The Prequels Reassessed

Despite the yakking I do constantly about Star Wars, I’m surprised it took me so long to analyze the Prequels. It’s not like I haven’t seen them, defended their honour in a now-deleted ScrewAttack Blog and considered the finale my favourite movie for a decade, after all. So what gives? Why delay it, especially when I’ve already covered the Indiana Jones franchise? Well…it’s because I hadn’t re-watched them recently. In the case of the first, I hadn’t re-watched it since my 11th Birthday party.

I can use all kinds of excuses: I didn’t have time. I was afraid nostalgia would betray me. I was burnt out by the fanbase. The list goes on. But since I have a Disney+ account, and since the movies are streaming for no extra charge, I figured now was a good time. So that’s what I’m doing. There are several ways to approach this too, but I’ll go the route of my Lord of the Rings piece.

1999-2005 was a formative time period for me. Growing up with Autism, I found I consistently lagged behind my peers. My biggest outlet of expression was media, as it never talked back or insulted my intelligence. Much of that was Star Wars, a franchise that began 13 years before I was born, yet was a cultural force even in my infancy. So when I was first introduced to a Star Wars movie at a friend’s birthday party in 1999, I lapped it up. It didn’t matter that the movie I was watching was “trash”.

I felt the same about its sequels. As a kid, these were magical experiences, something that’d keep me grounded. 3 years between releases was also enough to absorb what I’d watched, since a lot was happening to me personally anyway. For perspective, when the first Prequel came out in 1999, I was struggling in elementary school, had an almost non-existent social life and couldn’t articulate that I was flustered by both. When the final Prequel came out in 2005, I was in high school, had come into my own, was playing social and academic catchup and was at peace with my disability. In both instances, the Prequels bookended my intellectual and emotional growth.

But reminiscing isn’t as important as re-evaluating if they hold up. How are they now?

They’re fine. Not the greatest movies ever, but I’ve seen worse. That’s why the constant nonsense they’ve inspired is so baffling. They aren’t the “Trilogy from Hell”, but they’re also not a “Godsend of brilliance”. They’re (admittedly) mediocre movies that are impossible to despise. They’re also a downgrade from the trilogy they precede. And this is with Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi being the weakest of the original films.

For starters, the Prequels are unbelievably racist. Right from the first words Nute Gunray, leader of The Trade Federation, utters, it’s clear George Lucas wasn’t being considerate of minorities. The aforementioned Gunray, as well as his associates, is a caricature of Chinese people, right down to his accent. Jar Jar Binks, the representative of the Gungans, is a stereotype of a Jamaican, right down to, once again, his accent. And Watto, the Toydarian from Tatooine who owns Anakin and Shmi Skywalker, is an Antisemitic archetype.

This sort of racism gets less overt as the movies progress, but it’s definitely distracting. I’m unsure why Lucas and company didn’t vet this through sensitivity readers: did they not exist in Hollywood yet? Is it because they cost extra? Or did Lucas simply not care? We’ll never know, but it’s really jarring.

Unfortunately, the acting and dialogue aren’t much better. I know Lucas had a specific vision, but it doesn’t translate well to film. Characters have awkward line reads, frequently don’t emote properly, and sometimes contradict their developments. They’re all seemingly bad actors in the literal sense, in that they “can’t act”. This is especially true of Shmi Skywalker’s actress, Pernilla August, who, more than Jake Lloyd and Hayden Christensen, gets the rawest deal: each read sounds like she’s completely lost. It’s a shame, since her presence is meant to ground Anakin.

If any good comes from this issue, however, it’s that the acting becomes more tolerable over time. By the finale, you even have moments of genuine emoting. I especially thought Natalie Portman’s emotional moments in Star Wars Ep. III: Revenge of the Sith, corny as they were, landed, if only because she’s a better actress than the material presented. I also thought that Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid were consistent exceptions to the “wooden acting” rule, as, again, they were too good for the material presented.

It's unfortunate the line reads and scripting are bad, because the underlying story has potential. This is a three movie saga about how corruption in politics leads to the beginnings of Fascism. It’s also how the arrogance of peacekeepers can blind them to their doom. There are makings of a Shakespearean tragedy here, which is fitting if you remember that Shakespeare was a schmaltzy writer. It’s stuff that little me found confusing, but adult me respects.

