My Streaming Extravaganza!

Whenever I’m low on ideas, I look at Trends on Twitter. Whenever that fails, I play video games and watch movies. Fortunately, I stumbled upon three interesting and (mostly) great movies, so I’ll discuss them! You ready? And yes, there’ll be spoilers.

Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery

I’ll start with the first movie I watched. And what a movie it was! The Knives Out franchise is becoming one of the more interesting film properties, with both entries so far being goofy mysteries while also commenting on wealth and privilege. If Knives Out’s takeaway was that money makes people shady, then its sequel is about power and fame doing the same. In both cases, it takes outside influences, an everywoman and a detective, to expose that.

So how does this movie execute it? With a bait-and-switch halfway through. If the first movie was about a DACA maid expunging her guilt over the death of her employer, then this movie’s about the twin sister of a celebrity trying to avenge her murder. It’s hard outdoing the wackiness started several years ago, but it did that! Big props!

Everyone here’s great. Despite taking on more stock archetypes than its predecessor, it still retains the humanity of each one. It’s easy to have a Men’s Rights Activist, a Kardashian knock-off and a politician in the same movie and make them over-the-top, but Rian Johnson’s smart enough to avoid that. He recognizes that even vile characters need sympathy.

And give him credit, he pulls it off! Maybe it’s not as streamlined as I’d hoped, but that’s nitpicking given that Johnson recreated lightning in a bottle. If special note goes to anyone, however, it’s Janelle Monáe. She has the unforgiving task of playing two different characters, sometimes in the same scene, and she pulls it off. Not since Superman via Christopher Reeve has a subtle change in demeanour meant so much, but wow!

The story’s also quite engaging. I like how it calls out the absurdities of the upper-class, like its prequel did. Except the critique is more specific now, taking jabs at the Elon Musks of the world. It’s not like the movie’s subtle about it. There are parallels to Musk with the film’s antagonist, including taking other people’s ideas and making his followers believe he was the real genius. Perhaps it’s too on-the-nose, but given real life recently…

Either way, Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery’s another winner in the tales of Detective Benoit Blanc. It’s not quite as good as its predecessor, and it lacks the initial novelty, but it compensates for its shortcomings by utilizing what makes these movies compelling: misdirection for social commentary. I appreciate how the movie ends with a, quite literal, display of fireworks. It’s funny and satisfying simultaneously. Check it out.

Pinocchio

On the flip side, there’s Guillermo del Toro. Del Toro’s filmography is dubbed hit-or-miss, yet always interesting. I don’t like everything he’s done, I wasn’t a fan of Pacific Rim, but I agree. And Pinocchio, his first foray into animation, is both a hit and interesting. It really is. It might even be one of his best movies.

I’ll discuss the elephant in the room now: no, this isn’t similar to the Disney classic. It has familiar plot beats, like Pinocchio joining the circus, but moments like Lampwick’s transformation into a donkey are absent. Despite the comparisons, this movie goes for a darker, more contemporary vibe. I think it’s good that del Toro released this on Netflix, as Disney wouldn’t do something this brazen!

How’s the movie? Aside from the song choices being, unfortunately, uninspired, it’s great! I like how it takes full advantage of stop-motion to challenge what it means to be real or fake. Geppetto’s entire arc is learning to cope with the loss of his son, and him warming to Pinocchio is where the movie’s heart is. Let’s be clear, this is Geppetto’s story. Pinocchio’s the main character, but it’s Geppetto who develops.

That’s not to shade everyone else. The standout is Ewan McGregor as Sebastian J. Cricket, who serves as Pinocchio’s conscience. He’s not as important as Jiminy Cricket was in the Disney version, but he steals the show anyway. Even more than Christoph Waltz as the ringmaster, a hard feat given Waltz’s repertoire. But he does!

The movie’s murky colour palate vibes with the story too. That’s not to say there isn’t levity, but most of it’s a sad and bitter commentary on Italian Fascism and the cost of war. Remember how I mentioned that Lampwick becoming a donkey isn’t present here? His counterpart, Candlewick, has a moment where he confronts his Fascist father at a child soldier recruitment facility, right before it’s blown up by an enemy bomb. It might lack the nightmare fuel of the Disney film, but this is darker thematically!

