Studio A.I. Ghibli

The worst part about having a cold in the early-Spring is the weather finally being decent, but you can’t enjoy it. It doesn’t help when passing the time involves doomscrolling and checking for something worth writing about. Fortunately, I found a story from the past week surrounding the IMAX re-release of Princess Mononoke. You know, that ultra-violent Studio Ghibli movie about tree-hugging and environmentalism? The one over 2-hours long? What could be controversial about that?

I’ll back up and point out that this isn’t about Princess Mononoke per se. I love that movie, but this is more about the studio. Studio Ghibli, aside from being fantastic, has a distinctly-recognizable style in the world of anime film production, which is a step up qualitatively from anime television production. Not that the latter doesn’t have great stuff, but when the budget of a 26-episode series gets shoved into a single film, there’s going to be a noticeable upgrade. Doubly-so from a studio anal on that front.

Basically, Studio Ghibli has a noticeable style. Specifically, they have a noticeable visual style, one that stays consistent from director-to-director. They even have a distinct colour style, courtesy of the late-Michiyo Yasuda, one they tried emulating with The Boy and the Heron. Studio Ghibli’s known for repeating what’s worked, and that includes being anti-A.I. If you want proof, the studio’s most-famous director, Hayao Miyazaki, once unloaded his thoughts when an animator suggested it as a test sample. If Miyazaki doesn’t approve, then the studio itself doesn’t approve!

Recently, an A.I. prompt of the “Distracted Boyfriend” meme, along with other famous images, with Studio Ghibli’s visual style was revealed. That alone should raise eyebrows, but the prompt also went viral. A.I. prompts of famous directors isn’t anything new: there was one of Lord of the Rings in the vein of Wes Anderson. But like with any prompts, there arise two issues. One centres around misunderstanding the IP, and the other centres around misunderstanding the limitations of A.I. Let’s tackle both.

For the former, transposing an IP into different styles might be “neat”, but it doesn’t do justice to the IP and what it’s being grafted onto. Going back to my above example, Wes Anderson and Lord of the Rings don’t mix, even if A.I. believes they can. Anderson, despite making cartoonish movies with silly premises, is a profoundly-depressing director. His movies tackle regret, loss, the destruction of innocence and other upsetting themes. Lord of the Rings, in contrast, is about war, the battle between good and evil and hoping for a better tomorrow. The two couldn’t be any more different.

It doesn’t end there. I’ve seen many A.I. grafts over the past few years, as if to suggest that “they fit perfectly”. It might be “cool” seeing Marvel characters as Harry Potter characters, but that doesn’t mean they could work together in practice. This isn’t childlike roleplaying, where you pretend that unrelated IPs exist on the same plane. Ignoring cost limitations, thematic appropriateness is a big concern here.

That gets lost with A.I. mash-ups, leading back to Studio Ghibli. It might be funny to see Studio Ghibli-esque character designs overlaid with a meme, but it disregards the nuances of this mash-up. Studio Ghibli movies aren’t about petty romance and jealousy, that does them a disservice. And the “Distracted Boyfriend” meme is a series of stock images telling a story about toxic masculinity. If you don’t believe me, Google where the series ends narratively.

The other issue with these mash-ups involves the limitations of A.I. Ignoring how A.I. can’t get fingers and toes right (yet), A.I. doesn’t create, it mimics. And it mimics poorly, taking preexisting art and diluting it into less-impressive versions. There was a video circulating a while back involving A.I. creating a fancy hotel with anthropomorphic cats, and one of the stills copied a shot from Baz Luhrmann’s take on The Great Gatsby. Irony aside, as that story’s a commentary on excess, it shows how unoriginal A.I. is.

That’s what’s at stake. We complain in science-fiction about the “dangers of sentient A.I.”, but we should instead pivot to the laziness of concurrent A.I. A.I. has limitations, and they’re seen in how it’s exploited by hacks. Never mind that it’s been trying to replace real, thinking humans, hence the recent string of Hollywood strikes, it lacks the ability to think and behave like an actual person (for now). By making an A.I. prompt of a meme, one with Studio Ghibli-style faces, that lack of creativity’s reinforced.

I should mention that Studio Ghibli won’t accept this lying down. Ignoring how overprotective they are of their IP, such that they’ve engaged in draconian takedowns of movies and music without consent, Hayao Miyazaki sent a katana to Harvey Weinstein in 1999 as a warning to not edit down Princess Mononoke. If a then-largely unknown director in North America could issue such a powerful threat, I guarantee you they’ll be after this A.I. prompt. Especially given Miyazaki’s views on A.I.

I don’t think people using these prompts understand what Studio Ghibli is. They might make animated movies, but several of them are mature, dark and depressing. Princess Mononoke aside, Grave of the Fireflies is 80+ minutes of a 4 year-old girl starving to death in WWII Japan. Even with their “family-friendly” movies, like My Neighbor Totoro and Kiki’s Delivery Service, mortality and burnout are discussed in ways Disney wouldn’t dare. Studio Ghibli doesn’t warrant being mocked with A.I.

Above everything, this ordeal feels tacky. You made A.I. copy a meme with an anime skin? Okay? Why’s that impressive? And why should I care?

I don’t want people to think I’m anti-A.I. I’m not. But it should be utilized correctly, and it needs to be guided by human hands. Cheap, unoriginal prompts like these do neither, and it’s time people called them out. We deserve better, “humorousness” be damned!

Hollywood and Consequences?

If there’s one aspect I hate most about Hollywood, it’s when the fallout of a controversy keeps resurfacing long after it’s relevant. Ignoring The Oscars, I’ve seen it with the recent Snow White debacle. I won’t get into the movie itself, I haven’t seen it, and I’ll avoid retreading the “Gal Gadot and Rachel Zegler hate each other” nonsense, but I’d like to zone-in on something else. Let’s discuss Zegler and Marc Platt. Yikes!

For those unaware, it was revealed through Jonah Platt that his father had met with Zegler over a now-deleted Post during the promotion of Snow White about Palestine. The Post, while harmless enough, overtook the conversation about the movie, and Platt felt it was hurting its box-office potential. I don’t know how true that is, given the end-result, but there’s no doubt Disney felt a need for damage control. And, obviously, people weren’t happy. That’s everything in a nutshell.

Allow me to clear some misconceptions. Firstly, Platt did nothing wrong by talking with Zegler privately. Whether or not he needed to fly halfway across The US is another story, especially when an email would’ve sufficed, but being an investor on the movie meant he had a say on its perception. I’ve touted before that celebrities are allowed opinions, but they’re also representatives on movies they act for and need to not set “a bad example”. This might sound like moralizing, but I’ve gotten in trouble for posting far worse than Zegler. And I’m not a movie star!

Secondly, what Zegler said wasn’t the issue. Celebrities make political statements constantly, and many are ones I disagree with. Zegler’s Post might’ve been innocent, but she shouldn’t have posted it alongside an unrelated trailer. If Zegler was so insistent on making a political statement, she could’ve done it somewhere else. Because Disney, for better or worse, are anal about their reputation. If they fired Gina Carano (deservedly) and James Gunn (undeservedly) over inappropriate social media posts, then this shouldn’t be surprising.

Thirdly, Zegler doesn’t deserves harsh criticism for her Post. Was it the wrong place? Perhaps, though I’ve seen much worse from other celebrities. But it wasn’t that offensive. All she said was “#FreePalestine”. She didn’t criticize Israelis, she didn’t say anything overtly-charged, she wrote a generic statement that many have already written. Plus, she’s young. She’s not experienced enough to know when to bite her tongue, and she deserves to learn and grow as an actress. So while she might’ve messed up here, it’s not that big a deal.

Fourthly, Jonah Platt needs to be left alone. Arguably the most insulting headline about this incident came from Cosmic Marvel:

“Nepo baby and failed actor Jonah Platt responds to reports that his dad, Marc Platt, traveled to New York to convince Rachel Zegler to delete her tweet supporting Palestine:”

How’s this remotely-relevant? I get that Jonah Platt’s the son of producer Marc Platt, but being a “nepo baby” is a red herring. And “failed actor” does unnecessary heavy lifting for something that doesn’t correlate to this. Ignoring the New York flight, neither point’s important. I’m sorry for flogging a dead horse, but this is Pop Tingz-levels of journalistic malpractice. All that’s missing is “Zionist” in the headline. Did no one look over the Bluesky Post before publishing it?!

