Mount Hood

Here there be. . . dragons?

Written by: Jaylin Emond-Hardin | Entertainment Editor

This year saw a resurgence of dragon-based media. Author Rebecca Yarros’ Empyrean series — following Violet Sorrengail at Basgiath War College as she and her friends become dragon riders  — has sold five million copies globally. 

Season two of Max’s “House of the Dragon” — based on author George R.R. Martin’s book “Fire and Blood” — premiered this summer, drawing nearly eight million viewers per episode. Other books that featured dragons, such as “When the Moon Hatched” by Sarah A. Parker and “The Priory of the Orange Tree” by Samantha Shannon, also sold extremely well this year with the latter selling more than one million copies in English worldwide.

What sets all these stories apart is their depiction and definition of dragons. So, time to answer the question: what defines a dragon?

Traditionally, dragons are flying lizards with at least 11 different subspecies, with the most common being wyverns, basilisks and hydras. Most have the ability to breathe fire or water, two elemental abilities that set apart Western and Eastern dragons. 

However, what defines each subspecies of a dragon is not its abilities but its number of limbs. Commonly, dragons have four legs and two wings, meaning any other number of legs and wings would classify the creature as something other than a dragon. For example, the dragons in “House of the Dragon” have two legs and two wings, which would technically classify them as wyverns instead of dragons, although the show never mentions this.

In interviews, when questioned about his choice to only give his dragons two legs, author George R.R. Martin was quick to defend his creative liberty. “No known species in the natural world has four legs and two wings,” Martin said. In doing this, Martin believes he has brought a more realistic feel to his fantasy world.

The Empyrean series has a more traditional definition of dragons and wyverns, dragons with four legs and wyverns with two, as well as having the wyverns occupy a traditionally evil role. The series even goes so far as to classify the dragons by color and tail types. 

With how popular dragon media is, one can’t help but wonder why they have remained so steadfast in pop culture. 

Professor Emily Zarka at Arizona State University has a few ideas as to why this is. “One enduring reason dragons continue to appear in our world could be because they represent the power of nature,” Zarka said, before adding, “More importantly, I believe, the beauty, terror and power of the dragon evokes mystery and suggests that not all phenomena are easily explained or understood.”

Whether fans agree or disagree on the definition of a dragon, one thing is evident: dragons will always be an important part of Eastern and Western media. The creatures are practically ingrained in the cultures and don’t seem to be leaving anytime soon, especially from the reading community.

The third book in the Empyrean series, “Onyx Storm,” is set to release in Jan. 2025, with copies available for preorder now. “House of the Dragon” has been renewed for another two seasons, with filming for season three starting in early 2025. 

Contact the author at howlentertainment@wou.edu

“The Silence” anaylsis

Chrys Weedon | Entertainment Editor There seems to have been an uptick in pieces of media that feature characters with disabilities, and storylines that depend on them, in post-apocalypse worlds. “A Quiet Place” was immensely popular — popular enough to warrant a sequel, according to vanityfair.com. Recent Netflix release “Black Summer” features a Deaf character who is challenged by his “disability” in a world infested with zombies. “Bird Box” is based on the premise that being “blind” is the biggest asset one can have when looking at a monster can kill you. Netflix’s newest release, “The Silence,” follows this trend. Released April 10, “The Silence” follows a family, who happens to have a deaf daughter, through the onset of an apocalypse wherein ancient bat-like beasts escape from caves deep within the Earth and viciously attack anything that makes noise. Sound familiar? Similarities between “The Silence” and “A Quiet Place” seem to end there, however. The main character of “The Silence,” Ally, is recently deaf after a severe car accident that led to her deafness. Ally still speaks clearly, has some residual hearing, favors speaking with her voice to her family and even narrates bits of the movie. Ally’s rudimentary signing skills and her preference for speaking aloud fit in well enough with the storyline, since it is mentioned that only three years have passed since she became deaf, but it’s more apparently related to the fact that her actress, Kiernan Shipka, is hearing. Other than the disappointing fact that a Deaf actress wasn’t hired — of which there are many — there were other inconsistencies and unfortunate stereotypes that “The Silence” seemed to play into. Whenever the perspective switched to Ally’s point of view, sounds were muffled — because apparently there’s no other way to show that she is deaf — and there was always a sharp ringing noise that overpowered everything else. The ringing noise had no obvious or necessary reason to exist, as it didn’t tie into the storyline or character development. Although “The Silence” was technically a book before “A Quiet Place” even came out, the film used a lot of the same storytelling techniques that “A Quiet Place” used, with more of the “can you only believe if having a disability wasn’t the end of the world?” sentiment. Other than the tired tropes about disability, “The Silence” used very quick and convenient plotlines to move the story, which is understandable since the movie only runs an hour and 30 minutes. Stanley Tucci did a great job, but the film overall left much to be desired.   Contact the author at howlentertainment@wou.edu Photo courtesy of Netflix.com

