Nintendo, Meet Paper

How did you like the remake of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door? Personally, I enjoyed it! It has its frustrating moments, and I prefer the N64 original, but this is the definitive version. I say that having enjoyed the GameCube version too. I’d even call this remake the one I’d recommend to veterans and newcomers, simply because of its tweaks. So yes, please play it.

…

No really, please play it! Not only is it worth your time, but Nintendo’s actively paying attention to its sales. They’ve recently released a survey hinting that its reception will influence future entries. Said survey even asked if there’s any particular character fans liked, as well as if original characters should return. Honestly, I thought that Olivia being well-received should’ve been a tip-off, but hey! Better late than never!

Okay, that was mean. Picking on the Paper Mario franchise is trite nowadays, and I liked Paper Mario: The Origami King, so I’m not adding anything. But while I enjoyed Super Paper Mario, that’s when the franchise veered off the rails creatively and qualitatively. It’s like Nintendo’s been prioritizing the “paper” aspect to its detriment since 2007, forgetting it’s merely a catalyst for good games. Not that experimenting’s inherently bad, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of everything else.

While it was nice for Nintendo to give this classic a remake for the Switch, I can’t help feeling like they’re overcompensating. People loved the recent Mario RPG remakes a lot, but why are they being used as guinea pigs? I know these were well-loved classics, but isn’t that cynical? And if we’re remaking Mario RPGs, why not the N64 entry? It’s only fair!

I don’t think the answer to “How do we fix the Paper Mario games?” is “Make them like the entries fans love”. At least, not entirely. They’re great games…but they’re not flawless. The original had no way to access the title screen without dying, and the sections with Princess Peach were repetitive and lacked save points. The sequel fixed some problems from the original, including giving Peach’s story more heft, but it also had those Bowser side-scrolling sections and plenty of backtracking. And then there’s the Wii entry, which revamped the franchise, but at the expense of a gimmick that got old once you figured out how to cheese it. These are real problems baked into the games, and I don’t want Nintendo repeating them.

Also, why not expand future entries? If Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling taught me anything, there’s nothing wrong with an overworld hub that lets you traverse isometrically as well left, right, up and down. You don’t need a flat plain to retain the storybook aesthetic. You can even use the 360-degree battle mechanic that worked in Paper Mario: The Origami King and marry it with the first two entries. The Switch can handle it.

By “listening to feedback”, Nintendo might overcompensate and not take creative risks. Say what you will about Paper Mario: Sticker Star, but it was ambitious. As was Paper Mario: Color Splash. The games have detractors, some not without merit, but they progressed the franchise. Without them, we wouldn’t have Paper Mario: The Origami King.

I’ll also point out that not every Mario RPG in recent years has been a disaster. Take the Mario + Rabbids series. Not only is it on the Switch, but it took the Rabbids, characters people found annoying, and made them interesting. And all while remaining Mario-centric. In some ways, they’re Mario’s answer to Tactical RPGs in the same way the Paper Mario games were the answer to Turn-Based RPGs. They’re also innovative.

This is all context for what I want from a Paper Mario game: yes, use what worked initially. And yes, give us rich, original characters. But no, don’t sacrifice creativity. It’s what made Paper Mario unique in the first place. Don’t ruin that.

One more suggestion: focus an entry around Luigi. The biggest injustice of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door was having Luigi narrate a side adventure in-between chapters, yet never following up on showing it. Yes, Luigi’s a side-character to Mario, and I get that narrating what happened is meant to be a joke about Mario’s attention span, but it’d be nice if Luigi got a solo outing. He’s much more interesting than Mario, and he actually talks!

It’s nice to see Nintendo taking a valid interest in what’s worked about the franchise, however cynical, but there’s also potential for creative stagnation. Fan input matters, but fans aren’t necessarily game designers. Nor do they always know what’s in a franchise’s best interests. Nintendo also acquired their reputation for bucking conventions, especially with the Switch. Playing it safe would feel like a cop-out. And I don’t want that.