And fifthly, I have a suspicion that Platt was singled out because he’s Jewish. Like Gal Gadot, he’s been outspoken about Antisemitism and his Judaism for months, which has made many people unhappy. By dragging him into this controversy, silly or not, Platt’s become a target for hate remarks. As with Zegler being the “virtuous heroine”, Platt’s “the monstrous villain” here. It’s a reductive binary that isn’t necessary, especially when Antisemitism’s at an all-time high.

I don’t want to dismiss legitimate frustrations, however. While Zegler’s Post could’ve been better-timed, and Marc Platt could’ve emailed her in private, the fallout has overshadowed the movie in question. Additionally, many have gotten in trouble for their thoughts on the war, for understandable and nonsensical reasons. It’s a heavy and sensitive topic that requires a respectful conversation, and the online world isn’t the place for it.

It's timely to have this conversation given both Israelis and Gazans are fed up. For the former, tens of thousands of protestors have taken to the streets to decry Netanyahu weekly. And for the latter, there’s been an uptick in protests over Hamas’s leadership. People are tired and want something else, and this deserves to be spotlighted. I wish more activists over here were up to that…

In the end, it isn’t worth drawing out a controversy that’s caused people to spill more ink on than the actual movie. I had no hopes for Snow White. Like most Disney remakes, it looks like an overly-faithful, yet uninspired retelling of a classic movie. The 1937 original might be “old”, but it holds up! By allowing this controversy to suck up more space than shamelessly capitalizing on nostalgia, this more-pressing conversation’s getting ignored. It’s unhealthy for the industry at large, and it’s time to change that. Don’t we deserve better?

Weinstein's Big Break

Ever since being outed as a predator, Harvey Weinstein’s been attached to choice words. For some people, he’s a creep. For others, he’s as everything wrong with Hollywood. For the Antisemites out there, he’s even compared to a goblin. But above all else, people have reevaluated the damage he’s done, going back to the 90’s. That’s what I’d like to focus on.

Joe and Anthony Russo have had an interesting co-directorial career. Beginning with comedies and TV dramas, they were quickly tapped for The MCU with Captain America: The Winter Soldier in 2014. Since then, they directed one more Captain America movie, two Avengers movies and departed from Disney for Netflix. Unfortunately, their Netflix stint hadn’t born the same fruit, resulting in several critical failures. It’s gotten so bad that they’re returning to The MCU, leading people to wonder if they were a flash-in-the-pan. I don’t agree, I think they’re talented, but it’s hard to ignore their unusual trajectory.

I mention this because while promoting their most-recent venture, The Electric State, Joe Russo shared his frustrations with Hollywood. Particularly, he had unpleasant words to say about Harvey Weinstein. Sitting down with The Sunday Times, he said the following:

“Popular films were winning Oscars before the mid ’90s, then Weinstein started mudslinging campaigns…It affected how audiences view the Oscars, because they’ve not seen most of the movies. We’re in a complicated place. Things we should all be enjoying collectively we instead punch each other in the face over.”

Joe credits Marvel movies for “saving theatres”, by the way. Yet while it’s easy to write this off as having a chip on his shoulder, his concerns shouldn’t be dismissed. Weinstein didn’t play fair when it came to Awards Season, and his disdain for Blockbusters is widely-known. It’s no surprise, therefore, that it’s been rare seeing big-budget tentpole experiences win Oscars in my lifetime. There are exceptions, but the 90’s saw a shift in how The Academy perceived “prestige entertainment”.

After reading Joe Russo’s thoughts, several concerns, some illogical, sprung to mind. The biggest was that The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, which was initially under the Miramax label, only curried favour because of Weinstein’s name. That’s not true, but it sucks that this is what it’s come to. It doesn’t help that Weinstein has sabotaged releases before, including Princess Mononoke in 1999. If he could do that because Hayao Miyazaki had principles, who’s to say he couldn’t have done the same for Peter Jackson?

I do think a bigger issue’s at play. Chastise Russo’s recent projects all you want, but there’s definitely a divide between indie cinema fans and action fans. While crossover exists, for the most part the former looks down on the latter for being cheap and disposable, while the latter looks down on the former for being pretentious. With the two at each other’s throats, the bigger issue, how Hollywood’s current system’s unsustainable, goes unchecked. Because why would it?

I’m not a fan of the “Marvel movies are amusement parks” debate. Not only is it tiring, as it’s not rooted in facts, it’s also become a toxic conversation. It doesn’t help that celebrities, both actors and directors, have been frequently asked about it, and their responses have created teams and cheap banter. As Russo went on to say, people’s thoughts are reduced to soundbites. Where’s the lie?!

Truthfully, the “action movie VS arthouse movie” debate isn’t helpful. For one, what qualifies as either is subjective. And two, there are times where the line blurs. The John Wick franchise is clearly action, yet it’s directed like it’s arthouse. Oppenheimer’s a big-budget movie, yet it’s also a biopic that won Best Picture. What qualifies as either or isn’t always clear, and that gets lost in the kerfuffle.

Outside of that, getting mad that a director has beef with how Hollywood’s run nowadays, especially when it’s legitimate criticism, because they’re “part of the problem” feel dishonest. Are you allowed to disagree? Absolutely! But making a nontroversy into a scandal, like the online community frequently does, is childish and unhelpful. It also ignores the bigger problem, that being movie budgets swelling beyond reasonable limits. That’s not being discussed enough.

I want to return to Harvey Weinstein. Not only is he let off-the-hook here, and let’s not pretend otherwise, but his impact can still be felt with how The Academy views action films. Nominees aside, how many action movies in the last 20+ years have won Best Picture? I can only think of Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King offhand, and that debuted in 2003. (Also, Everything Everywhere All at Once.) That’s telling considering action movies, or box-office darlings, used to win that award all the time.

Whether or not Russo has an axe to grind, he’s right about Weinstein’s influence on the industry. And yes, I doubt Weinstein alone “ruined cinema”. No one person has that power. But he definitely did a lot of damage, damage that’ll take a long time to rectify. It’s irrelevant if the Russos haven’t made great movies in a while, we need to bury the hatchet and remedy the bigger problem.

I also think people should stop getting defensive because it’s a Russo calling out the industry in a different, unexpected direction. He may not be Martin Scorsese or Steven Spielberg, but he’s an experienced director. Like him or not, he’s made an impact, and his voice carries weight. He might not be your cup of tea, but he should still be listened to. If indie film fans and action film fans can’t at least try getting along, then this toxic rift won’t be repaired. And that’s bad.

Coyote VS Aliens

Arguably the worst part about having a studio’s CEO constantly deleting shows and movies for tax write-offs is that history becomes lost. We don’t think about it that way, but entertainment’s a form of artistic expression, and art’s a record of history. By removing a backlog, you’re destroying it without thought for the original creators. But I guess when your goal’s to make a quick profit, that’s irrelevant. Welcome to Capitalism!

I’ve made no secret of my disdain for how David Zaslav’s overseeing Warner Bros. That extends to animation, as it’s not something he cares for. We’ve seen that with the removal of all Looney Tunes content from Max, effectively acting like it doesn’t exist. We also saw that with his cancellation of Coyote vs. Acme before it was scheduled for release, which offended everyone on production. It’s not like the live-action pilot of The Powerpuff Girls for The CW, where everything that’s been uncovered looks creatively-bankrupt: Coyote vs. Acme, right down to its remix of The 1812 Overture, screamed brilliance, making it a shame that it’ll never see daylight. WB Discovery’s cancelled projects are often more fascinating than what they’ve green-lit, making this frustrating.

All the more perplexing, therefore, that their most-recent animated venture, The Day the Earth Blew Up, hasn’t only been released, but was also well-received. To be clear, this isn’t me panning the movie, which I haven’t seen. Rather, I’m curious what made Zaslav give this a go, especially when Coyote vs. Acme never had that opportunity. Why was this movie worth saving? I have two theories, though I’m unsure if either holds up to scrutiny.

