Reviewing The Golden Raspberry Awards 2022

It's that time of year again - the one in which I completely ignore the Oscars and the way they "honour" movies, and instead comment on the crappy films that gained notoriety instead. Due to 2021 being pretty similar to 2020 in terms of Covid-19 restrictions and the world being up the creak in general, I only really recognised a few of the films nominated this year, and thus was introduced to new ones that I'd rather not have known about.

Also, no political contenders this year! I do genuinely agree with the politics of the Razzies, but I feel that it sometimes awards politicians simply because they're right-wing politicians that they (and myself) despise, rather than because of their actual "acting" capabilities (which obviously they lack, but sometimes they're not even acting). I mean, Donald Trump once "won" Worst Supporting Actor for a Michael Moore documentary, but the film itself otherwise did well and all he did was appear in a few scenes rather than "act". That said, Hilary's America is a genuinely atrocious "documentary" with dreadful acting that rightfully won Worst Picture one year, and we had both the cringeworthy Absolute Proof (another "documentary" in the vein of Hilary's America) and that whole disgusting business with Rudy Giuliani and his pants zip last year. Oh, and we can't forget Donald Trump's "starring" role in Ghosts Can't Do It, which he rightfully won a Razzie award for - there was a memorable moment at the 2016 Razzies where a Trump impersonator discussed that role.

Anyway, back to the 2022 Razzies themselves. Like with previous Razzies, there were nominations and winners I expected, and then ones I didn't expect at all, as well as some choices that didn't make the cut but I would have singled out anyway. Anyway, here are all the categories that were present and my own opinions on them!

Worst Picture - Diana (Netflix).

I'm honestly surprised that Dear Evan Hansen didn't make this category, considering how much of a highly-publicised disaster it was and how people said that it makes the the infamous Cats movie look positively tame in comparison (and some of my past blog posts highlight my opinions on it perfectly). I was not surprised by Space Jam: A New Legacy making it however, given that it's a dire sequel to an already "meh" movie that basically exists to promote Warner Bros. and their back catalogue. I was not so familiar with the other movies though, which consisted of Mark Wahlberg vehicle Infinite (which is a disappointing adaptation of the otherwise decent novel The Reincarnationist Papers), Rear Window copycat The Woman in the Window (also an adaptation of a novel), the WAY too on the nose Karen and the Netflix disaster Diana, which is, you guessed it, a musical of Lady Diana Spencer's life and clearly trying to follow in the footsteps of Hamilton with its format. The last two movies in particular broke me with their sheer existence.

To the surprise of nearly nobody, Diana took home the dreaded "prize" for this category. It's actually a recorded stage production, but having it filmed makes it count as a "movie" too (I say "movie" because of its sheer quality). Apparently the reason it was in this format was due to COVID-19 restrictions at the time meaning that they couldn't show it onstage initially (the actual stage run only lasted for 33 performances), but I feel that they thought that it could be the next Hamilton via showing it in this manner. Since awards for crappy stage shows don't exist yet, I think this is a pretty good start.

Worst Director - Christopher Ashley for Diana.

I said I was kind of surprised and in fact kind of disappointed that Dear Evan Hansen wasn't nominated for Worst Picture, but fortunately, its director Stephen Chbosky has been nominated for this category. Sure, he was good with the adaptations of The Perks of Being A Wallflower and Wonder, but maybe this film would have benefited with going with a less "inspirational" and "sentimental" tone and instead focused more on being a satire in the same vein as World's Best Dad. Similarly, The Misfits wasn't nominated for Worst Picture, but its director Renny Harlin still appears in this category. Directors whose films already appeared in Worst Picture though include Christopher Ashley for Diana, Coke Daniels for Karen and Joe Wright for The Woman in the Window.

Chbotsky was one of the nominees I was really hoping would win this category, but I was also willing to see Ashley win it too. And of course, Ashley scored another "prize" for Diana in the end, given that the finished product is ridiculously camp and has some bizarre creative choices in it. The thing I remember him most for is the stage version of Xanadu, which did fine with the critics, but tries to be "self-aware" of the original film's cult status and comes off as forgettable as a result. Well, at least Diana isn't going to be forgettable any time soon (or at least I hope it isn't) with it making the original Xanadu look like quality material in comparison.

Worst Lead Actor - LeBron James from Space Jam as himself.

Ben Platt, once highly praised for originating the role of Evan Hansen on Broadway, is now being condemned for playing the same role in the Dear Evan Hansen movie despite being a grown-ass man - not helped by that dreadful wig they gave him for some unfathomable reason. And honestly, I was expecting this to happen given the major backlash. I was also expecting LeBron James to land on this list for playing himself in Space Jam: A New Legacy (especially given that fans of the original film were expecting Michael Jordan to return), and he did. The other nominees however are completely new to me, which include Scott Eastwood as Dylan "D" Forrester in Dangerous, Roe Hartrampf as Prince Charles (a fact that makes me shudder just thinking about) in Diana and Mark Wahlberg as both Evan McCauley and the 2020 version of Heinrich Treadway in Infinite.

Going into this, I genuinely hoped that James would not win. The way his character arc was handled was pretty dire and he could go a little hard on the dull surprise at times, but I think he's a better actor than Jordan as a whole and his voice acting for the animated segments is fine. Honestly, I blame the script for the result we received. Alas, he won the prize anyway, even though I would have given it to Platt or Hartrampf myself. The business with the whole "tragic backstory" and the father-son plotline in the movie probably didn't do his role any favours either, unlike Jordan's role in which he essentially riffed on the time he tried to become a baseball star. Oh well, at least James has Trainwreck to prove that he can act well when given the right script. Maybe next time just make him a supporting actor like in that movie or, better yet, don't just try and cash in on his career like Space Jam: A New Legacy was trying to do.

Worst Lead Actress - Jeanna de Waal from Diana as Princess Diana.

So thankfully Kristen Stewart has been critically praised for her role as Princess Diana in Spencer this year and in fact was nominated for the "good" awards rather than the Razzies. Which is a relief, because the mediocre Twilight franchise has otherwise put a damper on her career and made people forget that she is otherwise a pretty good actress who started off in hits such as Panic Room and The Runaways. The other Princess Diana, Jeanna de Waal, on the other hand was one of many people nominated for Worst Lead Actress. As was the normally solid actress Amy Adams for playing Dr. Anna Fox in The Woman in the Window, Razzie favourite Megan Fox for playing Rebecca Lombardi in Midnight in the Switchgrass and Taryn Manning for playing the titular Karen, full name Karen Drexler. And last but not least, Ruby Rose for her role as Victoria in Vanquish - oh god, the dreadful RWBY jokes I could make about this. I will say that Chloe Grace Moretz had better be relieved that her role as Kayla in the new Tom & Jerry movie didn't land her here, given that it just serves as yet another reminder of her fall from grace movie-wise (despite the fact that she was going to be more particular about her future roles before this came out) - but luckily for her, she just manages to escape her first potential Razzie nomination.

Notice how I said "the dreadful RWBY jokes I could make about this"? Well, I add emphasis on "could" because Ruby Rose ultimately "lost" the prize to de Waal and her dreadful Diana impression. It's one thing to butcher a role, but it's another thing to butcher it when it's a real life person, specifically one who had a tumultuous public life. Sure, the fact that the script itself glosses over Diana's psychological issues (something that Spencer makes sure to actually focus on) doesn't help, but it's still embarrassing watching her perform the role.

Also, what is it with British actors such as Naiomi Watts and Jeanna de Waal failing as Diana, but the American Kristen Stewart doing so well in the role? It makes little to no sense in my mind. That said, at least Naiomi Watts had the advantage of not starring in a musical when she received her nomination that one year (though ultimately losing to Tyler Perry as Madea).

Worst Supporting Actor - Jared Leto from House of Gucci as Paulo Gucci.

Well, the only role I recognise on this list is Jared Leto as Paulo Gucci in the otherwise decent House of Gucci, a role in which he tries to go for an Oscar-bait route but only rivals his infamous stint as the Joker in Suicide Squad with regard to how appalling it is. Razzie veterans Ben Affleck and Mel Gibson also make a return, this time for their respective roles in The Last Duel as Count Pierre d'Alençon and in Dangerous as Dr. Alderwood. Other nominees include Gareth Keegan as James Hewitt in Diana (ANOTHER Diana nominee) and Nick Cannon as Ringo in The Misfits - I feel with the latter that his film career already died sometime ago with Underclassman.

I was SO hoping that Leto would "win" this category, and thank god he did. Everyone else in that film was fine, especially Lady Gaga and Adam Driver, but Leto is cartoonishly over-the-top and hilariously bad. I watched one of his scenes and ended up chuckling, but for all the wrong reasons. Apparently, he's supposed to be some form of comic relief, but instead of making you laugh because he's "funny", he makes you awkwardly chuckle because it's so stupid. I also find it stupid that he was trying to make his role "Oscar-bait" with the prosthetics and voice. As a bonus, British film critic Mark Kermode went on a particularly hilarious and scathing tirade at the role, comparing Leto to a whale and doing his own impression of him. I'll post a link to the video here for those who are curious - I was cracking up the whole time I was watching it. XD

This isn't the first time Leto was nominated - there was his dreadful stint in Suicide Squad as the Joker after all. But the fact that this is his first actual Razzie Award, in my mind at least, more than makes up for the fact that he "lost" to Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor in Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice that year. Now the question is, is Leto worse as the Joker or Paulo Gucci?

Worst Supporting Actress - Judy Kaye from Diana as Barbara Cartland and Queen Elizabeth II.

