Antagonizing the Swifties

What can I say about Taylor Swift? She’s from Tennessee. She’s roughly 6 months my senior. She’s an incredibly talented singer, even if her stuff isn’t for me. But above everything, she has real sway with Americans, which is why it’s strange that she’s being criticized by some people for inane reasons.

Let me give you some context:

It was recently revealed that Taylor Swift’s being criticized by Donald Trump supporters. The fact that Trump still has supporters would be a punchline on its own if it weren’t scary, but the criticism Swift’s received feels pre-emptive and presumptuous. While Swift endorsed Joe Biden in 2020, giving him a leg up in the general elections, she’s yet to endorse anyone for 2024. So why push her over that?

The obvious answer is fear. The GOP’s massively-unpopular, and it’s costing them votes. This was especially true during the 2022 midterms, where every Trump-endorsed candidate, save JD Vance, lost their race by a big margin. What’s more embarrassing is that most Democratic votes came from swing voters, independents and moderate Republicans fed up with Trump’s stranglehold over The GOP. It’s pretty clear that the party Abraham Lincoln once spearheaded is dying because of Trump, yet they can’t let him go.

So yes, fear’s a major factor in the uptick of criticism. After all, if Swift helped Biden in 2020, there’s a chance she might do the same now. It’s not like Biden has major competition in his own party, and he’s likely to win renomination at The DNC. Additionally, since The US is largely a two-party system (for better or worse), it’s not like Americans have many options outside of third-party candidates that barely make inroads. Swift’s also openly expressed disdain for Trump in the past, something we have video of. So she might not have said anything yet, but people are waiting for the shoe to drop. This includes Trump allies.

While attacking Swift feels premature, I also don’t think it’s wise. I’m not her biggest fan. But while her music isn’t for me, I recognize her immense power. More specifically, I recognize her immense power via her fans, or “Swifties”. Swifties crashed Ticketmaster when she went on tour, enough that Congress had to intervene. Swift also once helped her Democratic representative in Tennessee by encouraging Swifties to vote, enough that Tennessee’s registration site had trouble accommodating the influx. Taylor Swift’s that powerful.

By picking a fight with Swift, Republicans are risking everything. All she has to do is publish a statement on Instagram telling people to vote for Democratic frontrunners, and bam! The gig’s up. I get that the criticism of Swift’s rooted in fear, but I don’t think it’s warranted. If anything, it’s wiser for Republicans to keep their mouths shut. They know they’re in the red (pardon the pun), they should cut their losses.

It's especially bad because Swifties are something else. Remember those examples I mentioned? They aren’t the only ones. Swifties have also impacted the American economy, and they’ve boosted the ratings of The NFL by sheer fact that Swift’s currently dating a football player. Swift might be powerful, but Swifties are the real foot soldiers!

I don’t think Taylor Swift’s immune from criticism. I’d have loved for her to say something about the October 7th attacks in Israel, or at least advocate for the hostages. It’s the bare minimum given her politics, especially for her Jewish fans. She hasn’t done that. Then again, it’s not an issue I have exclusively with her…

Outside that, criticizing her for inane reasons is asking for trouble. It’s one issue to say she hasn’t done enough for her Jewish fans, or that I’m not big on her music. Claiming she’s a “has-been”, or that she’s “lame”, or whatever her Republican critics have been saying, is another problem altogether. I might be critical of her past decisions or rhetoric, but I generally steer clear of bashing her directly! And I’m pretty gutsy as is, given some of what I’ve written on The Whitly-Verse before!

It’d be easy to feel bad for Taylor Swift’s critics in Trump’s camp, but I’d rather wish them well in failure. Trump was a disaster for not only The US, but the world stage. His presidency not only paved the way for Roe V Wade’s overturning, making reproductive care for American women a lot harder, he spearheaded a resurgence in right-wing extremism globally. It’s the latter that we’re still reeling from. So yes, rest in piss.

A part of me can’t help feeling like this was a battle doomed to fail. Remember, The GOP’s been struggling for years. They’ve especially struggled under and post-Trump. Criticizing Taylor Swift’s merely the cherry on top, and it could’ve been avoided had they shown tact. Then again, when have Trump supporters and allies been known for that?

Ultimately, this is yet another embarrassing moment for Trump in a string of them. It’s not like Joe Biden doesn’t have stuff worth being critical of, some fatal to his presidency. Ignoring his blunders as a senator, Biden’s been an underwhelming president so far, and it’s hard mustering enthusiasm long-term given his age. But when his opposition’s piling on Taylor Swift, and for unjust reasons, then what does that say? After all, if you prod the bear…

I (Don't) Hate You!

