It's Not Real!

The internet’s biggest weakness is The Dunning-Kruger Effect. Not only are people an expert in areas they don’t understand, they’re proud of that. They also make that everyone else’s problem, which is bad when having a thoughtful, nuanced conversation. This is especially true with representation in fictional media. Because it feels like media literacy is wanting, and that’s bad.

Take The Odyssey. The latest from Christopher Nolan’s filmography, it’s been getting plenty of positive buzz because of its execution. It’s also been receiving unwarranted criticism online for its casting, particularly Lupita Nyong’o. Despite being talented, even having an Oscar, she’s been attacked for “blackwashing” a Greek story. Elon Musk has even complained for months on social media. While this’d normally be easy to ignore, Musk has incredible political and financial influence.

But also, this isn’t a real story. The Odyssey’s a work of fiction about Mount Olympus, sirens, cyclopes and the gods and goddesses of Greek mythology. Essentially, race-swapping a character isn’t a big deal. Especially since black people lived in Ancient Greece, contrary to popular opinion. Europe was never an ethnic monolith.

That I have to say that is embarrassing. It should be common knowledge to anyone with any kind of sense. Unfortunately, not everyone’s gotten the memo, instead couching their bigoted ideologies and rhetoric. It’s why “incel” is upsetting to incels, or why “TERF” upsets TERFs. And like with Musk, this has spillover.

I’d end here, but it doesn’t stop at The Odyssey. Media literacy for any ancient text is insulting. Even Scripture gets misappropriated to cause real damage. We see it with textual literalists, who use it to justify forcing their beliefs on others, and textual rejectionists, who use it to justify being jerks about God and spirituality. All the while, Maimonides rolls in his grave.

Scripture isn’t a history book. It has history in it, and some of its characters were real, but it doesn’t line up 100% with actual events. The text even makes that clear, as there are Mandela Effects that occur through osmosis: the forbidden fruit wasn’t an apple. The Hebrews didn’t build the pyramids, but rather storage cities. Jonah wasn’t devoured by a whale, but a massive fish. None of the text is accidental, it’s meant to teach us something, but understanding that requires being well-versed.

Going back to The Odyssey, the text doesn’t focus on modern descriptions. That’s not important to its themes and messaging. Having a black woman in it, therefore, shouldn’t matter. But even if the text did describe modernized features, she’s not real. She isn’t Harriet Tubman. Her race is irrelevant! If that bothers you, then it says more about you.

I can hear the counter-argument about robbing a white actress of a role. White people don’t have to worry about equity. There are plenty of roles available for them, the doors will never be shut for them. Minorities don’t have that luxury. Ignoring how they’ve had roles stolen by white people before, there aren’t as many opportunities because Hollywood’s cowardly. In some cases, they’ve had to fight for roles. In others, they’ve relied on the generosity of casting directors.

Giving opportunities to minorities has helped raise the self-esteems of minority consumers. And yes, this hasn’t always been successful, as sometimes minority roles are tiered. I know Jews are frequently shut out of representation on the big and small screens, causing debates about whether or not they’re “actually a minority group”. But that there are opportunities at all shows how far Hollywood’s come, and how much further it has to go. That’s more important than complaining about authenticity.

I also don’t think this is a big deal compared to other problems. Take Tom Holland and Anne Hathaway. They’re cast as son and mother, even though Hathaway’s approximately a decade older than Holland. Considering Matt Damon plays Hathaway’s husband, isn’t that creepy? It might be “accurate” to the times, especially since marriages started over family bonds, but this is Hollywood in the 21st Century. Bending reality for modern sensibilities would do wonders here, especially since the movie’s working in minority casting.

Little details like that feel more pressing, despite them being minor. Complaining about Nyong’o’s casting, however, is reaching for sour grapes. It’s also racist and overlooks what she can bring to the role. Remember, she’s an Oscar winner. And she won that Oscar for a tough role in an even tougher movie. I know that Oscar winners can also turn in bad performances with the wrong direction, but she deserves a chance, no? I’d say so!

