Wile E. Won

Every so often, life works out.

Take Coyote VS ACME, which almost didn’t see the light of day. I’ve written about it before, but the circumstances surrounding its release are as relevant as the movie. It was going to be a tax write-off, only to be shopped around and saved by Ketchup Entertainment. This wasn’t a minor “oopsie”, either: the film came close to not releasing, only doing so at the 11th hour. Like with James Gunn and Disney, this movie escaped death because people wanted it to happen.

It’s fitting because that’s emblematic of the movie. Coyote VS ACME is about Wile E. Coyote, who keeps failing at catching The Roadrunner, suing The ACME Corporation over their products. Initially, both Wile E. and his lawyer, Kevin, think little of the situation: Wile E. wants his prize, while Kevin’s a washed-up lawyer used to small settlements with ACME. However, as both of them do digging, they uncover a conspiracy spanning decades that has impacted hundreds of cartoons. It’s surprisingly deep and might even be this generation’s Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

I don’t say that lightly. Whereas that movie was an allegory for the dark underbelly of Los Angeles, this movie directly tackles the negligence of corporate deregulation. Given how modern Americana has suffered because of deregulation, that a studio movie was brave enough to discuss this is gutsy. It might even be too gutsy! But that’s a whole other can of worms.

What makes this movie compelling is that, despite being angry, it has an immense love for its material. Coyote VS ACME doesn’t hate the Looney Tunes, but rather how Warner Bros. has mishandled them. These were the gems of the studio until the 1970s, but in recent decades no one’s known what to do with them. As a result, they’ve starred in a string of ambitious and not-so-ambitious flops, including Space Jam: A New Legacy a few years ago. This movie’s commenting on that, and it isn’t hiding it.

It’s telling that Warner Bros. almost shelved it. It’s equally telling that the movie’s tracking to make double its budget at the box-office. Considering word-of-mouth movies don’t always equate to successes, for this to do well financially because of fans is welcoming. It shows that sometimes we see positive outcomes, however rare they are. I should applaud that.

It helps that the commentary has real teeth. It argues that even if cartoon characters “tolerate pain”, that doesn’t make it right. Because it can cause them psychological damage, as we see throughout the movie. It’s something you don’t think about until you make the real-world parallels to minority injustices. Sure, marginalized groups might “tolerate their abuse”, but do they really? Or are they pretending and putting on a brave face?

I can’t help relating to this personally. Jews, particularly American Jews, were subjected to Antisemitism for centuries, and many were forced to blend in. Even after WWII, they fought for acceptance and integration, possibly at the expense of their unique identity. They might’ve integrated too well, such that we’re now witnessing a wave of extreme backlash and resentment over it. In that sense, Jews are The Looney Tunes.

Soapbox aside, this movie’s commentary is exactly what’s needed right now. The amount of corporate neglect is prescient, and distrust of the power structure’s at an all-time high. This correlation isn’t accidental, either: decades of cutting corners in the name of a quick buck has led to this. And attempts at whistle-blowing by individuals in the corporate world have resulted in legal and fatal consequences, something the movie comments on. It doesn’t hold back, and I welcome that.

It helps that this movie’s really funny. Whether it’s reworking classic tunes with Looney Tunes-centric spins, or using cartoon slapstick to generate laughs, this movie has no shortage of wit. I remember laughing out loud quite frequently, which says something since I find slapstick humour to be a cheap form of comedy. But it works. Against all odds, it works! And part of that is because the cartoon characters are treated with respect.

Does that mean everything about the movie flows? No. Aside from small quibbles here and there, the animation style is more CGI than conventionally-drawn. It has the illusion of traditional animation, but you can spot the difference. I genuinely think going the extra mile to draw the characters by hand would’ve added an additional layer of charm. I say that because they’re voiced by real voice actors, as opposed to celebrities.

There are many movies with plenty of hype that I’ve had different reactions to. Some, like Mad Max: Fury Road, I didn’t think were worthy of their praise. Others, like the animated ventures from Phil Lord and Chris Miller, were absolutely worthy of their praise. Coyote VS ACME falls in the middle, though closer to the latter thanks to its release history. Ironically, in an attempt to get rid of it, it was made more relevant. For that reason alone I’d recommend it.