Besides, if Nintendo should learn anything, it’s that quality sells. Especially on a console that’s given a second life to many games and franchises Nintendo had given up on, to the surprise of fans. If Paper Mario’s to regain its glory as a prime RPG franchise, it needs to make good games again. Forget consistency, we can establish that later.

Vivian's Coming Out

In my Infinite Rainy Day days, I wrote about a then-circulating discourse over Samus Aran being trans. I won’t get into why I scrapped it, but I was mean-spirited in hindsight. I argued that even if Samus was trans, that was neither relevant nor important in the grand scheme. I not only unintentionally gaslit the trans community, I was being incredibly transphobic. And I’m sorry.

I mention this because the remake of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door’s right around the corner. Specifically, because of the recent confirmation in the translation that one of the characters is trans. This is actually a correction of the GameCube original’s script, highlighting the difference in attitudes over the last 20 years. It’s big. It clarifies why the character in question, Vivian, was treated badly by her sisters: it wasn’t simply that she was “weak”, but rather that they were transphobic.

This is a huge deal! For one, Vivian’s design and personality make more sense as a recently-transitioned woman who isn’t accepted by her family. Transitioning’s challenging for family members because it requires reframing their relationship to their trans relative. And often, perhaps too often, it leads to denial or rejection, to the shock and dejection of the individual. In some cases, it even leads to ostracizing, violence, self-harm and suicide. Simply look at news stories and statistics.

Negativity aside, consider it a win for trans people. Queer representation in media, particularly Japanese media, has a long way to go to achieve equity, something reflected in longstanding attitudes about those on the LGBTQ+ spectrum. I’m no expert on Japanese politics, but I know queerness is still more taboo there than here. We see this with how queer characters in Japanese media are either thought of as “romantically transitioning” to heteronormativity, or openly shafted. With transness, they’re even forced to “re-embrace” their original gender. It’s something that’s, fortunately, changing now, but the wheels of progress turn slowly…

Nintendo of Japan’s also more openly accepting of queer folk than many companies, even making international headlines. Having Vivian be trans is another example of this, and that the game she’s in doesn’t shy away from that is admirable. Doubly-so that it’s in the English translation, as transness isn’t quite as taboo here. Plus, it explains why her sisters are cold and nasty to her.

While this is a win for queerness, the crowd having the hardest time is Western gaming. Ever since Vivian was confirmed as trans, the community, particularly those “against censorship”, has had a meltdown. This includes comments and videos calling it “lies”, saying that Vivian “was never trans”. Ignoring the inconsistency and insincerity, this is sad. It’d also be funny if it weren’t maddening: you can handle a female character being overly-sexualized, but if she embraces something outside the norm it’s “bad”? Are you 12?

Perhaps I’m projecting, but this reeks of GamerGate’s leftovers. I won’t repeat all my thoughts, but that GamerGate’s stench can be smelled here is upsetting. This movement made three women into martyrs despite their personal politics, and all because they didn’t cave to misogyny. This same movement made an underaged stock avatar their mascot, and it made life a nightmare for anyone who criticized them. GamerGate also lost me many friends. I don’t need a reminder of that.

Besides, what’s wrong with Vivian being trans? This isn’t a head-canon decision, it’s fact. Vivian’s not only trans, she’s openly mocked for it. It’s a part of her identity and character arc, and it makes her who she is. That’s intellectual honesty.

I’m not even sure what’s gained here. The game’s coming out soon, and the script’s been translated by Nintendo. Vivian being trans was the original intent. You want to argue with Nintendo? You’re wasting time and energy.

Assuming this really does bother people, the GameCube version also exists. You know, the one that gamers hold dearly? It might be hard to track down now, and also expensive, but snagging a copy isn’t impossible. I even bought one on eBay a few years ago. Since gamers love shelling out money for obscure titles, why not do that instead?