Above all else, this is all petty and childish complaining. I get Nolan not being your jam. I love a lot of the man’s work, but I acknowledge he sometimes doesn’t click. I don’t get, however, making this into an issue of racial purity. Because I assure you the “white race” will be fine, like it always is. If that’s not reassuring, then I suggest getting outside and touching grass. I promise you’ll feel so much better after doing that.

Now, if you’ll excuse me…

Sony's Doing What?!

Physical media has always been important to me. It’s why I have a library of movies and games, and why I was hesitant to adopt streaming initially. It’s also why I try balancing physical purchases with digital ones. There’s nothing like having direct ownership of something, especially since digital licenses aren’t indefinite. And now my biggest concern, having to renew purchases constantly, is becoming reality.

Sony recently announced they were discontinuing physical purchases in early-2028. This isn’t exactly “new”, the industry’s been moving toward digital only for a while, but it feels like a decision that won’t bode well. I’m not alone on that, as many corporate accounts have been throwing shade on social media. It makes sense, as the reasoning Sony gave was pretty shortsighted. Truthfully, I feel like ripping on it too.

Let’s look at what Sony said. On July 1st, they made the following announcement: 

“As consumer preferences and the broader entertainment industry continue to shift away from physical discs to digital, physical game disc production for all new games releasing on PlayStation consoles will be discontinued starting January 2028. Following this date, new games will be available on PlayStation Store and at retailers in digital formats only. This transition has no impact on games that already released, or will be releasing, prior to January 2028 in disc format.

This is a natural direction for Sony Interactive Entertainment to adapt to consumer trends as the general preference for digital media significantly outpaces physical discs. This transition will enable us to align more closely with how most of our community prefers to access and play games today.

We’ll continue to prioritize our resources to drive innovation in how players can access games and provide choices as to where players prefer to purchase new games, whether that’s at retailers or PlayStation Store. We remain committed to delivering a world-class gaming experience to our fans and we thank you for your continued support.”

At first glance, this doesn’t sound bad: physical game discs won’t be produced, but there are digital kiosks for those interested. Unfortunately, receiving a download code for a kiosk is a waste of a trip. Why schlep to a store if you can buy the game online from your console directly? Considering people usually don’t go out to buy downloads, this isn’t a great use of resources. I know I wouldn’t go myself.

It’s also not good for interacting with people. Half the fun of buying or renting a video game has always been chatting with reps and customers about what’s worth checking out. Yes, sometimes you can be taken advantage of. But even then, the benefits of socializing outweigh the risks of scams. Especially since video games aren’t cheap.

By saying that future games will only be digital, you’re removing that experience altogether. That sucks. It sucks because it’s limiting options, and because it’s minimizing socialization. It also sucks because it cheapens the ownership that comes with physical games. That’s the worst part.

Sony going digital won’t stop at Sony. These decisions never do. We’re seeing game development studios be shuttered because higher ups don’t feel the space they occupy matters, and programmers are being let go as a result. Digital only will exacerbate that further, as now Sony can cut the middleman and further reduce overhead. It’s not like Sony’s bleeding that drastically, especially given what they make outside of video games, so this is sketchy.

This decision parallels that of other companies as well. Disney in particular comes to mind. They recently laid off their home media division, forcing people to rely on Disney+. And yes, Disney+ has a great backlog, no doubts about that. But if something happens and Disney+ shutters, their output disappears forever. No amount of scouring for older prints of shows or movies will change that.

I’ve heard this will increase rates of piracy. I have my own issues with piracy, many of which I won’t discuss, and the biggest involves how relying on it for authentic media isn’t so clear-cut. I remember when I pirated Paper Mario in high school, and how the ROM kept crashing. I had to wait for it on the Wii’s Virtual Console, and I prefer how clean its emulation is. I also purchased that with real money.

Piracy’s a band-aid solution, and not even a great one. Ignoring how Crunchyroll started as an anime pirating site, piracy relies on a clean source code. And that’s not always feasible, especially when files risk corrupting. I experienced this with a Blog series I wrote for ScrewAttack, and that was text! I can’t imagine how annoying a full-on game getting messed up is!

