Disney's Failed Wish

Being a Disney nerd is like playing tug-of-war with myself. One day, I’m fighting for its right to make films. The next day, I’m chastising it for business practices I don’t approve of. And then there are days where I’m at a complete loss. I should be so blessed, right?

Anyway, Wish.

Disney’s 100 years old this year. It’s on all their advertising, and they’ve updated their logo too. Perhaps the most-blatant example’s with their latest movie, Wish. Meant as a send-up to their history, it also marks their first attempt at stylized CGI. It’s an admirable response to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, and it shows that even The House of Mouse is unafraid to experiment. I simply wish the end result had gone over better, as it’s giving voice to some of the absolute worst.

While chastising internet bozos for being creepy about Disney media isn’t new for me, I do think this particular instance feels especially dirty and dishonest. For one, this was a first attempt at new territory, much like Chicken Little in 2005. Like any first attempt, successful or not, there’ll be growing pains. And two, Wish’s reception being divided is ammo for bigots and naysayers to act like Disney’s dead without any evidence. Because Disney’s far from dead.

I’m worried because Wish’s reception validates a prediction I made when Elemental was in theatres: experimental animation’s the new frontier, but how long will it take before it’s a disappointment? The answer’s “not long”. It troubles me because the style’s relatively-new, and because it shows that something can’t be exciting based on its art-style alone. And while the latter should’ve been obvious, there’s a real fear Disney might learn the wrong lessons.

Perhaps it’s also a sign of Disney needing new leadership. Bob Iger might’ve returned as CEO to fix Bob Chapek’s mistakes, but he mishandled the writers’ and actors’ strikes. The company had already been bleeding with the pandemic, and the strikes hurt them more. I’m no analyst, but that the studio has yet to crack $1 billion globally with their releases this year sucks. Especially since they’re out to make money.

I don’t know what to think. Unlike many people, I’ve enjoyed much of Disney’s output these last few years. Ralph Breaks the Internet was a clever follow-up, and Frozen II had songs that were better than its predecessor. I also really liked Raya and the Last Dragon, and Strange World, while flawed, was a clever allegory on the dangers of fossil fuels. Disney, even focusing on their core lineup, has been far from a complete disaster…until now. Yet Wish still looks far more ambitious than some of Disney’s absolute lowest.

It's not even all the shameless self-flagellation that bothers me. Disney’s repertoire in the last few years has been on-the-nose with meta-references. The short film Disney released for their 100th anniversary, for example, was a circle-jerk of in-jokes. It even used archival footage of dead VAs so older characters could interact with newer ones. It was a reference-fest to an extreme, complete with Mickey Mouse thanking Walt Disney. All this for a photograph…

Yet people loved it! Clearly the problem isn’t the meta-humour or call-backs, but rather a lack of narrative cohesion. That’s what’s missed here, despite its villain being a jab at John Lasseter. Wish didn’t fail because of its looks, nor did it fail because of its references. It didn’t even fail because its lead heroine was black, contrary to what some claim. No, it failed because it wasn’t well-written.

Why’s this so hard to grasp? Why’s this a sign that “Disney’s dying”? Have you seen 70’s and 80’s Disney?! I have! Even on a good day it was nothing to sneeze at!

But that’s exactly it: Disney survived, however bleak and difficult. If they can survive the 70’s and 80’s, they can survive their current situation. And they can for sure survive the failure of Wish. It might be painful, but they’ll live. This is one misfire out of a massive backlog.

People need to stop claiming to be experts when they’re not. Like I’ve said, the movie industry’s cyclical and constantly evolving. What’s popular now may not be in a decade, we don’t know. That that hasn’t stopped people from calling Disney’s “dead” multiple times is annoying considering their closest moment to complete doom was before The Little Mermaid in 1989. They gambled their future on that movie’s success, and it paid off.

If that’s their lowest-low, this is nothing. Because Disney’s resilient and able to correct course. They did it in the 80’s, they did it in the late-2000’s, and they’ll do it now. They merely need the right guiding hand. And it’d be in their best interests to find it soon.

Which leads me back to Wish. Is it unfortunate that it’s not doing well? Yes, yes it is. Do I plan to see it eventually? Yes, yes I do. Does that mean Disney’s dead, though? No, no it doesn’t. Until naysayers are ready to admit that and change, they’ll forever earn my scorn for being unable to move on.

