“Big Hero Six” Review!

Tags

big hero six, character development, disney, heroes, marvel, reviews, the avengers, the incredibles, villains, world building

Last week on Sunday, I saw Big Hero Six for the first time. And while it didn’t completely blow me away, instantaneously, like some other films I’ve seen, I thought it was a pretty good movie.

And then, I was sick on Monday and for most of the week. And while I was sick I re-watched it, and went WOW!

Okay, from now on, there will be SPOILERS, so if you have not seen it yet, consider yourself warned.

Sometimes, it seems like Disney movies are always either hit or miss. Sure, they’ve done some movies that are okay, but mostly they either smash or bomb. And just to be kind to Disney, I’m qualifying this as a Disney movie even though technically it’s also Marvel (though it was made by Disney Animation, not Marvel Studios.)

This movie is, first and foremost, a family movie. So much of it is driven by the dynamics of the family, and the movie benefits. Hiro’s relationships with his brother and aunt (Tadashi more than Cass) have lasting impacts on his actions, decisions, and his entire life. This would make it like Disney’s other animated superhero classic, The Incredibles, but the family dynamics in Big Hero Six are different. Rather than being about a more mainstream family that has drifted apart over time and must find out how to come back together, Big Hero Six is about two brothers and an aunt who are very close knit, and then has one member torn from them. As such, it’s somewhat darker and more of a drama than a family comedy.

I had had part of the movie spoiled for me, but I also knew it had to be without receiving any spoilers, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that they didn’t kill off Tadashi almost as soon as they’d introduced him, instead giving him his own hopes and dreams and making him a hero in his own right. More power to you, Big Hero Six.

This movie deals with some pretty heavy stuff for a Disney movie. Personal loss, grief, dark sides, what people are willing to do to other people to get what they want–Hiro is no angel, and at one point his grief drives him to take away what makes Baymax unique, what makes Baymax himself, in order to get back at the villain. However, I was delighted once again–at the end of the movie, Hiro redeems himself, following in his brother’s footsteps to save the daughter of the man who had been trying to kill them.

Now, on to the characters!

I absolutely loved the characters. They were diverse (not just racially), and well-fleshed-out. Wasabi is probably my favorite, though I loved all of them. The filmmakers did an amazing job, especially with Baymax. His almost glitch-y repetition of words and phrases like “Tadashi is here” actually made him seem more human. Also, though his played-for-laughs misunderstandings of metaphor and figures of speech and his expression of the sound of the explosion for a fist bump are funny, they’re even more endearing.

I thought it was amazing, how well Hiro’s grief was expressed by the writers and actors, and the moment when he takes away Baymax’s personality to get what he wants (revenge on Callahan) was gritty and tragic. I am so impressed with how well they did this, and still more impressed by Hiro’s redemptive act, mirroring his brother’s sacrifice earlier in the movie. Too often, people forget to add the necessary balance (aka, adding the redemption to counter the transgression in a hero or keeping a sympathetic villain villainous by having him violate something sacred to the reader), leading to an unbalanced story or an antihero who is completely unlovable, or worse things. Such as a villain who doesn’t drive the story forward because, I don’t know, he’s not really a freaking villain!?! (Sorry, that’s my pet peeve.)

Speaking of villains, while I pretty much predicted who the villain was going to be about halfway between the beginning and the big reveal, I still think Callahan is one of the most compelling villains I have ever seen. Think Inigo Montoya gone badly wrong, out for revenge for his daughter rather than his dad, and you have Callahan. It’s one of the best motivations for a good man gone bad that I can think of, and is compellingly done. One of the quotes, though, was disappointing to me; when talking about Tadashi’s death, Callahan exclaims “Then that was his fault!” or something like that. I thought he cared about Tadashi and would have been more satisfied if Callahan had showed that he, too, felt guilty about Tadashi’s death. Maybe he blamed Krei for that, too? It seems like a waste of potential for character development.

When I first heard about the premise of this movie, I thought it sounded a lot like Iron Man. However, it’s not like Iron Man at all. While the premises (making bionic suits to fight villains) are very similar, the execution is different, and Big Hero Six is entirely innovative. Microbots? Tony Stark has nothing on them. Also, aren’t you glad they didn’t make any Jericho jokes? (Because the Jericho missile played the same role in Iron Man that the microbots did in Big Hero Six.) While there are parallels between the movies, Big Hero Six doesn’t feel like an Iron Man ripoff. In my opinion, Big Hero Six has even more heart (though, about the same amount of style) as Iron Man.