The first is guilt. Zaslav hasn’t heard the end of Coyote vs. Acme, and he never will. Word was that it was even well-received by test audiences. For Zaslav to cancel it, shop it around for an unreasonable price, then cancel it a second time when no one was interested was cowardly, and many people have made that known. Letting The Day the Earth Blew Up go to theatres might be him apologizing.

This sounds lovely, but a few problems arise. For one, I don’t know Zaslav’s thoughts. Saying this is him apologizing feels like apologetics for someone I don’t have any connections to. Besides, Zaslav’s cancelled other films for tax write-offs without an apology too. Look at what happened to Batgirl.

Two, I doubt Zaslav cares. He’s a businessman first. He gets paid regardless of his decisions. Cancelling a hotly-anticipated film, then replacing it with another one was business like anything else. That’s indisputable.

And three, if Zaslav were doing this out of guilt, we’d know. His tenure at WB Discovery has seen shares drop significantly since becoming CEO, and it was tanking prior. Despite this, he’s remained the CEO. Zaslav isn’t going anywhere, so using a release to re-enter people’s good graces is a stretch. It’s nice to think it, but it’s still a stretch.

The second possibility is apathy. Zaslav’s made his feelings about animation known before, and his actions have backed that up. It’s possible he didn’t think highly of The Day the Earth Blew Up, only agreeing to release it because “why not?”. It’d explain the minimal marketing on WB Discovery’s part. It’d also, at least partly, explain its poor sales right now.

This seems more in-line with reality, but there’s a lingering question tagging along: “Why this movie?”. Studios release stuff all the time, and it frequently varies in quality. Having a movie escape the “clutches of Zaslav”, and one that’s good, sounds great…but many great movies have debuted under his watch. Some, like Barbie, were massive hits financially and critically. With Zaslav, I’m sure there’s a reason The Day the Earth Blew Up was released. Movies don’t normally see the light of day unless someone cares.

Okay, we don’t know why this movie made it to theatres and not another one. But that touches on whether or not corporate heads have too much influence these days. Executives serve a purpose, even if people don’t like them, but their meddling in unnecessary places, be it script changes or marketing, is a known problem. Blacklists aside, why should the higher-ups stifle creatives and prevent risk-taking? Wouldn’t it make more sense to gamble on mid-budget movies, especially those with the potential to be big?

This is why writing off Coyote vs. Acme’s frustrating. It wasn’t only a mid-budget movie, it was also an ambitious one that could’ve helped “rehabilitate” Zaslav’s reputation. By writing it off, we're not only never going to see it, we're also never going to “reevaluate” Zaslav (temporarily) in a positive light. Doesn’t he want that? Or is quick money more important? (It probably is.)

It'd be nice if Coyote vs. Acme could be made available online for free now. After all, Zaslav doesn’t want it! And WB Discovery aren’t using it anyway! Perhaps I’m being naïve, but wouldn’t it make sense to let the public see it? I’d say so!

I’m getting off-topic. Irrespective of the situation, I plan to see The Day the Earth Blew Up. It not only looks fun, but its premise appears to scratch an itch I didn’t know I had. I mean, a buddy movie starring Daffy Duck and Porky Pig? One set to an alien invasion? And with Looney Tunes-style humour? Sign me up!

Disney's Poisoned Pill

The frustrating part about being Jewish right now is that the world doesn’t appreciate our existence. This is especially true in Hollywood, since you’re at the mercy of others’ scrutiny constantly. In some cases, as with Shira Haas, people will even protest you for making it big. I know this sounds like whining, but remember that we’re only 16 million people globally. We’re not this behemoth of a nation.

I mention this because Gal Gadot’s back in the news. So is Rachel Zegler, and that’s no accident since they’re starring in a movie together. I’ve covered my thoughts on that movie last year, but with the development that their “clashing political views” have caused a reduced premiere of Snow White, I figured now was the perfect time to discuss it again. And yes, I’m fully-aware I’m part of the problem. Sue me.

Let’s get this straight: Zegler and Gadot don’t hate each other. If they do, I’ve yet to see it. Not only are they professional enough to star in a movie together, they’re professional enough to appear in public together. The two even announced an Oscars category together. Considering some of the scandals involving The Academy Awards ceremony, that’s a good sign.

If anyone’s to blame for them “hating each other”, it’s toxic fans. Ever since the teaser of Snow White, people have pitted the actresses against one-another: are you Team Rachel? Surely you must be Team Gal? Let’s duke it out, WWE style! FIGHT!

This is beyond tired and ridiculous. Not only are Gadot and Zegler not enemies, but making them enemies feels desperate. So what if they’re on opposing sides of the Israel-Hamas skirmish? Many Hollywood celebrities with opposing views on that war have worked together! Picking “a side” doesn’t mean you can’t be professional, right?

I know Gadot’s been vocal in the fight against Antisemitism, appearing at the latest ADL summit. Guess what, though? She wasn’t the only one. David Schwimmer appeared at that summit too. You know, Ross from Friends? Did everyone forget he’s Jewish? Or did our attention get consumed by the “bad, Israeli woman who can’t act”?

On the flip-side, Rachel Zegler needs to be left alone. Do I agree with her? No, and it was foolish to use the teaser for Snow White as a platform for her remarks. But that doesn’t warrant the sexist and racist vitriol she’s received from folks who wouldn’t care otherwise. Like Halle Bailey and The Little Mermaid, this has overridden the movie’s real issues.

By lambasting her over her opinions, even if you disagree, you’re making yourself look bad. Doubly-so if you’re using charged rhetoric. Because while Zegler’s an actress, she’s a human being. She’s entitled to have the same voice as any human being. Like I keep reiterating, celebrities aren’t our puppets. I’ll do it for as long as is necessary.

Returning to this “feud”, I must ask if anyone’s exhausted yet. Aren’t you tired of being angry over nonsense? I definitely am, or I wouldn’t have written about it. And yes, I know anger drives SEO performance, especially over hot-button topics. But eventually you have to know when to throw in the towel. You have acknowledge that enough is enough. It’s not healthy to be angry over everything.

Additionally, I know I’m part of the bigger problem. By me writing this, I’m keeping this “nontroversy” relevant. But while most of the people engaging in it are generating toxicity, I’m engaging in it to show how ridiculous it is. Because it’s definitely ridiculous. It’s time we owned up to that.

It's especially ridiculous because this “feud” has caused Disney to panic and reduce screenings of Snow White, something I’m not sure is good or bad. On one hand, perhaps Disney doesn’t want the backlash continuing, and reporters aren’t known for subtlety. On the other hand, since Disney, and Hollywood in general, has been scaling back on DEI initiatives to appease the current POTUS, ignoring Israel-Palestine is suspicious. This was what they were afraid of?!

I know I can’t remedy this situation myself, as I don’t work for Disney. I also know this movie has a low chance of being good, if previous remakes are indication. After all, what was wrong with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs? Sure, some parts are dated, but it’s a classic for a reason! I don’t care if it was released in 1937, it holds up!

If anything about this remake should be criticized, it’s how soulless its existence is. Snow White exists, like the other Disney remakes, to retell a classic story in a format that’s more “adult-friendly”. Never mind that it lacks non-corporate risks, it’s “mature” because it’s not animated. God-forbid animation be taken seriously, despite some of the best movies ever made being animated, right? Right?!

That’s what this discourse should actually be about. Forget the political views of Gal Gadot and Rachel Zegler, or even their casting decisions, for a second and focus on that! I won’t insist that this movie “didn’t need to be made”, as I’ve been surprised in the past by films that didn’t immediately excite me, but I strongly doubt Snow White exists for any reason other than cheap nostalgia. (I’ve yet to be proven wrong.) We deserve better, and yelling about the leads’ political views distracts from that.

Actors and Acting

I recently mentioned that I normally stay away from Oscar controversies unless they’re near and dear. I obviously used that line to discuss “No Other Land”, but it applies to general concerns too. Because someone had criticized Guy Pearce for wearing a Free Palestine pin while playing a Nazi who sexually assaults Jewish women. It was ignorant, but it got me thinking about how people accuse Hollywood celebrities of being the characters they play. Because it happens frequently.

Let’s clear this up now: similarly to how actors are allowed to have political views, as they’re not puppets, they’re also not necessarily the characters they play. Robert Downey Jr.’s a high school drop-out, yet he’s played educated geniuses on multiple occasions. Samuel L. Jackson has no personal connection to slavery, despite him playing a slave in Django Unchained. Actors are in the business of pretending. That’s why it’s called “acting”.

