingham Fun and Family Magazine. She sometimes writes under her maiden name Sarah Brock.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two Retrospective

This is the second part of my retrospective look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe. If you're reading this blog first, then you might be asking yourself what I thought about Phase One. Well, I'm not going to tell you. I wrote a whole blog on that last week. I'm not going to waste my typing energy rehashing it just to save you the trouble of looking at a WHOLE OTHER BLOG. No. You can read that yourself. I guess we'll all just have to wait for you, won't we? Fine. You go and follow the link there while I sell-out with some product placement that nobody asked me to do and when you're finally ready to join the conversation we'll get started. Jeez, do the homework people!

This message has been endorsed by the Royal Academy for Traveling Wilbury Impersonation:


Drink Dr. Pepper. Do it. Right now. Don't drink Coke. Coke is the soft drink equivalent of chicken. Everything gets compared to Coke. Dr. Pepper is way cooler. It's got all those flavors that you'd never find in chicken. Dr. Pepper is like grilled salmon with lemon and just a kick of spices. Who'd want chicken after that? I mean, yeah, Coke has Mr. Pibb, which is fine if that's all the restaurant has, but ever since they added in that cherry flavor it's just not he same. So drink Dr. Pepper, or if you need to tighten the budget you can have Dr. Chek from Winn-Dixie. They practically taste the same. Or you can always try one of the other knockoff brands like Dr. Faygo or Dr. Pig. They're passable enough. Oh, but stay away from Dr. Publix. That's nasty. It's like when you mix fountain drinks at the Circle K but you add in a little Root Beer because you think it tastes pretty good on its own, but then somehow the flavors work against each other and it gives you this bitter nauseating medicine aftertaste. That's Dr. Publix. But Dr. Thunder from Wal-Mart? Oh man, I'd give up Dr. Pepper forever if I could live off that stuff. Dr. Thunder is a legal antidepressant. There is nothing greater than a 2-liter of that stuff. So, yeah. Um. Drink Dr. Pepper I guess. As long as there's no Dr. Thunder around.


Okay, are you done? Good! We've got a blog to get through.

Iron Man 3 (2013)

Of course everyone was still on about the Avengers, but the question now was whether or not anyone was interested in solo movies anymore. And if there weren't an Avengers sequel in the works we all may very well have moved on. But who are we kidding? We're invested now. The audience is pretty much obligated to go to the Marvel films and at least rave about them for the first two weekends.

Fortunately, Iron Man 3 turned out to be a worthy successor to the EVENT the preceding summer. Guy Pearce plays a solid villain, maybe not Loki caliber but certainly a step up from wherever Mickey Rourke wandered off to. I'm really not bothered by what they did with the Mandarin. It worked for the movie. I suppose I felt the absence of Thor and the rest of the team, but I rather like seeing Don Cheadle get some real screen time as War Machine (yeah, Terrence Howard got gypped, but I've honestly moved past it).

If I have anything negative to say, and I really don't, it's that I felt exhausted by the end of the movie. I suppose it's better than feeling unsatisfied. After The Avengers I couldn't wait for the next installment. With Iron Man 3 I was fine waiting.

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

I don't get it. Why go through the trouble of casting Christopher Eccleston in a role that could have been played by a stuntman? When you hear him talk about the role, you can tell he signed on to really act. But truthfully, I don't even remember what the hell happened to his character at the end of the movie.

Compared to the first Thor this movie has individual sequences that push the boat out further, and I give it credit there. But the overall product doesn't hold together as well. Perhaps it was a mistake to have to tie the movie back onto earth. As nice as it was to see Jane and Darcy again, I kind of feel like the human characters are being forced into the plot, to the point of holding it back. Loki is back and scene stealing as ever, but no. He doesn't need a solo film. I know we'll see him again in Thor: Ragnarok in 2017, and as much as I love his character that probably should be his swansong.

I guess the bottom line with the Thor franchise is that Asgard is having to take a backseat to the stuff on earth and it's really limiting what we can do with this realm. What is daily life like in Asgard if there's not a frost giant infiltration to handle? Is this like Star Trek's federation, where everyone of every profession and class association is content with their lots in life? It's hard to care about a dark elf invasion when we don't feel any attachment to the place. And Rene Russo's Frigga was a truly wasted opportunity, but apparently moms just get in the way of the hero's journey. *sigh*

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

What the hell happened here? When did Steve Rogers become so awesome? I mean, this movie did everything right; from casting Robert Redford as the main villain to giving Cap a global affecting decision, which he of course makes without a second thought in keeping with his character.

