Original Trilogy Woes

My biggest regret as a Star Wars fan is being unable to watch The Original Trilogy in theatres. That wasn’t intentional, being born in 1990. But even once I was old enough, VHS tapes were being phased out and the movies were undergoing altered rereleases to match The Prequels. I also wasn’t a big fan until high school, and by then the original, unaltered films were unobtainable. Between the extensive edits and new scenes, the only way to access the films properly was either George Lucas’s hack-jobs, or piracy. And since the latter didn’t yield results, and wasn’t safe for my laptop, it wasn’t worth it.

This was my predicament for years, going into my early-20s. It’s not like the films weren’t “available”, but it wasn’t the same. I didn’t want CGI Jabba the Hutt conversing with Han Solo, or The Emperor played by Ian McDiarmid before his introduction in the final movie, because that wasn’t what was intended. It was revisionism, and it sucked that George Lucas was too stubborn to leave anything alone. For the most part, my exposure was through video games, most-notably the LEGO Star Wars series. At least those weren’t subjected to Lucas’s meddling.

It was doubly-frustrating because I knew all the famous lines and moments these movies had. I knew Darth Vader was Luke’s father, and I could recite their entire exchange in Cloud City. I knew Binary Sunset like it was my own, and I found myself humming the score in awkward places. Even the expanded franchise lore was fascinating, such that I could tell you what each lightsaber colour represented. So why were the original films elusive?

I guess that’s the ultimate consequence of being a Star Wars fan. I knew everything I possibly could about these films, but never firsthand. I had to frequently rely on YouTube clips, listen to people (mis)quote lines and consume references in other media. I was allowed to be in the fandom, but I wasn’t granted access to the material. I felt like Anakin Skywalker, enraged over how unfair it was, yet helpless to do anything.

My first piece of “hope” came when Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney in 2012. We can argue over how efficiently Disney’s handled the license, even if I’ve enjoyed its output, or if axing The EU was a good idea, but this was a blessing in my eyes. Finally, after over 22 years, I’d get to watch these movies how they were meant to be seen! No more hack-edits and additions people despised, this was it! I’d have access to these movies the way they were meant to be watched…right?

Leave it to reality to crush that. Not only was this not happening, but I was told it was never happening. Instead of the opportunity to watch these movies theatrically and unaltered, much like the 20th anniversary of Jurassic Park, Lucasfilm was doing new movies. The dream of seeing the true versions were dashed, with me being locked out again. I was disheartened.

But I waited…until Disney+ was announced in 2019. I was hopeful, yet again, that I could have easy access to these movies at any time. My dream was coming true, and it was exciting. Unfortunately, reality had other plans once again. By the time the Star Wars library had come to Disney+, the original films were altered further. This was most apparent with the added line “Maclunkey”, shouted by Greedo before being shot by Han Solo, a sign of Lucas’s ever-prescient trolling. Did the universe hate me that much?

Complicating matters further was whether or not Disney would get their hands on the unaltered versions. They kept hinting it, then denying it, then hinting it again, and always to my annoyance. They were dangling the carrot like I was a horse, only to yank it away immediately. It didn’t help that Disney is notorious for going after copyright breachers, making attempts like the Petr Harmy restoration project nigh-impossible to share. I was becoming impatient, with my annoyance turning into despair.

Which brings me to the announcement that the original film will be released theatrically for its 50th anniversary. Unless it’s the unaltered version, I have no interest in it. Besides, I’ll be 37 in 2027, and it’s possible my life commitments will be different. Like waiting for Toonami in Canada, by the time I get what I want, I might lose interest. And while it'd be perfect for Lucas and company to finally cave, why tease me?

It's not like the films aren’t worthy of criticism. They are. From what I’ve seen online, they’re really campy. The writing’s bonkers, the acting’s silly and the stories are filled with gaps and plot-holes. And there are tons of continuity errors, suggesting that the only glue binding them together was a vision, not a plan.

But that’s Star Wars, the science-fantasy version of a D&D campaign. Like how that game favours improvisation over logic and continuity, so too does Star Wars. And you know something? I don’t mind. Because that’s half the fun.

Besides, I want to judge the movies for myself and compare notes. I want to laugh at the chimpanzee-like face of Emperor Palpatine, or groan at Darth Vader’s insultingly-easy defeat of him. I want to enjoy the improvisational goofs, as that’s also part of the fun. It’s easy to joke about Star Wars being silly, but it revitalized the pulp serial sub-genre. And when that leads to classics like Castle in the Sky, then isn’t that what matters?

My problem is that George Lucas doesn’t agree. Instead of appreciating what is, he wants what should be. Like an overprotective father, he won’t let go of his creation, tinkering with it and retroactively acting like that was always the plan. Except it’s not. And it’s insulting to those who worked on these movies.

Ultimately, I’m tired. I’m tired of the games, the lies, and the false promises. Mostly, I’m tired of waiting. Star Wars might be goofy and bombastic, but it’s still art. And unless that art’s respected, I’ll continue being frustrated as an adult.

Reminiscing About Mario

I’ve made no secret about my disdain for video games that make me feel like I’m doing homework. Life is frustrating as is, and I don’t need escapism to be an extension of that. However, sometimes I can persevere if the game makes good use of a mechanic I normally can’t stand, like Pikmin 3. Other times, the issue isn’t about the game, but the console or handheld. Because there’ve been instances where something was ruined by design limitations.

Take Super Mario Bros. 3. I love that game, especially its GBA port, despite it being one of the hardest Mario titles I’ve played. However, despite being my preferred entry, thanks to gameplay tweaks, the two times I’ve beaten it via my DS Lite were scarring because I broke the handheld’s left shoulder button. Perhaps it’s that my palms would sweat from nerves, or that I’d beaten the game both times in the heat of Summer, but no longer being able to use the L-trigger was a bummer. So when I decided to replay it on The Nintendo Switch Online, I was worried this’d happen again.

This was my fear going in. Fortunately, it was immediately eclipsed by me remembering how fun the game is. Because it is, made more enjoyable by the GBA port having autosave. Instead of being thrown back to the beginning of a map after a Game Over, I could now start from the last level I’d beaten. I could also Quick Save my progress, meaning I wouldn’t have to start from scratch whenever I booted my console. It’s details like that that made me appreciate this game more.

That said, I was reminded of another truth: the game’s hard. You’d think having already beaten it twice would be an asset, but it was really challenging. Compounding that was how I’m notoriously bad at video games, making the same mistakes over and over. Perhaps God made me a good writer as a trade-off for being a terrible gamer, but I wish I could be both. It’s not like I wouldn’t benefit from that!

Nevertheless, like GoldenEye 007, the challenge isn’t unbearable. Some parts can be gruelling, but it’s nothing you can’t learn from. Your mistakes are easy fixes with another attempt, assuming you’ve realized what you did wrong. In this way, Super Mario Bros. 3 is the perfect trial-and-error experience, and none of the in-game deaths are unfair. I groaned and whined a lot, though…

It helps that the levels are short. Many modern games drag out their levels, Nintendo titles included, but Super Mario Bros. 3 doesn’t. Perhaps it’s because of the NES’s size limitation, but most levels can be completed in 1 or 2 minutes. In some instances, like in the speed-running community, the game can be completed in less than an hour. But that’s because they know it like the back of their heads. So maybe that’s a bad example.