“MAD MAX: Fury Road”

By Nathaniel Dunaway
 Entertainment Editor

In 1979, Australian filmmaker George Miller released his feature-film debut: a dystopian action thriller entitled “Mad Max.” The film starred Mel Gibson as Max, a role that would launch the then 23-year-old actor into stardom.

Inspired by the 1970’s oil crisis, in which oil prices skyrocketed, affecting millions of Australians in particular, “Mad Max” (and its immediate sequels “The Road Warrior” and “Beyond Thunderdome,”) follows Max, a lawman, and his travels through a post-apocalyptic desert wasteland, where he encounters vicious motorcycle gangs, mutants, vengeance and driving. Lots and lots of driving.

Miller had always planned a fourth film in the franchise, but the project remained in development hell for nearly 30 years. When it finally became a reality with the release of “Mad Max: Fury Road,” this month, the response from fans and critics alike was virtually unanimous: it was worth the wait.

“Fury Road,” essentially a reboot of the series rather than a strict continuation, stars Tom Hardy (“Bronson”) and Charlize Theron (“Monster”) as Max Rockatansky and Imperator Furiosa, respectively.

The film begins with Furiosa, a badass, one-armed raider, leading a convoy of war rigs from the Citadel — a colony led by the film’s antagonist, Immortan Joe — to Gas Town, a city with a monopoly grip on gasoline. Halfway to her destination, however, she veers off-road, thus setting the insane events of this insane film in motion.

As it turns out, Furiosa is actually smuggling Immortan Joe’s Five Wives (the women he keeps as “breeders”) to safety. When the masked, deformed, and insane Joe realizes this, he leads a war party after Furiosa to retrieve his wives.

If that description of the film sounds somewhat Mad Max-less, that’s because it is, for the first act at least. Early on, Max is captured and serves as the “blood-bag” (an unwilling blood donor) to Nux, a Citadel raider played by Nicholas Hoult (“Warm Bodies”). Only after the first half-hour does Max cease being a passive character to whom things simply happen, and becomes the driving force of the film, when he decides to aid in the rescue of Immortan Joe’s Five Wives.

Still, Charlize Theron’s Furiosa is constantly at odds with Tom Hardy’s Max for the title of “Fury Road’s” true action hero. Max’s name may be in the title, but it’s Furiosa’s mission that the audience invests in — first when she seeks to save the Five Wives, and later, when she seeks revenge on Immortan Joe, played terrifyingly by “Mad Max” alum Hugh Keays-Byrne. Regardless, Furiosa will still inevitably go down as one of the great action characters of all-time.

“Fury Road” is filled to the brim with explosions, gunfire, fights, frenzy, and fun. It’s an action film in the purist sense, in which the action serves as perfectly-executed exposition in the telling of a great story. It’s never action for action’s sake, never mindless or aimless.

The title of “action film” has a sour connotation to some, suggesting a men’s only club of overwrought violence and one-liners, but “Fury Road” is about as far from Steven Seagal as you can get, mainly due to Imperator Furiosa, the epitome of the strong female hero.

She’s a scarred, battle-hardened fighter with no time for in-depth introspection or (and thank God/George Miller for this) a love-interest. But the feminist themes don’t stop there, with the story of the Five Wives’ escape from the clutches of Immortan Joe serving as an allegory of sorts for the reproductive rights of women.

Action doesn’t always mean flame-spewing electric guitars and hand-grenade spears. It also means what the characters do, and in this film, what they do and what decisions they make are paramount. “Fury Road” takes place over a frenzied three days of mayhem, leaving little breathing room and even less room for needless character arcs. What the characters do inform who they are, nothing more, nothing less.

In the hands of a lesser filmmaker, the idea of a two-hour long film encompassing what is essentially a single car chase would come off as overdone and gimmicky, but in George Miller’s hands, it’s truly a sight to behold.

So go out and behold it, as soon as you can. You’ll be glad you did.

4 paws out of 4.

