When Icons Die...

It’s unhealthy to worship celebrities. I say that not only as a Jew, since it’s idolatry, but also someone who’s seen what it’s led to. That said, sometimes they contribute enough that when they pass away, it hurts. I’d like to give attention to that, as well as what it says when their loss is sudden. Let’s get started.

Firstly, the elephant in the room: no one lives forever. I know death sucks, and it makes people uncomfortable, but human bodies have expiration dates. That’s not necessarily bad, as it means that we can make an impact during our time on Earth. For some, that impact’s huge! Especially when they make positive changes:

Betty White passed away last year at the age of 99. Despite not living to her 100th birthday celebration, her contributions to comedy and entertainment can’t be understated. Her career in the latter was so big that she was starring in The Golden Girls in her 50’s. Given that celebrities, women particularly, often fall into a casting vacuum when they hit a certain age, to have that privilege was ground-breaking. Even after outliving her co-stars, White remained an active force in Hollywood well into her 80’s and 90’s, such that her death was felt by the entire industry.

When Carrie Fisher passed away in 2016, everyone felt it. Despite becoming famous at a young age, thanks to a combination of famous parents and landing the role of Princess Leia, Fisher was a huge social justice advocate. Even in the 1980’s, Fisher was campaigning for HIV awareness and gay rights before both were societal norms. Fisher was also an advocate for addiction awareness, as she suffered from alcoholism and drug abuse. It was both of these that may have led to her death at 60. As someone who’s struggled with addiction issues for some time, Fisher’s openness has made me feel comfortable knowing I’m not alone.

Speaking of dying young, we can’t forget Robin Williams. A comedic genius, Williams could craft a joke on any subject at rapid speed and make it graceful and funny. Comedy and mental health issues routinely go hand-in-hand, but Williams’ Lewy Body Dementia was something he struggled with intensely toward the end of his life. He was so concerned with his suffering that he hung himself, to the shock of everyone. It felt like one of our greatest friends was gone forever, even if his acting roles were hit-or-miss. Such is the power of a good joker.

On the critic side, Roger Ebert’s death from cancer at 70 was hard to swallow. Ebert was a pioneer in the world of journalism, and while his reviews were divisive, you (usually) could see where he was coming from. He wasn’t afraid to challenge norms and embrace the new, and many upcoming directors and actors were thankful for his openness. Ebert was a juggernaut critic, and his legacy has yet to be matched. He’s missed by many.

And then there’s Arleen Sorkin. While not the first VA from Batman: The Animated Series to die young, Kevin Conroy predeceased her, Sorkin’s death hit hard because she’d pioneered a brand new character. Harley Quinn has had several iterations since 1992, but none laid the foundation like Sorkin did. It made sense, Harley was based on her mannerisms, but that the bar has yet to be fully-surpassed in 31 years speaks to her impact. Not to mention the impact she’d had on fans.

But the biggest celebrity loss, at least in my mind, was June Foray. Beginning work as a radio announcer in her teens, Foray’s career lasted well into her 90’s. She was Rocky the squirrel, but also Granny of the Looney Toons fame and many others. She was a passionate advocate for animation and voice actors, helping to craft a Best Animated Feature at The Oscars. Foray never made it her 100th birthday, but those decades of voice-work were enough to immortalize her anyway. June, you’ll be missed!

What do these individuals have in-common, outside of working in or around the entertainment industry? Ignoring their ages, their individual legacies made them icons. And yes, that doesn’t mean we should worship them. Not only do I think they wouldn’t want that, but by worshipping them, you rob them of their greatest asset: their humanity. None of them were perfect, and it’d be really unfair to treat them as such. That doesn’t mean we should act like they haven’t made an impact, either in their occupations or in their personal lives.

In the end, it goes to show the power that influence can have. Does it suck that fame gives celebrities an unfair advantage over lesser-known individuals? Possibly. But it also gives them a responsibility to set an example for others, however big-or small, in some cases-it may be. Because God knows how often influence allows for the opposite!

