Netflix and WB

In 2017, I wrote two pieces about the Disney/20th Century Fox merger. In them, I discussed any pros or cons I could think of. My thoughts have evolved since, but the one constant is the lack of healthy competition. I mention this because we’re now seeing another merger occur. And like last time, I have questions I’m unsure will be answered with Netflix purchasing Warner Bros.

Warner Bros. hasn’t been doing well financially for some time. There are several reasons for that, but CEO David Zaslav hasn’t helped. The studio’s financial woes came to light when it was announced they were up for sale earlier this year, leaving everything to whichever studio was willing to bite. The odds appeared to be with Universal/Paramount, since President Trump was hoping for that merger, but Netflix swooped in at the last minute. While, as of writing this, there are last-minute details that need finalizing, given how everything’s playing out it’s likely that this’ll go through.

Which brings me to my first few questions: how long will this take? What are the next steps for the two companies? Mergers are often slow and tedious, based on what I’ve seen, so there are many variables up in the air. I know CNN and The Discovery Channel won’t be impacted, as per the agreement, but everything else will be. And it’s a lot.

How will this merger operate? Will David Zaslav remain CEO of Warner Bros.? Will he be co-CEO alongside Netflix? Will Netflix’s CEOs take over running Warner Bros.? Or will Netflix find a brand new CEO?

Will Warner Bros. retain its namesake, or will it be renamed? That was a sticking point with the Disney/Fox merger, with the latter being renamed 20th Century Studios. If that happens with Warner Bros., will its new name be something more corporate? I can see “Bros.” being dropped, since none of the brothers are alive, but axing “Warner” feels dishonest. Like removing “Walt” from “Walt Disney”, it’d be like losing a part of history.

What’ll happen to Warner Bros.’ catalogue? Recall that Warner Bros. has been around for over a century, and they have a massive library of shows and movies. Like MGM, Warner Bros. remained a mainstay through their highs and lows, and that’s been exemplified with their output. If this merger’s finalized, will Netflix treat its new backlog with more respect than Zaslav? Or will it treat it worse?

What’ll happen to the shows and projects Warner Bros. was working on beforehand? Will they be axed? Will the reboot of the Harry Potter franchise still happen as planned? Will there be more Lord of the Rings content? Will James Gunn’s reboot of the DCU continue, especially since he’s had a promising start?

What about HBO? Will HBO run independently? Will Last Week Tonight continue on, or will John Oliver’s late-night bloc get axed? Will all currently-syndicated programs on HBO continue, or will they be axed too? And if so, to what extent?

How about foreign licenses? The biggest one is, of course, Studio Ghibli. They already have Western distribution rights through HBO and Netflix, depending on where you live, so the custody battle will be on the table. What’ll happen? Will nothing change, or will everything change?

For Netflix, will there be an overhaul? Netflix recently put out a statement that they are no plans for price increases, but for how long? If the price increases, by how much? And if it doesn’t, does that mean HBO and Netflix will remain separate bundles, or will they be merged?

How will this impact movie releases? Will Warner Bros. release everything, or will they scale back? Will Netflix release more movies theatrically, as opposed to special events? I know Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has stated he’s never been fond of the theatregoing experience, but will that mentality change now? Will Sarandos be more receptive to theatres?

How many jobs will be cut during restructuring? This was a sticking point for Disney after absorbing 20th Century Fox, and it’s going to happen here too. I doubt the higher ups will suffer, but will grunt workers have to find new employment? Will there be pushback? And how much pushback?

How does this impact holdings? I know it sounds weird to ask that, but mergers are financially-motivated and impact shares in a company. Will Netflix and Warner Bros. see stock surges? Will one or the other drop in the short term? Will investors only see long-term payoffs?

The biggest elephant in the room, maybe the second-biggest, involves long-term retention. I think back to what caused MGM to get scooped up by Amazon: frequent sales and buybacks. The late-Kirk Kerkorian owned MGM three times, each time selling the company for spare parts to help finance real estate. Given his tenure doomed MGM, who’s to say Warner Bros., which has been sold several times, won’t suffer the same fate should another Kerkorian-like figure pop up?

Most-importantly, why’s this merger happening now? And why’s The FCC approving it, like they did Disney and 20th Century Fox? If The FCC’s purpose is to monitor corporate mergers, then why’s there no pushback here? Perhaps my personal politics are getting in the way, but isn’t this corporate overreach? Am I wrong to assume that?

It's possible that these questions, and more, will be answered in the future. I’m not a fortune teller, after all. But that I’ve posed them at all should be cause for short-term alarm, assuming they hold weight legally. I also don’t know enough about corporate politics to be an expert, so all my questions should be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, I’m worried about the future of filmmaking. Even if I’m not fond of how David Zaslav has managed Warner Bros., I’m not sure this is the answer. We’ll have to wait and see.

In the meantime, whether you agree or disagree, these are my thoughts. Perhaps those of you reading this will know more than me, I can’t say.

Dimly Lit Entertainment

I’ve mentioned this before, but one of my biggest frustrations with film buffs is them acting like modern cinema is dead. Not only does the whining sound pretentious, but it’s not rooted in fact. “Cinema is dead”? No, it’s not! And you’re reinforcing how little you understand about it!

I mention this because of yet another punching bag: movie lighting. Specifically, shadows and lack thereof. Apparently, modern moviemaking lacks the cinematic flair of the past, with shadows for dramatic effect being non-existent. This sounds great in theory, but it doesn’t hold weight. If we’re being honest, I’m not even sure what qualifies as “good lighting” anyway.

Perhaps the best way to explain this is to use classic films for reference. Older movies had a different look than modern ones. This largely comes down to development. Film reels are time consuming and difficult to use properly, and they’re fragile. Plus, like all analogue technology, they have to be treated and developed manually, meaning there’s plenty of room for errors or mistakes. I don’t begrudge older film techniques, they were innovative for their time, but there’s a reason celluloid went out of style.

One of the consequences of manual production of film was lighting. Without going into too much detail, film strips had to be stored carefully in dimly-lit environments, and the lighting often reflected that. Add in that people would get oils from their hands on the strips, or that cigarette ash would spill from smoking, and that unintended grime would make its way onto the celluloid. This isn’t accounting for projectors stretching the reels, contributing to picture quality fading over time. Old-school film reels had a certain process that made lighting look the way it did.

This stands in contrast to digital filmmaking, which lacks the grime celluloid was infamous for. Digital isn’t only easier to work with, it’s also more “artificial”. That’s not to say celluloid lighting can’t be replicated, Knives Out pulled it off, but it’s harder to achieve because computers lack the imperfections of real people. So while the barrier for entry is lower now, the claims of something being “lost” are obvious to those who’ve studied the medium. This includes lighting.