The visuals of this movie are incredible, with a more sleek feel than Iron Man, and the team dynamics are similar, though distinct from, The Avengers. It really feels like a near future sci-fi story, but is realistic enough that you can believe it could happen any day. The setting, San Fransokyo, is actually in California, but it takes place in an alternate history where, after the 1906 earthquake, San Francisco was largely rebuilt by Japanese immigrants, creating a unique, streamlined, Asian-American, city-of-the-future culture. It is so beautiful and believable, you’ll want to take your next vacation there and then be surprised to hear that it’s not a real place.

However, I do have a few issues with elements in this movie. For instance, how did Callahan live after his presumed death? Did he have a separate bank account set up to allow him to lay low after faking his death? In which case, does that mean that the fire was set by Callahan, or was it just a “lucky” accident? Also, Callahan’s use of the microbots seemed a little lackadaisical–if he’s such a robotics genius, why doesn’t he innovate something new to use with them, or figure out a new way to use them, or play around with them a little more?

For another thing, I would have loved to see more of the titular team… you know, acting as a team. Mostly, we just see them operating on their own, coordinating their attacks, but otherwise just working alone, which was sad for me. The teamwork in Avengers was what elevated it above all other movies of its genre, in my opinion, but Big Hero Six is, out of necessity, different. While Avengers always was a team movie, with an equal focus on each character–it was essentially a journey with six equal protagonists–Hiro Hamada is clearly the main focus of Big Hero Six. All his teammates are supporting characters, and while they are autonomous, they aren’t given equal screen time, like the Avengers were. Still, that doesn’t mean that all the characters couldn’t have done more team stuff. (I did like it, when early in the movie, they ended out cancelling out each others’ work because they weren’t being a team. Way to go, Disney, showing that teamwork is necessary!)

Other than that, I did see the Big Plot Twist coming from a mile away, but maybe that’s just because I’m an author and I write Big Plot Twists. Good grief, I’m practically the unchallenged queen of Big Plot Twists! Still, Disney, you’re getting predictable, and I like to be surprised.

Overall, though, my experience was all positive, though, due to the issues I mentioned, I can’t give it five out of five. So I’ll settle for giving it four and a half out of five stars.

(On a side note, if you must cross your crossovers, forget the Big Four (also known as the Rise of the Brave Tangled Dragons); I want to see Rise of the Guardians, How to Train Your Dragon, and Big Hero Six crossovers!!!)

Big Hero Six, ladies and gentlemen–the best animated superhero movie since The Incredibles.

Advertisement

The Brooklyn Project: Unsung Heroes

Tags

agent carter, characters, heroes, j.r.r. tolkien, marvel, story dynamics, the brooklyn project, the lord of the rings, unsung heroes

Continuing from the last Brooklyn Project post.

Last time, I posted on heroism, the basic elements that all heroes must share, or come to share. Today, I’m posting on the unknown heroes, heroism that isn’t accepted.

It’s a not-often-realized truth that for every hero, there is someone who believes in him. However, in real life, many heroes never get more than just that someone. And even that someone may not know the truth of all that they’ve done; they simply believe.

It’s like praying in your closet and giving in secret; it does good, regardless or not if anyone knows that you did it. Indeed, to do good without anyone ever knowing is perhaps the very greatest thing of all.

However, most of the literature you will find today features heroes who do meet with applause. By the end of the book, everyone knows what they’ve done for the good of others. (Notable exception: at the end of the Agent Carter miniseries, the guys from Congress give all the credit to Thompson, who, by the way, is one of the best examples of a dynamic secondary character that I can give you. And Agent Thompson really did deserve the recognition, to an extent, in my opinion. Thompson’s awesomeness aside, Peggy is once again entirely overlooked. No one but the SSR agents involved know that she was the true hero of the hour. Admittedly, this doesn’t count because at least Peggy’s coworkers know of everything she’s done, but though Peggy has been fighting to be a strong woman in a man’s world through the entire series, she finds that she really doesn’t mind that no one gives her the recognition she really does deserve.) I think that the trend in literature towards heroes who are known is partly because we, as human beings, crave praise and recognition. However, in these cases, it is actually an example of our ability to step outside of ourselves rather than of our hunger for recognition; we want our heroes to be recognized. (One of the greatest reasons for literature’s existence is the human capacity to reach outside of ourselves in order to empathize, commiserate, and sympathize with others.)