Really, this is one of the darkest children’s films I’ve seen. Is it for everyone? Probably not. Is it worth a recommendation anyway? Yes. Besides, del Toro collaborated with The Jim Henson Company. And it’s not rushed, like many stop-motion animated movies are.

Strange World

If Disney’s your cup of tea, or you want something lighter, I also watched Strange World. I was turned off initially by the mixed reception, and watching it on Disney+…I see why. It’s not terrible, it’s quite enjoyable, but it suffers from the same issue that many early-2000’s Disney movies did: trying to ape Studio Ghibli’s in-house style. More specifically, it’s going for a Hayao Miyazaki adventure like Castle in the Sky and Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind. It doesn’t fully work.

But let’s focus on the positives now. I really like how this movie’s unashamed to be a cartoon serial. It opens and closes with a comic book, which is fitting for the tone. It’s goofy, it’s silly and it’s creative. And it also has a lot of heart.

The movie also has several tense moments. I especially like the climax, with everything culminating in a heart-pumping finale. It helps that the movie’s message of living in harmony with your environment is established with hints throughout. By the time it’s revealed that everyone’s inside a living organism, I buy it because of what I’ve seen prior. That’s difficult with something this absurd.

I appreciate the movie tackling deadbeat parenting. Jaeger Clade’s a stubborn man and a “bad father”, but he’s not a bad person. He’s so dedicated to his passion that he’s ignored everyone around him, including his son. And I like how that trickles down to how Searcher Clade treats his own son, being a supportive father while not giving him space. The parallels are obvious, and at times humorous.

The music’s really good. Henry Jackman’s taken flak for unmemorable scores in Marvel movies, but he shines with Disney and Strange World’s no exception. I especially like the jingle for the Clades, which sounds like superhero song. It’s corny, but it’s fitting too. The rest of the music’s sheer ambience, but that song’s worth buying the album for. Really!

Unfortunately, this movie suffers from aping Studio Ghibli’s aesthetics. Aside from the scene transitions being off-putting, it wants to be whimsical and leave you asking questions, but that distracts from the narrative. Even the narrative’s lopsided, with revelations coming out of left-field and not meshing with what came before. The climax also introduces a surprise antagonist before rescinding it, which is jarring. And the final shot leaves much to be desired.

It a shame because, obvious “first openly gay character” cliché aside, this movie has many firsts for Disney. Like having the first biracial character in a prominent role. And having a disabled dog in a prominent role. And having the deadbeat dad not be entirely irredeemable. Even Jake Gyllenhaal disguising his voice to sound like Paul Rudd was a first, as weird as that is! Strange World has several firsts for Disney, and it’s unfortunate that they’re not complimented by the film’s problems. So while it’s worth seeing, it’s not a must-watch.

*****

That about does it! Thanks for sticking by what’ll be my final piece of 2022, and I’ll see you soon!

Opening Pandora's Box

(Warning: This piece contains spoilers.)

So I saw Avatar: The Way of Water in theatres. It was absolutely…

…Completely…

…100%...

*Deep breath*

…Okay.

That’s it. It was okay. Not awful, not amazing, but okay. If you ignore the runtime and the gimmicks, you’ll have a good time. You won’t be blown away, but you’ll have a good time.

See? Was that so hard? We’ve been conditioned by expectations and frequently forget that not everything needs to be amazing. And while this movie isn’t amazing, it’s enjoyable. It’s no different from other James Cameron movies that way. So why is it controversial to say that?

Before anyone interjects, yes, there are issues with this movie. There are issues with Cameron as a person too, mostly that he has an ego larger than the villain from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. But there were issues with the first movie too. Calling it “flawed” isn’t brave when everything man-made is flawed. And the commonly-utilized critique lobbed at this franchise? Congratulations on your one joke, but you should workshop new material.

I wouldn’t be so bitter if this franchise’s existence wasn’t considered poisonous for 13 years. But it has been. Right when the backlash started, people claimed that “Too many people like this movie!”. Then it was “Nobody likes this movie!” for the next decade. And when the sequel was released, it changed to “Where did the fans come from?”, as if the praise was retroactive and ironic. In all cases, the naysayers were wrong. All they had to do was remove their blinders.

