Editorial: Deadliest Warrior Was Weird

this show is not animated, but it's been on my mind recently and since my last DeviantArt journal wasn't viewed by many people, I figured I'd share it here. Deadliest Warrior was probably one of my favourite shows as a kid, I liked seeing all these cool pieces of weaponry and of course, all the violence. I was young, and I was easy to enthrall, very easy actually, just tell me to run around a field and I'd probably do it twice, but I digress. I remember catching episodes on TV as they aired, which is not something I normally did, I kept watching until part way into season 2, I know I skipped one episode before I stopped altogether, and then continued to watch some episodes online back when you could watch full episodes of some shows on the channels website. Looking back on it now, the show is very flawed, and I won't get into the historical inaccuracies, since A) I am not knowledgeable enough to know what I am talking about, and B) there are other places you can find that information. Instead, I'm going very surface level, and looking at the concept and the match-ups.

Deadliest Warrior was one of those shows that was pseudo-education but the main draw was something very primal, Spike had a couple of these shows with 1000 Ways to Die and Manswers airing at the same time. The main draw for this show was, on the surface level violence, but it was also seeing these cool historical weapons being used. This was before YouTube was really full of niche channels which would do things like this. The main idea was to take two sets of historical warriors and test some weapons they may have and see who would win a fight. This concept seemed promising, but they changed the type of warriors by Season 3. In season one it was mostly generic types, like Gladiator, Samurai, Pirate, Mafia, Maori etc. They had two historical figures duke it out, and that felt like a special occasion, then by season three it was mostly historical figures like Napoleon Bonaparte, Hernán Cortés, Crazy Horse, with only two (Ish, we'll talk about that) warrior types. It didn't feel special anymore, and kind became lame, and the "Generic Warrior" battles didn't feel special either because it was most of Season 1 already. They should have just picked one or the other here, I would have loved a show with just historical figures, and we could have gotten some more interesting warriors with it, like Blackbeard, King Kamehamea I, Aaron Burr, really, that alone would have been a great draw.

However, let's move on to the meat of what made this show weird, and here I want to disclose that I haven't watched this show in a while, this is all very surface level analysis so take all my words here with a grain of salt. So many of the match-ups in this show were odd choices, bordering on the idiotic and the show just looks like it is full of missed opportunities. For example, let's look at the first episode, which for some reason had an Apache Warrior fighting a Gladiator. I don't know what to feel about this, because what do these two have in common? Fighting for freedom? Okay, but the ways they fought for it was very different, I mean Gladiators were entertainers, in fact it is currently believed that death matches between gladiators became less common over time. On top of that, who even thought about that? No one, because that isn't a good match-up, a good match-up should actually make you curious, like even if the pairing makes little sense, it could still give you something to think about, this match-up only makes me think "Who really is asking this?"

Any other weird match-ups? How about episode 3, Spartan vs Ninja. Like, what even is the similarity here? These two are completely different leagues, Spartans were an organized Greek military, Ninjas were rogue assassins at deadliest. Ninjas were meant to be unseen, Spartans were meant to me in the middle of combat. Episode 7 had Maori Warriors facing Shaolin Monks, again I'm missing the connection here. Episode 17 had Persian Immortals vs Celts, even as a kid I knew that was a dumb match, like how in the world could a Celt stand up against a Persian? Episode 20 had Ming Dynasty Warriors facing French Musketeers, and I gotta say, the technology different between the two gives one such an unfair advantage. That episode was followed by the Comanche vs Mongol, again failing to see any connection, hey I got an idea, since both their lands were invaded by an opposing army that they stood their ground against, why not Comanche vs Celt? The weirdest match-up was the final episode, episode 32 where they were either so desperate for rating or they knew it was their final episode so they just said screw it, but they decided, for their final episode, to do Vampires vs Zombies, two fictional monsters that aren't even warriors, that'd be like if they did an episode with Jeffrey Dahmer vs Ed Gein, they're killers, not warriors.

