Hollywood and Striking

So the inevitable finally happened.

Honestly, I can’t say I’m surprised. Streaming, despite its conveniences, hasn’t made life easy for actors and writers. Additionally, Hollywood executives and studios have been hemorrhaging money on big-budget releases, yet the performers and writers haven’t been treated well when it comes to profits. It’s, therefore, less a matter of “why” than “when” with The WGA and SAG-AFTRA striking. The only shock is it not happening sooner. I guess it took a global pandemic…

There’ve been many bad-faith responses to this situation, and, acknowledging my outsider status, I’d like to share my thoughts on them. The first is the claim that Hollywood performers and writers are all rich and greedy. This isn’t true. While there are definitely those who are well-off, more in the former category, most of the members of both unions are trying to make due. For SAG-AFTRA, many don’t even meet the minimum of $26k a year after taxes needed for benefits. This isn’t some number I pulled out of thin air.

It’s tempting to think of everyone in Hollywood as being a big-name. It doesn’t help that we hear so much about the wealthy few and their shenanigans. But those we know about are a small fraction. In most cases, they only got their breaks after years, sometimes decades, of small-time gigs. They’re also not much different than the average person trying to make a living.

Another misconception is that this is “karma” for garbage movies and scripts. For one, there’ve been plenty of great movies recently, even big-budget ones. And two, so what? People deserve to be paid! I wrote clickbait for a big website for about a year, even though I now write for The Whitly-Verse for free. I put a lot of time into my content, even when it’s trash! Guild members are no different.

Then there are the studio executives. There was an anonymous comment that went viral about how executives would prefer to let union strikers go homeless before negotiating with them, to the frustration of the strikers. Actor Ron Perlman even hinted that Disney CEO Bob Iger might’ve said that, especially given Iger’s public statement. Far be it to validate that hearsay, but it reiterates how little WGA and SAG members are valued by executives. I say that knowing full-well that Iger’s preferable to Bob Chapek when it comes to shareholders.

It's especially hurtful because people deserve to be valued, irrespective of their spot on the totem pole. It’s true that not everyone striking’s a saint, as we’ve seen with Chris Miller and Phil Lord. It’s also true that Ron Perlman’s worth millions of dollars. But those realities don’t invalidate the frustrations of the strikers. You can recognize that some people who are undervalued aren’t so great themselves. As can you recognize that Perlman was a nobody before getting his big break.

Finally, there’s the misconception about how the strike itself. People have been using the word “scab” to describe Disney employees promoting Disney content, even though they’re not part of The WGA or SAG-AFTRA. People have also been saying that watching content on streaming services is scab-like behaviour, when it’s not. Not only was there no call to boycott streamers, but doing so hurts strikers even more. Especially when streamers rely on viewing data to determine success.

I find this especially hurtful because it ignores the real issue. Yes, scabbing is a problem. And yes, scabs have hurt strikers before. But watching Netflix isn’t the same as Ronald Reagan having secret business interests in 1960. If anything, not watching Netflix in solidarity is worse! That distinction couldn’t be more pressing.

The real question is: “What do we do to show support?” Remember, no one wanted to go on strike. Strikes are time-consuming, costly and often lead to animosity. In some cases, the situation ends up being worse once the strike’s over! Speaking as someone whose work union narrowly avoided a strike last year, negotiating a compromise is better than striking. Especially given the aforementioned points.

But it’s sometimes inevitable. And here, the hope is that writers and performers in Hollywood end up with better working conditions. Their demands seem “extreme” at first glance, and I’m not going to sum them up (I wouldn’t do them justice anyway), but they’re not unrealistic. They boil down to equitable treatment, which is what labour union strikes are generally about. I’m not exaggerating when I say that most of the worker protections these days are from union members who were ready to strike for them.

I think we need to listen to the strikers and take their cues. If they tell us to boycott, fine. But they haven’t so far. Instead, they’ve simply asked for solidarity, as well as to not be hasty. We should be calling out executives on misinformation and applying pressure on them to cave to the strikers. It’s the least we can do.

