Introducing Tilly Norwood!

Meet Tilly Norwood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nintendo's New President?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kirk & Kimmel

I’ve largely kept my nose out of the situation surrounding Charlie Kirk. It’s not like I haven’t expressed my thoughts, but any statement will get me into trouble. While I recognize that Kirk was an awful human being, I also think the discourse surrounding him has become toxic. Essentially, while I’m disgusted that people are making him into a martyr, I’m equally disgusted that people are overlooking how he died.

Let’s be clear: Charlie Kirk was a bad person. Seriously. The interactions I had with him weren’t direct, but they always smelled of insincerity. This was someone who routinely abused the contemplation emoji to prove non-existent points that could be refuted without much research. He also was a January 6th insurrectionist, and he mocked George Floyd’s murder. Kirk was no different than Candace Owens in many ways, save being a white man who occasionally played nice with Jews and Israel. The latter was something Owens couldn’t even do.

Simultaneously, being shot wasn’t the right approach. Yes, he wouldn’t have batted an eye if someone on the left had been shot. And yes, people on the right, including his widow, have been feasting off of his death. But no, vigilante justice isn’t the answer to combatting his hate. Considering the nature of his death, and how it’s been warped, it’s much more telling of the gun violence issue in American society generally.

The Charlie Kirk situation’s beyond my pay-grade. What isn’t beyond my pay-grade is late night host Jimmy Kimmel’s stance on it. Kimmel’s statement was incredibly milquetoast. He not only didn’t take a side, he also chastised those who did. In particular, he jabbed President Trump’s response, citing that using his death to segue into a different topic was insensitive. That, and clamping down on freedom of speech was wrong. To quote Kimmel directly:

“We had some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and with everything they can to score political points from it.”

I don’t see how this is worth the backlash from the right, especially since Kimmel was showing more respect for Kirk than most of his allies. He also was right in calling out Trump segueing to talking about a ballroom in The White House. Even if you didn’t like Kirk, using this moment to focus on yourself is childish. A friend of yours died, show some respect! Is that really too much to ask?

Kimmel’s statements received plenty of backlash, including a suspension of his show from ABC. I get why Disney, the parent company, felt like this was the right call; after all, they’re currently in the middle of a mini-merger, and they want the approval of the current FCC. Disney, who’ve gotten in hot water with Trump before, felt pressure to make nice and not ruffle feathers. Even if Trump didn’t directly make a threat, Kimmel’s jab was probably a bit much, so they stopped the leak before the dam burst open. That much I understand.

Nevertheless, it’s frustrating that Disney, who won their fight with Governor DeSantis over the “Don’t Say Gay” bill in Florida, hasn’t shown more backbone. Disney isn’t some smalltime studio. They’re a corporation that’s been around for over a century, and they have a bigger base than the MAGA movement could ever dream of! So while it’s not unexpected for them to follow the money, this is really cowardly. It also reeks of desperation.

Naturally, their decision to fire Kimmel has backfired, accruing financial losses as longtime fans and people on their payroll have shared dissatisfaction. It’s gotten so bad that both Ted Cruz and former Disney CEO Michael Eisner have expressed disapproval. Cruz being anti-Disney on this is already telling, but Eisner? Given how Eisner left Disney on bad terms, that’s saying something! Your move, Bob Iger!

I probably won’t be cancelling Disney+, especially considering what I paid to renew my subscription. Nevertheless, the backlash is warranted. This reminds me of when Disney fired James Gunn over Tweets he’d apologized for years prior, as well as the backlash that resulted there. Ironically, that too happened when Trump was president. It also didn’t last long, as Disney immediately recognized their mistake and quickly made plans to remedy it. It also allowed Gunn to become an employee of Warner Bros. This sort of knee-jerk decision from Disney blew up in their face once before, so you’d think they’d have learned their lesson.

In the meantime, I’m not shocked by the aftermath. Nor do I think it’s unwarranted. Will the proposed boycott of Disney, and the subsequent decline in shares, make them reverse their decision? Considering Disney prides itself on their reputation, probably. At least, I’d hope so. The precedent’s there historically, and Disney knows this.

This is a case of jawboning on the part of Disney. It’s not censorship, as Trump didn’t make the decision for Disney, but it’s pretty close. And yes, jawboning’s a real word. It also is self-explanatory. Look it up.

