Aragorn's What Now?

If I had a nickel for every racially-coded faux-controversy online, the last 9 years alone would’ve made me a millionaire. It doesn’t help that most of the controversies are so ridiculous that I can poke a hole through them without getting a paper cut. But they keep on coming, as if the internet doesn’t have hobbies. It’ll happen again in the future with something equally ridiculous, but for now I’ll zoom-in on one I can’t believe warranted this much backlash. Let’s discuss everyone’s favourite high-fantasy series.

Lord of the Rings is a popular franchise. It’s been around since post-WWII, inspired decades of counter-cultural dialogue and has been the source of most contemporary fantasy tropes and stories. It’s also spawned a trilogy largely-regarded as one of the best put to screen. Even non-fans have begrudgingly accepted its impact, such that it’s hard not to hear “In a hole in the ground, there lived a Hobbit” without thinking of their prequel. Essentially, they’re a big deal.

I happen to love Lord of the Rings. Granted, I love the movies more than the books (which took two-and-a-half years to read), but the IP JRR Tolkien made is rich with detail and world-building I only dream of emulating a fraction of. In some cases it might be excessive, but that’s for another time. And while I understand that the series has less-than-savoury aspects too, I still think it’s gold standard of fantasy storytelling. I mean that sincerely.

That said, I sometimes wish the fans weren’t embarrassing to be associated with. But they are, with frequent arguments over topics like whether or not Éowyn’s speech to The Witch King is “feminist virtue signalling”. And with Magic: The Gathering, arguably the most-popular fantasy card game, having added a Lord of the Rings character to its canon, I’m seeing toxicity there too. It’s exhausting, if we’re being honest. Enough so that I feel a need to respond.

Magic: The Gathering recently added some Aragorn cards to its roster. Not a bad idea, fans of the game most-likely know Aragorn, but him as a black man with a goatee has caused a stir. It’s gotten so bad that people have complained online, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it starts trending. Or maybe it already has. Regardless, fans aren’t happy.

I fail to see the controversy. For all of Western fantasy’s strengths, one of its shortcomings has always been its Euro-centricity. This is starting to change slowly, but as a general rule the genre’s pretty…white. This trickles down to how the different races are portrayed, such that the heroes have generally been lighter-skinned. Even the Lord of the Rings movies were guilty of this. And let’s not mince words, this is an issue!

The lack of diversity in Western fantasy has kneecapped it; after all, there’s only so much you can do with “white people good, brown and black people bad”! So when there’s an attempt to try and shake the formula up, you’d think that’d be celebrated, right? Well, no. Because how dare the outsiders play with our toys! Why not create new characters, instead of take what’s rightfully ours? #NotMyAragorn!

There’s a lot to deconstruct. Firstly, regarding Aragorn being white, where’s that in the books? He’s never described that way, even if he has a “pale face”. Also, “pale face” in relation to what? Like The Balrog and whether or not it has wings, there’s plenty of assuming here.

Secondly, even if Aragorn’s “white”, so what? He’s not real. This isn’t Abraham Lincoln, there’s no insulting someone’s memory. Additionally, if we’re using “book accuracy”, Aragorn doesn’t have a beard. That’s an invention of Peter Jackson and Viggo Mortensen, and it raises plenty of questions. If we’re going by “book accuracy”, shouldn’t that be criticized too?

Thirdly, Aragorn’s been non-white before. The 1978 adaptation had him voiced by the late-John Hurt, a man who, yes, was white, but his on-screen portrayal was more Native American. There’s a whole discussion to be had about cultural appropriation there, but that’s not for now. The point is that Aragorn skin colour isn’t set in stone. Him being black, therefore, isn’t a stretch.

And finally, why does it matter? Are we ignoring how cool his pose is? Or how awesome he looks? Are we ignoring his stats because he’s no longer white? There’s plenty of ire directed at a change that, honestly, was never a big deal.

Really though, this is one of the least-interesting controversies surrounding Lord of the Rings. The franchise has survived a lot! It overcame a mediocre prequel trilogy adaptation of The Hobbit. It’s also survived an Amazon Prime series that’s both making its lore up and continuing despite The WGA’s strike. Even going back decades, it survived “Where There’s a Whip, (There’s a Way)”. Speaking of which, has anyone listened to that song? It’s something else!

If past experience is indicative, once the smoke clears, the franchise will continue like nothing’s happened. It doesn’t mean the “blemishes” don’t exist, they do, but they’re not enough to kill the franchise. If Lord of the Rings can survive what it has, I doubt this “nontroversy” will hurt it. After all, it’s Lord of the Rings! The pinnacle of fantasy storytelling! Isn’t that enough?

Yes, Magic: The Gathering updating Aragorn now, of all times, is weird. But not for the reasons those who are complaining think. If anything, it’s because of the influence Lord of the Rings has had on fantasy, card games included. Why update Aragorn now, instead of 20 years ago? Or 30 years ago?