So yes, piracy’s not the answer. And it doesn’t factor in how easy it is for companies to issue take-down notices over copyright infringement, all while not taking accountability over games being inaccessible. Because they shouldn’t be inaccessible. Entertainment exists to help people temporarily retreat from the harshness of reality, and gatekeeping that is ghoulish and cowardly. It’s ghoulish because it prices people out of hobbies, and it’s cowardly because there are better long-term investments with physical media. At least give people options!

Also, what does Sony have to gain long-term? Like with forcing A.I. on consumers, companies might get a temporary boost in revenue, but only temporary. It doesn’t guarantee indefinite growth, especially when that doesn’t exist. Nor would it here, since emulation’s often finicky. I can’t stress this enough.

Besides, physical media’s making a comeback. And in surprising ways. Vinyl aside, there’s a reason physical copies of media aren’t decreasing in price anymore, and it’s because people like actually owning them. I say that knowing physical media can wear out too, as evidenced by VHS tapes stretching and DVDs getting scratched. But that’s better than a license to rent something that might not work and can get snatched away without warning.

It’s times like these where being a Nintendo fan comes in handy. Yes, their hardware and software isn’t cheap. And yes, their physical games are often download codes. But at least they have physical media. At least I can go to a retailer, talk to an employee and buy something based on recommendations. That’s more than I can say for Sony come 2028, assuming this goes through.

In the end, I’m not happy with this decision from Sony. I think it’s short-sighted on their part, and I hope it comes back to bite them. I also hope they don’t go through with this decision. Because they make good video games, and it’d be a shame letting that go to waste. I’m sure I’m not alone on this, which is why I’m writing about it.

Alcock and Watters

The upside, if you can call it that, to having a cold for a week is that you spend plenty of time browsing the internet for stories to write about. They’re not always exciting, but they’re not nothing. Such is the case with a controversy that circulated during Pride Month, involving Milly Alcock and Fox News host Jesse Waters. It’s a nothing-burger story, and I probably shouldn’t be giving it oxygen, but I’m discussing it anyway. I’m sorry.

Supergirl has been struggling for about a week. Critically, it’s the first flop in James Gunn’s DCU. Financially, it’s under-performing at the box-office, leading to speculation that this could ruin The DCU. It’s unfortunate that the first superheroine movie in this franchise is disappointing, as superheroines, sadly, still have much to prove juxtaposed to their male counterparts. Simply look at the numbers. They don’t lie.

What gets me going involves something that made the rounds after the movie debuted. While promoting Supergirl, Alcock was asked if the character was queer, to which she responded that she wasn’t sure, but the character might go both ways. It was innocent, and there are many possibilities for why she said it, but Fox News anchor Jesse Watters wasn’t impressed. To quote him: 

“But the whole bisexual thing…guys don't get into that…[m]aybe that's cool when you're 18, but when a girl's bisexual, we don't trust her. We don't trust her. And the ones I've met are super weird. So to say you're bisexual, it's not a turn on. It's not a turn on.”

Watters’s remarks drew backlash, with people chastising him for being ignorant about something that has nothing to do with him. However, it speaks to a grander issue with Fox News, namely their demographic. Because while not all of them, Fox News frequently caters to Bible enthusiasts who believe that queerness is an affront to God. We’ve seen that play out, most-notably during The AIDS Crisis. Despite knowing better now, the consensus was that HIV was a “gay person’s disease”, hence dying from it was “Divine punishment for immoral sexual acts”. Yes, people talked like that.

There’s plenty I can say in response here, but I won’t. Instead, I have to ask why Watters opened his mouth. Was he being provocative? Did he want to stir the pot? Or did he genuinely believe his words? It’s hard to tell, especially since many of the anchors secretly hate Trump, but it doesn’t really matter. As long as there’s a base that listens to this, politicians included, it’ll cause real world ripple effects. So while Alcock’s statement may have been harmless, Watters was in the wrong.

It speaks to bigger issue involving queer portrayals of characters in media. Supergirl has been around for over half a century, and openly queer media was censored for the longest time. The movie industry had The Hays Code, while comics had The Comics Code Authority. Comics had to abide by strict rules or risk being pulled, including depicting openly-queer individuals. Comics, therefore, had to use coding and subtext.

