Reviewers Being Peachy

I want to acknowledge upfront the irony of me complaining about a game for young girls. And I don’t mean that in the way you’d think. As indicated by previous pieces, I was looking forward to Princess Peach: Showtime!. And having played it, I was satisfied. My issue stems from something macrocosmic: the target audience here is little girls, but the people discussing this game are mostly adult males.

I’m all for reviewers having opinions. I’ve defended them on numerous occasions when it comes to movies, and my thoughts extend to video games. Additionally, I’ve learned to accept when a widely-praised game isn’t for me, as well as when something people were lukewarm on was. Given my last discussion of a video game talked about a flaw not normally discussed, I’m aware of what it means to be divided. Essentially, nothing I’m about to say is a personal attack.

Anyway, I watched The Completionist’s review of Princess Peach: Showtime!. In it, he laid down his frustrations, stating that while not bad, he was nevertheless disappointed. To be fair, I see where he’s coming from. But while I respect Jirard, I think he’s the wrong person to be reviewing the game fairly. And it’s not only him, I think most professional reviewers who’ve discussed it are the wrong demographic.

Despite the premise, Princess Peach: Showtime! is meant for girls. In particular, it’s meant for girls who are old enough to read and play video games, but young enough where this is still perfect for them. It isn’t overly-difficult, even if I struggled in a few places, but a 6 or 7 year-old would definitely find it challenging. In a sense, it’s the Switch’s modern-day answer to Yoshi’s Story, except better made. I think that needs acknowledging.

Additionally, a jaded male is the wrong perspective here. I respect Jirard, but his life experiences make him a bad candidate to be honest about Princess Peach: Showtime!. Really and truly, this game needs to be reviewed by a woman. Even if the overall sentiment’s still negative, at least that life experience clicks better. It’s as simple as that.

I think Girlfriend Reviews should take a crack at this game. I know the channel well, having watched many of their reviews, and Shelby seems like the perfect candidate. She’s a woman, for one, but she also struggles with most video games, usually describing her experiences via her partner. She even has the unique experience of being a casual gamer talking about video games through a cutesy and comedic lens, which works perfectly here. Shelby’s the kind of voice we need more of.

So why aren’t we seeing that? The obvious answer, unfortunately, is that sexism still prevails. It’s no secret that various companies, Nintendo included, have an issue with sexism, which extends to reviewing. It explains why so many people discussing this game are men. It also explains the uncomfortable feelings I’m experiencing with seeing and reading most of the reviews, however honest or upfront they are.

Besides, what’s wrong with a feminine perspective? My male privilege makes saying that sound forced, but having unique voices helps art criticism move forward. It’s especially true when the subject in question could benefit from it, in this case a play-themed video game starring Princess Peach. What better opportunity for a female theatre nerd to talk about this game? Who better than to shed light on it?

I guess that’s why I’ve stayed clear of certain subjects that lean female-centric before. I thought The Marvels was okay, but I’m not its target demographic. I respected the 2016 Ghostbusters, flaws and all, but I’m not its target demographic. And while I have appreciation for the impact Sailor Moon has made on anime-you get the picture. There are some topics where I don’t feel my voice is needed.

Princess Peach: Showtime! is being discussed by the wrong people right now. And yes, males are allowed to have thoughts. Personally, I was impressed! And yes, it’s true that not all women will be head-over-heels in-love with it either, because women aren’t monolithic. But until we get to hear them, we’ll never be able to have with an honest conversation.

Also, the game’s still new. And it needs time to resonate with everyone. I loved it myself, but that’s because it felt fresh and unique. I was happy playing a straightforward game without any external help in three nights, a rarity for me. But perhaps I’ll enjoy it more on replay, where I can appreciate the finer details? Who knows?!

This is what’s being missed in the initial reactions too: time. True, the game isn’t flawless, as evidenced by occasional frame-rate dips and some slight wonkiness of controls. But that’s offset by it being a relatively new experience. If this game clicks with its target demographic, and I hope it does, we could end up with a cult classic. That’s exciting, especially since the title character, Princess Peach, is so frequently overlooked!

