Mythological/Legends/Religious Figures combo thread

[Damien]

I mean King Arthur is a great example that the oldest isn't necessarily the "best" or most iconic. We think of King Arthur as a medieval character not an ancient Welshman!

Exactly. And as much as I am a history nerd, I am also a KNIGHTS nerd, and knightly Arthur is my version of Arthur. But it's probably fair to point out that's also the best-known and best-preserved version of Arthur. For now, at least.

The appeal to me is more how these characters were more or less presented for 1000s of years before all that.

1000%. Given how popular mythology is generally, I'm actually pretty surprised we don't have more product focusing on just like "oh, so you liked Clash of the Titans growing up, huh?" Hell, I think a smaller toy company could have made bank by making myth/history-based toys to coincide with popular video game and movie releases.

Funny you mention that because whether King Arthur, or the Odyssey, fits into this or not was something I thought about, given I included Journey to the West. I could go either way on those.

I'd argue both are definitely popular myths on the same level as a Thor or Odin, for sure.

Yes, I mean there is no "right" answer but for instance, this version of Marvel's Hercules in spandex is probably not how he was envisioned by kids first hearing his story 2,500 years ago...

Definitely not naked enough. Needs at least 45% more lion pelt.

I would take a Jesus action figure. I don't quite know how I would want it to look, but I imagine I'll know it when I see it. Four Horsemen would be my pick to do it.

Didn't D13 make like.. 2 or 3 Jesus figures? As I recall, they're not too shabby, either.
I mean, obviously the best Jesus figure is still Episode 3 Obi-Wan, but still.

 

[PanchaMaestro]

That's what I mean. This shit is open to interpretation. Always has been. The danger is saying I want a classic Hercules and what you will get is a Hercules from 17th century Venice. No more "classical" than Journey into Mystery Hercules.

4 Horsemen seem to be doing it right with Egyptian and Hindi gods so far. The main thing is a long list of nos. No anime swords, no spiky hairy, no spiky spikes, no large pauldrons, no full plate armor, no pouches, etc. I don't consider a lack of these things "boring". I don't need classical Apollo to have heat vision or something.

Hercules should be ... bearded, lion pelt clothed, muscular (but not gross), have a bow, probably a club, be bronzed skin. I don't necessarily need to see his pee pee.

 

[fac]

I would take a Jesus action figure. I don't quite know how I would want it to look, but I imagine I'll know it when I see it. Four Horsemen would be my pick to do it.

Check out the D13 link, they have multiple to choose from based on different artwork and eras.

I should add that the owner of D13 (Chris) works for Four Horseman studios. Both he and the 4H assisted with the Hierophant project as well in terms of sculpting and design.

 

[AceofKnaves]

Dracula is a little different. He is a literary character elaborated on after his creation by multiple authors.

Another wrinkle with Dracula is that he is (mostly retroactively, but still) based on an historical person who actually lived in a “modern historical record” era. “Real” Dracula has specific and comprehensive records of his life from multiple sources, some of which were also mythologized at the time, and most of which were definitely propagandized.

There *might* be an historical Arthur, there *probably*(?) is some kind of historical Yashueh Ben Yosef, but there is definitely a Vlad III Têpês Drakulya.

 

[Damien]

I don't necessarily need to see his pee pee.

Oh, you're gonna see his pee pee and you're gonna like it.

 

[ManOfTheLamb]

I really love Sun Wukong, and that love has made me Order several Chimese Mythology figures. They're all pretty cool.

 

[PanchaMaestro]

I mean sure Dracula is “based” on a historical figure but barely. The exotic locale and his connection to violence mostly. It’s not like he did any meaningful research on the matter and didn’t even use the name until late in his creative process.

I have Hierophant Hanuman and he fits right in with 4H Ganesh. Looking forward to Rama and others.

 

[AceofKnaves]

I mean sure Dracula is “based” on a historical figure but barely. The exotic locale and his connection to violence mostly. It’s not like he did any meaningful research on the matter and didn’t even use the name until late in his creative process.