Remember, this is a class war. The people in power want us to fight each other, instead of them. These writers’ and actors’ strikes are no different. Is it fun? No, but it’s necessary if actual change is to occur. It’s also the only way to actually send a message that workers deserve respect, as cliché as that sounds.

SAG-AFTRA and AI

Tomorrow marks a pivotal moment in Hollywood. The Screen Actors Guild, or SAG-AFTRA, is voting to go on strike, much like The WGA did. While the situation in acting’s different than writing, an overlapping concern is about AI replacing the human element. Like how writers are concerned machines will replace them, so too are performers. While this, together with residual cheques, has been years in progress, it’s only now gotten bad enough that people are putting their feet down.

Which begs the question: why aren’t more consumers sensitive to it?

Recently, the voice acting world was faced with said apathy. Erica Lindbeck put out a request on her Twitter account to stop people from using her voice without permission. Rather than respect that request, she received harassment from Tweeters who didn’t think it was a big deal. The attacks got so bad that Lindbeck deactivated her account, leading to other VAs coming to her defence.

This should be a no-brainer: an individual in the entertainment industry requested that she be respected. She wasn’t, and she got attacked. Normally this’d warrant self-reflection, but since Twitter misunderstands consent, it isn’t surprising. As someone who survived GamerGate, I know that all too well. Also, Twitter sucks.

What bugs me more is the aftermath, particularly the fallout. While I appreciate VAs coming to Lindbeck’s defence, I don’t like people not understanding what they did wrong. To be fair, most individuals understood this was a blunder. But the few that didn’t, the loudest voices, acted like they were the victims and continued harassing VAs. It’s a classic case of entitlement, which is concerning in an age when people can anonymously steal someone’s likeness.

This circles back to a growing fear about overstepping boundaries in art. I’m not entirely against AI. I think that it has potential to assist artists when used correctly. Unfortunately, that’s not happening to the degree that it should, hence the concern. Basically, instead of complimenting artists and their work, AI’s being used as a total replacement for them. As an artist myself, that’s quite worrying.

It's also worrying because of the long-term implications. AI, as of right now, is in The Uncanny Valley: it can’t draw limbs properly, it makes blurry copies of other people’s work without their permission, and in the off-chance that it gets someone’s voice right, it still feels too calculated to pass as human. However, that might not last. Technology’s constantly getting better, and we already have near-perfect deepfakes that can be swapped with real actors. If AI ever becomes indistinguishable from reality, who’s to say it won’t replace the jobs of real people permanently?

That’s what Lindbeck’s situation, as well as SAG-AFTRA’s strike vote, is about. I don’t think anyone’s bemoaning AI’s existence. It’s used in many fields, including CGI modelling and rendering, and it’s not going away. But even with that, there still has to be a balance. The AI component can’t, and shouldn’t, override the human one, or we end up with inferior, calculated simulations of reality becoming the norm and drowning out lived experiences. That’s the real problem.

I’m also not happy with living, thinking individuals not comprehending this. Sure, Lindbeck’s one person, and I’m positive sexism also played a part with her. But if the VA response is indication, I doubt she’s an isolated example. And that people are continuing to ignore real artists’ wishes to not have their art replicated without permission because “AI is cool” is telling and naïve. Because who’s to say it won’t one day impact them too? Does it only matter when they’re on the chopping block themselves?

I won’t fix this problem on my own. I’m one person, and I have relatively little clout. I also know that even if I did have clout, it wouldn’t be enough to reverse the damage that shameless AI promoters are causing. However, I know I want my voice to be respected, and I know what it’s like to have it diluted. I’m sure I’m not alone on that.

As for the video that used Lindbeck’s voice without permission? I can’t take it down, I don’t have that kind of power, but I recommend no one watch it. I don’t care how “good” or “funny” it is, it’s a breach of consent. If Erica Lindbeck requests that her voice be respected, we should be sensitive to that. There’s no arguing around this.

