Meh Max: Dreary Road

I’ve been debating whether or not to write this for a while. At first, I thought anything and everything I could’ve said about this movie could be summed up on Twitter. Then I figured that a TwitLonger post would do the trick. Then I figured it wasn’t worth it, but my frustrations wouldn’t leave me alone. And so, almost a year after its theatrical release, I’m laying down the gauntlet once and for all:

I don’t think Mad Max: Fury Road is all that good.

To be clear, I don’t think it’s awful either. A lot of talent went into it, even though I maintain that it’s a sci-fi version of the Fast and the Furious franchise. It’s well-acted, albeit in a hokey and cartoony way. There are plenty of cool ideas, even if most are superficial. And I definitely enjoyed it. But all of that skirts around the issue I have with the film, one I think so many people are forgetting: nuance.

I’m not against dumb, loud, cartoony fun. The Avengers, after all, was a non-stop adrenaline rush comprised of exactly that, and it’s one of my favourite, pure action movies. But part of that’s because it knew what it was trying to be. It wasn’t striving to be greater than the sum of its parts, and it had no real message save “teamwork defeats all evil”. But Mad Max: Fury Road tried to have a message, and while I applaud it for that, at the same time it’s so poorly-executed that I’m still baffled.

For those not in the know, Mad Max: Fury Road is the story of a former police officer named Max Rakatansky. He lives in a post-apocalyptic Australia and suffers from PTSD due to the deaths of his wife and children. During one of his moments of reflection, he’s captured by a group of warlords, taken to their den, shaved from head-to-toe and used as a blood-bag for…reasons. It turns out that their leader, Immortan Joe, enslaves women and controls his government right down to the allocation of water. When he discovers that his slave driver has escaped, taking his slaves for the ride, he sends his army after them. Of course, Max gets caught in the middle of this, a long chase ensues, explosions occur, weird-looking warriors appear, it’s pretty much a live-action hybrid of Trigun, Twisted Metal and a Roadrunner cartoon.

In case you haven’t noticed, the premise of this movie is dumb and confusing. But whatever, it’s a catalyst for the action and thrills, something I’d normally be fine with. But Mad Max: Fury Road isn’t only content with that, oh no! It also tries its hand at a feminist message, which, again, would be fine…if it didn’t come off as the most shoehorned nonsense I’ve seen in a Hollywood action movie. But it is.

Now, I have nothing against feminism. I’m a feminist. I believe that women are too frequently maligned. I believe there’s an underlying patriarchy that favours men over women. And I believe this patriarchy is damaging to men and women-alike.

That said, I also believe that life’s messy and complicated, and that nothing has an easy solution. Acknowledging that there’s a patriarchy is one problem, and recognizing that it’s unfairly disproportionate is another. However, ignoring that the system’s run by people, all of whom are flawed and multi-faceted, won’t fix the problem. Because even they deserve some credit.

This is where, I think, Mad Max: Fury Road fails. It acknowledges there’s a power imbalance, but the details of its execution are shallow and lopsided. The patriarchal component, for example, is one-dimensional. Immortan Joe has no depth or real character outside his physical appearance, and his war-boy henchmen aren’t much better. They all come off as the frequently goofy stereotypes you’d expect from a 12 year-old’s perceptions of feminism. And while it might be amusing to see men portrayed like living cartoons, it’s not clever writing because it lacks nuance.

Conversely, the women in this movie are portrayed as saints. They have no flaws, they’re impossible to tell apart, and while Imperator Furiosa might be an awesome fighter, you never get a sense that she’s much of anything. I never once connected with anyone because I never had reason to, irrespective of how hard the movie tries. And when I can’t connect with the characters that I’m supposed to because they aren’t written interestingly, well…what am I supposed to do?

And this is why the movie really falters. I can ignore the fact that violence is an inherently masculine concept, as there are ways of using that to make a commentary on society if done well. I can ignore 
the stupidity of the premise, as I’ve seen better films with stupider ones. I can even ignore the over-abundance of explosions because of how much effort went into the stunts. But when has over-stereotyping men ever helped the cause of women? If anything, it only makes it worse!

It’s especially bad because the patriarchal system in the film has no motivation for why it does what it does. At least in Avatar there was a semblance of nuance. The humans weren’t taking over Pandora, they were mining a rare mineral to fix the Earth’s economy. There was a reason for what they did, real stakes. You can argue effectiveness, but that much can’t be denied.

Before you say it, yes, it’s totally fair to compare Mad Max: Fury Road to Avatar here. Because both are messy movies that ham-fist their messages. The only difference? Avatar isn’t hiding anything, while Mad Max: Fury Road is. And yet, one is heavily-criticized for being “generic”, while the other is hailed as a “masterpiece”.

I’m not sure people realize how much of an impact film can have as an art form. Not only in its appeal, but also in shining a mirror back at society. And how many people will look at a breakdown of the patriarchy, which is incredibly damaging, in a serious light when it portrays men as one-dimensional warlords and sex slave owners? Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to show a perpetuated system so ingrained in society that even its moderates are following it without even realizing? Wouldn’t that hit home harder than what we actually got?

It’s additionally frustrating because many fans are also claiming it trumps most of Hollywood’s yearly blockbusters. This drives me crazy: yes, Mad Max: Fury Road is a beautiful-looking movie. But it’s nowhere near as clever as people are claiming. Even the weakest of the MCU is more coherent, and that’s saying plenty considering that Thor: The Dark World exists! And please don’t tell me that the movie is using minimalist storytelling so as to not spoon-feed the audience information, because exposition is sometimes an important part of movie storytelling.

Finally, I’m tired of being redirected to internet think-pieces when I ask fans of Mad Max: Fury Road why it’s clever. Isn’t that NOT why I came to you for an answer? What’s so undeniable that you expect me to accept that the movie’s brilliant? If you’re so insistent that Mad Max: Fury Road is so great, then why not explain why yourself? If you’re making the claim, then you have to back yourself up when challenged.

Whatever, film is subjective. I won’t pull a Bill O’Reilly and stop you from enjoying what you enjoy, that’s not my goal. I simply don’t think Mad Max: Fury Road’s anything special because it lacks nuance. That’s far more harmful to its message than if it had nuance. And isn’t that what really matters? Aren’t we better than this?

Disney-ana Jones?

I’m not really an Indiana Jones fan.

It’s not like I don’t get the appeal of the franchise, mind you: they’re well-made action-adventure movies. They’ve even, alongside Star Wars, gone on to inspire one of my favourite animated movies, aka Castle in the Sky. But, be it a combination of exhaustion, frustration and discomfort, that one time I tried watching Raiders of the Lost Ark on the bus ride to my Grade 12 graduation trip I fell asleep before the third-act (or tried to, since I hate sleeping on moving vehicles.) The bits and pieces of its immediate sequels that I’ve gathered from TV didn’t interest me either. And while I’ve yet to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I’m pretty sure I’d be equally disinterested in it. I don’t like MacGuffin chases, which this franchise thrives on.

This past week, Disney announced a 5th Indiana Jones movie set for July 19th, 2019. It’ll once again star Harrison Ford and be directed Steven Spielberg, the latter of whom is one of my favourite directors. This should sound like great news, especially since Disney managed to bring back Star Wars from the dead last year, but it’s been met with a lot of skepticism. People aren’t sure what to make of this announcement, even making jokes about the new film. I have to ask: why is that?

For context, let’s rewind back to the Summer of 2008. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was heading to theatres after a 19 year gap since the last film. People were hyped. It seemed like Indy would wow yet again; after all, he’d never truly let people down before, so why now? What could possibly make this film worse than the recent Star Wars movies?

Critically, nothing serious. The movie still fared decently, earning a 78% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 65 on Metacritic. But audiences were split on it, with some enjoying it and others calling it horrendous. To date, it remains the worst-received movie in the franchise, taking Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom’s spot from 24 years prior. Clearly, something went wrong here, but what?

Simple: management.