And there you go: a piece about celebrity deaths that impacted me. I would’ve included Bob Barker as well, but all I only really know him for is the fight in Happy Gilmore. I’m sorry.

No Nose Knows!

Jews frequently get the short end of the stick in Hollywood. Despite being present since its inception, few attempts at portraying their stories feel authentic. We either are reduced to stock tropes, have our stories hijacked by non-Jews, or are made into victims. And whenever we speak up, we’re either chastised or talked over. Such is the case with Maestro, an upcoming biopic about the late-Leonard Bernstein:

Hmm… (Courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes Trailers.)

I’ll mention upfront that I’m interested in seeing this. Leonard Bernstein was responsible for some of the greatest compositions of the last century, and I like Bradley Cooper and Carrey Mulligan. I also like this teaser, with the use of colour being effective at marking the passage of time. I’m sure the movie will be good, especially with Cooper directing it. But that’s not my issue.

I’m a lot more concerned with casting Cooper as Bernstein. Not because he doesn’t look like him, because he does. Rather, it’s because Cooper’s not Jewish. It doesn’t help that the film gave Cooper an exaggerated, prosthetic nose. Yeah…

As expected, this movie reignited a debate about Jewish representation in Hollywood. It felt like another slap in the face there. It didn’t help that Cooper was given a fake nose to make his look like Bernstein’s. Never mind that it’s awkward and fake. Who thought this was a good idea?!

Big noses are one of the oldest Antisemitic tropes, right up there with horns and greed. It’s so prevalent that it’s even made its way into fantasy with goblins and witches, as both often have hooked noses. It’s not as if Jews don’t have big noses, but not in an over-the-top way. It’s why the characterization of goblins in the Harry Potter series is so concerning to Jews, even to those who like it. (And no, that’s not up for debate.)

While representation in general has improved over the years, especially with minorities having more of a voice, it’s not equitable yet. Bradley Cooper having an enlarged nose is one such an example of the uphill battle Jews still have. While the goblins of Gringotts Bank are Antisemitic, at least they’re fictional. Leonard Bernstein, however, was a real person, so that adds insult to injury. That 5 of Maestro’s multiple producers are Jewish doesn’t help, since they should know better.

While this is bad enough, what makes it worse is that this was originally a passion project of Jake Gyllenhaal’s for 20 years. Gyllenhaal’s Jewish, and while he’s expressed no hard feelings toward Cooper on Instagram, I still think he was done dirty. And sure, Bernstein’s children wanted Cooper, I get that. But using their consent as proof that this “isn’t an issue” does Jews no favours. It’s a form of tokenism to only consider their voices, especially when they have a vested interest.

I’d be less on-edge if the prosthetic nose wasn’t so distracting. But it is. Even ignoring how Carrey Mulligan isn’t Latina, hence another miscasting, I can’t look at Cooper’s portrayal without zooming in on his prosthetic nose. Why’s it so needlessly-big? Why’s it so artificially-angular? And why doesn’t look like Bernstein’s nose? Forget how the aging makeup looks amazing, that nose is distracting!

You know what doesn’t help? Arguing about it. This should be an easy example of “listen to the Jewish voices”, but instead it’s triggering debates over whether or not it’s “okay” to have non-Jews play Jewish people. I used to be sympathetic toward it being acceptable, but I grew out of that notion because Jewish “whiteness” was always conditional. If the last decade has taught me anything, it’s that many white people still don’t accept us. And I can’t even begin to talk for non-Ashkenazi Jews!

Honestly, I’m tired of having to justify proper Jewish representation. We make up roughly 0.25% of the global population, and yet we’re both everything and nothing. This extends to our on-screen portrayals, with Jews being reduced to either stock tropes, or having our stories coopted by non-Jews. Cooper’s Bernstein’s another example of the latter, and he won’t be the last. Not until actual change happens.

