KPop, Meet Disney/Pixar

I’d put off watching KPop Demon Hunters for ages. Yes, it was the hottest movie on Netflix. Yes, it was well-received, being a frontrunner for Best Animated Feature at next year’s Oscars. And yes, it has several songs trending right now. But even with all of that, I was resistant for a single reason:

The fans were irritating.

I’m aware that that’s childish. Yet whether it was the videos on how “KPop Demon Hunters is girl power done right!”, or using the movie to trash-talk Disney and Pixar’s recent outings, I figured giving it a watch would give these mind-numbing arguments their time of day. Because the internet already fails when having nuanced and thoughtful conversations about serious topics, giving oxygen to bad-faith actors in art and entertainment would be too much to handle. Still, fair’s fair. And after swallowing my pride, I can safely say that KPop Demon Hunters is an 8/10 experience.

But this isn’t about that. I can talk forever about the movie, yet that wouldn’t counteract sitting through endless bashing of the competition. Animation’s difficult enough without trashing the competition, so an honest rebuttal’s in order. Turn your “Hasn’t defended Disney in __ days” dial to 0, let’s get started. Also, I won’t hold back.

Perhaps the biggest sticking point is claiming this movie “does girl power right”. First of all, define “right”. Better yet, define “does girl power right”. The internet loves using this boogeyman like it’s a boss in a “woke” video game that needs defeating. Not only is it demeaning, it doesn’t even make sense. What about having women leads qualifies as “girl power”? Is it because the protagonists have vaginas? Is it because they discuss girl-centric topics? Enlighten me.

I wouldn’t be as annoyed if there were solid examples. Better yet, I wouldn’t be as annoyed if the examples listed held weight. But they don’t. They’re empty, coded and sexist attacks against women in storytelling, particularly in pop culture. God forbid a woman star in anything! And heaven help us if the stories are relatable to girls!

It's not like I’m pulling this from thin air. Remember Turning Red? Remember how it dealt with puberty and menstruation? Remember how it was well-received critically, yet chastised for discussing “icky pre-teen stuff”? I thought the movie was great! But because it catered to a niche, as opposed to a “general audience”, it was considered “forced girl power”.

Was it really a “specific niche”? Over half the world’s population is female, and menstruation’s a big concern for that demographic. I can’t speak from personal experience, but I’d consider that a universal concept. That’s something Pixar, masters of making the obscure universal, excels at. Why’s this different?

The obvious answer is that Turning Red, arguably one of Pixar’s best from their new talent, is female-centric and directed by a Chinese-Canadian woman. This ties into the view that women, particularly minority women, should be seen and not heard. They should uphold the status quo, not challenge it. It’s incredibly racist and patriarchal. Having a movie focused on that subset’s struggles rocks the boat.

Except…which boat are we talking about? Critics point to “the established order”, but orders aren’t indefinite. They come and go. Besides, white patriarchy being the status quo is a fiction upheld by fragile men. It’s why the “good old days” never existed, as people were already challenging the status quo then too. People merely forget that because they have blinders on.

Which leads me back to KPop Demon Hunters being “girl power done right”. Ignoring how much coded sexism and racism is baked in, KPop Demon Hunters has a pretty standard story about self-acceptance and discrimination underneath its art-style and pop numbers. It looks unique, sure, but it’s not reinventing the wheel narratively. If we’re going by innovation, Turning Red has the more groundbreaking narrative. The only difference is that it’s from Pixar, making it “less-interesting”.

I hate this conversation. Yes, KPop Demon Hunters is a “girl power” story. But that’s not something the movie’s hiding. It’s also not hiding its love for KPop, especially with its premise feeling like something South Korea’s animation industry would conjure up as an afterthought. It’s novel for Westerners, but not for Easterners. And for sure not for those familiar with Korean pop-idols.