This doesn’t help video games be taken seriously as a hobby, either. I’d argue they already were, but part of having the industry be recognized means it isn’t exempt from tackling real-world issues. If anything, refusing to makes the art-form look childish. And is that what we want? Will that solve anything?

I know this is a shock to many people who grew up with the GameCube version. It’s not my favourite entry in the franchise, that’s still the N64 game, but even I appreciate why the game’s well-loved! Though is Vivian being canonically-trans a dealbreaker? Because if so, I have to wonder if you really love the game. Especially when this version has a more accurate script.

Besides, Vivian’s transness isn’t even the biggest issue worth addressing. If I had it my way, the game wouldn’t joke about Princess Peach stripping. Or have Madame Flurrie’s physique be a punchline for fatphobia. Or have Mario the butt of unwanted affection from the female characters. These aspects most-likely haven’t been removed, so it’s strange that an actually-positive change is getting all of the attention.

Whatever, it’s not worth getting upset. Especially when there’s a new Switch game to look forward to!

Welcome to Megalopolis?

Megalopolis is a movie I was dreading since it hit my radar screen. It was a 40-year passion project from Francis Ford Coppola, and you don’t get a blank cheque to make whatever you want unless you’ve gained a reputation. But even amidst that, the production kept me uneasy. And now that it’s debuted to mixed reception, even with a standing ovation at Cannes, my concerns feel validated. I’m unsure how to react.

I shouldn’t overplay how much of a nightmare the production of this movie was. One of the cast members had sexual assault allegations well before shooting had started. Another cast member hadn’t been in a movie of note for over a decade, as well as gained the ire of many for his political views. And then there was Coppola. For a man of such high reputation, many people outside of the actors called him inappropriate and childish.

Now, many high-profile movies were made by gross individuals. Some of my favourite films are soiled by that. But in a post-Me Too age, where abuse and predation have surfaced everywhere, you’d think someone like Coppola would dial it down a bit. Especially since people consider him in high regard. But I guess we make exceptions for the “Film Brats”. And as someone with a Me Too story, this upsets me.

I could be over-projecting, as I haven’t seen Megalopolis. For all I know, I could end up liking it! Yet the stories I’ve read and heard don’t sit well. Especially since Coppola appears to have driven away anyone who wasn’t the main cast with his antics. That doesn’t exactly make me happy.

Some of you might be wondering how this is if Cannes gave it a standing ovation. For one, that isn’t so impressive when you look at what they gravitate to. And two, so what? Remember, Cannes gave a standing ovation to Roman Polanski for his movie on Alfred Dreyfuss. Yes, Dreyfuss’s story’s worthy of being told. But no, Polanski’s the wrong person for that given his own history of criminal behaviour. Cannes might have “prestige”, but they’re not gospel.

It's especially true considering the controversies Cannes has been entangled with. The festival has had indecent exposures, obscene gestures and fights break out, not to mention their sexist dress attire. Most-noteworthy is that some of their screenings lacked warnings for scenes of brutality and rape, leading to an infamous walkout in 2003. With this in mind, I’d take Cannes praising something with a grain of salt. It’s healthier that way.

Additionally, some passion projects…don’t pan out. It’s unfortunate, and I can’t claim to be an expert on why, but it’s a reality. Not every passion project is good, and doubly-so when in production for decades. We can’t expect The Tale of the Princess Kaguya-level work each time, even with a veteran. That shouldn’t stop people from pursuing their dreams, but it happens. Megalopolis is one of the passion projects that didn’t work, and I’m sorry it didn’t. At least, I’d be sorrier if the production and director’s behaviour hadn’t been a nightmare...

I don’t mean to kill the vibe. I want passion projects to succeed, namely because the people making them care. I’m also not averse to passion projects. I’ve liked plenty of movies from new and beloved directors who’ve poured their heart and soul into them. Megalopolis is also the kind of venture that, as a writer and fellow artist, I want to endorse. But when the experience doesn’t sound fun, the production’s riddled with issues, the director’s a creep, multiple cast members have scandals and the reviews are less-than-stellar, well…what does that leave me to be excited about? I genuinely want to know!

