Original Trilogy Woes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reminiscing About Mario

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jahns VS Stuckmann

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Fragile Peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother Knows Best?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introducing Tilly Norwood!

Meet Tilly Norwood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nintendo's New President?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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