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.

My Currency Collection

In my nearly-5 years as a lot associate, I’ve acquired many coins. Most have been Canadian or American, but every-now-and-then I’ve received foreign currency.

I spend plenty of time discussing pop culture and (occasionally) politics/religion here, so I figured I’d change it up. Here are some interesting finds, some from my job, some I’ve acquired elsewhere, but all worthy of conversation. I can’t remember the story behind each one, but I’ll share what stands out:

The first one’s this 50 British Pence, which is the bulkiest coin I’ve ever seen. I have a few of these, honestly. What makes this one unique is that it’s from 1969. It’s not my oldest coin, but it’s that bit of history that’s worth sharing. Especially since the monarch then, Queen Elizabeth II, was young. She passed away roughly 3 years ago, so most of the Commonwealth coins I own have her face on them.

This next coin’s hard to make out (can you tell I’m not a photographer?), but it’s an Indian Rupee I found on the ground at work. India and England have a rocky relationship, and that’s putting it mildly, but I thought I’d share it next because the country decided not to feature the British monarchy on its currency. I don’t blame them, as The Partition of India and Pakistan was something both countries are still experiencing ripple effects from. Essentially, why would they want that?

Here's a Mexican Centavo. I also have a Brazilian Centavos, which shouldn’t be confused with Mexico’s currency. What makes this one interesting is that while made of copper, it fits in the Quarter slot of the carts at work. Contrary to what you’d be led to believe, you can fit foreign coins in them if they’re the size and shape of the Canadian Quarter. It’s how I acquired most of my coins.

Commonwealth currencies don’t have uniform size standards. Case in point? This is a 10 Cent coin from Australia. It’s bigger than the Canadian Dime, which is tiny, but not the same size as the Canadian Quarter. I’d compare it to our Nickel, which is worth 5 Cents. That aside, I like the design, complete with evergreen needles? I’m unsure.

As you can tell, this is from West Germany. The date gives it away. What I find fascinating is how the 10 looks like a Calligraphic design, as if designed by a fountain pen. For anyone under the age of 25, fountain pens were often used for legal documents, usually when it came to signing names. These days it’s all done by computer, so it’s less personalized, but now you know. It’s a cool coin too.

Perhaps the largest number of all my coins, 200 Colombian Pesos isn’t worth much in CAD. I should know, I did the conversion. However, it’s neat to see this particular number on it. How often do you have coins with the number 200? And ones that aren’t special runs? It makes sense, as different countries use different standards, but even so.

I have many Filipina Pesos, thanks to my work’s clientele being largely from The Philippines (next to Jews, that is!). I remember having a conversation with a coworker-turned-friend about this, and I was informed that the country’s currency has been devalued over time. I can’t claim to be an expert in why without sounding pretentious and racist, but it’s upsetting that this coin, which fits beautifully into the shopping carts, is only worth 2.5 Cents Canadian. If it helps, I round that up to 3 Cents when logging its value.

My most-recent acquisition, and the newest minted, this is a Caribbean Quarter. I don’t know much about the Caribbean States outside of Disney, but I know they were an outpost for pirates and slaves historically. I think the giveaway is the ship on the coin. It’s a neat little ship. Moving on.

Like the aforementioned Pence, this is an odd-looking coin. I don’t know why it was designed this way, complete with wavy edges. Like my Pence, this was minted in the late-1960’s, hence Queen Elizabeth II’s face. This was inherited from my Bubbie’s coin collection, by the way. She and my late-Zaidy used to travel a lot, and I guess they’d acquired a collection of coins themselves. In this case, it’s from The Bahamas.

Hong Kong has an interesting history, both as a British trading port and as an independent city. I know many expats will get mad for saying that, but it doesn’t mean I don’t sympathize with Hong Kong’s current situation. That aside, this is arguably my most “exotic” coin. Fun fact: my grandparents were in Mainland China during The Tiananmen Square Revolt. That wasn’t intentional on their part...

This one’s an oddity, as I forget which Arab nation it’s from. I have one from The UAE, but this one’s worth more (if I remember correctly). It’s shameful that my ignorance is getting the best of me, but I found this in a cart at work. I like the swords on the coin, though. That they’re in the shape of a 5 is a neat little touch.

Lastly, we can’t discuss The Middle East without mentioning Israeli Shekels. This is a 1 NIS coin, complete with Phoenician-Hebrew lettering. It’s not worth much in Canadian, but it’s cool anyway. If we’re being honest, I have a few of these. This was simply the one I found first. It’s a shame I also don’t have an Israeli Lira (or Pound) for comparison, as the Lira was Israel’s currency until the 1980’s.

And there you have it, some of my coins from the last 5 years. I have more, but these ones definitely stood out the most. Let me know if you have special coins too, and I’ll see you next time!

Defending "Bean Mouth"

Am I the only one sick of the “bean mouth” debate?

