Nintendo's Shovelware Conundrum

Of all the Nintendo consoles I own, I have the most-intimate connection with the Wii. It debuted in 2006, right smack in the middle of my teenage years, so I have vivid memories of using it. It also came out between being old enough to have to purchase each game by myself and not being old enough to actually have a job, so I often found myself saving up to purchase the console’s heftily-priced games. To-date, I have more games for my Wii than any other gaming console I own combined, which makes sense when you factor in the aforementioned.

Of course, the Wii was notorious for having a crap-ton of shovelware. Which begs the question: why did Nintendo’s most-popular console at the time have so much garbage on it?

Firstly, what’s shovelware? As the name suggests, it’s content that’s shovelled onto a video game console at the last second. It’s cheap, it’s often rushed, and it’s usually created to make a quick buck. The Wii isn’t the only console burdened by shovelware, the PS2 had more of it than I can even begin to name, but it became notorious for being the 7th Gen console with the largest quantity of it.

The Wii, therefore, became synonymous with “owning a shovelware machine”. Wii owners were expected to “deal with it”, and it got so infuriating that I, in a now-deleted ScrewAttack collaboration with a fellow g1, discussed why it bothered me in greater detail. But looking back, almost 13 years after its launch, that the Wii became synonymous with shovelware still bugs me. Why throw garbage onto the Wii? I think the answer can be boiled down to two reasons, both unavoidable.

The first has to do with the system’s popularity. Nintendo had long tried being the biggest and most-powerful console since the days of the NES, and they held that title, albeit with difficulty, come the SNES. Yet with the advent of the PS1 and its disc-based format, Nintendo found themselves in a catch-22: should they opts for discs, which were flimsy, and have fewer size restrictions, or should they stick with what was reliable, cartridges, and risk losing space? Ultimately, the N64 went with the latter. And while the console had stellar first and second-party games, as well as a clear graphical advantage, in the end Nintendo suffered immensely in the third-party division and trailed behind the PS1.

The Gamecube didn’t fare much better. The N64 might’ve not pulled in the PS1’s sales numbers, but it didn’t have much other competition. The Gamecube, however, had to compete with the PS2 and Microsoft’s Xbox console, and both knew the market far-better than they could’ve predicted. Factor in that the Gamecube lacked true online support, and that its smaller discs were harder to code for than the competition, and Nintendo quickly found themselves on life-support by the end of the Gamecube’s run. To-date, it remains one of Nintendo’s least-popular consoles, with many of its best titles, again, being first and second-party offerings.

It’s no surprise, therefore, that Nintendo opted to focus on a different demographic with the Wii: the non-gamer (or “casual gamer”). Nintendo realized there was a goldmine to be had in catering to grandpa and grandma, so they started making interactivity and exercise their focus. No longer were games about difficulty and skill, they were now about using your hands and feet. And it worked, with Nintendo pulling in a market not normally-associated with video games.

So yes, the Wii was incredibly-popular. Yet because of that, many developers figured they’d cash-in and toss their unfinished products onto the system. Party games, cheap sports games and hacky-ports were the norm for the Wii, to its detriment. Even today, it’s hard to traverse a bargain-bin in a toy store and not see several dozen Wii titles, mostly shovelware, lying there at a reduced price. Because why bother putting in effort?

This leads to the other reason, that being demographics. Remember how I said that the Wii targeted grandpa and grandma? Well, many developers figured that they were going senile, so they couldn’t differentiate between quality and garbage. Again, why try when the target audience didn’t know better? Who really cared?

These two reasons seemed to be the underlying drives behind the Wii’s shovelware. Sure, you had great titles from Nintendo, like your Zeldas, Marios, Smash Bros. and Metroids, as well as some great titles from third-party developers who actually cared, like Capcom, but for every Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaro’s Treasure and decent port of Okami, there were dozens upon dozens of mediocre-to-awful games without much care. Some of them, like The Conduit and Red Steel, were even legitimate attempts to utilize the console’s prowess that were also rushed and unfinished.

Ultimately, the Wii became known by gamers as “the baby’s bargain-bin console”, and this upset me. Because while the Wii had lots of shovelware, perhaps more than I could stomach, it also had lots of really solid games. Like I said before, I currently own more Wii games than games on any other console. I may have had to do a lot of digging to find them, but the gems existed!