I loved seeing Black Widow in this movie. You only needed one extra Avenger to flesh out the cast as part of the overriding whole, and Natasha was the correct choice. I particularly loved seeing The Nanny Diaries's costars in a completely non-romantic setting. Widow gets about as much action as Cap does to the point you could practically have included her name in the title.

Now I'll admit I never got attached to Bucky in the first film because, like so much of The First Avenger, his character left no real impression on me. But here as the Winter Soldier his character effectively conveys what he means to Steve and what's personally at stake. And at the end of the movie when Captain America refuses to leave Bucky behind it comes across as Steve Rogers has never thought of himself as anything more than any other soldier, no matter what uniform he's wearing. It's a strong moment.

Nick Fury and Maria Hill are spot on, Fury is probably utilized better in this movie than in any other that Sam Jackson will get contracted for. And Anthony Mackie inserts himself flawlessly into the pre-existing cast as Falcon. Iron Man 3 and Thor: Just Call it Thor 2 both have their places in the franchise, but Winter Soldier is the first movie since The Avengers that you absolutely HAVE to see.

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Okay. So. If you've talked to anyone ever, you've probably heard how great this movie is, and you might even think that the naysayers simply don't exist; not by being beaten into submission by the cult of Matrix worshipers, but by being snuffed out from the weight of fan kinderlings who have fallen in love with Chris Pratt (and yeah, he was great in The Lego Movie). I mean, if there's one thing nerds are known for, it's knowing when to give up on expressing their opinions about things.

I really felt like I wasted my time with this movie. I don't get what people are seeing in it. I'm not saying it was a bad movie. I'm just saying it wasn't good either. Case in point: the fundamental question for anything designed as entertainment is, why do I care about this particular story? I haven't had to ask that for any of the past Marvel films because they've all seemed to justify themselves. But going into Guardians pre-hype I couldn't figure out what I was supposed to be attaching to. It's a band of misfits in space. And? Aside from Marvel's stamp, what makes that any different than every hundred other band of misfits in space story that's been done to cliched death?

I actually expressed my reaction to the trailer on Facebook to see why people were so excited, and the only concrete response I got was, "It's a raccoon with a gun! Come on!" So f**king what? That's nothing special. And here's where my problem lies. The raccoon with a gun never became a character with more depth than his basic trope definition. Groot was the well-meaning tree. Green Avatar girl was green and did some action. And Chris Pratt listened to a mix tape made up of songs that I personally find barely tolerable. Those characters were the same at the end of the movie that they were at the beginning.

A buddy of mine insisted that the character development was there, it was just subtle. Maybe he's right, but in an unsubtle movie like this, subtlety is congruent to irrelevant. I think the filmmakers were too busy being 'hip' that they either forgot to make it engaging, or decided for themselves that I was going into the theater already engaged. That's a rookie mistake.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

I didn't know who Ultron was because I didn't remember him from the Lego Marvel game, so I wasn't going into this one excited about said character. And I don't know what happened exactly but as the movie wore on, Ultron stopped being interesting. Now, from what I understand, Joss Whedon had to trim out like an hour of footage, so maybe that's the problem. But whereas Phase One was clearly leading up to the payoff of The Avengers, Phase Two seems to be setting its sights on Civil War.

The Vision is another character that I never really warmed up to. A lot of critics were saying they wanted to see more of him, but I didn't see enough of anything to have any kind of intrigue about him. He honestly just feels like third act deus ex machina. Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver fare much better with Elizabeth Olsen in particular being the breakout performer. But Baron Strucker and Ulysses Klaue are paraded through so fast I really wish they'd settled on only using one of the characters. And then there's bit parts from Fury and Falcon and Selvig and so on; it's more of a scavenger hunt than actual necessity.

And then there's the crap between Black Widow and Bruce Banner. A lot of people I know liked the romance. I thought it weakened her character and made his less fun. I find Black Widow's no-nonsense approach refreshing, and it's not that a romantic angle weakens every female character but for her it feels out of place. And Banner's thing has always been trying to get a handle on the Hulk before even considering any kind of relationship. Just because Natasha is convenient doesn't mean he'd have an attraction. Was that really all Joss Whedon could think of to do with those two characters?