Despite criticisms of Lola Bunny being based off of her original bland self from the original Space Jam, apparently Zendaya turned out to be alright in the role after all since she's not here. And to be fair, I didn't see much problem with her voice acting either, just the characterisation and the fact that the producers mainly chose her for her star power. Going back on topic though, we have TWO supporting actresses from the Diana musical - Erin Davie as Charles' new wife Camilla Parker Bowles and Judy Kaye as Barbara Cartland and (god forbid) Queen Elizabeth II herself. Seriously, why would you butcher the Queen like that?! Next is Sophie Cookson for her role in Infinite as Nora Brightman. And then, oh lord, Amy Adams and Taryn Manning return from the Worst Lead Actress category with a vengeance, this time for their roles as Cynthia Murphy in Dear Evan Hansen and Maggie in Every Last One of Them respectively. I would have probably also nominated the bystander in Dear Evan Hansen who excitedly goes "oh my god" over the video that Evan puts out after Connor's suicide, but that's an EXTREMELY minor role and a fault of the script and direction, so I'll let her off this once (maybe).

I don't know if anyone else expected it, but I myself highly expected Judy Kaye to win for both of her roles. Seriously, how do you screw up our queen like that?! And much to my relief, it seems that the Razzies had the same views as I did since she received the "award" after all. Yeah, watching Kaye portray both a writer of romantic novels who wore extravagant outfits and makeup AND the queen is a surreal experience indeed. Makes for double the atrocity if I do say so myself.

Worst Screen Combo - LeBron James and any Warner cartoon character (or Time-Warner product) he dribbles on from Space Jam: A New Legacy.

Best category yet! As always, the nominees never fail to disappoint, even moreso this year since there aren't any general actor and actor combos on the list this year. We've got, and I quote from the source, any klutzy cast member and any lamely lyricised or choreographed musical number in Diana, LeBron James and any Warner cartoon character (or Time-Warner product) he dribbles on in Space Jam: A New Legacy, Jared Leto and either his 17-pound latex face, his geeky clothes or his ridiculous accent in House of Gucci, Ben Platt and any other character who acts like Platt singing 24-7 is normal in Dear Evan Hansen and Tom and Jerry (a.k.a. Itchy and Scratchy) from, well, Tom & Jerry. And yes, as I said, I copied this stuff almost word for word. It's just the only way you can describe them and the main reason I love this category so much. X)

It was James and the Looney Tunes who won this category this time round. I feel all of the combinations this year were awful and had good reasons to be on this list, though I feel that this one took the award because how blatantly cash-grabbing it was. See LeBron James interact with the Looney Tunes! See Lola Bunny be accepted as one of Wonder Woman's Amazons! See Granny interact with Neo from The Matrix! See...a bunch of rapists and murderers cameo at a basketball game. Yeah, you read that right, the Droogs from the controversial A Clockwork Orange of all works make a cameo at a basketball game and it's exactly as ridiculous as it sounds. At this point, Warner Bros. was clearly just throwing whatever they had into the finished product without thinking about the implications of the characters involved (probably as a failed attempt to "appeal" to adults as well as children).

Worst Screenplay - Diana (script by Joe DiPietro, music and lyrics by David Bryan and DiPietro).

It's interesting how Infinite and Space Jam: A New Legacy were nominated for Worst Picture, but got replaced by The Misfits (written by Kurt Wimmer and Robert Henny - the latter of which also came up with the story) and Twist (mainly written by John Wrathall and Sally Collett, but with additional material from Matthew Parkhill, Michael Lindley, Tom Grass and Kevin Lehane, from an "original idea" by David and Keith Lynch and Simon Thomas - that's a goddamn mouthful) for this category. Every single other Worst Picture nominee however returns here - Diana (written by Joe DiPietro, who also provided music and lyrics along with David Bryan), Karen (written by director Coke Daniels) and The Woman in the Window (written by Tracy Letts and based on A.J. Finn's novel). Again, I'm surprised that Dear Evan Hansen didn't make it here considering the changes in the script that made the show's flaws more apparent, but I guess you can't "win" them all.

Diana is just one of those "magical" works with regard to how ridiculous the script is. There are some weird creative choices, it glosses over Diana's mental health issues whilst still apparently trying to make her "sympathetic" and the way that other characters are portrayed makes no sense. And as for the ending in how they portray Diana's ultimately death, it's just outright laughable. The songs themselves are also atrocious. I've read some of the lyrics and the rhymes are painful. The fact that one of the co-creators of the songs is the keyboard player from the legendary rock band Bon Jovi just makes it all the more baffling. No wonder it rightfully won this category just like with its other ones.

Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel - Space Jam: A New Legacy.

As it turns out, Diana wasn't able to get a clean sweep of nominations this year due to this category, with it simply being a "live" recording of an already dreadful musical (though you can see it as a dreadful remake of Diana's life as a whole). As a result, only three movies from Worst Picture returned for this category, along with one new film from Worst Screenplay and another from Worst Screen Combo. Obviously Space Jam: A New Legacy is a sequel to the film from the 90s and Tom & Jerry adapts from the famous animated shorts. Meanwhile, The Woman in the Window was classified as a rip-off of the superior Rear Window and Twist was classified as a "rap remake" of Oliver Twist. Karen on the other hand is an unintentional case, being classified as an "inadvertent remake of Cruella de Vil" (I assume they're talking about the general 101 Dalmations movies rather than the recent Cruella film, which is more of an origin story), kind of like when the appalling Adam Sandler vehicle Jack & Jill was depicted as a "rip-off" of B-movie Glen or Glenda? that one year.

Since Karen was described as being an inadvertent remake, I expected it to not win this category. And lo and behold, it didn't. Instead, it went to Space Jam: A New Legacy, which I said was a "sequel" but also crosses over into being a reboot for some reason. Whilst it does improve on a few flaws that the original Space Jam had, it ultimately brings in some new flaws and essentially comes off as just promoting Warner Bros.' back catalogue. At least previous Looney Tunes movies were a lot less on-the-nose about the whole "promoting other works" aspect. The only reason that this even exists is because of the original Space Jam being a box office success, given that critical reviews of it were mixed at best. Yeah, everything has to be about money these days, sadly enough.

Worst Bruce Willis Performance in a 2021 movie - James Ford in Cosmic Sin.

Oh dear lord, this is actually a thing. Apparently, Bruce Willis, once a major star in films like Die Hard, Death Becomes Her and The Sixth Sense was in so many dreadful movies last year that they gave him his own category rather than place him in Worst Lead Actor or Worst Supporting Actor. These roles include Ben Watts in American Siege, Thomas Malone, the Prey in Apex, James Ford in Cosmic Sin, Ron Whitlock in Deadlock, Robert Michaels in Fortress, Karl Helter in Midnight in the Switchgrass (already nominated for Worst Lead Actress), Jack Harris in Out of Death and David in Survive the Game. Seriously, how does someone star in eight movies in one year? And how come they were all DREADFUL?!

Well, the "winning" entry turned out to be Cosmic Sin. I looked it up just out of curiosity, and it's essentially a sci-fi movie with 3% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's all I can really say about that. What a mess Willis' career has become. It's always a great tragedy when a once-promising actor who starred in some of the great works of all time is relegated to starring in a mixture of turds and flops. Think Robin Williams, John Travolta, Chloe Grace Moretz and Kevin Spacey for instance (though Spacey being outed as a sex offender in the #MeToo movement was probably a bigger killing blow to him than Nine Lives and Billionaire Boys Club ever were).

The Razzie Redeemer Award - Will Smith from King Richard as Richard Williams.

Unlike the other awards, this one did not have its nominee list, consisting of Will Smith as Richard Williams, father of Serena and Venus, in King Richard, Jamie Dorman as "Pa" in Belfast and Nicholas Cage as Robin "Rob" Feld in Pig revealed until the day of the actual awards. They used to reveal the nominees beforehand, but I guess because it's a "smaller" prize (despite being most certainly more desirable for the recipients), the committee doesn't feel the need to anymore.

I was not surprised that Will Smith won this award. Critics practically adored this role of his and it was a movie award favourite this year. I've seen parts from it too and he really nails the role, especially when he's giving those inspirational talks to his daughters. It makes you remember that even though he has been in some awful turds such as Wild Wild West, After Earth and Collateral Beauty, he really aces it when he's placed in something of good quality like The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Men in Black or Pursuit of Happiness. Hopefully he carries on in this direction and doesn't dip back into another bad work like some of Razzie Redeemer recipients such as Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson.

So that's the Razzies for this year, and I enjoyed them as always. I know I explained a bit about my love for them on my first Razzies post, but can I just say that it just feels more correct in which the films are nominated. Films nominated for the Oscars or Golden Globes have to be registered by the film companies themselves, but here the "award show" selects them themselves. My only disappointment with this year's awards is that Dear Evan Hansen did not win any awards itself, but hey, I guess the fact that it's facing mockery online and that it failed at the box office also helps to give the filmmakers of that garbage the hint.

But overall, I enjoyed the awards ceremony as always, and getting to watch it online for the last three years serves as a major bonus. I'll probably write an article in the future discussing my thoughts on specific nominations from this year that may not have won, as well as the nominations from last year and the year before. It's always fun to discuss bad movies, if the internet is any indication. ;)

The Extinction of Ice Age - A Frosty Goodbye

Throughout the last few posts, I have gone into full-length discussions on what exactly went wrong with the Ice Age franchise and how it went extinct for the time-being. Overall, these are the main reasons I can sum up for its downfall (though obviously there were more):

1. The series tried to focus more on comedy than dramedy.
2. The research became even less historically accurate.
3. Several characters got over-used as a means to keep the plot moving.
4. The message about family got muddled up with excess family members and hypocrisy with regard to Sid's treatment.
5. The series tried to use celebrity voice actors who didn't need to be hired in the first place.
6. The series attempted to stay "relevant" with memes and pop-culture references.