I don’t think it should be any shock in hindsight that the film disappointed. I know people like nitpicking details, particularly Shia Labeouf, but I don’t think it was the actors’ faults. They were working with they had, and since film is a collaborative process, one where anything can go on any level, I doubt they’re solely to blame. Nor do I really fault Steven Spielberg, who, ignoring that this was the time period between Catch Me If You Can and Lincoln where his films were okay at best, has come out to state that his heart wasn’t fully in it while directing. In truth, this was George Lucas being George Lucas yet again, and that people didn’t see the warning signs after three disappointing Star Wars prequels baffles me. I wasn’t surprised then either! Considering how frequently I’d heard people complain about Star Wars since I was 9, and knowing that Lucas had a hand in the Indiana Jones franchise, I was amazed people were expecting another masterpiece to begin with!

But whatever, we can argue if it was fair to overhype expectations another day. The point is, Indiana Jones wasn’t suffering because it was past its prime. It was suffering because the higher-ups no longer cared. For Spielberg, it was a favour to a longtime friend of his. For Lucas, it was another attempt at making money off of nostalgia. And for everyone else, it was another example of how blind optimism can be dangerous.

Fast-forward to 2013, when Disney announced that it’d acquired Indiana Jones from Paramount Entertainment. People were skeptical, since this was around the same time that Disney had acquired Star Wars. As time went on, and rumours kept surfacing about another Indiana Jones film, I remained on the sidelines. I was neither for nor against this decision, as, like I said earlier, I didn’t really care for Indiana Jones. Star Wars was what concerned me, since I was in my anti-Star Wars phase brought about by the internet’s snobbery. I wasn’t concerned that Indiana Jones wouldn’t live up to its roots, I was more concerned that Star Wars would pander to older fans so as to “atone for its prequel sins”.

Sufficed to say, I shouldn’t have been concerned. Not only had Disney already made excellent use of its Marvel acquisition, but Star Wars: The Force Awakens ended up being a lot of fun. It may not have been what I’d wanted, but it at least showed that Disney did care. So for them breathe new life into Indiana Jones wouldn’t be that much of a stretch.

And this is why I’m confused over the reaction: it’s Disney. They’re not George Lucas, they’ve proven twice already that they can handle big-name IPs with respect and care. Is their business strategy motivated by greed? Yes. Am I pleased with every decision they’ve made? No. But they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

As for the claims that Harrison Ford has “lost his touch”, get out of here! He may be in his 70’s, but he can still act. He played a convincingly older version of Han Solo in the latest Star Wars movie, and that’s a role we haven’t seen since 1983! If he can do that, I’m sure he can do justice to an older Indiana Jones. Especially now that Disney owns his character and can find people to use him responsibly.

So yes, the news of a new Indiana Jones film doesn’t bother me. Here’s hoping that the MacGuffin chase in this new film is one I actually care about, or I might end up bored like I was the last time.

The Frozen Dilemma

Internet, it’s time we had a little talk. *Grabs the collective body by the ear and drags it to a private space*

This is Frozen. I’m sure you need no introduction, as it’s only one of the highest-grossing movies of all-time. It won 2 Academy Awards, one for Best Animated Feature, the other for Best Original Song, and has permeated its way into pop-culture in 3 short years. It also has one of the most well-known Disney songs ever, although we’ll cover that later. And yet, despite being perfectly competent, you keep acting like it’s a blight on humanity.

In all seriousness, Frozen has taken lots of unnecessary flak for existing. Complaints are all-over, such that it’s impossible to not have arguments last pages upon pages online whenever it or Disney are mentioned. There’s even a good chance this’ll be an incredibly popular blog entry, although I’m not guaranteed that quite yet. Regardless, its review boards are flooded with jerks and trolls, people down-vote it because they can, it’s a sore topic. In other words, it’s the new Avatar: a film that’s maligned so frequently that its actual flaws are overshadowed.

The backlash is starting to drive me crazy. I initially tried ignoring it, thinking it’d go away. Then I tried arguing in its defence, thinking that’d make it better. Then I tried laughing at the detractors in hopes that their ignorance would cheer me up. None of that worked, so I caved and decided to write this.

To be clear, I’m not saying that Frozen is untouchable genius. It’s not. I have my own gripes with the film too, and if you don’t like it for legit reasons, power to you. This rant is directed at the insane backlash the film receives for reasons it doesn’t deserve. In fact, I’m gonna look at the 7 most common ones and explain why I think they’re nonsense:

It sucks because it’s overrated.

This is the most-common, and least-compelling, of the complaints thrown at Frozen. It rears its head most-frequently on YouTube and IMDb, and it can be best explained as follows:

“Frozen sucks!”

How come?

“Because it’s overrated!”

And why’s it overrated?

“Because…it sucks, okay?”

So it sucks because it’s overrated, and it’s overrated because it sucks? Got it! Actually, I don’t get it at all.

“How come you don’t get it? Are you really that blind?”

No, it’s because you danced around my original question and didn’t answer it.

“Of course you’d say something like that, Frozen lover! You’re blind to its problems.”

Of which you’ve yet to mention in any significant detail. You’re doing great here.

“…”

Yeah, that’s what I-

“FROZEN LOVING F***HEAD!”

*Sigh* I give up.

In case you think I’m exaggerating, I once had a debate on YouTube with a guy who thought I was, and I’m not kidding, “licking Frozen’s balls” because I enjoyed it.

Then there’s the more “sophisticated” (read “pretentious”) group who states why Frozen sucks with nitpicks that have no bearing on overall quality. Reasons like “where did Elsa get her powers from?” and “who ruled Arendelle in-between Elsa and Anna’s parents’ deaths and the time that Elsa became of age?” To the former, I ask where The Cave of Wonders in Aladdin came from, or why the prince in Beauty and the Beast was cursed for ten years for acting like a typical 10 year-old? These are complaints that don’t affect the overall experience, and no one asks them because “those movies are classics!” As for the latter, it’s the same deal: not important.

Of course, none of this matters because people claim that “Frozen is a clichéd, overrated piece of garbage” without realizing that clichés aren’t inherently bad, or that the word “overrated” isn’t synonymous with “terrible”. Then again, no one stops to think about the former or the latter. Especially the latter, as everything popular is “overrated”. Speaking of which…

It sucks because it’s so popular.

Ah yes, the “it’s popular, therefore it sucks!” argument. I’d make a Condescending Wonka joke if I could.

This is even dumber because plenty of great stuff is popular. Star Wars is popular, and it’s great. Studio Ghibli is popular, albeit less so, and it’s great. The MCU is popular, and it’s, arguably, great too. Being popular doesn’t make something bad, especially when it’s popular for a reason.

In Frozen’s case, there are two reasons: one, it’s a Disney movie with two princesses, hence double appeal to girls. And two, it’s really clever, as most Disney films are. I’d add that the soundtrack is also really catchy, but most Disney musicals are. Basically, Frozen tapped into a market that liked it, told others it was good and got them to like it as well. It’s not rocket science.

But aside from the whole “it’s popular” argument, so? I’d rather this movie be popular than, say, Michael Bay’s Transformers films. At least with Frozen there was thought behind it, unlike Bay’s constant desire to throw explosion after explosion in your face because, “Story? Vas dos?” At least Frozen has subtext.

Besides, part of the reason it’s so popular is because people keep talking about it. It’s the snowball effect: you push a snowball down a snowy hill, and chances are it’ll get bigger. This is a fact, as it’s never not happened in the history of snowballs. The fact that you’re complaining means it’s getting attention, leading to more people seeing it and complaining in-turn. In fact, there’s a good chance a lot of the complainers haven’t seen it. I should do a poll at some point…

You can complain all you want, but Frozen will only go away once people stop talking about it.

It sucks because it made more money than far better movies.

God forbid!

This one’s not even quantifiable. It’s simply illogical: a movie made a lot of money, more than it might’ve deserved, so it’s bad. I’ll address the first part of that claim with the same counter-claim I used in the previous complaint: that’s your fault, not the film’s. Movies are a business ruled by money, so any returns generated are a direct result of public interest. The higher the gross, the more people went to see it. The more people went to see it, the more bragging rights its marketing has. This is how Western media has worked for decades, folks!