But the worst match-ups were when they had historical figures in the ring. I've looked through the full list, and you know how many don't work as a match-up? Too many! Their first historical figures match was William Wallace vs Shaka Zulu, which makes no sense, like again, the technology difference between the two is unfair and Shaka Zulu is more recent than William Wallace, Shaka Zulu died in 1828, The United States of America was already half a century old at the time, and that was the first historical figure match-up, where could it go from there? Somehow both up and down at the same time, like here are the rest of the historical figures match-ups:
Alexander the Great vs Attila the Hun
Jesse James vs Al Capone
Sun Tzu vs Vlad the Impaler
George Washington vs Napoleon Bonaparte
Joan of Arc vs William the Conqueror
Genghis Khan vs Hannibal
Saddam Hussein vs Pol Pot
Theodore Roosevelt vs Lawrence of Arabia
Ivan the Terrible vs Hernán Cortés
Crazy Horse vs Pancho Villa

Out of all those match-ups, the only one I think actually works, like one hundred percent works, is George Washington vs Napoleon Bonaparte, legit that is a good one. However, most of the other match-ups, like, some of them I kind of see what they're aiming for, but could still think of better opponents for them, like I understand Jesse James and Al Capone, but why not Al Capone vs Pablo Escobar? I understand Crazy Horse and Pancho Villa, but why not Crazy Horse vs Louis Riel, pit Pancho Villa against Aaron Burr or something. I swear the only reason they had Saddam Hussein vs Pol Pot was because Fidel Castro was still alive at the time.

The entire idea of the show becomes flawed when I, a broke ass hobbyist blog writer with only a very amateur understanding of history can think of better match-ups for many of these warriors when a team of "Experts" can't. Like, I feel like some of these were just ways to get certain warriors into the show, like "We need to have William Wallace in here somewhere, who can he fight? Owain Glyndŵr? Welsh rebel, nah, how about Shaka Zulu, who reformed the Zulu army into a real military force? That match up makes perfect sense!"

I'd actually really like to talk with actual historians about this because, the idea of "Who wins in a fight" is an amazing draw, if the popularity of the online series Death Battle and the existence of a Vs Battle Wiki is any indication. So, doing this with historical figures would seem really cool, but these match-ups just don't feel like much thought was put into them, I looked at each episode match-up and found that out of thirty-two episodes, only seven made anything close to reasonable sense, if we want to be generous and include the ones I can see making some sense, that adds another eight to the total of fifteen, that is just sad. Maybe someday I'll watch the whole show and see just what they were thinking, but on a surface level, this show was weird, full of missed opportunities and just kind of dumb. Sounds about right for a Spike TV Show.

TV Impressions: Pingu (1990-2000, 2003-2006)

 

So, people in the Animation Twitter Community have been sharing shows they've been watching recently. One is sharing their One Piece thoughts, one of my Twitter Friends is sharing her thoughts on The Owl House and Avatar, so I figured I'd share some thoughts on what I've been watching. Recently, I have gotten the entire series of the original "Scooby-Doo, Where Are You?", it's a fun if really dated bit of animation. I've been working my way through Amphibia, made a deal with a friend that I'd watch it if they watched DuckTales, so I've been chipping away at it slowly, but I'm liking what I have watched so far. I've also been casually watching The Red Green Show, that is a live-action comedy show, a big piece of Canadian pop culture, it is a bit of an acquired taste and of its time humour, so I don't know if a lot of it will go over well with modern audiences, but I find it to be a fun little blast of nostalgia. Also I've been watching a lot of Pingu, and that is surprisingly the most interesting of the four shows, also I've been sick recently so I just want to write something quick and hopefully fun.

