I'm the GOAT

I’ve become what I hate: someone who’s picky about movies in theatres. It’s not like I wanted that, as I used to see several a month, but between two jobs, my limited income and the cost of movie tickets nowadays, I’ve had to become selective. I also have a monthly movie budget that could be easily blown with one theatre trip. Basically, it takes something extra special for me to watch a new release. But this is something I’ve said before, so I’m probably being redundant.

Anyway, I recently saw GOAT, that anthropomorphic basketball movie, on the big screen. Despite looking mid-tier initially, I enjoyed it. Yes, sports aren’t my jam. And yes, the movie has a fart joke involving a CPAP. But when you get past that, it’s not half-bad overall.

This begs the question: why has movie-going become exclusive? Why do we shell out insane amounts of money on movies, only to go online and complain about them? And why do we treat them like sports, always trying to one-up everyone else? Movies are meant to be escapism, not life. So why treat them like life?

I’m not guiltless here. Before the pandemic, I went to my local cinemas regularly. Sometimes I’d go twice a week, assuming I had time. Movies were my bread and butter for years. And while they burned through my bank account, I got a lot of joy out of them. Movie-going was fun, if somewhat obsessive.

That changed in March of 2020. Not only did I stop going for health reasons, but whenever movies were shown in theatres, such as Tenet, it backfired. Simply put, seeing new releases was dangerous. And streamers noticed this, with watching movies at home taking off. It’s unfortunate, but that was the reality for over a year.

Once the restrictions lessened, and theatres opened again, the novelty had faded. Movie-going wasn’t fun anymore. It didn’t help that problems I might’ve dealt with in the past, like bloated ticket costs, were now no longer worth ignoring. After all, renting movies was cheaper! And more convenient! So why bother?

That’s when my budgeting experiment began. For one, I didn’t have time or funds to go to the theatre regularly anymore. And two, I had adult responsibilities, responsibilities like paying for groceries. So it’s no wonder that I started going out to theatres less frequently. Even if it meant skipping something I was looking forward to.

Which brings me back to my questions. It genuinely feels like seeing movies in theatres is now less a hobby and more a chore, with people pressuring others to see new releases. This includes mini-reviews on Letterboxd, as well as debates in forums and on YouTube videos. It also includes endless, aggressively-long video essays deconstructing every detail of new releases to “prove” they suck. That’s not what I signed up for.

It also makes me less-excited to see new releases. I remember getting roasted on Bluesky last year because someone discovered that I hadn’t seen Sinners yet. This individual then lobbed Antisemitic remarks, having found out I was Jewish, before promptly Blocking me. I still haven’t seen Sinners. But if this is the reaction I get for not watching it, then is it worth it?

Going back to GOAT, part of why I saw it is because I knew it wouldn’t be amazing, yet I was curious. And that’s okay. A movie doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel to be enjoyable, and I think people have forgotten that. In a sense, GOAT might be worth it as a reminder. Because we appear to need that reminding.

Let me reiterate: not everything needs to reinvent the wheel to be enjoyable. This includes GOAT, which is basically Space Jam if it wasn’t conceived for cynical reasons. The movie, save for its visuals, isn’t doing anything revolutionary, but it does it well anyway. Even visually, Sony Animation has done more interesting stuff recently. But that doesn’t matter when the movie is fun anyway.

It sounds like I’m going in circles, but I want fellow movie fans to understand this. GOAT might not rock your world. It might only be okay! However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth watching. Neither should I be judged over it being the only movie I’ve seen theatrically this year so far. Even if there are better movies out there, you shouldn’t berate me for being budget-conscious. Nor should you berate me if I wasn’t being budget-conscious. You don’t know my personal circumstances.

I’ll end with the following anecdote: a reviewer I used to be a fan of once chastised moviegoers for only seeing MCU movies in theatres. Said reviewer compared them to junk food, stressing that people needed a varied cinema diet. I didn’t agree, but at the time I got the sentiment. I don’t anymore, however, as life’s too precious to gate-keep people’s preferences. If that makes me “lame”, so be it!

So yes, I’ve become what I hate, but I wouldn’t change that. Because I feel much better about myself, if we’re honest.