Not too long ago, I wrote about not being a fan of Tom Cruise. While it’s easy to bemoan celebs in Hollywood, not as much attention’s dedicated to why you don’t get the hate for one. So that’s what I’ll do today. Why? Why not?!

We’ll start with one of Hollywood’s biggest punching bags. I’ve covered Gal Gadot before, but it’s worth defending her again because a lot of criticism starts and ends with something she has no control over. Basically, Gadot’s attacked for being born in Israel. More-specifically, for being proud of it. Because according to social media, that’s bad.

People don’t control where they’re born. This goes for celebrities too. But while the world understands that with every other country, Israelis have an undeserved handicap there. This goes double for famous Israelis, which the Wonder Woman actress is. I’d call this ridiculous-actually, it’s ridiculous. Let’s not sugar coat it.

The critiques of Gal Gadot circle around the same talking points: she’s a Zionist who can’t act. Firstly, use the word “Jew” when being Antisemitic. And secondly, she’s not an amazing actress, but she’s far from terrible. Many Hollywood regulars are as good as, or worse than, her, which shows when they’re paired with a bad director. Few people can survive bad directing anyway, as a lot of trust is put in the person filming. Gadot isn’t my favourite actress, but assuming she has no talent isn’t only subjective, it’s unfair when far worse actors get a pass.

Going back to the Zionist part, so? Many people are Zionists, even some you’d be surprised by. Besides, Gadot being labelled a “Zionist” means little when you remember that she was a combat instructor in The IDF. Say what you will, but she not only trained tougher people than most keyboard warriors, she also doesn’t care what you think. Gadot’s also one of the major celebrities to express concerns about The October 7th Massacre, something many people deny happened.

I’m not her biggest fan, either. Gadot’s no stranger to blunders, her “Imagine” video being the most-infamous. But when that same level of scrutiny isn’t applied to celebrities with far more baggage, I have to wonder if that’s a problem with everyone else. It makes me wonder what’ll happen when Shira Haas appears in Captain America: The New World Order. It also makes me wonder if people are okay…

Brie Larson gets trashed by insecure sexists nonstop. Whether it’s criticizing her foot fungus years ago, which she had no control over, or this obsession with her being “everything wrong with modern Marvel movies”, she never catches a break. It doesn’t help that whenever she’s mentioned, the fact that she “hates men” tags along. This isn’t only untrue, it misrepresents what she said at Crystal + Lucy about diversity. Because she’s right.

It's pathetic how much time the internet cries about Larson still getting work. Whenever a YouTube video pops up about Disney “dying”, she’s in the thumbnail. And not only that, it’s in a badly-photoshopped image of her angry or crying. It doesn’t help that the videos are long and largely-incoherent rants from males who don’t source their talking points. (Not that they need to, as their target audience won’t bother challenging them.)

Outside of these videos, Larson can’t live her life without criticism. Larson working out? Instant rage. Larson getting high and enjoying food? Instant rage. Larson being friends with Iman Vellani? You guessed it, instant rage.

It doesn’t help that many of her male co-stars haven’t spoken up in her defence, leading internet trolls to assume no one likes her. I don’t know where this claim comes from, and I’m surprised Larson hasn’t sued for defamation. Even ignoring that, she’s the weirdest target for male insecurity I’ve ever seen. Never mind that she starred in Captain Marvel, which was decently-received and surpassed $1 billion at the box-office despite attempts to “boycott” it.

I’m not saying you have to love Brie Larson, or even like her. If her brief stint with NFTs is indication, she’s made mistakes. But with how some people criticize her, you’d think she’s a blight on humanity. She’s not. She’s an Oscar-winning actress with opinions on her industry, which she’s entitled. She’s no different than anyone else in Hollywood, and it’s time for people to move on.

I’ll end with the most-recent example: Rachel Zegler. Ever since West Side Story, her career has shown plenty of promise. She even handled her shade of The Academy for not initially getting invited to The Oscars with tact, something I can’t say for many people. But it’s her remarks about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs that got the faux-outrage rolling. Because her taking issue with an 87 year-old movie’s a problem, somehow…

I’d ask if those criticizing her are okay, but that wouldn’t solve the problem. Nor would pointing out that her taking issue with a Disney classic isn’t why the remake will be bad. It’ll be bad for reasons totally unrelated to her, I promise! And no amount of badmouthing will change that. If you disagree, I promise that some fresh air will do your lungs wonders.