A while back, I saw a YouTube thumbnail discussing why Elio failed at the box-office. There are several reasons why it did, even though I liked it, but none were present in said thumbnail. Instead, it blamed its failure on its art-style, specifically for using “bean mouth”. And honestly, it’s tiresome to hear that. Let me explain.

What’s “bean mouth”? It’s when the character’s face looks like a bean. Specifically, the character’s mouth, contorting and expanding to the shape of one. This has become so prevalent lately that it’s been criticized as being “bad”. It’s also been dubbed the “CalArts Style”, suggesting that California’s animation school is to blame.

I should note now that decade-defining art-styles are nothing new. The 60’s and 70’s, when Hanna-Barbera dominated television animation, had the “necktie style”. The 80’s, when cartoons were based on toys, had the “carved chest style”. Even in the 90’s, when cartoons were free to experiment, had the “pointy body style”. Each one was “uniform”, we simply accept it because of nostalgia.

That’s not an exaggeration. Throughout the 60’s and 70’s, TV animation was cheap, so a cut off neck would look weird to animate without a piece of clothing. The 80’s replicated the toys of the era, and buff characters were appealing to boys. The 90’s was the decade of Batman: The Animated Series, which utilized Gothic art-deco to look unique from its source material. Every decade had reasons for their characters being designed that way.

So what’s with “bean mouth”? There are two possible explanations here. The first is that it’s quick and easy. Animation’s time-consuming and costly to do properly, especially with mass labour. We take that for granted, since it’s often subcontracted to South Korea and Vietnam, but this isn’t quick either. Intricately-designed character models are difficult and cost money, while “bean mouth” is simpler. Besides, the human face looks like a bean from an angle.

The second is that this art-style’s expressive. It’s easy to joke about the style’s weirdness, but there’s no denying how lively the faces are. Since beans in real life are squishy and slippery when cooked, it’s perfect to use as a model. When combined time and cost, it makes sense. You have to cut corners somewhere!

Why’s this such a big deal for so many animation fans? Most aren’t in the animator’s chair, so they have no clue about the process. Why would “bean mouth” be bad? Plenty of shows and movies have utilized it well, and most of the time it isn’t the focus. The writing, setting and world-building also more than compensate. It’s something that, let me remind you, is no different than what other decades did.

I think the answer’s in the alternative term: “CalArts Style”. CalArts is a school in California that trains up-and-coming animators for TV and film. It’s been around for a while, but lately, according to detractors, it’s been training younger, more unique animators. Or, to be blunt, it’s training diverse animators. I cracked the code.

In my last piece, I mentioned the tendency to use KPop Demon Hunters, arguably Netflix’s biggest success story, to tear down Pixar and Disney. The example I used was Turning Red, which was criticized for being too “girly”. I’ve already called out the racism and sexism there, but it’s worth noting that it, like Elio, used “bean mouth”. And like Elio, it was chastised unfairly for that. Let that sink in.

Truthfully, “bean mouth”, or “CalArts Style”, is shorthand for racism. “How dare animators be diverse? This is outrageous!” You’ll probably hear this through terminology like “woke” and “DEI”, but the sentiment remains the same: modern animators are diverse. Modern animators use a uniform design. Therefore, modern animation is awful. If it sounds absurd, it is.

It’s also not why Elio bombed at the box-office. There are several reasons for why it under-performed: it’s an original story, and those take time to gain fans. The pandemic changed moviegoing habits, with theatre attendance down generally. Disney+ has primed audiences to wait, so there isn’t an incentive to spend money on tickets. And Disney didn’t do a great job marketing the movie. These make more sense than “bean mouth is bad”.

What does this really accomplish anyway? Yes, the film and TV landscapes are changing. Yes, there are an increasing number of shows and movies written and directed by minorities. No, that’s not bad. If anything, it’s overdue.

In the case of Pixar, it’s especially overdue because Pixar needed the shakeup. I love their offerings, but John Lasseter, who ran the studio for decades, was a creep. And he hadn’t directed anything of note in years, relying on brand recognition. He was talented, but he was holding everyone back. Now that he’s gone, marginalized voices, like Domee Shi, can actually express themselves. Domee Shi, by the way, also directed Elio.

I’d deconstruct this further, but it’s not worth the effort. I’ve already dedicated a lot more time and energy to this than I wanted, as I feel you should know why this is ridiculous. Nevertheless, arguing about “bean mouth” being bad is both childish and silly. In other words, you need to grow up already.

KPop, Meet Disney/Pixar

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

The fans were irritating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DK's Spectacular Bananzas

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

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

5. Zebra Bananza:

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

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

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

4. Snake Bananza:

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

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

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

3. Ostrich Bananza:

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

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

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

2. DK Bananza:

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

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

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

1. Elephant Bananza:

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

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

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

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

Load of Croc!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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