Velma's Toxic Edginess

Sometimes I frequent my old pieces and wonder if what I said was too on-the-nose. Other times, I wonder if I didn’t say enough. And then there are moments where I made predictions that were heavy-handed, but didn’t go hard enough. Such is the case with Velma, which recently debuted its first season to mixed reception. Despite my initial thoughts being nothing more than a footnote, I think I undersold the show:

“We’re seeing that, for example, with HBO Max’s Velma, which sees Velma Dinkley reimagined as a detective who drops f-bombs.”

My problem, despite not fully realizing it, was that Velma wanted to be the Scooby-Doo-esque answer to Harley Quinn. The latter was a reimagining of the DC character as an antiheroine with a foul mouth. HBO Max doesn’t exist in Canada, but the clips I’ve seen have made it clear that it’s not for me. However, despite my issues with the writing, it at least has respect for its characters. Velma, on the other hand, doesn’t.

It's unfortunate that I’m even talking about this, as the show’s already received plenty of ire. On the right, it’s been derided as “woke garbage”. On the left, it’s been derided for being unnecessarily try-hard and edgy, despite making updates to certain characters that are interesting. It feels like I’m out of my league for saying anything at all, as I’d be talking over the voices of Desi-Americans. But since the show’s taking flak from them as is, I’ll take a stab as an outsider while trying not to talk over anyone. I apologize in advance if I’m unsuccessful.

For as much as I’ve been critical of the Scooby-Doo franchise before, I admire its weird charm. The idea of five ragtag, teenaged musicians who solve mysteries is cute. Equally charming is how anti-authoritarian the franchise is, teaching kids to be skeptical of those in charge. The reality that grownups can take advantage of those closest to them was radical in the 60’s, but has especially caught on in the decades since. Franchises like Harry Potter and A Series of Unfortunate Events owe some gratitude to Scooby-Doo for that.

That said, Scooby-Doo was a weird series. For as much as it broke ground, it wasn’t without fault. It was cheaply-made, formulaic, recycled the same stock twist (the mastermind was the last person you’d expect, yet the one person everyone trusted the most) and…dabbled in harmful stereotypes. That last point even lingered in the live-action movies penned by James Gunn. I remember enjoying the franchise as a child, but adult me needs more.

Unfortunately, the franchise was aware of this. Despite Scooby-Doo Where Are You?’s success, future iterations, like every Hanna-Barbera series, struggled to remain relevant and kept reinventing themselves. Most of the time they failed, but every-so-often you had What’s New Scooby-Doo? and Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated. Velma, theoretically, is yet another reimagining. It’s also, to its credit, different.

That said, I wish that it’d yielded better results. Aside from the controversies surrounding its main VA, a lot of the changes haven’t gone over well. Shaggy, or Norville, as a black teenager who’s anti-drugs sounds interesting in theory, but his personality revolving solely around that is tiresome. Daphne and Fred, once the franchise’s cutest couple, are now drug dealers and petty jerks. This isn’t factoring in Velma, who’s been downgraded to a mouthpiece for…unusual politics. It sounds weird saying that, but have a listen for yourselves.

Regardless, it’s not the slam-dunk reimagining HBO Max wanted. It’s not even that the show has no reverence for its characters, as that can be done well! No, Velma’s embarrassed to be Scooby-Doo adjacent, something made worse by it openly calling that out in-show. I’m not joking about that.

A lot of the blame’s being lobbed at Mindy Kaling. While I’ve enjoyed art from outwardly-controversial individuals before-I like the Avatar movies-this isn’t solely on her. That’s not to discount her, but she’s not the show-runner or head writer. The rot’s impacting the entire branch, and that needs calling out. Focusing solely on Kaling here is racist and misogynistic.

The backlash from the far-right isn’t much better. Whether it’s reactionary videos on YouTube, or complaining that Shaggy’s now a black man, it’s caused Velma to gain legs in the larger conversation. Because it shouldn’t matter that Shaggy’s now black. What matters is how needlessly-edgy Velma is, including jokes and lines that sound “mature” when they’re really not. It’s like this show went to the Deadpool school of writing, forgetting that Deadpool, when written well, is also sincere.

If anything can be extrapolated, it’s that Velma’s another “dark reimagining” of a children’s property. And like The Amazing Spider-Man and Transformers movies, it falls flat on its face. Besides, what’s wrong with lighthearted and fun? Some of my favourite shows are lighthearted and fun! Why are people so scared of that?

Finally, I should address the elephant in the room: in a recent panel at New York Comic-Con, Charlie Grandy, the show-runner for Velma, stated that he didn’t want Scooby-Doo in the series because he was “too kiddy”. I don’t buy that. Family Guy, one of the highest-rated late-night sitcoms on TV, has a talking, anthropomorphized dog as a main character. Say what you will about it in general, but Family Guy isn’t going anywhere. And not including Scooby-Doo for that reason is lame.

