The Force Revisited

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed holds a weird place in my formative years. It debuted in 2008, right as I was starting university, and was hyped up like no one’s business for months by Nintendo Power. I also remember buying, playing, beating and shelving it right after completion. And now, 13 years later, I figured I’d do another play-through. Sufficed to say, everything I liked and disliked initially came flooding back.

You play as Starkiller, a Sith-in-training found by Darth Vader as a child on Kashyyyk, and his adventures hunting down and assassinating Jedi who survived Order 66. Initially, your goal is simple: head to various planets to find Jedi, defeat them and earn enough of Vader’s trust to take on Emperor Palpatine. But when you’re betrayed at the last second, your goal changes to recruiting people to take down Palpatine’s empire. Along the way, you make friends, enemies and are left with the ultimate decision: good, or bad? It’s a concept with lots of potential, I’ll say that.

The most-striking aspect in 2021 is how it’s aged visually. Despite being cutting-edge for 2008, especially for a Wii port built from the ground up by Krome Studios, time hasn’t exactly been kind. Character models look blocky, facial expressions barely move, and while the lip flaps on the mouths are fluid, the game suffers from The Uncanny Valley. It doesn’t help that level textures and maps are littered with clipping issues and bugs, making gameplay not as smooth as it should be. There were many instances where I found myself stuck while encountering boss fights, and I remember restarting the game at one point 13 years ago because of a glitch I discovered by accident. It’s a mixed bag, essentially.

Fortunately, the writing and voice acting are stellar. For the former, the game’s story, while not complex, is pretty engaging, telling a tale of love, loss, regret and (maybe) redemption. For the latter, the voices are all really well-cast. Special shout-out goes to Sam Witwer as Starkiller. Witwer would go on to voice many characters in the Star Wars universe, notably Darth Maul, but he gives it his all, and it shows. It’s too bad this game’s no longer canon, as it opens the door to a new take on Star Wars’s mythos.

Musically, the game’s pretty good. While most tracks are rips from the movies, the game does have some originals of note. Starkiller and Juno’s motif stands out specifically, though. It’s not used frequently, but it’s noticeable when it is. It even reaches a crescendo in the final level, timed perfectly with their first and only kiss.

The part of the game that’s a mixed bag, however, is the gameplay. The controls work well for a title from 2008, especially when most developers still didn’t comprehend the system’s functionality, but they could’ve benefitted from the Wii Motion+ add-on that was introduced late in the console’s lifespan. Waggle isn’t as smooth as it should be, and it occasionally led to my arms getting stiff and tired. Also, the game’s quick-time events, a staple of boss fights, are grating to pull off. I’m not against quick-time events anymore, especially when done well, but these feel like a lazy excuse for tedious actions while Starkiller uses uninspired finishing moves. They’re also frustrating when bungled.

The gameplay itself is fine, but leaves much to be desired. Aside from an uncooperative camera, which doesn’t shift perspectives in time to see where you are, the combat is frequently hit-or-miss. Starkiller’s ability to block enemy fire is inconsistent, and his lightsaber isn’t efficient when engaged with multiple enemies. I’ve died at spots that should’ve been no-brainers, and that’s also frustrating. There’s a reason why, 13 years ago, I mentioned in an unpublished review that “the enemies range from frustratingly simple, to simply frustrating”. Not only is that the best line I’ve typed to-date, it’s also quite accurate.

This is most true with the boss fights. They’re by far the most-irritating enemies, consisting of haphazardly slashing your lightsaber, projecting scattered items without much thought, using special abilities that are hard to figure out and irritating quick-time events that often fail. Forget the eye candy of seeing Shaak Ti and Maris Brood scantily clad, which was a big deal when I was 18, especially when their fights aren’t fun.

Then there are the collectibles. Star Wars: The Force Unleashed has many of these, some being hard to find, and while you get a dopamine rush for acquiring them, they aren’t necessary. In particular, one of them relies on replaying the game for a different ending, and let’s be honest…it’s not worth it. The game shows off its biggest surprises and secrets the first time, so that one decision you make-defeat Darth Vader, or fight Emperor Palpatine-isn’t enticing enough. That’s disappointing.

