One Villainous Scene: Muska Threatens Sheeta About Laputa

This week was a toss-up for content. On one hand, I had a rant prepared on the situation with Ben & Jerry’s, and how that was being weaponized. On the other hand, Chiaki J. Konaka was prime for discussion. But while both will (hopefully) receive pieces, right now I’ll tackle something easier. Let’s hop on the “One Villainous Scene” train.

Villains are interesting to discuss. They not only, when done well, give something for the protagonists to not become, but they often have the best lines. They’re fun, colourful characters that create tension, giving us something to latch onto and despise. And they’re routinely more interesting than the leads. All of this is why they’re used as storytelling devices.

There are many fun villains out there. Some are big and flashy, while others are small and reserved. If I had to pick one villain and a scene that encapsulates them, it’d have to be from one of my favourite animated films. I’m talking Colonel Muska interrogating Sheeta in Castle in the Sky. I’m such a shill that I’m analyzing two separate scenes from it on The Whitly-Verse. Sue me.

Castle in the Sky’s a film from Hayao Miyazaki that feels like a family-friendly Indiana Jones. Set in Wales at the turn of the 20th Century, it follows Pazu and Sheeta in their quest to find a floating city while being hunted by the military and chased by sky pirates. Along the way, the two become friends, make allies and encounter dark truths. And all of this in, arguably, Miyazaki’s silliest feature. It’s awesome.

The scene I’m zoning-in on takes place roughly a third of the way in. It occurs right after Pazu and Sheeta are captured by the military and taken to a fortress to be interrogated. Pazu, on one hand, is sitting in a dungeon, one he routinely tries, and fails, to escape from. But this is really about Sheeta and Colonel Muska, the film’s antagonist. Sheeta’s been refusing to cooperate with the military, so Muska, who’s been playing his cards close to his chest, takes matters into his own hands. What follows is a turn to seriousness.

Muska visits Sheeta’s chamber under the pretence of giving her a new dress. Sheeta, understandably, wants to know if Pazu’s alright, to which Muska promises she’ll see him later. The two ride a long elevator to the base’s bottom cellar, and Muska shows Sheeta a damaged machine lying in the middle of the room. Sheeta’s shocked and intrigued, something made worse when Muska mentions that this machine, a robot, had crashed onto an elderly couple’s farm from the sky a long time earlier.

I have to make this disclaimer now: I’m referencing the movie’s English dub with this piece. Specifically, the early-2000’s Disney dub, complete with added jokes and a classical rescoring from Joe Hisaishi. The reason is that, aside from being my introduction to it, there’s a unique charm to this version that’s worth analyzing. If that’s enough to deter you, then stop reading this.

What makes this scene unsettling is how it establishes Muska as the antagonist while also grounding Laputa. Prior to this, not only was Muska a background character, but Laputa was a lighthearted goal with low stakes. If anything, Dola and her pirates were the real threat initially, with their battle with Pazu and Sheeta being played for laughs. This was the moment Laputa became serious, and it happened with a robot, a chamber and a colonel frightening a child. This was the end the fun, essentially.

With Sheeta shown that Laputa wasn’t a story passed down by her family, Muska mentions that while the robot’s composition is unknown, its emblem reveals that it was a guardian of the Laputian royal family. Its emblem’s also on Sheeta’s pendant that she wears around her neck. Because the two are interconnected, it’s safe to assume that Laputa’s more powerful than anyone had thought. Of course, Muska’s only sharing this to intimidate Sheeta into cooperating, but it’s chilling to hear all of it anyway. Especially with the quiet, haunting orchestrations in the background.

And then Muska lets the mask briefly slip, as his megalomaniacal demeanour kicks in and he explains how dangerous Laputa is. When Sheeta refuses to cooperate yet again, he ups the ante by threatening to harm Pazu. To top it off, he reveals Sheeta’s royal name, hinting that there’s something he’s not letting on. Considering Sheeta’s already vulnerable, this is the cherry on top.

It’s also brilliant. The scene is short, but so much is revealed: we learn that Laputa’s real in this world. We’re introduced to the darker lore. We see how threatening Muska is, and how he commands the room with few words. And we’re reminded that Sheeta’s a vulnerable kid, which is reenforced by her crying after discovering her pendant’s secret.