It’s also really subjective because plenty of movies make lots of money at the box office. Remember Fifty Shades of Grey? It made tons of money. Remember the Harry Potter movies? They made tons of money. Even Avatar, everyone’s favourite sci-fi punching bag, cracked a billion dollars worldwide in less than a year. Money is money, not quality. If a Michael Bay film can be hugely-successful and still suck, then so too can Frozen, which is an actual good movie.

I know why people are really mad. They’re mad because the film outgrossed Disney’s previously highest-grossing animated film, The Lion King, in a shorter amount of time. While this is surprising, I’m not bitter at all. The Lion King is a great movie, but it’s not the high-pinnacle of perfection fans have made it to be either. It too was flawed, and, in some ways, an overblown phenomenon, people have simply forgotten that over time.

Also, grow up. Not only is it everyone’s fault that Frozen became so successful, but it’s not even that bad. Like I said, I’d much rather Frozen be successful than, say, another one of those cruddy Transformers films. Disney deserves a new property to milk dry after all of their hard work, right? Right?!

Tangled is better.

This one’s most-common amongst Disney fans who are fed up with Frozen’s popularity. The complaint here is that Tangled, a less-popular Disney musical that came out in 2010, is superior, yet doesn’t receive credit. I can definitely relate to the “underdog” mentality, having grown up one myself, but it doesn’t add up when you consider how popular the film is online. IMDb has it at a 7.8/10, compared to 7.6/10 for Frozen. It might not seem like much, but that .2 difference is huge!

Personally, I’m not convinced either. Tangled didn’t impress me. Not only did its songs underwhelm, but it didn’t take advantage of the CGI format it was converted to last-minute. Yeah, the film was originally going to be traditionally animated, yet was converted to meet Disney’s then “CGI every other year” policy that accommodated films like The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh. I enjoyed it, but nothing about it screamed “classic”.

In contrast, Frozen made excellent use of CGI. The pan-shots of landscapes, the zoom-out when Elsa flees in panic, the zoom-in during Elsa’s show-stopping number, these are all playing to the medium quite well. Does it cut corners to save money and time? Absolutely, and you can see that. But it doesn’t matter when the story’s that investing, does it?

Besides, Tangled can’t be an underdog if it performed as well as it did. The film made close to $600 million, more than double its budget, and is still well-loved compared to 2009’s The Princess and the Frog. The latter has fans too, but not nearly as many. If anything, that’s the real underdog, not Tangled! (I’m not sure why that one doesn’t get its dues for revitalizing the Disney musical.)

I’m not sure what else to say: is it a shame that Frozen overshadows other Disney films? Yes. Does that mean it’s suddenly not good? No. And it shouldn’t have to. After all, no one complains that The Lion King overshadows other Disney films from the 90’s, right? Of course not!

The Wind Rises is better.

This one’s the most-annoying as an anime fan.

I enjoyed The Wind Rises. A lot, actually. However, in the greater pantheon of Hayao Miyazaki’s films, it’s really a 3/4 star movie, right next to Porco Rosso and Howl’s Moving Castle. It’s a little too long, many of its side-characters are shafted and it’s so unconfident in its message about war that it revises it frequently and still falters. It’s fun and insightful, but I wouldn’t put it in the director’s top 5. Frozen, on the other hand, I’d easily slot into the top 10 when it comes to Disney’s endeavours. Then again, I already wrote about this on Infinite Rainy Day.

I think part of this complaint has to do with the Oscars. Both films were nominated in 2014 for Best Animated Feature, and yet Frozen took home the trophy. I didn’t mind, seeing as I loved Frozen and was happy to see a Walt Disney Animation Studios film finally win an Oscar in that category, but many Otaku were furious. “How dare a crappy Disney movie win against Miyazaki’s crown achievement?! This is an outrage!”

For one, I’ve already stated what I thought of The Wind Rises. And two, Miyazaki’s crown achievement was Spirited Away, and that already won an Oscar for Best Animated Feature. Miyazaki’s glory days, in my opinion, are behind him, such that I’m somewhat relieved he’s retired and not completely soured his name (not that I would’ve minded another film from him.) So insinuating that this was his “crown achievement”, when I think he’s done better, strikes me as odd. Unless everything Miyazaki makes is his “crown achievement”, in which case…you’re entitled to your opinion.

This reeks of a bigger issue, that being entitlement. Ignoring the elitism that much of Otakudom reeks of when it comes to anime and Western animation, Studio Ghibli fans, particularly Miyazaki fans, are kinda bratty and assume that everything they make deserves every award imaginable. They’re the anime-equivalent of “rich, white people”, and it’s sickening. Not everything they make deserves an award “because it’s Studio Ghibli”. In fact, not everything they’ve made is even good (remember Tales from Earthsea?)

Besides, not only does Miyazaki already have two Oscars, but his last movie doesn’t automatically warrant an Oscar simply because it’s his last movie. That’s entitlement talking. And I think Frozen’s better overall. Simpler, maybe, but better-written and more cohesive. I have problems with it, particularly its third-act twist, but never underestimate a Disney musical.

Then again, arguing this online is immediate grounds for pointless arguments, like the one I mentioned in the beginning of this rant, so it’s not worth it.

“Let it Go!” is the most-generic Disney song in existence, and yet people can’t stop singing it.

“The snow glows white on the mountain tonight, not a footprint to be seen…”

Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you said “most-catchy Disney song in existence”…

I sympathize the most with this complaint because the latter part is true: “Let it Go!” is everywhere these days. It’s at parties, karaokes, sing-a-longs, Disney shows, the likes. It even made its way to the camp I worked at last Summer via a special needs girl who kept singing it every single day. And yeah, it’s kind of annoying that it’s so immensely-popular.

But you know what? It’s a good song. It’s fun, uplifting, catchy, even somewhat empowering. Let’s face it, it’s a giant middle finger to societal expectations in the most Disney way ever. That takes guts, and they pull it off with ease. Then again, when your show-stopper is sung by a shared actress as Elphaba from Wicked, and even carries similar themes…

I’m not sure why it’s considered “generic”. I know Adam from Your Movie Sucks compared it to Katy Perry’s “Firework”, stating that it’s equally as obnoxious, but I like “Firework”. Is it cheesy and badly-sung by Perry herself? Yes, but it’s empowering. And that’s kinda the point.

I also don’t think “Let it Go!” is as bad, say, “Gold” from Pocahontas, or as stupid and annoying as “The Morning Report” from The Lion King. In the pantheon of Disney songs, you can do a lot worse. You can probably also do a lot better, hence why I think people are so mad, but I’d rather a song that tells conventions to go screw themselves top the billboards than a lot of the other nonsense that gets overplayed on the radio. And yes, it topped the billboards right after it came out. Go look it up.

That said, while I desperately think that people are over-reacting to its popularity, I understand the frustration. “Let it Go!” is definitely overplayed. And I definitely think there are better Disney songs, even in the film itself (like “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?”) I also understand the backlash it’s received from people singing it poorly, as I get that a lot with how my family frequently butchers “There Can Be Miracles” from The Prince of Egypt (which, like “Let it Go!”, I don’t even consider the best in that film.) Still, if you expect people to stop singing “Let it Go!”, then you might as well stop singing a million other popular songs. Like “Bohemian Rhapsody” and everything The Beatles wrote, it’s a part of pop-culture, and it’ll likely remain that way until Moana comes out and has its own show-stopper.

People are calling it “empowering”, when it’s actually not.

This is an argument that was originally perpetuated by Tumblr, what with their liberal extremism and insistence that everything be progressive. It’s kinda grating when Tumblrites initially bemoaned Frozen for being misogynistic, only to briefly praise it during release before criticizing it again for not living up to its talks of empowerment. I think that’s a perfectionist mentality, and it gets on my nerves. As such, I think it only fair to deflate the bubble with an insistence that they get over themselves. Seriously, it’s ridiculous how a movie doesn’t get a pass unless it meets every entry on the social justice checklist.