I’m no filmmaker. My area of expertise is writing. But while I can’t tell the difference between 35mm film and digital film, I know that the change in lighting was inevitable. And I don’t begrudge the loss. Because while I admire the craft that went into manual filmmaking, especially as someone who learned XHTML during my ScrewAttack days, there’s a reason it died out. Manual filmmaking’s tedious, and with computers making it easier and safer to do visual effects work, the lighting had to change to accommodate that. Also, it’s not like the filters used in modern moviemaking existed with analogue films, right?

So yeah, claims of cinematic lighting being “non-existent” nowadays are farfetched. I also think they’re misleading, and insulting. Lighting’s an important part of a scene’s composition. It tells the audience what to focus on, it lets them know what matters in a scene and it helps the performers be noticed. It can also determine the time of day, the setting where a scene takes place and what the audience should feel. Lighting can even enhance genres, with horror and romance being lit differently. None of that’s disappeared with digital filmmaking, it’s merely adapted.

And this is why I’m confused: modern lighting pales to older lighting? Guess what? Not only did the past not have such sophisticated technology, it also didn’t have to contend with the same limitations. A movie like Avatar couldn’t have been made when James Cameron first conceived it because there were too many limitations, so he had to wait. Conversely, the original Star Wars Trilogy could easily be recreated nowadays, but they’d lack their old school feel. Every decade of filmmaking has pros and cons, and lighting reflects that.

Additionally, movies aren’t meant to be lit like reality. They’re stories that exaggerate reality, and you’re supposed to suspend your disbelief. Even with older movies, where you have to suspend your disbelief even further, I’ve never once thought something I was watching was 100% real. I might have been moved by what I was seeing, but I always registered it as fake. So why does it matter if “movies are no longer lit like movies”, whatever that means?

This whole argument is predicated on nonsense. That isn’t to say that there aren’t legitimate issues with how many movies are lit nowadays. Plenty of modern experiences are hard to see because the lighting’s bad, I’ll admit that. But that’s not a byproduct of bad lighting all around, it’s a byproduct of bad filmmaking! And bad filmmaking’s always existed!

I wish people would take off their nostalgia goggles and recognize this. Perhaps something was “lost” in the transition to digital. I grew up in the 90s and 2000s, I’m well-aware of that transitionary period. But that doesn’t mean cinematic lighting doesn’t still exist. Because what constitutes as “cinematic lighting”, other than drawing attention to what’s on the screen? I wish people had the self-awareness to answer that question.

This is also an unfair dig at streaming services. There’s plenty I don’t like about streaming, and I’ve mentioned it in other pieces. But cinematic lighting? The one element that everything that’s been filmed has? The only reason something can be seen in a theatre or on TV at all? If “cinematic lighting” doesn’t exist nowadays, then clearly reality’s been gaslighting me!

But sure, blame modern filmmaking for “ruining cinematic lighting”. In the meantime, I’m going to do something much more productive.

Hollywood's Antisemitism Problem

Despite the extreme reactions of some, Antisemitism, like other bigotries, is a problem in Hollywood. It seems counterintuitive given the industry’s history, but humans aren’t known for tolerance, especially when money and fame are involved. This issue of Antisemitism has worsened with the recent war in Gaza, however, and several celebrities have shown their true colours about Jews. I’ll give some examples, and that won’t include Mel Gibson. It wouldn’t be fair to mention him here.

The first person is Susan Sarandon. Sarandon’s been a thorn politically for decades, siding with Ralph Nader during the 2000 election, but she’s ramped up her awfulness recently. She’s also openly-confrontational, using people’s histories against them. I won’t claim I haven’t had bad political takes myself, that wouldn’t be honest, but the number of “This you?” responses she’s used to deflect are a worrying since no one sane has denied they were flawed.

When October 7th, 2023 occurred, and many celebrities were expressing condolences, Sarandon was confronted for her stance on the ensuing war. Initially dodgy about it, Sarandon stated in a pro-Palestinian rally in November of 2023 that Jews were “getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim [in The US]”. Never mind the tone-deaf nature of that remark, or that it was Islamophobic, disregarding Jewish safety was the final straw for many Jews and Muslims, with criticism coming from both groups. Sarandon was also dropped from her talent agency afterward. It’s hard to feel bad, given her remarks since.

What’s frustrating is that, honestly, it didn’t have to be this way. Sarandon’s a public figure, and she’s most-likely worked with Jews. To go and defame the entire community feels like a slap to the face, especially since she’s so talented. She’s also an Oscar-nominated actress, and this level of prestige has now gone to waste. Was it worth it? I doubt it, but I’m also biased.

Moving on, there’s John Cusack. Cusack’s been in the limelight before for Antisemitic remarks, even sharing a cartoon implying Jews were suppressing freedom of speech. I remember confronting him on Twitter, to which he was shockingly rude. But I digress. Cusack apologized for the cartoon, but that wouldn’t be the last time he’d put his foot in his mouth.

Cusack became more brazen with Israel’s incursion in Gaza. Ignoring my personal thoughts there, which I won’t reiterate, Cusack has made several snipes at Israel and Jews since then. However, it wasn’t until this July when Cusack shared an image linking Anthony Blinken to Jeffrey Epstein that everything came to a head. The image also labelled Epstein as a Mossad agent, suggesting he was bending The US to Israel’s will. Oh dear.

As expected, Cusack quickly deleted the image and apologized. However, I have to wonder if he was sincere, or if he got caught and felt shame. If it’s the latter, I have no sympathy for him. He may be talented, even if I prefer his sister, but that’s no excuse for Antisemitism. Especially if it links a member of Joe Biden’s cabinet to Jeffrey Epstein.

Finally, there’s Guy Pearce. Pearce has been outspoken on Palestinian rights before, which itself isn’t an issue. He’s even worn Palestinian iconography on his clothing, which also doesn’t bother me. But it’s his remarks that’ve ranked him alongside Susan Sarandon and John Cusack. And they came about following-you guessed it-October 7th, 2023.

A few weeks ago, Pearce shared his disgust in Israelis for their treatment of Palestinians. While there are ongoing tensions there, particularly in the settlements, the unfair generalization was enough to get him in hot water. And then there was him sharing an Instagram post claiming that Jews manipulated casinos and pornography so as to distract from societal woes. Yikes!

While no stranger to courting controversy, what makes Pearce’s situation unique is that he not only apologized, but also has taken a social media hiatus. Considering social media brings out the worst in people, this is a start, as Pearce has a reputation to uphold. However, like with John Cusack, I’m unsure if his apology only happened because he got caught, or if he’s actually sincere. It’s not uncommon for celebrities to make tone-deaf statements, receive backlash, apologize and then go radio silent to “reflect”. I only hope that Pearce, whose remarks did serious damage, is being genuine here.