By Disney jawboning Kimmel, they’ve made this leak into a massive fissure. And it’s entirely deserved. Ignoring how Disney can afford the financial losses, they’ve kowtowed to a politician who has thin skin. Disney can’t and shouldn’t pretend Trump won’t go after them at some point too, as he will. He’s that insecure.

I’m also worried about the state of late night comedy. Trump’s lashed out at corporate media outlets for criticizing him before, and he brought The New York Times to court for shedding light on his behaviour recently. Comedians, particularly political pundits, are supposed to ridicule and keep politicians in-check. It’s important for a healthy democracy, one Trump’s intent on ruining. Besides, who’s to say this won’t happen again?

I’ll end with a point of comparison: in 1985, during President Reagan’s inauguration, several comedians, like Don Rickles and Rodney Dangerfield, were brought in to roast the returning president. Some of their jokes were hard-hitting and personal, touching on Reagan’s stint as governor of California and his time as a Hollywood actor. But while Reagan could’ve been offended, he took it in stride. He was willing to laugh at his own expense, as he knew the importance of comedy. It pains me to praise him, considering how much damage he’d do to The US, but it highlights a stark contrast between Reagan and Trump. And if what happened to Jimmy Kimmel and Charlie Kirk is indication, it shows how far The US has fallen in 40 years. That’s more telling than anything anyone could say politically.

Stranger Than Fiction

I didn’t get into Stranger Things right away. Unlike most fans, it wasn’t until my former dental hygienist recommended it in 2017 that I caved, roughly several months after its second season’s conclusion. And because I’m not a big horror fan, I wasn’t invested that quickly. Nevertheless, there was something that grabbed me amidst the messiness of later seasons, something personal and grounded. So when I saw that Billiam, someone I’m subscribed to, was doing a retrospective on its “downfall”, I was dreading the worst. I don’t agree with everything he’s made, I’m not big on the Mission Impossible movies, but he’s an interesting commentator. Which is why his video, which I saw, was worth responding to.

I have nothing against Billiam. He’s entitled to feel like Stranger Things declined after Season 1, even if I don’t agree. Future seasons weren’t perfect, particularly the character assassination of Hopper in Season 3, and how Evan Rachel Wood received flak for criticizing that. Nevertheless, there was always something to come back to, particularly as someone who felt isolated and marginalized growing up. That’s always been the show’s anchor.

Season 2’s major thread, for example, was in the relationship Hopper and Eleven shared. Preteens aren’t easy to parent because they test boundaries, and Eleven’s a super-powered preteen with a literal way of thinking. So when she and Hopper butted heads over her freedom, it made sense that she’d run off. The episode where she met a fellow psychic and joined her gang is considered a low point for many, but the lessons and growth she experienced there came back into play in when she had to close the portal to The Upside Down in the finale. Plus, she and Hopper reconciled.

Season 3 took flak for making Hopper overly-aggressive, especially in how he treated Joyce and Will early on. I don’t like that, honestly. However, it’s not the main focus. The heart of Season 3 was Eleven and Max’s friendship, as well as Max’s rocky relationship with her stepbrother. It’s here we received a backstory for why Billy’s abusive, and by season’s end I felt bad for him. It also made his death at the hands of The Mind Flayer tragic, as it was how he felt he could make amends. I still can’t watch that without shedding a few tears.

Which leads to Season 4, a season I’ve covered already in a Top 15 list. It sucked that each episode was a movie-length event, but that gave the story time to unfold naturally. It also helped flesh out Vecna as a villain, including his four-twists-in-one reveal. I’m skeptical of most twist villain reveals, especially when done poorly, but this one had enough time dedicated to it that it didn’t feel out of place. It was also really creepy.

And now we’re getting Season 5, which promises to build off the cliffhanger of Season 4. Nevertheless, I think Billiam underestimates the show’s popularity. It’s Netflix’s biggest hit, and each new season feels like an event. It’s also not Game of Thrones, where the story ran out of material and spiralled into a black hole qualitatively. Stranger Things isn’t based on anything, and while it could always end up crashing and burning, that won’t sour fans of preexisting source material. The disappointment would land on The Duffer Brothers, who still care about something they created 9 years ago.

