Marvel's Eternal Connundrum

It’s official: The MCU’s released a dud.

It seems like a bigger deal than it is, as they’ve gone 26 movies without one, but given how the internet reacted to the news, it felt like the world was ending. But it’s not. It was inevitable, assuming the Netflix and primetime shows don’t count, and I’m impressed it took so long. So let’s discuss Eternals. Be prepared for light spoilers.

I’ll get the elephant in the room out of the way: you wouldn’t know Eternals was “bad” from the marketing. The trailers were no worse than other MCU entries, the directing was solid and the casting was really strong. This was also a passion project for Chloé Zhao, one she’d fought for for some time. Given her recent awards for Nomadland, and how Kevin Feige was impressed by some of her shot compositions, nothing indicated a disaster. So what went wrong?

It’s tough to say. Zhao was working with bizarre and confusing material. Jack Kirby might’ve been a legend in the world of comics, but the concept for The Eternals opened a Pandora’s Box that, to this day, remains divisive. It doesn’t help that adapting it for the 21st Century meant updating concepts that haven’t aged well, particularly the Deviants. She had serious handicaps from the get-go.

You see that in the movie itself. Theoretically, the premise isn’t unsalvageable: 10 super-powered beings fight human-eating predators while questioning their purpose. That alone could make for something great, especially with the right amount of sensitivity. Unfortunately, much of the story’s expository pondering about humanity, the meaning of life and if the ends justify the means. Add in time jumps, and that The MCU has struggled when it’s focused too heavily on world-building, and I’m surprised the movie doesn’t trip over itself more often.

For example, one scene deals with Hiroshima. In it, Phastos ponders if his desire to help society advance was a mistake, given the human propensity for violence and destruction. It’s interesting, and it could’ve made for a story on its own, but since this is The MCU’s first openly-gay character, it’s icky. And yes, you read that correctly.

That’s the movie’s biggest issue: it’s littered with writing decisions and concepts that don’t work. Ikaris’s villain arc, aside from cribbing Watchmen’s Ozymandias, has so many weird highs and lows that its resolution, jettisoning himself into The Sun, comes from nowhere and doesn’t feel earned. Nor does Sprite’s crush on Ikaris, or her desire to live a human life. Even Thena’s conflict, her struggle to control her free will, is lopsided, and while it ends nicely, it’s a serious head-scratcher.

These choices are peppered throughout, making everything lacklustre. And the climax, in which 8 of the Eternals band together to prevent a Celestial from destroying Earth, has so many left-field moments that it feels less satisfying than it should. Seriously, count them. If you can do that, congratulations! Pat yourself on the back.

Arguably the biggest failing is the emotional core. There are many scenes that should’ve made me cry, but didn’t. And it’s because the script didn’t get me invested in the Eternals’ inner dilemmas. That’s not a good sign considering The MCU once made me teary-eyed over a raccoon grieving a sentient tree. What happened?

I feel bad for pointing this out. There’s a lot of sincerity here that’s missing in some of The MCU’s best. The casting is diverse. There’s a sex scene that feels genuine. The movie has a gay man and a deaf girl of prominence, and neither feels forced. Even the acting’s leagues above the writing, elevating moments that’d otherwise feel mediocre.

That’s why discussing this movie is so difficult. I wanted to love Eternals, and there were moments where I genuinely enjoyed myself. But while it’s not good, there’s too much that works here for me to despise it altogether. Even Thor: The Dark World wore its mediocrity like ratty clothing, but Eternals? I’m not sure what to think of Eternals!

I know movie watching is subjective and personal. Eternals, therefore, is no different. If someone loves it, I can see the case for why. Conversely, if someone despises it, I can also see that. But myself? I don’t know. It takes a lot to actively turn me off from a movie, but I might need to re-watch this one a few more times to properly assess it. That’s how odd it is.

I also think the discourse surrounding the film’s existence has been blown way out of proportion. Is it the worst movie ever? Not really. I wouldn’t even call it the worst superhero movie ever, there are several other candidates that better fit that. But is it a good movie? No, and that’s okay. We’ve gone this long without a dud from The MCU, and that’s commendable. Besides, Eternals being bad doesn’t matter in the grand scheme. Not at this stage.

Now then, about Hawkeye…

Flip the Switch

I loved the Wii U. It was a great update of the Wii, and it had really neat and innovative ideas built into it (like a controller that doubled as a tablet.) True, its library was small, and its marketing sucked, but I appreciated its brilliance. Its few games were also really good. I can’t lie about that.