The question I have is “What now?”. How can Hollywood prevent incidents like this from happening, especially with October 7th’s aftermath forcing the Antisemitic genie out of its bottle? One such answer has been Universal/Paramount’s blacklist, where celebrities accused of Antisemitism are no longer allowed to work there. That might sound tempting, but the blacklist’s criteria is too general and has little room for nuance. Also, a scorched earth policy doesn’t seem reasonable for something so delicate.

Perhaps the solution is to tackle this at its root. That sounds patronizing, but Antisemitism is a learned behaviour tied to “in group, out group”. It need not be perpetuated, and re-education’s the perfect way to stop it. But perhaps I’m being naïve, and this is a deeper problem that can’t be so easily fixed. In the meantime, I only that hope more celebrities don’t “out themselves”.

But if everything fails, at least you have three celebrities to watch out for…right?

Rush Hour More

An under-appreciated reality about political figures, particularly American ones, is that they can influence Hollywood directly. The Birth of a Nation, for instance, had President Wilson screen it in The White House in 1915, and its legacy can still be felt. However, in recent years this influence has amped up. And nowhere is this more-apparent than the Rush Hour franchise. Specifically, the Rush Hour franchise currently. Bear with me, it’s going to get weird...

Donald Trump has had many adjectives to describe him: egotistical. Unforgettable. Brash. Insecure. These are but a few, but I never imagined he’d convince a studio to revive a dead franchise. That’s exactly what he did, however.

It was revealed that the Rush Hour movies, which had been dormant for roughly 20 years, would be getting another instalment thanks to Trump insisting Paramount green-light it. Paramount even managed to get the exact same creative team, including director Brett Ratner and actors Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan. It’s a surprise, to be sure, but a pleasant one? Nope! In fact, given who’s involved, I wish the franchise remained dormant.

Let’s be honest: the Rush Hour movies were never critical darlings. The first one was the best-received, having the cleanest script, and even then it wasn’t fantastic. This isn’t accounting for Tucker and Chan having done better movies since, with Chan having also done better movies prior. Even within the franchise, I doubt many people have fondness for Rush Hour 3. (I don’t.)

So why bring this back? I’m sure there’s an audience for Tucker and Chan, but after two decades? And with Ratner directing, a man who has allegations of sexual misconduct? Are we ready for this? I have doubts.

This doesn’t appear to exist for genuine reasons. Paramount’s current CEO is the son of Larry Ellison, a billionaire who’s one of Trump’s biggest donors. This, therefore, feels less like a genuine movie and more like a favour. It’s possible there’s another story to tell, but I’m not convinced. This smells of quid-pro-quo antics, if I’m being honest.

I’m also dubious because of the director. Without delving too deeply, Ratner isn’t exactly high-calibre. He directed X-Men: The Last Stand following Bryan Singer’s departure, and it’s regarded as one of the worst entries in the X-Men franchise. Ratner’s filmography in general isn’t viewed fondly, the Rush Hour movies being prime examples. So to come back and revive a “dead” franchise? It’s suspicious.

Then, of course, there’s the leads’ ages. Jackie Chan is 71, while Chris Tucker is 54. Even though they aren’t “ancient”, they’re not exactly Spring Chickens. This isn’t to demean Chan’s legendary status as a stunt performer, even nowadays, but people become more limited as they age. And since the Rush Hour movies always felt like an excuse for Chan and Tucker to sell out, there’s a possibility of them phoning it in again.

Perhaps I’m being overly-judgemental. If I’ve learned anything about legacy sequels, of which this qualifies, it’s that they can be good. In some instances, like Top Gun: Maverick and Bad Boys for Life, they can even be superior to the original movies! It’s possible that, with time and distance, Rush Hour 4 could be the best entry. I’m unsure at this point, truthfully.

But I’m not getting my hopes up. I’m especially not getting my hopes up because this doesn’t appear to have been approved for any other reason than pleasing a figurehead. And that bugs me. It bugs me because I don’t trust Trump, and it bugs me because this franchise doesn’t have a great track-record. Most-importantly, it bugs me because it feels so unnecessary.

I’d much rather my first foray into criticizing Paramount came from a more thoughtful place. Like how its animation division’s run by John Lasseter, who was accused of inappropriate behaviour at Pixar. Or how its CEO made a stir with anti-DEI attitudes and harsh punishments for celebrities speaking up about Palestinians. Or how Trump wants them to merge with Warner Bros. All of these are more interesting and meatier than discussing Rush Hour 4, especially considering the franchise’s current reputation.

In fact, going by Paramount/Universal properties making a comeback, I’m more excited for the upcoming sequel to the late-90s Mummy movies. They weren’t exactly “great” either, being cheesy action serials. But at least there’s sincerity and heart there. Plus, Brendan Fraser’s returning, and Hollywood did him dirty for a while prior to The Whale. If any franchise is worthy of a legacy sequel, it’s that one.

Besides, why bring back the Rush Hour movies now? Yes, they have fans. But I doubt they were clamouring for another movie, especially with the diminishing returns of the first three entries. Going by personal experience, I barely remember Rush Hour 3 because of how uninspired it was. I remember shutting it off after 20 minutes, and I enjoyed the first two movies quite a bit! Considering it takes a lot for me to stop watching a movie, that’s saying something!

Honestly, this feels like too-little-too-late. I know I’m being overly-cynical, but I don’t see the appeal. Especially given the creative talent and the reason for its existence. I also don’t want to give credit to Donald Trump. But I guess we’ll find out more soon enough, assuming this isn’t a joke.

Wicked: For Good?

(Note: This piece contains minor spoilers.)

Adapting Wicked for theatres was never going to be easy. For one, the stage production was tied to The Wizard of Oz and well-suited for its respective medium. And two, the second-half of the story’s a mess, relying on pre-established lore to function. So when it was announced suddenly that the movie would be split into two, the second part was inevitably absorbing the weaker part. Truthfully, I’m amazed Wicked: For Good isn’t only decent, but actually improves upon its source material slightly in a key area.

Taking place a year after its predecessor, the movie jumps right back into the world of Oz. The famous Yellow Brick Road’s complete, Elphaba’s been rebranded The Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda’s set to marry Fiyero. In addition, Nessarose is the Governor of Munchkinland, inheriting the role from her late-father, and she’s become quite the oppressive ruler. As Glinda and Fiyero’s wedding day approaches, the question of Elphaba’s supposed treachery looms large. Will she be brought down, or will she finally expose The Wizard’s ways?

Right from the opening, it’s clear who the real star is: the songs. Not to diminish the performances, particularly from Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo, but the musical arrangements steal the show and help compensate for the pacing and writing. The big showstopper this time around is “No Good Deed”, sung by Erivo as she desperately tries saving Fiyero from death. Like “Defying Gravity” in the first movie, this is Erivo’s moment, and she carries it with, pardon the pun, flying colours. She’s also faithful to the Broadway rendition while adding her own spin, which is great since movies and plays aren’t the same medium.