And that’s where the issues with these movies start overlapping with their strengths. Putting aside the above, I love the designs of the worlds in these films. Naboo’s a fitting marshland, while Tatooine’s a rough desert. Coruscant’s the industrial city planet, complete with tech that still blows my mind. Even planets like Kamino and Mustafar, both of which play big parts in their respective films, have personality in their own right, fitting with themes that justify their inclusions. If all else, Lucas is a great idea man.

I also like the alien designs. Despite the racist characterizations, the Gungans being amphibians that jump high distances makes lots of sense. As do the Kaminoans being amphibians who look like fish. Even less-important ones, like Obi-Wan’s transport on Utapau, make sense as a hybrid of an iguana and a horse. Star Wars has always been known for its array of varied and interesting aliens, even if most of its focus characters are humans.

Speaking of, the sound design from Ben Burtt is top-notch. There are so many great noises in this trilogy, bringing a hybrid of the familiar and the alien. Droids beep and whirr like machines, blasters and lightsabers spurt and hum like weapons, and background characters growl and shriek like believable aliens. Even minor sounds, like Jango Fett’s ship having bombs with delayed explosions, match their sound effects.

I also love the visual effects. They’re dated now, but it’s surprising how much care went into them. I especially appreciate how many practical effects were used. Lucas wasn’t averse to miniatures and actual scenery shots, even if the results varied. And they only got better over time, with later movies even adding dirt and grime to make everything feel lived-in.

But the cherry on top is the score. John Williams is one of Hollywood’s greatest living composers, and Star Wars contains some of his best work. The Prequels are no exception, with Duel of the Fates, Across the Stars and Battle of the Heroes being the highlights. I especially like how the movies uses these as motifs alongside older motifs, complimenting the franchise’s reputation for memorable music. It’s great.

There are other aspects that deserve praise. The lightsaber work, while over-choreographed, is intense. Yoda fighting Count Dooku is one of the highlights of Star Wars Ep. II: Attack of the Clones. And Order 66’s montage, where the Jedi are taken out, is still heartbreaking to watch. I know this doesn’t save these movies, but it elevates them above complete trash. It’s humbling when you remember that movies are difficult to make, and even bad ones aren’t bad 100% of the time.

Ultimately, I’m conflicted over these films. Are they as good as I remember? No, but neither is The Matrix. And if I can find enjoyment in that film despite its problems, then why can’t I say the same here too? I’d even argue they got better over time, as each instalment expanded on and improved upon what came before. So while there are better movies in hindsight, I appreciate this trilogy as a time capsule of entertainment from the late-90’s to mid-2000’s.

(Besides, the original Star Wars movies had issues too. But that’s for another day…)

NFTs: Non-FungAHHble Tokens

Dear humanity:

It’s come to my attention that you’re obsessed with NFTs, or “non-fungible tokens”. For some, this is a chance to jump on the clout train. For others, this is another reminder of the concerns surrounding cryptocurrency. Regardless, NFTs aren’t going away. If anything, they’re becoming more prevalent.

What’s an NFT? It’s a digital representation of a physical asset. Except, like most digital purchases, you don’t “own” it. This is because the “token” in “non-fungible token” implies that you have a temporary license, and it can be taken away. Think of DRM, or “digital rights management”, except with immediate ramifications.

Now that that’s established, time to launder my issues with NFTs:

Firstly, they aren’t regulated. Contrary to what you’d think, NFTs are easy to make and steal. I can post art that I drew in high school online, watch it become an NFT and witness people share it without crediting me. And that worries me. Most art purchases require proof of purchase, but NFTs don’t. Simply right-click on an NFT and, voilà! It’s yours to exploit.

Secondly, NFTs are often non-consensual. Many artists have claimed their art was made into them without their knowledge. Considering that ownership of art’s still ownership, isn’t that a little disturbing? It doesn’t help that many NFT distributors have been caught red-handed, then played dumb. That’s really shady, no? I think so.

Thirdly, NFTs aren’t environmentally-friendly. Basically, and this is really oversimplified, whenever NFTs are created, they use a blockchain method. This blockchain requires lots of energy, and I don’t say that lightly. There’ve been videos and images of energy farms used to make them, and they’re massive. Considering the amount of heat that gives off, as well as the real-world consequences for countries like Kazakhstan, isn’t that concerning?

And fourthly, NFTs are generally pretty ugly. Remember when I mentioned how anything art-related can be made into an NFT? I meant that literally. Whether it’s Bored Ape, or poorly-shaded images, NFTs don’t have a great reputation for beauty. If anything, they’re sloppy. Why would you take pride in that? I don’t get it.

