Day of Wreckoning


Ralph Breaks the Internet – For a long time, Disney kept sequels to their animated films direct to video after The Rescuers Down Under had an underwhelming box office take. I suppose you could count The Three Caballeros, Fantasia 2000, and Winnie the Pooh as theatrical sequels, but those were all follow-ups to package films, so they didn’t really have to continue the story. But now, not only is this Wreck-It Ralph sequel in theaters, but there’s a Frozen sequel slated for release next. Both of those were pretty complete stories in themselves, so it kind of seems like just cashing in. As far as I know, the only thing people really wanted to see Ralph do was interact with other popular video game characters who weren’t in the first movie, and that doesn’t merit another full-length film. In fact, not only was Mario not in this one as had originally been intended, but I don’t think any Nintendo characters were, nor were any new ones who weren’t in the first movie (well, as far as I could tell; I might have missed a brief cameo or two). Instead, it focuses on Ralph and Vanellope’s friendship, with him being content to do the same things together every day, while she wants something new. When a kid accidentally breaks the steering wheel on the Sugar Rush game, the two friends go online through the arcade’s new wi-fi connection to buy a new one on eBay.

Vanellope finds an online racing game where she wants to stay, and Ralph is so scared of losing her that he unleashes a virus into the game that eventually spreads all over the Internet. It’s a lot like the Cybug from the first movie, really. The moral is that you can stay friends even if you have different goals, but that largely takes a backseat to a rapid-fire series of Internet jokes. Enough of them landed to make it a generally positive experience, but many were pretty trite at this point. There were some amusing new characters, like Alan Tudyk’s KnowsMore, the persistent and cheerful eBoy, and the sleazy but still somewhat charming J.P. Spamley. I do have to wonder what the message is when a personification of pop-up ads is portrayed sympathetically.

Despite some fairly modern references, there was kind of an old-fashioned feel to its take on the World Wide Web, from back when it was still impressive instead of typical. Of course, the Internet IS still amazing in many ways, but it kind of seemed like it came a decade or two too late to make much impact in that respect. Maybe that’s appropriate as it’s a sequel to a movie largely about 1980s video games, but I think it didn’t work anywhere near as well. Maybe an ongoing subplot back at the arcade would have helped.


What I did think worked pretty well was the crossover aspect, with Disney taking advantage of being a huge entertainment media conglomerate. Since I don’t think they’re planning on crossing over most of these properties, this might be the only time we’re going to see Pixar, Star Wars, Marvel, and Winnie-the-Pooh characters along with Disney Princesses. Many of them had their original voice actors, or at least ones who’d done their voices recently, with an exception being screenwriter Pamela Ribon as Snow White. The Princess and Groot scenes had already been teased, and they were some of the best scenes in it.

I’d actually wondered before hearing about this whether Vanellope would count as a Disney Princess. I mean, she’s potentially more qualified than Merida, who’s a princess but technically from a different studio; or Mulan, who’s a female protagonist but by no means a princess. There were a few interesting connections made that I hadn’t noticed before, like how many of the princesses sang while looking at some kind of water. And I suppose Groot COULD be related to Yggdrasil, although the World Tree’s nature in the Marvel Cinematic Universe isn’t entirely clear.

The movie also had a reference to Tron, a Disney movie from the 80s ABOUT video games. I’m kind of surprised they didn’t mention Kingdom Hearts, a franchise I don’t know a lot about but that I’m certainly aware includes both Disney and Final Fantasy characters. Come to think of it, there was a Star Wars machine at Litwak’s Arcade in the first movie, although I think it was gone by the time Sugar Rush showed up.

So, I found it disappointing considering how much I liked the original film, but I still found it to be worth watching. Beth didn’t like it at all, though, so that’s obviously not true for everybody.