Consequently, what we ended up with was a series that started off with a Don Bluth-esque adventure story with plenty of heart (albeit more comical than Bluth's usual output) and ended with something that tried to rip-off the more negative aspects of your typical Dreamworks flick. And now as a result, the franchise has become the butt of many jokes from people who see it as a "Pixar rip-off", despite that not being the case. It doesn't help that there were implications that a SEVENTH movie was on its way, though considering the reception of the fifth movie and spin-off movie, I would be surprised if that ever came to light.

I personally feel that 20th Century Fox should take a good part of the blame. Their insistence on making the films more comedy-based essentially ended up resulting in a franchise original sin that only proceeded to become more notable with each passing installment. I'm a big fan of comedy myself, but when it proceeds to take away the heart from the story, it can backfire big time.

That said, it's all too easy to scapegoat one group when a select amount can share equal blame. Should we blame 20th Century Fox for pushing for a more comedic angle? Should we blame the director who started on the third movie and carried on to the fifth one, since that was when the comedy got too out of hand and things really started going downhill? Should we blame the producers who oversaw the projects in general and likely came up with ideas on who they wanted to cast or how they wanted the plots to go? Why not just say they ALL had their own responsibilities?

Should I feel sad about the direction the series has gone in? Yes. The first film was genuinely good and you get the feeling from the Art of... book that Blue Sky Studios were genuinely putting effort into these films at times, even if the use of memes in the later films came off as lazy at times. Should I have a bitter taste in my mouth about the first film as a result? No. It would have been interesting to know what the more drama-based original draft would have been like, but it still worked out well and it still gives me good memories. If they'd simply learnt from what that film did well and not tried to emphasise the comedy too much, the sequels may have been on the same level too. Or maybe just the first film was more than enough for us all to appreciate.

Below, I have a list of some of the sources I used for this series of articles that I was unable to provide links for. I am particularly happy to have bought Tara Bennett's book The Art of Ice Age as a guide for some of the points in my articles, especially with regard to the history of the franchise. Some of the citations that I'm using are the MLA 8 style, as that is the style I'm used to using at university. I'll also put the citations for the films themselves so that you can get an idea of the changing directors and writers on them (as a bonus, I'll reference the graphic novels too).

Ice Age Media:

1. Ice Age, directed by Chris Wedge and Carlos Saldanha, produced by Lori Forte, story by Michael J. Wilson, screenplay by Michael J. Wilson, Michael Berg and Peter Ackerman. Blue Sky Studios, 20th Century Fox. 2002.
2. Ice Age 2: The Meltdown, directed by Carlos Saldanha, story by Peter Gaulke and Gerry Swallow, produced by Lori Forte, screenplay by Peter Gaulke, Gerry Swallow and Jim Hecht. Blue Sky Studios, 20th Century Fox. 2006.
3. Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, directed by Carlos Saldanha and Michael Thurmier, produced by Lori Forte and John C. Donkin, story by Jason Carter Eaton, screenplay by Michael Berg, Peter Ackerman, Mike Reiss and Yoni Brenner. Blue Sky Studios, 20th Century Fox. 2009.
4. Ice Age: A Mammoth Christmas, directed by Karen Disher, produced by Andrea M. Miloro, screenplay by Sam Harper and Mike Reiss. Blue Sky Studios, 20th Century Fox. 2011.
5. Ice Age 4: Continental Drift, directed by Steve Martino and Michael Thurmier, produced by Lori Forte and John C. Donkin, story by Michael Berg and Lori Forte, screenplay by Michael Berg and Jason Fuchs. Blue Sky Studios, 20th Century Fox. 2012.
6. Ice Age: The Great Egg-scapade, directed by Ricardo Curtis, produced by John C. Donkin, screenplay by Jim Hecht. Blue Sky Studios, 20th Century Fox. 2016.
7. Ice Age 5: Collision Course, directed by Michael Thurmier and Galen T. Chu, produced by Lori Forte, screenplay by Michael J. Wilson, Aubrey Solomon and Michael Berg. Blue Sky Studios, 20th Century Fox. 2016.
8. The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild, directed by John C. Donkin, produced by Lori Forte, screenplay by Jim Hecht, Ray DeLaurentis and William Schifrin. Bardel Entertainment, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. 2022.
9. Munroe, Caleb, Paroline, Shelli and Lamb, Braden. Iced In. Kaboom Studios, 2011.
10. Munroe, Caleb, Paroline, Shelli and Lamb, Braden. Playing Favorites. Kaboom Studios, 2012.
11. Munroe, Caleb, Paroline, Shelli and Lamb, Braden. Where There's Thunder. Kaboom Studios, 2012.
12. Munroe, Caleb, Paroline, Shelli and Lamb, Braden. Past, Presents & Future!. Kaboom Studios, 2012.
13. Munroe, Caleb, and Hirsch, Andy. The Hidden Treasure. Kaboom Studios, 2013.

Reference Works Cited:

1. Bennett, Tara. The Art of Ice Age. Titans Books, 2016.
2. "Ice Age: The Story Behind the Story (from the Writer Michael J. Wilson)." News from the Soo Theatre Project, Inc., 20 Nov. 2009, http://sootheatrenews.blogspot.com/2009/11/ice-age-story-behind-story-from-writer.html
3. Kenny, Charles. "Scrat? SQRAT? Clearing up Some Confusion Surrounding the Lawsuits over the Ice Age Character." The Animation Anomaly, 2022, https://animationanomaly.com/2022/02/03/scrat-sqrat-clearing-up-some-confusion-surrounding-the-lawsuits-over-the-ice-age-character/
4. Goscinny, René and Uderzo, Albert. Obelix and Co.. Translated by Anthea Bell and Derek Hockridge, 1976, Orion Books Ltd., 2004. (Okay, so this has nothing to do with Ice Age, but here's where the original basis for the outfits I used in Chapters 3 and 4 came from! The original outfit's meant to look tacky by the way. :D)

The Extinction of Ice Age - Chapter Four: #StillRelevent

This is the post where I end up really flipping my shit. There's just something about the way that the later films try and copy what some people call the DreamWorks formula that ticks me off. This so-called formula involves celebrity voice actors, pop-culture references and crude jokes, as exemplified by DreamWorks movies such as Shrek and Shark Tale.

Ice Age was released a year after Shrek, a film that had a major effect on the world of animation. It introduced a more snarky sense of humour to animated films, along with jokes based on pop-culture, toilet humour and anything that would fly over the heads of kiddies. It also relied on casting people for their fame and star power rather than simply because they were good for the role they were in, though previous films of DreamWorks and some 90s Disney films had started to do that too.

Since Ice Age came out shortly afterwards, it obviously had a few DreamWorks elements to it. However, as I said before, it primarily comes off as a Don Bluth movie in CGI, or even a Pixar movie, just with a bit of a DreamWorks vibe. Unfortunately, by the time the sequels rolled around, the Don Bluth and Pixar elements were gone and instead they solely tried to copy DreamWorks. Not helping was that even DreamWorks ended up having problems when Shark Tale and Shrek the Third failed, causing them to go in a different direction afterwards and making the Ice Age films come off as incredibly dated in response.

This article will explore three things that the Ice Age sequels tried to copy from DreamWorks - the use of celebrity voice actors, the use of pop-culture references and the use of "mature" or toilet humour. The latter two will be explored in the same section since they overlap in some ways.

Questionable Casting Choices

Again, another issue that is more to do with the marketing and had its roots in the first film. The first Ice Age has a great voice cast consisting mostly of comedy actors in the lead roles. Same with the next two films. Though I highly agree with the statements of Billy West and Tara Strong that professional voice actors get the short end of the stick when it comes to animated films nowadays, keep in mind that film actors specialised in live-action used to get roles in animated films. Take George Sanders for instance. He was a live-action actor who got the role of Shere Khan in The Jungle Book and he absolutely nails it. Additionally, many comedy actors are good at doing impressions, thus making them perfect for roles where a particular voice is required (unlike what Chris Rock claims, voice acting does require a lot of effort and there are normally talented actors like Sandra Bullock whose talents don't translate well to voice casting – I'm thinking about Scarlet Overkill from Minions here).

However, the fourth film is when things get ridiculous. Oh sure, they end up with more talented comedy actors like Wanda Sykes and Nick Frost and even managed to get Peter Dinklage to voice Captain Gutt. Okay, maybe Keke Palmer and Jennifer Lopez have done some acting before (and even then J-Lo's acting record is extremely spotty, considering she has the occasional good film like Selena or Hustlers but the rest of her films aren't so hot). But then some "bright spark" decided "Oh hey, let's cast rappers Nicki Minaj and Drake in this film! And then market the shit out of them!".

Shame on you for that scandalous outfit! I mean seriously, what's the money bag supposed to be hiding?!

