Sausage Misnomer: When a Movie Misses the Point

Comedy’s subjective. It’s specific to context, and it has to strike a chord with its intended audience. It also has to juggle the tightrope of being relevant and aggressive enough to stick, while simultaneously general enough to not be unhelpful. This is especially true for biting comedy, except this time there’s the additional obstacle of being offensive enough to remove people from their comfort zone, yet clever enough to not insult the wrong group in the process. In other words, comedy is tricky, and it can fail if delivered the wrong way or by the wrong person/group of people.

This leads to Sausage Party, a movie I recently saw and have mixed opinions on. Essentially, I’m amazed it functions at all. The concept was initially marketed like a direct-to-DVD movie, and not even a good one, and its trailers were horribly misrepresenting. It wasn’t until I looked at its R-rating that I began to take it seriously, and even then I was bewildered. Why would an animated movie in the West be R-rated? And who in their right mind would enjoy it?

To answer the second question, the reception speaks for itself. But outside of that, the movie definitely earns its R-rating. To give a general gist, Sausage Party takes place in a supermarket where food has sentience. They’re under the impression that the “gods”, aka humans, take them to “a better place”, when reality states otherwise. So when a lone hot dog discovers the truth, he makes it his mission to warn everyone that their utopia is a lie. This sounds like it could have potential commentary on how humans are the top predators and eat lower life-forms without thinking of the greater implications.

Before I go into my spoiler-filled analysis, I’d like to state right now that I did enjoy it. I got many laughs from its writing, even though 75% of its dialogue contains unneeded expletives, and it took advantage of its premise. The anti-PC stereotyping in the film didn’t bother me that much either, as, ignoring the fact that I usually think of computers, Canadian politics and a food brand when I hear “PC”, it makes fun of everyone equally. In other words, it’s hard to be offended when everyone's a target.

No, what really bothered me is the message. Remember how I said there’s potential as a commentary on humanity’s relationship with food? That’s not what it’s about. You’d think it’d be about that, what with the humans buying food, but nope! Instead, the movie uses this as an opportunity to comment on religion.

So we’re clear, I’m not against commenting on religion. It’s a layered subject with a lot of room for introspection and analysis. In the same breath, religion is frequently used a tool for oppressing and suppressing the masses by those in power, so criticizing that doesn’t bother me either. What I’m against is blanket critiques of religious institutions. It seems to be socially-acceptable to do that these days, and it annoys me because it fails to acknowledge nuance.

See, religion is complicated. Like any social structure, it exists to help maintain civility and order. It also gives the spiritual side of an individual, which does exist, an outlet to express itself in a controlled manner. It may seem like it comes with “needless” rules, and to an outsider I can see why that’d be, but those rules, like any other, are meant to maintain that order. I don’t even consider them rules, more like necessary guidelines.

I’m well-aware that religion can be and has been oppressive. It’s human, and like any human system, it’s prone to misuse and corruption. We’ve seen it through The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition and the repression of LGBTQ groups in the US. Religion can be a weapon of harm, and it’s done a lot of damage throughout history. In that sense, I see why someone might be offset.

But it’s a tool that can be used for good in the right hands. I know that on the Jewish side, for instance, there are laws like those from harvesting, which are meant to help the poor and needy. When you harvest, you’re supposed to leave a corner of your field, and well as loose droppings and the odd grain you missed, for the poor, as it’s a reminder that the food you have isn’t really yours. It’s something people wouldn’t appreciate without a religious structure, and it, like many other “rules”, are actually somewhat brilliant. Religion is what you make of it, essentially.

Which is why Sausage Party’s message doesn’t sit well with me, as it attributes everything wrong with the world, even that which has no easy answers, to the shackles of religion: pedophilia? Religion’s fault. Bigotry? Religion’s fault. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict? You’d better believe it’s religion’s fault!

Here’s a secret: it’s not really. Pedophilia exists because people are aroused by children. Bigotry is based in ignorance. And the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can’t be explained without a formal lecture. None of these are inherently religion’s fault, because, again, religion is a tool that can be used for good or bad. To shirk the blame on something that’s, inherently, neutral, is…dishonest. Besides, people like Josef Stalin weren’t religious, and they were monsters too.

I’m not sure why this movie argues that anyone who’s religious is some repressed, horny jerk who’d blindly believe something toxic even if it doesn’t make sense. Sure, there are people who are like that, no doubt. But in my community alone, there are many religious individuals who are worldly, successful and incredibly happy with their lives. They’re not “repressed”, they’re the exact opposite.

There’s also a really over-the-top orgy scene in the finale that rubbed me the wrong way for that exact reason. Ignoring that this is most-likely why the film got an R-rating, it makes it look like religion holds you back form pleasure, and freeing yourself from it is natural and healthy. It trivializes sexuality, which is a natural and healthy part of the human condition, and that sort of extreme is more hedonistic than natural. I understand it’s supposed to be funny, but I was more wincing than giggling.

There’s also missed potential for a balanced argument with the human “gods”. They’re not given humanity, they’re monsters. Considering that humans eat food to survive, that’s doing them a disservice. I’d have liked to get into their heads more, instead of that one druggie who gets his head chopped off in the third-act. It’d have been interesting, clever and, above all, nuanced.

