Mephisto is Histo!

We finally have a Spider-Man: No Way Home trailer:

This still is wild! (Courtesy of Sony Pictures Entertainment.)

I’m surprised and excited. Surprised, because there are cameos and moments I didn’t expect. And excited, because it’s looking to be another banger. However, amidst the fanfare and buzz, it seems like the “Will Mephisto be in this?” question’s being floated again. It’s pretty grating, so I’ll address it.

By the way, spoilers.

Who’s Mephisto? According to Marvel Comics, he’s a demon who manipulates reality. He terrorized Wanda during the House of M storyline, and he reversed Peter Parker’s misfortunes. He’s also Satan. Because “Mephisto” is short for “Mephistopheles”, which is one of Satan’s pseudonyms.

I mention this because Mephisto will have been the villain of two sources for MCU projects once this movie premiers. And because he was absent in WandaVision, people are wondering if he’ll debut in Spider-Man: No Way Home. On one hand, it wouldn’t be strange, especially with the direction The MCU has taken. But on the other hand, is he worth having? I don’t think so.

Let’s look at what The MCU did for its previous adaptation of a Mephisto story: in WandaVision, Wanda Maximoff, fresh off the trauma of The Avengers: Endgame, moves to Westview and constructs a sitcom reality. She and Vision move in to their house, become parents to twins and reunite with Pietro. Everything seems hunky-dory, but the cracks keep showing up. It’s eventually revealed that Wanda’s enslaving the citizens of Westview mentally, and she’s even preventing Vision from having agency.

It’d be easy to include Mephisto. He was behind Wanda’s fake reality in the comics! But I applaud The MCU for not doing that, instead having the antagonist be Wanda. It gave her agency, made her sympathetic and helped her learn to grieve. Plus, it gave us one of the best fights in MCU history (outside of the Vision VS Vision battle). Had Mephisto been included, it would’ve felt like a cop-out.

That applies to Spider-Man: No Way Home too. One of the draws of Spider-Man is that-underneath the costume, webbing and snarky quips-he’s a regular guy who was bitten by a radioactive spider and acquired superpowers by accident. Part of that normalcy is that, like every normal person, he isn’t perfect. He’s haughty, he’s naïve, he’s occasionally arrogant and he makes mistakes. Some of those mistakes have big consequences, like when he failed to stop the man who murdered Uncle Ben.

In The MCU’s case, this film’s about Peter accidentally causing a rift in reality while trying to reverse Mysterio’s revelation that he’s Spider-Man. He’s most-likely going to meet alternate versions of himself in an attempt to stop Doctor Octopus and The Green Goblin, and all to take responsibility for this blunder. It’s a cool setup with lots of potential, and it has leeway to include Mephisto. And, once again, I don’t want him there.

I know Mephisto’s popular with comic fans. But not only are most moviegoers unfamiliar with comics, hence this’d be a weird cameo, but The MCU’s ignored accuracy in service of a good story before. They did that with Taskmaster in Black Widow. And with Quicksilver in WandaVision. And even with-actually, considering that The Mandarin’s being retconned for Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, maybe that’s not a great example.

Regardless, The MCU’s unafraid of deviating for the sake of flow. And I admire them for that! Not everything translates well to film, so certain details have to go. Mephisto, who was always iffy, seems like as good a place as any. I know it’ll make some comic fans mad, but it’s true.

Besides, do people want Mephisto in The MCU? As in, do they want his baggage? Because having a character like him robs your protagonist of their agency. He’s not like Mephistopheles from Doctor Faustus, where he kicks off the conflict, he’s a guy who meddles with superheroes. And not even in a good way. Having him here, therefore, would be a bad idea.

What about Doctor Strange? He seems out-of-character in this movie, and he’s the one who kicks off the conflict. Considering that Nick Fury was a Skrull in Spider-Man: Far From Home, why can’t Doctor Strange be Mephisto? I think that question answers itself: if Doctor Strange is behaving unusual, like how Nick Fury was behaving unusual, then chances are he’s also a Skrull; after all, Skrulls are shapeshifters, and it’d explain a lot. It’d also be in-line with how The MCU operates.