Super Mario RP-Whee!

My introduction to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars was via emulation. I received my first home console when I was 14, a GameCube, and my Jewish lifestyle meant only getting new games on special occasions. The first console I had that actually emulated was my Wii, and the game wasn’t high on my priority list for a long time. While I don’t condone it in hindsight, piracy was the only way to experience said game. Even then, my laptop refused to save my progress, so I wasn’t able to get far.

It's a shame because what little I played I enjoyed. It was Mario, so I was sold anyway, but it felt special. Even walkthroughs on YouTube, despite being sparse, were events. This was a game that warranted a full play-through, but how? The original cartridge was expensive, emulating it was garbage and it was out of my price range on the Virtual Console. Even when I bought a Wii U, I couldn’t access the online due to it being used and partly broken. It even alluded the Nintendo Switch Online for years, despite frequent rumours that it was coming.

Fortunately, the wait’s finally over! The game that kept slipping my grasp is on the Switch…as a remake. Not that I’m complaining, as the announcement of Super Mario RPG (the remake dropped the sub-title) was enough to grab me. That it was coming out was nice, but on the Switch? And in HD? Complete with fully-rendered cutscenes? Forget Super Mario Bros. Wonder, this was my most-anticipated game of 2023!

Super Mario RPG begins like any standard Mario game: Princess Peach is abducted by Bowser and shipped to his castle. Mario goes to rescue her, but no sooner is Bowser defeated when a giant, sentient sword pierces through the castle and sends Mario flying back to his house. Said sword’s property of Smithy, a mysterious figure who destroyed Star Road and handed its seven pieces to his various underlings. It’s up to Mario, together with Bowser, Peach and two new companions, Mallow and Geno, to travel The Mushroom Kingdom and save Star Road.

Super Mario RPG, as the title suggests, is a role-playing game, particularly an old fashioned, turn-based one. But while most old-school RPGs were known for their difficulty and unpredictability, this one’s straightforward. The battles are telegraphed before you encounter them, and in some cases can even be avoided. The combat’s also streamlined, with in-battle options easier to understand. Even the new additions, like filling up a special meter to unleash a three-character attack, are simple enough to understand for a newcomer. Factor in a Breezy Mode, and there’s no worrying about intense difficulty.

I like that. One of the biggest pitfalls with older video games is their punishing difficulty. Video games were more limited in scope, so they were designed to make the most of that. This was also the case for Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, which was easier than many of its contemporaries, but not exactly a cakewalk. Having the remake accommodate modern gaming sensibilities is, therefore, a plus. It makes enjoying the game much more possible.

And what a game it is! The main story isn’t deep, it’s a Mario game, but it’s rich with lore and character building. One of your new companions is a cloud prince raised as a tadpole. The other one’s a puppet come to life. Both have rich and satisfying character arcs, and they’re not the only ones. Even Peach, normally a trophy character, has agency! It might not seem like a big deal now, but for 1996 that was huge!

This game’s story’s further complimented by the enhanced visuals, complete with an HD facelift and cutscenes. These not only update the look, allowing the original visuals to be fully-realized, they retain the game’s cutesy charm. Every character model’s smushed to give them a chibi-esque look, which makes them more appealing. They’re also complimented by the faithfully-witty and clever script, something that’d be kept for future Mario RPGs. This is despite minor updates to references and locations.

The coolest addition to Super Mario RPG is the score. The original composer, Yoko Shimomura, has returned to oversee it, allowing for orchestral updates to the limited compositions of the SNES. They’re all absolute bangers, but it doesn’t stop there! You also have the option to switch to the classic renditions via the options menu, allowing you to compare and contrast the two versions. That’s something I wish more modern remakes allowed for, if we’re being honest.

This game’s truly timeless. While Super Mario RPG, being a faithful reskin, doesn’t fully take advantage of the Switch’s hardware, its core mechanics and witticisms haven’t aged at all. The game legitimately plays like it could’ve come out now, which is impressive given many older games haven’t aged well. So while it might be short, I beat it in 2 days, it’s addicting enough that I couldn’t put it down to take a bathroom break. It’s that good.

Now then, let’s talk about the inability to accurately see an enemy’s health. What’s up with that?!

Scott Pilgrim Again?