Advertisements
Posted in Advertising, Cartoons, Comics, Humor, Mario, Mythology, Norse, Relationships, Revisiting Disney, Star Wars, Technology, Video Games, VoVat Goes to the Movies, Winnie-the-Pooh | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Conflicting Covenants


One thing I’ve heard a fair amount for Christians that doesn’t seem to really hold up is that Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection freed believers from the Jewish law. And yet the same people will quote verses from Leviticus to condemn stuff they don’t like. So which part of the law still applies, and which doesn’t? Christianity still holds to the notion of sin, and what is sin if not disobedience of ritual law? I don’t even know that there’s much indication that Jesus himself supported this notion. Certainly, in the Gospel of Matthew, he’s a big supporter of the Law. The version of the Sermon on the Mount given in Matthew 5 has him say, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” Of course, there’s some wiggle room with what fulfilling the law means. The general interpretation seems to be that the fulfillment occurred with Jesus’ death and resurrection. But he goes on to say that his followers have to be more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees, and has much stricter views on marriage and adultery than the Torah does. There were cases where he reinterpreted laws, as he did with the Sabbath, but this appears to have been common in that era. In Matthew 7:12, he’s quoted as saying, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” That is, obviously, the Golden Rule, which is found in the Torah, specifically in Leviticus 19:18: “Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.” It’s certainly a nice idea, and one that other Jewish philosophers held up as the most important part of the Law.

But really, how can you say stoning people for various minor infractions is loving thy neighbor as thyself? It doesn’t even apply to all New Testament rules. How is telling people they’ll go to Hell if they don’t share your beliefs doing unto others as you would have them do unto you? It kind of seems like the idea that the Jewish law, or at least many of the more controversial parts, was part of Paul’s attempt to recruit gentiles. His pitch was more or less, “Sure, it’s technically a Jewish movement, but you don’t have to cut off your foreskins, and you can eat whatever you want!” His rationale was that adherence to the Law wasn’t all that important, since the world was ending anyway. The fact that he was obviously wrong about this doesn’t seem to deter most people.

I think one problem inherent here is that, while I’m an atheist, I’m still mostly familiar with Christian viewpoints on this topic. I’ve been to church and Sunday school, and heard about how Jesus was the whole point of the scriptures (presumably even the parts about slaughtering Amalekites and such), and that Jews believe that the Messiah hasn’t arrived yet. I suppose the latter is technically true, but I don’t think it’s generally the focus of modern Judaism. It was huge during the Roman occupation, however, which is the climate in which Jesus and his earliest followers lived. The Gospels, especially Matthew, do a lot of fudging to make Jesus fulfill prophecies from the Tanakh, some of which don’t even appear to have BEEN prophecies in the first place. From what I’ve read, it wasn’t until AFTER Jesus died that dying and being reborn had anything to do with the Messiah. For that matter, even the Jews who DID accept Jesus as Messiah didn’t necessarily think that absolved them from the Law. I mean, that was “a covenant forever,” not “a covenant until my son shows up and gets screwed over.” For that matter, is freedom from the Law necessarily a good thing? Yes, parts of it (perhaps most of it, by modern standards) are really harsh, but laws are part of creating a functioning society. And while early Christians held up the idea that Jesus’ sacrifice atoned for everyone’s sins, but sin offerings were only one sort of sacrifice practiced in Judaism when the Temple existed. But then, since the Temple was destroyed around when Christianity was becoming popular, Judaism had to change to adjust to that, and Christianity became more firmly established as its own thing. I guess my point is that it’s strange how Christianity grew out of Judaism, specifically first-century Judaism, but very quickly came out against some of the basic tenets of its parent religion. And now they insist the Old Testament was really meant for them in the first place. I guess this kind of thing happens all the time, though. It was probably the reaction the other Iron Age Semitic peoples had towards early Judaism.

“So you worship Yahweh, but not his wife? What the Sheol?”

Posted in Christianity, Judaism, Philosophy, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Our Christmas Monkees