I also acknowledge that my attitude has evolved in the almost-9 years I’ve been writing on The Whitly-Verse. Initially, I’d have used “separate the art from the artist” to still enjoy movies without thinking of the ramifications. Not only was I not ready to acknowledge my childhood trauma, but I had some growing up to do. Because, truthfully, it’s impossible to completely distance the artist from their work. And when you can directly influence the trajectory of bad behaviour in Hollywood by not supporting it, I think you should try. Even when one of Hollywood’s greatest is involved.

It's equally possible that I might be saying this because the movie’s been harshly reviewed, or because I have no real attachments to Coppola. After all, I’ve enjoyed the Avatar films, which were directed by someone with a short temper and a massive ego. But while I understand this inconsistency, I never said I loved the movies themselves. Nor do I love James Cameron’s filmography, even the entries I’m “allowed to enjoy”. Remember that.

While it’s personal, I’m not eager to watch Megalopolis. That doesn’t mean I should stop you from watching it, I’m not your parent, but I’d like my decision to be respected. I’m human, and I have my emotional limitations. And in this case, there’s too much I’d be risking mentally by supporting the film. Even when Francis Ford Coppola’s the director.

Wish I May...

Let’s talk Wish.

The last time I discussed this movie, I mentioned the following:

“I’m worried because Wish’s reception validates a prediction I made when Elemental was in theatres: experimental animation’s the new frontier, but how long will it take before it’s a disappointment? The answer’s ‘not long’. It troubles me because the style’s relatively-new, and because it shows that something can’t be exciting based on its art-style alone. And while the latter should’ve been obvious, there’s a real fear Disney might learn the wrong lessons.”

Having watched the movie, my concerns are validated, yet also intertwined with some concerns. There are minor complaints I can make-it’s rushed, Asha has too many friends, the credits skip key movies when recapping Disney’s filmography-but none compare to two major ones and a concern I have with Disney overall. So let’s discuss them. Ready? Here goes.

The first problem is glaring: the writing sucks. Specifically, the songs suck. Wish desperately wants to coast on the success of Lin-Manuel Miranda, whose work with Disney has earned several Oscar nominations via Moana and Encanto. The movie wants to match his rapping and long-winded verses, but because he’s not the lyricist…it fails spectacularly. There’ve also been suggestions this movie was written by AI, something I try not ascribing to, but might be possible given what Marvel did with Secret Invasion. Considering the redundancy of many verses, as well as the timing of the release, it’s not unreasonable.

Still, while the songs themselves aren’t impressive, the compositions are. Even the villain song, “This is the Thanks I Get?!”, is fun, if not unconventional. But the most-impressive number, lyrically and musically, is “This Wish”. Redundancies aside, Ariana DeBose and the lyricists cared deeply, or they wouldn’t have used it for the marketing. It shows that even if AI was involved, a human hand guided it.

Another issue with this movie is the response to one detail. Magnifico, Wish’s antagonist, has been defended as “being right”. To that, I wonder if film literacy’s dead. Like Abuela Madrigal in Encanto, sympathetic isn’t the same as correct. In Magnifico’s case, he’s not even sympathetic, as he’s a victim of underwriting. The movie clearly wanted to allude to John Lasseter’s tenure at Disney while hearkening back to classic Disney villains, and it doesn’t work. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, especially when many of the plot beats feel rushed.

Also, how is Magnifico “right”? Because he felt that he had to safeguard corruptible dreams? Who decides that? And even if that’s true, which it’s not, that doesn’t excuse his controlling nature. He’s even coercive to his wife! Do people not understand manipulators?!