However, before Peach can walk on her own, she needs to stumble and fall several times. And her accomplishments need to be acknowledged and respected by the right audience. Which is why people like Jirard, for all their insights, are the wrong demographic to discuss Princess Peach: Showtime!, as their honesty’s tainted by their experiences. Is it unfortunate? Yes, but it’s true.

I don’t mean to intentionally trash Jirard. He seems like a genuine and sincere individual, and he gets enough crap over his charity debacle. I also respect and admire his honesty, particularly in acknowledging that he’s the wrong audience for Princess Peach: Showtime!. But I think he’s the wrong person to be reviewing it, for the aforementioned reasons. He’s entitled to his opinions, but, as with all male reviewers, they should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially when a female perspective’s desperately needed!

Nickelodeon's Schneider Problem

(Warning: The following discusses unsettling content. Please read at your own risk.)

I like feet. In particular, I like women’s feet. But I try not being creepy about it, especially considering how many people have behaved themselves. I also set boundaries around my interest in them. I mention this because what I’m about to discuss is painful as a childhood sexual assault survivor.

I’m sure some of you are aware of the Dan Schneider documentary on Max. Being Canadian, I have no access to it, as we don’t get Max. However, the documentary, Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV, exposes the relationship many former Nickelodeon stars allegedly had with Schneider growing up in television. None of this is “new”, Schneider’s weirdness was known for years, but the extent that he ruined people’s lives hasn’t been fully-documented before. And given the responses many of these former stars have shared, it’s worth getting their perspective.

I wasn’t big on live-action Nickelodeon as a kid. I preferred their animation, as it had more consistency in quality. I did occasionally watch All That! and The Amanda Show, however. They were weird and inconsistent, but they provided laughs. Yet even with the red flags, (the “show within a show”, Moody’s Point, had a subplot about the protagonist’s father’s toe), I was oblivious to what Amanda Bynes and her cast-mates were experiencing under Schneider.

Schneider’s foot fetishism has been an open secret for as long as he’s been with Nickelodeon. The company’s logo was a footprint! He’s also referenced it on social media frequently, such that people are well aware of it. Yet while that’s cause for concern, him taking advantage of child stars is the worst part. It’s no shock that Hollywood has consent issues, but pedophilia’s not something you’d want for developing minds.

To give a sense of how bad this was, Schneider had his female stars engage in weird antics with their feet. On iCarly, one of Nickelodeon’s most successful live-action sitcoms, actresses Miranda Cosgrove and Jeanette McCurdy frequently showed their bare feet, whether via “toe puppets” or biting feet. The situation was so bad that the iCarly revival had McCurdy absent despite being a big part of the original production. And given her memoir, that shouldn’t surprise anyone.

But it gets worse! In the show Victorious, not only were the leads dressed too maturely for their age, but Schneider’s foot fetishism was present in weird ways. In one instance, Ariana Grande shoved her foot in her mouth on camera. In another instance, Victoria Justice removed her boots and socks and shot a bow and arrow with her bare feet. Both instances would net views on sites like OnlyFans, but this was a sitcom. And these were teenagers. Never mind that the cast was reportedly uncomfortable with these “shenanigans”, it also didn’t help the show’s writing anyway.

And it gets worse still! If everything I’ve mentioned has made you uneasy, remember that it’s only a fraction of what transpired behind closed doors. Not only was Schneider making his stars behave provocatively on screen, he was also a nightmare to deal with. He’d routinely make inappropriate advances on his actresses, and at times he’d engage in sexual acts with them. I won’t go into detail, as it classifies as rape, but it begs the question: why was Dan Schneider fixated on exploiting these actresses when the internet exists? Google’s search engine doesn’t judge people for their kinks…

I wish I could say that it was only teenage girls that felt uncomfortable, but it wasn’t. Drake Bell-yes, that Drake Bell-has recently stated that he was sexually assaulted by his agent while under Schneider’s regime. It may not excuse his later allegations, but it puts them in context; after all, why not emulate the behaviour you saw firsthand? Hurt people hurt people.

