Please Stop Talking

Warner Bros. has been in a precarious situation for some time, both with internal management and external prospects. Internally, they’ve had a CEO who keeps making bad decisions for tax write-offs, diluting the studio’s value permanently. Externally, they’ve been bounced around in hopes that their new overlords will save them. Whether it was AT&T or Discovery, it hasn’t worked out for them. And now, amidst a bidding war with Netflix and Paramount, it seems like their bad fortune is coming to a climax. Because they’re about to be bought by a studio run by a CEO with questionable objectives.

Don’t take my word for it, though. David Ellison’s purchase of WB has raised red flags from both Hollywood and politicians across The US, all of whom feel this is disastrous long-term. Without getting into the nitty-gritty, there’s a class-action lawsuit to stop this merger from being finalized. It makes sense, monopolies aren’t good for creativity, but while this is worrying for most people, Ellison’s been quite vocal about the backlash. He recently complained that people were criticizing him because he’s Jewish, calling this Antisemitism on the part of detractors. No joke.

There’s a lot I could say here, but I’ll be diplomatic. However, I do think Ellison needs to stop talking. Not only does he diminish the real and dangerous rise in Antisemitic violence, this also ignores how the Ellisons are one of the richest families globally, and that David Ellison only owns Paramount because his dad, Larry Ellison, purchased it. That’s not Antisemitic to point out. And while associating Jews with dark money is classic Antisemitism, in this case it fits.

It’s also a problem because the Ellisons are Trump donors, and they have an in with shady figures. It doesn’t help that David Ellison has made it his mission to blacklist celebrities expressing support for Palestinians, as evidenced by Melissa Barrera. Ellison’s arguing in bad faith, and I have to call him out. Especially since, and I hate saying this, as a Jew myself it’s unhelpful in countering real Antisemitism. I shouldn’t have to mention that, but I am.

For those who’d claim I’m crying wolf, I ask that you stop talking too. Antisemitism is real and growing. A few months ago, some punks drove by my synagogue and unloaded eight bullets into the entrance. Fortunately, no one was injured. But that’s one example in my home city alone. It speaks to the real threat that’s been downplayed and ignored by those in power.

So yes, Antisemitism’s a concern. And ignoring it isn’t helping. Which is why it’s dangerous that a CEO of a Hollywood studio is falling back on it as a defense against legitimate criticism. It’s also petty, enough that J-Street has called it out. It’s sad when a Jewish lobby is on your case, but here we are.

What can be done here? The obvious solution is for Ellison to apologize, as well as to back down from this merger. But since that’s not happening, I don’t know what to do. I’d suggest a boycott of Paramount, but that’d harm the artists and craftspeople who are employed by the studio. For now, all we can do is hope the lawsuit surrounding this merger follows through and mucks up the process. Because it’s bad for Hollywood.

As for those who’d diminish the real dangers of Antisemitism, please stop. It might not impact you directly, but Jews are scared and distrustful of our gentile allies. We’re scared because you don’t have our best interests at heart, and we’re distrustful because we know many of you don’t care. You’re also so absorbed in defending Palestinians that you won’t acknowledge the genuine harm you’re doing to that cause. And your tokenism of Jewish voices is equally unhelpful.

I don’t like this merger either. I think David Ellison will end up with way too much power, and he’s the last person I’d want as CEO of two Hollywood studios. He’s also a billionaire, and he has ties to really shady people. Owning both Paramount and Warner Bros. would also limit creativity, not unlike what happened when Disney purchased 20th Century Fox. This is all bad.

However, none of this is bad because Ellison’s Jewish. Nor is it an excuse to brush off actual Antisemitism. Ellison’s Jewishness is incidental to him being a billionaire with a twisted agenda, and it’s high-time these two facts are acknowledged. It’d not only make being critical of this merger easier, it’d also make tackling Antisemitism less challenging. And isn’t that more important?

As for Ellison’s remarks? Sorry buddy, but you need to do better. People aren’t criticizing you because you’re Jewish, they’re criticizing you because you’re not helping anything. You’re also hurting your credibility by relying on this obvious crutch. So stop it. If you keep your mouth shut, which I know is hard, and let this lawsuit happen, you’ll do everyone a favour. And besides, if you’ve really done nothing wrong, then you’ll come out of this debacle unscathed. Isn’t that what you want?

Only 8 Episodes?

There’s something insidious about complaining that modern TV shows are 8 episodes long. Not because it isn’t a problem, but because the complaints never tackle why this is a problem. 8-episode seasons of TV definitely have issues, but they’re not the ones people complain about. Especially since 20-episode seasons also have problems. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Fans also complain how shows frequently have bad endings because of this: Game of Thrones. The Boys. Even Stranger Things isn’t immune, such that I’ve written about it several times in the past year. But while they’re disappointing, to pin this on shorter seasons ignores the problems they had leading to their finales. I can’t speak about The Boys, but I know Game of Thrones ran out of books to adapt and made up its ending in its final season. Meanwhile, Stranger Things didn’t have a bad ending, it simply didn’t have a fantastic one.

That’s the problem with this line of thinking. We frequently deride modern shows for disappointing finales, but I don’t think it’s exclusively the shows’ faults. The blame lies partly on expectations too. Simply put, we’ve forgotten how to enjoy something on its own merits. And I’m sorry to say it, but that’s unhelpful.