Ant-Man (2015)

So this is how we finish off Phase Two then? Okay...but I really need to get this off my chest. Ant-Man is silly. I'm not talking about the movie, just the concept. If Marvel had led with Ant-Man instead of Iron Man and expected any dignity the franchise would have been dead on impact.

Well, here we go. It's a decent origin story reminiscent of Iron Man, although certainly not on its level. Paul Rudd is likable, Michael Douglas is in top form, Evangeline Lily is as credible a leading lady as Hayley Atwell. So the cast is pretty solid. The one weak point is Corey Stoll, whose work I'm not familiar with but it's probably the way his character is written more than the actor. Maybe I just didn't believe that he believed in the Yellowjacket technology. He just seemed too easygoing to ever feel like a real threat. The difference between a villain who is confident versus just smug is the underlying passion they have for what they're doing. Stoll's Darren Cross just seemed too comfortable.

So I liked the movie, even if the third act felt confused over its identity, but it was kind of a weak way to end Phase Two. I don't know why Marvel called Ant-Man the finale when they could have just as easily have claimed it was the pre-show to Phase Three without even moving its release date. Even if the Avengers sequel missed the bullseye, it still has more of the raw power behind it to say, "That's Phase Two folks! See you at the next eleven movies!"

So if you're keeping score, Marvel spent a total of 1 billion 46 million making Phase Two while earning (as of this weekend) 5 billion 84.2 million at the box office. Which is to say that Phase Three is the only sure bet in Hollywood these days. So it's not a question of will we shell out the money for Infinity War, but how will we feel about the whole saga once it's done? Civil War will most definitely be a thrill ride, but consider the possibility of the series peaking there. That leaves us with nine films to notice the aftertaste leading in to whatever Marvel is convinced we're still going to want to sit through for the next decade.

Ambitious if nothing else.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One Retrospective

Well, everybody else is weighing in on this topic. I guess I don't feel like coming up with new material this week.

So the Marvel Cinematic Universe has completed its Phase Two with the release of Ant-Man, and they seem to be doing everything correctly, from a business model at least. Superhero movies are in this decade, in part because the special effects in film are sophisticated enough to convincingly portray literally anything, but also because in the 2000's out society really stopped feeling comfortable on a daily basis, due to due to the economy and the echoes of 9/11. In much the way that the MGM musicals gave our grandparents escape from the Great Depression, the superhero genre has granted us the jolt of hope that we've needed.

And when I say that, I don't mean any of us really think Thor is going to pop up at Denny's and defeat a giant robot (or whatever that was) for us. I mean it's given us something to talk about. Passionately. Optimistically. Our fiction doesn't change our problems but it may very well change our feelings about those problems and as such our approach to dealing with them. That's kind of powerful in a way.

Now I could be wrong, but it feels to me like the despair we've been having over the early years of the twenty-first century is getting better out there. Maybe not where we'd like it to be, and of course there are still major problems, but the feel of the world has gotten better. And that's obviously good. But I'm not inclined to talk about important things, because I'm a nerd. I've never connected to the world through reality. If things continue to get better, I'm wondering how much life the superhero genre really has left in it.

Sure the movies will always be there in the way that westerns are still made today. But westerns haven't been the in thing since, I don't know, Blazing Saddles? The fourth Fantastic Four movie (not Fantastic 4 4 sadly) has failed to attract an audience, demonstrating how the superhero film is no longer a sure bet. Case in point, the first Jessica Alba vehicle that nobody liked still tripled its 100 million dollar price tag at the box office.

So maybe we're starting to see the sun set on this period in cinema, which is really bad news for DC as they're getting to the party just as people are leaving. Marvel has plans through 2028 (no kidding), and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of those get abandoned after Marvel's Phase Three, because I suspect we're all going to be a little superheroed out.

But we're here now and the celebration is still going on. So let's have a look at how we got to this point.

Iron Man (2008)

Yeah, I'm not doing MAD magazine spoof titles for this blog like I usually do, there are only so many ways you can abuse the word 'iron'. But this was the one that got the party started. Technically Blade unlocked the warehouse for us and X-Men set up all the tables, but the music didn't start playing until Downey Jr. came through the door.

