The Scorsese Conundrum

With COVIDtine lasting who-knows-how-long, I figured now was a good time to get to my backlog. I’ve already cleaned my basement and gotten more use of my Twitch account, but I guess it was inevitable that I sit down and watch one of the most-hyped movies of last year: The Irishman. I was initially hesitant for two reasons: 1. It’s extremely long. 2. I’m divided on Martin Scorsese’s filmography. Still, better now than never!

Since I don’t have much to say about the movie-it was okay-perhaps I’ll elaborate on that second point: Scorsese got into hot water last year over his remarks on Marvel movies. I’ve already said my two cents on the matter, but the timing of The Irishman’s release couldn’t have been poorer-timed with this fiasco. I say that not only because it’s unfair to both Scorsese and The MCU, but also because I feel guilty for having thoughts on Scorsese’s body of work. And I do. Though, sadly, they’re not exactly positive.

Now, I don’t think Scorsese’s films are bad. I happen to really like Hugo, considering it one of the best movies of 2011. Scorsese doesn’t make “bad” movies, but even at the best of times he doesn’t inspire me. I don’t connect with his oeuvre because his characters don’t resonate with me. And that’s disappointing for such a prolific master of cinema.

Take Taxi Driver. Containing one of film’s most-famous moments, it follows a Vietnam veteran who drives taxis and is a bit of a loner. The film’s premise is that the world around Travis Bickle’s so broken and corrupt that it turns him into a sociopath, but nothing really screams that. Travis doesn’t snap so much as go into “hero mode” to save some underaged prostitutes from an abusive pimp, and while I’m expected to “believe” that “he’s going mad”, between the bad acting, choppy direction and stale voiceover work, I’m unconvinced. It says a lot when Joker, a cheap knock-off that I despised, manages to out-Taxi Driver Taxi Driver, as at least I bought Arthur Fleck’s descent into madness.

Next we have Goodfellas. The peak of Scorsese’s “house style”, Goodfellas also does it the best. But it still falls short of what it could’ve been. Like Taxi Driver, you’re not supposed to “like” Henry Hill, but I don’t even care enough to despise him. I actually find him grating, and not in a good way. I also find the voiceover narration to be hit-or-miss, and many of scenes drag on for too long. Even the ending, while clever, feels anticlimactic.

Moving on to the film that won Scorsese the Oscar, The Departed left next-to-no impact on me outside of its excessive use of bigoted language. The film’s a cat-and-mouse game with supposed ambiguity, but I find that it meanders and is really simplistic. By the time the story picks up with that phone scene, I was checked out. At least the last shot is great, though by then I was waiting for the film to put itself out of its misery.

Then we get to The Wolf of Wall Street. The second film of Scorsese’s that I saw in theatres, I can’t really say much other than that it was okay. Not bad, not great, but okay. It had excellent acting, voiceover and jokes, and its closing scene is brilliant, but it’s way too long and feels tiring. That makes sense for a film about excess, but it doesn’t really capitalize on its point: am I supposed to like, hate, or be indifferent to these morons? American Hustle somehow pulled off that balance while also having a focused narrative.

Which leads me to The Irishman. For something so heavily-touted as being “masterful”, I wasn’t impressed. I could nitpick it forever: its de-aging technology doesn’t really work. It’s way too long. Anna Paquin is criminally-underused. Its death count rarely matters, with most of its characters dying off-screen. It only comes together in the last 30 minutes, leaving 3 hours with an uncertain build up. And its big “twist”, who the protagonist is relaying his story to, is never revealed. It might be a miracle that this film made it to Netflix, but for something so high-profile it doesn’t resonate with me.

I think this can said of Scorsese as a whole: he doesn’t grab me. Talented director though he is, he never grabs me enough to love his schtick. Perhaps that’s why Hugo stood out: it deviates so heavily from the director’s style that it feels unique. Maybe I’m in the minority, but I’d sooner re-watch that than the aforementioned films.

Maybe I’m being overly-harsh. Maybe I’m “not getting” why he’s a master of cinema. But chalking it up to ignorance, especially given my complaints, is dishonest. Like I said, Martin Scorsese doesn’t make bad movies. Even at his most-forgettable, I still appreciate his attempts at innovating film. He also seems like a lovely guy, which isn’t something I can say for many other directors. But I guess he’s not for me, and that’s okay.