This is absolutely a step in the right direction. Fantasy has a long way to go to be racially-equitable, something most Western fiction struggles with too. But it’s not nothing. It’s not only gotten people talking, obviously, it’s opened the door for future opportunities. Also, if you’re including Aragorn in a series of cards, then go all the way with Lord of the Rings inclusions? That’s my stance, at least.

Either way, it’s ridiculous. And it highlights how entitled fans are. Maybe focus on real problems, perhaps?

A Visionary Problem

(Warning: the following piece contains spoilers. Please read it at your own risk.)

I’d put off writing this because I’d put off watching it, but I guess that now’s the best time to be forthright: I don’t think Star Wars: Visions is good.

I should be clear that it’s not bad, either. I like the core idea, having different animation studios put their own spins on Star Wars, and the results look amazing. It’s neat seeing Star Wars ala The Animatrix, and I love how Season 2 included shorts from Western studios too. But that can’t hide my glaring issue with the shorts: that some of them end too abruptly. Since they’re supposed to be self-contained, that’s a bad sign. Let me explain.

I’ll mention the positives upfront. I like the different animation styles. I also appreciate the vibes they carry, as an entry from Trigger looks and sounds different than one from Aardman. This makes sense, they’re from different parts of the world, but the variety makes for interesting possibilities. As the title implies, you get different visions of what Star Wars is and its global impact.

I also like how these shorts feature original characters. As much as I like the Star Wars mythos, I find that it limits its storytelling by constantly coming back to the same characters. Luke, while cool, is overdone. As is Anakin. By frequently reusing them, however, the franchise feels smaller than it should. That’s something these shorts remedy.

Unfortunately, these positives don’t compensate for the problem with Star Wars: Visions. As unique and interesting as these shorts are, they’re handicapped by their lengths. I don’t think several of these shorts should be shorts. They’re too rich in lore and detail that that hurts their quality. If anything, they could stand being longer. A few should even be full-fledged films.

I’ll use two examples from Season 1 to demonstrate what I mean. The first is “Lop and Ochō”, or Episode 8. Lop, a slave, is saved by Ochō and her father and taken in as one of their own. Years pass and The Galactic Empire’s sapping their planet of resources. Desperate to help her people, Ochō cuts her hair and joins The Empire, while Lop’s handed the family lightsaber in order to rescue her. The two fight, whereupon Ochō injures her father and Lop “brands” Ochō. The short ends with Ochō escaping in an Imperial ship.

This is a great idea on its own: two sisters torn apart by political differences duke it out. It’s the eternal struggle of Star Wars, mirroring Anakin and Obi-Wan’s duel on Mustafar, and it lends to excellent dramatic writing. This could easily be a compelling movie, and it feels like it should’ve been one. But it’s a short, leaving me disappointed and with unanswered questions. Perhaps too many questions, honestly.

For starters, what’s Lop’s back-story? I know she’s a runaway slave, and slavery’s a common theme in Star Wars, but we’re never told why. We also never see her escaping her captors, only that she did. Even once found by Ochō and her father, we’re given little time for the familial bond to develop. We only get a photograph, followed by a time-skip.

Next, why does Ochō join The Empire? I know the planet’s resources are being sucked dry, and that she was desperate, but this is a stretch. It doesn’t help that Ochō’s personality changes once she turncoats, becoming a cliché antagonist. It’s true that turncoats in Star Wars flip on a dime, but even here it’s drastic. If the point is to show that The Empire corrupts you, it’s a little too effective.

Finally, the end battle between Lop and Ochō leaves me unsatisfied. Aside from no explanation of how Lop’s Force sensitive, I guess it happens to anyone now, the duel’s rushed and ends abruptly. I get the symbolism with the branding, but it’s unsatisfying. Couldn’t we have had a few more seconds, maybe a minute or two, to see the impact this fight had? Again, this is a movie condensed into a short.

Perhaps the biggest offender is Episode 9 of Season 1, “Akakiri”. This had the most potential to be a film, yet chickened out as a short. The premise revolves around a Jedi, Tsubaki, who helps a princess/lost lover, Misa, reclaim her throne from a royal-turned-Sith named Masago. The journey’s long and difficult, made challenging by Tsubaki having visions of a fight that doesn’t end well. He’s unsure why he’s having them, only that he’s predicting the future.

When Misa and Tsubaki confront Masago, Masago states that it’s Tsubaki’s destiny to join The Sith. The two fight when he refuses, with Tsubaki engaging and killing some of her goons. Unfortunately, one of the goons is Misa, for some reason, and her death devastates him. Masago offers to teach him how to revive Misa, but only if he becomes her apprentice. And he does. The short then ends.

I get the point here: to show that love in Star Wars is doomed, and that Jedi embracing it leads to their downfalls. We saw this with Anakin in Star Wars Ep. III: Revenge of the Sith, so there’s potential in reusing that plot device. But here it feels rushed. Say what you will about Anakin and Padmé’s relationship, but there were three movies of buildup. It had time to develop naturally.

It doesn’t help that, again, this short ends abruptly. Like the fight between Lop and Ochō, we’re not given time to let Tsubaki and Masago’s battle sink in. And while I get using Misa at bait, because love makes you behave irrationally, the way she brainwashes her is never explained. We don’t even realize she’s been brainwashed until after Tsubaki strikes her down, which is confusing. It’s not great writing when your big reveal’s a head-scratcher.