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

Scott Pilgrim VS the World was one of my earliest movie reviews. I wrote it on V4 of ScrewAttack, and it was rough. But while my writing has significantly improved since 2010, the feedback I received was positive. It was a pivotal moment in my interest in film, bridging video games with cinematic storytelling.

I figured that we were done with this story, however; after all, the graphic novel and the movie were complete! Surely there was nothing to add, right? Right?! Cue Scott Pilgrim Takes Off. Despite the title being different, I thought that this’d be a retelling of the story, with 1:1 comic accuracy. Even the trailer gave that vibe, except with animation.

How wrong I was.

I’ll admit that the first episode’s misleading. It begins faithfully, rehashing the movie in a slightly-altered manner, but right when Scott faces Ramona’s first ex, Matthew Patel, the rug’s pulled and the show trolls everyone. Scott loses, becomes a handful of change and, supposedly, dies. The story then follows Ramona, who’s left in a state of crisis. What’s worse, Ramona’s led to believe that Scott didn’t die after all. But if that’s true, then what really happened? And would her exes have something to do with it?

I remember being confused by this change in direction. I mean, this was Scott’s story! Surely the show wouldn’t lie, right? Still, I persisted. And once I got over my bewilderment, I ended up really enjoying the change in focus. In some ways, I enjoy it more!

You heard me correctly. And yes, I get the frustration. This was Brian Lee O’Malley’s brainchild, one he slaved over for years. The movie adaptation was even filmed before the final volume was finished, such that the two versions diverged with their endings. But enough time had passed for a redo Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood-style. And now that we’re there, it dumps on the source material?

Still, I prefer it because it improves on the core conceit in multiple ways. The first involves focusing on Ramona. Despite Mary Elizabeth Winstead doing a fantastic job the first time, Ramona always felt shallow. She was Scott’s damsel in distress, a human prize won by defeating her emotional baggage. With Scott out of the picture, we get more of Ramona’s perspective. And I think she’s more interesting than Scott.

Ramona, surprisingly, is also a great detective. She’s forced into that role against her will, granted, but she rises to the task and demonstrates her proactivity. She’s a doer, a go-getter! Her dedication to Scott’s also demonstrated far more effectively. Not to mention, she has better people skills.

Another improvement involves Ramona being proactive in addressing her baggage. While witnessing Scott punch Ramona’s exes into coins was satisfying, having Ramona confront her exes and make amends is more satisfying. Remember, Ramona’s exes were dealt a bad hand due to her fickleness. By reacquainting with her exes, Ramona’s forced to fix the damage she’s caused, making for excellent storytelling.

Ramona’s exes also get more to do. They were stock archetypes meant as “bosses” for Scott to defeat initially. They were entertaining, but they weren’t interesting. By taking Scott out of the equation, they all have more time to develop as characters, making their resolutions more impactful. Not to mention, Matthew Patel performing in a musical is hilarious!

But the biggest strength of this change is how it adds to Ramona and Scott’s relationship. In the film, Scott and Ramona elope together and the story ends. We don’t know what happens after, though we don’t need to. Yet the decision to revisit the original ending after “The End” is a welcomed addition. It not only acknowledges that the movie’s canon, it also presents further opportunities for Scott and Ramona to grow. In keeping with the theme, marriage wasn’t kind to either of them. Considering how so many innocent romances fall apart long-term, that’s a clever twist on “Happily Ever After”.

This is all done without ruining their characters. Future Scott’s an incel, but that’s something I can imagine for him. Future Ramona, on the other hand, refuses to find out where they went wrong, which, again, is completely in-character. And I buy that Scott and Ramona’s problems wouldn’t magically disappear once they tied the knot.

That’s this show’s secret: it subverts expectations in an attempt to improve on the initial story. It’s not completely seamless, there are moments where the show’s logic and the movie’s logic don’t fully line up, but it’s not a dealbreaker. Because, in the end, it still works for what it’s attempting. Also, it retains much of the humour that made the movie great, even adding jokes that only work in animation.

So yeah, Scott Pilgrim Takes Off is worth it! Now, about that final scene…

IS Marvel Dying?

The most irritating part of being an MCU fan nowadays is hearing about how the franchise has fallen since 2019. “The MCU’s dead!” “The MCU has gone full-woke and is dying!” “The MCU’s ruining cinema!” It was bad enough on Twitter, but it seems to still be following me after leaving the platform. And with The Marvels disappointing critically and financially, I figured it was time to discuss it again. It’s been long enough.