I’ll be the first to admit that Frozen isn’t breaking new ground with its message of female empowerment. At least, by non-Western, non-Hollywood standards. Feminist empowerment stories aren’t new, and Studio Ghibli has been championing a lot of Frozen’s themes since the 80’s. Still, for what it’s worth, being a movie from a system that still places white, male heterosexuals in the dominant position in its mythos, one that champions two Disney princesses and the relationship they share, is pretty gutsy. Notwithstanding that this is the same company that correlates love with marriage as its grounding ideology.

So yes, Disney making a film about sisterly love is revolutionary considering their résumé. Is it new? No, but when is any storytelling idea “new”? Is it bold? Yes, but only because the whole “women need men in their lives to be complete” narrative is somewhat narrow-minded. But the fact that Frozen is attempting this at all, let-alone succeeding, is already quite empowering. Especially when neither of the protagonists are the disaffected warriors or overly-quippy heroes we so frequently champion in blockbuster entertainment.

Then there’s the subject of Elsa’s arc being one of acceptance. Remember how I said that her big song, “Let it Go!”, was basically a middle-finger to societal expectations? Some people have taken that as a song about embracing who you are, be it a minority, gay, trans or someone with a disability. When you think about it, Elsa needs to first accept who she is before she can manifest her gift properly. And that acceptance comes through her trusting her sister.

I think this is completely lost on the proclaimers of this particular jab. For one, Elsa and Anna being sisters is crucial. I know there are those who think nothing would matter if Elsa and Anna were man and woman, and they’re right…because it’d ruin the underlying message. Frozen wouldn’t have worked without its sisterly love theme. And two, expecting perfection from art is like picking clothes from a catalogue and not wearing them. Art isn’t a box, you can’t pick and choose from a checklist if you don’t know what you’re doing. That a movie can’t live up to your unrealistic ideals isn’t its fault, it’s yours.

Besides, Disney isn’t gonna have an openly-lesbian couple. It’s not possible due to their target audience being everyone, even stuffy, homophobic adults from ultra-conservative families. That Frozen got away with what it did is, quite frankly, astounding, and I hope this trend of feminist progressivism continues into their next princess film. Judging by what we know of Moana, I’m sure it will be.

Ultimately, you don’t have to think that Frozen is progressive, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Anyway, I’ve defended Frozen enough for what it is: a good, clever film that doesn’t deserve the hate it gets. It may be flawed and over-exposed, but that doesn’t mean it warrants the extreme backlash its received. I only wish its detractors would simply, as Elsa says herself, let it go.

#WTFU-Where's the Fair Use?

Let's be clear here: I don’t make videos on YouTube. They’re tedious, time-consuming and incredibly tricky to do correctly. The closest I’ve ever gotten was one, really cruddy commentary on footage I burned from GameSpot back in 2008. And it sucks, sounds rushed and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. In short, I simply don’t have the patience for something like video creating.

What I do have patience for, however, is watching videos on YouTube. To be fair, much of what I watch is dumb tripe or trailers for movies/shows. But occasionally I get a glimpse into YouTube’s more sophisticated side and discover some genuinely passionate individuals with real talent. Analysts like Channel Criswell, Digibro, A Humble Professor, Every Frame a Painting and RCAnime, as well as reviewers like Jeremy Jahns, Chris Stuckmann, Your Movie Sucks and the Channel Awesome crew, have all provided plenty of thoughtful, carefully-constructed content for me to enjoy whenever I please, and each new video they make gives me real joy in my otherwise mundane week. I love their work, and I strongly encourage watching their videos when they come out.

I bring this up as both a statement of personal attachment and a segue into what I’m about to say: YouTube’s management is garbage.

I’ve been meaning to write this for two weeks now. The idea first sprung to mind when Doug Walker, aka The Nostalgia Critic, posted a video expressing his frustration with YouTube. Say what you will about Doug as an individual, but there’s no denying his immense popularity. As such, he’s been a victim of many of YouTube’s copyright strikes and claims. I’d go on to explain what he’s dealt with, but he says it so wonderfully in the following video:

I think this is pretty self-explanatory.

I’d go on to re-iterate what’s already been said, but I won’t because it’ll confuse you all. Basically, this has been going on for years. What’s interesting is how quickly the internet has united over this cause, as it’s been affecting more content creators than I originally thought. Even people I normally can’t stand, like AlphaOmegaSin, have pitched in with their stories of DMCA abuse, and it’s sad. It’s sad that of all the issues in the world that created unity, it had to be this one. Yeah, forget poverty, hunger, parliament and the environment, abuse of fair use is what finally brought people together.

If I sound somewhat cynical right now, it’s not intentional. I’m actually relieved that we can finally share common-ground on an issue that shouldn’t even be an issue at all. Because fair use abuse has implications for everyone. It doesn’t matter if you make videos or watch videos, it’s there. And to be penalized for unfair reasons isn’t a good sign. You may not think of it that way, but it is.

To put it into perspective, let’s say I want to make a parody video in-sync with this track from Castle in the Sky. The video wouldn’t rip-off the movie, it’d simply use the track. From a general stand-point, I’m doing nothing wrong (unless you count using the track as plagiarism, but that’s another, much stickier subject for another day.) For purposes of being fair, I’d even change certain aspects of the tune to make it sound more original. According to Studio Ghibli, who owns the track, I’m still in “violation” of copyright abuse, and I could have my video taken down at any moment without warning. I’d then have to either wait until the claim is dropped, give up and stop making videos altogether, or fill out a form and write to YouTube in hopes that the situation is resolved.

For the first instance, I’d be fortunate if it actually happened. For the second, I’d be seen as a quitter. But for the third, would it even be worth the stress? Would it be worth fighting the case and losing sleep and sanity over something this dumb? And what about if the claim does get removed? Will I have wasted my time over nothing?

So I'm sure some of you are thinking that this isn’t such a big deal, and that it couldn’t possibly happen to you. Well, guess what? Studios who make these sorts of claims don’t discriminate. They see a potential “violator” of their trademarks, and BAM! Instant claim. And that they don’t get penalized for it either is adding insult to injury. There are plenty of stories of average Joes having this happen to them every day, we simply don’t hear about them because they’re scared.

Look, I don’t like engaging in misguided political issues any more than you do. I recognize that the DMCA guidelines are complicated. And I’ve been called out enough times by my family for misrepresenting hotspot issues that others take as nuanced. But this is serious stuff. The problems on YouTube are only getting worse as more and more companies see opportunity for easy money, and fair use abuse won’t go away unless we do something about it. So please, please, let everyone you know who uses YouTube about the Trend #WTFU (or Where’s the Fair Use?) I know it sounds like I’m swearing at you, but I’m not. I’m swearing at YouTube for being obnoxious, and so should you.

Source VS Adaptation, aka, "Is the Book Always Better?"

Is the book always better? This is a debate that’s been going on for a long time. So long, in fact, that you probably don’t remember its origins…assuming it has one, that is. Anyway, the argument of “adaptation VS source” is a tricky one, no matter how much you try to distill it to a basic side. Why? Simple:

Because it’s incredibly subjective.

Art, for good or bad, is in the eye of the beholder. A book might be cherished by some for X reason, while others might hate it for Y reason. Conversely, the adaptation might be loved by some for X reason and hated by others for Y reason. But, above all, there’s usually a personal reason for the preference.

Allow me to give some context for this piece: a few weeks ago, my family had a big dinner at my house in honour of my grandparents being in from Florida for a few days. It wasn’t long before the dinner conversation turned to the Oscar nominees for Best Picture. As one of my cousins read them aloud, she eventually got to The Martian and shared a brief look of disgust before muttering “the book was so much better” under her breath. As someone who loved that movie, I was dumbfounded. Given how much she’d been looking forward to seeing the film, it didn’t help either.

My cousin couldn’t articulate why she didn’t like the film as much as the book when someone challenged her. I don’t blame her, as it’s not something most people stop and think about. But it offended me that she couldn’t do it, as this wasn’t the first time I’ve heard such a statement. I’ve heard it several dozen times over the years, and it’s always bothered me. So I decided to write about it on my blog.