I feel like a party pooper, pointing out how Mephisto sucks. But I can’t lie. I don’t think it’s wise to include someone who robs other characters of their agency in a franchise that thrives on good character writing. Perhaps if The MCU figures out how to use him properly for a future story, we can see Mephisto appear. But that’d require tweaking him significantly, and until that happens…well, I think we’ll survive.

My COVIDtine Woes...

I’m getting sick of COVID.

It’s unoriginal to say that, isn’t it? After all, aren’t we all? It’s been around for over a year and a half, and it doesn’t seem to be going away. If anything, it feels like it’s getting worse! That doesn’t sound promising!

Normally, pieces like this are written to downplay the pandemic so that “life can go back to normal”. I don’t want that. Not only is the world changed because of COVID, but even if it ended…well, I’m not sure the obsessive, hustle-and-bustle culture before was healthy. Instead, I’d like to discuss something else. I’d like to talk about the anti-vaxer mentality, and how that’s not helping.

Anti-vax sentiment isn’t new. The current version started with Andrew Wakefield’s now-retracted paper on MMR vaccines and Autism. I’m not a doctor, but as someone with Autism this bugs me. It bugs me because vaccines, by and large, are pretty harmless, and because it assumes you can’t live with Autism. That I recently celebrated my 31st birthday should be proof enough.

I’d further lambast Wakefield’s paper, but it’s not relevant. What’s relevant is how anti-vaxer sentiment has reached a fever-pitch and mixed with anti-masker sentiment. The notions that masks “are dangerous” and that vaccines, particularly COVID vaccines, “are dangerous” have overlapped. People who are one tend to be the other, and they’re loud and angry. So much so that they’re making life a nightmare for everyone else.

There are several issues at play here, so I’ll try to break them down:

The first is that masks are “dangerous”. This, ignoring special cases, isn’t true. I’ve been wearing masks for work since December, and I have sensory issues. Are they tight? Yes. Are they uncomfortable? Yes, hence why I routinely change them during breaks. But they’re not dangerous, or they’d be outlawed.

Besides, masks aren’t a new phenomenon. Doctors and nurses wear them all the time, often for many hours on end. And hospitals distribute them when people are visiting immunocompromised patients, lest there be lawsuits. I remember wearing a mask when I was getting over a cold during an ENT appointment once, as I had a residual cough. I hated every second of it, but I survived.

So many people act like masks are a detriment to their health and freedoms. Countless videos and articles discuss people throwing fits over masks in the last year and a half. Why does it bother them? Don’t they realize that wearing masks means being able to hide your face in public? Don’t people like that freedom?

Second, there’s the claim that COVID vaccines are “dangerous”. The arguments range from containing tracking devices inside them, to being overly-experimental, to having side-effects that won’t know about until years from now. Ignoring, again, medical exemptions, I have to call this out too: firstly, mRNA vaccines have been in development for years. They were in development before SARS in 2003, as COVID’s similar to it. They’ve gone through intense testing and tinkering since, and they were proven to work. They’re not quite 100% foolproof, but the companies that made them are aware of that.

Secondly, they work! Even when vaccinated people have contracted COVID, which was always a possibility, the symptoms have been far less severe. Long COVID symptoms range from flesh-eating disease, or “black fungus”, to increased onset of dementia, to even libido issues. And that’s only scratching the surface! There’s so much we don’t know about the long-term impacts of COVID, as it’s a relatively new virus. Wouldn’t it make sense to avoid contracting it by being vaccinated?

Thirdly, the research that went into mRNA vaccines, while new, has allowed for breakthroughs in other vaccines. The biggest one is a potential HIV vaccine. Wouldn’t it have been great to have it in the 80’s and 90’s, when HIV was still a real threat? How is this not a win?

