All About Abby

I’m not a fan of The Last of Us. There’s no personal reason, I simply don’t own Sony’s consoles. I also can’t watch the TV series because I’m Canadian, so I can’t comment much. What I can comment on is the big “controversy”. In particular, the toxicity surrounding it, and how that spilled into real life. Because, simply put, it’s wrong.

Let’s back up. I had to look up what was fuelling this controversy, and I found a commentary on the cycle of violence that some fans couldn’t comprehend. It’s one issue to be unhappy with the subtext of the series. I have thoughts myself, but they’re irrelevant here. It’s another issue altogether to take something in fiction and use it to harass and threaten someone. But that’s what’s happened here…twice.

It started with Laura Bailey, who voiced Abby in the video game. Ignoring her actions in the story, which are meant as a message, Bailey received backlash and threats for voicing her. Criticism’s inevitable in the entertainment industry, but a line gets crossed when said criticism becomes toxic. And it was with Bailey, such that her son was impacted.

This toxicity has resurfaced with The Last of Us on HBO. I know the show’s received plenty of praise, but with Season 2 adapting Abby’s violent behaviour, her actor, Kaitlyn Dever, has been receiving the same vitriol Bailey received. Never mind that it should’ve been snuffed out already, we’re now seeing a repeat of this toxicity with an actress who’s also been reeling with the pain of a family tragedy.

A while back, I wrote about how actors aren’t necessarily the characters they play. In it, I mentioned that while a good actor brings life experience to a role, they’re still performing. Performing’s pretending, so while the point of acting’s to look like you’re not acting, it also needs to be acknowledged as acting. Unfortunately, many fans don’t see the distinction, and as a result have ruined actors’ lives. Simply Google what happened to Ahmed Best...

You’re allowed to not like a character. Plenty of well-loved stories have unlikable characters, some of whom are supposed to be. But that’s not an excuse to be a jerk to someone playing that character. After all, actors take on many roles in their careers, good and bad, as that’s part of acting. You have to take risks to maintain employment.

With Bailey and Dever, I can’t help wonder if sexism’s playing a role in this. You may not approve of the actresses bringing life to a murderer, but Abby’s behaviour isn’t any worse than John Wick or Deadpool. With the former, he goes on a revenge spree after thugs murder his dog. With the latter, he goes on a revenge spree after Francis robs him of his beauty. Both have massive body counts, complete with gruesome deaths. And with the latter, you can argue he’s more monstrous than Francis!

That John Wick and Deadpool can get away with this, yet Abby can’t, is far more telling than any message The Last of Us imparts to its audience. Because while John Wick and Deadpool are sociopathic, we love them anyway. Meanwhile, Abby bludgeons a man to death, and she’s suddenly detestable? Why don’t Keanu Reeves and Ryan Reynolds get the same hate as Laura Bailey and Kaitlyn Dever?

This is why I don’t think fans deserve entertainment. If Captain Marvel’s all-powerful, she’s a Mary Sue. If Superman’s all-powerful, he’s doing his job. Princess Nausicaä can’t be the impartial mediator Prince Ashitaka is, despite having somewhat-similar struggles. And Abby can’t be a sociopath without her actresses receiving death threats, even though John Wick and Deadpool have higher body counts. Don’t you see how messed up that is?

The lack of media literacy fans have is beyond appalling. Again, you’re not required to like Abby. Based on what little I’ve read, she horrifies me too. But threatening the women who brought life to her, to the point of invading their personal lives, is unacceptable. There’s a line between not liking a character, and being hateful to their actors. This is crossed when the former turns into abuse toward the latter.

I’m not sure why I have to reiterate this clearly-sensible position: don’t be a dick to actors. You don’t have to like the characters they play. You don’t even have to like them! But if you’re going to be critical, it should be for legitimate reasons. Not liking the character they played isn’t a legitimate reason. That’s basic human decency.

Perhaps I wouldn’t be so infuriated if this hatred didn’t have consequences. Going back to Ahmed Best, his role as Jar Jar Binks was so despised that people sent him death threats for years. It got to be so bad that he contemplated suicide, ultimately deciding against it. I’m glad he’s still around, but he deserved better. Because Jar Jar Binks, ignoring whatever grievances people had, was a character.

So yes, I’m embarrassed that Laura Bailey and Kaitlyn Dever went through hell over this. I’m embarrassed because it’s impacted their personal lives, and I’m embarrassed because it shows a lack of fandom maturity. But most-importantly, I’m embarrassed because they were acting. You can argue about Abby’s likability, but that’s no excuse to send threats. We need to do better.