Aside from that, the hate for Zegler’s mostly carbon-copied from Brie Larson, except stranger. Zegler’s jab at Ansel Elgort, for example, wasn’t so offensive given that everyone else was already distancing themselves from Elgort before West Side Story was released! Elgort, unlike Zegler, is toxic to be around, and that’s worth calling out. That nerd-bros can’t accept that and move on is telling and disturbing. Then again, am I really surprised?

Rachel Zegler hasn’t even been in the public eye for that long. She could end up being an awful human being, we don’t know yet! But let’s not be so quick to judge her right now, especially given that she’s young. I think that gets ignored in favour of “Rachel Zegler hates Disney movies!”, or whatever nonsense people keep saying. Going outside is free…

Anyway, that about does it for now. If you’ll excuse me…

Gentiles, Let's Talk...

October 7th, 2023 was a nightmare for Jews globally. Right in the midst of a Jewish holiday, we were subjected to a massacre that left over 1000 people dead, 3000 people injured and 250 people taken to Gaza as hostages. It was a day that left us heartbroken and dismayed, setting back Israeli-Palestinian relations by 30 years. This was a tragedy, one we haven’t fully-recovered from. Essentially, we needed a comforting hand.

I’m still stressed out over October 7th. Even ignoring the actual events, which were all archived via GoPro cameras and WhatsApp chats, the lack of regard for global Jewry has been startling and upsetting. Immediately there were people celebrating and proclaiming this a holiday. And in the days since, as Israel marched into The Gaza Strip, the apathy and Antisemitism’s skyrocketed. It was like someone had flipped a switch akin to when Donald Trump ran for president in 2015, except the opposite end of the spectrum.

Before I blast progressives further for being hypocrites, I’ll point out that Islamophobia has also skyrocketed since October 7th. Additionally, I feel awful that so many innocent Palestinians have suffered, and it pains me that they’ve been used as pawns by their government. However, that’s as far as I’m going here. Not only am I not Muslim, hence it’d be inappropriate to speak over them, but this is often used to minimize suffering on the part of Jews. Because as much as people deny it, it’s real.

Now then, progressives…what’s wrong with you? Many Jews support your causes. We’ve fought for, and often alongside, you many times. We were reckoning with the racism in our community following the death of George Floyd, and we grappled with sexism following the election of Trump. We’ve also been battling our own power imbalances since Me Too! So to act like our community isn’t suffering? To quote Nick Fury from Captain America: The Winter Soldier: “It’s stuff like this that gives me trust issues.”

I’ve lost immense respect for people I thought were my friends. Not only have you given a machine gun’s worth of hate-ammo to some of the worst voices since October 7th, but you feel absolutely no remorse. You’ve not only demonized our existence, but you’ve actively belittled us at every turn. Whether it’s been ripping down posters of kidnapped Israelis and bragging about it, or refusing to condemn Antisemitism on university campuses, I can safely say that you’ve had me contemplate making Aliyah. I can’t afford it, but it’s never left my mind.

A part of me understands that you have no shame. But it’s necessary calling you out anyway. Because you should be embarrassed that you’re still denying October 7th happened, and you should be embarrassed that you’re protesting near Jewish communities to cause problems. I know you have grievances with Israel, but don’t take it out on my people! We have as much a right to exist as you do!

Speaking of which, your perverted views on Israel and Israelis are laughable. For one, many of you don’t know which river and which sea you want freed. For another, you assume that because Israelis live on “illegitimate” land, they’re exempt from being treated like human beings. Never mind that places like Canada and The US are also “illegitimate”, because then you’d have to be consistent! And God forbid you be consistent!

By the way, thank you for denying that Israeli women were abused and raped by Hamas militants. It not only makes you less-credible, it actively ruins the Me Too movement. I’d demand that #MeTooExceptForJews become the new Trend, but it’s not going to happen. I’d like it to, but it won’t. That’d require self-awareness.

Let’s not forget your attempts at deflection. Claiming that October 7th was “fabricated propaganda”? Show me the evidence. Saying that October 7th was a way to justify Israel invading Gaza? I’m no fan of Benjamin Netanyahu’s “scorched earth” policy, and I don’t doubt that some members of his coalition believe in Manifest Destiny, but no sensible person wanted this. Saying that the influx in far-right support of Israel’s “dubious”? Maybe, but they’re making an attempt to care. What’s your excuse?

That last part irks me most. I’m skeptical of the far-right, but they’re sounding more tempting daily. And I’m not alone! I’ve heard claims from Jews that they’d prefer living in Middle America because “the people there like us”. You want to convince them otherwise? Prove them wrong.