Does The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker Still Hold Up In 2020?

A while ago I wrote a piece for Nintendo Enthusiast on whether or not Super Mario 64 holds up. You can read it here, but it’s disappointing that my follow-up wasn’t approved before I got cut. So I figured that I’d do it here. Brace yourselves.

I’ve never been big on the Zelda franchise. The games are well-made, and I don’t consider any to be “bad”, but they’re incredibly frustrating to play. Some of them, like The Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask, I don’t like altogether, but most of them I simply feel indifferent about. And nowhere’s this more-apparent than The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, which I finally sat down and played for the first time a few years ago. Considering its status in the Zelda fandom, I have a lot to say about it. And I’m going to, because why not?

I should state what I liked first: the game looks gorgeous. One of the unfortunate pitfalls of older games in 3D is that they’ve aged poorly visually. Even with Zelda, the N64 entries look like blocky, unappealing mush, complete with texture distortion and clipping issues. This game lacks that, looking better now than in the early-2000’s. Sure, it’s easy to see the limitations, but the game’s “Saturday Morning Cartoon” aesthetic helps bypass that. It’s also cel-shaded, and I have a weakness for that.

Speaking of, I have to mention the game’s decision to theme itself around water. The water effects, simply put, look amazing. This came out around the time of Finding Nemo, and both titles pushed their mediums to the limit. It’s easy to get lost in the oceans of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, which is great because you spend so much time traversing them. It’s, in some ways, relaxing.

Speaking of relaxing, the game’s music is too. Whether it’s the overworld theme, which is as slow and soothing as it is upbeat and energetic, or Dragon Roost Island, there’s no shortage of great tracks. Even the piece from the final fight, which is somewhat "choir-esque in epic chorus", is fitting. (The latter somewhat reminds me of the final battle in Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island.)

I like the game’s use of stealth, particularly when you’re trying to rescue Aryll. It’s a nice change of pace from what’s normally expected in a Zelda game, forcing you to think on your feet. I’m not normally a big fan of stealth missions, so that’s high praise! Plus, it gives you a chance to play tricks on enemies! Who doesn’t like that?

The game’s combat’s also great. This is the first franchise entry to incorporate timing and skill in the sword-fights, which you see a lot of. Whether it’s deflecting Phantom Ganon’s attacks, or taking out an enemy’s shield/armour, you have to work at earning your victories. You can’t cheat to win, you have to be resourceful. It takes a little getting used to, but it can be incredibly rewarding.

Finally, I like the game’s tone. I like how post-apocalyptic it is, taking place after the world was flooded. I also like, at least in theory, how sorrowful Ganon is. He doesn’t simply want to be evil, and while I think he represents a missed opportunity (more on that later), at least there was thought there. He at least has a motive.

That’s fine and dandy, but I did say I had issues with this game. The most-obvious is the decision to have sailing as the focus, yet making it slow and-at times-boring. This is mostly attributable to the islands being scattered all-over. At times you’re forced to backtrack to different parts of the ocean for in-game objectives, sometimes one after the other. You can change the flow of the wind with your Wind Waker (more on that in a bit), buy a faster sail and find an enemy that allows you to warp to discovered islands instantaneously, but even with that it feels tedious. Add in that the map only opens up later in the game, and it becomes a chore to travel.

I guess I’d be less-miffed if there were more enemies to fight. This is something 3D Zelda games pre-The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess were all guilty of: big, expansive overworlds with lots of detail, yet minimal enemies to fill them with. It makes it feel empty, boring and lacking life. It also gives you next-to-nothing to do when travelling to your next objective. And it gets frustrating.

On the note, I’m not a fan of the Wind Waker item. It’s this game’s version of an Ocarina, but although neat in theory…in practice it requires too much precision and rote memory to use properly. It also doesn’t speed up the game’s arduous sailing, even if it changes wind directions with a simple tune. It feels like you need to be a musical pro to use it, which I’m not.

Then there’s that blasted Tri-Force Shards quest. It takes place right before you enter the final dungeon, and it grinds the game to a near-halt. The point is to add a scavenger hunt, but collecting fragments of The Tri-Force of Courage, which can be tedious, is a pain and incredibly confusing. Even the Wii U remaster, which improved this quest, can’t break from its monotony. It’s also the only part where I was chained to a walkthrough.