Finally, there are the Jedi Temple missions. The Wii version was notable for its then-exclusive Coruscant map you visit three times. It’s fun reacquainting yourself with the location for a while…but these missions add little to the game. They feel like padding, and the boss fights are some of the game’s worst. I don’t see why the game included these missions when it could’ve used the space for another level or two.

That’s the biggest problem with Star Wars: The Force Unleashed: it could’ve been so much more. Especially when you have so many cool techniques you unlock throughout the game, yet keep falling back on the same three or four because the rest are difficult to execute. It’s such a shame. This game is supposed to make you feel like an all-powerful Sith, but you instead feel like a mid-tier Jedi. I’m unsure what to make of that.

I feel like I’m being too harsh. For all the issues I have, I enjoyed both play-throughs over the past 13 years. I simply can’t say it hooked me like the LEGO Star Wars games and the adaptations of the third Star Wars Prequel, both are which were far more balanced. For a game hyped as the ultimate power trip fantasy, that’s a real letdown. And it’s disappointing.

Ultimately, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed truly is a 3/5 star game: you play it, you enjoy it for what it is, and you don’t look back. I’m glad I bought it, if only to admire its raw ambition, but I don’t see myself returning regularly. I think once every 13 years is enough!

In Liu of...

The internet is wild sometimes…

Simu Liu’s on top of the world right now. Aside from making a splash in Kim’s Convenience, the actor lit The MCU up with Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings. It seems like he’s on fire! So it’d be unfortunate if something derailed his goodwill, right? Right?!

It was recently revealed that Liu had skeletons in his closet. Aside from allegedly using an ableist slur on Twitter, which I can no longer find, he also frequented a subreddit about MRAs and incels. The information on him was well-documented, and people felt betrayed; after all, this was public for years! Did Disney not vet him?

This brings up a discussion about past behaviour and time. Liu’s posts date back to 2012, roughly 9 years ago. That’s around the time James Gunn was making pedophile jokes. And as abhorrent as those were, Gunn’s apologized in the years since. It’s easy to shame someone for something they don’t agree with anymore, but it’s harder to forgive them for it. That needs to be accounted for here, especially with a 9-year gap.

That said, this mindset’s predicated on the individual wanting to change. And not much was known about Simu Liu’s response in the years that followed. Did he admit his mistakes? Did he atone for them? Or did he pretend they never happened in order to rehabilitate his image?

I’d leave it there, but then it was revealed that the Reddit posts were taken out of proportion. Suddenly, Simu Liu was the victim. It was also possible that Liu might’ve acknowledged and apologized, maybe? There was definitely more to this story. And this additional information was being ignored.

A valuable lesson can be learned from this. On one hand, the internet never forgives, and the internet never forgets. As I’ve learned frequently, the stuff I say online is public, regardless of whether or not I want it to. Does that mean I don’t still put my foot in my mouth regularly? Absolutely! But I’ve become more aware, and I’ve made attempts to remedy it. Simu Liu’s no different.

On the other hand, the internet needs to chill. I’m won’t use the “Cancel Culture” line, since I believe that most individuals who get “cancelled” deserve it, but purity politics is dangerous. We frequently strive for perfection with our heroes, and when they disappoint we write them off. That’s unhealthy. Humans are flawed, and making errors is inevitable. We need to recognize that no one’s perfect, that mistakes do happen, and that, sometimes, we need to forgive and move on. Especially when people actively make amends for their past behaviour.

Ultimately, this is another example of internet outrage for the sake of it. Is Simu Liu prone to getting his foot caught in the door? Yes, but isn’t everyone? And if that’s the case, then shouldn’t he have the opportunity to atone? I think so!

I’m not simply saying all this because I like The MCU. Nor am I saying it because I like Simu Liu. I have my issues with The MCU, which I’ve mentioned before. And while I’m sure Liu’s talented, I can’t comment on his acting because I’ve yet to see Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings. (I’m waiting for it to release on Disney+.) My thoughts are purely based on this debacle, how it’s played out and the ramifications of turning a blind eye. Nothing more.

As it currently stands now, this was the internet overreacting to something milquetoast. Should we be critical of Simu Liu’s missteps? Absolutely, accountability’s important! But reacting, or overreacting, to something that wasn’t a scandal or controversy isn’t helpful or healthy. If anything, it does more harm than good in the long run. And that’s a problem.