So yes, that’s my take on Velma. If you’ll excuse me, I’ll go watch something more to my liking…

The Porn Awakens

(Warning: Portions of the following piece contain mature subject matter. Reader discretion is strongly advised.)

The internet can be a rollercoaster sometimes.

Take anime. Ever since the internet’s accessibility has become democratized, there’s been a deluge of anime fan-art. Whether for fun or monetization, every fandom in the community has had its share of fan-art. And with that universal availability has come the issue of everyone wanting to share-and re-share-content with everyone else on the web. However, this freedom can also have some unintended, even troubling, consequences, as evidenced recently with the Toonami block.

I never grew up with Toonami. I live in Canada, after all. But I remember catching its shows when I went on Winter vacation to Florida, and I knew it was important culturally. So when the block was revived a decade ago, I eagerly awaited its arrival over here. The irony is that when it finally came, I’d lost interest in TV altogether.

Essentially, I didn’t keep up with the goings-on of Toonami. This made the announcement that it was ending its fan-art segment after two episodes, something I didn’t know it was doing to begin with, surprising. What was more surprising was why, something both hilarious and head-scratching. It all begins with vore.

What’s vore? It’s fan-art that centres around fetishized cannibalism. It’s popular on Booru sites, though I won’t show examples. It usually ticks off two boxes: cannibalism, and fat fetishism. Far be it from me to shame fans, as we all have our kinks.

When Toonami asked for its most-recent submissions of fan-art, a vore image of Nami from One Piece was unintentionally submitted. Or maybe it was intentional and meant as a joke, I’m not sure. Either way, it didn’t go over well, and, despite being featured for only a few seconds, it caused the segment to be pulled altogether. This is funny, especially given how jarring it was to see, but it’s also disconcerting because those few seconds of submission should’ve been properly vetted, but weren’t. Clearly someone knew this wouldn’t bode well and didn’t care. Or if they didn’t know, they exercised poor judgment.

But then there’s another problem here too: word has it that the original artist hadn’t consented to the publication of this content.

Now, I know Toonami’s current lineup is on late-night TV, hence its viewership, hopefully, is adults. But I wonder what would’ve happened had this block premiered in the afternoon like it used to. That’d put it into the kids and teenagers demographic, where it could cause parental and perhaps even legal outrage. After all, this is arguably pornographic art! We all know that kids browse porn anyway, but that doesn’t make it right…especially when there are guidelines for content on broadcast networks.

Either way, this is a bad look for Toonami. That’s not factoring in that this wasn’t meant for public consumption anyway. Like I said, the original artist apparently had never consented to this submission for public consumption. It even got so controversial that the co-creator of Toonami, Jason DeMarco, admitted to this on Twitter:

“So I guess the Toonami Fan Art submissions piece we aired last night had a person’s art in it that lives behind a paywall. Someone sent it to us under a false name as a ‘fan’. We’ve pulled it off of the Toonami FB and asked YouTube to pull it down as well.”

DeMarco later stated that Toonami’s vetting staff is tiny, so they rely on fan integrity. Whether or not that’s accurate, something clearly went awry here. It also sucks that Toonami’s now refusing to allow any more fan-art. Especially since most fan-art creators are small artists, and that level of exposure would be excellent. It’d also give fans a chance to see it.

So yes, this was clearly a blunder. While you could argue that this vore got more exposure for its creator than any paid subscriber, that doesn’t automatically make it right. Because the lack of consent is a problem, and that inadequacy of vetting content’s also a problem, and that’s what’s at stake.

It also highlights one of the perils to creators, that being sharing their online content. Many creators of such content use pseudonyms on the internet for a variety of reasons. And whether it’s fear of ostracism, putting their lives in jeopardy, or wishing to remain private, people don’t always feel comfortable sharing their stuff on the web. This includes fan-art creators. Especially vore.

Ultimately, this highlights the need for better moderation. Is it entirely Toonami’s fault? Probably not. Are they blameless? No, and they’ve even acknowledged that. Does this mean they should be cancelling the segment altogether? Well…

I get that tensions are high. This is the equivalent of someone being caught with their pants down, and it’s not pretty. We can laugh at it all we want, but it’s disturbing that this happened at all. Especially since other fan-art creators have to suffer. It’s bad all-around.

Nevertheless, I hope that cooler heads prevail and the segment returns. Like I said earlier, it’s great exposure! Exposure that wouldn’t come from a paywall! Think of the potential opportunities that could come from being featured on Toonami! Isn’t that reason enough to bring it back?

Either way, I’m sure this’ll get resolved. I simply hope that it gets resolved with as little a mess as possible.

Not for Me?

The internet’s terrible for thoughtful conversations: Israel-Palestine? A headache in the works. American politics? A similar headache in the works. Even more popular art and media aren’t exempt. I should know, I’ve made a Blogger profile for it!