Let’s address the elephant in the room: yes, The MCU has been inconsistent these last few years. No, that doesn’t mean it’s “dead”. “Dead” implies dormancy, and it’s still chugging along. That doesn’t mean it’s not struggling, but remember that it was contending with a global pandemic and a double writers’/actors’ strike within three years. That alone would cause a strain.

I think people forget how bad superhero movies, Marvel in particular, once were. Prior to The MCU in 2008, most properties weren’t given proper treatment. You had exceptions, but for every Spider-Man and X-Men there were a dozen or so franchises that were embarrassing. Even post-MCU, there was a window where studios were throwing anything at the wall to see what stuck. It wasn’t pretty.

I don’t think The MCU’s completely lost its way. The franchise has undoubtably had critical duds since 2021, two this year alone. But most post-2019 entries were critically-successful, with a few rising to the heights of Phase 3. They’ve also been more ambitious narratively and thematically, discussing grief, loss and legacy in ways prior entries hadn’t. They’ve built on prior lore in new ways, even if they haven’t always stuck the landing.

This leads to the next complaint, being that that The MCU’s become “woke”. Ignoring how empty that term is nowadays, The MCU’s taken flak for centring stories on minorities. This is especially true of The Marvels, a movie starring three women and focusing on their struggles. It’s not a fantastic movie, but I enjoyed it, and I doubt being “woke” hampered its box-office and reception. Remember that Hollywood recently resolved two strikes, so the movie didn’t have anyone to advertise it.

I find this largely a case of angry dude-bros with too much free time whining about IPs to their small audiences. I’d leave it there and move on, but they’re really loud. And obnoxious. And their videos keep getting recommended on YouTube. Their voices keep drowning out legitimate complaints, like how most of the movies are lengthy.

I also don’t like this complaint because it reeks of bigotry. As we’ve seen in recent years, bigotry isn’t going away. If anything, it’s intensifying and finding new ways to remain relevant, and that’s alarming. So while it’d be easy to write off, it has ripple effects. Not to mention, it’s swaying politicians.

Perhaps the worst complaint, and one I’ve reached a near-breaking point with, is that The MCU’s “killing cinema”. For one, define “killing”. It’s true the mid-budget movie’s on its last legs right now, but that’s been the case for a decade. I think insane ticket prices and the inconveniences of modern theatre experiences aren’t helping. If you need proof, look at The International Day of Cinema this past year.

Two, this is cyclical. Hollywood movie trends change every decade, and some movies suffer each time. Other types adapt to meet demand, superhero films included. It might “suck” that the big box-office grossers nowadays are cape films, but that won’t be permanent. As Vision said in The Avengers: Age of Ultron, “…[A] thing isn’t beautiful because it lasts.”

And three, it isn’t consumers’ faults. Nor is it really the fault of The MCU. Hollywood’s a business, and businesses crave money. That means chasing trends in hopes of replicating what’s hot right now. In the case of The MCU, it also means chasing its success without putting in the work. Remember, The MCU became big because it focused on one movie at a time, adding connective tissue where needed as it went on. If anything’s to blame for the “death of cinema”, it’s corporate greed, not consumers.

It’s easy to latch onto doom and gloom stories about the industry; after all, that sells more than hope and optimism, especially in an ever-changing industry! But doom and gloom overshadows reality and mistakes the forest for the trees, ignoring the real issues behind-the-scenes. Plus, it’s unhealthy. Hollywood has problems, many of which I’ve covered, but that shouldn’t be conflated with the “death of cinema”. Especially when everything evolves constantly.

It's also easy to cling to insiders like they’re gospel. I know Martin Scorsese has made his opinions known, but he’s not the be-all-end-all simply because of his credentials. Filmmaking’s collaborative, and those in charge of productions have different perspectives than those working on them. And they also often disagree. That needs to be taken into account too.

I know I’m one person peering in from the outside. My stance on The MCU should, therefore, be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, the situation’s more complicated than people give it credit. Like I said, Hollywood’s constantly changing, and whatever’s hot now will most-likely be irrelevant in a decade’s time. All it takes is knowing when you don’t know something with certainty. That includes The MCU, for better or worse.

Goodbye Twitter/X-A Letter

Dear Tweeple:

It’s with a heavy heart that I announce my departure from Twitter/X.

