Un Logo Loco

For as often as I complain about nerds over film and video games, I don’t talk as much about the film enthusiasts. I don’t ignore them, see my defence of Ready Player One, but they aren’t worth spilling as much ink on because they’re not as annoying. However, they have their moments. And they’re cringe-worthy.

DreamWorks has an unusual animation department. Despite several high-quality endeavours, I’m unimpressed by most of their backlog. However, sometimes they do something worth talking about. Like their recent opening logo. DreamWorks updated it for their newest movie, and it’s definitely worth watching:

This is beautiful. (Courtesy of Frozen Boy.)

I’ll admit, rehashing some of their greatest hits is fun. I especially appreciate acknowledging the Shrek films, as they helped make DreamWorks a household name. But I have questions about some omissions. Like, where’s Antz? And where’s Abominable? Better yet, why ignore The Prince of Egypt, one of DreamWorks’s best? I know that only so much can be included, but…

Whatever, that’s not what bothers me. No, it’s how film Twitter responded. Specifically, how film enthusiasts have latched onto it. It’s not good enough that this is visually-stunning, it’s still a “problem”. It’s not enough that there’s lots to analyze, it’s “self-congratulatory”. And that’s bad.

I somewhat see that: this is DreamWorks reminding people of its varied catalogue. And it’s doing so in a “shared world”. It’s, essentially, copying The MCU. You know, the way their projects have openings that show their interconnectivity? All set to the same music?

Perhaps it’s because I didn’t go to film school, but what’s the issue here? The logo’s not all that long, and it sets the mood perfectly. From a marketing standpoint, it’s perfect for its target audience. The people who’d watch DreamWorks movies are familiar with these films, and it’s what they want. I actually think it’s brilliant!

But that’s exactly it: there’s a disconnect between what general audiences want, and what film enthusiasts want. The latter wants something they can gush over on a filmic level. The former, however, wants to be entertained. We’ve seen this divide with Rotten Tomatoes, and we’re seeing it here. And while I’d usually take the side of the film enthusiasts, since they’re more-likely to be honest, this time I’m siding with general audiences.

Why? Because like I said, this is clever marketing. It’s also a sign of the changing times. The days of singular, auteur-driven projects are ending, for better or worse. It’s now about franchising and brand identity. That’s why Star Wars has jumped on the bandwagon with their Disney+ content.

I know, it’s sad. Change is hard and scary, true. But not everything about the old model was good. Auteurs were often creepy and entitled, harassing their crew to maintain creative control. Movie stars weren’t any better, utilizing their fame and demographics for harm. With Me Too highlighting a lot of this, I’m amazed anyone would want to go back!

Besides, sometimes having complete control is bad. As I mentioned years ago when discussing studio executives, sometimes being told “no” is good. And sometimes having other people take the reins is healthy. We can’t be experts at everything! And breaking up projects is a way to fix the blind spots of one person running it alone.

Now, committee-based filmmaking can have drawbacks too: sometimes the end product is a Frankenstein’s monster. Sometimes plot threads don’t mesh. Sometimes changes lead to errors. And sometimes the end product lacks any real identity. I get that, I really do.

But it’s a trade-off. What’s the healthy balance? It varies, and it’s not always clear-cut. Outside of that, the audience often responds differently, and their responses will vary. Movie making might be a skill, but movie experiencing is an art. And this often clashes.

At the end of the day, the film enthusiast isn’t the expert on longevity. Remember, many people initially snubbed their noses at Star Wars and Indiana Jones, proclaiming them to be amateurish. I know that sounds strange in retrospect, since Star Wars and Indiana Jones are cultural mainstays, but it took time to warm to them. If anything, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were the outliers, defending these franchises against traditionally-minded elites!

What film buffs consider authentic is relative. And that includes branding. It’s not “bad” that DreamWorks is following Marvel, it’s “adapting”. It’s also not to everyone’s tastes. That’s not worth being a gatekeeping snob, however it makes you feel in the short-term.