Switching gears, the dungeons and dungeon bosses also annoy me. With the former, the Boss Key and Boss Door are never within close proximity. You have to always backtrack to get to the doors, which are usually in an unhelpful spot. And the bosses aren’t terribly creative. They usually aren’t even that intense or difficult, consisting of 3 minutes or so of lazy repetition. I don’t normally mind an easy fight, I’m not great at video games, but some more thought would’ve been nice!

Speaking of bosses, Ganon, while the only tough fight in the game, is a missed opportunity. I appreciate the attempt at making him fleshed-out, especially compared to previous iterations, but his motives are rushed, jammed into the final confrontation and make no sense: so you wanted to rebuild your kingdom after the world was flooded? Why not move? Better yet, why not rebuild it on the bits of land offered to you post-flood? Ganon’s motives are shallow, and he abandons his goal almost immediately after The King of Hyrule touches The Tri-Force.

I also don’t like how the game, like every Zelda game, relies on franchise knowledge to solve puzzles. It’s not always bad, I know that the weapon I find in a dungeon will be used for the dungeon’s main boss, but then you have memorizing which door to go through after defeating Phantom Ganon in the final dungeon. Whenever he drops his sword and flees, you’re supposed to take note of which direction the blade’s pointing. It might be neat for experienced players, but how would a novice gamer figure it out? How fair is that?!

As a final quibble, I don’t like how Tetra’s characterized. She starts off interesting, being a spunky pirate captain, but once she’s revealed as Princess Zelda, she stops being much of anything. You don’t even see her again until the finale. Such an interesting idea is wasted, and all for the sake of cheap tension. I get that Nintendo’s adhering to franchise tradition, but why? Couldn’t they have found a workaround?

I could go on to discuss minor issues, like how you have to pay out of pocket to chart islands, but I’d feel bad for slamming the game further. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker isn’t really a bad game. Parts are even, dare I say, brilliant! But its insistence on staying true to conventional Zelda-isms, and well as its occasional lack of creativity, really keep it from greatness. I appreciate that it’s not lengthy, especially considering various other Zelda entries, but it’s not something I’d play regularly. Sorry to disappoint.

Besides, Okami’s still the best Zelda game.

Streaming in the Age of COVID

How’s self-isolation treating you? Personally, it’s been really tough. My support network’s pretty strong, and I have many ways to keep busy, but I’m getting vibes from when my alma mater went on strike. The only difference is that I have nowhere to go wind down because everything’s closed! Isn’t that great?

Anyway, with my job currently on suspension, I’ve been outsourcing entertainment. I have my writing, and Zoom’s been lots of help, but it’s not the most enjoyable situation to be in. Thankfully, much of my time has been spent on Twitch with people around the world who are as bored as I am. It makes me feel less anxious.

See, last Summer I purchased Super Mario Maker 2 for my Switch. The game was a lot of fun, but its primary gimmick, designing levels, was too daunting. Even with having purchased a year’s subscription to Nintendo Online, I wasn’t getting much use of my Switch save the occasional VS match in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. So by the time I was ready to make levels and share them online, I was over Super Mario Maker 2. Ergo, I shelved it.

Fast-forward to late-February, when COVID-19 hit. I don’t want to downplay the virus, but all this newfound free time was absolutely perfect to pick up the game again. So I started designing new levels. And because designing levels only takes an hour at best, I decided to sniff out people to play them. My Twitter Mutuals only played Super Mario Maker 2 occasionally, but, fortunately, I went to the one place I knew I could fish for feedback: Twitch.

What makes Super Mario Maker 2 perfect for Livestreams is that the levels are designed to be interactive. Unlike a Zelda game, where the experience is contained, Super Mario Maker 2 thrives on the link between creator and player. The game also allows for feedback, including the ability to comment on the level. This is brilliant, and it’s a great way to keep everything exciting.

Now, Twitch wasn’t foreign before COVID, I’ve had an account for years, but it never really seemed like a worthy investment. With an epidemic forcing the world into hibernation, however, that changed. Now Twitch was my go-to for communication. Now I could share my frustrations as I watched people’s levels get played on Twitch. Now I had something to stay occupied.