Finally, let’s get the record straight: many Jews, even in Israel, didn’t want war. And we also want it to end. But we want our hostages back, something Hamas refuses to acknowledge. Factor in that they refuse to adhere to a ceasefire, even breaking the one that was in place a while ago multiple times, and this is going nowhere fast. I wish you understood that.

My heart breaks that the citizens of Gaza are suffering. My heart equally breaks over how embedded Hamas is in Gaza, such that they’re hoarding foreign aid. I didn’t want this war! And I want Netanyahu to not be so reckless, too! But that’s no excuse to disregard the suffering of a nation the internet claims are cartoon characters.

Reading this will make some of you uncomfortable. Me even writing this was a huge risk! But I can’t keep silent anymore. October 7th may have got me to leave Twitter/X, but my dreams of escaping the toxicity have proven naïve. The lingering rot of Antisemitism’s proving hard to excise. That’s on you to fix, not the Jews.

But whatever, you keep being hypocrites…

Pinocchio (1940) VS Pinocchio (Netflix)-Which is Better?

The Adventures of Pinocchio, Carlo Collodi’s children’s book from 1883, is often regarded as an Italian classic. The story, about a wooden puppet granted life, has been adapted to film many times. Chief among these is the 1940 Walt Disney classic, which is considered one of the company’s best. So when Guillermo del Toro decided to adapt the story for Netflix in 2022, people were skeptical. That version, thankfully, also ended up being fantastic.

Which begs the question: which is the superior adaptation? While it might seem unfair to pit them, let’s find out anyway! Reminder that, as per usual, there’ll be spoilers.

Let’s kick this off with…

Story:

VS

Despite taking different approaches, the basic premise of both movies is practically identical: Geppetto, a woodcarver and toymaker living in Italy, carves a human-like puppet shaped like a little boy. While he’s sleeping, a fairy appears and gives the puppet life. She then tasks a cricket to be his guide before leaving. When Geppetto awakes, he sees this puppet, named Pinocchio, waiting for him. From here, Pinocchio gets into shenanigans and learns that lying makes his nose grow bigger.

While a similar premise appears in both versions, the execution’s different. The Disney version is a straightforward fairy-tale, complete with all the inner workings: Geppetto’s a kind-hearted man who, despite having a pet cat and goldfish, creates Pinocchio to keep himself company. His puppet’s brought to life as a reward for bringing smiles to little children, especially since he never had children himself. Even Pinocchio’s conscience, a tiny cricket named Jiminy, takes on the role because he’s kind-hearted too. That, and he also recognizes the attached job security, which he needs.

The Netflix version takes a darker approach. Here, Geppetto loses his son, 10 year-old Carlo, to a bombing in 1916. Heartbroken, he turns to alcoholism and chops down the tree he’d planted for his son and turns it into a puppet. From here, a blue spirit takes pity on him and brings his creation, Pinocchio, to life, with Pinocchio’s conscience, a cricket named Sebastian, agreeing to help because said tree was originally his home. The story also takes place in Fascist Italy for much of its runtime, but given how demented the book was, that actually fits.

Even the main plot points are different. Both versions have Pinocchio leave school to become an actor, but the way they play out differs. For the Disney movie, Pinocchio’s tricked by a talking fox and is sold to a ringleader named Stromboli. In the Netflix film, Pinocchio’s tricked by the ringleader directly, a conman named Count Volpe, and agrees to travel with him provided he send half of the earnings to Geppetto. In both versions Pinocchio’s conned, but the Netflix version gives him more agency.

Another difference is the films’ respective climaxes. Both movies have Pinocchio search for Geppetto at sea, only to be swallowed by a creature with an enormous appetite. In both cases, Pinocchio finds Geppetto and they escape, only for Pinocchio to die. While this part’s similar, the minutiae are different: the Disney movie has Pinocchio and Jiminy traverse to the ocean floor, get eaten by a whale, conveniently named Monstro, find Geppetto, escape with the help of a fire and end up ashore when Monstro takes revenge. In the Netflix movie, Pinocchio stumbles upon the beast accidentally, finds Geppetto, escapes with the help of his nose, blows up the beast with a mine and dies saving his father. Both movies have Pinocchio given a human life as a reward, but the Netflix movie keeps it metaphorical, while the Disney movie makes it literal.

Outside of these “similarities”, the two movies are radically different. The two biggest deviations involve an addition for the Netflix movie, and the rewrite of a plot-point. For the latter, the Netflix movie gives Pinocchio a mortality arc, one where he keeps dying and coming back to life. It’s a neat idea, but it’s both under-utilized and overplayed. It serves little purpose other than to pad for time, and it’s abandoned after the third time when Pinocchio chooses to save his father’s life. The Disney movie doesn’t have this plot-line, but it doesn’t need it.

