Checkmate, Mr. King!

(Note: the following was written prior to Stephen King's clarification. While it's nice to see that he's owned up to his behaviour, at the same time it's still a little disheartening that this whole exchange had occurred in the first place. So for the sake of continuity, and to illustrate a general point about writers taking ownership for their behaviour, I've kept everything intact. My apologies in advance to everyone.)

Earlier this month, I wrote a piece decrying JK Rowling’s rant that she’d linked on Twitter. Rowling has yet to apologize, instead doubling-down further, but what’s worse is the ripple effect. First, there was a prominent politician using her words to justify his own beliefs. And now, there’s *checks notes* beloved author Stephen King cc’ing the memo via a Re-Tweet. (And people wonder why writers aren’t taken seriously…)

On one hand, this isn’t all that surprising. Not only has Stephen King made some off-colour remarks in the past, but his writing reeks of questionable content. Whether it’s the child orgy and blatant homophobia of IT, or his constant references to “Indian burial grounds”, the man isn’t free of some of the trappings of Rowling. On the other hand, King writes consistently. And given how long he’s been around, he’s had enough time to grow and mature as a writer.

Essentially, King sharing some views with Rowling is more heartbreaking than Rowling harbouring them. It’s also not like King became famous for one series, then spent the remainder of his career retconning it like Rowling did (even if, to be fair, Rowling has written the odd work since). Unlike Rowling, who George Lucas’d herself while showing her true colours, King’s written a platitude of stories. He’s also dabbled in genres outside horror, and many of his books have been adapted into films and mini-series’. His legacy overshadows Rowling’s, which is why it hurts more for him to be transphobic.

So what now? Like JK Rowling, Stephen King’s impact has been immense. So immense that his style’s often hard to copy on film. Unlike JK Rowling, Stephen King’s influence on the cultural zeitgeist is hard to divorce from his personal leanings. Whether it’s Carrie, The Shining, Misery, The Shawshank Redemption or the recent adaptation of IT, King’s work has helped make plenty of talented people’s careers. The entertainment world owes him that.

Does that excuse his behaviour? No. Which places me in a dilemma: how do I reconcile the author of some of culture’s greatest stories being a bigot? And how do I do it without ruining my enjoyment of these stories? Is it even possible?

Last February, I wrote a piece discussing this issue. In it, I said the following:

“...That our favourite works of art were created, or partly-created, by awful people isn’t surprising, but expected. And trying to erase the impact that predatory people have had in art removes not only their potentially-positive contributions, but is incredibly-dishonest. If history is anything to go with, bad people should be learned from, not ignored.”

I still think this is a relevant bit of advice. But I also mentioned the following in the next paragraph:

“I understand that this is hard to do; after all, these people have hurt us. They’ve wronged us. They’ve set a bad precedent by suppressing the talent of individuals whose voices we may never get to know. That’s a tragedy, and it’s only natural to want to erase them. If they had to cheat to get successful, why bother feeding that success?”

I hold by that too. I’m not entirely sure who Stephen King had to “cheat” here, though it could be an abstract “cheat”, but King’s, and by osmosis Rowling’s, legacy can’t be divorced from his personal views. No author’s without biases, yet King has a platform and a responsibility to lead by example. That he’s not is upsetting.

I get it: famous people don’t ask to be role models. That was made perfectly clear by Charles Barkley. But while it might be easy to sympathize with that, as it puts undue stress on the individual to maintain the act, famous people are still looked up to. Like it or not, they have a reputation to uphold. And, like it or not, it’s disappointing when that reputation’s shattered.

I’m surprised Stephen King doesn’t realize this, since he’s been vocal about injustice on numerous occasions. He’s had his pulse on the political ethos for a while, something made more-apparent by his daughter being an activist. So to turn around and espouse hateful rhetoric about a marginalized group, even if indirectly? It reeks of hypocrisy. It also really hurts.

It doubly-hurts because it’s not what the world needs. In recent years, we’ve seen the underbelly of polarization stop being an underbelly. We’ve seen long-standing tensions between friends and family cause often-irreparable rifts. There are many individuals whom I’ve made the decision not to talk to again based on their toxic views, and some of them have openly clashed with me as result. It’s been hard witnessing those I look up to and admire disappoint me in big ways. I don’t need that from yet another writer with prestige.

I’m more concerned personally because I’m also a writer. And I’m desperate to get my work published one day. I’ve been working hard for years to make that dream come true, even enrolling in a course online. Seeing people like King piss away their goodwill makes me concerned that it could happen to me too; after all, I’m human! I’m sure I’ve said and/or done stuff before that could come back to bite me!