Now let me confess this, I don't read comics. I don't keep up with them. The comic book industry doesn't embrace the casual reader, they expect you to commit. So I never got into them; one, because I can't afford the investment, and two, my brain just doesn't naturally go to the next panel it's supposed to focus on and that always keeps me out of the story. So I knew nothing about Iron Man. I thought, okay. He wears armor and uses the colors of the Tara High School Trojans. Whoop-dee-shit.

But of course, the first Iron Man did exactly what it needed to do in order to win the masses over, which was get the character of Tony Stark right. And Robert Downey Jr. is Tony Stark. There could never have been a more perfect casting choice. Downey Jr. is an incredibly talented actor, with no training as an actor (so kids, stay out of school), and all things being equal he never needed the nonsense of a silly superhero movie. But all things weren't equal. His personal life had gone into some really dark places, and this role was the equivalent of the phoenix rising. Going into the opening weekend, Iron Man had respectability.

And it was great! It was one of the best origin stories ever filmed. And the funny thing is, the third act REALLY wandered off somewhere, and it didn't hurt the movie, because our final image was Samuel L. Jackson introducing himself as Nick Fury. And Jeff Bridges played a great villain, which again didn't add up to much in the third act but that was still not the point. It was a great movie!

How many movies can really drop the ball in their final act and still be great? That's pretty damned impressive.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

So it's a month later and we're still on a Tony Stark high when this movie happens. And I can already hear one of my friend's voices in my head going "Aw, come on, it's the Hulk man!" And yes, I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find something in this movie to get behind. Usually the proponents resort to "Well, it's not the Ang Lee movie."

The Ang Lee Hulk has its supporters as well, and it always entertains me seeing the back and forth about which movie was better. These are some really in depth, detail-centric conversations, that I can't help but admire. But I don't take a side, because the real conversation on the table is, which movie sucked less?

The bottom line is, the Hulk is just not suited to carry an entire movie by himself. He's good in bursts, or in the three act timing of a 45 minute TV show, like in the late seventies (still great, by the way. It's on Netflix). Probably what Marvel could have done differently was bring in Hawkeye for this movie in kind of a Jack McGee role, except he's following S.H.I.E.L.D.'s orders. That gives us a chance to get to know Barton before The Avengers and creates a little more good guy vs. good guy tension to feel like something actually matters for this film.

But hey, Downey Jr. makes an appearance at the end. So there's that.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Wow! Two years! Can you imagine Marvel pulling off a gap like that today? And I can just see Kevin Feige thinking, "Shit! We've got nothing until until next summer! Somebody get an Iron Man movie out the door!"

I get it. The MCU was a massive undertaking, and missteps were bound to happen, and when they did they were on the screen in front of millions. In retrospect though, this would have been the ideal placement for Captain America.

But that didn't happen. If this were a D&D campaign, Iron Man 2 would be the moment the Dungeon Master was out of ideas and randomly threw a powerful monster at the party just to create a battle. Apparently Mickey Rourke is a wandering monster. I was actually digging his character in his opening scene, but then he just started 'doing stuff' and sending out robots to attack (which is not something I've ever thought was interesting) and then entering the battle himself because we need to wrap this up.

But you know who was really great in the movie? Sam Rockwell. My God he was having fun playing Justin Hammer, trying SO HARD to be the main villain and not succeeding. It may not make for good cinema, but this is the true underdog story.

So let's talk Black Widow. I think she's a great character and her scenes in this movie are honestly what make it unskippable if you're hosting a Phase One Marvel weekend at your local library. There's recently been a lot of discussion about Marvel's spotlight on their female characters (as well there should be) and the lack of attention the traditionally 'boy's show' seems to be sharing with them. Black Widow merchandise is very hard to find, and I don't understand why. There's a damned market for it!

But the other topic that comes up is the lack of a Black Widow solo movie. I find myself a little mixed on this one. Marvel doesn't seem to want to do a Black Widow movie, and Venom's appearance in Spider-Man 3 is a pretty accurate depiction of what happens when the production team isn't on board with something. Unlike when Joss Whedon was really pushing for a Wonder Woman movie (which DC rejected), I haven't heard of anyone else in Hollywood really adamant about wanting to make the movie themselves. Nothing would be more frustrating than if Marvel gave in to the fans and gave us another Elektra. Basically, it's probably not going to happen, and it's unfortunate why. But other positive steps are being made elsewhere, such as the hit show Once Upon a Time and Marvel's Jessica Jones (in which I have the utmost confidence).