Anyway, now that I’ve established the above, I have to ask why they’re trendy. Is it because they’re “cool”? Because I can assure you, they’re not. Is it because they symbolize power? I can see that somewhat, but the status of NFTs as products is limited. At best, you trade them for an unreasonably-high price. And given how arbitrary that already is, it’s not high praise.

I’d be less concerned if most NFT collectors weren’t ignorant about how they worked. Like I said, NFTs are easy to copy. And yet, whenever an NFT purchaser realizes this, they’re almost always shocked that something they “own” was stolen. Is it that shocking, though? This is basic “hand in the cookie jar” logic. Except that instead of acknowledging you stole the cookie, you break the jar and burn the evidence.

You know what the biggest telltale of NFTs being ridiculous is? Anil Dash, the creator of NFTs, has disowned them. Like Pepe the Frog, NFTs are so badly-misused their original visionary no longer wants to be associated with them. When your product can’t be endorsed anymore, there’s a problem.

I get that this must be tough for you to take in. Like kids being told Santa Claus isn’t real, or adult Christians being told Christian Supersessionism of Judaism’s Antisemitic, it feels like a betrayal. But whereas an argument can be made for enjoying the myth of Santa Claus, or having a Christianity that moves past its Antisemitism, NFTs have a harder uphill battle to climb. It’s not like the core concept can’t be useful, but it’d require reworking how they’re made and distributed. Essentially, we’d have to regulate NFTs.

In the meantime, it’s not like wanting to own art is bad. But there are better ways. You can draw your own original creations, if you’re inclined. Or you can commission your favourite artists to make art. The latter may involve a fee, which can be disheartening, but artists have to make a living too! And NFTs don’t allow for that.

If anything’s to be learned here, it’s that NFTs aren’t all they’re hyped up to be. As I’ve stated, they’re unregulated, easy to produce, rampant to theft, energy-inefficient and (mostly) really ugly. They’re not worth your time, essentially. And until we can start having a serious conversation without people getting offended, then this’ll continue to get worse. The world has enough issues without adding NFTs, it doesn’t need an unregulated cryptocurrency that’s rampant with problems added to the pyre.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll go do something more productive than ramble further. It’s healthier that way.

Sincerely;

Whitly.

P.S. If anything I say sounds too good to be true, simply Google NFTs. I’m not the first one to write about them being questionable, and there are experts who know far more than I do.

The Disney Adults

Disney recently announced their upcoming real estate project. Dubbed “Disney Adults”, it’s slated for Coachella Valley, California in the next few years. This news, naturally, lit the internet on fire. But it also reignited discussions about Disney as a corporation, and whether or not they’re becoming dystopian. So, naturally, part of that was how Disney fans were “part of the problem”.

I’ve made no secret of my fondness of Disney’s creative side. I don’t like their corporate aspect, but their entertainment’s pretty reliable. Still, I can distinguish between the corporate and creative components, as a lot of the issues I have with them I also have with every corporate entity. This announcement’s another example of that. It’s also why this debate about “supporting the evils of Disney” by watching their movies bugs me.

See, Disney isn’t a collective hive-mind. They have subdivisions, like Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars and, most-recently, 20th Century Studios. This doesn’t include TV, which also has subdivisions. Their different arms allow for many different projects in a given year. It’s why you can have three animated movies, nine MCU products, three Star Wars shows and various other excursions in one year, as they’re all worked on separately. It might be overly-efficient, but it’s how The House of Mouse operates.

I mention this because a lot of their entertainment’s quite good. I enjoy movies from Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars, while the Disney proper films, especially lately, are also solid. They’re not perfect, but they feel genuine. There are artists and visionaries working on them, and they know how to work under the same, larger umbrella. That last part needs emphasizing.

Disney’s corporate ventures, however are more…questionable? Ignoring the Fox merger, Disney’s made business decisions that’ve raised eyebrows. It’s worth noting that most of their revenue doesn’t even come from entertainment, but rather their parks, cruise ships and, in this case, real estate. It’s why they pushed for their parks to reopen during the pandemic, despite it not being safe. Disney’s an empire, and entertainment’s but one facet of that.

