Zelda's Empty Adventures

Why do 3D Zelda games feel so empty?

This has been on my mind for years. Aside from the insular game design, the games feeling empty has been a wasted opportunity. I mean, 2D Zelda entries were never guilty of this! Sure, they were limited to an overhead viewpoint, but they were teeming with life! Why couldn’t the 3D entries be that way?

Let’s start with the most-beloved entry: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Released for the N64, the game was revolutionary. Not only did it bring the franchise into the 3rd-dimension, it brought the action-adventure RPG sub-genre into a new realm too. It also had stunning visual aesthetics, with pre-rendered cutscenes and some semblance of a story. Even as an 8 year-old, this was mind-blowing!

So…why’s the overworld hub barren? It looks cool, and is streamlined, but there’s little life. The overworld, once known for its creative monsters and traps, was now a ghost town. It might have had an annoying owl, or the odd zombie at night, but it was a field. A long, tedious field. And that you kept traversing back and forth to get to your destination was boring.

I get it. The game was on a cartridge. It had limitations, making it impossible to shove enemies into. That said, couldn’t Nintendo have tried? Maybe the odd enemy? Yes, there was the giant flower monster that was difficult to beat, but that was a one-off. It was like Nintendo forgot about enemies, stripping the overworld of life.

Whatever, the N64’s limitations made that difficult. But why’s this still a problem with The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker? This is a GameCube game on a disc! Even for such a small format, The Great Sea feels empty and disconnected because there are stretches without any enemies. You can come up with an in-game explanation for the N64 classics, but this?! It’s an ocean, but that’s not an excuse. Real oceans are filled with life!

I can’t begin to tell you how monotonous sailing through The Great Sea was. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker isn’t a long game. I beat it in a week. But even with that, travelling to the remote islands felt dull and tedious. Even with the item that speeds up sailing, or the Wind Waker allowing you to change the wind’s path, traversing The Great Sea felt slow. It was needless padding, not helped by the lack of enemies.

It's unfortunate because the next 3D entry, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, fixed this problem. And yes, the game has received its fair share of criticism, some legit (collecting Tears of Light was annoying) and some silly (complaining about Link’s “feminine” design is absurd). However, its overworld hub ruled. Perhaps it was the Tolkien/Jackson influence, but the overworld was vibrant! Its aesthetic was washed out, but it was never short on enemies or action. Which is great, as you’re forced to traverse it constantly, both with Epona and by foot! The massiveness is complimented by the variety of hostile forces, making it lived-in and epic.

Perhaps that’s why I’m most-fond of it of all the 3D entries. Is it overly-challenging? No. Is it a game I’d return to in an instant? Again, no. But it has a lively overworld, and that gives it an edge. It’s even more-lively than that of The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, a game that, for all its strengths, feels stripped down comparatively.

I know I’m being overly-critical of the Zelda games. They have a fanbase that loves them, and my critiques might be sacrilegious. But they hold weight anyway. For a franchise priding itself on immersion, it’s a missed opportunity to have overworlds that feel…barren. It’s disappointing.

I’m also spoiled by Okami and its approach to the overworld experience. I’ve written a piece before calling it the “best Zelda game”, but my general feelings remain the same. Because the game, particularly its overworld, is livelier than most Zelda games because there’s so much to do. When you’re not battling enemies, you’re restoring nature. When you’re not restoring nature, you’re interacting with and feeding animals, all of whom help you level up. When you’re not interacting with and feeding animals, you’re looking for hidden chests. And when you’re not looking for hidden chests, you’re interacting with locals or looking for side-quests.

Okami’s overworld does everything the Zelda overworlds do, but better. Considering it was designed as a Zelda clone, I’m unsure if that’s insulting, or flattering. Nevertheless, it’s a step-up for the overworld experience. It not only beats the competition, it raises the bar for overworlds. And that’s why I love it.

So yes, why do 3D Zelda games feel so empty? It’s primarily because their overworlds are devoid of life. And by “life”, I mean other lifeforms, be they friend or foe. Perhaps you can attribute it to limitations, but that becomes less-satisfactory over time. Especially when later entries retain this problem.