I guess there’s nothing I can do to ease concerns about writing “being cursed”. Because King’s made his bed, messy as it is, and now he needs to lie in it. If he doesn’t want to change, then there’s nothing I can do to sway him. He’ll have to live with it, sad as it is. Like they always say “C’est la vie!”

I’ll end this with the conclusion of my aforementioned piece:

“…I’d like to share something personal: when I was about 11 years-old, Teletoon started airing old Warner Bros. shorts through The Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show. They were all smart and funny, but one stood-out in particular: ‘What’s Opera, Doc?’. In it, Bugs Bunny tries outwitting Viking Elmer Fudd and loses, with the entire short set to, you guessed it, Wagner’s famous opera. It was funny, sad, and-most importantly-clever, despite its music. Even after finding out that Wagner was Antisemitic, I was upset because the short had made such a lasting impact. And isn’t that what matters most?”

Once again, I think this is true. I’ll let you all consider why.

Junk Drawer: Paper, Photographs and Smashing

Since movies are cancelled, this’ll have to do!

How about the Paper Mario franchise? You know, the one where Mario’s made of paper? And does role-playing? And hasn’t had a truly great entry in 16 years? It’s almost unfair to roast this series, I’ve already done that myself, but the decline in quality over the years has been frustrating. Like, to an infuriating degree.

That’s why I’m intrigued about Paper Mario: The Origami King, which is slated to release in under a month. That’s right, we got an announcement trailer a month ago, and it’s debuting in July. Either Nintendo’s super-confident, or they want a Summer release. I’m not sure which is which, but couldn’t they have announced this earlier?

How does the game look? Good, I guess? It looks to be a return to form with modernized tweaks, striving for a turn-based mechanic with revisions to keep it from being a retread of the first two games (like updating the HP system). But the game also appears to be opting for a gimmick again. I’m concerned because excessive gimmicks ruined the franchise to begin with.

The battles have Mario line-up his enemies on a grid for maximum damage. And it’s timed. It looks cool, but seems complicated. Why time it? And why make the battles so context-specific? Having this is daunting and intimidating.

That doesn’t mean I’m not excited. The overworld and story mechanics naturally evolve the franchise’s 2D platforming and storytelling with a multi-pane, 3D approach. Considering that hybrids haven’t been tried since Super Paper Mario, a game I enjoyed, it’ll be interesting to see where it goes from here. Will it be a masterpiece like the first two entries, a middle-of-the-road venture like Super Paper Mario, or a failure like the last two entries? I’ll find out on July 17th.

Did you hear that Pokémon Snap’s getting a sequel? Yeah, that’s something I never thought would happen. It’s not like it’s been over 20 years since the original game came out on the N64, right? Right? RIGHT?!

I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised. The Switch has been a console of many surprises, so a follow-up to a cult classic in Nintendo fandom was inevitable. I’m curious how the game will add to the original’s formula, though. The first game, while fun, left much to be desired with 63 Pokémon and 6 Pokémon Signs to photograph. Even by Gen 1 standards, especially on an N64 cartridge, that wasn’t a lot. My recent play-through was a little over 2 hours long, and that was only the main game!

But I digress. Disappointed as I am that we didn’t get a sequel earlier, this is great news. I actually have thoughts on how this game could work. Perhaps you touch the Switch to take photos? Maybe share the pictures online, a modernized upgrade of the Blockbuster kiosks? There’s also the possibility of multiplayer, as evidenced by the Switch’s ability to play locally and online! The possibilities are endless!

I’m definitely happy, but also sad that the release date is N/A. It’ll probably be sometime in 2021, but what gives? If Paper Mario: The Origami King has a release date crapped out with its debut trailer, then why doesn’t this game have a tentative release window? Is Nintendo concerned that it’s “not ready”? Because that doesn’t mean they can’t suggest a release, right?

I guess I can’t complain too much. I mean, the game’s still happening! Considering so many games never get sequels, that we’re getting this at all is special. 9 year-old me would be ecstatic to know that one of his favourite video games is getting a sequel in adulthood. That’s something to be cherished. Also, considering the current state of the world, another year won’t hurt.

I’ll end off with a minor announcement from Nintendo. Remember Super Smash Bros. Ultimate? That game that had 77 fighters at launch? Yeah, it keeps getting DLC updates every few months. Not that it needs it, it has enough content to last years, but the choices have been interesting. From Piranha Plant to Banjo & Kazooie, the extra characters have been as diverse as fun and exciting. That’s not say it’s always balanced, see Hero, but it’s been entertaining to speculate who’d be next.