Looking back now, however, it bugs me even more because of how predatory the shovelware was. Don’t have time for a good game? Want to port over something from a decade earlier and not try? Why not put it on the most-popular console? You’ll make a quick buck and dupe consumers anyway, so who cares?

I do. I care because it hurts the Wii, and I care because it crowds out legit titles. But I also care because you’re taking advantage of an audience who may not know better. And while they might not know all of the ins-and-outs like regular gamers, they’re not stupid. Treating them that way only reflects badly on you, not them!

I won’t pretend that a party game automatically qualifies as shovelware. Some of my favourite Nintendo franchises, like Smash Bros., are party games too, and they’re excellent! But the reason they work is because they’re made out of love. They’re not put together for a quick buck, which is what many shovelware games are. And isn’t that better in the long-run?

Gunned Down Again

Last week was terrible for big news stories. It started with dozens of incredibly wealthy parents across The US effectively cheating the system and helping undeserving children get into prestigious universities. It then moved on to realizing that Amber Heard, Johnny Depp’s ex-wife, had abused Depp and not the other way around, turning three years of anti-Depp sentiment into reflexive guilt. Next, there was the news of violent protests in Gaza over Hamas’s rule, which was diverted to airstrikes against Tel Aviv. Finally, to top it all off, there was the mass shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, where two mosques were infiltrated and 49, innocent Muslims were gunned-down by Livestreaming white supremacists.

I was about to call it in, when positive news surfaced hours before Shabbat. Initially, it seemed like a really bad, incredibly tone-deaf April Fool’s joke. But after realizing that April 1st wasn’t for several weeks, I verified it on Google. Sure enough, it was true: after months of protest, petitions and negotiations, James Gunn was back at Disney.

For those unaware, the short of it is that James Gunn, director and writer of the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, was fired from Marvel last Summer over Tweets from 2012 in which he’d joked about pedophilia. I won’t reiterate my thoughts, but Gunn was quickly hired by Warner Bros. to work on Suicide Squad 2. Additionally, the whistle-blower on the whole situation, right-wing activist Mike Cernovich, was indicted following his connections to The Proud Boys. And now, after months of secret negotiations, Gunn himself has been hired back to complete the trilogy he’d started in 2014.

This ordeal was a mess, not gonna lie. But it did reveal something important: even though Gunn’s firing wasn’t the end of the world, it took a toll on Disney’s reputation. Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, was planning to stick by Alan Horn’s initial decision; after all, Gunn had written pretty inexcusable Tweets, even if they were 6 years old. Disney’s a family-friendly company with a certain image. Gunn’s Tweets, therefore, reflected really badly on them.

Unfortunately, the resulting effect of Gunn’s firing was worse than his Tweets. Because it made Disney look like they could be easily-fooled, and Cernovich knew this. Factor in that passionate Disney and Marvel fans were petitioning to have him back, and it was a PR disaster. It didn’t help that Disney still had people like James Woods under their payroll, people with real instances of pedophile behaviour under their belt.

Bringing Gunn back was the right move on Disney’s part. But I won’t act like this was entirely altruistic, or that it negates their original decision, however. Disney’s a company, and companies speak the language of money. Hiring Gunn back was purely financial, as they felt it was too risky to continue the Guardians of the Galaxy movies without him. If it were motivated by anything else, I’d be shocked.

The decision also feels reactionary to how Gunn’s career unfolded following his firing. It’d be one problem if Gunn had been fired and never did anything else. It’d be unfortunate, and frustrating, but that’d be the end of it. Yet James Gunn had proven himself while at Disney. He’d grown and matured as an artist, and companies like Warner Bros. saw what he could accomplish. Being hired by Disney’s competitor probably spooked them enough to hire him back, as they clearly didn’t want to lose potential money. That Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. III was stalled, and several of its stars threatened to leave, didn’t help.