I know some of the lustre of Stranger Things disappearing is a result of events not within its control. Pandemic aside, the show has had its bumps over the years. And several of the faux-controversies the cast have been in, including Noah Schnapp receiving backlash for his statement on The Nova Festival Massacre, have made the conversation feel toxic. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t still have fans. Because if the numbers are indicative, it absolutely does.

If Stranger Things has a flaw, aside from how Netflix has marketed it, it’s being a victim of its own success. Like WandaVision’s finale, which I loved, the premise was so good that there was no way anything could live up to it. But that’s an issue of expectations, not quality. Like The Dark Knight Rises, I believe people are missing out on what they got because of what they wanted. That’s not fair.

Could Season 5 still disappoint? Absolutely! I’ve seen franchises crash and burn many times! But I also think that doesn’t give The Duffer Brothers respect as filmmakers. They might not have made anything else since Stranger Things, intentionally or not, but that doesn’t discredit their work. If anything, considering how artistic burnout is real, that they still feel passionate and committed is impressive. Doubly so for the cast, many of whom have had careers because of it.

So yes, Billiam’s giving this show too little credit by saying that people’s adoration was past-tense. It’s not. The show has a lively fanbase that anticipates new seasons, however sporadic they are. And with the cast now outgrowing their roles, Joe Keery specifically, it’s fitting that this is the final season. Even if it sputters, it deserves closure.

The Anime Phenomenon

Recently my uncle shared an editorial from The New York Times about the Western anime boom. I can’t link it here, as I lack a subscription, but I was gifted access for my viewing pleasure. I especially liked how it combined Manga-style textboxes with .gifs to make the text pop. It also got me thinking about my experience with anime, as well as the impact it’s made on me. Because to say that it has is an understatement.

My exposure to anime, unlike many people, wasn’t instantaneous. It came in waves, with large gaps in-between ventures, and at times it was only a show or two. I also didn’t have access to Toonami growing up, hence my options were more limited than many Americans. It wasn’t until university, particularly my third year, that I started appreciating what anime had to offer, binging shows and movies through questionable sources. This was compounded by then-undiagnosed mental health issues, making discussing it a challenge.

There are many elements about anime, both good and bad, that I’ve noticed over the years. I’ve covered many of them on Infinite Rainy Day, but also discussed the odd piece on here. There’s too much to discuss, so I’ll zone-in on three aspects that sum up the experience. And no, the foreign aspect won’t be one of them. It’s a factor, but it’s not the definitive factor.

The first way involves expanding on the animated medium’s possibilities. In The West, animation’s still largely viewed as a kid’s art-form. This is a relic of the days when TV made animation cheap, with constantly-reused frames and stock backgrounds. Many syndicated shows and movies, therefore, looked like oversimplified, watered-down spectacles that appealed more to children than adults, the latter of whom were busy with work, family life and the threat of nuclear war. It’s silly in hindsight, but this can still be felt today.

While anime started as the Japanese equivalent of this, it quickly became more adventurous. Franchises like the Lupin III series, which is basically a hybrid of James Bond and Robin Hood, delved into violence and raunchy humour, tackling themes only present in Western animation in the underground scene. This provocativeness helped anime gain its footing in Japan, showing that it can appeal to adults. It also helped with its initial appeal in The West, catering to nerds desperate to feel “cool” and “edgy”. Whether or not that was good is debatable, but it helped with gaining an audience.

It’s also allowed for anime to test the waters in ways everyone else is only starting to. In my piece on KPop Demon Hunters, I stated that the movie feels radical to Western audiences, but only because we’re not used to storytelling like that. And yes, it was Korean-inspired. But plenty of in-between animation is done there, and there’s plenty of crossover in terms of style. I know it’s a generalization, but anime has the audacity to be more, well, audacious than Western animation.

The second feature is the attention to detail. Most anime is rendered at 12 frames per second instead of 24, and mostly due to budgetary concerns. Yet this clear handicap has made Japanese animators more visually-ambitious than many cartoonists stateside. It’s how a Studio Ghibli movie with a budget of roughly $50 million US can look so painterly and rich. Every frame counts, and anime’s no exception.