Ultimately, Sausage Party is another film that, like Life of Pi, over-trivializes religious beliefs to make a statement. Except that, unlike Life of Pi, it acts like religion is something to reject instead of something to collect. That not only bothers me a religious person, it also bothers me as an intelligent human being. Why make such a petty argument about something so complicated? What, are we 5 years-old?

But I digress. For all my faults, I did enjoy the film. Which is possible, seeing how art isn’t a science. You can enjoy something without agreeing with it. I simply wish Sausage Party recognized how juvenile its message is, instead of treating it like something profound. That, and not fanning the flames of ignorance and bigotry.

Suicide Bros.-The DCEU Conundrum

Good Lord!

So Suicide Squad finally was released in theatres. In a move many didn’t want, yet somewhat expected, it was panned by critics. This makes the third consecutive film in a row, right after Man of Steel and Batman VS Superman: Dawn of Justice, to be trashed, leaving little hope for the DCEU (that’s what DC’s franchise is being called) to gain traction against the juggernaut that’s Marvel. It’s also already caused backlash amongst die-hard fans, reviving the tinfoil hat conspiracy of reviewers being biased. But that’s something I’ve already covered.

So that we’re clear, I’m not a DCEU fan. I’ve never seen a DCEU movie in its entirety, nor do I intend to. The weird, aesthetic blend of Nolan’s Batman movies and DC comic books doesn’t mesh in my mind, and nothing I’ve seen has really convinced me otherwise. All the more upsetting because I’m a bigger fan of DC’s superheroes than Marvel’s, having grown up with the former through Saturday morning cartoons. But I digress.

What’s surprising about Suicide Squad is rumours of behind-the-scenes footage revealing that a major subplot involving Harley Quinn and The Joker’s relationship was cut to skirt questionable material. For those unaware, Harley Quinn was an Arkham Asylum psychologist who fell in-love with The Joker, to the point of assuming the guise of villainess to appease him. Their relationship has often been depicted as shaky, but amidst the rough patches it’s been stressed that the two do love each other, even having sex on numerous occasions. Harley’s path to villainy has been retconned and modified over the years, but that much has remained the same.

Before covering the deleted scenes, I should make it clear that the DCEU’s basing its origin of Harley Quinn off of the Nu52 run of comics that started several years ago. In them, Harley becomes crazy after being shoved into a vat of chemicals by The Joker. I don’t like this decision, as it robs her of her most-compelling aspect: choosing to become Harley Quinn. Up until Nu52, Harley became who she was because she wanted to, making her infatuation with The Joker, who was clearly abusive, all the more tragic. The “vat of chemicals” origin is lazy, but I guess laziness is canon now.

Anyway, the deleted scenes reveal a much larger presence of The Joker. Initially, The Joker was alleged to have shoved Harley into the vat of chemicals with the intention of killing her because he saw her as a cheap gag. After realizing that she’d survived, he dove in to rescue her. He then developed a psychological fascination for her, and he began treating her like his, to put it bluntly, “bitch”. It was only once she got arrested that he realized how much he needed her, so he began stalking her when she joined the Suicide Squad in an attempt to “win her back”.

Sound familiar? It’s because that’s similar to the relationship Jessica and Kilgrave had in Season 1 of Jessica Jones. In both cases, the two ladies were in abusive relationships with men who used them as pawns. In both cases, the two ladies broke free of their relationships as a result of outside circumstances. And in both cases, their former lovers became obsessed with them shortly afterward. There are differences between the two, Jessica wasn’t a psychologist thrown in chemicals who got arrested, but the underlying theme of abusive, stalker-like men controlling their lives is definitely a common link.

And yet, Warner Bros. axed this relationship, one that could’ve added layers to Harley Quinn, because the subtext was “inappropriate”. Instead, we’re left with scenes involving The Joker and Harley that appear and disappear so fast you’re left wondering where the missing reels went. That’s a shame. True, the missing footage might’ve been uncomfortable, but it’d have added meat to this clearly-emaciated film. It’d have been interesting, in other words.

It also would’ve probably helped Suicide Squad fare better critically. I doubt it’d have been by much, the behind-the-scenes complications speak for themselves, but it’d have at least given it a bit of an edge. I know that reshoots and cut material are commonplace in film, especially when there’s a studio agenda, but given that the DCEU is already struggling to gain traction after three movies…this seems less about necessity and more about asserting dominance. David Ayer would’ve been in a lose-lose situation regardless, but he’s not an idiot. Tampering with his vision for the sake of it is more harmful than helpful, especially when your “brand” is about promoting the “filmmaker’s vision”.

It also adds further concern over the future of the DCEU. Ignoring that Zack Snyder and David S. Goyer have already botched two movies, Suicide Squad being panned indicates that the problems with the DCEU are bigger than them. Suicide Squad was supposed to be David Ayer’s baby, and it failed despite containing two elements the previous films lacked: characters and humour. It also makes me less-than-hopeful for Wonder Woman, a film slated for next year, because I don’t trust Warner Bros. anymore. I don’t trust that they’ll respect Patty Jenkins’s vision for the titular Amazonian, nor am I hopeful the end-result will be good. I could end up being wrong, there’s always that, but it seems doubtful at the moment.