I don't care if Drake was in Degrassi beforehand. I don't care if Nicki Minaj is trying to get an acting career going. THEY ONLY APPEAR FOR A FEW SCENES. Maybe Drake's Ethan character has some kind of role in being a potential love interest for Peaches, but Nicki Minaj's main role is of some bitchy valley girl mammoth who could easily be removed from the film without making any difference to it whatsoever. And yet because of them being famous celebrities, marketing clearly thought it was worth marketing them over Peter Dinklage (whose character is the main villain for Pete's sake!), Wanda Sykes (who gets a lot of enjoyable scenes as Sid's filthy and cantankerous grandmother – a major supporting character and a brilliant one too), Keke Palmer (who voices Peaches and gets a major character arc in the film), Josh Gad (who voices Louis, a good friend of Peaches and a better partner than Ethan) and just about everyone who voiced members of Captain Gutt's crew (Aziz Anzari as Squint, Nick Frost as Flynn, Rebel Wilson as Raz, Alain Chabat as Silas and Kunal Nayyar as Gupta).

This is not the first time in the franchise that a major star has been credited over another actor with a more important role. That would be in the first film, in which Jack Black was credited above Goran Visnjic in marketing despite the latter voicing the main villain Soto and the former voicing one of his henchmen Zeke. But two things make this less irritating. First of all, they still credited Goran Visnjic as one of the lead voice actors. Secondly, Zeke still has a somewhat important role as he could be seen as an evil counterpart to Sid, similar to how Soto is an evil counterpart to Manny. As a result, it's easy to overlook the billing displacement as a result. The fourth film doesn't have these saving graces. Ethan and Steffie are just minor characters who only got marketed because of who voiced them.

The second film is also the first time in which they hire someone who is mostly known for singing, and that would be with regard to Queen Latifah voicing Ellie. That said, she already made herself well-known for acting earlier on in films like Chicago, and Ellie is an important character in the plotline. She essentially serves as Manny's future partner for the next few installments. Contrast that with Ethan and Steffie, who probably don't need major stars voicing them due to how little screen-time they have.

The fifth film continues the issue of voice casting. First of all, they hire pop star Jessie J to voice Brooke despite the fact that said singer has a “tough girl” image, something that Brooke herself does not project. And then (and this is the really stupid part) they hire Neil DeGrase Tyson to voice…wait for it…Neil DeBuck Weasel.

He even has the same facial structure and moustache that the real deal does.

Well that's certainly some originality, isn't it?! You get the scientist guy with barely any acting experience to voice what is essentially just himself as a weasel and…I'm not even going to try and add further comments. It's just bloody stupid.

Hey, no offense against Ron Jeremy. He does what he does best. ¬_¬

Oh, and he narrates the majority of the film too. He's also a figment of Buck's imagination, and Buck himself even takes Crash and Eddie into his own mindscape to meet him.

Given that there is a feature on the fifth film's DVD involving Neil DeGrase Tyson, maybe they thought that they could show off about being scientifically accurate and impress the science community in the process. It…has not worked to say the least. Especially since he's a physicist more than a biologist and I already mentioned the poorly-handled volcano scene earlier on. Yeah, he was the one who mentioned the stuff about the "magnetic crystals" that I brought up in Chapter 1.

If you ask me, they should have just stuck with the comedy actors and professional voice actors. And sure, the original main cast weren't necessarily known for being that kid-friendly in the first place, but John Leguizamo and Denis Leary had their moments. And they have their families as well, which would obviously make them want to work on something their kids could watch. I don't know, are Nicki Minaj and Drake family people as well? I know Nicki was dating that registered sex offender, I can tell you that.

Memes & Crap In The Prehistoric Era

Essentially starting with Disney's Aladdin in 1992 but really kicking off with DreamWork's Shrek in 2001, plenty of animated films have felt the need to make pop-culture references to "appeal" to their audiences. Ice Age was no exception to this "rule". Additionally, Shrek popularised the usage of "adult" and toilet humour in CGI, so other films copied that too. Again, Ice Age was no exception.

The first film isn't too heavy on the references. Sure, it has the aforementioned Star Trek reference with the Vulcan salute, as well as the usage of Rusted Root's "Send Me on My Way" (a song previously used in Matilda and Party of Five) for a travel montage and the dodos singing a cadence call (a type of military song that gets used a lot in the media), but they're in tolerable doses and don't overwhelm the plot as a result. And yes, they used Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" and Smash Mouth's "Why Can't We Be Friends?" for the trailers, but not in the films themselves. As a result, whilst having some elements of a DreamWorks movie, it ends up being its own thing.

As for the filthy humour, it can come across as immature at times (as well as out of place compared to the tragic deaths we witness), but it seems that the creators were aware of it. First there's the scene in which Sid steps in poop and rubs it on the salad of some grumpy brontotheres, thus resulting in them chasing him down and Manny having to step in. Then there's the scene where Sid pretends to lose control of the baby's nappy and throws it onto Manny's face - whilst it turns out to be empty, it's still treated as ill-advised and Manny and Diego rightfully slap him for his troubles. There's also a hilarious moment in which Diego snidely comments to Sid and Manny that they're looking after the baby because, "they can't have one of their own, so they want to adopt". Gets me every time.

However, the rest of the films try and copy the DreamWorks formula completely, making the films even less historically accurate in the process. The second film for instance has a scene where vultures sing "Food, Glorious Food" from Oliver! when taunting the protagonists about eating them, and then there's the infamous scene of Crash singing a butchered version of R. Kelly's "I Believe I Can Fly" as he gets launched through the air and just before hitting a tree - a scene that got overused in many trailers promoting the movie. Though at least with the vultures scene, the heroes are just as confused as we are.

The third film isn't any better. Playing the Was (Not Was) song "Walk The Dinosaur" wasn't too bad (even though the song is actually an allegory for nuclear war), the two real life songs they use when Scrat falls in love are pretty good and having Momma T-Rex knock Rudy off the cliff as a piss-take to the infamous T-Rex vs. Spinosaur match in the goddawful Jurassic Park III was refreshing to watch, but the other memes just fall flat. Most notably, it has Crash and Eddie singing "Christmas (Don't Be Late)" by Alvin And The Chipmunks in helium voices for a quick gag, despite the fact that Christmas shouldn't technically exist at this time and neither should the chipmunks - not that it stopped them from making an Ice Age Christmas special featuring Santa Claus.

As for the "adult" humour, it piles on a lot more than with previous films and varies in quality. Anything that comes out of Buck's mouth for instance is just comedy gold, the scene with Manny and Diego trapped inside the plant is just priceless and Sid's apparent misunderstanding of genitals in two different scenes gets a chuckle out of me too. But the scene where Manny and Ellie have a talk and he awkwardly says that "round is foxy" just falls flat. I didn't even get what was supposed to be filthy about it the first time, and even now I still don't get it - and I'm an adult myself.

The fourth film, similar with the last few, tries to use modern pop songs and pop-culture references to varying effect. For instance, Manny sings "The Candy Man" from Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory during the piranha scene, yet another song that didn't exist at the time the film is set. A song by boy band The Wanted is used as the theme tune (though the music video happens to be about vampire girls instead) and a Keke Palmer song is used for the first part of the closing credits. As for the crude humour, Sid using the phrase "holy crab" when the giant crab attacked was just too on the nose, even though the word "crap" is technically acceptable in PG-rated works.

The fifth film is the worst with handling pop-culture topics by far. I mean seriously?! Hashtags and profile pictures in prehistoric times?! And then the Fall Out Boy song "My Songs Know What You Did In The Dark", and then a new song called "My Superstar" just so they can have Jessie J sing (in a particularly selfish move too, since she interrupts Peaches and Julian's wedding with it)?! At this point, they might have just called this installment Ice Age 5: #PieceOfShit.

All whilst this happens, the heart simply decreases until the films just become immature. They try and have an important message about family in each film, with the third film focusing on Ellie's pregnancy, the fourth film focusing on Peaches wanting to be more independent and the fifth film focusing on Peaches' upcoming marriage and Manny's conflicted feelings on the matter, but they now feel tacked on just to add a "heartfelt" story to what is essentially a montage of pop-culture references, crude jokes and Scrat failing to keep his acorn. In fact, I've seen plenty of negative reviews of the fifth movie that claim that they should have skipped the marriage subplot and just focused on the apocalyptic stakes. Compare with the first movie, in which the plight between animals and humans and the concept of mismatched strangers becoming like a family to one another take centre stage, whilst the "wacky" stuff is simply added for garnish.

The Extinction of Ice Age - Chapter Three: One Broken Family

One of the major features of the series is the "herd", the group that our protagonists are part of. The creators are determined to show off the message of family throughout the movies, with each movie focusing on an aspect - the first film involves the forming of the herd, the second film involves Manny finding a mate, the third film involves him and Ellie expecting their baby, the fourth film involves said child Peaches becoming an independent teenager and the fifth film involves her...getting married for some reason.

Dreadful last note aside, all of these are interesting aspects of family to explore and it would seem that the franchise does a good job of exploring it as a whole. Until we then get to these aspects...

Our Family...And Some Random Nerd

For a series that prides itself on "true family", they sure seem to put Sid through a lot of shit. He gets smacked around whenever he does or says something that annoys them and they get a laugh out of him getting injured in some way. It doesn't help that his original family kicked him out along with his grandma due to finding him to be "too annoying", and his new one is prone to having the same views as them on him at times.

Which is kind of ridiculous if you ask me. Sid was pretty much the reason they got together in the first place. He was insistent on looking after the baby. Plus, he encouraged Manny to put his past grief behind him and pursue the relationship he wanted with Ellie in the first place.