She's in WHAT?!

(Warning: the following contains heavy and uncomfortable subject matter. Please read at your own risk.)

I’ve broken my promise to not discuss JK Rowling again several times. It’s not deliberate, but she somehow shoots her credibility in the foot constantly. It doesn’t help that people close to me have said they think the controversy surrounding her is unfounded. If I can’t convince them of her transphobia, then I wonder if I ever will. Especially since the HBO reboot of the Harry Potter series is still happening, with several high-profile actors excusing Rowling because they’re in it. I really don’t know what else to say.

Fortunately, life has presented an opportunity to criticize her again. This one’s worse than all her rhetoric, as it’s been in the news nonstop: JK Rowling’s mentioned in the Epstein files. You know, the ones about pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s friends and colleagues? The ones implicating many wealthy and famous individuals? Those files?

Now, being mentioned in Epstein’s files doesn’t automatically make you an offender. As Jon Stewart pointed out The Daily Show, he’s referenced briefly as a possible comedian to play a character Epstein wanted for a movie. Epstein also had many aspirational individuals in his records, as evidenced by his flight logs. What should be alarming, however, is how Rowling comes up in two instances. Brace yourselves.

The first goes back to the year 2000. Rowling, in the peak of her Harry Potter success, gives a glowing review of Lolita, a novel about an aristocrat romancing and sexually extorting a 12 year-old girl. It’s meant as a cautionary tale about pedophilia and sex slavery, but Rowling, who’s nameless, celebrates it as a “powerful tale of romance”. If you don’t believe me, read her words yourself. She’s quite descriptive.

This is upsetting. Ignoring how Lolita would inspire a sub-genre of pornography, or how Stanley Kubrick’s film adaptation aged up the girl to sand off the “icky” parts, it’s obvious that the reader isn’t meant to endorse the relationship. Even in 1955, when Vladimir Nabokov wrote it, this sort of romance was uncomfortable. And Nabokov was commenting on how aristocrats use influence to extort children. This is something that was lost to Rowling, which reflects poorly on her.

But maybe there’s an argument to be made that this isn’t Rowling. The author isn’t mentioned by name, so there’s some plausible deniability here. However, the second reference to Rowling is more recent. Occurring in 2018, as Epstein’s crimes were being made public, Rowling’s team contacted Epstein to see a showing of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child on Broadway as it premiered. The unofficial sequel to the Harry Potter series, this play, about Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy’s children, was starting to take off at this time. According to the exchange, Rowling’s team tried inviting Epstein.

This is much more damning evidence against Rowling, made worse by her going radio silent for several days before denying all wrongdoing. I get that she must’ve been caught off-guard, as well as that she was probably coached by legal counsel to wait, but this is damning in its own right. Because, like I said, Epstein’s crimes weren’t a secret in 2018. What gives?

Actually, I know what gives. This is JK Rowling using her fame to court a successful financier. Except this is Jeffrey Epstein we’re talking about. Rowling could’ve solicited a dozen other people, but she chose Epstein. And given Epstein’s reputation, that’s troubling.

But it speaks to how dishonest Rowling is in general. She released a picture of her smoking a cigar and drinking champagne after Scotland’s Supreme Court ruled against gender-affirming care. She also got into trouble after claiming an Algerian athlete was a man in 2024, even though being trans is illegal there. Rowling’s no stranger to controversy, so why not be on Epstein’s list too? Is that such a stretch?

I’m frustrated by this. Rowling’s not the only author I respected to shoot her credibility in the foot; Neil Gaiman has sexual assault baggage spanning decades. But Rowling hurts specifically because she’s made a profound impact on millions of youth, and she has influence politically. She also has major control over the IP rights to Harry Potter, which is a beloved series. To be associated with Jeffrey Epstein is upsetting and dangerous, and I wish people recognized that.

I know that many famous authors have questionable political and personal lives. The late-Roald Dahl was an avowed Antisemite, and England refused to honour him after his death. Neil Gaiman, who I respected for decades, has sexual assault allegations. Alice Walker, the author of The Color Purple, is also an Antisemite, having made frequent statements. However, Rowling surpasses them in stature and influence, so this is a frustrating series of revelations on top of already preexisting ones.