The game’s most-recent DLC character was Min Min from ARMS. As someone who’s never played ARMS, yet has heard that it’s good, this intrigues me. I know the game’s a boxing/fighting game hybrid with characters that have long, retractable arms, but Min Min remains mysterious: was the character a requested favourite? Will the character be balanced? What’ll Min Min’s move-set be, and how can Kirby copy it?

It sounds weird to end on speculation, but that’s part of the fun of the Smash Bros. games. Simply put, a character announcement has often felt more like an event. Remember when Snake was announced for Super Smash Bros. Brawl in 2007? Or how Mega Man was confirmed for Sm4sh partway through its development? These announcements drove fans wild! And DLC leaves the options endless.

Adding Min Min to the roster means that the options have expanded again. Maybe Geno from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, a fan-favourite, will finally debut? Perhaps a character from the Custom Robo series, a personal dream of mine? Or Nintendo can yield to StarTropics fans and give us Mike Jones? You never know!

Either way, I’m happy for ARMS fans having Min Min. If only I could afford to buy these characters…

And that’s about it. Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you next time!

15 Years of Batman Begins: Masterful, or Preposterous?

Batman Begins is a 2005 film directed by Christopher Nolan. A reinvigoration of the Batman IP that received critical acclaim, it currently sits at an 84% on Rotten Tomatoes with 283 reviews, a 70% on Metacritic with 41 reviews and an 8.2/10 on IMDB with 1265448 reviews. The latter has placed it at #129 on IMDB’s Top 250 List. Yet despite that, I take issues with facets of it.

(As always, there’ll be spoilers. And I’m primarily focusing on the original film.)

What works?

A lot.

Let’s start with its impact. It’s important to remember where Batman and superhero films were at this point. Prior to release, the Batman IP hadn’t had a theatrical entry in 8 years, as it’d been soured by Batman & Robin. Additionally, while there’d been many superhero films before, few were taken seriously. The ones that were…were often campy in nature.

Not Batman Begins. Despite paling to its successor, the film not only showed how Batman could be taken seriously, it also showed how superheroes could be as well. It was mature and thought-provoking, doubling as a fresh origin story for Batman. This film demonstrated that superheroes were for everyone. It was also the film that made superheroes even cooler than they already were. And it put Christopher Nolan on the map, making him a household name.

I like the movie’s aesthetic. Many superhero films have opted for a lighthearted approach before and since, but this was the one that took itself seriously. The colour palate has lots of darker shades, many greys and blues, and there’s a grainy, gritty feel to it. This is the superhero movie shot on film, and you can tell. Boy, can you ever tell!

Similarly, I like the movie’s use of practical effects. It has CGI too, but a lot of the effects look like they’re actually there. Between gasoline explosions, real rubble and actual sets and props, you feel like this world exists. Having some scenes be shot on-location helps with that. It’s a lived-in world.

I also like the practical explanations for everything in this movie. Whether it’s the Bat-suit being military-grade armour, or the Batmobile being a military-grade tank, a lot of thought went into making these otherwise cartoony concepts feel believable. Even non-Batman concepts, like The Scarecrow’s poisonous gas, are still rooted in tangibility. You could argue that some of it’s a stretch, but it still works.

I like the story. I have issues with facets of the execution, more on that later, but it’s well-written. This is the subversive superhero movie before superhero subversions were trendy, and it’s done well. With ideas like what it means to fight crime, or if the system’s beyond saving, Batman Begins has a lot on its mind. It isn’t merely a story about someone in a cape and cowl fighting crime, there’s weight to everything.

That isn’t to say the film lacks tenderness or levity, however. The moment where Bruce’s parents are murdered by Joe Chill’s heartbreaking, even though it’s not the focus. And the movie has several jokes sprinkled in, including a gag about coats that always gets a laugh. All of this, when combined with Bruce and Rachel’s relationship, helps ground the human element.

Speaking of human, the dialogue’s surprisingly organic. Nolan often gets scrutinized for his cold, robotic writing, but you don’t feel that here. It’s not absent, some lines are exposition-heavy and dry, but enough warmth and humanity creeps through. These are characters that aren’t afraid to laugh, smile or get angry. The characters also aren’t afraid to be, well, human. I’m not sure if that was Nolan showing restraint, or David S. Goyer adding his touch, but it works.