May your 2025 be full of joy and wonder, something the overworlds in 3D Zelda games struggle with.

Something About Sonic

I have a mixed relationship with the Sonic franchise. I like the games, particularly the earlier entries, but it’s never captivated my imagination like Mario. The recent movie adaptations are also technically better than Mario’s outings, but they’ve yet to be excellent. Perhaps that’s because, aside from inconsistent scripts, they’re video game movies, and video games don’t translate well between mediums. Still, I was curious how the newest entry would adapt Shadow’s storyline from Sonic Adventure 2. And given that it’s the best-received video game movie adaptation to-date, I figured it was worth a shot. The bar isn’t exactly high.

I won’t go into story details. Not only would that ruin the experience, it’s redundant. Sonic Adventure 2’s over two decades old, and those interested in Sonic the Hedgehog 3 are either already Sonic devotees, or Jim Carrey fans. Instead, I’ll mention some aspects that stood out while watching the movie. This’ll include spoilers, though most of those who care are already invested. You’ve been warned.

The best part of this movie’s the acting. Specifically, that of the anthropomorphic characters. Sonic, Tails and Knuckles are wonderful to listen to, with only Knuckles’ voice not being a VA staple. Special shoutout to Colleen O’Shaughnessey as Tails. I’ve been following her since she was Sora in Digimon Adventure’s English dub, and she brings her A-game here.

I also have to hand it to Keanu Reeves’s Shadow. Reeves isn’t the best at emoting, and Shadow’s tough to make sound natural. Yet Reeves imbues surprising depth to an otherwise two-dimensional archetype. He understands the pathos of Shadow, his backstory particularly, and he doesn’t let that detract from the gloomier exterior. Granted, part of that could be because Shadow’s basically his John Wick persona.

The rest of the cast is also good. James Marsden returns as the anchor for Sonic, and he bounces off Tika Sumpter naturally. Jim Carrey’s back as Dr. Robotnik, this time doing double-duty as his grandfather, and while he descends into typical Carrey-isms, they fit Robotnik’s more eccentric personality. The only weak spot’s Krysten Ritter as a G.U.N operative. She’s working with what’s available, but the movie doesn’t know what to do with her character. She also gets written out of the film abruptly.

Of course, the big question is whether or not Shadow’s relationship with Maria would be done justice. Maria’s tragic death’s infamous in Shadow fandom, and there was a concern that it wouldn’t work here. But Sonic the Hedgehog 3 finds a suitable workaround anyway. It also improves on her relationship with Shadow from Sonic Adventure 2, with expanded scenes and naturalistic dialogue that made me misty-eyed when the inevitable happened. It isn’t the cheer-out-loud moment the internet jokingly wanted, but it’s still effective.

The rest of the movie’s a liberal retelling of Sonic Adventure 2, except minus the Rouge the Bat segments and with extra hijinks from Jim Carrey. The funniest moment occurs when both Robotniks dance through a room filled with lasers to a needle drop. It’s ridiculous, but it’s completely in-character. I don’t even mind this goofier take on Robotnik, as Carrey’s having fun. It’s been growing on me since the original film in 2020.

When the movie gets serious, it gets serious. Even with the game callbacks, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 isn’t afraid to tug at the heartstrings. This movie’s about loss and how that corrupts kind-hearted people, and while it’s not subtle, there’s dramatic weight that wasn’t present in the previous movies. In that sense, it’s leagues above its predecessors qualitatively. And I liked the first two movies!

Is this a great movie? It’s a great Sonic movie, that’s for sure! Sonic isn’t a deep character, and his movies haven’t had the prior opportunity for excellent writing, but this entry attempts an actual, heartfelt narrative. Perhaps it’s because it adapts a narrative-heavy Sonic game, or the creative team made a genuine attempt at storytelling, but this is the first entry to feel like more than an extended commercial. It has its rough spots, and the script feels disjointed, but it mostly works.