The Monkees, Christmas Party – The new Monkees record is a collection of Christmas songs, some old and some new. I like Christmas music (as well as winter music that gets lumped in with it because no one wants to hear that stuff in January); when done well it’s very comforting. I wouldn’t want to listen to nothing BUT that for a month, but my general feelings are positive. With this album, there are contributions from all of the Monkees, including the late Davy Jones. Some of the same songwriters from Good Times! make contributions here as well. “Unwrap You at Christmas” is pretty typical of Andy Partridge, both in sound and cheekiness. “What Would Santa Do,” by Rivers Cuomo, lashes back at anti-holiday attitudes. The surreal “The House of Broken Gingerbread” was co-written by Adam Schlesinger of Fountains of Wayne and novelist Michael Chabon. The rock number “Christmas Party” was written by Scott McCaughey and Peter Buck, who of course have worked together in the Minus 5, and I had mentioned earlier that I thought Scott should write a Monkees song. “Jesus Christ” is a cover of an Alex Chilton song, and I really know nothing about him other than that the theme from That 70s Show was one of his, and Camper Van Beethoven has an instrumental called “A.C. Cover” after him (even though it actually isn’t a cover; it apparently references someone who kept insisting it was a Chilton song). It’s a pretty good song, and more overtly religious than most of what’s on here. There’s also a cover of Paul McCartney’s “Wonderful Christmastime,” which I think I might like a little more than the original, as it lacks that recurring synthesizer “bwaaap.” Is this the first Monkees release to include a song by a Beatle? “Mele Kalikimaka” and “Silver Bells” takes the vocals from old Davy Jones solo demos and add new music. The former includes a verse that isn’t in the Bing Crosby version. Mike Nesmith contributes covers of “The Christmas Song” and “Snowfall,” the latter of which I can’t say I knew. Peter Tork’s only contribution is a banjo-led version of “Angels We Have Heard on High.” The version from Target, which Beth bought, has two bonus tracks as well, one of them being “Riu Chiu,” a Spanish song that the Monkees performed on the show back in 1967. Overall, it’s definitely pretty fun.

Posted in Albums, Christmas, Holidays, Minus 5, Monkees, Music, XTC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lousy Scots! They Ruined Scotland!


BraveSPOILERS! I really didn’t know a whole lot about this movie, other than that it was about a Scottish tomboy princess who didn’t want to get married. And that’s a fair amount of what happens, but there’s some conflict beyond that, as well as supernatural elements. I think I did come across a mention that there’s a witch in it, but I didn’t know what her role was.

Princess Merida (whose name sounds kind of like “murder” when her father pronounces it) gets along well with her father, who teaches her archery, but she resents her mother’s attempts to make her a proper princess.

After suitors from three clans show up to compete for her hand, she runs away and finds the witch, whom she asks to change her mother. She really should have been more specific, as the magic turns her mother into a bear.

This leads to bonding between the two, as Merida teaches her mom how to survive in the wild. But it’s problematic in that her father, King Fergus, still wants revenge on a giant bear called Mor’du for tearing off one of his legs.

Mor’du turns out to be someone else who sought the witch’s help, and was turned into a bear with demonic strength. Eventually, Merida’s love turns her mother back to herself, but since they might never have reconciled without the curse, what’s the lesson there? The funniest part was probably the bit where the witch’s cauldron was set up as an answering system, with different vials of potion to activate menu options. There’s a fair amount of slapstick with the Queen trying not to be noticed while in bear form, and that’s in addition to all the rowdy fighting between the guests at the castle. But could you really have a movie set in Scotland without a brawl? There are also bagpipes, caber tossing, Scottish Deerhounds, and kilt gags. No haggis as far as I could see, although apparently they were originally going to have a haggis-tossing contest in it, at least according to the IMDB. Anyway, I liked it, but I didn’t love it. It was enjoyable, but not much about it really stood out. Merida was a likeable enough character with a strong personality, and it’s nice to see an animated princess with curly hair. The way the hair was animated was really impressive, too.

Somehow she became an official Disney princess even though this was made by Pixar instead of Walt Disney Animation Studios, although I’m not sure there’s a whole lot of difference these days anyway.