Essentially, Disney saw the writing on the wall, realized they’d made an error and reversed their decision. The question now is, “What’ll happen to Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. III?” We know the script is finished, and that Marvel had begun pre-production on the film, but the temporary shelving of the movie means that it’s behind schedule. Perhaps a delay is inevitable, but by how much remains uncertain. I’ve heard of a possible 2021 window, but that’s hearsay, so…

Anyway, I’m glad James Gunn’s back. I’m not gonna act like Gunn’s a martyr, he’s not, or even that he was my favourite director, I hate his work prior to the Guardians of the Galaxy films, but his voice was always welcomed in The MCU. Considering how “same-y” a lot of the movies in the mega-franchise are, to have two films with a unique tone that still fit into the grander picture is a welcomed change of pace. The MCU simply wouldn’t feel the same without them, thanks to Gunn’s style, and it’s nice to see him come back and finish the trilogy.

Does this exonerate him of his Tweets,? Not at all. For as much as I’m glad that he’s back, that doesn’t mean that he’s off-the-hook for joking about pedophilia in 2012. No one should be hand-waived of their pasts, and James Gunn’s no exception. That doesn’t mean he can’t grow and learn from his mistakes, but that doesn’t mean they can be ignored.

I do want to address the people who still think he deserves to stay fired, particularly among Cernovich supporters: why does this concern you? Is it because he’s outspoken on Donald Trump? Is it because you’re mad at Disney and Marvel for their success? Or is it because you don’t like Hollywood and want it to fail? I’m not sure the reasoning, but it feels petty either way. James Gunn made egregious mistakes, yes, but it’s no worse than some other people in Hollywood. If you’re willing to overlook the behaviour of those who are more disgusting than Gunn will ever be, then I’m sure you can forgive him.

Or you don’t have to, the choice is yours.

Steven Netflixberg

I try not to discuss Oscars-related drama after The Academy Awards. There are many reasons why, but it largely doesn’t warrant my time and energy. Everyone knows what I think of the show and its politics, and it’s not worth the energy to overstay my thoughts. That said, I have to make an exception this year, as Steven Spielberg has decided it’s worth keeping the conversation alive.

I’m sure Spielberg needs no introduction. Ever since Jaws revolutionized the modern blockbuster in 1975, and even before that, he’s been shaping the way we look at action movies and dramas on the big-screen. He’s one of the living giants of film, with his producing credits have often rivalling his directing credits. He’s simply that good. Factor in that his work with legendary composer John Williams, whom I regard as one of Hollywood’s best, has produced some of film’s greatest orchestrations of the last 40-odd years, and you have a man whose impact is huge.

Unfortunately, Spielberg can also put his foot in his mouth in really uncomfortable ways. His initial plans for the Harry Potter franchise, which he abandoned, are one example, but he’s also made bizarre remarks about the Indiana Jones franchise. And then there’s his jab at Netflix, which is what I plan to discuss here. Because, rest assured, I have many thoughts!

In a fairly-recent interview, Spielberg was vehemently insisting that Netflix originals shouldn’t warrant Oscar nominations because of their short theatre runs. He argued that they’re “TV films”, and, therefore, should qualify for Emmys. And while he never said they shouldn’t be released in theatres, his reasoning bothered much of the film community. I know it bothered me!

It’s also prompted a wave of backlash, with people calling him “a racist who loved Green Book” and “an old man who hasn’t made a good movie in years”. Regardless of whether or not Spielberg’s remarks were warranted, I don’t think that either claim helps the conversation. Especially since I don’t even think the latter’s true: Spielberg might not be making movies that certain people like now, but to claim he hasn’t made a good movie in years ignores the fact that his last three Oscar dramas were really well-received. I also happened to like Lincoln and Bridge of Spies, but that’s for another day.

That said, I do think he’s in the wrong. See, movies in theatres are expensive now. The average, low-end ticket at my local chain is $13.75 with taxes, and that’s going to continue to increase. Even “Movie Tuesdays”, when tickets are discounted, still put the prices close to $10. I have a SCENE points card, which enables me to occasionally watch movies for free, but I have to pay for 10 films first with my own money. This isn’t including concessions, which are also ridiculously-expensive.

People are catching on. According to sites like Quora, the average person sees movies in theatres about 4 times in any given year. This is largely why Disney has 7 major tentpole releases each year, but the truth is in the consumer’s spending habits. Movies, simply put, are an expensive hobby, and moviegoers are opting out unless it’s worth their time.

