Netflix and WB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dimly Lit Entertainment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hollywood's Antisemitism Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rush Hour More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wicked: For Good?

(Note: This piece contains minor spoilers.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 GameCube Lane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Rosy Thorn

The Sydney Sweeney hate is overblown.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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