Anyway, the movie. Despite not being friendly to those unfamiliar with the first entry, Avatar: The Way of Water did a good job expanding its world. While Avatar was about Jake Sully ingratiating himself to the Na’vi, here Jake and his family go into exile to save themselves from a resurrected Colonel Quaritch. It might seem like a lazy excuse to retread first movie’s plot, but enough is changed to feel fresh. It even avoids the infamous “Liar Revealed” trope of the first movie, so…improvement?

That’s not to say there weren’t issues with the storytelling. Aside from the pacing being lopsided in several places, most-notably the whale hunting set-piece, I don’t appreciate the movie teasing a mystery with one character, only to cop-out at the last second. Quaritch’s resurrection not leading to an existential dilemma was a missed opportunity, and his relationship with Spider could’ve been better. Also, the dialogue sucks. But the dialogue sucks in every James Cameron film, so...

Other than that? It’s solid. Its story, while basic, is more-engaging than every Mission Impossible movie since the 90’s, and the emotional beats land. It’s also really pretty and well-choreographed, which isn’t surprising because this is James Cameron. I especially liked the dénouement. And all while remixing set-pieces from the director’s previous movies.

And the tears? There was nothing on-par with the tree from Avatar in rawness, but there were smaller moments that made me cry. The most surprising one was the final scene. I won’t spoil it, in case anyone reading this is interested in seeing this movie, but anyone who’s experienced loss will connect with it. It was well-executed, essentially.

The movie was also gutsier than its prequel. It’s cliché to compare something to the most-beloved Star Wars movie, but Avatar: The Way of Water takes greater risks with its story and characters. It even ups the stakes by having a main character die. I was worried that having Sully’s kids constantly be in and out of danger would lose its shock value, but that was a big deal. It made the confrontation with Quaritch, and the final scene, more personal. It’s not easy to do that.

I’m not sure what else to add. Will this movie convert naysayers? Doubtful, though not impossible. But this is still a worthy sequel. It retains some of the iffy coding of the first movie, but do remember that True Lies is why CAIR exists. If anything, I’ve come to anticipate that from James Cameron, for better or worse.

I don’t know what people were expecting. Did they want an “original” story? Because that doesn’t exist. Did they want something more “in-depth”? Because the narrative’s deeper than some well-regarded classics. Did they want a director who isn’t arrogant and toxic? Fair enough, but Cameron’s behaviour isn’t new.

It speaks volumes that people feel a need to gate-keep based on that. Yes, Cameron’s difficult to be around. But no, that doesn’t make people wrong for valuing his art. Like JK Rowling and Harry Potter, art is personal and subjective. You can’t help how you connect to it, and it’s not your business to dictate how others do. Trust me, I used to be that type of person!

Ultimately, I don’t know how to convince people to be less-judgemental about this franchise. And yes, I’m probably projecting my own frustrations. But given how toxic it’s been to discuss these movies for the last 13 years, both online and offline, I don’t think it’s unfounded. Because I’ve been tired of being “disallowed” to share my opinions since day 1.

Does this mean turning a blind eye to James Cameron’s remarks? No! I’ve called him out before, and I’ll do it again! I also think he’s one of the most-irritating directors alive, irrespective of his body of work. But I can do that while appreciating what he brings to the table, and I wish more people could too.

In the end, writing this has been less about Avatar: The Way of Water and more venting my frustrations…again. It’s possible I’m not done either, as the third entry’s in a few years. But it’s important to get those frustrations out because I feel as though I’m being talked over. No movie’s worth being that obnoxious about.

But that’s me.

No Female-Led Blockbusters?

(Note: this is old news, but I’m discussing it to prove a point.)

Remember Jennifer Lawrence? Remember her big breaks in the Hunger Games and X-Men franchises? Remember how she stopped caring about those after winning an Oscar, and only kept them for paycheques? And remember how she went quiet following Harvey Weinstein’s outing in 2017, only to rebrand herself recently? I do.

I remember all of it. Jennifer Lawrence was the female movie star of my 20’s, right with Margot Robbie, so I saw her rise, peak and fade in real-time. Still, I’m glad she’s been rebranding lately, enough to reflect on her career. And she did, as she was recently interviewed by Variety alongside Viola Davis for their Actors on Actors series. The interview was filled with many insights, but one point in particular caught people’s attention:

“I remember when I was doing Hunger Games, nobody had ever put a woman in the lead of an action movie because it wouldn’t work — we were told girls and boys can both identify with a male lead, but boys cannot identify with a female lead…”

Oh no!

