Made for Television?

There’s something unsettling about movies originally meant for television. Not that they can’t be good, but that the creators feel a big screen movie is the solution rubs me the wrong way. Even on a good day, it shows. It shows because the movie lacks the quality of a theatrical film, and because you can’t shake the feeling of it originally being for a different-yet-similar medium.

Take Inhumans. Released in 2017, it was a two-parter. Despite its production history, switching back-and-forth between TV and film, it ultimately felt too rough for theatres, yet too condensed for TV. That was later reinforced with the show proper, which was cancelled after one season and trashed critically. To-date, it’s the worst-reviewed MCU-adjacent production, more than Iron Fist. I say “adjacent” because it was grandfathered into The MCU.

There were many issues at play, including bad production design, but the biggest was it releasing as a two-parter for the big screen. Why did Marvel do that? Why not trust the TV format? It’s not like TV can’t do original movies, or even original events, so not taking advantage of that’s certainly a choice. And not a good one.

I wouldn’t be confused if multi-part event movies were incapable of working. But they are. Not only is Wicked being chopped into two parts, but The MCU has made an art out of serialized movies. In both cases, the end result worked. So why not Inhumans? Possibly because it wasn’t designed from the ground up for theatres, instead making the jump near the end of production.

Let’s use another example. I love Star Wars: The Clone Wars. I think it’s cleverly-written, emotionally-driven, funny and elevates The Prequels significantly. However, its premiere was a film that wasn’t well-loved. Despite the decent voice acting, the animation was cheap, the editing awkward and the pacing off. And its decision to introduce Ahsoka, a character now loved by fans, as a teenager who’s almost as annoying as Anakin was derided. It’s hard to imagine now, but this wasn’t a great start.

Having seen the movie, it’s not the worst experience ever. I wouldn’t even call it the worst episode of the show, as there are worse. But the movie’s biggest crime is feeling like an overlong TV episode. It’s not even a good one, revolving around returning Jabba the Hutt’s baby son. Essentially, it’s a rescue mission.

It stands out because Star Wars: The Clone Wars ended its run on a four-part movie for Disney+ that was great. It might’ve been paced like TV, but it didn’t feel it. It also had high-production value, with animation that could’ve passed as theatrical. I know the show’s animation budget kept progressing, but it could never boast technical beauty until these episodes. That’s something the pilot, an actual movie, couldn’t attest to. Such is the curse of turning a TV pilot into a theatrical film at the last minute.

One more example. I’ve discussed Batman: Mask of the Phantasm before. I even dedicated an entire piece to it, which you can find here. It actually works as a theatrical movie! But only slightly, as its production quality’s pretty rough.

It makes sense that it’s a halfway point between TV and film. It was meant as a standalone movie in the universe of Batman: The Animated Series, shifting gears late to capitalize on Batman Returns a year earlier. This gave its animation and voice acting a slight edge, but not enough to compare to some of DC’s later direct-to-video movies. It’s an awkward halfway point between the show and a movie, right down to the character movement. I’ve seen this movie many times, and I can’t help noticing how rushed and stiff it looks.

That’s not to disparage the experience. For all my issues production-wise, it’s not bad. If anything, it’s the best example of a made-for-TV film that was upscaled to theatres. The animation has that filmic vibe, and the late-Shirley Walker’s score is definitely movie-quality. Warner Bros. Animation cared when moving it to theatres, and it looks better than the show it’s based on. (A show that already looked great.) Still, it feels like a padded episode of TV, given its runtime, and it does little to distinguish itself outside of some exterior polish.

I mention these examples in light of Moana 2. It’s been criticized for many reasons, chief among them cramming several episodes of TV into a feature-length film. It looks amazing, thanks to Disney’s budget, but no visual polish compensates for bad pacing and condensed writing. This all shows in its reception. But it’s making lots of money, so what do I know?

It's true that films like this can be enjoyable. I’ve seen Cowboy Bebop: Knocking on Heaven’s Door several times, and it feels like an elaborate TV episode. Yet while not amazing-its story’s unwelcoming to those unfamiliar with the show-it manages to be a pleasant distraction. It’s the anime equivalent of Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, even upping its production value.

