The Problem with "Anti-War" Theming...

I recently watched a YouTube video deconstructing Howl’s Moving Castle. Specifically, it drew on The Iraq War parallels and how they held the movie together. It got me thinking. Although I wrote a piece not long ago reiterating my stance on the film, I sometimes wonder how people can see that movie, and others like it, and love it without internalizing it. How do you watch an anti-war movie, one with anti-imperialist undertones, praise it, and yet miss its intent? 

Allow me to share a story: there are plenty of theories in psychology that become controversial as more information arises. Some, like the infamous marshmallow test, later have information disprove or complicate them. But others, like myside bias, not only hold up to scrutiny, but become strengthened each time.

What’s myside bias? It suggests that opinions, no matter how farfetched or absurd, show little evolution if those challenging them don’t share the same views. X might be empirically false, but any attempts at changing someone’s mind won’t help. It’s an example of “the human mind can rationalize anything”.

When I first heard this a few years ago, I was dumbfounded. I’d seen myside bias in action on numerous occasions in politics, both on the right and the left, but couldn’t put it into words. Why do people close their minds off to non-partisan facts that challenge them? Why can’t you argue that a Muslim ban is wrong with a Trump supporter? And why does an anti-Zionist struggle to understand that Israel-Palestine is a two-sided conflict? The answer is myside bias. 

Myside bias plays a big part in the initial question I posited above. Why don’t some people “get” anti-war movies? It’s not because they’re “idiots”, but because of myside bias. Some of them might actually understand the theming, but they might not think its real-world parallels are applicable. Some might even think it’s brilliant, yet completely disregard it anyway.

I’m not saying this to demean the efforts of artists. Go ahead, make politically-charged art! Comment on relevant issues, be brazen in your parallels! If even one person’s positively influenced to make change, even if it’s only one person, then it’s never in vain. But it’s unrealistic to assume that everyone will change. Especially not when they’ve been conditioned through myside bias.

I can speak from personal experience. There was a time, when I was a teenager, where I was an edgy libertarian. I was racist, sexist, homophobic and incredibly-condescending. My graduation yearbook blurb is proof of that, as is that time I mansplained marriage to a divorcée. I was chastised constantly, sure, but the lessons I learned would only stay in my mind for a day or two. Why? Myside bias. 

To be honest, while I’ve matured since high school, I probably still have a bit of myside bias. It’s simply swung in the opposite direction, as evidenced by the conversations I’ve had with libertarians and Trump supporters in recent years. I’d like to think I’m more empathetic than when I was 18, and I’d hope others would agree, but I’m probably still biased in certain areas. It’s inevitable.

If there’s one element to take away here, it’s a warning to not get cocky when criticizing others for misconstruing the art they consume. True, people as a collective may not be that sharp. But individuals can be, and some can be equally as dangerous or dismissive as those groups that they identify with. It’s how James Woods can behave the way he does on a regular basis despite his education, how Dick Cheney was so dangerous and how many well-read individuals are Trump supporters. It’s also why well-intended progressives spout bigoted views that are accepted in their circles. Myside bias doesn’t discriminate, after all!

But, ultimately, it explains why an anti-war movie can be understood, internalized, and then subsequently rejected. Does it make the rejection right? No. Is it fair that some of these individuals have more power than we do? Again, no. But it’s a reality we should accept, like it or not. 

As a final note, I want to point out that while my perceptions of Howl’s Moving Castle have changed slightly in the decade since I first saw it, my overall opinion of the movie hasn’t. I still think it’s too long, too messy, too ambitious for its own framework and, at times, too frustrating for its own good. I’ve come to respect and appreciate it, and there are moments of brilliance hidden in its layers of confusion, but a masterpiece it isn’t. And I consider the films that came directly before and after it in Hayao Miyazaki’s repertoire to be better.

And yes, that’s also a bit of myside bias in full-effect. I’m well-aware of that, and I’m willing to fight anyone who states otherwise!

Junk Drawer: Animation, Comebacks and Documentaries

Mixed vibes this time:

A while back I wrote a piece discussing what I’d watched on Netflix. One of these shows was She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, a queer-positive reboot of a series from the 80’s that ran for 52 episodes and was well-received. Most-notably, it was well-received with LGBTQ+ audiences, due to numerous, positive portrayals of gay and lesbian pairings. With that in mind, it’s easy to view the show-runner, Noelle Stevenson, positively.

Unfortunately, Stevenson appears to have gotten into hot water. This past week, she and her crew held a panel partly to promote her wife’s show The Owl House, but also to respond to fan mail. I haven’t seen the full panel, but the bits I’ve watched highlighted some uncomfortably tone-deaf remarks. One of the biggest offences came from Stevenson joking about Bow, the main character of colour, having a brother named Sow who works in a field.