Two points: one, Lawrence was referring to a mindset in Hollywood at large. And two, Lawrence said other stuff that’s worth discussing more. But even ignoring that, Variety received plenty of backlash for this clip, such that they took down their Tweet. But it wasn’t enough, as people used that as an admission of guilt. They also named off examples of female-led action movies to prove how “dumb” Lawrence was.

Female-led action movies do exist, but they’re still relatively rare. It’s not unlike the number of female-led movies in general, though those exist too. The problem here is a combination of there not being enough women in crucial parts of the filmmaking experience and women being told they’re not worthy of telling their stories. They’re interconnected and circular problems, and it’s why there are so few women-centric stories. That’s what this is about.

It doesn’t even stop at movies! The godmother of novels, Mary Shelley, had to use a pseudonym so that Frankenstein could market to general audiences. Many female authors have had their stories centre around male figures so as to sell better to readers. Even TV shows have this issue, such that, you guessed it, there aren’t many female-led stories there either. This is bigger than an actress opening her mouth and saying something, admittedly, incorrect.

Yes, there are exceptions. The Hunger Games series, which stars Lawrence, is one of them. But even if you name examples, that doesn’t mean there are a lot of them. It also doesn’t mean they counteract her claim. Because Lawrence was commenting on “an all-boys club” mentality that’s plagued Hollywood for the longest time. It’s made equitable portrayals difficult, and it’s caused these assumptions in the first place.

So yes, Lawrence wasn’t technically wrong. Why the backlash, then? It’s not like other celebrities haven’t run their mouths off in the heat of the moment, right? Why should Lawrence be any different? It boils down to the same culprit for Brie Larson’s harassment a while back: sexism.

There, I said it. Sexism was to blame for Lawrence’s backlash. Never mind that her critics listed Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor as immediate counter-examples, it doesn’t mean there wasn’t sexism. Besides, I doubt their examples would hold the same reverence without the nostalgia factor. Prove me wrong.

I don’t even see why this is an issue! Remember how male figures in Hollywood have said worse? Remember how they received the same backlash? No? Is it only me? Well, let’s start criticizing them, if you’re so interested in accuracy.

You know how this has gotten out of hand? Lawrence later clarified her remarks for The Hollywood Reporter:

“That’s certainly not what I meant to say at all. I know that I am not the only woman who has ever led an action film. What I meant to emphasize was how good it feels. And I meant that with Viola — to blow past these old myths that you hear about … about the chatter that you would hear around that kind of thing. But it was my blunder and it came out wrong. I had nerves talking to a living legend.”

See, it was nerves. Was that really so difficult?

This is why it’s important to not jump on a mistake and blow it out of proportion, especially when it’s been righted. It’s equally important for people, women in particular, to make those mistakes and learn from them, especially if they address greater issues. But since this is the internet, which never forgives and never forgets, I guess that’s impossible. Because we like getting angry over inconsequential details. C’est la vie!

Besides, Lawrence’s original remarks don’t warrant an obnoxious “gotcha” anyway. Why do they bother you? So you named female-led action movies, big whoop! How many are there in relation to male-led ones? Think long and hard before answering that.

I think it’s time to let this go. It was cute in the moment, but that’s it. It changes nothing, it hasn’t negatively impacted anyone, and it was a mistake. I’ve also heard worse. Move on.

As a final note, I don’t think Variety should’ve panicked. They should’ve posted a follow-up or retraction instead. I know singling out that one snippet was intentional, as it lures eyes and traffic, but owning up to it is the right course of action. As it stands right now, this looks like they have something to hide. It makes them look guilty, and that’s not needed.

Andor's Big Problem

Despite my issues, I finally watched Andor Season 1 on Disney+. And I enjoyed it…mostly. However, I don’t begrudge anyone who couldn’t get into it. I also don’t care for what its show-runner, Tony Gilroy, had to say to valid criticism. In a post shared on Reddit, Gilroy roasted claims that Andor was boring, saying that, in a roundabout way, everything was meant to be there. You can find his thoughts here.

I can’t tell you how obnoxious this is. Nor can I put into words how annoying the replies are. What I can say is that this is a slap in the face. I’ve written lengthy before, but I try steering clear of plodding. And while I’m not against slow content, again, I don’t have patience for plodding. Andor somehow manages to be plodding.