Ultimately, movies originally made for TV can’t really escape that reality. Whether it’s the production quality, the pacing, or not taking advantage of the medium change, the curse of this kind of movie’s as painful as it is obvious. One would hope a movie beginning as a TV show would utilize that change. But most don’t. And that’s worrisome.

Wicked's Nessarose Problem

I’m cheating here. Not only am I able-bodied, but wheelchair-bound individuals have discussed this in more depth due to their lived experience. Still, as someone with Autism, therefore experiencing ableism myself, I feel I can somewhat discuss this with the knowledge I have. So let’s do that. Let’s talk Nessarose.

Like I said before, I love Wicked. I love the play, I love the music, and I was surprised by how much I loved the movie adaptation. I understand the criticism surrounding the CGI and lighting, but as it doesn’t bother me more than other movies, especially since bright colours have bothered my eyes since I got glasses, I’m willing to tolerate it. It’s also not a dealbreaker. But I digress.

In my piece on Wicked Part 1, I mentioned the following:

“…[E]nough dazzles and surprises that it’s a shame I have to wait another year for the darker, more uncomfortably-aged second-half.”

I still hold this thought to be true: the second-half of this story’s much darker, but it also has a scene that hasn’t exactly stood the test of time. (I’d argue it was bad even in 2003, but that’s a separate issue.) I didn’t think it was worth discussing without ruining an otherwise-fantastic story…until I discovered that Marissa Bode, who plays Nessarose, is a wheelchair user. Since disabilities aren’t something you can turn off, her casting’s a big deal. I applaud her for breaking down barriers in an industry that, sadly, still doesn’t get disabilities like hers.

So yes, I was excited and scared. I was excited because Jon M. Chu and the writers had a new challenge to work with, but also scared because I’m unsure if they knew what they were up against. Because Nessarose…is a functionally-awful character in the second-half. And for that, I have to discuss some spoilers. You’ve been warned:

In the second-half of the second-half of Wicked, Elphaba, now The Wicked Witch of the West, checks in on Nessarose to plead with her and call off her arrest warrant. Nessarose, having inherited their late-father’s role as Munchkinland’s governor, has influence, but the encounter proves futile. Nessarose blames Elphaba for their father’s death, and she’s revealed by Boq to be a tyrant. Her resentment over her disability has also made her envious of Elphaba, and, seeing Elphaba’s magic book, wishes for her legs to work.

It gets worse when, after granting that wish, Nessarose curses Boq and removes his heart with a spell, nearly killing him. Elphaba remedies the situation with a counterspell before leaving, and it turns Boq into a tin man with a vendetta against Elphaba and Nessarose. Boq gets his revenge on Nessarose when Dorothy’s house kills her, but he doesn’t get his revenge on Elphaba. We wouldn’t have The Wizard of Oz if he did!

There are two problems here. The first is obvious: Nessarose, the story’s only outwardly-disabled character, is portrayed unflatteringly. This sends a subconscious message that reinforces how people with disabilities are spiteful. As someone who’s Autistic, I assure you this belief has led people with influence to either stigmatize us further, or “cure” us. I don’t need curing, and that stigmatization has restricted my independence.

The second issue involves Nessarose using Elphaba’s book to walk. The notion of wanting to “be fixed” isn’t unheard of with physically-disabled individuals, but it’s a form of internalized-ableism. People with disabilities don’t need “fixing”. Rather, the world needs to adapt to them. It’s this disconnect between what disabled individuals need and what society expects that appears in this scene.

I get it: this is fiction, and sometimes you need contrivances. Nessarose’s heel-turn to villainy’s important for Boq’s transformation into The Tin Man, and also The Wizard of Oz’s story in general. While that’s true, it’s still ableism. Nessarose becoming a secondary-antagonist, tragic as it is, can’t be changed, especially not with its parallels to how disabled individuals sometimes contradict their community’s best interests when given power. Nessarose “curing” her disability, however, is a choice.

Remember, Marissa Bode’s a wheelchair user in real life. The casting director made sure Nessarose was played by a disabled actress, a rarity in Hollywood, only to come up against ableism. And while Bode might have the limited mobility to pull this off, I don’t want her to. It’s bad enough that one ableist trope’s necessary without another one being utilized too. Bode also deserves better.