Above all else, this is proof that, like I said earlier, life sometimes works out. Because it did here, and we should applaud that. It’s a shame other ventures won’t see the light of day because of similar write-offs, but at least it worked to the public’s advantage here. So celebrate. And Warner Bros. should be ashamed of themselves, even if I doubt they care.

Boys on Trial

I have no interest in watching The Boys. I had no interest in watching it before it finished syndication, either. For one, it was on a streamer I don’t have. And two, its brand of edgy, “aren’t superheroes obnoxious?” humour doesn’t interest me. I don’t say because I like superheroes, although I do, but because tearing down something simply because it’s popular doesn’t feel good. Besides, Alan Moore did it better.

So we’re clear, I’m not putting down anyone who legitimately likes this show. Finale aside, the people involved really did care, and one of the actresses, Erin Moriarty, was fantastic as Hope Shlottman in Season 1 of Jessica Jones. My issue is about its satire. I also think it’s brought out the worst in its fans, such that Moriarty was harassed online a while back. But I digress.

The idea that “popular = bad” is something this show’s thrived on in excess. This is most-exemplified in Homelander, who’s basically Superman/Captain America if he was self-obsessed and annoying. Homelander’s whole deal is that people love him to cult-like degree, even though none of it’s warranted. He revels in the spotlight to avoid accountability for his behaviour, which includes murdering people. I know people revere Superman and Captain America in real life, but not because they’re cynical, self-obsessed man-babies. It’s because they represent the best in humanity, however hard that is.

I’ll use the latest Superman movie to illustrate this. Yes, it has people interrogate him as the genuine article, and he makes occasionally-brash decisions, but Superman only behaves that way because he believes in people. He even tries stopping a genocide, despite doing so aggressively. Superman isn’t about the glory, he’s a boy scout, and Homelander tearing that down is mean-spirited. The same can be said for Captain America, who tries being his nation’s best and doesn’t blindly accept its actions.

Another issue I have with The Boys is its call-outs of superhero culture, specifically The MCU. There’s plenty wrong with The MCU, as there is with Disney. But believing it’s wrong for superheroes to be popular because “superheroes” ignores how even soulless corporations can make good, relevant art. The MCU’s mass-produced media, but it tackles themes like blind patriotism, race relations, familial abuse and the limitations of justice. These are all important in this day and age, however you feel about the movies.

The Boys isn’t content with letting these messages resonate, instead tearing down the movies and shows because it feels they’re tacky or shallow. This is best-exemplified by its scathing parody of “Don’t worry…he’s got help!” in The Avengers: Endgame. It’s silly to have every superheroine in The MCU show up in a single shot to help Spider-Man…but does it matter if it’s pandering to female audience members? The moment is fun, the characters get to shine and it’s genuinely exciting seeing them together. It might be “cynically-driven”, but who cares? The Boys did, with its parallel being included because one of its writers thought it was lame. I genuinely think that’s done real harm in popular culture discourse.

However, that’s this show. Never mind the irony of a superhero series failing to self-interrogate, The Boys is content with coasting on tearing down joy associated with superheroes. I don’t like that. I don’t mind dark and edgy when done well, but a little whimsy and joy goes a long way. The world’s cruel enough without genuine moments of wonder being mocked.

I also think the energy this show gives off encapsulates what’s wrong with the internet. You know that stereotype of the internet being loud, whiny and needlessly angry? That’s the vibe here. I see enough terminally-online nonsense on social media without a superhero show adding to that. I’d tell this series to go outside and touch grass, but I doubt it’d help. And that’s unfortunate.

Look, my time is precious. I can only stomach so much negativity before it starts weighing me down. It’s why I Unfollowed a popular anime reviewer on Twitter years ago, as, among other problems, he didn’t know how to not be condescending about popular entertainment. I don’t need that, so I cut my losses. I don’t regret it, either.

This series feels like that, but on a grander level. And yes, there are ways to criticize superhero entertainment. But it requires self-introspection, which I don’t think The Boys does. Or if it does, it’s minimal and ineffective. Basically, it needs to try harder.

And as for the internet’s adoration in general? Far be it for me to piss on your fun, but I think the unpleasant and snarky behaviour surrounding this series isn’t helpful. The world is a mess right now, and people need outlets for harmless escapism. Superheroes, whether you like them or not, are one such outlet, as they shine a mirror on societal woes and eradicate them with kindness and decency. If that bothers you, then I guess you’re part of the problem. I’m not sorry in the slightest for calling that out.