I like the characters. I like how layered and tortured Bruce Wayne is, hiding his pain behind a vigilante and a playboy. I like the relationships he has with Rachel and Alfred, and how they serve as moral compasses. And I like the villains…mostly. It helps that Batman Begins has a cast of great characters actors, including Christian Bale, Tom Wilkinson, Cillian Murphy and Gary Oldman. These are all A-listers, and I’m amazed Nolan managed to acquire them.

I also like the movie’s ability to create suspense and dread. The pacing might be off, more on that later, but there’s a claustrophobia that tags along. Even the fight scenes, for better or worse, show that, with them being shot in close-ups and shaky-cam. It’s not perfect, more on that later too, but it works well enough. It helps that, thanks to Wally Pfister’s cinematography, there’s a real beauty and poetry to it.

As a final note, I love the main theme. It’s not complex, it’s mostly Hans Zimmer being experimental, but it works. Even 15 years later, I still find myself humming along to it. It feels like a Batman theme, and while Danny Elfman’s score from the 80’s/90’s might be better technically, this is what comes to mind when I think of Batman.

What DOESN’T work?

Surprisingly…quite a bit.

I’ll begin with the elephants in the room. The first is Bruce Wayne’s playboy behaviour. It’s implied, and shown, that Bruce cozies up to other women to maintain the façade of him being a normal billionaire, and it’s most-apparent when he plays golf with Wayne Enterprise’s secretary. With the #MeToo movement gaining steam since its release, and the stories of abuse/harassment that’ve come to light, this behaviour comes off now as less charming than creepy. But it’s an issue with Batman as a whole, so…

Moving to more-egregious offences, Batman Begins has a rather “charitable” view of wealth. That Bruce Wayne can be rich and noble feels dubious. The film conflating privatization with being good feels doubly-so. And that Bruce is “one of the good capitalists” is really suspicious and dishonest. Considering the American housing collapse plunged the world into a recession three years after this movie debuted, the idea of a charitable billionaire, while not implausible, is a big stretch. It’s dishonest writing, essentially.

Speaking of dishonest, the movie’s portrayal of police is especially so. I know it had no choice, given Hollywood’s strict rules, but considering the public’s erosion of trust for law enforcement, painting them as worth saving is insensitive. It was even insensitive in 2005, following cases like Rodney King, but especially now. I know Batman’s relationship with Commissioner Gordon is important to his character, but it doesn’t make it less uncomfortable.

Moving to in-film problems, the movie’s action scenes are hard to watch at times. The element of suspense is there, and they’re nerve-wracking by design, but using shaky-cam to create fear is unsettling for the wrong reasons. It’s not as bad on re-watch, and there’s still a coherent through-line, but it can feel claustrophobic for the wrong reasons. That’s something the sequels would streamline, though.

Additionally, there’s the movie’s pacing. The film’s flashbacks jump all-over, and parts of the action feel rushed. The most-egregious offender is when Dr. Crane gasses Rachel, only to be gassed himself a few minutes later. It happens way too quickly, essentially. I really wish more time had been spent with it.

Speaking of Dr. Crane, he’s wasted. As is Carmine Falcone, who winds up being a dead-end. We don’t even see much of Crane as Scarecrow, and two of those times he’s taken out like a deadweight. It’s unfortunate because Scarecrow’s a really fascinating villain, so having him under-utilized is disappointing.

On the subject of villains, Ra’s al Ghul, while a clever twist, isn’t too interesting. His involvement in history and the death of Bruce’s parents also feels like a stretch. I get what he represents in theory, a “humanity reboot button”, but the execution leaves much to be desired. Especially since he “dies” twice.

Then there’s Rachel. I like her in theory too, a DA who provides the voice of reason, but she doesn’t have much of a character. Most of her scenes involve her either getting into trouble, or espousing exposition. She had the potential to be much more than that. I don’t blame Katie Holmes either, as it’s not her fault.

Finally, I’m not a fan of much of the score. I like the main theme, but most of the other music feels side-noise. It’s not even memorable, either. It’s unfortunate because the sequels would boast better scores, making this one feel even less-interesting. But it’s too late to change that.

Oh, and did I mention that movie feels a little long?

The verdict?

I recognize that criticizing Batman Begins in 2020 is passé; after all, it’s been surpassed! It’s not even the best entry in the franchise! But I don’t think it holds up as well as it should. And that’s disappointing.

I know I’m not alone, either. I know that the shaky-cam and pacing are common problems for many people, as are my issues with Scarecrow and Carmine Falcone. I also know many people consider this the weakest in the trilogy, which isn’t surprising. I’m simply adding to the conversation.

