I've Gone Batty!

(Warning: the following contains spoilers about The Batman. Read at your own risk.)

I’ve been ruminating on this for almost a week. Perhaps it’s because I saw The Batman late and almost got trapped in the mall when it was over, and perhaps it’s because I was nervous about lifting the mask mandate where I live, but my experience surrounding this film wasn’t pleasant. It might’ve even influenced my mindset on watching it. I didn’t hate it, and I consider it superior to the last Batman-related movie, but it definitely left a bad taste.

Anyway, let’s talk about The Batman.

A few years ago I talked about Joker. Despite ripping that film to shreds, I have to acknowledge that Joaquin Phoenix was great in it. He earned that Oscar win, and he elevated an otherwise insulting movie. So when I discovered that Matt Reeves would be directing another adaptation of the caped crusader, I didn’t know how to feel; on one hand, Reeves gave the Planet of the Apes reboot trilogy a real sense of weight and importance. On the other hand, film Batman’s been chasing Christopher Nolan’s tail since 2012, and it’s tiring. But with the reviews being positive, I was shocked, but not surprised they weren’t stronger. What’d people expect?

How’s the movie? It’s fine. For one, it’s too long. I know I wrote a piece defending length once, but this is an instance where that hampers its quality. This is a two and a half hour film, nothing more. Yet at nearly three hours, there are several places where it could’ve shaved off some minutes (the car chase), gone straight to its climax (Selena Kyle fighting Carmine Falcone), or wrapped up (Edward Nashton getting caught). But it didn’t, so…

I won’t go running through the story play-by-play, as it’s needlessly stuffed to the brim, but Batman’s basically forced into a game of riddles with an obsessed, Reddit/incel-like fanboy who murders everyone with corruption baggage. On paper, it tries deconstructing Batman by suggesting that he makes everything worse by existing. And it tries its hand at ACAB, or “All Cops Are Bastards”. This movie has a lot on its mind.

While this is all interesting material for the character, it never follows-through on any of it. Doing that would require something The Batman refuses to go along with: hanging up the cape and cowl and dismantling law enforcement. It wants to have its cake and eat it too, so its grand finale starts with a revolution and finishes with a Jesus and a Moses metaphor back-to-back. I’m not kidding about that.

The movie also takes forever to get to its point, and not after side-plots that aren’t subtext as much as actual text. In one scene, Selina Kyle mentions to Batman that his sense of justice was shaped by growing up rich. In another, Nashton’s Riddler lampshades Thomas and Martha Wayne’s skeletons and how trying to bury them led to murder. The writing is so on-the-nose that when The Riddler reveals that he’s a Batman fanboy, it isn’t so much “clever” as an “of course he is” moment. And it’s exhausting.

The action scenes aren’t always well-choreographed, either. Nolan’s Batman trilogy had problems there too, but he kept the objectives and geography clear and straight-forward: Batman scampers around Arkham Asylum to save Rachel from Dr. Crane. Batman fights The Joker in an abandoned building. Batman and Bane face-off in an underground sewer complex. You can picture this as you’re watching.

I can’t say the same with The Batman, particularly the car chase scene halfway through. It not only feels obligatory, instead of organic, it’s not even well-staged. The rain obstructs the flow, the lack of lighting hampers the ability to see anything, and the unfocused close-ups make getting the geography down impossible. It’s a bad action scene, which is unfortunate because it’s not unexciting. It’s indicative of the film’s wasted potential, a damning critique of a director who once made two apes fighting atop a scrapyard exciting.

As a final critique, the music is incredibly ham-fisted. I don’t blame Michael Giacchino for this, as his score’s one of the film’s highlights. I blame whoever thought it was clever to overuse Ave Maria. That piece of music has religious undertones meant to evoke dreamlike passions, and the decision to shove it in everywhere, as if to elevate the movie’s grimness, is obnoxious. The Batman isn’t dreamlike, it’s a nightmare in film form.

I feel bad for being hard on this movie. In her book Bird by Bird, Anne Lamott mentions that criticism’s like going into a battlefield and shooting the survivors. That’s what this is like: the movie’s already self-aggrandizing, so why dogpile on it further? It’s not a terrible movie, as its acting and directing are largely excellent! It’s not even the worst Batman movie, and it’s leagues better than Joker! So me ranting feels like overkill.