Toy Story Snore?

Ever see a YouTube video that makes you cringe? That was my takeaway from Nerdstalgic’s critique of Toy Story 4. And while I know that everyone’s entitled to have opinions, I found he deliberately misrepresented points to sound more negative than necessary. So I feel a rebuttal’s in order. Especially since Nerdstalgic also came off like he was pandering.

I should mention that I’m Subscribed to Nerdstalgic. While he plays up his opinions to game the algorithm, some of his stuff’s actually insightful. I especially liked his video about the freeway chase in The Matrix Reloaded, as it went into the nitty-gritty of how it was created and filmed. However, lately I’ve felt he’s been using popular media as punching bags. Toy Story 4’s another victim of that.

I won’t do a play-by-play of everything, but I’ll mention now that Nerdstalgic covers two main arguments. The first is how Toy Story 4’s unnecessary, created solely for profit. Ignoring how every movie is designed on some level to make money, I think this claim’s reductive. When people call a sequel “unnecessary”, they’re really claiming it doesn’t add anything. Toy Story 4’s the opposite of that. Not only does it expand on Woody’s growth, giving him a new purpose outside of children, it also adds character to Bo Peep, who was absent from Toy Story 3. Specifically, it retcons her into a capable heroine no longer exclusively tied down to being a love interest.

Let’s zone-in on that. When it was revealed that Bo Peep would be getting a redesign, many people were livid. They considered it a betrayal, even though she wasn’t all that interesting prior. Between the first two movies, I’m pretty sure Bo Peep had a handful of lines, and most were in service of Woody. Here, not only was she fleshed-out, but she also had intrigue and history. Considering the in-universe time jump from the beginning of the movie to when Woody reencounters her, it’s implied Bo Peep had given up kids because there was too much heartbreak. That, and the bandages around her arms suggested roughhousing.

Toy Story 4 also added a further layer of development to Woody specifically. If Toy Story 3 had him moving on from a single kid, then this movie had him moving on from kids altogether. Like an adult moving away, he’d grown up and retired. It sounds like a betrayal of character, but this was foreshadowed retroactively with Woody’s opening speech in Toy Story. It wasn’t out-of-place here, essentially.

And this is why I think Nerdstalgic was off-base. Toy Story 3 provided closure, but for Andy. That was his final chapter, not Woody’s. Woody, however, had more growing up to do, and he got that by learning to move on from ownership. It’s an arc that could’ve only concluded with a fourth movie.

The second complaint Nerdstalgic mentions is detracting from previous toys in favour of new, uninteresting ones. This is incredibly-unfair, especially since Jessie and Bullseye, two beloved mainstays, were once “uninteresting” newcomers themselves. Nerdstalgic complains about shafting Mr. Potato Head, even though his VA, Don Rickles, had passed away prior to this movie’s completion, hence Pixar had to use archived recordings. His complaints about Buzz are spot-on, but I doubt that there was much else to do with him that didn’t revolve around resetting him to his factory mode personality.

In terms of new characters, I can’t disagree more. Duke Caboom’s a great addition, even having a hilarious pay-off in the third-act. Ducky and Bunny are basically Key & Peele in animated form, letting them do their shenanigans without it being too mature or violent. And Forky lends to a genuinely-existential question of what it means to be a toy. But the real MVP’s Gabby Gabby. She’s initially the antagonist, but she becomes much more layered over time. She even gets redeemed in the third-act, leading to one of the two moments that actually made me cry.

None of these characters are wasted. It’d be one issue if they were disposable, even though the Toy Story franchise has always centred around disposable toys. But Toy Story 4’s new inclusions are no more wasted than Ken in Toy Story 3. Which is to say, they weren’t. By calling them “disposable”, I think that Nerdstalgic’s doing them a disservice.

This ties in with my biggest defence of this movie: subverting expectations with real logic. Many diehards were disappointed with Bonnie not cherishing Woody, but it’s important to remember that Bonnie’s different than Andy. Plus, she’s a girl, and would naturally favour Jessie over Woody because of that. And she’s 5, so expecting her to cherish Woody like a teenager or young adult is unrealistic.

That realism’s foreshadowed in the movie’s opening scene. We’re given a huge rescue scene in the rain involving Woody, Bo Peep and RC, only for it to end abruptly with Andy’s sister, Molly, relinquishing ownership of Bo Peep because she’s too old for her. As someone who’s seen his nieces and nephew grow up, I relate to that. Kids grow out of toys for many reasons, and not all of them are ones we like. In that sense, expecting Bonnie to be another Andy isn’t only unfair, it’s not the correct approach. That’s something more people need to understand, Nerdstalgic included.