It’s especially bad with online discourse. Whenever something new debuts on TV, we not only talk about it nonstop, we also over-analyze it. Within hours of new trailers and footage we’re either bombarded with videos discussing what we missed, or speculations of what a minor detail means. This sidesteps how not everything has inherent meaning to its inclusion, even when the writing’s littered with references and callbacks. Sometimes, to paraphrase myself, the drapes are simply blue.

There’s yet another issue here too, namely that having more episodes, especially when they don’t add anything, isn’t any better than rushing. Remember the phrase “bottle episode”? Those are self-contained filler episodes, and they’re rarely referenced again. The most-recent one I can think of occurred in Season 1 of Daredevil: Born Again. I happened to like it personally, but was it necessary? Not really, since the show could’ve done without it and worked fine.

Perhaps the more egregious example is Episode 7 of Stranger Things 2. That was where Eleven encountered her adoptive sister, Kali. Again, I didn’t mind it, but it was the show’s worst-reviewed episode until Episode 7 of Stranger Things 5. This despite Kali eventually returning. Bottle episodes aren’t always the answer.

The bigger issue with modern shows are that they’re shot and filmed like elongated movies. That’s not inherently bad, anime’s been doing this for decades, but with that comes lengthy production times, long gaps in-between seasons and swelled budgets. I liked all of Stranger Things, but there’s no denying the aforementioned didn’t help. Some of it was inevitable, especially with COVID-19 and the concurrent strikes in Hollywood, but the longer gaps and bigger spectacles made the show a juggernaut it couldn’t live up to. That’s why so many people felt let down by its finale.

Arguably the biggest concern is that finales are hard to execute well. They’re hard to do poorly too, but finishing something that’s supposed to wrap up multiple seasons in a satisfying manner isn’t always successful. It’s why there are so many piss-poor endings to otherwise fantastic shows. And even if they pull it off, there will be disappointed fans. That’s more noteworthy than a season having only 8 episodes.

I know my arguments won’t persuade many of you. I also know I’m one individual, and I have my biases too. Nevertheless, the complaints about length are overblown. There’s no set rule on how long a story has to be, it’s all case-by-case, so acting like there is feels dishonest. It also ignores the amount of work that goes into something. That needs acknowledging too.

If there’s any consolation, it’s that storytelling isn’t a science. It’s an art, and good storytelling reflects that. This is also true of TV, as that too is art. So if it resonates with people, that’s good. And it should be celebrated.

However, the reverse is also true. Ignoring how art, even bad art, isn’t easy to make, sometimes a good idea isn’t properly executed. Sometimes it even falls flat on its face, which is unfortunate. But sometimes the audience’s expectations are to blame, as we can demand too much based on our own theories and wants. That’s part of the problem, and no amount of additional episodes can fix that. We have to fix ourselves.

So yes, by all means challenge yourselves with new stories. And don’t be afraid to express yourselves even if these stories don’t properly coalesce. But remember that storytelling in any medium, especially TV, isn’t easy. Plenty can go wrong at any point, and that includes having unrealistic expectations based on what you’ve seen prior. The sooner we recognize that, the better off we’ll be, number of episodes in a season be damned!

Alternatively, you can ignore me and keep complaining when a show “fails to stick the landing”. It’s your choice!

Misunderstanding George Orwell

George Orwell is one of my favourite authors. Not only did he write two of my all-time favourite books, Animal Farm and 1984, his prose has also had a profound impact on my writing style. I frequently find myself referencing him subconsciously, as he’s that compelling. I don’t say that about many respected authors, especially overexposed ones. He’s that good.

That said, a lot of people misrepresent him. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Orwell is one of those authors The West knows through osmosis, yet so many miss the point of. And it’s a bipartisan issue. Because while Orwell’s popular, enough to have a term named after him, he clearly had a vision not many people appreciate. Which is a problem.

George Orwell lived in England during the middle of the 20th Century. A soldier during the Franco War, Orwell’s time in battle had a profound impact on him. He was a Marxist, but he was incredibly critical of extremism. And this was apparent in his writing, such that his two most-famous novels can be read as commentaries on Marxist-Communism. I think that gets overlooked.

What’s additionally overlooked is his anti-authoritarian outlook. Orwell was no fan of Soviet Russia. Animal Farm was basically his scathing rebuke of The USSR. However, he wasn’t a fan of excessive government oversight generally. 1984, while taking place in England, was a warning about how governments control the flow of information. That’s not exclusive to left or right-leaning systems.

Why is Orwell misrepresented? I get why he’s beloved, his commentary hits home with many people, but he’s frequently misappropriated to suit a narrative: minorities having representation? Orwellian! The internet selling you something based on your search history? Also Orwellian! Both examples hold different degrees of weight, but they highlight how partisan the divide is.

I’m going to be perfectly honest: “Orwellian” as a term means something different entirely. Minorities having representation isn’t “Orwellian”, it’s equity. Search histories selling you stuff also isn’t “Orwellian”, it’s the byproduct of Free Market Capitalism. “Orwellian” is much darker and more disturbing. “Orwellian” involves government surveillance to suppress individual expression. That’s partnered with Authoritarianism, which is a problem in many countries.

I’ll use two contemporary examples. The first involves China. China gets plenty of undeserved flak from conservatives, but its government remains one of the last bastions of old-school Communism. China’s had many conflicts, and I’m not an expert on them, but the government suppresses information and personal autonomy. It’s not uncommon for individuals to go missing if they have too much influence, and criticizing government overreach, as with the Uyghurs, Tienanmen Square and Hong Kong, has led to violence and oppression. That’s “Orwellian”.