Sony's Doing What?!

Physical media has always been important to me. It’s why I have a library of movies and games, and why I was hesitant to adopt streaming initially. It’s also why I try balancing physical purchases with digital ones. There’s nothing like having direct ownership of something, especially since digital licenses aren’t indefinite. And now my biggest concern, having to renew purchases constantly, is becoming reality.

Sony recently announced they were discontinuing physical purchases in early-2028. This isn’t exactly “new”, the industry’s been moving toward digital only for a while, but it feels like a decision that won’t bode well. I’m not alone on that, as many corporate accounts have been throwing shade on social media. It makes sense, as the reasoning Sony gave was pretty shortsighted. Truthfully, I feel like ripping on it too.

Let’s look at what Sony said. On July 1st, they made the following announcement: 

“As consumer preferences and the broader entertainment industry continue to shift away from physical discs to digital, physical game disc production for all new games releasing on PlayStation consoles will be discontinued starting January 2028. Following this date, new games will be available on PlayStation Store and at retailers in digital formats only. This transition has no impact on games that already released, or will be releasing, prior to January 2028 in disc format.

This is a natural direction for Sony Interactive Entertainment to adapt to consumer trends as the general preference for digital media significantly outpaces physical discs. This transition will enable us to align more closely with how most of our community prefers to access and play games today.

We’ll continue to prioritize our resources to drive innovation in how players can access games and provide choices as to where players prefer to purchase new games, whether that’s at retailers or PlayStation Store. We remain committed to delivering a world-class gaming experience to our fans and we thank you for your continued support.”

At first glance, this doesn’t sound bad: physical game discs won’t be produced, but there are digital kiosks for those interested. Unfortunately, receiving a download code for a kiosk is a waste of a trip. Why schlep to a store if you can buy the game online from your console directly? Considering people usually don’t go out to buy downloads, this isn’t a great use of resources. I know I wouldn’t go myself.

It’s also not good for interacting with people. Half the fun of buying or renting a video game has always been chatting with reps and customers about what’s worth checking out. Yes, sometimes you can be taken advantage of. But even then, the benefits of socializing outweigh the risks of scams. Especially since video games aren’t cheap.

By saying that future games will only be digital, you’re removing that experience altogether. That sucks. It sucks because it’s limiting options, and because it’s minimizing socialization. It also sucks because it cheapens the ownership that comes with physical games. That’s the worst part.

Sony going digital won’t stop at Sony. These decisions never do. We’re seeing game development studios be shuttered because higher ups don’t feel the space they occupy matters, and programmers are being let go as a result. Digital only will exacerbate that further, as now Sony can cut the middleman and further reduce overhead. It’s not like Sony’s bleeding that drastically, especially given what they make outside of video games, so this is sketchy.

This decision parallels that of other companies as well. Disney in particular comes to mind. They recently laid off their home media division, forcing people to rely on Disney+. And yes, Disney+ has a great backlog, no doubts about that. But if something happens and Disney+ shutters, their output disappears forever. No amount of scouring for older prints of shows or movies will change that.

I’ve heard this will increase rates of piracy. I have my own issues with piracy, many of which I won’t discuss, and the biggest involves how relying on it for authentic media isn’t so clear-cut. I remember when I pirated Paper Mario in high school, and how the ROM kept crashing. I had to wait for it on the Wii’s Virtual Console, and I prefer how clean its emulation is. I also purchased that with real money.

Piracy’s a band-aid solution, and not even a great one. Ignoring how Crunchyroll started as an anime pirating site, piracy relies on a clean source code. And that’s not always feasible, especially when files risk corrupting. I experienced this with a Blog series I wrote for ScrewAttack, and that was text! I can’t imagine how annoying a full-on game getting messed up is!

So yes, piracy’s not the answer. And it doesn’t factor in how easy it is for companies to issue take-down notices over copyright infringement, all while not taking accountability over games being inaccessible. Because they shouldn’t be inaccessible. Entertainment exists to help people temporarily retreat from the harshness of reality, and gatekeeping that is ghoulish and cowardly. It’s ghoulish because it prices people out of hobbies, and it’s cowardly because there are better long-term investments with physical media. At least give people options!