Many people don’t seem to get this. Gal Gadot served in The IDF? Her role in Wonder Woman 1984, particularly the scene in The Middle East, is therefore “autobiographical”. Kevin Spacey was outed as a sexual predator? His role in American Beauty was also “autobiographical”. This isn’t to pass any more judgement than has been already, but come on!

Why does this belief get tossed around? The most-obvious answer I can surmise involves politics. People have a bone to pick, and an actor might be the face of an issue. Ideological purity tests are the flavour of the day, so it’s easy to place people into boxes. Why not also do it with the rich and famous?

This leads to my next possible answer: scapegoating. In-tandem with politics, scapegoats provide an easy out for people. I’ve seen this frequently with The Nova Festival Massacre and the hostages in Gaza. Ignoring the war for a minute, any celebrities daring to speak out have been labelled mouthpieces for “IDF propaganda”. Specifically, Gadot was singled out for planning a screening of the footage from October 7th, made worse by her not attending. She had legitimate reasons for that, namely safety concerns, but many people were calling her a “plant” anyway.

The unwillingness to be critical of biases allows for scapegoating, linking an actor to their filmography, to thrive. Never mind that actors are paid to play characters, some of which contradict other roles. Essentially, being a specific character doesn’t mean they agree with or believe what they espouse. It simply means they’re willing to embody the character’s headspace. Ergo, scapegoating’s unhelpful.

Perhaps the biggest reason’s that most moviegoers, and even some film enthusiasts, aren’t movie literate. If they are, they choose to ignore film literacy to serve an agenda. I touched on this with my dissection of movie villains, but a good performance brings life to any role, irrespective of beliefs. That’s not “selling out”, it’s “being authentic”. That’s part of being film literate.

Does that mean actors can’t sometimes bring in personal experiences? Not at all! Jason Isaacs recently stated that the Antisemitism he experienced in his youth helped prepare him for villain roles. The late-Rita Moreno’s trauma with rape prepped her for both adaptations of West Side Story, as both Anita and Doc’s Wife. Actors can, and should, embrace their life experiences. It’s how we end up with great performances.

However, that doesn’t automatically mean that they’re the characters they play. Not only is that impossible, it gives them too little credit for being able to pretend. Actors are pretenders, fakers who can fool people into believing they’re not faking. That’s a real skill, and audiences conflating that with reality is a further testament to it. Regardless, actors should be given the humanity to not be what they play in movies.

I’m not saying you have to like or agree with everything they embody. There are many actors in Hollywood that I don’t like, and I’ve made that clear before on this blog. Actors are people, and people are flawed. Sometimes, those flaws are so great that I can’t support them, even if they’re talented. You absolutely are allowed to not like an actor’s personal beliefs.

At the same time, actors need room to be human. Because like I said, they’re not puppets. They’re also not necessarily the characters they embody, and conflating the two is disingenuous. I know that that’s not easy to hear considering that “in group/out group” is an easy out for people, but it’s true. And I don’t think that can be stressed enough.

So yes, Guy Pearce playing a sexual deviant isn’t necessarily related to his Free Palestine pin. Do I agree with his decision to wear it? Not really, especially given his personal views. Do I like him as a person? I honestly don’t know anymore. But that doesn’t mean him playing a Nazi who assaults women on film also makes him a Nazi who assaults women in real-life. He deserves more credit than that, and it’s high-time other celebrities in Hollywood are given that same benefit of the doubt.

No Other Conversation

Oscar controversies, especially geopolitical ones, are often asinine. Not only are celebrities frequently performative, but they focus on trivialities without understanding the situations at hand. And whenever they know what they’re talking about, as with the late-Sacheen Littlefeather, they strike nerves and rile up those who should care. That’s why I try not thinking about them once the ceremony ends. But occasionally I’ll make exceptions, especially when it involves something near-and-dear.

Take the Gaza situation, which has been happening for almost a year and a half at this point. In 2024, a group called Artists4Ceasefire made headlines over their red pins with hands on them. The group had plenty of Hollywood celebrities show up with the pins to The Oscars. Despite their intentions, critics weren’t happy that these pins evoked, whether intentional or not, the 2000 lynching of Jewish Israelis in Ramallah. Artists4Ceasefire has yet to clear the air, though they were planning to make the rounds again. Fortunately, the backlash put out that fire, though it didn’t stop some celebrities from finding workarounds.

That’s not my focus here, though. Instead, I’d like to discuss this year’s Oscar winner for Best Documentary, “No Other Land”, and the controversy it’s stirred. Specifically, I’d like to focus on the Jewish response. I know the gentile response has been disappointing, but I’ve come to terms with “allies” tokenizing and lionizing our voices. If Jonathan Glazer’s indicative of anything, it’s that having Holocaust survivors as relatives makes you the “de-facto expert” on Israel even if you don’t live there. To paraphrase someone on Bluesky, I eat from that bowl with a long spoon.

Anyway, moving on.

I didn’t watch this documentary. I didn’t even know it existed until right before The Oscars, and I was anticipating massive backlash when it received the trophy. In the days since, I’ve heard nothing but harsh criticism over it, with many Jews calling it “anti-Israel propaganda” and claiming it “was thoroughly-debunked”. People were calling The Oscars a “disgrace” for featuring it following the murders of the Bibases, despite one of its co-directors, an Israeli, mentioning October 7th in his speech. There were additional claims that one of the creators was murdered by Hamas on October 7th, but that’s been refuted by his mother. 

That said, I wonder if the critics of this documentary have seen it. Going by the synopsis on IMDB, it follows the demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinians in Masafer Yatta. It’s a joint venture by Palestinian activist Basel Adra and Israeli activist Yuval Avraham, both of whom want co-existence. It’s heavy, but also necessary. Because, contrary to some, Israel’s done plenty of unfortunate stuff, like any other country.

I ask what’s so blatantly-offensive about this. We criticize Palestinians constantly, as well as Israel’s neighbouring countries, and with due cause. People are people, and countries are run by people. And like other people, Israel’s leaders have also made bad decisions while in power. It’s not a crime to call these out. That’s not only our responsibility, it’s something The Torah itself does regularly. Even Moses was rebuked by God!

By stifling these critiques, or even censoring them, we rob Israel of its ability to be respected as a nation. It might be hard to hear this criticism. It might even be painful! But it’s necessary. That’s something I’ve had to relearn following October 7th, something many gentiles still don’t consider tragic.

Besides, are we denying that homes were destroyed in Masafer Yatta? Because they were. We can argue about and rationalize their destruction, but they were destroyed. And their residents were displaced. This is undeniable, semantics aside.

The tensions surrounding Israelis and Palestinians are palpable. I’ve felt them as an outsider too. I also know the non-Jewish world comes to absurd conclusions about the situation constantly, and they’re unafraid to voice them to people who don’t know better. But the former’s real. It’s real, and it needs discussing.

By not doing that, we’re disrespecting the memories of the October 7th victims. These were civilians trying to build bridges and foster peace. Many of them suffered, and many more are continuing to suffer. But the survivors haven’t been deterred, and the dead’s legacies are dishonoured by not standing by them. We pray for peace, but they lived and breathed peace.

Many of the survivors and relatives of the deceased want peace. Even the released hostages, who’ll be experiencing PTSD symptoms for years, wish to believe that peace is possible. Because that’s the Jewish spirit. As is tackling injustices, of which Masafer Yatta qualifies.

I also think it’s a disservice to not highlight the harmful decisions the Israeli government sometimes makes. Returning to The Torah, there’s a passage about helping to ease the burden of your rival’s donkey. Notice how it doesn’t put a set of conditions on that? That’s because it doesn’t matter: the donkey needs help, so you help it. No animal should suffer over petty grudges.

That’s what this is about; after all, the median age of Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, is 18. Most of the inhabitants were either too young to elect Hamas into power themselves, or weren’t born yet. And yes, Hamas is a terrorist group. I get that. But it took a full generation to re-educate Germany post-WWII, and Hitler was in power for 12 years!