Yet my biggest issue isn’t even the fault of the movie, but rather how it’s impacted Disney: this was a new art-style meant to celebrate Disney’s 100 year anniversary. It was supposed to honour the studio’s legacy. And once it came out…it was met with a lukewarm response. So Disney panicked, “course correcting” with sequels. We’re seeing that with the lineup for the next few years.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying they’ll be bad. Not only am I excited for the sequel to Moana to debut this year, I also think the worlds of Frozen and Zootopia have infinite potential. For all I know, these sequels might be amazing! But that they’re prioritized over original stories is worrisome. Doubly-so that they’re not innovative like Wish.

I’ve championed photorealistic CGI animation before, despite its limitations, but I want animation to not be creatively stagnant. I want it to push boundaries in new and exciting ways, which Wish was attempting. It didn’t succeed, but it was an attempt. Like with Chicken Little, Disney needed to try first. It needed room to fail, and that’s not happening here.

If Disney, a corporation with infinite resources, is afraid to learn from failure, what does that say about the animation industry? Are movies like Nimona and TMNT: Mutant Mayhem one-off responses to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, ones meant to underperform and fizzle out? Will we never break free from the standard set by Pixar in 1995? Is Disney making a feature film like “Paperman” never going to happen again?

It's not even like this movie was atrocious. Disney’s made far worse in the 70’s and 80’s, perhaps even in the early-2000’s. But they were allowed to. And they learned from them, as opposed to doubling-down on safer, more-established alternatives. That’s less a failure of Disney of yore than of Disney of now, which worries me. Because other animation studios are paying attention and taking notes.

Maybe I’m overreacting, and this is a small hiccup in the bigger picture. Maybe Disney has actual, original films in the pipeline that are as innovative as Wish, except well-written and with soul. It could even be that these sequels were inevitable, I don’t know. But that doesn’t make the reactions to Wish less of a problem. Because if this is how we respond to risk-taking, what does that say? After all, isn’t the ultimate deciding factor our feedback, both vocally and financially?

Think about it.

The Omega Factor

The Clones are more interesting than the Jedi.

This was my sentiment post-Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Even with their occasional moments to shine in the Tartakovsky miniseries and Prequels, there were millions of them, and they acted and thought like human beings. It made sense that they’d have unique personalities, something I’m glad was elaborated on. Little did I know, however, that Clone Force 99 wouldn’t only become my favourite unit, but also warrant a spin-off series. That’s exactly what Star Wars: The Bad Batch was.

There are many ways to discuss my thoughts on this show: it’s a worthy successor to Star Wars: The Clone Wars and a nice tie-in to Star Wars Rebels. It’s more focused than both shows. Crosshair’s my favourite member of Clone Force 99. The final scene’s bittersweet in an uplifting way, a full-180 from Star Wars: The Clone Wars’s ending. Instead, I’ll zone-in on something I’d have never expected until suggested by the show: is Omega Force sensitive?

It's strange at first glance that the child character would be a Force wielder; after all, not only is she a full-on clone variant of Jango Fett, but Clones had never been canonically-Force sensitive prior. Still, like Asajj Ventress mentions, there are millions of Clones, so it’s not impossible. Omega even has a high M-count, so the show hinted at it before the curtain was pulled back. But is Omega, the preteen who’s the heart and soul for her gruffer brothers, capable of Force sensitivity? And would that make her a Jedi? It’s left open-ended.

Personally, I’d be down with this. Novelty of a Clone wielding a lightsaber aside, Ahsoka confirmed that Sabine Wren is Force sensitive in its Season 1 finale. And Omega’s revelation isn’t as forced as Sabine’s, having time to breathe while not smacking you in the face. Plus, Omega’s around the right age to be a Padawan, even if the exact number isn’t stated. So why not?

Omega being a Jedi would be a really neat concept. It’d also raise questions that’d expand the franchise in clever ways. For example, how does a Clone become Force sensitive? If the Sith influence Midichlorians to create life, was Omega’s Force sensitivity the result of Darth Sidious manipulating Jango Fett’s DNA? Did he plan for Omega to be his Plan B should Anakin not fall to The Dark Side? And did all the Kaminoans know, or only Nala Se?