Everything I’ve mentioned, though a fraction of what went on at Nickelodeon, puts into perspective how the network operated. And it wasn’t pretty. Because while this wasn’t known to the public for the longest time, it wasn’t a secret to those in the industry. Like Harvey Weinstein, I’m sure there were whistle blowers for years prior to this documentary. They simply weren’t listened to, or were blackballed.

No one’s saying you can’t work with or talk to children. Having relatives under the age of 10, I assure you they sometimes have unfiltered wisdom untainted by the harshness of life. Besides, they’re people! And like adults, kids are worthy of validation! Yet that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be respected, because they should. Especially since they can’t consent to sexual behaviour!

Additionally, I won’t stop you from having a foot fetish. So long as you’re not creepy about it, you do you. It’s a part of the body that doesn’t get enough respect anyway. But while what you do with your body is your business, what you do with someone else’s is a whole other beast. It requires consent, contrary to what pornography might led you to believe.

As for the former stars of Nickelodeon? While some of them might’ve not ended up being great people, I can’t help but feel bad for the abuses they went through. Because it clearly scarred them enough to share their stories. And while I’m glad Schneider’s out of the picture, he alone wasn’t the issue. If Drake Bell’s situation is indication, Schneider wasn’t the only bad egg.

It could be that I’m projecting. I’m a survivor of childhood sexual assault, something I’ve been open about before. At the same time, am I really projecting? The stories shared on Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV are upsetting, and Schneider ruined people’s lives by having his weirdness unchecked. If that’s me “projecting”, then I should do it more often.

This is an example of why Hollywood needs to change. I know the industry recently resolved two strikes, but job stability and AI safeguards don’t override the toxic and coercive work environment that actors, most of them women, have endured. That needs remedying, and quickly. Otherwise, stories like Dan Schneider and Nickelodeon will persist. And do we want that?

Mario's Devious Trap

Ever have a classic video game that you adore, yet has a flaw preventing you from beating it? I’m sure many people do. Mine’s Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. I love it to bits, but it has a feature preventing me from playing it for long. But before I explain why that is, I’ll mention everything I like about it first:

For starters, there’s the visual aesthetic. Looking at it now in 2024, it’s easy to see the simplicity. But for a Game Boy game in 1992, it was huge to have a Mario title as detailed as this one! Considering its direct predecessor was blocky, resembling an early NES title, to look like a scaled-down version of Super Mario World is great. It makes you appreciate how the handheld, restricted by portability and battery, could render everything. Respect for that alone.

I like how the game makes use of its sprites. It only introduces one new power-up, the Carrot, but you know Mario’s using it by sprouting rabbit ears and hovering. Even the other power-ups have signifiers to let you know Mario’s using them, including transitionary frames for Mario transforming or regressing from a power-up. It’s a neat workaround for a handheld lacking colour, and I wish more Mario games had utilized this. It’s also really charming to see Mario’s transition states.

Another element in this game’s favour is the overhaul of standard mechanics we’ve come to expect from other entries. Instead of using a flag as a checkpoint, Mario rings a bell. Coins, once the currency for extra lives, instead work as money that can be used at the in-game bank. And while I’m not sure what it does, the game has a Goomba counter for enemies you’ve killed. For someone with OCD, this is neat to track.

The game has a pretty sophisticated over-world. Not only is each area rendered with a unique cutscene upon entry, which was a revolutionary for a Game Boy game in 1992, it’s also non-linear. You can traverse the 6 Zones out of order, making for a game of memorization of what you’ve completed. Even the different Zones are have unique designs and layouts, with plenty going on. I admire the attention to detail.