When I joined on December 2nd, 2011, I was excited at what the platform had to offer. After all, this was during ScrewAttack’s twilight years, and that site was a mess, so having a presence outside of that was a great way to expand my reach. I remember posting regularly and hanging out with g1s, getting to know their interests and interacting in live-time. Call it naïve optimism from a 21 year-old Jewish Canadian in the thick of his university education.

My early years on Twitter/X were standard: I shared my work, opined occasionally and grew my Followers. I even managed to occasionally attract the attention of bigger names, including my then-favourite anime reviewer. While I rarely shared my political opinions, I had a unique enough base that they rubbed off anyway. I credit Twitter/X with helping me gain a socially-active conscience. It’d help me later on.

My first red flag came in the form of GamerGate in 2014. I’ve written extensively about it, but GamerGate was when I realized there were cracks in the platform’s moderation. While uttering the term led to squabbles with people who didn’t have my best interests at heart, the Block tool alleviated much of my anxiety. To this day, I don’t regret it, since my Followers kept growing.

The last year of enjoyment on Twitter/X was 2015. That was the year SCOTUS legalized gay marriage, as well as when I started this Blog. It was also when Donald Trump announced his presidency, something that worried me, but was on the back-burner. For the time being, I was enjoying promoting my work, engaging with fans and growing my base. Even with GamerGate fading into irrelevancy, 2015 was the last year I’d consider Twitter/X a beneficial investment.

Everything really began to crash with Trump’s presidency in 2016. The next few years revealed the façade that was Twitter. It didn’t help that my Followers peaked in early-2017 at 575, a number I’ve never returned to since. Twitter/X began to enrage and annoy me, with many friendships fully-dissolving and others being tested. My social conscience was now refined by a sense of Jewish pride, and the two felt in conflict over certain topics. It wasn’t pleasant being there anymore, but I kept at it.

2020 was when everything hit rock-bottom. On one hand, Trumpian politics were weighing on my mind. On the other hand, the populist left was pushing me in, their idealism forcing my sensibilities into a box. What was it that I wanted? Who could I trust? My Blocks got an intense workout, and the site was no longer enjoyable. Especially with COVID paranoia causing extremes to meet.

Following January 6th, 2021, it was clear I had to make a decision. But I was hesitant to leave. I liked the accessibility of Twitter/X’s user-face, and I didn’t want to give up the friendships I’d made. It was making me anxious, made worse by Elon Musk’s purchase of the site the following year. All the trolling and hate under the surface was now bubbling up. Which leads to 2023, particularly the last month or so. I could withstand GamerGate and Trump on Twitter/X. It was annoying, but I knew who I could fall back on and trust.

What I couldn’t withstand, however, was those same people turning on me and other Jews over something no one wanted: October 7th. Violence in Israel was nothing new, but I’d lost over 1400 brothers and sisters to an enemy who wasn’t hiding their intentions. That alone was traumatic, but even more traumatic was the world’s response: they were praising it. Considering I’d often fought alongside and for many of these individuals in the past, to have them then turn around and not reciprocate was alarming.

But I guess that’s expected. Horseshoe Theory’s a real concept, and extremists on the far-left harbour similar views to those on the far-right. These views include Antisemitism and attitudes over the Jewish state, and while Antisemitism’s open on the far-right and blatantly-transparent, to have the far-left embrace similar tactics, while not surprising, is upsetting and disappointing. It’s as if they refuse to acknowledge Jews, or “Zionists”, as individuals, and the walls and straw-men they make up to avoid confronting their own problems speaks volumes. It’s as if the bigoted boogeyman never disappeared, but merely changed stripes and blended in better.

So yes, you’ve beaten me. You’ve won. You’ve gotten me to abandon my future on Twitter/X in favour of your petty, partisan politics not rooted in logic or compassion. I was hoping Elon Musk would break Twitter/X completely before leaving, but I guess he wasn’t my biggest concern after all. I hope you’re proud.

Sincerely;

Whitly, aka Captain Raccoon.

P.S. Rest in Piss.

Victory is Ours!

Good news: The SAG-AFTRA/WGA strikes are over!