The issue, once again, is length. It’s not that I don’t care about Misa and Tsubaki’s romance, as two-thirds of the short are dedicated to that. The problem’s that not enough time’s spent on the dénouement. Yes, the downer ending makes sense. And yes, I appreciate the short having the audacity to not end happily. But the pacing hampers the experience, making me unsatisfied. That’s a problem when your story’s supposed to be self-contained.

But that’s the issue with these shorts in general: they’re hampered by their length. It’s not like every episode suffers, “Tatooine Rhapsody” is perfectly-paced, but enough do that it takes me out of the experience. I’m hoping that Season 2 doesn’t have this problem, but I’m not getting my hopes up. I want to love it, and Episode 1 of Season 2 has sold me so far, but if Season 1’s any indication, then this issue could repeat itself. And that concerns me greatly.

Then again, maybe it’s only me…

Indy's Tuckered Out

I have no nostalgic attachment to the Indiana Jones franchise. I only watched the movies in their entirety as an adult, and while I enjoyed them, they were also way too schlocky. This ignores the racism of the second entry and the outlandishness of the fourth, because those are dissertations on their own. I like the movies, but they’re not my favourites from Steven Spielberg. Make what you will.

Despite that, I’ve been looking forward to this latest entry. Not only is James Mangold the director here, he even got Spielberg’s seal of approval. Additionally, considering how Spielberg felt his heart wasn’t in the last movie, having someone new seemed like a good idea. Besides, it’s James Mangold! What could derail his track-record-

-Oh…

It looks like this movie, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, isn’t faring so well. I initially thought it was only Cannes, as they tend to be much harsher. But as reviews started trickling in, the situation became dire. For the first time, an entry’s been panned. Yeah…

I guess it was inevitable. The Indiana Jones movies are the gold standard in pulp action after Star Wars, so the bar’s set high. For a new movie to work, it’d not only have to retain the spirit of the franchise, it’d also have to offer something fresh and exciting. Plus, Harrison Ford’s in his 80’s. He might still be enthusiastic about playing Indy, but he’s not getting younger. And no de-aging technology will hide that.

Okay, so the 5th entry hitting rock bottom is disappointing. But what’s more disappointing are the general responses. They’ve been all-over, with some being smug, and others bewilderment and denial. People are having a rough time processing this, and that’s rubbing off on me. So while I shouldn’t be concerned, I feel obligated to share my thoughts. Here goes.

Let’s start with the smug camp. There’s a tendency to write off entries beyond Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade as having “not happened”. Everything post-1989’s labelled “fan-fiction” that can’t top the originals. This is a bad case of revisionist history. Because not only is that insulting to fan-fiction, it implies that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull wasn’t made by the same creative team.

Pretending something you don’t like never happened isn’t healthy anyway. I wasn’t a huge fan of every Matrix movie after the first, but they existed. They also had interesting ideas and concepts, like expanding Zion and making Agent Smith an Antichrist figure. Even The Matrix: Resurrections touched on corporate cynicism and the dangers of de-transitioning, something that fits beautifully into the pro-trans theming. Why would I pretend that doesn’t exist?

By ignoring everything beyond 1989, you ignore the flaws of the original movies too. Yes, Indy climbing into a fridge to survive an atomic bomb’s absurd, but is it more-absurd than falling from a downed plane, onto a slope and into a river on a lifeboat? Yes, an enemy being dragged into an ant colony’s silly, but is it sillier than a death cult ripping out people’s hearts and burning them? And yeah, Mutt Williams is dumb, but is he dumber than the overt-racism in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?

It doesn’t end there! The original movie has Marion Ravenwood largely as a damsel in distress, something the 4th entry improved upon with her return. Even Indy’s father downing a Nazi plane with an umbrella and seagulls is dumb. Post-1989 Indiana Jones is ridiculous, but so is pre-1989 Indiana Jones! I can’t help thinking this is less about quality and more about disappointment, which I get, but don’t sympathize with.

Then there’s the opposite camp. The arguments here are more reactionary. “Critics are being snobs!” “I doubt the movie’s that bad!” “I’m seeing it anyway!” I get the frustrations here too, but people need to step back and collect themselves.

Firstly, critics have always been “snobs”. But that’s their job. They see more movies than most, and they’re more guarded because they recognize patterns. They’re also much harder to impress, hence the snobbery. Sometimes they’re overly-unfair or harsh, but that’s why opinions exist. If the reviews bother you, see it for yourself!

Secondly, “bad” and “good” are subjective. Yes, there are standards, but even within those standards there’s nuance. Besides, pulp films are silly by design, and there’s room to appreciate trashy entries. If this one’s really that bad, guess what? Welcome to being a Star Wars Prequel fan! How do you think I’ve managed?

And thirdly, go see it! No one’s stopping you from watching a panned movie, nor are they stopping you from avoiding a praised movie. I’ve avoided the new Mission Impossible movies because I think they’re hollow and vapid, but they’ve been praised since the 4th entry. I also saw Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania despite its reception, and I enjoyed it! Never let other people decide your tastes in movies.