Does this mean Rowling’s a hack? No. Despite all the re-evaluations of her work, I do think she initially earned her reputation fairly. But this doesn’t mean she hasn’t been pissing away her goodwill lately. Her ties to Epstein are another example, and it’s high-time people stopped putting her on an untouchable pedestal. At least, for now. We can reassess everything after her passing.

Inglourious Basterds Revisited

In 2017, I wrote a piece criticizing Inglourious Basterds. I don’t think I was being entirely honest. After all, it’d been several years since I’d last seen it, so my memory wasn’t fresh. And with it being almost 9 years since writing the piece, I’ve wondered if my thoughts were warranted. So I re-watched it. While, yes, some of my thoughts have changed, I think it’s the most-frustrating of Tarantino’s works. I say that having not finished Jackie Brown.

Let’s start with what I liked. In a landscape where Jewish roles are frequently given to gentiles, that this movie casts Jews in Jewish roles is a miracle. That extends to European casting, with Shoshana Dreyfus going to relative-newcomer Mélanie Laurent. Laurent was in her mid-20s at the time, yet she has enough charisma to lead this film alone. It’s a shame she isn’t the focal point, but we’ll get there...

Speaking of casting, I appreciate the movie’s authenticity. German and French actors were cast appropriately, with Hans Landa going to Christoph Waltz. Waltz earned an Oscar for his take on a slimy-yet-charismatic Nazi with an ability to sniff out Jews. Landa’s the best antagonist this movie has. He’s also the true foil to Shoshana, and, again, it’s a shame their dynamic isn’t the focus.

I like how this movie has urgency and danger in every scene, even the one involving Mike Myers’s character setting up everything. This is best exemplified in the opening, where Landa, using clever language and interrogation techniques, murders Shoshana’s family. This is easily its crown achievement, and it could’ve been a short film had it ended there. I’d argue the remainder of the movie never tops it, too.

Finally, this is a Jewish-centric story. It figures that it would be, it’s a Holocaust story, but it centering around Jews specifically is nice. Holocaust movies, particularly in Hollywood, often show gentiles helping Jews, robbing the Jewish characters of their agency. Inglourious Basterds doesn’t do that. Small moments like Landa getting Shoshana to eat strudel with non-Kosher cream, despite Jewish law allowing that to save your life, feel weighty because the movie makes it so. It’s nice to see this.

Unfortunately, that’s where my praise ends. But before I rip it apart, a disclaimer: I don’t have Holocaust survivors in my family. I’m the rare breed of Jew who’s third-generation Canadian, having three grandparents born in Toronto and one in Washington D.C. My experience with the Holocaust is through friends and acquaintances. I volunteered at a geriatric facility with survivors, but none were related to me. So anything I say should be understood through that lens.

The best way to summarize my thoughts would be in one word: frustrating. Inglourious Basterds’s pivotal scene, the theatre massacre, has many moving parts that need to fall into place to work, and on several occasions it nearly collapses. It’s only through a combination of plot armour and story contrivances that it works, and even then it feels forced. There are several moments where I wondered if the the Nazi officers and their associates were dumb enough to gather in a small, sketchy revue like this. Then I remembered that many Nazi officials were that dumb, and I stopped questioning it.

But it raises a bigger issue, one that I still hold by now. Most of the Nazis in the movie don’t act differently than standard soldiers. They wear their SS garb, which isn’t flattering, but there’s little differentiating them from The Basterds Brigade. On that front, said Basterds, a group of Jews, are more evil than the Nazis they’re sent to kill. With one ripping out a sleeping SS officer’s tongue, and another one, nicknamed “The Bear Jew”, bludgeoning a Nazi officer to death with a baseball bat, Quentin Tarantino misses the mark in making these characters feel sympathetic.

Even Shoshana, the one exception, loses me in the finale when her silhouette laughs maniacally at the chaos she’s created. On paper, this should be satisfying, especially since Shoshana has experienced so much misery and grief. But it’s not. Not only does Shoshana not survive, being shot by a Nazi who keeps pestering her, but the image of a Jewish woman laughing demonically as her face is engulfed by flames is…aggressive. It feels Antisemitic, even if that wasn’t the intent.