It's unfortunate that it’s also one of the better video game movies. I say that for two reasons: first, it shows that video games can, in fact, make for good movies with the right IP. And second, it reinforces how video games don’t work well as movies, especially since they eliminate the interactive component. Sonic the Hedgehog 3, for all its strengths, is no exception. But it at least transcends its source material, if not entirely.

Would I recommend this as an actual movie? Yes and no. It’s got enough going for it to work on its own, which is important for a feature. However, I don’t see casual moviegoers getting much enjoyment, outside of some goofy hijinks from Jim Carrey and a few dramatic beats involving Shadow. So while I’d recommend it, I should put an asterisk next to that. I’ll leave that for you to interpret...

Still, hearing “Live and Learn” was a nice touch in the third-act!

Evilness in Wicked

I didn’t plan on returning to discuss Wicked again. I figured my general thoughts on the movie and my issues with Nessarose would’ve been enough. However, I’d be remiss to ignore the backlash the movie has received. Whether it was David Ehrlich’s “insistence” he wouldn’t review the movie adaptation, even though he did, or the idea that “dim lighting = bad movie”, that Wicked can’t win for existing is upsetting considering it’s spoken to many queer youth over the years. But that’s not what I’m here to discuss.

I’d rather focus on a different critique that hits personally as an online voice. More-specifically, a Jewish voice. I don’t practice blindly, but the dichotomy of my identity means I get many confused looks and responses. Which is why Allison Josephs, or Jew in the City, and her take on Wicked hit a nerve. And to be clear, this isn’t an indictment of her concerns. Especially since she’s entitled to feel how she does.

My issue with Josephs’ take is personal. While she clearly has problem with this movie, I don’t agree with her. Specifically, I disagree with the lens by which she criticizes the messaging, tying down its storytelling to the rise in Antisemitism. I understand her concerns, but I think she mistakes the forest for the trees. Let me explain.

Wicked, and the book it’s based on, was a trailblazer. It began the “what if the villain wasn’t really the villain” trope many copycats, even today, get wrong. The reason for its success was that while it deconstructs evil, it doesn’t excuse it. Elphaba might’ve been a victim of circumstance, but we never get the impression what she becomes is right. She ruins lives, most-notably her younger half-sister’s, and we’re meant to marinate in the Ozian propaganda that festers throughout. Like classic Greek plays, this is a tragedy.

It's worth noting that while Elphaba becomes an antagonist, the real evil, The Wizard, doesn’t get any comeuppance outside of being told by Glinda to leave Oz. His crimes, including imprisoning animals and stripping them of their rights, are never aired out, and the citizens of Oz never stop believing his lies. It’s a direct critique of American populist leaders and their preying on economic hardships. It’s also a direct commentary on the American Military Industrial Complex, using war at the expense of the vulnerable.

I’ll point out that I don’t disagree with everything Josephs espouses. For one, her callout of the original author, particularly his interview where he reexamines attitudes toward Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler, is warranted, given the real damage they did. And two, her issue with circumstances excusing behaviours is justified. I don’t like the TikTok rehabilitation of Osama bin Laden, and that’s also my biggest issue with Munich. Victims aren’t owed an explanation for trauma, but they have a choice in their responses.

Still, Josephs is using the grievances of the previous paragraph to vent her own frustrations. She mentions Black Panther: Wakanda Forever’s Namor, and how that led to Ta-Nahisi Coates’s stance on Israel-Palestine changing. My thoughts on Coates’s take on October 7th are complicated, as I understand where he’s coming from, but I don’t agree with him. That said, Coates isn’t entirely off about the conditions of Palestinians behind The Green Line, especially considering the harassment they receive from soldiers and settlers. The conflict might be complicated, but it’s high-time Israeli institutions were more critical of the behaviours that transpire.

I also don’t see how this is relevant. Irrespective of my thoughts on Antisemitism, or what many young people mistake Hamas to be, Wicked isn’t about that. It’s about the banal ways Fascism hijacks the collective, using real woes to win supporters. Hitler might’ve been evil, and he was for sure childish and disorganized, but he preyed on post-WWI Germany. He understood that the country was struggling, and the German economy couldn’t keep pace. Hitler couldn’t have gained his influence without German citizens, even at the expense of othering Jews. That’s what this is about.