Nerdstalgic using Quentin Tarantino as the closing argument in his video, therefore, doesn’t sit right. Not only is Tarantino not the be-all-end-all, he’s also not the target audience. He’s allowed to like the Toy Story films, as they’re all good (so far), but he’s an adult. He’s not the target age they’re intended for, and making him the arbiter feels like gatekeeping. Who’s he to tell children, let alone fans, how to enjoy this movie? That doesn’t sound fair!

Does this mean Toy Story 4 doesn’t have flaws? Of course not! Buzz’s character regressions aside, Woody’s rediscovery of Bo Beep was too contrived and convenient. Considering he hadn’t seen her in almost a decade, for her to still be in California, let alone one of the stops Bonnie and her parents go to, feels forced. I also think the climactic joke involving Bonnie’s dad and the RV’s navigation, while funny, goes on for too long. Finally, Gabby Gabby’s obsession with Harmony was clearly going to fail, and the movie dwells on it too much.

However, if those are the movie’s biggest flaws, then Toy Story 4’s a much better movie than Nerdstalgic claims. And yeah, he’s entitled to not like Pixar’s recent sequels, even if I’ve enjoyed some more than most. But that shouldn’t be conflated with the movie being a “lazy cash-grab”. If anything, I think this movie’s due for reappraising. I only hope it’s honest, as opposed to what Nerdstalgic presented.

Jekyll and Hyde

(Note: This piece contains spoilers for The Substance. You’ve been warned.)

I’m turning 35 in July. That doesn’t technically make me “old”, but I’m not as spry as I used to be. My stomach rebels against me if I overeat, and I experience back and muscle spasms constantly. And while I feel youthful mentally, that most of my peers have either gotten married or had children occasionally makes me feel more aged than I am. Basically, getting older sucks. Especially when reality moves on without you.

While I feel time slipping me by, I also benefit from being a male. I’ve never experienced societal pressures about aging from the perspective of a woman, which is infinitely worse. Men getting older don’t have it “easy”, but for women it can be a nightmare. That’s why my viewing of The Substance was eye-opening. It was also somewhat off-putting.

The Substance is about aging actress Elisabeth Sparkle. Once an award-winning icon, she’s now a fitness instructor for middle-aged women on television. When her boss fires her on her 50th birthday, Elisabeth becomes desperate and wishes for a new lease on life. She gets that with The Substance, allowing her to live for 7 days at a time as a younger, fitter person. Unfortunately, Elisabeth, and her counterpart Sue, don’t see eye-to-eye, and they begin to clash.

Right from the opening, which is a microcosm of the movie, I knew this wasn’t going to be pleasant. If seeing Elisabeth’s Hollywood star cracked wasn’t subtle enough, the passerby dropping his lunch and trying to clean it up definitely drove home how fleeting Hollywood is. Even the prettiest stars become washed up over time, irrespective of how much Botox or plastic surgery they have. You can’t escape aging, essentially. It’s a shame so many people learn this the hard way.

The movie’s main conflict is of dual realities. The Substance, inspired by Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, focuses on Elisabeth and Sue’s duality, and how that impacts their relationship. Elisabeth considers Sue a leech who frequently feeds off of her life-force. Sue, in contrast, reviles Elisabeth, considering her a grotesque slob who doesn’t clean up after herself. Both are valid outlooks, but they ignore the stresses society places on them, something The Substance program exploits.

Everything reaches a head in the third-act, when a decrepit and withered Elisabeth gets fed up with Sue and tries terminating her existence. She doesn’t have the heart to do it, so she revives her to free her from their tether. Sue, mistaking this, kills Elisabeth, only to regret it when her body starts falling apart. So she takes The Substance again…and turns into an abomination known as Monstro. It’s here where the real tragedy and body horror kick in, complete with a climax where Monstro bleeds on an entire auditorium as her body crumbles from instability.

Even with the opening scene spelling this out, I wasn’t prepared for this. But maybe that’s the point? After all, Sue had been leeching on her host’s energy in order to stay youthful, and this was the consequence. Like the doctor who recommended The Substance pointed out in the diner, it wouldn’t take long before the younger model started abusing the process. It got me wondering if that doctor had regrets, but I guess that’s not relevant? Either way, food for thought.