Despite this dip in fluidity, anime production is more detailed visually than most of what’s released here. Spongebob Squarepants can get away with quick gags, but it can’t disguise its limitations. Anime, however, frequently has details not normally present in the aforementioned series, including proper limbs and character features. It’s not 100% realistic, anime gave up completely emulating human details decades ago, but you can imagine the characters being real people in their shows. There are exceptions, though.

This attention to detail shows in how the characters move and act. They say the secret to animating a character is in their walk, as no two people move the same way, and anime embodies that even in cheaply-made shows. This is true of their movements and their injuries, as both are drawn to be weighty. In some ways, it adds to the immersion, something I picked up on as a young child watching Pokémon or Digimon. After all, it sucks being lied to, even in fiction!

The third way anime stands out is in its serialization. Western animation has only really caught onto this recently, but having a long-running story arc can make your audience feel invested. Even anime’s episodic shows have a continuity of sorts. And yes, that includes Pokémon. Who’d have thought?

Serialization gets overlooked when discussing anime as a medium. People, even kids, enjoy a story that spans multiple episodes. Whether or not these storylines drag is debatable, but not having everything wrap up in one episode is radical. It gives the viewer something to look forward to, anxiously awaiting what happens next. I know it does for me!

But that’s what anime, particularly shows, does best. And yes, often the shows aren’t terribly long, consisting of 13 or 26 episodes. Yet that restriction means being creative and making sure the stories have a beginning, middle and end. Spike Spiegel’s story in Cowboy Bebop has to be crammed into the escapades of The Bebop Crew, and each of his colleagues need their arcs concluded by show’s end too. Anime has shown plenty of creativity in spite of this limitation. It’s something Western cartoons can learn from.

These three attributes, in my mind, make anime unique and appealing. And yes, I recognize anime’s limitations. In particular, I find the over-exaggerated facial features characters sometimes use for comedic effect, known as “Manga Iconography”, off-putting, especially since the human body’s plenty expressive already. But that comes with being an anime fan, for better or worse, and it adds to its charm when done well. It’s also not a dealbreaker.

So yes, I’m glad that The New York Times can recognize the boom in anime’s popularity. That doesn’t mean that I want to subscribe to The New York Times, but I’ll take my victories wherever I can.

This Isn't Funny

(Note: The following deals with sensitive subject matter about a portion of the show at hand. Read at your own risk.)

I know The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya hasn’t exactly been relevant for years. I also know it’s weird to be discussing it now. To that end, blame my train of thought. Besides, what I’m about to discuss bothers me still. I’ve also wanted to update my thoughts on this for some time.

The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is a series that ran from 2006-2009 in Japan. Set in high school, it follows Kyon and his various escapades with a girl named Haruhi Suzumiya. Haruhi has all the hallmarks of a weird person: she spends most of her time daydreaming, she undresses in class, she has energetic outbursts constantly and she’s fascinated with the supernatural. When Kyon’s roped into her desire to start a club called The SOS Brigade, he realizes he might be in over his head with Haruhi. Especially since her behaviour crosses several boundaries.

This sounds like a cynical synopsis, but nothing I’ve said so far is false. Besides, it had a big fanbase for years, even inspiring a dance. It was also one of Kyoto Animation’s first success stories, and they’d make many more before an arson incident consumed their headquarters. Essentially, The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya was everywhere for a while, even showing up at anime conventions. The 2000’s were an interesting time, basically.

I have nothing personal against Kyoto Animation. They’re not my cup of tea, but they built their reputation on consistent output. Plus, they were one of the few studios to employ a significant number of women in prominent roles, treating them with respect and paying them decently in an industry where that isn’t the norm. Kyoto Animation were trailblazers, so anything I’m about to say isn’t an indictment. We clear here?

I’ve never been big on this show. Even before I reconciled my personal trauma, the show’s stance on assault and infantilization of teenage girls never sat well. Unfortunately, saying that aloud for years warranted backlash. Even people who should’ve known better dismissed my concerns, claiming it “missed the point”. But did it? And is calling out the show’s humour that big a deal?

Perhaps the litmus test for my problems happens early on in the show’s run. There’s a scene where Haruhi decides that The SOS Brigade needs a state-of-the-art computer. She drags Kyon, and an insecure student named Mikuru Asahina, to the computer club to acquire one of theirs. When they refuse, Haruhi stages a faux-assault of Mikuru by grabbing their president’s hand, forcing it on Mikuru’s breasts and snapping photos to use as extortion. She then threatens the remainder of the club to keep their mouths shut, stating she’ll spread a rumour about them gang-raping Mikuru if they don’t comply.