It's also telling that this is how Trump got re-elected. Do I think he’s a good leader? No. Do I believe he’ll fix the problems of The US? Again, no. But while he hoodwinked his supporters into voting for him, he did that while, again, preying on economic uncertainty. Granted, his first term was partly to blame for that, but…

Anyway, I want to stress, again, that my issue isn’t with Josephs’ opinion on Wicked. She’s allowed to not like the story and find it irresponsible, and she’s not without merit for her general complaints. But that doesn’t mean I can’t take umbrage with her arguments about evil being dismissed as an issue of circumstance or upbringing. I don’t think it’s being dismissed at all, instead deconstructed. And while it’s possible to sympathize with Elphaba’s behaviour, I doubt we’re being asked to agree. Anyone who agrees with Elphaba…has poor media literacy skills. But there are people who think The Empire in Star Wars is cool, so who am I to judge?

Sing for Us!

Of all Mamoru Hosoda’s films, BELLE’s probably the best known. I’m unsure if it’s my favourite, especially when The Wolf Children exists, but it’s his highest-profile thanks to a proper theatrical run and Oscar buzz. It didn’t win, but it’s deserving of discussion anyway. Specifically, its four songs, sung in English by Kylie McNeill. Let’s rank them, shall we?

(By the way, there’ll be minor spoilers.)

“Lend Me Your Voice”:

Arguably the weakest of the four songs, this is this movie’s answer to “Tale as Old as Time” from Beauty and the Beast, from which it draws inspiration. It’s unfortunate that the answer to what won Disney a Best Picture nomination is this film’s weakest entry, but that’s not to disparage it. Quite the contrary! If anything, it shows how powerful BELLE’s songs are, as Suzu wrote it so as to expose the beast’s vulnerability. It’s a ballad about opening “your voice” to unexpected sources.

The best part’s how Disney-esque it feels, right down to the orchestrations. Disney movies are notorious for ear-worm songs and orchestrations, and this is both. And while Japanese songs lack conventional rhyme structures, it’s no less poetic. I especially like how, while intended to get the beast to open up, it’s also, ironically, Suzu’s way of opening up since the passing of her mother. Because music can make you vulnerable when utilized efficiently.

The only flaw holding “Lend Me Your Voice” back from being higher is that it’s not immediately catchy like the other entries. Whether it’s that it feels more intimate, or that’s it’s tailored for a specific moment, I find I have to search for it when not watching the movie. I didn’t even remember its name until I looked it up! But it’s a nice song! And if it not being as memorable is its greatest drawback, then we only have to go up from here.

“A Million Miles Away”:

The big, climactic song, “A Million Miles Away” feels like Suzu longing for ages past. In truth, she’s connecting with two boys she’d accidentally outed. It’s the only song she sings as her authentic self, having requested that Justin, the leader of U’s police force, dissolve her Bell persona. It’s touching for many reasons, most-notably because Suzu’s singing for real now. She’s not hiding behind an avatar. That she’s able to sing, something she thought was impossible, become that much more powerful.

It's especially empowering for me, having struggled with speech issues because of my Tourette’s. I’ve had to overcome breathing problems when singing, as it requires intense concentration. Being able to sing without struggling is really challenging, and it makes me vulnerable in front of strangers. Seeing Suzu pull it off, and seemingly-flawlessly, gives me hope. Especially while saving two boys from their abusive father!

The song gets knocked down somewhat because of its sentimentality. For one, the crowd harmonizing with her, even if it works, is hokey. And two, Suzu regains her Bell persona after acquiring Justin’s sponsors, which feels like cheating. She even reacquaints herself with the humpback whale from an earlier song! But I can’t fault it too much. It’s a great piece to listen to, hearkening back to Suzu’s inability to connect with people after her mother died.

“Gales of Song”:

The song that launched Bell into U-superstardom, “Gales of Song” begins quietly and grows to a crescendo. Fitting, as it’s a metaphor for Suzu growing into her own skin. However, I’d argue that it goes further. The song Suzu first belts out in U is also a tragic story about her mother. Suzu never forgave herself for not being able to stop her mother’s selflessness, even if she didn’t understand at the time, and this is her beginning to grieve. The “gales” part, therefore, not only refers to Suzu’s mother, but also her inner-conflict.