I know this is heavy and uncomfortable to hear, I really do. I wasn’t ready to acknowledge it for the longest time, and even now I debate if it’s worth “giving a victory to anti-Zionists”. However, pretending it doesn’t exist won’t make the pain disappear. Confronting it, however, will lessen the impact. That’s also what this is about; after all, how can we build bridges without laying the foundations? They won’t lay themselves!

Regarding the Oscars ceremony specifically, Avraham got the message across in his speech. He was honest, fair and non-judgemental of his colleague. He acknowledged the pain of October 7th, expressed the urgency of releasing the hostages, and all while not diminishing Adra’s pain. Adra, likewise, was respectful and didn’t contradict Avraham. I don’t know how else to appease naysayers than for Avraham to recite The Shema live, and that wouldn’t have gone over well with the time constraints. What was he supposed to do?

Essentially, “No Other Land”’s controversy didn’t need to be one. It also isn’t worth the backlash it’s been receiving, even from non-Jews who don’t understand their vitriol. This war has caused Jews globally plenty of grief, which I’ve witnessed firsthand. But unless we sit down and have a conversation, something many people are refusing to do, nothing will change. Besides, isn’t that a defining trait of Jewish compassion? Isn’t empathizing with others, even in wartime, something we should do more of?

Something to think about.

Streaming in Reflection

In October 2019, I wrote a takedown of streaming. I mentioned that while I see its appeal, I was also concerned about its implications long-term. In the years since, I’ve dabbled in streaming multiple times. Have my opinions changed? Yes and no.

Let’s start with where my opinions have changed. For one, I find streaming more convenient than physical media. With physical media, I have to search the item in question, see if it’s available, buy it, open it and see if it works. In some cases, it’ll be defective, so I’ll have to get it fixed. Sometimes, it’ll require buying a separate device. This is all a hassle.

Streaming avoids that. Not only do I not need physical copies, saving time and energy, I have the convenience of owning something immediately. Additionally, I don’t have to worry about it being broken, assuming it’s a valid source. That saves me money. And considering my financial situation, that’s always welcomed.

Another benefit is durability. With physical items, wear and tear from overuse is high. I remember VHS and cassette tapes stretching over time, causing the picture quality to look terrible. Discs remedied this, but they substituted that with scratching. If a disc was scratched badly, it’d skip. In some cases, it’d even become unusable.

Streaming doesn’t have that issue. Because the item’s digitized, the quality of the media becomes obsolete. In some cases, it’s even preferable. It also doesn’t take up physical space, which is a bonus. But I digress.

Finally, streaming allows for convenience. Physical media isn’t always easy to find or use, but streaming only requires the click of a button. It also can be taken anywhere, something physical media can’t. Because of this, it’s possible to start on one device, pause and continue from another one, and all without losing anything. This is something physical media can’t boast.

That’s where the pros end, however. Recent experiences haven’t only shown streaming’s limitations, they’ve shown them in a bad way. Far too often, I’ll be streaming something online, only for my internet connection to cut out. This is a big problem. It makes reconnecting a hassle.

Then there’s ownership. This is contentious not only because of DRM, but also corporate ownership. It’s one issue when what you want’s only available for as long as the streamer owns the license. That sucks, but it’s inevitable. However, if the service pulls the item for cost-saving reasons, as we’ve seen, you’re screwed. Especially if it was already hard to find.

Streaming’s also finite. Ignoring licensing, I’ve found that many streaming services only loan stuff to you. They might also lock the item to one device, making it impossible to share or transfer. This was my concern with the Wii’s Virtual Console, and my concern with NSO. I might be paying for them, but they’re locked to what I have. I can’t port them without redownloading everything or paying extra. I don’t like that.

If that’s not enough, streaming lacks patience. With older media, successes weren’t always instantaneous, requiring time and nostalgia. With streaming, if something’s not an immediate hit, it might as well not exist. And if it’s incomplete? Too bad! As we saw with The Acolyte, it can be cancelled in the blink of an eye, no questions asked!

Lastly, streaming content can be changed without notice. We’ve seen this with the remasters of the Star Wars movies, a fact made worse on Disney+. Outside of that, streaming can change stuff without leaving evidence. With physical media, you have a footprint. With streaming, not so much. And since art requires preservation to last, that’s a problem.

I haven’t even discussed subscription fees, but this is why physical isn’t going away. In some cases, as with Arcane, it’s even making a comeback, showing long-term sustainability. Streaming might be “the way of the future”, but physical media has legs. And they’re long-stretching. That shouldn’t be discounted.

I don’t want to be unfair to streaming. For all its limitations, it has immense strengths. And it has plenty of untapped potential, showing what could theoretically be. There’s a lot streaming can do that physical media can’t. But for all its strengths, it also has pitfalls. Given what I’ve noticed, that’s made me hesitant to claim it’s “superior” to physical media.

There needs to be a happy medium, a “sweet spot”. Streaming needs to function alongside physical media, as both have strengths. Streaming also needs to learn from physical media, as opposed to trying to “improve” on it. Because as we’re witnessing, it’s not improving on it at all. In some ways it’s repeating mistakes, as well as making new ones.

I also think there needs to be better regulating of streaming. If something gets pulled for cost-saving measures, there needs to be a way to access it still for archival purposes. And streaming services need to be patient with their content, as opposed to being trigger happy. If a franchise like Star Trek can become a fan-favourite despite its initial run being a failure, then there’s hope for initial bombs to have legs. It requires having faith, even at the expense of short-term pain.

Those are my overall thoughts on streaming. Take them or leave them.

NSO's GBA Extravaganza!

I’ve owned a Switch for 7 years, and I’ve had Nintendo Switch Online for 6 of them. While I’ve enjoyed using both, I’ve only completed a handful of classic titles. And most were games I’d already completed, with only a select few “new” ones. So perhaps it’s time to give my overall thoughts. Especially since the Switch’s successor’s debuting soon.

By the way, yes, these are all GBA games. And there’ll be spoilers:

Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga:

I’m going to be honest: this game’s a little overrated. I don’t mean that in a “this game sucks” way, but there were several moments that were more stressful than fun. However, for an entry title in a sub-franchise that’s eluded me, I finally get the appeal. Do I love the game? No, but it’s a solid RPG.

The premise involves Mario and Luigi travelling to The Beanbean Kingdom to reclaim Princess Peach’s voice from Cackletta. Once there, they stumble upon a conspiracy to destroy The Beanbean Kingdom and The Mushroom Kingdom. Mario, being the altruistic soul he is, and his scaredy-cat brother Luigi decide to help The Beanbean Kingdom, hence the title. Of course, hijinks ensue. Lots of them.

If you’re playing a Mario RPG for the story, you’re going to be disappointed. Not because there isn’t one, but because it’s not an epic. You know how the previous paragraph was light on plot? That’s because this game’s light on story. Most of its memorability relies on character interactions and dialogue, of which there’s plenty. My favourite gag involves Luigi dressing as Peach to fool Cackletta. Despite Luigi refusing to uncover his face, Cackletta falls for it anyway.

There are other great moments, including a subplot involving a Beanbean thief named Popple, that are scattered throughout. Whether it’s how frequently Mario and Luigi are recognized as celebrities, or how Luigi’s billed as being braver than he is, I found myself grinning constantly throughout the 30+ hours I spent on it. The game even has sections where Mario and Luigi go at it solo, giving me time to appreciate their moves. As someone who considers Luigi more interesting than Mario, it’s nice to be reminded that he deserves more respect when he ventures alone to save his poisoned brother.

This game has plenty of unique secrets. Considering the limitations of GBA cartridges, it’s amazing how big The Beanbean Kingdom is. It’s nothing compared to home consoles, but there are hidden paths and objectives that I wouldn’t normally expect. The most-surprising involves the underwater map. Ignoring how Mario and Luigi can breathe underwater, traversing that part is always interesting and fun…even if some parts I can’t properly access.

I like this game’s music. The GBA wasn’t known for high-quality tracks, but this game’s one of the exceptions. I think my favourite is Popple’s battle theme, which doubles as the theme for Fawful near the end of the game. Something about it gets me in the right mood for a boss fight, even if I’m not the best at combat. And it works! It might even be a better track than the final fight with Bowletta! Fancy that.