I can’t forget the musical motif. Not only is it memorable, it’s really catchy despite being repetitive. It’s upbeat and matches the energy of the game, an added plus given the core objective’s to collect 6 golden coins and reclaim your castle from Wario. It also subvert my personal disdain for a motif being the majority of the in-level music by not only varying it, but also being that catchy. If you don’t believe me, have a listen.

Finally, I like how fun it is. Whether it’s travelling through pipes without loading screens, or appreciating each world’s unique level design, it’s an enjoyable experience all-around. It’s enough to make me forget, however briefly, about its most-glaring flaw, one that sours the experience. Speaking of, I should probably discuss it now. You ready?

Getting a Game Over wipes your progress.

I’m serious. Imagine you’ve gotten really far, only to lose to a boss too many times and get a Game Over. While most games would continue where you left off, Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins not only wipes your collected coins, it makes you replay the levels you’ve beaten. I’m sure this isn’t an issue for most people, the game’s not terribly difficult, but considering that I struggle with even easy video games, losing what I’ve acquired prior because of a mistake is my own worst nightmare. It’s the game knowing I’m bad at it, then punishing me for it. Given that I’m prone to repeating the same mistakes over and over, that’s adding insult to injury. I barely made it out of __ Zone without a Game Over, and this game expects me to relive that?!

You know what doesn’t help? It has a save feature, but it’s only in the area you’re currently playing. That’s right, you have a game on the Game Boy with a conditional save state! If that’s not enough to send someone into an instant rage, then I question their patience. Because it actively infuriates me whenever I get a Game Over, which happens a lot!

Let’s use the following comparison: say you’re working on an assignment for someone. You pour your heart into it, and you write something respectable. Now, say you hand it in to said person, and, after looking it over, said person throws it into the fireplace and wipes your hard-drive clear of everything but the title. They then demand you write it again. How would you feel?

If you said “infuriated”, congrats: you know how getting a Game Over in Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins makes me feel. I know the Switch port on NSO has a rewind feature, but guess what? That only half-solves the problem. It might create a backup save, but it doesn’t stop me from getting a Game Over. Besides, I shouldn’t need to rely on a cheat to remedy a 32 year-old game’s glaring flaw. This should’ve already been avoidable in 1992!

Where was I? Oh yeah, ever have a classic video game that-I’m kidding, I’m not writing all of that again. But it speaks to how two-minded I am about this game, especially since everything else is amazing: it controls well. It plays well. It’s fun. It has catchy music. It’s impressive to look at. Still, none of that matters if, at the end of the day, I can’t actually beat it.

Actually, here’s a compromise: if the game ever gets a remake, it can keep every game mechanic except that one. Nintendo can even put in a harder mode, one more like the original! But if it dares releasing it without a proper save mechanic, then I’m not touching it with a 10-foot pole. I have enough trouble with the original as is!

While I love Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, I don’t love that it fails to impress in a key area. Call it lame to shed light on that, but I don’t care. If a game from 1992, on a system that has the capabilities, refuses to properly save my progress when I get a Game Over, guess what? That’s bad game design. And it ruins the experience in my mind. You can disagree all you want, but I dare you to explain why I’m wrong. Try!

RIP Akira Toriyama

On March 1st, 2024, legendary Manga artist Akira Toriyama passed away.

I was debating whether or not to write something. Despite growing up on a healthy diet of Dragon Ball Z, I have no attachment to the franchise now. The show was overlong, poorly-paced and repetitive. And that’s only its most famous entry! However, it’d be a disservice to Toriyama’s legacy to end there.

Akira Toriyama, like Osamu Tezuka, was ahead of his time. Coming into Japanese comics around its boom, Toriyama imbued panache in his drawings. I’m not a big fan of Manga Iconography, I think it’s the equivalent of overacting, but Toriyama made it work because his characters were larger than life. This was especially true in making Saiyans human-like superheroes with names based on vegetables. Essentially, he made healthy foods cool.