The latter difference involves Pinocchio’s relationship to Lampwick, or Candlewick. In the Disney film, Lampwick’s a runaway boy whom Pinocchio befriends on Pleasure Island. In the movie’s scariest scene, Lampwick then transforms into a donkey and loses his humanity. This scares Pinocchio, prompting him to leave Paradise Island. This can be read into as commenting on child slavery, something I’m amazed a Disney movie had the audacity to do.

In the Netflix adaptation, Pleasure Island’s non-existent. Instead, Pinocchio befriends Candlewick, the son of Italy’s foremost Fascist general, while in a child soldier’s training barracks. The two then race to plant their teams’ flags at the top of the barracks in what can only be described as paintball meets capture the castle. When they decide to raise their flags simultaneously, Candlewick’s father hands him a pistol and orders him to shoot Pinocchio. Candlewick then stands up to his father, whereupon he and Pinocchio trap him in a net before the compound’s blown to smithereens. This entire segment’s unbelievably gutsy, elevating it beyond standard family fodder.

I’m giving this to the Netflix movie. No disrespect to Walt Disney, but del Toro went the extra mile.

Winner:

But a story’s only as good as its characters, which leads me to…

Cast:

VS

It’s difficult to overstate how different these movies are character-wise. The Disney and Netflix movies only share five characters in-common, and two have different names: Lampwick is Candlewick in the Netflix adaptation, while Sebastian J. Cricket is the former’s Jiminy Cricket. Even Monstro’s less a whale in the Netflix movie and more a leviathan. The only characters that are exactly the same are Geppetto and Pinocchio, even if their origins and personalities are different. So while not 1:1, I’ll compare these roles based on what they represent.

Let’s start with the most obvious two: Geppetto and Pinocchio. In both adaptations, Geppetto creates Pinocchio out of wood, but the reasons for why differ. For Disney, Geppetto makes Pinocchio to have a companion, despite already having a cat and a goldfish. We aren’t given much of a back-story, but we don’t need one. This is in contrast to Netflix’s Geppetto, who creates Pinocchio out of grief for losing his son. His attachment to Pinocchio, at least initially, is superficial, and he has to learn to accept him.

Pinocchio’s personality doesn’t differ too drastically in either versions. Both movies portray him as naïve and curious, but the Netflix version also has him expressing his limits. The Netflix Pinocchio doesn’t like watching his friends be exploited, which we see when he defends Spazzatura from Count Volpe and Candlewick from his father. In terms of agency and audacity, Netflix Pinocchio, while more rambunctious, has the advantage. Disney Pinocchio, however, remains static.

The remaining characters are quite different. For example, Lampwick, who goes by Candlewick in the Netflix version. He’s a rambunctious kid who’s turned into a donkey in the Disney film, while Candlewick has an arc as a bully-turned-friend who learns to stand up to his father. And while the Disney movie has Honest John, an ironically-named Fox who keeps tricking Pinocchio, and the devious Stagecoach, these are consolidated or merged into characters like Count Volpe or Spazzatura for Netflix. The Netflix film even adds another fairy who looks after dead people, and she plays an important role whenever Pinocchio’s killed.

The biggest deviation character-wise is the cricket. He’s Pinocchio’s conscience in both adaptations, but while Jiminy’s delighted, Sebastian only agrees because Pinocchio used to be his home. Both crickets are notoriously bad at their jobs, but Sebastian’s incompetence is more understandable because of his background. He’s a writer and adventurer, he only bumbled into this role out of pomp and circumstance. He never wanted to be Pinocchio’s guide, and it shows with how frequently he’s abused.

Both movies have excellent character rosters, but I’m giving this to Netflix for one reason: the Disney movie’s Stromboli. Not to downplay the “appeal” of his menace, but he’s a pretty racist caricature of a Roma man. The original movie even uses a racist and outdated term for him, and he does his community no favours. The Netflix movie combines him with Honest John into Count Volpe, removes the racism and lacks this issue altogether. It also has Spazzatura turn on him before Volpe’s blown up.

Winner:

But a cast is only as good as the movie looks, which leads to…

Aesthetic:

VS

Despite both movies being animated, their formats are different. The Disney movie, being drawn on hand-painted cells, is still breathtaking to look at 84 years later. That might seem like a given, but some of the later projects under Walt Disney were pretty cheap-looking. And while not everything’s cohesive, the Blue Fairy clearly looks rotoscoped and doesn’t mesh with everything else, for the most part it hasn’t aged. It’s also 90-minutes long, reemphasizing that economic storytelling is sometimes efficient storytelling.