There’s an easy workaround, but it requires changing a plot beat: Nessarose doesn’t need to be cured. She can be resentful of Elphaba for their father’s death, and she’d have good cause. It’s not like he loved Elphaba the same way he loved Nessarose, and Elphaba didn’t do him any favours by turning against The Wizard. Elphaba’s already brought shame to her family without the ableism.

If Chu and Bode are to be respectful, then they need to axe that part of Nessarose’s character. It might not go over well with purists, but it’ll send a much better message to audiences. I hope that happens, but Wicked Part 2’s also a year away from release. And it’s practically finished production. I guess we’ll see what happens…

Try Defying Gravity

I remember when I saw Wicked at The Royal Alexandria Theatre. The year was 2005. I was 15 years old, and my mom, aunt and cousins had received tickets. We went to get ice cream afterward, as well as stopped by Carole’s Cheesecake to get soups. I remember seeing a woman feed her dog ice cream she’d purchased, followed by her shoving the rest in her mouth. I almost gagged. But this isn’t about that…

I enjoyed Wicked. The story was great, the songs memorable, and while our substitute for Idina Menzel paled to the genuine article, it was nice seeing the energy she brought. Yet the real testament to its staying power was that, despite not being a theatre nerd, the songs stayed in my consciousness for months, enough that I had a dream where I was in the audience singing the musical off in 2006. It left a big impact, even helping me through a depressive episode following LimeWire deleting my hard drive when I was 16.

Despite eventually moving on to other experiences, Wicked stayed in the back of my mind. When it was announced that it’d be coming to the big screen, I was excited, yet cautious. Modern musicals have been hit-or-miss, often simultaneously, and many haven’t successfully transitioned to film. Nowhere was this more-apparent than Les Misérables, a play I remember watching and enjoying, yet was intensely frustrated by in theatres due to its cinematography and performances. I would’ve left the theatre had my Zaidy not sponsored my ticket. Instead, I sat there and angrily chomped my popcorn, made worse by someone in the audience yelling at me to stop it.

It didn’t help that this movie’s production was trapped in limbo, constantly being rewritten and swapping out directors. It wasn’t until 2023 that we got stills, and the initial trailers didn’t hype anyone up. Complicating matters was behind-the-scenes drama, which practically overshadowed how Jon M. Chu, the director of Crazy Rich Asians and In the Heights, was directing this movie, one given misleading marketing that glossed over it being a two-parter. Even if it was going to be good, I doubted it’d live up to expectations.

I can now safely put my concerns to rest. It’s great! Easily one of the best this year, rivalling Thelma! It’s not perfect-the colour-grading and CGI are a little rough, and it feels padded-but enough dazzles and surprises that it’s a shame I have to wait another year for the darker, more uncomfortably-aged second-half. I especially like how, despite Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo being powerhouse singers, the leads never cancel each other out. Also, as with the theatre version, the reworked songs will probably stick with me for a while.

Was that so hard? I called out the drama and criticized what didn’t work, all while recognizing and praising the movie’s strengths. So why’s it so difficult for some people, mostly online men, to accept that? I know bigotry over anything deemed “woke” can ruin promising storytelling, especially considering The Acolyte debacle, but the notion of something not being geared toward cis, white men being awful by default is exactly why minority representation in entertainment has an upward battle. It doesn’t help that everything’s going to get worse, but I’ll save that frustration…

I don’t understand the drama. Wicked Part 1 ends on a cliffhanger? The play teetered on three hours, but it had an intermission. This movie basically ends at the same point as the first-half of the play: Elphaba’s a fugitive on the run, and Glinda’s decided to work the system from the inside. The two say their goodbyes, and the showstopper “Gravity” has ended with an applause. It might’ve padded itself out to meet the 160-minute runtime, sometimes noticeably, but it added theatrical weight to match its new format. It’s a movie, and it feels like one.

The confusion and anger over this being mis-marketed is understandable, but using that to trash people’s enjoyment isn’t healthy. Was Cynthia Erivo’s reaction to a fan poster harsh? Possibly, though I get why she was upset. Is Ariana Grande a diva? Yes, but she utilizes that former-Nickelodeon child star energy effectively. Even having the flaws of a modern, big-budget production gets cancelled by excellent singing, great dancing and plenty of tangible, practical effects and set-work. It’s a miracle this movie’s so good, since it could’ve fallen flat on its face.