This panache was prevalent in how Saiyans fought. They could attack in midair, they shouted over-the-top catchphrases, they even could power-up and turn into giant gorillas. Saiyans were powerful and terrifying, yet you couldn’t help loving them. Especially since they had a code of ethics, one they stuck to. Not many villainous races prior were known for that.

That aside, there was something unique about how the shows were structured that made them exciting as a kid. The arcs were long and overdrawn, but they were still entertaining. The pacing of each episode was exaggerated, with several minutes of content stretching to full length, but it was cool. It kept me wanting more, and that was complimented by the narration at the beginning and end of each episode. It made me feel like time hadn’t passed if I consistently watched episodes, yet out of the loop if I missed one or two for whatever reason.

There was also something charming about watching testosterone-laden supermen duking it out. Every punch was cathartic. Every scream echoed through my ears. Even every victory or loss was carefully constructed to feel like a big deal. It might’ve been “mindless junk food”, but I didn’t really care.

Yet stopping there would do Toriyama a disservice. Not only was he responsible for artwork outside of the Dragon Ball franchise, including Chrono Trigger on The SNES/Super Famicom, he also influenced many fans and animators. Even future Shonen like One Piece, Naruto and Bleach owe a debt to what Toriyama began in the 80’s and 90’s. I’d venture that Fullmetal Alchemist, my favourite action anime after Wolf’s Rain, wouldn’t have been as popular without coasting off of Toriyama’s imprint.

Another area that set Toriyama’s Shonen apart from his contemporaries was that, being serialized, the cast of the Dragon Ball franchise was allowed to age. Goku started off as a little boy in Dragon Ball, grew up and fathered two sons in Dragon Ball Z and became a grandfather in Dragon Ball GT. Even with the latter retconned entirely in Dragon Ball Super, that didn’t change. If anything, it reemphasized the importance of not remaining stuck in a time loop, something some contemporary Shonen could learn from. (I’m looking at you, Pokémon!)

Really though, it’s this mark of Toriyama that transcends his most important work’s quality. Was the Dragon Ball series “good”? That remains in the eye of the beholder, but it’s irrelevant. Like it or not, it was the introduction to anime for many people, and it helped pave the way for other shows. Even in North America, where it caught on like it was going out of style, the various dubs and re-dubs made for interesting debates and memes online. Who could forget the infamous, “It’s over 9000!” translation error that became a running joke?

Therein lies the secret. A few years back I wrote an obituary about Isao Takahata. In it, I mentioned that while I wasn’t the biggest fan of his body of work, I nevertheless respected the impact he made. The same can be said of Akira Toriyama, perhaps even more so. Because while I might not currently connect with his work, I recognize it as important. Like Osamu Tezuka, he left an indelible mark on anime and Manga, one that may not be matched in the near future.

Life’s short and challenging, with many talented individuals dying early. Whether it’s Robin Williams, Fred Rogers or Stan Lee, the reality is that celebrities can have an impact on people, sometimes even through cultural osmosis. Akira Toriyama was one such a person, and his loss is felt more in The West than in Japan. That’s the kind of artist he was, irrespective of his work’s quality. It’s a legacy many people worldwide can’t achieve in their dreams, let alone reality!

Here's to you, Toriyama-san! And here’s to the endless inspiration your work has left on thousands of artists. 68 might be “too early”, but never forget the impact you left on so many people. You’ll definitely be missed, even by someone as stingy as myself!

E for Everyone?

I didn’t think I’d be discussing Princess Peach: Showtime! again so soon. For one, I thought there’d be nothing left to discuss. And two, I’m the wrong demographic to be dissecting its controversies, as I’m an adult male. But that’s precisely why it’s so important to mention the game again. Especially since a demo’s now available on the Nintendo eShop.

I’m not alone in trying it out. The demo has been played by several people, and the consensus is that it’s interesting and unique, but simple and easy. I agree on the former points, but the latter? Not so much. And even so, I don’t see that as a negative.