I know this is a disappointing for an Indiana Jones movie. I never like when movies are bad, because they waste my time. And even with this film, ignoring the disappointing reviews, I like how it isn’t afraid to tackle more unsavoury aspects, including stealing from Indigenous nations, in its teaser clips. Considering how Nazis have been acknowledged as bad, but robbing other cultures hasn’t, that’s already an interesting angle. But it doesn’t guarantee that the movie’s going to be a masterpiece, it’s simply a fun tidbit.

If that fails, we have the franchise’s many copycats, like Castle in the Sky and Dora and the Lost City of Gold, to be thankful for. That’s worth something, right?

The Good Surgeon?

I always find it amusing when internet nerds are reminded that reality has different tastes than them: Game of Thrones? The finale was disappointing, but people still embraced a spin-off. Yellowstone? It’s the most popular series with the over-40 crowd. Law & Order? People really like that show!

Such is the case with The Good Doctor, from the creator of House. It’s been in syndication for years and stars Freddie Highmore as an Autistic surgeon named Shaun. Shaun’s whole quirk is being brilliant at what he does, yet lacking social intelligence. I’ll give the show credit for attempting to highlight Autism Spectrum Disorder, but when you have Autism in real-life, the frequent recommendations from friends and family can give you panic attacks. I get it, can you leave me alone? Oh…you want to suggest it again?

While I’ve been inundated for years, I’ve also been reluctant to get on board because something felt off. Fortunately, the conversation was a nonstarter online…until now. It’s not for positive reasons, either. It’s fitting that a show the internet’s never heard of penetrates the online bubble due to controversy. And not the good kind.

A little while ago, it put Shaun in a position where he’d operate on a trans woman. While normal shows would treat this like no big deal, for Shaun this was a problem because the person can’t be a woman due to “science”. And after protesting and badgering the patient, as well as leaving the operating room, he’s fired by the head doctor, Dr. Han, for a violation of The Hippocratic Oath. Rather than be introspective, Shaun has a meltdown. Specifically, he whines about how “I am a surgeon!” with tears in his eyes.

As expected, this went viral, with many using it to mock Highmore’s performance and the writing of the scene. Initially, I wasn’t sure what to make of it: yes, what Shaun did was wrong. Even if some ASD individuals behave like him in real-life, trans-ness is one of the few grey areas we largely accept and embrace. And even when we don’t, it’s less ideological and more confusion. Shaun has no excuse.

That being said, it’s unfortunate that an Autistic meltdown is now the butt of jokes. Make no mistake, Autistic meltdowns aren’t funny. I don’t have them often anymore, at least not outwardly, but they’re a coping mechanism. When someone has one, they need empathy. So turning Shaun’s meltdown into a joke, despite reeking of privilege, helps no one. This also isn’t the first time he’s had one, either. Why’s this the tipping point?

Whatever, this was about bad writing. I was willing to let it go…until I discovered that Highmore supported Autism Speaks. You know, the organization Autistic people largely shun because of their ableist views? It was bad enough that Sesame Street consulted the organization for their first Autistic character, but Highmore? Someone who should know better? Especially since he’s playing an Autistic character, despite not being Autistic? Why endorse Autism Speaks?

This goes back to the longstanding problem with Autism portrayals in media. We’re usually reduced to stock, shallow representations, with frustrating results. And when the portrayal’s more “accurate”, it’s usually coded, not spelled-out and acted by someone who isn’t Autistic. In other words, you get a Drax or Mantis on a good day, and Shaun on a bad day. It’s maddening, and consulting Autism Speaks doesn’t help.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that Highmore’s an Autism Speaks advocate; after all, he’s not Autistic! He wouldn’t, therefore, know who to consult or support. But outside of that, I’m disappointed that an actor I like would endorse low-hanging fruit. Perhaps it’s unreasonable, but why do so many actors shoot their credibility in the foot? Is it because money’s a corrupting force?

I’m at a loss. Even ignoring my thoughts on Shaun, or The Good Doctor in general, I find this conversation upsetting and obnoxious. It doesn’t help that House was the better-written series over a decade ago, despite having an episode that was even more transphobic. It could be the Sherlock Holmes influence there, I don’t know. Or that the show-runner doesn’t understand Autism. I’m inconclusive on that.

Regardless, now that the genie’s out of the bottle, I’ll get my thoughts on The Good Doctor out of the way: I don’t have any interest in it. Its portrayal of Autism, from what I’ve seen, is shallow and simplistic, and many of its conflicts are juvenile. I also think Highmore has a really annoying, almost robotic voice that routinely pulls me out. I actually struggled not to laugh during his “I am a surgeon!” outburst for that reason.

As for the internet only recently discovering this show, I should remind them to get outside more. The internet might be good for closed discussions, but that’s the key: closed discussions. It’s not an expert on serious conversations because it’s not a good metric, and this includes representation of Autism. I get that Autistic individuals are diverse, but this is a good time to stop and listen to them about Shaun. It’s the only way for the conversation to move forward.