By saying “girl power done right”, you’re hurting women of all stripes. It’s true that many female-centric stories in Hollywood are trying too hard. But they’re at least trying. Hollywood’s track-record with minority representation is pretty abysmal, and they’re playing catch-up right now. The real issue isn’t women-centric storytelling, but a lack of women in the writer’s room. It’s an issue of accuracy, and it should be allowed room to change. That’s doesn’t happen by tearing down misfires, which is what’s happening.

It’d be great if more movies about women were hits. But that’s not the case. Like everything else, you have to walk before you can run. And Disney and Pixar, for all of their faults, are doing that. They aren’t always succeeding, but they’re trying.

Lastly, we should stop assuming that “girl power” is altruistic. It’s not. Hollywood’s a business, and businesses are out to make money. The recent trend in female-centric storytelling, which KPop Demon Hunters is part of, only exists because executives looked at women and saw profit in catering to them. That’s the reason behind the recent “glut in girl power”. If you don’t understand that, then you’re not media literate.

So yes, there’s no need to tear down Disney and Pixar to build up KPop Demon Hunters. Can we stop unfairly comparing them now?

DK's Spectacular Bananzas

How about that Donkey Kong Bananza? Despite taking umbrage with one aspect, I thoroughly enjoyed it! And why wouldn’t I? It not only combines destruction with singing, which surprisingly works, it’s also a great time. It might even be my favourite Donkey Kong game! However, its best element is the Bananza transformations, each of which is a different animal and has a corresponding tune that Pauline sings. Why not rank them?

By the way, spoilers ahead. If you haven’t played it and are on the fence, I suggest trying out Donkey Kong Bananza for yourself first.

5. Zebra Bananza:

This is my least-favourite Bananza. Yes, the design looks bonkers, as zebras don’t walk on their hind legs. Yes, the song that Pauline sings is a banger. And yes, dashing over collapsing bridges is great. But aside from that, what does it truly accomplish?

I know this’ll upset fans of it, but the Zebra Bananza’s lame in relation to the others. It might allow me to run quickly, especially when platforms are flimsy, but still. What does being a ridiculously-shaped zebra offer that other Bananzas don’t? Even in combat, the Zebra Bananza pales to the others. All it can do is punch faster, and that’s not exciting.

I’ll give it this: aside from its design, having a buff marathon runner as a Bananza is neat. It might be impractical for everything else, but it can actually evade attacks. It’s also funny that you acquire it in the Ice Layer, as zebras aren’t cold weather animals. Nevertheless, this is the Bananza I go back to the least. Sorry.

4. Snake Bananza:

Ignoring the Zebra Bananza, the Snake Bananza isn’t all that impressive. It’s the final Bananza you acquire, and it feels like it was included only because the developers had room for one more. However, whereas the Zebra Bananza feels lacking, the Snake Bananza has several advantages. Never mind that it also looks cool, being a coiled snake with arms. What could it have that stands out?

Two features. The first involves slowing down time. It’s not immediate, and it doesn’t last long, but slowing down time in combat can be an asset with fast-moving enemies. I initially found myself using it quite a bit after acquiring it, as many of the enemies moved too quickly in real time. It also allowed me to get past a part that actually required it, as it had many obstacles that forced me to slow down time. It wasn’t perfect, but it helped.

The second feature involves spring jumping/double jumping. This might not seem so big at first, but it comes in handy in hard to reach places. Similarly, the Snake Bananza can shatter through platforms that wouldn’t crumble otherwise while jumping or landing. So while not the best Bananza, feeling like an afterthought, I prefer it to the Zebra Bananza. Also, the matching tune has Pauline rapping lyrics at one point.

3. Ostrich Bananza:

The only bird, the Ostrich Bananza’s a conundrum: on one hand, ostriches can’t fly, making the flying Bananza into one big head-scratcher. On the other hand, I’ve never understood why ostriches are flightless birds, so this is the ultimate power fantasy. Besides, Pauline calls out the ridiculousness of the Ostrich Bananza’s powers, so the game’s self-aware. The Ostrich Bananza being a decent power-up helps.