None of these questions are answered, but, unlike Snoke’s existence, they don’t need to be. Star Wars is science-fantasy, and it’s also an enhanced D&D campaign. So much retconning occurs as lore’s retroactively grafted onto pre-existing lore that a Clone being Force sensitive isn’t that strange. Nor is it out of place given what The Force is capable of. Either way, I welcome Omega being Force sensitive. Like Grogu and Din Djarin, it’d be new territory for a franchise that’s risk-averse.

It also opens up superficial possibilities: would Omega have a blue lightsaber, a green lightsaber, or a purple lightsaber? Would she wield two lightsabers, or one? Would her robes be the standard grey and brown, or a different colour? Would she even wear robes? And how would she wield a lightsaber?

Going further, would Omega gain a Padawan of her own? Would it be one of the Force sensitive children she was locked up with on Tantiss? How quickly would she progress? And would she join Luke Skywalker’s new Jedi Academy, or go solo? There’s so much to work with since she was created for this show, thereby lacking the plot armour of Rex or Ahsoka. Most-importantly, it’d be great to see a newcomer become a Jedi naturally, like how Luke did in the original films.

I’m excited by a female Clone being Force sensitive. Ever since The EU was retconned by Disney, Star Wars fans have clamoured for that gaping hole to be filled. Force sensitive Clones was one idea that appeared to not survive the purge. Having it brought back, assuming Disney goes through with it, would be a step in the right direction. It’d also be cool.

I’m not one to shy away from being a contrarian amongst Star Wars fans. I liked the Disney Star Wars movies, and I thought The Prequels were enjoyable. I also thought Luke defeating Darktroopers in The Mandalorian singlehandedly added nothing to his character. And Andor bored me because of its pacing. Omega being Force sensitive is something I can get behind without attracting too much negative attention. I could be wrong, Star Wars fans are notoriously toxic, but I’ll chance it. I have nothing to lose.

In the end, there’s potential with Omega should she prove Force sensitive. She’s already well-loved, being the Grogu of Star Wars: The Bad Batch, and she’s capable even without The Force. It’d also clear up why she was a valuable asset to The Empire, as Palpatine had been kidnapping Force sensitive children to train as assassins. If anything, making Omega non-Force sensitive, in contrast to Sabine, would be a complete cop-out. But I’ve been let down before…

Here Brucey Brucey!

Whenever Jaws is mentioned, what comes to mind? Is it John Williams’s score? The image of a giant shark about to eat someone? Maybe even the odd line or two, often misquoted? I’d say all of those combined, but there’s also the uncomfortable elephant in the room:

I don’t consider Jaws one of the best action movies ever made.

It’s not terrible. A recent rewatch made me enjoy it more than I initially did. As for directors, even Steven Spielberg’s trash is more entertaining than most. I think Jaws was a perfect fit for him, showing off his eye for visual storytelling despite the problems Bruce, the shark prop, posed. But in terms of pure spectacle, he’s done better since.

Some of you are rolling your eyes now, and I get it. Why am I scrutinizing this movie for not meeting modern sensibilities? After all, it was already 15 years old when I was born, and technology has progressed significantly! But while true, being a classic doesn’t excuse something from criticism. If you want proof, read some my pieces on other movies from the same director.

I could spend forever deconstructing little details I find silly. Like how the mayor of Amity is a dimwit with blood on his hands. Or how Alex and Chrissy’s deaths are big plot points in the first-half, yet that dog from the first beach scene is never properly mourned. Or how the ending’s hilariously-schlocky and over-the-top, a key feature of Spielberg productions. All of these are funny, some more than others, but they don’t hold back the experience.

No, the real issue is the inconsistent pacing. I have nothing wrong with length. I even wrote a piece defending that! But while it doesn’t bother me, economically-inefficient storytelling does. And Jaws is a 2+ hour experience that doesn’t warrant its length. This is despite its limitations.