Either way, I struggled quite a bit. In one instance, the World 8 castle, I had to look up how to get to the boss. It pained me discovering that I was overthinking the solution, but it was a testament to how little external help I needed. Considering I look up solutions frequently, especially with older games, that’s impressive. It’s a testament to how straightforward Super Mario Bros. 3 is.

It helps that the game’s bosses follow a similar formula: jump on their head three times. The exception is Bowser, who has a different method I call “surviving long enough”. Basically, avoid his attacks and have him fall to his doom, which sounds easy…until you remember that his attack time is quick. Unless you’re 100% on the ball at all times, you’ll lose. It happened a few times to me, despite his attack patterns being predictable.

With Bowser beaten, I got to rescue Princess Peach. I miss the NES’s final joke she makes, and I wish the end credits tune had been ported to the GBA version, but the rescue feels earned. This is also one of the few games I’ve 100% completed, which is a testament to its quality. Considering there are in-game items that allow you to skip levels, that I didn’t use them is also telling. Props to Nintendo here.

There’s more I can talk about with Super Mario Bros. 3. I could mention how each world’s a map that makes you feel like you’re playing a board game. I could discuss how each level’s a stage play, with ending curtains and a panel to complete it. I could even talk about how the experience is dreamlike, infusing fantasy with pirate ships and otherworldly elements. And let’s not forget how it used the Zelda franchise’s title screen music before the Zelda franchise, which is a cute nod in hindsight.

But that doesn’t really do justice to the experience. It’s so well-crafted that, after over 37 years, Super Mario Bros. 3 still stands the test of time in ways many NES titles don’t. Innovation doesn’t always age well in the world of gaming, but this is an exception. Kudos to Nintendo for this game, one that finally didn’t break my controller! How’s that for a happy ending?

Jahns VS Stuckmann

I took time out of Super Mario Bros. 3 on NSO’s GBA library to discuss this. I didn’t want to, as I’m on World 8, but this was more pressing. It’s especially pressing because it’s also frustrating. So let’s talk about Chris Stuckmann’s Shelby Oaks, particularly Jeremy Jahns’s review. Here goes.

I haven’t seen Shelby Oaks. I haven’t had time yet, and it’s a new release. However, Stuckmann sharing personal updates about directing and writing the movie for years was really insightful as a subscriber of his. He’s a scrappy nobody finally living out his dream, and I’m happy for him. So while the mixed reception has been a little dispiriting, I wish nothing but success and growth for Stuckmann.

However, I did watch Jahn’s review. I’ve harped on Jahns over some of his past videos, but he did a decent job explaining the pros and cons. He didn’t sugarcoat his thoughts, and he was fair to the movie’s strengths. It’d be easy to overpraise or trash Stuckmann as a first-time director, so the even-handedness was appreciated. Especially since his biggest complaint was that Stuckmann needed a professional screenwriter, as opposed to writing solo.

I’d end here, but I had the misfortune of reading some of the video’s comments. I shouldn’t have done that, since Jahns’s fans are notoriously toxic, yet while most were normal, there was a recurring theme of people overpraising Jahns for his honestly, while simultaneously chastising Stuckmann for no longer criticizing films. The sentiment was that Stuckmann’s refusal to be critical robs him of sincerity. And while Stuckmann’s decision was personal, and I respect it, overpraising Jahns does him a disservice. Because Jahns isn’t impartial either.

Yes, you read that correctly. No, I don’t feel any shame. Jeremy Jahns, for all his strengths, isn’t without his pitfalls. For one, he routinely zeroes in on weird elements in his reviews. (He loves calling female performers “hot”, for instance.) And two, he can be really “bro-y”, making videos that are male-gaze heavy. Even his ratings are bro-y, with frequent mentions of alcohol and getting drunk.

So that I’m not accused of being unfair, these aren’t necessarily flaws. He can be annoying sometimes, especially when he trashed The Acolyte while drunk, but it’s an observation. Nevertheless, calling Jahns “impartial” and Stuckmann “dishonest” is a Pandora’s Box that I’m not sure people really appreciate. Especially since full-impartiality doesn’t exist. It can’t.

It also does a disservice to why Stuckmann no longer trashes entertainment. Aside from feeling like lazy analysis, he doesn’t like doing it anymore. People work hard on even awful movies too, and trashing something because it’s not good feels like reaching for sour grapes. As someone who’s witnessed a rise in negative content, I feel that. Because while it might net eyeballs, it can be detrimental when not done tastefully.

I’ve seen it in my own work. I’m in the middle of editing a book manuscript that I wrote, and hearing my own limitations, even via helpful feedback, is disheartening. It’s hard writing books, especially when you’ve never done it, and knowing that you have work to do is scary and humbling. But mostly scary. Especially since I’m attached to my work, with it feeling like my children.

Even with my general blogging, it might be “journalistic” in style, but I frequently see my shortcomings. Not only do I improvise my thoughts, saving coherency for the editing process, but I often look at my sentences in hindsight and wonder if I expressed something clearly. At times I even spot typos months later, and I have to restrain my urge to “fix” them and ruin the flow. Basically, I acknowledge my limitations, and trashing someone unfairly makes me feel like garbage.

It’s easy to chastise Chris Stuckmann for not criticizing movies, but it’s so much harder to put yourself in his shoes. He respects the gruelling task of crafting something from scratch, and it makes him feel bad to not reciprocate. The world already has enough negativity without him adding to it, and I empathize. I’m not working in the same medium, but I get it.

Perhaps this is all best summed up via controversial YouTube critic Bob Chipman. I’ve defended and criticized Chipman in the past, but his video on Stuckmann’s refusal to criticize Madame Web drives home how people love tearing apart art without understanding it. It’s like how Aton Ego in Ratatouille highlights critics overlooking “useless junk” when discussing art. Especially since the “defence of the new” can be risky, which is where Stuckmann is right now with horror directing. If Ego, and by extension Chipman, understands this, then so can everyone else.

So yes, overpraising Jeremy Jahns and over-criticizing Chris Stuckmann in relation to Shelby Oaks is uncalled for. Does this mean I don’t respect Jahns’s honesty? No, since helpful feedback’s necessary for Stuckmann’s sophomore effort. But if Stuckmann won’t trash movies anymore because he’d feel hypocritical, then that’s his prerogative. It might be “disappointing”, but it doesn’t diminish his critical thinking. It simply means he’s matured enough to not want to pile on filmmakers, and I respect that. I think you should too.

A Fragile Peace

I was debating when to write this, given my thoughts were too fresh. Truthfully, I was hoping for a different outcome with the war and the hostages. I haven’t slept properly for nearly two decades, but the first three weeks post-October 7th were especially bad. It was only the revelation that I wasn’t alone that helped put me at ease. But now that a ceasefire deal is in effect, I figured I’d share some feelings on The Israel-Gaza War. Because it sucked.