As for how fans “will be annoying”, so? Are you a party pooper too? So much of that’s coming from a beloved musical successfully jumping to the big-screen, respecting its source material along the way. And like The Greatest Showman in 2017, this movie’s coming off the heels of a stressful election cycle, one we’ll probably be feeling for years. Being able to retreat into another musical, one better-received than The Greatest Showman, isn’t a crime. It’s a relief.

I’m unsure what criticizing this movie for existing, even trashing its praise, achieves. Wicked Part 1 might be flawed. It might also only be half of the story. But that doesn’t matter when so much of it works. For the second time within eight years, I get to be inundated by a big-budget musical in theatres. And for the first time within eight years, I get to gush over it too. Because my big-budget musical of 2016, La La Land, didn’t get the long-lasting love I wanted.

While I’m not surprised by the backlash, so many detractors are missing the forest for the trees. We get plenty of “dude-bro” action spectacles each year, some absolute garbage. This is Hollywood throwing a meaty bone to those women who are tired of the excessive testosterone. They deserve some attention too, and shame anyone who dares to chastise that. Basically, touch grass. Or perhaps defy gravity. I’ll see myself out now…

Fox News "Transvestigates"

(Warning: This piece discuss some heavy subject matter. Read at your own risk.)

There are many statements I can make about Fox News: they’re the propaganda wing of The GOP. Their former boss was shady. Their settlement with Dominion Voting Systems being a “business expense” is an indictment of the American tax system. But while all of this is true, it’s their obsession with celebrities that does the most damage. And nowhere is this more apparent than their “jokes” that double as bigotry.

John Krasinski’s an interesting individual. Not only is he married to Emily Blunt, arguably one of the most-attractive actresses currently in the business, he’s also quite handsome. So much so that People Magazine named him “Sexiest Man Alive” for 2024. Yet while most individuals would have no issues, even if the title’s demeaning, Fox News does. Specifically one of their hosts.

Shortly after the announcement, host Greg Gutfeld made a crack at Krasinski:

“I think it’s great that People has dominated — or announced — that a trans male can be the sexiest one alive…Krasinski never talks about it, but he’s trans. You know that?”

Ignoring how bizarre it is to claim that a magazine’s “dominated” someone, calling someone trans when there’s no evidence is cringe-inducing. How does Gutfeld know this? This isn’t public, right? And how has he deduced it? Does he know something we don’t?

I’d rip apart Gutfeld’s claim, but others already have. And it’s not worth the brain cells, especially when Gutfeld was most-likely baiting Krasinski. Yet Gutfeld’s claim is a microcosm of a dangerous trend that adds additional stigma to an already marginalized group. It’s called “transvestigating”. Here’s why it’s bad.

What’s “transvestigating”? It’s when someone, or a group of people, claims someone’s trans based on faulty evidence. It could be physical features, their voice, or something they do. Transvestigators have no clue what they’re talking about, and in the off-chance they end up right, it’s for a different reason than they suggested. Basically, transvestigating’s horseshit.

While most people would never make such assumptions about strangers, transvestigating also has real consequences. For one, people who are trans are at risk of discovery if they haven’t come out. Two, being outed increases the chances of violence. And three, it sets a precedent that shouldn’t exist, reinforcing negative stereotypes about gender. That last point’s especially bad because trans people have a hard enough time being accepted without being exposed as “frauds”.

On the flip side, cis people are at risk too. Not only does transvestigating reconfirm harmful stereotypes, it also leads to discrimination and persecution. If you want proof, an Algerian athlete was accused of being a man recently. Despite there being no credible evidence, especially since being trans in Algeria’s illegal, it persisted, even being supported by JK Rowling. It got to the point where the athlete, Imane Khelif, initiated a defamation lawsuit, sending ripples throughout the social media world. Transvestigating doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Truthfully, it shouldn’t matter if someone’s trans. There are more trans individuals than we’d like to admit, and many are able to pass as cis. Take Patti Harrison, who showed up in She-Hulk: Attorney at Law as Lulu. Lulu was a highlight of the show, but you wouldn’t know she’s really trans unless you were told. And besides, does it really matter?