For example, the movie didn’t need three beach deaths. I understand Chrissy’s death, as she’s the inciting incident, and Alex’s too, but once it became clear that a man-eating shark was loose in the water the beaches should’ve closed and the hunt begun. Yes, the third beach attack highlights the folly of politicians, prioritizing selfishness, but shark attack #3 is an elaborate extension of shark attack #2, complete with an unnecessary fake-out.

Then there’s the gutting of the tiger shark. I understand that it’s a red herring, indicating that people are susceptible to false alarms, but it drags on. The movie makes a huge fuss as well, leading to shark attack #3, but I think it could’ve been cut down. It didn’t need to be a major plot point, and it brings the first half of the movie to a minor halt. It’s also resolved too quickly, with it never being brought up again.

Perhaps the biggest issues come in the second half. That’s where the main trio hunt for the shark. Again, I know filming had to accommodate a non-functioning prop, but it feels like a lot of the scenes are delaying the inevitable action moments. Even then, they go on for too long, with last-minute decisions that only serve to set up the finale. Even Williams’s score, which works in harrowing moments, transitions to lighthearted in the more triumphant moments. It get why, but it doesn’t work for me.

The dinner scene in the third-act, where the trio flesh out their characters, is way too long. What’s the point of showing scars? Does it serve a purpose, other than highlighting Hooper and Quint’s egos? And the song Hooper, Quint and Brody sing is catchy, but I doubt it’s necessary. Though that’s nitpicking.

Really though, this movie could’ve been tightened. If Jaws had shaved 15-20 minutes off its runtime, most in the second half, I’d have been more on board. As it stands, it feels way too long, simply because of the pacing. And yes, to reiterate, I know the movie was working with a malfunctioning shark prop. But there’s working with limitations, and there’s unnecessary padding, and this movie has both.

I wouldn’t be as frustrated if Spielberg hadn’t perfected suspense 18 years later with Jurassic Park. Like Jaws, that movie’s a victim of hokeyness, padding and red herrings. Unlike Jaws, the movie has unresolved plot threads, some of which aren’t referenced again. Yet while both movies share similar issues, Jurassic Park captures suspense and terror more-efficiently. CGI in 1993 was in its relative infancy, so, like with Bruce the Shark, Spielberg had to work with limitations. And he pulled it off by keeping the suspense and tension consistent in the second half.

This isn’t to demean the impact of Jaws, both for action movies and Spielberg’s career. It was huge in 1975, and its ripple effects can be felt in the way Summer blockbusters, particularly monster movies, are made now. Yet despite being enjoyable in 2024, even more than I remembered, I can’t call it one of Spielberg’s best. It’s not one of his worst either, but you get the picture. Besides, the behind-the-scenes of Jaws makes for the better movie, and I’m anxiously waiting on that to happen!

Folly and Boo

Joker left me with many negative feelings. It’s not only the last movie I saw with my late-Zaidy, it’s also one of the last movies I saw in theatres before the pandemic hit. Additionally, it was a mega-phenomenon despite not being that good, even earning Joaquin Phoenix an Oscar win. So now that its sequel has a trailer, I have to wonder if people understand what they’re in for. Especially given how confusing said trailer is.

I don’t hate anyone for being excited. I’ve been excited about plenty of movies other people weren’t, and I was on-board with Joker before I discovered what it was about. If Joker: Folie à Deux’s up your alley, that’s your prerogative. My goal’s to give a take on a sequel to something that not only didn’t impress me, but actively infuriated me. Okay? Good.

To start, let’s talk about Joker. Despite being annoyed, I enjoyed Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal of Arthur. I thought the material he had was garbage, but Phoenix is one of those actors who can make trash work. Every line, down to the mind-numbingly awful ones, was given believability because of him, and even scenes he improvised, like his slow dance following the murders on the subway, have enough poise to distract from everything else. If all else, Phoenix made this movie.