But this is a fan-favourite for many people too. And I’m not one to judge. Batman Begins laid the foundations for what was to follow, and it’s not bad, either. I actually enjoy it, honestly! But, at the end of the day, its problems are too big to ignore, so I’m not. If that isn’t “fair game” at this point, then what is?

"Rowling, Rowling, Rowling..."

The past few weeks have seen a shift in public consciousness. Following the murder of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin, the entire world protested racism in the American police force. Since then, we’ve seen The US comes to terms with, successfully and unsuccessfully, their aggression and racist practices. We’ve also seen brands and famous figures make statements about the protests, their support of black lives and their implementation of tools and resources to combat the issue. And then there’ve been weird decisions, like Warner Bros. changing Elmer Fudd’s gun to a scythe in future cartoons.

I mention that last one because some people haven’t gotten the memo. Whether it’s Hugh Jackman’s “solidarity” Tweet of a police officer hugging a protestor, or Candace Owens being used as a “both sides” figure, these protests have revealed many peoples’ true colours. And then there’s JK Rowling. Instead of spreading the word to her fans, the British author doubled-down on her transphobic beliefs.

I’ve covered JK Rowling before. I’ve mentioned her in a defence of Israel and the Jewish experience, and I’ve mentioned her in a piece decrying retcons. This’ll be the third time I mention her, and it’ll, hopefully, be the last. Because although I’ve been lenient about her past actions, I’m getting fed up. I’ve had enough of her nonsense.

I’m in no way retconning my stance on her books, however. I love the Harry Potter series, movies included. I think they’re cleverly-written mysteries that combine fantasy and suspense with pay-offs feeling earned to those who pay attention. Rowling’s a brilliant author, despite her faux-woke takes. Which is why I take grievance with her inability to be respectful to trans individuals.

JK Rowling’s remarks don’t exist in a bubble. They’re not “one-offs”. She Follows many transphobic accounts on Twitter, and she’s Re-Tweeted and Replied to many of them on numerous occasions. Rowling hasn’t even denied her behaviour when called out, instead doubling-down and suggesting that denouncing trans people is “defending womanhood”. One need only look at her Profile.

In hindsight, I shouldn’t be surprised. Whether it’s goblins having hooked-noses and controlling the banks, or house elves being stand-ins for slaves, the Harry Potter books are laden with bigotry and racist imagery. And they’re not exactly subtle about it. All of this is bad, but it’d be less-bad if Rowling built up minorities instead of pushed them down. But she can’t even do that.

It doesn’t help that Rowling’s been defended by Jewish fans for “her stance on Israel”. Ignoring how respecting Jewish self-determinism doesn’t automatically make you a good person, she can’t do that properly either. She’s routinely made platitudes about her characters and their respect for Israel, overlooking how fictional characters lack agency and can’t take stances on conflicts they’re not experienced in. It comes off as hollow for her to be an ally without doing any of the legwork.

So what now? I’m not sure. I can’t retcon my experiences with Rowling’s writing. I still love her books, and I recognize their importance in shaping me. I also love the movies based on her books. And I know I’m not alone: there are millions of people around the world, of various races and ethnicities, for whom Harry Potter and Rowling inspired them to read, write and develop their own stories. So while this recent nonsense might sour that, I won’t pretend the impact wasn’t felt.

I also can’t tell Rowling this directly. I’ve tried communicating with her in a positive way before. She likes saying hurtful stuff without considering the consequences, routinely barricading herself from backlash. It’s frustrating. Especially when I know that she interacts with people occasionally.

I suppose the only option is twofold: first, I need to move on. I need to recognize that Rowling served a purpose at one time. I need to also recognize that continuing my attachment to her is harming others, and that it should stop. It won’t be easy, but I have to try. I owe it to marginalized individuals who’ve been hurt by her.

And second, I need to support those she’s harmed. Whether it’s consuming art from marginalized writers, or promoting/donating to causes that she’s slammed, the damage must be fixed by people like me. In The UK alone, Mermaids UK has raised money to help teenagers and youth successfully transition, even going as far as collaborating with YouTuber Harris Brewis during his play-through of Donkey Kong 64 on Twitch last year. The options are definitely there, but I need to look for them.

Ultimately, I have to recognize that JK Rowling won’t change. She’ll probably open her mouth again and harm her credibility further in the near-future, and there’s nothing I can do about that. Because she’s set up her camp, and so must I. It’s not only healthier for me, but also for everyone around me. It’s not easy, but if I could break free from Channel Awesome, then I can break free from her too. I owe that to myself.

So yeah, that’s all I have to say. Hopefully I won’t have to discuss JK Rowling again, but you never know!