And I took full-advantage. Considering that a level has a 9-digit code, all I had to do was “!add” it to a queue and wait my turn. It was no different than waiting for an appointment: it’d come in due time. In the meantime, I had to stay occupied. Sometimes it took a few minutes, others a few hours. But as long as I didn’t leave, my level would be played eventually.

Waiting also gave me a chance to get to know the different Livestreamers’ personalities. Some of them were clowns, and some were straight-faced. Some allowed for profanity, others didn’t. Some were young, and some were old. Some had kids, and some didn’t. But all of them were happy to play people’s levels, irrespective of language or nationality.

I like that. The world can be a dark and scary place, hence I should be careful, but Livestreamers playing my levels was always reassuring. It showed me how connected we all were, as we were simply stuck in a bad situation. It also gave me incentives to make more levels to test out. For comparison, I had 5 levels before COVID-19 hit. I’m now up to 25, and possibly counting.

To finish this off, here are some of my favourite levels that I’ve made, complete with their IDs:

1. No hit coin run (CK1-DLW-0YF)

Easily the best of my early levels. The objective is to collect all of the Key Coins and make it to the end without getting hit. Sounds simple? It’s not. Going by the low Clear Rate, people seem to keep struggling.

2. Link’s uderworld nightmare (SH7-B88-PPG)

When Link was added as a playable character for the Super Mario Bros. 1 template, you knew I’d take advantage of him! Another simple level, this one forces you to use Link (twice) to beat. The second time, you’re required to face-off against Bowser Jr. in a close-quarters arena. Again, this one isn’t easy, going by its low Clear Rate. And yes, I misspelled “underworld”.

3. Henry Thoreau’s Forest (6GY-YC0-BVF)

Inspired by the short story, this is a Key Coin scavenger hunt. For something so personal, it’s amazing how many Clear Checks it took to get right. I kept screwing up basic ideas in-level, only to then create new problems when I fixed them. Still, it works, so...yeah. It’s also lots of fun.

4.-7. Sky-high boopin’ (QD4-7KG-RPF)/Sky-high boopin’ 2 (X95-T99-8PF)/Sky-high boopin’ 3 (G4L-PDJ-LWF)/Sky-high boopin’ 4: Carnivalle! (587-N1B-90G)

The final levels on this list, I grouped them together because they share a motif: infiltrate the airship, defeat the Boom-Booms/Pom-Poms and make it to the end goal. These weren’t only my favourite levels to make, but my favourite levels to watch on Livestreams. They’re quick, breezy and make for some unique platforming. They also follow a straight-forward formula. If I make a fifth entry, and I’m considering it, I might do it in the only template remaining: Super Mario Bros. 1.

That does it for now. Enjoy!

Has Pixar Really "Lost It"?

Who’s seen Onward? I have, and I even published my thoughts. Yet while general responses were positive, the film’s underperforming at the box-office. And no, it’s not because of the “go woke, get broke” nonsense regarding its lesbian cop (though that’s a subject for another day.) Plenty of good movies, even “woke” ones, have underperformed, and I’d more-likely attribute it to the SARS-CoV-2 panic. But I guess we’ll never know…

I mention the film’s box-office because the debate about Pixar’s staying power has resurfaced. More specifically, the debate’s centred around whether or not the studio can stay relevant in the 2020’s. This isn’t a new quandary, as people have been arguing this for years. But it’s gotten to the point where I can no longer keep silent. So I’m not.

I first have to explain why this is being debated. For that, we need to go back to the initial teaser trailer for WALL-E:

I’d have loved to have been present at this conversation, by the way. (Courtesy of The Disney Animation Resource Channel.)

Proponents of the anti-modern Pixar side point to this as part of their argument: “Look, Pixar even admits they’ve run out of ideas! There’s no way they’ll ever top their early brilliance!” It’s cute, but allow me to poke some holes in this claim:

Firstly, Stanton never says “these were are only ideas we had”. He mentions, rather, that they’re the ones they had in 1994. That’s 26 years ago. A lot can happen in 26 years, including formulating new ideas. And besides, Dan Scanlon and Brad Bird weren’t part of Pixar yet. If that’s true, then wouldn’t they also have ideas for films?

Secondly, art isn’t static. Artists usually don’t have all their good ideas at once, then give up. Speaking as an artist myself, I come up with new blog and story ideas constantly! Claiming that I’m not allowed to have good ideas beyond the ones I originally imagined is…well, it’s disingenuous. And it’s insulting to my creativity.