I don’t know enough about Supergirl to be an expert, but like how Hollywood’s still living the post-trauma of this era, so too are comics. Because for several decades now they’ve been treading in darker territory, getting more mature and dating themselves for shock value. They’ve also had to reinvent their characters as a result of changing interests of readers, including being more daring with sexuality. Essentially, if Superboy’s allowed to be gay, why can’t Supergirl?

Supergirl’s also meant to be rougher than her cousin. Like I pointed out last time, while Superman’s flawed, Supergirl’s more flawed, with her being arrogant and accident-prone. She’s not a girl scout, so being a rough-and-tough lesbian would make sense. Because why not? Really.

Before anyone complains, yes, the rough-and-tough lesbian trope’s overused. But Supergirl was created to be more adventurous and daring than Superman. If Supergirl wants to be queer, that’s her prerogative. And it’s no one’s obligation to say otherwise, especially since she’s not real. Also it’s creepy.

I also take issue with religious fanatics who think being queer’s blasphemous. Firstly, their text refers to a specific action done by two men, it says nothing about being queer. Secondly, it uses that same language to describe using dishonest weights. And thirdly, said text is both designed to be analyzed, and a byproduct of its time. Because it doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

There’s plenty of queer-coding in Scripture too. Joseph’s described as being effeminate several times, such that it’s possible he refused Potiphar’s Wife because he was gay. King David had an incredibly deep friendship with Prince Jonathan, and some have argued they were lovers. I’m sure there are more examples as well. But the point is that puritanical sexuality is a relatively-recent invention historically, so it’s not fair to graft that onto Scripture.

I’d rebuke the hypocrisy of Bible thumpers, but it’s not worth it. Instead, I’ll remind them that queer people exist in their ranks. I know religious Jews who are queer, both openly and closeted, and I don’t judge them. Because it’d be oppressive, and Scripture has plenty to say about that. So while people jeer at Alcock’s suggestion that Supergirl might be bisexual, I don’t think it’s helpful. Nor do I think it’s right.

I’m not calling Milly Alcock a saint. She’s a human with celebrity status, and she has her own agenda separate from her characters. I’m sure she’s made remarks that have aged poorly, too. But like other people, she deserves some grace. If it wasn’t appropriate to be sexist toward Brie Larson, after all, then it’s not okay to be sexist toward Alcock either. That goes for other female celebrities as well.

This whole situation’s ridiculous. And Jesse Watters owes Milly Alcock, let-alone the queer community, an apology. I doubt he’ll do it, he doesn’t appear to have shame, but I can hope. Because he has a responsibility to his base, and he’s doing a bad job currently. He might not care, but someone will. They might simply be too ashamed or scared to admit it.

Happy Belated Pride Month, either way.

Supergirl and Sexism

It’s not easy being a superheroine in the sub-genre. That’s been the case since inception, and it doesn’t appear to be changing soon. That doesn’t mean there haven’t been good superheroine movies, but they’ve had to contend with backlash from people who think having a woman in the leading role is “woke”. And we all know what I think. Especially given the real world.

Supergirl, the latest entry in The DCU, isn’t immune to misogyny. Whether it’s Milly Alcock’s face being “ugly”, or trashing on her character because “female Superman”, it seems this movie isn’t breaking the preconceptions. Granted, early reviews have been subpar, but a movie shouldn’t be judged by the gender of its lead. Unfortunately, that’s what’s happening here. It’s sad.

The backlash actually started with the character’s cameo in Superman. I liked that movie, but a drunk and potty-mouthed Supergirl barging in unannounced was met with confusion and anger. Supergirl swears? And she’s sassy? What’s this nonsense about?!

Personally, I thought it was interesting to see a more immature side to the character. Ignoring how it was explained in-film with having visited a planet with a Red Sun, it’s the kind of behaviour you’d expect from a super-powered teenager. Supergirl’s entire persona is that she’s rough around the edges. She’s not a girl scout like her cousin, and she makes many mistakes. I’d argue that Superman’s flawed too, but that’s not the point…

Anyway, Supergirl being a brat is something I didn’t know I needed. But Alcock sold me on it, drawing on her youth in the marketing for Supergirl. So when it was announced the next entry in The DCU would be a buddy movie with Lobo, I was excited. Especially since Lobo’s a pain in the butt, and him working off Supergirl was a dream come true. All that was missing was for the movie to be rated R.