Another strength of Wicked: For Good is its art direction. It’s clear director John M. Chu and company went to great lengths with the practical sets and props, and while the CGI animals are still distracting to look at, they don’t override how much care was put into making Oz lived-in and tangible. Many modern day films wouldn’t dare attempt this, as practical effects are time-consuming and costly. I also like how this movie takes better advantage of its sets than its predecessor, as this is the more lively entry. Basically, this should be seen on the big screen at least once.

The movie’s biggest improvement, and one that should be taken note of, is a small scene involving Nessarose that I’ve covered before. I was worried the movie would repeat the play’s “Nessarose is cured of her disability” plot beat, but that isn’t the case. Yes, Nessarose does temporarily levitate, her shoes coming to life, but the moment’s deflated when Boq enters the room and she lands in her wheelchair. Wins like that help fend off the ableist subtext of the original moment, on top of Marissa Bode being a wheelchair user in real life. Congratulations, fellow advocates: we succeeded.

It’s harder to justify the other improvements when the original second-half’s pacing issues are ported over here. Wicked: For Good, like the play, assumes audiences have some level of familiarity with The Wizard of Oz, as most of its tie-in sections occur off-screen. What little we see is remixed in a different way, as that story was “propaganda”, but it’s not considered essential viewing. It’s unfortunate because there’s missed potential to show these moments to younger, more unfamiliar audiences; besides, who wouldn’t want to see this version of Dorothy’s adventure? I would!

It's too late to complain, though. This movie was filmed alongside its predecessor, only chopped into two parts for marketing and length purposes. But it raises the question of whether or not a single, undivided film is possible as an over 5-hour cut. True, that’s a little long. But it’d be the most ideal way to watch this, and it’d help remedy the problems of the story’s second-half. Or, in this case, the second part. Also, never underestimate Director’s Cuts!

One last note, and this is a minor quibble, is that Jeff Goldblum’s flashback as a younger version of The Wizard falls into Uncanny Valley territory. The de-aged face doesn’t quite look right for Goldblum, even with the lighting obscuring it. It’s not a deal breaker, and it’s easy to overlook in the moment, but it begs the question of why a look-alike wasn’t possible. Especially since the actress chosen to play a younger Glinda early on is spot-on. Then again, perhaps that’s my critical side speaking.

Wicked: For Good is as you’d expect from the second-half of this story: it’s darker, and it’s more emotionally-weighty, but it’s also messier and rushed. This is especially true after the storm that brings Dorothy into the narrative, as, like I said, you’re required to have prior knowledge of everything there. So while I thoroughly-enjoyed the experience, even clapping alongside the audience, I still think Wicked’s the better of the two movies. Also, the two films would work better as a 5-hour experience. But that’s me.

24 GameCube Lane

This week marks the 24th anniversary of the GameCube in North America. It was the first console I owned, having received it as a Bar Mitzvah gift, and I still have a soft spot for its library. It was also the first console I rented games for, and I was never the wiser. However, even with my memories of playing Super Smash Bros. Melee with my brothers, I often felt weird knowing I had a console that was unpopular, sitting at 3rd-place in the 6th Generation Console Wars. So why is the GameCube gaining popularity nowadays?

Truthfully, not everything about the GameCube has held up. Much has, like its controller, but the console’s library and hardware specs earned its poor sales when compared to the Xbox and PS2. Even with its AAA titles, several of its early successes were rushed, and it showed. It especially showed in the fighting mechanics for Super Smash Bros. Melee, as well as the in-game glitches in Super Mario Sunshine. Factor in no DVD player, or a solid online, and it’s no wonder Nintendo had to rethink everything with the Wii.

I feel bad criticizing the console. For all its flaws, the GameCube was quite intuitive. Not only was its controller an improvement over the N64’s, which was bulky and confusing, it also could fit neatly into a bag for travel. I specifically remember tucking it into a suitcase when I visited my cousin’s grandmother’s cottage one Winter, and plugging it in to their TV wasn’t difficult. The GameCube also introduced the WaveBird, a controller that let you play games without a wired plug. That was game changing.

Playing 4-player was also great. We take this for granted, but multiplayer was a bonus for a console that was family-friendly. It’s true that 4-player options already existed on the N64, but this was the first Nintendo console to pull it off without lag or frame drops. Besides, it was great for family gatherings, something I miss as an adult. That, and online play isn’t the same.

Perhaps the surge in popularity bugs me because, rational or not, it feels too-little-too-late. Where was this validation when the GameCube was struggling? Why now? And is the adoration sincere, or a form of “what’s old is new again”? These are questions that plague my mind looking back on the Nintendo console that wasn’t “cool” to own, and it stings.

Part of it could also be wishing that fondness had translated to the Wii. The Wii was a far bigger success story, even allowing backwards compatibility with the GameCube’s library. But the “uncool” nature of the GameCube was amplified, with third-party developers using it as a dumping ground. Nintendo catering to non-gamers was seen as a betrayal, which I’ve always found exclusivist. Perhaps that’s why the GameCube saw a re-evaluation, as it was the last stronghold of “true Nintendo” for many gamers. Either that, or GamerGate has poisoned the discourse.

I do think this fondness for the GameCube is too much, though. Maybe I’m reaching for sour grapes, I don’t know. Maybe this is me being jaded by the last four console generations, I also don’t know. However, it won’t leave my mind. And that’s the problem.

It's not all bad. The Switch 2 emulating the GameCube’s library via NSO is a great decision, and I respect them recognizing their 6th generation console got the shaft. It also allows me to play games I never fully-completed or tried at release, like Luigi’s Mansion or Chibi-Robo. I’m grateful Nintendo’s willing to reevaluate their “failures” and see their merits, even if only for financial reasons. Because it’s all financial anyway.

Nevertheless, the fandom now seeing the GameCube as “cool” stings. After years of being apologetic, to the point of ridicule from peers, this feel like whiplash. Have I won? And if so, why aren’t I satisfied? Has time ruined everything? Am I a bitter old man, shaking my fist at clouds and yelling? Is this me now?

I don’t want to think too hard here. Not only is it unpleasant pondering this, it’s equally as weird that the GameCube’s considered “retro”. If anything, I should be happy. But I’m not. I’m sad that it took too long to achieve justice over Nintendo’s most-maligned console prior to the Wii U.

But I digress. While late, it’s better now than never. And for all intents and purposes, the wave of nostalgia for the GameCube is something that’s warranted 24 years later. Nintendo struggled with it, slashing its price several times, and it bled money until they removed a key component from the hardware. That their biggest home console flop at the time, one they were forced to move away from, is getting its day in the Sun shows how time heals all wounds. Or most wounds. The longstanding trauma of being a diehard GameCube fan when it wasn’t cool doesn’t disappear all that quickly…

A Rosy Thorn

The Sydney Sweeney hate is overblown.