Anyway, since this is a tricky topic, as there are so many failed and successful adaptations out there, let’s look at a few reasons for why a book might be considered “better” than its adaptation:

First, context. When writing a book, it’s important to remember that the author, assuming they’re intelligent, probably has a reason for why the story’s being written. For some, it might be political, as with George Orwell’s 1984 or Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Others might be writing to express themselves in a way that can’t be contained in their minds, like with JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series. But above all else, context dictates material, and that might not translate as well to adaptation.

Second, lack of limitations. Books are one of the few mediums in which restrictions are almost non-existent. Movies, TV shows, films, they all have to factor in practical and time restraints, not to mention financial limitations. With all of these mediums, you can only do so much realistically. With a book, however, all you really need is an imagination, some paper and some relatively cheap accessories that aren’t hard to find. Because of this, a book can go on for however long the author wants.

Third, format. I’m not opposed to adaptations when done right, but some books don’t translate well to other mediums. Usually this involves books that are either incredibly dense, or are so elaborate that no other medium can truly replicate it. Because of this, the end result might not work because it’s not feasible. The best example I can think of is Cloud Atlas, which is so dense and intricate that successfully translating it to film was nigh-impossible no matter how hard The Wachowskis tried.

Fourth, vision. This one’s trickier because it’s the most subjective, but the vision of the author and the vision of the adapter aren’t always in-sync. This isn't always the case, especially when the original author is a consultant (see, again, the Harry Potter series,) but oftentimes there’s a disconnect between source and end-result. It can work in the adaptation’s favour, I much prefer the Lord of the Rings movies to their book counterparts, but often it’s a recipe for disappointment. Especially when the adaptation lacks passion, but that’s another subject on its own.

And fifth, overhype. This one’s the most blunt and least fair, but it’s also probably the most-important: sometimes…an adaptation can’t meet expectations. You see this time and time again, even with good adaptations, and it’s especially difficult the longer a gap there is between book and adaptation. It doesn’t help that human nature complicates matters, as we often get excited over the stuff we love and set the bar unrealistically high. An nothing can reach unrealistic expectations, even when it’s good.

As you can see, there are many reasons for why an adaptation might not be considered as good as its source. I’m now going to tackle each point, deconstruct it and explain why it isn’t always fair.

Beginning with the first point, while it’s true that a good book has an underlying message behind it, not all books are. Sometimes, even when there’s a message to be had, it’s harmful and toxic. The Twilight books condone stalker romance, while the Fifty Shades books romanticize BDSM relationships. Even Atlas Shrugged, a highly-respected novel in the ultra-conservative world, preaches trampling of others in hopes of underpinning the current, distorted version of The American Dream. Books aren’t always perfect.

Additionally, sometimes the movie can improve on the message. The Lorax might speak volumes about the negative effects of business on the environment, but its 1972 short film adaptation also presented the other side with a simple claim that livelihoods matter too. It kept Dr. Seuss’s message intact, but it added weight to The Once-ler’s character. In the same breath, Les Misérables works better as a musical because it keeps the core themes of the book while trimming a lot of the fat.

The best example I can think of is Batman: Under the Red Hood. Based on two famous stories, that being Jason Todd’s death and his eventual resurrection, the movie’s considered superior because it’s more-focused than both comics. It also helps that Judd Winick, the original writer, was a consultant for the film, meaning that not only was his message about vigilantism and the fine-line between justice and extremism not lost, it was actually improved upon. In other words, sometimes the adaptation adds to the original vision.

Next, limitations. This is mostly true, since books are cheaper to produce, but not always. Ignoring the aforementioned example of Les Misérables, my favourite counter-argument is Peter Jackson’s take on the Lord of the Rings books. Sure, they’re flawed and different quite a bit in tone, but I prefer them for one reason: they use film as a medium to their advantage. As I've said on Infinite Rainy Day:

“JRR Tolkien loved to hear himself speak, enough so that his writing was cumbersome on more than one occasion. Frequently throughout, Tolkien would halt the narrative to either describe a backdrop, or insert a song that did the same…[t]his is where the movies were an improvement. For one, most of the songs were axed, allowing room to focus on the content and characters. Additionally, the descriptions that took pages to get through were summed up in a few seconds via camera shots. And they were equally effective at conveying scope. Jackson understood that film is a visual medium, and, hence, used that to his advantage.”

I still hold this to be true. I also stated that I preferred Fullmetal Alchemist as a show to its Manga counterpart because, if going by the “more faithful” adaptation, it improved on many areas of the comic that didn’t really work in my eyes.

Remember, books aren’t flawless. They, like any other art-form, are a product of the human element, an author, and suffer from the setbacks that come from it. Even the best-written books are riddled with problems if you look for them, all stories are. And sometimes the adaptation might improve on these setbacks in ways you never thought possible. It happens more often than you’d think.

Then there’s format. While some adaptations don’t work because the book was clearly the superior format, there are always exceptions. Les Misérables is a prime example. Like I said, the musical trimmed a lot of the excess fat. Victor Hugo came from a time-period where authors were paid by the word, and the book frequently goes on long, wordy tangents to meet paycheques. It made sense at the time, but in the 21st Century, where writing is more about efficiency, it doesn’t fly anymore. So cutting the extra details out makes sense.

Additionally, some format changes work for the best. Les Misérables worked because it trimmed the fat. The Lord of the Rings movies worked because they condensed long-winded prose into palatable sweeps of cinematography. And plenty of other examples of “improvement over source” exist, so much so that I can’t name them off the top of my head. All you have to do is look.

On the subject of vision, that’s not always bad. Like I said with Fullmetal Alchemist, I much prefer the anime because it knew what to change, add or remove for the sake of TV. I also prefer Coraline as a film because it made Coraline a more compelling character. These aren’t the only examples, they’re merely the ones I can name off the top of my head. Essentially, sometimes the adaptation does it better.

And if it doesn’t do it better, so what? Plenty of adaptations are inferior to their book counterparts…and they’re still good. Some are even, dare I say it, excellent. Writing them off because they don’t line up with the original vision is ridiculous, as a literal, 100% faithful adaptation would take too long. Not to mention, it’d be impossible if the adaptation were to be good.

Finally, there’s overhype. This isn’t a fault of the adaptation at all, but rather of the audience. When you overhype something, you’re setting the bar way too high. So when the end-result doesn’t meet that expectation, even if it’s good, then who’s really to blame? Is it the adaptation’s fault for not meeting your unrealistic expectations? Think about it.

I’m not suddenly calling adaptations “saintly”. They’re inherently flawed, as are books. But to write them off because “the book was better” is dishonesty. Because sometimes they are. And when they’re not? Well, they might still be worth checking out. Also, I do think The Martian was a great adaptation, and I do think my cousin was being unfair. She can disagree all she wants, but it’s worth thinking about.

My 2015 Movie Year Recap

Another year gone, another year of reflection. Politics wise, it was the year of Donald Trump’s presidential hopefulness, Justin Trudeau overtaking Stephen Harper as leader of Canada and the influx of refugees from Syria. Celebrity wise, it was the year that Bill Cosby and Jared Fogle’s dark pasts came to the public’s eye. And movie wise, it was another year of booms, tears and laughter, such that I feel it best to reflect on it…in February. Well, better late than never, right?

I initially wanted to bring back the format I used two years ago, since it worked so well. But as I got about 2/3 of the way through, I realized something: it’s boring. Why not discuss my thoughts in detail? That's harder, but more rewarding. So that’s what I’ll do.

Also, minor spoilers. You’ve been warned.

Anyway, every year has that defining theme or feel to it. Since my previous piece, we’ve had a really strong year with a weak finish (2014) and this year. 2015 was decent, being neither disappointing nor fantastic, although little stood out as “this is why 2015 was amazing”.

It started with the potential to be one of the best years in film, with Paddington being the “I’m amazed you don’t suck” movie in the month of “why does stuff generally suck here?” January. January’s the film-equivalent of “shovelware” en masse early in the year. Generally speaking, January releases are either leftovers from Oscar season, or lame, uninspired trash that no one gives a damn about. So when I heard Paddington was getting a January release in North America, I prayed it’d be over quickly. It not only wasn’t bad, it ended up being a clever comedy with great visual gags and a message about the immigrant experience in modern-day Britain.