As expected, fans got upset. So much so that Stevenson apologized on her Twitter page. While I’m not black or gay, so I’m not in the best position to parse nuance, I feel like this could’ve been avoided. I say that as someone who’s put his foot in his mouth before.

On one hand, I understand why this was an issue. Despite being openly gay, Stevenson’s a white woman. She’s also in a considerable position of power and influence. She, therefore, needs to be careful how she presents herself. Like it or not, she’s a brand. And using that, even if unintentional, to promote racially tone-deaf humour isn’t good.

It also sheds new light on her work. I love She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, but its artist’s world-views aren’t detachable from the work. Little details, like Adora being portrayed as a white saviour, are baked into the coding and theming, and they’re now under intense scrutiny. It’s a consequence I don’t think she anticipated.

On the other hand, I think there’s an element of mob outrage with some of the backlash. This isn’t to generalize per se, but there’s an element of “Let’s stir up controversy for fun!” with some of the criticism because of the show’s “SJW virtue signalling”. It also sours real hurt from those negatively impacted, most being queer people of colour. Add in that Stevenson’s apology seemed genuine and sincere, and I wonder if there are people looking for reasons to get angry.

This debacle also makes me feel self-conscious as a creator. I’m not immune to bad-faith positing. I’m worried that could one day backfire, as since the internet never forgives and never forgets. That’s scary.

Still, we’ll see what happens. I only hope that, going forward, Noelle Stevenson and her crew learn from this and better themselves. 

In more pleasant news, Kelly Marie Tran, who took a hit for playing Rose Tico in Star Wars: The Last Jedi, has been given a second chance with Disney’s Raya and the Last Dragon. Though little’s known about this film, aside from being inspired by Southeast Asian mythology, we now know that Tran’s voicing Raya. Cue the reactions.

I think this is great. I loved Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and Rose was one of my favourite characters. The backlash she received for merely existing was heartbreaking, and it made me lose hope when she was sidelined in the next film. So for her to not only make a comeback, but also have a starring role? Like James Gunn’s situation, this is heartwarming to see resolved.

It also makes me happy because, to paraphrase an online commenter, it shows that the bad guys lost. There’s so much injustice on a regular basis, film included, that a happy ending, especially in this case, is nice. It shows that some stories can turn out well, silly as that sounds. We need this to happen more often, notwithstanding how Star Wars fans can be brutal to those they don’t approve of.

There’s a lot to be unhappy about with Disney. I’m sure I don’t need to remind you of their misgivings. Kelly Marie Tran’s second chance at stardom isn’t one of them. If anything, it’s the opposite. It gives me hope. 

Rounding this off, I’ve decided to discuss High Score. You know, the Netflix docu-series about the early decades of video gaming? I watched all 6 episodes. And you know what? It was good.

There are several reasons why. For one, its production value, especially for Netflix, is excellent. It’s not simply a talking heads mini-series, there’s real filmmaking involved. There are excellent transitions, there’s great animation, and everything’s engaging. This is the successor to G4TV’s ICONS that we need.

Two, the series is fun to watch. Aside from shining spotlights on obscure innovators, like the late-Jerry Lawson, it gives a thorough look at how video games have evolved. This is the kind of information I wish had existed in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, which it covers throughout its run. I’m disappointed it took so long to get a docu-series like this, but I’ll take it!

And three, Charles Martinet’s a perfect choice for narrator. Hearing the voice of Mario in his natural register is equal parts amazing and charming, even if some lines aren’t impressive on paper (like his joke rant about Pat Buchanon coming out as gay.) Martinet sells his narration, making this a pleasant documentary to watch and listen to. It’s nice.

If I have one piece of criticism, it’s that the docu-series occasionally jumps around. This is noticeable during the e-Sports section. A lot of time is spent on this side-tangent before going back to the main point, and it’s a little distracting. But that’s a minor issue with an otherwise-fantastic miniseries. I recommend it.

That about does it for now. Take care, and I’ll see you next time!

TenNOT!

My name is Zachary Perlmutter, and I’m not watching Tenet in theatres. 

I feel weird saying that. I like Christopher Nolan’s work. The Dark Knight is one of my favourite movies, and I’ve yet to skip a theatre release of his films since then. But I can’t do it. And that can be blamed on COVID-19.

For those who’ve been living under a rock, 2020 has been an unusual year. Normally, the Summer months would be bustling and fun, especially for movies. This year, however, it’s been quiet and dull. Thanks to a global pandemic, the world’s in a state of semi-hibernation as world leaders have tried, sometimes unsuccessfully, to isolate the spread of the virus. It’s stressful, and it’s made going to the movies, which I’ve done for years, high-risk. Way too high-risk, honestly.