The bigger theme is that of misogyny, particularly surrounding ageism. All throughout the movie, Elisabeth and Sue are judged by men. For Elisabeth, it’s because of her age “wearing out her beauty”, while with Sue it revolves around treating her like a play toy. This duality’s personified most with Harvey, a gross and greedy executive who objectifies them both. If the close-up of him eating crawfish wasn’t indicative, he only cares about his bottom line. It’s for this reason that I wish Monstro had murdered him as an act of revenge.

Perhaps the one glimmer of hope for Elisabeth is Fred. Fred sees Elisabeth for who she truly is, and he tries catching up with her at a fancy restaurant. Unfortunately, this is when Elisabeth’s starting to struggle with Sue overstepping her bounds, so she’s a no-show. That’s when I genuinely started feeling bad, especially since I’ve called off plans multiple times for health reasons before. If it can happen to her, it can happen to anyone. Especially with those who care.

My takeaway from The Substance is twofold: one, society places too much emphasis on staying young. This is at the expense of aging individuals, particularly woman, and their “less desired attributes”. I know the youth love railing on older generations, and not undeservedly, for issues they inherited, but sometimes it’s excessive. After all, they deserve dignity! And what’ll happen when the young become old? Will the tables turn on them?

And two, people should enjoy life, even when they’re old. I only have one surviving grandparent, and she’s recuperating from an injury. It’s been challenging for the whole family, and she’s not happy, but I frequently remind her to be thankful that her cognition’s intact. Because, at almost-92, that’s remarkable. Especially given how many of her friends are worse off than her.

The Substance is the perfect companion piece to Thelma, another movie from last year dealing with aging. It’s not as accessible, and it’s much gorier, raunchier and grosser, but the idea that we should value and embrace growing old, not neglect and ignore it, is still as prevalent. I have to credit Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley for their brilliant performances as Elisabeth and Sue, as it’s not easy pulling off that duality. The same goes for director Coralie Fargeat, who rooted this movie in her own experiences with aging.

There’s been much talk about how The Substance was robbed at The Academy Awards. I can’t say for sure if it deserved Best Picture, but I do see the argument for it warranting more respect. After all, if Parasite can win Best Picture, and that was also graphic, then why can’t The Substance? It’s not exactly for everyone, but it intrigued me. And I’m no horror fan!

I Choose You!

If you’re like me, chances are your love of Pokémon is mostly-conditional to the original games. I distinctly remember getting multiple play-throughs of Pokémon Yellow in on my Game Boy Color before it broke in 2001, as well as subsequent play-throughs on my Game Boy Advance. It was magical, and that high would never be replicated with future entries. So when the original games were announced as a reimagining for the Switch in 2018, I was intrigued. 7 years later, I’ve safely experienced what this reimagining, particularly Pokémon Let’s GO: Pikachu!, has to offer.

You basically take the role of a young trainer and set out to become a Pokémon master. As Professor Oak tries showing you the ropes, the two of you are startled by a wild Pikachu that Oak quickly catches. He then hands you this newly-captured Pikachu at his lab, while your childhood friend/rival takes an Eevee. From here, you venture through Kanto, find new Pokémon, battle trainers and prove your worth. It’s a basic hero’s journey experience, complete with a blank-slate character.

Truthfully, this game doesn’t have much of a story. It has plot points, all of which are rendered with beautiful cutscenes, but while several elements are expanded upon from the original games, this is as bare-bones as possible narratively. The true experience lies in interacting with NPCs, trainer and non-trainer alike, and getting glimpses into their lives. If there’s any recurring theme here, it’s about using Pokémon for selfish VS selfless reasons. This takes shape via the frequent encounters with Team Rocket, which includes Jesse and James from the TV series and their boss, Giovanni.

Save that, the allure of this game is reliving classic Gen 1 moments, but with fresh paint. It was nice perking up like Rick Dalton seeing himself on TV in Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood at the references, be it classic dialogue, or an item or two. My favourites involve that trainer on Cerulean City’s bridge who tries coercing you into joining Team Rocket, the initial encounter with Pokémon fanatic Bill and a back massage for the seasick captain of The SS Anne. There were other moments that got me, but none quite like these three.

Another aspect that’s revamped is the original OST. This isn’t the first time Gen 1 has been remade, but the tunes shine in full orchestrations. They might not be as impressive without the bleeps and bloops of the Game Boy, and perhaps they’re showing their age, but that doesn’t make them less-iconic. Like the visual references, these cues had me jumping for joy when they played. They made me feel 9 again.