Yet The Batman isn’t a masterpiece. Yes, I get what it was trying to do. And yes, I respect its attempts at evolving the Batman mythos. But no, that doesn’t excuse its flaws, and me doing that to troll the alt-right does no one favours. Especially not me, the customer who paid over $15 to see it. I’m sorry.

Does this mean you can’t enjoy it? Of course not! Movies are subjective, and I’d be hypocritical if I said otherwise. If you thought it was “inspiring”, then power to you! It wasn’t inspiring to me, and that’s what matters in my mind.

So yes, The Batman was fine. Not good, but fine. Take that as you will.

On Toxic Gatekeeping

I’ve noticed a trend in film discourse, particularly online. It’s worrying because it makes discussing entertainment less fun. And while I’m not guiltless, I finally have to put my foot down. Let’s discuss toxic film gatekeeping.

What’s toxic gatekeeping in entertainment like? Look at how someone judges how people enjoy entertainment. I’ve seen it happen everywhere, irrespective of quality. It makes the arguer look like a snob, and it discourages those on the fence from giving something a fair shake. But most-importantly, it makes someone enjoying something, which I think more people should try more, a chore. In order to explain what I mean, I’ll give some examples:

Avatar:

I’m not referring to the Nickelodeon series here. Rather, I’m referring to the James Cameron movie. I’ve covered this before in another piece, but certain points need reiterating. Because now that a sequel’s been announced for later this year, 13 years after the original, there’s definitely a large enough gap to accurately assess it.

To be clear, Avatar isn’t a masterpiece. It never was. But it’s still good. And I’m not saying that because I haven’t seen it since it came out, either. I’ve actually revisited it several times since 2009, each time thoroughly enjoying it.

I think part of the gatekeeping here’s rooted in unreasonable expectations. This is a James Cameron film. Cameron dominated the 80’s and early-90’s, with each of the 5 films he directed leading up to Titanic being well-loved classics. So when he went mainstream with Titanic in 1997, going full-on romance amid a historical tragedy, people were turned off. Thankfully, time’s been kind to the film...

However, it’s Avatar that made people jump ship in an aggressive and toxic way. Titanic might’ve been “overly commercial”, but it was a “one-off”. Avatar, on the other hand, was Cameron in his element, yet it became another Titanic. Given the general disdain for environmentalist movies, especially since they’re often done poorly, it didn’t take long for the backlash to start. Being the highest-grossing movie of all-time for a decade didn’t help.

Honestly, I don’t know where to start. Avatar’s discourse was when I started to realizing that film nerds were annoying and toxic. People whined left-right-and-centre about how lame and “unoriginal” the story was, calling it a mishmash of Pocahontas, Ferngully: The Last Rainforest and Dances with Wolves. The problem here, aside from being pedestrian, is that it ignores how storytelling works. We don’t tell stories for “originality”, we tell them to teach. And since there’s “nothing new under the Sun”, it’s inevitable that there’ll be overlap.

Besides, I don’t think it’s true. There might be commonalities, but there are commonalities with every other environmentalist film. And there are commonalities with every movie, too. Avatar’s basically a Hero’s Journey story, something every story adheres to in some form. There’s a reason Joseph Campbell called it The Man with 1000 Faces: because the story can be re-skinned in over 1000 different ways. That Avatar feels familiar isn’t a blight on its quality, because then you have to criticize every story in existence. Is it worth opening that Pandora’s Box?

There’s also how the highest-grossing movie was about environmentalism. Well, so what? The environment’s a serious issue, and discussing it isn’t a problem. And while it has its issues, that it’s criticized for that saddens me. But that’s exactly how it’s gone down.

I can chart how the movie’s toxic discourse has changed over time, especially whenever James Cameron has discussed franchising. Back when it first came out, people insisted that “too many people like it”. Now that there’s been distance, people are insisting that “no one liked it”. Which is it? And the answer’s “no” either way. I won’t act like Cameron hasn’t been irritating either, but please let it go already. It’s been long enough.

Star Wars:

This one’ll net the most attention, but Star Wars has generated more headaches than warranted. Whether it’s crapping on The Prequels for being “the worst ever” (which they aren’t), or attacking The Sequels for “ruining Star Wars” (which they didn’t), the fanbase refuses to grow up and accept that it can be a lot to lots of people, instead being three generations of fans yelling at one another. It’s really telling.