It’s upsetting to say that. For one, I live in Canada. Unlike The US, which has seen infections in the millions, Canada’s been pretty proactive. We instituted a country-wide lockdown in late-March, and we’ve been reintroducing aspects of life as everything’s improved. We’ve also, in Toronto at least, made masks and social distancing mandatory, which has helped contain the spread. Has it been perfect? No, but it’s been a lot better than what The US has been doing (or not doing).

And two, I’ve been looking forward to Tenet for months. It was one of my most-anticipated movies of Summer 2020, alongside Black Widow (which was moved to Disney+) and Soul (which was delayed to November). I’ve wanted to see the movie for ages, so I can’t avoid it now without some sadness. 

I think this was the wrong time to release the movie theatrically. I understand that Nolan and Warner Bros. want a Summer 2020 release. I also know that the movie-going experience is much purer in theatres than on home video or streaming. But why risk it? Why put your health in danger for a 2 hour and 31 minute action movie? It doesn’t add up.

I think Tenet going through with a Summer release right now is a microcosm of everything wrong with 2020. Ignoring how the pandemic is still here, despite it not always feeling that way, a lot of people who want to see the movie probably won’t use proper protocols. Or they might forget and mess up the progress we’ve made so far. True, the theatre chains in Canada have been made aware, hence taking proper precautions. But what good is a theatre experience when it feels minimal? Why go to a showing when you need to wear a mask?

Tenet should’ve been postponed to next year, presumably Summer 2021. That might mean waiting longer, but at least then we might actually have a vaccine ready. It’d also mean hyping up the movie more, increasing sales from people who’d purchased tickets in advance and spread word of mouth. That’s a sensible solution, no? I think so.

If anything, I don’t see Tenet coming out this year as a positive. Ignoring how The US will have a scattered release, which could frustrate sales and lead to mass piracy, it’s not a good strategy. 2020 has been a mess for many reasons, COVID aside. People are tired, stressed and scared. Having a movie release in the height of this seems irresponsible on the part of WB. I don’t say that lightly. 

True, we can’t be shut-ins forever. Sooner or later, hopefully later, we’ll have to face reality like the social animals we are. Sooner or later, we’ll have to adjust despite the pandemic. But I don’t think that’s now. Especially not for an action movie, however good it is.

Perhaps I’m projecting? I don’t know. I’ve seen how much of the world has reacted to the pandemic. I’ve seen the death tolls, the protests, the gaslighting by political figures too arrogant to see the harm they’re doing. COVID’s also exposed every crack in the foundation of society, from wealth inequality to racial inequality, and it’s concerning. Now’s not a good time for a tentpole release. 

So why are we having one? Why risk the lives of moviegoers, some with preexisting conditions, for the sake of “bang-bang-boom”? Why right now? It’s bad enough that I can’t cough in my own room without feeling guilty, or go for a walk without immediately washing my hands when I return. I’m in full paranoia mode in private, I don’t need that in public too.

Not everyone will agree with me on this, and that’s okay. You do what’s comfortable for you. But this doesn’t make it any less-stressful for me, and I’m not chancing an infection over something that’ll most-likely be on streaming and video in a few weeks anyway. It doesn’t justify putting my life at risk, as disheartened as I am.

So yes, I refuse to see Tenet in theatres. I’m sorry to have to disappoint you with that statement.

Rated R for Disney+

It seems like every time Disney is mentioned nowadays, it’s either with disgust or frustration. And it’s not, honestly, unwarranted. The past few weeks have demonstrated that with Mulan and Black Widow costing extra on Disney+ to compensate for no theatre runs, as well as ceasing 4K Blu-Rays of future releases. Still, every once-in-a-while you have to acknowledge the positive developments. 

                    

Ever since Disney+ launched, there’s been a concern that their more mature catalogue, like the films from 20th Century Fox and Touchstone Pictures, would never would never see the light. Disney’s a family-friendly company, so they wouldn’t want their reputation tarnished over violence or T&A. However, that they’ve been sitting on this potential market is troubling. Don’t adults pay for Disney+? Shouldn’t they be entitled to something?

According to recent rumours, there’s a chance they might be remedying that in the near-future. Going by Google News’s feed, Disney+ could be launching an adult-only section soon. Said section would be accessible via a pin, but it’d allow the service to show unedited versions of movies deemed “too adult”. Cue the fanfare!

While this is great for adult fans, and would quell complaints of their focus being too narrow, I have some concerns. Two, to be exact. And I know Hulu was part of the Disney-Fox deal in 2017, hence Disney could technically use it instead, but Hulu’s only available in The US and Japan right now so I’m not including that. Plus, how much can Hulu be relied on as a workaround, especially when Disney+ is where the money lies? 