It’s not like I don’t try to switching it up, because I do. But since January’s a tough month to write anything, I inevitably fall back on old topics. Like how people are annoying me about Avatar: The Way of Water, and how so much ink’s being spilled on something with “no cultural impact”. The irony speaks for itself, but it’s telling that I can’t discuss this franchise online without fights breaking out. And it’s not exclusive to the Avatar franchise.

Take Star Wars. You know the famous claim that “No one hates Star Wars more than Star Wars fans”? That’s not simply because it’s a hot commodity with a toxic fanbase. No, it’s because it’s a hot commodity with a toxic fanbase…that keeps reminding everyone of that whenever it’s brought up. Type in “Star Wars” to YouTube to see how many angry rants exist. It’s not pleasant.

I’ll go further. You know how I enjoy The MCU? You know how I’ve written extensively in defence of it despite not being my favourite movie series? Like with Star Wars, people can’t leave it alone. Be it film buffs discussing its “bad filmmaking”, or fans claiming The MCU’s “gone full-SJW”, the movies can’t take a break. And like Star Wars, the proof’s in the endless YouTube rants.

But the cream of the crop of headaches goes to the Avatar franchise. For 13 years, I endured bickering about how the films “left no cultural impact”, even though IMDB indicated otherwise. Right from Day 1, people called it “overrated”, even making vapid, long-winded rants about it. And when news of the sequel surfaced, the conversation became a debate over how little impact it’d had. So is it any wonder why I was so burnt out on having a conversation that didn’t involve arguments about it ripping off other properties?

I guess people don’t recognize that they’re not always the centre of attention. The world’s massive, with roughly 8 billion people living on it. Different countries also have different cinema tastes than The West. There’s a reason China’s a huge box-office draw these days: they have many people with disposable income, far more than here. They also like our filmmaking, sometimes copying it. If any conversation about impact is to happen, it should be outside The US.

Does this mean The US doesn’t matter? No. Most of these movies are made there, so they should have a say in the conversation. But they aren’t the be-all-end-all. That not only drowns out voices that aren’t normally spotlighted, it degrades the longevity of art.

Think about it: movies have legs beyond their theatrical windows. They age, they’re re-evaluated and reassessed, and they travel outside their country of origin. This is especially true for blockbusters, which, in recent decades, have taken cues from franchises like Star Wars and Indiana Jones, themselves amalgamations of stories and concepts from around the world. Star Wars particularly was inspired by The West (Wild West stories, Flash Gordon serials, D&D campaigns) to The East (Akira Kurosawa films, Samurai epics) and everything in-between. Because it was a hodgepodge of stories from all over, its sources should have input too.

That global perspective gets frequently ignored, however. Star Wars owes roughly 50% of its DNA to The East, but the internet largely doesn’t care about that. The MCU’s rooted in comics, many having been around for decades and having diverse fans, but, again, the internet ignores that. Even the Avatar films, which have done incredibly well in Asia, get glossed over from that standpoint. This exclusionary behaviour needs to change.

Sadly, mentioning that puts me at risk of backlash. But it shouldn’t have to. I shouldn’t risk being shouted at and told “You’re wrong!” for suggesting there are other voices out there. It’s the wrong mentality, and it doesn’t have to be. It shouldn’t be “my way, or the highway” when discussing movies and their impacts.

Essentially, it’s time people become more honest about something not being for them. Because not everything’s going to appeal to everyone. I’m not big on The Matrix: Resurrections, despite preferring its dialogue to the previous three entries. I thought Mad Max: Fury Road was obnoxious, despite appreciating its dissection of the dangers of a patriarchal society. And while not a bad movie, X-Men: First Class is messy. If I can acknowledge this sobering truth with movies people love, then why can’t people do the same with movies I love? How hard is that?

Hard enough, apparently. Which saddens me. Yet that’s why it’s important to start making inroads. We’ll only get better if we try, after all! But having this conversation and changing people’s mindsets on this needs to happen eventually.

I’m not asking you to think that Avatar’s brilliant. I thought it was okay. But that’s perfectly acceptable, so long as people aren’t dicks. But they are. It’s sad because it shows a lack of maturity, and it’s sad because it shows unwillingness to be open to meaningful conversations. But most-importantly, it’s sad because it demonstrates a lack of critical thinking and engaging with media literacy. That’s unhealthy.

I’ll end with a story: in honour of Titanic’s 25th anniversary, a local newspaper did a feature on the movie’s impact in Afghanistan under the Taliban. To quote it directly:

“While millions across the world happily went to see it multiple times during its unprecedented nine-month theatrical run, Afghans had to turn to secret markets and streetside sellers operating in the shadows to watch the $200-million epic.”

If a widely-mocked movie like Titanic can have fans in an unexpected place, so too can other films we don’t care for. Remember that.

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!