If this sounds daunting, it shouldn’t be. Or, rather, it should be, but there’s little we can do. Yet while corporate Disney’s a constant headache, creative Disney isn’t as much. Which is why comparing liking Disney to endorsing slavery, something that I’ve actually seen, is jarring. Disney may have a history of racism, but slavery became illegal in The US roughly 36 years before Walt Disney’s birth. Like all those shameless Holocaust comparisons, the slavery claim doesn’t make sense.

It's not like I’m excusing Disney, though. Whether it’s Dumbo’s crows being Jim Crow performers, Peter Pan dedicating a song to mocking Native Americans, or even recent issues like the Arabs in Aladdin, the company has plenty of red in their ledger. But while these portrayals are inexcusable, you shouldn’t damn the creatives who work on these films for a living. Nor should you make slavery comparisons, especially when no one from the time of slavery can call you out.

I also think the animosity toward adults who like Disney is unhelpful. True, Disney shouldn’t be the only part of their identity. But in the same breath, liking stuff from your childhood is fine. Not everything you enjoyed as a kid is bad, and some holds up better than the content aimed at grownups!

While I disapprove of the decision to start a real estate venture in California, especially when many people can’t afford houses, and worry about the long-term implications, the resurfaced discourse about the Disney corporation isn’t necessary. Or if it is, it’s overblown. You don’t need to look long or hard to find issues with Disney, they exist. But using that as an excuse to slam people who like their films and shows, even if you mean well, is unhelpful. Life’s tough and gruelling, and people should be allowed escapism. If that’s a “crime”, then arrest and take me in for questioning.

*****

A quick update for all of you: you might’ve noticed that my output for this year has increased from last year. The reason for why is simple: I have less stress weighing me down. Last year I started a new job, and it diverted much of my focus. This year, despite the job still going, I have a better handle on my life-work balance, so I can focus more on my writing.

Still, I don’t want to push myself too hard, so I’m setting limits. Not strict ones, like last year, but enough that I don’t burn out. My goal is to publish content whenever it comes to fruition, and to not force it. That might mean that my monthly output will fluctuate regularly, but I’ll try to be consistent. I owe that to myself.

That’s it for now. I hope you enjoy 2022, and I’ll see you next time!

The $60 Experience

From one controversy to another…

This is the Nintendo Switch. You don’t need me to tell you it’s popular, its sales do that already. I also don’t need to say that much of the Switch’s library’s been well-received, their reviews spell that out. I really don’t have to say much of anything, but I am. Woe unto me!

A while back there was a Tweet. This Tweet went viral for irritating reasons. In it, the poster compared Metroid Dread to a PS5 game, using the latter to bash the former for being $60. The backlash was inevitable, with people pointing out that they were different stylistically and not warranting of the same visuals. The Tweeter soaked all this in with glee, so it persisted.

I’d normally let this go, but another incident happened recently. This time, it was Pokémon Legends: Arceus against Horizon: Forbidden West, with the Tweeter using their moment in the spotlight to state that anyone debunking the argument was a “Nintendo shill”. Once again, the Tweet received backlash. But this time, any attempts at reason were met with mockery. (Basically, Twitter was a mistake.)

I’ve been seeing a lot of these takes recently. They’re meant to rile people up, true, but underneath that is a problem I don’t think people fully appreciate. There’s an expectation that if a game from one console isn’t on-par with one from another, it’s automatically “bad”. And in light of the issues that’ve come to fruition in the video game industry lately, that’s pretty harmful. Let me explain why.

Video games, aside from being entertainment, are a business. They take plenty of time and money to make, not to mention manpower, and this isn’t acknowledged enough by gamers. That AAA title you own took years to make, perhaps even several delays. Even though you’re enjoying it, as you should, the amount of care that made it good didn’t materialize from thin air. It came from people, people with names.

Unfortunately, many of those people have undergone unreasonable overtime to make these game happen, possibly without being properly compensated. I know I’m speaking in hypothetical broad-strokes, but employee burnout due to “developer crunch” is something that’s only starting to get coverage now. It might seem relatively recent, but it’s not. And it’s happening all over the industry.

All of this to make products for gamers to enjoy. But since games aren’t an exact science, and something has to give, the visuals aren’t always “up to snuff”. And if we’re being honest, do they have to be? Why do shiny buckles and whistles equal quality? And why does failing this arbitrary metric matter for the sales price?