The Netflix movie’s stop-motion animated, with CGI and matte paintings for the backgrounds. Stop-motion’s time consuming and tedious, hence why many ventures are so short, but this two-hour experience has a Netflix-sized budget and The Jim Henson Company behind many of the designs. It, therefore, looks amazing, even if its colour palate’s murky and desaturated. I especially like Pinocchio’s design, which looks like it was designed by a raging drunk. It’s missing an ear and has many imperfections, and whenever Pinocchio lies his nose grows like a pine tree. A lot of thought went into this world and its characters, and I think it’ll age well too.

If I have any issues with either film, it’d be with the Disney movie. Despite being a tightly-written story, the pacing and editing can feel lopsided. Some scenes, like the one where Jiminy yells at everyone to be quiet so he can sleep, drag on, while others, like the dénouement, are abrupt and rushed. The scene transitions are also really awkward with their fades to black, and you get the sense that there were missing reels. I know that hand-painted cell animation is costly, especially in 1940, and that Disney was experimenting, but the pacing and editing can’t be ignored. The Netflix movie might be longer, but it’s also better-edited and paced.

The Netflix movie wins.

Winner:

Speaking of presentation, it’s time for…

Sound:

VS

Both movies have advantages here. The Disney movie, being from the 1940’s, feels like a radio drama, right down to its performances. This definitely dates it, but it also makes the experience timeless. It adds to the fairy-tale vibe as well. That alone gives it a leg-up on the Netflix film, which is less effective by feeling more contemporary.

Vocally, both adaptations do their jobs. I like that the voice of Pinocchio in the Disney movie’s done by an appropriately-aged boy, while Monstro’s noises are matched to Thurl Ravenscroft of Tony the Tiger fame. But the real star is Cliff Edwards as Jiminy Cricket. He’s not only the narrator, he’s Pinocchio’s conscience. He’s the POV character, and he lets us know it. He also gets the movie’s best song, one that’s become Disney’s official anthem.

The Netflix movie’s no slouch either, though. Not only is Guillermo del Toro regular Ron Perlman here, but so is Netflix regular Finn Wolfhard. The movie also has Tilda Swinton, Cate Blanchett and Christoph Waltz in major roles, while Sebastian J. Cricket’s voiced by Ewan McGregor. But the real stars are David Bradley and Gregory Mann as Geppetto and Pinocchio. Mann also voices Carlo at the beginning, emphasizing the parallels between him and Pinocchio. There isn’t a bad vocal choice here.

Sadly, while both movies also have excellent scores, the Netflix film pales to the Disney one with its songs. Perhaps it’s been in the public consciousness for over 80 years, but every song in the Disney movie, even the dance Geppetto and Pinocchio share, is a banger. The Netflix movie’s musical numbers, courtesy of Alexandre Desplat, aren’t terrible (save “Everything is New to Me”), but with the exception of “My Son”, which doubles as the film’s motif, none are as instantly-hummable as your standard fare from Walt Disney. Perhaps in 80 years that’ll change, but for now…I’m giving it to the Disney movie. Sorry.

Winner:

Time for the final category!

Entertainment factor:

VS

This is a really tough call. On the one hand, the Disney movie’s iconic for a reason. Like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, it progressed the medium of animation leaps and bounds beyond what it was capable of. It also introduced techniques made possible by the technology of the time, and most of it holds up now. The movie itself is also really good! There’s a reason why many animation buffs consider it one of Disney’s best, even if Stromboli’s still racist…

At the same time, the Netflix movie’s also impressive. Whether it’s the stop-motion artistry being possible because Netflix gave del Toro a massive budget, or the 2-hour runtime allowing for more complex themes, this is an achievement in its own right. Guillermo del Toro’s filmography’s inconsistent, but his take on Pinocchio’s up there with Pan’s Labyrinth and The Shape of Water as one of his best. Not all of it coalesces, the songs being its biggest folly, but it more than compensates with its themes of grief, loss of innocence, the pains of growing old and the dangers of authoritarianism (in this case, Italian Fascism). It also portrays Benito Mussolini as a diminutive man-baby with a fragile ego, which gives it points in my eyes!

Your mileage may vary, but I think the Netflix movie’s the superior offering overall.

Overall winner:

Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you next time!

Simping for Cruise?

*Looks around* I’ve never understood the fixation with Tom Cruise.