*Cue Final Fantasy victory theme*

After months of trotting around and halting movie production, The AMPTP has caved to both unions and given them equitable deals. It was tough, and with so many productions either being halted or delayed, it felt like this’d go on forever. Thankfully, The AMPTP acquiesced. This is big for many reasons, and while I’m no expert, I’d like to discuss the overlapping concerns and why they were concerns at all. Specifically, I’d like to talk about AI. Here goes:

I’ve covered AI before, but many people don’t appreciate what the issue really is. AI’s a blanket term for programs that replicate pre-existing ideas and concepts. On some level, it makes sense: the human brain develops from learning and relearning, so why can’t machines? It’s a no-brainer that we’d develop similar technology, so what’s the big deal? I wish it were that simple.

For as much as copying’s essential to growth, AI doesn’t improve on what it’s copying. Artists respond to what’s out there, that’s what art is, but they also add their own flare. To use an example, Castle in the Sky’s a clear nod to pulpy action franchises like Star Wars and Indiana Jones, but Hayao Miyazaki wasn’t content with stopping there. He included his own politics and outlook on life too. So while campy, it’s not a rip-off.

If AI were to make a pulpy movie, assuming it’s capable of that, it’d take pre-existing movies and copy them with a new veneer. It wouldn’t create or respond in a new way because it’s not possible to. If you want proof, look at the “creations” proponents of the technology frequently tout. Not only do they look like blatant rip-offs, they’re also inferior copies.

That’s another issue with AI: it’s inauthentic. It’s a long-running joke that AI can’t replicate hands and feet properly, but I’d go further and state that it also can’t replicate genuine movement. Humans have traits that make them unique, including how they move and behave. This is especially true for people with disabilities, myself included. I have “motor tics” that manifest from Tourette’s Syndrome, and anything physical, right down to my speech, is impacted by them. If AI replicated that, it’d be clumsy and creepy.

This was a concern for both The WGA and SAG-AFTRA during their strikes. AI was a sticking point in negotiations with The AMPTP, as it was being implemented in the writing process and acting process. It didn’t help that AI was cheaper than the human touch, and with acting it didn’t age out of roles. An actor’s abilities are restricted by time, and that limits what they’re capable of with age. It’s why stunt actors and de-aging software are so big, especially when time is of the essence.

That’s what was at stake. On one hand, The AMPTP wanted a cheap and inferior imitation of writing and acting to save money and speed up filmmaking, at the expense of people and authenticity. On the other hand, the writers and actors in Hollywood wanted integrity respected and their jobs to remain. Hollywood work is largely freelance, and residuals help with sustainability in-between work. But with AI, suddenly that’s gone. Instead of being hired to write a script, a bot can do it for cheaper. And with acting, who’s to hire you again when you can be scanned digitally, often without consent, and replicated for future use?

That alone could initiate a strike. But what was more telling was how stubborn The AMPTP was. Instead of bargaining with both unions and meeting their demands, which wouldn’t cost them significantly anyway, they preferred dragging the strikes out and letting the unions cave. This included playing dirty at one point by pruning trees outside of Universal Studios without a license, making it harder to picket. Add in that The AMPTP was bleeding money, far more than they would’ve if they’d listened to demands, and it was clear that greed was holding back rationale.

Of course, rationale won out. It began with listening to The WGA, and it ended with listening to SAG-AFTRA. In both cases, AI was made a non-issue with it being optional and consensual on the part of writers and actors. The unions also got to decide if they wanted AI, how much they used and how much guiding control they had. That was what sealed the deal.

Truth be told, that was the right call. For as much as I rag on AI, such that I avoid it in my writing, I’m not against the technology. I’ve used Otter.ai for transcripts, particularly for an assignment last year where I captioned an old commercial. Even then, I had to make necessary changes so that the captioning flowed, including fixing typos and listening carefully to the audio for discrepancies. It was long and gruelling, but I had control.

And that’s really the best sort of compromise. I don’t think AI’s going away, and I’m sure it’ll improve over time. But if it’s staying, which it most-likely is, it’d be great if human hands could guide it. It’s not ready for independence, and it should complement humans instead of replacing them. It’s only fair.

So yes, I’m happy a deal was reached, as am I happy it was equitable. And while there are issues in Hollywood separate from the strikes that need resolving, I can rest easy knowing this ordeal has been resolved for now.

Discussing Tara Strong

It was inevitable that the other shoe would drop, right?