Let me start with the global responses. I won’t harp on the global recognition of Palestine, as I’ve wanted that myself, even though I understand the betrayal many Jews feel, some family members of hostages, over it. I’m more concerned over how gentiles had made this a political football match, declaring open season on Jews and Muslims without appreciating the real lives at stake. What’s worse was the justification used for attacking Jews, with “Zionist” being a codeword for them. The living nightmare of these last two years is something I’ll feel for a while.

The gentile world has lost my trust. After October 7th, I made a declaration, one I’ve reiterated, that Hamas and their supporters gave some really awful people a gold platter to exploit Jewish concerns. We’ve seen this with Project Esther, an initiative to silence criticism of the war even from liberal-leaning Jews. It makes me wonder if progressive “allies” have shame, as they’ve been routinely gaslighting Jewish concerns even within their own circles. It’s not helpful, and it’s disgusting that these same allies only got involved because it meant shaming Jews.

It's also telling that these allies are largely silent in the face of Hamas’s current slaughtering of their own citizens. Wasn’t the point to stand up for Palestinians in Gaza? Why are you now ignoring plans to repeat an October 7th-like event? Is it because Jews aren’t involved? I wish I could be shocked, but I’m not.

Speaking of, the reaction to the hostage situation, as well as October 7th, was appalling. There’ve been attempts at downplaying the pain of Israelis, even claiming that The Nova Festival Massacre was a “psy-op” by The Mossad. True, Netanyahu’s failures to stop it from happening will hurt him in next year’s election, but really? There’s no way a country that disunited before October 7th, 2023 could’ve orchestrated something this grand. It gives Netanyahu, who was trying to “reform” the judiciary, and his coalition too much credit.

This isn’t to let him off-the-hook. Netanyahu bribing Hamas for years was inevitably going to backfire, and dragging out the war to avoid accountability cost Israeli hostages and reservists their lives. The country’s facing a mental health crisis because of that, and I hope that also backfires on him. Even ignoring the Charedi draft issue, he's failed Israelis big time. And he’ll have plenty to answer for when the time comes in the country alone.

I could go on forever about how the world has made my existence a nightmare these last two years, but I’ve already written about that. Instead, I’d like to mention that the current “peace” is fragile. Most of the hostages are back in Israel, but there are still several dead ones that Hamas hasn’t returned. It doesn’t help that they’re massacring their own, either. I know Hamas has fans, but they need to be held accountable if there’s to be lasting peace. Palestinians in Gaza deserve that much.

I do have to give credit to the global Jewish community, however. Jews have often compared themselves to eggs, as they’re tougher under pressure, and I’ve seen that firsthand. There have been Jews who’ve found themselves and become more entrenched in their roots. In Israel, completely secular Israelis have adopted Jewish traditions. Families have reunited after years of not speaking. And the anti-Netanyahu protests have grown. Tragic as it is, this war has brought us closer.

However, it’s come at a hefty price. There’s a PTSD crisis in Israel, one that’ll be hard to resolve. People are broken, and I doubt the country can handle this. On the Palestinian side, an entire generation is also broken beyond repair, with many families missing multiple members. It’s easy to claim one side or the other has “won”, but no one truly wins in a war. All parties are losers. I wish that was understood.

Above all, we need to reconcile how this war has shown how much work we have. Yes, Israel’s on better relations with Syria now. Yes, Palestine’s now a recognized country by much of the world. But those are baby steps. They’re not the long-term picture, and it’ll take re-examining our biases for lasting change. That needs constant work from both sides.

I’m tired. I’ve had many unpleasant discussions with Jews and gentiles, and it’s been draining. I’ll probably have more discussions, and they’ll get heated. But I’m hoping this ceasefire deal eases the burden of Antisemitism, making it safer for Jews. The deal’s late, and I have no doubts Trump sabotaged peace efforts under Biden to inflate his ego, but I want to move on. Isn’t that worth something?

Mother Knows Best?

Criticizing Disney villains is a tightrope. On one hand, they’re the most entertaining parts of their respective films. On the other hand, they’re not immune to criticism, hence why Disney phased them out. This is especially true with Disney remaking their classic pantheon in live-action, resulting in lifeless slop. And then there’s Tangled, which has been in production limbo for several months, but has finally resumed development. I’ve covered my thoughts on the 2010 movie before, but it’s fascinating, and frustrating, that any discussion surrounding its antagonist ends with debate.

I’m not writing this to demean Disney movies or start unnecessary arguments. Both will happen anyway, but I like these villains. That said, while people pile on authors like JK Rowling for leaning in on overt stereotypes, the subtler ones remain unchallenged. And in some cases, like Mother Gothel, they’re defended by fans. We good? Moving on.

I should also mention that Mother Gothel being Antisemitic-coded, like other Disney villains, doesn’t mean she’s only that. Disney pulls from many sources, including drag. But that doesn’t mean the argument can’t be made. And in a time when Jews are being attacked (again) for being Jewish, it’s especially important to listen to us. Especially on topics not so obvious.

Let’s begin by rehashing how Gothel could be seen as Antisemitic: a crooked nose. Droopy, almost tired, eyes. Dark, curly hair that’s unkempt and slicked back. Less-refined complexion features, like pale skin. A desire to feed off of a younger, more innocent and European-looking woman. And a nagging, possessive relationship with the heroine.

I’m not the first to call this out, nor will I be the last. Gothel’s features, dating back to the original fairytale, are baked in Antisemitic tropes, as Jews were the dominant minority in Europe for centuries. They were thought of as deceivers out to distort European Christendom, and even after secularization this persisted. It’s also no surprise that Walt Disney, who didn’t think so fondly of any minority, would resort to these stereotypes even while championing innovation. Essentially, it’s hard to tell if Gothel’s deliberately Antisemitic, or simply based on Antisemitic choices from ages past.

I’ve never been the biggest fan of Gothel. She’s fun, and she has one of Tangled’s best songs/reprisals, but outside of creating a personal obstacle for Rapunzel she’s uninteresting. She lacks the showiness of Disney Renaissance antagonists, the pure evil of classic ones and even the connive that made Dr. Facilier work in The Princess and the Frog. For the most part, she’s a non-entity. It’s no surprise that Disney would move away from villains like her afterward.

Which brings me to the live-action remake of Tangled. When it was initially announced, I didn’t have high hopes. I’d only enjoyed three of the live-action remakes, and each of them either improved on or changed the material they were working with. The rest were so overly-faithful, yet simultaneously unfaithful, to their source material that they didn’t hook me with their trailers. (I don’t need a repeat of something I love, except less-inspired.) Tangled felt like more of the same.

For a while, this remake of a 15 year-old movie was on hold, thanks to the diminishing returns of recent remakes. But then came the success of Lilo & Stitch, showing that Disney’s live-action remakes could still be profitable. And now Tangled’s remake has a possible actress for Mother Gothel: Scarlett Johansson, a Jewish woman who’s been under fire for a variety of reasons in recent years. Oh dear.