This is where streaming platforms, like Netflix, are picking up the slack. For one, even with the recent price surge, it’s cheaper to stream on Netflix than it is to go to theatre. With the latter, you’re paying per ticket. With the former, however, you’re paying a monthly flat fee for unlimited content. There’s always the issue of available content being pulled without notice, which is an issue for another day, but it’s still a fraction of the price.

Two, Netflix allows for watching content whenever and wherever. While “nothing beats the big screen experience”, movies have limited runs and restricted showings in cinemas. Sometimes, as is the case of indie dramas, they’re only shown at certain times and in certain places. Other times, like with foreign films, they’re either shown in obscure theatres, or not at all. I know that anime films routinely get shafted with theatrical releases, especially when they don’t have Studio Ghibli’s name attached. If you want proof, Mirai, which was nominated for Best Animated Feature, didn’t even get a showing in my home city. Netflix doesn’t have these issues, or not to the same extent.

And three, Netflix has been upping their game with original content. A lot of it’s terrible, but occasionally you get gems like Roma that impresses enough to warrant a limited theatre run. And that’s what Spielberg has pointed out, as many of these movies are low-budget and wouldn’t survive in the competitive world of Hollywood. They simply can’t.

Which begs the question: can you market these movies for mainstream audiences? The Academy has strict rules for its Oscar runs, but a “TV movie” that makes its way into theatres for a short time can qualify. If not, then Roma wouldn’t have made the cut. And besides, if Netflix originals became the norm for indie films that’d never survive in theatres, then who’s to say they don’t deserve a shot at big-name award ceremonies? Why’s it suddenly an issue?

I get the feeling much of this backlash is coming from Spielberg’s misunderstanding of how the film landscape’s changed over the past 10 or so years. Even ignoring ticket prices and the limited availability of some movies, digital streaming on TV is the way of the future. You’d think a director whose debut was a TV movie would understand that, but even if he doesn’t…this is the way of the market. It sucks that the theatre’s becoming a relic, like the dinosaur, but that’s reality.

Still, I don’t think it’s fair to call Spielberg a “washed-up hack” because he made closed-mined remarks about Netflix. Does it suck that he trashed streaming services? Yes. Do I agree with him? No. But calling him washed-up implies that he hasn’t made anything of note in years, and that’s not true. You might not be a fan of his recent output, and that’s fine, but show a little more tact.

Fullmetal Alchemist VS Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood-Which is Better?

On October 4th, 2003, Japanese animation powerhouse Studio BONES, responsible for RahXephon and the then-syndicating Wolf’s Rain, took a stab at adapting famous Manga writer Hiromu Arakawa’s Fullmetal Alchemist to television. Despite the source material being incomplete at the time, they took a gamble with their somewhat-limited resources and, with Arakawa’s blessing, strung together a 51-episode, loosely-adapted show. The gamble paid off, with Fullmetal Alchemist being a hit on both sides of the Pacific Ocean. To this day, the show’s still regarded as one of the best in the Shonen-action sub-genre of anime, often used as an “introductory show” for the medium.

Unfortunately for fans of the Manga, the show wasn’t what they’d had in mind. This led to another, more-faithful adaptation of Arakawa’s then-completed story, Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, beginning syndication on April 5th, 2009, nearly 5 years after the original had ended. Despite not being as popular in Japan, it was huge in The West, gaining as much praise as its predecessor. It, too, has been used as an introductory show, leading to the debate over which series was better. Having seen both shows, I figured I’d give my take as well.

Before I begin, I have two additional disclaimers on top of my usual ones about subjectivity and spoilers: first, I’m sticking with the shows only. This means that Fullmetal Alchemist: The Conqueror of Shamballa won’t be discussed, as it was a tie-in to Fullmetal Alchemist that was meant to “expand” on its ending. And second, I’ve only re-watched Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood for this piece. I know it might compromise the integrity of this compare-contrast slightly, but since Fullmetal Alchemist also happens to be my second-favourite anime series, I still have a grasp on its most-important details. That said, feel free to watch both series first.

Anyway, let’s begin with…

Story:

VS

The stories of both shows start off practically the same: two brothers, Edward and Alphonse Elric, lose their mother to an illness in their pre-teen years. Lonely and grief-stricken, the brothers partake in the forbidden, alchemic practice of human transmutation in an attempt to revive her. It goes horribly wrong, causing Edward to lose his leg and Alphonse to lose his body. Desperate to bring him back from beyond The Gate, Edward sacrifices his arm and attaches Alphonse’s soul to a nearby suit of armour. The two then join the military to find the fabled Philosopher’s Stone, hoping it might help them regain their bodies.