Thor (2011)

The whole MCU concept was only going to work if the character of Thor was believable, because this was the point of 'most likely to become silly'. Fortunately for half of Hollywood's bankroll, Chris Hemsworth went into acting.

Ken Branagh is a talented director. He's the only person who could ever have gotten me to sit through four hours of Hamlet. And he brought so many wonderful elements to this movie, from Tom Hiddleston's performance as Loki to the whole look and flavor of Asgard. Of course I'm not entirely convinced said elements ever came together into a fully defined whole.

I certainly remember liking Thor but not really remembering much about it. Something about frost giants? And Jane is an astrophysicist? And Agent Coulson found Thor's hammer? Or wait, that was at the end of Iron Man 2. But there was that bit where Loki possessed a robot or something.

I guess it just wasn't a solid movie. A fun one, certainly, but if it wasn't part of the bigger picture I'm not sure I'd really understand what the hell I'd just watched. Thor on earth felt like a TV show pilot. Thor in Asgard came across as deleted scenes from another movie. It was like it was trying to be Richard Donner's Superman and Superman II at the same time. Not bad, just not amazing either.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Get to the damn Avengers already!

Like I said before, if Captain America had come out in 2010 and pushed Iron Man 2 into the following year, the pacing of the MCU would have been much stronger. As placed, Captain America comes off as "We HAD to make this movie before we got to the good one, so here it is".

The movie make for a decent period piece, and it might even be an entertaining one if it hadn't recycled sequences from Iron Man, Spider-Man, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine to get there. The biggest problem of course is with the character of Steve Rogers. It's hard to make him interesting. Much like Superman, Cap is a boy scout; a hero to aspire to but not really relate to. The ideals he stands for are positive ones but they don't make for good conflict unless they go up against a grey area where they're really challenged. Here, they go up against Hydra, basically the Nazis of Nazis. So, no grey area then.

Don't get me wrong, Chris Evans really is a fantastic actor. Out of all the Avengers, he's probably got the hardest job because his character is so inherently bland. How do you find your beats when going up against Downey's Tony Stark? Evans manages to find those moments without ever becoming not Captain America.

Perhaps the lesson here is that being a hero really is thankless.

Marvel's The Avengers (2012)

The fact that this movie holds together at all is an impressive feat. The fact that it's awesome is a testament to Joss Whedon's ability to handle ensemble casts.

I was most worried going into the movie that it was going to be the Tony Stark show, and while Tony drives the movie, he's still only one part of the whole. The core of the movie is S.H.I.E.L.D., even if they don't get the action in the third act. We'd seen the agency's involvement with world affairs, but we'd never seen the heart of it. The Avengers shows us S.H.I.E.L.D. working, failing, thriving, failing again, and finally being rescued. It's a pretty epic journey.

Man, Loki held his own against six superheroes. Marvel is hit and miss with its villains, but Loki is their home-run. It was a vital decision to give Loki at least one scene with each Avenger, and his conversation with Stark is as riveting as an of the action scenes. But of course Hulk steals the show.

Perhaps the big problem with the past two Hulk movies was that Dr. Banner ultimately didn't matter. It could just as easily have been Dr. Richard Kimble on the run from the government, the Hulk was what mattered to the story. In The Avengers Bruce Banner is more important than the big guy, which means that when the Hulk finally shows up it really counts for something.

The MCU was an ambitious project that racked up a total of one billion dollars in production costs over six movies. Of course when you see how the franchise took in 3.8 billion in the first phase alone it seems like a no-brainer, but that's a lot of cash changing hands on an untried model. It's always nice to see the powers take a risk that pays off, just like it's sad to see them overtap the well. Phase Three will be a sure bet, but after that it's anyone's game.

Be back here next week for my retropesctive of Phase Two and in 2019 for Phase Three.