I have no problem with Johansson as Gothel in theory. Like Gal Gadot as The Evil Queen, she has an opportunity to reclaim the Antisemitic coding of Gothel. And unlike Godot, she’s a decent actress. But while I’m happy that she gets to embody the character, I also have my share of reservations. Like The Evil Queen, I don’t think she can escape the baggage associated with Gothel, especially if Disney decides to be “forward-thinking” and casts a minority actress as Rapunzel. If it happened with Rachel Zegler in Snow White, it can happen again!

Honestly, I don’t see why Tangled needs Mother Gothel. Going by what I said before, Gothel was never a threat outside of a few scenes. And since Disney has made a point of moving away from conventional villains, opting for twist-villains instead, I don’t see why they can’t actually update the entire story for modern audiences. It’s what they did with Frozen, so why not here? Or is cashing in on nostalgia too important?

I actually wouldn’t mind, assuming they use Gothel, another twist-villain. I know people are sick of them, but it humanizes them in ways that “I AM EVIL, WATCH ME SCHEME!” can’t. While the latter can be fun, it’s also lazy. It limits what the baddie’s capable of, and it doesn’t give them much depth. That might be “the point”, but even when Hayao Miyazaki uses this trope, which isn’t often, he gives his villains human motivations. He’s also careful not to rely on stereotypical coding, instead letting their actions do the heavy lifting.

To be clear, I’m not saying you can’t enjoy Mother Gothel. For all my issues with her, she’s fun to watch! And it’s satisfying seeing her meet her end! But while I enjoy the evilness of Gothel, I also think Disney can do better. I especially think they can do better than using a Jewish actress for a Jewish-coded antagonist. You can disagree, but that’s my take.

Then again, I strongly doubt the remake will be good, so...

Introducing Tilly Norwood!

Meet Tilly Norwood.

You’ve probably never heard of her. I hadn’t either until recently. Despite this, Norwood’s being touted as “Hollywood’s next big star”. It’s an ambitious claim, and since Hollywood likes recycling A-listers it sounds good in theory. However, there’s a problem: she’s not real.

I’ve made no secret about my disdain for A.I. I’m not entirely opposed to it, it has its place, but right now people are adopting it left-right-and-centre without thinking about the implications. A.I., like the CGI boom of the 90s, is a tool that should be used alongside actors, not instead of them. And like said boom, it’s not. That’s worrying.

I’m not alone here. Since Tilly Norwood’s announcement, many members of SAG-AFTRA have expressed concerns about her. SAG-AFTRA has also made it explicitly-clear that Norwood can’t be used in their productions, as she could potentially steal work. But while Norwood’s creator has said that she isn’t meant to replace anyone, I’m not convinced of that. Because it’s not like “one-offs” have stayed “one-offs” with A.I.

Perhaps the best example is the Star Wars IP. When Star Wars: Rogue One debuted in 2016, there was hubbub about reviving the late-Peter Cushing’s likeness for Grand Moff Tarkin. He was in a few scenes, and he served a story purpose, but something felt off. Whether it was his face looking plastic, or his voice sounding robotic, the idea, though ambitious, wasn’t flawless. This was nothing to say of the late-Carrie Fisher’s Princess Leia having a 5-second cameo at the end of the movie, making an attempt to tie everything to the 1977 classic.

The filmmakers justified this as a “one-off” meant to serve the story. Fair enough…even if Cushing and Fisher never consented. However, this was done again with Mark Hamill’s Luke Skywalker in Season 2 of The Mandalorian, as well as for an episode of The Book of Boba Fett. In both cases, this was also an A.I. recreation. Except that this time, the actor in question had input(?)

Regardless, this decision, while not the same as reinventing someone, raised many legal and ethical concerns: was it okay to mimic someone’s likeness if they were dead? Was it “acting” if it wasn’t them? And given the recreation was sculpted on top of a stand-in, why not have said stand-in portray the character instead? It’s not like you can’t find mimics, animation does it constantly, so why take the easy way out?

This isn’t even discussing authenticity. An A.I. recreation, at least for now, isn’t acting. It isn’t human either, and it lacks the emotion and warmth of one. Ignoring how A.I. doesn’t create, but rather recreates, the feeling of knowing that what you’re seeing isn’t real is called The Uncanny Valley. And believe me, humans can detect this.

A.I. technology’s constantly improving, and it’s getting harder and harder to spot it, but removing humanity from art and “making it work” is a fallacy. Movies, even ones done by computers, need a guiding hand from real artists, and this removes that from the equation. Since entertainment, like all art-forms, is in conversation with reality, what does it say about reality when it’s conversing with an artificial construct? And I’m not referring to robots, either.

You see the issue? It’s one concern if artists have consented to signing away their likeness. I don’t like that James Earl Jones consented to using his Darth Vader voice after his death, but he at least was consulted. Tilly Norwood, like Carrie Fisher’s Leia, can’t consent. In the case of Norwood, it’s because she’s not a real actress, and has been scraped from hundreds upon hundreds of hours of other actors’ performances. So while this might seem “novel”, it’s not as novel as you’d think.

This also broaches a bigger question: even if Norwood’s not meant to replace anyone, what’s to stop another Norwood from being created? Moviemaking’s a business, and businesses love cutting corners, so what makes people think a studio won’t eventually bite? It’d not only rob someone of a future role, it’d also be a cynical ploy to pinch Pennies here and there. That’s what really bothers me.

I don’t need to be reminded that A.I. isn’t going away. I see that on LinkedIn constantly. I also am currently writing about that for an automotive magazine, and it’s scheduled to release next month. A.I.’s here to stay. I have to get used to that.

In the same breath, regulations and rules need to be established. Like the mocap animation debate from the 2000s, which had similar concerns, over-relying on artificial actors has real ramifications. It also robs humanity from film, makes audiences further desensitized to thinking critically, and destroys suspension of disbelief. It’s not like people can go along with the absurdities of the premise because it feels anchored or grounded, as that isn’t true anymore. That’s not healthy for the art-form, either.

Finally, there’s the issue of interpretation. Going back to Star Wars, Ewan McGregor isn’t Alec Guinness, nor should he be. But while the former’s been portraying a younger version of Obi-Wan Kenobi, he’s also made him his own. He’s brought a unique energy, too! And fans can’t imagine anyone else in live-action now. That’s something Tilly Norwood can’t do, no matter how “well-intended” her creation was.

So yes, people are right to be concerned about Tilly Norwood. The question is: what can we do about it?

Nintendo's New President?

After 6 years as president of Nintendo of America, Doug Bowser is stepping down on December 31st.

It feels weird even saying that. Not only did Bowser feel like a non-energy compared to Reggie Fils-Aimé, he was barely president. It doesn’t seem that way, but 6 years isn’t long. Especially compared to Fils-Aimé’s 16 years. It’s the difference between a ripple and a tsunami. Which begs the question: if Bowser’s retiring, who’s taking his place?

Well, we know the answer: Devon Pritchard. I didn’t know who that was initially, until I looked up the name. Sure enough, it’s a woman, Nintendo of America’s first. Because The US couldn’t handle a female head of state, they figured this was the next best option. Honestly, this is great news! I wish her the best at outdoing her soon-to-be predecessor’s job!