Also, what does Sony have to gain long-term? Like with forcing A.I. on consumers, companies might get a temporary boost in revenue, but only temporary. It doesn’t guarantee indefinite growth, especially when that doesn’t exist. Nor would it here, since emulation’s often finicky. I can’t stress this enough.

Besides, physical media’s making a comeback. And in surprising ways. Vinyl aside, there’s a reason physical copies of media aren’t decreasing in price anymore, and it’s because people like actually owning them. I say that knowing physical media can wear out too, as evidenced by VHS tapes stretching and DVDs getting scratched. But that’s better than a license to rent something that might not work and can get snatched away without warning.

It’s times like these where being a Nintendo fan comes in handy. Yes, their hardware and software isn’t cheap. And yes, their physical games are often download codes. But at least they have physical media. At least I can go to a retailer, talk to an employee and buy something based on recommendations. That’s more than I can say for Sony come 2028, assuming this goes through.

In the end, I’m not happy with this decision from Sony. I think it’s short-sighted on their part, and I hope it comes back to bite them. I also hope they don’t go through with this decision. Because they make good video games, and it’d be a shame letting that go to waste. I’m sure I’m not alone on this, which is why I’m writing about it.

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?

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.

Disney's Mass Lay-Offs

I’m not sure if you noticed, but Disney recently laid off 1000 people.

This is my issue with At-Will Employment. I know it’s effective in removing bad employees, especially when they drag down production, but there’s no long-term job security guaranteed for anyone. Additionally, many of those who were fired had been there for over a decade, even helping to shape divisions like Marvel and Pixar. In fact, one person even mentioned that he was fired in front of a Loki mural he’d created. Talk about irony!

It sucks because I was defending Disney’s decision to axe a live-action Robin Hood remake a month ago. In that, I said the following about the company’s new heads: 

“…It’s possible they’ll disappoint, especially since they have to appease shareholders, but this is a step in the right direction…”

I didn’t expect Disney’s new CEO, Josh D’Amaro, to disappoint me this quickly! However, he did. It’s as if he took everything people were frustrated with Bob Iger over, particularly cost-cutting, and fast-tracked it. It’s even more harrowing when you consider that Disney laid off their home media division, which means they’re most-likely not going to have physical media releases anymore going forward. Smooth.

It’d be easy to point the finger squarely at Disney here, but this problem has been plaguing Hollywood for some time. Between financial straits, the rise in streaming and A.I., grunt workers are always the first to get squeezed. It doesn’t help that WB being purchased by Paramount indicates a lack of government oversight, especially given Paramount’s CEO’s attitude about Hollywood in general. We already saw that with the Scream franchise…

I’m getting off-track here. While it sucks that Disney laid off 1000 employees, it shouldn’t be surprising. Like I said, At-Will Employment allows for this! It also doesn’t guarantee job security, and you’d be foolish thinking otherwise. So while I wish those impacted the best, I’m not shocked. I’m frustrated, but not shocked.

You know what sucks more? The people at the top won’t be impacted. In a healthy work environment, the CEO would take pay cuts to retain workers. That’s what Nintendo did when the Wii U wasn’t panning out financially. However, loyalty to your employees isn’t something that exists in The West, so perhaps that’s unfair to mention. I wish it weren’t, though.

I wouldn’t be as annoyed if businesses didn’t consider their employees disposable. Yes, A.I. might seem like a good choice right now. And yes, cost-cutting is a real concern. But that shouldn’t mean gutting people who made you what you are. Disney didn’t become successful based on the decisions of one or two people. They became a juggernaut because of the grunt workers who brought their voices to the table, each and every one. Be it designers, marketers or idea people, these individuals all contributed. Letting them go like this, even if they’re going to be hired now on a per-need basis, is a slap to the face.

So what now? I don’t know. Disney’s made interesting creative decisions since this development, including re-releasing several classics in ASL, but that’s not enough to turn a blind eye. If anything, it feels like a distraction. And while it’s nice to see “We Don’t Talk About Bruno” in sign language, however difficult it must’ve been to animate, it leaves a bitter taste considering many of the people involved aren’t employed by Disney anymore, going by the timeline of this announcement.