I need a disclaimer here: Tom Cruise isn’t a terrible actor. He’s shown range with Collateral and Born on the Fourth of July. He’s also been in some excellent action movies, as evidenced by Minority Report and Edge of Tomorrow. And while this comes with a caveat, I appreciate that he does his own stunt work. It makes his work more exciting.

Now then, let’s get into the nitty-gritty.

Warner Bros. Discovery recently signed a contract with Cruise to star in original films. This comes both after Universal’s talks to merge with them and the recent financial losses the studio has incurred. Cruise’s departure from Paramount, which is a subsidiary of Universal, is inevitable, and with that comes losing their greatest cash cow. After all, this is one of the few remaining “movie stars”! Him leaving shouldn’t be taken lightly!

While this might come as a shock, I’m not all that upset. Ignoring how I think Universal, like every studio in Hollywood, has too much disposable income, the loss of a big star doesn’t mean much nowadays. This isn’t The Golden Age of Hollywood, where actors were brands that studios milked to their fullest potential. That model died over 50 years ago, and stars now have free reign on projects. Cruise leaving Universal for Warner Bros. Discovery’s sudden, but, to quote Mobius from Season 2 of Loki, “That’s show biz!”.

Outside of that, the enormous, and frankly obnoxious, hype around Cruise being “one of the last movie stars” always rubbed me the wrong way. Firstly, so what? Movie stardom often leads to the “Cult of Celebrity”, and that in itself is a toxic rabbit hole. And secondly, again, so what? Dwayne Johnson’s also been one of the last movie stars for over a decade, but you don’t see people rushing to see Black Adam. Being a movie star doesn’t automatically grab my interest, sorry.

This pertains specifically to Tom Cruise. Remember how I said I like some of his movies? That has less to do with him and more with everyone else. Minority Report is one of my favourite action movies, but I credit that to Steven Spielberg’s directing. Edge of Tomorrow was one of my favourite movies of 2014, scratching an itch when I was in a bad place, but I thought Emily Blunt had greater screen presence. Tom Cruise is a fine actor, but he’s not in my Top 50 favourites.

Additionally, Tom Cruise is weird. I don’t mean that in a, “Hollywood attracts eccentric talent” way, either. I mean that in a, “Have you heard his ideological stances?” way, which is me calling out his attachment to The Church of Scientology. I won’t get into too much detail there, but there’s a reason Nicole Kidman and Katie Holmes both felt better after divorcing him. That alone speaks volumes.

It feels like low-hanging fruit criticizing Cruise’s Scientology, but he hasn’t been subtle about it. It’s made discussing it a nightmare, such that his close friends steer clear. Cruise, by all accounts, also acts and behaves normally until it’s brought up, and then poof! Suddenly he changes. I get that it might seem hypocritical given my own upbringing, but I question what I practice regularly. I don’t take anything at face value, and I’m encouraged to do so.

Then there’s people claiming that Tom Cruise is “saving cinema”. That’s one of the most-arrogant statements I’ve ever heard, especially when juxtaposed to The MCU, which people claim is “killing cinema”. Hollywood has many issues unrelated to Marvel, and no one person can fix them. And besides, how is he saving cinemas? Not only has he become solely-associated with the Mission: Impossible movies, a franchise I only cared for when Brad Bird directed an entry, those movies aren’t the only ones out there. I sometimes wonder if MCU detractors are guilty of the nonsense they accuse MCU fans of, except with Tom Cruise.

Speaking of which, let’s talk about why Cruise gets people into seats: he does his own stunts. I appreciate that, but Jackie Chan also does his own stunts. That doesn’t automatically make a movie good. And even then, stunt performers exist because not everyone can. It’s hard!

I also want to defend CGI work from Cruise fans. Yes, practical effects are rare and exciting nowadays, but they’re often incredibly dangerous. CGI isn’t only less-expensive, it’s safer for the actors. I know people complain about the overuse of CGI, but I’m willing to accept that if it means fewer injuries on-set. I wish Cruise fans understood this…

If it sounds like I’m being overly-negative, I haven’t even criticized Top Gun: Maverick for being the same “military propaganda” people accuse The MCU of! Though in seriousness, people ignore Tom Cruise’s real-life persona in favour of his movie persona. I know movies are escapism, and that you have to forgive some baggage to enjoy them, but Cruise’s larger-than-life personality on-screen gives me a headache. I also don’t like his fans evangelizing him, because it’s not healthy. If that makes me a party-pooper, so be it!

Oh, and about his contract with Warner Bros. Discovery? It’s probably the first step to the studio’s merger with Universal, assuming it happens…

Make Them Scream?