It’s the finer details, particularly later on, that separate the shows narratively. In Fullmetal Alchemist’s first arc, we witness Edward become a state alchemist, followed by him and his brother’s episodic struggles to find the fabled stone. These early episodes run on a formula: the brothers arrive in a town, led on by a rumour of information on The Philosopher Stone, they discover a bigger evil, they face the evil, the lead turns into a dead-end and they move on. It’s only with Episode 13, when Edward faces Colonel Roy Mustang in a duel, that the story becomes something more complex.

And it’s here that Fullmetal Alchemist really stretches its wings. From Episode 14 onward, the bits and pieces of previous episodes start getting fleshed out: we learn that the country of Amestris was involved in a civil war with the province of Ishval, whose residents hated alchemy, over the unfortunate shooting of a child. This war came to an end when Führer King Bradley ordered the state alchemists to use Philosopher’s Stones and wipe out Ishval. This ended up indirectly creating a murderer named Scar, who felt that alchemists were to blame for his people’s suffering. We also discover that The Philosopher’s Stone can only be made from human beings, which plunges Edward and Alphonse into an existential crisis. And, finally, we learn of Homunculi, artificial beings created through failed attempts at transmuting the dead and who desire Philosopher’s Stones to become human. All of these events come to a head by Episode 25, culminating with the death of Maes Hughes.

Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, while having similar plot-points in its main story, takes a different approach: for one, save the opening episode, the show has no filler. And two, it takes the first two-thirds of Fullmetal Alchemist and condenses it into 14 episodes. This is understandable, since it’s retreading familiar territory, but that also leads to the issue of rushing. The Fifth Lab Arc, which spanned several episodes in Fullmetal Alchemist, is an-episode-and-a-half in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. The Shao Tucker side-plot, which spanned two episodes in Fullmetal Alchemist, is a single episode early-on in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. Maes Hughes’s death, which was huge in Fullmetal Alchemist, becomes a footnote in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, while the Youswell subplot is cut-out altogether and its retroactively explained via an exposition dump in the show’s second-half.

This leads to my biggest problem between shows: pacing. Fullmetal Alchemist might’ve made some filler-heavy detours throughout its 51 episodes, but the main story had time to develop naturally. Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood’s approach to the same material, while not as awful on re-watch, feels overstuffed. It might be economically-efficient, but it’s not well-developed. Add in that it feels like deliberate re-writes of its predecessor, as if to say “no, THIS is how it happened”, and you’re left with over 4 hours of material that feels like a narrative headache.

Fortunately, once the two shows split into different paths, they both become enjoyable on their own terms. Fullmetal Alchemist touches on themes of war, humanity, mortality and accountability. Conversely, Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood touches on the military state, political corruption and the unattainability of God. That last one feels a little silly, but it does its job well.

I do want to jab Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood for its finale, though. Like Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, the show has one too many endings, even dedicating its final episode to them. Unlike the aforementioned movie, however, the show’s endings are too frequent and unnecessary. This includes the end credits montage showing what the cast has been up to in the years since with a photo montage, including Edward and Winry starting a family. That’s not to say that the endings aren’t without merit, Edward’s proposal to Winry was one of the few laugh-out-loud moments that worked, but the show could’ve done without many of them and still worked.

The deciding factor, ultimately, is the through-lining of both shows. Fullmetal Alchemist’s final stretch feels a tad rushed…but it has enough going on thematically to function, right down to its bittersweet, open-ended finale. Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood has, save an obnoxious recap episode in the first-half, no waste…but it’s overstuffed and not as well-paced. That I can remove several episodes from Fullmetal Alchemist, particularly “The Phantom Thief” and the majority of “The Flame Alchemist, The Bachelor Lieutenant and the Mystery of Warehouse 13”, and still have a story with a beginning, middle and end speaks volumes. I can’t remove a single episode from Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, save “Interlude Party”, and say the same.

Point goes to Fullmetal Alchemist!