My first concern involves the timing. It feels…late, to put it lightly. Disney acquired Fox in 2017, with an approved purchase by congress in 2018. They’ve also had Touchstone Pictures since the 80’s. Not acting on this earlier is a missed opportunity. And acting on this now, following a heap of criticism from adult fans, feels suspicious.

I wouldn’t be so skeptical if Disney didn’t constantly trip over their own feet in order to do family-friendly damage control. That’s what happened with Splash on Disney+, which edited out any sexually-suggestive content that, by most standards, was still pretty tame. They also, apparently, did a poor job, with edits looking really noticeable. An adult-only section of Disney+ would be a great workaround, but at what cost? Forgive me for being paranoid, but would there be two versions of Splash in the end, with the edited version and unedited version being in separate sections?

My other concern, and this is the more-weighty one, is if this’d cost extra, or up the price of the service. I’m not sure I’d be happy with paying more for something that, honestly, should’ve been there at launch. It’s bad enough that I already have to pay an additional premium for Mulan and Black Widow, even though they’d be permanently accessible afterward. So charging more money for an adult-only section would be excessive. 

I’m sure Disney knows more than me on this. They’re a company run by people who’ve been in the game for a while. Even when they make “bad decisions”, they still know more about running a business than I do. I’m sure the execs were discussing an adult-only section on Disney+ long before anyone else. I’m also sure they realize the consequences either way.

Like with everything, this could also potentially backfire. Disney+ could end up with the adult-only section not working properly. Or it could be underwhelming and let everyone down. Or it could lead to backlash from traditionalist groups who claim that “Disney’s corrupting our youth”. Considering how crazy the world is, none of those possibilities should be off the table.

But I digress. While this feels like a late addition that could be exploited financially, I’m happy that it’s even being considered. I’m even more happy that it’d let me watch an unedited version of Splash, or something more “provocative”. Disney gets flak for not taking enough risks. They’re chastised for being “safe” and “pandering”, with minimal room for growth. And the whenever they try something new and different, they’re met with backlash for that too. I don’t envy them, and having an adult-only section seems like a nice compromise. 

There’s also a lot of legitimate criticism to throw at Disney lately: their treatment of James Gunn. Their self-winking in many of their films. Their shady purchase of 20th Century Fox, and the mass-layoffs as a result. Their decision to reopen their parks in the middle of a pandemic. Their live-action remakes lacking creativity. Their cruise line skirting American tax laws. Even their decision to stronghold theatre chains into playing movies that don’t perform well at the box-office. But making an adult-only section on their own streaming platform is great, especially if it means seeing classics deemed too avant-garde for family-friendly audiences.

Besides, if this doesn’t end up happening, or if it doesn’t work out, then I’m sure Disney will never hear the end of it. We’ll probably know more in the next little while.

So, You Want to Write a Novel?

Earlier this year, I announced in a blog post that I’d started a novel writing course. It was through The University of Michigan, affiliated with Coursera, and was to be a 26-week, mostly self-guided class. While I’ve had ambitions to write and eventually put out a novel as far back as childhood, I never had the motivation prior. But now, with a course on tap and lots of free time on my hands, I figured I’d make good on that. So how was it?

It was good…with some reservations.

I’ll start with the positives. For one, the course was pretty straightforward. It was divided up into 26 weeks, which were then sub-divided into a lecture and an assignment. The lectures consisted of 1-5 minute videos where my professor, a screenwriter named David Wheeler, would discuss the intricacies of writing, explain my assignment and give clear instructions about the lesson at hand. He also had a really lulling voice, perfect for anyone willing to cure their insomnia.

Following each lecture, as I said earlier, was an assignment with a template: write the assignment, usually a chapter, post it and review 5 of your peers’ works in order to move on. This was mandatory for completing the course, which was a pass/fail with no in-between. It was the meat and potatoes, but it gave me a chance to track my classmates and see what they were up to. It was frustrating waiting for them to catch up at times, but the end result was often really rewarding.

I think this made the class that much more exciting. Because the 20 chapters had to be posted separately, it made the writing feel episodic. Want to know if the character in a suspense thriller survived? Find out next time. Wondering if she made out with him before their wedding? Again, find out next time. Curious what happens next? You get the picture.

This, when coupled with a forum for individual concerns, was brilliant. Giving feedback in general is hard, doubly-so without an incentive. Far too often people weasel out of giving feedback if they don’t want to. So having a course that required it as part of its mandate, though sometimes stressful, was a nice way to incorporate that. It made getting feedback from classmates addicting.

But it also kept me much more invested. The prof generally preferred a “500 words a day” regiment, so as to keep from losing pace. But I constantly bucked that, opting for a full, 2500 word count in one sitting. It allowed me to complete a single chapter in 2-4 hours, unintentionally depriving me of a bathroom break, dinner, or, worst-case scenario, sleep. It also allowed for many typos and grammatical errors, which wasn’t helped by not being able to fix them when I posted my assignments. Oops!