Why Catradora Rules

Catradora rules, everyone.

Honestly, I wasn’t sure I’d ever go back and revisit my only entry on here to go viral. It was rough, shoddy and, quite literally, thrown together in an hour. And it was angry. I tried giving it weight with an in-depth explanation of why I didn’t think Korrasami was good, to be fair. Yet over 4500 Views and 23 Comments later, the results speak for themselves. The internet either really loves me, or really hates me, because my dissertation has overtaken everything else.

All the more reason why another, more-recent lesbian romance, that from She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, is so interesting. That this show was headlined by an openly queer woman works in its favour, but even without that Catradora would still be huge. Because this series already had two queer relationships with Netorella (Netossa and Spinnerella) and Bow’s dads, so a third was a logical conclusion. But why’s Catradora a big deal?

Because it doesn’t feel like queerbaiting.

What’s queerbaiting? It’s when a story has a forced, queer romance/character to appeal to queer fans, often without thought or room for development. A good example would be JK Rowling’s retcon involving Headmaster Albus Dumbledore from the Harry Potter franchise being gay without putting in the effort prior (not that she wasn’t guilty of nonsense like this since.) When something’s queerbait, it feels cheap and pandering. It feels inauthentic, essentially.

I mention this to contrast Korrasami with Catradora. Controversial as it may be, I think Korrasami’s queerbaiting. I’m sure Bryan Konietzko and Michael Dante DiMartino had the best of intentions, and it’s possible to see hints early on, but it never plays out organically in Avatar: The Legend of Korra. It, instead, feels like a last-minute inclusion in a show already fraught with issues. I know some people have fond attachment to it, and I don’t want to detract from that, but I wasn’t one of them.

Truthfully, Korrasami had the potential to not be queerbait. Like many parts of the show, there was a spark of brilliance underneath the final product. All it needed was time. Time to develop, be passed by more eyes and be woven in organically in the grander narrative. And yes, I know that TV writing’s hard to do well. But sooner or later, it’s worth acknowledging that Korrasami felt less like a relationship and more like leftovers for Korra and Asami.

Which brings me back to what Catradora does differently. For one, it’s given time to breathe. Throughout the show’s run, we’re given many instances where it flirts with Catra and Adora possibly being lovers. They do it so frequently, in fact, that it feels long-overdue when it culminates. And it feels natural.

Two, it makes sense in this context. Like I said, She-Ra and the Princesses of Power already had two queer couples. One of them even plays a key role in the show’s primary conflict, so you get used to it. That’s kinda a big deal, if we’re being honest. Especially in a kid’s show, where some of the audience might not even know they’re closeted.

And three, the end-result feels both overstated and understated simultaneously. Overstated in that Catradora’s the big romantic set-piece. It’s built up to the most, and it’s the big “clap out loud moment”. And understated in that it’s treated as normal. This is She-Ra and the Princesses of Power looking at what came before, acting on it and shrugging it off like it’s no big deal. And it works!

This plays into the grander trend of growing acceptance toward queer individuals. A lot has happened, particularly in The US, in the years since Avatar: The Legend of Korra ended, both in entertainment and in the grander culture. On a macrocosmic scale, there was The Supreme Court of the United States’ Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in June of 2015, which voted 5-4 in favour of revising The 14th Amendment to allow same-sex marriages to be the law of the land. Additionally, this election cycle has seen South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg run for President, which-like him or hate him-is a big deal. This isn’t including other, smaller events, none of which I’m an expert on.

But even microcosmically, TV programming, particularly on services like Netflix, has started including queer text and subtext. Shows like Adventure Time, Steven Universe and Tuca and Bertie have shown how normalized it’s become. Back when Avatar: The Legend of Korra was still in syndication, queerness in media was largely a burgeoning concept. These days, thanks to queer show-runners, it’s more commonplace. And Catradora’s proof of that.

It helps that She-Ra and the Princesses of Power has better romantic writing. For as much as I enjoy both Avatar series, their romance has always been a sore spot. (Zuko and Mai’s relationship dragged down the scenes where it was on display.) Not so here, and you see the difference…even if this show has other flaws that I won’t go into here. But I digress.

It’s no secret that I love this show, even if it’s not quite as good as Avatar: The Last Airbender. It’s funny, cute, touching and well-written. But it also has great queer relationships. And Catradora’s one of them. I can’t stress that enough.

So yes, Catradora rules. And its existence makes Korrasami even more awkward. The end.