That’s another point: who cares if someone’s trans? Humans are a complex species, enough to be multifaceted genetically. Transvestigating isn’t only harmful, it’s dumb. It’s also based on incorrect observations, like whether or not Link from the Zelda franchise is trans because “vagina bones”. (And yes, that’s as ridiculous as you’d think.) Transvestigating’s based on incorrect hunches, nonsense and blatant transphobia.

Transvestigators will counter with “We can always tell”. This isn’t true. But, again, who cares? Trans people aren’t a threat in the numbers cis people claim, and using outdated understandings of masculine and feminine behaviour harms everyone. Besides, the people in power, most of whom are cis, do more damage to society than a minority of people who feel like their software (gender expression) doesn’t match their hardware (physical appearance). It’s time people recognized that.

I know what Gutfeld’s doing. He’s baiting people for engagement, as well as fear-mongering. It’s why I didn’t spend lots of time directly responding to him, instead explaining why his rhetoric’s harmful. However, he’s not an isolated incident. And while you can say “he was joking”, or even that “his words were taken out of context”, for bigots with chips on their shoulders this doesn’t matter. Also, jokes can be harmful. Especially when they punch down.

Macrocosmically, this is but a taste of the harmful rhetoric we’re going to see soon. Remember, Donald Trump won the 2024 election, including the popular vote. His time in the spotlight has led to an increase in hate crimes, trans folk included. And considering what Trump’s planning for his second term, we should be afraid for our trans friends. They need our help.

As for Gutfeld and Fox News? I’d tell them off, but they don’t care. Their base is already bigoted, and they’ll face little-to-no accountability. My only hope is that this alerts people to how the network operates. Though that’s being overly-optimistic, and I’ve been let down before.

The Toxic Jungle

On December 2nd, 1970, President Nixon signed an executive order willing The Environmental Protection Agency into being. Retroactively regarded as one of the few, positive developments of his presidency, The EPA would face a roller coaster of highs and lows with each successive president. This’d all culminate in Donald Trump, soon to be The US’s 47th president, vowing to axe the department during his campaign, something reaffirmed by Project 2025. But can The EPA be abolished? And is that wise?

Enter Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, directed by Hayao Miyazaki. The movie, inspired by the manga of the same name, foresees a futuristic world where Earth has been devastated, humanity has been forced into small, warring kingdoms and a foreboding forest called The Toxic Jungle, ruled by giant insects, encroaches on civilization in an attempt to purify everything. When The Valley of the Wind, led by an ailing King Jihl, is invaded by the Tolmekians and their princess, Kushana, The Valley’s heiress, Princess Nausicaä, must make a difficult choice: help a Giant Warrior’s corpse be revived, thereby aiding the Tolmekians in their defeat of Pejite, or risk her people’s destruction. It’s a tough decision for Nausicaä, who values all life, even The Toxic Jungle.

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind’s manga started in the early-80’s to help convince Topcraft to gamble on this film. It’s easy to scoff with decades of hindsight, but environmentalism was niche in the 80’s. The world was experiencing neoconservative backlash to the hippie movement, brought on by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and caring about the planet wasn’t a priority. Yet here was a 40-something socialist, someone with the optimism of a teenager, pushing back. He needed an aggressive pitch, and a book adaptation was the most-viable way.

It worked! Despite a limited production schedule, team and budget, Miyazaki triumphed and created a timeless work of art. More than that, he made a nearly 2-hour film that spoke to people the same way Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs did in 1937: by appealing to emotion. Never mind it was loud with its conservationism, lacking any subtlety, its message of hope and optimism remained a dose of adrenaline in dark times. Like the environmentalist movies succeeding it, it wore its sincerity on its sleeve, setting the trend for the Solarpunk sub-genre. And I think that’s exactly what we need nowadays.

Perhaps this movie manifests its message best through Princess Nausicaä. She’s tough, yet kind. She can fight, but routinely chooses pacifism. She cares about everyone, even those who wish her harm, and she isn’t afraid to express that. She’s a Punk Rock princess in a warrior’s clothes, leading with an open hand.