Ultimately, this feels like projecting on the part of film enthusiasts. Like I said, I’m not an expert on film because I didn’t go to film school. My analyses mostly focus on writing and story layouts, as that’s what I know best. But this gives me enough distance to call out film buffs when I think they’re wrong. And whining about branding, especially when it’s fun to watch, is one of those instances. There are enough problems in modern film as is, and you definitely don’t need to add new ones.

Now then, I think I’ll rewatch the opening…

That Tarantino, Man!

Stop me if you’ve heard this before:

“Marvel movies are ruining cinema! They’re overblown spectacles that aren’t art and killed the movie star! And they look like trash! Why do they make more money than [insert obscure movie here]? This is outrageous!”

That paragraph’s hyperbolic, but the sentiment has been echoed by many names in Hollywood for a while. And now it’s been broached by Quentin Tarantino, the king of fetishized slasher/gore porn movies. In an interview with Mediaite, he said:

“Part of the Marvel-ization of Hollywood is…you have all these actors who have become famous playing these characters…[b]ut they’re not movie stars. Right? Captain America is the star. Or Thor is the star. I mean, I’m not the first person to say that. I think that’s been said a zillion times…but it’s like, you know, it’s these franchise characters that become a star.”

Now, asking auteurs about Marvel movies constantly for clicks is annoying, and I wish press outlets would stop that. However, it’s not only Marvel that’s the issue here. Because Tarantino made a tone-deaf remark about how modern Hollywood, like the 1980’s and the 1950’s, is the worst for films. You can look that up if you don’t believe me. I wish it were a joke.

Anyway, the response was more of the same: on one hand, defenders of Tarantino’s remarks claimed that he was objectively right, and that his critics were lame MCU fans. On the other hand, general movie fans, particularly those who like Marvel, were upset that Tarantino was out-of-touch. And then there’s me, who sees both sides, yet isn’t happy with Tarantino’s remarks.

I’ll give him points in one area: big-budget movies shouldn’t be the only ones in theatres. Whenever I go to the cinema nowadays, which is rare, I always see at least two or three showings for a Marvel movie. And they play nonstop throughout the day. It doesn’t help that they’re crowding out smaller options either. Factor in that theatres aren’t conducive to going to anymore, and it’s easy to see the resentment.

That said, this issue isn’t clear-cut. While I’d love to see obscure films get more love, I’d also be content with them releasing on streaming. Marvel is made for theatres, it’s built from the ground-up to operate that way. An indie drama, however, can be enjoyed at home. That’s not a flaw either, as not all experiences are equal.

In a similar vein, people who are mad at Tarantino aren’t inherently wrong. Because Simu Liu’s remarks about old Hollywood being “really white” aren’t incorrect, as I doubt he’d have had the same options in the 1950’s. I also think Tarantino being “immune from criticism” is ridiculous. Auteurs are human beings, prone to folly. If Steven Spielberg’s criticized for covert racism, then Tarantino can be criticized for his remarks too. Legacy’s irrelevant here.

I’m annoyed this sentiment even exists. You don’t have qualified immunity because you make great movies. James Cameron’s made many legacy films, and he’s known for his inflated ego and short temper. George Lucas gave us Star Wars and Indiana Jones, but his refusal to relinquish control of his IPs has harmed the film landscape. Even Hayao Miyazaki, whom I adore, has taken flak for his remarks about the anime industry. Being influential doesn’t give someone a free pass.

So why do people act that way? Is it because they’re desperate to vent their frustrations about Marvel movies? Is it because they can’t think for themselves? Is it both? Is it neither? What’s the deal?!

By the way, Tarantino’s remarks about “the movie star being dead”? That’s not really a flaw. Yes, it sucks that an actor’s worth these days is tied to a fictional character. But given how many actors have been revealed to be weird, shady or both, maybe that’s for the best? I wouldn’t want to centre my life around that, after all!

Maybe it’s better that people prefer fictional characters? That doesn’t mean we should be overly-attached to them, forgetting they’re fantasy. If the story of Julian Roman’s indication, not distinguishing between fiction and reality is dangerous. But that doesn’t mean we should be worshipping real people. The cult of personality’s equally as dangerous, after all, and that doesn’t get the coverage it should.