I should mention Kylie McNeill’s singing voice. I mean no disrespect to her Japanese counterpart, but McNeill captures Suzu’s wallflower sincerity perfectly. This is a character who’s painfully-shy and insecure, having, as her father mentions, suffered quietly since her mother’s death. I’m unsure if it’s deliberate, but McNeill understands Suzu perfectly, and it shows in her vocals being soft and whispery while still having power. It’s beautiful.

It helps that this feels like an amateurish debut. “Gales of Song” doesn’t start with words, it starts with sounds. It only gains lyrics after a brief pause so Suzu can gauge her audience (or lack thereof). Once it gains momentum, especially as Suzu feels more confident, it leads to a powerful finale before dialling down into a soft whisper. I love it, given how honest it is. However, there’s one song I think tops it, which is…

“Millennium Parade”:

Arguably the most covered of BELLE’s songs, thanks to how upbeat and catchy it is, “Millennium Parade”, or “U”, introduces U as the opening narration explains everything. It’s interesting how the words don’t begin immediately, instead letting its tune captivate you. It’s sensory bliss, and only once you’ve gotten used to the marching of, well, a parade does Bell sing. It’s so catchy that I keep forgetting to be patient and tap my toes to the rhythm. That’s the sign of a banger.

But the song goes further, showcasing how Bell’s become somewhat of a phenomenon as she passes by atop a humpback whale with speakers attached. She pulls all the tricks, including using autotune and stereo-sound to give her melody layers. She also spreads her arms like wings and releases flowers, as if showing off. But she’s not. She’s engaging with the crowd, welcoming newcomers to U with a parade. A millennium parade!

This isn’t Suzu’s first song chronologically. That honour goes to “Gales of Song”, which comes a little later. It’s also not her most-intimate or emotional-those are reserved for “Lend Me Your Voice” and “A Million Miles Away” respectively. But it’s definitely Suzu’s most-upbeat and catchy song. It’s also my favourite, and a perfect introduction to BELLE. Give it a listen, because no words can do it justice. It’s that good!

And there you go: my ranking of BELLE’s songs. Remember to also watch this movie, as it’s excellent!

Donkey Kong's Conquest

The Donkey Kong Country games were never my favourite platformers on the SNES. They’re fun, but their design limitations amplify their challenge in unfair ways. This is especially true of the second entry, which starts off moderately-challenging before becoming infuriating 1/3 of the way through. It’s not like these games can’t be excellent, especially given Donkey Kong Country Returns on the Wii, but I’ll take Mario any day of the week. Sorry to disappoint.

I say all this because I recently replayed Donkey Kong Country again via NSO. It’d been over a decade, and since the Switch saw a slew of Donkey Kong-related rereleases recently, I figured why not. I remembered enjoying my last play-through, and my memories couldn’t be lying to me. Since it’s the only one of the original games I’ve beaten, I thought it wouldn’t be difficult to replay. So was it?

By the way, I’m not great at video games. Like, at all. I’ve covered this before, but the general reason is a processing delay. Video games, even “easy” ones, take longer to grasp, so what most consider simple I often find challenging. This is also true of older games, as they have preset technological limitations and have to offset their runtimes. It’s inevitable that Donkey Kong Country, a 30 year-old game pushing the limits of its console, would be no different. That it’s a Rare title adds insult to injury, as they’re notorious for challenging games.

Despite this, Donkey Kong Country isn’t as bad as many games of that era. It’s not a cakewalk, especially compared to modern standards, but as a Rare title it’s more accessible than later Donkey Kong Country games. For that reason alone, it’s easily my favourite of the original trilogy. Its level design’s dated, but it isn’t trying to overcompensate. No, that’s for the sequels to accomplish…

The relative-simplicity extends to the actual game. There’s an overworld hub with mini hubs in each World, and you progress one at a time. Each time you complete a level, Donkey Kong and Diddy Kong dance to a little jingle. The levels themselves are varied, with repeat concepts-a jungle, a cave, an ocean-being distinct enough to not feel repetitive. Considering Rare didn’t have to do that, as there weren’t standards for the Donkey Kong IP in 1994, it’s impressive that they put in the effort.