It feels like I’m rambling here, but it’s only because I like Disney’s output. They’ve made and released some of my favourite movies, and they know how to weather storms. Buying and bankrolling The MCU has benefited that franchise immensely, and their investment in Star Wars has mostly paid off. Which is all the more reason why this sucks. Considering we won’t see the long-term impacts of these firings for several years, I also shudder to think what’ll happen creatively for them.

I’m not running a corporation, I get it. I don’t have to listen to shareholders breathing down my neck. But it’d be nice if the higher ups treated grunt workers with respect. Perhaps some are worth firing, but 1000 of them? And with short notice? Could there not have been one-on-one evaluations of their performances before making this decision? Or would that have been costly?

This’d also be less irritating if A.I. weren’t such a hot topic in Hollywood nowadays. I know it’s enticing, truly! But getting rid of people for it isn’t the answer. It’s also not cheaper, as we’re now learning. Besides, why fire someone and replace them with something that doesn’t create?

Disney, specifically D’Amaro, has lots of explaining to do. It’s possible D’Amaro’s the better choice to succeed Iger than Bob Chapek, especially given how that panned out, but this isn’t a good start. Companies act as though people are replaceable, and they might be, but this isn’t the answer. Especially since human labour’s the lifeblood of a corporation, whether they want to acknowledge it or not. I only hope Disney doesn’t learn this the hard way…

They're About WHAT?!

I was initially going to discuss Disney laying off 1000 employees. I still want to at some point, but something else came up that was more pressing. Jonathan McIntosh, host of YouTube channel Pop Culture Detective, released a short video on a left-field topic. In it, he discussed the possibility that both Superman and Zootopia 2 are Palestine allegories. I’m as shocked as you are.

I don’t mind McIntosh’s work. Like Anita Sarkeesian, he holds a valid space in pop culture discourse. I don’t agree with everything he says, but every so often he posts something that gets me thinking. I’ve even mentioned one of his videos in another piece. So what I’m about to say isn’t a critique of him in general.

That said, he’s reaching.

Honesty time: Palestinian self-determination matters. For as much as Palestinians have gotten the raw end of the deal, they’re human and deserve the same basic dignities as other humans. I don’t consider them monolithic either, and there are voices within their ranks worth listening to. However, The West has largely used them as pawns to further their own goals. And nowhere is this more-apparent than the aforementioned claim.

When you stop and think about them, even for a minute, the parallels fall apart. For Superman, which I’ve covered before, the people of Jarhanpur being Palestinian stand-ins, while cute, doesn’t work because they could be any number of minority groups screwed by neighbouring powers: Armenians and the Turks. Rohingyas and Myanmar. Indians and Pakistanis and the British Empire. The list goes on.

Boravia doesn’t fit neatly with Israel, either. Yes, Benjamin Netanyahu sucks, preferring to flex his ambitions over leading his people. And yes, Israel’s an American ally. But Boravia’s leader isn’t a 1:1 parallel, since Israel, while badly carrying it out, didn’t invade Gaza for no reason. It did so to eliminate Hamas and prevent another October 7th.

Zootopia 2’s parallels fall even flatter. For one, Israel wasn’t built on “stolen land”. Jews lived there for millennia, predating Palestinians. And two, the situation between Israel and Palestine is a byproduct of European interference, notably Britain and The USSR. Britain chopped up what they acquired from The Ottomans haphazardly, completely ignoring the people living there already. Meanwhile, The Soviets were willing to weaponize Arabian nationalism against the Jews as “punishment” for not living up to their Socialist ideals, even creating the Palestinian identity.

This isn’t to diminish the power imbalance between Israelis and Palestinians, particularly regarding settler violence. Nor do I wish to diminish how Israel’s current coalition has passed laws making the lives of Palestinians unbearable. This is real, serious and worth addressing. But claiming that Israelis “stole the birthright of” and “exiled” Palestinians misses how the Palestinian leadership has thrown them under the bus repeatedly. Not to mention, Palestinians have been persecuted by Israel’s neighbouring countries for roughly as long as Israel’s been independent.

I haven’t even mentioned how the Palestinian leadership isn’t the peaceful entity people believe. And yes, “The Death of the Author” is real. But so is reading into what isn’t there. It might feel good to make these parallels, but unless they hold up to scrutiny, they’re essentially head-canons. They’re not reality.