Finally, since this needs addressing, I’m aware that the MCU is a studio-driven franchise too, and that many people who’ve participated in it, be it directors, writers or actors, have come out frustrated by the lack of creative input. But I’m willing to let that slide because the head of that universe, Kevin Feige, knows what he’s doing. He has a clear goal, and so far it’s worked to his advantage. Until the DCEU proves that it knows what it’s doing, I’ll forever be turned off. It hurts to say that, but it’s true.

The Woman Joke? Rape Victims in Storytelling

Confession time: I’m not a fan of Alan Moore’s The Killing Joke.

I’ll admit that the shock appeal was ground-breaking at the time, highlighting the lengths The Joker will go to break Batman, but the concept behind it doesn’t strike me as appealing or interesting. At least, not like this. I recognize that it has fans, but, save that brilliant monologue in the finale, it’s not something I attach to.

Here’s a general synopsis of this comic. By the way, there’ll be spoilers:

The Joker, who’s escaped from Arkham Asylum once again, rents out a funhouse at an abandoned carnival to try and break Batman. He makes an unannounced trip to the apartment of Barbara Gordon, aka Batgirl, with a gun, a camera and a tourist’s outfit. He shoots her right in the pelvis, rendering her paralyzed, and knocks out her father, Commissioner Gordon, to be taken to said funhouse. Once there, he strips Gordon nude, straps him to a cart, places him in a straight-jacket and inundates him with photographs of Barbara being raped. Batman makes his way to the funhouse, whereupon The Joker monologues about Batman being a stick-in-the-mud before confronting him in the rain. The comic ends with The Joker telling Batman a joke, which gets him to finally laugh at him for the first time.

Sounds heavy, huh? Well, it was, and it began a path for Barbara that’d eventually lead her to don the persona of Oracle in another comic. It was also another example of how twisted The Joker was, on top of another comic where he’d murdered Jason Todd, aka Robin #2, for shock value (albeit, this time, as a response to fans voting for it.) The Killing Joke remains a favourite to this day, such that an animated film was released this year…that added controversy to the already controversial story by way of a sex scene.

Like I said before, I’m not a fan of the comic. I’m not a big comic reader as is, so part of it might be that too, but I couldn’t help finding it vapid when I read it all those years ago via a YouTube video that probably doesn’t exist anymore. It seemed like it had no reason to exist other than shock value, and that it dragged Barbara Gordon, who’s one of my favourite DC characters, into this for no reason irked me. Because, really and truly, why Babs? Why her specifically? What was it about her that warranted a crippling from The Joker-actually, it’s The Joker, I understood that.

But in the years since, the idea behind the comic irked me even more. It’s especially bad because women in comics, let-alone storytelling in general, have a tendency to get shafted when it comes to depth and fairness of character. They’ve been subjected to torture, violence, death, kidnapping and even sexual abuse in ways that their male counterparts rarely see. So to have Batgirl, one of the most-iconic superheroines in comic book history, go through a traumatic event for the sake of “shock value”, well…it makes her a cheap, disposable pawn.

I know what some of you are thinking, and no, I have no problems with violence and/or rape stories…when done with nuance. To demonstrate what I mean, I’ll use two stories based on comic books as examples. Once again, there’ll be spoilers:

First, Rose from Fullmetal Alchemist. This is a show loosely based on a Manga by a woman named Hiromu Arakawa, and it’s become so famous that the controversy surrounding its existence is best left for another day. Rose initially appears in a town called Lior, and she believes in its corrupt priest’s alchemy because he’s promised to revive her dead boyfriend. It isn’t until the main characters, Edward and Alphonse Elric, reveal the priest’s scam that she realizes that she doesn’t need men to be happy. This also leads Lior into civil war, causing the military of Amestris to intervene with guns and violence.

The last we see of Rose in the first-half of the show is her defending some innocent children from Amestrian soldiers while being told to surrender. She doesn’t, boldly shouting words of defiance. It isn’t until Edward and Alphonse return to Lior in the second-half of the show that we find out Rose had been raped, impregnated with a child that she’d given birth to and lost her ability to speak. She’d become the figurehead of the Lior resistance, most-notably via Scar, one of the show’s antagonists, using her as a pawn for his revenge against Amestris and Lyra, an alchemist’s apprentice who’d bounced jobs several times, as a pawn for the resistance in Lior. Both turned her into something she’s not, and it’s through Ed and Al that she regains her voice and humanity long enough to escape the creation of a Philosopher’s Stone.

Fast-forward to the final arc, and we see that Lyra’s using Rose once again for her own, selfish gain. This time, however, it’s though her baby, whom is revealed to be a gateway to the door to truth. It turns out that Lyra’s actually a crooked alchemist named Dante, who’s desperate to live forever and will swap bodies with innocent people. Once again, Rose has had her humanity stripped to serve someone else’s agenda, and once again she’s freed by Ed and Al when they foil Dante’s plans.

This sounds not that much different from Barbara being shot, but there’s a huge difference: Rose being stripped of her humanity is a plot-point that’s properly explored in Fullmetal Alchemist. It isn’t used solely for shock value, Rose’s pain is validated in-show on multiple occasions. We see the aftermath of her being raped, used, abused and nearly made a host for Dante. She also gets a happy ending in the final episode, raising her son surrounded by people who care for and love her. Barbara Gordon never gets that reconciliation in The Killing Joke.