I’ll start with The Prequels. I don’t think they deserve the hate they receive. They’re not “great”, but when you get past the clunky writing and wooden acting, there are moments in all of them that are worth your time. The first has the fight between Qui-Gon Jinn/Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Maul, set to one of the best pieces of music in Star Wars history. The second has the battle between Yoda and Count Dooku, which is really cool to watch. And the third has many great moments, including the Order 66 montage. Not everything about these films work, but if you focus on what they are you’ll definitely find stuff to enjoy.

The Sequels are met with resistance too. Here, the argument is that Disney’s “ruining Star Wars”. For one, Star Wars has always been qualitatively-inconsistent. And two, what?! These movies highlight the evils of Fascism and the disunity in politics. It’s been the modus operandi of the franchise since inception, when it was commenting on The Vietnam War. Showing off The First Order as clowns also isn’t out of place when the Stormtroopers in the original films were incompetent.

People are getting mad at Disney for continuing what was already in the franchise’s DNA. And when they’ve tried expanding the universe’s morality, something Star Wars: The Last Jedi attempted, the backlash has been even more severe! How dare Luke be a “burnt-out hermit”? He was always a flawed character, and this is the extent of that. How dare Holdo take out The First Order’s fleet, as opposed to Admiral Ackbar? I’m sorry that matters to you. How dare good and evil be challenged? Isn’t that true to life?

These movies aren’t untouchable pieces of art. Ignoring their finale, which is a can of worms on its own, Snoke’s fate was disappointing, and I don’t like how Maz Kanata acquiring Luke’s lightsaber was never explained. But even going to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Palpatine being able to return and having a granddaughter ignores how: a. he’s openly been able to cheat death, and b. he wasn’t always a decrepit, old man. Besides, I think the backlash is overblown and gross. Especially since the whole subplot existed to highlight the distinction between blood family and chosen family. That seriously needs more discussion.

I know change is hard, but this is Star Wars! This is the franchise that gave us corny dialogue and silly set-pieces. It’s also the franchise that copped-out with two on-screen deaths in Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi, such that Disney retconned them both. If we can tolerate the silliness of the older entries, yet claim that the silliness of the newer entries is “too much”, then I weep for our imaginations. Because Disney might as well use Deepfake technology to-wait, they already did that? *Sigh*

The MCU:

Considering how often I’ve discussed this, you’d think I’d have nothing else to say. You’d be wrong. The MCU’s slowly becoming a double-edged sword, in that defending it makes it look like I’m blind to its flaws. I’m not, the franchise is corporate and often pro-military propaganda, even if not on purpose. It also isn’t always the most ambitious.

That said, this is where people are the most gatekeeper-heavy. The franchise is often bashed for being “pedestrian” and “the death of cinema”, and not always from film fans. Even Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola have dubbed it “not cinema”, despite that being loaded and subjective. Yet since they have influence, the argument gets parroted by people who don’t really understand it. And I’m tired.

You don’t have to like The MCU. You also don’t have to like everything about it. I found the sexism in Guardians of the Galaxy obnoxious. I thought The Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3 was handled poorly. And I wasn’t big on Eternals. But that’s acknowledging flaws that actually exist, as opposed to inventing problems and acting like they hold back the franchise from being “good”.

But that’s exactly what keeps happening. Whenever The MCU is a talking point online, it’s almost always in relation to something “wrong with it”. Whether it’s the shot composition, or the colour-grading, or even the dialogue, there’s no end in sight to these “issues”. And if that doesn’t bother you? Well, then you’re worth judging!

You know what the worst part is? That if someone says this doesn’t matter, and to “let people have fun”, RedLetterMedia is brought up like a trump card. It’s not. It’s a cynical YouTube channel saying something that might’ve originally had meaning, but that meaning has been lost over time. It’s not even clever. It’s merely an edgy response to a valid counter-claim.

I’m not sure what to add, other than asking if the gatekeepers have ever been in a relationship. And if they have, was it healthy? I know that sounds mean, but you’d honestly think they were hurt by The MCU. Not that it matters, because The MCU isn’t a person. But who am I to judge?