And fourthly, mRNA vaccines have side-effects, true, but they’re monitored heavily. I know about the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca blood clots. I know that Pfizer can briefly derail the menstrual cycle. But guess what? These are being accounted for as potential side-effects. I’d still rather risk them than contract COVID. Especially when many of the foods we ingest are also more dangerous.

This leads to my third and final frustration: anti-vaxers/anti-maskers downplaying the severity of COVID. Not only is the virus real, but it has no plans of going away. It’s non-partisan, it doesn’t care what you think about it, and it’s dangerous. It’s also mutating, with Delta being the dominant variant now and Lambda being one of concern. These didn’t appear overnight, they were a result of transmissions through millions of people. And that they’re more aggressive than the initial virus is concerning.

Why are so many people acting so selfishly? Why is being proactive so contentious? Why are vaccine passports, which aren’t even that controversial, being met with hostility and resistance? Sure, surviving the virus is a possibility, especially if you’re young and healthy, but there are over 7 billion people on the planet. Even if the chances of death are less than 10%, that’s still incredibly high. This is basic math!

I’ve heard stories from family and friends about the dangers of COVID. Some of my relatives are doctors, and they’ve done rounds in ICUs. The beds are filling up like no tomorrow, the hospital staff are overworked and stressed, and the patients are dying regularly. And even with that, people are acting like this isn’t a big deal? Does a virus only matter if it impacts you?

It’s been a tough year and a half. I miss going to the theatres and eating out with friends. Zooming all day is exhausting. And not taking public transit limits where I can travel, as I can’t drive. All of this is cumbersome. But it won’t get better unless we all play our part.

I don’t want to downplay the medical issues with masks and vaccines. Like I said before, I know there are valid exemptions to both. I know people who can’t wear masks, as well as people who are anaphylactic to vaccines. I feel for both, I really do. But that’s why I’m being extra careful. Because my due-diligence will save their lives.

Ultimately, we need to make a choice: do we want this pandemic to end, or do we want it to keep getting worse? I want the former. But that’ll only happen if we all behave. And if that means anti-vaxers/anti-maskers sucking up their pride and doing what’s right, then so be it. Because I’m tired of throwing away my life over their selfishness.

Black Widow's Widow

I sometimes feel like my love-hate relationship with Disney is harmful. On one hand, as I’ve said before, I love much of their work. On the other hand, I despise their business practices, especially when they harm people. That said, it seems like their behaviour is getting worse. Which brings me to their legal battle with Scarlett Johansson.

I’m sure everyone’s familiar with The MCU. It’s one of the biggest and most-profitable business ventures in Hollywood, with 24 films and several shows under its belt. Chances are you’ve heard of or seen one, and it isn’t slowing down anytime soon. If anything, the pandemic only set everything back a year. That says a lot.

Johansson’s contract with Marvel ended with Black Widow, her first solo film since the franchise began in 2008. Despite doing well critically, its box office returns were hampered by the pandemic. Disney was even forced to release it theatrically and on Disney+ simultaneously. The latter also included a Premier Access fee, but I’ve covered my thoughts on that already. Sufficed to say, it’s one of The MCU’s lowest-grossing entries.

I mention this because it’s relevant to a scandal that Disney’s engaged in. It turns out Johansson’s contract was breached, and now she’s suing. Disney, in turn, has pushed back, arguing that Johansson’s been inconsiderate and greedy. It’s been making waves, with Emily Blunt and Emma Stone contemplating suing over their contracts too. It’s messy.

I get the position Disney’s in, to an extent. They were planning for a straight-to-theatre release last Summer, but their plans were derailed by COVID. The movie kept getting delayed, until Disney went for a simultaneous release on Disney+. This was something they didn’t have full control over, and that needs to be factored into the equation.

That said, I still side with Johansson. She may not need the money, she’s one of Hollywood’s highest-paid stars, but her contract was strictly for a theatrical release. She didn’t get that. And while the pandemic forced Disney’s hand, her contract should’ve been modified. It’s a case of underhanded, corporate backstabbing, and she deserves compensation.