Then there’s Hope Shlottman from Season 1 of Jessica Jones. Jessica Jones’s main theme is about the psychology of abusive relationships anyway, but Hope gets crapped on the most. She’s introduced in Episode 1 as a hostage of Zebediah Kilgrave, who can control people’s actions briefly through words. He uses Hope as a tool to get back at Jessica for breaking free of his hold and nearly killing him all those years ago, deciding that a pretty face with a clean track-record is the way to do it. Kilgrave’s hold on Hope also comes with a caveat of her murdering her parents in-front of Jessica and forcing her to go to go jail as a fall-girl. Once there, we find out that Hope’s pregnant with Kilgrave’s baby, which she opts to abort.

Hope lives with the agony of being one of Kilgrave’s victims until Episode 10, when she’s released from prison on hopes of a court hearing. Kilgrave gets to her first, and he takes her to a diner, along with several other victims, to stage his ultimate revenge against Jessica. When Jessica arrives, Hope seizes the opportunity, grabs a knife and slits her throat. In her dying breaths, she makes Jessica promise she’ll kill Kilgrave, which Jessica reluctantly accepts. The episode then ends.

Like Rose, Hope is more than a pretty face. She’s tortured and robbed of her humanity, even being sexually assaulted and impregnated. Like Rose, Jessica Jones also doesn’t skimp out on developing Hope. She has a personality, made an integral part of the story and has her frustrations and pain validated. She doesn’t get a happy ending, unlike Rose, but she gets justice when Kilgrave’s neck is snapped by Jessica in the season finale.

You see the pattern? Like The Killing Joke, both shows have a woman put through trauma. Like The Killing Joke, both are horrifying. But unlike The Killing Joke, these shows don’t skimp out on the aftermath. They don’t abruptly end, or even leave it up to the viewer what happens. They show and discuss what happens after the victim is violated, the former on multiple occasions, and their inevitable fates. In both cases, the victims feel like real characters, not simply a plot device.

Which is more than I can say about Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke, a fact made worse in the film with her having a romantic affair with Batman. This is meant to signify their bond, but even ignoring the questionable subtext of a father and daughter figure having sex, it makes Barbara an even bigger pawn by objectifying her for the sake of Batman’s personal motivation. And Barbara Gordon not getting reconciliation for her trauma until years later, under the helm of a different team of writers altogether, is especially troublesome because she becomes another victim in a medium that’s already cruel enough to women.

Remember, to paraphrase Anita Sarkeesian (yes, I’m going there), you can enjoy something while still acknowledging its problematic elements. I don’t doubt the influence The Killing Joke has had on comics and mainstream geek culture, and it’s definitely a well-crafted piece of work. Additionally, if you like it, that’s fine! I simply don’t connect with it for the aforementioned reasons, which is a shame because there’s potential in-story for an exploration of the aftermath of rape and violence on women. It’s simply unfortunate that they’re not explored until years later, and by different people.

Reflections on Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Movies have a weird effect on me the second time around. Sometimes I like them more, having gotten over the initial reaction and moved to a deeper appreciation of what’s being presented. Sometimes I like them less, having gotten over the initial reaction and realized how bland or unimpressive they are. And sometimes I like them about the same. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is the former, being a movie that left me initially cold, to the point of even harshly criticizing it in my review, yet respected enough to enjoy for what it was. Since the movie’s available on Netflix, I figured I’d revisit this film.

FYI, there’ll be spoilers, so be on guard.

Let’s get the biggest elephant in the room out of the way: Rey’s character. Detractors have pegged her as a Mary Sue, meaning that she’s super good at what she does and has no flaws. I don’t agree. Rey has fears and concerns throughout the film, most-notably using her family as an excuse to avoid attachments, and she does make mistakes, like when she accidentally releases the rathtars aboard The Millennium Falcon. Rather, I think Rey’s a victim of a different problem. It’s one that I normally expect more from Hollywood’s most-infamous stink-writer, aka Damon Lindelof, than Michael Arndt and Lawrence Kasdan, and that it appears here is annoying. Essentially, Rey’s a “mystery box” character, a character where everything about her is riddles and secrets meant to be revealed in the next film.

To be fair, Luke Skywalker had minimal development in the original Star Wars film. And, like Rey, he was innately and unnaturally skilled. But that movie didn’t hide who Luke was from the audience. We knew who he was, what he wanted and how the war had impacted him. We get a bit of that with Rey, especially with the revelation that she’s a Jedi, but most of her character remains a mystery. I’m willing to suspend my disbelief if it means her being fun and relatable, but I’d have liked to not have more questions after watching the film than when I started it. If she doesn’t have a payoff in the sequel, I’ll be disappointed.

Speaking of which, the montage when Rey touches Luke’s lightsaber, which I’ve seen a few times on YouTube, bugs me for that same reason. I’ve heard theories as to what it means, but it’s never resonated. It never directly makes sense in the context of the film, and it leaves too much open for interpretation. I always scratch my head when it happens, and while I know that film is all about show-don’t-tell…there’s a fine line between that and being vague for the sake of it. Also, the movie brushes off how Maz Kanata acquired the lightsaber in the first place, which is lazy…even with the film’s time constraints.

The destruction of Hosnian System remains a mixed bag, even after seeing that part of the movie multiple times on YouTube too. The reason why is the reverse of Alderaan in the original movie; where as that had the emotion from Leia’s end, at the expense of seeing it from the people of Alderaan’s point of view, the Hosnian System has the emotion of the system, but no reason to emotionally be invested in its destruction. This is because there’s no build-up. I wouldn’t have even known why the Hosnian System was so important without a YouTube video’s explanation. MYSTERY BOX INCORPORATED!