Basically, the internet needs to learn to step back and breathe. And yes, that includes me. Because we far too frequently see one part of the story, overreact and miss the grander picture in its entirety. Simu Liu’s Reddit posts, or misrepresented Reddit posts, are another example of that. It’s purity politics at its worst.

Now then, about that supposed Twitter post…

***

I feel like I owe you another update. As you can tell, I’ve cut back on my output from last year. The reason, aside from having two jobs, is that it was exhausting to churn out stuff so frequently. I also feel like writing fewer pieces a month means I can better dedicate my energy to making each piece as good as it should be. I hope you’re okay with that.

On the plus side, I have a special post coming up in the next while. I won’t say what it is right now, but keep an eye out for it. Anyway, I’ll see you next time!

A Lengthy Debate

Are movies these days too long?

The runtime for No Time to Die was recently announced. Clocking in at 2 hours and 43 minutes, it’s the longest James Bond movie to-date. It’s also reignited a discussion over whether or not movies are getting to be too long. After all, older movies were shorter…right? Well...it’s complicated.

Back in film’s infancy, it’s true that movies were more to the point. They were hard to make, so anyone who had the skill and funds had to convey their message quickly. But as technology made it easier, as well as opened up more possibilities, longer and more ambitious stories could now be told. Metropolis is considered one of the big innovators in science-fiction, and it’s a black-and-white silent feature that clocks in at 2.5 hours. Even back in the 1920’s, long movies weren’t unheard of.

This debate ignores that part of film history. True, many films for a long time were under 2 hours. Some, like comedies, wore out their welcome when they surpassed that. But for every film under 2 hours, you always had an event movie that was longer. Mary Poppins, arguably one of Disney’s best movies, was close to 2.5 hours. The Ten Commandments, arguably one of the greatest Biblical films, was over 3.5 hours. Lawrence of Arabia, largely considered one the greatest movies ever made, was also over 3.5 hours! Clearly, the precedent for a longer film was there.

I think the real turning point was in the early-2000’s with the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films. For the former, it made sense considering how dense the source books were. For the latter, there was so much intricate detail that the final entry had to be split into two films to do the adaptation justice. In both cases, the films were hits critically and financially, showing that, among their other strengths, you could be rewarded by taking your time and not rushing to meet arbitrary runtimes.

Naturally, filmmakers and studios took note, with each one trying to one-up the other: your film was 158 minutes? Well, mine will be 160 minutes! You’re making a movie bordering on 3 hours? Joke’s on you, I’m making one close to 4 hours! This pissing match is one we’re still seeing today, such that longer movies are the norm now.

Which circles back to the initial question. And while, yes, some movies are too long, the justification for their length can be distilled to two points:

The first is that theatre experiences aren’t what they used to be. A few years ago, pre-COVID, a study showed that the average person only goes to the theatre 3-6 times a year. There are many reasons for why-accessibility, prohibitive ticket prices, too many options, ease of comfort with streaming, to name a few-but one of them is because going to theatre isn’t as exciting anymore. In order to justify driving to see a feature with hundreds of other people, there needs to be something special. Movies need to be events, essentially. And one of the ways to accomplish that is by making them longer.

The second is that, when it comes to storytelling, length is a construct. No two movies are the same, and each requires a different length for its story. Personally, I’ve seen movies that were both too long and too short. Some needed to be longer, while others could’ve stood to be shorter. “The Goldilocks Zone” varies.

Not to mention, storytelling standards are also different with each country. Japanese filmmaking, for instance, thrives on longer-format storytelling, with their animated films sometimes surpassing 2 hours. And let’s not forget Seven Samurai, often discussed as one of Akira Kurosawa’s best. Many of these films are regarded as masterpieces, so why is length an issue again?

I guess what bugs me about the “make movies shorter again” thinking is that while some movies might be excessively long, not all of them are. And that’s fine. A movie’s quality is reliant on other factors than simply its length. It also needs good scripting, good acting, good directing, good pacing and many other areas. That gets lost in the discourse.