Disney:

You knew I’d whip out the big guns eventually, didn’t you? There’s plenty of fair criticism to make about Disney as an entity. Lord knows I’ve done my fair share! I also have to tread carefully in light of recent controversies, especially the walk-out by employees. So I’m prefacing this now by saying that any criticism here is focused on their creative aspect, not their business aspect.

Claiming that liking Disney products is a crime against humanity is silly and dumb. Disney isn’t a singular entity. They’re a conglomerate of entities, including Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars. That they own so much might be an issue, but it doesn’t mean that everything they put out is “bad”. Acting that way is elitist. And no one likes that.

But that’s what happens anyway: mention Disney, and an argument happens. Mention that you like Disney products, and uh-oh! Here come the fun police, ready to judge your tastes in entertainment. It’s tiring. Not to mention, it’s toxic.

I’m not joking, either. You think it’s necessary reminding people that Disney’s “evil”? Newsflash: that’s not a new revelation. Disney’s always been “evil”, even going back to their inception. That doesn’t diminish their impact, nor does it diminish their body of work. But it’s the truth.

I don’t get why this is controversial: yes, Disney’s practiced unethical business behaviours before. Yes, Disney’s perpetuated harmful stereotypes. And yes, Disney’s a greedy corporation. But anything you can lob at Disney, you can also lob at any corporation. Disney’s not special in that way.

It doesn’t help that there are people who hate Disney for bigoted and cynical reasons. Whether it’s “supporting” Pride, or recent issues like Turning Red being a tween movie about a Chinese-Canadian girl growing up in the 2000’s, Disney fans can never win. And that bothers me. Life’s too short to gatekeep children’s entertainment. Focus your energy elsewhere.

There’s not much else to add, other than that people need to stop blanketing Disney based on higher management. It’s true that corporate Disney’s monstrous, and that needs calling out, but creative Disney isn’t monolithic. In many cases, creative Disney doesn’t even agree with corporate Disney. We’re seeing this with the employee walkout over “Don’t Say Gay”.

Biopics:

I think it’s only fair to end with something different. It’s more muted, not as prevalent, yet still has weight during Oscar season. Let’s talk about biopics. You heard that right.

Life has many interesting stories worth telling on film. I know that sounds demeaning, especially since movies are fictionalized, but it’s true. Holocaust stories, for example, make great movies. Period piece stories also make great movies. Even some of the best sports movies are based on real events. Life’s often more interesting and bizarre than fiction.

So why do biopics get so much backlash? I know there are an overabundance of them every Fall and Winter, and that The Academy loves them, but so what? There are an overabundance of action movies every Summer, yet no one protests their existence. Or if they do, it’s not as loud. What gives?

Does life scare people? It scares me too, but that’s why it’s worth learning from. Like how fiction helps process hard truths about life, reality helps understand those truths. In some ways, I’d even argue that it helps more than a made up story, as fiction bends the truth. That’s an important distinction.

“But wait!” I hear you interject. “Don’t biopics also fabricate information?” Yes, but that’s a by-product of fitting life into a three-act structure. Even when you’re adapting true events, you still need to take creative liberties. And since not everything in life translates well, that’s necessary for good storytelling. It sucks, but film can’t educate you on everything. That’s what Wikipedia’s for.

Biopics also play around with style sometimes. Rocketman, one of the best music biopics, used Elton John’s oeuvre to be a literal musical. Rush, my favourite sports biopic, is a thriller that features racing. And Schindler’s List, one of the greatest dramas ever, is a three-hour epic about one man’s relationship with his Jewish accountant. These stories couldn’t have been made in any other format.

I get frustration surrounding the overexposure of biopics. And yes, many are trash. But many films in general are trash! You really think being “bad” is anomalous to biopics? It’s not.

That’s why I don’t get the anger behind the existence of the genre. People act like biopics are lame, when what they’re really implying is that real life’s lame. And it’s not. Real life’s exciting for many reasons, you’d have to be dense to not see that. Also, you need to get outside more. Seriously, touch grass.

That about does it! Hopefully you understand why film gatekeeping’s so toxic, and if not…feel free to send hate mail. I promise I won’t read it.

They're Charging WHAT?!

As I’m sure you’re all aware, I own two streaming accounts. The first, Netflix, I’ve had for a decade, and it’s used by my family. The second, Disney+, I received for my 30th birthday from my cousin, and realizing how much content on it I liked, I figured it was worth paying for renewals. I enjoy both services, despite not using them frequently.