I jest. Nevertheless, because Devon Pritchard’s a woman, even though she’s more than qualified, there’s inevitably going to be backlash. If gamers are known for anything, it’s being incredibly toxic to anyone who doesn’t fit the status quo. It’s not like we haven’t learned that from GamerGate! That was definitely a headache-and-a-half!

For as much as I complain about Nintendo, and it’s warranted, having a woman as president of the American division isn’t automatically bad. Not only has it never been done, it also isn’t a knock against Pritchard. Remember that Nintendo’s had a rocky past few years. COVID-19 aside, which they benefitted from, they’ve had a difficult time with tariffs over the Switch 2. They’ve also been accused of sexism, enough that it was made public. With that latter part, this might be a way of smoothing everything over.

Outside of that, Nintendo of America’s new president being a woman shouldn’t spell doom and gloom. Pritchard won’t be making the big calls for the company. That honour belongs to Nintendo of Japan, specifically Shuntaro Furukawa. Pritchard will be NoA’s face, but she’ll have to answer to Furukawa. If Nintendo of Japan does something “bad”, it won’t be her fault. I’m hoping that quells some faux-concerns.

However, let’s pretend Pritchard became the general president of Nintendo. It won’t happen, but let’s say it did. Would that be so bad? Pritchard isn’t some nobody who “slept her way to the top”. Misogyny aside, her credential are strong: she’s been with Nintendo of America for over 19 years, and she has a Doctorate of Law from Gonzaga University. She’s also Nintendo’s marketing advisor, suggesting a background in finance. (You can find all this on her LinkedIn profile.) Considering her real experience, would leading Nintendo proper be out of the question?

This is the conversation many gamers refuse to have. They see “not a man”, and they immediately assume the worst. It doesn’t matter if the person’s experienced, it’s “not enough”. Because God forbid a girlboss exist! Heaven help us if a woman has power!

I know it feels like I’m retreading water, especially given the “debate” over Princess Peach in The Super Mario Bros. Movie, but sexism doesn’t really “die” with gamers. No, it merely gets quelled for a month or two, only to resurface with another “scandal”. In this case, it’ll be about Pritchard becoming NoA president. If you don’t believe me, then you’re naïve.

It’s exhausting. I’m not even a woman, and it’s exhausting. The world has so many real issues, like wars, poverty and inequality. Shouldn’t we be focused on those instead of obsessing over a woman being in charge of a company? Wouldn’t our resources be better spent? Or is that too much to ask from the community of Vivian James?

Let’s be real: it no longer sucks being a gamer, especially in 2025. The world has come around to the hobby of video games, and there are even competitions. We’re not living in the 1980s, a time when gaming was considered a blight. Nerds rule the world now, and we garner respect. So why continue acting like we’re marginalized?

Having a mainstream executive, and a woman, as the head of a gaming company should be welcomed. It should be welcomed because of how rare it is. Despite what you’d be led to believe, women still struggle to get into top positions. Contrary to anti-DEI folks, they have more hurdles than their male counterparts. So we owe it to them to let them prove their worth as human beings. That we’re constantly throwing fits is sad.

Does this mean Devon Pritchard will automatically be a good president? No. But she should be allowed to demonstrate that without any added barriers. That’s true equity. And it’s high-time that people, gamers specifically, recognized this.

Look, change is scary and difficult. I get it. But it’s also necessary to maintain relevancy. Nintendo’s been around for well over a century. We may not like every decision they’ve made, but they know what they’re doing if they’re still around. Especially when much of their competition has faded into irrelevancy. This is yet another example of a calculated move on their part that could work in their favour. We owe Pritchard that much.

Kirk & Kimmel

I’ve largely kept my nose out of the situation surrounding Charlie Kirk. It’s not like I haven’t expressed my thoughts, but any statement will get me into trouble. While I recognize that Kirk was an awful human being, I also think the discourse surrounding him has become toxic. Essentially, while I’m disgusted that people are making him into a martyr, I’m equally disgusted that people are overlooking how he died.

Let’s be clear: Charlie Kirk was a bad person. Seriously. The interactions I had with him weren’t direct, but they always smelled of insincerity. This was someone who routinely abused the contemplation emoji to prove non-existent points that could be refuted without much research. He also was a January 6th insurrectionist, and he mocked George Floyd’s murder. Kirk was no different than Candace Owens in many ways, save being a white man who occasionally played nice with Jews and Israel. The latter was something Owens couldn’t even do.

Simultaneously, being shot wasn’t the right approach. Yes, he wouldn’t have batted an eye if someone on the left had been shot. And yes, people on the right, including his widow, have been feasting off of his death. But no, vigilante justice isn’t the answer to combatting his hate. Considering the nature of his death, and how it’s been warped, it’s much more telling of the gun violence issue in American society generally.

The Charlie Kirk situation’s beyond my pay-grade. What isn’t beyond my pay-grade is late night host Jimmy Kimmel’s stance on it. Kimmel’s statement was incredibly milquetoast. He not only didn’t take a side, he also chastised those who did. In particular, he jabbed President Trump’s response, citing that using his death to segue into a different topic was insensitive. That, and clamping down on freedom of speech was wrong. To quote Kimmel directly:

“We had some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and with everything they can to score political points from it.”

I don’t see how this is worth the backlash from the right, especially since Kimmel was showing more respect for Kirk than most of his allies. He also was right in calling out Trump segueing to talking about a ballroom in The White House. Even if you didn’t like Kirk, using this moment to focus on yourself is childish. A friend of yours died, show some respect! Is that really too much to ask?

Kimmel’s statements received plenty of backlash, including a suspension of his show from ABC. I get why Disney, the parent company, felt like this was the right call; after all, they’re currently in the middle of a mini-merger, and they want the approval of the current FCC. Disney, who’ve gotten in hot water with Trump before, felt pressure to make nice and not ruffle feathers. Even if Trump didn’t directly make a threat, Kimmel’s jab was probably a bit much, so they stopped the leak before the dam burst open. That much I understand.

Nevertheless, it’s frustrating that Disney, who won their fight with Governor DeSantis over the “Don’t Say Gay” bill in Florida, hasn’t shown more backbone. Disney isn’t some smalltime studio. They’re a corporation that’s been around for over a century, and they have a bigger base than the MAGA movement could ever dream of! So while it’s not unexpected for them to follow the money, this is really cowardly. It also reeks of desperation.

Naturally, their decision to fire Kimmel has backfired, accruing financial losses as longtime fans and people on their payroll have shared dissatisfaction. It’s gotten so bad that both Ted Cruz and former Disney CEO Michael Eisner have expressed disapproval. Cruz being anti-Disney on this is already telling, but Eisner? Given how Eisner left Disney on bad terms, that’s saying something! Your move, Bob Iger!