Finally, little details leave open questions of in-story character decisions. Questions like, “Why did Kylo Ren turn to the Dark Side?”, or, “Why did R2-D2 turn on at the exact second that he did?”, or, “Why didn’t Leia accompany Rey to Luke’s location if she was so insistent on finding him?”. Considering that film has such progressive leads, i.e. a woman and a black man, for its franchise, that Leia gets shafted for the fourth time in a Star Wars film is starting to get grating. We see that she’s become a general, so why relegate her to the sidelines?

Also, Finn’s character development is rushed.

So what do I like about this movie that I didn’t pick up on before?

Well, pretty much what everyone else has praised: the acting, the effects, the music and the sense of scope. I’ll forever remain steadfast in my belief that Star Wars, up until now, was never known for A-list acting. People give the Prequels crap for being badly-acted, but guess what? So were the original films. They tried, but I can think of a dozen moments where the acting was off or bizarre. The Prequels merely upped the ante, such that it was overtly apparent. But yeah, this is the first film with actual, genuine performances.

As for the effects, they’re good. The overhype about “practical effects” didn’t initially impress me, especially since I’m not a believer that “less CGI is automatically better”, and the idea that so much of it was supposed to “look real” was a turn-off. After all, the original films didn’t look real either, as much as people state otherwise, while the Prequels had effects that, in my opinion, looked decent. But I guess the lived-in, gritty feel is important for immersion. And it’s definitely a beautifully-realized world.

In my original review, I criticized the film’s score for being subpar by John Williams’s standards. I still hold that to an extent, but I’ll admit the orchestrations are growing on me. I’ve had the opportunity to listen to many of the tunes on the radio, and I like them a lot more now. I’ve especially become fond of March of the Resistance and The Jedi Steps, the former for being incredibly catchy and the latter as a haunting remix of one of the most-iconic pieces of music in film history. It’s not an excellent score, but it comes pretty close in certain places.

Finally, there’s the scope, both in wonder and emotional resonance. The former is self-explanatory, as the movie looks like big. I always thought that the Prequels did too, especially since they, like it or not, expanded on the Star Wars lore, but this film acknowledges its scale on several occasions, most-notably with Poe Dameron staring at the ceiling while being escorted by Stormtroopers through Starkiller Base. The emotion is made most-apparent through the relationship Kylo Ren has with Han Solo, making Han’s death that much more tragic. That the movie made Kylo Ren more interesting in one film than Darth Vader in six is also a testament to how much thought was put into him.

In my original review, I gave Star Wars: The Force Awakens 4/5 stars. It’s actually a quarter of a star higher, maybe half if I’m being generous. I still have issues that keep it from getting a higher grade, but I can’t say that it hasn’t grown on me. And who knows? If the sequel fixes some of my problems, I might like it more in the future!

(By the way, did Kylo Ren actually lose a limb in his fight with Rey? It was never clear.)

NintenD'OH! Paper Mario and Business Practices in the Gaming Industry

Let’s talk ethics.

It should be no surprise to people who’ve known me for a long time that I like Nintendo. They’ve been making affordable consoles for as long as I can remember, and I’ve been an admirer of their games for so long that I requested a Gamecube as a Bar Mitzvah gift in 2003 from my parents, which was then followed up with a Wii in 2007. Keep in mind that gifts of that calibre were a rarity growing up, so for me to request a Nintendo console meant that I clearly respected their work. This was around the time that the competition was trying to be “edgy”, so a bright spot of colour and fun was a breath of fresh air. And even after my hobby of choice transitioned to movies/anime, that feeling never left.

All the more reason why Nintendo’s recent controversy is such a disappointment. The whole ordeal stems back to something that started in 2014 called GamerGate. I won’t elaborate too much on what GamerGate is, you can read up on it if you’re so inclined, but the ordeal has lost me a lot of friends online. The movement’s goal is to promote “ethics in gaming journalism”, but words and actions are totally different. Either way, it’s not something that I enjoy seeing brought up in mainstream entertainment when not necessary, whether as a celebration or a mocking of it. It’s like I said on Infinite Rainy Day when a company called FUNimation Entertainment decided to mock it for no reason in their dub of an anime called Prison School:

“Unless the material calls for it, you don’t mess with something for the sake of airing your own dirty laundry. Especially when the original writers are trusting you with a decent translation of their work…[y]ou don’t parody your material and insult your audience, because some of them actually care and will be pulled out of it with such blatant disrespect.”

I wish Nintendo had heeded that advice. Instead, they decided to prod the serpent too, except with the exact opposite approach: mock the victims, not the oppressors. In the recent translation pics of Paper Mario: Color Splash, they decided to make a direct reference to the Five Guys controversy that ruined game developer Zoe Quinn’s career…as a joke. To quote someone I worked with at day camp, “Oh dear!”

As expected, it blew up on the internet. Some were defending the translation, calling it a “harmless reference to Five Guys Burgers and Fries” and stating that people shouldn’t get worked up. Others, however, flipped out and claimed Nintendo was demonic, stating that they’re “no better than those GamerGate monsters that keep pestering the gaming community”. Either way, it was obvious that Nintendo’s PR department would have their hands full trying to deflate the situation. Personally, I’m a little torn, but not in the way you’d think.