I can’t believe I’m typing that, but it’s true. Not only is she a decent actress, but she’s being productive with her youthful looks while she still can. Sure, she’s “everywhere”, but is that any different than the dozens of men in Hollywood who promote themselves ad nausea? I don’t think so. And neither should you.

I mention this due to Sweeney’s recent biopic, Christy, failing to connect with audiences. I don’t know the movie’s quality, I haven’t seen it, but it’s already on several people’s “shit-lists” of 2025. It’s wild that a boxing movie would attract that much ire, but that’s what happens when someone’s the target of faux-controversy. It’s also attracted the attention of Ruby Rose from The CW show Batwoman. Specifically, Rose ripped apart Sweeney, saying:

"For her PR to talk about it flopping and saying SS did it for the ‘people’. None of ‘the people’ want to see someone... parading around pretending to be us. You’re a cretin and you ruined the film. Period…"

Far be it for me to throw shade at Rose for criticizing taking roles from lesbian performers. That happens often in Hollywood, and it’s something I’ve addressed before. Also, Rose is entitled to an opinion. She has agency. Besides, I’ve heard worse from other actors in Hollywood before.

What irks me is Rose claiming Sweeney’s a “cretin” who “ruined the film”. Deflecting legitimate criticism by saying something was “for the fans” is embarrassing, but Rose could stand to dial it back. Especially since the real Christy Martin has defended Sweeney following the backlash. That alone should fizzle out this drama. But perhaps that’s asking too much when Sweeney was chastised for appearing in an American Eagle ad because she was “promoting an unhealthy body image”. (And no, she didn’t do that either.)

I want to throw the floor back to Rose here. Batwoman, or Kate Kane, is Jewish in the comics. Ruby Rose, however, isn’t. Yes, both Kane and Rose are lesbians, but the Jewish part’s missing with her casting. Considering Rose claimed that Sweeney was stealing roles from lesbians, isn’t it hypocritical for Rose to steal roles from Jews?

This is something I’ve covered before, sometimes to criticism from others. Judaism’s a complex ethnoreligion you can opt into. There are also plenty of Jews who play gentile characters. But if we’re using the minority card here, then shouldn’t that apply to Rose too? Especially given their resumes?

Sweeney doesn’t need my blind loyalty. I don’t know or care enough to be a simp. I also know she’s had a brush-in with controversial music producer Scooter Braun, which is a can of worms on its own. However, Sweeney as a “conservative psy-op” is laughable. Sweeney can’t be a psy-op because she keeps her politics close to her chest. Saying she leans a particular way, therefore, is hearsay. It’s also annoying when many actively-conservative actors already exist in Hollywood.

I know what this is really about. It all goes back to Sweeney’s American Eagle stint. The idea that Sweeney’s shaming people for not looking a certain way is ridiculous, as that’s not what she did. She modelled clothing, that’s it. And this adoration conservatives have for her is equally ridiculous.

Hollywood is a world of excess. So much nonsense goes on regularly that it’s easy to latch onto scandals. But this? Picking on an actress simply because she exists, really?! I knew people were misogynistic when Gal Gadot and Shira Haas were criticized for being in superhero films, but at least that misogyny goes into the-albeit Antisemitic-category of “Zionists in Hollywood”. That, and they’re from Israel, everyone’s favourite punching bag. Sydney Sweeney, on the other hand, I don’t get the hate for.

Truthfully, people have too much free time. There are so many legitimate issues that deserve our attention more: poverty. War. Disease. Politicians making the world more dangerous by the hour. Claiming an actress is “bad” because “reasons” isn’t one of those issues, and it’s ridiculous that this is touted as such.

This “scandal”, if you’d call it that, needs to be put to bed. Ruby Rose might have a point about equitable casting, but she’s going too far by labelling Sweeney a cretin. I know she won’t read this anyway, but I still think it’s worth giving my two cents. Especially since, when the chips are down, this reads as her being bitter over something she doesn’t need to be bitter over.

And to those dogpiling on Sydney Sweeney for existing? Back off. Sweeney’s doing nothing wrong by taking on gigs for money. That’s what actors do constantly, even if it means taking on roles that “suck”. She might be “box-office poison” currently, but she’s still young. That could always change if she lands the right role, it’s too early to tell. For now, however, I think people need to get a life. There’s too much negativity in the world to be adding to the pyre unnecessarily.

A Brown Harbour

Tabloid journalism is tricky. Not only do you report constantly on celebrity gossip, which is exhausting, you also have to juice up your stories. Sometimes, this even leads to jumping the gun, which reflects poorly once the truth emerges. Other times, you have to fabricate stories to meet quotas. And then there are hit-pieces, which happened recently with Stranger Things.

I love Stranger Things. I was surprised initially, since horror and 80s nostalgia aren’t normally my jam, but the genuine storytelling’s the show’s greatest asset. It’s also revived and started several careers in Hollywood. But that’s not my focus here. Rather, I’d like to zoom in on a recent controversy, how it was presented and how damage control made the original story read like defamation.

David Harbour, who plays Jim Hopper, has built a reputation as being a lovable father-figure, not unlike Tom Hanks before him. This is especially apparent with Harbour’s other big role, The Red Guardian in The MCU. Despite only really appearing in two movies, Harbour has made an impression as actress Florence Pugh’s adoptive father, with his goofy, larger-than-life characterization making him funny and heartwarming simultaneously. If you don’t believe me, watch Thunderbolts*.

While Harbour has cultivated an image, he’s still a human being. This was supposedly brought to the surface when it was “revealed” that Millie Bobby Brown, who plays Eleven in Stranger Things, alleged that Harbour had been verbally abusive on set. On one hand, this wouldn’t seem out of the ordinary given how many celebrities have had their jolly personas destroyed. On the other hand, the paper that broke this story was The Daily Mail, which has a reputation in England for being trashy. Nevertheless, with no denial or confirmation for some time, the allegations stuck around…

…At least until recently, when Brown publicly reaffirmed her fondness of Harbour. Considering that she’s a mom, having recently adopted a baby, it’s possible she didn’t have the time or energy to rebut the allegations initially. That, and she was too busy promoting the show that made her a household name. Regardless, The Daily Mail now has a potential libel lawsuit on their hands. I’d feel bad for them, but this, apparently, is par for the course.

I get the temptation to jump into this controversy head-on. For one, this is Hollywood, home of many “eccentric” creatives. Two, actors commit sketchy acts constantly, most of which don’t get reported. Three, David Harbour was recently caught cheating on his wife, so it’s easy to paint him as a monster. Four, Millie Bobby Brown’s younger than him, and she played his adopted daughter for close to a decade on Netflix. And five, considering Harbour’s a veteran actor, it’s not impossible to think that Brown was taken advantage of and was covering for him out of fear. I get all this.