This, naturally, caused a debate among Star Wars fans. I’ve made my thoughts on the fanbase known, but I can’t ignore this debate. Because while I enjoyed Andor and see its potential, that’s all hampered by the show’s pacing. It takes forever to get going, and I wasn’t in a hurry to binge it initially. Considering how I usually wait until a Disney+ show’s almost done and binge it in preparation for the finale, that’s not good. Nor is it good that the first three episodes, which have plenty of setup, aren’t attention-grabbers.

Basically, pretend you’re reading a dense novel that’s 12 chapters. Now pretend that the book’s first three chapters are a chore. Would you be invested in the rest? I didn’t think so. That’s how Andor feels. It’s the show-equivalent to a book called Johnny Tremain. Except that I actually finished it.

I think this is important for why Andor didn’t grab me right away. It doesn’t matter how immersive or rich your story is, if you don’t hook people, even if your story’s meant to be slow, then you’ve failed as a storyteller. That’s how it works. And no one amount of “You don’t get it!” can change that. If anything, it feels petty.

You know what sucks more? Once I finally got into Andor, roughly 2 weeks after starting Episode 1, I came face-to-face with another problem: this show drags. There are several scenes per episode where characters talk…and talk…and talk, often back-to-back. Some of these conversations are redundant, while others are too quiet to hear. That’s not a good sign either, and it’s baffling how Gilroy and company didn’t have better editors.

Even during moments of action, the pacing’s still plodded. Take the robbery on Aldhani in Episode 6. This is one of the high points action-wise, and yet it frequently returns to the locals chanting hymns while meteors shower the skies. Yes, it’s beautiful to look at. But no, it isn’t necessary to make its point.

You know what the biggest issue is? This season didn’t need 12 episodes. It could’ve trimmed some scenes and removed redundant ones and still worked as 8 episodes, possibly 9. But it’s 12. That’s bad pacing, and it worries me.

On top of that, much of the set-up, the stuff defenders claim are crucial, feels like a letdown. Mon Mothma’s political dilemma amounts to a “to be continued in Season 2” moment. So does Andor’s fate. I know both characters have plot armour, but all of that set-up for an inconclusive pay-off isn’t good writing. If anything, it’s sloppy.

This was my issue the entire time I watched Andor. I wasn’t “bored” per se, but I was checking the clock frequently and waiting for everything to speed up. It’s telling that The Book of Boba Fett, which suffered from a lack of focus, was more engaging and better-paced. Star Wars Rebels, which routinely had tonal whiplash, was also better-paced. Even The Mandalorian, which had a controversial finale to Season 2, was more exciting than Andor!

I feel like I’m being unfair, as I did enjoy Andor, but it’s not like I can’t handle long and slow. I sat through all three Lord of the Rings movies! I also understand defending a show or movie’s reputation online, as I wrote a defence of Avatar in 2016. But both of those had hooks despite their problems. Both were still engaging.

As a final note, I’d like to level with Tony Gilroy: I get it. I’m a writer too. I know what it’s like for people to not connect with your storytelling. I understand your brilliance being misunderstood. I’ve been in your shoes multiple times, and it’s frustrating.

But you know what? You can’t let it get to you. Yes, some critics are full of it, that much is true. And yes, feedback should be taken with a grain of salt. But that doesn’t give you license to be vindictive to your critics, especially if they’re trying to help you. That makes them not want to help you, and it might even turn them off of your work. There needs to be humility that comes with putting your work out there, and I’m not seeing that.

But that’s my opinion, for what it’s worth. I suggest shopping around to see if anyone agrees!

Un Logo Loco

For as often as I complain about nerds over film and video games, I don’t talk as much about the film enthusiasts. I don’t ignore them, see my defence of Ready Player One, but they aren’t worth spilling as much ink on because they’re not as annoying. However, they have their moments. And they’re cringe-worthy.

DreamWorks has an unusual animation department. Despite several high-quality endeavours, I’m unimpressed by most of their backlog. However, sometimes they do something worth talking about. Like their recent opening logo. DreamWorks updated it for their newest movie, and it’s definitely worth watching:

This is beautiful. (Courtesy of Frozen Boy.)