You know what helps? The voice acting. I know the English dub gets derided, but this scene is Mark Hamill and Anna Paquin at their best. Hamill especially, being another example of his range beyond Luke Skywalker and The Joker. He relishes every line, chewing the scenery like it’s his dinner. It’s delicious, and he knows it.

Above all else, this is a memorable moment in a memorable movie. I know Miyazaki doesn’t really like shallow villains, he thinks them untrue to life, but Muska makes me wish he’d done more of them. Because, honestly, he’s really good at writing them. Colonel Muska’s the most Hollywood-esque he’ll ever go with his antagonists, but bless him for going there. Because Castle in the Sky wouldn’t be the same without him.

Now, about Miyazaki’s upcoming film…

Paging Kevin Smith!

I’m no fan of Kevin Smith. Aside from his work feeling juvenile and self-indulgent, he comes across as somewhat arrogant. I know he’s popular with nerds, but he’s not for me. All the more reason why Masters of the Universe: Revelation shocked me with its quality. Yes: I enjoyed something Kevin Smith had a hand in. I’m as surprised as you.

That said, I only became interested because of its backlash. When the first 5 episodes debuted, the show immediately received criticism for its unexpected direction. It was so bad that fans of Smith turned on him, calling him a “sellout” for “going down the SJW rabbit hole”. Let’s discuss that.

By the way, spoilers.

The show’s first episode is typical He-Man: Skeletor wants to takeover Castle Grayskull and rule Eternia. Prince Adam is called to become He-Man and fend Skeletor off, which he does with the help of Cringer. It seems like another formulaic fight, and it is…until Skeletor reveals that he knows Castle Grayskull’s secret and heads to the basement to absorb its power. He-Man tries stopping him, but Skeletor nearly destroys an orb holding all of Eternia’s magic. He-Man then sacrifices his life to fix everything, and his sword’s shattered in half.

From here, the show focuses on Prince Adam’s best friend, a soldier for Eternia’s named Teela, and her decision live as a mercenary for hire. This is where everything really starts. It’s also where it becomes something special. I’m unsure if it’ll follow-through, it’s only been 5 episodes, but the possibility’s still there. And I’m excited, especially with that cliff-hanger ending!

Sadly, that’s not what many people think. Like its sister series reboot, Masters of the Universe: Revelation has received flak for not being like the He-Man of the 1980’s. It’s been called a betrayal, with fan reception differing from critical reception. It’s mind-blowing: this is Smith’s best-reviewed project in years, and it’s already being torn apart by fans? Go figure!

I’m not on board with the hate. I think it’s narrow-minded, and it smells of sexism and bigotry. It’s another reminder that nerds can be over-possessive, something I first became aware of with E3 2008 and the Wii. But despite being painful to relive that, I’ll try my best to be fair.

On one hand, I get it: He-Man, like She-Ra, means a lot to a lot of people. Despite originally being Mattel toys that were made into narrative advertising with lessons, the property had enough of an impact on young boys. It’s also had a few reboots, with one of them in 2002. He-Man, as ridiculous as this sounds, means something. And while it might seem strange, remember that entertainment’s often lauded when the pendulum swings in favour of social progress. This goes both ways, essentially.

It’s worth noting that the franchise tried instilling positive lessons. Were they “forced”? Maybe. Did they reek of the 80’s? Yes. But they existed. And they stuck with people.

So yes, I get why this could be off-putting. For one, it’s a new take on an old franchise, one people care about deeply. And two, it’s a departure from expectations, one no one saw coming. Add in that the trailers only showed select footage from the first episode, and it feels like false advertising. I sympathize.

One the other hand, this is still overblown. Ignoring the trailers, which I admit were misleading, the He-Man IP didn’t have much to work with before this. Remember, this was a property based on a toy line. Its entire point was narrative advertising, something it did well. It might have had heart, but that was never its objective.

It’s easy to see why Smith and company wanted something new. He-Man and the Masters of the Universe was a show with a cookie-cutter premise: Skeletor invades Castle Grayskull. Prince Adam transforms into He-Man. He-Man beats Skeletor and saves the day. Rinse and repeat. That can get boring after a while.

In fact, Smith knew this so well that he even parodied it in the opening episode. It’s also incredibly unsubtle, with everyone openly acknowledging their intentions before subverting them. It might not be what fans were anticipating, but is it worth the backlash? No.