Also, the internet should realize that the masses have different tastes than them. This even includes syndicated TV.

Leave MovieBob Alone!

This is Bob Chipman, aka MovieBob:

Considered one of the most-polarizing figures on the internet, for better or worse, MovieBob got his start as a video essayist on ScrewAttack via The Game OverThinker. After becoming a site regular in 2009, MovieBob gained a reputation as a “loud, angry voice” who fed into video game edginess. His over-the-top rhetoric divided audiences over whether or not he was making the reputation of gamers worse. He also was the first non-ScrewAttack/GameTrailers/AVGN-related gaming content I watched.

My opinion of MovieBob has swung back and forth. Initially, I thought he was an amusing pastime. Then I started getting frustrated with his lack of etiquette. Then I took a break, moved on to other creators, and came back to discover that he’d softened a lot. Then he became annoying again following GamerGate and Trump. Now…I’m neutral on him.

Don’t get me wrong: MovieBob’s no saint. Aside from questionable politics, which have ebbed and flowed, he has one of the most-obnoxious Feeds on Twitter. The latter’s so bad I’ve made an effort to avoid most of his Tweets. He also occasionally has pop-culture takes that are baffling. But that’s why I don’t Follow him on Twitter.

You’re probably wondering why I’m mentioning him; after all, he can advocate for himself! He doesn’t need me to stick up for him, right? Well, I’m doing it anyway. Not because I’m his #1 fan, but because much of the criticism directed at him is couched in disturbing and unsettling blowback. Let me explain.

One of the “critiques”, if you can call it that, that keeps getting tossed at MovieBob revolves around his weight. Essentially, MovieBob’s fat. He’s never tried hiding that in his on-screen appearances, either. Even his most well-known photo, him dressed as Mario for Halloween, accentuates that fact. It’s not a secret.

Unfortunately, it keeps getting used as an insult. Whether it’s being called “MovieSlob”, or having his well-intended critics attack his weight in jest, it’s become really tired and overused. We get it, MovieBob’s fat. Lots of people are fat. How’s this funny?

Perhaps it wouldn’t bother me if I weren’t underweight, always trying (unsuccessfully) to gain weight my whole life. Perhaps it also wouldn’t bother me if I didn’t know people who are overweight, always struggling (again, unsuccessfully) to be thinner. There are many sympathetic reasons for someone being overweight. Also, not everyone metabolizes food the same way.

By frequently bringing up MovieBob’s weight, people are dabbling in body-shaming. And isn’t that supposed to be bad? Isn’t it largely-accepted that if we strive for body-positivity, we should be accepting of all body types? How is criticizing MovieBob for something he can’t control meant to elevate your cause? Shouldn’t you focus on something else?

Another area people like calling out MovieBob for is his intelligence. He routinely gets attacked for being “stupid”, something not helped by his Twitter Feed coming off as ableist and pretentious. That last part was the main reason I stopped Following him on Twitter, by the way. I was having enough trouble with my own self-esteem that I didn’t need him adding to that.

But guess what? I don’t Follow him anymore. And ignoring that, many people on Twitter, even some who are more-respected than MovieBob, have ableist and pretentious Feeds too. In some cases, it exceeds MovieBob. It’s Twitter, home of the garbage hot-take! If you think the site won’t corrupt you somehow, then you haven’t been paying attention!

While some of MovieBob’s Tweets have angered me, he’s shown the ability to be introspective too. He’s messed up plenty, but he’s also apologized, made amends, been embarrassed by his past views and learned to temper his politics. MovieBob, like all people, isn’t static, and he’s grown as a person since 2009. He still puts his foot in his mouth regularly, but he’s not as bad as he used to be.

MovieBob might have critics on the left and the right, but many of them aren’t saints either. I’ve seen videos and Tweets that’ve tried calling him out, yet have either fallen prey to the same issues they’re calling out, or have done worse. It’s the classic example of, “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. I also wonder how effective the pushback against him is when it’s ableist, pretentious, or body-shaming in nature, often all three simultaneously. Can’t we do better?

Arguably the biggest issue people have with MovieBob is how much of a “know-it-all” he is. I can’t argue with at, going by some of his comments. But guess what? He’s not alone there! Plenty of more individuals have made remarks that are equally as obnoxious, if not more-so. Some are even people I respect! Besides, MovieBob has the humility to acknowledge his ignorance and refer to experts, which many of his critics lack. If a “know-it-all” is capable of that, then there’s no excuse.

I guess this boils down to critiquing MovieBob honestly. Because so many people, even intelligent ones, don’t know how. And that’s sad. MovieBob’s easy to criticize for many reasons, but those reasons are frequently unmet. It’d be embarrassing if it weren’t upsetting, given the aforementioned.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t criticize MovieBob. You want to call him out? To quote Clint Barton from The Avengers: “Get in line.” But when that criticism lacks intellectual honesty, you might as well be what you hate. And no one wants that.

Besides, if Lindsay Ellis has forgiven him for an admittedly-creepy Tweet he made years ago, even when she had all reasons not to, then we can dial it down on the criticism.