Shows in Need of a Reboot: Ranma 1/2's Character Changes

Perhaps you're too young to have caught the first wave of anime dubs that hit the States back in the early-to-mid nineties, but the flagship title that every Blockbuster carried in bits and pieces was Rumiko Takahashi's Ranma 1/2. Canadian studio Viz Video handled the voice dubs and it was one of the very few shows that the anime snobs would admit to watching in English.

The (attempted) quick version: 16 year old martial artist Ranma Saotome is betrothed in a pre-arranged marriage to one of the three Tendo sisters, cheerfully oblivious Kasumi, deadpan snarker Nabiki, and martial artist Akane (the youngest). It's decided for him that Akane is the correct choice, and the audience agrees, but Ranma has less interest in girls than he does in removing the curse which transforms his body into that of a young girl who drowned over a thousand years ago, hence the title's '1/2' (you'll give up questioning it once the breasts start making appearances). The matter becomes more complicated once other females show up demanding that Ranma choose them for his bride, including spatula virtuoso Ukyou, Chinese Amazon Shampoo, and rich psycho Kodachi. Akane gets a couple of suitors herself. And stuff happens.

Ranma is to anime what Star Trek (the original) is to science fiction. There were better things that came before and after, but it's a series that still holds up on its own in spite, or because, of its flaws. See, when American students went over to Japan on the exchange program to learn about Japanese business techniques, instead of bringing back marketable strategies they crammed their suitcases full of anime; Akira, Dirty Pair, Outlaw Star, and all the violent porn they could get their grubby hands on. Ranma became the breakout star.

I recently (as of this morning) discovered this: Nightmare! Incense of Deep Sleep on Youtube, which was a 2008 special created for the 50th anniversary of Shonen Sunday, a Japanese manga magazine. Back in the nineties when I was into Ranma, I was really into Ranma. Then I guess I grew up or something, and Ranma went back into mental storage. But when I watched Nightmare, I felt a recharged fascination for the world Takahashi created.

So that got me thinking, if there were to be a reboot (and there's not, in case you think I actually know something) and the professional company in charge of said reboot happened to stumble across one of the Weird Al album reviews on this blog and thought "I bet this guy would have some ideas worth hearing about Ranma", what would I tell them over the seafood dinner on the private yacht that would inevitably follow? It never hurts to be prepared, so here's what I think I might say.

The humor needs to be more character driven. Takahashi's manga excelled at screwball hijinks, and some of that carried over effectively into the anime, but a lot of it didn't. The manga is hyperactive, which works for the medium. The anime was inconsistent in it's pacing, and I'm not talking about the natural oscillation of a story arc. A lot of times the show would slow when it needed to speed up and vice versa. It certainly doesn't need to match the manga's pacing because it's a lot easier to lose the audience. And it was the slower moments in the early seasons that created a sense of pathos that the manga never really had.

In fact, I thought the first two seasons were very good, and some of the early episodes of season three. But then the show became, and felt, episodic. The characters stopped developing. The "Will they or won't they?" became a rhetorical question, and literally nothing felt like it was being accomplished until the OVA era. And that frustration I felt over the characters I had grown to love was exactly why I'd moved on from them. But then I saw Nightmare, and I was reminded of why I'd loved the characters in the first place.

Here then is a list of the top nine character changes I would make if I were in charge of the reboot.

9. Nabiki

Who she is:

Nabiki is the middle child in the Tendo dojo, (owned by Soun Tendo) where Ranma and his father Genma are staying and freeloading. Nabiki is a year ahead of Ranma and Akane and usually watched the action from afar with amused condescension. She'll go where the action is where there's a bit of money to be made off the misfortune of others.

The problem:

Nabiki has no apparent martial arts ability, which means she's going to be stuck on the sidelines until the story requires someone to happen to have the problem solving object, which she always produces with a price tag. It's a single joke that wastes a really interesting character.

The solution:

Have Nabiki tell the story. The story is clearly Ranma's but Akane typically gets forced into the POV position for the audience, which means her effect on the story is limited and her appearances wherever the action happens to be taking place feel contrived. Nabiki would be perfect for this position. She already magically shows up on a dime, and as a storyteller her MST riffing would be most effective.

8. Ranma

Who he is:

Well...you know...the main character. The 16 year old boy of action who doesn't have time for romantic nonsense, even though he seems to attract it from four sources.