Besides, what’s wrong with Teela? Teela’s awesome! She not only has motivations and an arc trajectory, but she has excellent chemistry with the other characters. I wouldn’t mind following her journey, not unlike how I was invested in Adora in She-Ra and the Princesses of Power. Even Teela’s haircut post-Episode 1, which I’m not a fan of on principle, doesn’t distract from that.

Also, what’s wrong with a shift in focus? The show isn’t about He-Man, it makes that clear with its title. Having a story focus on one character indefinitely makes its world feel small. Having it focus on side-characters, however, makes it feel bigger. And that’s what this show is doing.

Getting hung up on this shift is silly. Masters of the Universe: Revelation has a lot going for it aside from a fresh look. Like how the animation’s much more fluid than in the 80’s. Or how the voice-work, particularly Mark Hamill and Sarah Michelle Gellar, is top-tier. Or how those tacked-on, Reagan-era messages are gone, instead letting the show’s writing do the talking. This is all lost in the conversation.

I also think that there’s sexism and homophobia at play. A recurring complaint is that there’s a potential lesbian romance arc, which is “bad for children”. Firstly, Teela’s haircut isn’t inherently queer-coded. And secondly, so what? Lesbians are people too! And if Catradora’s anything to go by, then I’m not worried. Besides, plenty of kids are gay, and this kind of representation means a lot!

Above everything else, I’m worried this is yet another instance of a bold change being derided for the wrong reasons. Popular media’s so saturated in nostalgia that taking risks with established IPs is the only way to keep them exciting. Like Luke Skywalker in Star Wars: The Last Jedi, it’s necessary if they’re to remain relevant. This is no different.

So yes, I think detractors are overreacting. Do I get why they’re upset? A little bit. But that doesn’t mean that Kevin Smith’s suddenly an “SJW shill”. Especially given his past behaviour! Or are we forgetting that?

Anyway, I’m looking forward to more. Seriously, 5 episodes…and you end on that?!

My Unorthodox Misfire

“Fundamentalist Escape Porn” is trendy these days. I get it: there’s an element of schadenfreude to seeing fundamentalists get their “just desserts”, as well as satisfaction in seeing someone “take a stand”. It’s exciting. But is it healthy or honest? I’m not convinced.

My Unorthodox Life is a new addition to this genre, assuming you can call it that. It follows Julia Haart, a former, ultra-Orthodox Jewess from Monsey, New York who’s now a CEO of a corporation. The show, told in 8, 40-ish minute episodes, is about her struggles with leaving, as well as how she relates to her family. It’s been called “gripping” and “exciting”. It’s also been heavily-criticized by many. Where do I stand? I tried watching one episode, got frustrated and stopped.

I won’t comment on how the show “gets Orthodox Jewish women wrong”, because that’s not my place. I also won’t talk about how this is another issue with portraying racial minorities, since I’m an Ashkenazi Jew. I won’t even talk too much about the show, because, like I said, I couldn’t sit through one episode. Instead, I’d like to discuss some misconceptions this show has brought to the forefront, and why they’re more harmful than helpful.

I didn’t grow up observant. My family was traditional, which meant going to services once a week, having Shabbat and Yom Tov meals, keeping some level of Kashrut and going to Jewish day school. Only once I hit teenage-hood, particularly after moving in my first year of high school, did my Jewish roots start to mean anything. And even then, it happened in stages. I didn’t start wearing a Kippah full-time until I was 16, and I didn’t start praying daily until university.

While I don’t identify with a particular label, because I find that reductive, I consider my Jewish heritage and its practices to be important. I’m fluent in literary Hebrew, I know many Jewish tunes and songs, and I can recite obscure laws and customs. I also routinely study Jewish texts, amassing information by the day. That said, I’m not ignorant to the world around me. I was secularly educated, I have interests outside of my background, and have several non-Jewish friends. I engage in reality because it’s important to do so, and I challenge my identity regularly.

This is what many Jews, even fully-practicing ones, experience daily. Contrary to misconceptions, religious Jews aren’t entirely closed-off and bigoted. Even the ones that appear more sheltered, the “black hatters”, have nuance and complexity to how they live their lives. I know this because I live in a religious community. I also know this because I’ve engaged with a spectrum of Jews.