This extends to sprites and background designs. Donkey Kong Country broke new ground with 3D-inspired layouts in a side-scrolling platformer, and you can see the attention to detail. The backgrounds indicate masterful use of seasons and lighting, highlighting the time of day and weather conditions. The character sprites also have expressive animations that change if you’re moving, staying still or dying. Again, Rare didn’t need to do this.

I can’t go without mentioning the music. Given the limitations of the SNES, composing quality tracks was going to be difficult. But Donkey Kong Country makes it look easy. The tracks are varied and full of life, and while they repeat, they’re never boring. They’re easily the best part, transcending any and all flaws. Give me Aquatic Ambience any day of the week!

Of course, the game’s fun. Like many of Rare’s classics, even unfair ones, there’s a certain appeal to repeating your failures over and over. Whether it’s because of the scenery, the playful character designs, or admiring the level mechanics, I can’t help shaking off my failures and Game Overs. I might be too engrossed! I think I have a problem…

All that said, I don’t think this game has aged too well. While fun, and easier than its sequels, not everything’s so smooth. The controls work, but there are delays in the response times of the buttons. The Switch joystick gets stiff in overuse, making you to move too quickly or slowly. The draw distances are also limited, and if you don’t memorize what’s outside of the screen it spells doom. There were instances where I didn’t see a trap or enemy in time, or even forgot it was there, and paid for it.

The background and foreground often also blurs together. It’s not the game’s fault, but there were moments where I couldn’t tell what was a platform. This was made worse by environmental effects like snow and haze, which obscured visibility. Never mind in-level gimmicks like outmaneuvering flickering lights, forcing me to rely on guesswork. It’s tiresome.

One last critique involves King K. Rool. Despite preset patterns, his response times differ from a standard boss. He also requires you to carefully plan your attacks, which is hard if you aren’t paying full attention. And he fakes defeat 2/3 of the way through. I know the bosses only allow for one DK Barrel, so as to not make them too easy, but King K. Rool should’ve been the exception. He’s the final boss, and it’s not like the sequel didn’t take this to heart with Kaptain K. Rool.

Despite my grievances, I enjoyed my replay of Donkey Kong Country. It took an in-game total of 2.5 hours, more if you ignore the save mechanics, and that was time well-spent. Did I 100% the game? No, I don’t have the patience for that. But of the original entries, this one’s aged the best. And I’m not only saying that because of the final boss, though that’s a factor.

Now then, about that ScrewAttack g1 who chastised me for calling this game “hard”…what happened to them? I’d like to give them a piece of my mind!

Christmas? Bah, Humbug!

One of the annoyances about December is putting up with Christmas’s excess. I have no issues with Christmas as a holiday. Everyone has their pleasures, and I’d be remiss to not acknowledge that as one of them. What bothers me, however, is how Christmas gets shoved in my face from the last moments of Halloween and right to New Year’s Eve. If it weren’t for my brother’s birthday being on Christmas Eve, I’d consider the holiday nothing more than a paid vacation day.

I think why Christmas bugs me has to do with its marketing. We see it everywhere. It begins with Mariah Carey’s annual “I’m back!” video, and it ends with TV marathons of classic Christmas movies prior to December 24th. Honestly, it’s exhausting. Especially since other holidays take a backseat.

I’ve spent most of my adult life in service industries. From 2017 to 2019, I worked in a storefront that played nonstop Christmas music every December, such that it wouldn’t leave my head after my shift ended. In December of 2020, I started at a grocery store, and the music I’ve heard every December has been Christmas-related. For both jobs, I’ve also seen the excessive selection of Christmas-related merchandise. And let’s not forget my courier job, with the rush of deliveries leading up to when it closes down until January. It’s hard avoiding Christmas when it’s everywhere.