I could continue ranting all day about the theatre massacre, including how Hitler’s face being riddled with bullets makes me uneasy. And yeah, you could argue how that massacre is Tarantino commenting on the audience’s appetite for excessive violence, something mirrored in the movie the patrons are watching. But because this is Tarantino, a man whose next movie, Django Unchained, involved one of the bloodiest shootouts I’ve ever seen, I can’t help recognizing the irony there. It’s patronizing, essentially. It’s also annoying.

Another sequence that irks me involves the bar shootout. One of the Nazis there, a low-ranking officer named Wilhelm, has recently become a father, and he’s celebrating by getting piss-drunk. As that’s happening, the plan involving the movie revue, which is discussed with German spy Bridget Von Hammersmark, is run down at a neighbouring table. The situation turns when a high-ranking SS officer joins said table, leading to a shootout when someone gives away that he’s a British spy. It’s a gunfight that you’d expect from Tarantino, ending with Hammersmark being badly-injured and Wilhelm surviving the onslaught.

And then, as Wilhelm surrenders to Lieutenant Aldo Raine, Hammersmark shoots him anyway. Even if you’d argue that he might’ve squealed to The SS, it’s still excessive for Wilhelm to be shot. Like Miss Laura’s death in Django Unchained, it’s gratuitous. It also doesn’t serve a purpose outside of giving Tarantino another chance to flex. In short, I didn’t like it.

The part that pisses me off the most is the ending. Specifically, how Shoshana isn’t present. Not only did she not deserve to die at the hands of her stalker, she also should’ve been the one to carve Landa’s head. It’d not only be satisfying, tying her arc to her direct tormentor, it’d make what feels like another, run-of-the-mill art piece into something layered with meaning. I know it’s too late now to suggest that to Tarantino, but it definitely feels like a missed opportunity.

That’s my issue with this movie in general, namely that it refuses to get out of its own way. It’s a problem Tarantino would have again with Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood’s finale, as that would’ve benefited from Sharon Tate killing her failed intruders. After all, that was as much about Tate as this is about Shoshana, so why not? Tarantino’s already making a revisionist piece, so why not go all the way? Or does gratuitous violence override layered storytelling?

When I wrote my initial critique of Inglourious Basterds, I got plenty of flak from people. Specifically, from the “punch Nazis” crowd, who claimed that I was “both sides-ing” what should be straightforward. However, I remain steadfast in my frustrations, even if I no longer romanticize Nazis. And in a time when Jews are harassed and attacked over something they never asked for, that crowd could stand to listen to us even when it makes them uncomfortable. Essentially, “punch Nazis” should include “and listen to their victims, too”.

As a final note, the reason I prefer Django Unchained is because while that movie’s also gratuitous, it doesn’t detract from Django getting closure. Yes, it deals with American slavery. And yes, it has Samuel L. Jackson playing a stereotypical, Uncle Ruckus-type villain in Lawrence. But it lets Django have the last word. Inglourious Basterds, however, doesn’t extend that grace to Shoshana Dreyfus. That matters, and it bothers me. It should bother you too.

Steven Spielberg's EGOTmania

I’d like to continue the positivity, because we badly need it:

Steven Spielberg’s one of my favourite directors. I know it’s cliché to say that, and even more cliché to praise his work, but he’s able to release two movies a year and have both be well-received. He’s also a workman’s director, able to tackle various subjects in a common and relatable way. In short, he’s quite talented. And actors love working with him.

I mention this in light of recent news. The Grammys were this past week, and one of the big moments was Spielberg receiving a Grammy for his producer role on a video about John Williams. I don’t watch The Grammys, I only have time for one schlocky ceremony, but this is huge! It grants Spielberg the coveted EGOT status, something only 28 artists have achieved. And since Spielberg’s turning 80, it gives me hope that I can still achieve success.