I think the Lord of the Rings, while Frodo and Sam and the rest did have their actions recognized, was pretty good at this. Neither Frodo nor Sam ever really did expect to have their actions memorialized like they were. The thoughts they had of being in a story were more distant, held to keep their spirits up. Aragorn speaks to Eowyn of the unstoried heroes who they all may become, ultimately, should the threat of Sauron come to completion. Boromir was motivated in part by the glory of his home country, but in the end, he gave his life for two hobbits whom he had met mere months before, far from his home, before the larger war even began. The heroes of The Lord of the Rings acted not in the interest of glory, but because what they did had to be done; even if their world was to be enslaved, they’d die trying to stop Sauron from enslaving it.

Heroism is a curious thing. While it is somewhat based on the opinions of others, true heroism is the heroism that nobody ever sees.

Thanks for reading, Brooklyn Project followers, and God Bless! (If you like what you see, don’t forget to drop by my Brooklyn Project page and check it out–we’re always open for new recruits! 😀 )

The Brooklyn Project: Protagonist-Centered Morality and Why it’s Bad

Tags

accountability, baroness orczy, bbc merlin, bbc sherlock, captain america, captain america: the first avenger, captain america: the winter soldier, character development, characters, dynamic characters, editing, harry potter, heroes, marvel, marvel superheroes, star wars, story dynamics, the brooklyn project, the scarlet pimpernel, undo the sue, writing

Sometimes, an author will become so preoccupied with his or her hero or heroine that they can do no wrong–even when they are. The rules bend for these protagonists. And people in the stories (and occasionally the reader as well) see nothing wrong with this.

This can potentially lead to the creation of a Mary Sue.

Protagonist-centered morality is bad because it takes away the possibility of accountability as well. If your hero does something wrong, you want it to have repercussions. They can’t just get away with a slap on the hand! It reinforces to the reader that the hero has done something wrong, and it also makes for deeper characters. If the hero has slipped up once, they have to fight harder to even be allowed to do it right the next time..

On the other hand, if you don’t add responsibility, your protagonist can become spoiled and obnoxious (as in real life) or unrealistically angelic (sickening.) The latter would make him/her a Mary Sue, no matter how many de-Sue-ifiers you threw in to try and balance it (without removing the lack of accountability.)

Apart from the message that it sends, that it’s okay to do bad things, it’s bad for the story at large.

I’m trying to think of a few examples, but all I can think of is that, though in the final cut, we never see the response to Steve’s failed attempts to enlist, falsifying information, I think there was actually a scene planned where someone found out and didn’t trust Steve for a while. They just didn’t officially tell anyone because if they did he’d be court-martialed and they couldn’t have that. In the planned Howling Commandos fanfic that I’m writing, I was going to have one of the people in the USO show tour find out and hold it over Steve. There are, however, strong consequences when Steve fails to predict that the train is a trap and save Bucky, even if it’s not technically his fault.

Another example would be the BBC show Merlin. While, all around, this is generally a good show, the BBC slipped up a bit (for once); this show displays a bit of protagonist-centered morality. Though, later on, they add more consequences, even to past actions, early in the show there are a few episodes where Merlin slips up and gets away with it. However, for the show’s other protagonist, Arthur, there are always consequences to his actions. Inconsistent much? Or just waiting around? *sigh* I wish they’d done it earlier on.

In the BBC show Sherlock, we’re actually hoping to see protagonist-centered morality blown out of the water; at the very end of the last season, Sherlock killed someone, point-blank, in cold blood (attempting not to give spoilers here); we want to see how people react to this. There’s always mistrust, and rightly so, after something like that.

In Star Wars, Obi-Wan’s attempt to distance himself, to not become emotionally involved, backfires when Anakin turns to the dark side; Obi-Wan’s aloof affection was simultaneously too much and not enough.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier comes with a thorough message about accountability (where Civil War is essentially about people’s Constitutional rights, from what I’ve heard). This is especially true for Natasha, who risks, in a selfless action that proves she is capable, no matter what she (and incidentally, Hydra) thinks, of heroism, she spills all her dirty secrets across the Internet in order to bring Hydra down (again, trying to avoid spoilers.) Ironically, this bypasses the same failsafe that Hydra thought would protect them; they insist that Natasha (or anyone, really) wouldn’t incriminate herself like that.

From what I’ve heard, Harry Potter is really bad about this–it sounds like he consistently breaks rules of both the magician and human world without any consequences.