February also had a decent entry by the name of Kingsman: The Secret Service. I say “decent” because, being a Matthew Vaughn film, it’s tonally-inconsistent. I enjoyed it, but that doesn’t mean it’s immune from the “what exactly are you going for here?” plague of his other movies. It’s more self-assured than Kick-Ass, but the comparison to a “snot-nosed kid” that Rule 3rds mentioned is accurate. That being said, the Church scene…

Spring was when the year started slipping into conventionality, with Cinderella and It Follows, being good, but nothing spectacular. I have to commend Kenneth Branagh for making the former tolerable, especially compared to some of Disney’s other live-action fairytales lately, but…man, 2014 had The LEGO Movie and the dub premiere of The Wind Rises by this point! Where was one of those?

The Summer line-up that followed, while fine enough, didn’t fix that. Unlike the barren wasteland of 2013, there were plenty of titles, but few of them exceeded expectations. More-importantly, some were even let-downs, as was the case with The Avengers: Age of Ultron. Coming off the high of the first film, and even Marvel’s strong year in 2014, I had such high-expectations. It disappointed with a mess. Was it enjoyable? Would I call it bad? Yes to the first, no to the second. But given the behind-the-scenes troubles, I’m not at all surprised.

Of course, everyone’s favourite movie, Mad Max: Fury Road, didn’t wow me either, but that’s for another day.

On the plus side, there were some pleasant surprises. Ex Machina was the first genuinely-great movie of the year, while Spy was Archer if it wasn’t annoying. When Marnie Was There, a film I was initially quite disappointed by, has grown on me, and I’d definitely recommend without question. But it was Inside Out that really got me; after all, Pixar had been in a slump since Cars 2, and the trailers didn’t impress. That it rekindled my faith in Pixar is an achievement, but that it’s my favourite film of 2015 is a testament. It’s also in my top 5 from Pixar.

The rest of the Summer was meh. Ant-Man was fun, perhaps more than I thought, but it wasn’t fantastic. Jurassic World and Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation were both mediocre, while Shaun the Sheep is my least-favourite of the four Aardman films I’ve seen. The only other movie of note was The Gift, which, for all intents and purposes, is this past year’s Gone Girl. Seriously, GO WATCH IT!

As Fall came and films starting upping their game, I was waiting for the cream of the crop of the year. What I got was another typical, run-of-the-mill slew of films. For the first time in ages, the year’s Oscar season was underwhelming, with some strong candidates, but nothing that instantly screams “Best Picture”.

The season started with Black Mass, the true story of gangster Whitey Bulger. It was good, but it felt like a typical biopic: safe, not all ambitious or daring, worth seeing mostly for the best performance Johnny Depp’s given in 10 years. Steve Jobs also didn’t wow me, which is weird considering Aaron Sorkin’s screenwriting clout, but I think it’s because the main character left me cold. Was that point? Because if you want cold-yet-sympathetic from Sorkin, I’d say go for The Social Network. (It’s also a far better movie.)

Conversely, The Martian, The Walk and Bridge of Spies were all fantastic, albeit for different reasons. The first was a fun sci-fi film that showed that Ridley Scott can still make good movies, something that Exodus: Gods and Kings wasn’t. The Walk was a fun, campy heist movie that got my adrenaline going, while Bridge of Spies was another solid film from Steven Spielberg (i.e., it’s better than 90% of the films released this year.) The former two also looked amazing in 3D.

Then…there’s Spectre. I’ve covered my thoughts on the film in full-detail, so…moving on.

The Peanuts Movie was another surprise, in that it was actually good, while The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 was a disappointing finale. I liked it, but it was too dour for its own good. And it dragged. And it’s ending was anti-climactic. And it should’ve been merged with the previous film. Seriously, why are so many final books in franchises split into two for movie adaptations, it makes the end-result feel so needlessly-

Sorry, I needed to vent.

The next entry is The Good Dinosaur, and I know what you think I’m gonna say: it’s awful. It’s a mess. It’s Pixar’s worst movie to-date. Sorry to disappoint…but it’s none of those. It’s not great, but too much of it worked in my mind for me to hate it. Plus, it made me cry. A few times.

As for Star Wars: The Force Awakens? My thoughts remain the same since my review, save that Rey’s Theme is growing on me. That, and Kylo Ren’s Theme isn’t half bad either. I might like it more the next time I see it, however.

The final two Oscar films I saw were Spotlight and The Big Short. I loved both. One of them was great despite me still not understanding what a CPO is, while the other was great despite it not being filmic. I think the reason why I attached to both is because of their human elements. In the case of Spotlight, it tackled a serious issue that’s still happening today. In the case of The Big Short, it tackled a serious issue we all need to know about. In both cases, it was an eye-opener.

Finally, there’s Tomorrowland. Forgive me, but I have to rant on this one:

There were plenty of possible candidates for this category: Fant4stic, Pixels, Jem and the Holograms, Fifty Shades of Grey, National Lampoon’s Vacation, Aloha, the list goes on. However, since I try to avoid bad movies unless I can’t otherwise, they weren’t watched by yours truly. And probably for good reason, as I most likely would’ve been miserable. Regardless, one that I kinda knew would be bad, yet was curious about, was a film by a great director that could’ve been promising had it not been co-written by one of the most amusing science-fiction hacks working in film. That’s right, we’re talking Tomorrowland.

The premise involves a world where the most brilliant people to ever live could harness their skills and creations without limitations. One of these individuals is Casey Newton, a naïve teenager with a high IQ who frequently tries sabotaging NASA to save her father’s job. When her escapades get her caught, she’s stealthily recruited by an android girl to join this world and fix it. Along the way, she encounters other androids who are out to stop her, plenty of weird contraptions, a jaded inventor named Frank Walker and a megalomaniac who believes that the world is doomed. All the while, plenty of questions are raised, many of which are either not answered, or answered sloppily. In other words, it’s co-written by Damon Lindelof.

Honestly, I’m torn on this one. On one hand, Lindelof needs to stop trying to be clever. I’ve seen two other films he’s had a hand in writing, Prometheus and Star Trek into Darkness, and while I enjoyed both, they also suffered from trying to over-complicate straight-forward scenarios that needn’t be explained. Tomorrowland’s more of what I’ve come to expect from Lindelof, but, being a Disney movie, it’s also insincerely cloaked by the family-friendly schmaltz you’d come to expect from The House of Mouse. I firmly maintain that Disney isn’t inherently awful, but when they hire Lindelof to write a film based on one of their amusement rides…it screams “lazy” and “greedy”. Because while Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl worked because, flaws aside, it had focus, Tomorrowland doesn’t. It’s messy and sloppy in many ways, and while they’re subtle enough to hoodwink someone looking for a good time, nothing about this film’s premise makes sense when you stop and think about it.

I’m sure you want examples, but the aesthetic plotholes (like how no one guarding it had the faintest clue that the Eiffel Tower was a satellite spaceship) matter not to the core problem: arguing that freedom without limitations can solve all the world’s problems. It’s a cute, but life doesn’t work that way. Reality is messy and flawed, and every good idea must have limitations in order to function. Is that cynical to say? Perhaps, but given how too much free reign is proven to be detrimental, I think it’s reasonable to say that. I hate restrictions as much as anyone else, but they force you to be strategic and clever. Essentially, saying “no” sometimes can be healthier than always saying “yes”.

The real kicker is the forced message about the environment. I’m not talking in an Avatar kind of way, that I can tolerate. No, the film argues that the environment is doomed to fail because we believe it’s doomed to fail and feed on that, and that the way to change that is by breaking the cycle of negativity. An interesting idea in theory, but it’s shoved in so poorly in the final act that it hurts thinking about it. How do you make self-guided optimism, something so clearly healthy and important, feel forced? Movie, do you even?

Still, I don’t hate this film. On the contrary, it’s quite entertaining. Is it sloppy? Yes. Is it another example of why Damon Lindelof’s pretentious? Again, yes. But it’s kinda fun. Dumb and bad, but fun. Let’s hope Brad Bird’s next movie isn’t a dud.