I get that this might not seem bad to even many Jews. Bradley Cooper looks a lot like Leonard Bernstein, and acting’s largely about pretending. The “Jewish nose” debate also ignores that some Jews have big noses. I have a big nose, as do most members of my family! There’s a reason why this became a stereotype, as unfair as it is. Also, like I said, I’m sure Maestro will be good, especially given who’s overseeing it.

But that doesn’t matter. The damage has already been done, and there’s no way to fix this with two strikes happening simultaneously. For now, all I can do is get my thoughts out and explain why this bothers me. Because it absolutely does, I can’t lie. And until something happens in Hollywood to fix this, it’ll keep happening with future stories about Jews.

Wonder Clickity-Click Woman

Let’s talk Gal Gadot.

I know that I’ve covered her before, but since the internet loves using her as a punching bag, I figured it was only fair. Especially with The DCEU being virtually dead, as well as her role as Wonder Woman now being up in the air. Essentially, Gal Gadot, the Israeli who ended up becoming a household name because she was one of DC’s big three, may or may not be playing the character anymore. I don’t know. That hasn’t stopped people from talking about her like she’s a minion for The Antichrist, however!

I’ll begin with how people bash her Israeli background. More-specifically, being an IDF combat instructor, even though being in The IDF is mandatory for Israelis after high school. I could go on forever about how singling her out is ridiculous, as so many celebrities in Hollywood have served in The US military, but it’d be flogging a dead horse. Especially since no one would listen.

That hasn’t stopped people from pointing it out for no reason. So many tabloids and discussions surrounding her zone-in on her IDF background. It’s exhausting. It’s especially exhausting when that’s used to discredit her as an actress. Most-recently, it even happened in a Pop Tingz headline:

“Zionist, Gal Gadot, reportedly lied about James Gunn & Peter Safran telling her she was ‘in the best hands’ and had ‘nothing to worry about’ when it came to her upcoming Wonder Woman movie. James Gunn said the meeting never happened.”

Ignoring that this headline caused a storm, it’s objectively-awful. For one, why use “Zionist” as modifier? Two, way to gaslight her. Three, there are two strikes happening in Hollywood right now, so I don’t trust anything that isn’t 100% confirmed. And four, the headline’s poorly-phrased, having an unnecessary comma after “Zionist”, and “Zionist” could be removed altogether without impacting anything. In fact, I’ll rephrase it myself:

“Gal Gadot recounted James Gun & Peter Safran telling her she was ‘in the best hands’ and had ‘nothing to worry about’ when it came to her upcoming Wonder Woman movie, even though Gunn has stated he never met with her.”

See how much better that is? Yes, it removes words, but it conveys the same message. It also avoids a potential libel lawsuit. I get the temptation to be provocative, but even in clickbait journalism you should be careful. I know from experience.

It’d be easy to chalk this bias against Israel and Israeli-related stories to Pop Tingz’s founder being Lebanese, but it’s not relevant; after all, if Keanu Reeves and Brigitte Gabriel are also Lebanese, then clearly they’re as diverse as they come. Besides, it’s racist. That doesn’t mean I’m ignoring how Pop Tingz does this only for Israel. It’d be hilarious if it weren’t Antisemitic. And let’s not pretend otherwise, okay? Moving on.

I also wouldn’t be as annoyed if this didn’t have ripple effects. While Pop Tingz might’ve said the quiet part out loud, I hear and see plenty of similar remarks regularly. I also see remarks that have no foundation, including her “inability to act” (which isn’t true), her “lack of screen presence” (which isn’t true either), and her “being difficult to work with” (which I’ve yet to see a source for). Then there’s her “refusal to apologize for being a Zionist”, which I don’t get: she’s not allowed to express concern and pride for Israel? That’s a crime?! Since when?!

This is the what Gadot has to deal with regularly. I’m not even her biggest fan! Not only is she not on my Top 50 favourite Hollywood celebrities list, but I’m still not happy with her “Imagine” video from 2020. I also find that she, like many celebrities, can be superficial. However, attacking her for being Israeli’s ridiculous and unfair. Especially since you’d have to criticize Natalie Portman, Ayelet Zurer and Shira Haas too. And that’s only scratching the surface!