The parallels between Season 3 of The Mandalorian and the Jewish struggle in history are weightier anyway. Think about it: an exiled creed of warriors fight to reclaim their ancestral homeland from an imperial army. Sound familiar? I can go on all day here with examples, but it’d be redundant. Especially when I’ve already done that.

However, even those parallels have holes, particularly in how Mandalorians serve as mercenaries. Comparing them to Jews on that front sells Jews short. Besides, Star Wars, like Superman and Zootopia 2, is fiction. It might have real subtext, but that’s good storytelling. It’s not an absolute parallel.

By making flawed parallels like this, you not only miss the actual text, you also miss how the text can represent other conflicts too. Because that’s the beauty of fiction: it doesn’t have to be about a specific event. It can be about many, vastly different events. By rooting fiction in a specific event, you inevitably date it. Unless that’s what you’re going for…

I want to circle back to a specific point McIntosh brings up: that anyone calling out these reads is a conservative reactionary. That’s false. It’s actually offensive that he’d insinuate that, as Jewish history isn’t “inconvenient” when it doesn’t fit a narrative. History can’t be boiled down that way. McIntosh should know better, and I’m disappointed.

I know Palestinian identity gets the short end of the stick, even now. And I know people have gotten in trouble for expressing solidarity, whether legitimately or illegitimately. But geopolitical conflicts, particularly ones with history, can’t be boiled down to “right and wrong”. It’s reductive, and it’s a Western way of avoiding accountability for adding fuel to the fire. It also ignores nuance. So please, try to do better. I promise you’ll understand the world more effectively.

As for Jonathan McIntosh? I’ve said my piece. He’s entitled to feel what he feels, and I don’t begrudge his analysis. But he’s really off-base. That doesn’t mean I won’t watch his videos, but perhaps he’s bitten off more than he can chew here? I think so.

When Heroes Age...

One of the difficulties of serialization is the passage of time. On one hand, franchising’s profitable and allows for multi-film storytelling. On the other hand, actors age. And while Hollywood tries slowing down and reversing aging, making it a multi-billion dollar industry, you can only delay it so much. Additionally, the camera doesn’t lie, and audiences take note.

In recent years, there’s been an attempt to try and work around this. Known as “the legacy sequel”, these movies use stars aging as a way of passing the mantle to newer, younger generations. However, like any gamble, it doesn’t always pay off. And sometimes it can be divisive, as in the case of two IPs with entries released in The 21st Century. They’re also Lucasfilm IPs that purchased by Disney that’ve accrued massive backlash because of decisions fans have deemed “incorrect”. But is that backlash warranted?

The first of these franchises is Star Wars. Ever since Disney purchased it in 2012, it was inevitable that they’d milk the property for all it’s worth. It makes sense, as Star Wars has plenty of potential for serialization. However, there were early growing pains here. And nowhere was that more apparent than in The Sequel Trilogy spanning from 2015 to 2019.

I don’t need to go too in-depth here. Despite two of the entries being critical darlings, longtime fans remain divided. This division centred on many areas, but chief among them was Luke Skywalker. Luke, according to canon, had become a hermit who rejected The Force after failing Ben Solo and accelerating his turn to The Dark Side. When Rey attempted to have him confront The First Order, Luke was resistant and resentful. It was only after a conversation with Force Ghost Yoda that he projected his essence, apologized to his nephew and faced down The First Order.

While a unique and bold take on the “elder mentor” trope, many fans weren’t happy. Some considered it a “betrayal of what Luke Skywalker stood for”, claiming Disney had “murdered Star Wars”. I definitely think it’s dark and risky, but it does fit in with Luke’s human side. After all, Luke in the original films wasn’t flawless. He was whiny for two whole movies, even confronting Darth Vader before he was ready and losing his hand. And while he matured for the finale, he also snapped and nearly killed Vader because Vader had threatened to harm Leia.

Essentially, Luke wasn’t the pariah people remember him as. This is especially true because Luke didn’t even end up trying to murder Ben. He felt the urge, let it pass, and was unfortunate enough to have Ben sense it. It was a moment of weakness, and a failure of restraint, but it, while clunky, adds layers to his confrontation with The First Order and ultimate redemption. Isn’t that what good character writing’s about?