Of course, plenty of people were having none of it. Reactionaries aside, superhero dude-bros were making this into a diversity war. Perhaps the most-egregious insult was about Alcock’s face. People were calling her a cavewoman, mocking how “ugly” and “unattractive” she was. It got so bad that Dean Cain, who played Superman in the 90s, joined the bandwagon. But yeah, this was bad, and it continues to be with Supergirl premiering soon theatrically.

I’m not sure what the deal behind Alcock being “ugly” is. She’s not! Even if she’s not conventionally-attractive, so what? Hollywood sells a form of beauty that’s fake, with a cottage industry dedicated to plastic surgeries that often make people look worse as they age. Alcock isn’t a “bombshell”, but she doesn’t need to be. She sells the character in other, more important ways.

Besides, why is this important to Supergirl? Superheroes aren’t real. There’s no preconception of what they look like, other than being enhanced and toned. Kara’s also more rugged than her cousin, so her having rougher facial features fits. It makes her unique, truthfully.

As for the movie? It’s getting lukewarm reviews from critics, but that’s not Alcock’s fault. Like Jonathan Majors in Ant-Man & the Wasp: Quantumania, she’s being regarded as a high-point. Considering she sold me with her cameo in Superman, I’m not surprised. She’s a good actress!

It’d be nice if more people understood that, instead of complaining. Even if this movie’s bad, it should be judged by its script, not if its lead is attractive. That’s what matters here. Superheroines still have an upward battle next to their male counterparts, even if their movies are getting better. And isn’t that important? Shouldn’t we want movies to succeed?

I wouldn’t be turned off if this wasn’t a pattern with superheroine projects: Wonder Woman was criticized for being too simplistic, despite having plenty to say on false assumptions about men. Black Widow was criticized for being an inferior copy of Captain America: The Winter Soldier and ruining Taskmaster, despite having plenty to say about men controlling women. Even Disney+ shows with female leads were criticized for being too kitschy, despite that being the point! It seems like a superheroine project is doomed to criticism, which saddens me.

By making this a “woke” issue, the enjoyment’s also slightly diminished. And that upsets me for many reasons, chief among them that it makes something already silly into something even sillier. I don’t mean that in a good way, either. Besides, this is a story about a super-powered individual who travels the galaxy to save her dog. Silliness aside, that’s an interesting premise.

I don’t understand the issue with Alcock and Supergirl. I know adjusting to new interpretations of characters is difficult, especially when the previous adaptation was part of a franchise, but people were unhappy with the previous Supergirl because she was Latina. And, again, it wasn’t Sasha Calle’s fault the movie was mixed-reviewed. So it shouldn’t be surprising with Alcock, either. However, that fans aren’t willing to give her a chance is sad and upsetting. It shows how immature people can be.

But yes, I don’t mind Milly Alcock as Supergirl, and I doubt her solo outing being bad is her fault. Now can we close the door on this nonsense?

Please Stop Talking

Warner Bros. has been in a precarious situation for some time, both with internal management and external prospects. Internally, they’ve had a CEO who keeps making bad decisions for tax write-offs, diluting the studio’s value permanently. Externally, they’ve been bounced around in hopes that their new overlords will save them. Whether it was AT&T or Discovery, it hasn’t worked out for them. And now, amidst a bidding war with Netflix and Paramount, it seems like their bad fortune is coming to a climax. Because they’re about to be bought by a studio run by a CEO with questionable objectives.

Don’t take my word for it, though. David Ellison’s purchase of WB has raised red flags from both Hollywood and politicians across The US, all of whom feel this is disastrous long-term. Without getting into the nitty-gritty, there’s a class-action lawsuit to stop this merger from being finalized. It makes sense, monopolies aren’t good for creativity, but while this is worrying for most people, Ellison’s been quite vocal about the backlash. He recently complained that people were criticizing him because he’s Jewish, calling this Antisemitism on the part of detractors. No joke.