That said, they don’t make it easy to stay subscribed. Netflix has increased its prices regularly over the last decade, while Disney+ upped its fee after introducing STAR. This didn’t bother me too much: my family pays for Netflix, while Disney+ has a yearly discount. However, I have my limits. And they’re currently being tested.

Let’s start with Netflix. I get emails reminding me of announcements and changes regularly, most of which I ignore. But I recently got this lovely message from them:

“ The cost of your plan has changed. This change takes effect
Tuesday, April 5th, 2022. You can view your updated membership
details by visiting your Account.

Plan
Standard

New Plan Price
$16.49

We hope you’re enjoying Netflix, and we're always adding new TV
shows and movies for our members to enjoy. ”

Interesting…

I’m worried about this increase. Minimum wage in Ontario is currently $15 an hour. This change is a little over $16 a month. That’s above hourly wage. While it’s a one-time payment monthly, hence I’m not overly concerned, it still adds up. Not including taxes, $16.50 monthly becomes $198 a year. Considering all of my living expenses, as well as how much I make at work, that’s a big ask.

I know this’ll change again. After all, streaming services are popping up frequently nowadays, taking their studio content with them in the process. $16.50 a month might not be much now, but it’s going to increase again. I wouldn’t be surprised if that $16.50 a month becomes $20 a month, possibly more. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.

Anyway, Netflix raised its monthly asking price. I can somewhat live with that. But what about Disney+? I pay for $132 yearly at the moment, which is still a big ask. Surely they’re done with price increases now that STAR exists, right? Right?!

Unfortunately, no. In a recent article from Forbes, it was revealed by Disney CEO Bob Chapek to investors that:

“‘By 2023, we want to get to a steady-state, which is even higher than we have right now. And I think that will give us the impetus to increase that price/value relationship even higher and then have the flexibility if we were to so choose to then look at price increases on our service. But it's all about content, content, content.’”

This isn’t an official declaration that Disney+ will up its fees. Nor does it specify by how much. But that it’s being discussed at all is alarming. Investors often have a say on pricing of consumer goods. We’ve already seen that with food and gas.

Additionally, $132 Disney+ is the yearly option. It’s also the cheaper option. The monthly service is about $13 Canadian. That’s cheaper than Netflix, but it’s inching toward an hour of minimum wage work. And given that I pay for it out of pocket, an increase in price is alarming. It’s also not what I want.

But this is the problem with streaming services. Netflix was once top dog, so it didn’t have much to compete with. That raised other issues (which I won’t delve into), but I didn’t have to shell out extra money for separate services. I also didn’t have to worry about price gouging. I don’t have that luxury anymore because of the variety of streaming platforms.

That worries me. It worries me because of the fractured nature of streaming, and it worries me because it burns into my finances. I can complain about these services endlessly, and I have, but the financial strain is my biggest worry. I don’t like that.

Of course, there’s also the issue of ads, something Disney+ is also contemplating. I’ve seen how disruptive ads are to YouTube videos. I also am not fond of many of the commercials on TV, although I’ve gotten used to that. I got into streaming to get away from that, and having it return for a cheaper payment plan isn’t really a worthwhile compromise.

I know I’m not alone here. On the Disney+ end, the service has been struggling due to the pandemic, and its numbers aren’t as high as they’d hoped. (Premier Access was also an issue, but I’ve covered that before.) People don’t have the money that they used to, and Disney’s aware of this. So wouldn’t it make sense to court viewers?

Think about it: what if Netflix and Disney+ dropped their prices to more reasonable numbers? And what if they had incentives to get people to watch their content? I know Netflix scored big with its acquisition of Studio Ghibli’s catalogue, but that’s not enough. If streaming services want customers, they should be conducive to their needs. Like movie theatres, they need a better hook. Raising prices isn’t it.

I probably won’t be heard by Netflix or Disney+’s management. I know there are people far more business-savvy than I am in charge of the services. I also know my suggestions will cost money, something neither service wants to lose. But I’m a consumer. And since I most-likely better understand what the consumer wants, it’s only fair if I’m not ignored. Because I’m the one paying here, not them.

Besides, money definitely speaks. And if people’s money suddenly says “no more”, what impact will that have on streaming?

Not My Pixar?