I said this game was overrated, no? That’s because of some key issues. For one, I keep forgetting Mario and Luigi are mapped to different buttons on the gamepad. This is true of the overworld, but also combat. Far too often, I’d be in a major battle…only to forget and lose a lot of health. It might be good for my reflexes, but I struggle with information processing. There’s a reason I spent so long on this game...

Another problem I have involves the Bros. moves. These are special attacks during combat, but they’re not always intuitive. Factor in how the game doesn’t tell you how much HP your opponents have, and it makes using Bros. moves a chore. How should I gauge when to use a Bros. attack if I don’t know how effective it’ll be? Am I supposed to guess?

Speaking of combat, some of the bosses are a nightmare. This is true of Bowletta’s final form, as Mario and Luigi begin at a disadvantage. Unless you use healing items right away, you’re not going to last. I also didn’t enjoy the boss in Joke’s End because I kept attacking the wrong enemy. Does this game like punishing me?!

Finally, there are too many mandatory side-quests. Traversing the overworld for a side-quest is frequently a game of “Are We There Yet?”. I like how many of these side-quests provide an opportunity to try out Mario and Luigi’s power-ups, but there’s too much backtracking for my liking. It makes an otherwise-fun experience a chore. And a game should never feel that way.

I’m sounding harsh, but I don’t want to turn people away from Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. It’s fun! And much of the game’s fantastic! But for something that spawned a successful sub-series, you’d think I’d be sold more on its debut. I wasn’t. Perhaps I’m being unfair, but I think I’ll hold off on future entries. Sorry.

Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Red Rescue Team:

Does this game feel repetitive? Yes. Is it deep? No. But I still like this game more than Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. (Shocking.)

You take the role of a human cursed to become a Pokémon. After waking up in a foreign world, you quickly learn that the Pokémon world’s in peril. Earthquakes are commonplace, and Pokémon can no longer evolve. Complicating matters is that Pokémon are turning savage and terrorizing the locals. As you take on odd-jobs, the question remains: who made you a Pokémon, and could your presence be the source of these calamities?

I remember reading the Manga serials for these games when I was subscribed to Nintendo Power. I never completed the story, but a human becoming a Pokémon was intriguing. So when this game was announced for NSO, I had to try it out. Right after finishing Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, I started it. I wasn’t disappointed.

Getting inside the head of a Pokémon is this game’s selling point. It not only draws attention to this perspective, it allows me to talk to other Pokémon without it feeling weird or unnatural. It makes this world lived-in and tactile, essentially. Because being a human and interacting with Pokémon isn’t the same as being a Pokémon. This franchise is proof of that.

As implied from the title, this is a dungeon crawling RPG. The stages play out on a grid, with enemies taking turns with your Pokémon in real-time. Unlike the main games, these fights are telegraphed. And unlike the main games, the fights can feel slow. If you’re not used to dungeon crawling mechanics, the key is patience.

Despite this, the game’s not overly-challenging. For one, you heal whenever you move. And two, even if you don’t know which attack to use, you can still mash buttons and strike opponents. This makes combat simple, made simpler by being able throw items at enemies that you find in dungeons. It works for what it is.

What’s more pressing is keeping track of your energy levels. Like any ordinary human, you’re bound to get hungry. Getting hungry also depletes your energy. Thankfully, there’s plenty of food lying around in each dungeon, some of which doubles as a status healer or stats booster. Why anyone would eat food lying on the floor’s beyond me, but I’m not a Pokémon, so…

It helps that dungeons don’t require you to dilly-dally. Not only do you have the option to teleport back to your base if you complete an objective, but finding the stairs to the next floor means you’re not obligated to explore further. This is great for weather hazards like heat or ice, both of which can deplete your health. I kept forgetting that until it was too late, as my Pokémon would black out from depleted health, forcing me to either call it a day, or return to a save point. Oops!

The save mechanic becomes more pressing in the latter part of the campaign, one you rely on once the game becomes story-heavy. It turns out that your transformation might have something to do with the everyone’s woes, making you and your allies fugitives. It’s here that the game becomes darker narratively, forcing you to clear your name. I also like how you can sometimes befriend Pokémon that you beat in dungeons. They prove helpful in these darker moments.

I love the boss battles in this game. These are the hardest enemies, and they’re where the game’s combat truly shines. I especially like the fight with Rayquaza. He’s not only the last in the campaign, but his fight feels the most consequential. He’s tough to beat, too, and it took me several tries. Come to think of it, most of the bosses took several tries to beat…

Once the main story was over, sadly, so was my engagement. Sure, I could now evolve Pokémon, but I made the mistake of not teaching the HM Surf that I’d received for an underwater dungeon. Considering you lose items if you black out, I had to go to a different dungeon to find Surf. And, lo and behold, I couldn’t access it anyway. There went any desire to continue further!

Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Red Rescue Team’s a fun game. Is it the best Pokémon game? Not really. I wouldn’t even consider it the best Pokémon spin-off game, that title belongs to Pokémon Snap. Nevertheless, it’s a decent enough dungeon crawler. I’m glad I played it, and that’s what really matters.

Wario Land 4:

This might be my favourite Wario Land game. It’s not only a cohesive game, it’s also not a confusing game like Wario Land 3, which I got stuck in partway. It’s also one of the few games with a time gimmick that I don’t mind, which automatically makes it great. And no, I didn’t stutter. But I digress.

Beginning with a cutscene that’s skippable, Wario Land 4 has Wario driving to a mysterious pyramid to find a secret treasure. How does he find this out? From a newspaper. How does he get there? In his convertible. Does this make any sense? No, but who cares?

The game tells you everything in its first level, which doubles as the tutorial. You enter a level, collect treasure, find the four pieces of a special sapphire, acquire the keyzer, trigger the frog timer and escape the way you came before the timer runs out. It’s straightforward, and possibly formulaic, but each level has enough variety to keep from feeling stale. Considering this is a short game, that it leaves an impression is a testament to memorability. And that’s only scratching the surface!

Perhaps the real secret, like I said, is making the time gimmick tolerable. Up until now, the only game I’ve played that made a time gimmick tolerable was Pikmin 3. That game allowed you to extend the time limit with fruit, incentivizing exploration. Wario Land 4 has a time gimmick too, but it’s not a burden because: a. It’s generous. b. The consequences for failure are non-existent. c. You can try again as often as you’d like, with no penalties.

That’s not to say the time limit isn’t stressful. It absolutely is. Not only is the music that plays increasingly chaotic, but Wario starts bleeding coins when the timer ends. From there, you need to escape before you run out of money and are booted from the level. Fortunately, like I said, the time limit’s pretty generous, so the odds of you not making it out are slim. Though it’s happened once or twice for me.

The bosses are also timed, but for a different reason. You have to beat them before the timer runs out, but that timer also determines how much treasure you can bring with you upon beating them. If you wait too long, the treasure chests start disappearing. If you wait even further, you lose all of them. And if you don’t beat the boss before the timer hits zero, you have to start from scratch. No pressure.

Despite this, the boss fights are a genuine highlight. They’re varied in combat style, and they force you to think outside the box. I found myself having to replay each one several times to understand their weak points, as each was different. The final boss in particular kept mixing attack styles as the fight progressed. This was also when I relied heavily on the NSO’s rewind feature, something I’d never used prior to this game, but am incredibly grateful for.

The game itself is lots of fun. I find games revolving around treasure collecting can feel stale, but it fits the moniker of Wario. After all, he’s greedy! If his introduction in Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins was any indication, he thrives on stealing treasure! So if this game didn’t focus on that, I’d have been disappointed. It helps that collecting treasure’s exciting.

That’s all there is. When it comes to the topic of best Wario Land games, Wario Land 4 frequently gets shafted. I disapprove. Not only is it a great game, it also deserves to be discussed. Though I guess talking about it here counts. Give it a go.

And that about does it! Feel free to play these games at your leisure, and I’ll see you next time!

No Fun Allowed!

Everyone, I’m tired.

That doesn’t mean I won’t be writing any new pieces. I have too many ideas, and too little self-control, for that to happen. But I’m tired. I’m tired of toxic negativity online, and I’m tired of toxic negativity offline. I’m tired all around.

I mention this in-light of the newest MCU entry’s lukewarm reviews, especially since I’ve watched it, and because the internet’s a cesspool of hate and bigotry. It’s like Bob Chipman said in one of his videos: if you don’t manufacture outrage constantly, you’re going to fade into obscurity. It’s why I’ve shortened the titles of my entries, and why my output’s increased over the nearly-10 years The Whitly-Verse has existed. It’s exhausting fighting with SEO, truly. But there’s little I can do about it.

I’m not getting paid to do this. Between writing, editing, formatting, publishing and promoting my stuff, I’m doing the work of five people. The odd person might look over my work prior to upload it, particularly my compare-contrast pieces, but I’m running on passion here. That, and feedback I receive from my readers, mostly from family and friends. I like doing it, but keep that in mind.

That farming outrage nets eyeballs is upsetting. It stifles my creativity, forces me to prioritize my fight-or-flight instincts and makes it hard to experiment with ideas that excite me. My most-viewed piece is a rant on a shoddy fan-ship. In contrast, my favourite piece, about an obscure period in the Jewish calendar, has done well, but not come close to the number of views of that rant. And while I don’t regret writing either, I wish my non-antagonistic content got 1/10th of the traffic as the antagonistic content.

Going back to The MCU, it nets attention these days for terrible reasons. Ignoring how it’s been struggling lately, though its batting average is still better than most, the franchise can’t catch a break from bigots and attention-seekers fuelling outrage. With the former, it’s mostly internet bros mad that the franchise has moved on to younger, more diverse audiences. With the latter, I sometimes want to throttle them and ask if they have anything better to do. Either way, it’s unhealthy.

And it’s not only The MCU! If you think this mindset hasn’t leeched into other properties, I have a giant, blue alien race with long tails to sell you. Alternatively, I have space wizards with magic swords to sell you. Basically, anything people deem “dying” or “dead”, even when reality claims otherwise. Use your imagination.

That’s what this is about. We can argue if over-saturation of franchise material has ruined it, but it’s irrelevant to the issue of how relentless negativity has ruined any and all conversations online. It’s all I see. I guess it was inevitable when the internet encourages anonymity, but talking to strangers doesn’t have to mean always being negative, right? Right?!

Writing this is increasing my exhaustion, amping up my anxiety. I’m already a worrywart, and the constant hate and rage-farming doesn’t help. Especially when it spills into real life, causing online hate to become real. I’ve seen upticks in Antisemitism and bigotry for years, compounded by October 7th, 2023’s massacre and its corresponding war. Not only have people become more hostile to Jews, but it’s made worse by the president of The US pouring gasoline on this out-of-control fire. If that’s not bad enough, he’s weaponizing the internet via the world’s richest man to encourage extremist rhetoric.

Calling this out hasn’t done anything, or has led to further hatred. People can debate whether or not Elon Musk made a Nazi salute, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that the message was heard by awful people. And I don’t care if he “supports Israel”. No one who espouses that ever stops to ask why.

On the flip-side, I’m exhausted by people weaponizing the right’s support for Israel. It’s not only not news, it’s used to absolve people of accountability from their bigotry. Like attacking Gal Gadot and Shira Haas for starring in superhero properties, masking sexism with Antisemitism. Whenever I call that out, I’m accused of being a “Zionist shill”. What does that have to do with my concerns?!

You see what I’m getting at?

Reading this might be exhausting or triggering for some of you. It’s exhausting and triggering to write, that’s for sure! But while cathartic to jot this down, it also highlights the bigger issue: negativity sells more than positivity. That’s concerning. It’s concerning because it’s tiring, and it’s concerning because, as I’ve outlined above, it's unhealthy. There’s finite energy to devote to always being mad, but opting out of it hurts my traffic. I’m sure I’m not the only one experiencing this catch-22, either.

Besides, what’s wrong with a little joy and positivity? I’m not saying to stop being angry, as there are times where it’s appropriate, but there’s a reason why it’s a reactionary emotion: anger’s a response to something. Happiness is spontaneous, anger isn’t. But you wouldn’t know that with how anger’s marketed…

We have to decide if it’s worth always being mad at everything. I don’t think it is. Not only does it kill the mood, it sucks the fun out of everything. It especially sucks the fun out of our hobbies, making them chores. Is that what we really want? Do we want to be the “No Fun Allowed” meme? Because what does that say? Nothing good!

Beauty and the Beast (1991) VS BELLE-Which is Better?

“Beauty and the Beast”, the 1740 fairy tale written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve, has been adapted to film numerous times. Perhaps the most famous is the 1991 Disney film of the same name, which remains one of three animated movies to receive a Best Picture nomination at The Academy Awards. That movie’s impact has been felt since, inspiring other directors to invert the story while keeping its messaging intact. One such director’s Mamoru Hosoda, whose 2021 anime film, BELLE, was well-received by the public. Yet even with sharing a similar source of inspiration, the question remains: which is better?

As per usual, this’ll be subjective and contain spoilers. You’ve been warned.

Let’s kick this off with…

Story:

VS

The basic premise involves a beastly figure developing feelings for a maiden under unusual circumstances. In Beauty and the Beast, the backstory involving the beast’s transformation is because of greed. Told through narration and stained glass windows, the beast was once a young and spoiled prince who was transformed after denying shelter to a disguised-as-homely enchantress in exchange for a magic rose. If the prince learned to love someone unreservedly before his 21st birthday, the spell would be broken. If not, he’d remain a beast.

From here, we’re introduced to Belle, a young woman living in the countryside. Belle’s a bookworm dreaming of a better life, to the chagrin of everyone else. She routinely avoids advances from Gaston, the local hero with a fancy for Belle’s hand in marriage. When Belle’s father goes missing while venturing to the local fair, she ends up at the beast’s castle and sacrifices her freedom in exchange for her father. From here, Belle and the beast learn to love one another, all while Gaston becomes more desperate to marry Belle.

In BELLE, Suzu Naito hides the scars of her mother’s passing as a child by being socially-awkward. When her best friend, Hiro, invites her to the online social media app U, Suzu takes on the persona of pop diva Bell. Her concert performance is one day interrupted by a beastly figure being chased by U’s unofficial police. Confused and curious, Suzu and Hiro track down the identity of this beast, all while Suzu begins opening up socially.

BELLE has more going for it narratively than Beauty and the Beast. Not only does it run past 2 hours, it also has several subplots. There’s a running “will-they-won’t-they” story about Suzu’s friendship with classmate Shinobu, who feels a protectoral responsibility for her stemming back to childhood. There’s also a story point about the beast’s identity that takes up much of the runtime, and it has various red herrings. And there’s a story thread about Ruka and Kamishin, two of Suzu’s schoolmates, that’s slowly revealed as the movie progresses. All of these are interesting, but they’re not the primary focus; in fact, there might be too much going on here.

Beauty and the Beast has none of that excess because of its length. This might be one of Disney’s tightest scripts ever, having absolutely no fat. Sure, there are gaps in logic and “rushed” plot points, and I think its opening’s a little cruel given the prince’s age, but all of that can be excused with this being a fairy tale. It operates on fairy tale logic, with all of its writing executed brilliantly.

It’s for that reason that I prefer the story of Beauty and the Beast. It might not be as thematically or narratively rich, but it’s more cohesive.

Winner:

But a movie’s premise is only as good as the characters in its world, which leads me to…

Cast:

VS

If there’s one area both movies excel in, it’s their characters. Beauty and the Beast’s Gaston’s so memorable that not only can I imagine him existing in real life, but his counterpart in BELLE’s two characters, and ones not nearly as interesting. Justin’s his charisma and arrogance, while Tomo and Kei’s dad’s his violent turn. The parallels the two share with Gaston are so obvious that it’s a missed opportunity for them to not be the same person. This is especially true given that Justin becomes a non-entity after Suzu uses him to unveil herself in U and earn Tomo and Kei’s trust.

I’ve heard critiques that Beauty and the Beast is about Stockholm Syndrome, and that Belle’s relationship to the beast is why. Ignoring my issues with Stockholm Syndrome, distilling the relationship to that does it a disservice. Remember, Belle leaves the castle twice, the second time with the beast’s blessing, and both times she willingly returns. That alone disproves the Stockholm Syndrome theory.

Fortunately, BELLE has the upper-hand with something I don’t think could be helped given where Disney movies were narratively in the early-90’s: Suzu, the “Belle” archetype, has a character arc. Not to demean Belle, but she’s not interesting and doesn’t really grow. She’s a conduit for the beast, who goes from a loud animal with a fowl temper to a soft and caring prince. It’s a radical shift, but it’s at the expense of Belle’s development.

Suzu lacks this problem. Being the focus of BELLE, she goes from excessively introverted to more confident. She has the backstory, she’s the one who changes. She even helps Kamishin connect with Ruka! (It helps that Ruka, the popular girl, is receptive to Suzu and doesn’t begrudge her childhood trauma.)

The beast in BELLE doesn’t change, however. He’s revealed later on to be Kei, and he takes on the role of a human shield for his dad’s abuse, but outside of being less cranky and distrustful he’s the same as he was during his first appearance. Not that he needs to change, though, as he’s interesting in his own right. And that he puts on a façade to hide his scars and bruises makes him instantly sympathetic; after all, why wouldn’t he be distrusting? Why wouldn’t he lash out at those trying to help him?

As for the rest of the characters in both movies, they’re all fun. I like how the servants in Beauty and the Beast are objects that match their names, essentially being visual puns. Lumière and Cogsworth come off as a bickering couple with their arguing, while Mrs. Potts is the doting mother and Chip is the cute teacup. Contrast this with the characters in BELLE being more human, feeling more like friends at a gathering than a family you get to know well. Which you prefer is a matter of personal choice.

Personally, I’m going with BELLE, and for one reason: Gaston feels like a dated stereotype. It’s a common critique for early Disney movies that they coded gay stereotypes into their antagonists, and it shows with the stereotypically-metrosexual boorishness he displays around Belle and LeFou. He’s so over-the-top and arrogant that while his incel behaviour feels real, it’s also a little homophobic in 2025. Justin and the abusive father, while not the same character, are more tangible adversaries nowadays.

Winner:

But a movie needs to look pretty too, which leads me to…

Aesthetic:

VS

Animation’s an under-appreciated medium for storytelling, and these films are proof of why. While both are a product of different decades, they take advantage of the technology available at the time. In the case of Beauty and the Beast, it was one of the earliest films to use CAPS for its animation, with high-quality digitization rendered traditionally. Some scenes, like Belle’s dance with the beast, feel dated given the advances in technology, but in 1991 it was impressive to see an overhead shot of a chandelier slowly swerve and zoom in to the characters. It’s also a really great moment.

As for BELLE, it too looks impressive, made better by the 30-year leap in digital technology. The world of U’s a busy and lived-in place, taking on an intricacy that only exists online. It’s reminiscent of OZ from Summer Wars, another Hosoda movie, but it improves on that by not cheating with its depiction of the online world. It contrasts with the real world setting of Japan, one we only see a fraction of, but get enough visual information to be tangible. I like how the climax, where Suzu searches for Kei and Tomo, and flashback scenes involving Suzu’s mother’s death take place in the rain. It’s a nice parallel.

While both movies have technical limitations, BELLE hides them better. That said, it’s also restricted visually by homages to the 1991 Disney movie, most-notably the beast’s castle and when Bell dances with the beast. It was inevitable that’d happen, since BELLE wouldn’t exist without Beauty and the Beast, but it’s no less-noticeable.

As for the designs, both movies have drawbacks. Beauty and the Beast looks amazing, but some of the crowd work is pre-rendered instead of being natural. It’s as if Disney was strained by traditional animation, preferring to transition to CGI. BELLE lacks this, but while the characters are fluid and moving, they lack detailed shading and shadows. Plus, they fall victim to Manga Iconography, which is used for comedic effect, but is distracting to look at. Especially since faces are expressive without that.

It's tough to pick a victor. While BELLE lifts from Beauty and the Beast, it does enough to stand out. Conversely, I think aspects of Beauty and the Beast’s animation are dated. So it’s a tie.

Tie:

However, visuals are only as good as the audio attached to them, which leads to…

Sound:

VS

Despite being over 30 years old, the music and sound mixing of Beauty and the Beast hold up. This is especially true of the songs, which the movie’s 2017 remake couldn’t escape. Perhaps my favourites are “Gaston” and “The Mob Song”, with “Beauty and the Beast” a close third. For “Gaston”, you get a sense of Gaston’s pompousness and reverence in ways only a musical number could bring, while “The Mob Song” cements Gaston’s villainy through a crowd riot. “Beauty and the Beast”, aside from being one of Disney’s best songs, is also a really lovely and well-written ballad. Even the limited edition “Human Again”, while redundant and initially cut from release, has its charms. The movie doesn’t have a bad song in it.

BELLE’s songs, while excellent, lack the instant memorability of Beauty and the Beast. Perhaps that’s unfair, as the movie’s only a few years old, but they need more time to marinate in the public consciousness. It also doesn’t help that they lack conventional rhyme because they were translated from Japanese, which doesn’t use that. It’s probably unfair, since English is my first language, but it’s noticeable. Yet if I had to pick favourites, “Millennium Parade” and “Gales of Song” would be them.

A more pressing nitpick involves the background music in Beauty and the Beast. While the orchestrations are amazing, they never let the background noise immerse you. I know Disney could never get away with dramatic silence, lest it “bore” people, but some artistic silence could’ve benefitted the experience. That’s something BELLE never struggles with. In fact, while reusing many compositions, it has plenty of dramatic silence.

One more note I should point out is the voice acting. We expect top-tier acting from Disney movies, and Paige O’Hara as Belle steals the show. However, I appreciate Kylie McNeill’s singing voice for Suzu in BELLE. For all my complaints about Japanese songs, McNeill captures the beauty of the translated lyrics in a way I don’t think her Japanese counterpart does. Even with the dub’s roster of veteran VAs and up-and-coming newbies, she still stands out. She even stands out in her non-singing moments, fitting Suzu’s socially-introverted vocal inflections.

It'd be easy to give BELLE the victory here; after all, it has dramatic silence and takes bigger risks with its music! But I think people underestimate how good and ambitious the music is in Beauty and the Beast despite that. This was the late-Howard Ashman’s dream-child, even supervising the songs before dying from AIDS before the movie debuted. The music’s so good, in fact, that future Disney musicals couldn’t live up to it, and that says something! So while BELLE might be more artistically daring, Beauty and the Beast is more artistically memorable.

Winner:

To bring it home, this is…

Entertainment factor:

VS

I really like these movies. Not only do they raise the bars for their respective studios/directors, they show the power of animation and timelessness of “Beauty and the Beast”. That said, I have to pick a winner. And it comes down to, “Which do I enjoy more?”. So, which do I enjoy more?

It’s close. Both movies have a cheer-out-loud moment, for one. Rumour has it the beast’s transformation sequence at the end of Beauty and the Beast elicited a thunderous applause from test audiences, and it’s easy see why when you watch it. Conversely, I feel like applauding when Suzu reappears as her Bell avatar while singing “A Million Miles Away”. Considering she asked Justin to unveil herself in order to gain Tomo and Kei’s trust, U’s Five Voices rewarding her vulnerability, all while singing a song her late-mother taught her, works as a satisfying moment. Both movies have great climaxes with great payoffs.

Both movies also feel like they’re in conversation. With the Disney movie, Belle’s the main character, but the beast has the character arc. For the Hosoda film, the beast, or Kei, never changes, but Suzu does. Yet despite the imbalances, these decisions feel natural and earned. They don’t feel cheap.

Both movies also deal with abandonment and estrangement, with BELLE touching on the psychology of abuse. These elements are why this is such a timeless tale worth retelling constantly. After all, beauty’s skin deep. And appearances can be deceiving. It’s a lesson we keep forgetting.

I’m going to give this one to Beauty and the Beast. While BELLE has more going for it narratively, its script’s also messier. The most-notable moment is when Hiro and Suzu stop a rumour about Suzu and Shinobu. It’s a fun moment, but it’s a derailment involving lies, misunderstandings and Tactical MMORPGs. The movie always loses me at that point, making me wonder if I’m unintentionally watching the wrong movie. Beauty and the Beast, however, is a lean 90+ minutes, with no derailments or loose ends.

No offence to BELLE, a movie I adore, but Beauty and the Beast is better overall.

Overall winner:

Thank you for reading, and I’ll see you next time!