This past month has been incredibly trying. On October 7th, Hamas operatives infiltrated mainland Israel, murdered over 1400 Israelis and captured 200 more to bring back to Gaza. It ruined my Simchat Torah, and going online afterward spiked my anxiety. It seemed like the world was apathetic, and any statements from celebrities asking for levelheadedness were met with criticism. It’s no surprise that I’ve been avoiding social media as much as possible, with the few relapses heightening my stress.

But this isn’t about that per se. I’d like to zone in on the reactions of a VA named Tara Strong. Even if you don’t know her name, you most-likely know of her work. She’s been around for decades, lending her vocal range to hundreds of characters. She’s also Jewish, which I promise is relevant. Moving on.

When the Hamas invasion occurred, Tara took to social media and expressed her concerns. Her frustrations were understandable, as I’ve been experiencing many of them too. But despite the responses not helping, she kept digging herself into a hole, until she finally Liked an Islamophobic Tweet and destroyed her reputation. It was disappointing, with many long-time fans expressing their concerns. I should know, I was one of them!

I wish it’d ended with Tara Strong Liking something tone-deaf in frustration, apologizing and moving on. But it didn’t. Not only has Strong only half-apologized, she’s retreated into a bubble and not taken accountability. She also recently stepped into another mess by using Matthew Perry’s tragic death to make a tone-deaf statement. Again, not a good look.

It hurts because I like Strong’s work. She was my introduction to Batgirl, and she voiced a ton of characters from my childhood. She’s also from my country, being another success story in a long line of them. In a way, I looked up to her. So her letting me down stings. It stings more than any other reaction to Hamas’s invasion, even those that were worse objectively.

Of course, the issue now is the fallout. Like Wendee Lee, Strong has clout in the animation world, with many projects having her under contract. In particular, she’s the voice of Miss Minutes in Loki, a show currently airing its second season on Disney+. How will Disney do damage control, especially when they already have to deal with Jonathan Majors? I don’t know.

I guess this isn’t shocking? Strong’s no stranger to controversy. She’s a card-carrying member of PETA, and she’s preached her brand of vegan extremism online. She also once made a racist Twitter remark about Chinese consumption of bats and COVID-19 that’s no longer traceable, and she’s expressed vaccine skepticism. And then there was that NFT incident, which she didn’t handle well. Her dabbling in Islamophobia and taking away from a tragic death compliment all of that.

But I’m also not satisfied. Ignoring how plenty of jerks were gaslighting her concerns about Hamas, something I’ve noticed with my concerns, Strong isn’t handling stress and anxiety well. People routinely make bad decisions under pressure, ones they regret, and the internet’s quick to judge them without the full context. With all the drowning out of Jewish and Palestinian voices by Western progressives, it’s inevitable that people would latch onto that and exploit it. It's a form of bullying, whether or not anyone wants to admit that.

So yes, the fault also lies with the internet. Yet since the internet isn’t a singular voice, it’s hard to discuss accountability when it goes after people. This isn’t to excuse Strong, she should’ve known better, but the internet’s not helping. Especially when it has an unhealthy obsession with “taking down Zionists”, something that’s an issue with Gal Gadot too. We should know better.

But how do we diffuse this? Like I said, the internet isn’t one person, and social media allows for anonymity that encourages and rewards hostility. The most I can suggest is Blocking and calling out bad actors, though that isn’t always possible. I also think comparing her to worse VAs doesn’t do people favours, as Strong’s biggest offence is acting petty. She’s not a sex offender.

Tara: I get it. You’re stressed. So am I. I’m also incredibly-disheartened by the number of “allies” who claim they’d “punch Nazis”, yet have no issues endorsing some of their behaviour with “Zionists”. You have every right to be mad that your struggles are being shunned, demonized or laughed at by those who should know better. These are trying times.

In the same breath, this isn’t an excuse to vilify Muslims or warp a tragedy. Muslims are feeling anxious too, and while they might see the situation differently, their fears are still valid. And Perry’s death? That’s in poor taste. You need to do better.

Ultimately, there needs to be a certain level of tact here. This includes not gaslighting what Jews and Muslims are feeling, or even talking over them. It also includes recognizing the harm social media outlets create by spreading misinformation. Most-importantly, we need to step back and breathe. The way we’re acting, so angry and tightly-wound over a conflict that updates hourly? To quote the creed of the Mandalorian: “This isn’t the way.”