But that’s the beauty of theatrical storytelling. And yes, maybe longer films should have intermissions for bathroom breaks, like they used to. I won’t argue with that, not as I’ve gotten older. But I don’t think length alone is the issue. If it was, then so many movies wouldn’t be considered masterpieces.

So, are movies these days too long? Honestly, yes and no. But does it matter? Not really. If anything, and more pressingly, studios need to come up with more original stories. And they need to do it fast, as opposed to constantly rebooting, remaking and franchising established IPs. You want to complain about a problem with modern-day filmmaking? Start there.

(And FYI, I recognize the irony of being succinct on a piece about length. Sue me, okay?)

Clickbait for Hire

I’ve been Subscribed to Chris Stuckmann for years. I’ve watched many of his highs and lows, and while we haven’t always agreed, I respect him immensely. That’s why I feel a need to address part of his video essay dealing with the consumption of media. More-specifically, how clickbait has factored into that. This’ll involve delving into some personal experiences too. Here goes:

Nintendo Enthusiast is a website I once wrote for. To be exact, I wrote for them from April of 2019 to January of 2020. My catalogue was small, fewer than 30 articles, but my experience was eye-opening. Most importantly, it taught me about clickbait firsthand. It also made me sympathetic to clickbait culture.

My initial hiring came after I submitted some writing samples from Infinite Rainy Day and The Whitly-Verse. I received an email accepting me toward the end of April, right as I was on my way home from a visit to my brother’s family out West. Considering that I was in the airport, I had little time to process what’d transpired. Fortunately, my flight home fixed that.

Since I don’t want to come off as entirely negative, I’ll mention that my experience wasn’t entirely bad. For one, I was paid in USD. Because I’m Canadian, the exchange rate meant that I was making more per dollar than I’d have normally received. It wasn’t the first time either, Infinite Rainy Day also paid me in USD, but it was the first time an accredited magazine did it. That had to account for something.

Two, Nintendo Enthusiast introduced me to Slack. I don’t like Slack, I think it’s a slower and glitchier version of Discord, but I could casually communicate my co-workers offsite. It also introduced me to “Threads”, which were linked to the feedback on my articles. I consider that a win.

Three, I learned how to professionally pitch my ideas. Nintendo Enthusiast used a special system called Trello for pitching articles, and it was linked to Slack. That not only helped me think about how to sell my ideas, but it informed me what had potential and what didn’t. It was humbling, and it kept me in check.

Four, I developed connections. Not only did Slack have its own community, but the site was good at promoting my work. I remember when the Editor-in-chief featured one of my articles in a video! That was amazing, unexpected and made my day! It also helped give me “street cred”.

And five, the Nintendo Enthusiast community was really chill to talk to. Whether it was the Jackbox Games event I participated in, or discussing The Talmud with a Middle Eastern History major, I always felt welcome. Even when the staff was hard on me, they never despised me. That’s something I’m forever grateful for.

This is where the praise stops, however. For as much as I enjoyed facets of my time at Nintendo Enthusiast, and thank them for “whipping me into shape”, I’m still burnt out by my experience. I feel bad for what I’m about to divulge, but I can’t lie. Nintendo Enthusiast was tough, and that largely had to do with sculpting my writing around hot topics. It was a lesson in the soul-crushing experience of clickbait writing.

My initial kick in the groin, metaphorically-speaking, was when I started there. Initially I’d been billed as an opinion, news and satire writer, but the satire part was dropped when I realized how hard it was to get pieces published. I actually had an entire “news story” written, complete with a punchline, about Mario and Luigi’s brother Lurio that never made it to the pitching process. And when my attempts at news features turned out to be more difficult than they were worth, that part was quickly dropped too.

So fine, I’m an opinion writer. I write opinion pieces constantly, and I can live with that, right? Well, that also proved a difficult experience. I came in with many ideas, and I naively assumed they’d all be accepted. After all, in my years on Infinite Rainy Day, all four, I was only told “no” 3 times. I wrote some outlandish pieces for them, so surely it’d be the same with Nintendo Enthusiast…right?

Not really. Not only were the editorial staff picky about what they wanted, they were also picky about what they approved. I’m no expert on their inner workings, but it also felt like they were overworked and understaffed. Articles frequently took days, sometimes weeks, before they were slotted for scheduling, and while the editing notes I received became less-frequent over time, initially the walls of texts about what didn’t work were daunting! On occasion I had fully-formed pieces rejected as well.