Another example is Iran. Iran’s modern history is a mess, but its 47-year rule by The Ayatollahs is a classic example of what Orwell was criticizing. Iran’s people are brutalized and oppressed for defying the state, and it’s not uncommon for there to be social media blackouts whenever there are civilian protests. This is also an issue because Iran’s government has been accused of having “sleeper cells” around the world. That’s also “Orwellian”.

Orwellian tactics aren’t exclusive to authoritarian regimes. Politicians who overstep for personal reasons, like Donald Trump, are also guilty of Orwellian behaviour, enough that it should be alarming. It doesn’t matter their political persuasion, it’s Orwellian. Because this behaviour suppresses individualism, which is what George Orwell was concerned about. It isn’t, however, disagreeing with someone on a sensitive issue. That’s not “Orwellian”, that’s “disagreement”.

I know what I’ve stated above is clouded by personal bias. I’m not immune to that, as much as it seems otherwise. However, people so frequently get blindsided by biases that they’re quick to call something that it isn’t. It’s not unlike reading into something that isn’t there, or claiming that a piece of media is an allegory for something when that doesn’t hold water. George Orwell’s writing is about government oversight, not individual oversight.

It also speaks to our polarized climate that we recognize some forms of Orwellian Authoritarianism, yet are oblivious to others. George Orwell’s commentary wasn’t about left or right, conservative or liberal. It was about Authoritarianism. It doesn’t hold political allegiances. I think that needs emphasis.

I know it’s tempting to romanticize foreign governments based on elementary-level understandings of how they operate. However, romanticizing them overlooks human flaws, or even ignores people. Because every form of government run by people has problems. Humans, by nature, are flawed and shortsighted, so it’s easy for power vacuums to turn into authoritarian regimes. This is what Orwell was commenting on, and it’s what gets overlooked in our partisan understanding of him.

So yes, definitely read George Orwell’s books. And definitely discuss them with others! But recognize that their messages resonate not for partisan reasons, but for bipartisan reasons. Being anti-authoritarian is healthy, but being selectively anti-authoritarian isn’t. This distinction will not only make you a more critical thinker, it’ll also make you more well-rounded. That, I think, is what Orwell was trying to achieve with his books.

I Choose You...Again!

There’s something quite special about the Pokémon franchise. It’s not even my favourite monster series of the mid/late-90s, and I’ve yet to enjoy a generation beyond Gen 1 consistently, but that doesn’t matter. Catching unique creatures, battling with them and leveling them up has worked for over 30 years now. And while the franchise has had solid spin-offs too, nothing compares to the core games. So it’s telling that I’d never played Pokémon FireRed or Pokémon LeafGreen, the first of the generational remakes, until the Switch 2. Having now played them, I’m glad I did.

These games are a (mostly) faithful retelling of the Gen 1 games. You select your character’s name and gender, name your rival, and are sent to Professor Oak’s laboratory for your starter Pokémon. You’re given the choice of a Grass starter (Bulbasaur), a Fire starter (Charmander), or a Water starter (Squirtle), and your rival automatically picks your weakness and challenges you to a battle. From here, Professor Oak tasks you with traversing Kanto to find as many Pokémon as possible. It’s a journey that includes fighting 8 Gym Leaders and battling The Elite Four, the latter of whom test your skills as the ultimate Pokémon trainer.

What starts as a faithful remake of Gen 1, with GBA visuals and minor tweaks, eventually halts for a side-quest in “The Sevii Islands”. These are introduced at Cinnabar Island, becoming compulsory post-game content needed to face Mewtwo. It’s here the game takes becomes a quasi-remake of Gen 2, complete with new Pokémon. This had me confused: sure, it’s nice seeing new areas, but why now? Why halt the main quest for something that only becomes relevant post-game?

I can’t bellyache too much. While The Sevii Islands feel like padding to take advantage of The GBA’s storage capabilities, they add an extra 10-15 hours to the game. The also shook up my muscle memory knowledge of Gen 1, forcing me to consult a guide online for the first time. Considering I know the map of Kanto inside-out, having played Pokémon Yellow for hours on end as a child, that’s a welcome surprise. It wasn’t pleasant looking up Moltres’s new location, or even detouring to Sevii to access Mewtwo, but it was extra content. Plus, it helped provide closure to Team Rocket’s disbandment after defeating Giovanni for the third time, something that’d always felt abrupt.

Moving onto the positives, the remakes’ tweaks make for welcome improvements. Among these include watching your Pokémon’s EXP increase in battle, something introduced in Gen 2. I remember being confused as to when my party would level up, so seeing the progress bar is helpful. It not only saves time checking each Pokémon’s EXP separately, it’s something to look forward to. I honestly can’t go back now.

Another tweak that’s welcome is running. Running wasn’t possible until Gen 3, and acquiring Running Shoes early on almost makes your bicycle redundant. I say “almost” because you still need a bike for a specific section of the over-world, one filled with unique trainers that also has a second Snorlax. Snorlax was always a tough fight, and encountering one with a bike makes it worth it. For the rest of the game, however, I prefer running.

The final tweak that works to these remakes’ advantage involves additional HMs. The original games had five reusable techniques-Flash, Cut, Fly, Surf and Strength-and the remakes add two more, Rock Smash and Waterfall, from Gen 2. They not only compliment a running in-joke about Geodudes hiding behind rocks, they make the time in Sevii worth it. I still think Flash is the most-useless HM, as it’s only necessary in one section, but I guess I can’t have everything…

The remaining tweaks are basically “your mileage may vary” choices. EXP All, which you acquire from an aid of Professor Oak, is now EXP Share, which I suppose makes it feel less cheap, but is a disappointment. Using an item that gives you double the reward money from a battle, assuming the Pokémon equipped gets used, is nice, but it’s not necessary. Even the Quick Claw, which allows your Pokémon to strike first in battle, feels tacked-on once you realize the game almost always prefers type advantage over leveling. Tweaks like these are nice in theory, but not always in practice.