But no Pokémon game’s complete without battles, of which there are plenty. Following tradition, whenever you make eye contact with another trainer, you have to battle them. If you win, you get money and items, as well as witness stock animations and reactions. If you lose, you fork over money, black out and have to run back to your nearest Poké Centre to heal. Fortunately, thanks to Pikachu learning Thunder and Zippy Zap, I only ever lost one battle. Zippy Zap was so effective I was practically invincible, leading to me to think, “Zippy Zap, shut your trap!” whenever I used it.

Then there are Gym Leaders. If regular battles tested you on the road, Gym Leaders were boss fights that helped progress through the game. Each one required a pre-set condition that made me explore and level up, while the gyms themselves had unique patterns that kept me guessing. Fuchsia City’s gym, for example, had an invisible maze with a path that occasionally lit up, forcing me to time your moves. In contrast, Celadon City’s gym had me teleport from rooftop-to-rooftop in an attempt to get to Sabrina, requiring me to hope I hadn’t already visited a rooftop. My one complaint is that Blaine’s gym felt like a downgrade from the original. It transformed a guessing game into a game show quiz, robbing most of the gym’s intrigue.

The change I’m mixed on involves the new Pokémon capturing mechanic. Because I play my Switch in docked mode, I could only use one joy-con. Being a weird individual, I chose the right joy-con, yet used it with my left hand. This mostly played out fine, but wild Pokémon, save some exceptions, no longer let you to battle them directly, instead relying on tossing a Poké Ball and praying. Ignoring how a good chunk of the original challenge was combatting Pokémon and whittling down their health, I have a notoriously-bad throwing arm and frequently felt like I was playing Russian Roulette. It helps that wild Pokémon are now telegraphed in the overworld, but that’s not enough of a trade-off.

On the flip-side, a mechanic I welcome involves interacting with Pikachu directly. Pokémon Yellow teased hints at this, but it’s here that this concept’s fully-utilized. With a simple waggle of the remote, you can see Pikachu’s mood, play with him and feed him berries. Essentially, your companion’s now your personal pet, made better by Pikachu learning moves in the overworld that are well-above his pay-grade. This is true with his ability to fly and surf, both of which defy logic for an electric rodent.

Pokémon Let’s GO: Pikachu! may not be anything outside a simple remake, save for some minor updates, and there’s little post-The Elite Four outside of Mewtwo and more specialized trainers, but it doesn’t need to be. It took me roughly 22 hours to complete the campaign, and 4 or 5 of those were me reacquainting with some of the objectives, so it’s also not particularly lengthy. Despite some quibbles with stock animations and the capture mechanic, this was a nice trip down memory lane. It might not be as complex as many newer titles, but sometimes simple’s best. And given that I started growing weary with Gen 2, that’s what I need. I only hope it’s what you need too.

Moses's Major Revelation

You don’t need me telling you The Prince of Egypt’s great. Not only did I write a piece about its music, but people have come around to acknowledging that recently. While there’s plenty to say about the movie, I’ll instead discuss one of my favourite scenes. It’s when Moses discovers the truth about his origins. And given that Val Kilmer recently passed, I figured now was a good time. Besides, it’s almost Passover.

It begins after Moses’s internal monologue, spoken in song, and his return to the palace after encountering his real siblings. Moses has received bombshell news, and he’s in denial. After convincing himself it’s all lies, he settles down near a column and falls sleep. He figures rest will fix everything. Besides, Miriam was lying…right?

Enter Moses’s dream. As the animation becomes stylized, Moses sees the current Pharaoh, Seti, signal his guards to begin their mission. Moses is chased along the pillars, ending up in Goshen. Once there, he witnesses these guards rip Hebrew babies from their mothers. It’s terrifying, and the haunting music underscores that.

Amidst all of this chaos, Moses spots a woman and her children in the shadows. These are Yocheved, his mother, and his siblings, and they’re staying out of sight. When the coast is clear, Moses follows them to The Nile River, whereupon Yocheved places a baby in a basket. We never are told who the baby is, but based on the interspersing of Yocheved’s lullaby, as well as Moses shedding a tear, it’s pretty obvious that it’s him. It’s this part that always makes me choke up.

We’re not given time to sit on this moment, however. No sooner is baby Moses off-screen when the guards chase adult Moses into The Nile River, whereupon we see many babies, a swarm of crocodiles and the colour red surround him. The symbolism’s obvious. This is also when the dream reaches its peak, with the music being frantic. Everything then fades to black. And all this with no words.