There’s a lot I could say here, but I’ll be diplomatic. However, I do think Ellison needs to stop talking. Not only does he diminish the real and dangerous rise in Antisemitic violence, this also ignores how the Ellisons are one of the richest families globally, and that David Ellison only owns Paramount because his dad, Larry Ellison, purchased it. That’s not Antisemitic to point out. And while associating Jews with dark money is classic Antisemitism, in this case it fits.

It’s also a problem because the Ellisons are Trump donors, and they have an in with shady figures. It doesn’t help that David Ellison has made it his mission to blacklist celebrities expressing support for Palestinians, as evidenced by Melissa Barrera. Ellison’s arguing in bad faith, and I have to call him out. Especially since, and I hate saying this, as a Jew myself it’s unhelpful in countering real Antisemitism. I shouldn’t have to mention that, but I am.

For those who’d claim I’m crying wolf, I ask that you stop talking too. Antisemitism is real and growing. A few months ago, some punks drove by my synagogue and unloaded eight bullets into the entrance. Fortunately, no one was injured. But that’s one example in my home city alone. It speaks to the real threat that’s been downplayed and ignored by those in power.

So yes, Antisemitism’s a concern. And ignoring it isn’t helping. Which is why it’s dangerous that a CEO of a Hollywood studio is falling back on it as a defense against legitimate criticism. It’s also petty, enough that J-Street has called it out. It’s sad when a Jewish lobby is on your case, but here we are.

What can be done here? The obvious solution is for Ellison to apologize, as well as to back down from this merger. But since that’s not happening, I don’t know what to do. I’d suggest a boycott of Paramount, but that’d harm the artists and craftspeople who are employed by the studio. For now, all we can do is hope the lawsuit surrounding this merger follows through and mucks up the process. Because it’s bad for Hollywood.

As for those who’d diminish the real dangers of Antisemitism, please stop. It might not impact you directly, but Jews are scared and distrustful of our gentile allies. We’re scared because you don’t have our best interests at heart, and we’re distrustful because we know many of you don’t care. You’re also so absorbed in defending Palestinians that you won’t acknowledge the genuine harm you’re doing to that cause. And your tokenism of Jewish voices is equally unhelpful.

I don’t like this merger either. I think David Ellison will end up with way too much power, and he’s the last person I’d want as CEO of two Hollywood studios. He’s also a billionaire, and he has ties to really shady people. Owning both Paramount and Warner Bros. would also limit creativity, not unlike what happened when Disney purchased 20th Century Fox. This is all bad.

However, none of this is bad because Ellison’s Jewish. Nor is it an excuse to brush off actual Antisemitism. Ellison’s Jewishness is incidental to him being a billionaire with a twisted agenda, and it’s high-time these two facts are acknowledged. It’d not only make being critical of this merger easier, it’d also make tackling Antisemitism less challenging. And isn’t that more important?

As for Ellison’s remarks? Sorry buddy, but you need to do better. People aren’t criticizing you because you’re Jewish, they’re criticizing you because you’re not helping anything. You’re also hurting your credibility by relying on this obvious crutch. So stop it. If you keep your mouth shut, which I know is hard, and let this lawsuit happen, you’ll do everyone a favour. And besides, if you’ve really done nothing wrong, then you’ll come out of this debacle unscathed. Isn’t that what you want?

Only 8 Episodes?

There’s something insidious about complaining that modern TV shows are 8 episodes long. Not because it isn’t a problem, but because the complaints never tackle why this is a problem. 8-episode seasons of TV definitely have issues, but they’re not the ones people complain about. Especially since 20-episode seasons also have problems. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Fans also complain how shows frequently have bad endings because of this: Game of Thrones. The Boys. Even Stranger Things isn’t immune, such that I’ve written about it several times in the past year. But while they’re disappointing, to pin this on shorter seasons ignores the problems they had leading to their finales. I can’t speak about The Boys, but I know Game of Thrones ran out of books to adapt and made up its ending in its final season. Meanwhile, Stranger Things didn’t have a bad ending, it simply didn’t have a fantastic one.