Then there’s the issue of Nintendo. Nintendo’s guilty of many shady practices: they’ve shut down gaming preservation sites without hesitation, and all while not preserving classic games. Their emulation of classic games when they occur, especially recently, has been piss-poor. They still don’t understand online functionality, only recently updating their servers for the modern age. They’ve also issued unfair copyright takedowns of fair use material. And they’ve used game announcement streams, or Nintendo Directs, to distract from all of the above.

However, when it comes to their games, they know how to deliver. They might delay a AAA title, only to scale back on some features, but their end-products are almost always good-to-great quality. Do they always look “high-tech”? No. But they don’t need to, because Nintendo stopped trying to do that after the disappointing sales of the GameCube.

I wish more gamers understood this. Not every video game needs to be high-tech and chock full of content. Nor does it need either to be worth full price. $60 might be expensive, but that should also reflect long-term value. And many Nintendo games do.

Think about it: how often do you play Smash Bros. or Mario Kart entries? How often do you go online? And how often do you keep coming back to the online? When you buy Nintendo games, you’re usually buying an investment. That’s why so many stay full price for so long, even outside corporate greed.

Besides, and I must emphasize this, I’d rather a shorter game with worse graphics that wasn’t exhausting to develop. That’s also something I don’t think enough gamers appreciate. With all of the stories of Activision-Blizzard that are circulating right now, to name one example, wouldn’t it make sense for game programmers to be treated fairly? You’d think basic human dignity would come before entertainment, right?

Does this mean you can’t enjoy Horizon: Forbidden West? Not necessarily. Video games are incredibly personal, and one size doesn’t fit all. But at the same time, I don’t think complaining that a Nintendo title is $60 at retail, especially when there’s a good reason for it, is a valid complaint. Because, again, one size doesn’t fit all. If the medium is be taken seriously, then this needs to be taken seriously too. And it’s not.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have more important issues to attend to…

Luke "Deepfake" Skywalker

*Sigh* My counter for “days without mentioning Marvel or Star Wars” is back at zero…

I recently watched The Book of Boba Fett. Despite pacing issues holding it back from being on-par with The Mandalorian, I quite liked it. I especially appreciate its running commentary on colonialism. It’s telling how a Star Wars property can touch on real-world issues without being preachy. But this isn’t about that.

In January of 2021, I wrote about the finale of Season 2 of The Mandalorian. I enjoyed the episode, even considering it some of the show’s best writing. But there was a problem with it that still sticks out now: the inclusion of Luke Skywalker. Because while it might’ve made sense thematically and narratively to have him return, the de-aging software used to make Mark Hamill look 30+ years younger felt off. Not to mention, his presence was empty fan-service.

I mention this because, sadly, Luke’s back in his de-aged form for Episode 6 of The Book of Boba Fett. Ignoring how his subplot with Grogu detracts from the main story, Luke looks better here than in The Mandalorian. The issue, however, is his voice. His line-reads don’t feel natural. And given how this was done with “Deepfake Technology”, it makes me uncomfortable.

I’m not alone. When Episode 6 dropped, that was all the talk. Fans bickered back-and-forth about it, with both sides bringing up points I agree with, but not fully. On one hand, Luke Skywalker being younger here than in the Star Wars Sequels makes sense: it takes place roughly 30 years prior, so Luke has to look age-appropriate. Additionally, he isn’t jaded by his failure with Ben Solo yet, so he’d have that wide-eyed innocence still. With both combined, I understand why the show did this. Especially since Mark Hamill isn’t getting younger.

On the other hand, there are ethical concerns with AI-generated Deepfake acting. Not only is it using someone’s likeness without consent, it adds to robots being cheaper and easier than humans. Remember, digital technology in entertainment has ripple effects, and some aren’t positive. I’ll forever defend computers in film and TV, especially if practical effects don’t cut it, but there are lines I won’t cross. Replacing an actor with a computerized fake is one of them.

This isn’t the first time Star Wars has done this. Remember Star Wars: Rogue One? It recreated two cast members, Moff Tarkin and Princess Leia. In both cases, their original actors, Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher, were dead, so it rebuilt their likeness from the ground up. And it never looked right.

Deepfake Luke never actually has that issue. But whereas he looks perfect, he doesn’t sound perfect. His inflection never hits the right notes, instead coming off as wooden. For a character so prominently featured in the episode, it’s jarring. It’s also concerning.