And thirdly, saying that these were the only good movies Pixar ever made is dishonest. Stanton mentions that WALL-E was their last idea on that fateful day, but then how do you explain Up? Or Toy Story 3? Even post-Cars 2, there were several original movies and sequels that were well-received, like Inside Out and Toy Story 4. Again, art isn’t static.

Honestly, the “Pixar’s lost it” train of thought doesn’t account for the fact how it’s only ever mentioned when Pixar’s in a rut. And when they’re not? Well, it’s a “fluke”. Inside Out was a “fluke” because of The Good Dinosaur. Coco was a “fluke” because of Cars 3. Even now, Onward, a movie with good reviews, is being shafted because of Soul, which’ll also be labelled a “fluke”. How many “flukes” can Pixar have?

Detractors spring-board this meeting as a way of being overly-critical of newer films: so Inside Out was well-received? Let’s make a video shamelessly dissecting every cliché it uses. So Coco was beloved? Here’s what doesn’t add up. Even Finding Dory and Incredibles 2, movies that were still really good, have to be wrung through the machine because they pale to their predecessors. Look everyone, Pixar’s dying! Isn’t that sad?

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy when you’re actively looking for reasons to not like something. Because when you have a mallet, everything looks like a peg. In the case of art, which doesn’t exist in a vacuum, this mentality does no one favours. It makes the situation worse, if we’re being honest. And sure, people are entitled to their opinions on art. But they’re not automatically entitled to their own facts, which is what these opinions are being passed off as.

I also can’t help wondering if it isn’t Pixar that’s lost their touch, but everyone else who’s lost their ability to enjoy their movies. Has everything they’ve made been amazing? No. Ignoring Cars 2, the studio has definitely made disappointments since 2010. But not only does that ignore the reception of Cars, which came out in 2006, but it overlooks the fact that even Pixar at their worst has more effort than most of the competition, even on a technical level: Brave pioneered human hair textures on a level not seen prior. The Good Dinosaur has some of the most photorealistic environments put to film. Even Cars 3 doesn’t skimp on the automobile grime and damage!

Saying that “Pixar’s lost their touch” ignores that. It also ignores how their disappointments have conveyed themes and emotions that many other animation studios, let-alone studios in general, wouldn’t tackle: The Good Dinosaur dealt with familial expectations. Brave was about the dangers of arranged marriages. Cars 3 dealt with legacies potentially having an expiration date, and Cars 2 was about using being undervalued as way to subvert expectations. These are all really powerful, even if they were under-baked.

My issue is that this debate ignores how Pixar isn’t one person doomed to not live up their incredibly-high standards. Because they have. And even when they’ve “struck out”? They’re human, it was bound to happen eventually. It also makes their triumphs that much more impressive.

I get it: Pixar set the bar really high. They released Toy Story when no one was making that kind of movie, and they kept pushing the CGI envelope for years. They were the trendsetters, and now that everyone else has “caught up to them”, they can’t compete. They’re being outclassed by the competition.

But while I like that other studios have started leading the way on their own, because it’s good for animation, I still think people are undervaluing the need for Pixar nowadays. Like an old master, they still have tricks up their sleeves. They’re still pushing the envelope in new ways, essentially. They may no longer be “the best at what they do”, but they haven’t “lost it”. And I think we need to appreciate that.

Onward, Ho!

When I was shy of 2 years old, my grandfather on my dad’s side died in a car accident. The news shook everyone, but no one more than my grandmother. She’d spend the next 11 years in semi-isolation, living solely for her grandchildren, before dying of cancer a few months before my Bar Mitzvah. Looking back, it’s clear she had a hard time coping with her husband’s death, as is expected. But while most of the family learned to deal with the pain, she never did.

While being stuck in emotional limbo over the death of a loved one isn’t uncommon, few movies have connected with that experience for me like Onward. The latest in a line of Pixar films, it tackles grieving while couching it with a premise based in fantasy and mythology. It’s a fun, funny and occasionally emotional experience that shows that Pixar isn’t afraid to tackle original premises after a decade of sequels. But does it stick the landing?