2024’s the “Year of Public Domain”. Thanks to American copyright laws, this year marks when many old IPs become royalty-free. Chief among them is the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey Mouse, but there are others too. Naturally, people are rushing out media about these characters. Unfortunately, many are cheap horror stories. And not the inspired kind.

I’m not one to police this stuff for others. For one, it’s pompous to stifle someone’s use of a royalty-free character. And two, it’s art. Not all creations are equal creatively, but that shouldn’t stop you from having fun. After all, I have ideas myself!

My issue’s in how limited and uncreative people are being, especially since so many lapsed IPs are children-centric. Winnie the Pooh, for example, may be a bear, but he’s a stuffed bear. He’s warm and fuzzy, he likes eating honey and he has a child’s curiosity. He’s meant to be an escape from reality for audience insert Christopher Robin. Like Bill Watterson’s famous plushie, Pooh Bear’s an 8 year-old’s imaginary comfort friend.

So then…why a horror film? And not any horror film, a child molesting one? I know Pooh and Piglet are based on animals, but come on! Really?! That’s the best we can do?

It doesn’t stop there! Mickey Mouse became public domain on January 1st, and within hours we had not one, but two horror announcements! One of these, the video game, has additional issues that I won’t discuss here, but the movie being a slasher is another example of taking something child-friendly and making it into horror because you can. I know the world’s our oyster now with the rodent, but be more creative!

Unfortunately, this is where creators often go when an IP’s copyright expires. I get it somewhat, I like testing the waters myself, but eventually it has to be called out. Especially since resorting to violent re-imaginings feels lazy. For example, Peter Pan’s world of Neverland, where he takes children to never age, is messed up, but only because J.M. Barrie witnessed several people he cared about die young. The world of Neverland was innocent, not some messed up reality where little kids are kidnapped! (I say that knowing this’ll probably be the premise of a Peter Pan horror film in the near-future.)

I’m being overly-negative, but only because we need to be more creative. Yes, these are public domain properties. Yes, being public domain isn’t inherently bad, especially given how draconian copyright laws are! But no, that doesn’t mean you should corrupt the innocence of these properties simply because you can. People, children in particular, deserve better.

I wouldn’t be so hesitant if these ideas weren’t rushed and lazy. It’s not like horror can’t work with children’s characters! Mickey Mouse had a dark short that Disney doesn’t like to acknowledge, one that, apparently, was really interesting! But examples like that are the exception. And they touch on concepts worth exposing to kids.

Making Winnie the Pooh a cannibal, or Peter Pan a child sex offender, is the opposite of that, especially when it’s done to be edgy. On the adult front, there are also alternatives. There was an update to a first-person shooter where the protagonist was made into Mickey Mouse. It sounds like another example of robbing a childhood IP of its innocence to be edgy, but this is a black-and-white game centring around a rodent cop in the 1930’s. And it evokes the style of cartoons from that era. Having Mickey Mouse as the lead fits that, and it has thought put into it.

If people make children-centric stories adult-centric, perhaps this is the answer. Because there’s plenty of potential there. I’m no expert in this, as I’m only one person, but we can come up with better ideas than “make it horror” each time. Like I said, the world’s our oyster! Let’s use the sandbox efficiently!

Outside of that, not every IP for children should be robbed of its innocence. For Winnie the Pooh, you can use the character to teach life lessons that are age-appropriate. That’s what one creator online is currently doing, and it shouldn’t be the only example. The world’s dark and cruel as is without corrupting classic tales. Doing so isn’t only lazy, it’s mean-spirited for the wrong reasons!

Perhaps I’m burnt out on “let’s make X property dark and gritty” being a trend. It’s why Michael Bay’s take on the Transformers and TMNT IPs felt wrongheaded, and it’s tainted their course corrections. I liked Bumblebee and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem as movies, but that’s because they respected the audience and stayed true to their properties. They weren’t trying to be dull, edgy fodder for adults embarrassed to be seen liking stuff “for kids”, which is what “make it horror” with public domain properties feels like.

In the end, while there’s little I can do to stop it, I wish more thought would go into these re-imaginings. We’re in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime mass-expiration of IP patents, one I’d argue should’ve happened sooner. Corporations can be bypassed here, which saves a lot of financial headaches. We can do whatever we want, and no one can stop us! But when we keep resorting violence and cheap horror, then I have to wonder if it’s worth having these characters at all. Because I’d rather be the clown who’s lighthearted and fun than one who’s a serial killer, there’s less baggage that way…