Really and truly, this is why the internet sucks. It’s bad enough that Warner Bros. Discovery and DC are a mess because of The DCEU without playing “he said, she said” and being dishonest. Gal Gadot might “suck”. She might even “suck” as much as most celebrities, I don’t know her personally. But that’s no excuse for Antisemitism. Gadot being Israeli has as much to do with her as Adam Driver being a former marine. Or Dwayne Johnson being a former Republican. It’s a footnote, not their whole persona. And it’s not something worth constantly bringing up like some kind of “gotcha!”.

It especially bugs me because it’s an example of how the internet thinks of Israelis, or “Zionists”, as cartoon characters. Like all Earthlings, they’re far more diverse than that. Even Israel itself, while no saint, is no more awful than other countries. It isn’t even as awful as The US, a country it’s allies with. By thinking of Israelis this way, you end up with headlines like the one from Pop Tingz, ones that aren’t even that clever. (I’d say all of the above about Palestinians too, but that’s a whole other piece.)

But yeah, don’t be like Pop Tingz regarding Gal Gadot. It’s not worth it, trust me!

Streaming's Bursting Bubble

The world of streaming is a rollercoaster. One moment you’re dreading its effects on archiving, the next you’re excited that Disney+ is worth having. The concept of watching content online has pros and cons, but it’s increasingly feeling like the cons are outweighing the pros. In particular, it’s fallen prey to a lack of practicality and a lack of continuity. Both of these are disastrous for the industry.

Let’s start with that first issue. About 10 years ago, all streaming of note was on Netflix. Netflix had skin in the game since the days of Blockbuster, serving as a direct competitor and having the convenience of not venturing outside. Even when Netflix pivoted to digital-only, it still pushed Blockbuster into obscurity. Netflix, essentially, was the better option. It had the longer legs.

Netflix was the go-to service for years. And people took note. And when it started making original content, the ease of logging on and browsing was there. It helped that Netflix had no competition. Like Apple, Netflix had an ecosystem.

Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for Netflix to have competition. Streamers like AppleTV, Peacock, Amazon Prime, Disney+ and HBO Max started popping up and ate up parts of Netflix’s base. They locked in exclusives and original programming, as well as their own demographics. Disney+, for example, was the home to Disney, as well as Star. Meanwhile, HBO Max was for Warner Bros.’ massive backlog of films and shows. With all of these services, Netflix began feeling redundant. It didn’t help that these services had monthly fees, many of which were expensive.

I’ll admit that I only watch Netflix and Disney+. Netflix is for my family, while Disney+ I pay for directly. I’m generally happy with these services, but I’m now noticing disturbing trends. Like, what’s with restricting password sharing? I get not letting strangers use your account, but family and friends? Why should I be charged extra for that?

It sucks that Netflix has gotten so paranoid. I know they want to a loyal base, but why not cap accounts at three or four users? It doesn’t help that subscription costs keep swelling, especially when their content doesn’t justify it. Not everything on Netflix is worth my time, after all! Factor in that Disney+ is considering doing the same, and I feel dirty reminding people not to use my accounts!

This leads to the other issue: a lack of preservation. Video games are guilty of this too, but at least they have options for many of their newer releases! Streaming doesn’t; in fact, with much of the original content there are no physical releases! You’re at the mercy of whatever’s on the platform that day. And given that titles are pulled frequently, that’s a problem.

It's especially frustrating because algorithms are determining longevity. Yes, algorithms are scanning viewer numbers now. Given that not everything that’s popular is good, and vice versa, that’s not good for small-time creators. Nowadays, in order to be big you have to strike a chord with audiences, which is hard when you lack a fallback position. Even then, being popular doesn’t guarantee anything.

Interestingly enough, that’s what’s at the heart of the current strikes in Hollywood. It used to be that even if your work wasn’t successful, future circulations guaranteed residuals. With the advent of streaming, as well as cancellations and content purges, that’s not a guarantee anymore. Streaming simply isn’t the novelty it once was. The rising costs are the icing on this crappy cake.