For those who unaware, I’m not great at video games. I enjoy them, often to my detriment, but I find even the easiest ones difficult. I’ve gotten stuck on almost every game I’ve played, even when the solution was staring me in the face. At times I’ve had to look up some obvious solutions. It’s for that reason I both have a soft spot for simple and easy games, and have disdain for gamers who think modern games are “too easy”.

What little I played of Princess Peach: Showtime reconfirms this. The first stage, involving Swordfighter Peach, I actually died halfway in and had to start over. The second stage, with Patisserie Peach, I not only restarted because I’d soft-locked myself, I also died in the cookie segment and got confused in the cake decorating segment. I enjoyed myself though, because I own my failures! That includes getting stuck and making mistakes in obvious parts of simple games.

I honestly don’t care if this game’s “simple and easy”. Nor should you, really. Because this game’s not only charming, it’s also inventive. It even shakes up the formula for each level to keep from boredom. I say that from only two levels! You have no idea how hard that is to pull off if you’re unfamiliar with Nintendo’s gameplay mechanics.

This also ties into a bigger complaint I see popping up a lot nowadays, as well as how obnoxious it really is: games are “too easy” now. That’s not only an overgeneralization, especially when Dark Souls exists, it also ignores the inverse: many older games are too difficult. I know it’s subjective, and perhaps unfair, but older hardware required the difficulty level to be amped up to compensate for a lack of length. Still, that doesn’t mean some games weren’t brutal anyway. And I’ll use an example:

Remember The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time? It’s a classic for a reason, but The Water Temple’s a nightmare to complete. The core gimmick, raising and lowering the water level to access specific sections, requires tedious pattern memorizations, and this ignores how the bulk of the level’s hidden away. I spent three hours over two days tinkering with the water levels before resorting to a walkthrough and an online speed-run, and even then I struggled. This is supposed to be fun?

I don’t like my video games becoming homework. It’s why I never finished the aforementioned game’s sequel, as well as why I gave up at the final bosses for Donkey Kong Country’s successors. And yet, that’s what many older video games honestly feel like, even classics. It’s one problem to occasionally look up help, but being chained to help? You might as well have someone else play the game.

What little I’ve experienced of Princess Peach: Showtime! doesn’t have that issue. Which makes sense, as the game was developed by the same team as Kirby’s Epic Yarn and Yoshi’s Woolly World. Those weren’t difficult either, and they didn’t need to be. They coasted on simple and easy gameplay, which worked to their advantage. Besides, if you went into a Kirby or a Yoshi game expecting challenge, then you were in the wrong franchise.

To that end, Princess Peach: Showtime! accomplishes what it sets out to do. It’s not the most sophisticated or challenging experience, even on the Switch, but so what? I had fun, and it has the standard level of Nintendo polish. It’s won’t rock your world, but it doesn’t need to. It’s a vehicle for Peach to be a main character, instead of the typical damsel in distress. Isn’t that important too?

As a final note, the game’s target demographic of young children, particularly girls, shouldn’t be understated. Female gamers are prepped at a young age to not be fairly represented, and while that’s changing now, there’s a lot of progress that needs to be made still. A game like Princess Peach: Showtime!, which has Peach in an active role, is a step in the right direction. It also covers many of the areas of interest young girls are into, as well as a few they normally aren’t. And that’s okay.

So yes, male gamers, accept that not every game by Nintendo is for you. Because if a beloved character like Princess Peach can star in a game that doesn’t reduce her to stock emotions, then there’s hope yet for the future of gaming!

Leave Chris Alone!

I’m going to be direct upfront: do people not have anything better to do than be angry all the time? Is it not emotionally draining to “in-group/out-group” everything? I’ve seen it so frequently that I’m wondering if people need hobbies. Because attacking someone for not dogpiling on a movie, instead discussing a bigger issue, isn’t that. It’s also unhealthy.