On its own, this’d be disturbing. And in any other scenario, it’d be a horror story. But The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya plays this up for laughs, and Haruhi faces no accountability for her behaviour. Why? Why subject the show’s audience to this? What’s this trying to prove?

I know some people defend this as a commentary on how teenaged boys are taught to be passive. I don’t buy that. Firstly, what’s the source for that? And secondly, even if it’s true, why is this scene considered humorous? If Japanese men are “docile”, then wouldn’t this be framed as disturbing?

There’s also the implication that Mikuru’s purpose is to be humiliated and babied, as opposed to someone with wants and needs outside of Haruhi. This is made obvious not only in her speech, but also in how she’s animated. Despite being older than Haruhi, Mikuru’s framed as a child in every sense, and she’s treated like one by everyone else. Not to mention that Haruhi trots her around like her own doll, dressing her in revealing clothing constantly. It’d be upsetting if it weren’t depressing.

In a video on sexual assault from a while back, Jonathan McIntosh states that framing sexual assault from a female’s perspective doesn’t automatically invalidate the trauma it creates. Essentially, a woman assaulting a man, or even a woman assaulting another woman, isn’t automatically funny. After all, not all women are good people, and they can be violent too. So taking a male issue and flipping the gender roles doesn’t mean it’s not horrid.

I have several issues with McIntosh as an essayist, but he’s right. Haruhi assaulting and infantilizing Mikuru is still a problem. If anything, it’s more upsetting because Haruhi’s playing into a male fantasy. That no one calls her out for it, even other girls, is also a problem because it too plays into the male fantasy. It’s additionally ridiculous that Haruhi would get away what she does, even ignoring the power dynamics at play here.

Another defence used is that of “Japan being Japan”. “This is how Japanese people are!” Not only does that romanticize Japan, it’s incredibly racist. Japan might have different social norms than the West, but it’s still a society. And human societies have various issues, sexism being one of them. Besides, how do you know no one in Japan has spoken up about sexual assault? Do you have statistics?

The problem with the “Japan being Japan” claim is that Japanese people aren’t monolithic. And they do, in fact, listen to people outside their borders. This isn’t only true financially, but also artistically. It’s how one famous artist can get into trouble for Antisemitism, while another can get into trouble for calling people “too woke”. Saying that Japanese people are oblivious is insensitive at best and a lie at worst. It also doesn’t give them enough credit.

This extends to Kyoto Animation and The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. Kyoto Animation may be comprised largely of women, but so what? Ever heard of internalized misogyny? It exists. Especially in a country like Japan, where gender parity’s a big issue.

I know I’m digging up old wounds, but this isn’t the hill worth dying on. You’re entitled to like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. I enjoy many pieces of media that are insensitive, and I’m not shy about that! But part of maturity involves recognizing the flaws and issues in what you’re watching. It also means knowing when to call them out. And it especially means learning to take criticism in stride.

In the end, I think it’s worth acknowledging that The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya glorifies assault and infantilizes young girls. Is it weird to drag a 19 year-old series into the mud now? Possibly. But does that mean it’s not worth criticizing? No! Because if we can’t critique art fairly, then how can we grow as artists? How can we improve?

Something to think about.

Understanding Pixar "Sequalitis"

If there’s any Western animation studio I can be accused of “shilling” for, it’s Pixar. I grew up with their movies, and I’ve enjoyed most of their output. Even now, new Pixar movies feel like an event, even if their teasers aren’t so great. It sucks that the studio has largely been on sequel autopilot since 2011, with original films few and far-between. It also sucks that the reactions to Pixar’s sequels have been divisive. Especially since they’ve been toxic.

There’ve been several videos discussing this, most-notably from a YouTuber named “Cartoonshi シ”, but I think my own take is warranted. Because while I agree that Pixar sequels haven’t been that bad, I’d go further. I think they’ve been largely excellent, showcasing world-building in ways only a sequel can. That’s what I want to zone-in on. So let’s do that.