My Netflix Recommendations

One of my many outlets during COVIDtine has been Netflix. And why wouldn’t it? I not only have lots of free time, I also have time to catch up on my backlog of shows. That’s what I plan to discuss, even though only one of them has been a COVIDtine project. Besides, you might actually get recommendations!

A Series of Unfortunate Events:

A few years ago I wrote a compare-contrast piece on the two adaptations of Lemony Snicket’s series. I still hold that the Netflix iteration, which finished syndication in January of 2019, is superior, and that’s largely because its length. A Series of Unfortunate Events is 13 books long, and shoving the first 3 into one movie was a bad creative decision. The show, conversely, had a greater opportunity to breathe and develop its world. But I digress.

Make no mistake: this is a silly series. Ranging from the comedic tone, to the hammy acting, to even the staging and direction, it all elevates it to whimsical nonsense. This is both good and bad. Good, as this is a depressing series about misery and schadenfreude. And bad, as the only plot beat that carries true, emotional weight is the final tragedy. I still hold by that.

If that doesn’t bother you, then you’re in for a treat. Right from the opening, which sums up each episode in a pleasant jingle, a lot of thought and care went into this series. It’s a fun 25 hours, and it never bores. There are plenty of witty bits of dialogue, interesting set-pieces and overly-verbose moments to keep you engaged. And it has Patrick Warburton as the narrator. That’s always a win.

Stranger Things:

Moving on to some darker material, Stranger Things is the 80’s homage that makes me long for the 80’s. Considering how I didn’t grow up then, and therefore have no nostalgic ties, that says a lot. It says a lot that the show can tap into the trends of the 80’s without feeling preachy or forced. That’s definitely a plus, honestly. And the show’s really well-written.

Stranger Things relies on two components to work. The first is the cast. If the show’s characters didn’t work, then the show wouldn’t work. But they also go the extra mile to espouse ideas not normally in syndicated TV to this extent. Themes like queer acceptance and fighting for the greater good are at the front and centre here, and they get fleshed out significantly as it progresses. It helps that everyone’s played by really talented actors.

The other component is horror. More specifically, the horror component’s more believable and tangible than many, bigger budget movies. It’s telling when a cheaply-made series has better scares and more convincing monsters than most Hollywood spectacles. The monsters also look really cool. Let’s hope The Duffer Brothers hit a home run again with the final season, shall we? I can’t wait!

Carmen Sandiego:

Moving back to animation, I was excited from the get-go for this, despite being based on an IP I was never big on. Carmen Sandiego, now done two seasons, is a heist caper that borrows heavily from Kim Possible and Jackie Chan Adventures: it’s about a criminal who steals from other criminals! And she’s a fighter! And she’s worldly! What’s not to love?

I know some take issue with Carmen Sandiego being an antiheroine here, but it doesn’t really bother me. Carmen Sandiego always came off as a generic antagonist in previous iterations. She was always messing with the audience for…reasons? She might’ve stolen objects for the thrill of it, but it’s never been terribly compelling. Having her steal with an objective this time around is a step up.

The show also makes the franchise’s biggest hurdle, learning about geography, into a natural and fun part of the experience. Is it formulaic to have Carmen Sandiego espouse history at the beginning of each episode? Maybe, though there are worse ways to do it. Besides, if a show can educate you without you realizing it, then that’s always a win. It also has a diverse character roster. That has to account for something, right?

Anohana:

This isn’t a Netflix exclusive in its country of origin, but it kinda is here. Anohana was recommended by a YouTuber named Geoff Thew, and it’s one I’d been skeptical of for a while. How could a show about a ghost elicit heavy emotions? And how could it do that without feeling cheap or overly-sentimental? Was it even possible? Having given it a watch…yes. Yes it can.

What makes Anohana work is that it taps into grief. The five main characters have spent years not grieving over their close friend, and it’s jaded them. By show’s end, they’ve all learned how to do so. And in the middle, they take a journey a self-discovery. It’s a tough lesson for anyone, but this show argues its necessity.

You know what helps? Its optimism about life. That’s shown through Menma’s ghost. Menma’s so blindly cheerful and optimistic that she rekindles the vulnerability her friends need to be able to mourn. It’s really simple, but quite effective. And given that I once struggled to write a piece about it for The Whitly-Verse, that speaks to how powerful it is.

She-Ra and the Princesses of Power:

My most-recently watched entry, it’s also possibly the best? I still need to let it ruminate. Regardless, you should watch She-Ra and the Princesses of Power. Seriously, you owe it to yourselves. And I’m not only saying that because I have an attachment to the IP. (Because I don’t.)