I think the conversation around the frum Jewish community, which is diverse, needs to change. There’s a trickle-down effect going on that hurts Jews collectively. When people claim that “Jews are rigid”, they inevitably list off various rituals they not only don’t understand, but also ones that don’t exist. It’s a rabbit hole with no end, and it leads to harmful stereotypes that turn into harmful actions. It’s also a perpetual cycle.

Take the concepts of Jewish ritual slaughter and male circumcision. Both have been hot topics for years, with people making cases for them being cruel and barbaric. For the latter, the debate is still inconclusive. For the former, it’s led to a ban of Kosher meat production in The EU. In both cases, the debate spreads ignorance and is more about control.

I’m not joking, either. Every time I’ve discussed these topics in a general forum, the copious amounts of ignorance I hear is mind-boggling: “Jews torture animals and babies!” “Jews are barbaric!” “Circumcision is mutilation!” The list goes on. And whenever these debates arrive at the desks of politicians, laws are discussed or passed that cause harm to Jews.

That’s the issue: the ignorance surrounding Jewish culture, particularly Orthodox Jewish culture, is harmful. We deserve better, and we’re not getting it when mass media fetishizes exodus stories. Because media has an impact on our lives, and if the narrative is skewed it leads to dire consequences. Sometimes these consequences can even be death. It sounds like I’m being hyperbolic, but I’m not.

It also does little to raise my self-worth. I’m not saying the frum world doesn’t have issues. It does: sex education is often bare minimum. There’s an Agunah, or “chained marriage”, crisis. Kosher food is expensive, as is Jewish education. And we’re not immune to Me Too scandals. These are all worth discussing constructively.

But to turn around and claim that there’s no inherent value to anything? That’s unhelpful. It’s unhelpful because religious constructs can be healthy if utilized properly. In fact, religion can help you be content with not being content. I know that sounds self-defeating, but it’s true.

It’d be nice if a piece of media discussing Judaism’s follies would balance it out with its strengths. Because those exist too: Shabbat allows me to unwind from daily life for 25 hours. Shabbat dinners and lunches with family make me engage and bond with them, which is healthy. Learning Tanach has helped me understand a foreign language. Even communal prayer has a social component to it. These are valuable, so why shame them?

As a final note, not everyone who “leaves the fold” leaves Orthodox Judaism. And not everyone who’s “off the path” no longer cares about Judaism. There are approximately 15 million Jews worldwide, and while Orthodoxy might not be for everyone, that doesn’t mean it’s for no one. Saying so is both dishonest and a form of Antisemitism. Because remember, we’re not monolithic. We never were.

So yes, I’d like shows like My Unorthodox Life to acknowledge this. Does that mean that I should discredit Julia’s story? No, she has her own struggles that need respecting and validating. But I wish more self-awareness came with that. Because to the uninitiated, it sends a bad message and leads to ignorance. We have enough ignorance to deal with without our own adding fuel to the fire.

Marvel's "Adaptation Sickness"

Let’s be clear: The MCU isn’t above criticism. It has its share of problems and shortcomings, subtle and unsubtle, that are worth discussing. Even I’ve made that known before. But I find that people look for the wrong reasons to be critical of it anyway. This is especially the case with comic book fans.

I liked Black Widow, even with the extra money I shelled out to keep current with the conversation (nearly $40 CDN). It wasn’t perfect-it cribbed plot beats from Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and it felt like an overdue outing for the titular character-but it was quite enjoyable. I especially liked how it filled in the gaps between Captain America: Civil War and The Avengers: Infinity War without contradicting either movie, and how it gave me new characters to root for. I also liked how it touched on constructed families in a respectful way, and I thought it worked as a commentary on the sexism of Natasha Romanov’s character. Basically, I approve.

And that’s where my spoiler-free discussion ends. The one aspect that has people up in arms is the twist-reveal of its focal antagonist. More-specifically, how said antagonist was built up VS how said antagonist was utilized. So let’s dissect that. Let’s discuss Taskmaster.

In the movie’s first-act, Yelena asks Natasha how she broke free of Dreykov and The Red Room. Natasha, of course, mentions Budapest and Clint, but she zones-in on the day she supposedly assassinated Dreykov and his daughter. Fast-forward to the third-act, and Dreykov, who survived the explosion that supposedly killed him, requests that his silent assassin, codenamed Taskmaster, remove their helmet. Taskmaster does so, and Natasha sees the now-disfigured and adult face of Dreykov’s daughter staring back at her.

Cue the fan rage.