There are many instances where Nausicaä extends grace. When a Tolmekian airship crashes in The Valley, carrying with it the princess of Pejite, she not only buries its dead, she calms and escorts an angry insect back to The Toxic Jungle. When the Tolmekian ship she’s held hostage in is attacked by an enemy pilot, she risks her life convincing him to stop firing, then helps escort Princess Kushana off the aircraft when that fails. Even the Ohmu, considered a threat to humans, she shows dignity toward, apologizing for encroaching their domain and calming them down when one of their own is used as bait by the Pejites. The message is clear: everyone, no matter how awful, has basic dignities that must be acknowledged. Since rage is often a byproduct of fear and uncertainty, making the unknown known is the answer for peace.

Much criticism has been lobbed against this movie over the decades. For Nausicaä, she’s been described as overly-judgmental, unfairly calling the Pejites equals to the Tolmekians in their intentions. While definitely warranted, Nausicaä doesn’t see nuance in destruction. To her, as with the planet, destruction has no distinctions, especially when it ends with our extinction. In that sense, her perspective holds up.

Nausicaä has also been criticized for being too perfect, or a “Mary Sue”. For one, a movie rooted in grand emotions being criticized over its “perfect” protagonist misses the mark, as that’s the whole point. Two, Nausicaä’s prone to anger and internal conflict throughout, making her the opposite of a perfect heroine. And three, the Mary Sue label has sexist implications, as it’s not associated equally with men. You wouldn’t see this critique lobbed at Prince Ashitaka, despite being a more-refined version of Princess Nausicaä.

The bigger critique is its ham-fisted message about the planet. While not the most-refined movie on the subject, that’s not necessarily “bad”. Yes, the Jesus allusions with Nausicaä, especially toward the end, aren’t subtle, I agree. But given this movie’s emotional logic, that’s not a flaw. It appeals to the moment, and it works. Because you can’t win against nature, no matter how strong you feel.

There’s much to be discussed about this movie relation to Miyazaki’s later works. Personally, it lacks the fun of Castle in the Sky and the maturity of Princess Mononoke, both of which I enjoy more. It also feels more childish than some of Miyazaki’s actually-childish movies, like Ponyo. Yet that doesn’t diminish from its “student activism”. It’s loud, brash and in-your-face, and it owns that! I think that’s often more-effective than stepping back and using subtlety. And in a time when many leaders haven’t learned this movie’s lesson, accelerating the planet’s destruction, having that activism mentality’s necessary for change.

Nevertheless, wear your mask anyway.

Striving for Authenticity?

A weird complaint I’ve seen lobbed at entertainment involves accuracy. Whether it’s a drama not being true to life, or a period piece not capturing the essence of that time, “accuracy” as a complaint goes both ways. On one hand, a story should enhance the believability of the worldbuilding. On the other hand, suspension of disbelief is also necessary. It’s a tricky balancing act, but sometimes the former has to go for the latter to truly work.

Medical dramas are a dime a dozen. Be it The Good Doctor or ER, stories about healthcare are more investing and suspenseful than I’ll admit. In some cases, they’re the most-intense forms of genre storytelling. They have clearly-defined stakes, they have tension and suspense, and there are consequences for failure. It’s a perfect recipe for dramatic storytelling.

That said, rules have to be bent. The one that comes to mind is defibrillation, or using AEDs. AED scenes play out the same way: the patient goes into cardiac arrest, and the person using the AED yells at everyone to stand clear while zapping the person back to life. It’s tense and exciting, but it’s not true to life. And this is for a few reasons:

Firstly, AEDs, at least modern ones, are electronic. Having taken First Aid courses before, I can attest that they guide you with voice prompts. Said voice helps the user even if they don’t know how to use the AED. It’ll also tell you which part of the procedure you’re on. You don’t see this in medical dramas, because it’s not exciting. It’s actually monotonous and boring.

Secondly, AEDs, contrary to TV and in film, are a last resort. If you can stimulate a pulse on your own, you should do so. The AED is only for if your hands and breathing don’t bring victims back to life, which happens because it’s exhausting. Again, you wouldn’t see this in medical drama because it’s not exciting. It also wastes time.

And thirdly, AEDs don’t jolt the victim awake. They do it subtly. I can’t explain how, since I’m no expert in human anatomy, but that “jolt” isn’t so dramatic in reality. You need to stand clear, true, but unless you hear the beeping noise, you wouldn’t know the person’s heart was jolted. Once again, entertainment skips this because, you guessed it, it’s not exciting. You see the pattern?