One of the biggest critiques is how this feels like a response to Old Man Luke from Star Wars: The Last Jedi. That Luke was an old, tired and broken man who, with the help of Rey, regains control of his life and trolls his nephew in a last hurrah. I liked that portrayal, but it’s split fans. Some thought it was a brilliant continuation of what came before, and others felt it a betrayal of Luke Skywalker. I, honestly, think the debate’s migraine-inducing, and I wish it’d stop. But since Star Wars fans keep dragging it out...

Anyway, the complaint is that detractors of Old Man Luke were openly-toxic, and so Disney’s ruining Star Wars to cater to them. That’s, obviously, bad for the franchise, and it should stop. But even so, I think the reaction’s overblown. I don’t like that Star Wars can’t let the Skywalker family go, but it doesn’t warrant the ire. If anything, it’s more an issue for acting in general.

I also won’t pretend that the adoration of this version of Luke isn’t an issue. It is. Luke Skywalker as the immortalized saint isn’t only demeaning to his growth, it also misses the point of his journey in the first place. Remember, Luke was never meant to be idolized. His early films had him as cocky, whiney and angsty, while Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi had him teetering toward The Dark Side. (There’s a reason why he wore black clothing.)

By treating Luke Skywalker like a god, you rob him of that. Besides, Old Man Luke was risky. You can argue how effective it was, and I’d rather not go there, but it was something. Luke taking down Darktroopers, or even being another Yoda, doesn’t add anything new. And that’s where the issue lies.

If it feels like I’m taking forever to get to my point, it’s only because I care. I love Star Wars. Even the bad Star Wars, of which there’s a lot! But the fanbase frustrates me because of their constant infighting and gatekeeping, and that’s not good. It turns people off, which sucks because Star Wars has plenty to offer. There’s a reason I compared it to Dungeons and Dragons, after all!

We need to establish common ground on what we want from this franchise, seeing as it’ll keep trucking at this point. Should Star Wars only be about nostalgia, or should it chart new territory? Should it play it safe, or should it take risks? Does it want to be a fans-only franchise, or does it want a new base too? It can’t always have its cake and eat it too, as that’ll lead to disaster. Deepfake Luke Skywalker is one example of that.

Also, can people in the fandom stop being so hostile? It’s not winning anyone favours.

The Wonka-y Debate

I’ve never been big on Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. It’s a fun movie, but some of its detours fall into parody and detract from the story. Additionally, Grandpa Joe’s portrayal isn’t flattering, which bothers me. But the biggest issue is Willy Wonka. And given how maligned Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is by even the late-Gene Wilder, who played Wonka in the former, I think a re-evaluation is in order. Because I don’t think the movies are equal in how they portray billionaires.

The 1970’s were an interesting period for films. Hollywood had dismantled its old studio system, and many upcoming directors and writers who’d grown up in movie culture were finally sharing their stories. This was the decade of Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now and the first two Godfather films, but also Steven Spielberg’s Jaws and George Lucas’s beginnings with Star Wars. It was a varied and prosperous decade, essentially. And Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the 1971 adaptation of the book by Roald Dahl, was one of its high points.

While distrust of governing officials, thanks to Watergate, was definitely present, the scrutiny of the wealthy wasn’t quite as frequent. It wasn’t off the table, plenty of movies criticized them, but there was still some restraint. The wealthy on film in the 70’s, from what I’ve seen, were greedy and inconsiderate, but only toward their workers. There was rarely introspection into their psyches, and how they conducted themselves in public and private. Given how Dahl’s book was a call-out of that, it’s a missed opportunity.

Enter Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the 2005 remake from director Tim Burton. Dahl had wanted a remake for decades, and it wasn’t until long after his passing that it began production. It made sense that Burton was picked for director: he was talented, he was interesting, he’d made money for Warner Bros. before and he was an oddball. Burton, though wealthy himself, understood weirdness, and being tasked with bringing Willy Wonka to life was a no-brainer. Doubly-so for Johnny Depp, a man notorious for playing oddballs.

Unfortunately, not everyone thought that. Despite its reception, the movie received plenty of backlash. In particular, Depp’s Wonka was derided for being uncomfortable and never hitting the mark. I was the oddball who found him charming, but I wasn’t taken seriously for the longest time. Yet while there’s animosity toward the 2005 adaptation, time has been kind to it. In some ways, I think it’s even better than the original.

I know some of you will be angry by my remarks, which I get: the 1971 film’s a classic, so how dare I? Well, I dare. I have fond memories of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, but the movie’s aged awkwardly. I especially think its reverence for Wonka, which isn’t subtle, is creepy. There’s a scene in the first-half where a woman can’t decide between handing over her stash of Wonka bars to a kidnapper, or letting her husband live. Isn’t that weird?