Winner:

But a story is nothing without characters, which leads to…

Cast:

VS

This is the toughest of the categories, as Fullmetal Alchemist has over 40 recurring characters and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood has nearly double that.

Let’s begin with Edward and Alphonse Elric. Both of them are wide-eyed idealists who see the harsh realities of Amestris with innocence. Both are also, despite working for the military, pacifists who refuse to take part in senseless murder. In Fullmetal Alchemist, a big part of Edward’s character arc is learning that, sometimes, pacifism isn’t always practical. The turning point comes in his battle with Greed, where he has to think on the fly and, ultimately, ends up killing him. It’s scary to have to take down and defeat all seven Homunculi, something he accepts a little too quickly, but he adapts.

Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, on the other hand, has him keep his pacifism until his fight with Father in Episodes 62 and 63, when he realizes he’s out of options. It’s a subtle change in his character, one that makes the finale that much more impactful, but I also suspect it was included because the show’s more action-heavy and needed a “big fight with evil bad guy” moment. But I digress.

Alphonse remains pretty similar in both shows: whereas Edward’s short-tempered and insecure about his height, two traits that routinely surface for quick gags, Alphonse is calmer and more-insecure about his situation as a suit of armour with a soul attached to it. Whereas Edward has guilt over Alphonse’s situation, Alphonse routinely worries about the vulnerable state of his new body. And whereas Edward buries his feelings in order to keep focused on the goal at hand, Alphonse wears his emotions on his sleeve and always keeps his brother in-check.

The one difference between the two Alphonses is how they react to the curveballs thrown on them. In Fullmetal Alchemist, Alphonse is inevitably turned into a Philosopher’s Stone once Scar activates The Grand Arcanum in Episode 40. His arc then changes to dealing with his newfound immortality, the limits of it and the big, metaphorical target that puts on his back. In Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, Alphonse gets exposed to The Truth in Episode 14, whereupon he gains the same, transmutation circle-free powers as his brother. His combat role is also increased, but he begins wondering how much longer he’ll have before his body rejects his soul.

Moving onto the supporting cast, both shows have so many characters that I can’t do justice to all of them. Starting with the overlapping characters, however, Colonel Mustang’s the most fleshed-out. His arc centres around his Ishvalan war guilt, wanting to become Führer and accepting the death of Hughes, but it’s the minutiae that separates the two takes: Fullmetal Alchemist has him feeling guilt over executing Winry’s parents, wanting to make everything right as leader and, ultimately, nearly dying while facing Bradley in a one-on-one fight in Episode 51. Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, on the other hand, keeps Mustang’s guilt general, though it does give him two awesome fights with Lust and Envy. Even Mustang’s end fates are different, with the former having him lose an eye and the latter having him go blind as a result of a forced transmutation.

Mustang also has his gang of subordinates, not to mention his relationship with Hughes. The latter remains the same for both incarnations, but it’s the downgrade of the former in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood that highlights the weaknesses in the show’s cast. In Fullmetal Alchemist, part of the charm of Mustang’s crew was watching them bounce off one-another. Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood tries splitting them up because “plot reasons”, and they suffer for it: some of them, like Havoc, get their share of character growth, even if it’s reversed in Episode 63, but it’s not the same. They don’t work well alone, that’s not why we like watching them!

It’s not all bad, though, as I like Winry’s expanded role in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. Still, for the few benefits we get, we also see plenty of downgrades: Maria Ross, for example, gets a whole character arc to herself, but she has fewer episodes and most of her development happens off-screen. Havoc has to deal with paralysis resulting from his fight with Lust, but characters like Sheska and Shao Tucker, whom I enjoyed in Fullmetal Alchemist, are reduced to a handful of episodes in the show’s first 14 episodes.

The two big downgrades, however, are Rose and Lieutenant Riza Hawkeye. Both have bigger roles in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, but it’s not for the best. In the case of Rose, while I’m not fond of rape being an integral part, her character arc in Fullmetal Alchemist was interesting and lent itself well to show’s theme of intentions and outcomes clashing. In Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, she becomes another Winry, kind and compassionate, and it’s boring. And Hawkeye, whose backstory was implied in Fullmetal Alchemist, becomes Mustang’s selfless devotee in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhoood, to the point of her agency being stripped. I can forgive Rose’s downgrade, but why do that to Hawkeye?