If I have one critique of this course, it’s the Table Reads. Every 7 chapters, or every individual act break, I was required to gather some friends and have them read the individual parts in a group setting. I hated these assignments, despite there only being three of them in total. Not only was finding people tedious, but arranging times to read the book aloud was even more so. It didn’t help when one or two people were in another time zone, as I’d have to arrange around their schedules. I still pulled it off, but couldn’t my classmates have sufficed for this?

I ended up dividing the sessions into two, one-hour blocks of time and recording the voices to listen to later on. This, obviously, required written consents from all parties, which was also tedious to coordinate, but they allowed for feedback loops to listen to should I need them. They also required me to upgrade my Zoom account, which costed me extra, but it was worth it.

Following the Table Reads, and this was of my own volition, I enlisted my grandfather, a man with no real interest in science-fiction, to help me edit my writing and make it flow better. Initially, my book was slightly over 50000 words, in keeping with the course’s requirements. However, not everything I wrote meshed together, so the book shrank by close to 1000 words. I know that technically broke the 50000-word rule, but I think it flows better now. I only wish some of my best jokes had survived the edit, even though my grandfather ended up liking my work.

Once that was done, I encountered another problem: the completed manuscript wouldn’t upload. It turned out I wasn’t alone on that, so I linked a Google Doc instead and apologized to my class for that. It wasn’t technically breaking the rules, I was still sharing the completed product, but it felt like a cop-out. Still, at least it got done.

Would I recommend this course? I suppose. Much like the “Should I got to film school?” question that gets floated around, it depends on what you want from writing. If you feel like it’s worth flexing your creative muscles, then I guess it’s worth a shot. Besides, my prof gave me a copyright symbol for no extra cost, and you’re not wasting money on an expensive degree that won’t get you your dream career. 

I only wish those Table Read weren’t so annoying. But hey, what can you do? The course was free, so I can’t complain about that! (Also, it’s the only course I’ve taken where I’ve received a 100% final grade, so…)

"It's a Small Film After All..."

This week has blessed me with two ideas for The Whitly-Verse. The first ties into Mulan, as it was revealed that Disney would stop releasing physical media of their movies. While this frustrates me, I won’t discuss it today. Instead, I’d like to focus on something different. Let’s talk about the most-recent video from YouTuber The Royal Ocean Film Society.

I’ve been a fan of this channel for some time. Ever since the video on the late-Isao Takahata, I’ve appreciated its slick, clean and well-polished/delivered style. The channel reminds me of Tony Zhou’s Every Frame a Painting series, except if it hadn’t disappeared after a controversial video on MCU music. I’d recommend giving the channel a look if you haven’t already. Seriously, you won’t regret it.

Anyway, the creator of the channel recently posted a video on Christopher Nolan and his decent into the same pit David Lean was in at the end of his career. He argued that Nolan’s desire to be bigger and grander with each new film hurts his writing, and that he wishes he’d go back to the smaller, more intimate style of The Prestige. It’s an interesting sentiment, but I think that “smaller = better”, while nice in theory, isn’t necessarily true. And nowhere can that be seen then with another filmmaker: Hayao Miyazaki.

I love Hayao Miyazaki’s work. His views aside, the man’s made 11 films to-date, and all of them, even his lesser ones, are classics. He’s been compared to Walt Disney and Steven Spielberg routinely, and with good cause: he captures the youthful exuberance both were famous for in their heydays, and all while appealing to adults. Still, while I love Miyazaki’s films, his filmography stands as a counterargument to The Royal Ocean Film Society. More specifically, it’s a counterargument because of Howl’s Moving Castle and Ponyo. 

Howl’s Moving Castle, based on the books by Diana Wynne Jones, tells the tale of a modest and insecure hatter, named Sophie, who’s cursed by a witch to be an old woman after she meets a wizard named Howl. Desperate to break the curse, Sophie travels to find Howl’s mysterious castle. Once there, she discovers that it’s run by a fire demon named Calcifer. Calcifer agrees to help Sophie on the condition that she helps him in return, so she becomes a cleaning lady to get on Howl’s good side. Through a series of shenanigans, Sophie and Howl uncover a plan to prolong the war with a neighbouring kingdom, connect to Howl’s lost youth and fall in love.

I’ve made no secret my thoughts on this movie. Despite excellent sound design, dubbing, music by Joe Hisaishi and animation, the story’s all-over. It takes forever to get going, longer to be interesting and even longer to arrive at its point. At under two hours in length, it feels too long with not enough meaningful content. Instead, we’re greeted with shenanigans, aimless side-threads, some red herrings and a clumsy, anti-war message that Miyazaki’s stated was a commentary on The US invasion of Iraq. I still enjoy it, but my frustrations can be summed up by the late-Roger Ebert’s Rotten Tomatoes summary:

“A parade of weird characters comes onstage to do their turns, but the underlying plot grows murky and, amazingly for a Miyazaki film, we grow impatient at spectacle without meaning.”