Finally, regarding the SAG-AFTRA situation, I wouldn’t worry too much. Yes, it’ll suck to have film sets shut down, especially since no one will be working on new productions, but there’s more than enough content as is that it’s impossible to not have a personal backlog. Plus, people have a right to demand better working conditions, even if they’re famous. Human lives are more important than personal grievances over that new movie you’ve been looking forward to not coming out right away or being put on pause. That includes AI as well.

Remembering Wii Music

2008 was rough for Nintendo. It started great, with high-quality releases like Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Mario Kart Wii, but a few months in the output dried up. This culminated in an underwhelming E3 showing that year, ending with one of Nintendo’s most-notorious reveals: Wii Music. This game made diehard Nintendo fans feel betrayed, causing petitions for Nintendo to “not forget about their loyal fans” to be made. I should know, I remember this!

There’s a lot to say in hindsight about this: it was overblown. It was bizarre. The presentation certainly didn’t help, and the game wasn’t great to begin with. But even ignoring that, the question of whether it was worth getting angry gets overlooked. Because, truth be told, it wasn’t.

To be clear, this a defence of Wii Music. Not only have I not played it, I have no interest. I’m not an instruments person, and I can’t read music. I also have enough on my plate with Wii Sports, Wii Play and Wii Fit, the latter of which I can’t use anymore because my Wii sensor bar’s broken. Trying to salvage the game’s reputation, therefore, would be dishonest.

What I can discuss, however, is the criticism Nintendo received, as well as the reverberations 15 years later. For one, not only was the backlash extreme, it was vile. And two, that backlash was an early red flag for something much more unsettling. But I’m getting ahead of myself. For now, I’ll focus on the reaction to Wii Music, as well as why it was unfair.

Let’s start with expectations. I think everyone had their hopes set too high. It’s not like there wasn’t a precedent, it’s Nintendo, but people can be unrealistic about a company that has to satisfy both their base and their shareholders simultaneously. This was especially true for the Wii, which had been marketed to individuals who didn’t have a lot of time for video games. It’s hard enough catering to your pre-existing base, who expects the same three franchises constantly, without ignoring that.

Nintendo fans were being unfair at the time. They were also being selfish and self-centred, demanding that Nintendo cater to them alone. This fear of the casual gamer that’d permeated the community was a driving factor behind Wii Music’s backlash. Let’s face it: if you overhype something, and it doesn’t meet expectations, whose fault is that? Is it the company’s, or yours?

This leads to my next point, that being the aftermath. Ignoring how overblown the initial reaction was, the subsequent whining and petitions weren’t doing anyone favours. Nintendo, remember, can only do so much. It’s hard enough catering to new fans without forgetting older ones, and Nintendo had a tricky juggling act. Even if they were focusing too much on casual gamers, though I’d argue they weren’t, complaining wasn’t going to fix anything. The game was already made, so being mad did no one favours. If anything, it made gamers look spoiled.

But the biggest consequence was that, 15 years later, the impact of that reveal is still being felt with 1-2-Switch. You know, the game where you play with other people in head-to-head battles? The game that’s perfect for people with vision problems? The game that also had a silly debut? That game?!

I don’t think people appreciate how toxic gaming gatekeeping is. So a high-profile video game isn’t to your liking? Okay, and? No one’s forcing people to play Wii Music, regardless of quality, and not every game is for everyone. I’m not big on sports games, but you won’t see me trashing them left-right-and-centre. That’s not only unhelpful, it’s gross! Wii Music, quality aside, is no different.

It doesn’t help that the backlash, like I said earlier, was an early warning sign of the gaming community’s insularity. Perhaps it’s a generalization saying this, but many of the same people who complained about Wii Music would later attack Anita Sarkeesian and spearhead GamerGate. It’s not hard to connect the dots, especially when these “scandals” were responses to outsiders daring to penetrate the gaming world. Even now you see that in far-right politics, particularly the kind that led to Brexit and MAGA. That, I think, is far more concerning than programmable plastic.