Truthfully, this was a long time coming. Spielberg’s one of the greats, having broken into the industry when Hollywood was receptive to talents like him. He’s one of the longest and most well-respected Movie Brats, right up there with Martin Scorsese, George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola. But what makes him unique is his refusal to pigeonhole himself, instead oscillating between dramas, action movies and thrillers, often in the same year. He’s also had a career as a producer, helping directors like Barry Sonnenfeld, Robert Zemeckis and Michael Bay. And let’s not forget his friendship with composer John Williams, who’s scored most of his work.

For Steven Spielberg to achieve EGOT status is a big deal and overdue. Spielberg isn’t normally one to brag about his achievements, but it’s worth remembering that he won his first Oscar with Schindler’s List. That means he went over three decades without one, despite having plenty of movies that warranted it. He now has 3 Oscars to his name. So that he was able to wow audiences despite overdue recognition says something, and that goes for his other awards too.

There’s been much debate about Spielberg in film circles: is his dramatic work better than his action work? Is he the best? Is he even that good a director? The answers vary, but I don’t think it matters long-term. Spielberg’s work is so varied that all you need to do is watch it. It doesn’t matter if it’s Jaws or Saving Private Ryan, it’s easy to pick favourites even if you prefer other directors. I think that’s more important.

I also should admit that not everything about Spielberg’s flawless. He’s directed and produced bad movies before, and he’s made out-there statements that sound whiny. His conversations with George Lucas about Indiana Jones, particularly Indy’s romantic life, also haven’t aged well. But that’s irrelevant to his achievements. Even “bad Spielberg” has more to say than many movies from other directors, and his missteps are minimal compared to his colleagues. That most audiences still recognize his work speaks volumes, especially when big, expensive blockbuster IPs are household names as opposed to the people directing them.

There’s not much to discuss that hasn’t already been touched on. He’s a master of one take scenes. He’s a pro at executing Chekhov’s Gun. He rarely directs sequels, and even there he’s made some greats. And the franchises he started have suffered once he handed the keys to someone else, the Jurassic Park movies specifically. Even directing Ready Player One, which was controversial, felt like a natural choice, and I can’t imagine anyone else doing it in retrospect.

This is to say that, in spite of anything positive or negative, Spielberg achieving EGOT status is well-earned. Not every artist is as accomplished or busybody as him, so to finally get to that level is should indicate that no one should give up hope. Remember, Spielberg’s turning 80. If an artist can be working at the twilight of their career and still receive recognition, then you can be adventurous in your youth and not worry about peaking. So go, live out your dreams! What have you got to lose?

Personally, Steven Spielberg receiving EGOT status has renewed the passion in my own work. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m working on a novel that’s really personal to me. It’s been tough, and tiring, and there were moments where I felt like I’d stagnated. I know novel writing isn’t easy, and I was probably being too hard on myself, but the feeling of exhaustion has crept in several times. There were even moments where I wanted to give up.

So that one of my favourite directors could achieve something only 27 other artists have achieved, and at his age? It renewed my passion. And yes, I’m aware I still have a long way to go to being published. I’m also aware that it’ll be a difficult road. But thanks to this news, I’m willing to persevere. I only hope the passion continues for years to come.

Here’s to you, Steven Spielberg! May you one day achieve the more-illusive PEGOT status, and I’m looking forward to seeing Disclosure Day.

This is Incredible!

I want to acknowledge a development that recently occurred in film circles:

I didn’t see The Incredibles theatrically. I was going through a tough time when it came out, having entered high school and being in the process of moving. My exposure, therefore, was via a Blockbuster rental the following year, and I was only allowed to watch it after doing my homework. But it was worth it. It not only catered to my maturing tastes, it was also a satisfying movie. And when the only great superhero movies at that time were Raimi’s Spider-Man films and the first two X-Men movies, this surpassing both was no small feat.

And now, almost 22 years later, The Incredibles has been added to The National Film Registry. Several other movies also got added, but this was the entry of note for me. Because while not every movie, I feel, deserves it, this one does. It’s truly great, and not simply as a superhero or animated movie. Then again, this was Pixar in their prime. Are we surprised?

There’s plenty to discuss. Despite the protagonist, Bob Parr, being a post-WWII suburban dad, his struggles as a former superhero longing for the glory days resonates anyone who’s become a tired, bitter adult at a dead-end job. That longing for a past time that doesn’t exist anymore, while Boomer-ish in nature, feels more and more relatable with each passing year. As someone turning 36 in July, the passage of time is creeping up on me.