“Down the Drain:” a biography of Julia Fox

Written by: Ruth Simonsen | Digital Media Manager

Content warning: this article contains spoilers

Julia Fox, once known as Kanye West’s rebound girlfriend, is best known for donning head-to-toe black latex outfits and hand-drawn eyeliner. In the media’s eyes, she was no more than arm candy to the controversial rapper. 

Since their split in 2022, however, her fame continued to skyrocket and she saw her following grow. Now, she proudly calls herself a female sex symbol, with her bleached eyebrows and lilting voice. 

Once Fox released her recent biography, “Down the Drain,” the world was surprised she was not always this famous.

Julia Fox spent much of her early years in the small town of Saronno in Italy. After moving to New York City to live with her father, her life quickly began to grow rockier by the day. Between her father’s verbal and physical abuse and her mother’s spontaneous wrath, Julia spent most of her childhood couch-surfing and searching for solace in any place that promised even the slightest bit of happiness. 

This mindset frequently landed her in unsafe situations — including a relationship with a controlling drug dealer who stalked and threatened her. However, through her ex boyfriend, she was first introduced to narcotics, many of which would haunt her for the rest of her life. 

The rest of her teen years were spent traveling between Italy and New York City — working as a dominatrix — then settling down as a sugar baby for an extremely wealthy client. Through this resource, she gained her footing by creating a clothing brand leading to a life of extravagance — only to realize she was the one truly being taken advantage of. 

As Julia continued to grow and age, she met and lost many people in her life. Between her near- death experiences and the deaths of many she knew and loved, Julia weaves a cautionary tale with heroin, its use and addiction, as one of the primary villains.

Now, at Julia’s celebrity status, I thought of her as another Kim K, Megan Fox or Hadid sister. I was quick to judge and even quicker to dislike. It was not until I saw an excerpt from her book that my curiosity was piqued. From there, it was pure, unabashed adoration of her and the life she persevered through. 

I found myself on an emotional rollercoaster, first laughing at her snark, then suddenly crying as she described her feelings and experiences of loss. Now, as she finally feels comfortable in who she is and the role she plays in the world today, she ends her biography with this: “Sometimes you just have to say f-ck it and throw your whole life down the drain just to see where you come out on the other side.”

9/10.

Contact the author at howldigitalmediamanager@mail.wou.edu

A new version of “The Talented Mr. Ripley” comes to Netflix

Written by: Claire Phillips | Entertainment Editor

Content warning: this article contains spoilers and mentions of murder.

Film fanatics may be familiar with the title “The Talented Mr. Ripley,” a thriller that stars Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law in an unconventional love triangle. Netflix has taken on a noir remake of the story with the leading man played by Andrew Scott, who is well known for his roles in “Sherlock,” “Fleabag” and more recently, “All of Us Strangers.” The director’s choice to make the show in black and white was due to the original book cover by Patricia Highsmith. Set in the 1960s between New York and Italy, “Ripley” is a captivating story that is hard to look away from.

In addition to Scott, the new Netflix series also stars Dakota Fanning and Johnny Flynn. Each actor delivered a unique perspective to the remake of the classic story within their individual roles. The chemistry between the trio was undeniable.

Andrew Scott’s stoic performance as Tom Ripley gave the series its unsettling tone. In contrast to Matt Damon’s portrayal of the character, Scott plays Ripley as a calculated, apathetic man with little remorse for his actions. In the 1999 film, Ripley is more frantic after his murders and genuinely seems to be upset about his wrongdoings. Both interpretations are incredible portrayals of the multi-dimensional character, but the passiveness of Scott’s performance is almost terrifying to watch.

The most uncomfortable scene in the series was the practically silent 20-minute murder sequence of Greenleaf, as Ripley tediously and clumsily carries out his plan. The blood on Ripley’s fingers looks black, but the audience can see its unmistakable deep red color as they experience the brutal death of Dickie Greenleaf. Ripley goes on to steal Greenleaf’s identity for his wealth and status. 

Every few minutes there is a shot of religious art, whether it is Greek, Roman or Catholic, a statue or a painting on a church ceiling. Tom Ripley walks in the shadows of these works of art, and at some points, he silently ponders them. This could be interpreted as a higher power looking down at him as he continues to commit acts of sin, whether he chooses to acknowledge it or not. He views himself as the puppetmaster of everything around him, but truly knows he is on the verge of spiraling out of control. Characters such as Marge Sherwood, Dickie Greenleaf’s girlfriend, can see right through Ripley’s actions but have no way to prove his wrongdoings. Something is not quite right with him, which all the people he interacts with take notice of.