That’s the problem with this line of thinking. We frequently deride modern shows for disappointing finales, but I don’t think it’s exclusively the shows’ faults. The blame lies partly on expectations too. Simply put, we’ve forgotten how to enjoy something on its own merits. And I’m sorry to say it, but that’s unhelpful.

It’s especially bad with online discourse. Whenever something new debuts on TV, we not only talk about it nonstop, we also over-analyze it. Within hours of new trailers and footage we’re either bombarded with videos discussing what we missed, or speculations of what a minor detail means. This sidesteps how not everything has inherent meaning to its inclusion, even when the writing’s littered with references and callbacks. Sometimes, to paraphrase myself, the drapes are simply blue.

There’s yet another issue here too, namely that having more episodes, especially when they don’t add anything, isn’t any better than rushing. Remember the phrase “bottle episode”? Those are self-contained filler episodes, and they’re rarely referenced again. The most-recent one I can think of occurred in Season 1 of Daredevil: Born Again. I happened to like it personally, but was it necessary? Not really, since the show could’ve done without it and worked fine.

Perhaps the more egregious example is Episode 7 of Stranger Things 2. That was where Eleven encountered her adoptive sister, Kali. Again, I didn’t mind it, but it was the show’s worst-reviewed episode until Episode 7 of Stranger Things 5. This despite Kali eventually returning. Bottle episodes aren’t always the answer.

The bigger issue with modern shows are that they’re shot and filmed like elongated movies. That’s not inherently bad, anime’s been doing this for decades, but with that comes lengthy production times, long gaps in-between seasons and swelled budgets. I liked all of Stranger Things, but there’s no denying the aforementioned didn’t help. Some of it was inevitable, especially with COVID-19 and the concurrent strikes in Hollywood, but the longer gaps and bigger spectacles made the show a juggernaut it couldn’t live up to. That’s why so many people felt let down by its finale.

Arguably the biggest concern is that finales are hard to execute well. They’re hard to do poorly too, but finishing something that’s supposed to wrap up multiple seasons in a satisfying manner isn’t always successful. It’s why there are so many piss-poor endings to otherwise fantastic shows. And even if they pull it off, there will be disappointed fans. That’s more noteworthy than a season having only 8 episodes.

I know my arguments won’t persuade many of you. I also know I’m one individual, and I have my biases too. Nevertheless, the complaints about length are overblown. There’s no set rule on how long a story has to be, it’s all case-by-case, so acting like there is feels dishonest. It also ignores the amount of work that goes into something. That needs acknowledging too.

If there’s any consolation, it’s that storytelling isn’t a science. It’s an art, and good storytelling reflects that. This is also true of TV, as that too is art. So if it resonates with people, that’s good. And it should be celebrated.

However, the reverse is also true. Ignoring how art, even bad art, isn’t easy to make, sometimes a good idea isn’t properly executed. Sometimes it even falls flat on its face, which is unfortunate. But sometimes the audience’s expectations are to blame, as we can demand too much based on our own theories and wants. That’s part of the problem, and no amount of additional episodes can fix that. We have to fix ourselves.

So yes, by all means challenge yourselves with new stories. And don’t be afraid to express yourselves even if these stories don’t properly coalesce. But remember that storytelling in any medium, especially TV, isn’t easy. Plenty can go wrong at any point, and that includes having unrealistic expectations based on what you’ve seen prior. The sooner we recognize that, the better off we’ll be, number of episodes in a season be damned!

Alternatively, you can ignore me and keep complaining when a show “fails to stick the landing”. It’s your choice!

Misunderstanding George Orwell

George Orwell is one of my favourite authors. Not only did he write two of my all-time favourite books, Animal Farm and 1984, his prose has also had a profound impact on my writing style. I frequently find myself referencing him subconsciously, as he’s that compelling. I don’t say that about many respected authors, especially overexposed ones. He’s that good.

That said, a lot of people misrepresent him. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Orwell is one of those authors The West knows through osmosis, yet so many miss the point of. And it’s a bipartisan issue. Because while Orwell’s popular, enough to have a term named after him, he clearly had a vision not many people appreciate. Which is a problem.