I’ll admit, rehashing some of their greatest hits is fun. I especially appreciate acknowledging the Shrek films, as they helped make DreamWorks a household name. But I have questions about some omissions. Like, where’s Antz? And where’s Abominable? Better yet, why ignore The Prince of Egypt, one of DreamWorks’s best? I know that only so much can be included, but…

Whatever, that’s not what bothers me. No, it’s how film Twitter responded. Specifically, how film enthusiasts have latched onto it. It’s not good enough that this is visually-stunning, it’s still a “problem”. It’s not enough that there’s lots to analyze, it’s “self-congratulatory”. And that’s bad.

I somewhat see that: this is DreamWorks reminding people of its varied catalogue. And it’s doing so in a “shared world”. It’s, essentially, copying The MCU. You know, the way their projects have openings that show their interconnectivity? All set to the same music?

Perhaps it’s because I didn’t go to film school, but what’s the issue here? The logo’s not all that long, and it sets the mood perfectly. From a marketing standpoint, it’s perfect for its target audience. The people who’d watch DreamWorks movies are familiar with these films, and it’s what they want. I actually think it’s brilliant!

But that’s exactly it: there’s a disconnect between what general audiences want, and what film enthusiasts want. The latter wants something they can gush over on a filmic level. The former, however, wants to be entertained. We’ve seen this divide with Rotten Tomatoes, and we’re seeing it here. And while I’d usually take the side of the film enthusiasts, since they’re more-likely to be honest, this time I’m siding with general audiences.

Why? Because like I said, this is clever marketing. It’s also a sign of the changing times. The days of singular, auteur-driven projects are ending, for better or worse. It’s now about franchising and brand identity. That’s why Star Wars has jumped on the bandwagon with their Disney+ content.

I know, it’s sad. Change is hard and scary, true. But not everything about the old model was good. Auteurs were often creepy and entitled, harassing their crew to maintain creative control. Movie stars weren’t any better, utilizing their fame and demographics for harm. With Me Too highlighting a lot of this, I’m amazed anyone would want to go back!

Besides, sometimes having complete control is bad. As I mentioned years ago when discussing studio executives, sometimes being told “no” is good. And sometimes having other people take the reins is healthy. We can’t be experts at everything! And breaking up projects is a way to fix the blind spots of one person running it alone.

Now, committee-based filmmaking can have drawbacks too: sometimes the end product is a Frankenstein’s monster. Sometimes plot threads don’t mesh. Sometimes changes lead to errors. And sometimes the end product lacks any real identity. I get that, I really do.

But it’s a trade-off. What’s the healthy balance? It varies, and it’s not always clear-cut. Outside of that, the audience often responds differently, and their responses will vary. Movie making might be a skill, but movie experiencing is an art. And this often clashes.

At the end of the day, the film enthusiast isn’t the expert on longevity. Remember, many people initially snubbed their noses at Star Wars and Indiana Jones, proclaiming them to be amateurish. I know that sounds strange in retrospect, since Star Wars and Indiana Jones are cultural mainstays, but it took time to warm to them. If anything, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were the outliers, defending these franchises against traditionally-minded elites!

What film buffs consider authentic is relative. And that includes branding. It’s not “bad” that DreamWorks is following Marvel, it’s “adapting”. It’s also not to everyone’s tastes. That’s not worth being a gatekeeping snob, however it makes you feel in the short-term.

Ultimately, this feels like projecting on the part of film enthusiasts. Like I said, I’m not an expert on film because I didn’t go to film school. My analyses mostly focus on writing and story layouts, as that’s what I know best. But this gives me enough distance to call out film buffs when I think they’re wrong. And whining about branding, especially when it’s fun to watch, is one of those instances. There are enough problems in modern film as is, and you definitely don’t need to add new ones.

Now then, I think I’ll rewatch the opening…

That Tarantino, Man!

Stop me if you’ve heard this before:

“Marvel movies are ruining cinema! They’re overblown spectacles that aren’t art and killed the movie star! And they look like trash! Why do they make more money than [insert obscure movie here]? This is outrageous!”

That paragraph’s hyperbolic, but the sentiment has been echoed by many names in Hollywood for a while. And now it’s been broached by Quentin Tarantino, the king of fetishized slasher/gore porn movies. In an interview with Mediaite, he said:

“Part of the Marvel-ization of Hollywood is…you have all these actors who have become famous playing these characters…[b]ut they’re not movie stars. Right? Captain America is the star. Or Thor is the star. I mean, I’m not the first person to say that. I think that’s been said a zillion times…but it’s like, you know, it’s these franchise characters that become a star.”

