The American Horror Story Actors are Also Characters in a Bigger Story

Ok, so I’ve never seen the first season of American Horror story, which is why the series hasn’t really got me thinking

too much about it until I watched the first episode of season three last week. That’s when I really started thinking about it.

Kind of.

I did spend the first half of the episode trying to figure out where I recognised some of the actors from before I thought of looking them up on IMDB.

Turns out that American Horror Story uses the same main actors in each season. Like I said, I didn’t see season one. This is news to me. I just assumed that American Horror story was a bit like Underbelly, in that each new season had a whole new cast.

I was surprisingly unnerved by this revelation, too. It took me awhile to realise why I was so unnerved by this.

And then it hit me;

American Horror story isn’t just a disturbing insight into the darker (if slightly unrealistic at times) side of American history, it’s also the story of nine people (yeah, I checked this number on IMDB) forced to live through the very worst of American history. Except that once they have struggled through each horrific part of history they are thrown into a new world of fresh horror. Death may or may not provide an escape from this existence (I haven’t seen/can’t remember enough to say for certain). Their torment made worse because they’re the ones inflicting the pain and horror upon each other. Some of whom appear to really enjoy doing so. The actors are in fact characters themselves, completely unaware of their reality. Each time everything resets to something new, their memories are wiped.

That’s right, American Horror Story is actually a window into some kind of hell dimension where the torment is never ending (which I think is actually the very definition of hell, duh!). Their misery is our entertainment.

Peace out!

Fox

My Theory About Scooby Doo

So I’ve recently started watching Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated in the afternoons. To be honest, I was a little bit unsure about it at first. I thought it might just be another of many Scooby-Doo remakes, something I’ve been wary of ever since those horrible live action movies. That, and without that cheesy 80’s charm and bad animation that I’m so accustomed to, Scooby-Doo really isn’t the same.

But that’s not what this post is about.

This post is actually about a theory I’m developing about Mystery Incorporated (and I guess the rest of the Scooby-Doo cartoons);

The whole about Scooby-Doo; Mystery Incorporated (and not just this latest Scooby-Doo series), is that the gang go around solving supernatural mysteries, and that one of their members is a talking dog. Sorry, I’m not telling you anything new here. Everyone knows this about Scooby-Doo. It’s what the cartoons are all about. But my theory kind of centres around the point that Scooby-Doo talks.

Now, it’s been awhile since I’ve seen any of the older cartoons, so my memory of them is a little vague and I can’t say anything about them for certain (feel free to leave any comments about them below if you can remember much about them). So for the most part, this theory is based on Mystery Incorporated. Simply because I can’t remember how much Scooby-Doo talks in the older cartoons. In Mystery Incorporated, Scooby-Doo talks just like a normal person (if a little bit more growly), and everyone talks to him just like he’s a normal person.

So far I haven’t seen another animal character in the series that does that.

Since it’s a well-known fact that Shaggy is a stoner, I simply just figured that Scooby-Doo talking was just Shaggy hallucinating. Except, like I said, everybody talks to Scooby-Doo, and he to them. Not just Shaggy. But it did get me thinking; the talking dog, the supernatural mysteries that the gang are always solving, that fact that his dad appears to be ashamed of Shaggy?

What if none of it is real? What if it’s all a figment of Shaggy’s drug addled mind? What if Shaggy has had a mental break down, and everything that happens in Mystery Incorporated are just Shaggy’s hallucinations?

That would explain why Scooby-Doo can talk to people and no one thinks it’s odd.

It would also explain why the gang always seems to find themselves in the middle of supernatural mysteries all the time even though they don’t seem to go out of their way to find them. That would also be why Shaggy is always so scared of everything all the time; somewhere in his subconscious he knows that what’s happening is wrong and unnatural. But he is unable to do anything about it. That’s why he’s always running and hiding; he wants to escape the madness. Daphne, Fred and Velma are just manifestations of his subconscious created to protect him from the worst of his hallucinations. That would also probably explain why those monsters always turn out to be people in costumes. It’s his subconscious protecting him from the worst of his hallucinations.

Scooby Doo, and the rest of the Mystery Incorporated gang are just figments of Shaggy's imagination for the purpose of protecting himself from his own mind.

Either that, or Scooby-Doo is a reality altering, shape shifting trickster, and only we can see his real form!

Peace out!

Fox

Update: As I was posting this I was watching Where Walks Aphrodite with Professor Pericles, who is in fact an owl. An evil owl nonetheless! This doesn't change my theory at all, but I thought I should let you know that I have seen another animal who is just like Scooby Doo.

Why I Almost Refused Point Blank to See Batman vs Superman

So you all probably heard the rumours last week. You know the rumour; about Justin Bieber being cast as Robin in the upcoming Batman vs Superman movie. It did send the internet into meltdown, after all. Even more so than when the internet found out that Ben Affleck would be playing Batman in the movie.