But perhaps the biggest issue is that the fallout of Wii Music, aside from all the above, was unnecessary. So Nintendo made a silly video game about instruments for little kids? Okay, why’s that the end of the world? So the game wasn’t good? Again, why’s that the end of the world? So Nintendo marketed it in an awful way? Why’s that the end of the-you see what I’m getting at?

There are real issues in gaming. Expensive, broken titles that require patches at launch is one of them. A lack of preservation of older titles is another. Anti-competitive behaviour’s a third. But a game not being for you? If that’s really your biggest concern, then you live a privileged life. That, and you should probably get out more.

Secret AI Invasion

I don’t normally rag on artificial intelligence. For one, I’m not an expert. And two, my many issues have been better-articulated by others: it looks fake. It looks ugly. It steals from artists and makes inferior copies of their work. Add in that it can’t even get limbs right, and it’s baffling that anyone treats it as a godsend.

Enter Secret Invasion.

For those who don’t know, I prefer to binge-watch shows on streaming services. It’s not the “healthiest” way to stay current, but I lack patience. Plus, it’s much easier to stay current if I don’t have to wait for a new episode. This is especially true with Disney+, where I wait for the second-last episode before binge-watching in preparation for the finale. I’ve yet to start Secret Invasion because of this, as it started syndication recently. But it’s a double-edged sword, as the debut has generated plenty of controversy for its opening sequence.

Essentially, generating the opening sequence artificially attracted discussion. And none of it was positive. It doesn’t help that The WGA, Hollywood’s writing union, is striking over, amongst other concerns, AI replacing humans. With all of the frustrations in Hollywood currently, this was a bad call on The MCU’s part. It not only ruins the joke involving K.E.V.I.N in She-Hulk: Attorney at Law, it’s making people appreciate Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse more despite the news about its production.

I’ll address the elephant in the room now: I understand why Marvel did this. Secret Invasion is about a group of shapeshifting Skrulls pretending to be humans, and an opening that looks noticeably-off only enhances that. Also, contrary to initial concerns, the artists responsible were, in fact, compensated fairly for it. So yes, I get it. I really do.

That said, I think this was a poor decision. Not only does the title sequence look awful, it sets a terrible precedent for future projects. If another strike occurs, or if the current one gets worse, and artists aren’t readily-available for future shows and movies, what’s to stop Marvel from going to an open-source AI and repeating this? AI isn’t only faster than humans, it’s cheaper. Because you don’t have to pay to make something new.

Another concern is ethics. Stealing from artists without crediting them aside, this is scab-like behaviour. The WGA’s currently striking over poor working conditions, including contending with AI for jobs. Having studios use AI instead of negotiating with people’s the coward’s way out. I’m not against AI altogether, it has untapped potential, but it needs guiding hands to function properly. Essentially, AI should be working with people, not against them. This is the latter.

This situation reeks of greed and dishonesty on Marvel’s part. But ignoring that, however hard it is, it’s a shame that an opening sequence is detracting from the show proper. From what I’ve heard, the premiere episode’s quite good! There’s plenty to mine from this, and it’s supposed to have another great antagonist. I also have heard that it’s a slow-burn, taking inspiration from thrillers like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. While the last Disney+ show to do that, Andor, wasn’t to my liking, I’m open to it. I watch anime, after all!

By having this AI controversy, it becomes a game of “What’s more important?”. Because while the new show is being discussed, it’s not for the right reasons. It’s also giving fuel to detractors of The MCU who boast about how it’s “soulless”. Never mind the double-standards these detractors have when they find an MCU project they like, why give them credibility? Shouldn’t you prove them wrong instead?

There’s more I can say, like how Marvel should know better, but I don’t think I can exert any more effort on this. Because we know this was wrong. And it’ll keep being wrong, despite later clarifications on how the sequence was made. I’d simply be flogging a dead horse if I continued on. Where’s the fun in that?