But this movie doesn’t take the easy way out, either. While Bob gets short-term wish-fulfillment when his former career becomes his occupation, it comes at a cost. He puts his marriage in danger, and his life, leading to the movie’s drama. Bob’s wife, Helen, and his two eldest children then have to rescue him, and he realizes that they’re more important than reliving the past. That’s something adults could stand to learn more often.

The Incredibles is also a fun action movie. Taking cues from James Bond and Mission Impossible, there are several thrilling action scenes here. My two favourites are Helen and her kids trying to avoid homing missiles, and Dash outrunning goons. The former’s a nail-biter with a “will-she-or-won’t-she” moment surrounding Violet’s powers, while the latter’s high-energy fun. Both are also only a few minutes long, getting their messages across without bloat.

The only fight that’s “long” is the battle with The Omnidroid, a robot that quickly decides that its master, the film’s villain, isn’t worth taking orders from. Even then, the movie has time for one more action scene involving the kidnapping of Jack-Jack. It’s a nail-biting sequence with an explosive finale, and it’s a send-off to the film’s many great set-pieces. Plus, it has one the movie’s best lines, where a kid praises their fight after waiting the entire movie for excitement. I laugh whenever he shouts “THAT WAS TOTALLY WICKED!”.

This movie’s incredibly quotable. As you’ve no doubt read in my Pixar collaboration, there are endless scenes and one-liners I have memorized. Considering that Pixar’s previous film, Finding Nemo, was my most-quoted movie for years, this movie surpassing that highlights its brilliance. My favourite exchange involves the argument between Lucius and Honey. It not only gives Lucius’s VA, Samuel L. Jackson, a chance to flex, it’s also something any married couple can relate to.

The Incredibles set the standard for Pixar’s human designs. Prior to its release, the studio hadn’t figured that out, frequently bordering on Uncanny Valley territory. But Brad Bird, who’d directed The Iron Giant, knew that didn’t work. He opted for more a stylized, cartoon-y look, and Pixar’s never gone back. If anything, they’ve become more and more stylized post-The Incredibles!

There’s been much talk over the years about the movie’s influences. Detractors have claimed that Brad Bird’s a Randian Objectivist, with his movie being an allegory for Ayn Rand’s philosophies. I don’t agree anymore, as the characters who espouse her beliefs, Bob’s boss and Syndrome, are clearly the bad guys. And they both meet violent ends, Syndrome especially. A movie espousing Randian politics positively wouldn’t do that.

Another argument that’s thrown around is that this movie rips off Watchmen. I’ve heard this from people close to me, and it strikes me as off-putting. Given that none of the characters in that story, save Doctor Manhattan, have superpowers, for The Incredibles to be a rip-off of Alan Moore’s work doesn’t make sense. Also, Watchmen’s a dark subversion of superheroes, one where superheroes all suck. Essentially, I don’t buy it.

I have to mention this movie’s sequel, which came out 14 years later. I know Incredibles 2 is divisive, especially for retreading themes and plot-points, but I really enjoyed it. Is it as good as The Incredibles? No. But it doesn’t have to be. By not judging the sequel on its own terms, it misses out on its strengths. Like how it has a fantastic action scene involving Helen and a runaway locomotive. Or how Michael Giacchino returns as composer, and his jazz-inspired score is excellent. Or how the Parr children get more to do, with Violet throwing shade at the rehashed ending from the first movie. That’s all good stuff!

Anyway, I’m glad The Incredibles is in the registry. It not only means it’ll be preserved, it also means that its impact is respected and acknowledged by the film community. That’s huge! So much so, in fact, that it contradicts those who claim that animation “isn’t cinema”. Because it is.

Now, about Bomb Voyage…

"That's So A.I.!"

I’ve made no secrets about my frustrations with A.I. before. Whether it’s writing several articles on it, or lamenting how it shouldn’t detract from people’s livelihoods, A.I.’s become one of my hot-button topics. However, with that comes the flip side of people attributing something to A.I. that shouldn’t be. This is especially the case with the phrase “that’s so A.I.” among younger adults, such that it’s disparaging art for the wrong reasons. It’s tiresome.