And yet, I somehow completely missed this rumour until someone asked me if there was any truth to the rumour.

I was devastated to hear that Bieber might be playing Robin in Batman vs Superman. I’m really looking forward to seeing it when it comes out in 2015. Bieber being in it would ruin it completely. I’m sorry to any Bieber fans reading this (yeah, I’m not really), but that kid is a tool, and doesn’t deserve any more work. Hell, he doesn’t even deserve to be famous, and I can’t wait for the next Boy Wonder (haha, get it?) to come along and replace him as the next hottest singing sensation for tweeny boppers across the world.

But enough of the Bieber bashing. I’m not really saying anything new other than he does not deserve more work that’ll increase his popularity (actually, would Bieber fans even be interested in the Batman vs Superman movie?).

The point is I was devastated to hear that Bieber could be playing Robin in the movie, and decided right then and there that there was absolutely no way in hell I would be seeing the movie. Ever. Krampus will start handing out treats to wicked children instead of tying them up in his sack and beating them before that ever happens. I’m also unsure how I completely missed that rumour. It is (or was) big news. I guess it’s become so natural for me to cover my ears shouting “Lalalalalalala!” whenever something Bieber related comes up that I don’t even notice I’m doing it anymore.

So yeah, for anyone else who somehow completely missed last week’s hottest rumour that sent the internet into meltdown, Bieber was said to be playing Robin in Batman vs Superman. Now you’re probably enraged and freaking out that the movie has been completely ruined before it even had a chance.

But a quick google search later, and I was able to breathe a sigh of relief; turns out the rumour was nothing more than a hoax. I can see Batman vs Superman once again.

Phew!

I don’t know how everyone else reacted to this rumour. Like I said, I completely missed it until it had been confirmed to be a hoax. And, frankly, I didn’t care enough to find out whether people were for or against Bieber as Robin. Although I think it would be pretty obvious based on whether or not they like Bieber or not. But the important thing is that Batman vs Superman has dodged a serious bullet, and once again I’m so looking forward to seeing it in 2015.

Peace out!

Fox

The Harry Potter Spinoff Movie

So I believe I may have whinged about originality being dead in Hollywood on this blog a couple of months ago. That sentiment still stands. There's just so many movie adaptations hitting the big screen it's just not funny ... it probably is very funny (hilarious, even) to those being paid the big bucks for these adaptations though. 

But there it is; there's very little reason to read these days. Why bother when in a couple of years it'll be a massive blockbuster (and possibly destroying your favourite characters in the process)?

Still, all that didn't stop me getting super excited when I read about the upcoming Harry Potter spinoff that is going to hit the big screen in the near future. The Harry Potter fan girl inside of me squealed so loudly at this news. 

The best bit about this spinoff is that it's based on the life and Adventures of Newt Scamander. For those of you who aren't hardcore Harry Potter fans, Newt Scamander is the author of one of Harry's school books, Fantastical Beasts and Where to Find Them. The only mention of him in the books is only in the first book when Harry is first getting his school books (that is purely from memory, and I could be way off on this). 

So while Fantastical Beasts and Where to Find Them is a spinoff it's going to be a whole new story. It's something we haven't read or seen before ... kind of. I'm sure you're all aware about there only being so many stories etc etc. It's going to be a new character set seventy or so years earlier in a world that we already know and love. And the best part is that J.K.Rowling will be writing the script herself. Yep, there's going to be that same old Rowling magic to the movie and we can see if she can write movie scripts (because let's face it, she can write well even if the subject matter isn't to your liking). Then there's a fact that Rowling loves this character and had already created a rich back story for Newt Scamander. This isn't just Warner Bros and Rowling to cash in and trying to earn some more money from the Harry Potter franchise (well, ok, that's probably exactly what Warner Bros is trying to do). Fantastical Beasts and Where to Find Them should actually prove to be a great movie that doesn't have to rely on expensive special effects to be a hit. Kind of like The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings. 

So yeah, I'm super excited about this spinoff. But I'm also wondering if we can expect a similar Quidditch Through the Ages spinoff in a few years time and that'll work story wise. I mean, a Quidditch movie would be awesome. But not if it's going to have to be documentary style. 

The important thing to remember is that the Harry Potter franchise isn't dead yet. There's clearly possibilities for spinoffs, and Warner Bros is definitely exploring those options. 

Peace out,

Fox. 

In Which I Briefly Give My Thoughts About Ben Affleck and Batman

Yeah, so you've all heard the news about Ben Affleck being Batman in the Man of Steel sequel and if, for some reason, you hadn't heard, well, now you know. You've probably got your own thoughts about him being Batman. 

I'm actually on the fence myself. I'll wait and see how Affleck does as the Bat before passing judgement. 

I mean after all, (dare I say it and risk being unpopular?) Christain Bale wasn't all that great in the recent Batman movies. It was Christopher Nolan and the amazing line up of villains that really carried that trilogy. Think about it, about each movie. Who's the most memorable character in each? 