Despite Taskmaster being a popular Spider-Man villain in the comics, he was never as big as Doctor Octopus or The Green Goblin. He was never even as big as Venom! But that didn’t stop the outraged that such an iconic antagonist was “done dirty”. Like The Mandarin in Iron Man 3, The MCU butchered another baddie for the sake of a “woke agenda”. In this case, “girl power”.

I’ll be the first to admit that I wasn’t a fan of The Mandarin’s reveal in Iron Man 3. I thought it left-field in execution, lacked build-up, contradicted what was established prior and substituted a potentially cool villain for a lame and half-baked one. It might’ve had mild foreshadowing early on, but it wasn’t executed well. This is also ignoring his comic book origins, because I don’t care about them. So yes, I get the ire there.

I don’t, however, get the ire over the Taskmaster reveal. I don’t get it for two reasons. The first is that it works relative to what was built up to. This was a ghost from Natasha’s past coming back to haunt her. Considering that Natasha’s whole arc was atoning for the red in her ledger, Taskmaster was a way of reminding her that the red wouldn’t go away so easily. It’s also, judging by the face behind the reveal, chilling to see.

The second reason is that it makes Dreykov a better antagonist. Dreykov has no qualms with manipulating women for his own, selfish goals. He’s so committed to the part that he’s even made his own daughter his puppet. It takes a real sociopath to do that, furthering my detest for him. This is how I think The Mandarin should’ve been handled in Iron Man 3: make the advertised baddie a helpless pawn for the actual baddie, and make that baddie threatening.

By the way, Taskmaster’s reveal actually fits with my plot-twist litmus test: it makes sense in context, and it progresses the story. Could it have been executed better? Maybe, but I think we got a decent enough version here. So much so, in fact, that Gail Simone liked it! How about that?

Anyway, this drives home a bigger issue with the comic fandom: so many people are insistent on “accuracy”, even when it clashes with the story at hand. We saw it with Mysterio in Spider-Man: Far From Home and the multiverse, and we saw it with Ralph Bohner in WandaVision. Both times, the twists, while silly, fit the themes of their respective stories. And now we saw it again with Taskmaster. But because it “wasn’t accurate”, it angered die-hards.

That’s a problem. For one, the source material isn’t that important when doings adaptations (though it shouldn’t be discounted). And for another, Marvel tells good stories because it discounts its source material when it clashes with their vision. It’s why Mantis doesn’t look like an ancient goddess with antennae in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, and why Thanos’s motives were changed to population equilibrium in The Avengers: Infinity War. Sometimes, for the betterment of a story, certain concepts have to be discarded. This is no different.

And you know what? That’s okay! The MCU hasn’t hit the level of bloat that Marvel Comics has because they streamline their best ideas into mostly-contained narratives. It doesn’t always work, but The MCU has often been at its worst when acting as connective tissue instead of genuine craft. That’s something I wish more people understood.

Even if Taskmaster hadn’t worked, I still think fans are overreacting. Does it suck that Taskmaster from the comics is absent in Black Widow? I guess so. Do I wish that Taskmaster had more screen-time? Sure! But do I think this is a “disgrace”? Absolutely not!

But what do I know? I confessed to not reading Marvel’s comics!

Age of Dorfftron

Hollywood has serious issues. Aside from action movies costing a fortune to make, the industry has a tendency to underpay/overwork VFX artists, misrepresent minorities and whitewash cultures. This is in addition to frequently releasing sequels, reboots and remakes, as well as the racism, sexism and queer-phobia behind the scenes. And don’t get me started on the impropriety that permeates the industry. Basically, there’s lots to criticize.

Unfortunately, it seems like people, even in the industry, frequently pick the wrong targets to direct their ire. This is especially the case with The MCU, which has gotten lots of pushback lately. Be it James Cameron or Martin Scorsese, it can never catch a break. And now, thanks to Stephen Dorff, it’s happened again. Go figure!

In a recent interview, Dorff criticized The MCU for being subpar. To quote Dorff:

“I still hunt out the good shit because I don’t want to be in Black Widow…It looks like garbage to me. It looks like a bad video game. I’m embarrassed for those people. I’m embarrassed for Scarlett! I’m sure she got paid five, seven million bucks, but I’m embarrassed for her. I don’t want to be in those movies. I really don’t. I’ll find that kid director that’s gonna be the next [Stanley] Kubrick and I’ll act for him instead.”