Defending MCU Films

Normally, I direct MCU conversations at film nerds. After all, they’re the loudest voices on the hate train. But some blame needs to be thrown at movie and superhero fans. While film nerds are the most-aggravating about it, I also find now that fans, or “lapsed fans”, are obnoxious too. However, this’ll mostly be about film nerds. I can never pass up that opportunity with Marvel movies.

I know that’ll anger some of you, and I anticipate it. It’s not like I haven’t had debates over Marvel movies before. People getting mad is kind of the point. It means I’m shaking the right trees. Also, the fruit’s pretty sweet.

Anyway, I recently saw Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. It was a return to the cinema after 33 days of counting of The Omer, and I have many thoughts. I think the movie’s a little long, and some of the writing could’ve been tighter, but it hit more highs than lows. I was pleasantly-surprised by it tackling animal cruelty, something made doubly-amusing by PETA endorsing it. There’s plenty to dissect underneath the characters constantly shouting, but that’s for another time. Because I’d rather discuss people using this as another punching bag for the MCU.

There was a time when I’d have agreed with the criticism. I wasn’t an MCU fan for the first 6 years of its existence, even if I enjoyed The Avengers. But 2014 changed that, showing that there was more than mindless fluff there. Between Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy, I finally appreciated the identity of the franchise. And now I’m a fan.

Truthfully, the criticism of these movies on a technical level, while not unfounded, rings hollow and ignores the point. Yes, The MCU isn’t the “greatest action franchise ever”. With a few exceptions, it’s only consistently good! But that’s not an insult! If anything, it highlights the solid batting average. How many movie series can attest to that?

It also bothers me how smug some the detractors are: “The MCU’s military propaganda!” Okay, and? “The MCU doesn’t take risks!” Source? Even the franchise “peaking” 4 years ago with The Avengers: Endgame bothers me because I don’t think it did. That, and “peaking” doesn’t mean there’s nothing left to say.

This is especially concerning because Kang’s much more threatening than Thanos. Thanos was a population eugenicist. His movies made it work, but his motives were pretty lame when you analyze them. Kang, however, is more interesting: he’s a conqueror from the future hellbent on maintaining his overlord status. Not exactly “deep” either, but he has the advantage of being an intelligent human. Add in that he keeps coming back, and that his ego keeps being his downfall, and there’s a lot that can be played with.

Essentially, Kang’s that cockroach infestation you keep having, one that never goes away. That’s both annoying and scary, and The MCU’s already tapped into that with Loki and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. There’s real potential to be had in a pest that won’t leave, and it’s being overshadowed by pretentious assumptions that The MCU doesn’t have any good stories left.

Which leads me to my next issue: that diverse storytelling and casting is “bad” or “woke”. That’s more on superhero fans, showing that they never understood them in the first place. Having Black Panther or Kamala Khan is an acknowledgement that other cultures exist and deserve to shine. And shows like She-Hulk: Attorney at Law criticizing toxic masculinity is a self-fulfilling prophecy when people attack it for that. You’re basically telling on yourselves.

The real issues are with film nerds, though. Between criticizing The MCU for over-relying on CGI, even though CGI has made acting safer, or claiming that Marvel scripts lack humanity, which isn’t true, I’m convinced that going to film school makes you self-righteous. Either that, or film-bros all drink the same water from the same fountain. It’s not a good look regardless. And besides, what’s wrong with enjoying these movies?

Let me repeat that: what’s wrong with enjoying these movies?

It sucks that MCU fans are unfairly-judged as is, but whenever the judges are called out, they hide behind the claim of not thinking critically about consumption. This despite not always being the case. And even if it were, so what?! Do you enjoy being the fun police?

I’ll conclude with what I consider the most-damaging statement of all: Martin Scorsese calling MCU movies “amusement park rides”. Ignoring how wrong I think he is, and I refuse to not call him out, whittling MCU movies down to that not only ignores how they resonate with people, it ignores how many of the same “issues” The MCU has are in other franchises. If you don’t see me calling the Mission Impossible movies “not cinema”, despite them being an insult to the TV series they’re based on, then why’s it fair game to attack MCU movies for, frankly, being deeper than them? Is it because those movies have real stunts from Tom Cruise? If that’s the case, you might as well be watching YouTube videos of stunt-work instead. Because that’s not storytelling, it’s indulging Cruise’s ego.

Something to think about.

Writers on Strike!

Back in 2007, Hollywood’s writers’ union, The WGA, went on strike. I was in high school, and I wasn’t sympathetic. I mean, they were Hollywood screenwriters! They had enough money as it was! Why would they be unhappy with their jobs?

As the weeks went on, my lack of sympathy became resentment. For one, the strike ruined The Oscars, forcing everyone to improvise the ceremony. And two, the quality of shows on TV had dropped in my eyes, with even TV comedians being strained for jokes. The strike was ruining everything, and when it was over, I felt anger over my time being wasted. It seemed like it was a game by the union in sheer spite.