Essentially, I don’t agree with Quentin Tarantino. I sympathize with him, especially given how Hollywood operates, but I think he’s off-base. I also think it’s ridiculous that I’m not allowed to be critical of him for his off-colour remarks. I don’t care how successful or influential he is, he should know better. And that he doesn’t is disturbing.

As for The MCU? It’s complicated. I’ve enjoyed most of its output, and even considered its flops…interesting, but claiming they’re the death knell of cinema is misguided. The movie industry’s a business, and businesses are out to make money. The MCU’s following what’s hot right now, and it’s not entirely its fault that many films are (unsuccessfully) following its lead. If anything, we should demand more from the competition, not attack something that’ll be successful regardless of what we think.

Finally, I wish people would stop dragging this debate back into the spotlight. And I wish people like Simu Liu could express their frustrations without unnecessary backlash. It’s old, it’s tedious, it’s tiring, it’s not fun period. I know it works as free advertising, as much as I don’t want that, but it doesn’t outweigh the negatives. The horse is already dead. You don’t need to keep flogging it.

RIP Kevin Conroy?

I grew up with Kevin Conroy as Batman. It wasn’t through Batman: The Animated Series, though what I watched of that was excellent, but rather Batman Beyond and Justice League/Justice League Unlimited. His deep voice was iconic, threatening without being throaty or obnoxious, and he cared about the character. When it was announced that he’d passed away at age 66 from cancer, I was crushed. I was delivering packages for my job when I found out, however, so I couldn’t properly take it in. I didn’t really comprehend that we’d lost a legend until that weekend, long after his death was made public.

So when I hopped online to read what people were saying, I was hoping to see nothing but love for a man who not only made a huge impact in animation, but also in queer advocacy. Kevin Conroy was openly gay, and the void there would be noticed for a while. Surely there was nothing worth criticizing…right? Well, leave it to the internet to ruin everything.

Within hours of his passing, Tweets circulated about Conroy that were nasty. He’d only been dead for a short time, but the opinions had to come out! And like a drunk, they had to be targeted! Except that whereas a drunk might not be entirely to blame, these comments were thought-out and malicious. The lack of shame was obvious.

Some of you are probably scratching your heads in confusion, so here’s some context. On Friday, November 11th, 2022, a Twitter user wrote the following:

“Alright, Mr. Conroy had his fun, but now it’s time for his roles to be entrusted to those who truly appreciate the craft of voice acting. Give the Dark Knight the honour of being voiced by a Japanese voice actor, not some bum of an English voice actor.”

If that sounds tone-deaf, not only do you have good instincts, you’re in for a treat with the response:

“Are you wack? Why should a Japanese dude voice a white man? Batman should be voiced by a conservative straight male, preferably married too to set a good example for children.”

I can’t even.

The latter poster also expressed relief over “another groomer” being gone, because life’s a parody. But outside of that, that two people would take this opportunity to roast Conroy after his death, especially given what he meant to people, is upsetting. Conroy wasn’t a politician. His influence and decisions haven’t left people dead or in a worse-off state, unlike many world leaders. He also wasn’t some celebrity who used his fame to sell snake oil or cause people undue hardship. He was a voice actor who made many people, kids especially, fall in love with Batman. Using his death to trash him as a person, therefore, isn’t warranted.

It also doesn’t reflect well on these posters to say such ignorant remarks. Yes, Batman would most-likely be a sociopathic, rich white guy who skirts laws if he were real. But he’s not. And even ignoring that, he’s a crime fighter with a moral code. That’s more important than being voiced by “a bum of an English voice actor”.

Speaking of which, let’s zone-in on that: bum of an English voice actor? Does this individual know how hard it is to voice act? English VAs don’t necessarily have the same training as their Japanese counterparts, since animation’s still unfairly judged as “children’s fodder”, but voice acting requires skill and patience. And unlike physical acting, it all goes into the voice. That’s not only draining, it can lead to burnout if you’re not careful. There’s a reason why only the best VAs stay in the industry, and Kevin Conroy was one of them.