I think so. And a lot of the early scenes are equally weird. Even if Wonka was a beloved celebrity, that worship of him never sat well with me. This is something Charlie and the Chocolate Factory actually understood. In that movie, Wonka’s a goofy, eccentric recluse who’s socially awkward and uncomfortable to be around. It’s pitch-perfect.

“But wait!” I hear you cry, “What about Gene Wilder’s performance?” With all due respect, while he might’ve gotten that in his mind, it doesn’t translate in the film. Sure, he has his moments, but we never get a true sense of his behaviour. Even his outburst at Charlie and Grandpa Joe is rooted in them stealing Fizzy Lifting Drinks and dirtying the factory ceiling.

The 2005 film’s its antithesis. Childish greed’s still a running theme, but much of the downfall of the kids in the factory stems from a lack of safety. Augustus Gloop falls into a river of chocolate because it’s open to him, while Veruca Salt is molested by squirrels while Wonka looks on. And whenever a child encounters misfortune, Wonka’s Oompa Loompas sing about how “it’s their fault”.

That’s another area the 2005 film nails: the Oompa Loompas. The original film had them as workers paid with cocoa beans, but the colonialist implications of their origins weren’t properly addressed. In the remake, the Oompa Loompas aren’t only a minority, right down to their skin colour, but there’s a scene involving Wonka travelling to Loompaland. I’m not sure if it was deliberate coding, but that’s overtly colonialist. Especially given England’s history with imperialism.

Even the reason behind acquiring the Oompa Loompas is sketchy: Wonka closed his factory to workers, Charlie’s grandfather included, because his competitors were stealing his recipes. He basically laid off humans and hired slaves he didn’t have to pay, all while controlling production. That’s really shady, but it speaks to labour law violations. And the movie isn’t subtle about this.

That’s why I think the Burton adaptation’s better than we give it credit. 2005 was a different time than 1971: Facebook and YouTube were in their infancies, PayPal was run by Elon Musk and Amazon was largely selling books. 3 years later, the housing recession would occur. And in the years since, not only have Facebook, YouTube, PayPal and Amazon become powerful companies, but their CEOs have made more money than most people will in their lifetimes. This isn’t including the stories since that’ve emerged behind the scenes, as well as the scandals that’ve stemmed from their personal lives. This wasn’t addressed in the 1971 film, presumably because we didn’t know any of it!

I think the 2005 movie, particularly Johnny Depp’s Wonka, nails this. Remember, he’s introduced in the most-off-putting way imaginable: by appearing behind the guests and commenting on his welcoming act going awry. And he never recovers from that, frequently making inappropriate comments and mocking the kids for calling him out. Even once Charlie’s the last one remaining, Wonka’s disgust at him clinging to his family, which stems from his own daddy issues, is pretty telling. But that’s how rich people generally behave. We’ve even seen the daddy issues via the Trump presidency.

There are valid critiques you can lob against Roald Dahl, Johnny Depp and Tim Burton. For Dahl, his Antisemitism was inexcusable. Depp has his own share of uncomfortable skeletons, some of which are ongoing. And Burton’s casting decisions continue to raise eyebrows, something made worse by most of his recent projects being uncomfortable to sit through. But while I can’t defend them as human beings, the combination of their talents is present in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. More than anything else, that deserves respect.

Then again, you be the judge.

Mario's Galactic Adventure

Feel free to get your childish “UR MR GAY” jokes out right now. We good? Anyway, Super Mario Galaxy turns 15 this year.

I remember it being my most hotly-anticipated game of late-2007. I was in my final year of high school, and, despite it being uncool to own a Wii, was desperate for another title to add to my then-emaciated library. I didn’t sleep well the night before it arrived, as my anxiety and anticipation kept me up: would it be worth the wait, or would it be shovelware? A lot was riding on it given the Wii’s general reputation, and I was aware of that. So when the day came, I booted up the system and watched the fireworks fly.

A lot has changed since then, and I hadn’t gone back to the game. I enjoyed it immensely the first time, but life was constantly interfering. Not only had my library of games swelled, but I’d purchased two new consoles. I’d also graduated high school and university, which sucked up my time. And I’d moved on to films, and I became more engrossed in anime and animation. This doesn’t include my writing career, which I take great pleasure in. All of this kept getting in the way.