Everything else is aesthetic. The remakes of Gen 1’s tunes are pleasant, and the over-world and battle animations add extra life. I appreciate that the game recaps your progress whenever you turn it on. And the post-game content has new areas to explore, which, like I said earlier, adds additional hours. All of this makes Pokémon FireRed and Pokémon LeafGreen a near-perfect blend of the familiar and the new, which is something veterans of Gen 1 will appreciate. I only wish these remakes of Gen 1 had telegraphed wild encounters, as I hate having the flow of the game interrupted by the 500th fight with a Lvl 9 Zubat. I don’t need to endure that…

"I Have Spoken!"

It’s no secret that I’m game for Star Wars, even bad Star Wars. This doesn’t mean I’m in love with everything, but even when I’m lukewarm I find something enjoyable. So it should come as no surprise that I adored The Mandalorian, even liking Season 3 a lot. And when it was announced that the show was getting a movie, titled The Mandalorian & Grogu, I was excited. Not even its critical reception could stop that.

Taking place in an undisclosed period, the movie finds our heroes accepting a mission from The New Republic. Din Djarin and Grogu head to Nal Hutta to find and rescue the late-Jabba’s kidnapped son, Rotta the Hutt, and subsequently uncover the whereabouts of a former Imperial officer. Unfortunately, Rotta doesn’t want to be rescued. Unlike his father, he prefers a life as a free agent. It’s only once he and Din realize there’s more at stake that they team up and uncover a coup within the Hutt family.

The best way to sum this movie up is to compare it to another movie based on a show. That’s right, this is to The Mandalorian what Cowboy Bebop: Knocking on Heaven’s Door was to Cowboy Bebop, in that it’s an extended TV episode. I say that as a positive and a negative. On the positive end, fans of the show, and even the franchise, will get a kick out of Din Djarin and Grogu on the big screen. On the negative end, there’s little here that couldn’t have been 3 or 4 episodes of the show.

Nevertheless, what we get is enjoyable in its own right. It might lack an elaborately-written story, but The Mandalorian & Grogu checks the boxes for anyone already sold on it: a bounty hunter doing bounty hunter stuff? Check. A tiny alien being cute? Check. Plenty of science-fantasy action only Star Wars delivers? You’d better believe that’s a check!

Perhaps the biggest selling point involves feeling like tangible Star Wars in a way not even the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy could. I liked those movies, even the finale, but there’s something about having a film in 2026 with stop-motion effects to make you feel like you’re in the 70s and 80s. Without spoiling anything, it’s something to behold. You wouldn’t even think of it because it’s so well-integrated. Considering that stop-motion’s almost always noticeable, that’s impressive.

Another element that makes this movie tick is actual puppets for some of the aliens. Grogu aside, there are instances where characters are either in suits, or are lifelike, miniature marionettes. That’s not to say there isn’t CGI for some of the monsters and set-pieces, but that tangibility gives this movie a lived in feeling that disappeared with The Prequels. I like that, even though I have nothing against CGI.

The movie’s score is incredible in its own right. Star Wars as a franchise is no stranger to great music, thanks largely to John Williams, but The Mandalorian & Grogu shows that other composers can bring their own flair too. Here, the movie brings back Ludwig Göransson from the show, and his motifs for Din specifically are spot on. It gets my blood pumping to hear the infamous, screechy riff when Din’s at his high point, showing that even amidst vulnerability, a Mandalorian is tough. It’s great.

But the best part about this movie is that it’s self-contained, with no end-credits teasers. I’m not against those, but not every movie needs them. This is also the first Star Wars feature in 7 years, and having a teaser would be weird. It’d be homework for a franchise that thrives on being in the moment, and the only backstory needed is the title crawl at the beginning. Besides, any and all necessary continuity is explained within the movie.

Not everyone will mesh with The Mandalorian & Grogu, which is fine. Not everything in the Star Wars franchise meshes with me either. But that’s okay. The movie isn’t boring, and there are plenty of great moments to keep people entertained. I know I found myself laughing and getting excited at the appropriate moments, which is more than enough to satisfy me. I hope it satisfies you too.

And yes, the Star Wars franchise has an issue with moving into new territory. We’ve seen that several times. However, that’s an issue with the fandom not letting the franchise be ambitious. It’s not a flaw with the franchise itself, especially considering its overall track-record with quality. If that bothers you I understand, but it doesn’t bother me as much as some would insist.

Ultimately, the real question is if The Mandalorian & Grogu is worth your time. If you liked The Mandalorian, you’ll probably like this. If you like Star Wars as a franchise, you might like this. But if you want a serviceable, light action movie that has tangible craft, then perhaps give it a chance. It won’t change your life, but you could do worse with 2+ hours.

This is the way, and I have spoken.

Black Betty Boop

One of the most left-field bits of news in animation lately involves the announcement of a Betty Boop reboot. While reboots of classic IPs aren’t new, especially with animation, the twist here is that Quinta Brunson of Abbott Elementary fame is heading it. Yes, a 1930s IP is getting new life with a black actress. Surely that’ll be universally praised, right? Right?!