Besides, Japanese voice actors aren’t inherently better. I’ve covered this before on a piece for Infinite Rainy Day, but Japanese VAs do more than shows and movies. They also perform radio dramas and pornography, the latter requiring little of them because acting isn’t the point. Even outside of that, Japanese VAs aren’t always great, as their jobs are treated like regular professions. You’re not expected to be the cream of the crop to stay in the industry long-term.

That’s why “Japan > The West” talking points bug me. Never mind that calling Kevin Conroy a “groomer”, meaning he took advantage of children, because he was gay is both homophobic and untrue, the mentality of “Japan is always superior” is cringey and racist. Japan has its share of problems too, and romanticizing that way of life does no one, especially the Japanese, favours. It also isn’t relevant to Conroy’s death. In other words, why bring it up?

The animation community is also mourning the loss of one of their greats. Yes, there were others who voiced Batman over the years, many still living. And yes, they deserve admiration. But that doesn’t mean Conroy’s contributions shouldn’t also be admired, especially since he was taken in his prime. Not doing that isn’t only disrespectful to him as a person, it’s demeaning to the impact he had on an entire generation of kids.

Ultimately, it’s in really poor-taste to dunk on someone who recently died on the grounds that he was gay or American. Kevin Conroy was both, but he was also a great VA and a kind soul. There’ll be time to discuss his legacy later, assuming the conversation’s genuine, but not now. Let his family and friends grieve over him. And let’s mourn him ourselves too. I promise we’ll be better off for it.

Level-Up Your Accessibility

Every-so-often something happens in my personal life that’s worth sharing. Back in 2020, for example, I enrolled in a novel writing course and wrote a 20-chapter story. I’d later discuss how overambitious I was in a reflection post, but it set the stage for relearning concepts I’d taken for granted. As if my education isn’t finished, I’ve now enrolled in an accessible media course through The Disability Channel. The course isn’t over, it won’t be for another month, but I’ve learned a lot. In fact, I feel it’s worth discussing my thoughts and the skills that I’ve picked up from it.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way: I was hesitant to enrol. My courier job actually recommended it to me, but the entry criteria had plenty of “yes, but” strings attached. Perhaps the biggest one was a two-phase screening process, which I thought was excessive. Still, I made the cut anyway. Yay!

One of the first lessons I learned was re-acclimating my body clock. I’m not a morning person, and getting up for 10:00 AM lectures on Zoom three times a week was a big ask. It didn’t help that I suffer from dysania every morning, so I’d lounge in bed half-conscious for roughly an hour. This was like being in university again, except by choice, and I needed to adjust. And I did…eventually.

Next I needed to learn MyCanvas for lecture links. Then I needed to learn Canva for designing. It all progressed from there, with me constantly having to adjust to new software and web platforms. As someone who struggles with that, it was as headache-inducing as it was tricky. (It took a few months to grasp Blogger, after all!) Fortunately, I had instructors who recognized that not everyone knew these platforms, so they had lots of patience.

It hasn’t all been heavy-duty. I’ve learned how text styles can and can’t be accessible. Many people don’t know this, but Fonts have personalities, and they range in accessibility. Some, like Wing-Dings, aren’t accessible at all, being nothing more than images meant for pranking people. Others, like Calibri, are pretty easy to read, thanks to how streamlined they are. And then there are Fonts like Times New Roman, which I used quite frequently in high school, yet slowly abandoned because it’s a serif Font and, therefore, hard on the eyes. All of this might seem pedantic, but for someone who relies on a screen reader this is huge!