On one hand, I recognize this is an issue. Nintendo of America’s localization team boobed pretty badly, and the person who thought this was a good idea should either be reprimanded or fired. Because it’s Nintendo; if they’re so concerned about keeping a family-friendly image, then they shouldn’t be condoning baseless hatred of women. If they’re so concerned about editing the cover of the most-recent Fire Emblem game so that a scantly-clad woman isn’t in plain view, then they shouldn’t be condoning baseless hatred of women. If they’re so insistent on firing their former PR person, Alison Rapp, over moonlighting sex-work because it “portrays a negative image of their company”, then they shouldn’t be condoning baseless hatred of women. Basically, if Nintendo is so insistent on remaining “innocent”, then they shouldn’t be condoning baseless hatred of women. Because this does exactly that.

It’s especially troubling because the gaming industry has come under fire in recent years for its horrible treatment of women. Developers like Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn have frequently been harassed for speaking up against their treatment in the workplace, while Anita Sarkeesian, host of the controversial “Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games”, has been attacked for her feminist analysis of video games to the point of caricatures ala Jewish-blackface. So for Nintendo, the beacon of family-friendly entertainment in gaming world, to suddenly include this joke, especially considering the Alison Rapp controversy I mentioned in the previous paragraph, is really not helping the situation.

On the other hand, I think the backlash against Nintendo is a little extreme. For one, it’s a localization joke that can be removed. It sucks that it snuck in there at all, but it’s not permanent. The game comes out in almost an entire year, that’s plenty of time to change the line. And if Nintendo’s smart, which I’m sure they are, that’s exactly what they’ll do.

Two…it’s a localization joke. That means there’s always the option of region importing the original game should the line still bother you. I know that newer Nintendo consoles have the option to change the country of origin in their settings, so if you really want to, as tedious as it may be, you can.

And three, the boycotting of Nintendo as a whole is ridiculous. Not only did said boycotters forget to boycott when Rapp was fired because Miitomo was launched the next day, I’m sure they’ll forget to do so again. Also, what good will it do, other than potentially harm innocent workers? Because trust me, when it comes to boycotts of big corporations, the average Joe is usually the first to go. I know because that’s what happened with Ma’ale Adumim’s Sodastream plant when the Boycott and Divestment Sanctions group, or BDS for short, began protesting Israeli products over their perceived treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza and The West Bank.

I think we forget that sometimes, especially in the modern-Capitalist world. Like it or not, boycotts of corporations often do more harm than good. You might think you’re sending a message to the higher-ups, and it might work in the short-term, but in the long-term it hurts the grunt workers and employees trying to make an honest living. That doesn’t mean that those who are upset shouldn’t express concern, but not like this.

Rather, it should be directed in a more helpful manner, i.e. a petition, letter or email requesting to revoke the joke. Alternatively, writing a piece about it, like I am right now, or expressing concerns via Twitter, Facebook or Nintendo’s website are options. Because while Nintendo might be a business, they’re run by people! If enough people speak up, then they might be obligated to fix the problem if it means keeping an audience. It’s worked on a variety of other controversies, so why not here?

Nevertheless, to the person who thought this line was a good idea: you’re a jerk. I’m still planning on buying a WiiU at some point, but it won’t be because of you.

Why I LOVE Finding Dory

Finding Dory is a film that had all of the cards stacked against it. Not only was it the “unnecessary” sequel to Finding Nemo, but it was of a line of sequel mandates from Disney that included Cars 2, Monsters, University, Toy Story 4, The Incredibles II and Cars 3. Additionally, given the track-record of every Pixar movie in the last 6 years that wasn’t Inside Out, there was concern that this’d be another disappointment. Fortunately, it isn’t. Is it the original? No, but that doesn’t mean it can’t stand on its own.

Remember that throwaway line about Dory’s family from Finding Nemo? This movie does, and after another throwaway line about the importance of family, Dory’s subconscious is sparked and she remembers her parents. She goes on a search that leads her to an aquarium in California, with Marlin and Nemo trailing closely behind, but it comes with a catch: Dory’s memory is hazy, so not all the clues and pieces of information are reliable. In that sense, the movie plays like a wacky scavenger hunt, with Dory sometimes remembering details and other times forgetting everything. It’s this confusion that leads to the real fun, as you’re often left in the dark.

I’d normally go on to discuss the film in a review-like format, but that’d do my thoughts a disservice. Instead, I’d like to zone in on something many reviews haven’t been talking about, yet I still feel is equally relevant. It’s a pressing theme throughout the 100-minute runtime, and glancing over it is disrespectful to why this movie works: let’s talk disabilities.

I’m not sure if I’ve ever mentioned this before, but I have several disabilities. When I was 7 years old, I was diagnosed with ADHD (or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). This began a trip down the rabbit hole that later included Asperger’s Syndrome, Social Anxiety and Tourette’s Syndrome. All throughout my childhood, I felt I didn’t belong. I was shunned by my peers, ignored by my teachers and at constant ends with those who wanted to help, yet didn’t know how. In short, I was miserable growing up.