I probably won’t be cancelling Disney+, especially considering what I paid to renew my subscription. Nevertheless, the backlash is warranted. This reminds me of when Disney fired James Gunn over Tweets he’d apologized for years prior, as well as the backlash that resulted there. Ironically, that too happened when Trump was president. It also didn’t last long, as Disney immediately recognized their mistake and quickly made plans to remedy it. It also allowed Gunn to become an employee of Warner Bros. This sort of knee-jerk decision from Disney blew up in their face once before, so you’d think they’d have learned their lesson.

In the meantime, I’m not shocked by the aftermath. Nor do I think it’s unwarranted. Will the proposed boycott of Disney, and the subsequent decline in shares, make them reverse their decision? Considering Disney prides itself on their reputation, probably. At least, I’d hope so. The precedent’s there historically, and Disney knows this.

This is a case of jawboning on the part of Disney. It’s not censorship, as Trump didn’t make the decision for Disney, but it’s pretty close. And yes, jawboning’s a real word. It also is self-explanatory. Look it up.

By Disney jawboning Kimmel, they’ve made this leak into a massive fissure. And it’s entirely deserved. Ignoring how Disney can afford the financial losses, they’ve kowtowed to a politician who has thin skin. Disney can’t and shouldn’t pretend Trump won’t go after them at some point too, as he will. He’s that insecure.

I’m also worried about the state of late night comedy. Trump’s lashed out at corporate media outlets for criticizing him before, and he brought The New York Times to court for shedding light on his behaviour recently. Comedians, particularly political pundits, are supposed to ridicule and keep politicians in-check. It’s important for a healthy democracy, one Trump’s intent on ruining. Besides, who’s to say this won’t happen again?

I’ll end with a point of comparison: in 1985, during President Reagan’s inauguration, several comedians, like Don Rickles and Rodney Dangerfield, were brought in to roast the returning president. Some of their jokes were hard-hitting and personal, touching on Reagan’s stint as governor of California and his time as a Hollywood actor. But while Reagan could’ve been offended, he took it in stride. He was willing to laugh at his own expense, as he knew the importance of comedy. It pains me to praise him, considering how much damage he’d do to The US, but it highlights a stark contrast between Reagan and Trump. And if what happened to Jimmy Kimmel and Charlie Kirk is indication, it shows how far The US has fallen in 40 years. That’s more telling than anything anyone could say politically.

Stranger Than Fiction

I didn’t get into Stranger Things right away. Unlike most fans, it wasn’t until my former dental hygienist recommended it in 2017 that I caved, roughly several months after its second season’s conclusion. And because I’m not a big horror fan, I wasn’t invested that quickly. Nevertheless, there was something that grabbed me amidst the messiness of later seasons, something personal and grounded. So when I saw that Billiam, someone I’m subscribed to, was doing a retrospective on its “downfall”, I was dreading the worst. I don’t agree with everything he’s made, I’m not big on the Mission Impossible movies, but he’s an interesting commentator. Which is why his video, which I saw, was worth responding to.

I have nothing against Billiam. He’s entitled to feel like Stranger Things declined after Season 1, even if I don’t agree. Future seasons weren’t perfect, particularly the character assassination of Hopper in Season 3, and how Evan Rachel Wood received flak for criticizing that. Nevertheless, there was always something to come back to, particularly as someone who felt isolated and marginalized growing up. That’s always been the show’s anchor.

Season 2’s major thread, for example, was in the relationship Hopper and Eleven shared. Preteens aren’t easy to parent because they test boundaries, and Eleven’s a super-powered preteen with a literal way of thinking. So when she and Hopper butted heads over her freedom, it made sense that she’d run off. The episode where she met a fellow psychic and joined her gang is considered a low point for many, but the lessons and growth she experienced there came back into play in when she had to close the portal to The Upside Down in the finale. Plus, she and Hopper reconciled.

Season 3 took flak for making Hopper overly-aggressive, especially in how he treated Joyce and Will early on. I don’t like that, honestly. However, it’s not the main focus. The heart of Season 3 was Eleven and Max’s friendship, as well as Max’s rocky relationship with her stepbrother. It’s here we received a backstory for why Billy’s abusive, and by season’s end I felt bad for him. It also made his death at the hands of The Mind Flayer tragic, as it was how he felt he could make amends. I still can’t watch that without shedding a few tears.

Which leads to Season 4, a season I’ve covered already in a Top 15 list. It sucked that each episode was a movie-length event, but that gave the story time to unfold naturally. It also helped flesh out Vecna as a villain, including his four-twists-in-one reveal. I’m skeptical of most twist villain reveals, especially when done poorly, but this one had enough time dedicated to it that it didn’t feel out of place. It was also really creepy.

And now we’re getting Season 5, which promises to build off the cliffhanger of Season 4. Nevertheless, I think Billiam underestimates the show’s popularity. It’s Netflix’s biggest hit, and each new season feels like an event. It’s also not Game of Thrones, where the story ran out of material and spiralled into a black hole qualitatively. Stranger Things isn’t based on anything, and while it could always end up crashing and burning, that won’t sour fans of preexisting source material. The disappointment would land on The Duffer Brothers, who still care about something they created 9 years ago.

I know some of the lustre of Stranger Things disappearing is a result of events not within its control. Pandemic aside, the show has had its bumps over the years. And several of the faux-controversies the cast have been in, including Noah Schnapp receiving backlash for his statement on The Nova Festival Massacre, have made the conversation feel toxic. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t still have fans. Because if the numbers are indicative, it absolutely does.

If Stranger Things has a flaw, aside from how Netflix has marketed it, it’s being a victim of its own success. Like WandaVision’s finale, which I loved, the premise was so good that there was no way anything could live up to it. But that’s an issue of expectations, not quality. Like The Dark Knight Rises, I believe people are missing out on what they got because of what they wanted. That’s not fair.

Could Season 5 still disappoint? Absolutely! I’ve seen franchises crash and burn many times! But I also think that doesn’t give The Duffer Brothers respect as filmmakers. They might not have made anything else since Stranger Things, intentionally or not, but that doesn’t discredit their work. If anything, considering how artistic burnout is real, that they still feel passionate and committed is impressive. Doubly so for the cast, many of whom have had careers because of it.

So yes, Billiam’s giving this show too little credit by saying that people’s adoration was past-tense. It’s not. The show has a lively fanbase that anticipates new seasons, however sporadic they are. And with the cast now outgrowing their roles, Joe Keery specifically, it’s fitting that this is the final season. Even if it sputters, it deserves closure.

The Anime Phenomenon

Recently my uncle shared an editorial from The New York Times about the Western anime boom. I can’t link it here, as I lack a subscription, but I was gifted access for my viewing pleasure. I especially liked how it combined Manga-style textboxes with .gifs to make the text pop. It also got me thinking about my experience with anime, as well as the impact it’s made on me. Because to say that it has is an understatement.

My exposure to anime, unlike many people, wasn’t instantaneous. It came in waves, with large gaps in-between ventures, and at times it was only a show or two. I also didn’t have access to Toonami growing up, hence my options were more limited than many Americans. It wasn’t until university, particularly my third year, that I started appreciating what anime had to offer, binging shows and movies through questionable sources. This was compounded by then-undiagnosed mental health issues, making discussing it a challenge.