Absolutely. Although at this point the two are inextricable, and there is just enough last-minute editing in the final version of Dracula to make it very clear who precisely he is supposed to be. Stoker was certainly no scholar on Vlad the Impaler, but he dropped enough more-or-less accurate nuggets into the narrative that if someone wants the fictional Dracula to NOT be Vlad, they’d have to do some narrative dancing to justify that (which some people have certainly done in some works).
Germane to Dracula 2000 and the Judas thing, the problem (for me) is that they have to somehow justify that a mythological character (Judas) became a folkloric creature (a vampire) before posing as a living human who led a very public life several centuries later (Vlad Tepes Dracula) while somehow already that folkloric creature, keeping that name and living out a literary story set several centuries after that (Dracula as portrayed in the novel), and THEN ported into yet another story (the movie). That is . . . a lot of leaps. It also makes Dracula less specific and unique, and I guess also makes Judas less specific and unique too.

 

[PanchaMaestro]

Which sorta vibes with what we have been saying. Meaningful connections with Dracula of the novel with the historical Dracula are primarily later storytelling from later writers. Both at this point are “Dracula” to us.

The Judas thing is stupid. Like you said it robs the character of some uniqueness. Mostly thematically it makes the characters “humanity” too distant. It is supposed to be distant but not that distant. Not sure I understand that authorial intent really. Just this constant need to fill backstory to everything is a blight on fiction. What is this some Catholicism Cinematic Universe? They’ve had the CCU for a long time. They should stick to their legacy characters. Introducing Dracula into their story at this point is so woke. Hashtag “not my Judas”

 

[TheGillMan]

I remember seeing Dracula 2000 in the theater. I think I was blind for a week afterward because my eyes rolled back into my head so hard when the bit about Dracula being Judas was 'revealed". As a longtime fan of the Stoker book, and having dealt with numerous liberties taken in cinema, I have a pretty high tolerance for the various dumb things screenwriters try to shoe in to Dracula stories. That one took the fucking cake though. As sick as I am of the "Mina/Lucy is the reincarnation of Vlad's long lost love" thing that has permeated these films, I'd take that any day over the contrived, utter bullshit of making Dracula secretly be Judas.

 

[fac]

We might be wandering a bit far afield if this thread starts to include figures for folklore type things like vampires, mermaids, fairies, elves, trolls etc. instead of the major myths and gods from various cultures and histories. Just saying...

Of course, I will add that Dracula is Judas retcons two narratives and likely not in a way that adds anything to either. Kind of like saying the giant from Jack and the Beanstalk was a descendent of Goliath, or the whale that swallowed Pinocchio had also swallowed Jonah and was immortal for reasons, which is why Ahab tried to kill him and failed.

 

[PanchaMaestro]

The more that I think about it the more I find that back story off putting. That robs Judas of so much agency. Reducing his role in the Christian narrative to just a pawn of the devil. It undermines the human differences between him and Jesus. Their political difference; Judas’ personal weaknesses (the lbs of silver) etc. Hell it reduces Jesus’ humanity. He and Judas are just pawns in the game between god and the devil. Yeah. That’s a pretty lame take.

 

[fac]

The more that I think about it the more I find that back story off putting. That robs Judas of so much agency. Reducing his role in the Christian narrative to just a pawn of the devil.

And it reverts God to a vengeful character, which in the Christian narrative makes little sense after Jesus is quoted as asking God to forgive those crucifying him. Of course the Bible itself has differing accounts, one where Judas kills himself (Matthew), another where he seems to come to a gruesome end that could be interpreted as vengeance (Acts).

 

[AceofKnaves]

My favorite interpretation of the Jesus/Judas myth is the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar. Definitely the most interesting version of that relationship I have seen.

 

[PanchaMaestro]

If nothing else the guitar riff in Judas’ theme kicks ass.