Turning Red’s premiering soon. I’m excited! Not only is it different for Pixar, essentially a Chinese-Canadian story focused on a teenage girl in the 2000’s, it’s also set in Toronto. That’s an immediate sell for me, as so few studio films focus on my home city. Combine that with the positive reception it’s received, and this is another win for Pixar, right? Right?!

Well, not everyone thinks so. It’s inevitable the film would get backlash, but I never thought I’d see the day when a Pixar feature would be criticized for illogical reasons. This isn’t Coco or Onward, where the controversies were generated by Disney directly, after all! No, this controversy is based on *checks notes* being non-relatable specifically because *checks notes again* it features a minority protagonist? Oh…*Sighs*

Hollywood has an incredibly racist history. This is true of animation specifically. And this is especially true of Disney’s animation, which has done everything from blackface, to whitewashing, to even stereotyping minorities. Even as recently as the 2000’s this was an issue, with criticism of The Princess and the Frog centred around Jim Crow-esque tropes being utilized. It's something Disney can’t ignore, and it’s great that they’ve started moving away from it.

That’s also come with reactionary backlash, though. And nowhere is this more-apparent than with Turning Red. Even in the months leading to release, there were people mentioning how “forced” Mei being Chinese-Canadian was, to the point of hounding Disney on Twitter for featuring fan-art of the character. (I wish that was a joke.)

And now, adding insult to injury, there was a controversial review about how the film “wasn’t for everyone”. To be fair, ignoring the backlash, the reviewer apologized, even admitting his error. Additionally, as someone who wrote for an online news website, I know the stresses of having your work scrutinized, fairly or unfairly, over its phrasing. So I get the position the reviewer was put in. I don’t know if I “sympathize”, but I get it.

I don’t get, however, the bigger issue with relatability. Pixar’s filmography doesn’t include many human protagonists. The Toy Story movies centre around toys. The Cars movies centre around automobiles. Even stories with humans in them, like Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo, aren’t really about them. And let’s not forget Onward and Luca, which blur the line. Honestly, Pixar’s truly human-centric films are few and far between. That’s not accidental.

It's especially not accidental because they cut through their premises to speak to the human experience. The Toy Story films are about identity through the value of worth to others. Up is all about learning to move on from loss. Even The Good Dinosaur discusses what it means to be brave. Details like these are hidden underneath their absurdist premises (like a literal rat cooking fine cuisine), and they’re what make them relatable. The ludicrous concept is the icing on the cake.

That’s why saying a “movie doesn’t connect with me” because its protagonist isn’t your ethnicity is baffling. Pixar’s made movies about toys, bugs, monsters, fish, robots and more. If people can relate to and consider them classics, then why can’t they relate to this too? What makes Mei any different? Is it because of racism? It probably is.

And that’s where the issue lies. Remember, minority cultures have a history of being underrepresented on screen. It’s only recently that they’ve started getting their dues, which is embarrassing. But it speaks to the global audience of filmgoers and their desires, and that’s always a plus. Also, the film is set in Toronto, a city that doesn’t get a lot of acknowledgement on film.

Also, why would Turning Red not appeal to people? Is it because it’s about menstruation and puberty? How many people already relate to that? Is it because the protagonist has a crush on a boy band? How many people already relate to that too? Or is it because Mei’s Asian? Because I’ve got news for you if that’s it…

People need to ask themselves about what they want in entertainment, as well as what that says about them. It’s true that Turning Red is about a culture many people are unfamiliar with, but so what? Plenty of great movies are! Spirited Away, my favourite movie ever, is about a Japanese girl who becomes a prostitute in a bathhouse for spirits in order to save her parents from being eaten. It’s weird and trippy, and far-detached from anything I’d ever relate to. That doesn’t make it any less-excellent.

There are valid reasons to be frustrated with Disney as a company. There are also valid reasons to be frustrated with Pixar as a company. But Turning Red being culture-specific isn’t one of them. Because that’s shallow, limiting and says more about you than either Disney or Pixar. Yet that’s what this is about, and we need do much better.

But at least we now have one of the cutest pandas to grace the big screen. That has to account for something, right?

Don't Say Disney

Disney’s been on the burner every few months recently. Whether it’s purchasing a major studio, firing and rehiring a director based on Tweets from a decade ago, or filming in a morally dubious location, they can’t catch a break. And they’re embroiled in controversy yet again. So let’s talk about it.