Here's another example of a trope that doesn’t happen in real life: exploding gas tanks. Gas tanks blowing up when shot at are so prevalent in media that 21 Jump Street threw shade at the trope. In reality, a metal tank filled with propane won’t simply blow up from a bullet. It might dent the outer layer, or start leaking, but it won’t explode. That’d require circumstances that not only can’t be met with bullets, but also are also too complicated to explain plainly.

None of that matters in entertainment, though. Not only do exploding tanks look cool, they can lead to great dramatic effect. There’ve been so many great moments stemming from exploding tanks. Even video games, particularly first-person shooters, understand that! Essentially, I don’t think applying realism here is so great. (Unless you’re 21 Jump Street.)

One more example: period pieces. Whether it be past or future, period pieces routinely get crapped on for not being authentic. A recent example is Gladiator II, which was criticized for not portraying ancient Rome properly. Ignoring how the only way to do that would be to time travel, since no one currently alive lived then, so what? Not only do we learn more about the past each day, contradicting what we previously knew, but there’ll always be gaps due to relics not always surviving. Besides, it’s not always interesting to be period-accurate, especially when you want to entertain people!

If your story takes place in a science-fantasy world, like Star Wars, you’re already bending the rules of plausibility. So what if spaceships move too quickly? And so what if the speed of light can’t be surpassed? It’s not real! You’re already breaking reality, so why not break the law of physics?

I find people get way too picky about “realism” in fantasy. Never mind the coded-bigotry that tags along, complete authenticity defeats the point of entertainment. Because, again, it’s not real! If you want “real”, read a history book, or watch a documentary. Don’t go expecting it in entertainment, which gets exaggerated for effect. Be smarter than that.

I’ll end with a personal anecdote. Remember Jurassic Park? Great movie, though a little hokey. It’s also the best dinosaur movie to-date, and the only entry in its franchise that’s actually great. However, it cheats a lot for the sake of emotional investment. Perhaps the best example’s when Lex “hacks” the park’s mainframe computer. As any professional hacker knows, Lex’s hacking isn’t authentic. But it doesn’t matter, because it’s suspenseful.

Besides, it’s Jurassic Park! The entire premise doesn’t make sense, but it doesn’t have to because it’s a cautionary tale about playing God. If your movie already has giant, CGI dinosaurs roaming around with real humans, I think accuracy becomes a moot point. In other words, shut up and enjoy the experience. And stop being overly-critical of fiction, especially when it’s already quality escapism!

Trump's Project 2025

It’s been rather rough this week. On Tuesday night, I spent the evening watching the American election results in real time. Despite not anticipating a knock-out, I was getting increasingly frustrated. By 2:00 in the morning, when I went to bed, I was a mess. Considering I barely slept that night, as well as hearing the results the next morning, I was a zombie Wednesday. Essentially, it sucked.

But I won’t talk about my emotional state. Not only is it unproductive, it’s also not helpful. Instead, I’d like to discuss something mentioned during the 2024 election cycle, as well as how it could impact, in the best-case scenario, the next four years. That’s right, it’s Project 2025. You heard that correctly.

What’s Project 2025? It’s a roughly 900-920 page book detailing an outline for a Trump presidency and beyond. I say “beyond” because Trump won’t be alive indefinitely. His health is deteriorating, and it’s clear he’s not well. Project 2025, therefore, has taken into account not only Trump, for whom most of it was written, but also a successor to his presidency.

Project 2025, written by The Heritage Foundation, discusses its future for The United States of America. Among the exhaustive list are budget cuts for The EPA, The DoE and other institutions it deems “too progressive”. It also aims to restrict abortion rights federally, as well as outlaw gay marriage and deport “undesirables”. More-specifically, it plans to make all government officials, even justices, strictly loyal to the president. In other words, Project 2025’s an outline for a conservative, Christian theocracy in The US, and a permanent one.

Now, I’m not the foremost expert on this. I’ve read bits and pieces, but my patience and tolerance level for the full report is limited. That said, it’s available online, for free, on The Heritage Foundation’s website. Also, there are many, far more learned individuals who’ve discussed it in greater detail. Besides, I don’t want to bore you.