Posted in Cartoons, Families, Humor, Magic, Monsters, Relationships, Revisiting Disney, VoVat Goes to the Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Bible Says a Lot of Things


One thing I’ve found is that, when someone discusses the Bible from a secular perspective, there will be devout believers who get angry about it, even though no one is actually attacking their faith. I guess part of the problem is that, if you believe that the Bible is inerrant, or even just wholly inspired by God, they not only see it as true, but as more true than anything else. I’ve read the Bible, and I noticed a lot of contradictions and general oddities. I’ve heard from people who do believe that I’m reading it from the wrong perspective, and maybe they’re right, since they’re able to obtain comfort and meaning from it and I’m not. Religious faith seems to be one of those things where people who have it don’t understand people who don’t, and vice versa. Really, though, is faith really dependent on the Bible, or do people just use the Bible (or any holy book, for that matter) to support what they already believe? The Bible contains a lot of different viewpoints and opinions, certainly not what you’d expect from a single document dictated by God Almighty, but exactly what you’d expect from a bunch of different texts written and rewritten many times by many different authors. And, from what I’ve read, historical and archaeological research have determined that a fair amount of the historical information in the Good Book isn’t entirely true. There is, for instance, no independent evidence for the massive exodus from Egypt.

The thing is, even when I decided I probably didn’t believe in God, I still figured most of the historical stuff was still true. Parts of it have such detailed descriptions and developed characters that they seem like they could be accurate, and others are so boring that I can’t see why anyone would bother to make them up. And there are certainly mentions of people and events that are corroborated by other sources. Ultimately, I think it’s about as reliable as any document of its place and time (really places and times plural). There’s enough accurate stuff to serve as a general baseline for further research, but also a lot of propaganda, exaggeration, and interpretation of events to fit a particular agenda. The thing is, I’ve known believers to get angry whenever research determines something in it may not be true; and when something DOES turn out to be accurate, they’ll insist it corroborates the Bible as a whole. There was something I came across recently about how some believers considered it a victory for their side when it was discovered that people called Hittites existed, even though the term pertained to several different civilizations in both the Bible and elsewhere, and the existence of a nation doesn’t mean everything told about them is true.

If there were Hittites, were there Punchites and Kickites as well?
Or there’s the mention of the House of David on the Tel Dan Stele, which really doesn’t indicate whether or not there actually was a King David, just that it was a name that was associated with the ruling dynasty of Judah.

“Come on, stop harping on that.”

I’ve always had an interest in mythology on multiple levels. One is the historical one, determining when and how the stories were written, how they changed over time based on changing circumstances, and how much verifiable history remains in them. Another is as stories, and even that can be subdivided into whether they’re fun to read and in trying to make sense of the fictional or pseudo-fictional world in which they take place. Of course, most of them don’t have any one official version, so while it’s fun to speculate on how Medea could have shown up in Athens to try to kill Theseus when other evidence indicates this was BEFORE she ever left Colchis with Jason, the truth is presumably just that the two stories developed independently with no real thought about continuity. And when various mythologies are mixed together, that makes things even more complicated, but also more fascinating, at least to me. this is where you get stuff like Britain or Scandinavia being established by Trojans who barely escaped the destruction of the city, the Kings of England being descended from the Kings of Judah, or the Ark of the Covenant ending up in Ethiopia. It’s like there’s a whole mythical history that sort of but not entirely parallels the real one, so we can ponder things like whether Cepheus and Cassiopeia were related to the Queen of Sheba, since they all were at times associated with both Ethiopia and Israel.

Over time, there have been some quite creative interpretations of the Bible to explain away contradictions and add details, but there wasn’t always any real historical research involved. Sure, it COULD have been the case that Judas Iscariot both hanged himself and fell into a field and died, or that there was both a woman created at the same time as Adam and another made later from his rib; but isn’t that adding to the Word of God?

Or were the people who came up with these explanations also divinely inspired? And when rabbinical literature or later books that are generally considered apocryphal provide details on brief mentions of things like God taking Enoch, the Nephilim, and Nimrod as the founder of great cities, were they following earlier traditions, or just coming up with fan theories? And does it matter, when it appears that the current forms of most of the canonical books weren’t finalized until long after they were originally thought to have been written anyway? Again, I think it depends on what level you’re looking at: that of spiritual guidance, of historicity, of authentic tradition, or of interesting stories.