The US has been frustrating for some time. First Texas introduced a bill banning most abortions. Then they introduced regulations against trans students. If that wasn’t bad enough, books like Maus were banned in Tennessee for being “too controversial”. And now Florida’s been floating around unpopular legislation titled “Don’t Say Gay”.

I don’t have the patience to unpack the latter. You can read about it here. But it’s on its way to being reality, and people have spoken up. In particular, entertainment conglomerates have released statements expressing concern about the greater queer community. And then there’s Disney, who are non-committal about it. To quote a memo from CEO Bob Chapek:

“I do not want anyone to mistake a lack of statement for a lack of support. We all share the same goal of a more tolerant, respectful world. Where we may differ is in the tactics to get there.”

This is something! But it’s not what people wanted, so it drew backlash. In particular, it drew the biggest backlash from many Disney employees. It’s easy to see why: it’s a waffling response on a serious issue. If Disney wants respect, they need to do better.

It's also frustrating because this shouldn’t be controversial at all: gay marriage has been legal for almost 7 years in The US. Additionally, transgender protections in the workplace have been in place for a few years. Mass acceptance of LGBTQ individuals is growing. Ignoring that for something noncommittal is bad business.

Outside of that, this is an ethical issue. We often tout in business that “politics shouldn’t be discussed”, but that’s not always feasible. Being queer isn’t simply “politics”, it’s human dignity and health. LGBTQ individuals can’t “turn off” themselves, and attempts at that have resulted in unpleasant consequences. So yes, Disney has to take a stance.

You know what doesn’t help? That Disney has donated to Don’t Say Gay political supporters. Isn’t that technically taking a stance? They can claim to be neutral all they want, but money speaks. And it speaks poorly on Disney’s part.

I wouldn’t be so frustrated if this didn’t contradict Disney’s attempts at inclusivity in recent years. It’s true that the “first openly gay character” line has been thrown around for years, such that it’s now a running joke, but they really have made strides. They even had one of their characters in Eternals, Phastos, openly gay and in a same-sex relationship. They could be doing so much better, true, but it’s still something! So why throw that away over an unpopular piece of legislation?

This also bugs me because, ignoring my own struggles, openly-queer kids watch Disney’s content regularly. Yes, kids. Kids who long for sincere representation. And these same kids are at risk of harassment and humiliation if this bill passes. So Disney refusing to take a public stance, yet turning around and making one privately? That hurts.

What now? People have suggested a boycott of Disney products until they change their mind, but I’m not convinced that’ll work. For one, Disney owns more than simple media. They’re a megalith. And two, it’s practically impossible to fully avoid Disney. Even with the whole “piracy” suggestion being thrown around, which I take issue with for different reasons, as a way to circumvent Disney’s reach, the time to boycott Disney was 30 years ago, when they were much smaller than they are now. It’s too late in 2022.

I also don’t think it’s fair to hurt the employees at Disney over this response. Remember, Chapek’s one guy. He might be the captain of the ship, but he’s not the crew. And the crew isn’t monolithic, with many people, like I said, expressing frustration with this inconsistent stance. If anything, you’d be punishing them.

Besides, I doubt that this’ll be the end of this. Disney cares about their reputation, and we’ve seen through James Gunn’s firing that they’re not above reversing decisions if it impacts them. This could go the same way, which’d be good. Because it’s not a good look to talk neutrality, yet practice an actual stance.

In the meantime, I’m unhappy with this position. I think it’s dishonest, hypocritical and reflects poorly on the company. And while it’s true that Disney have a history of shady practices dating back to when Walt Disney was alive, that doesn’t excuse these practices now. Especially not when they have the capacity to right their past wrongs. I only hope they act on that capacity, as opposed to twiddling their thumbs.

If all else, this should serve as a wake-up call that Disney as a whole have too much power, and that someone needs to intervene. I doubt the latter will happen, but I can pray!

Batman's Rotten Situation

There’s a new Batman movie. Not that one, and not that one either. Yeah, that’s the one: The Batman. Despite being hesitant to go to theatres because of Omicron, it definitely interests me. And with the reception being mostly positive, this is another winner for DCEU fans. Or, I’d say that…but there are people legitimately upset that it wasn’t unanimously-praised.