One very good book that could make better use of accountability (without outright protagonist-centered morality) that I love is “The Scarlet Pimpernel.” Except for Marguerite, the book doesn’t use it quite as well as it could…

Accountability. Use it for deeper character.

Thanks for reading, and God Bless!

In Defense of Heroes (An Introduction to the Brooklyn Project)

Tags

captain america, heroes, marvel, story dynamics, writing

If you haven’t heard of the infamous article claiming that Captain America is only interesting when he’s a jerk, you can not call yourself a Marvel fan (and where have you been, in a hole?! Under a rock?! Abandoning us for the Iron Man fandom?!) Of course, you can’t insult Cap like that without Steve Rogers’ loyal fanbase rising up in protest. The argument has been going back and forth between the two camps for almost as long as Captain America: The First Avenger has been out.

I’m going to come out and say that the basis of that article is pure and utter nonsense of the first degree. Part of the reason why we love Cap so much is that he’s generous and kind and is willing to sacrifice everything to protect others. The conflict, with him, is that he’s a good person trying to live in a world where so many other people aren’t. Some people are going to try and take advantage of his generosity, and he’s going to meet opposition from people who want to hurt others. Also, he’s going to be pressured into sacrificing his ideals at times, choose the lesser of two evils (which is not conducive to being able to rest easy in one’s conscience), etc. He’s a good person, forced to live in a less-than-ideal world. How he finds his way through that world–that’s the story.

He’s not naive. He’s an optimistic realist, as opposed to a regular realist (like Fury or Natasha Romanoff.) He believes the best of people until they give him reason to think otherwise. That’s why we love this character so much. As always, Dr. Abraham Erskine says it best: “Not a perfect soldier, but a good man.”

Heroes are like this. Not always by nature, but by choice, certainly. If you have an anti-hero, who struggles against their own cynicism, that’s a story. I’ve heard people accuse Cap of being a Mary Sue, but that simply isn’t true, at least in the movie universe. He has to fight for everything; nothing is simply handed to him. He isn’t perfect. He ends up disobeying orders to try and rescue a friend who is probably already dead, and he lies on his enlistment forms (four times; the first was probably accurate.) Sooner or later, he’s going to lose control and break down, maybe come out of things violent and do things he’ll regret later. And he can’t catch a break. He’s going to be held accountable, and he won’t complain because he knows that they’re right.

Steve Rogers is, essentially, a man who thought he was going to his death, and was afraid to die, but did not turn back, in order to save lives. Instead of dying, he lost what little he did have, everything that was remotely his, or even just familiar. He’s terrified of losing it all again, and yet, instead of closing off, he goes on to create new connections and build new friendships.

Heroes are good people who don’t stand idly by on the sidelines, but try to take a stance and change the way things are. To be human is to change the tide. To live is to risk. It’s better to try and fail than to not try at all; that’s what differentiates heroes from the other type. It’s been said that the difference between heroism and recklessness is that heroism leads to success, whereas recklessness fails; this isn’t true. Recklessness has nothing to do with heroism, and people who try are still heroes, whether or not they fail, whether or not they’re recognized by others. Everyone is hungry for attention, for accolades. The true hero isn’t motivated by this desire; they would be continue even if no one knew of their efforts.

A hero is 7% inspiration and belief, 10% willpower and hard work, 3% skill, 5% suffering, 2% luck, 3% insanity–and 75% hope. Hope hurts. Hope is dangerous. Hope will often seem to have no basis. And yet, the man who continues to hope, to have faith, can accomplish miracles.

Essentially, being a hero is all about hope.

Reversing the Double Standard

Tags

brian jacques, characters, heroes, hypocrisy, j.r.r. tolkien, jack frost, lord of the rings, redwall, rise of the guardians, star wars, story dynamics, un-hypocrisy

All right. I came on today and had no idea what I was going to post about, and then I thought about Frodo and Obi-Wan and Charles Wallace and Martin the Warrior and all the other lovely inhabitants of my mind palace, and I suddenly realized that most of my favorite protagonists share one quality.

And what quality is that?

Well, I call it “Reversing the Double Standard.”

To revisit the dictionary, a double standard happens when someone is a hypocrite, i.e. they hold other people to a higher standard than they hold themselves to. But my favorite characters… they’re not like that. Almost invariably, they hold themselves to a much higher standard than they hold other people.