I wish I could fix this problem myself. But I can’t. I’m one person with barely any base. I can’t even apply for AdSense, and I doubt the ads I’d receive would sustain me. So this is quite personal.

That’s where I have to turn to people with influence, and I’m not seeing results. There’s simply too much uncertainty and lack of quality-control, and no one’s stepping in to regulate it. I’m not even including the constant tax write-offs contributing to this mess, because that’s a whole other can of worms! It’s as if no one in charge cares. Or if they do, they’re not a large or powerful enough voice.

I like streaming. I like the convenience of streaming. Streaming allows for a certain freedom that’s missing from movie theatres and retail stores. It’s nice to sit down and watch something without having to scope it out. I also don’t see streaming going away.

But that’s why I’m so concerned. Whether it’s affordability, practicality, or a lack of sustainable content, something’s got to give. And hopefully soon. Because if entertainment isn’t treated with respect, then what’s the point? Why bother pouring your heart and soul into something if it’s discarded the second it’s deemed useless? What’s the point long-term?

Cable TV started to consolidate different channels into a centralized hub. Said hub took hundreds of networks and made them affordable. I mention this because streaming’s becoming what Cable TV fought against, and people often joke that it’d be ironic if something similar to cable happened with these services. Honestly, I’d like that. Because if it means fixing the problems with streaming, strikes aside, then I’d happily pay for a consolidated package. Wouldn’t we all?

Celebrity Industrial Complex

Is the death of the movie star bad?

I’ve covered this before on The Whitly-Verse, but it’s worth revisiting. News outlets and YouTube videos love to talk about it like it’s an omen. “Oh no, __ actor can no longer sell a movie!” And while it’s interesting, I think a lot of it’s overblown. Here’s why:

Back in the Golden Age of Hollywood, it wasn’t uncommon for upcoming actors or actresses to be exclusively contracted by studios. Said studios would milk them for all their worth, using them to sell movies to audiences. Perhaps a notable example was child actress Shirley Temple. You know, that redhead who had a drink named after her?

With the collapse of the studio system in the 60’s and 70’s, actors were free to star in movies of their choice. And for a while, they kept their top billings. But then came the rise of the Summer Blockbuster, kicked off by the Star Wars franchise. Suddenly, star power meant less than it used to. Couple that with the internet, and how information became readily-available, and the movie star was becoming a relic.

I should mention that there are still movie stars. The MCU has made several names into icons, including Chris Evans and Chris Pratt. Barbie, one of 2023’s biggest box-office hits, was billed on the power of Margot Robbie. Even Oppenheimer has Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr. Clearly, movie stars do exist!

However, they aren’t why these movies are successful. The films are. This means that people have to put more work into advertising for the masses, who don’t care about the actors as much as the movies themselves. Marvel movies have movie stars, for example, but that’s not why people like them. They want to watch Thor fighting Loki.

I also don’t think the “death of movie star culture” is inherently a problem. A lot of movie stars live really sketchy lives. This is something social media’s exposed in great numbers, perhaps to a concerning degree. There are only so many sex trafficking rings, assault charges and alternative lifestyle choices I can stomach, honestly. And I’m hoping that once the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes end, this rot in Hollywood gets addressed and excised.

I mention this because movie star culture makes this happen. A star becomes big, has their name exploited and proceeds to trash their reputation. Worshipping these individuals doesn’t make the situation better, as they have no incentive to stop. That lack of accountability’s the catalyst for many of Hollywood’s problems, so I’m glad it’s disappearing. It makes the focus less about that.

Besides, what are the odds that a movie star will still resonate in 20 years? Movie buffs will point to Humphrey Bogart and Elizabeth Taylor as examples of lasting impacts, but are they? Does the average moviegoer care about Casablanca’s stars? And do they care about the career trajectories of older stars? You and I might have a passing interest in this stuff, but Taika Waititi wasn’t wrong!