Scar doesn’t fare much better in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, however. What made Scar so compelling in Fullmetal Alchemist was that we always doubted how to feel about him. He was a cold-blooded murderer, yet he had a sympathetic reason for hating alchemists. He was scary, yet tragic and human. He was always in the wrong, but for understandable reasons. By the time he sacrificed himself as part of The Grand Arcanum, which murdered thousands of soldiers, you were still unsure if you should be rooting for him. Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood appears to be going this route, even expanding on it by showing him to be Winry’s parents’ murderer, but once Major Miles appears in The Briggs Arc and reveals that he’s part-Ishvalan, his entire character changes. He ends up becoming a diplomat in the end credits, which is disappointing.

Fortunately, many of the new characters in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood compensate for the older ones. Some of them, like the four Chimeras introduced in Briggs, are really fun. Some of them, like General Raven, are really fun to hate. Some of them, like Major General Olivier Mira Armstrong, are even kinda awesome! Yet the real MVPs are four characters from the neighbouring country of Xing: Prince Ling, who becomes the second Greed, Lan Fan, who loses her arm in a fight with Bradley, Fu, who dies a heroic death against Bradley, and Mei, a peasant girl skilled in Medicinal Alkahestry. The four are all desperate to find the secret to immortality, and they make the show whenever they’re on-screen.

Sadly, that doesn’t carry over to the villains, who bite it big-time! Father, while as generic as Dante was in Fullmetal Alchemist, has a quest to “attain God” that raises more questions than it answers. And the Homunculi, save for Envy and-partly-Wrath, don’t do it for me! It’s especially bad with the downgrade of Sloth: in Fullmetal Alchemist, Sloth was the reincarnation of Edward and Alphonse’s mother, giving her real weight. In Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, Sloth’s a bigger, slower and dumber Gluttony. He’s like a hybrid of a troll from the Lord of the Rings franchise and Bane from Batman and Robin, and he’s so obnoxious that I was relieved when he died.

I think the difference between the casts becomes apparent when you realize how the shows are executed. Fullmetal Alchemist is a big show with a small anchor holding it together. Like many of the great stories, it centres around a small event, that being a failed relationship between Dante and Hohenheim, Edward and Alphonse’s father. Everything else stems from there, including how Amestris was formed. It also made the over 40 recurring characters feel intimate and easy to connect with.

I wish I could say that about Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. This is because, while more-ambitious, it doesn’t juggle everyone efficiently. It shoves much of the old characters out of the way early-on in favour of new ones, which it keeps introducing at awkward times. Even in the final stretch, it’s still introducing key players. I understand being ambitious, but slow down!

And that’s the problem: if Fullmetal Alchemist is an accomplished performer who can juggle multiple balls at once, then Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood’s the imitator trying to outdo them and failing. It’s weird, it’s awkward, and it’s uncomfortable. That’s not to say that it’s unenjoyable, but it’s not the same. Fullmetal Alchemist wins again.

Winner:

But a cast also needs look appealing, which leads to…

Aesthetic:

VS

You’d think this’d be an easy win, right? After all, Fullmetal Alchemist, while beautiful, came out during that awkward transition between cel animation and digital animation in the early/mid-2000’s. Additionally, the show was given a relatively-modest budget for a Shonen series, forcing a lot of its action scenes to rely on timing. Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood has none of that, so it wins, right? Right?!

Not quite. For all of Fullmetal Alchemist’s limitations, it still edges out in its visual direction. I don’t think I’ve seen a Shonen anime with this level of attention to shading, lighting and angles since…ever! Sometimes the direction borders on pretentious, like when the camera does a weird and unnecessary pan-swerve during Edward’s confrontation with Dante in Episode 49, but for the most part it masks the show’s limitations. Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, while well-animated and directed, feels flatter. Little details, like how Edward’s shouting match with Shao Tucker is shown through Tucker’s glasses, are peppered throughout in subtle ways, and they feel like downgrades.

I’ll give the upper-hand in two areas, though. The first is in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood’s opening and ending sequences. They feel more-appropriate for the show they belong to, conveying story-centric plot-points while also being fun to watch. Fullmetal Alchemist had fun opening and ending sequences as well, but they had little to do with the show. They were contractual obligations, simple afterthoughts that don’t do it any justice.

Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood also has better action scenes. I guess that’s to be expected, it’s a Shonen series, but it has more dynamic and fluid fights scenes than Fullmetal Alchemist could even dream of. At best, Fullmetal Alchemist has two, truly good action set-pieces, and even then they’re still peppered with narrative plot-points. Not every fight in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood is memorable, especially early-on, but enough are to make it stand-out.

Should I award this one to the better-directed show, or the better-choreographed show? Stiffer action with better timing, or more-fluid action with weaker timing? Fight scenes peppered with storytelling, or fight scenes that play-out with minimal effort? I think I’ll be fair and give it to Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. It might not be as dynamic and impressive to watch, but the clockwork’s so much smoother. That, and it has better opening and ending sequences.

Winner:

Speaking of which, it’s time for…

Sound:

VS

I’m gonna give away the victor right now: Fullmetal Alchemist wins.

Both shows have great sound design. You might even cede the victory to Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood if you went solely on the voice acting! But there’s one factor that tips in favour of Fullmetal Alchemist, and that has to do with a component that’s frequently overlooked: the musical direction. It’s simply much better there.

See, Fullmetal Alchemist has a unique something that most Shonen anime, even the best, lack: musical subtlety. The show itself has plenty of subtle moments not normally-associated with the bombastic nature of Shonen ventures, so the music follows suit. When a tune plays over a quiet, tender moment, a violin or piano might appear to underscore it, and nothing more. This adds a layer of depth you wouldn’t expect, but it also works to its advantage. Even the louder, more bombastic tracks, while as vibrant as anything from Hollywood, still show a certain level of restraint, making the bigger moments feel that much more powerful.

Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, for all of its musical prowess, can’t profess to that. The music is excellent, but it’s loud and in-your-face in places that require restraint. There’s no reason why Izumi Curtis’s acceptance that her failed transmutation was for naught should have an epic chant talking over it, as it lessens the moment’s tenderness. There’s also no reason why Olivier Armstrong boasting about her soldiers in Bradley’s war room should have an epic chorus belting it out, as it ruins the scene. These sorts of “loud music” moments might work in a show like Attack on Titan, where everything’s as subtle as a brick to the head, but Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood still has many subtle moments. By using a chorus in places where it doesn’t belong, you ruin that.

So yeah, Fullmetal Alchemist wins again!

Winner:

For the final category, we have…

Entertainment factor:

VS

How are the shows overall, especially when put back-to-back?

Surprisingly, Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood has grown on me since my initial viewing. Fullmetal Alchemist had a certain dignity to it, one that overtook any of its flaws, but that isn’t to say that that’s missing from Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. In many ways, my re-watch has warmed me to its strengths and taught me a lesson about being open and fair. It might be downright ludicrous at times, but that doesn’t mean that it lacks charm.

Still, this doesn’t mean that Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood’s flaws aren’t still incredibly-noticeable. The first 14 episodes are rushed, it suffers from lopsided pacing, it has a terrible recap episode that breaks the flow and its finale goes for too long. Additionally, its character roster is overstuffed, with too many thrown into the mix. And its musical direction is frequently atrocious, even if it has good music. Factor in it having too many endings for its own good, and we’re left with something that could’ve been so much more.

I’d be lying if I said that Fullmetal Alchemist was perfect, though. Ignoring its action scenes being lacking, two of the Homunculi, Envy and Pride, don’t get proper send-offs. Envy doesn’t get a send-off at all, instead turning into a dragon and chasing after Hohenheim once he enters The Gate. I’m also not fond of how Edward gets over his fight with Greed so easily, and the final stretch of episodes feels a little rushed. Also, let’s not forget Episodes 10 and 37, both of which are huge wastes of time.

But for all of its minor flaws, and even some of its bigger ones, Fullmetal Alchemist feels like a more-cohesive end-product. It’s so cohesive, even, that its one character who defies internal story logic, Colonel Archer, still scares me every time I see him in his cyborg form. When your one jumping the shark moment can pull that off, then you’re doing something right!

It’s no contest: Fullmetal Alchemist is the more-enjoyable show.

Overall winner:

That was quite difficult to write! Thanks for sticking it out, and-as always-I’ll see you all next time!