For instance, Martin thinks “I should have saved Boar!” but when Ferdy and Coggs are kidnapped, he tells Goody Stickle, “Don’t blame yourself.” Obi-Wan blames himself for Anakin’s fall, but doesn’t hold Xanatos’s against Qui-Gon (SORRY IRIS! But it’s canon so it’s a valid example!!!) And don’t even start me on Frodo.

See what I mean? 😉 It makes them charming and more tolerable than someone who really is a hypocrite. It’s going the extra mile.

Now, this isn’t necessary to a hero. Jack Frost from Rise of the Guardians, for instance, specifically told me that he doesn’t have standards. (Silly Jack.) But it sure makes for an interesting trend, doesn’t it?

Thanks for reading, and God Bless!

A Good Hero Is… Idiosyncratic

Tags

anti-heroes, bbc sherlock, characters, heroes, j.r.r. tolkien, lord of the rings, madeleine l'engle, sherlock holmes, star wars, story dynamics, villains

Heroes… or protagonists… (yes, we heard you the first time, Sherlock!) must be unique. They must stand apart from the common herd in some way or another. Whether it’s shooting walls, being able to kythe, being able to resist the corruption of a Ring for well over a thousand pages, being an orphan, or the mentor of the Chosen One who is quite the Master in his own right, a hero is distinguished. A hero is idiosyncratic. A hero thinks for himself and doesn’t necessarily care (at least, by the end of the book!) what other people think about him or her.

Now, fellow authors, we are the lucky ones. We don’t have to make our characters look different from other people in the book (though, this can be a bonus at times), because we can use personality, ways of speaking, the thoughts running through their funny little brains, and so forth in millions of different ways to set our characters apart. They may be comparable to other characters and people in real life, but they actually stand alone when it comes down to just sheer feel.  Movie writers don’t have this same advantage. They can’t go inside people’s heads in quite the same way that we can. Acting and television and plays for screen and stage present a very separate set of challenges. They have to set their characters apart visually and auditorily, using things such as hair color, limps, injuries, scars, having one person who’s obviously Irish among a crowd of Germans, having one Caucasian amid a crowd of Arabs, separate languages, and/or accents. These things can be an advantage to us who write books, but we don’t need them as desperately as those who write screenplays.

Sometimes, though, we must be careful of making our characters too unique, or overly powerful, or even the most sad and downtrodden. We’re trying to be realistic, so we really can’t afford to overdo it. This is one of the cases when less really can be more. One or two originalities? That’s good. Two or three? Just fine. But five or ten? That just might be too much.

Sometimes, it can just be enough to have the protagonist have a moral compass, especially if everyone around them is compromising their morals left and right. It may be enough to just have the protagonist be the most passionate when it comes to The Cause. It may be enough to have them love their family.

Even heroes need a reason.

I may be on the side of the angels, but don’t think for a moment that I am one of them.

–Sherlock

The Moral Compass

Tags

anti-heroes, baroness emma orczy, despicable me, dreamworks, heroes, madeleine l'engle, rise of the guardians, star wars, story dynamics, the scarlet pimpernel, villains

Today I’m writing about what makes a hero a hero. There are two prime qualities that make a hero really a hero: 1) compassion and 2) a strong moral compass. Seek ye first these, and all the others shall be added unto you. You can not be a hero without having these. If you lack one, then you can be a protagonist or anti-hero. And even anti-heroes have their ethical sense.

For instance, if you see someone who is not very nice, you won’t like them at all, right? But someone who is perfect is boring. So here’s the happy medium: Someone with strong moral principles (or with at least some moral principles) who doesn’t live up to them all the time.

If you were to write someone who was completely despicable (unlike Gru, who has a lovable side! ;-D), no one would want to hear about it. If you were to write about someone who was far from perfect and could in fact be rather obnoxious and horrid, but tried to be better, then you have a wonderful anti-hero who people would follow, come hell or high water. There must be a redeeming quality; your protagonist must know when to stop (unless, of course, you want them to turn into the villain. And more often than not, the redeeming quality turns out to be some sort of moral code.

Every hero is, in some sense, an anti-hero. A good hero has flaws. For instance, Charles Wallace can be prideful. Obi-Wan Kenobi tends to use his head when he should be using his heart. Sir Percy Blakeney has trust issues. And don’t even start me on Jack Frost. 😛 But you have to add “hero” to the “anti.” And then, when you’ve done that… you’ve made the master stroke.

Enjoy the anti-heroes, people. 😉