Perhaps the selling point, as I said previously, is flying. Not long distances, but the ability to fly gives the Ostrich Bananza an advantage with far away platforms. The Ostrich Bananza can also dive-bomb enemies in the air, made easier by being carried higher with fans. It’s nice having the Ostrich Bananza be aviation-friendly, allowing you to avoid attacks in midair. It also has a funky beat to compliment it.

My one critique of the Ostrich Bananza involves its egg bombs. I don’t understand how they work. You get several to use, and while not entirely useless, the eggs aren’t always effective. I found myself preferring to use chunks of broken ground instead, as those are easier to understand. But I guess old habits die hard, right? It’s still a cool Bananza.

2. DK Bananza:

The first Bananza you acquire, the DK Bananza, catchiness of its melody aside, is a beast to have in your arsenal. Not only is it an overpowered brawler, being excellent for hand-to-hand combat, it can also punch through barriers you can’t break otherwise. I found myself switching between it and one other Bananza in the latter part of the game because of how powerful it is, taking out baddies with a charged punch. The DK Bananza can also send boulders flying.

Actually, let’s zone in on that. In a later level, I found myself confronted by a giant boulder I couldn’t move. I needed to get rid of it, but nothing worked…until I used a charged punch. This wasn’t only satisfying, it helped me prepare for the upcoming boss, as my opponent tossed boulders frequently. Using a charged punch from the DK Bananza was, therefore, useful, even if I learned I could do that late.

Above everything, the DK Bananza’s an overpowered and effective brawler. Need to beat enemies quickly? Activate the DK Bananza. Need to break through a wall? Activate the DK Bananza. Need to deliver a powerful punch? You know what to do. Bless the DK Bananza!

1. Elephant Bananza:

The Elephant Bananza’s my favourite. Right when I saw its powers, as well as heard its tune, I knew I was in for a treat. My only regret was not having access to it earlier. Seriously, a Bananza that doubles as a vacuum cleaner? And an efficient one? Sign me up!

The Elephant Bananza’s greatest asset’s its trunk. Why? Because it can inhale matter. This is helpful because some matter, like volcanic ash and thorns, is harmful if you come in contact with it, so inhaling it becomes a priority. It’s super helpful.

Additionally, the Elephant Bananza converts inhaled matter into boulders to toss at enemies. And it can whip out 10 boulders per transformation. This is a necessity later on, especially with more difficult enemies and bosses. I often found myself toggling back-and-forth between the Elephant and DK Bananzas to make my life easier, with the former my immediate go-to for clearing paths. It’s also why the Elephant Bananza’s my favourite one.

And that about does it for this! Now then, about that mysterious Lion Bananza…

Load of Croc!

Originally I wanted to write a review of Donkey Kong Bananza. I recently beat the game, and I really enjoyed it. It felt like Donkey Kong’s answer to Super Mario Odyssey, which I assume was intentional. However, there’s a lingering issue with the game that won’t leave me alone, and I’ve decided it’s worth discussing it. It’ll involve spoiling the game, but that’s inevitable. Because it really bothers me:

I don’t think King K. Rool should’ve been the real villain.

For context, this game follows Donkey Kong and a 13 year-old girl named Pauline as they head to their planet’s core. Along the way, they encounter Void Co., a mining syndicate desperate to get there first. It’s basically a race between DK/Pauline and Void Co., with various shenanigans along the way. Together with Pauline’s singing voice, DK punches his way through enemies and textures, sometimes as animals called “Bananzas”, so as to outwit Void Co. It’s a fun experience with many inventive worlds.

Toward the end of the game, the story makes a bold reveal. Apparently, the leader of Void Co. has mistaken the Banandium Root, the planet’s core, for a sleeping crocodile. Said crocodile is DK’s foe from previous games, King K. Rool. King K. Rool, for some reason, wound up in the planet’s core after a battle with DK, and he’s out for revenge. After discarding Void Co.’s leader like he’s nothing, King K. Rool decides to use the Banandium Root himself. Realizing they’ve unleashed a monster, DK and Pauline chase after him.