This was excusable for the first film. The heroes had only just met up with each other and therefore were going to be somewhat antagonistic towards each other at times. Manny was still grieving over his dead family and had a cynical outlook on life in general, just wanting to head south by himself before Sid came along. Diego meanwhile started off as one of the bad guys before having a change of heart. Sid also did some rather ridiculous things at times - Manny had to save him earlier on do to him rubbing poop all over the brontotheres' salad and Manny and Diego dope-slapped him several times after he pretended that he was throwing a poop-filled nappy at Manny.

In the second film, they're still condescending towards him at times despite the events of the first film. Diego for instance is rather snide about Sid's camp idea, claiming that he's "now an idiot in two languages", and he and Manny basically say that he's unfit to become a camp counselor. Manny also dope slaps Sid a couple of times. Though in some cases, it can be justified in that Sid unwittingly ticks them off at times, such as the moment in which he sings insensitive songs about Manny supposedly being the last of his kind out of a sense of misguidance. In fact, Manny and Diego do show concern when Sid tries to gain respect after the camp incident by leaping off the Eviscerator and Diego saves him later on when he's unconscious. It's also clear that they did take his advice to them to heart after all - Manny when it came to pursuing Ellie and Diego when it came to getting over his fear of swimming. By the end of the film, Diego pretty much acknowledges that Sid is both the one who got the herd together in the first place AND the glue that keeps it together, much to the latter's heartwarming delight.

The third film has the herd's journey into the lost world in order to rescue Sid from the Momma T-Rex, so they definitely aren't willing to leave him in danger - even if he turned out to be kind of ungrateful about the whole thing in a bizarre case of acting out of character. In fact, there's a bit of dramatic irony in that Sid believes they won't rescue him due to his screw-ups earlier on, even though we already know that they're on their way. The fourth movie once again brings back Manny dope slapping Sid, but again, those are balanced out with moments where the Herd shows they do care for him. In fact, in a twisted sense of kindness, Diego lies to Sid about his original family dying since he doesn't want to upset when with the truth that they just abandoned him again, though Manny ultimately feels that it is necessary to warn him.

So that's the first four movies. You're probably wondering by now, what am I making a fuss about in the first place? Did I just contradict my earlier point? Well, let's move onto the shorter works now. I'll start with the Christmas special for instance, which starts with Manny proclaiming that Sid is on Santa's naughty list due to him accidentally destroying his family heiloom rock. Okay, so he's legitimately angry, especially since Sid dismissed it earlier on. Diego however is just snide about the whole thing, claiming that he's on there simply because Santa doesn't have a loser's list.

Anyway, Peaches dope slaps Sid and tells him to get a hold of himself, and that they'll travel off to see Santa in order to get him off the naughty list (as well as prove to Manny that . A series of events lead to Santa's work getting ruined when Santa's entourage try to send the visitors away, and Sid pretty much gets the blame for it. Manny says that he will ground Sid and Diego dope slaps him when everyone gets put on the now-real naughty list. Wait, so what about Peaches? She was the one who came up with the idea in the first place? Why does the narrative favour her? Sure, eventually they sort things out and they all end up on the nice list, but I'm still left confused as to why Sid was depicted as the one responsible for the mess when many other characters were involved.

It gets worst when the plots are even shorter. From 2011 to 2013, Kaboom Studios (known for adapting various works in comic book form) released a series of short graphic novels to officially tie in with the Ice Age movies. Though technically they aren't canon, it is still worth mentioning the events of the first one Iced In.

The story starts with the characters waking up, and Sid getting the brunt of Manny and Diego's sleepiness-induced irritation. Diego flicks his claws out at him and Manny knocks him through the air due to him standing on his trunk and trying too hard to wake him up. Later on, Manny shows some irritation towards Sid's bragging due to the fact that they're trying to look for food. It's nothing too bad though.

It's once they get caught in an avalanche and trapped inside a cave in the process that things start to go from bad to worst for Sid. Inside, Diego makes some comments about possibly having to eat another another that cause Sid to start panicking, and if anything, Manny seems more annoyed than sympathetic when he asks if Diego really needed to bring that up. Diego just points out that Sid's fear of the dark will soon kick in and that will distract him.

Anyway, Sid doesn't need to worry for too long. As a repeat of the first film, he manages to start a fire and thus proclaim himself as "Lord of the Flames"....and just like the first film, he sets himself on fire. This leads to a plan from Manny and Diego that sure won't go in his favour.

[Let's be real - YOU thought the same thing that I did. Urgh... O_O]

We cut away to Scrat for one page, and then cut back and...yep, Diego has completely sheered the bottom half of Sid and thrown the fur on the fire. As I said, very interesting implications when you take it out of context. And as expected, Sid is not too impressed.

[Can I just point out that it was Manny who suggested the idea of shaving him in the first place? Look at that smug shit-eating grin underneath the fur.]

As with most Ice Age media, Sid gets a moment to impress the others in which he unwittingly suggests an idea for escape. Diego still seems pretty aggressive towards him though and he finds his stench to be unbearable.

By the end, all three manage to make it out. Everyone is happy - Manny has a tender moment with his family, Diego fistbumps with Crash and Eddie...and everyone is disgusted by Sid's naked legs.

[Insert image.]

Thus, they all abandon him and he is forced to catch up by himself. Even Manny and Diego are unwilling to help him out.

[Insert image.]

Here, Sid's treatment just comes off as a little too cruel. The longer length of the movies means that the characters have more time to express that they do genuinely care for Sid. The graphic novel on the other hand is about 22 pages long, meaning that there's only time for the mistreatment aspect. The later graphic novels are MUCH lighter with their treatment of him, but apart from Where There's Thunder (where he doesn't appear at all) and The Hidden Treasure (where he only shows up at the end), most of them still put more emphasise on how others find him "annoying".

The breaking point for me was the following scene used to promote the fifth film. When the meteorites start to head towards earth, Sid mistakes them for shooting stars and starts excitedly begging for his friends to make a wish. One of them strikes him and sends him flying into a tree. Manny smugly states that his wish came true and then when Sid spontaneously combusts (he gets better), Diego replies in the same smug manner "Mine too".

Wow, you're just gonna wish death on your "friend" like that? You know, the guy who's the WHOLE GODDAMN REASON you're together in the first place?! It's not so much family now as just a recreation of how Wiz and Boomstick treat Jocelyn and DUMMI in Death Battle!...which at least is meant to make them come off as sociopaths.

Boomstick: Jocelyn appears to be stuck up that tree. Maybe we should help her.
Wiz and Boomstick: Naah...
(Caption: At least these guys have the excuse of her being their intern...)

Sure, they once again have moments in which they act nice towards him, such as getting him cleaned up after he makes a mess of himself upon Francine dumping him and Manny congratulating Sid for preparing a good wedding for his daughter, but the meteorite scene is what stands up the most for this movie.

The problem is that the creators try so hard to emphasise how "annoying" Manny and Diego find Sid at times that as a result, it some comes across as abusive behaviour. In a way, it makes some of Sid's behaviour towards them in return come off as perfectly justified. Even when they have the moments in which they actually treat Sid well and accept him as part of the herd, you end up forgetting that upon seeing moments such as the fur-shaving incident and the meteorite scene.

Another thing that doesn't help is that Sid contrasts so much in personality to Manny and Diego that it's like the creators are targeting him simply because he's different. Manny and Diego are more cynical and grouchy and masculine, whilst Sid is more optimistic and emotional and effeminate. This has happened in several works before - notice how the more cowardly and sensitive Luigi in Super Mario Bros. is made the butt of jokes rather than his more outgoing and somewhat masculine older brother? Why are those types of characters made the creator's punching bag? It seems that it's not just to do with simply trying to provide schadenfreude, but also to make some awkward commentary on how they see masculinity and effeminacy and what they see as superior.

A Glut Of Love Interests

For once, here's something that doesn't have much to do with the "comedy" aspect that I've been discussing throughout the chapters. For some reason, the series becomes increasingly obsessed with shipping off its protagonists with attractive female counterparts, with each one having less personality as the series continues. For this part, I will just focus on the companions that they finally ended up with, as well as mention Scrat's temporary love interest (even though he's not part of the herd) and Peaches' male partner for comparison.

Manny's partner Ellie.

The original love interest of the series. Already, the idea was that she would be Manny's attractive female counterpart, with character designer Peter de Seve saying that "there had to be something sweet about her, so the audience and Manny would fall in love with her" (p. 63). Her fur is a lighter colour and the shape of her eyes makes Manny's look kind of goofy in comparison. At first glance, she's essentially a idealised female love interest.

However, Ellie does have quite a bit of characterisation and her romance with Manny serves as important to the plot. She's very playful and friendly, in contrast with his more anti-social and withdrawn nature, and she is initially under the belief that she is a possum. A major part of the film is that Manny believes that he and Ellie are the last mammoths on earth and he has a crush on her, but her misguided view on her identity, her misinterpreting Manny's comments as if he is "entitled" to have her and his lingering grief over his lost family get in the way.

She still continues to have a major presence in the third and fourth movies, despite not being as prominent as the main three. In the third movie, she joins them on their journey to save Sid, despite being heavily pregnant at the time, and shows the ability to think quick on her feet. In the fourth movie, she serves as a contrast to Manny with regard to how they parent Peaches - Manny is very overprotective and strict whilst Ellie is a lot more understanding. She also gives a pretty good speech to Peaches when the family get separated by continental drift, showing a proper understanding of her husband in the process. And throughout all of this, she develops from being somewhat of an oddball to being a responsible and caring mother figure who still has her energy and fire. The fifth film does cock up with her suddenly becoming as controlling as Manny with regard to the idea of Peaches getting married for some reason, but hey, that's just another reason to dislike that movie.

Scrat's "partner" Scratte.