When I first heard about Project 2025, I went to see what the hubbub was about. It made me ill. Even so, what bugged me more was how little it was talked about. Not many people, voters included, knew what it was, despite being bragged about by its supporters. Was it because Trump frequently kept trying to distance himself, even though he was friends with members of The Heritage Foundation? Why the ignorance?

Perhaps Americans were uninterested in discussing it. More-specifically, American media wasn’t discussing it, deconstructing its wording. The only public mentions were at debates, or rallies. Democratic rallies, too. So yeah, not enough enthusiasm.

But that makes it more of an issue, since this’ll be the outline for Trump’s second term. Many people were unimpressed the first time, but he was heavily restricted too. He did plenty of damage, but he couldn’t do more because officials wouldn’t let him. This time, however, he’ll have fewer guardrails. And if Project 2025 passes, the remaining ones will disappear.

I know some of you are skeptical; after all, wouldn’t The Supreme Court block this? To that end, remember that SCOTUS is currently 6-3 in favour of Republicans. Three of the justices-Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney-Barrett-were appointed by Trump himself, while two others-Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito-lean heavily in-favour of Trump. This leaves the remaining, conservative voice, Chief Justice John Roberts, a question mark, made less-so by him siding with conservatives on several key rulings.

Remember that the current bench, made up of lifetime appointments, overturned Roe V Wade in 2022 with a 6-3 ruling. Roe V Wade, as many feminist advocates attest, allowed abortion access federally. When the Dobbs ruling came into effect, despite Trump’s appointees promising prior that abortion access wouldn’t be impacted, that was repealed. Since then, abortion’s become contested, and now that Project 2025’s a foreseeable reality that won’t change.

Outside of that, SCOTUS is the highest court in The US. Their rulings are the law of the land. Also, save impeachment, they currently can’t be forcibly-removed. Even if they accept bribes or break the law, they’re immune from prosecution. So who’s to stop them from letting Project 2025 pass, especially when at least five of the nine justices are partial to Trump?

Basically, I don’t consider that a compelling argument against implementing this doctrine. Even if it gets blocked, Trump’s base is dangerous and influential. Who’s to say they wouldn’t coerce SCOTUS into turning a blind eye? And who’s the say Trump wouldn’t remove dissenters and replace them with loyalists? Nothing’s out of the question.

It’s worth understanding the real stakes at play. I know Trump has fans, otherwise he wouldn’t have been voted in again, but much of this doctrine is widely-unpopular. Stuff like defunding PBS, banning football and restricting access to porn are real platforms, and that’s the tip of the iceberg. Even DEI, which is misunderstood anyway, is on the chopping block, making it harder for minorities in The US to get anywhere! How’s that even remotely worth voting Trump over anxiety and inflation, two issues I doubt he can fix?

I should reference a meme here about “The Leopards Eating Faces Party”. The punchline’s that people only support that party until it eats their faces. That’s what Project 2025 is. It’s going to impact you even if you think otherwise. And that should alarm Americans.

I know I’m Canadian, hence this won’t impact me directly. But that doesn’t mean it won’t have ripple effects. American elections always do. It’s a consequence of living near a major superpower. It’s also important that I be informed should I visit The US again.

It also impacts me as a Jew. Remember Gaza? Remember how people couldn’t “shut up” about it? With Trump in power, it’ll continue, but get more contentious. If you want proof, look up recent developments since the election.

It’s hard to be told that Trump suckered you again. I know inflation’s a big concern, and that many people want to afford to live. But Trump isn’t the answer. He’s definitely not the answer if it means Project 2025 dictating the next few years. Because however bad I’ve made it sound, it’s worse. Besides, I’ve barely scratched the surface!

And to those who stayed out of the election cycle willingly? Shame on you. I know it feels like politicians don’t listen to you, and that’s valid, but it doesn’t excuse inaction. Because while voting might seem tedious and annoying, it’s necessary to fix problems. It’s not all that matters long-term, but it’s a start. It’s time more people remembered that.

This is giving me immense anxiety. But remember, Project 2025’s a threat to everyone, and it’ll be one for the foreseeable future. That really shouldn’t be taken lightly, no matter your political leanings!