One final note involves the revisionist history people have about Sony now. People are trying to rehabilitate the studio’s track-record because of Lord and Miller’s take on Spider-Man, and I must protest. Are we that far-removed from Mark Webb’s take on the IP? Or how Sony bungled the third entry in Sam Raimi’s tenure, shoehorning in Venom? Have we forgotten the disasters that were the Venom films and Morbius, something Sony seems to not understand the failures of? Why should I turn a blind eye because an animated Spider-Man venture has more soul than a credits sequence from The MCU?

It’s easy to overlook a spotty history with distance, and nostalgia’s quite tempting. But let’s not make Sony the “good guys” because The MCU and Disney did something bad. While Raimi’s Spider-Man movies were (mostly) more interesting than anything The MCU’s ever made, Sony’s overall track-record with Spider-Man, up until recently, is abhorrent. (The same could be said of Fox and the X-Men.) And no amount of goodwill from the team behind The LEGO Movie can fix that, especially given how they’ve treated their animators!

Okay, I’ve gotten that out of my system. Perhaps we can transition to something pleasant?

A Radioactive Spider

I saw Elemental.

I know you’re all waiting for my thoughts, but that’s not what this is about. Rather, seeing it reconfirmed my concern about theatrically-animated movies. Because we’re riding a wave of visually-inventive animation from Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. It wasn’t immediate, but the ripple effects are starting to reverberate, and now every movie’s copying it. And while that inventiveness is good, I’m worried it might overstay its welcome.

Playing around with visual styles isn’t necessarily bad. That’s how innovation and adaptation happen. However, this could have unfortunate consequences for more traditional styles of animation, crowding them out and forcing them to die off. That, and I’m positive this new style will reach an over-saturation point. But to explain why, let’s go back to Pixar’s heyday. Let’s dive into what happened post-Toy Story.

Toy Story practically changed the animation industry overnight. It wasn’t Pixar’s first project, as they had small successes in short films and TV commercials prior. It also wasn’t the first use of CGI, as small bits of the technology had been used all through the 80’s and early-90’s. But Toy Story was definitely the first, fully-CGI animated film, really pushing the limits of the medium. It was also a critical and financial hit. For the first time ever, it was possible to tell a story with this technology, even if only for 81-minutes.

So how did Pixar respond to this? Simple: they followed it with another hit 3 years later. And another the following year. And then one 2 years after. By the mid-2000’s, Pixar’s influence was being felt in the industry, with other animation studios trying their hands at CGI. Unfortunately, the success of these movies also caused traditionally-animated movies to feel antiquated. Said movies stopped being financially-viable, started dropping in quality and fell out of favour. Even with Disney’s attempted revival, it simply wasn’t a big draw anymore.

Complicating matters was over-saturation. CGI was making huge jumps yearly, and animation was no exception, but the quality of some of the films was slipping. For every hit like The Incredibles, you had something like Shark Tale. People were exploiting it like no tomorrow, and it showed. And even once the quality control began to pick up, a new problem emerged: how realistic is too realistic?

This is something I first noticed with Rango. I happen to love Rango. It’s my favourite animated movie of 2011, and it has one of my favourite chase scenes on film. It also looks beautiful, capturing the majesty of the desert town. But its sole human character looks really ugly. I don’t mean that in a “he looks like an old man” way, but rather a “he looks like an Uncanny Valley monstrosity” way. He’s the limitations of photorealistic CGI animation actualized.

That’s the problem that CGI animation started running into. As environments and background details began looking more lifelike, to the point of being difficult to tell apart from reality, the character models kept falling into The Uncanny Valley. Alternatively, the cartoony character models looked out of place in the environments. And sometimes, as with Beowulf, you had both issues simultaneously.