(FYI, he gave the movie a 2.5/4 review.) 

It’s worth noting that the film received solid reviews. Especially from fans, who regularly cite it as one of their favourites from Miyazaki. But there’s no denying the grandness of the film hurts it. Howl’s Moving Castle’s a big story with big ideas on a big scale. It has lots to say about war, fate and love, yet juggles everything so haphazardly that it’s a chore to watch. This is Hayao Miyazaki’s big spectacle movie where the story falters. So why do I think its existence contradicts The Royal Ocean Film Society?

Because of Ponyo.

I was skeptical going into Ponyo. Whereas Howl’s Moving Castle was one of the first Miyazaki movies I’d watched, Ponyo was one of the last, and my frustrations with the former film made me nervous about the latter; after all, Ponyo was his most-recent film at the time. Surely Miyazaki had run out of steam, right? Nope!

Ponyo’s about a magical fish who escapes her underwater kingdom and gets trapped in a bottle. She winds up outside the house of a young boy named Sosuke, who develops a bond with her before she’s snatched away by her father, Fujimoto. However, said fish, now named Ponyo, decides she doesn’t want to be with Fujimoto, so she escapes and comes back to Sosuke as a human. Ultimately, Fujimoto’s forced to let his daughter go if it means restoring balance, which has been messed with because of Ponyo’s escape. 

Ponyo should fit the bill of “smaller = better”. It’s the smallest-scale film Miyazaki’s done since Porco Rosso, and I think it works for that reason. The story, while going slightly off-the-rails in the second-half, is easier to grasp, and its characters are really simple. Even its animation and music are bare-bones, going with a “children’s colouring book” aesthetic to compliment Joe Hisaishi’s operatic score. This, theoretically, should be a better-received film. Yet while its critical praise is higher than Howl’s Moving Castle, something I agree with, audience members were less-impressed. To quote one Super Reviewer on Rotten Tomatoes:

“What really annoys me is despite how crazy, unusual, and magical all of the events of the movie are, no one seems to even give a shit.”

This is among the many issues detractors lob at the film: it’s too childish. Its characters are apathetic. It’s too weird. Ponyo’s annoying. I don’t agree with any of these, but it goes to show that smaller =/= better with filmmaking.

I’d be remiss if I called Howl’s Moving Castle “bad”. It’s not. It’s not even my least-favourite Miyazaki movie; that honour belongs to Porco Rosso. But the disconnect with Howl’s Moving Castle and Ponyo should demonstrate that The Royal Ocean Film Society’s thesis has a gaping hole in it. Or maybe I’m being overly-critical? 

Either way, it’s an excellent video from an excellent channel. It’s too bad the video discussed Christopher Nolan, though, especially given the news about Tenet!

Battle of the Paper Marios

The Paper Mario franchise is one I hold quite dear. I can’t say that for many RPGs. Yet while the franchise is beloved to gamers, only the first two entries receive that love. That’s not without cause, as they’re the best ones, taking a simple concept and really running with it. And with the newest entry, Paper Mario: The Origami King, dividing fans yet again, I figured I’d compare them to see which one’s better.

By the way, minor spoilers. Fair warning.

Courtesy of ThomasPussyCat.

Courtesy of Japancommercials4U2.

(FYI, I know fans prefer one to the other, but I want to be fair.)

Story:

VS

The story in Paper Mario feels like that of a Mario platformer: Bowser has kidnapped Princess Peach. Mario fights him, only to be defeated by The Star Rod. Shortly afterward, it’s revealed that the 7 keepers of this Star Rod have been imprisoned by Bowser and are being held by his top goons. It’s up to Mario, along with his various companions, to defeat Bowser. Sounds simple enough!

Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door has a more elaborate story, however. The basic set-up of Mario rescuing Peach is there, but while stopping a 1000 year-old curse from ruining Rogueport by collecting the 7 Crystal Stars has way too many contrivances, including the anniversary of said curse being that day, plenty of world-building is also present. There’s a side-story involving Captain Cortez that weaves into the main story. Rogueport also has a side-plot involving Don Pianta and his daughter that has two pay-offs. Even Peach and Bowser have individual side-stories, with Peach’s story feeling more intimate than in Paper Mario. And while both games have fun party members with quirks, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door’s party members are a lot more interesting.

So yes, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door has the better story.