Onward takes place in a world where fairy tale creatures have embraced the luxuries of technology. The story follows Ian Lightfoot, a 16 year-old elf with insecurities stemming from not having a dad, and his older brother Barley, a D-’n-D fanatic whose blunders keep getting him in trouble. When their mother reveals a magic staff from their late-father, complete with a spell to bring him back for a day, Ian and Barley prepare for what’s in store. Unfortunately, the spell only brings back their father’s lower-half, forcing them on a quest to finish the job before time runs out.

Onward’s premise, though not executed to its fullest, embraces its premise and runs with it. The end-result is, as I said, fun, funny and occasionally emotional. Yet even with all of the above, there’s still a lot of room for imagery that really stretches the creative muscle. This is a movie that could’ve only been made by Pixar, something made apparent right from its opening, and it understands that.

The underlying themes of loss and grieving make this film feel, for lack of a better word, magical. The fantasy RPG-like elements are also a strength, no doubt, and the movie plays around with them. But this is really a story about loss and regrets. Ian never met his dad, but it’s Barley’s relationship with him that’s more tragic. We get the sense that the two left off on an unpleasant note, and that’s soured Barley up to adulthood. He buries his nose in role-playing and board games, often unable to shift gears, and he makes an interesting foil to Ian’s insecurity.

The supporting cast is equally as fun. Ranging from the Lightfoots’ overly-concerned mother, to the pacified Manticore with a warrior past, to even the police chief centaur, the creative team for Onward was clearly having fun melding fantasy with reality. Every character beat that needs paying off gets it, leaving room for the fantastical to run wild. And the side-plot involving the mother and the Manticore is equally as fun as Ian and Barley’s journey.

There’s also a theme of sibling rivalry that permeates the film. Despite being close, Ian tries distancing himself from his older brother, considering him an embarrassment. Barley, however, doesn’t feel embarrassed by Ian at all. The road trip to bring back their father’s top half brings out their conflict, reminding anyone with siblings how difficult it sometimes is to live with them, let-alone get along with them. As someone who was blessed with two brothers, I’ve seen that dynamic play out in different ways for nearly 30 years. So watching it come to life on the big-screen was cathartic.

Onward was directed by Dan Scanlon, who gave us Monsters, University in 2013. It’s clear that Scanlon’s fingerprints are all-over this movie, including scenes in this world’s version of school, but while Monsters, University was fine-yet-unnecessary (save one scene), Onward justifies its existence with its premise alone. It’s clear that Scanlon had a strong connection to this movie. He cared about this a lot, and while it could’ve stood for another pass at the script, I think he can make a masterpiece if given another shot at directing. He shows glimpses of that brilliance here.

That aside, the movie’s still really good. D-’n-D fanatics will get their share of enjoyment out of the different references, while casual fans will enjoy the fun and quirky nature of the world itself. But the underlying message about learning to let go of the dead will help this film gain traction in the long run. Because if you’ve ever lost someone close to you, this is your film. Speaking as someone who almost lost his dad to a heart attack 6 years ago, I say that from experience.

Is Onward perfect? No. Aside from not taking full-advantage of its premise, many of the jokes don’t resonate. The film also takes a while to establish itself, and its infamous scene with the lesbian police officer is as tone-deaf as everyone’s claimed. Finally, the closing shot leaves you wanting. But those are minor quibbles. The movie doesn’t drag, either.

And by the way, the short before the film is definitely one of the funniest pieces of media related to The Simpsons in a while.

Junk Drawer: Hulks, CEOs and TV

A new year, a new slew of news.

Did you hear about She-Hulk? Y’know, the show about the cousin of The Hulk? She’s a weird character, and she’s being primed for her own series on Disney+. I have a lot of theories about how she’d fit into The MCU, but that’s for another day. For now, I’d like to focus on the backlash surrounding the potential casting of Alison Brie as the titular heroine. Because you can’t have a female lead without there being backlash…

The gist is that Jennifer Walters, or She-Hulk, was suggested for Alison Brie. This makes sense: Alison Brie’s, supposedly, a huge nerd, and she has the warmth and charisma for a leading role. She’s also due for her action break, like Brie Larson with Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel. And even if Brie isn’t super tall or buff, she’d be altered via CGI anyway. So yes, go for it!