The real test came in what got published. Not only did it have to be short, 500-1000 words on average, but it was often rewritten and reworked to be more suitable for the readership. Sometimes that worked in its favour, truthfully. But even when said rewrites were good, I still felt like voice was diluted. One of my pieces even included the word “random”. I haven’t used that word regularly high school!

In addition, the readership was tough. If the site’s comment pages wasn’t discouraging enough, Nintendo Enthusiast had two Facebook pages and a Twitter handle. All three routinely netted gross and nasty feedback from people who either didn’t like my arguments, thought I was a bad writer, or both. It’s easy to laugh off in hindsight, since I’ve read and seen worse since, but as a fairly inexperienced writer it was tough. Especially since I was advised not to engage, which was hard.

But the kicker was the deadlines. In order to be paid, I had to write weekly and regularly. Given the stress of ideas often being rejected, as well as not working well under deadlines, I often found the pay threshold either unmet, or barely met. I would’ve complained, but it was a problem for many writers. We weren’t able to meet the demands put on us, and it led to me getting cut in January of 2020.

Like I said, I don’t want to sound unfairly disparaging. Despite the low pay, harsh deadlines, frequent rewrites and tough criticism, I enjoyed the challenge! But I would I do it again? No. It wasn’t an experience that suited me long-term.

Yet it made me more empathetic to clickbait writers. Let’s face it: clickbait culture’s most-exhausting on the writers themselves. They’re overworked, underpaid and frequently axed if they can’t meet demand. That’s not including the readers dog-piling on them for their opinions, which puts stress on them to meet expectations. It’s a tough job in the name of a system that undervalues them.

That’s why I try not to dog-pile clickbait writers now, even when they’re being obtuse. It’s easy to sell out. Writers do it constantly! But it’s harder for people to sympathize, and even harder to direct the backlash at the powers that encourage constant clickbait to maximize their profits. That needs addressing badly, especially now that information and news have transformed into bite-sized topics for angry swarms to digest and move on from.

Now then, if you’ll excuse me...

Mephisto is Histo!

We finally have a Spider-Man: No Way Home trailer:

This still is wild! (Courtesy of Sony Pictures Entertainment.)

I’m surprised and excited. Surprised, because there are cameos and moments I didn’t expect. And excited, because it’s looking to be another banger. However, amidst the fanfare and buzz, it seems like the “Will Mephisto be in this?” question’s being floated again. It’s pretty grating, so I’ll address it.

By the way, spoilers.

Who’s Mephisto? According to Marvel Comics, he’s a demon who manipulates reality. He terrorized Wanda during the House of M storyline, and he reversed Peter Parker’s misfortunes. He’s also Satan. Because “Mephisto” is short for “Mephistopheles”, which is one of Satan’s pseudonyms.

I mention this because Mephisto will have been the villain of two sources for MCU projects once this movie premiers. And because he was absent in WandaVision, people are wondering if he’ll debut in Spider-Man: No Way Home. On one hand, it wouldn’t be strange, especially with the direction The MCU has taken. But on the other hand, is he worth having? I don’t think so.

Let’s look at what The MCU did for its previous adaptation of a Mephisto story: in WandaVision, Wanda Maximoff, fresh off the trauma of The Avengers: Endgame, moves to Westview and constructs a sitcom reality. She and Vision move in to their house, become parents to twins and reunite with Pietro. Everything seems hunky-dory, but the cracks keep showing up. It’s eventually revealed that Wanda’s enslaving the citizens of Westview mentally, and she’s even preventing Vision from having agency.

It’d be easy to include Mephisto. He was behind Wanda’s fake reality in the comics! But I applaud The MCU for not doing that, instead having the antagonist be Wanda. It gave her agency, made her sympathetic and helped her learn to grieve. Plus, it gave us one of the best fights in MCU history (outside of the Vision VS Vision battle). Had Mephisto been included, it would’ve felt like a cop-out.