The villains, right?

It was those villains that challenged Batman and made him who he is, forced him to look inside himself and improve himself. It's the villains that define Batman. 

So there's really not much for Affleck to live up to as Batman. 

Well, ok, maybe there is with all of the previous Batmans. But that would be more "Who was the best Batman?" conversation over drinks. 

What I'm getting at is that there's plenty of room for Affleck to make the role his own. He could be one of the best Batmans ever. Or he could be the worst. We don't know yet. We have to wait and see him in Batman vs Superman. One thing is for sure though, I'm really looking forward to seeing The Dark Knight kick the Man of Steel's ass. 

And don't forget, Affleck is one of those lucky few who gets to say this, 

Peace out!

Fox. 

Edward Cullen is Pure Evil

Ok so I've been thinking about this and I have come to the conclusion that Edward Cullen may be one of the most evil vampires around. 

Yeah, you did just read that. 

No, I didn't make a mistake ... nor have I completely lost the plot. 

Just think about it, Edward Cullen is centuries old and he just one day decides to saunter into the local high school and falls in love with a teen girl. All very romantic and all (only if you're a teen girl, that is) but there are a couple of questions;

Was this first time he just decided to enrol himself into the local high school? Probably not. He seemed to know what he was doing, like he had done this kind of thing many times before. 

Then there's the why would he want to enrol in high school? What possible reason could there be for him to want to do this? Well, that's pretty obvious: the girls. He wants to find and seduce a vulnerable teenage girl, and what better way to do this than at high school. 

And why would Edward Cullen want to find and seduce teen girls? Especially since he's centuries old. There's some serious cradle robbing perv action happening here (it's a good thing he's young and so impossibly good looking, I guess). Well, why did Dracula want to find and seduce young women?

Yeah, that's what Edward Cullen is all about too. Sure, it can be argued that he only turned Bella to save her life. But it's a safe guess that this was always what he intended to do. 

The whole being able to go into the sunlight unscathed and sparkling things (insert real vampires can't go out into sunlight and sure as hell don't sparkle rant here) are nothing more than (extremely effective) devices to distract us from Edward Cullen's real nature: evil. Pure evil. Just think about it, what are the main things anti-Twilight people throw about in arguments about why Edward Cullen sucks as a vampire? And what are the main arguments pro-Twilight people throw about in arguments about why Edward Cullen doesn't suck as a vampire? 

Nothing about evil, right. Just a lot of shiz about real vampires not sparkling and good intentions and how real vampires don't have good intentions (although Angel and Spike are the exceptions to this, of course). 

But all these arguments could be used with Dracula, and there's little doubt that he's evil, right?

There's little doubt that Edward Cullen is just as evil as Dracula. And because of how sneaky Edward Cullen is about going about his business, he's probably more of a threat than Dracula ... never thought I'd say that (especially concerning a vampire that sparkles). And then there's the whole manipulating the girls into thinking they want to be turned thing. That's some serious mind games there, and another indication of Edward Cullen's evil nature. 

Is Originality Dead in Hollywood?

I  don't know if you've noticed this but creativity seems to be dead in Hollywood, especially in the movie industry. 

You've probably noticed this. 

It isn't exactly that hard to miss. 

After all, everything released in cinemas in the last decade are adaptations of books/comics (apparently every single best seller must be converted into a movie, otherwise it's not really a best seller), or it's a sequel or a prequel to an already existing movie. There's even been a few remakes/reboots. 

Nothing too original in the top blockbusters of the last 13 years. I mean there's the odd completely original movie in there. But they're a rare thing. They're mostly just adaptations, sequels/prequels or reboots. And I'm getting sick of it. For a start, it's making me lazy: there really isn't point reading the book if it's going to end up on the big screen in a couple of years anyway. Or the movie turns out to be a massive let down, because the original was better or the original story was butchered in the adaptation (which I guess also fits into the whole "the original was better" argument). Don't even get me started on sequels. They're pretty much hit and miss, which is better than prequels, which usually suck. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm loving all the Marvel movies, and the latest Batman movies (but not superman. Never really been a Superman fan), and I am looking forward to seeing Catching Fire movie later this year (even if none of the tributes except Finnick look anything like I imagined them [anothet issue with adaptations]). And I'm also really looking forward to the Veronica Mars movie, and I really want Captain Planet to be made into a movie (if only so a whole new generation can experience the awesomeness of Captain Planet). 

But what I really want to see happening again is movies that aren't some kind of adaptation, sequel or prequel or a remake. You know, something that's vaguely original. 

Unfortunately, though, originality seems to have left mainstream culture these days. Although, I suppose that's a good thing for all those struggling indie writers. They're now getting more of a chance at success. Or, at least, they will once people start tiring of all of the unoriginal movies being presented in mainstream cinemas. 

Or maybe it's just me with this issue. Let me know what you think. 

Peace out!

Fox