Since film discourse is plagued with bigots, despite claims otherwise, I’ll nip this in the bud now and discuss the elephant in the room: Betty Boop isn’t real. She’s a fictional character meant for kids and horny men to frequent the theatres during The Great Depression. She basically appeared in 90 shorts between 1930 and 1939. That’s it.

I’m aware Betty Boop was influential in animation, enough that many characters would be inspired by her. But has Betty Boop been relevant for decades now? Better yet, how many people alive know who she is? And don’t mention her cameo in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? as a gotcha. That movie’s almost 40 years old, and it had Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse too. It’s also not the point.

Anyway, I don’t see this as a terrible idea. Betty Boop has been out of the cultural mindset long enough that reintroducing her could work. I’m not sure what kind of story could be told, but that’s why I’m not in Hollywood. And nor do I want to be. Regardless, I’m intrigued.

The “issue” will centre around race-swapping the character to match Brunson. As with any IP, the complaint will be that this is “cultural erasure” serving the “woke mind virus”. We’re seeing that with The Odyssey too. To that, I remind people that Betty Boop is fictional. She’s not a stand-in for a celebrity, so race-swapping her is fine. Especially when minorities are still underrepresented.

Ignoring that, wasn’t Betty Boop based loosely on black culture? I can’t verify this 100%, but I’ve read that her creators were inspired by a singer nicknamed Baby Esther. While Betty Boop’s design draws heavily from Jewish tropes, the Afro-centricity of her origins makes her a perfect candidate for Brunson. It’d also be interesting, especially if this movie takes place in the 1930s. The South had Jim Crow, but The North wasn’t exactly a saint either…

You know what else is worth mentioning? The racist caricatures of supporting characters. There are several instances of “Little Black Sambo” drawings in her shorts, and Betty Boop has engaged in cultural appropriation. In 1934’s “Betty Boop on Trial”, one of the characters even adopts blackface! But Brunson’s most-likely aware of this, so reinterpreting the IP might actually be good!

Outside of that, I find it upsetting and annoying that reinterpretations get slammed for race-swapping. We saw this with The Little Mermaid too, even though that remake’s problems had nothing to do with Halle Bailey. Simply put, people treat fictional IPs like gospel, and changing a character’s race is a crime. Equity be damned, how dare minorities get roles not meant for them? This is outrageous!

It’s here I ask that the complainers get a life. Betty Boop might not have originally been black, but there’s no rule saying she can’t be. Also, it’s not set in stone! This is one interpretation, much like how Velma was one interpretation of Velma Dinkley. The classic Betty Boop shorts, as well as any adjacent media, aren’t going anywhere. If you’re that bothered by a black Betty Boop, go watch them instead.

I also wonder why this is getting people riled up. Betty Boop hasn’t been culturally-relevant for almost 90 years. She’s not “dead”, even having an official VA, but as I said, when was the last time anyone cared about her? I only know of her because I like animation, and I haven’t watched her shorts. If you only became a fan of the IP now, then you need to grow up.

I know it’s a dramatic change to have a black Betty Boop. I also know it can be unsettling to those used to the status quo. But it isn’t worth spilling tears over, I promise. Not only is Brunson’s take not even out yet, we have no clue what the end result will be like. For all we know, it could be fantastic! However, in the event that it doesn’t come together, race-swapping won’t be why. We owe that much to Brunson.

Essentially, keep an open mind about this. Minorities regularly have an uphill battle with proper representation, or even any representation. And even when the end result is “bad”, it deserves to be on its own merits. There’s no reason we should be scrutinizing something because it’s race-swapped for a modern context. It’s not fair, nor right, to do that.

I think we should all take a step back and breathe. Betty Boop isn’t worth getting worked up over, and giving a unique take a chance could be beneficial. Or not, I don’t know. But we should be open to it. I promise you’ll be more fulfilled that way.

Or…you can continue whining about it. The ball’s in your court.

Batman & Superman

March marked the 10th anniversary of Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Plenty has happened since then. A month after releasing, I became an uncle. Since then, my niece has had two siblings, while my brother has moved cities. On a grander scale, we’ve seen three presidential switch-overs, as well as many wars. We’ve outed many sexual predators, leading to a rethinking of how power operates. And we’ve had a plague, one we’re still feeling the impact of.

10 years might not be a long time realistically, but a lot can make it seem that way. It also means enough time has passed to start reappraising panned entertainment, of which this movie qualifies. And while some reappraisals are beneficial, such as Avatar and the Star Wars Prequels, I’m not sure this movie qualifies. Because while not the first entry in The DCEU, it was clear something was wrong with this franchise, enough that WB would be bought and sold several times, careers would be ruined and the perception of DC superheroes would be tarnished.

Basically, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice was the beginning of a long exercise in The Sunk Cost Fallacy, where even the occasional bright spots couldn’t salvage it. It brings me no pleasure saying this, since I like DC. I actually like their heroes more than Marvel’s, as they speak to universalist themes. So when I say that The DCEU was a mess, and Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice was a red flag, that hurts. It hurts because I never wanted that, and because I like these characters. It also hurts because discussing this movie has been draining.

We’ve seen the jokes about YouTuber Bob Chipman over-obsessing about these movies, but he raises valid points. Aside from it being his job, this franchise is soul-sucking. Also, no one, unless they’re sadistic, enjoys trashing movies. I don’t enjoy trashing movies, hence why I’ve largely stopped! But The DCEU, specifically Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, is an unusual case in that its discourse is toxic through osmosis. I haven’t seen the movie in its entirety, though I’ve watched clips here and there, but I feel its awfulness. It’s like how, despite being Canadian, I feel the energy of The US.