Guess what? Scrat has a love interest too! Or at least he did for a while. Similar to his point on Ellie, de Seve notes that "Scratte had to be really appealing, so I visualized her pretty quickly, in that she's everything that Scrat is not" (p. 89). Whilst he's an scrawny and agitated loser who never has things go his way, "she's sweet, beautiful, calm, cool, and flies". Well, I'd argue she's not that "sweet" - she's pretty much of a femme fatale who's got Scrat wrapped round her finger, but the other points still stand.

Unlike Ellie, Scratte is clearly not a trustworthy type. And she's got an obsession with the acorn too. It's just that, unlike Scrat, she KNOWS how to get it. She fake-cries in order to guilt-trip Scrat into giving her the acorn, flies off with the acorn and leaves him to fall down, rips the acorn off his tar-covered front and even kicks him in the "nuts" after dancing a tango with Scrat over the acorn (I loved that tango myself). Interestingly enough though, the acorn itself is revealed to be almost sentient and actually sees Scratte as more of a love rival, having a sad song play when it seems that Scrat abandoned the acorn for Scratte.

And to really seal the deal, the relationship ultimately fails. Scrat is just too obsessed with his acorn to give it up for anything else, thus returning everything to the status quo. There's a bit of a call back to this relationship in the fourth movie in which Scrat is not interested in an illusion of Scratte that appears before him, but gets excited upon seeing an illusion of an acorn. Very different to how Manny and Ellie's relationship received a real upgrade and is still going strong. And I find that to be very interesting and fitting with regard to Scrat's situation.

Diego's partner Shira.

Shira starts out as the only attractive member of Captain Gutt's crew, so of course she'll be the one to turn good in the end. She's also introduced as a female counterpart to Diego, so OF COURSE he will be the one to convert her to the good side and fall in love with her. "was comparable to the concerns I had with Scratte, which was to be feminine, appealing, and in this case, an equally dangerous version of Diego" (p. 146).

Shira has a bit of a personality - she's rather sarcastic and somewhat of a tsundere, especially if you compare her with the more gentle Ellie. However, she is just a female version of Diego - it seems as if her gender and appearance are the only things that differentiate her from him. Plus, her plotline is essentially a repeat of Diego's - she starts out as a mistreated member of the bad guys before learning about true companionship and joining the good guys. Sure, the circumstances are slightly different (no babies are involved this time), but it's still a repeat.

In the fifth film, she doesn't have much of a purpose or personality at all and is simply there as Diego's partner. You could easily remove her from it and nothing would change except for the moments in which they talk about their relationship and having children. And as for the spin-off movie, she doesn't appear at all. Make of that what you will.

Sid's partner Brooke.

Sid's previous two sloth love interests were the atrociously clingy Sylvia (who only appears in deleted scenes) and the bland Francine. This was considered to be the better outcome.

Okay, now here's one heck of a super-rant coming up. This character has NOTHING to her. She's essentially just the "dream girl" archetype that sad nerds pine away for. Which in a way, was what the film designed her to be.

The main reason that this character pops up is because Sid has a failed date at the beginning of Ice Age 5 with the equally bland (and actually kinda bitchy) Francine. Cue this character, who is not given a proper reason to full in love with him at all. Everyone is confused by how the "loser" Sid and the "dream girl" Brooke could even be pursuing a relationship, but it happens anyway. Honestly, I was less wary of how a "perfect" woman like her would choose a "goofball" like Sid, and more wary of how someone genuinely as entertaining and surprisingly in-depth as Sid would go off with someone with no depth at all.

I'll just go into further detail on her here. Unlike with Ellie and Manny's romance, Brooke's just automatically accepting of Sid and there is no development that causes them to fall properly in love. They don't even have the same conflict that the previous pairings do - the main "conflict" is that Sid accidentally causes her and the Geotopians to revert to their original ages, meaning that they may not be able to pursue a relationship due to their age gap. It's mainly just a way of showing that Sid isn't shallow because he still likes her despite her old age (even though she still looks kind of decent in her "old" form, probably so they could kiss without it looking gross), a plot point that I easily guessed even before the Geotopia twist was revealed. Brooke may have been able to call out the Shangri-Llama for his selfish nature during the same scene, but anyone could have done that and it wouldn't have changed the scene much. After the plot is resolved, it seems that Sid and Brooke won't be able stay together during the ending, since Brooke has to stay in Geotopia to stay young AND because of the newfound age gap. In the end though, any tension gets thrown out of the window when the Geotopians miraculously regain their youth and Brooke is able to reunite with Sid anyway, singing a song called "My Superstar" that comes out of nowhere and selfishly hijacking the wedding of another couple.

It gets to the point in which, unlike with the previous love interests mentioned, the book doesn't even mention her character traits, instead involving art director Michael Knapp talking about how hard it was to animate her due to her dress and hair and that the end result is "a beautiful fusion of the creative and the technical" (p. 231). If that's all that anyone has to say on her this time, that's pretty damning evidence as to how truly developed she is.

It would have been really interesting if the fifth movie ended with Sid, after angsting over finding his dream partner, not managing to find one. But then he realises that he's been too hard on himself and that no matter whether he does or doesn't find "the one", the important thing is that he's got friends and family who look out for him no matter what. As a result, he learns the concept of self-love and gains more confidence in the process. It would have made for a really touching and emotional moment, as well as delivered a powerful and important message to its audience on how important self-love is and life isn't all about having to find the "ideal" partner. But no, apparently all three leads had to get laid no matter what, so we're stuck with him going off with a glorified flesh light instead.

Boomstick: (crying happy tears) Oh Mama, you're right! I shouldn't have been worrying about Dad after all!

Sid: (thinking) God dammit...

(Caption: Once again, past experiences come back to affect my views.)

Like Shira, Brooke also doesn't return for the spin-off movie, which just adds to the notion that she really was just a pipe dream after all. I would not be surprised if someone created a fanfic in which it turned out that Sid was hallucinating her the whole time due to his unfortunate breakup with Francine. It would have been better if he stuck with Momma T-Rex from the third film after all. At least she had personality.

Peaches' partner Julian.

Peaches' actual first boyfriend was Ethan, but that relationship failed. In contrast to Ethan, Julian has a gentler appearance without any punk aesthetics.

Now for a case of a male love interest being introduced to one of the female characters. Julian is not as bland as Brooke, but still not that memorable. I actually forgot his name for a bit whilst writing this article and have to look it up in the Art of... book just to jog my memory, which should say something about him.

Julian is super friendly, loves to give out hugs and has a free-spirited nature. The ultimate nice guy. He's also pretty important to the plot at times, such as when he helps the heroes to save the day. However, his whole character arc mainly focuses on his upcoming marriage to Peaches. That's about it. Though at least said marriage does play an important role in the "emotional" plot of Manny coming to terms with Peaches growing up. Of course, the main plot involves asteroids trying to destroy the earth so that overshadows it pretty quickly, even if it was supposed to be a "metaphor" for Julian "crashing" into Manny's life and "shaking up" the status quo.

Speaking of the marriage, that's another thing that clashes with historical accuracy to an irritating degree. None of the previous pairings involved marriage - Manny and Ellie simply became mates, as did Diego and Shira. The marriage is just shoehorned into the plot to serve as an "emotional core". The films have always tried to have an emotional core to them, but this one fails to actually tug at the heartstrings due to its contrived nature. They could have just had them become mates like the others, with Peaches planning to move away with Julian anyway, but no, that's apparently not dramatic enough according to the creators. It just makes the relationship less convincing as a result.

The saddest thing about this situation is that in the fourth film, Peaches has a molehog friend called Louis (voiced by Josh Gad before he was in Frozen as Sid's snowman counterpart), who was super sweet and shy and served as an interesting counterpart to her then-crush Ethan. Whilst Ethan was super cool and exciting but kind of aloof, Louis was awkward yet relatable and ultimately was the one there for Peaches when she needed him the most. He was also the butt of jokes like Sid was, so you really felt for him when things went his way. However, he's just forgotten about in the fifth movie so they can introduce a generic new love interest for her. Because god forbid that she should have an inter-species relationship with him when babies are the most important thing of all.

The Purge

No, not that one that makes up a horror movie franchise. This is about a situation that arrives in the spin-off movie. As I mentioned before, the franchise tries too hard to add new characters. The addition of Ellie and Peaches makes sense since it's essentially Manny learning to move on and start anew when it comes to family, Crash and Eddie were already Ellie's adoptive brothers anyway and Sid's outspoken Granny is a delight (and possibly one of the redeeming points of the fourth and fifth movies). But Shira and Brooke are only added so that Diego and Sid won't be "left out" due to Manny already having a partner, and Buck is added so that he can be "part of the family". The only members who left are Peaches, who went off to live with Julian just to prove that she could be "independent" now, and Granny, who stayed with the Geotopians in order to go off with a younger man...and then was made younger again by the fountain of youth (probably so the writers could get away with having them in a relationship with each other).

The spin-off film tries to rectify this issue by removing the excess characters until we just have Manny, Sid, Diego and Ellie. Unfortunately, they still cock up with this. All excess characters are simply not mentioned, presumably because the writers were too lazy to explain what happened to them despite there being a recap of the first five movies at the start on it. In fact, Manny even refers to Sid and Diego as "outcasts and losers". Thus, we end up with the horrifying implications that Diego and Sid went through messy break-ups, even if the film refuses to state these implications. At least we already knew that Peaches and Granny left in the previous movie.