Additionally, many people are really sensitive about Christmas. Wish someone a “Happy Holidays”, and there’s a chance they’ll get offended for not saying “Merry Christmas”. The “War on Christmas” every year amounts to adults whining about diversity initiatives. And whenever someone tries being inclusive to me, they wish me “Happy Hanukah!” throughout December. What do I tell them? Should I mention how Chanukah’s only eight days, and that they fluctuate because of The Lunar Calendar?

It sounds like I’m being petty, but that’s because my own holiday gets shafted. Progressive Christians flaunt that Chanukah coincides with Christmas, but aside from not necessarily being true, you wouldn’t know it from how it’s portrayed in pop culture. Be it TV shows or songs, Chanukah’s an afterthought. I know there are more Christians in the world than Jews, but how can I be happy about The Festival of Lights when it’s not promoted heavily?

The litmus test is looking at how Chanukah’s advertised. The Hallmark Channel, known for their Christmas originals, did some Chanukah movies several years ago that were basically covert Christmas movies. The number of big-budget Chanukah movies that are well-known begin and end with Eight Crazy Nights, starring Adam Sandler and his wacky antics. The number of well-known Chanukah songs, outside of those in Hebrew, also begin and end with Adam Sandler’s wacky antics. I don’t need to endure Sandler’s vulgar variants of Jewish Geography, especially considering how I can’t stand his brand of humour most of the time. Can’t holidays like Chanukah get their time in the spotlight?

It's not like I’m alone. Remember the “War on Christmas”? Many of the Christmas classics had Jewish hands in the pot, be it financing for movies, or Jewish composers writing the songs. If you’re really big into Christmas, chances are you’ve absorbed a Jewish-made product somewhere. That’s what we’ve had to do to survive. And whenever people complain about the “War on Christmas” and reference Christmases past, I can’t help rolling my eyes.

It also makes Jews feel incredibly-insecure about Chanukah. Four years ago I wrote a piece on a tone-deaf editorial in The New York Times discussing that. In it, I said the following:

“I’m also confused as to why Judaism, particularly Chanukah, is considered embarrassing. Not only is it one of the holidays the non-Jewish world actually understands, but it’s also beautiful on its own.”

I’m no longer confused. When Chanukah isn’t recognized as the important holiday that it is, it’s inevitable that unaffiliated Jews are going to be embarrassed by it. Why bother celebrating a holiday about Jewish identity when that isn’t promoted properly? Chanukah might be well-known, but that’s because it traditionally falls around the same time as Christmas. Had Chanukah occurred in the Summer, I doubt non-Jews would’ve cared. 

This’ll sound bizarre, but Christmas’s ubiquitous nature is why I secretly wish Jews ruled the world, or actually had the power Antisemites claimed. Because then Christmas wouldn’t be oversaturated. Like Jewish holidays now, there’d only be about two weeks of Christmas hype, and those would be the ones leading to the holiday. You don’t need to celebrate the holiday for a month, that’s ridiculous.

Maybe I’d be less cranky if other religions got advertised as heavily. Removing the Jewish aspect, why not celebrate Kwanzaa too? I’m not familiar with Islam’s holidays, but why can’t people spotlight those? There are other religions with holidays in December, and it’s only fair to recognize them, right? Right?!

To reiterate, I have nothing against Christmas as a holiday. December’s tough because of how cold it is, and we all need festivities. For all my complaining about Christmas, I see its appeal and beauty. I’m not going to detract from its religious significance either, even if my only connection to Jesus is that he was Jewish. I get it.

Nevertheless, Christmas needs to chill out. There’s no “War on Christmas”, the marketing’s excessive, and the acknowledgements of other holidays need not make Christmas look better by default. I know I can’t change anything myself, but a little sensitivity’s all I ask. Because it’s not easy. Also, screw The Salvation Army.

RT VS IMDB

Movie reviewing, truthfully, isn’t an exact science. There are some general criteria, but most of the time it’s subjective. That’s why aggregator sites exist, as you’re bound to get a wide variety of opinions on a piece of entertainment. People aren’t monolithic, and neither are reviewers. We cool?