In hindsight, I realize how naïve I was. But I mention this because, 16 years later, The WGA’s on strike again. This time, having been part of a union, I appreciate the severity. And this time, I’m in full-support. I’m not coming from a place of ignorance anymore.

I could discuss the “mumbo-jumbo” of the strike, and why The WGA felt it necessary, but I’m not an expert, and I doubt it’s worth bogging you down with details. Anything I could say has already been accurately summed-up by The WGA. All I’ll mention is that it’s about being treated fairly by executives, which includes proper pay. If you want to know the rest, click here. You won’t be disappointed.

My problem’s more about the people online. Because while most are supportive of the strikers, there’ve been some real turn-offs too. It seems many individuals either don’t understand Hollywood screenwriting, or don’t care. And given how that’s manifested in the discussion, I can’t keep silent.

Let’s start with the obvious: that the strike doesn’t make sense. There’ve been people arguing that “the strikers are being treated well as is”. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Strikes normally don’t happen unless a union body’s dissatisfied. Keep in mind that corporations generally care about the bottom-line, and that many adopt the mindset of “bigger profits and cheaper production costs”. Factor in that the federal minimum wage in The US hasn’t kept up with the cost of living, which extends to non-minimum wage employee salaries too, and you can see why this is fallacious.

Moving on, there’s the claim that The WGA is “greedy” and “pulling all the strings to make us suffer”. This too is fallacious. But it’s also incredibly-dishonest. Writers don’t “pull all the strings”, they barely pull any strings. They have little say on film production outside of writing scripts, a process that’s subject to additional treatments and revisions. Screenwriters, like most writers, are freelancers. Writing’s hard enough without being accused of intentional sabotage...

Then there’s the claim that screenwriters are “lazy hacks”. This in particular has made the rounds following reports that executives are mulling using AI to circumvent human writers, all at a fraction of the cost. Honestly, this is a terrible idea. AI routinely gets accused of stealing from actual humans and blending their ideas into ugly simulations of reality. Besides, AI can’t even get human appendages right, what makes you think they’d tackle storytelling?

The issue I have here is that it assumes no thought goes into writing stories. Because that’s not true. Plenty of writers in Hollywood aren’t good at their jobs, but they’re still being paid. There are also expectations demanded of Hollywood screenplays, good or bad, and they require thought. Bad screenplays still have the human touch, something AI can’t replicate (yet).

But the biggest, most-confounding claim, and one that angers me, is how screenwriters are “being insensitive” by striking because “they’re robbing people of entertainment”. Firstly, this isn’t true. There’s plenty of backlog that people haven’t seen from the over-100 years Hollywood’s existed. Some of it hasn’t even been released, while others may not ever see the light of day. If you’re telling me you’ve seen every movie and watched every show in existence, you’re lying. Not even I’ve done that.

And secondly, so what?! You think exploiting Hollywood screenwriters for your own enjoyment is good? People don’t owe you their blood, sweat and tears! Screenwriters deserve lives, and acting like they don’t is selfish and short-sighted. You can live for a while without a new story. Think about others for a change.

This all circles back to how entitled we’ve become about storytelling. Yes, Hollywood has problems. Predators run wild, studios over-milk tried-and-true ideas, and big corporations manipulate theatres and TV networks. Even visual effects artists are being exploited nowadays, which is why I expect them to strike soon too! The business is really shady behind closed doors.

At the same time, it’s also nuanced. For every big name, there are dozens of average Joes getting by. Screenwriters comprise a significant number of them, and ignoring their desires to have lives because you’re being inconvenienced helps no one and harms many. Do better.

That doesn’t mean I don’t understand some of the frustration. I do. Like what happened in 2007, I dread the possibility of content in theatres and on TV deteriorating as the strike continues. But if that’s the worst-case scenario, I’ll live. Because if The WGA gets the respect it deserves long-term, then it’s something I’m willing to put up with. I only hope others will see the light and understand that.

End Jew Hatred?

Before I say anything, let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room: I don’t care that alt-right edge-lords will use this to fuel their claims that the left sucks. I didn’t ask for their opinions, and I don’t care for them. Besides, this isn’t about them, so that’s a red herring. This is about the left needing to clean house. We good? Moving on.

I’ve made no secret that I’m no fan of progressive-leaning Antisemitism. I even wrote an entire piece on that. But this issue goes further. Because for whatever reason, many in socially-progressive circles generalize about the roughly 16 million Jews globally who have a whole slew of opinions. It’s tiring. It’s also unhelpful, and unhealthy, to keep at it, as gentiles overwhelmingly outnumber Jews by more than 100-to-1.

The most-blatantly irritating part is when it makes its way to the political level. It’s annoying online, and social gatherings could stand for less of it…but politicians? The people who represent us globally? What good comes from alienating voters to express a misguided chip on your shoulder? You think that reflects well?

This past week a bill passed in the New York City Council to recognize April 29th as End Jew Hatred Day. This is a good idea: Antisemitism’s been on the rise for years, and it’s permeated progressive spaces. Having a holiday to mark this is welcomed, especially if it leads to introspection. It’s not like other minorities don’t have days dedicated to them as is, so why not Jews?