Posted in Christianity, Fundamentalism, Greek Mythology, History, Judaism, Middle East, Mythology, Norse, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

A House Full of Ginger


Gingerbread houses are a well-known Christmas tradition, not that I’ve ever seen anyone actually make one. They’re a pretty cool idea, though. The idea of objects made of foodstuffs is an old one in legends throughout the world, especially when geared toward kids. The gingerbread house is associated with the fairy tale of Hansel and Gretel, in which a cannibalistic witch lives in one. The thing is, nobody seems to be sure whether the tale was describing a larger version of something that was already traditional, or the story inspired people to try gingerbread architecture for real. It’s difficult to find out exactly when gingerbread houses became a thing. Two pages that came up in a quick search give very different estimates, the nineteenth century according to Wikipedia, and the sixteenth according to PBS, although I suspect the latter might be a typo. And it’s always difficult, if not impossible, to tell how a fairy tale originated, although the most famous version is the one first recorded by the Brothers Grimm in 1812. The purpose of the gingerbread house in the tale is to lure children so the witch can eat them.

There’s a general theme of food throughout: Hansel and Gretel are abandoned in the woods because their family can’t afford to eat, the breadcrumbs Hansel scatters to mark the path back home are eaten by birds, and the witch who wants to eat kids ends up cooked to death. The Wikipedia entry on the story cites a supposition that the tale started in the Great Famine of the early thirteenth century, but I don’t know the research behind this. It’s worth noting that, in later editions of the tale, the Grimms changed the children’s mother to a stepmother, presumably to explain why she didn’t have any maternal feelings toward them, a recurring theme in fairy tales. The woodcutter who puts the needs of his wife above those of his kids, even if reluctantly, isn’t all that sympathetic either, though. That the mother/stepmother dies when the witch does suggests a link between them, although they’re presumably not physically the same character, because why stay with a poor woodcutter when you could hang out in your other home that’s literally made of food and filled with gems?

But that’s me being literal about the whole thing. For that matter, the house would presumably be destroyed by the rain and/or become stale and moldy, but what’s the point of being a witch if you can’t manipulate the laws of nature?

I’m reminded of Ugu the Shoemaker‘s wicker castle in The Lost Princess of Oz, about which the Wizard of Oz says, “With magic to protect it, even a paper castle might be as strong as if made of stone.” Gingerbread is also used as a description of latticework popular on houses in the Victorian era.

Gingerbread of some sort might possibly date back millennia, although the recipes probably weren’t typically what we’d recognize as gingerbread. The tradition of making it into shapes is commonly attributed to the court of Queen Elizabeth I, where guests were sometimes served gingerbread people made to look like them. I suppose a gingerbread man could live in a gingerbread house, but would that be like a person living in a house made of flesh?

Gingerbread people also relate to fairy tales, with the story of the gingerbread man who somehow came to life an ran away from people who wanted to eat him, only to be devoured by a sly fox in the end.

This has predecessors in other folk tales about living foodstuffs, like the Slavic Kolobok ones about an escaped fried round bread, and German versions where it’s a pancake that gets away.

The gingerbread man story in particular first appeared in print in 1875, and I suspect the sort-of-human shape made it easier for the runaway to maneuver than it was for the other pastries. L. Frank Baum uses the general theme in John Dough and the Cherub, in which John is a giant gingerbread man accidentally brought to life with a magic elixir, who proceeds to run from people who want to eat him first in the United States, then on various enchanted islands, before finally becoming a king.

Around the same time, there was a stage musical about a gingerbread man also called John Dough, with music by A. Baldwin Sloane, a composer who had also worked on the stage version of The Wizard of Oz. Baum appeared to have some resentment about this, although it’s not clear whether there was any actual imitation, since both were inspired by the earlier fairy tale, and apparently neither one made up the name John Dough for a gingerbread man.

Also worthy of note are Ruth Plumly Thompson’s Johnny Gingerbread from one of her advertising pamphlets, and the serial killer Gingerbreadman in Jasper Fforde’s Nursery Crime series.

Posted in Advertising, Authors, Characters, Christmas, England, Fairy Tales, Food, Germany, History, Holidays, Jasper Fforde, L. Frank Baum, Magic, Nursery Crime, Oz, Oz Authors, Plays, Ruth Plumly Thompson | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Koopas Behind the Curtain


This article I read this week discusses the idea of Mario and company being essentially actors in different scenarios, as per a comment from Shigeru Miyamoto comparing them to the cast of Popeye cartoons. It obviously addresses Super Mario Bros. 3 being presented as a stage play, but also the stage motif in other Mario games. (You know, “stage” can also mean a specific segment of a video game, although I don’t know if that works in Japanese.)