I know I’ll probably get crap for saying this, but this backlash, aside from being partially walked back with the next film, led to the Darktrooper hallway fight in The Mandalorian. That’s a fun moment, showcasing Luke’s strength in his prime, but it’s not new for Luke. It’s not new period, being a retread of Darth Vader’s massacre at the end of Star Wars: Rogue One. And while it’s cool to see Luke fight enemies not even Dinn Djarin could take on, the lack of new material is concerning. Why are we opposed to Old Man Luke being a regretful hermit, yet find this exciting?

I like Disney’s Star Wars content. I like Star Wars in general, even when I’m lukewarm on it. Jedi Master Luke Skywalker massacring Darktroopers is fun, and on some level satisfying. But Old Man Luke Skywalker going from jaded mentor to Crait hero is more fun, because it’s grounded in character growth. It also allows Mark Hamill to flex his acting chops in an age-appropriate manner. Because he’s getting older.

On the flip side, there’s Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, which I watched for this piece. I’ve made known my thoughts on the Indiana Jones movies before, but this installment, more than any other entry, tackles how its star is getting older. Harrison Ford was 81 years old when it debuted, and Indy’s age is a primary focus. The film even uses de-aging technology for the flashback scene in the beginning. Said flashback doubles as the opening act.

I won’t discuss the Uncanny Valley aspect of seeing a young Harrison Ford with an older Harrison Ford’s voice. Plenty of more accomplished individuals have done that justice. However, tying in Ford’s advanced age in general with a commentary on Indiana Jones was wise. Without sounding too ageist, there are some stunts Ford can’t do anymore. That’s not to diminish how much he loves this character, but he needs to acknowledge his limitations.

Perhaps the best example is when he and his goddaughter, Helena Shaw, are climbing a cliff and Indy starts complaining. He states that he has a metal plate in one leg and screws in the other. He also points out that Helena is “half his age”, a subtle jab at youthful vitality. Here, the film interrogates if Indiana Jones still has what it takes. Should he persevere, or hang up his hat?

This movie would’ve been a great vehicle for Helena, but there’s a problem: she’s not likeable for most of it. She flip-flops between two modes: smarmy know-it-all, and obnoxious show-off. I don’t blame her actress for this, either. Phoebe Waller-Bridge co-wrote No Time to Die, and she was great as L3-37 in the Star Wars franchise. She does her best here, but she can’t save the character. Not even in the finale, where she and Teddy are forced to play hero.

It’s a shame because the movie isn’t even that bad. It lacks some of the franchise’s more overtly-racist overtones, and director James Mangold definitely cared while making it. Considering Steven Spielberg has admitted that his heart wasn’t really in it with the previous entry, that passion’s an asset. But it’s not enough. Not when your co-lead isn’t fun for most of your runtime.

The blame doesn’t lay on Harrison Ford either. Despite his age, he clearly still cares. But people picking on Ford’s age, especially when he’s not ready to give up the mantle, is a problem. De-aging software’s getting better every day, but is it enough? And will it ever give the authentic performance of a real actor?

I know the solution for many people is to do what Star Wars did: have a younger actor as a stand-in, then graft Ford onto the body. After all, punching Nazis is entertaining! But while this sounds fun superficially, it rings hollow and might even be objectionable. Because getting older is interesting. Staying youthful forever, however, isn’t.

If an actor wants to age out of a character, it should be their decision. Let them leave naturally, as opposed to CGI continuing it indefinitely. Because the audience knows. Executives can claim otherwise, but you can’t fake authenticity. It doesn’t matter how much digital makeup you cake on.

That’s really the dilemma here: what’s the appropriate way to be respectful to aging action stars? Better yet, what’s the appropriate way to be respectful to aging actors, period? People don’t live forever, and part of the fun of life is growing older. Besides, the character of Peter Pan, while beloved, was meant as a cautionary tale. Unfortunately, many people don’t heed that warning. And it’s a shame.

If all else fails, I guess Blade Runner 2049 shows how to properly tackle this approach. Seriously, give it a watch. It’s that good! And if you’re disappointed? Well, at least it respects its aging star, right? I think so.