This would be powerful enough on its own, but The Prince of Egypt decides it hasn’t punished the audience enough. As Moses wakes up in shock, he senses something’s wrong. He grabs a torch and makes his way past some wall etchings, right until he encounters a dead end. It’s here that he sees the etching of Seti, towering over the guards and ordering them to throw Hebrew babies into The Nile. Moses has seen this before, but he’s now put two-and-two together. He slumps to the ground, drops his torch, and Yocheved’s lullaby is heard again.

Moses then feels a hand on his shoulder. It belongs to Seti. In most situations, this scene would have a consoling speech, a lie of sorts. Instead, Seti tells the truth, or the truth from his perspective: he had Hebrew babies killed so they wouldn’t rise up against the Egyptians. As Moses demands he tell him this didn’t happen, Seti confesses that “sometimes, for the greater good, sacrifices must be made”. Moses isn’t convinced, believing this was unjustified.

And then Seti delivers the coldest line in the movie so far: “Oh my son…they were only slaves.”

Firstly, that’s an incredibly weak justification. And secondly, Seti’s inability to feel the moment, or even console Moses, reemphasizes his barbarism. You can argue that Seti’s haunted by this, and he might even have PTSD, but does it excuse infanticide? How can he disregard human suffering, even if it’s from slaves? Is that the best he can do?

Well, Moses doesn’t buy it, as he retreats. It’s fitting that this is the last time we see Seti, as the movie never shifts back to him. It speaks for itself: Seti, the harsh-yet-loving father-figure, has had his true colours revealed. He’s not a kind man, but a monster with no regard for his servants. It’s also interesting that Patrick Stewart, usually known for warm, sympathetic heroes, voices Seti. It’s a clever twist on typecasting, and it shows how good an actor he is. Not to mention, it’s a great close-off for this scene.

Much has been said of The Prince of Egypt over the years. While beloved now, there was time when people were mixed on it. It’s ambitious, but the common complaint in 1998 was that that ambition was too lofty. It was also accused of being uneven tonally, with humour in its first-act that felt out-of-place. Yet time’s been kind, and people’s reactions have softened since. It’s now considered one of the great Biblical epics, up there with The Ten Commandments.

Despite this reappraisal, I find that Moses’s dream gets overlooked in favour of other moments. Those moments don’t work as well without this particular sequence setting up Moses’s arc. I think it deserves more praise. It especially deserves more praise considering Val Kilmer voiced Moses. It's easily one of his best roles.

Either way, rest in peace, and Happy Passover. Also, if you haven’t seen The Prince of Egypt yet, then you owe it to yourself. It’s easy to find, and it’s worth watching.

DROP THE PRICE!

How about that Switch 2 Direct? I’ve been waiting for in-depth coverage since it was announced in January, and it looks to be quite the impressive upgrade! The specs are improved, the controllers are improved, even the games look interesting! Surely there’s nothing to complain about, right? Right?!

Leave it to gamers to find something (legitimate) to be angry about. The Switch 2 debuts later this year at an astounding $450 US, making it the most-expensive console in the company’s history. This isn’t factoring in the exchange rate to CDN, which, when considering our weak currency right now, pegs it at closer to $620. Terrific! And the internet let it be known they weren’t happy during Nintendo’s livestream, with demands to “Drop the price!” being frequently spammed. Ignoring how Nintendo of America has no sway in pricing, it’s easy to sympathize. Why so expensive?

The issue here lies with geopolitics. The world’s currently stuck in a major tariff war, thanks to a certain American leader. It was recently revealed, during “Liberation Day”, that tariffs for every country around the world, with several exceptions, as well as some non-countries, would be enacted. Among these included Canada, Japan, China and Vietnam. The Asiatic countries appeared to be hit hardest, with Vietnam getting slapped mercilessly. Naturally, these countries slapped tariffs in turn. Isn’t life grand?

The surge in pricing, therefore, isn’t accidental. It sucks, but that’s how tariffs work. Contrary to misconceptions, a tariff’s an import tax the consumer, not the supplier, pays. And given how inflation’s already quite a doozy, this additional tax has contributed to the sales price of the Switch 2. Factor in Japan’s currently-weak Yen, which hasn’t been adjusted for inflation, and you see the problem. After all, someone’s got to foot the bill!