So, why have I been watching Pingu? Well, easy answer is I got that nostalgic itch. You know the feeling, the feeling you get when you remember something from your childhood, a movie, a show, a song, a video game, and you have the urge to check it out, even just for a minute, because you desperately want to reconnect with an easier, less stressful time in your life. Be wary of this itch my friends, your favourite childhood entertainment may not actually hold up as well as you remember, we all have that one thing that we loved as children, but as adults we just cannot get past the flaws that are so intrinsic and obvious that we wonder how stupid we were as kids to accept it. For me, sad to say, that was Jak and Daxter on the PlayStation 2, the double jump mechanic is just broken and it frustrates me, and Daxter is one of the worst video game characters ever made, but I'm getting off topic. Pingu is one of those were my enjoyment has lessened, but not faded.

I mean, what really is there to hate about Pingu? It's just a simple little slice-of-life series about this little Penguin and his friends and family, and the odd adventures he gets up to. Each episode is less than ten minutes, and the language isn't even comprehensible, it's all mutterings and noises and the occasional, but frequent, "Noot Noot!". It is such a simple series, and yet it makes for really good comfort viewing. Just something to put on when you are drained, tired, sad or whatever, and just need something that isn't overly hilarious, but can still put a smile on your face. I'm venting aren't I? Regardless, Pingu is a little kids show, it is not meant to be super deep or anything. So why, after I have scratched that nostalgic itch, do I still watch it?

Well, firstly, I am a huge fan of stop-motion animation. Again, I grew up with Wallace & Gromit, but I also grew up with this show. Stop-motion animation is probably my favourite form of animation, no disrespect to traditional hand-drawn or computer generated animation, but having done all three types (Stop-motion, hand drawn and both Flash and ToonBoom) I think I know what my preference is. I think a lot of what makes Stop-motion, especially claymation, so uncanny to a lot of viewers is absent here. Stop-motion can be uncanny because we're looking at almost human puppets moving in an almost human way. Pingu has no humans, it is all penguins, a seal and the occasional other animal, and frankly the puppets are really adorable. I could watch a ten minute video of Pingu and Pinga playing and feel the same as watching a thirty second video of a kitten.

Really, that is all Pingu is. It's just this Penguin having some fun days, like going fishing and dealing with a pesky seal stealing his bait, or going to a funfair, or getting lost in an ice cave. There are big adventures, for a kid anyway, and there are small adventures, and all of them are driven by just how likeable Pingu is. Pingu is playful, curious, excitable, he's a kid. He can also be a right little pain in the butt, but clearly he never means to be a bad kid, and he often does know when he messed up, like in one episode where he shirks responsibility for incubating his mothers egg, and there are times where Pingu does actually get disciplined for his actions. Though he mostly gets scolded and made to right his wrongs, there are two episodes where Pingu's punishment is physical. One episode where his mom spanks him and he runs away, and another where his mom straight up smacks him in the face. The latter episode is infamous and some people may even cite it as one of the worst episodes of the show. I, can't agree, not that it isn't absolutely awful seeing Pingu get smacked, but because his mother clearly felt remorseful afterwards, like she knew she overstepped. That being said, this was more early season, which makes this a good opportunity to talk about this show's history.

So, Pingu originally aired from 1990 to 2000 by Trickfilmstudio in Switzerland. Then, it was acquired by HIT Entertainment and a further two seasons were produced from 2003 until 2006. This lead to some changes, mostly is the tone. The original Pingu seasons could get very negative, Penguins got angry and would threaten Pingu, Pingu's Dad had a temper on him, one episode had Pingu's dad deliver a letter to a penguin and evidence suggests that the letter was notifying of a relative passing away. There was also hints about poverty, which lead some viewers to believe the show takes place during or after a war. The HIT Era of the show has less of this edge, and even looks brighter. They apparently changed the original clay puppets to resin casts, it just gives everything a sheen to it, I do kind of prefer the grungy look of the original seasons, but I won't deny that the HIT era seasons look good. That being said, I do kind of also prefer the stories in the middle seasons, mostly three and four. They aren't as negative as the first two seasons, and aren't as bright as the last two seasons.