That applies to Spider-Man: No Way Home too. One of the draws of Spider-Man is that-underneath the costume, webbing and snarky quips-he’s a regular guy who was bitten by a radioactive spider and acquired superpowers by accident. Part of that normalcy is that, like every normal person, he isn’t perfect. He’s haughty, he’s naïve, he’s occasionally arrogant and he makes mistakes. Some of those mistakes have big consequences, like when he failed to stop the man who murdered Uncle Ben.

In The MCU’s case, this film’s about Peter accidentally causing a rift in reality while trying to reverse Mysterio’s revelation that he’s Spider-Man. He’s most-likely going to meet alternate versions of himself in an attempt to stop Doctor Octopus and The Green Goblin, and all to take responsibility for this blunder. It’s a cool setup with lots of potential, and it has leeway to include Mephisto. And, once again, I don’t want him there.

I know Mephisto’s popular with comic fans. But not only are most moviegoers unfamiliar with comics, hence this’d be a weird cameo, but The MCU’s ignored accuracy in service of a good story before. They did that with Taskmaster in Black Widow. And with Quicksilver in WandaVision. And even with-actually, considering that The Mandarin’s being retconned for Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, maybe that’s not a great example.

Regardless, The MCU’s unafraid of deviating for the sake of flow. And I admire them for that! Not everything translates well to film, so certain details have to go. Mephisto, who was always iffy, seems like as good a place as any. I know it’ll make some comic fans mad, but it’s true.

Besides, do people want Mephisto in The MCU? As in, do they want his baggage? Because having a character like him robs your protagonist of their agency. He’s not like Mephistopheles from Doctor Faustus, where he kicks off the conflict, he’s a guy who meddles with superheroes. And not even in a good way. Having him here, therefore, would be a bad idea.

What about Doctor Strange? He seems out-of-character in this movie, and he’s the one who kicks off the conflict. Considering that Nick Fury was a Skrull in Spider-Man: Far From Home, why can’t Doctor Strange be Mephisto? I think that question answers itself: if Doctor Strange is behaving unusual, like how Nick Fury was behaving unusual, then chances are he’s also a Skrull; after all, Skrulls are shapeshifters, and it’d explain a lot. It’d also be in-line with how The MCU operates.

I feel like a party pooper, pointing out how Mephisto sucks. But I can’t lie. I don’t think it’s wise to include someone who robs other characters of their agency in a franchise that thrives on good character writing. Perhaps if The MCU figures out how to use him properly for a future story, we can see Mephisto appear. But that’d require tweaking him significantly, and until that happens…well, I think we’ll survive.

My COVIDtine Woes...

I’m getting sick of COVID.

It’s unoriginal to say that, isn’t it? After all, aren’t we all? It’s been around for over a year and a half, and it doesn’t seem to be going away. If anything, it feels like it’s getting worse! That doesn’t sound promising!

Normally, pieces like this are written to downplay the pandemic so that “life can go back to normal”. I don’t want that. Not only is the world changed because of COVID, but even if it ended…well, I’m not sure the obsessive, hustle-and-bustle culture before was healthy. Instead, I’d like to discuss something else. I’d like to talk about the anti-vaxer mentality, and how that’s not helping.

Anti-vax sentiment isn’t new. The current version started with Andrew Wakefield’s now-retracted paper on MMR vaccines and Autism. I’m not a doctor, but as someone with Autism this bugs me. It bugs me because vaccines, by and large, are pretty harmless, and because it assumes you can’t live with Autism. That I recently celebrated my 31st birthday should be proof enough.

I’d further lambast Wakefield’s paper, but it’s not relevant. What’s relevant is how anti-vaxer sentiment has reached a fever-pitch and mixed with anti-masker sentiment. The notions that masks “are dangerous” and that vaccines, particularly COVID vaccines, “are dangerous” have overlapped. People who are one tend to be the other, and they’re loud and angry. So much so that they’re making life a nightmare for everyone else.

There are several issues at play here, so I’ll try to break them down:

The first is that masks are “dangerous”. This, ignoring special cases, isn’t true. I’ve been wearing masks for work since December, and I have sensory issues. Are they tight? Yes. Are they uncomfortable? Yes, hence why I routinely change them during breaks. But they’re not dangerous, or they’d be outlawed.