This is something that, thankfully, has been rectified with movies like Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. Those kinds of experiences aren’t striving for photorealism. Rather, they’re focusing on simulated reality through stylization. If the “Pixar look” is about pushing the envelope of reality, these movies are about challenging that. They’re arguing that there’s only so far to push the envelope before you turn people off, something Pixar has begun recognizing and scaling back.

Which brings me to my original concern. On one hand, these movies are taking a unique approach, showing that realism isn’t the only answer. On the other hand, they’re crowding out more conventional forms of CGI animation, making them feel obsolete. They’re essentially, drowning out variety. Sound familiar?

Another issue is quality. When is “enough” enough? When does the new format become the norm, such that the quality drops? And when does this new style reach its version of The Uncanny Valley?

Honestly, I want variety. Pixar’s gotten flak recently for “not keeping up”, but that misses what they bring to the table. Ignoring films like Luca and Turning Red, both of which are excellent, Pixar’s strength lies in making photorealistic animation work. They not only get its limitations, mostly, they also keep pushing and innovating them. That’s crucial in the conversation of animation and isn’t valued or acknowledged enough, and I’m afraid it’ll get lost in this new trend.

I’m not disparaging this new crop of movies. This is an exciting time for animation, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem and Wish both look amazing! But I don’t want the new to crowd out and replace the old. I don’t want a repeat of traditional animation in the 2000’s. That’s not good for the medium.

I’m also not romanticizing traditional animation. Not only was plenty of it garbage, but even the good stuff often had racist and sexist coding. Every format of storytelling has its trash, animation included! But there’s a charm to traditional animation that, while not “better”, isn’t present in CGI animation, photorealistic or stylized. And it deserves acknowledgment in the greater conversation, much like photorealism.

Movies, irrespective of style, are hard to make. Pixar films, in particular, take roughly 6 years on average to complete, largely because of what goes into them on all levels. That’s not “laziness”, even if it’s not always appealing. It’s not always “exciting”, but insisting that Pixar “hasn’t kept up” is dishonest criticism. Especially since Lord and Miller, the visionaries behind this new trend, are human and, therefore, prone to eventually “getting it wrong”. I only hope that doesn’t happen too late in the game.

And Elemental? Please see it. It’s not Pixar’s best movie, but it’s enjoyable. It also doesn’t deserve to become a box-office bomb, as that’ll put another nail in the coffin for original stories. That, and it’ll send the wrong message to the higher ups. It’s bad enough that Pixar’s last 3 years were difficult without that.

Predators Among Us

I sometimes feel like superhero detractors go looking for reasons for the films to fail. With DC, there are constant reminders of James Gunn’s Tweets in order to have David Zaslav to fire him and bring back Zack Snyder. On Marvel’s front, every “misstep” is used as “proof” that The MCU should’ve ended with The Avengers: Endgame. And let’s not forget Martin Scorsese. Because enough ink hasn’t been spilled over that, right?

My current ire’s about the allegations against headliners in several of these movies. We need no introduction to the rampage of Ezra Miller, something made worse by them recently headlining The Flash. Ignoring the film’s quality, Miller’s numerous scandals, arrests and allegations are enough to make anyone question why they’re still in the industry. I get that Miller’s on a contract, but Miller being given publicity despite that is upsetting. Doubly-so given the film’s director, Andy Muschietti, stating he’d love to work with Miller again.

It's bad enough that a literal felon’s headlining a franchise, but Disney’s in no position to judge. It was recently revealed that Jonathan Majors, the actor who plays Kang, was arrested on domestic assault charges. Majors had choked his partner to near suffocation, and 911 had gotten involved. In addition, there were abuse claims made by people who worked with him on two separate film sets, and his casting agency has now dropped him. Oh dear…

Okay, Marvel has no leg to stand on. That alone would be concerning, but now Tenoch Huerta, who plays Namor in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, also has sexual assault allegations against him. It was revealed in a Spanish source that María Elena Ríos had Tweeted about his predatory behaviour, and that the organization Poder Prieto, which combats racism, had gone after her. This puts Huerta’s legacy and impact in serious doubt. Because what good would it be to keep him around?