So, why did I do this? I don't know, I guess I just wanted to talk about Pingu. I have this weird thing where I like to talk and share information about things I like, I think it is called being a fan of something and wanting it to not be an obscure thing I can only talk to a handful of people about, or maybe it's just a neurodivergence thing, I dunno. Fandom usually doesn't seem to want the thing they like to actually have a fanbase, but anyway, I've been enjoying my time with Pingu, and learning new things about it, for example, replacing all the words in Camilla Cabello's "Havana" with Pingu noises improves the song by 100 percent, and the song "7-11" by Eskimo Disco is actually not bad, even if the band name is a bit... iffy. In all seriousness, I do think Pingu is a fine, comfortable show to watch. It is not bingeing material though, after a while the Penguinese can start to grate on you, plus, many of the episode compilations on YouTube tend to have the same episodes amongst them, so be prepared to skip over a lot of them if you chose to watch the show this way. All-in-all, Pingu has flaws, but overall, it's just a comfort watch for me, and I think it's a good show for little kids as well.

Well, that's that out of my system, movie review next Saturday on the First.

Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005) - A Fun and Charming Mystery with an Iconic Duo

 

I love Wallace & Gromit. When I was a kid, my Dad had the first three shorts on VHS, actually we still have them. A Grand Day Out is my favourite of the three, the absurdity and imagination of it was probably one of the key sparks that ignited my love for animation, alongside SpongeBob, Disney and Eddsworld. So, in 2005, when I saw the TV Spots for the Wallace & Gromit movie, of course I was excited. I don't remember if we went to see this in theatres, we might have, but I don't remember. All I remember seeing from the movie at that time was the advert that had a montage of characters getting slammed into things after the narrator said "Smashing". That is a weird thing to remember. However, is this lack of memory because the movie wasn't that great, or because I was a wee lad in a time long ago that not many people in my life could remember?

(EDIT: My Dad has confirmed that yes, we have gone to see this movie in theatres. I was very young at the time so it is most likely that is the reason I did not remember if I did.)

Wallace & Gromit were a series of claymation shorts following a middle aged man named Wallace and his highly intelligent dog Gromit. Wallace works the odd job, but his passion mostly lies with inventing and tinkering with gadgets, and cheese. It's essentially the classic dynamic of the zany guy and the down to earth guy that has to bail him out of the trouble he's caused, think Daffy and Porky in the Duck Dodgers short or early Family Guy Peter and Brian, actually I wouldn't be shocked if Seth Macfarlane initially based Peter and Brian off of Wallace & Gromit. The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is not much different, it follows Wallace & Gromit as they work as a humane pest removal agency. After one successful job, Wallace gets the idea to attempt to rehabilitate the rabbits so they would dislike eating vegetables, which unfortunately works a bit too well, as after a lab mishap, Wallace ends up becoming a massive Rabbit monster which terrorizes the town just days before a vegetable fair. While the duo try to trap the beast, another man, a hunter named Victor Quartermaine, also tries to hunt the beast, and kill it. The plot is very much in the spirit of the classic shorts, I could see this plot working in a 30 minute short, or even as two shorts. It would take a lot of rewriting, but I could see it working. So, the question is, does this plot work as a feature? Honestly, yes and no.

I really liked the mystery of the movie, and how they kept throwing red herrings to misdirect you. As soon as the viewer can put the pieces together, they stop trying to hide the reveal and it becomes... something? There's some classic monster movie elements, and pretty fun climax, there's also a romantic subplot that features prominently in the movie. Not that the third act is bad, but it was here I mostly felt indifferent to the movie. I think it's because most of the third act is just Gromit, the villains and the townsfolk, and Gromit is a great character, but he doesn't really interact with anyone outside of Victor's dog for the most part. A lot of what makes Wallace & Gromit charming is Wallace & Gromit, so when it is Wallace & Gromit, it can be as fun and charming as the original shorts, but when it's not, it is still fun, but not as much. You might think the extra characters would add something, but they don't really. The original Wallace & Gromit shorts are actually quite barren and devoid of people, I mean, they were thirty-minute claymation shorts that probably had a small budget, so there really couldn't be that many other characters in the shorts. I don't know if the extra characters were an issue to write, but they don't actually contribute much, save for the Vicar, who hands down has a lot of the best scenes in the movie.