Now, I was spoiled by King K. Rool being in this game via a YouTube thumbnail before I’d even encountered him. However, I thought that his presence was a fake-out, perhaps a decoy by Void Co. So when it turned out that King K. Rool was the true mastermind, I was disappointed. Yes, his two battles are as challenging as they are enjoyable, and I appreciate the nod to Donkey Kong Country with the fake credits. But his inclusion was unnecessary. In fact, it’s as bad as the Zant/Ganondorf fake-out in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, except worse because Ganondorf was foreshadowed early on.

For those who remember my ScrewAttack days, I have two rules for whether or not twist reveals are good: they should make sense in the context of the story, and they should progress the story in a good direction. King K. Rool being here fits the latter (somewhat), but fails at the former. It’s a shame, as King K. Rool isn’t a bad villain, even putting up a worthy fight. Nevertheless, I must remain firm in my assertion that his presence wasn’t telegraphed effectively. In fact, it wasn’t telegraphed at all.

I know some of you will disagree, stating that he was “the best part of the game”. To that, I only half-agree. Yes, King K. Rool returning after a decades-long absence was cool. He hadn’t been in a mainline Donkey Kong title since Donkey Kong 64 in 1999. He’s also more threatening than Void Co. But he wasn’t necessary. And his absence wouldn’t have hurt the overall experience.

Some of you might claim that the other baddies would’ve telegraphed his presence. I disagree. Yes, the enemies looked suspiciously like King K. Rool’s goons. But that doesn’t mean anything. After all, up until the final layer, none of them looked like his goons when defeated. They looked like skeletons that turned into gold after being punched by DK.

Truthfully, Donkey Kong Bananza should’ve gone one of two ways with King K. Rool. The first is to have him be the villain from the get-go. Bypass Void Co. altogether, simply have King K. Rool be who DK and Pauline have to stop. It’s not like his inclusion couldn’t work from the start, especially with the wacky shenanigans he’s been up to before. Alternatively, if you wanted to include Void Co., have them as hired goons.

The second option would be axing King K. Rool. Like Bowser and Ganondorf, not every entry, even a mainline one, in the Donkey Kong franchise needs to have King K. Rool as the primary antagonist. Besides, Void Co. was plenty threatening! Their leader even put up a decent fight multiple times! And if the game wanted an epic finale, have Void Co.’s leader, who was already frustrated, head for the Banandium Root and cause chaos himself. It’d make more sense than him as a cheap fake-out.

I suppose it’s too late to remedy this. Irrespective of my thoughts, King K. Rool’s the final boss, and I have to live with that. Though it doesn’t make me any less-frustrated. It feels cheap and unearned, even if many people liked it. I say this despite loving the game and both fights with King K. Rool. Go figure!

Yes, Nintendo isn’t known for their high-grade storytelling. Yes, having Pauline be active, as opposed to a damsel in distress, is a step in the right direction for a company averse to change. But that doesn’t change how King K. Rool being the true antagonist is a cop-out. And if it weren’t for his history with Donkey Kong, he’d also be forgettable. I expect better from Nintendo.

So yes, I’m not happy about King K. Rool’s presence. It doesn’t make Donkey Kong Bananza any worse, but it’s a disappointment.

It's Fantastic, Right?

The Fantastic Four IP, despite being Marvel’s first, hasn’t had much success on film. Despite 4 movies, 5 if you include the Roger Corman venture, the franchise has long been considered a joke. It wasn’t until the most-recent entry that they starred in something critically-acclaimed. The best portrayals of Fantastic Four characters until now were two cameos that were killed for shock effect. Make of that what you will.

The question on my mind was, “What makes this newest Fantastic Four movie different?”. After all, the previous movies were in conversation with one another, yet they all suffered from similar problems. And while you’d think Marvel working directly on The Fantastic Four: First Steps would guarantee a success, if recent years are indication, well…that’s not assured. So what made this work? I think it boils down to something lacking in previous attempts: sincerity. Specifically, respectful sincerity.