The problem:

It's not so much with who he is as it is with what's done with him. There's a point fairly early on where Ranma begins having Bugs Bunny's batting average, and that's when he stops being sympathetic. Ranma always wins. His fight with Mousse in season two is probably the last time there's any real tension, and that's only if you're rooting for Mousse.

The solution:

He needs to get his ass kicked once in a while. It may be a case of introducing a reoccurring character that Ranma simply can't defeat in a fair fight. The hero has to lose a few times, you know?

7. Happosai

Who he is:

Happosai is the founder of the "Anything-Goes School" of martial arts, which Ranma and Akane are both studying. He's also the elder and grandmaster, which means Soun and Genma both have to demonstrate respect to him. He's also an imp-sized pervert who spends the bulk of his time stealing women's undergarments.

The problem:

As I said, he's an imp-sized pervert who spends the bulk of his time stealing women's undergarments. Takahashi herself has said that Happosai is one of her favorite characters, and I guess I get it from a writer's point of view. It's always helpful to have a character that can shake things up at any moment. But this character is so utterly unlikable and unredeemable that I would go so far as to say that his introduction is Ranma's jump-the-shark moment.

The solution:

Screw him. I really can't think of any reason this character is in the show except to get girl-type Ranma's shirt off, and boy-type Ranma never has a problem finding an excuse himself. If the fans absolutely demand him, shame them first and then put him in only when it's necessary.

6. Kuno/Ryoga/Shampoo

Who they are:

Tatewaki Kuno is the kendo team captain and the school bully who Ranma defeats early on, and then again every other episode (usually with a single punch). Ryoga is Ranma's childhood frenemy who suffers from a condition that keeps him from ever being able to follow directions, thus making him perpetually lost. Shampoo is the strongest warrior of an Amazon tribe who was defeated in combat by Ranma (accidentally), and by law now has to marry him.

The problem:

Again, nothing is really wrong with the characters, just the over-reliance on certain aspects. Kuno is a semi-formidable opponent at first but then stops being any kind of threat. Ryoga can still give Ranma a good pounding but he has a one-sided love for Akane that he never reveals to her. He's also cursed to turn into a pig when splashed with cold water and Akane thinks said pig is her stray pet; which means Ryoga's sometimes sleeping with Akane and she doesn't know it. These elements get old fast. With Shampoo, it's a case of an undeserved amount of screen time purely on the grounds of her being the fan favorite character.

The solution:

Two things. One, plan the overarching story arc's endgame and make these characters' appearances count for more than throwaway jokes (and remember that Shampoo is on Ukyou's level, not Akane's). Two, develop these characters. Let them explore other interpersonal relationships with characters other than the two leads. What is Kuno took Ryoga under his wing just to humiliate Ranma? Does Shampoo ever feel homesick for her Amazon tribe? There are some wonderful possibilities.

5. Mousse

Who he is:

Mousse is the Chinese master of hidden weapons. Unlike the rest of the periphery cast, Mousse's affections are not aimed at the central couple but Shampoo, making him a wild card when used correctly. He's been in love with her since they were three years old, but she rejected his marriage proposal. When they were three. But it hasn't stopped him from trying to change her mind. He seems to think that by defeating Ranma, Shampoo will finally accept him as a suitor. Mousse is also comedically blind without his glasses.

The problem:

See, when he doesn't wear his glasses he always winds up talking to the wrong person or thing. So that's funny! Get it? Even on the eighty-third delivery! That NEVER gets old!!! But really, we've got bigger issues here. Mousse is the poster child for unrequited love. Shampoo rejects him. She tells him to go home. She beats the shit out of him and he still won't let it go. That type of humor was barely passable in the nineties. It doesn't work anymore. We can spend all night discussing whether Mousse is a stalker or Shampoo is an abusive tyrant, but the bottom line is that this doesn't work as humorous anymore.

The solution:

Mousse is still a great character. Whereas Ranma and Ryoga have a brotherly love for each other that neither will admit to, Mousse could actually make a great best friend to Ranma if the writers would allow it. We have to smooth some things out. It has to be made clear to the audience (and to Mousse as well) that Shampoo really does love him, but she's choosing the honor of her tribe over her personal feelings. And that has to be an ongoing argument between them about which is more important. Otherwise, the subplot is just too sad.