While this won’t be me discussing the Wii U’s under-utilized potential, the console’s strengths have definitely carried forward with the Switch. Ignoring how well its games have done, the console is a living, breathing Wii U 2.0 that learned from its direct predecessor’s mistakes. That should be appreciated more, and I don’t think a lot of the conversation talks about that. So that’s what I’ll do.

To begin, let’s go back to the Switch’s initial announcement. A lot of people weren’t sold at first glance, I think prior expectations were to blame, but it’s also important to remember Nintendo’s position in 2017. The Wii U was their worst-selling console outside the Virtual Boy, and much of their goodwill had dissipated. It didn’t help that the Wii’s casual fanbase, who were responsible for much of its success, had departed, and that little effort was put into differentiating the two consoles. So it’s easy to see the skepticism.

But I wasn’t skeptical. Like I said, I loved the Wii U. And I like Nintendo products. I wasn’t bothered by Wii Music’s reveal at E3 2008, so it was enough to cool the initial disappointment. Still, despite 1-2-Switch showing real promise, especially for the visually-impaired, Nintendo’s presentation was pretty lacklustre overall. It was forced, the transitions were choppy and many of the games left much to be desired. I was hopeful, true, but there’d have to be something special to make this work.

And there was. Ignoring The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, early rumours of the Switch being easier to program than the Wii U helped. And they were founded, as third-party developers started porting their titles to the system in droves. It was as if the last 5 years no longer mattered. Nintendo was back.

Which brings me to the Switch. I bought mine in 2008, months after launch, and it was an expensive purchase. But while it took time to recoup my investment, I wasn’t unhappy. Unlike the Wii U, which I got 5 years late, second-hand and with hardware glitches, my Switch was fresh from the assembly line. It was also, unlike my Wii U, easy to set up. Whereas my Wii U took close to 2 hours to activate, my Switch only took about 15 or so minutes. That’s a big difference.

It helped that the console had true portability. Not that the Wii U didn’t have portability, it did, but there were limitations. For one, the undocked mode had to be used on the tablet, which was heavy and uncomfortable. Additionally, it had to be used within range of the console. Because the Wii U used discs, like the Wii before it, the tablet was less portable and more a satellite extension of the console. Add in the poor battery life, and it often made handheld play a hassle.

The Switch wasn’t like that. Being cartridge-based, like the DS line, portability was easy. You inserted the game in the top slot, closed the hatch and pressed the power button. It was as simple as that, and even simpler to use in handheld mode. Not only could you play your game attached to the TV screen, you could take it on the go too. And you could switch options with ease.

Even in handheld mode you had options. Want to play the Switch like a tablet? You can. Want to have multiple people use the same Switch? Detach the controllers, prop the console on its kickstand and have fun. Want to play with multiple Switches? You can do that too.

That was the Switch’s greatest secret: options. The console had taken the best of the Wii U and the best of the DS and merged them into one. It helped that internet connectivity, which was a sore spot with past Nintendo products, was streamlined to be more efficient. Combine that with multiple offline modes, and it’s no wonder the Switch is a hot-seller.

The games library helped. First and second-party titles were always the go-to for Nintendo systems, but Switch entries were so well-suited they kept selling like hotcakes. Even many Wii U ports sold like nobody’s business, showing that the right platform could sell anything. It’s no wonder that cult franchises, like Pikmin and Metroid, did so well, vastly outperforming their predecessors.

Does this mean the Switch doesn’t have its areas of improvement? No. Aside from online play being laggy, voice chat leaves much to be desired. I also wish true HD existed in handheld mode, and that the system wasn’t prone to scratching. The software and hardware isn’t cheap either, and the online emulation of older games is enough to drive people mad. Oh, and the Switch Lite having non-detachable controllers is a mistake.

But those are minor setbacks. Let’s face it: the Switch is a dream machine. It takes everything I loved about the Wii U, builds on it and eliminates most of its predecessor’s limitations. It’s also lightweight and easier on the hands. Most-importantly, however, it’s intuitive, which makes a difference. Here’s hoping Nintendo’s next console adds to what Nintendo’s learned!

Isn't It (Un)ironic?

Roughly three years ago, I critically examined a Christmas classic. Earlier this year, I followed that up with a takedown of a New Year’s Eve song. It’s only fitting that I complete the trifecta with a deconstruction of something I despise: “Ironic”, by Alanis Morissette. Keep in mind that I rarely despise songs, even trashy ones, so that should already be a red flag.