This level of finer nuance gets lost in the conversation. It might “suck” that star power’s no longer the driving force behind movies, but so what? Why does that have any bearing on the film’s quality? Shouldn’t we be more focused on whether or not the movie was good? Or if the production was good, instead of being a nightmare? Isn’t the lack of respect for the crew why the strikes in Hollywood are happening?

Perhaps I’m the oddball, but I think the aforementioned is more interesting and relevant than whether or not “Big Name #3000000” is in a movie. And no, that doesn’t mean toxic stars should get a pass to be toxic. If the last few years have been indication, exposing toxic behaviour is how change happens. However, I don’t think star power’s the only factor at play. Otherwise, stories like Marvel’s VFX people finally unionizing after years of being abused wouldn’t be so big.

I get it. Movie stars are part of the experience of going to movies. They make the magic of cinema tangible, especially with their publicity. Having your favourite star in a big-budget film’s exciting! But it’s not the only part that matters anymore. And that’s not a problem, as it means that movies are no longer tied down to specific actors being in them. It makes the movies now have to work because they’re movies, not because they have specific stars in them. Isn’t that what we want if movies are to remain relevant?

Remember, movies are an art-form. Like other art-forms, they’re a part of society. But like other art-forms, they need to stand on their own merits, not on the merits of their creators. You can admire Michelangelo’s David for being a brilliant creation of a brilliant man, or you can admire it for speaking to you with its attention to detail. The branding matters, but if that’s all that mattered? Well, you might as well gaze at concept art for David, not David itself. That’s the key.

Ranking Pikmin Types

In light of beating Pikmin 4, I’ve been browsing Pikmin-related YouTube videos. One video ranked the various Pikmin. I figured I should try that myself, so I am. I’m not including Oatchi, however, as he’s a dog. Anyway, let’s begin:

10. Winged Pikmin:

Every fan of the Pikmin franchise has their least-favourite type. This one’s mine. I know what you’re thinking, “What? Those cute cherubs that fly? What’s so bad about them?” Far be it to dispute their cuteness, but there’s a reason I’m putting them so low.

See, aside from reaching high places and carrying items above water, Winged Pikmin are really weak. They’re constantly at the mercy of enemies, and they’re usually among the first casualties. They even have trouble breaking flowers that contain pellets for more Pikmin, requiring groups where other Pikmin don’t. They also struggle to pull items from the ground in Pikmin 3. If it weren’t for the fact that that becomes necessary later on, they’d be almost useless.

Pikmin 4 nerfs them further. While the previous entry had uses for them, this one doesn’t really. Most objectives that require them can be accomplished with Yellow Pikmin, so they’re now lazy fan-service. Plus, they can drown in water if dispersed by enemies, which makes no sense given their wings. So while it pains me, I have no choice but to put them this low.

9. White Pikmin:

Moving up the rung, we have White Pikmin. Had Winged Pikmin not existed, White Pikmin would’ve easily been the worst type. True, their ability to sniff out buried treasure’s an asset. Yes, their speed’s commendable. And I’ll give them their resistance to poisonous traps. But like Winged Pikmin, there’s a glaring flaw:

White Pikmin are terrible fighters. Like Winged Pikmin, they require working in groups to defeat larger enemies, making them susceptible to being eaten. This makes each one precious, and it gets annoying when they die. Thank God for the Rewind mechanic in Pikmin 4! Where was that in Pikmin 2?!

If there’s any consolation, White Pikmin are poisonous to consume. Assuming you don’t mind losing the odd one, their ability to drain enemy health is an asset. I can’t say how many times I’ve struggled with a boss, lost many White Pikmin to a surprise attack and smirked when said enemy’s health depleted. It’s cathartic! That doesn’t compensate for White Pikmin being piss-poor fighters, though!

8. Rock Pikmin:

First introduced in Pikmin 3, Rock Pikmin are agile and can break through crystals and crystal-like walls. They also can survive being hit by boulders and stomped on, making them quite useful. They can also stun enemies in a surprise attack. That’s where their strengths end, unfortunately. Essentially, they feel like missed potential.