Speaking of which, screen readers. I had no clue what those were beforehand. I didn’t even know how popular they were for people who not only had visual impairments, but also attention and comprehension issues. Screen readers use voice modulation to read what’s been written, and they’re both finicky and accurate simultaneously. They can’t read serif Fonts all that well, but they pick up the tiniest details that most people don’t notice. It’s for this reason that we were encouraged to use camel case lettering (Hashtags with lettering that’s properly capitalized) and alt-text descriptions for images. It’s too bad that Blogger’s alt-text feature’s so complicated, though…

There’s another concept I learned a lot about in this class, one that helped answer a longstanding complaint I’d had about world-building in my writing. I’d never understood how to strike a balance of describing content without being extraneous, as I always believed more was better. That details like skin tones (such as tanned skin) were rejected in my writing groups, all-the-while “implied” points like furniture and scenery were “lacking”, bothered me. What was I doing wrong?

It turns out that it’s a juggling act of informing the uninformed while not overwhelming them. You want to strive for that 50/50 balance of explaining while not being too obvious. You might need to describe the fabric of a couch, for example, but not go overboard about the finer details. Because most people don’t care about that, and it’ll bore them. Such is the balance of alt-text descriptions, something I learned when an assignment required me to write alt-text for a black-and-white photo. Being verbose has always been one of my shortcomings, so it was hard!

Another difficult assignment involved marketing a made-up product. I chose a manual sensor that locks doors when in contact with objects, which brought back memories of once getting my finger caught in a door as a 5 year-old. I had to work off of a predetermined template that my instructor had made, and it was tough! Between using a SWOT Analysis and customizing my demographic, I spent three days on my idea alone! Never mind the writing part, which was as time-consuming as any piece for The Whitly-Verse!

Perhaps my most-frustrating assignment to-date was a two-part project centred around a public domain commercial. I first had to write captions in Word, then upload the commercial to YouTube with them attached. Anyone who’s familiar with the uploading AI can tell you how imperfect it can be for syncing sound. The first time I uploaded the commercial, the timing of the text with the sound was off. When fooling around made everything worse, I deleted the file and uploaded it again…only to discover that I couldn’t access it immediately because YouTube was taking its time processing it. I finally figured it out, but it was a big headache!

It wasn’t all bad! I learned how to dim backgrounds so that my text on images was accessible. This came in handy with a fake ad I made for Sukkot. You’d think Tim Hortons would’ve jumped on the opportunity to market pomegranate tea to their Jewish clientele, especially since so many drink their coffee, but nope! I did it for them! (Except not really, as I don’t work in their marketing.)

I also had an assignment where I’d analyzed the accessibility of a location I’m familiar with. I chose my synagogue, which’d undergone massive renovations almost a decade ago to comply with AODA standards. I had a blast writing that, but I had to cut out words to meet the expectations. It was difficult. But since I already edit my pieces for The Whitly-Verse, it wasn’t too much additional work.

Finally, I have to mention group projects. Whether it was creating an imaginary marketing campaign as a group during class, or collaborating on Blog posts for The Disability Channel, coordinating with others was tough. I’m used to going solo on projects and taking the lead with others, so having to step back was hard. It meant sucking up my pride and being a team player, which is important to learn. It was also the ultimate test of patience.

Would I recommend this class? Absolutely! It’s not like writing a novel, which requires making hard sacrifices. Because accessibility’s smart business! It also helps with getting engagement, something I need given that Blogger’s algorithm hasn’t been kind to me lately. It might be “extra work”, but it’s worth it. Especially since you don’t know what you’d be missing out on.

Now then, about Blogger’s refusal to allow for alt-text on its images…

Oh Mister Sandman...

Originally I wanted to write about James Gunn recently becoming the head of WB’s DC division. I had a piece formed in my head, one that’d be pleasant instead of mopey and bitter. But something came up that I felt was more pressing. So it’s with profound sadness that I’m mopey once again. Let’s discuss The Sandman.

I didn’t know what to make of this show when it was in its conceptual stage. It’d been in production for about a decade, vacillating between Neil Gaiman overseeing it and Neil Gaiman not overseeing it. Netflix settled on Gaiman overseeing it, and what followed were 10-episodes that, while not entirely like their source material, had charm in their own right. I liked it, warts and all, so I was upset that there were rumours of it not receiving a second season. It was worrying, basically.