I’d end there, but I’m not interested in the near-unanimous approval. Politicians in The US generally regard Jews as worth taking seriously, so their safety is sure to have some priority. My concerns are with those representatives who either voted against the bill, or abstained. Because there’s a recurring pattern. And it doesn’t look good.

The “no” votes fall under two categories: not having time to read the bill, and objecting on personal grounds. I can’t speak of the content, having no access as a Canadian, but the former reeks of nonsense because the bill’s only one page. Even if it were dense and wordy, it isn’t that long. I can read a page from Encyclopedia Britannica in 30 minutes, give or take, and I assume this bill isn’t that complicated. Besides, even if it were, isn’t the job of an elected official to read it anyway? Isn’t that why they’re being paid?

I can ramble forever one how ridiculous it is that an elected official “didn’t have time” to read a one-page bill, but I’ll be forgiving and suggest that, maybe, anyone who didn’t was tied up with other matters. The other reason, objecting on personal grounds, I’m less-sympathetic to. Fighting Antisemitism should be a no-brainer, and objecting is mind-boggling. But that’s what happened. And it doesn’t make sense.

Let’s zone-in on the “no” vote that got the most attention: Shahana Hanif. A representative of Borough Park and Park Slope, her reasoning was that the bill was drafted by far-right and Islamophobic organizations. She added that Jews “…[H]ave not stood up for Muslims, they have not stood up for trans New Yorkers or anybody.” Firstly, source? In an age where information’s available with a Google search, it seems like the information to back that up could be obtained. So where is it?

Secondly, I doubt that’s true. Jews aren’t monolithic, despite our small numbers. If the protests and counter-protests over Israel’s current leadership are indication, Jews speak out on anything. This includes Islamophobia and transphobia, two issues I’ve seen groups like The ADL voice concern over. That’s only organizations, too!

This is a faulty argument at best, and a dishonest argument at worst. But ignoring that, this leads to the third and final issue: so what? Fighting bigotry isn’t tit-for-tat. Even if one side “isn’t pulling their weight”, that doesn’t exempt you. Oppression doesn’t care about the grievances marginalized groups have.

I’m not surprised, though. I’ve been seeing plenty of performative ally-ship surrounding Antisemitism on the left, and it’s always when it benefits them: The Tree of Life and Chabad of Poway shootings received plenty of criticism, but the recent tragedy that befell The Dee Family over Passover? One that left them without two daughters and a matriarch? Because it took place in an Israeli city, there was a swath of cricket noises. In some cases, there was also celebration.

This bothers me. It bothers me because it shows disregard for a minority’s real struggles, and it bothers me because it makes you wonder how sincere non-Jewish ally-ship is. Jews are worth talking about…but only on gentile terms. No listening to Jews, especially when they make you uncomfortable. Either they “get with the program”, or they leave. It doesn’t matter if they’re on your side, either.

You know what doesn’t help? Tokenizing our voices. There were some Jewish organizations who were pleased with Hanif’s words, but that’s the key: some. Not all, not a lot, not even several, some. And they were voices that even many Jewish progressives weren’t happy with, because, again, Jews aren’t monolithic. It doesn’t help that the reasoning for why this bill was bad, that its drafters had skeletons in their closets, falls apart when you start digging through the closets of these individuals. Everyone has skeletons in their closets, myself included.

Perhaps the biggest insult was Hanif’s follow-up remark when she was called out for Antisemitism: she accused her critics of foul play, especially when she’s “stood up for them”. Setting aside the arrogance, it’s not up to Hanif to protest. Like how Jews don’t get to decide if they’re being Islamophobic, non-Jews don’t get to decide if they’re being Antisemitic. It doesn’t work that way. But Hanif’s protest is quite common in progressive circles.

Yes, combatting bigotry takes lots of work. And it’s messy. But part of that work requires listening to those who’ve been harmed, even when you’re uncomfortable. It also means not talking over them or only highlighting those voices you agree with. Jews are no exception.

I wouldn’t be annoyed if people like Hanif were one-offs. But they’re not. Jews are often viewed by progressives as examples of how to break down barriers without doing anything meaningful. They’re part of the power structure…until they’re not. And then they’re discarded. Like that.

Jews deserve better. Left-leaning Antisemitism isn’t “blatant”, but it’s “vicious”. In some ways, that makes it dangerous, as it demonstrates to Jews that we’re disposable. It makes us scared to be vocal about our concerns, lest we be ignored. It also turns us away from progressive causes, because why bother?

It also bugs me that politicians like Hanif are Socialists. Ignoring how Karl Marx was Jewish, Socialists have frequently gaslit and buried Jewish admirers. Leon Trotsky’s the most-famous example, being an early Bolshevik who was exiled and assassinated. Jews may have started The Revolution, but they’ve never been welcomed into it. This is another example of why.

My words alone won’t stop this issue. I’m one person, and I’m somewhat of a nobody online. But I still feel that my voice deserves amplifying. I want to be a valued member of The Cause. But as long as The Cause doesn’t value me, I’ll never feel at home in it. That saddens me.

So yes, that’s my take. Good day!