Winner: 

Controls and Gameplay:

VS

Both Paper Mario games have similar controls, mapped out to their console’s controllers, so I won’t delve too much into that outside of how the combat takes full-advantage of them. Conversely, the gameplay in their over-worlds is pretty similar: you traverse them and travel through different areas in a side-scrolling manner. The only differences come in the over-world power-ups and battle mechanics.

In Paper Mario, being more technologically restricted because it’s cartridge-based, Mario’s power-ups are really basic. You get the boots and hammer abilities early on, as well as some upgrades, but most of the puzzles are basic: break this. Hit this switch. Blow this up. It’s simple, but it gets the job done.

Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door expands on this. Everything I mentioned before is here, but you can also activate cursed chests that make you into a plane and a sailboat, amongst others. These “curses” are useful for unlocking over-world treasures, and you can’t complete the game without them. Even when Mario gets his hammer and boots upgrades, you’re still greeted to Toadette, who explains how to use them.

The battling systems are also really similar, but with slight differences. In Paper Mario, you fight enemies via a “live film projector”, complete with Mario’s attacks/items and your partner’s fighting techniques. You can also equip badges in the over-world to help in battle, which use FP, or Flower Points. Assuming your HP, or Health Points, don’t diminish entirely in a fight, you collect SP, or Star Points, when you win, 100 of which allows you to upgrade HP, FP, or BP (Badge Points). My only complaint, aside from partners having no defence, is that you can’t collect SP from places you’ve beaten, limiting level grinding.

Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door expands on combat by turning it into live theatre. This includes audience members, who you interact with at various points in battle. While I appreciate that party members now have HP, and that you can somewhat collect SP from beaten worlds, keeping your audience happy in battles can often be incredibly distracting. You not only have to eject dangerous audience members, you have to worry about the roulette feature working in your favour. It’s really tedious.

I don’t like some of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door’s backtracking, either. Toward the end, in World 7, you’re forced to travel all around Rogueport to find someone via a wild goose chase. The wrestling matches in World 3, while fun, feel repetitive with the stipulations required to progress in ranks. Paper Mario might’ve had that tedious seed side-quest to access World 6, but it was mostly secondary irritation. The only hinderance with backtracking there came with World 4, and even then it was solvable without much repetition.

Speaking of nuisances, I despise the Bowser levels in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. They’re few, far-between and not hard, but they break the flow of gameplay and the side-scrolling is awful! I groaned whenever they showed up on replay, and I loved them as a teenager! It’s stuff like that that holds the game back ever-so-slightly, and this is despite having a better final boss and more post-game content. Paper Mario wins.

Winner: 

Aesthetic:

VS

Both Paper Mario games utilize a storybook appeal, hence “paper” in their titles. Both games also look really good by today’s standards. This is especially so with Paper Mario, being an N64 title. Considering that many late games in the console’s library look blocky now and have clipping issues, that the game’s art-style even helps detract from how low-resolution the sprite models are is impressive. I could easily mistake this game for an early-GameCube title!

Still, I have to give it to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. Why? Because as much as Paper Mario looks amazing, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door looks better. Plus, the game looks grimy and broken-down visually, adding a lived-in quality. There are also plenty more areas filled with secrets, encouraging exploration. Paper Mario, while still looking really good, lacks that.

Winner: 

Sound:

VS

One area the two games appear evenly-matched in is their scores. Both boast incredible music, be it their battle tunes, over-world tunes, or boss fights. They also revamp jingles from Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World, reminding the player why these jingles resonated to begin with. It’s a hard choice.

All-the-more reason why I’m impressed with Paper Mario’s OST. The N64 was already technically obsolete by the early-2000’s, thanks to the Dreamcast and the PS2. You’d think a 5th-Gen console had already given up most of its musical secrets, but this game still managed to milk a few more. For that reason alone, I’m inclined to lean in its favour.

That’s not to say Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door lacks good tunes. It doesn’t. I’m impressed with Rogueport’s over-world and sewer themes, both of which constitute most of the game. But while the OST’s great, it’s pretty standard for the GameCube. It’s simply not as impressive to hear what it has to offer compared to its predecessor.

Winner: 

Overall Appeal:

VS

This has been a tough comparison. Picking which game I like more is like picking which child of mine is more loved, weird as that sounds. I love both games, and that’s never changing. But I have to, so I’m going with Paper Mario. Why?

Because of its accessibility. Paper Mario, aside from the Pokémon franchise, remains the most-accessible RPG I’ve ever played. Its learning curve is simple, its premise is easy to pick-up-and-play, and its puzzles aren’t complicated. It’s one of the easiest RPGs to play as well, which is great because I struggle with RPGs more than any other genre (and I already struggle a lot with video games!) That I can replay it all these years later with minimal help from guides or tutorials is welcomed considering how I’m frequently chained to them.