Let’s get the main reason for division out of the way: expectation. Save Toy Story 2, Pixar sequels are never released within a few years of the original. Even the ones for Cars took at least 5 years, and those are considered Pixar’s worst. Generally-speaking, Pixar sequels debut many years later, leading to plenty of hype. In some cases, as with Incredibles 2, it’s overhype.

It's a problem. Sure, Pixar not rushing out sequels means they can take their time perfecting them. However, this also means that fans have too much time to be excited, which is dangerous when not checked by reality. When hype isn’t checked by pragmatism, it’s no wonder there’s disappointment. That’s unavoidable.

That said, I think it clouds people’s judgement. Sure, the movie was disappointing, but was it bad? Not necessarily. You merely have to adjust your expectations. It’s not like I haven’t been let down by movies that weren’t still good. I’m a fan of The Dark Knight Rises!

Because this is the internet, where hyperbole rules, people’s disappointment becomes extreme. It’s not enough that the movie’s disappointing, it has to be bad. It’s not enough that it’s bad, it has to be awful. And it’s not enough that it’s awful, it has to be horrendous! It sounds ridiculous, yes, but is that really far off?

This is especially true of Pixar films. Unfortunately, it also leads to nonsensical and nasty critiques that don’t hold weight: Bonnie gave up on Woody in Toy Story 4, leading him to “abandon his friends”? Never mind that it’s unrealistic for a 5 year-old girl to keep a promise to a stranger, the movie’s “bad”! The same goes for Finding Dory focusing on Dory finding her parents, even though it’s building on a throwaway line from Finding Nemo. And let’s not forget Incredibles 2 retreading plot beats from the first movie, despite having new ones surrounding Helen and Jack-Jack!

The tendency to over-exaggerate how bad the Pixar sequels are is worrying, and harmful, for public discourse. I’m not a blind defender of them, either. I wasn’t big on the sequels to Cars, and I think Monsters, University’s overrated. But I know they’re not the worst movies ever made. Gorgeous animation aside, they have strengths that make them worth watching at least once!

Such is the peril of being balanced online. I get being disappointed by a sequel. I also get being spoiled by time, something not exclusive to Pixar. But acknowledging that these movies are good despite their flaws makes me susceptible to hate and targeted harassment. It’s not helpful, and I wish it’d stop, even if I know it won’t. I can dream, though…

It's not worth the vitriol because these are movies, not political events. I’ve seen my share of really awful movies over my lifetime, some of which I’ve discussed in great detail. But while I loathe them, enough to feel intensely-negative reactions, I’ve learned that dedicating energy to hating them isn’t worth my time. And I’ve learned that through bad experiences and encounters.

So why can’t people do that with Pixar? My guess is that toxicity sells more than levelheadedness. But I also think there’s an element of “in-group, out-group” going on. Like how bigots marginalize people for followers and social credit, so to do in-group, out-group people. It’s easy to categorize people that way!

Nevertheless, it’s also reductive. You don’t have to like these movies. I’m not a fan of many popular movies too. But labelling Pixar sequel fans helps no one. Especially since they’re not that bad, they’re simply disappointments. That’s the key.

I think this was missing from Cartoonshi シ’s analysis. I get that not everything can be covered, especially in 20+ minutes. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth talking about. Not when this kind of extreme backlash does a lot of harm. We need to be better than that.

Essentially, the toxic backlash toward Pixar sequels has to stop. You don’t have to like them. You don’t even have to think they’re good movies! But that’s no excuse to be jerks. Because they have good aspects, and it’s not the end of the world if someone likes them. I like them, even if I recognize that they pale to their predecessors.

Except for Toy Story 4. That movie’s fantastic.

My Currency Collection

In my nearly-5 years as a lot associate, I’ve acquired many coins. Most have been Canadian or American, but every-now-and-then I’ve received foreign currency.

I spend plenty of time discussing pop culture and (occasionally) politics/religion here, so I figured I’d change it up. Here are some interesting finds, some from my job, some I’ve acquired elsewhere, but all worthy of conversation. I can’t remember the story behind each one, but I’ll share what stands out:

The first one’s this 50 British Pence, which is the bulkiest coin I’ve ever seen. I have a few of these, honestly. What makes this one unique is that it’s from 1969. It’s not my oldest coin, but it’s that bit of history that’s worth sharing. Especially since the monarch then, Queen Elizabeth II, was young. She passed away roughly 3 years ago, so most of the Commonwealth coins I own have her face on them.