Some context:

I’m a big fan of Bob Chipman, aka Moviebob. His personal politics are…off, but his general thoughts on movies are thought-provoking and understandable. He has the humility to outright acknowledge what he doesn’t know too, which is plenty. And while his older work hasn’t aged well, that’s because he realized later in life that he needed to stop being nasty. It’s reflected even as recently as 5 years ago.

Bob recently put out a Big Picture discussing the backlash YouTube reviewer Chris Stuckmann received for refusing to review Madame Web. I don’t blame him, as it doesn’t seem worth anyone’s time. But while I love Stuckmann’s work, even being Subscribed to him, I figured that Bob was being nice. After all, Bob loves defending the underdog, so why not Chris? That was the mindset I initially had, and I wasn’t sure what the hubbub was about.

Then I watched Chris’s video. Suddenly, I had more questions than answers. Questions like “Why were people so angry?”, or “What about Chris’s stance was offensive?”. What he said was sensible, as he not only defended the director, he shifted the blame to Sony’s never-ending quest for quick money. This was worth getting mad over? This 16-minute video?

I’m not against a good, old-fashioned rant. When done well, it can actually be cathartic. It also can drive engagement in ways praise often doesn’t give. That’s why people opt for rants so frequently, not helped by the algorithms on different platforms prioritizing negativity. But while therapeutic, rants can reinforce a hateful feedback loop long-term. It’s what got me to leave Twitter after October 7th.

I didn’t always think this way. Before joining Twitter in 2011, I was an edgy Libertarian who liked mouthing off. Twitter morphed me into someone who was more mindful, but it also radicalized me in the opposite direction. Instead of mouthing off Libertarianism, I was mouthing off Social-Progressivism. But I was still mouthing off nonsense. And it was getting me into trouble.

Now that I’m nearing my mid-30’s, and re-evaluating my life choices, I’m left wondering if it was worth it. After all, mouthing off nonsense did no favours, and I wasn’t maintaining healthy boundaries. So I stopped. And it’s made me feel better. Why’s that a problem for people?

It's not like I won’t discuss issues in film and video games. I do it constantly! But while that might be the focus of The Whitly-Verse, it’s on my terms. I’m not being paid to write anything here. I don’t get advertising revenue, and I don’t have a Patreon page. Everything on this site, including the odd collaboration with friends? It's all done for the love of the craft. Because I’ve worked under others, and I’d rather not return to that!

One of the results of breaking free from that system is seeing how toxic it can be. It reflects in how current events are discussed, and it prevents nuance or mature conversation from occurring. I know Twitter’s a toxic cesspool of partisanship, but so is YouTube. And TikTok. And Facebook. And Instagram. And-you get the picture.

All of this is to say that if Chris Stuckmann refuses to discuss Madame Web, that’s his prerogative. Remember, Chris is a moviemaker now. He knows how hard it is to work on a film in this day and age, and he wants to uplift his fellow artists. That’s admirable, and more internet “criticism” should do that. That’s why I’ve fallen out of love with Jeremy Jahns and Captain Logan, even if I’m still Subscribed to both.

Seeing how people have reacted to Chris’s decision is perplexing and upsetting. Why does it matter if a well-respected personality refuses to add to the hate? Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic exist, go there! Don’t redirect your disappointment at someone who doesn’t want to play the game! Be adults!

I’ve even become burnt out on excessive negativity! My most-popular piece, after 8 years, is a rant about a poorly thought-out fan-ship. I don’t regret writing it, but I’d prefer my in-depth piece on The Omer be #1. It’s not negative, and I poured my heart out, so why not? What would people have to lose?

I guess a lack of negativity’s the issue, which leads me back, once again, to Chris Stuckmann and Moviebob. If you want to pile on Madame Web, go right ahead. The internet has no shortage of people interested in that. But if someone else doesn’t want to, that’s their prerogative. And if that offends you? Then that’s your problem. Life’s exhausting enough without partisan anger fuelling the fire. It’s not worth it, and-algorithm be damned-it’s high time we moved on to something more important.