Which is all the more reason why, even before she had her own movie, Dory spoke to me. Finding Nemo came out around the time I’d hit teenage-hood, and here was this fish, a fictional character, who was quirky enough to be funny, yet grounded enough to be relatable. She was constantly the butt of jokes, but she compensated with her spontaneity and hopeful optimism. She wasn’t the focus, Marlin’s relationship with his son was, but she definitely stole the show. In short, she was every kid with a disability who hadn’t given up hope, making her an exemplary role model.

On the flip side, Finding Dory takes full advantage of Dory as a character. At first, this sounds like a potential disaster; disabilities, after all, are often misunderstood and misrepresented in mainstream culture and society, so there’s a chance this could backfire. But the movie never strays from what it’s trying to do: shed light on Dory without demeaning her. There are plenty of jokes at her expense, don’t get me wrong, but more often than not the movie recognizes the severity of Dory’s short-term memory loss and plays it sincerely. Humorously, maybe, but never ironically.

I love that. Far too often, society hears “disability” and thinks “distraction”. It views it as a negative, something that needs to be rectified. Alternatively, when it’s acknowledged, it’s over-glamourized. Both approaches are grained in some form of truth, but Finding Dory takes the middle ground. It recognizes that Dory’s presence can be uncomfortable in excess, yet it also respects her as an individual. It even frames her disability as something positive, something to learn from and work with as a strength. After all, Dory’s best quality has always been her spontaneity, so why not cater to that?

But it gets better! One of Finding Nemo’s sub-themes was overcoming adversity. Nemo had a damaged fin, yet the movie had him learn that that didn’t have to stop him from achieving greatness. Finding Dory expands on that adversity theme and makes it the primary focus. Ignoring Dory’s memory, the movie introduces an octopus with a missing tentacle, a whale shark with bad eyesight, a beluga whale with a head injury, a bird with delayed cognition and two seals with missing fins, to name a few. All of them get their chance to shine, which I love. In a world that struggles with disability representation, this film excels at it, leaving Marlin, the only “normal” character, at, ironically, a huge disadvantage.

Of course, the film is wickedly funny too. If Finding Nemo was a "buddy-road trip" movie, Finding Dory is more of a screwball comedy. It has its heart and brain, no doubt, but its mostly wacky and unpredictable hijinks help disguise the bitter undertones. This is what Pixar used to excel at: masking depressing subtexts with barrels of laughs and colourful characters. I wouldn’t consider it one of their best, perhaps second-tier over first-tier, but Finding Dory is still a prime example of Pixar’s beating heart.

So yeah, go see it. And bring your kids, especially if they have a disability, as they might appreciate it more than you!

X-Meh?

I saw X-Men: Apocalypse recently. It was a mess. An honest and entertaining mess, it’s clear director Bryan Singer cared, but a mess nonetheless. And it appears that reactions have been all-over, with some liking it, others hating it and a few caught in-between. But the fact that it’s reignited the dronings of “critics are biased” and “give _ back to Marvel” is really annoying, so I figured I’d talk about that.

First, some context: back in the 80’s, Marvel, the giant powerhouse we know today, was on the verge of bankruptcy. In order to save its reputation, the company decided to make movies. However, since Marvel didn’t have its own studio, like it does today, it auctioned off its characters to various studios. The contracts stipulated that if a film wasn’t in production every 7-8 years, the ownership would revert back to Marvel. This is why we ended up seeing names like Spider-Man and X-Men, both Marvel properties, under the Sony and 20th Century Fox logos.

As you’d expect, the big boom of superhero properties began as the 21st Century rolled on. Sadly, while some of these Marvel characters, namely Spider-Man and X-Men, managed to make for successful films, many, like The Punisher, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, The Hulk and Ghost Rider, failed to be successful critically or financially and others, like Namor and Man-Thing, never got off the ground. I know it’s more of a concern now with the advent of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but by the time Iron Man hit theatres in 2008 most of the Marvel properties that’d been outsourced had already reverted back to Marvel. To-date, Marvel owns or co-owns all of its properties save Fantastic Four and X-Men, both still owned by 20th Century Fox and don’t look to be given back in the foreseeable future. In short, it’s complicated.

This is where the fans come in. You see, it’s not enough that X-Men: Apocalypse was critically panned. Plenty of movies, particularly comic book adaptations, have been panned, so this is nothing new. The problem is that, even if the movie had been praised, it’s a property created by Marvel that isn't owned by them. Given how Marvel’s current goal is a world-building film continuity called “The Marvel Cinematic Universe”, that mutants aren’t present makes Marvel nerds unhappy; in fact, since two of these mutants, the Maximoff twins, are both mutants and general Marvel heroes, Marvel and Fox had to compromise and only focus on one each. Essentially, 20th Century Fox focuses on Quicksilver and his relationship with Magneto, aka his estranged father, while Marvel focuses on Scarlet Witch without mentioning her as a mutant at all.

And it drives Marvel fans insane, such that many are openly boycotting the X-Men continuity in hopes that it tanks and Marvel gets the property back. This includes looking for reasons to nitpick the films too: Wolverine is criticized for overshadowing the rest of the cast, the suits are criticized for not looking like the comics, the mutants are criticized for not being identical to their comic book counterparts, the list goes on. It’d be one issue if the movies were objectively awful, as in they didn’t do anything right, but given how four of them have been critically praised, while one of the remaining films was decently-received, it’s not that simple. X-Men, like Spider-Man in the early-2000’s, has translated quite well to film, so it’s easy to forgive the darker, grittier nature of the on-screen continuity because Bryan Singer-and, to a lesser extent, Matthew Vaughn-and company know what they’re doing.