This next coin’s hard to make out (can you tell I’m not a photographer?), but it’s an Indian Rupee I found on the ground at work. India and England have a rocky relationship, and that’s putting it mildly, but I thought I’d share it next because the country decided not to feature the British monarchy on its currency. I don’t blame them, as The Partition of India and Pakistan was something both countries are still experiencing ripple effects from. Essentially, why would they want that?

Here's a Mexican Centavo. I also have a Brazilian Centavos, which shouldn’t be confused with Mexico’s currency. What makes this one interesting is that while made of copper, it fits in the Quarter slot of the carts at work. Contrary to what you’d be led to believe, you can fit foreign coins in them if they’re the size and shape of the Canadian Quarter. It’s how I acquired most of my coins.

Commonwealth currencies don’t have uniform size standards. Case in point? This is a 10 Cent coin from Australia. It’s bigger than the Canadian Dime, which is tiny, but not the same size as the Canadian Quarter. I’d compare it to our Nickel, which is worth 5 Cents. That aside, I like the design, complete with evergreen needles? I’m unsure.

As you can tell, this is from West Germany. The date gives it away. What I find fascinating is how the 10 looks like a Calligraphic design, as if designed by a fountain pen. For anyone under the age of 25, fountain pens were often used for legal documents, usually when it came to signing names. These days it’s all done by computer, so it’s less personalized, but now you know. It’s a cool coin too.

Perhaps the largest number of all my coins, 200 Colombian Pesos isn’t worth much in CAD. I should know, I did the conversion. However, it’s neat to see this particular number on it. How often do you have coins with the number 200? And ones that aren’t special runs? It makes sense, as different countries use different standards, but even so.

I have many Filipina Pesos, thanks to my work’s clientele being largely from The Philippines (next to Jews, that is!). I remember having a conversation with a coworker-turned-friend about this, and I was informed that the country’s currency has been devalued over time. I can’t claim to be an expert in why without sounding pretentious and racist, but it’s upsetting that this coin, which fits beautifully into the shopping carts, is only worth 2.5 Cents Canadian. If it helps, I round that up to 3 Cents when logging its value.

My most-recent acquisition, and the newest minted, this is a Caribbean Quarter. I don’t know much about the Caribbean States outside of Disney, but I know they were an outpost for pirates and slaves historically. I think the giveaway is the ship on the coin. It’s a neat little ship. Moving on.

Like the aforementioned Pence, this is an odd-looking coin. I don’t know why it was designed this way, complete with wavy edges. Like my Pence, this was minted in the late-1960’s, hence Queen Elizabeth II’s face. This was inherited from my Bubbie’s coin collection, by the way. She and my late-Zaidy used to travel a lot, and I guess they’d acquired a collection of coins themselves. In this case, it’s from The Bahamas.

Hong Kong has an interesting history, both as a British trading port and as an independent city. I know many expats will get mad for saying that, but it doesn’t mean I don’t sympathize with Hong Kong’s current situation. That aside, this is arguably my most “exotic” coin. Fun fact: my grandparents were in Mainland China during The Tiananmen Square Revolt. That wasn’t intentional on their part...

This one’s an oddity, as I forget which Arab nation it’s from. I have one from The UAE, but this one’s worth more (if I remember correctly). It’s shameful that my ignorance is getting the best of me, but I found this in a cart at work. I like the swords on the coin, though. That they’re in the shape of a 5 is a neat little touch.

Lastly, we can’t discuss The Middle East without mentioning Israeli Shekels. This is a 1 NIS coin, complete with Phoenician-Hebrew lettering. It’s not worth much in Canadian, but it’s cool anyway. If we’re being honest, I have a few of these. This was simply the one I found first. It’s a shame I also don’t have an Israeli Lira (or Pound) for comparison, as the Lira was Israel’s currency until the 1980’s.

And there you have it, some of my coins from the last 5 years. I have more, but these ones definitely stood out the most. Let me know if you have special coins too, and I’ll see you next time!

Defending "Bean Mouth"

Am I the only one sick of the “bean mouth” debate?

A while back, I saw a YouTube thumbnail discussing why Elio failed at the box-office. There are several reasons why it did, even though I liked it, but none were present in said thumbnail. Instead, it blamed its failure on its art-style, specifically for using “bean mouth”. And honestly, it’s tiresome to hear that. Let me explain.