What holds them back is that when the element of surprise is gone, Rock Pikmin aren’t efficient fighters. They’re dysfunctional ones, charging around aimlessly like linebackers without a purpose. Even once they’ve been thrown, their secondary attacks take forever to do damage. Rock Pikmin, therefore, are good for initial attacks, and bad for follow-ups. They’re also annoying to keep track of.

All this makes Rock Pikmin tedious in a fight. Sure, their initial attack rules, but that’s their initial attack. And even then, Purple Pikmin are more-effective at stunning enemies and taking damage. For the most part, you have to constantly call them back and pray they don’t get eaten or scattered. It’s not fun if you don’t know what you’re doing, and I often find myself wishing they were better fighters. But what can you do when they’re shaped like rocks?

7. Red Pikmin:

The first Pikmin type in the mainline entries, Red Pikmin are also the most-balanced. They’re strong fighters, capable transporters and immune to fire. It’s always helpful having them on hand, made easier by their Onion being available from the start. However, with that comes a downside: they’re boring. The most-balanced Pikmin type isn’t special.

I feel bad saying that! Not only are Red Pikmin handy in most circumstances, such that I can’t imagine a game without them, they’re what comes to mind when you think of Pikmin. Their fire resistance also makes them great with certain enemies and obstacles. It seems like they’d be a perfect type! And on some level, they are.

But their lack of uniqueness makes them not stand out: in a fight, Purple and Ice Pikmin are more-efficient. When it comes to treasure, Yellow and Winged Pikmin are your immediate go-to types. Even breaking down barriers is better-suited for Rock Pikmin! So while Red Pikmin are balanced, they’re not my favourites. Sorry.

6. Blue Pikmin:

Ignoring personal biases, Blue Pikmin are slightly-preferable to Red Pikmin. It’s, therefore, unfortunate that most Pikmin games don’t let you access them until later on. It’s doubly-unfortunate because Blue Pikmin can swim, making them excellent fighters underwater. That, and they can save other species from drowning, making them Pikmin lifeguards. Fancy that, huh?

I’m not kidding about their efficiency. Not only are they an asset in water, but they’re great for surprise attacks from aquatic enemies, many of whom sneak up on your Pikmin without warning. They’re also quite useful in dismantling water-related traps, and they can take down barriers in water too. Additionally, Pikmin 2 and Pikmin 4 have caves that can only be accessed with them. You know you’ve got something special when that’s the case!

Unfortunately, Blue Pikmin are easy sacrifices. Being slower on land, they’re not much against a non-aquatic enemy or boss. They also have a higher tendency to be separated from your group because of how they blend in with environments. Blue Pikmin are as frustrating as they are handy, and being accessible late in the game doesn’t help. But I do like them, so…

5. Yellow Pikmin:

Of the original three types, Yellow Pikmin are the best. For one, they’re fast workers. Two, they can be thrown to hard-to-reach places. Three, they’re electricity-resistant. And finally, even though this was later changed, the original game had them capable of using Bomb Rocks, making them efficient in combat.

I happen to really like this type for all the above reasons. Whenever there’s an opportunity to use them in battle, I take it. Whenever I need to get to a difficult area, I toss them first. Even with lighting places or dismantling electrical traps, I resort to them. And while they’re no longer the only ones who use Bomb Rocks, they still work the best with them.

If I have any complaints about Yellow Pikmin, it’s that it’s easy to become over-reliant on them. There are even times where I only want them because of their efficiency, at the expense of other types. It doesn’t help that I sometimes forget that I need additional types, forcing me to backtrack and collect them. But that’s a minor gripe. And if it’s my only complaint, we’re in good hands.

4. Bulbmin:

I bet you forgot about these, right? Exclusive to Pikmin 2 (so far), Bulbmin are Pikmin that’ve infected hosts. Said hosts are Bulborbs, a really common enemy. If you kill their mother, they become yours for the taking. A little morbid, but hey! Free Pikmin! Who doesn’t want those?