That doesn’t mean Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, save the final boss, is taxing. It’s not, and I could easily see myself coming back to it. But while it has more side and post-game content, I don’t think it’s as fun. The game, as I said before, has lots of backtracking and is hampered by the Bowser levels, and while it improves in many ways over its predecessor, it also doesn’t do enough new. It feels like a 2.0 of Paper Mario, except more-refined. Some of you might prefer that, but I don’t. I much prefer what Paper Mario brought to the table. Paper Mario, therefore, is the better game.

Winner:

Overall Winner:

And there you have it, another video game comparison! Hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I did writing it, and I’ll see you all next time!

Disney's Moolah-n

I’ve made my Disney apologetics no secret: I like Disney. I like their movies. I like how cleverly-written they are. I like how they capture nostalgia. I’ve even liked some of their business decisions. However, fan or no fan, I’m not blind to their nonsense, especially lately.

See, I’m not a huge fan of Mulan. I like it, but it’s always felt like being a Disney film held it back. It could’ve been way better had it doubled-down on its themes of imperialism and sexism. But what we got was still good, despite having one of the biggest tonal whiplashes in movie history. (Don’t think I didn’t notice!)

So when I heard the movie was being remade in live-action, I was more on-board than most. True, the songs would be absent and the story tweaked, but if it meant getting a unique spin then so be it! Despite its lead actress’s tone-deaf remarks on the Hong Kong protests, I was interested in seeing what this remake could offer. The trailers certainly helped.

Unfortunately, COVID had different plans. Initially, Mulan was slated for a Spring 2020 release, alongside Black Widow. But the global lockdown and poor response to COVID from The US caused constant delays and a retooling of its release. Mulan, like Tenet, was doomed to never be released in theatres, instead going with a streaming option. That’s exactly what happened.

Obviously, in a move that both shocked everyone and surprised no one, the movie was announced for Disney+. And it was announced for a one-time premium of $30 US. This is on top of Disney+ already costing $70 US a year. The levels of chutzpah here can’t really be articulated, but I’ll try anyway!

Firstly, why charge a one-time premium? Movie theatres don’t even do that, and they’ve gotten away with lots of suspicious stuff! (How much do you think a bag of popcorn costs to manufacture?) They also don’t restrict how many times you’re allowed to see something. You simply go back and buy another ticket, and the theatres will graciously accept your money!

Secondly, since I get that Mulan couldn’t come to theatres, why charge extra on Disney+? The people who are interested probably are already sucked into your ecosystem, Disney. There’s no real reason to charge up the wazoo, especially when you didn’t do that for Hamilton! This is an opportunity to show that you’re better than movie theatres, and you’re bungling it!

Thirdly, even if you want to charge a little extra, unethical as it is, why $30? That’s the price of a DVD purchase. I know because you charged that consistently with Studio Ghibli’s catalogue. And little old me, not realizing streaming was the way of the future, kept buying them, so the price is etched in my mind. If you really want to be competitive, Disney, then maybe only up-charge ¼ of that?

And fourthly, what does this accomplish? Did you expect more excitement? We’re in the middle of a recession-soon-to-be-depression, many people can’t afford to both purchase up-charged entertainment and pay for living expenses. It might not seem it, but now’s a bad time to do something this outlandish. Especially since some people will still pirate your content.

I get it, you were screwed out of a theatre release. It sucks, it really does. But while releasing a highly-anticipated feature on Disney+ is a viable alternative, and might even be the best option, charging a one-time fee of $30 isn’t how you do it. It might actually deter some people! And I say that as someone who was interested.

It’s also worrying because it signals an abuse of power. Disney, with their shady acquisition and restructuring of 20th Century Fox, has already skirted anti-trust laws and made the moviegoing experience more difficult. Perhaps I’m being cynical, but this is the kind of dystopian price gouging you hear about in science-fiction, the kind you’d read in a Phillip K. Dick novel or watch on the big-screen. It’s sketchy nonsense you’d expect in fantasy, not reality. So why’s it happening in reality, and with Disney?

Perhaps I’m missing something, and Disney knows what I don’t. It’s not out of the question that they’ve anticipated the backlash. The up-charge, shady as it is, could end up working in their favour. All of this is possible, I’m simply a guy who happens to be a Disney fan.

But rest assured, it’s definitely questionable behaviour! I know that the die-hards will defend this anyway, as they did Disney’s purchase of Fox, stating that it’s “good for Disney fans because __”, but that doesn’t assuage my concerns. Because this could be the future of how entertainment functions if Disney’s decision pays off. In a world where streaming’s increasingly the norm, is price gouging what we should anticipate from now on? Is this the new trend?

Because if it is, I’ll stick with physical media for as long as possible. Change my mind.

(Update: it turns out Black Widow’s going for the same strategy. Make of that what you will.)