Besides, masks aren’t a new phenomenon. Doctors and nurses wear them all the time, often for many hours on end. And hospitals distribute them when people are visiting immunocompromised patients, lest there be lawsuits. I remember wearing a mask when I was getting over a cold during an ENT appointment once, as I had a residual cough. I hated every second of it, but I survived.

So many people act like masks are a detriment to their health and freedoms. Countless videos and articles discuss people throwing fits over masks in the last year and a half. Why does it bother them? Don’t they realize that wearing masks means being able to hide your face in public? Don’t people like that freedom?

Second, there’s the claim that COVID vaccines are “dangerous”. The arguments range from containing tracking devices inside them, to being overly-experimental, to having side-effects that won’t know about until years from now. Ignoring, again, medical exemptions, I have to call this out too: firstly, mRNA vaccines have been in development for years. They were in development before SARS in 2003, as COVID’s similar to it. They’ve gone through intense testing and tinkering since, and they were proven to work. They’re not quite 100% foolproof, but the companies that made them are aware of that.

Secondly, they work! Even when vaccinated people have contracted COVID, which was always a possibility, the symptoms have been far less severe. Long COVID symptoms range from flesh-eating disease, or “black fungus”, to increased onset of dementia, to even libido issues. And that’s only scratching the surface! There’s so much we don’t know about the long-term impacts of COVID, as it’s a relatively new virus. Wouldn’t it make sense to avoid contracting it by being vaccinated?

Thirdly, the research that went into mRNA vaccines, while new, has allowed for breakthroughs in other vaccines. The biggest one is a potential HIV vaccine. Wouldn’t it have been great to have it in the 80’s and 90’s, when HIV was still a real threat? How is this not a win?

And fourthly, mRNA vaccines have side-effects, true, but they’re monitored heavily. I know about the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca blood clots. I know that Pfizer can briefly derail the menstrual cycle. But guess what? These are being accounted for as potential side-effects. I’d still rather risk them than contract COVID. Especially when many of the foods we ingest are also more dangerous.

This leads to my third and final frustration: anti-vaxers/anti-maskers downplaying the severity of COVID. Not only is the virus real, but it has no plans of going away. It’s non-partisan, it doesn’t care what you think about it, and it’s dangerous. It’s also mutating, with Delta being the dominant variant now and Lambda being one of concern. These didn’t appear overnight, they were a result of transmissions through millions of people. And that they’re more aggressive than the initial virus is concerning.

Why are so many people acting so selfishly? Why is being proactive so contentious? Why are vaccine passports, which aren’t even that controversial, being met with hostility and resistance? Sure, surviving the virus is a possibility, especially if you’re young and healthy, but there are over 7 billion people on the planet. Even if the chances of death are less than 10%, that’s still incredibly high. This is basic math!

I’ve heard stories from family and friends about the dangers of COVID. Some of my relatives are doctors, and they’ve done rounds in ICUs. The beds are filling up like no tomorrow, the hospital staff are overworked and stressed, and the patients are dying regularly. And even with that, people are acting like this isn’t a big deal? Does a virus only matter if it impacts you?

It’s been a tough year and a half. I miss going to the theatres and eating out with friends. Zooming all day is exhausting. And not taking public transit limits where I can travel, as I can’t drive. All of this is cumbersome. But it won’t get better unless we all play our part.

I don’t want to downplay the medical issues with masks and vaccines. Like I said before, I know there are valid exemptions to both. I know people who can’t wear masks, as well as people who are anaphylactic to vaccines. I feel for both, I really do. But that’s why I’m being extra careful. Because my due-diligence will save their lives.

Ultimately, we need to make a choice: do we want this pandemic to end, or do we want it to keep getting worse? I want the former. But that’ll only happen if we all behave. And if that means anti-vaxers/anti-maskers sucking up their pride and doing what’s right, then so be it. Because I’m tired of throwing away my life over their selfishness.

Black Widow's Widow

I sometimes feel like my love-hate relationship with Disney is harmful. On one hand, as I’ve said before, I love much of their work. On the other hand, I despise their business practices, especially when they harm people. That said, it seems like their behaviour is getting worse. Which brings me to their legal battle with Scarlett Johansson.

I’m sure everyone’s familiar with The MCU. It’s one of the biggest and most-profitable business ventures in Hollywood, with 24 films and several shows under its belt. Chances are you’ve heard of or seen one, and it isn’t slowing down anytime soon. If anything, the pandemic only set everything back a year. That says a lot.