On the topic of "Issues", the production of the movie was a bit of a nightmare from what I have heard. In fact, DreamWorks kept trying to make the movie more "Americanized" and even tried to recast the late Peter Sallis as Wallace. Peter Sallis and Wallace are like Jim Henson and Kermit, Tom Kenny and SpongeBob, Clarence Nash as Donald Duck, not an irreplaceable role, but if you don't get the right actor, fans will notice. Thankfully, Aardman were adamant that Sallis played Wallace, and I think that was the right call. They did get some good talent as well, with Ralph Fiennes and Helena Bonham Carter, the casting is solid and they all do good performances. I also want to give a shoutout to Julian Nott who did a very fine score for this movie. I even heard bits of the classic Wallace & Gromit theme during the climax music, that was a nice touch. Of course, production by Hans Zimmer is just icing on the cake.

Claymation, and most stop motion really, has a reputation for being uncanny, off-putting and even scary to many viewers. On the one hand, I get it, it can be weird to watch. However, if you can out aside any of those strange feelings, the animation of this movie is quite excellent. This was Aardman's second movie they did with DreamWorks, the first being Chicken Run, and it's clear they took advantage of the bigger budget, and fancier equipment. There are camera pans and shots that would never have worked on a budgeted short, but look fantastic in a movie. Good camera motion is always something that blows my mind in stop motion, because you have to move the puppets and the camera at the same time, and it has to look right. Plus, I actually really like seeing the textures on the puppets, I dunno, it just makes it feel more real, I can't explain it. I do think some of the characters have some weird designs, I am not a fan of characters with really big lips unless they're meant to be non-human, but as a whole, the visuals are quite nice.

As a Wallace & Gromit fan, I have my issues with the movie, but it is nice to see one of my favourite duos in animation get a big budget feature length adventure. If you're new to Wallace & Gromit, I'd recommend you check out the original shorts, those are A Grand Day Out, The Wrong Trousers and A Close Shave, plus A Matter of Loaf and Death, which came out in 2008. I'd save this movie for after you've seen the shorts. I think the attempt to make a "Bigger" Wallace & Gromit short was admirable, but when you take something as simple as Wallace & Gromit and make it bigger, somethings just won't always sit right. Still, it does retain a lot of the charm that made Wallace & Gromit work, maybe at the cost of the simplicity. As a fan, I had some fun with this movie, though I don't love it as much as the original shorts, if this movie is on, I wouldn't mind killing some time with it. If you like Stop-motion animation, British Animation or want to try something a bit different, I can safely say I recommend this movie.

The Barbie Diaries (2006) - Almost So Bad it's Good, But So Far Off the Mark.

When my friend suggested this movie, I initially thought to put it on my list of "I'll get to it eventually" movies, the movies I don't feel much priority in finding, watching or reviewing. However, on account that this movie was A). Made for TV (Full honesty, I actually thought it was initially made to be Direct-to-Video, but after some research that does not appear to be the case) and B). According to my friend, absolute garbage, I kept it on my immediate backlog. The Barbie Diaries seemed like it would be one of those "So bad it's entertaining" movies, so, despite it being a Barbie movie, I had to have a look. Hard to believe but I am actually quite familiar with the Barbie brand, I remember playing a Demo for Barbie Explorer on the PlayStation, and I swear at least a quarter of all toy commercials I saw as a kid were for a girls toy. I am also acutely aware of the many, many movies in the Barbie franchise, but have yet to see any of them. No I am not going to marathon them. I've thought about a Dragon Ball Z movie marathon but that would take way too long and would probably get way to repetitive after a while. Anyway, my friend said this movie was really bad... were they right?