Disney's SoraAI Fiasco

I wasn’t a fan of Disney’s SoraAI deal. I know they’re a mega-corporate entity, and merchandise is part of why, but using consumer-driven slop for profit feels cheap. After all, they’re not a person! And there isn’t an equal relationship here! Why implement it at all?

Well, they didn’t. As you’ve no doubt heard, Disney cancelled their partnership with SoraAI. Not temporarily, not for an undisclosed period, permanently. I’d quip about Disney and an open flame, but that’s too on-the-nose. Especially since they knew the risks well in advance. It’s not like A.I. started being an issue yesterday.

Let’s get something clear (again): I’m not anti-A.I. It has its place, and it can be beneficial in specific instances. However, like with automation, there needs to be a balance. It should coexist alongside people, and it can’t make humans obsolete. Unfortunately, generative A.I. programs, like SoraAI, are doing that. And given the energy they use to operate, as well as the environmental costs, they’re not a wise investment.

I know I’ll get push-back for saying that. Somehow, some A.I. enthusiast will read this, get annoyed and try persuading me that I’m wrong. It happened when I bashed NFTs too. I don’t care. If you’re convinced human labour’s worthless next to generative A.I., there’s a good chance I can’t persuade you otherwise. You can argue with my hand if you disagree.

Circling back to SoraAI, it’s especially egregious because this was clearly a vanity project for Disney. They don’t need A.I. to sell their IPs. All they really need are young girls who want to be princesses and adults who haven’t grown up emotionally. It’s worked for decades, and they have no reason to abandon that. “Giving the tools” to “make art”, whatever that means, via generative A.I. isn’t the slam dunk they think it is.

Also, generative A.I. “art” isn’t art. At all. Ignoring its ugliness, and let’s not kid ourselves, art requires introspective thought to function. Art, to put it bluntly, communicates a thought, idea or emotion, something A.I., which can’t operate independently of its programming, can’t replicate. We’ve seen that with the plagiarism that it’s been guilty of, as well as the SCOTUS ruling on A.I. and copyright.

Besides, I doubt Disney was prepared for the legal can of worms they’d opened up. And if they were, I don’t think it’d be worth the fees. Remember, Disney’s incredibly protective of their IP, practically anal. They’re why American copyright laws are so strict, and they’ve gone after small fries for using their work without permission before. If partnering with SoraAI was going to involve what they claimed, which is user-generated art, it’d create a conflict of interest I’m not sure they’re ready for.

On the consumer’s end, I don’t think creators were ready either. Disney’s promise was to give them tools to promote their brand, but would they go through with that? Was ownership possible? And who’s to say perverts wouldn’t use their tools to create inappropriate prompts? Disney’s a family-friendly company, but a quick search of fan-art online will yield plenty of raunchy material. People are that horny.

With all this in mind, it’s no wonder Disney got cold feet and pulled the plug on SoraAI. It’s possible I’m overlooking the SoraAI side, as there were issues there too, but since Disney’s more public facing…you get the idea. Besides, partnering with a generative A.I. program, I’m sorry to say, is beneath them. It’s also demeaning to their animators, many of whom can produce better work than a machine. It might take longer, but no one said manpower was fast or easy.

I also don’t want the human element erased. People have been around for longer than A.I., and they’ve produced plenty of great art without it. That’s not changing anytime soon, and A.I. needs to adapt, not the other way around. If it won’t disappear, then it needs to become secondary to human labour, not an alternative. I wish A.I. enthusiasts understood that.

As a final note, A.I. enthusiasts need to not call human labour “obsolete”. I see this all the time on LinkedIn, with A.I. adopters promoting it like it’s the next hot commodity. It’s not. It’s a tool that’s abused to frequently disastrous effect, and it’s raising ethical concerns that shouldn’t exist. It’s also starting to fail financially and socially, as we’ve seen with the scandals that’ve arisen lately. That’s worrying.

I don’t know what’ll happen with generative apps like SoraAI. We can pray they’ll crash and burn, so as to teach tech oligarchs a lesson, but for every failed app, another one will take its place. The only viable solution, in my mind, is regulation. Because we’ve seen what out-of-control A.I. does. Rest assured it’s not pleasant.

So yes, I’m not upset that SoraAI and Disney didn’t end up with a successful partnership, and you shouldn’t be either. Because we can do a lot better, and it’s a shame that we had to find this out the hard way.