Now, asking auteurs about Marvel movies constantly for clicks is annoying, and I wish press outlets would stop that. However, it’s not only Marvel that’s the issue here. Because Tarantino made a tone-deaf remark about how modern Hollywood, like the 1980’s and the 1950’s, is the worst for films. You can look that up if you don’t believe me. I wish it were a joke.

Anyway, the response was more of the same: on one hand, defenders of Tarantino’s remarks claimed that he was objectively right, and that his critics were lame MCU fans. On the other hand, general movie fans, particularly those who like Marvel, were upset that Tarantino was out-of-touch. And then there’s me, who sees both sides, yet isn’t happy with Tarantino’s remarks.

I’ll give him points in one area: big-budget movies shouldn’t be the only ones in theatres. Whenever I go to the cinema nowadays, which is rare, I always see at least two or three showings for a Marvel movie. And they play nonstop throughout the day. It doesn’t help that they’re crowding out smaller options either. Factor in that theatres aren’t conducive to going to anymore, and it’s easy to see the resentment.

That said, this issue isn’t clear-cut. While I’d love to see obscure films get more love, I’d also be content with them releasing on streaming. Marvel is made for theatres, it’s built from the ground-up to operate that way. An indie drama, however, can be enjoyed at home. That’s not a flaw either, as not all experiences are equal.

In a similar vein, people who are mad at Tarantino aren’t inherently wrong. Because Simu Liu’s remarks about old Hollywood being “really white” aren’t incorrect, as I doubt he’d have had the same options in the 1950’s. I also think Tarantino being “immune from criticism” is ridiculous. Auteurs are human beings, prone to folly. If Steven Spielberg’s criticized for covert racism, then Tarantino can be criticized for his remarks too. Legacy’s irrelevant here.

I’m annoyed this sentiment even exists. You don’t have qualified immunity because you make great movies. James Cameron’s made many legacy films, and he’s known for his inflated ego and short temper. George Lucas gave us Star Wars and Indiana Jones, but his refusal to relinquish control of his IPs has harmed the film landscape. Even Hayao Miyazaki, whom I adore, has taken flak for his remarks about the anime industry. Being influential doesn’t give someone a free pass.

So why do people act that way? Is it because they’re desperate to vent their frustrations about Marvel movies? Is it because they can’t think for themselves? Is it both? Is it neither? What’s the deal?!

By the way, Tarantino’s remarks about “the movie star being dead”? That’s not really a flaw. Yes, it sucks that an actor’s worth these days is tied to a fictional character. But given how many actors have been revealed to be weird, shady or both, maybe that’s for the best? I wouldn’t want to centre my life around that, after all!

Maybe it’s better that people prefer fictional characters? That doesn’t mean we should be overly-attached to them, forgetting they’re fantasy. If the story of Julian Roman’s indication, not distinguishing between fiction and reality is dangerous. But that doesn’t mean we should be worshipping real people. The cult of personality’s equally as dangerous, after all, and that doesn’t get the coverage it should.

Essentially, I don’t agree with Quentin Tarantino. I sympathize with him, especially given how Hollywood operates, but I think he’s off-base. I also think it’s ridiculous that I’m not allowed to be critical of him for his off-colour remarks. I don’t care how successful or influential he is, he should know better. And that he doesn’t is disturbing.

As for The MCU? It’s complicated. I’ve enjoyed most of its output, and even considered its flops…interesting, but claiming they’re the death knell of cinema is misguided. The movie industry’s a business, and businesses are out to make money. The MCU’s following what’s hot right now, and it’s not entirely its fault that many films are (unsuccessfully) following its lead. If anything, we should demand more from the competition, not attack something that’ll be successful regardless of what we think.

Finally, I wish people would stop dragging this debate back into the spotlight. And I wish people like Simu Liu could express their frustrations without unnecessary backlash. It’s old, it’s tedious, it’s tiring, it’s not fun period. I know it works as free advertising, as much as I don’t want that, but it doesn’t outweigh the negatives. The horse is already dead. You don’t need to keep flogging it.

RIP Kevin Conroy?