So, what is the plot of this movie? No, seriously what is the plot? Barbie and her friends are sophomores in high school now and try to achieve that dream of every character in a girls movie ever, being popular. What is the way they do it this time? School news? Befriending the popular guy? Becoming class president? Band gig? How about all of them? On top of that there are many little subplots, like one of Barbie's friends trying to admit his feelings towards her, and Raquel being really catty towards Barbie. This is like a combination of everything I hate in a plot, vain airheaded-ness, a dozen things going on at once, predictability, nothing of any real substance happening, and of course, High School culture. I guess American high school during the 2000s was different than Canadian high school during the 2010s. I talked about this in my First Impressions of the 2021 Diary of a Wimpy Kid movie, where I am just so done with the middle/high school depictions in media. It's really the same here.

Also, for whatever reason I just could not suspend my disbelief to the point where I could feasibly believe that Barbie, pop-culture icon, was the unpopular girl in school. It would be like trying to have Scrooge McDuck play in Bob Cratchit in A Christmas Carol. Granted I couldn't really see her as the catty queen bee that nobody actually likes, but like, not the unpopular kid. If Barbie qualifies as an unpopular girl, than this school would collapse if Daria walked in.

Let's get the immediate issue out of the way, the animation is awful, all caps, AWFUL! Close-ups make the characters look absolutely dead eyed, movement is stilted and stiff, lip-syncing is all off, and the models are those early 2000s CG that was out of date and aged by 2004. It looks like a cheap shovel ware PlayStation 2 or Wii game, which is actually hilarious when you consider that the actual Barbie games for the PlayStation2 and Nintendo Wii look way better than this movie. Heck, Barbie Explorer on PlayStation 1 looks better than this movie. At least the visuals here are bright and colourful, but I'd say they were too bright and colourful. It looked like someone turned up the contrast to the first season of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic at times. The animation was actually agonizing to watch

I know I have talked about animation being more than a visual medium and I have handwaved aside other visually unappealing movies like Cats, but there is something I want to talk about. Not only do previous Barbie movies look better, but TV CGI has looked way better too. ReBoot looks outdated today, but it still looks better than this. VeggieTales, Jimmy Neutron, heck even if we want to bring in little kids shows, Rolie Polie Olie. All of those shows predate this movie, so this can't just be handwaved aside as "Standards of the time", this movie was made in the early 2000s, and we've been working with computer animation since the late 50s! What we might consider as "Modern" Computer Animation dates back to the 80s, so there really is no excuse for this movie looking and moving worse than the Money for Nothing music video. One should not judge an animated movie by how it looks, but there is a point where it just becomes difficult to watch.

To be fair, the music wasn't terrible, it was very 2000s, akin to Avril Lavigne or Kelly Clarkson, not music I normally listen to, I'm very much a 90s Alt Rock person, but I do have a varied taste in music and I am somewhat nostalgic for the 2000s. That being said, I wouldn't say the music in the movie was good, especially not the background music that felt very generic and uninspired. I dunno, if Sk8er Boi is one of your absolute jams, the songs in this movie might not be that bad for you, but if you're just a bit nostalgic for the 2000s days, I think you'll just grudgingly accept it like I did. Hey, Avril Lavigne is not the worst musician of the 2000s you could emulate, that was also the decade of Hinder and Puddle of Mudd. 

I mean, do I even need to say more? Characters? What character, most of them are just your basic stereotype. We don't even get much variety in there. I mean, where are the other stereotypes that we absolutely hate? The nerd, the goth, the weirdo, the artist, the kinds of characters we see in all of these school stories. I mean it wouldn't help matters, but at the same time it would at least offer some variety so that we're not watching the same two characters with minor personality differences. This movie is an absolute mess, and it almost qualifies as so bad it's good. If I were to rank all the bad movies, I'd put this one lower than that Hercules and Xena movie I reviewed back in... wow 2019... time flies. Unfortunately, this movie is not good on an entertainment level, once the initial novelty of the animation and 2000s aesthetic wear off, it just exposes the flaws of the writing more and more. Honestly, I guarantee that there are way better Barbie movies than this, ones that feel less brain rotting and have more substance to them. If Barbie movies are candy, than this movie is one of those Popeye Sugar Sticks that we all pretended were cigarettes as kids, absolutely disgusting.