However, it was always on my mind, and with the pandemic freeing up time, I figured now was as good as ever to replay it. This time, though, I had a pair of adult eyes. My maturity, if all else, would let me assess if it held up. And so, after clearing some time on a Thursday evening, I slipped the game into my Wii U and booted it up.

I wasn’t disappointed.

Super Mario Galaxy begins with Mario getting invited to a Star Festival outside of Princess Peach’s castle. Everything is fine and dandy, until Bowser shows up to ruin the fun. Utilizing the power the festival bestows, he kidnaps Peach and decides to reshape the galaxy. Mario tries intervening, yet is thrust into space by one of Bowser’s goons. He’s recovered by a princess named Rosalina, and from there makes it his mission to fix everything.

In other words, it’s not a deep story. But Mario games never are, and they’re aware of this. Instead, it’s about the journey, as well as the gameplay mechanics. In this case, it’s the gravity-defying physics, something made extra special by utilizing the Wii remote’s motion-sensing capabilities.

I really do mean “gravity-defying”. The game literally has Mario navigating around planetoids and their gravitational pulls. Sometimes, it’s about planet hopping via launchpads. Other times, Mario’s thrown onto a spherical platform and must traverse it upside down. And then there are mazes where Mario moves depending on the arrows. It’s unconventional, but you have to think outside the box. It’s also really fun!

Perhaps the biggest innovation is the waggle feature. Wii games were notorious for shaking the controller to stimulate movement, but Super Mario Galaxy does it right: flick your wrist gently, feel the vibration, listen for the jingle and watch Mario soar through the air on a predetermined trajectory. Assuming you don’t injure your hand, it’s exciting watching the game respond to your movements. It never gets old, either.

The enemies are also unique. You have ones from games past-Koopas, Goombas, Monty Moles-but also new ones. My favourite is the octopus-snouted creature who spits stuff at you, as it forces you to react before it does. Even the boss fights, which aren’t too difficult, are creative in their own rights, utilizing different strategies. Though, again, my favourite boss is the octopus-snouted giant who spits melons that you deflect back.

This game also has interesting side-gimmicks. Whether it’s tilting the Wii controller to surf on a manta ray, or swaying it back-and-forth to guide a ball toward its destination, these are the most challenging levels. In some instances, they even make you to grit your teeth and pray that Mario doesn’t fall to his doom. I can’t begin to tell you how often that’s happened to me, or how many close calls I’ve had.

That’s another aspect I don’t think gets talked about enough: its difficulty curve. I know I’m not the best judge, I find all games hard, but the level of challenge is understated. There were plenty of times where I miscalculated or got overconfident, often to my dismay. This was especially apparent when I had to replay an already difficult level without getting hit. It took me two days.

Fortunately, the score helped bring down my mood. Past Wii games, like The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, were criticized for not taking advantage of the Wii’s sound chip, and Nintendo listened with Super Mario Galaxy. The game’s bursting to the brim with orchestrations, and they’re all memorable. My favourite is Gusty Garden Galaxy, which you can listen to here. Nintendo didn’t need to do this, they’d have moved numbers anyway, but they did! Bless them for that!

If I have any complaints, aside from being overly-generous with 1-Ups, it’s that the swimming mechanics are horrendous, even with the Koopa shells making it easier to navigate. That, and the game has too much post-story content. I know the latter’s appealing to completionists, but 242 Stars, half of them repeats with Luigi, is too much. Especially when you only need 60 for the final Bowser battle. I know that makes me a “casual shill”, but it’s true.

I’m aware that a sequel, Super Mario Galaxy 2, debuted a few years later. Despite really enjoying it, especially with its additions, (Yoshi, anyone?) it felt like an expansion of what this did. Plus, its final confrontation with Bowser was shockingly underwhelming. (Seriously, what was that?!) I know some people prefer its enhanced difficulty, but I’m not one of them. (Though, again, I appreciate the return of Yoshi.)

I was pleasantly surprised by this game upon revisiting it. It’s not as exciting as when I was 17, but it’s also aged nicely. There’s next to no crust on it too, unlike some of the older Mario games. It’s not to everyone’s liking, and it could’ve sutilizedtood some inclusions that its sequel has, but it’s worthy of the title of “classic” anyway. Happy almost 15th birthday, Super Mario Galaxy! May you continue delighting gamers for another 15!