It also brings up a bigger problem. When Majors’ and Huerta’s behaviour came to light, there were people who made this a game of “gotcha”. It was “justice” for criticizing Miller and DC, and it was proof that “Marvel was in trouble”. And I need to interject. This is bad news, but the response raises two, maybe three, concerns:

The first is that it’s not enough to screen an actor. For one, people can lie. I’ve seen that happen before. And two, someone can pass the sniff test, then become an open predator later. Remember that actors are human beings, as are screeners. Humans can’t catch everything, and predators are good at covering their tracks.

Second, this isn’t really about Huerta, Majors or Miller. This is about their victims. These three have caused real harm, and they’ve shielded themselves from accountability. They don’t deserve anything other than recasting, lest they perpetuate more harm. Period.

And third, don’t make this a game of tit-for-that. Miller sucks, but so does Majors. And so does Huerta. This isn’t about “retribution”. Rather, it’s about three actors being predatory and working under a system that shields people from consequences. If anything, they’re proof that Hollywood needs to be more ready to let people go for their misbehaviour. Also, their victims deserve justice.

I don’t like it when this nonsense happens. I enjoyed Miller in The Perks of Being a Wallflower. I thought Majors was perfect as Kang. And Huerta was really invested in Namor. They all have done excellent work before! But the past isn’t the present, and people with influence should be held to a higher standard. Because unlike what Charles Barkley once said, celebrities, like it or not, have direct impacts on the public at large. People look up to them, so they should role model good behaviour. That doesn’t mean perfection, but accountability goes a long way…

I’m also bummed out because people in Hollywood have been blackballed for calling out abusive behaviour before, and I’ve seen actors recast over less. Even regarding The MCU, simply look at what happened with Terrence Howard. I know these scandals put DC and Marvel in awkward positions, especially since Miller, Majors and Huerta have multi-movie contracts, but at some point it’s worth cutting losses. Remember, not only does keeping these individuals harm their victims, it does nothing to prevent them from doing more harm. And you’d be naïve to assume otherwise.

As for what to do, the only one of the three I consider an easy fix for is Jonathan Majors. Kang has many iterations in Marvel comics, so it’d be easy to take an antagonist like The High Evolutionary and retcon him to be a Kang variant. It wouldn’t be farfetched either, given that Kang and The High Evolutionary are similar enough movie-wise. And if that’s questioned? Make up an explanation that fits MCU canon!

Finally, I have to mention that making this about “wokeness” is wrong. Yes, Miller, Majors and Huerta are minorities. Miller’s a non-binary Jew, Majors is black, and Huerta’s Latino. You’d have to be dense to not see that. But their behaviour’s less about “woke casting” and more about abusive influence. The latter has nothing to do with the former.

So yes, that’s all I have to say. Can we drop it now, please?

Mario's Duelling Rabbids

One of my final reviews for Infinite Rainy Day was on Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. I thought it was fun, giving it plenty of praise. 5 years later, I’ve beaten the sequel, Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope. Unsurprisingly, I enjoyed it a lot too. But which is the better game? That’s the real question!

Reminder that, as always, this is all subjective. There’ll also be spoilers. You’ve been warned.

(Videos courtesy of Nintendo of America.)

Story:

VS

If there’s a downside to most Nintendo franchises, it’s their stories being practically non-existent. This is especially true with their RPGs, which have premises, but little else. I love Mario games in particular, but every “plot beat” is recycled and can be called from a mile away. Essentially, it’s not worth discussing this section. But I’ll try anyway.

In Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle, a nameless and faceless inventor creates a robot named BEEP-O. BEEP-O’s tasked with guarding a transportation device, but when some Rabbids sneak up and activate it, they, together with BEEP-O, are transported to The Mushroom Kingdom. From here, Mario and friends travel the kingdom and clean the Rabbids’ mess, all while BEEP-O figures out who keeps sending him emails.

Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope picks up where the previous game ended, introducing an antagonist named Cursa. Cursa’s absorbed Princess Rosalina’s observatory and wants to destroy The Mushroom Kingdom. Being the heroic types, Mario and friends, with the help of BEEP-O and his new AI companion, Jeanie, go galaxy hopping to rid everywhere of corruption. Unlike the previous game, there’s a plot structure here, including some surprises and a twist-reveal. It’s not a great story, but it’s something!

I already know which game I’m giving the point to. Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle has fun with its lack of a narrative, it even reveals that BEEP-O sent the emails to himself in the post-credits scene, but its story’s not really a story. Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope’s narrative leaves plenty to be desired, but it actually has one. And it has character arcs, however lame or shallow they are. Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope wins.

Winner:

Controls and Gameplay:

VS

If Mario RPGs aren’t known for their stories, then they compensate for that with their mechanics. Simply put, they’re streamlined to be easily-accessible for children, making them “baby’s first RPGs” outside of the Pokémon games. With the Mario + Rabbids games, they’re “baby’s first tactical RPGs”, as they play a lot like the Fire Emblem games, but nowhere near as complicated or frustrating. This is especially true of the controls, with each button having its use. You can even fast-forward enemy combat with Y and skip cutscenes by holding B. How convenient.

While both games control and play similarly, Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope has two advantages. For one, the over-world’s more open. Whereas Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle was straightforward and divided into chapters, making exploration nigh-impossible, the sequel has diverging paths in each world for optional side-quests. This not only fleshes them out more, it makes them feel bigger too. You really get a feel for the finer details, which is great given that some of the puzzles are really challenging!

The second improvement is the combat. The combat objectives are the same as the first game, but you get more variety. The first game had five options for each character (move, jump/dash, standard attack, secondary attack and special item), while the sequel has two additional moves via the Sparks, creatures with special attacks that can be upgraded with Star Shards. This not only makes battle mechanics more exciting, but these Sparks can be mixed and matched for each of the 9 companions, which is helpful considering that you’re forced to use all of them against Cursa.

One potential downside, however, is that Cursa’s fight drags. The battle with MegaDragonBowser’s tedious and unfair, but it’s short and straightforward. There’s a sense of accomplishment with beating him, as he puts up a real fight. Cursa isn’t as hard, especially if you’ve levelled up your party, but the battle takes too long and lacks the full impact. With MegaDragonBowser, you have to work for your victory. Not with Cursa.

Still, I’m giving this to Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope. It’s not as difficult, especially near the end, but it has much more to offer. It also has more variety.

Winner:

Aesthetic:

VS

I’m going to be upfront and give this to Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope. Aside from the graphical improvements, it takes advantage of the Switch’s hardware. The original game felt like a slightly improved 3DS title on the Switch, with its linearity and shortness of length. The sequel, however, feels like a genuine Switch entry, which is great for anyone who wants to see what an RPG’s like on the system. It also has more variety in its worlds and characters.

Winner:

Sound:

VS

You’d think this’d be another easy win for Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope, right? After all, it has full-on voice acting, something Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle only has snippets of! Unfortunately, the voice acting’s inconsistent. It’s limited to select characters, and it doesn’t always match the text-boxes. It also loops one-liners in battle. It can be skipped over too, which is a bummer. Basically, what’s the point in having VAs perform lines if you’re not actually incentivized to hear them?

So yeah, Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle wins.

Winner:

Overall Appeal:

VS

Now for the final category. While I love both of these games, I have to choose one. Which’ll it be? The game that started everything, or its sequel? The entry where you fight Rabbid Donkey Kong, arguably my favourite boss, or the entry where you fight Dark Bowser? Simplicity, or Sparks?

I’m going with Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope. Sure, Cursa’s not as engaging a final boss as MegaDragonBowser, and the voice acting’s wasted, but everything else is an upgrade. (And I already loved Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle!) Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope wins.

Winner:

Overall Winner:

Apologies for taking so long with this, but I hope you enjoyed!