The juxtaposition of Tom Ripley’s character is what made the 1955 novel and the 1999 film unique. Though he is a con-man and murderer, the character is also described as a sensitive man. The 90s movie depicts Ripley as a queer man, in his odd relationship with Dickie Greenleaf, and even gives him a lover at the end of the movie. His acute awareness of the people around him is what makes him the enticing villain he is. 

With an all-star cast, unique filming style and an incredible setting, “Ripley” is a must-watch for any fans of the original film or audiences interested in the noir genre. The eight-episode show goes into more depth than the movie was able to, and it did not disappoint.

8/10.

Contact the author at howlentertainment@wou.edu

Review: “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle”

sonypictures.com

Sam Dunaway | News Editor

If you’re anything like me, ‘90s movies played a major role in your childhood entertainment. The 1995 classic “Jumanji” was no exception. Upon the announcement of a sequel, I’ll admit that I was a bit skeptical. But as long as you’re not looking for a thought-provoking work of art, “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” is worth the watch.

The film follows four teenagers who who find themselves sucked into the game of Jumanji but unlike the original board game, Jumanji now takes the form of a video game. Falling deep in a mysterious jungle, they must finish the game in order to leave. There’s just one difference – the four teens are in the form of their video game characters, portrayed by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan and Jack Black.

The humor and talent of the actors is really what makes this movie enjoyable. With Kevin Hart’s fiesty and loud personality and Jack Black’s portrayal of a snobby popular girl, you almost forget about the lack of intriguing dialogue and presence of cheesy one-liners.

The movie would definitely prove disappointing if you’re feeling nostalgic and longing for the world of Jumanji. Apart from one scene with the actual board game and the classic, suspenseful thumping, the sequel just doesn’t measure up to the original. “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” focused on comedy and the balance between appealing to adults and children alike. It lacked character development and was often cliché. But thankfully, the comedic genius of the actors overshadowed the lack of any real emotional connection with the characters.

If you’re looking to dive into the world of Jumanji, you’re better off with the 1995 original and the 1981 illustration book by Chris Van Allsburg. But I would suggest this movie to anyone looking for a fresh, amusing and humorous adventure.

Contact the author at journalnews@wou.edu

Rick and Morty voice actors change for season 7

Written by: Sophie Taylor | Designer

Content warning: mentions of domestic violence

Rick and Morty. Since its initial release in 2013, averaging 1.52 million viewers per episode,  it is a cartoon loved by many. Its latest season, season seven, has created a lot of buzz since people started realizing that in this upcoming season, Rick and Morty would be voiced by different people. The show was created by Dan Harmon and Justin Roiland and Roiland has voiced both Rick and Morty for the past six seasons. 

In May 2020, Roiland was charged with two felony counts, one for domestic battery and one for false imprisonment, from an incident with a woman he was dating. After these charges, Roiland was dropped from Rick and Morty and other shows such as Solar Opposites. 

Now, with the man who voiced the two main characters in his show being fired, many are asking what happens next? As people began to find out Adult Swim and Hulu severed ties with him, they began to question who would replace him. Turns out, we wouldn’t have an answer until the seventh season aired Oct. 15 of this year. 

The search for the new voice actors took about six months, with thousands of applicants auditioning. Scott Marder, who helped Dan Harmon in the selection process, said that finding the right person to voice Rick took so long that they considered going global in their search. 

“No one sounded exactly like Rick. It was tricky,” he said in an interview with Lesley Goldberg at The Hollywood Reporter. 

It was also important to note that the voice actors were chosen so that fans couldn’t recognize the change in voices, unlike Roiland’s character, Korvo, who in the show was shot with a “voice fixing ray” altering his voice. 

After the voices were revealed, congratulations are due to Ian Cardoni, the new voice of Rick, and Harry Belden, the new voice of Morty. Fans have already started making comparisons between the old voices and the new ones; some have said they welcome the new takes on the characters, but others say that the “improvisational tone” that Justin Roiland brought to the characters just isn’t there anymore. 

Many fans are also upset that Sean Kelly, a voice actor who gained a lot of recognition for sounding exactly like Rick and Morty, was not offered the role of both Rick and Morty, similar to how Roiland played them both. Many comments on TikTok videos regarding the voice change are all about Kelly. Before the release of the new season, comments were begging for Kelly to be chosen. 

Even now, comments say Kelly was robbed and still deserves the part. As more episodes and seasons are released, fans will have to decide: is the show good enough to keep watching after such a big change, or is it not? 

Contact the author at howldesigner@wou.edu