The business with Crash and Eddie is particularly asanine. They go on this adventure with Buck without the rest of the herd, and then ultimately decide to go off with Buck, with both them and Ellie "realising" that they don't need to rely on her anymore. Of course, that's what the filmmakers want you to believe. Given that Crash and Eddie only really have a significant role in the second film, are mainly defined by their connection with Buck in the third and fifth movies and barely have a role at all in the fourth film, it comes off less as character development and more as a easy way to get rid of characters that they don't know how to use anymore. Because, you know, actually thinking of ways to properly use characters is tiring.

Are they really planning to bring things back to basics? Or, since Disney is thinking about a seventh movie, are they planning to just rebuild from scratch? It's something that makes my hurt thinking about it.

The films try so hard to focus on family. They really do. And the first four movies pull it off well (the first three more so). But by the fifth film, the message wears thin. And then the spin-off movie equally screws things over. Whether it's because of Sid's continued mistreatment despite his backstory, the introduction of two (or three, depending on your opinion of Julian) pointless love interests and the bizarre addition and subtraction of team members, I have to wonder whether the creators really did care about the application of family themes or whether they did it for the simply excuse of an obligatory "message".

The Extinction of Ice Age: Chapter Two - Resurrecting the Same Characters

This section is about two supporting characters from the Ice Age franchise that were both hilarious and awesome when they first appeared, but then got ran into the ground due to being used over and over again. The saddest part is that they were the most popular characters in their debut appearances.

So here they both are, in order of series debut. Oh, the good times we had with these characters before their downfalls...

Scrat The Squirrel

One of the few moments he'll get with that precious acorn. He'll lose it ten seconds later.

Scrat is essentially the mascot for the Ice Age franchise as a whole. Actually, scrat-ch that (oh god, the pun, it burns), he was the mascot for Blue Sky Studios as a whole. He is a hapless rat-like sabre-tooth squirrel - believe it or not, similar creatures existed, albeit not in the Ice Age itself - who only wants to bury his beloved acorn for the winter, and yet that little menace seems intent on giving him as much grief as possible.

Originally, Scrat was only going to appear in the opening film sequence as a device. He would have been there to demonstrate the vast and impressive nature of the Ice Age itself, and the scene ended with him simply being squashed by the other animals as they migrated south for the winter. Chris Wedge, director of the first film and voice actor for Scrat, says in The Art of Ice Age that:

"The whole story was going to be that at the end of all this effort, Scrat gets stepped on. That's it. [...] We were going to just step on him and walk away and start the movie. I thought that was pretty funny. Then Fox's marketing department grabbed onto the sequence. They decided it was going to be the teaser trailer for the movie. I said 'You are going to give all of it away and deny the audience the fun of this!' But they said 'No, this is the movie.' They were so right. The preview audiences loved the sequence so much that they were disappointed that they didn't see the character again." (p.11)

In response to positive test audience feedback for the little guy, the creators added several more sequences involving him. The opening was still kept in, but seeing Scrat getting squashed was not the last time that we would see him.

In a sense, Fox were right. Scrat is easily the most popular Ice Age character of all time, even more popular than the main characters themselves. It's gotten to the point in which most of the trailers focus on him instead, despite the fact that he only appears for a few minutes each time. He even becomes the focus of the spin-off short films, with comedy classics like Gone Nutty and No Time For Nuts. With these two in particular, they were both nominated for Oscars for Best Animated Short and the latter short even won the Annie Award for the same category.

He was just that though. An extra character. He had his own sub-plots but he was mostly there for comic relief, rather than actually having a major role in the story. And that was fine. We all know what happens if you try to shill a character who works best in small doses - just look at the tanking reputation of the Minions from Despicable Me and Shadow the Hedgehog from the Sonic games for proof. The shorts are especially good for allowing him to have the spotlight without it coming at the expense of everyone else.

Here's a major problem though - the later films were starting to lack in plot. Obviously they do have plots, but they need something to get them moving and are often filled with padding. The Scrat sub-plots are entertaining, but they can sometimes just be their own story and be separated from the main plot. Which, in a way, is kind of a problem since it not only cuts down the storyline, but also exposes its weaker points in the process.

The "solution" to this apparently was to essentially make Scrat cause some world-wide disaster that would end up affecting everyone else as a result. All because of his acorn fetish. Continental Drift focuses on him causing the titular event, despite the fact that this was already explored in the short film Gone Nutty, and then wiping out Scratlantis. The fifth film ends up with him going into space and nearly causing the apocalypse back on Earth, and then wiping out all life on Mars at the end.

This doesn't solve anything at all. If anything, it's the point where you stop laughing at Scrat's antics and start screaming "Leave the acorn! You don't need it!". The plots are still weak, but now we have extra Scrat since that's what the audiences want to really see. Heck, you could just easily remove the "main" plots and just make them Scrat-centred movies without the main characters, since they're clearly putting more effort into the sub-plot than the main plot on occasion. It's worst in Ice Age 5 though, since the hijinks overlap so much with the main plot that you cannot separate them from each other and have to pay attention to the poorer main story as a result. In fact, the recent Scrat shorts start to just serve as promotions for the movies, rather than be stories in their own rights.

Scrat causing an avalanche and volcano eruption in the first film was fine, since they're just gag scenes. Him causing the flood in the second film was also acceptable, despite it making up the film's plot, especially since he actually saved the day in the end. The disasters he causes in the fourth and fifth movies however are just too much. By trying to make him move the plot along, he comes across as more irritating than endearing, and the fact that his life is now made to revolve around the acorn makes us wish that he can just be put out of his misery already, as Ice Age 2 tried to do. Instead, the fifth film just leaves him in space, with no proper resolution to his subplot at all.

The spin-off film has no signs of Scrat at all, which just adds to its detriment. It only goes to show that they were simply relying on the character to hold the films together, rather than portray him as a character in his own right. Yes, I know that he's no longer appearing because Ivy Silberstein claimed on Twitter that the Scrat design was stolen from her, but my point still stands.

The whole business with his creation is also sketchy. Silberstein claims that she first designed "Sqrat" on the 19th May 1999, but writer Michael J. Wilson claims that his three year old daughter Flora helped come up with the idea of Scrat being a cross between a squirrel and a rat and being obsessed with acorns. Meanwhile. the Art of... book claims that character designer Pete de Seve received inspiration for the character from research he did at New York City's American Museum of Natural History and that story artist Bill Frake developed the character's personality from a local squirrel that kept on disrupting him whilst he was working at home. It's hard to pinpoint which of these is the most accurate story - even Silberstein's "Sqrat" name seems more like a corruption of the "Scrat" name rather than the other way round. But if she was in the right, it just provides a cautionary tale of relying too much on a character who you may or may not have the rights to.

Buck The Weasel

This case isn't as bad as the Scrat situation, but it's still notable in my opinion. Buck is an insane yet awesome survivalist who bears an uncanny resemblance to his voice actor Simon Pegg and is brilliantly voiced by him at the same time. When we first meet Buck in the third film, he's intent on hunting down Rudy, the dinosaur that took out his eye. The whole thing is just one big reference to Moby Dick and Captain Ahab, only this time Ahab finally gets a happy ending.

Buck serves as a guide to the herd as they go searching for Sid, who has gone missing in the land of the dinosaurs. Along the way, he provides some of the funniest lines in that film, with the case of the "ugly pineapple" being the most notable. He can't stay with them forever though, and after his mission is fulfilled, he goes on his way with a warm farewell. It's a surprisingly touching scene and one with an important message - some people will just choose to be loners and that's okay. It helps that he only really has a small cameo in the fourth film and nothing else.

And then the fifth film has to go and spoil all that. Whilst we do get a cool oner shot in order to re-introduce him, he gets awkwardly integrated into the plot in such a way that it has to revolve around him. The antagonists of the film are a family of dinosaurs that try to sabotage the herd's attempts to divert the asteroids, just because they have a bone to pick with Buck. A character with similarities to him is introduced, who pissed me off so much that I will be discussing him in a later chapter. And at the end of it all, he joins the herd anyway because the creators are just so desperate to emphasise the importance of "family".

Honestly, it was better when Buck went on his way in the third film. Sometimes, we can't keep in contact forever and we have to go about and do our own things. With Buck in particular, I felt that it matched his crazy survivor attitude perfectly. No wonder that the spin-off movie has him go back to staying in the dinosaur world.

Not that the spin-off film fixed things much. The film focuses entirely on him, being called The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild and what not, with the main herd themselves being relegated to minor roles at best. And weirdly enough, his voice actor is the only person to reprise their role. Everyone else gets replaced by a different voice actor. Even John Leguizamo, who previously voiced Sid in even the video game adaptations, doesn't return. It certainly brings up some interesting implications. Oh well, at least he got to star in the much better Encanto in the meantime.

Plus, they bring back Buck's link with Crash and Eddie from the third film, and then butcher that. He's now just there to bring them on an adventure and make them have an epiphany about whether they need to stay with the herd or not. The way he's handled just doesn't make him work as a main character. He might as well not be billed as the protagonist - rather just a supporting leader type.

They even bring in a new character who was apparently on a previous team of his, just so he has a female character to interact with. That doesn't work either. Buck was better as a lone wolf (or rather lone weasel) type as depicted in Ice Age 3. Adding a new teammate for him just doesn't work - and I feel that Zee was added just so they could add a new female character to what wasn't necessarily a female-heavy cast.

So yeah. Two characters who started out as amazing and now aren't so good as they previously were, all because they kept being overused. As I mentioned before, it's similar to cases like Shadow the Hedgehog, the Minions and even the Koopalings from Super Mario Bros., in which well-liked side characters have their roles expanded and become more irritating as a result. Word of advice - some side characters work best as side characters. They can't all take centre stage.