Take the latest season of Stranger Things. I happened to love it, warts and all, but there’s been a sticking point since the Netflix documentary debuted on its production. One of the big complaints was how the Duffers “didn’t have a finished ending when they started filming”, hence they “relied on ChatGPT”. I must ask if the complainers have actually written for television, or even a story in general, because that’s not how it works. Deadlines exist, and since scenes are often shot out-of-order, it’s not uncommon to start with production before the final episode’s written. That also doesn’t mean the show-runners don’t know the ending.

I take offence to this particular claim because I’m a writer. I’ve been working on novel manuscripts for several years, and one of them is currently being worked on with a professional editor. Writing stories is more collaborative than people think, and that involves incorporating feedback. If you want proof, I revised a character’s arc based on feedback as I was in the process of writing. It also made the story better.

By pinning the flaws of Stranger Things on A.I., people are reading too deeply and not thinking clearly. Sometimes, something’s messily-written for no other reason than it was messily-written. There doesn’t need to be a profound explanation. It also detracts from the bigger issue, that being how A.I.’s used in sneakier, more noticeably-awful ways. Simply fool around with ChatGPT to see that.

 

Another example involves The MCU’s Phase 4 and 5 offerings. Many people weren’t so big on them, calling the movies and shows “A.I. created” like that absolved them of critical thought. Ignoring how the only instance I can think of A.I. use involves the title sequence of Secret Invasion, associating the flaws with A.I. ignores how numerous factors could’ve made them less-than-optimal. Like how Marvel was releasing so many shows and movies a year that not enough time was dedicated to each one.

Perhaps the most-egregious example is Wish. I thought it was fine, if uninspired, but that’s an example of A.I. potentially impacting quality. How can I tell? Because the song lyrics have syntax errors. There’s also the issue of tight deadlines here, since Disney releases movies yearly, but A.I. was clearly used to write these songs. Simply put, the movie wanted to copy Lin-Manuel Miranda’s style, but failed. And it used A.I., to noticeable effect. That’s a problem, one that should be called out even if the movie was mediocre in every other way.

This is the problem with the A.I. claim: it excuses human folly. Storytelling isn’t easy, especially in a visual medium. Plenty of hands touch even simple projects, and so much could go wrong at any point. Truthfully, if even a bad movie or show makes it to completion, that’s an accomplishment. Because for all the ones that are finished, there are so many that don’t see the light of day.

Complaining that something you don’t like is “A.I.”, especially when it’s not, does a disservice to the artists. Even talented people make bad art occasionally. It’s a byproduct of being human, and that’s okay! If we’re to improve our artistic capabilities, then we need the potential to misfire, sometimes spectacularly. We also need to learn and grow from that.

I’m not saying A.I. doesn’t occasionally sneak into the experience. However, there are ways of noticing that, like how The Book of Boba Fett used deepfake technology with young Luke Skywalker’s face and voice. That’s genuine A.I., yet it didn’t bother many Star Wars fans because “Luke Skywalker was back”. Ideally, we’d call that out more. But that’s asking too much from a fandom that sends death threats to creatives for being adventurous…

Perhaps the A.I. debate can best be summed up as follows: a while back, a joke image of a restaurant server went viral that was generated with an A.I. prompt. The accompanying explanation “highlighted” the red flags that showed it was A.I., circling the background details that “looked off”. Meanwhile, the most-obvious tell, the server having feet for hands, was deliberately ignored. That’s this debate in a nutshell.

It’s okay to be skeptical of A.I. art. I’m skeptical of it constantly! Though it shouldn’t be used as lazy shorthand to brush off genuine mistakes and bad art made by real people. But it is, and way too frequently. We need to be more thoughtful in our criticism, or else we’ll look silly. And that’s bad.

Alternatively, you can ignore my advice and call something you don’t like “A.I.”. The choice is yours.