Which leads to the first of my big questions: why are fans behaving like this? Is it a shame that X-Men isn’t back at Marvel? Yes. Would I like it to be? Again, yes. But whining that this “isn’t the X-Men I grew up with”, when it’s flexible enough to be open for interpretation, and demanding that it revert back to Marvel for a “true adaptation” is exactly why the general populace has a hard time taking nerds seriously.

Perhaps the biggest, and most-unfortunate, example comes from YouTube personality Bob Chipman’s review of X-Men: Apocalypse:

*Sigh* (Courtesy of moviebob.)

For clarity, I respect Bob Chipman immensely. I like a lot of his work, and I don’t usually mind when he rants about films he doesn’t like. I also realize that art is subjective, that it’s okay to disagree, and that the X-Men films have always been divisive. But claiming that the franchise doesn’t hold up is one problem, stating that people have an ironic attachment to something they haven’t seen in years is another, and the latter doesn’t sit well with me. I hear it frequently about non-Marvel movies, that people “only love them because of when they came out”, and that arrogant notion is one of my big no-nos in film criticism.

“But wait,” you’re thinking, “I’ve read your Tweets! Haven’t you done the same with other films that people like before too?” Firstly, guilty. Secondly, I’ve tried my hardest not to, usually apologizing when I have. And thirdly, I’ve never screamed “nostalgic/ironic love” for these movies when challenged by fans. I don’t do it for either of the Tim Burton Batman films, which I can’t stand, either of The Amazing Spider-Man films, which I can’t stand either, or anything else I don’t think is any good/holds up. Because that’s cocky and condescending, and Lord knows how much I hate that!

It doesn’t help that Bob’s tagline implies that we should “let it go already”. Why? Bob not liking the X-Men franchise, save one entry, doesn’t mean that my enjoyment of these films is a lie. And what if I don’t want to let go of X-Men? What if I think Fox has done a (mostly) great job? Am I harbouring an “ironic love” for this series too?

Thus is the slippery-slope of such a claim, as it presumes too much and understands too little. I haven’t seen the first two X-Men films in years, but I doubt they’d have fans if there was nothing to connect to. X-Men: Days of Future Past, on the other hand, I’ve re-watched recently, and it’s one of my favourite superhero films of all-time. And while X-Men: Apocalypse is plagued with pacing issues, character inconsistencies, occasionally weird structure choices and tonally-jarring detours and fan-service, it’s still enjoyable and has plenty of heartfelt and well-executed moments. Ironically, it’s the entry that Bob actually likes, X-Men: First Class, that I’m not terribly impressed by. But even then I enjoy it for what it is.

It’s doubly-frustrating because Bob’s love, and the superhero franchise most detractors seem to gravitate to, is the MCU. I like the MCU, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not flawless. It’s made slip-ups here and there in the areas Bob’s criticized the X-Men films for, yet it’s given a pass because the characters and character writing is consistently strong. That doesn’t mean, however, that I don’t think the franchise hasn’t already peaked qualitatively with Iron Man and creatively with The Avengers, or even that Thor: The Dark World isn’t a colossal waste of my time. The pool of criticism runs both ways.

Which isn’t to say the other side isn’t shameless either, leading to my next question of why people assume reviewers are biased toward the MCU. Are they really? Because as far as I know, most reviewers don’t know the nuances of Marvel licensing. They see a movie, give their thoughts and share said thoughts with the rest of the world. This shouldn’t be so hard to understand, right?

Enter Exhibit B:

"Disney has been continually paying critics to attack Non MCU movies. MCU movies are safe. They're not challenging at all. Just like a comic book movie is "supposed to be". They're not divisive or thought provoking. First they bashed Batman V Superman.They cleared BvS out of the way, gave Civil War (which wasn't a perfect film) an Oscar, now they're going to work on moving Apocalypse out the way...then they get offended when they're accused of accepting gifts. Deadpool would have also suffered the same fate however it was released in February and was not an immediate threat.”

Wow…

There’s a lot I could pick apart, but I’ll simply ask why someone decided this was petition-worthy. Why do you need critical approval to enjoy something? When has a score stopped a movie from resonating with someone personally? And why can’t we accept that maybe it’s okay to like trash? I enjoyed X-Men: Apocalypse, but I admit that it’s not great. Why I’d shout “conspiracy” is beyond me, especially since, unlike Fantastic Four, the X-Men franchise has actually had good movies over its lifetime.

Perhaps I’m overreacting. After all, X-Men is a property that’s often gotten too dark for its own good, including a moment where Kitty Pryde ripped Emma Frost’s heart from her chest (look that up, it actually happened) and another where Wolverine’s spine was ripped from his body (that actually happened too), and sometimes that grimness makes the franchise polarizing. And yeah, I do think people can overlook the flaws of the MCU, even the more-glaring ones (like how Guardians of the Galaxy has sexist undertones.) But both groups are being ridiculous, and that has to stop. Because it’s not healthy for the image we want to project.

And by the way, this idea that X-Men is boring because it ham-fists its message of prejudice? It was created by a socially-conscious Jew, so it’ll always be as political as Captain America. Then again, the real complainers probably won’t listen…