I’ll make a disclaimer: I’ve only seen the 2005 movie prior to this one. However, based on how bored I was, as well as word of mouth and clips of the other movies, I can deduce that they suffered from the problem of, “These Fantastic Four characters are lame”. It’s a shame, as their comics suggested otherwise. Even prior MCU cameos, which were comic accurate, didn’t help with this notion, as both Reed Richards and Johnny Storm were murdered. It felt like the films were embarrassed by these characters, to the point of scrubbing anything fun or exciting.

Take the 2005 and 2007 movies. These are part of the same franchise, thus fair game to lump together. However, while the tone might be correct, mostly, the writing’s a mess. The 2005 movie is way too long, and when it doesn’t feature plot-related action, it spends its time with science lessons and pointless hijinks. I love Chris Evans as an actor, but I can only stomach his “immature frat-boy” personality for so long before wanting to punch a hole in his chest. Thank God the movie does that, except without the fatality.

This isn’t helped by the movie routinely stopping to share anecdotes about rocks, fire, rubber, invisibility and metal. Which leads to the second problem, that being its inability to shut up. I like chemistry, even if it was never a subject I excelled at, but I don’t care to hear what happens when rubber’s frozen. Or I’d prefer the movie not shout it out. It’s more satisfying watching Reed Richards freeze and become brittle without the movie spelling it out.

Arguably the movie’s biggest problem is its antagonist. Like Galactus being a storm cloud in the sequel, this movie doesn’t trust the audience buying Victor Von Doom as a mad scientist and dictator. He might be overly-theatrical, but he has potential to be scary. Yet this movie gives Victor a new origin, that being a casualty of the same solar eruption that gave the others their superpowers. It also rips off Spider-Man’s Green Goblin portrayal, with Victor’s transformation being gradual and chaotic. Yes, it’s cool watching his metallic casing slowly cover him, but at what cost?

I haven’t seen the 2015 reboot entirely, even though I’ve written about its production, but it has the same problems as the 2005 franchise and news ones entirely. On one hand, it doesn’t respect Doom’s character, creating an even more convoluted origin for his powers. On the other hand, it’s also overly bleak and dour. Based on what I’ve watched online, Fant4stic, as it’s been called, is gritty and grounded in the vein of Christopher Nolan, except without any life or levity. Nolan’s characters crack jokes and have genuine emotions, even amidst their exposition, and Josh Trank’s movie forgets that. In fact, I don’t think the characters even crack a smile.

Fant4stic seems to have every problem the 2005 and 2007 movies are guilty of, and more. In an attempt to distance itself, it’s learned all the wrong lessons. And this is while adding new ones. There’s a reason Fant4stic’s one of the worst-reviewed comic book movies, surpassing Batman & Robin. Considering some of the slop superheroes have given us, that’s no easy feat! But when you don’t respect the material, that’s what happens. Especially since, outside of X-Men and maybe Blade, 20th Century Fox had no clue what to do with Marvel’s IPs.

Perhaps it’s only fair that Marvel now owns the Fantastic Four characters. We can argue the ethics of their acquisition, which I’ve already done, but considering the abuse many of Marvel’s IPs experienced prior, The Fantastic Four: First Steps being the first well-received entry in the IP’s history was inevitable. And yes, it has issues, as all MCU films do. But when it embraces to looney sincerity of the IP, even down to its antagonists, it’s clear we’d have a winner right from its final trailer. That much was guaranteed.

It also shows that sincerity still works. I like The MCU, but its biggest drawback is not always taking its in-universe story beats seriously. It’s fine to have your characters crack jokes, especially when it helps the world feel lived-in, but at some point that’s too much. The Fantastic Four: First Steps avoiding that works in its favour, surprisingly. Then again, when your movie takes place separate from most of The MCU, I guess you can get away with that.

That’s the secret here. Yes, The Fantastic Four’s a silly IP. But so are most superheroes. That a person with weird powers would fight crime is, in itself, ridiculous, and a good adaptation would acknowledge that. At the same time, it’d treat it with dignity, which this newest movie does. Perhaps some of its writing feels a little sterile, but I’ll take that if the movie’s good.

Now, about that end-credits scene…