What I don’t get is jumping on a half-story. Or, at least, not acknowledging that it’s a half-story. It’s not like tabloids don’t report on still-unfolding stories, but there’s the caveat of “still-unfolding” they can use as cover. This “story” was considered gospel before all the details were present, catering to shock value. It’s an example of journalistic malpractice, and it needs to be called as such.

I understand the temptation to write clickbait. I wrote clickbait for a gaming website for almost a year, and it felt like I was selling out. Besides, writing clickbait nets more traffic than niche or thoughtful pieces, something I’ve seen on The Whitly-Verse and Infinite Rainy Day numerous times. However, with that comes criticism or inaccurate writing. Again, I’ve seen it myself.

With The Daily Mail, it’s possible the person who broke the story meant well. I don’t know, I’m not on the editing committee. But that doesn’t mean it should’ve been taken as absolute truth by other outlets. It might be easy to mock celebrities, as they engage in questionable behaviours regularly, but they’re still people. And like all people, they’re entitled some level of respect and privacy.

I know this is hard when dealing with tabloids, which invade people’s privacy for gossip columns. It’s especially hard with British tabloids, which are extremely in-your-face about it. And it’s particularly hard with The Daily Mail, which has a history of inaccuracies. But that doesn’t make this less true.

As for Harbour and Brown? They deserve apologies. Brown for coercing her into making a statement, and Harbour for defamation. In the case of Harbour, while he has to contend with a ruined marriage, something he’s at fault for, that’s between him and his spouse. We don’t need to use that to shamelessly extort him, which is what The Daily Mail did.

I think tabloids serve a purpose. In a world where reality changes quickly, they keep the general public informed about the power structure. However, with that comes the responsibility to not fabricate anything, which is what The Daily Mail’s scoop is guilty of. It’s embarrassing, and it was touted as fact by other outlets that should’ve known better. Then again, when clicks are what matter most, is this really surprising?

Half is Less?

The last time I discussed Manga as an art-form, it was in a piece on Infinite Rainy Day that I’m not proud of. Since then, I’ve come to respect Manga, even becoming invested in one Hayao Miyazaki wrote. I mention this as context for Half is More, which has received plenty of racist backlash for portraying its protagonists as mixed race. I’m not mixed race myself, hence I feel out of my league, but I figured it was worth discussing. Because it’s ridiculous.

What’s Half is More? Based on the Mangaka’s life, it’s about two teenagers whose father’s black and mother’s Japanese and their lives in Japan. I don’t know much else, since it premieres here next year, but there’s plenty of discussion about alienation and racism in it. That alone has promise, but there are many Manga fans who are mad. So much so that there’ve been videos on YouTube discussing it.

I wonder if Western Otakus have too much free time, such that they’d get riled up over this. I can’t say I’m an expert on Japan, despite my cousin living there, but I know racism exists there. It exists everywhere. But while I can discuss the racism in The West, since I live in Canada, Japan’s flavour’s more alien. Still, based on past anime portrayals, as well as the country’s current prime minister taking pages from The US’s president, it’s definitely a problem.

Why is having a half-black protagonist in a Manga so bad? I know racists don’t think logically, but that type of representation’s still pretty novel. And as with anything novel, it’ll attract attention. Specifically, it’ll receive pushback from those who aren’t fans of upsetting the status quo. We see that all over the world. Basically, people don’t like anything different.

But so what? Mixed race people exist everywhere, Japan included. And given how Yoiko Fujimi’s injecting personal experience, I think it’s worth hearing that racism exists there too. Especially with people of mixed backgrounds, whom Japan unflatteringly refers to as “Hāfu”. That they’re frequently singled out is already a micro-aggression.

This goes back to how Japanese people views foreigners, particularly black foreigners. The best example is in the popularity of Little Black Sambo, a Scottish book that took off in Japan. Despite being criticized for its racism, it’s had a lasting impact, even influencing characters like Mr. Popo. This idea that black people are the objects of “kawaii”, as opposed to actual people with aspirations, is upsetting considering the history of slavery. This isn’t even accounting for how the depiction of Sambo isn’t far off from racialized minstrel portrayals, complete with affectations that sound illiterate.

Half is More, which challenges longstanding biases about black people in Japan, does away with these stereotypes, even drawing its protagonists appropriately, yet still can’t win. I’d be upset, but it’s not surprising. It’s especially not surprising since Zendaya was given crap for being Spider-Man’s love interest in The MCU. Racism’s a popular sticking point with nerds. This despite Zendaya being a talented actress.

I haven’t really discussed much about the Manga, and for that I apologize. Despite being almost 4 years old, not much is known about it here. I’m hoping that changes when it premieres stateside in 2026, even receiving a Wikipedia page, but for now I have to rely on the backlash and counter-backlash. I also think it’s worth listening to black anime and Manga fans, many of whom are excited to see themselves portrayed respectfully. That doesn’t happen often, and I’m happy for them.

I’m no stranger to someone’s existence being controversial. I’m Jewish, and I frequent the internet a lot. Life has been Hell for over two years, and I’ve received enough Antisemitic backlash to last the rest of my life. I’m only 35. That alone is telling.

It also feels like I’m overstepping, since I’m not black. However, I get that this is traumatizing for many black people, having been at the forefront of racism for decades. In that sense, I feel their pain. It’s not 1:1, for obvious reasons, but nevertheless. And that’s why this faux-controversy’s so obnoxious. Don’t people have anything better to do than harass a Mangaka for tackling a real problem? Why romanticize Japan this heavily, acting like it isn’t like every other country on Earth?

Perhaps it’s an issue of the “foreign” as being picture-perfect. People don’t want their illusions of Japan shattered, which this is doing. But it needs to be shattered. Much like how Japan’s a stickler for recreational substances, even making possession of marijuana a felony, Japan also has a racism problem. And it’s worth discussing if anything’s to change. I applaud Fujimi for having the courage to make this Manga, as I doubt it was easy.

Ultimately, I think Otakus need to chill. So what if Half is More deals with racism? Racism exists! And discussing it respectfully is interesting! Isn’t that what we want from art, to have interesting stories? I’d say so, but I’m that weirdo who steps outside of his bubble occasionally. If I can do it, so can you!

Mario's Melodic Maps

Super Mario Bros. 3 is awesome. It’s not only widely-regarded to be the best NES Mario platformer, it’s also one of my favourite Mario games. Yet while there’s much to discuss, I think the unsung hero’s the music. Particularly the overworld map tunes, which are still impressive over 37 years later. So why not discuss them? Yeah, let’s do that.