Hmm…

So I’m not accused of being unfair, most of what Dorff’s criticizing isn’t a problem. Not wanting to be in Black Widow, or any MCU property, is a sentiment many people in Hollywood have. Additionally, wanting true game-changers, whatever that means, is understandable in an industry increasingly becoming homogenized. And the video game criticism, while weird, is one I can see, even though there are other movies more guilty of that. Basically, I’ll give Dorff the benefit of the doubt.

That said, I don’t think he’s being entirely fair. Therefore, I’m going to prod and explain why I don’t agree with him. See, The MCU’s a product. And like every product, it, in theory, caters to a certain market. In this case, that happens to be comic book, superhero and action fans. The franchisees know this.

The MCU’s also incredibly-successful. So successful, in fact, that The Avengers: Endgame temporarily held the record for being the highest-grossing film ever. The executives at Disney, who own the brand, know what they’re doing. Factor in that most of the films are critically-successful, and they have no reason to stop making them. I’m not kidding about the latter part.

I really think that Dorff’s being unfair here. It’s one issue if the films were universally panned, because they’d be taking up unnecessary head space. It’d be another if audiences didn’t like them, because they’d be a waste of time. But when the films are adored by audiences and critics, it seems like Dorff’s jealous. And that’s not a good look.

It’s especially not a good look given Dorff’s resume. In case you to forgot, Dorff was in a Marvel property in the late-90’s. He was in Blade. Sure, it wasn’t The MCU, but I think that works against it. Because the Blade films, while loved by some fans, weren’t critically-praised. They were actually panned, and their box-office returns were modest. It seems like Dorff might be compensating for that. It’s also hypocritical.

I actually consider Dorff’s remarks to be insensitive. Scarlett Johansson doesn’t mind playing Black Widow, or she’d have left the role a decade ago. Besides, the role pays well. Most MCU roles do. And in an industry where money speaks, why would she pass that up? It doesn’t make sense.

Dorff should really know this, too. He’s been acting for decades. And given that acting’s a job, and Hollywood’s an employer, he should recognize that jobs pay bills. You can argue that Hollywood salaries are too high, but acting’s still a job. And sometimes that means taking parts you don’t love.

I’m also miffed because, as with many critiques of The MCU, Dorff’s complaints ring hollow and petty. There are legitimate reasons to critique the franchise: outside of how it’s run, The MCU often comes across as imperial propaganda. It also is littered with casual racism and sexism, and has yet to openly have a queer character. Not to mention, many of the films have runtime bloat. But when the criticism doesn’t take any of the above into account, I wonder if it’s in good-faith.

Perhaps this is a waste of time. Stephen Dorff, apparently, hasn’t had much to his credits in recent years, and this feels like a shameless attempt at trying to stay relevant. But while he’s entitled to his opinion, he’s retreading a lot of the bad-faith attacks that so many detractors use. It’s not honest, essentially. And because it’s not honest, I can’t let it go.

Look, The MCU will eventually fail. It’s run by people, and people are flawed and limited. Sooner or later, be it lack of vision or audience boredom, the franchise will cease to resonate. But that hasn’t happened yet. And as long as it’s not happening, I think it’s safe to enjoy what it offers, even if it’s not to everyone’s liking.

So yes, this was me saying that I disagree with Stephen Dorff. Make what you will of that.

Mario Party Legacies

The year’s 1998. The N64 has been out for 2 years. Nintendo, trying to capitalize on the Holiday Season, teams up with Hudson Soft, creators of the Bomberman franchise, to make a party game. Taking Nintendo’s mascot and pitting him against his pals, the two companies, with the Shigeru Miyamoto’s oversight, release Mario Party in Japan on December 18th. The game is a hit, eventually coming to North America and Europe early the following year, and spawns a sub-franchise that’s still going. The looming question, however, is “What makes it worthy of gamers’ attentions 23 years later?”

Like Super Smash Bros., I was the perfect age when this first came out. Like Super Smash Bros., I also discovered it at a friend’s house. But whereas Super Smash Bros. has stayed in the limelight because it’s the video game-equivalent of The Avengers, Mario Party always played second fiddle. It’s enjoyable, but it’s never garnered the praise of its fighting counterpart.

However, because Mario Party Superstars was recently announced for later this year, I figured that I’d discuss it anyway.