Complicating matters was it starting to fade. It was still a hit, it ranked #1 on Netflix’s most-watched for weeks, but that wasn’t enough. The show wasn’t doing numbers like Stranger Things. The only sticking point that kept circulating was Neil Gaiman being worried. And since the first season was expensive to produce, that was a massive kick to the groin.

Netflix works on an algorithm-based system. It doesn’t matter how good your show is, it only cares if people are watching. Plenty of well-received series, many of which weren’t even finished, got canned because of poor audience engagement. And The Sandman was doomed to be another one. This despite, like I said, it being #1 on Netflix’s most-watched.

I mention this because algorithm-based applications suck. Blogger revolves around algorithms, and as the past year has shown, it’s not kind to anything it deems “unmarketable”. It also lacks consideration for personal problems, like if a grandparent passes away or someone has COVID. Algorithms are amoral and impersonal metrics, essentially. So having the most-subscribed streaming service in the world predicated on one is a bad sign; after all, who’s to say people will stay loyal once the content stops?

This also doesn’t help with how seasons of television are aired. The Sandman, like most titles, was dumped onto the service as a whole season. It didn’t come out weekly, and it missed out on additional discourse as a result. This isn’t to spite Netflix’s streaming model, sometimes binging’s the way to go, but not having a week-to-week schedule misses out on hype. Think about it this way: would my Studio Ghibli retrospective entries have been as popular Views-wise if I hadn’t spaced them out over the month of December?

That’s part of the problem. The Sandman isn’t a generic, run-of-the-mill Netflix series. In many ways, it’s one of the best shows the streamer currently has. Reception-wise, it’s been acclaimed and one of the highest-viewed. But that isn’t enough for Netflix. If it isn’t a Stranger Things level hit, it’s “not worth talking about” to Netflix. Never mind that Stranger Things only became the juggernaut it currently is because Netflix trusted The Duffer Brothers. But I’m getting ahead of myself…

Hoping for a Stranger Things-level hit constantly isn’t only unhealthy, it’s also unrealistic. My most-popular piece on this Blog is a rant about a canon ship of two characters that I didn’t like. It blew up in the years since, and it still receives comments occasionally. But while it’d be nice to surpass it View-wise, I’ve accepted the piece’s popularity as lightning in a bottle. In other words, expecting everything to be a phenomenon is ridiculous.

I’d end here, but it was revealed that The Sandman would be getting renewed for another season. I’m pleased by this news. At the same time, I’m also worried by how long that took to happen. The Sandman, remember, is on a platform that uses an algorithm. Considering how many shows were axed because of that, that another season was green-lit is an example of “wait and see” mixed with “give the fans what they want”. This was a result of months of demand that refused to let up. You only need to see how people reacted to the show being up in the air for proof.

So yes, I’m happy. I’m happy that Dream’s story will continue, and I’m happy that we’ll be getting more. But most-importantly, I’m happy because we successfully gamed the system in our favour. We watched the show, begged for it to continue and didn’t let up. And we won. That’s rare, since many high-profile shows with passionate fans weren’t as fortunate.

If anything can be gleamed from this, it’s that Netflix’s metrics for success are in need of revamping. I complain plenty about HBO Max writing off its backlog for tax purposes, but Netflix doesn’t get off easy. Because this obnoxious waiting game is proof that something needs to change. Netflix needs to do better if it wants to remain the king of streaming services.

***

Some housekeeping before I end this: firstly, apologies for slowing down on content. I’m taking an intense class online on accessible media until December Break, and I don’t mean that lightly. Whenever I have free time, I’m usually busy doing assignments. This includes a class blog that I’m struggling to write for. I guess my trauma from university hasn’t fully dissipated…

That said, I’m about to hit a Blogging milestone. I won’t give it away here, but anyone who’s followed me since inception can infer it by counting my backlog entries. Either way, it’s kind of a big deal, so I’m figuring out how to celebrate. I’ll, hopefully, know more in the next while, but keep your eyes peeled!

That’s it for now. See you next time!