As always, this list is subjective. Also, I’m ranking these not only by how good they are, but also by how well they complement their respective maps:

9. Warp Zone

I’m going to say something controversial: if I were judging it solely on its catchiness, this’d be near the top of the list. Not only does it evoke the feeling of being swept away to a heavenly place, it’s easily the catchiest tune in Mario’s pantheon. So much so that it’s been referenced in future Mario games to underscore otherworldly retreats from reality, like in Super Mario Sunshine where you visit a 5-star hotel. It’s so lulling that it even can put me to sleep. That’s not easy given that I have insomnia.

However, we’re not judging solely on music. Warp Zone’s definitely relaxing, but its map isn’t essential. It can also only be accessed with a Warp Whistle, of which there are only a handful. And the map allows you to, as implied by the name, warp to other levels, making it feel like cheating. Essentially, this is really a placeholder, one most gamers will never experience.

Nevertheless, I really like it. Super Mario Bros. 3’s notorious for pushing the envelope of The Nintendo Entertainment System/Famicom, and this encapsulates that. After all, it’s a tune in a dreamlike environment! And it’s entrancing! What’s not to love? I’m waiting for an answer…

8. Castle of Koopa

Moving on to entries you’ll actually experience, Castle of Koopa is one of the weaker entries here. I say that both as music, and a map. Musically it’s haunting, but Super Mario World revamped it with its final boss theme. It keeps getting darker and darker, but never resolves itself melodically. Instead, it loops endlessly, made more frustrating by the map having sections that feel disconnected geographically. One section even occurs in darkness, and it’s annoying keeping track of my location.

If there’s one area where this is saved, it’s in the feeling of doom and gloom. This is the final world, and it lets you know that. Between the map being surrounded by flames, interruptions from thunder and hands that drag you into specific levels, the game knows that you’re nearing the end. It throws out all the stops to make you earn your victory. Couple that with Princess Peach being held captive by Bowser, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

I know this is low on the list, but I don’t dislike Castle of Koopa. Quite the contrary! I like all these tunes! But it doesn’t do it for me like the others do. You’re entitled to disagree, though. And I wouldn’t begrudge you for it.

7. The Sky

Another low entry, The Sky’s tune isn’t terribly inspired. The only point of note is the drum beat, which begins with a bang before repeating on loop. It’s a shame because the map itself is unique and inspired, with the first and second halves divided by a fake-out castle where you ascend to-you guessed it-the sky. I’m not sure why this tune was chosen for this map. Couldn’t it have been swapped with Warp Zone? That’d make more sense!

Whatever! For what it is, it’s catchy. The banging of the drum makes it hard to get out of your head, and that’s good because there’s not much else to discuss. It’s a repeat of the drum, interspersed with mildly-catchy notes. Those notes prevent it from getting stale. That’s it.

But…why have this be the choice for such a cool map? Seriously, no other world changes thematic layouts halfway through, not even the one with Bowser! You couldn’t have come up with a better choice of music? Really?! Oh well!

6. Big Island

Come to think of it, The Sky and Big Island should’ve swapped places. Why? Because the former’s otherworldly, while this map’s gimmick is that everything’s gigantic. Since the enemies here can stomp you flat or paralyze you temporarily by ground-pounding a platform, a heavy drum beat fits. Instead, here’s a high-energy disco theme with a fast beat and a catchy melody. Okay, sure.

That harmonic dissonance is Big Island’s greatest strength and greatest weakness. On the plus side, it’s really catchy, preparing you for enemies three times their normal size. On the flip side, that makes you feel intimidated in each level. Having the map beat pump you up only gets you so far before you freak out. It’s a weird choice to have, essentially.

Still, does Big Island’s theme work? Yes. Yes it does. It’s not only easy to hum, it’s also faster-paced than everything else, making it unique. I simply wish it’d been used for a different level.

5. Pipe Maze

Pipe Maze is a fittingly middle-of-the-road entry. As a tune, it evokes film noir in its vibes, like you’re traversing an underground economy. This is complimented by the map being interconnected pipe mazes, with each taking you somewhere new and unexpected. Essentially, the marriage of music and level theme is perfect. It’s a classic example of “setup” and “payoff”, which is what you’d expect. So why isn’t it higher?

For two reasons. And both have to do with the world’s gimmick. For one, a level map themed on pipes isn’t terribly inspired. Yes, the levels are unique, relying on the concept of interconnected pipes. But pipes being the modus operandi is annoying. Couldn’t the game have chosen something more inspired?

And two, these pipes can be frustrating. Not only in the levels, but also in the overworld map. I frequently find myself trying to figure out which pipes take me to which sections, and for someone with a faulty working memory that can be challenging. Factor in that this is an 80s game, and those are notorious for not giving any guidance, and it’s easy to become confused. So while the tune is neat, the world…not as much.

4. Desert Hill

Getting to the upper-half, Desert Hill’s what I remember most as a kid, with it being exotic. But that could also be because I never progressed past it until I beat the game as an adult. Still, it’s really awesome. Whenever I listen to it, I picture the hot, glaring Sun beaming down on me like I’m in The Sahara, and it’s fitting that it’s attached to a desert-like map. Go figure!

That’s a testament to this level though, as well as its tune. Ignoring how Desert Hill was the bane of my youth, the tune feels like it’s drawing from Arabian-style music. This is especially-apparent in how sly and slow its notes are, really dragging the feeling of being in a harsh, unforgiving climate. Which, for all intents and purposes, isn’t untrue to what’s going on. But I digress.

What sells it is the terrain of the map. Not only does it have a lot of sandy browns, but there are pyramids and mini-oases scattered everywhere. It’s no surprise future Mario titles would take inspiration from this level, because it works. It anchors you with sand dunes, pyramids and an angry Sun that tries to kill you. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

3. Iced Land

One of the biggest strengths of Iced Land is that it’s endured enough to be referenced in the Paper Mario series. That’s because, despite the map being a tundra, there’s an eery, ethereal quality that gives me shivers listening to it. Snow levels in Mario games aren’t usually this eery, and the world map glistening periodically from the ice caps makes you feel like you’ve entered a hellish world you have to escape from. Either that, or survive. I’m unsure if one or both are true.

That said, the tune is quite powerful. A tundra, like a desert, is notorious for being harsh and difficult to live in, as the only major difference between the two is temperature. That’s right, a tundra’s basically a frozen desert! And while you’d think a tundra would be worse, because it’s colder, it’s not. Still, it’s nice to think that anyway. And the tune here doesn’t convince you otherwise.

Another advantage? This tune’s similar to Castle of Koopa, complete with a lack of resolution, but it works so much better. Because while Castle of Koopa’s lack of wholeness is frustrating due to the map itself, as well as being improved upon in future titles, Iced Land drills home the existential dread that compliments the map perfectly. That’s hard to do, since Mario games rarely have foreboding themes for their “Winter levels”. You can’t help admiring that, which is why I love it.