In short, this year was okay, but nothing special. I saw 28 films in 2015, and while that’d normally be enough to judge the cycle, most of my choices were fine at best. Some of them were disappointing too, with only one truly exceeding expectations. Still, it could be worse. I give it a 3.5/5.

Lastly, here’s a ranking of my 12 favourite movies of 2015, from least-favourite to favourite:

12. The Peanuts Movie

11. Paddington

10. Star Wars: The Force Awakens

9. When Marnie Was There

8. Spotlight

7. The Big Short

6. Bridge of Spies

5. The Walk

4. The Martian

3. Ex Machina

2. The Gift

1. Inside Out

Star Wars: Clone Wars VS Star Wars: The Clone Wars-Which is Better?

Ever since Ben Kenobi mentioned a “Clone Wars” to Luke Skywalker, many Star Wars fans have dreamed of an actualization of said wars. After all, there were so many questions: who were these clones? Why were they fighting? How long did they fight? And what caused the war to end? Due to the period limitations, the “Clone Wars” story on film remained a dream until Star Wars Ep. II: Attack of the Clones came out in 2002…and then barely featured them. And even the final movie in the prequel trilogy only focused on the tail-end of it, leaving the idea untapped to its fullest.

Fortunately, the creative minds in film never lost sight of producing a definitive rendition of “Clone Wars.” In 2003, Genndy Tartakovsky, whose most-notable works were Dexter’s Laboratory and Samurai Jack, was tasked with bringing this project to TV via Star Wars: Clone Wars. Released as a series of pre-feature shorts, Star Wars: Clone Wars became a smash-hit. It garnered 3 Emmys over its 3 season runtime, fleshed out the world of Star Wars in ways the films hadn’t and tied together the second and third prequel quite nicely. It even gained enough of a cult-following that many fans hold it as the best piece of media to ever come from that era.

In 2008, scarcely three years after Star Wars: Clone Wars ended, George Lucas decided to release a CGI animated feature, titled Star Wars: The Clone Wars, in theatres. Initially poorly-received, even earning the lowest revenue for a Star Wars film to-date, the movie nonetheless paved way for a 121-episode show that lasted 6 years and won a few Emmys of its own. Like Star Wars: Clone Wars, many fans consider this the best piece of media to come from that era.

So which of the two shows is better? After all, both purport to deal with the events between the two films. This is a difficult question to answer, but I’ll try. Please keep in mind that this is strictly subjective, and that there’ll be spoilers.

Anyway, we’ll start with the first category, which is…

Story:

VS

As expected, both shows deal with the events between Star Wars Ep. II: Attack of the Clones and Star Wars Ep. III: Revenge of the Sith. Beginning with Star Wars: Clone Wars, the show is a 25-episode mini-series (or micro-series) that tells its story in a serial format akin to those in theatres during the 20’s and 30’s. The first 2 seasons are 10 episodes each, with a run-time of roughly 3 minutes, while the last season is 5 episodes at about 12 to 15 minutes. The show focuses on Anakin Skywalker and the effect the war is having on him as a Jedi. We see his constant temptations, his struggle to resist said temptations and his overall acceptance of being “The Chosen One”. There are also detours involving other Jedi, but it’s mostly his story.

One of the most-interesting issues, however is the disconnect between the first two and final seasons. The former have a clear arc involving Anakin being sent out as a Commander, finding a rogue ship, discovering a Sith assassin and defeating her. It’s a complete arc, and it works as a short movie. The third season, however, jumps ahead to the final year of the war, and, save Anakin’s knighting ceremony, doesn’t show much of his change from cocky teenager to mature leader. I’ve always been bothered by this: why does the show rush through that? It goes by so quickly that his change in behaviour feels unearned, which is disappointing despite the obvious limitations.

In contrast, Star Wars: The Clone Wars has the advantage of time. Being 121 episodes, and kicked off by a 98-minute film, you’d think there’d be more room for Anakin to grow into his role as leader. Unfortunately…the series doesn’t take that route, having Anakin start as a confident General who’s already become a Jedi Knight. Instead, we’re introduced to Ahsoka Tano, Anakin’s Padawan learner and, for the first while, the most obnoxious twerp imaginable! Seriously, listen to the words that come out of her mouth early on and tell me you don’t want to smack her!

Going back to storylines, it’s clear both shows were going for different focuses. Star Wars: Clone Wars keeps the themes to a minimum, instead focusing on how an individual is influenced by war. Star Wars: The Clone Wars re-treads a little on that with Ahsoka, but it also allows for a bigger dive into the effects of the war. We constantly see how it’s bankrupting The Republic and The Separatists, is exposing corruption in The Senate, is taking a toll on the average citizen and is even causing indirect problems in neutral systems. The show really analyzes those themes thoroughly, thanks, once again, to the benefit of length.

It looks like it should be an easy win for Star Wars: The Clone Wars, but it’s not, for two reasons. One, the show has too many detours and filler episodes, meaning that the quality of the show suffers in the area of writing. And two, the show’s broadcast order is mixed up because of its anthology format, so the episodes aren’t in order and occasionally contradict one-another; for example, Onaconda Farr is poisoned by his trusted advisor as revenge for bringing the war to his home planet of Rodia, but in a future episode he’s still alive. We can deduce that the later episode came first time-wise. In contrast, Star Wars: Clone Wars, despite the time-jump, is much tighter, such that it can be, and actually has been, seen as a single movie that’s a little over 2 hours. Therefore, I think it has the better story.

Winner: Star Wars: Clone Wars.

But hey! A story is only as good as its characters, which leads to the next category…

Cast:

VS

One of the biggest selling-points of both shows is that they have large character ensembles. This can be both good and bad.

Star Wars: Clone Wars’s biggest strength is knowing it’s tight for time and can only focus on certain characters in-depth. Amongst these are Anakin Skywalker, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Padmé Amidala and, to a lesser-extent, C3PO, R2-D2, Yoda and Chancellor Palpatine. For the most part, either through silent interactions or the occasional line, we really understand these characters. We know, for example, that Anakin is brash and impulsive, but also quiet and contemplative when necessary. Conversely, Obi-Wan is brave and fearless, but also not afraid to bicker with his Padawan when he steps out of line. Most of this is conveyed without words, as the show is largely visual and scarce on dialogue.

The unfortunate downside is, once again, the format. Being short episodes with little dialogue, we don’t get a chance to learn much about the characters outside bare essentials. We actually don’t get to know much about most of the characters, honestly, which is a shame because Mace Windu is one of my favourite Jedi, yet he’s only in a few episodes fighting. Yoda also gets the shaft outside of his temple rescue on Ilum, as, once again, he’s relegated to fight scenes. Essentially, it’s disappointing.

It’s especially disappointing because the show has so many cool characters, some of whom are introduced in it, that don’t get time to shine. Obi-Wan, for example, faces off against a bounty hunter who can regenerate flesh, and yet he’s defeated really easily and never seen again. The show also introduces Asajj Ventress, an assassin who fights Anakin, yet she’s also defeated really easily and is never mentioned again. The only character that stays on until Star Wars Ep. III: Revenge of the Sith is General Grievous, who becomes a joke in the succeeding film due to an injury he receives while abducting Palpatine. This really makes me wish Star Wars: Clone Wars was longer than it actually is.

In contrast, Star Wars: The Clone Wars has a wonderfully-fleshed out cast, including the return of Ventress. Other notable highlights include Boba Fett, who’s probably at his most-interesting here, Ahsoka, who becomes fantastically-complex, and minor characters like Duchess Satine and Onaconda Farr. The show also touches more on the Jedi, the Sith and plenty of side-characters that were either introduced, or were in the movies briefly. And, of course, the show even brings back Darth Maul. You heard that right.

Sadly, it too has its share of blunders. Firstly, General Grievous sucks here. The fact that he’s incapacitated by a group of Gungan warriors is proof enough. On that note, the show brings back Jar Jar Binks, whose irritation from the films is worsened by everyone else thinking him to be an idiot savant. If it weren’t for the episodes surrounding Rush Clovis, a character that keeps trying to ruin Anakin and Padmé's love-life which his creeper behaviour, I’d consider Jar Jar the most-painful part of the show.