There are many elements about anime, both good and bad, that I’ve noticed over the years. I’ve covered many of them on Infinite Rainy Day, but also discussed the odd piece on here. There’s too much to discuss, so I’ll zone-in on three aspects that sum up the experience. And no, the foreign aspect won’t be one of them. It’s a factor, but it’s not the definitive factor.

The first way involves expanding on the animated medium’s possibilities. In The West, animation’s still largely viewed as a kid’s art-form. This is a relic of the days when TV made animation cheap, with constantly-reused frames and stock backgrounds. Many syndicated shows and movies, therefore, looked like oversimplified, watered-down spectacles that appealed more to children than adults, the latter of whom were busy with work, family life and the threat of nuclear war. It’s silly in hindsight, but this can still be felt today.

While anime started as the Japanese equivalent of this, it quickly became more adventurous. Franchises like the Lupin III series, which is basically a hybrid of James Bond and Robin Hood, delved into violence and raunchy humour, tackling themes only present in Western animation in the underground scene. This provocativeness helped anime gain its footing in Japan, showing that it can appeal to adults. It also helped with its initial appeal in The West, catering to nerds desperate to feel “cool” and “edgy”. Whether or not that was good is debatable, but it helped with gaining an audience.

It’s also allowed for anime to test the waters in ways everyone else is only starting to. In my piece on KPop Demon Hunters, I stated that the movie feels radical to Western audiences, but only because we’re not used to storytelling like that. And yes, it was Korean-inspired. But plenty of in-between animation is done there, and there’s plenty of crossover in terms of style. I know it’s a generalization, but anime has the audacity to be more, well, audacious than Western animation.

The second feature is the attention to detail. Most anime is rendered at 12 frames per second instead of 24, and mostly due to budgetary concerns. Yet this clear handicap has made Japanese animators more visually-ambitious than many cartoonists stateside. It’s how a Studio Ghibli movie with a budget of roughly $50 million US can look so painterly and rich. Every frame counts, and anime’s no exception.

Despite this dip in fluidity, anime production is more detailed visually than most of what’s released here. Spongebob Squarepants can get away with quick gags, but it can’t disguise its limitations. Anime, however, frequently has details not normally present in the aforementioned series, including proper limbs and character features. It’s not 100% realistic, anime gave up completely emulating human details decades ago, but you can imagine the characters being real people in their shows. There are exceptions, though.

This attention to detail shows in how the characters move and act. They say the secret to animating a character is in their walk, as no two people move the same way, and anime embodies that even in cheaply-made shows. This is true of their movements and their injuries, as both are drawn to be weighty. In some ways, it adds to the immersion, something I picked up on as a young child watching Pokémon or Digimon. After all, it sucks being lied to, even in fiction!

The third way anime stands out is in its serialization. Western animation has only really caught onto this recently, but having a long-running story arc can make your audience feel invested. Even anime’s episodic shows have a continuity of sorts. And yes, that includes Pokémon. Who’d have thought?

Serialization gets overlooked when discussing anime as a medium. People, even kids, enjoy a story that spans multiple episodes. Whether or not these storylines drag is debatable, but not having everything wrap up in one episode is radical. It gives the viewer something to look forward to, anxiously awaiting what happens next. I know it does for me!

But that’s what anime, particularly shows, does best. And yes, often the shows aren’t terribly long, consisting of 13 or 26 episodes. Yet that restriction means being creative and making sure the stories have a beginning, middle and end. Spike Spiegel’s story in Cowboy Bebop has to be crammed into the escapades of The Bebop Crew, and each of his colleagues need their arcs concluded by show’s end too. Anime has shown plenty of creativity in spite of this limitation. It’s something Western cartoons can learn from.

These three attributes, in my mind, make anime unique and appealing. And yes, I recognize anime’s limitations. In particular, I find the over-exaggerated facial features characters sometimes use for comedic effect, known as “Manga Iconography”, off-putting, especially since the human body’s plenty expressive already. But that comes with being an anime fan, for better or worse, and it adds to its charm when done well. It’s also not a dealbreaker.

So yes, I’m glad that The New York Times can recognize the boom in anime’s popularity. That doesn’t mean that I want to subscribe to The New York Times, but I’ll take my victories wherever I can.

This Isn't Funny

(Note: The following deals with sensitive subject matter about a portion of the show at hand. Read at your own risk.)

I know The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya hasn’t exactly been relevant for years. I also know it’s weird to be discussing it now. To that end, blame my train of thought. Besides, what I’m about to discuss bothers me still. I’ve also wanted to update my thoughts on this for some time.

The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is a series that ran from 2006-2009 in Japan. Set in high school, it follows Kyon and his various escapades with a girl named Haruhi Suzumiya. Haruhi has all the hallmarks of a weird person: she spends most of her time daydreaming, she undresses in class, she has energetic outbursts constantly and she’s fascinated with the supernatural. When Kyon’s roped into her desire to start a club called The SOS Brigade, he realizes he might be in over his head with Haruhi. Especially since her behaviour crosses several boundaries.

This sounds like a cynical synopsis, but nothing I’ve said so far is false. Besides, it had a big fanbase for years, even inspiring a dance. It was also one of Kyoto Animation’s first success stories, and they’d make many more before an arson incident consumed their headquarters. Essentially, The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya was everywhere for a while, even showing up at anime conventions. The 2000’s were an interesting time, basically.

I have nothing personal against Kyoto Animation. They’re not my cup of tea, but they built their reputation on consistent output. Plus, they were one of the few studios to employ a significant number of women in prominent roles, treating them with respect and paying them decently in an industry where that isn’t the norm. Kyoto Animation were trailblazers, so anything I’m about to say isn’t an indictment. We clear here?

I’ve never been big on this show. Even before I reconciled my personal trauma, the show’s stance on assault and infantilization of teenage girls never sat well. Unfortunately, saying that aloud for years warranted backlash. Even people who should’ve known better dismissed my concerns, claiming it “missed the point”. But did it? And is calling out the show’s humour that big a deal?

Perhaps the litmus test for my problems happens early on in the show’s run. There’s a scene where Haruhi decides that The SOS Brigade needs a state-of-the-art computer. She drags Kyon, and an insecure student named Mikuru Asahina, to the computer club to acquire one of theirs. When they refuse, Haruhi stages a faux-assault of Mikuru by grabbing their president’s hand, forcing it on Mikuru’s breasts and snapping photos to use as extortion. She then threatens the remainder of the club to keep their mouths shut, stating she’ll spread a rumour about them gang-raping Mikuru if they don’t comply.

On its own, this’d be disturbing. And in any other scenario, it’d be a horror story. But The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya plays this up for laughs, and Haruhi faces no accountability for her behaviour. Why? Why subject the show’s audience to this? What’s this trying to prove?

I know some people defend this as a commentary on how teenaged boys are taught to be passive. I don’t buy that. Firstly, what’s the source for that? And secondly, even if it’s true, why is this scene considered humorous? If Japanese men are “docile”, then wouldn’t this be framed as disturbing?