There’s been plenty of conversation about what doesn’t work: the jar of piss. Batman being The Punisher. Superman and Batman’s fight ending on the revelation of both characters sharing their mothers’ names. The teases for The DCEU’s future films. Even how unpleasant the movie is. This has all been talked about to death, yet I doubt it covers a fraction of the frustration.

This isn’t mentioning its critical reception and the cultural impact it’s made. And yes, time heals plenty of wounds. But has it healed this one? It might not be toxic to discuss nowadays, but that’s where the positives end. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t draining.

You know what the biggest indicator is? Every superhero movie adjacent to the IP has thrown shade at it. We saw that with Alfred’s monologue in The LEGO Batman Movie about Bruce’s emo phases. We also saw that with Batman and Superman hugging over their moms being Martha in Teen Titans GO! To the Movies. That future DC films were embarrassed to be associated with Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is an indictment of its existence. Not even Deadpool’s that savage with The MCU.

I’m unsure what the future brings. While it’s easy to mock The DCEU, the world of entertainment is unpredictable. It’s possible the James Gunn-helmed DCU will one day bring back DCEU characters in the vein of Spider-Man: No Way Home, leading to reappraisals of Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice from even the most-diehard detractors. But until then, I don’t think time has been kind to this movie. I don’t even think it was kind initially.

Additionally, careers have been ruined and stalled because of The DCEU. Zack Snyder went on a hiatus following his daughter’s suicide. Joss Whedon’s career imploded with revelations about his behaviour. Both Jared Leto and Ezra Miller have been outed as creeps, with Leto becoming box-office poison and Miller checking into rehab. Even “normal” people, like Ben Affleck and Ray Fisher, have made it clear that their roles were detrimental to their mental health. You can’t sugarcoat any of this.

I’m unsure what else to say. I know Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, like any art, has its fans. As a fan of the Star Wars Prequels, I get it. I also understand that these fans will go to bat for it, as I have for the Star Wars Prequels. But while said prequels have glimpses of potential bogged down by poor execution, I don’t think Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice has that luxury. I doubt it ever will.

In the meantime, perhaps it’s best if I don’t think too hard about this movie. Yes, it’s old enough to enter middle school. And yes, it destroyed WB. But no, that doesn’t mean I’m itching to watch it. I’ve seen and enjoyed plenty of bad movies, for many reasons. But I’m in no hurry to even watch this for a first time. You can blame that on its legacy, and how it’s toxic to think about. I hope that’s enough.

About Melissa Barrera...

The situation surrounding Melissa Barrera’s exhausting. I say that not because she did anything wrong, or because her situation is unique. Plenty of celebrities have done and said worse, many without consequences. However, her becoming the poster child for Palestinian self-determination and being the “perfect victim of cancel culture” is aggravating as a Jewish person burned by isolation brought on from October 7th and the invasion of Gaza. But let’s backtrack, shall we?

Recently, Variety did an expose on Barrera’s comeback after being fired from Scream 7. I’ve already covered my thoughts here, so I won’t go into too much detail, but I’ll admit that David Ellison jumped the gun. It’s to be expected, yet the ripple effects led to a massive derailment the end result never recovered from. Barrera, apparently, was blacklisted, with her talent agent dropping her and roles drying up. In short, her outspokenness for Palestinians cost her.

Variety has done exposes like this on people before, some more controversial than Barrera. (They did one on Hasan Piker a while back.) However, their refusal to push back on spicy takes is a problem. And nowhere is this more-apparent than their expose on Barrera. She’s not a loose cannon on par with Piker, but some of her thoughts feel disingenuous.

Perhaps this is clearest with her thoughts on Israel and Gaza. I know that’s become hot button issue, even at the expense of other conflicts, but Barrera repeatedly referred to Gaza as “an open air prison” and tokenized Jewish historians who called out Israel. These aren’t red flags alone, but the tokenizing of Jewish voices, even if they’re correct, is a problem. Jews aren’t monolithic, and it’s important to get varied takes on conflicts they agree with. Unfortunately, as with Jonathan Glazer, that’s not happening.

Anyway, Variety also mentions co-star Jenna Ortega. Ortega resigned from Scream 7 in solidarity, but Barrera didn’t have anything nice to say about her. I originally thought she was simply reaching for sour grapes, yet the expose suggests that Ortega might not have been the ally I thought. Fair enough. I still think it was rude to throw her under the bus, though.

I’d like to push back on Barrera feeling “isolated” over her views, however. She mentions there’s a sexist double-standard in Hollywood surrounding politics, with her and Susan Sarandon not getting away with what Mark Ruffalo and Javier Bardem do. It’s true, but gender alone isn’t an excuse for bigotry. Ruffalo and Bardem have tangoed with Antisemitism before, whether willfully or unintentionally, and they’re not the allies I’d want to have. Especially Bardem, who made his presentation on Best International Feature Film about Palestine while ignoring how one of the movies was about the Iranian regime at this past year’s Oscars. That level of disconnect made many Iranian expats quite angry.

Outside of that, is Barrera not aware of what many Jews have felt for almost three years? Without chastising her specifically, Jews in and out of Hollywood have been attacked by gentiles for existing in public spaces. Some have also been murdered, with activists finding ways to cheer on their murderers in the name of “justice for Palestine”. It’s frustrating because many of those Jews do care about Palestinians. You wouldn’t know that from how they’ve been pushed out of progressive circles, though.