The show also dedicates a lot of time to Ahsoka, to the point of overkill. To be clear, I love Ahsoka, I think she’s awesome. Her departure in Season 5 broke my heart. But she’s in so many episodes it’s sickening. (Let’s face it, did she really need to escort the Jedi Younglings to Ilum?)

The final complication is that Star Wars: The Clone Wars was ended prematurely, making some characters’ arcs incomplete. This is especially the case for Darth Maul, whom we get the feeling was supposed to resurface in a later season, but due to Disney cancelling the show in favour of Star Wars Rebels it never happened. The same could be said of Death Watch, a terrorism group whose plans to conquer Mandalore are left unfinished. I’m sure there are other characters whose fates were never revealed, but I can’t think of them off-hand. In short, it’s disappointing.

Still, Star Wars: The Clone Wars more than makes up for that with the clones. As much I liked Star Wars: Clone Wars, the clones were the most boring part. They were mostly generic soldiers who followed orders and couldn’t be told apart. Also, save Captain Fordo’s exchange with Obi-Wan when Anakin is spotted chasing after Ventress, they’re not all that funny. I understand that the show was restricted by format, but when a clone died I didn’t care.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars, in contrast, had many clones that I truly cared about: Heavy, Hardcase, Tup, Fives, Jessie, Gregor, Waxer, Cutup, Captain Rex, Commander Cody, Commander Wolfe, Ninety-Nine, Dogma, the list goes on. They each had distinct personalities and facial traits that made them stand out. When Fives was shot while trying to warn everyone about Order 66, for example, it hit me where it hurt. Same with Dogma killing a corrupt Jedi general, as I knew how hard it must’ve been to do that. The clones really make the show, and it wouldn’t have been the same without them.

One last point of note is the difference of the Jedi. In Star Wars: Clone Wars, they were practically invincible. They kept knocking down enemies like bowling pins, making their rare attempts at weakness contrived. In Star Wars: The Clone Wars, the Jedi were toned down, such that they were vulnerable. And many of them died or were injured, making the threat they faced more dangerous. The show also showed their characters flaws with their ability to be manipulated or distrustful, as well as their moments of fear and pride. It made their accomplishments that much more significant.

So on this matter, it’s no contest: Star Wars: The Clone Wars.

Winner: Star Wars: The Clone Wars.

But hey! Seeing as both shows are animated, it’s only reasonable to see how they measure up there, right?

Aesthetic:

VS

Incidentally, this category’s a bit unfair, as Star Wars: The Clone Wars was initially an afterthought, while Star Wars: Clone Wars had a full budget from the get-go. Still, I’ll try to be fair…

Aesthetically, Star Wars: Clone Wars has two advantages over Star Wars: The Clone Wars. First, it was directed and designed by Genndy Tartakovsky. Tartakovsky has a really distinct style, that of a mixture of cartoony and deco, and it was bound to show up here. Star Wars: Clone Wars, therefore, looks and feels like an art-house production, making it unbelievably cinematic. And two, the show has a consistent budget. Even though it reuses frames and goes stock model heavy to an extreme, you can tell Tartakovsky put his all into the show. As I said, Star Wars: Clone Wars could easily pass off as a movie.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars, in contrast, has a far less qualitative feel to it. The animation improves over time, especially in later seasons, but it never reaches true filmic quality; in fact, the pilot movie is so un-cinematic that you’d think a C-list studio rendered it. And it did: Lucasfilm’s then-new Singapore animation division. I like that the show was ambitious in-spite of its limitations, especially in its action, but it’s impossible not to see its restrictions: characters are blocky, hands and feet are generic and it’s almost impossible to tell clones apart when they have their helmets on. It’s dirt-poor for a CGI show.

In short, it’s obvious which show looks better.

Winner: Star Wars: Clone Wars.

Speaking of aesthetic, the next category is…

Sound:

VS

We’ll begin with sound design. The two shows are going for completely different approaches here. In Star Wars: Clone Wars, the sound design is clearly cartoony. There are pinball noises, blatant uses of onomatopoeia, the likes. If the show is cinematic visually, it’s definitely not sound-wise. In contrast, Star Wars: The Clone Wars uses realistic sound design, including noises ripped straight from the films. This includes explosions, lightsaber sounds and hey, even The Wilhelm Scream. This makes the show feel like a series of film serials, in a way.

Then there’s the music. It’d seem like a no-brainer, what with Star Wars: Clone Wars going for a more simplistic soundtrack and Star Wars: The Clone Wars bringing in a composer, Kevin Kiner, for the tracks. The latter even has remixed versions of the opening and closing Star Wars themes in each episode, as well as remixed tracks from the movies! However…do you honestly remember any of the in-show tunes outside their respective scenes? I definitely do for Star Wars: Clone Wars, but not for Star Wars: The Clone Wars.

Finally, there’s the voice acting. Both have stellar VAs in their line-ups, but they too go for different styles. Star Wars: Clone Wars is clearly meant to be more cartoony, with a lot of the characters sounding more like your typical, Saturday morning roster. Star Wars: The Clone Wars, in contrast, goes the exact opposite route, with the voice talents throwing in more natural-sounding performances. Perhaps the most-notable difference is Darth Sidious: in one show, he sounds like an 80’s Transformers villain, while in other he slightly modifies his senator register. Also, there are plenty of character accents in Star Wars: The Clone Wars, something not present in Star Wars: Clone Wars.

Interestingly enough, I have a bone to pick with one voice in each series. In the case of Star Wars: The Clone Wars, I don’t like Tim Curry as Palpatine. Palpatine’s original voice actor, Ian Abercrombie, passed away in 2012 from cancer, and while Curry tries his best to fill in for him in the later stretch…he fails. His cadence is off, he over-stresses his syllables, it simply doesn’t sound right. In contrast, I don’t like Mat Lucas as Anakin in Star Wars: Clone Wars. I’m sure he’s trying his hardest, but his performance comes off as flat and uninspired. It’s too reminiscent of Hayden Christensen, which doesn’t help.

Regardless, both shows have terrific voice acting overall, making it a matter of preference: do you prefer cartoony voices, or more grounded voices? Flat Anakin, or emotion-filled Anakin? 80’s villain Palpatine, or normal-sounding Palpatine? I prefer the more grounded acting myself, as it feels more natural, so it’s obvious who I’m giving the point to.

Winner: Star Wars: The Clone Wars.

Looks like it's a tie so far! Hmm...

Entertainment factor:

VS

And now we’re down to our final category, the "general entertainment" factor. The question at the end of the day is as follows, “Which do I like more? The serial series, or the actual series?” That’s tough to really answer, as both shows have their strengths and weaknesses. However, since I have to determine a winner, that’s what I’ll do.

Starting with Star Wars: Clone Wars, the show is a micro-series, which means that it’s meant to be short. The episodes definitely reflect that decision: don’t want to spend your time marathoning the show? Good news, you can watch it in short intervals while you’re heating up your coffee, or during your lunch break at work. And if you’re in the mood for a movie, guess what? There are YouTube accounts that’ve compiled the series into exactly that. Either way, you win!

Star Wars: The Clone Wars is more time-consuming. For one, you have to watch the movie to understand who Ahsoka is, and it’s dreadful! Then you have to sit through 4 seasons of 22 episodes, followed by a season of 20 and a season of 13. And they’re all 22 minutes, and some are multi-parters. Not to mention, the episodes are mixed up, which means looking up the proper order to watch them. And if that’s not bad enough, the episode quality ranges, with plenty of good episodes coming before and after a few bad ones (even in the later seasons.)

The deciding factor is overall satisfaction. Was I happy with both shows? Yes, but my level of happiness wasn’t the same. Star Wars: Clone Wars left me aching for more, but I could easily go back a few more times and enjoy it for what it is. Star Wars: The Clone Wars, on the other hand, left me exhausted. I loved what I saw, but I’m perfectly content with waiting a while before seeing it again.

Overall winner: Star Wars: Clone Wars.

A big thanks for sticking it out with these last few Star Wars blogs. Until next time!