4. Ukyou

Who she is:

Out of all of Ranma's suitors (dressors?) Ukyou is the one who has as much claim to Ranma as Akane does, possibly more so. Ukyou's father arranged a marriage between Ukyou and Ranma through Genma, putting up the family's okonomiyaki cart as a dowry. Genma accepted and made off with the cart, leaving Ukyou behind, thus ruining her for marriage.

The problem:

Ukyou came to the party late. Out of all the 'suitor' characters she was the last to be introduced, a full season and a half after Shampoo had dug her cat claws into the fan base. It left her relegated to a supporting supporting player in other people's stories. She's also one of the most grounded characters in the series, for which there was little room once the level of ridiculousness had been established.

The solution:

It's a reboot, so we're reintroducing characters. Ukyou needs to be there from the beginning. As the series stands now, Akane begins her arc with a crush on Dr. Tofu (another character that becomes useless by the end of the first season). Transfer that to Ukyou, for when she's still posing as a boy (don't ask. It's already too complicated). With Akane being the boy-hater that she is, Ukyou would be the only 'boy' she feels is at all relatable. Then when it's revealed Ukyou is in fact a girl, and the deception directly involves Ranma, Akane's constant anger toward him would be a bit more founded.

3. Akane

Who she is:

Who do you think? The core of Ranma 1/2 is the relationship between Ranma and Akane. Of course they never actually get together, so if you're rooting for them you'll have to be satisfied with the fleeting moments where they almost admit to having feelings for each other and then pull away.

The problem:

Aside from the tediousness? Much of the time Akane doesn't even need to be in the story. And when she is there she always winds up taking a backseat to Ranma. And as much as I hate to say it, Ranma seems to have more chemistry with Ukyou.

The solution:

Akane needs to have her own life. Play up the friendship between her and Ukyou. Give Akane some martial arts action that Ranma doesn't have to bail her out on. With Nabiki running POV, make it as much Akane's journey as it is Ranma's. And just maybe try out the Akane/Ryoga pairing for a bit, at least giving it a chance to fail on its own.

2. Kodachi

Who she is:

The Black Rose. Kuno's baby sister. The rising star of rhythmic gymnastics with a pet alligator and a banshee cackle that echoes through the swirl of petals she leaves behind. Kodachi is in an extreme state of id. She doesn't take words for an answer, or actions. This self-proclaimed petite flower is purely in the now, where even hypocrisy can't reach. She's the storm, the typhoon, the fires of hell itself. She may have spent some time in Arkham.

The problem:

Not a damn thing.

The solution:

There's an untapped potential with Mistress Kuno that begs *strike that* demands to be explored. Exhibit A: When Shampoo, and to a lesser degree Ukyou, get too close to Ranma, Akane beats up Ranma. When Kodachi gets too close, Akane takes on Kodachi. Why the difference? Exhibit B: Kodachi is the only character Ranma is actually afraid of. So if she's so easily defeated, why is she still a threat? Well, I have a modest suggestion. As disinterested as Ranma is in girls, I think there should be some base-level attraction that he has towards 'the wrong girl' that even he doesn't understand. The series should never go full on M rating, but as in control as Ranma always is it would make complete sense that some unconscious part of him would experience a little sadomasochistic intrigue with the nutcase. And Akane would recognize it.

1. The Girl

Who she is:

We don't know. We only know what she looks like and that she drowned a century ago.

The problem:

Nothing really, aside from an awesome window of opportunity.

The solution:

Open the freaking window, man. If a curse can tie you as far back to the past as that, then something's got to be able to bring it into the present. One potential story arc is if somebody else falls into that same spring and takes a different kind of advantage of an alter-ego. Imagine what kind of crap Ranma could get blamed for. But much more interesting is if the consciousness of the girl who drowned began reawakening in Ranma's mind. What kind of person is she? What caused her to drown? Is there something she still wants in this world that Ranma can complete? What kind of opinions might she have about the guy who is now hosting her form? This would have to be a down-the-road story arc once some of the other plot threads were wearing thin, but it could really lead to an amazing journey.

Call me, Takahashi. I'm in it for the pure joy and I'm dirt cheap.


Addendum 12/27/2016: Strangely enough, this continues to be my most popular blog. I have no idea who my audience is, but I'd love a comment from you; just letting me know who you are and how you made your way to my page. Cheers! -Sean