That said, Arthur’s an awfully-written character. I know the conceit is to show how society stigmatizes mental illnesses, but some of the decisions Arthur makes are embarrassing. At one point he states that he’s “stopped taking his meds”, saying he’s “never felt better”. As someone who briefly went off his meds in university, I guarantee you that the increase in appetite and brief bursts in energy weren’t worth the self-loathing and aggression that followed. Not since childhood had I been that vicious and nasty, and I fail to see how this movie romanticizing such a decision curries Arthur’s sympathies.

Additionally, Arthur’s…scary. And not in a sympathetic or clever way. I know he has an uncontrollable laugh, and that life hates him, but the difference between being miserable and controlling what you can is what creates sympathy. I know people, some personally, who’ve had plenty of awful thrown their way, giving them every excuse to be curmudgeons, and have taken this as an opportunity for growth. Perhaps they were blessed with excellent supports, but-wait, no. Even people I know who’ve taken their lives had tried being positive until the end, and this is despite their support circles. Having mental illness is an unfortunate problem, but being a monster is a choice.

Arthur fails to take control of his life, using each misgiving as an opportunity for revenge. When the businessmen mock him on the subway, he shoots them. When his colleague demeans him at work, he later kills him by stabbing him and ramming his head against a wall. Even Murray, the late-night host who mocks Arthur on TV, gets shot on air. The one person Arthur shows compassion to, a dwarf colleague, is infantilized. Arthur might be mentally-ill, but he’s not sympathetic.

When I initially ripped Joker apart, a lot of people misunderstood my intentions. It remains one of my more-popular pieces on The Whitly-Verse, right up there with my rant about Korrasami. I want to set the record straight: I dislike Joker vehemently. It’s a sloppily-written mess with a crappy lead, even if Phoenix elevates the material. It’s also insulting to people with mental health issues, and it’s an exercise in making me feel angry and guilty for feeling angry simultaneously. It’s not the worst movie I’ve seen, as it’s also uninteresting, but that doesn’t make me less annoyed.

I’m, therefore, not looking forward to Joker: Folie à Deux, as it looks to be doubling down on what I disliked about the original: a mentally-ill protagonist using their lot in life as a violence vehicle? Check. A love interest who exploits that? Check. A movie masking its lack of worthwhile commentary with ill-timed musical numbers? Double check.

Seriously, why’s this a musical? It’s possible there was mis-marketing with the trailer, but I’m not convinced Joker: Folie à Deux would benefit from being a musical any more than the first movie benefitted from being set in the 1980’s. Especially when the song choices shown so far are low-grade cover numbers from better movies. I’m sure Todd Phillips has something in mind with this, but I’m not sold. But there’s always the possibility of me being proven wrong…

Even the one aspect sure to get people talking, Lady Gaga, has me raising eyebrows. And look, no disrespect to Lady Gaga. She’s a talented singer and, going by A Star Is Born, a decent actress. I also think this material suits her. But the one aspect that’d work in this movie’s favour, having her manipulate Arthur in a subversion of the relationship between Joker and Harley, doesn’t seem like it’ll be fully-realized since it’s too sophisticated and clever for this franchise. Again, I could be proven wrong.

I’m not sure Joker: Folie à Deux even understands what made the original a phenomenon: the origins of one of DC’s greatest supervillains. I’m not against this in theory either, similarly to how I wasn’t against Joker in theory. But if you’re going to double down on the ideas of the original, awful as they were, you need to go full-on. You also need to have teeth with bite, something I doubt this movie will. That’s what I’m concerned about.

Again, I don’t want to diminish the anticipation of those looking forward to Joker: Folie à Deux. The world’s dark and scary at times, and movies, even awful ones, provide escapism. Considering The US is also in the middle of preparing for a major election, one with real stakes, a brief distraction from that isn’t unwarranted. But that doesn’t mean that I have to be excited. Because I’m not, and it’s important that people not misconstrue that…even if there’s a chance it’ll happen anyway.