2. Ocean Side

And here we get to my favourite map tune. It’s not the “best” one, we’ll get there, but it’s my favourite. Why? Simple: it became the file select music for the Zelda franchise. That’s right, one of that series’ greatest pieces of music started as Ocean Side. Is your mind blown?

It should be! Aside from both franchises having the same composer, hence cross-pollination, this particular tune’s also really memorable. It might actually be too memorable, as this map’s gimmick is water. Lots and lots of water. Water’s usually a video game designer’s biggest irritant, as it’s hard to program. So for an otherwise frustrating concept to be underscored by such awesome music? It’s jarring, and I mean that in a good way.

It's especially jarring because water levels in Mario games are my least-favourite. Swimming and floating in an element not weighted by gravity can be challenging, made worse by Mario moving slower than if on land. My most frustrating experiences with Super Mario Bros. 3 involved navigating water levels for that reason. So for a tune to bring this map so many rungs higher up with its melody alone? That’s the highest praise I can give this Zelda tune prototype.

1. Grass Land

Now we get to the “best” map tune. Picture this: it’s 1990, or 1988 in Japan, and you’ve purchased Super Mario Bros. 3. You take it home, pop it into your console and press the power button. After the intro screen, you’re greeted to the game’s first map. And alongside learning the ropes, you’re greeted to a catchy jingle with hummable bops. In those first 5 seconds, the game’s music has already imprinted on you.

Doesn’t that make you feel good? I know it does for me! And I like how, despite being short and looped, Grass Land’s a complete melody. It has a tune that it remixes in three different ways, each with a brief silence afterward, and then it ends. That’s some impressive sound design for an 8-bit game that’s testing its console’s limitations.

Additionally, it’s fun to listen to! It’s fun to listen to in the game, and it’s fun to listen to on its own. The map itself is good on its own, but this? This glorious tune? A tune that’s an iconic bop in its own right? That it resonates with me now like it did when I was younger is a testament to its timeless. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

And that about does it for me! Feel free to listen to the tunes yourselves, and I’ll see you next time!

CGI Isn't "Bad"

6 years ago, I wrote about CGI in filmmaking. Specifically, I mentioned this:

“CGI, or computer-generated imagery, is a tool to tell a story. Like every storytelling tool, it’s best used as a prop in service of it, not directly opposed to it. There are good uses of it, and bad uses of it, and both appear frequently. Sometimes you won’t even know that TV or film has used it, as it’s so ubiquitous with both formats. CGI isn’t good or bad, but a neutral force that goes either way.”

I went on to discuss how people don’t give CGI enough respect, even listing examples where it excelled. However, that was 6 years ago. Some people haven’t received the memo, like Nerdstalgic. He even uploaded a video discussing his gripes with CGI, suggesting it was “killing practical effects”. And so I figured I’d respond to his “old man yells at cloud” arguments. Brace yourselves.

I’ll begin with his selection of movies. Specifically, Nerdstalgic uses the opening of Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness to discuss being pulled from the experience. I like that movie, flaws aside, and I doubt that CGI’s one of its problems. If anything, not using CGI would’ve made the opening not work, as Doctor Strange and America Chavez are fleeing from an inter-dimensional monster. We’re supposed to feel disoriented because they feel disoriented.

This highlights the issue with Nerdstalgic’s choice of movies: he’s cherry-picking. It’s one issue to complain about bad CGI. It’s another to complain about an over-reliance on CGI, only to use an example of where it was necessary. That’s dishonest criticism, completely missing the forest for the trees. It’s something 5 minutes of research would mark as a red flag.

Another problem I have is his pining for practical effects, saying that they “add to the immersion” more than CGI. I don’t know if I agree. For one, practical effects can also be done badly. I immediately think of 1987’s Robocop, specifically when Alex Murphy shoots the movie’s big baddie and sends him plummeting out a window. The death uses stop-motion animation, and it looks awful. I know there were production complications surrounding this moment, but still. Bad practical effects exist.

And two, practical effects, save being costly and difficult to execute, are often dangerous. We can admire the truck flipping in The Dark Knight, but a stuntman died. CGI not only does the work faster and cheaper, but also safer. Perhaps that truck flip wouldn’t have been as impressive with computers, but I’ll suspend my disbelief knowing no one was injured. Isn’t that what matters?

By pining for practical effects for immersion, Nerdstalgic, again, misses the forest for the trees. It’s true that practical effects tend to be more immersive because they’re tangible, but CGI can be equally impressive. No one complains that Gravity was directed on a soundstage because it looks so convincing, never mind that filming in space is nigh-impossible. Additionally, Pandora in the Avatar franchise still looks stunning, only becoming more-so with each new entry. This is despite almost none of it being practical.

There’s also Nerdstalgic’s complaint about overlaying CGI with practical effects, as if the audience can’t handle real locations. He points to the cliff jump in the most-recent Mission Impossible movie, which was initially shot on a ramp. I don’t get the issue: isn’t the jump what matters? Tom Cruise drove a motorcycle off a chasm and onto a train, and you’re worried about a ramp? Really?!

Immersion isn’t solely about “looking real”. Something can “look real” and not be immersive, especially when done with artificial intelligence. What matters is “feeling real”, and CGI can accomplish that. I’d list examples, but there are too many. Even movies that use plenty of practical effects, like Mad Max: Fury Road, anchor them with CGI in places where practical work is impossible (such as the tornado storm). That matters more than how it was made.

Tangibility also isn’t exclusive to practical effects. Nor is an artist’s vision. Nerdstalgic points to how older movies feel more timeless because the artist had complete control, as opposed to modern movies having studio executives scribbling notes. There are so many issues there, particularly how that’s not about CGI, but the big one is that “true auteurs” still exist. And even with older auteurs, they had input from other people. This despite CGI being the norm now.

I can continue deconstructing Nerdstalgic’s video, which I thought was ignorant. But it’d be futile. I understand that CGI feels overused to many, and I get it. I also get that there are plenty of instances of badly-incorporated CGI. But that doesn’t mean it’s all bad, or that practical effects are inherently better. Sure, we should strive for a healthy balance, but that’s the key: a balance. One isn’t inherently better than the other.

One last point is that good CGI’s usually invisible. Did you know Armie Hammer’s face and body were duplicated to play the Winklevoss brothers in The Social Network? Or that the airport fight in Captain America: Civil War was staged? Of course not, and that’s intentional. These sorts of effects are designed to go unnoticed, and that’s good. It means we’ve come a long way from the 60s and 70s. Isn’t that what we want?

So yeah, Nerdstalgic was being unfair in his critiques. Which’d be a problem itself…assuming it was an isolated incident. Bashing CGI’s a time-honoured tradition going back many years, with people who claim to be “experts” making ignoramuses of themselves. Remember, CGI’s a tool. And like all tools, the key is knowing how to use it. When even the worst CGI today looks passable, I think we’re in good hands. I wish people like Nerdstalgic understood that, instead of complaining.