Johansson’s contract with Marvel ended with Black Widow, her first solo film since the franchise began in 2008. Despite doing well critically, its box office returns were hampered by the pandemic. Disney was even forced to release it theatrically and on Disney+ simultaneously. The latter also included a Premier Access fee, but I’ve covered my thoughts on that already. Sufficed to say, it’s one of The MCU’s lowest-grossing entries.

I mention this because it’s relevant to a scandal that Disney’s engaged in. It turns out Johansson’s contract was breached, and now she’s suing. Disney, in turn, has pushed back, arguing that Johansson’s been inconsiderate and greedy. It’s been making waves, with Emily Blunt and Emma Stone contemplating suing over their contracts too. It’s messy.

I get the position Disney’s in, to an extent. They were planning for a straight-to-theatre release last Summer, but their plans were derailed by COVID. The movie kept getting delayed, until Disney went for a simultaneous release on Disney+. This was something they didn’t have full control over, and that needs to be factored into the equation.

That said, I still side with Johansson. She may not need the money, she’s one of Hollywood’s highest-paid stars, but her contract was strictly for a theatrical release. She didn’t get that. And while the pandemic forced Disney’s hand, her contract should’ve been modified. It’s a case of underhanded, corporate backstabbing, and she deserves compensation.

Additionally, Disney’s behaviour hasn’t made them look favourable. For one, the rhetoric they’ve used has been accused of misogynistic undertones. To quote their legal team:

“‘This lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson's contract and furthermore, the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date.’”

This seems to imply that Johansson doesn’t care about the pandemic, something her legal team, and organizations like Time’s Up, have cited as an attack on her character. And while it’s not my place to comment directly, since I’m male, I have to wonder if the words “sad” and “distressing” would’ve been used if this were her male co-stars…

Two, it’s not like Disney can’t afford it. While many individuals have suffered in the past year and a half, Disney’s one of the outliers that’ve actually gained because of the pandemic. Shares have skyrocketed, with their Disney+ subscriber count jumping to over 100 million. Considering that, Johansson’s demands are miniscule. If anything, they’re a drop in the bucket.

And three, it’s more insult to injury for The House of Mouse’s. Remember, they opened their theme parks in the middle of the pandemic, despite warnings that it wasn’t safe. They’ve routinely put profit over those in their payroll, and this another example of that. So while I understand their decision to change their release, I don’t feel sympathy. Or, at least, I don’t feel sympathy for their wallets.

I’m interested in the ripple effects this could have for anyone who’s been slighted by Disney in recent years. Remember, Emma Stone and Emily Blunt have considered suing over Cruella and Jungle Cruise, two movies they starred in respectively. Their films were also shoved onto Disney+, and they probably felt slighted too. Especially if their contracts weren’t renegotiated.

Then there are future films. Free Guy currently has a theatre-only release, but if it bombs financially it could end up being moved to Disney+. And what about Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings? If that’s switched to Disney+ without warning because of the pandemic, will Simu Liu, the star, also sue? As it stands, nothing’s off the table.

This is the real litmus test. The pandemic has shifted releases to streaming services in large numbers, and while understandable, it raises ethical questions about actor contracts: should they be static, or flexible? Can they be changed based on unforeseen circumstances? And, if so, should the stars be consulted first? I’m no legal expert, but I’m sure these questions will surface in the future.

In Disney’s case, this lawsuit isn’t surprising. The Walt Disney Company has a history of shady practices, including Walt Disney’s alliance with The CIA to brand its striking animators as Communists and blacklist them in the 1940’s. The company’s coasted on deceit and lies, and this is another example. But whereas past endeavours are wrong, this, like the Cicely Daniher case, is something personal made public. It has legs, and it could reshape how big-name stars negotiate contracts.

In the end, it’s sad to see Disney use their image to deceive someone like that. Disney might make good movies, and they might have smart people working for them, but greed is greed. And it hurts people. Scarlett Johansson, a woman who’s been embroiled in controversy before, certainly doesn’t need the money, but it doesn’t matter. She was wronged, and she deserves to make it right. It’s about the principle.