The Extinction of Ice Age - Chapter One: The Ice Age Does Not Work That Way! Goodnight!

There is no doubt that the Ice Age films are not the most historically-accurate depiction of the time period that they seek to rediscover. However, as the films progress, they become even less of a representation of what they were supposed to depict in the first place, and just start using it as an aesthetic for stories that have nothing to do with it. I will explore the pop-culture references in a later article, but for now I will just focus on the historical inaccuracies in general.

"Everyone Loves Dinosaurs, Right?"

According to TV Tropes, the creators were concerned about putting dodos into the first film. The response from most paleontologists? "Whatever, just please, no dinosaurs". As a result, the only time we see a dinosaur is during a scene in which Sid is disturbed to find one encased in ice.

Concept art of the dinosaur encased in ice.

It's not anything too major though - it's just an amusing gag. Otherwise, all of the animals we see are ones that would have been around during the Ice Age itself or, if nothing else, came around after the extinction of the dinosaurs. The second film even has a Gastornis mentioning that dinosaurs went extinct in order to counter Manny's point about large mammals like himself being too tough to go extinct themselves. After all, she's technically a descendant of the dinosaurs. She should know.

The third film however is all about dinosaurs. Sure, it can be justified in that the heroes travel to a lost realm in which a bunch of dinosaurs survived, but they still have dinosaurs. It kind of distracts from the original idea of the movies, which was to focus on creatures on the Ice Age that maybe some people weren't familiar with. Everyone is familiar with dinosaurs though. And we've received so many films involving them anyway - Jurassic Park, The Land Before Time, the dinosaur sequence in Animal World, Dinosaur, etc. For all I know, Ice Age 3 doesn't necessarily bring anything new to the table with regard to dinosaurs, apart from show ones that we don't often see such as the Kentrosaurus, the Harpactognathus and the Baryonyx. It just exists because people like dinosaurs and because the character designer stated that he "was running out of Ice Age characters" (p. 102).

Dinosaurs appear again in the fifth film, with regard to Gavin and his children Gertie and Roger. Despite being the main antagonists of that movie, they don't really do much except plan to sabotage the herd's plans. They even change their evil ways in the end and help save the day. In this case, it seems to be more so they can bring back characters from the third movie like Buck.

And as for the spin-off movie...why are you still even using the Ice Age title anymore? It's called The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild, but the fact that they go back to the lost world just suggests that it should have been called The Lost World Adventures of Buck Wild. They really seem to like the dinosaur angle at this point, even though the whole point of the first movie was that it tried hard NOT to show dinosaurs. It's probably why it was a Buck-centric film in the first place.

Other Time Periods Explored

At least with the dinosaurs, it seems that the creators did put effort into utilising them correctly. They showed off dinosaurs that aren't often seen in other movies and at least used the excuse that they were in a hidden world.

There is no real excuse for the other time periods the later movies try to explore. One example is the fourth film's depiction of continental drift. The real life phenomenon occurred sometime beforehand, and was a more gradual change. In this one, it happens within a very short time span due to Scrat's escapades with his acorn. This was perfectly fine as a gag in the Academy-nominated short film Gone Nutty, in which it served as a bit of a pay-off to what was already a brilliant short. But in the aptly named fourth movie, it's essentially the whole plot. All it is is just an extended version of the short's ending, only this time used as a "dramatic" way to move the plot along.

Director Michael Thurmier, who started with Ice Age 3, says that "every sequel it seems to get a little harder to keep the story fresh, because you have already done all these great gags. You have had all these great character interactions. You have explored territories and the personalities, but you have to keep mining new territories" (p. 140). I mean, that's all well said, but that's usually why you just move onto something else where you can explore these things, rather than resurrect the same franchise over and over again. You don't need to resurrect the same gags and make up new stuff at the expense of the quality that's already there. If you're running out of stuff from the actual Ice Age period to explore, LEAVE IT.

I call this section of this chapter "Other Time Periods Explored", but it's not just time periods. Festivities get explored too. We have the Christmas special A Mammoth Christmas and the Easter special The Great Egg-Scapade. The former focuses on Sid trying to get off Santa's naughty list (for something that was actually an accident) and the latter focuses on an Easter egg hunt designed to get back some eggs that Squint the bunny stole. It also explores the "origins" of April Fool's Day for some reason. I have genuinely mixed feelings about these specials. On the one hand, they go for a more secular route than the Christian vibes they were given during the Roman times and do a relatively good job at providing an Ice Age twist on this origins (moreso with the Easter special). On the other hand, it should be pointed out that these now-thought-as-Christian holidays actually started as Pagan celebrations - Christmas has links with Yule and the Roman festival of Saturnalia, whilst Easter has links with the spring festival of Ostara - and given the way that the Pagans were completely undermined in the past, it makes the changes in the backstory for Christmas and Easter come off as rather awkward. Besides, given that DreamWorks has done its own holiday specials for their franchises, it's most likely that Ice Age was simply trying to jump on the bandwagon.

Space, Mysticism & All That "Good" Stuff

Another item that is found frozen in the first film is a spaceship, which the baby gives a Vulcan salute to. Again, it is just that - a simple gag. Once we see that spaceship, the plot moves on and that's it. Otherwise, the first itself is relatively down to earth and the sequels, to a certain extent, stay away from science fiction and fantasy itself. The spaceship is just something that stands out for laughs.

For some reason, they decided to expand upon it in the fifth movie. This has been a sin that has occurred throughout the franchise - first it was expanding the role of the dinosaurs, and then it was turning the continental drift ending of Gone Nutty into a whole movie. This one is handled worst though. Scrat ends up inside an UFO that goes into space and ends up kick-starting a chain of events that cause asteroids to nearly wipe out Earth. He also meets up with alien squirrels with more advanced technology. Sure, this is all in space and the advanced technology aspect should make it more forgivable, but as I said before, this sort of thing distracts from the prehistoric aspect of the franchise.

It's not just space that gets explored. There is a place named Geotopia that pops up, which is essentially a lost world inside an asteroid that crashed long ago. The residents are all essentially zen hippies who are using the crystals in the asteroid to stay young. When one of the crystals is removed by Sid and he unwittingly causes the wall to collapse, they all grow old again, and only regain their youth once the fountain of youth is created.

Now, I was just like to say that I have nothing against mysticism in general. But it does NOT match up with the original idea for the movie franchise. In fact, it distracts from it. As I said earlier, the original movies were relatively down to earth, making the mystical elements clash even more. There was an earlier case in Ice Age 4 with the whole Scratlantis scene, but at least that was a quick gag scene at the end of the movie, rather than something that played a major role in it. It didn't help that the Geotopia plot is tacked onto Act 3, and yet is still made to feel like the whole movie.

The film is not only historically inaccurate, but also scientifically inaccurate with regard to its climax. Throughout the film, the herd have been trying to find a way to stop meteorites destroying Earth. The solution? Shove giant crystals into a volcano so that it erupts and the ensuring explosion stops the meteors from landing. There's some crummy explanation as to why they're doing this too - apparently, the crystals are magnetic and therefore their magnetism should send the meteors off course.

NO. JUST NO. When an asteroid goes through our atmosphere, it freezes up very quickly. The heat from the erupting volcano, clashing with the meteors that have gone cold from entering our atmosphere would most likely cause an unstable reaction that would cause more death. Never mind the fact that those "magnetic crystals" would supposedly repel the asteroids away. In fact, if the magnetism ploy hadn't worked, it would have essentially smashed the volcano to pieces and then caused a bigger explosion that would wipe out everything around it and render the plan a waste of time.

At least Ice Age 2 acknowledged scientific inaccuracy with regard to volcanoes during one scene. The mini sloths in that movie are aware that sacrificing "Fire King" Sid to the volcano probably isn't going to help much, but they decide to do it anyway since "it's worth a shot". It's a relatively minor scene compared to everything else, and the whole thing is just played as a joke at Sid's expense. Even the contrived way in which Sid suffers this sad fate is played for laughs. In Ice Age 5 though, the volcano scenario plays too much of a major role to be missed out on, especially since it's what's used to resolve the plot. Plus, they talk about it earlier on as if it's something scientifically accurate, without taking into account the combination of the heat and the cold. Not helping is the fact that they use a character who I highly dislike and will rant about later to explain this.

What happened to the producer's original point? Why did the franchise start with proper focus on the period being explored and then just start delving into other periods? In the first two films, it feels like they're actually staying focused, but in the later ones, the setting is just used as a "cool" aesthetic rather than anything else.

You can accuse me of getting too nit-picky about something that's meant to be a comedy anyway, but there's a difference between a well-written historically-inaccurate comedy and a poorly-written historically-inaccurate comedy. Take the Asterix comics for instance. In a similar vein to Ice Age, it very loosely depicts the time period that it's set in, in this case the time of the Roman Empire. But the excellent writing of the comics - excluding the ones from the 90s and early to mid 00s like Asterix and the Falling Sky, which bares an uncomfortable resemblance to Ice Age 5 with its alien plot and doesn't have the original writer - and the parodic and anarchic nature of them in general more than makes up for it. The same goes with Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which is essentially a spoof of the King Arthur legends. With the later Ice Age films, they're not spoofs at all. They are simply held together by a thin plot and some questionable pop-culture references, which I will delve into later.

And speaking of later, the stuff I will be discussing in the next chapters makes the problems I just discussed here seem pretty minuscule in comparison...