What’s Mario Party about? Well, it’s a board game that’s interspersed with mini-games. Taking inspiration from Fortune Street, another party game with sequels that never arrived here until recently, you pick a character, choose a board, set the rules (turns, number of players, if bonuses are allowed) and watch the magic. Each player then rolls a dice block to determine the order of play, is alerted of the stakes of the board and watches the chaos ensue. That’s the basic set-up.

It’d be easy to say “The rest is up to you to figure out!”, but that’d be dishonest. Because while Mario Party might be straightforward, it’s the finer details that shine through. For one, you roll a die to determine the number of spaces you can move. And two, while the objective is to collect enough Coins for a Star, the individual spaces are always unpredictable. Blue spaces, for example, give you coins, while red spaces take them away. But there are also green spaces, which range from Events (which cause something weird to happen), Duels (where you fight someone for coins), Solo Mini-Games (where you play a game alone) and the ? (which is as it suggests). There are also Bowser spaces, which mess up everything. Because the space you land on is mostly based on chance, it’s as exciting as it is suspenseful.

Additionally, you can buy special Items from the Item Shop. The trinkets are varied, but they often keep everything exciting. Some, like Mushroom Blocks, give you extra Dice to roll. Others, like Boo Bells, can summon aids to steal from other players. And then there are that items that take you to the Star’s location. They’re easily the cheapest items, yet they cost the most Coins. Items are as much a staple as the boards, and using them wisely can tip the game to your favour.

Yet the real heart of the franchise is the mini-games. Once all players have rolled their Dice and moved their allotted spaces per turn, a 4-Player/1V3/2V2 mini-game is selected based on the space each player landed on. These range from simple to infuriating, and their existence has caused plenty of chaos and frustration. More than any other franchise on a Nintendo console, nothing’s ruined more friendships than these mini-games. And that’s part of the fun.

The mix of unpredictability, frustration and intrigue is what’s kept these games going. Mario Party has had many iterations, some worse than others, as well as many themes, but the core dynamic has remained. It doesn’t matter if it introduced costumes, a Duel Mode, where you fight an opponent like the Wild West, tag-teaming, or even partners, the spirit of the franchise hasn’t left; after all, what’s better than seeing Yoshi face off against Peach, Mario and Luigi for the title of Superstar? Friendly competition!

That’s probably why I can still play these games and enjoy them like I did as a kid. Whether it’s 10 year-old me playing with some friends at a sleepover birthday party, 15 year-old me playing with my cousins at a family brunch, or 28 year-old me having a late-night tournament with old classmates at a high school reunion, Mario Party never feels old. If anything, like the Smash Bros. games, it’s as much fun to play drunk as it is sober. Bless it for that!

Still, if the Mario Party games have one advantage over the Smash Bros. games, it’s that they pick your brain as much as they test your competitive side. Are they gambling? Maybe. Is that good for children? Maybe not. Do I care? Not really, as I’d rather they play this than get wasted at a casino! Especially if it means testing their education!

Here’s to you, Mario Party! May you frustrate, and entertain, people for many more years! If you’ll excuse me, I’d going to overhype myself for Mario Party Superstars again. (You got me hooked once with the classic mini-games and maps, but can you do it again by making them still work?)

The Bat-Cat Dilemma

(Warning: The following contains mature subject matter for some readers. Continue at your own risk.)

A few years ago I tore into Batman. I called him “boring”, and I pointed out that WB and DC over-relied on him. In the years since, however, I’ve developed even stronger opinions. And now it seems like another opportunity to rip into Batman has come. More specifically, it’s an opportunity to rip into DC for bringing unwanted attention to themselves. I’m about to get weird…

Has anyone seen Harley Quinn? I can’t access it, for several reasons, but I’ve heard good stuff. I’ve especially heard talk of it being DC’s answer to The Venture Bros., which should signal if you’ll like or hate it. It also broke a few taboos over its runtime, including a relationship between Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy that doesn’t feel shallow. Fancy that.

I mention this because DC recently got into hot water over a nixed moment from Season 3. There was supposed to be a sex scene where Batman goes down on Catwoman, only to be removed at the last second because, “Real heroes don’t do that”. Never mind that the adaptation of one of Batgirl’s most famous stories involved her and Batman having sex, Batman doesn’t satisfy women. Take what you will from that. I know I have!