I’ve discussed this before, but it bears repeating: Rotten Tomatoes isn’t a review site. It doesn’t grade movies, and it doesn’t actively judge movies. It’s an aggregate site, meaning it gathers reviews from various sources, weighs their averages and uses that as the end “score”. Aside from a tagline, which is driven by consensus, it also has no input on the final tallies. So why do people keep forgetting that?

I’ll be honest, I used to not understand it myself. There was a time that I thought Rotten Tomatoes was out to get me. I’d groan at the scores movies received, even watching bad ones out of spite. It was petty, but I was petty back then. I was also a teenager.

Fast-forward to 2010, when I got into film seriously. I started only seeing movies that were well-received; after all, I was limited financially. This went on for many years, and though not everything I watched I liked, I felt an air of superiority for “agreeing with the RT score”. Essentially, I was petty for different reasons.

I mention this because people often take Rotten Tomatoes way too seriously. It’s hard not to, since many studios and promotional sites use them to market their movies. In a way, Rotten Tomatoes has, ironically, become a review site for people. Forget clicking on the individual reviews, the magical number’s what people care about.

That worries me. It worries me because it commodifies reviewing, and it worries me because it leads to one-upmanship. Most importantly, it worries me because it ignores the subjectivity of film criticism, instead turning the reviews into personal attacks if they disagree with you. It’s unhealthy.

Before anyone accuses me of shilling, no, I don’t always agree with an RT consensus. I don’t think Cars 2 is that bad, nor do I think Mad Max: Fury Road is anything special. And I for sure think a Star Wars movie’s always worth your time, quality be damned. But while I have my opinions, I know these aggregates weren’t decided by a hive-mind. Rather, they were the results of hundreds of individuals, many with degrees in film and journalism, looking at a movie, seeing what it offers and judging it as an end-product.

People forget how many movies critics see. Whereas the average person might watch a handful of films in a year, professional film critics watch dozens of them weekly for a living. What’s worse, many are garbage. When you’re watching that many movies, you both see recurring tropes and patterns and also become harder to impress. For that reason alone, a critic’s review should hold more weight.

This doesn’t mean a critic’s opinion matters more than the average person’s. Nor does that always “make them right”. Critics are human, and humans aren’t free of biases. In some cases, they might change their mind upon re-watch, especially with the added benefit of time. In that sense, a critic can “get it wrong”. But so can everyone else.

That’s why Rotten Tomatoes should be taken with a grain of salt. It shouldn’t be discounted, there’s usually a reason why a movie’s getting mass-praised or trashed, but it’s not a definitive proof of quality either. Movies aren’t only subjective experiences, they also age. And depending on societal trends, that can either strengthen or weaken them. It’s why it’s worthwhile re-watching classics.

As for The Batman? Its reception should surprise no one. There’ve been many Batman movies over the years, all varying qualitatively. But while I doubt any interpretation will outshine Christopher Nolan’s, especially given the impact he’s had, Batman’s not hard to make work as a character study. Additionally, the director, Matt Reeves, worked on Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and War for the Planet of the Apes. Considering those movies worked despite expectations, it’s obvious that he’d pull off a character like Batman.

At the same time, Batman’s one of the few superheroes overdone on film. And expectations are much higher for another film with him. Add in that Robert Pattinson’s take is new, and that The DCEU’s been struggling for almost a decade, and it’s no wonder that some reviewers were turned off. It doesn’t help that it’s been playing up its moodiness to excess.

So yes, its Rotten Tomatoes aggregate makes sense. Does you have to agree with it? Of course not! But it’s not the end of the world. Nor is it worth getting angry about. Because that’s childish, tiring and doesn’t reflect well.

Honestly, be grateful it wasn’t outright panned. The Batman went through production troubles for years, even switching out its lead. That it didn’t suffer the same fate as Netflix’s live-action remake of Cowboy Bebop is a miracle. Because movies are hard to make, especially on a good day!

Ultimately, this is why Rotten Tomatoes and the discourse surrounding it is so openly toxic. We have enough problems without people getting this mad over a film. (I should know, I watched Eternals!) Adding something as trivial as a Batman movie’s reception to the mix is, therefore, ludicrous. It also doesn’t reflect well on anyone.

Besides, enjoy the movie! It was well-received! Isn’t that enough? I think so! But what do I know?