There’s also the implication that Mikuru’s purpose is to be humiliated and babied, as opposed to someone with wants and needs outside of Haruhi. This is made obvious not only in her speech, but also in how she’s animated. Despite being older than Haruhi, Mikuru’s framed as a child in every sense, and she’s treated like one by everyone else. Not to mention that Haruhi trots her around like her own doll, dressing her in revealing clothing constantly. It’d be upsetting if it weren’t depressing.

In a video on sexual assault from a while back, Jonathan McIntosh states that framing sexual assault from a female’s perspective doesn’t automatically invalidate the trauma it creates. Essentially, a woman assaulting a man, or even a woman assaulting another woman, isn’t automatically funny. After all, not all women are good people, and they can be violent too. So taking a male issue and flipping the gender roles doesn’t mean it’s not horrid.

I have several issues with McIntosh as an essayist, but he’s right. Haruhi assaulting and infantilizing Mikuru is still a problem. If anything, it’s more upsetting because Haruhi’s playing into a male fantasy. That no one calls her out for it, even other girls, is also a problem because it too plays into the male fantasy. It’s additionally ridiculous that Haruhi would get away what she does, even ignoring the power dynamics at play here.

Another defence used is that of “Japan being Japan”. “This is how Japanese people are!” Not only does that romanticize Japan, it’s incredibly racist. Japan might have different social norms than the West, but it’s still a society. And human societies have various issues, sexism being one of them. Besides, how do you know no one in Japan has spoken up about sexual assault? Do you have statistics?

The problem with the “Japan being Japan” claim is that Japanese people aren’t monolithic. And they do, in fact, listen to people outside their borders. This isn’t only true financially, but also artistically. It’s how one famous artist can get into trouble for Antisemitism, while another can get into trouble for calling people “too woke”. Saying that Japanese people are oblivious is insensitive at best and a lie at worst. It also doesn’t give them enough credit.

This extends to Kyoto Animation and The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. Kyoto Animation may be comprised largely of women, but so what? Ever heard of internalized misogyny? It exists. Especially in a country like Japan, where gender parity’s a big issue.

I know I’m digging up old wounds, but this isn’t the hill worth dying on. You’re entitled to like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. I enjoy many pieces of media that are insensitive, and I’m not shy about that! But part of maturity involves recognizing the flaws and issues in what you’re watching. It also means knowing when to call them out. And it especially means learning to take criticism in stride.

In the end, I think it’s worth acknowledging that The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya glorifies assault and infantilizes young girls. Is it weird to drag a 19 year-old series into the mud now? Possibly. But does that mean it’s not worth criticizing? No! Because if we can’t critique art fairly, then how can we grow as artists? How can we improve?

Something to think about.

Understanding Pixar "Sequalitis"

If there’s any Western animation studio I can be accused of “shilling” for, it’s Pixar. I grew up with their movies, and I’ve enjoyed most of their output. Even now, new Pixar movies feel like an event, even if their teasers aren’t so great. It sucks that the studio has largely been on sequel autopilot since 2011, with original films few and far-between. It also sucks that the reactions to Pixar’s sequels have been divisive. Especially since they’ve been toxic.

There’ve been several videos discussing this, most-notably from a YouTuber named “Cartoonshi シ”, but I think my own take is warranted. Because while I agree that Pixar sequels haven’t been that bad, I’d go further. I think they’ve been largely excellent, showcasing world-building in ways only a sequel can. That’s what I want to zone-in on. So let’s do that.

Let’s get the main reason for division out of the way: expectation. Save Toy Story 2, Pixar sequels are never released within a few years of the original. Even the ones for Cars took at least 5 years, and those are considered Pixar’s worst. Generally-speaking, Pixar sequels debut many years later, leading to plenty of hype. In some cases, as with Incredibles 2, it’s overhype.

It's a problem. Sure, Pixar not rushing out sequels means they can take their time perfecting them. However, this also means that fans have too much time to be excited, which is dangerous when not checked by reality. When hype isn’t checked by pragmatism, it’s no wonder there’s disappointment. That’s unavoidable.

That said, I think it clouds people’s judgement. Sure, the movie was disappointing, but was it bad? Not necessarily. You merely have to adjust your expectations. It’s not like I haven’t been let down by movies that weren’t still good. I’m a fan of The Dark Knight Rises!

Because this is the internet, where hyperbole rules, people’s disappointment becomes extreme. It’s not enough that the movie’s disappointing, it has to be bad. It’s not enough that it’s bad, it has to be awful. And it’s not enough that it’s awful, it has to be horrendous! It sounds ridiculous, yes, but is that really far off?

This is especially true of Pixar films. Unfortunately, it also leads to nonsensical and nasty critiques that don’t hold weight: Bonnie gave up on Woody in Toy Story 4, leading him to “abandon his friends”? Never mind that it’s unrealistic for a 5 year-old girl to keep a promise to a stranger, the movie’s “bad”! The same goes for Finding Dory focusing on Dory finding her parents, even though it’s building on a throwaway line from Finding Nemo. And let’s not forget Incredibles 2 retreading plot beats from the first movie, despite having new ones surrounding Helen and Jack-Jack!

The tendency to over-exaggerate how bad the Pixar sequels are is worrying, and harmful, for public discourse. I’m not a blind defender of them, either. I wasn’t big on the sequels to Cars, and I think Monsters, University’s overrated. But I know they’re not the worst movies ever made. Gorgeous animation aside, they have strengths that make them worth watching at least once!

Such is the peril of being balanced online. I get being disappointed by a sequel. I also get being spoiled by time, something not exclusive to Pixar. But acknowledging that these movies are good despite their flaws makes me susceptible to hate and targeted harassment. It’s not helpful, and I wish it’d stop, even if I know it won’t. I can dream, though…

It's not worth the vitriol because these are movies, not political events. I’ve seen my share of really awful movies over my lifetime, some of which I’ve discussed in great detail. But while I loathe them, enough to feel intensely-negative reactions, I’ve learned that dedicating energy to hating them isn’t worth my time. And I’ve learned that through bad experiences and encounters.

So why can’t people do that with Pixar? My guess is that toxicity sells more than levelheadedness. But I also think there’s an element of “in-group, out-group” going on. Like how bigots marginalize people for followers and social credit, so to do in-group, out-group people. It’s easy to categorize people that way!

Nevertheless, it’s also reductive. You don’t have to like these movies. I’m not a fan of many popular movies too. But labelling Pixar sequel fans helps no one. Especially since they’re not that bad, they’re simply disappointments. That’s the key.

I think this was missing from Cartoonshi シ’s analysis. I get that not everything can be covered, especially in 20+ minutes. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth talking about. Not when this kind of extreme backlash does a lot of harm. We need to be better than that.

Essentially, the toxic backlash toward Pixar sequels has to stop. You don’t have to like them. You don’t even have to think they’re good movies! But that’s no excuse to be jerks. Because they have good aspects, and it’s not the end of the world if someone likes them. I like them, even if I recognize that they pale to their predecessors.

Except for Toy Story 4. That movie’s fantastic.