Speaking personally, life hasn’t been peachy. My synagogue was shot at early one Shabbat morning, hence I can no longer access the main entrance. Security has also ramped up significantly. I’ve been scared to have my yarmulke visible in public spaces, lest I become a target. And I’ve been recording the posters and graffiti on my Friday routes that’ve been spreading pro-Hamas or anti-Israel propaganda.

Whenever I mention this publicly, I’m gaslit and mocked. And yes, right-leaning Antisemitism’s dangerous, and many conservative pundits have been exploiting this uptick in vitriol for personal gain. I wasn’t born yesterday. However, at least they’re pretending to care. What’s your excuse?

Returning to Barrera, she mentions wanting to surround herself with pro-Palestinian voices from now on. What does that entail, I wonder? Will she box Hollywood talent into like-minded groups, weeding out those who don’t live up to her standards? Will she do extensive screening? And what’ll happen if said individuals disappoint her? Will she drop them completely?

Barrera’s remarks are a double-edged sword, made worse by the people she wants to work with. Susan Sarandon’s an obvious red flag, but Boots Reily wrote a dissertation online hand-waving Hamas’s Antisemitism. And Hannah Einbinder, who happens to be Jewish, signed a petition demanding The New York Times and other publications not document what Hamas did on October 7th. If Barrera wants me to feel bad about her, which I do, she’s not making a convincing case for herself here.

But that’s the problem: it’s easy to say that Barrera was wronged. I agree with that. It’s harder to sympathize with her going forward, though. Because remember, victims are people. And people often have flawed, unhelpful reactions to trauma.

I also don’t know if Barrera being the face of pro-Palestinian activism is a good idea. Palestinians have definitely received the short end of the stick, both from Hamas and Israel’s government, that much I can’t deny. But you can hear that directly from Palestinians, many of whom take issue with The West’s views on their government. Considering how celebrities co-opting a political cause also leads to gatekeeping, it’s something I’m not sure Barrera’s ready to deal with.

Does this mean she shouldn’t care about Palestinians? Of course not! I care about Palestinians, and I’m Jewish! But that’s being ignored because a Jew’s nuanced views on Israel isn’t something gentiles wish to hear. They see “Jewish” or “Israeli”, think “Zionist scum” and immediately disassociate altogether. That’s dehumanizing.

Perhaps I’m over-projecting my insecurities onto Barrera. I’m sure much of what I’m saying can be read into as such. However, this is a problem, and one that needs addressing. Because Israel isn’t going away. Nor are Jews. So while what’s happening in Gaza is horrendous, that reality should be acknowledged. I only hope Melissa Barrera understands this.

Streaming's in Peril?

Did you like Season 2 of Daredevil: Born Again? I did! I liked it more than Season 1, and I liked Season 1! And while it ended on an anticlimactic note, it clicked enough to be excited for Season 3. Because there’s definitely a Season 3 happening. The Wikipedia page confirms that.

Nevertheless, there was some disturbing news that recently surfaced. Luminate, which tracks analytics, revealed that Season 2’s viewership was down by almost half from Season 1. I won’t go into the details, you can read more here, but this is alarming for a series that’s been praised by critics and fans. Simply put, the audience is dwindling. That is worrying if you’re an investor, right?

I’d go on to spell out doom-and-gloom here, but I think an asterisk is necessary. Because it isn’t exclusive to this show. Streaming numbers are down all around, and it’s impacting everything. Basically, people are burnt out on streaming. That’s the real story here.

Which begs the question: what does it say about the landscape when the hot commodity’s drying up? Remember that “infinite growth” isn’t real. New formats and industries come and go constantly, and even within cycles there are ups and downs. However, since Disney recently gutted its home media division, that a Disney+ series isn’t showing the same returns is alarming. Is streaming in peril?

It’s also alarming because this is bleeding into movie releases. You know how The Mandalorian & Grogu is debuting at the end of this month? It’s already on track to under-perform financially. This is despite being the first Star Wars movie in 7 years. Not even the Sequel Trilogy did as poorly as this movie’s projected to. For a franchise that redefined the modern blockbuster in the 70s and 80s, that’s alarming. But that’s because audiences are so used to streaming they’re not in a hurry to see the movie on opening weekend.

This situation feels self-cannibalizing: physical media’s struggling, so people are turning to streaming. Streaming’s too expensive and oversaturated, so the audience retention’s dwindling. Even movies, once big events, are becoming less exciting as streaming’s catching up to theatres, and that in turn is making audiences hesitant to see new releases. Combine that with theatre tickets and concessions being expensive, as well as theatre experiences being less compelling, and-my God, that piece I wrote on Dune is getting too much exposure!

Nevertheless, this is a problem. I’m not anti-streaming, but shareholders in Disney+, Netflix and the like definitely need to adjust their expectations. It sounds harsh saying this, but growth isn’t forever. Sooner or later, your product will peak, plateau or diminish. In some cases, it might even disappear. That’s a sign for reinvention. As the saying goes, “adapt, or die”.

What now? I’m no stakeholder in Disney+, nor do I claim to be an expert, but I know that if a product’s peaking, that means its novelty’s wearing off. With Disney+, that couldn’t be clearer now. Does that mean investors should panic? Not necessarily. However, it does mean they need to be more realistic going forward.

Perhaps I’m biased because I’ve seen my own numbers plateau before. I’m fortunate that my Views are currently exploding, but that wasn’t always the case. There were months on end where I was struggling to get eyeballs on my work, and I still don’t know the secret to site traffic. But that’s okay. I’m writing this because I want to.