Sufficed to say, the internet didn’t take that news well. Within hours of DC’s statement, Batman was now the subject of ridicule. Jokes, mostly sexual, began circulating to many laughs, including some from DC. Perhaps the biggest surprise was Zack Snyder posting fan-art of Batman giving Catwoman cunnilingus on Twitter, even if the image reeked of The Male Gaze. It was bad for DC and WB’s PR team. And, if we’re being honest, they deserved it.

If you strip away the humour and iconography, there’s something rather telling that isn’t pleasant. See, Batman not pleasuring women isn’t really about him. He’s a fictional construct, and you can project whatever you want. That Batman doesn’t satisfy his romantic interests says less about him and more about his writers. In particular, about how society views femininity and sexuality. And it’s not pleasant.

Western thinking on female autonomy is dubious. Whether it’s the printing press leading to women becoming disobedient to their husbands, or The Suffragette Movement leading to women also becoming disobedient to their husbands, the fear of women in general has existed for centuries. Specifically, female sexuality has been quite contentious. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in women not being allowed to enjoy sex. In other words, women should strictly be conduits for male pleasure.

If that sounds sexist, it is. But it’s been championed for a long time by well-respected members of society, including Sigmund Freud. This framing’s been around for so long that it’s only now starting to go away, and with that has come backlash. There’s a reason why men having multiple romantic partners is more socially-acceptable than women having them. Think about it: a man’s a player or a stud, while a women’s a slut or a whore.

It’s for this reason that women’s sexuality’s also not taken as seriously. In The US alone, Viagra’s treated far more generously than Birth Control pills. Additionally, women are routinely scrutinized for wanting abortions, and Roe V. Wade is constantly at risk of being reversed because of how politicians view fetuses. And let’s not forget the stigma that comes with rape and/or sexual assault! Basically, being a woman and wanting sexual autonomy are often viewed as an issue.

I mention this because that’s really what this is about. Because Batman’s had many romantic interests, most-notably Catwoman. But whereas it’s a non-issue for him to date multiple women to cope with his trauma, that he’s not allowed to make them happy is a problem. It shows how regressive he is. That’s not a positive development.

It’s especially not positive because of how superheroines at DC have been shafted in favour of superheroes. Of the big three, how many movies have been made about Batman and Superman? Many. How many have been made about Wonder Woman? Three. Additionally, when faced with life-threatening situations, how much more-likely have heroes rebounded over heroines? When Superman was murdered in the 90’s, he stayed dead for a few months. Supergirl, conversely, has died brutally numerous times, while Batgirl was paralyzed/raped and Green Lantern found his girlfriend stuffed in a refrigerator.

It’s easy to laugh this off as a man, but women who are fans of comics have had to turn a blind eye for decades. Whenever a superheroine becomes popular, the chances of her being reshaped to “appeal to male sensibilities” have been high. Superheroes, on the other hand, have rarely had that happen to them. And when they have it hasn’t been permanent. So Batman not pleasing his romantic interests is part of that problem.

It also says something when violence is preferable to sex. Women can be shot in the chest, raped and left for dead to further a man’s story, but they can’t be happy in bed. Women can die horribly, but they can’t show T&A. And women can be stuffed into refrigerators, but they can’t enjoy themselves in the privacy of their own homes. On the rare occasions where we see any of this, it’s considered “scandalous” or “sacrilegious”.

I wish it weren’t able to influence popular discourse. But similarly to how Superman’s influence can lead a young boy to his death, or how The Joker’s influence can cause someone to shoot up a movie theatre, negative, harmful or reductive portrayals of women can cause women to suffer from self-esteem issues. There’s a reason why Catradora was a big deal, or why Harley Quinn kissing Poison Ivy in Harley Quinn sent shockwaves throughout animated television. These situations matter, and they make a difference. They might be slight, but they’re there.

I think this kind of positive representation is needed. We’re not living in the 1700’s. Contrary to what pundits claim, people aren’t always so rigid, and the marginalized deserve to be seen and heard. And if it’s “not good for the children”? So be it, though children are more perceptive than adults let on.

So let Batman and Catwoman have sex! And let Batman satisfy Catwoman! It might be “weird” or “uncomfortable”, but that means we have a lot of teaching and growth left. Because unless female sexuality’s properly appreciated, then nothing will really change. And that’s criminal.

Now then, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go detox...