Bulbmin are the G.O.A.T. in caves. Not only are they excellent fighters, they’re resistant to everything. They also can be thrown far distances, making them an essential companion. The only downside? They can’t leave caves. Though, thankfully, they can be converted into regular Pikmin with Candypop Buds.

I wish we could’ve seen Bulbmin in future games. They’d have been particularly useful in Pikmin 4, as that game has caves too. Imagine what they could do to clear out enemies, making quick work of them while you collect Sparklium. But I guess they were overpowered, so Nintendo didn’t bring them back. I can dream, though…

3. Purple Pikmin:

The “Sumo” Pikmin, Purple Pikmin are incredibly overpowered. For one, they’re each worth 10 regular Pikmin. This makes carrying heavy objects and enemies less tedious, as you don’t need as many. And two, they stun enemies by either landing on them, or landing adjacent to them. In moments where you’re bombarded, having them is necessary.

I can’t overstate how valuable Purple Pikmin are. They were the best type in Pikmin 2, hands down. When they were removed in Pikmin 3, I was actually disappointed. It felt like Nintendo was scared they’d make the game too easy. Fortunately, they made their triumphant return in Pikmin 4. And I’m grateful.

If I have issues with Purple Pikmin, they’re minor. The first is that they might actually be too overpowered. The second is that, at least for Pikmin 2, they and the White Pikmin have no Onion, forcing you to traverse caves to stock up. This makes collecting one of treasures, a dumbbell, a chore, as it can only be lifted by 100 Purple Pikmin. Pikmin 4, sadly, has this same problem with a gold brick, but you now have Oatchi to compensate. That, and Purple Pikmin have an Onion now, even if acquiring it’s a nightmare.

2. Glow Pikmin:

Moving to the upper-echelons of this list, Pikmin 4 introduces two Pikmin types. One of these is Glow Pikmin, who first appear in night missions. (Yes, Pikmin 4 has night missions.) Glow Pikmin are surprisingly-crafty and make night missions less-stressful. Given how the night missions function, that’s extremely helpful. Almost enough to forgive their somewhat-tedious harvesting methods. “Almost” being the key word.

Glow Pikmin can stun nearby enemies. If you hold down the charge button on the right Joycon, the Glow Pikmin will curl up into a ball and then explode. This’ll paralyze enemies long enough for the Glow Pikmin to make easy work of them. Smooth, huh? I think so!

Glow Pikmin, assuming you’ve harvested enough, will also convert into Glow Seeds once the Sun rises. These can then either be used for further night missions, or in underground caves. I kind of wish Glow Pikmin could be used above ground during the day, but alas! I guess even ghosts need sleep, right? I can dream…

1. Ice Pikmin:

Ice Pikmin are the other Pikmin introduced in Pikmin 4. It was a tough call for my #1 spot, but Ice Pikmin won for one reason: Glow Pikmin have limited use. Ice Pikmin, however, can be used anywhere except for night missions. That not only makes them more useful, it better highlights their skills. Because they have quite a few.

Not only can Ice Pikmin freeze enemies, they can also freeze water. The latter somewhat makes Blue Pikmin redundant, since you don’t need them to traverse wet areas. They’re also the only Pikmin who can freeze Hydro Jelly, a useful feature. Ice Pikmin are, quite simply, the most-overpowered Pikmin in the Pikmin franchise. But unlike Purple Pikmin, there’s no downside to that. I’m dead serious.

I can’t begin to tell you how many times Ice Pikmin have saved me time with enemies. In some cases, freezing them even caused them to fall to the ground and shatter, leaving me nectar for Pikmin to bloom from drinking. This is especially helpful because bloomed Pikmin (Pikmin with flowers on their heads) are more-efficient workers. The Ice Pikmin are, essentially, strong and powerful, but they’re also my favourite Pikmin. They’re that good!

And there you go: my rankings of all Pikmin types (to-date). Let me know if you agree or disagree, and I’ll see you next time!