Unfortunately, that’s not good enough for some fans. The complaints are ludicrous, but they centre around that last point: that she’s not big or buff enough. Considering that Mark Ruffalo isn’t macho himself, yet still pulled off The Hulk, this raises questions: you know that Ruffalo was also altered with CGI, right? The Hulk’s made of polygons. Even his mo-cap actor isn’t ridiculously buff, and Lou Ferrigno’s a body builder!

While we’re at it, why does it matter that Brie isn’t super-buff? It’s fiction! She-Hulk isn’t real! There’s no way this character could exist even if you wanted her to, so why are fans getting angry? We don’t even know if Brie will be cast anyway, right?

It’s bizarre what the demarcation line is for some members of the Marvel fandom: a skinny kid from Brooklyn becomes genetically-enhanced with steroids and is immortal? Totally believable. A scientist survives deadly radiation and becomes a giant monster when he’s angry? Cool beans. An anthropomorphic raccoon is best friends with a sentient tree that can only say three words? Totally! But give The Hulk’s cousin to a female actress with the chops to pull it off and the same treatment as him, and suddenly it’s not feasible?!

I was unaware that women had to jump hurdles over their male counterparts. Oh wait, I did. And it isn’t enough! It doesn’t matter how good your actress is, if she isn’t playing the subservient sex bot, then she isn’t worth your time. And if she decides to have a little more limelight, then suddenly she’s Satan coming to “steal everything with her SJW nonsense”.

But Alison Brie hasn’t taken up the offer yet, so…who knows?

In more shocking news, Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney since 2005, announced he was stepping down and leaving his job to Bob Chapek. Considering Iger has been CEO for roughly 15 years, this is a big deal. It’s an even bigger deal if you consider how Disney was functioning in 2005 and how it’s functioning now. Because a lot has changed since then. How so?

Well, Iger helped broker a deal that allowed Pixar to operate independently under Disney in 2006, a deal that’s worked well for both companies. He also gave John Lasseter creative oversight over Disney’s general animation division, which has benefitted the studio greatly. His tenure saw the purchase of Marvel in 2009, Lucasfilm in 2012 and, most-recently, 20th Century Fox in 2017. Even if you don’t like many of the decisions Disney’s made under his leadership-his handling of The Muppets has been pretty disappointing-there’s no denying the financial boom Iger’s allowed as CEO. Simply put, he’s got a tough legacy to follow.

Which begs the question: why did Iger choose now? I know he extended his stay at The House of Mouse for a few years in 2016, back when he was originally going to step down, but this seems like an unusual time to bow out. Maybe he was scared? Perhaps there’s a scandal we don’t know about? Or maybe it’s health-related?

Either way, Bob Chapek has the unusual position of continuing where Disney’s own Steve Jobs left the company. It’s tough to say if he’ll coast on his predecessor’s success, or if he’ll chart a new direction, but I time will tell!

Speaking of, there was that rumoured Lizzie McQuire continuation that got scrapped for Disney+. Why? Because according to the show-runner, Terri Minsky, there was a conflict of interest between her vision and Disney. Minsky wanted a more adult-oriented continuation, while Disney wanted to do what’d worked before. Minsky left the project, and it was abandoned.

This is tough because I can understand why Disney was hesitant to go through with this; after all, it’s Disney! These kinds of risks “hurt their brand”. This was the same company that fired James Gunn over his history with offensive Tweets. This was also the same company that let Roseanne Barr go after she wrote a racist Tweet about a former Obama official. Disney has a family-friendly reputation, and making an adult drama would shatter that.

At the same time, I sympathize with Minsky too. As a creative person myself, one of my biggest fears is compromising my artistic vision for the sake of a brand. It’s hard enough pitching an idea to a higher-up, let-alone having it green-lit. So to get your idea approved, only to be scrapped because the higher-ups changed their minds, well…it’s frustrating and heartbreaking. And while it’s true that saying “no” can be equally as important as saying “yes” sometimes, executive meddling usually isn’t a good sign.

So what now? Like Hillary Duff suggested, why not move it to Hulu? Disney owns a significant share in the site, and Hulu generally leans toward adult-oriented content. If Disney can get away with mature films under their Touchstone Pictures label, which they’ve been doing since the 80’s, then why can’t they use Hulu for shows? It’d definitely be a smart use of their investment, and it’d also make everyone happy.

But I guess only time will tell, right?

That about does it for the revival of Junk Drawer. Thanks for sticking around, and I’ll see you next time!