Now, does it suck when something I’ve worked on isn’t an immediate success? Yes. Do I wish some of my better pieces had gone viral? Again, yes. But since gaming the algorithm involves selling out, something I’m not comfortable with, I’ll take my successes wherever possible.

Not to toot my own horn, but shareholders in streaming, and those in theatres, should take a page from me. It sucks when investments plateau, but that’s not alarming. If anything, it’s an indication to keep making quality output. You might not get the gangbusters numbers you were hoping for, true. Yet many classics nowadays were initially “failures”. Life is like that.

As for Daredevil: Born Again? Be grateful it’s been well-received! And be grateful its second season is better than its first! Many shows lose steam over time, so that this is still relevant despite a viewership drop is a major accomplishment. Isn’t that what matters?

I can’t predict the future. I’m also terrible at reading trends. But while it’s disappointing that streaming isn’t the “forever cash-cow” investors were hoping for, that it’s done as well as it has for as long as it has is impressive! So much could’ve derailed it at any time, so that it’s maintained a level of consistency for this long is a testament to, at least for now, its staying power. I only wish we had options that weren’t needlessly-expensive or siloed to different platforms because of licensing agreements...

Basically, let’s not panic that Daredevil: Born Again has shed viewers. It was bound to happen, and I’d prefer quality output. I hope you do too.

LED the Way!

The most irritating aspect of film bro culture involves whining about old-fashioned film-making that went out of style: too much CGI nowadays? Practical stunt-work is often dangerous. Sex scenes are sterile? Many older ones were coercive. Digital film-making looks cheap? Real film-making is costly and erodes easily. But the complaint that bugs me most, enough that I’ve covered it before, involves lighting. Especially since I understand more about why modern films look “dull”.

Apparently, movies of the 1970s to 2010s used different lighting, thanks to old-fashioned light-bulbs. Once the world started using LEDs, and movies followed suit, the look of films changed. That shiny gloss we were accustomed to became what we have now. Makes sense, as LED bulbs are made differently. Unfortunately, many people started to notice, and they began complaining.

Here’s my counter-argument: grow up. Not only are LEDs cheaper, they’re more eco-friendly. While old-school light-bulbs had a certain feel, they also produced plenty of excess energy and heat. If you ever needed proof, recall what’d happen if you touched one by accident when it was on. Better yet, recall what’d happen if they came in contact with water. Old-school light-bulbs were “cool”, but they were also quite dangerous.

LEDs aren’t only less dangerous, they’re also more efficient. Yes, they give off “flatter lighting”. But if it means not burning or hurting myself, I’ll gladly take it. That matters more than if a movie lacks a classic feel. I’d hope that’d be common knowledge, but...

LEDs also aren’t as harsh on the eyes. Ever since I started wearing glasses, I’ve found that traditional light-bulbs jolt my retinas whenever they suddenly turn on. They also leave a glare that I still see for minutes afterwards. Much like the Sun, they even give me headaches when at full capacity. I don’t need that.

LED bulbs are easier to deal with. You can set the tint to any colour or brightness, but they don’t overwhelm my corneas. If that means they aren’t flashy, then guess what? It’s a trade-off I’m willing to make. That goes for films too.

Truthfully, this is the pettiest whining I’ve heard from film bros. And I’ve heard plenty! So what if films don’t look like conventional films? Modern movies also have sheens to compensate for digital film-making. Compare the original Indiana Jones movies to the most-recent ones. It’s as noticeable as the drop in the franchise’s quality.

I get it, you want to experience the films of yore, back when “movies meant something”. You want the pomp and circumstance of a simpler era. Sorry to burst your bubble, but life wasn’t simpler. You also have to stop living in the past. It’s that false nostalgia that’s led to many problems geopolitically.

You’re also not giving modern film-making enough credit. The barrier to entry is shrinking with each year, such that you can even make professional movies on smartphones. That wasn’t possible 20 years ago. Shouldn’t we be praising that? Why is it so scary?

There are definitely problems with the modern film industry. On the theatrical side, I’ve gone into depth about that in a previous piece. And I’m not alone! Steven Spielberg, Ryan Gosling and the CEO of Sony Pictures have all expressed similar frustrations as me about modern film-making! But they’re still engaging in the now. They’re doing it out of love for the industry, not to shamelessly project their insecurities onto it. I wish many film bros would do the same, however much it kills them emotionally.

Besides, old movies aren’t going anywhere! Sure, digital streaming has made preservation of media harder, which is depressing for many reasons, but older movies still exist. Many are even available physically for anyone to purchase, assuming that’s your jam! But for the love of God, stop complaining about newer movies! And stop complaining about their dull lighting! You sound old and cranky when you do that.

Here’s a rhetorical question for you: what does an ideal movie “look” like? I ask because people have different definitions of “ideal”, and no two responses are the same. But you know what? That’s okay! Movie consumption’s subjective, despite what I say here, lighting included. If you have a problem, you can always say so. I can’t guarantee I’ll be swayed, though...

Finally, we need to collectively recognize that the older ways have to stay in the past when they’re not working. Like the coercive sex scenes, dangerous stunt work and traditional film reels of yore, classic lighting should be acknowledged for the time period where it worked, not clamoured for in today’s day and age. It’s tough, but considering how ecologically-inefficient, and dangerous, old bulbs were, I’ll take the LED option any day of the week. We’re already doing a piss-poor job at stewarding the planet, enough that the future looks bleak for humanity, so take the wins wherever you can get them. I promise you won’t die sucking up your pride.