George Orwell lived in England during the middle of the 20th Century. A soldier during the Franco War, Orwell’s time in battle had a profound impact on him. He was a Marxist, but he was incredibly critical of extremism. And this was apparent in his writing, such that his two most-famous novels can be read as commentaries on Marxist-Communism. I think that gets overlooked.

What’s additionally overlooked is his anti-authoritarian outlook. Orwell was no fan of Soviet Russia. Animal Farm was basically his scathing rebuke of The USSR. However, he wasn’t a fan of excessive government oversight generally. 1984, while taking place in England, was a warning about how governments control the flow of information. That’s not exclusive to left or right-leaning systems.

Why is Orwell misrepresented? I get why he’s beloved, his commentary hits home with many people, but he’s frequently misappropriated to suit a narrative: minorities having representation? Orwellian! The internet selling you something based on your search history? Also Orwellian! Both examples hold different degrees of weight, but they highlight how partisan the divide is.

I’m going to be perfectly honest: “Orwellian” as a term means something different entirely. Minorities having representation isn’t “Orwellian”, it’s equity. Search histories selling you stuff also isn’t “Orwellian”, it’s the byproduct of Free Market Capitalism. “Orwellian” is much darker and more disturbing. “Orwellian” involves government surveillance to suppress individual expression. That’s partnered with Authoritarianism, which is a problem in many countries.

I’ll use two contemporary examples. The first involves China. China gets plenty of undeserved flak from conservatives, but its government remains one of the last bastions of old-school Communism. China’s had many conflicts, and I’m not an expert on them, but the government suppresses information and personal autonomy. It’s not uncommon for individuals to go missing if they have too much influence, and criticizing government overreach, as with the Uyghurs, Tienanmen Square and Hong Kong, has led to violence and oppression. That’s “Orwellian”.

Another example is Iran. Iran’s modern history is a mess, but its 47-year rule by The Ayatollahs is a classic example of what Orwell was criticizing. Iran’s people are brutalized and oppressed for defying the state, and it’s not uncommon for there to be social media blackouts whenever there are civilian protests. This is also an issue because Iran’s government has been accused of having “sleeper cells” around the world. That’s also “Orwellian”.

Orwellian tactics aren’t exclusive to authoritarian regimes. Politicians who overstep for personal reasons, like Donald Trump, are also guilty of Orwellian behaviour, enough that it should be alarming. It doesn’t matter their political persuasion, it’s Orwellian. Because this behaviour suppresses individualism, which is what George Orwell was concerned about. It isn’t, however, disagreeing with someone on a sensitive issue. That’s not “Orwellian”, that’s “disagreement”.

I know what I’ve stated above is clouded by personal bias. I’m not immune to that, as much as it seems otherwise. However, people so frequently get blindsided by biases that they’re quick to call something that it isn’t. It’s not unlike reading into something that isn’t there, or claiming that a piece of media is an allegory for something when that doesn’t hold water. George Orwell’s writing is about government oversight, not individual oversight.

It also speaks to our polarized climate that we recognize some forms of Orwellian Authoritarianism, yet are oblivious to others. George Orwell’s commentary wasn’t about left or right, conservative or liberal. It was about Authoritarianism. It doesn’t hold political allegiances. I think that needs emphasis.

I know it’s tempting to romanticize foreign governments based on elementary-level understandings of how they operate. However, romanticizing them overlooks human flaws, or even ignores people. Because every form of government run by people has problems. Humans, by nature, are flawed and shortsighted, so it’s easy for power vacuums to turn into authoritarian regimes. This is what Orwell was commenting on, and it’s what gets overlooked in our partisan understanding of him.

So yes, definitely read George Orwell’s books. And definitely discuss them with others! But recognize that their messages resonate not for partisan reasons, but for bipartisan reasons. Being anti-authoritarian is healthy, but being selectively anti-authoritarian isn’t. This distinction will not only make you a more critical thinker, it’ll also make you more well-rounded. That, I think, is what Orwell was trying to achieve with his books.