If I’m sounding cynical, it’s not because I don’t feel burned. Nintendo might be out to make a profit, but they’re not bleeding financially. A recent audit of Japanese companies showed that Nintendo had no significant debts to speak of, thanks to the Switch’s success. They can afford to operate at a loss with the Switch 2, even if the console’s not immediately profitable. I know Nintendo wants a return on their investment immediately, but consumers coughing up that much money for a video game console, especially with the cost of living, is a big ask. Especially when they pride themselves on affordability.

While it’d be nice for Nintendo to eat the tariffs, we don’t live in a world where companies sacrifice their bottom-line for their consumers. This is another example of that. The tariffs suck, and we’re starting to see the consequences. But it’s not only The US: Canada’s also being impacted here. This is on top of our Dollar, with the exchange rate being absolutely brutal. Together with Ontario’s 13% HST, it’s likely that the $620 cost will be a ballpark, not an exact. It’s for that reason that I’ll hold off on immediately getting a Switch 2, especially when I have Switch games I want to play.

Yes, these tariffs suck. I get it. However, we shouldn’t be surprised. People knew going into the 2024 elections that this’d happen should Donald Trump become president again. We knew…yet Americans decided the price of eggs mattered more. This is a natural consequence of that shortsightedness. It’s a consequence that’s bleeding into other countries.

If anything, this is a wake-up call that tariffs are bad on principle. It’s not like they haven’t been bad before, The Smoot-Hawley Act prolonged The Great Depression, but people have to be reminded of this now. Especially in The US, where people vote against their best interests regularly. Tariff wars are loser wars, and the consumer pays the biggest price. Nowhere is this more-apparent than the Switch 2’s price tag. Sorry.

Honestly, gamers should become more politically-active. We don’t normally think about local and federal politics, but geo-affairs impact us, for better or worse. This is yet another example of that. And it’ll only get worse. I hate it, but it’s a reality.

What can we do? For starters, gamers should make their voices known. And not at Nintendo employees, because that’s unhelpful. Rather, they should make their case to politicians. It doesn’t matter which political party they belong to, they represent us. Specifically, American gamers should let American politicians know they’re unhappy, as they have more sway than anyone else. I don’t care how, but it should happen.

Also, gamers need to understand that Nintendo has their hands tied. They've moved their manufacturing facilities to Vietnam to circumvent Chinese tariffs. Unfortunately, Vietnam was hit with 46% tariffs. Ergo, it didn’t even up mattering. It’d be nice if Nintendo ate the cost of these tariffs, but I also wish the wealthy paid their fair share in taxes. We know that’s not happening.

I want to reiterate that I understand the frustration here. I don’t want to pay $620 for hardware! I hope that either the tariff war’s rethought, or the Switch 2’s price drops to something more reasonable. Because while the tariffs aren’t shocking, the display of greed is a problem. Nintendo’s been around since 1889. They know when to adapt. Their inability to read the room, or the consumer’s wallet, is, therefore, a real problem.

However, gamers need to be realistic when it comes to complaining about the Switch 2. This isn’t entirely Nintendo’s fault. They can only mitigate so much damage. This is really the end-result of a president with a huge ego. If change is to happen, it’s best to start there. That’s more important than the Switch 2’s price tag being too expensive, truthfully.

End-Credits Scenes SUCK?

Despite disagreeing with some of his takes, I have great respect for Patrick H. Willems. Even when I don’t agree with him on movies, which is often, I appreciate how much thought and research actually went into his videos. Nevertheless, I was dreading his piece on end-credits scenes, as I had many preconceived ideas I knew would clash with his. But I gave it a watch. And while he did a good job, I think that I should respond. Here goes:

Now, I don’t have the time, or patience, to research as extensively as Patrick. I’m not only not paid, but researching online can become tedious because of my Autism. Therefore, I’ll take his history on post-credit scenes at face value. It’ll be less of a headache for me that way. My response will instead focus on my personal experience with post-credits scenes. That doesn’t mean I’ll go easy on him, though. I never do.

Also, Patrick’s video making style can be…gratuitous. He’s a stickler for intros and storylines that go on for too long. This was especially true with The Charl Saga, which dragged on and was concluded with a mini-movie on Nebula. Ignoring how I don’t have Nebula, (why would I pay for videos when YouTube exists?), Patrick’s ambitions as a filmmaker frequently outpace his essay sensibilities. He enjoys making movies, or he wouldn’t have one premiering soon, but the bleed-over into his general content makes him another victim of YouTube bloat.