What’s “bean mouth”? It’s when the character’s face looks like a bean. Specifically, the character’s mouth, contorting and expanding to the shape of one. This has become so prevalent lately that it’s been criticized as being “bad”. It’s also been dubbed the “CalArts Style”, suggesting that California’s animation school is to blame.

I should note now that decade-defining art-styles are nothing new. The 60’s and 70’s, when Hanna-Barbera dominated television animation, had the “necktie style”. The 80’s, when cartoons were based on toys, had the “carved chest style”. Even in the 90’s, when cartoons were free to experiment, had the “pointy body style”. Each one was “uniform”, we simply accept it because of nostalgia.

That’s not an exaggeration. Throughout the 60’s and 70’s, TV animation was cheap, so a cut off neck would look weird to animate without a piece of clothing. The 80’s replicated the toys of the era, and buff characters were appealing to boys. The 90’s was the decade of Batman: The Animated Series, which utilized Gothic art-deco to look unique from its source material. Every decade had reasons for their characters being designed that way.

So what’s with “bean mouth”? There are two possible explanations here. The first is that it’s quick and easy. Animation’s time-consuming and costly to do properly, especially with mass labour. We take that for granted, since it’s often subcontracted to South Korea and Vietnam, but this isn’t quick either. Intricately-designed character models are difficult and cost money, while “bean mouth” is simpler. Besides, the human face looks like a bean from an angle.

The second is that this art-style’s expressive. It’s easy to joke about the style’s weirdness, but there’s no denying how lively the faces are. Since beans in real life are squishy and slippery when cooked, it’s perfect to use as a model. When combined time and cost, it makes sense. You have to cut corners somewhere!

Why’s this such a big deal for so many animation fans? Most aren’t in the animator’s chair, so they have no clue about the process. Why would “bean mouth” be bad? Plenty of shows and movies have utilized it well, and most of the time it isn’t the focus. The writing, setting and world-building also more than compensate. It’s something that, let me remind you, is no different than what other decades did.

I think the answer’s in the alternative term: “CalArts Style”. CalArts is a school in California that trains up-and-coming animators for TV and film. It’s been around for a while, but lately, according to detractors, it’s been training younger, more unique animators. Or, to be blunt, it’s training diverse animators. I cracked the code.

In my last piece, I mentioned the tendency to use KPop Demon Hunters, arguably Netflix’s biggest success story, to tear down Pixar and Disney. The example I used was Turning Red, which was criticized for being too “girly”. I’ve already called out the racism and sexism there, but it’s worth noting that it, like Elio, used “bean mouth”. And like Elio, it was chastised unfairly for that. Let that sink in.

Truthfully, “bean mouth”, or “CalArts Style”, is shorthand for racism. “How dare animators be diverse? This is outrageous!” You’ll probably hear this through terminology like “woke” and “DEI”, but the sentiment remains the same: modern animators are diverse. Modern animators use a uniform design. Therefore, modern animation is awful. If it sounds absurd, it is.

It’s also not why Elio bombed at the box-office. There are several reasons for why it under-performed: it’s an original story, and those take time to gain fans. The pandemic changed moviegoing habits, with theatre attendance down generally. Disney+ has primed audiences to wait, so there isn’t an incentive to spend money on tickets. And Disney didn’t do a great job marketing the movie. These make more sense than “bean mouth is bad”.

What does this really accomplish anyway? Yes, the film and TV landscapes are changing. Yes, there are an increasing number of shows and movies written and directed by minorities. No, that’s not bad. If anything, it’s overdue.

In the case of Pixar, it’s especially overdue because Pixar needed the shakeup. I love their offerings, but John Lasseter, who ran the studio for decades, was a creep. And he hadn’t directed anything of note in years, relying on brand recognition. He was talented, but he was holding everyone back. Now that he’s gone, marginalized voices, like Domee Shi, can actually express themselves. Domee Shi, by the way, also directed Elio.

I’d deconstruct this further, but it’s not worth the effort. I’ve already dedicated a lot more time and energy to this than I wanted, as I feel you should know why this is ridiculous. Nevertheless, arguing about “bean mouth” being bad is both childish and silly. In other words, you need to grow up already.