What’s “Ironic”? It’s a 1995 hit about situations Morissette deems “ironic”. In theory, this should be a no-brainer. Irony’s present everywhere in life, be it intentional or unintentional, so there’s plenty of material to work with. It helps that the tune’s also catchy, making it stand out. The only problem?

The lyrics.

Let’s start with a working definition. To quote Merriam-Webster, irony is:

“…[A] situation that is strange or funny because things happen in a way that seems to be the opposite of what you expected.”

This is their second definition, FYI. Regardless, irony implies a contradiction of intent. To use a famous example, Donald Dean Summerville, the 53rd mayor of Toronto, had a massive heart attack and died during a hockey tournament promoting The Heart and Stroke Foundation. The incident was tragic, but also ironic. (It’s also an extreme example.)

Irony is easy to write about: a person having a heart attack at a charity event for heart health? That’s ironic. An organization advocating for the ethical treatment of animals while secretly euthanizing dogs? Cruel, but also ironic. A politician claiming to rid politics of corruption, only to be revealed to be corrupt? Obnoxious, but ironic.

Unfortunately, Morissette’s song misses the boat. To be fair, not all her scenarios are bad candidates in theory: a man too cautious to fly dying in the first plane he boards? Maybe. A traffic jam when you’re already late for work? Again, maybe. These are decent setups, but they lack the extra punch.

And then the chorus ruins everything by using clichés as ironies. I mean, “rain on your wedding day” is obnoxious, and I know people who’ve experienced it, but is it “ironic”? Not really. It’s more unfortunate, and it’s a really bad example. Additionally, ignoring free advice is stupid and short-sighted.

This is the problem with Morissette’s song: her scenarios, while strange, don’t fit the criteria for irony. Some, like the plane and the traffic jam, come close, but they’re incomplete. Because irony needs both a setup and a payoff. Like a joke, the punchline has to work to really land.

I’m not the first person to criticize Morissette’s song. Aside from radio stations refusing to air it following 9/11, it’s been chastised for not understanding “irony” frequently. In particular, Stephen Thomas Erwine called that out in his review. So it’s like flogging a dead horse now, especially 26 years later. It’s not even fair, honestly.

However, there’s actually one irony here that does land, despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s the song’s title. “Ironic” could’ve been titled “Tragic” and still worked. It could’ve also been titled “Unfortunate”. It could’ve even been titled “Oh Crap Moments” and been on-the-nose, but…well, you get the picture.

Regardless, it was titled “Ironic”. And in having its name be “Ironic”, all while not containing irony, it qualifies by accident. That’s ironic. Which is shocking, frightening and really annoying for someone like myself, who majored in English in university. I should know, I’ve gotten the concept wrong many times!

So what now? I don’t know. The song’s been in the zeitgeist for decades, and it’s routinely played on Canadian airwaves. It also, like I said in the beginning, is really catchy. I may not like it, but I often find myself humming the chords from time to time. I guess it’s an ear-worm?

Yet it getting stuck in my head is a problem. “Baby It’s Cold Outside” has an infectious and upbeat charm that, outside of its lyrics, is fun to belt annually. “Imagine” has a hopeful message about world unity. “Ironic”, though? I’ve never gotten that, as much as I’ve tried. Ignoring its misuse of “ironic”, its lyrics aren’t even that inspired. This isn’t even a dig at Morissette, a woman who knew “My Humps” was parody-worthy.

Still, why is this the song she’s most remembered for? Why is this the one that routinely gets played? Why is it the one that made the billboards? And why is this, from her entire oeuvre, the most talked about? Why “Ironic”?

I have two theories. The cynical one is that Morissette isn’t that great a songwriter. Sure, her lyrics and tunes are “catchy”, but she lacks insight. “Ironic”, therefore, is easy to ridicule, a catchy ditty that’s fun to mock. But that’s underselling her, so I’m not convinced.

The optimistic one is that the song inspires hope. Sure, the lyrics are ridiculous. Yes, it doesn’t understand its own thesis statement. And true, it’s fun to mock. But it speaks to frustrations that occur in real life, ones we can all relate to. That’s more important than accuracy.

Does that mean I now like “Ironic”? No. The song’s awful! But I can respect it for what it’s attempting. It doesn’t work, but I admire its attempt. And that’s what counts.

Big and Small

I watched Dune.

It was interesting! Not amazing, and it felt incomplete, but I liked how it tackled imperialism. It’s also nice to see an inspiration for the Star Wars franchise not be panned. (I’m looking at you, John Carter!) So yes, definitely worth a recommendation.