I grew up with Kevin Conroy as Batman. It wasn’t through Batman: The Animated Series, though what I watched of that was excellent, but rather Batman Beyond and Justice League/Justice League Unlimited. His deep voice was iconic, threatening without being throaty or obnoxious, and he cared about the character. When it was announced that he’d passed away at age 66 from cancer, I was crushed. I was delivering packages for my job when I found out, however, so I couldn’t properly take it in. I didn’t really comprehend that we’d lost a legend until that weekend, long after his death was made public.

So when I hopped online to read what people were saying, I was hoping to see nothing but love for a man who not only made a huge impact in animation, but also in queer advocacy. Kevin Conroy was openly gay, and the void there would be noticed for a while. Surely there was nothing worth criticizing…right? Well, leave it to the internet to ruin everything.

Within hours of his passing, Tweets circulated about Conroy that were nasty. He’d only been dead for a short time, but the opinions had to come out! And like a drunk, they had to be targeted! Except that whereas a drunk might not be entirely to blame, these comments were thought-out and malicious. The lack of shame was obvious.

Some of you are probably scratching your heads in confusion, so here’s some context. On Friday, November 11th, 2022, a Twitter user wrote the following:

“Alright, Mr. Conroy had his fun, but now it’s time for his roles to be entrusted to those who truly appreciate the craft of voice acting. Give the Dark Knight the honour of being voiced by a Japanese voice actor, not some bum of an English voice actor.”

If that sounds tone-deaf, not only do you have good instincts, you’re in for a treat with the response:

“Are you wack? Why should a Japanese dude voice a white man? Batman should be voiced by a conservative straight male, preferably married too to set a good example for children.”

I can’t even.

The latter poster also expressed relief over “another groomer” being gone, because life’s a parody. But outside of that, that two people would take this opportunity to roast Conroy after his death, especially given what he meant to people, is upsetting. Conroy wasn’t a politician. His influence and decisions haven’t left people dead or in a worse-off state, unlike many world leaders. He also wasn’t some celebrity who used his fame to sell snake oil or cause people undue hardship. He was a voice actor who made many people, kids especially, fall in love with Batman. Using his death to trash him as a person, therefore, isn’t warranted.

It also doesn’t reflect well on these posters to say such ignorant remarks. Yes, Batman would most-likely be a sociopathic, rich white guy who skirts laws if he were real. But he’s not. And even ignoring that, he’s a crime fighter with a moral code. That’s more important than being voiced by “a bum of an English voice actor”.

Speaking of which, let’s zone-in on that: bum of an English voice actor? Does this individual know how hard it is to voice act? English VAs don’t necessarily have the same training as their Japanese counterparts, since animation’s still unfairly judged as “children’s fodder”, but voice acting requires skill and patience. And unlike physical acting, it all goes into the voice. That’s not only draining, it can lead to burnout if you’re not careful. There’s a reason why only the best VAs stay in the industry, and Kevin Conroy was one of them.

Besides, Japanese voice actors aren’t inherently better. I’ve covered this before on a piece for Infinite Rainy Day, but Japanese VAs do more than shows and movies. They also perform radio dramas and pornography, the latter requiring little of them because acting isn’t the point. Even outside of that, Japanese VAs aren’t always great, as their jobs are treated like regular professions. You’re not expected to be the cream of the crop to stay in the industry long-term.

That’s why “Japan > The West” talking points bug me. Never mind that calling Kevin Conroy a “groomer”, meaning he took advantage of children, because he was gay is both homophobic and untrue, the mentality of “Japan is always superior” is cringey and racist. Japan has its share of problems too, and romanticizing that way of life does no one, especially the Japanese, favours. It also isn’t relevant to Conroy’s death. In other words, why bring it up?

The animation community is also mourning the loss of one of their greats. Yes, there were others who voiced Batman over the years, many still living. And yes, they deserve admiration. But that doesn’t mean Conroy’s contributions shouldn’t also be admired, especially since he was taken in his prime. Not doing that isn’t only disrespectful to him as a person, it’s demeaning to the impact he had on an entire generation of kids.

Ultimately, it’s in really poor-taste to dunk on someone who recently died on the grounds that he was gay or American. Kevin Conroy was both, but he was also a great VA and a kind soul. There’ll be time to discuss his legacy later, assuming the conversation’s genuine, but not now. Let his family and friends grieve over him. And let’s mourn him ourselves too. I promise we’ll be better off for it.