Additionally, Disney’s behaviour hasn’t made them look favourable. For one, the rhetoric they’ve used has been accused of misogynistic undertones. To quote their legal team:

“‘This lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson's contract and furthermore, the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date.’”

This seems to imply that Johansson doesn’t care about the pandemic, something her legal team, and organizations like Time’s Up, have cited as an attack on her character. And while it’s not my place to comment directly, since I’m male, I have to wonder if the words “sad” and “distressing” would’ve been used if this were her male co-stars…

Two, it’s not like Disney can’t afford it. While many individuals have suffered in the past year and a half, Disney’s one of the outliers that’ve actually gained because of the pandemic. Shares have skyrocketed, with their Disney+ subscriber count jumping to over 100 million. Considering that, Johansson’s demands are miniscule. If anything, they’re a drop in the bucket.

And three, it’s more insult to injury for The House of Mouse’s. Remember, they opened their theme parks in the middle of the pandemic, despite warnings that it wasn’t safe. They’ve routinely put profit over those in their payroll, and this another example of that. So while I understand their decision to change their release, I don’t feel sympathy. Or, at least, I don’t feel sympathy for their wallets.

I’m interested in the ripple effects this could have for anyone who’s been slighted by Disney in recent years. Remember, Emma Stone and Emily Blunt have considered suing over Cruella and Jungle Cruise, two movies they starred in respectively. Their films were also shoved onto Disney+, and they probably felt slighted too. Especially if their contracts weren’t renegotiated.

Then there are future films. Free Guy currently has a theatre-only release, but if it bombs financially it could end up being moved to Disney+. And what about Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings? If that’s switched to Disney+ without warning because of the pandemic, will Simu Liu, the star, also sue? As it stands, nothing’s off the table.

This is the real litmus test. The pandemic has shifted releases to streaming services in large numbers, and while understandable, it raises ethical questions about actor contracts: should they be static, or flexible? Can they be changed based on unforeseen circumstances? And, if so, should the stars be consulted first? I’m no legal expert, but I’m sure these questions will surface in the future.

In Disney’s case, this lawsuit isn’t surprising. The Walt Disney Company has a history of shady practices, including Walt Disney’s alliance with The CIA to brand its striking animators as Communists and blacklist them in the 1940’s. The company’s coasted on deceit and lies, and this is another example. But whereas past endeavours are wrong, this, like the Cicely Daniher case, is something personal made public. It has legs, and it could reshape how big-name stars negotiate contracts.

In the end, it’s sad to see Disney use their image to deceive someone like that. Disney might make good movies, and they might have smart people working for them, but greed is greed. And it hurts people. Scarlett Johansson, a woman who’s been embroiled in controversy before, certainly doesn’t need the money, but it doesn’t matter. She was wronged, and she deserves to make it right. It’s about the principle.

One Villainous Scene: Muska Threatens Sheeta About Laputa

This week was a toss-up for content. On one hand, I had a rant prepared on the situation with Ben & Jerry’s, and how that was being weaponized. On the other hand, Chiaki J. Konaka was prime for discussion. But while both will (hopefully) receive pieces, right now I’ll tackle something easier. Let’s hop on the “One Villainous Scene” train.

Villains are interesting to discuss. They not only, when done well, give something for the protagonists to not become, but they often have the best lines. They’re fun, colourful characters that create tension, giving us something to latch onto and despise. And they’re routinely more interesting than the leads. All of this is why they’re used as storytelling devices.

There are many fun villains out there. Some are big and flashy, while others are small and reserved. If I had to pick one villain and a scene that encapsulates them, it’d have to be from one of my favourite animated films. I’m talking Colonel Muska interrogating Sheeta in Castle in the Sky. I’m such a shill that I’m analyzing two separate scenes from it on The Whitly-Verse. Sue me.

Castle in the Sky’s a film from Hayao Miyazaki that feels like a family-friendly Indiana Jones. Set in Wales at the turn of the 20th Century, it follows Pazu and Sheeta in their quest to find a floating city while being hunted by the military and chased by sky pirates. Along the way, the two become friends, make allies and encounter dark truths. And all of this in, arguably, Miyazaki’s silliest feature. It’s awesome.

The scene I’m zoning-in on takes place roughly a third of the way in. It occurs right after Pazu and Sheeta are captured by the military and taken to a fortress to be interrogated. Pazu, on one hand, is sitting in a dungeon, one he routinely tries, and fails, to escape from. But this is really about Sheeta and Colonel Muska, the film’s antagonist. Sheeta’s been refusing to cooperate with the military, so Muska, who’s been playing his cards close to his chest, takes matters into his own hands. What follows is a turn to seriousness.

Muska visits Sheeta’s chamber under the pretence of giving her a new dress. Sheeta, understandably, wants to know if Pazu’s alright, to which Muska promises she’ll see him later. The two ride a long elevator to the base’s bottom cellar, and Muska shows Sheeta a damaged machine lying in the middle of the room. Sheeta’s shocked and intrigued, something made worse when Muska mentions that this machine, a robot, had crashed onto an elderly couple’s farm from the sky a long time earlier.

I have to make this disclaimer now: I’m referencing the movie’s English dub with this piece. Specifically, the early-2000’s Disney dub, complete with added jokes and a classical rescoring from Joe Hisaishi. The reason is that, aside from being my introduction to it, there’s a unique charm to this version that’s worth analyzing. If that’s enough to deter you, then stop reading this.

What makes this scene unsettling is how it establishes Muska as the antagonist while also grounding Laputa. Prior to this, not only was Muska a background character, but Laputa was a lighthearted goal with low stakes. If anything, Dola and her pirates were the real threat initially, with their battle with Pazu and Sheeta being played for laughs. This was the moment Laputa became serious, and it happened with a robot, a chamber and a colonel frightening a child. This was the end the fun, essentially.

With Sheeta shown that Laputa wasn’t a story passed down by her family, Muska mentions that while the robot’s composition is unknown, its emblem reveals that it was a guardian of the Laputian royal family. Its emblem’s also on Sheeta’s pendant that she wears around her neck. Because the two are interconnected, it’s safe to assume that Laputa’s more powerful than anyone had thought. Of course, Muska’s only sharing this to intimidate Sheeta into cooperating, but it’s chilling to hear all of it anyway. Especially with the quiet, haunting orchestrations in the background.

And then Muska lets the mask briefly slip, as his megalomaniacal demeanour kicks in and he explains how dangerous Laputa is. When Sheeta refuses to cooperate yet again, he ups the ante by threatening to harm Pazu. To top it off, he reveals Sheeta’s royal name, hinting that there’s something he’s not letting on. Considering Sheeta’s already vulnerable, this is the cherry on top.

It’s also brilliant. The scene is short, but so much is revealed: we learn that Laputa’s real in this world. We’re introduced to the darker lore. We see how threatening Muska is, and how he commands the room with few words. And we’re reminded that Sheeta’s a vulnerable kid, which is reenforced by her crying after discovering her pendant’s secret.

You know what helps? The voice acting. I know the English dub gets derided, but this scene is Mark Hamill and Anna Paquin at their best. Hamill especially, being another example of his range beyond Luke Skywalker and The Joker. He relishes every line, chewing the scenery like it’s his dinner. It’s delicious, and he knows it.

Above all else, this is a memorable moment in a memorable movie. I know Miyazaki doesn’t really like shallow villains, he thinks them untrue to life, but Muska makes me wish he’d done more of them. Because, honestly, he’s really good at writing them. Colonel Muska’s the most Hollywood-esque he’ll ever go with his antagonists, but bless him for going there. Because Castle in the Sky wouldn’t be the same without him.

Now, about Miyazaki’s upcoming film…