Also mentioned are the Lakitu with a camera following Mario around in Super Mario 64, the playable movie of a game in New Donk City in Super Mario Odyssey, and how the Yoshi Theater in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga is on pretty much a Mel Brooks level of meta-reference.

One comment I wanted to make about the movie posters in the remake featuring characters who appeared in games released AFTER Superstar Saga is that they could potentially have been in films before Mario met them.

Maybe the Prince Dreambert film is a period piece from before Antasma enchanted him. Much more difficult to explain is the linked story about Mario being an actor from Italy who went to Japan to act in video games.

The idea of characters in some non-live-action format, be they cartoons, puppets, or pixelated, actually being actors playing roles is an old one that still shows up frequently. While Popeye did place the characters in many situations with no explanation and sometimes have the characters acknowledge they were in films, I don’t recall them ever really doing the animated actor thing like other famous cartoons did, particularly Looney Tunes. Disney also sometimes portrayed Mickey Mouse and the others as actors living in Hollywood and working for the studio. I wrote before about part of a Mickey comic where both goes on actual adventures AND works on pictures for Disney, which is kind of confusing. The comic strip, at least at this point, was a serial, so there had to be some transition between different stories. In the shorts, it’s enough for him to just suddenly be a pilot, while the comic format had to include some kind of explanation for how he became one and why he doesn’t do it on a regular basis after that. For the Mario games, it explains why Bowser, who routinely kidnaps the Princess and tries to kill Mario, is still invited to parties and go-kart races.

But it also raises a lot of questions on its own. One of the big ones is how much of the characterization can be trusted. Getting back outside the Mushroom Universe, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a good example here, as Roger acts pretty much exactly the same in real life as in his cartoons, while Baby Herman is totally different. Or look at the Muppets, where their being actors putting on a show is a significant part of the plot of The Muppet Show and its successors, but even in movies where their being a theater troupe is a significant part of the plot, they still break the fourth wall. So they’re actors playing actors playing themselves, and in real life those actors are played by puppets performed by humans? The Muppets do play other characters, like Kermit being Bob Cratchit in The Muppet Christmas Carol; but in many stories he’s still Kermit, only in fictional situations. It might be best not to think about it. Wreck-It Ralph does a similar thing with video games, as Ralph is rough around the edges but not really evil; it’s just his job to wreck things during the course of the game. I haven’t seen the sequel yet, so I don’t know whether it gets any more into this. And we know that Mario and Bowser are part of this universe, the latter being part of a support group for villains.

The thing is, while it’s a good joke to have behind-the-scenes bits where cartoon characters behave totally differently, it really complicates continuity. As the article mentions, it suggests not just one fictional universe but several: one where the characters exist as actors, and another where they actually do what takes place in the films or games. And if real locations are featured in fiction, are they the same as ours or not? Can Mario play his own games?

If so, does he get royalties for them? Is Bowser really not a villain, but just a reptilian actor who gets typecast because of his looks? Is he even really a king? Or does he play himself in reenactments of actual events? Mario continuity is pretty loose anyway, but it seems like it would change a lot if we can’t even trust the characters’ personalities, which are at least somewhat consistent. And I believe Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam indicates that the Paper Mario universe exists within a book.

But is it a book based on true events, or fictional ones featuring real individuals? I guess from my perspective, anything official that expands the world should count as canon, regardless of the format in which it’s presented. The first Paper Mario had the first actual map of the Mushroom Kingdom, not something I’d want to disregard even if the whole thing is a storybook in-universe. Incidentally, the original Doki Doki Panic had Subcon exist in a book, but still contained the dream theme. I think it’s more of a stylistic choice than an indication that there are a whole bunch of different Mushroom Worlds of increasing lack of realism. But it’s also that lack of consistency that lets another fan see everything as separate self-contained worlds with some aspects in common. Anyway, Mario might have been an actor at some point; he’s done pretty much every other job. But I still think his adventures are real.

Posted in Cartoons, Comics, Conspiracy Theories, Dreams, Mario, Muppets, Plays, Popeye, Relationships, Video Games | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment