Fire and Rage

I saw Avatar: Fire and Ash in theatres.

Before you make a snide remark, I don’t want to hear it. At all. This has gotten so toxic that it’s not fun having a conversation about the films. And before you chalk that up to online, it’s bad offline too. I have a life outside my computer.

I know I came off strong, but I’m not sorry. Because it’s genuinely how I feel. After 16 years of people calling the first movie overhyped, then acting like no one cared, then claiming it was overrated once nostalgia kicked in, I’m sick of listening to the same, hackneyed complaints dressed up to look new. It’s exhausting. But it doesn’t seem to be going away, with people making it everyone else’s problem with each new entry.

I can’t tell you how many arguments I’ve had. I’ve been timed out of internet servers because I wouldn’t sit back and tolerate it. I’ve also yelled at people offline, though that’s something I don’t need to get into here. The bile and energy over an environmentalist theme park ride, albeit an interesting and fun one, outpaces that of The MCU. And The MCU debate was already tedious. I don’t see why fans can’t be left alone.

There’ve been claims thrown out at these movies that “validate” how “forgettable” they are. Ignoring how the box-office speaks for itself, that argument doesn’t hold up. Because it’s not true. Most of this franchise’s fans are casual moviegoers who don’t care to be sucked into the discourse. Like casual gamers and the Wii, they have too much going on to waste time arguing. I have to give them credit, as the film world regularly gives me migraines.

Perhaps the most-egregious claim involves the movies being “forgettable”. That’s not true. If your recurring argument is that something’s forgettable, then you remember it. You might not remember it in detail, but you remember it. And if you even remember one detail, then it’s not truly forgettable. Aspects might blur together, and you might not recall plot beats, but saying something’s forgettable constantly has the ironic effect of being memorable unintentionally.

Another claim involves the movies being “too long”. I can sympathize here, but recall that the final entry in The Lord of the Rings Trilogy was longer than any of these movies. And that’s only the theatrical release! If you go by the extended Director’s Cuts, the Avatar films pale in runtime. Even with pacing, the Avatar movies move quicker, thanks to the special effects budget matching dialogue with action.

I’d go into comparisons to other movies, but the usual suspects, save Princess Mononoke, aren’t even good. Besides, the Avatar franchise does something unique with its premise. Visuals aside, it not only builds an entire world, with civilizations and languages, it subverts expectations with its protagonist becoming a N’avi. If anything, the most unrealistic aspect here is N’avi winning against the invaders! Considering the parallels to European colonialism, that’s sketchy.

I haven’t talked about the movie itself. While I enjoyed Avatar: Fire and Ash, even with its length, it’s definitely the weakest entry. It lacks the intrigue of the first movie, and it taking place right after the second one means there’s little new ground to cover. The new villains are also underbaked, relying on questionable stereotypes of Native Americans. The movie also meanders in the middle, and several plot beats feel recycled.

That said, it’s not a terrible movie. The visuals and action set-pieces are top-notch, highlighting that James Cameron knows how to engage the eyes. It also pays off several unresolved plot threads from the previous entry, including one that was deliberately unanswered. And the emotional moments are raw, even if the new narrator’s a little flat. Also, if this movie was going to use stereotypes for its villains, then isolating them to one tribe, as opposed to all the N’avi, was the right call.

People act like James Cameron went off the deep end with Titanic, and that he never recovered. I disagree. Cameron was never high-class, and I think the only difference between his old and new work is his budget. Seriously, rewatch his old movies. They might be fun, but they’re really silly. I should know, I’ve seen most of them!

To those who’d get defensive over my critiques, saying “it’s not a crime to express displeasure”, I’m not only aware, but I think that’s a cop-out. I don’t even love these movies! But I should be allowed to express what I did and didn’t like without the conversation devolving into the usual nonsense, which happens often. It happens offline too, the internet’s not special.

I’m tired. I’m tired of defending what are essentially B-tier movies. You don’t have to like James Cameron. You don’t even have to like his work post-True Lies! But the lack of civility surrounding his newer work is, frankly, disheartening. And I say that knowing he’s a prick to the utmost degree. That’s not news.

So yeah, I’m tired, and I don’t want to hear your takes. Can we please move on? I’d appreciate that.

All About Tarantino

There are several reasons why I put off discussing the controversy surrounding Quentin Tarantino. For one, I wanted to process my thoughts. Two, I’ve been preoccupied with an NSO GameCube game. And three, life happened. Factor in the recent shooting in Sydney, Australia, and I needed time.

Quentin Tarantino’s a solid filmmaker, even if I’m not his biggest fan. I’ve discussed personal frustrations with his work before, but the most-prevalent one is that his movies are shy of brilliant because he lacks restraint. I’ve yet to fully-love anything he’s directed, even if he’s come close. However, this isn’t about Tarantino’s oeuvre. That’d be too easy.

I don’t think that having issues with a director’s style is a problem. I’m not big on Tim Burton either, but he’s talented in his own right. What I take umbrage with is that Tarantino’s a prick. I don’t think that’s a secret, but between his use of racist lingo, his political takes and his relationship with Harvey Weinstein, he’s not exactly someone I’d associate with. But I’ve thought that for years, so…

Recently, Tarantino took swipes at Hollywood talent. In an interview with Bret Easton Ellis, he singled out Matthew Lillard and Paul Dano’s acting. He even claimed that Dano ruined Paul Thomas Anderson’s body of work, and he mocked his dick size (apparently). I get directors having preferences, they have tastes too, but trashing actors for no reason is nasty and disrespectful. Especially when said actors hear what you say.

The backlash against Tarantino’s remarks was instantaneous, with Lillard openly saying they were hurtful. And yeah, that it took bashing white men, as opposed to a minority, to get people reacting says plenty about society, and it’s not good. But while there’s a hierarchy of privilege in Hollywood, this is still a low blow. Especially since Lillard and Dano are working paycheque to paycheque. It’s unbecoming of a director to punch down like this.

My thoughts here aren’t some big revelation. Yes, Tarantino’s in the wrong. Yes, what he said was uncalled for. Yes, he owes Lillard and Dano apologies. All of this is true. However, there’s one facet most people overlook unless you’re Jewish:

Tarantino’s married to a Jewish Israeli woman. He’s been outspoken about his love for Israel, with October 7th, 2023’s massacre in Israel as part of why he hasn’t made his “10th film”. This has led many Zionists to call him an ally, which I understand to an extent. However, I can’t simply shrug off his behaviour. Being a Zionist doesn’t automatically make you a good person.

I know this seems inconsequential, but it ties into a bigger problem I have with many conservative-leaning Jews. A person can be as gross as possible in every area, but the second they use the right buzzwords about Jews and Israel, all of a sudden they’re “allies”. I understand the need for allies, but this isn’t the hill people should die on. Especially when, in the cases of Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, these “allies” can’t keep up the charade.

Tarantino being married to an Israeli means nothing to what I think of him. Even awful people occasionally do good, and vice versa. David Koch was a philanthropist for prostate cancer research, yet his dark money’s partly why the American political system is so disjointed. The late-Fred Rogers, ever compassionate, was averse to openly discussing queerness on his show. People are people, and they’re multifaceted. So while I appreciate Tarantino’s ally-ship superficially, that doesn’t mean he’s a good person.

Touching on the usual critiques, while not unique to him, his snobbish attitude elevates all of them. His foot fetishism in particular, which, again, isn’t exclusive to him, feels gratuitous because of that. Like JK Rowling and her blatant transphobia, everything questionable with Tarantino’s work is now extra suspect. Besides, what exactly did Matthew Lillard and Paul Dano do to deserve his ire? They have mouths to feed too!

I’m going around in circles, but it’s because I’m getting all my thoughts out. It’s also emblematic of the problem at play. While it’s unfortunate that it took bashing some well-loved actors in Hollywood for people to realize Tarantino’s a jerk, he’s still a jerk. And in an industry notorious for crushing dreams, especially with newcomers, that lack of courtesy feels especially cruel. The world has enough cruelty without a bigwig director adding to it for no reason.

I have little else to say. It’s a shame that Tarantino took a dump on Lillard and Dano’s careers. It’s also a shame that Tarantino’s getting blowback for this now. However, that doesn’t mean he’s off the hook. Like Francis Ford Coppola and the production of Megalopolis, Tarantino has a responsibility to act professional with other people. He may not want that, but he has no choice at this point.

As for Tarantino in general? I think the conversation needs reframing so that people stop mythologizing him. He may have had an unconventional education prior to breaking out, but he had to work his way up the ladder like everyone else. Therefore, he should have more humility than he does. And his base needs to not treat him like a god. Once people accept the bad with good, as with anyone else, that’s when there’ll be real and long-lasting change for the better. The ball’s in our court now, so we should take it.

Netflix and WB

In 2017, I wrote two pieces about the Disney/20th Century Fox merger. In them, I discussed any pros or cons I could think of. My thoughts have evolved since, but the one constant is the lack of healthy competition. I mention this because we’re now seeing another merger occur. And like last time, I have questions I’m unsure will be answered with Netflix purchasing Warner Bros.

Warner Bros. hasn’t been doing well financially for some time. There are several reasons for that, but CEO David Zaslav hasn’t helped. The studio’s financial woes came to light when it was announced they were up for sale earlier this year, leaving everything to whichever studio was willing to bite. The odds appeared to be with Universal/Paramount, since President Trump was hoping for that merger, but Netflix swooped in at the last minute. While, as of writing this, there are last-minute details that need finalizing, given how everything’s playing out it’s likely that this’ll go through.

Which brings me to my first few questions: how long will this take? What are the next steps for the two companies? Mergers are often slow and tedious, based on what I’ve seen, so there are many variables up in the air. I know CNN and The Discovery Channel won’t be impacted, as per the agreement, but everything else will be. And it’s a lot.

How will this merger operate? Will David Zaslav remain CEO of Warner Bros.? Will he be co-CEO alongside Netflix? Will Netflix’s CEOs take over running Warner Bros.? Or will Netflix find a brand new CEO?

Will Warner Bros. retain its namesake, or will it be renamed? That was a sticking point with the Disney/Fox merger, with the latter being renamed 20th Century Studios. If that happens with Warner Bros., will its new name be something more corporate? I can see “Bros.” being dropped, since none of the brothers are alive, but axing “Warner” feels dishonest. Like removing “Walt” from “Walt Disney”, it’d be like losing a part of history.

What’ll happen to Warner Bros.’ catalogue? Recall that Warner Bros. has been around for over a century, and they have a massive library of shows and movies. Like MGM, Warner Bros. remained a mainstay through their highs and lows, and that’s been exemplified with their output. If this merger’s finalized, will Netflix treat its new backlog with more respect than Zaslav? Or will it treat it worse?

What’ll happen to the shows and projects Warner Bros. was working on beforehand? Will they be axed? Will the reboot of the Harry Potter franchise still happen as planned? Will there be more Lord of the Rings content? Will James Gunn’s reboot of the DCU continue, especially since he’s had a promising start?

What about HBO? Will HBO run independently? Will Last Week Tonight continue on, or will John Oliver’s late-night bloc get axed? Will all currently-syndicated programs on HBO continue, or will they be axed too? And if so, to what extent?

How about foreign licenses? The biggest one is, of course, Studio Ghibli. They already have Western distribution rights through HBO and Netflix, depending on where you live, so the custody battle will be on the table. What’ll happen? Will nothing change, or will everything change?

For Netflix, will there be an overhaul? Netflix recently put out a statement that they are no plans for price increases, but for how long? If the price increases, by how much? And if it doesn’t, does that mean HBO and Netflix will remain separate bundles, or will they be merged?

How will this impact movie releases? Will Warner Bros. release everything, or will they scale back? Will Netflix release more movies theatrically, as opposed to special events? I know Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has stated he’s never been fond of the theatregoing experience, but will that mentality change now? Will Sarandos be more receptive to theatres?

How many jobs will be cut during restructuring? This was a sticking point for Disney after absorbing 20th Century Fox, and it’s going to happen here too. I doubt the higher ups will suffer, but will grunt workers have to find new employment? Will there be pushback? And how much pushback?

How does this impact holdings? I know it sounds weird to ask that, but mergers are financially-motivated and impact shares in a company. Will Netflix and Warner Bros. see stock surges? Will one or the other drop in the short term? Will investors only see long-term payoffs?

The biggest elephant in the room, maybe the second-biggest, involves long-term retention. I think back to what caused MGM to get scooped up by Amazon: frequent sales and buybacks. The late-Kirk Kerkorian owned MGM three times, each time selling the company for spare parts to help finance real estate. Given his tenure doomed MGM, who’s to say Warner Bros., which has been sold several times, won’t suffer the same fate should another Kerkorian-like figure pop up?

Most-importantly, why’s this merger happening now? And why’s The FCC approving it, like they did Disney and 20th Century Fox? If The FCC’s purpose is to monitor corporate mergers, then why’s there no pushback here? Perhaps my personal politics are getting in the way, but isn’t this corporate overreach? Am I wrong to assume that?

It's possible that these questions, and more, will be answered in the future. I’m not a fortune teller, after all. But that I’ve posed them at all should be cause for short-term alarm, assuming they hold weight legally. I also don’t know enough about corporate politics to be an expert, so all my questions should be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, I’m worried about the future of filmmaking. Even if I’m not fond of how David Zaslav has managed Warner Bros., I’m not sure this is the answer. We’ll have to wait and see.

In the meantime, whether you agree or disagree, these are my thoughts. Perhaps those of you reading this will know more than me, I can’t say.

Dimly Lit Entertainment

I’ve mentioned this before, but one of my biggest frustrations with film buffs is them acting like modern cinema is dead. Not only does the whining sound pretentious, but it’s not rooted in fact. “Cinema is dead”? No, it’s not! And you’re reinforcing how little you understand about it!

I mention this because of yet another punching bag: movie lighting. Specifically, shadows and lack thereof. Apparently, modern moviemaking lacks the cinematic flair of the past, with shadows for dramatic effect being non-existent. This sounds great in theory, but it doesn’t hold weight. If we’re being honest, I’m not even sure what qualifies as “good lighting” anyway.

Perhaps the best way to explain this is to use classic films for reference. Older movies had a different look than modern ones. This largely comes down to development. Film reels are time consuming and difficult to use properly, and they’re fragile. Plus, like all analogue technology, they have to be treated and developed manually, meaning there’s plenty of room for errors or mistakes. I don’t begrudge older film techniques, they were innovative for their time, but there’s a reason celluloid went out of style.

One of the consequences of manual production of film was lighting. Without going into too much detail, film strips had to be stored carefully in dimly-lit environments, and the lighting often reflected that. Add in that people would get oils from their hands on the strips, or that cigarette ash would spill from smoking, and that unintended grime would make its way onto the celluloid. This isn’t accounting for projectors stretching the reels, contributing to picture quality fading over time. Old-school film reels had a certain process that made lighting look the way it did.

This stands in contrast to digital filmmaking, which lacks the grime celluloid was infamous for. Digital isn’t only easier to work with, it’s also more “artificial”. That’s not to say celluloid lighting can’t be replicated, Knives Out pulled it off, but it’s harder to achieve because computers lack the imperfections of real people. So while the barrier for entry is lower now, the claims of something being “lost” are obvious to those who’ve studied the medium. This includes lighting.

I’m no filmmaker. My area of expertise is writing. But while I can’t tell the difference between 35mm film and digital film, I know that the change in lighting was inevitable. And I don’t begrudge the loss. Because while I admire the craft that went into manual filmmaking, especially as someone who learned XHTML during my ScrewAttack days, there’s a reason it died out. Manual filmmaking’s tedious, and with computers making it easier and safer to do visual effects work, the lighting had to change to accommodate that. Also, it’s not like the filters used in modern moviemaking existed with analogue films, right?

So yeah, claims of cinematic lighting being “non-existent” nowadays are farfetched. I also think they’re misleading, and insulting. Lighting’s an important part of a scene’s composition. It tells the audience what to focus on, it lets them know what matters in a scene and it helps the performers be noticed. It can also determine the time of day, the setting where a scene takes place and what the audience should feel. Lighting can even enhance genres, with horror and romance being lit differently. None of that’s disappeared with digital filmmaking, it’s merely adapted.

And this is why I’m confused: modern lighting pales to older lighting? Guess what? Not only did the past not have such sophisticated technology, it also didn’t have to contend with the same limitations. A movie like Avatar couldn’t have been made when James Cameron first conceived it because there were too many limitations, so he had to wait. Conversely, the original Star Wars Trilogy could easily be recreated nowadays, but they’d lack their old school feel. Every decade of filmmaking has pros and cons, and lighting reflects that.

Additionally, movies aren’t meant to be lit like reality. They’re stories that exaggerate reality, and you’re supposed to suspend your disbelief. Even with older movies, where you have to suspend your disbelief even further, I’ve never once thought something I was watching was 100% real. I might have been moved by what I was seeing, but I always registered it as fake. So why does it matter if “movies are no longer lit like movies”, whatever that means?

This whole argument is predicated on nonsense. That isn’t to say that there aren’t legitimate issues with how many movies are lit nowadays. Plenty of modern experiences are hard to see because the lighting’s bad, I’ll admit that. But that’s not a byproduct of bad lighting all around, it’s a byproduct of bad filmmaking! And bad filmmaking’s always existed!

I wish people would take off their nostalgia goggles and recognize this. Perhaps something was “lost” in the transition to digital. I grew up in the 90s and 2000s, I’m well-aware of that transitionary period. But that doesn’t mean cinematic lighting doesn’t still exist. Because what constitutes as “cinematic lighting”, other than drawing attention to what’s on the screen? I wish people had the self-awareness to answer that question.

This is also an unfair dig at streaming services. There’s plenty I don’t like about streaming, and I’ve mentioned it in other pieces. But cinematic lighting? The one element that everything that’s been filmed has? The only reason something can be seen in a theatre or on TV at all? If “cinematic lighting” doesn’t exist nowadays, then clearly reality’s been gaslighting me!

But sure, blame modern filmmaking for “ruining cinematic lighting”. In the meantime, I’m going to do something much more productive.