I mention all of this because Patrick oversimplifies and overcomplicates a nuanced subject like post-credit scenes. He’s right that there are an excess of them, and many are done poorly. But comparing them to an addiction, aside from trivializing addictions, ignores why people like them. I don’t think it’s a shallow “X person’s in here!” reaction with them. At least, not from me.

See, I used to not be a fan of sticking around for the credits. Occasionally I’d challenge myself and play games with friends to see how many Jewish names we spotted, but I usually got up and left. When the movie ended, so did my interest. And, naturally, I’d go home. That was the case for years, even when movies reused the musical motifs in their credits.

But then I matured. I think it was around the time I got into movies seriously, but I stayed behind to soak in what I’d watched. This was also around the time I had more disposable income, specifically my early-20’s, and movies were a far cheaper hobby than video games, so seeing them meant saving money. I also figured that since I paid out of my own pockets, I had more of an investment, and therefore should milk the experience for its worth. Staying for the credits, even if I didn’t remember who worked on what, was me staking my claim.

This is something I’ve only become more and more invested in since then, made easier by movies having end-credits scenes regularly. It’s my reward for sticking it out after the movie, reflecting on what I’d watched. Even if the end-credits scene “sucks”, it’s extra minutes I don’t mind wasting. And yeah, theatre employees have to wait longer to clean theatres because of that, I had a theatre job for a year and a half. But that’s not so much a problem with the movie as it is theatres shoving as many screenings in as possible in one day.

Another aspect of post-credits scenes that I like, and this wasn’t mentioned by Patrick, is that they’re transactional. To use a loose comparison, around the time I got into movies, I also got into anime movies. Anime movies frequently have something in the credits to keep audiences from leaving. Perhaps there’s a cultural reason, but if audiences are expected to stay through the credits, there might as well be something to sweeten the deal. Having post-credits scenes might be the North American equivalent of this phenomenon. We wait out of respect for the staff that worked on the movie, even if we don’t remember them, and in return we’re rewarded.

I like this. It might be frustrating for some filmmakers in the industry, which Patrick mentions in the video, but filmmakers aren’t most filmgoers. They look for different experiences than the average person, and they’re trained to be more critical. What may be a “cheap stinger at the end of a finished story” to them is a nice bonus to most people. And unlike Patrick’s insinuations, rather rudely too, moviegoers don’t only talk about the post-credits scenes. I think he gives them too little credit.

The post-credits scene “epidemic” correlating with the rise of franchised blockbusters isn’t accidental, especially with the decline in theatregoing experiences. Simply put, movie theatres aren’t fun to be in anymore. The ticket prices are outrageous, the concessions are a rip-off, the patrons lack etiquette, the trailers and pre-shows take forever and the movies themselves are increasingly-bloated. Also, many theatres are accessible to the bare minimum, leaving people with hearing or vision problems out of the equation. The movie star might be “dead”, which doesn’t bother me, and the sex-appeal of movies might be “dwindling”, which also doesn’t bother me, but there are real issues with modern theatre chains. Issues that, honestly, I only started noticing more with the pandemic and scaling back trips for new releases.

I’m not alone. You know how the average moviegoer ventures to the cinema a few times each year? A big reason, aside from cost, is that streaming and home releases have made cinemas increasingly obsolete. I see pre-show trailers begging people to see movies in theatres, the “way they’re meant to be seen”, but movies don’t have a specific “way” to be seen. If you want to go to a theatre to see a movie, good for you! But don’t shame people for lacking the time, money, or patience.

If movies are to justify theatre trips, they need a hook. That’s where post-credits scenes, particularly from The MCU, come in. Kevin Feige knows how to get people pumped for another entry. He knows people will be talking if they have something to look forward to, or he wouldn’t keep doing this. Patrick can complain all he wants, but end-stingers are good business decisions. They also make The MCU feel bigger than one or two movies, as if we’re only seeing a fraction of the story.

Honestly, the problem’s less “end-credits scenes” and more “bad end-credits scenes”. Because there are too many of the latter nowadays. It’s a problem even Marvel movies are starting to struggle with, focusing on shock value more than quality storytelling. End-credits scenes need to enhance what’s come before and hype what’s to come, not be there “because”. Or they can be a humorous pay-off to something, that works too.

I don’t intend to purposely demean Patrick’s frustrations, or anyone else’s. He’s entitled to be annoyed here, and he’s not alone. But I think he’s letting his personal biases get in the way of a trend that, for the most part, doesn’t ruin anything. The modern movie landscape has many other, more-pressing concerns, truthfully. Like how movie theatres aren’t conducive to patrons, something I’ve yet to see him actually address.