I Am He

The worst part about online incel culture is its “scandals”. Take Masters of the Universe, which is set to debut this year. The first trailer was released recently, and while it didn’t wow me, it gave me an idea of expectations. Unfortunately, the conversation has been drowned out by complaints about a brief clip in it. It’s blink-and-you-miss-it, but there’s an image of Prince Adam at an office job with a plaque that has a “He/Him” identifier. It’s not worth getting worked up, but many individuals were outraged anyway.

I don’t get it.

Actually, I do get it. This is the internet being the internet, obsessing over nothing as usual. What I don’t get is why this is a big ordeal. I know outrage nets clicks, but isn’t it exhausting? How is a name plaque ruining your life?

I think anyone with decency already knows the answer: it won’t ruin your life. Corporate culture uses pronouns all the time nowadays, it’s practically background noise. It might seem like “capitulation to trans folk”, but it’s not. Pronouns are a part of language, and we use them all the time. Even before becoming commonplace, government and health forms used them. After all, many names are unisex! Why make mistake calling someone named “Sam” the wrong pronoun, especially when that’s short for “Samuel” or “Samantha”?

This being a controversy detracts from real complaints. Like how the movie looks like a rip-off of Thor’s origin from Marvel Comics. Or how the vibe isn’t engaging so far. Or how Jared Leto, a man with many scandals to his name, is playing Skeletor. These are all legitimate issues. Complaining that the protagonist goes by He/Him, especially when many people do in real life, isn’t, and it’s sad to have to remind everyone of that.

Ignoring that, He-Man has always been flamboyant. As far back as the 80s, the characters have all had bulging muscles and scantily-clad outfits. The franchise oozes gay testosterone, so having pronoun identifiers makes sense. If anything, the joke, and let’s not pretend it isn’t one, doesn’t go far enough! If it wanted the desired effect, it should’ve said “He/Man”! But I’m being too clever for Hollywood…

I wouldn’t be so frustrated if this wasn’t a recurring pattern online. But it is. Between people complaining about Kathleen Kennedy “ruining Star Wars” and getting mad over this, I’m convinced there’s a Venn Diagram with plenty of overlap. After all, the people who claim that “woke is killing He-Man” are the same people who celebrated when Kennedy stepped down. Never mind that her tenure at Disney, while fraught with issues, brought interesting and ambitious works of Star Wars television to Disney+. You really thought Andor was primarily Tony Gilroy’s idea? Guess again.

It’s tiresome when the internet throws fits over nothing. Yes, this movie has a He/Him reference. No, it’s not the end of the world. One of my real life jobs requires pronouns, it has for years. But I’m used to it. And it’s never bothered me, despite most of my colleagues being male. I simply accept it, and that’s okay.

By making a He/Him joke, and a half-baked one, into a scandal, the internet is guilty of two problems. The first, which is more superficial, is ignoring how languages actually work. Specifically, the English language. Pronouns are a vital part of communication, with something like “I” qualifying. A pronoun is an abbreviation of the words “proper noun”, essentially any noun that’s a name.

The second of the two problems is gender gatekeeping. As I’ve mentioned in a previous piece, trans people, or those who don’t identify as their assigned gender, have received plenty of flak from reactionaries for existing, with politicians attempting to silence them through removals of rights and freedoms. It’s scary, with one of the key ways this has happened involving denying pronoun identifiers for those who want them. Essentially, the “pronouns in bio” crowd is making a basic part of communication into a social taboo.

I know change is scary. I know different is also scary. But this isn’t about that. This is about denying or invalidating basic language, and it’s not worth over-fixating on it. Especially since, at the end of the day, it has little-to-no impact on the actual film. Nor, for that matter, does it have an impact on those complaining.

Anyone complaining about this needs to reevaluate their priorities. Will this movie be good? I don’t know! But a half-baked pronoun joke that doesn’t take full advantage of what it could be isn’t worth the ire. That there are other, more pressing issues, like how Leto has a major role, being overlooked is kind of sad. Because it’s a waste of time, and the internet needs to do better.

Additionally, the internet needs to think of the bigger picture. This movie could end up being bad, but “pronoun culture” isn’t the evil it’s being made out as. Nor is it going away, for that matter. There are many problems in Hollywood worth addressing, but when those are sidelined due to pronoun jokes, what does that say about the internet? Better yet, what does that say about our priorities? And is this worth stressing over?