Why’s this so hard to understand? We can argue semantics forever. We can also debate whether or not you agree on an overall consensus. But when you remove the finer details, reviews are opinions. You’re not obligated to agree, correct?

Such is the situation whenever Rotten Tomatoes’ credibility’s brought up. I don’t agree with much of how the site operates, and I’ve mentioned this before. However, their scoring system’s self-explanatory. Their job isn’t to be completely-objective, but rather give an outline that helps consumers know what to look for. This isn’t rocket science.

Whenever Rotten Tomatoes gets brought up, people trash it for petty reasons: they gave X a good score. They weren’t fair to Y. They were “bought off”. The last claim’s absurd, as reviewers aren’t normally bribed, but the conversation then turns to how IMDB’s better. And I couldn’t disagree more.

For those not in the know, IMDB’s a site that’s also an aggregator, but in a different way. Whereas Rotten Tomatoes measures what critics say, IMDB measures what moviegoers say. There’s also a section for user reviews, as well as a now-defunct forum section. Sounds good, right?

Not entirely. While user reviews might be more democratic in theory, in practice they lead to many problems. IMDB isn’t regulated like Rotten Tomatoes, hence anyone can write a review. Additionally, it’s rife with clique-y behaviour, where people with chips on their shoulders review-bomb good movies. This leads to jealousy and resentment, which is also unmoderated. Because how could it?

I’ve become skeptical of IMDB’s authenticity over the past decade or so. It has some useful trivia and news, like any good database, but does that warrant the vitriol? It also democratizes user reviews, but at what cost? What good is a database that encourages toxicity? Is it worth the headaches?

This is why I prefer Rotten Tomatoes. Yes, it’s subjective. And yes, removing the forums and user comments was a good idea, considering the abuse that festered there. But it has a verification process too. At least it screens who reviews what, and why. IMDB doesn’t have that.

It’s also good because professional reviewers are trained to be critical and honest. They’re (mostly) not reviewing based on arbitrary checklists or vendettas, unlike IMDB. It’s that detachment that allows for more insightful and honest reviews, something we need more of with movies that aren’t immediately-approachable. Rotten Tomatoes allows for mid-sized projects with potential to shine. Everyone’s going to be interested in Wicked Part 1 or an MCU project based on word-of-mouth, but what about movies that are more obscure? I’d have never seen Thelma without Rotten Tomatoes, and it ended up as one of my favourite movies of 2024! That required gambling on a lesser-known movie, one I’d have missed without it featuring it on the front page with glowing praise. That’s something IMDB would never do!

One more gripe with IMDB is that it favours immediate press over long-term press. This is most-obvious through its IMDB Top 250 List, as that’s mostly newer and more-popular movies. It has obscure and older entries on it, but you’d be hard-pressed to find hidden gems. Especially not when it’s reliant on user reviews. Rotten Tomatoes, being reviewer-centric, doesn’t have this problem.

It's hard accepting when a movie you like is trashed, or vice versa. I know from personal experience, as I’m a Star Wars Prequels fan! I’m also not saying IMDB’s worthless, as it’s not. The site has useful information and obscure trivia I wouldn’t have considered otherwise, as it’s compiled into one, easily-accessible source. Databases are valuable resources, irrespective of quality. But there has to be scrutiny involved in how they operate. I’m not seeing that with IMDB.

Additionally, I don’t like how much of a popularity contest IMDB becomes during awards season. We saw that with The Boy and the Heron winning an Oscar over Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. I liked the latter more too, but I have no qualms with the former winning the gold trophy. And yet the IMDB pages for both movies indicate a rivalry that those not in the know will form unfair opinions on. It’s not good practice.

In the end, there needs to be a line drawn. I don’t agree with everything Rotten Tomatoes aggregates, and I wish studios wouldn’t flaunt its credentials so objectively. I also think IMDB can be useful for information I would’ve skipped otherwise. But I still would rather a site designed for professionals to review movies, where you understand how and why they got where they did, than one designed for people who don’t always know what they’re talking about. Because the former has some level of critical reasoning. And isn’t that what matters?