Unfortunately, the movie’s existence has fed into resurgent toxicity. It’s not helped by several directors opening their mouths. These include Christopher Nolan and Denis Villeneuve, both of whom believe you should watch a movie on an IMAX screen. That, according to them, is where they’re at their best. But are they?

I’m not one to judge preferences. Remember, I like The MCU! And I get the sentiment for wanting a theatre experience. There’s an energy to watching films with an audience: you can laugh when they laugh, cheer when they cheer, gasp when they gasp and cry when they cry. It’s something you don’t get alone.

So yes, I see where they’re coming from. What bothers me is when that’s matched with how it’s “the only way”. To quote Villeneuve from August of this year:

“Frankly, to watch Dune on a television, the best way I can compare it is to drive a speedboat in your bathtub. For me, it’s ridiculous. It’s a movie that has been made as a tribute to the big-screen experience.”

Like I said, far be it from me to criticize preferences. But insisting the only way to enjoy movies is in theatres bugs me. It assumes everyone can make it there, which is a big ask, and it implies that a movie doesn’t work in other formats. If the latter were true, many classics wouldn’t have survived the era of VHS. Yes, the format with piss-poor sound and image compression.

I’ve heard this before, though. I’ve heard that streaming is “killing cinema”. And I’ve heard that more people need to “watch movies in theatres”. I’ve heard these claims so frequently that it’s tiresome. So let’s do a mental exercise, shall we? Let me walk you through my cinema experience pre-COVID:

It begins days before I go to see the movie. Because I’m financially limited, I often read reviews in advance. If the reviews are strong, I’m interested. If not, I either avoid it, or wait until I have a free movie from the SCENE points I’ve accrued. I wouldn’t want to waste my money.

But let’s say I decide to see the film. I have to look for a date, time and location that works. Because I can’t always see something immediately, I need to block off part of my day. And because I can’t drive, I have to check the transit schedule. This could take up to an hour, and that ignores transit delays.

Okay, I’m at my destination. I now must walk to the actual theatre, climb the stairs and, depending on popularity, wait in a long line for tickets. (I know digital kiosks exist, but often there are lines there too.) Many of the other people are rowdy and annoying, and sometimes they block access to the line itself. It could take a while before I purchase the ticket, and occasionally the showing might even be sold out.

If all goes well, I pay for my overpriced ticket and make my way to, assuming I’m interested, the equally-overpriced concessions where-you guessed it-there’s another line of rowdy and annoying people. This also takes a while, leading to anxiety. I swipe my debit card, get my SCENE points and retrieve the concessions. Now it’s off to the ticket booth. Sounds simple enough, right?

But wait! I forgot to go to the bathroom! Now I have to ask an employee where the washrooms are, tuck away my concessions-unless I got popcorn, in which case I’m screwed-and head to the nearest stall. Assuming I’m not grossed out, I do my business and proceed to wash my hands with a dispenser that barely gives me soap and a tap that often doesn’t work. This doesn’t account for there being no paper towel, in which case I use the air dryer.

I finally get to the auditorium, find a seat at the back, because I don’t like the front, and wait for the previews. After what seems like forever, and more people pile in, I then am barraged with advertisements and car commercials before the trailers. And once the trailers, which take about 15 minutes, are over, I can finally enjoy myself for 2+ hours…assuming the lights from people’s phones, the loud noises of chairs, the interruptions of late-arrivals looking for seats and the sounds of kids and babies don’t pull me out of the experience.

If I’m being unfair, it’s to prove a point. I love the theatre! I used to go often before the pandemic! But I had to turn a blind eye to what came with that, and most of it wasn’t fun. I’m not alone, as theatre attendance has been dwindling over the last decade. And with streaming eliminating the hassle of the theatre experience, I’m not surprised that venues are in trouble.

So with all due respect to Denis Villeneuve, I don’t agree that the only way to experience a movie is in theatres. Does that mean streaming doesn’t have its own problems? No, and I’ve covered that before. But the trade-off’s noticeable, and that needs to be acknowledged here.

Besides, a movie’s true test is if it can be watched at home anyway. Remember, movies only run in cinemas for so long before they’re moved to streaming, where most of their viewing takes place. A movie has to endure that too. And if it can’t? Then it was never that great to begin with.

Ultimately, I don’t like the assertion that movies only work in theatres. If that makes me a heretic, so be it! I’ll live with that!