Where do I begin? Do I talk about its political undertones? How it deconstructs toxic parental figures? Or that it treats gay and lesbian romances as normal, instead of something to be wary of? All of the above points qualify as good starting points.

But the biggest sticking point is that it, at times, even rivals Avatar: The Last Airbender in quality. Not always, its target demographic hinders it somewhat, but enough that I could call it its gender-flipped, complimentary-opposite. (It certainly takes more risks than Avatar: The Legend of Korra!) But yeah, give it a shot. At the least, it’s a nice distraction.

That about does it for now. As for Avatar: The Last Airbender being absent? You should absolutely watch it…but it was initially syndicated on Nickelodeon. Either way, I’ll see you all next time!

The Scooby Cinematic Universe?

I had low-expectations for SCOOB!. From its trailers, it looked like a bad attempt at marrying modern sensibilities with an expanded universe. It also made Scooby-Doo too articulate, giving him clear, complete sentences instead of a partially-incoherent lisp. And while the voice talent was solid, including Frank Welker as Scooby, it didn’t feel like it’d work as a film. And now that it’s critically-panned, I was right.

However, the whole “cinematic universe” component bugs me the most. Because SCOOB! falls into the same trap that The Amazing Spider-Man films, The DCEU, The Dark Universe and Spectre did: the false start of an MCU-style franchise. And by that, I mean attempting to create an interconnected franchise without doing the legwork. They saw that The Avengers was a money-maker, realized the potential for a juggernaut of their own and jumped on it haphazardly. And all without understanding what made The Avengers work.

In order to give proper framework, I need to touch on what made The MCU tick. It all goes back to Iron Man. A surprise hit, Marvel needed it to save them from bankruptcy, the film paved the way for a multi-billion dollar franchise that, to this day, is still going strong. But what people miss is that Iron Man was self-contained. It had brief references to SHIELD and War Machine, ideas that’d be expanded upon in future movies, but it was a closed story that saved its in-universe surprise for the end-credits scene. In other words, you could watch the movie, be satisfied and not worry about another entry if you so desired.

That’s been The MCU’s secret for 12 years. Even when the franchise’s future was uncertain, it took everything one step at time. It focused on contained stories, getting the audience to care, and only then having crossovers. It didn’t always pan out, Iron Man 2 was a giant mess, but for the most part it did. And by the time The Avengers debuted in 2012, the investment was there. You cared because you’d had time to.

I’m not sure why this is so hard for other franchises. Crossovers aren’t new. Comics have done them for decades. The DC animated shows in the 90’s and 2000’s were a class example of them too. Even The CW’s shows managed to pull this off in their annual crossover events. Making a shared universe work isn’t impossible. So why are so many franchises getting it wrong?

I think part of the answer is “greed”. (Or maybe it’s most of the answer.) Studio execs look at what The MCU did, make a shared universe, and jump on it without doing any work. It’s the same end-result: an introductory movie sets up everything awkwardly halfway through, leaves no room for a story to be told and fails. The studio execs see that, and instead of fixing it, they abandon the idea altogether. It’s not like The Avengers: Age of Ultron wasn’t guilty of this too, hence it struggling, but that was already many films in. It had a whole franchise to fall back on, hence it being more forgivable.

Which is more than I can say for other shared universes. As any good architect knows, if the foundations aren’t there, the top is irrelevant. It can look as pretty or expensive as possible, but if nothing’s supporting it, then it’s an ornament without purpose. It might as well be window dressing. When will these franchises understand that? Who knows?

A shared universe idea isn’t inherently bad. The DCEU recently learned to do it by keeping the franchise building in the background and focusing on the stories in foreground. Additionally, the recent LEGO movies, most of them, have succeeded by making crossovers where every character serves the story. It’s not impossible.

“Okay,” you ask, “but what Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse?” To which I answer, “Well, what about it?” Keep in mind that the movie not only acknowledges pre-existing Spider-Man knowledge, but also makes sure that its crossovers still serve the grander narrative. It’s still a movie about legacies and expectations. It’s a movie first, essentially. Everything else is extra.

Which me leads back to SCOOB!. It wants to mark the beginning of The Hanna-Barbera Universe, otherwise it wouldn’t contain The Falcon Fury and Dick Dastardly. It’s not even like this couldn’t work, like Wacky Races did. But at this rate, it doesn’t seem like it really had a shot. Plus, it messes with Scooby-Doo in the process. Considering how easy it is to do Scooby-Doo as a concept, that’s embarrassing.

You know what could’ve worked? Going the route of the Scooby-Doo crossover comic. You know, the one where every iteration of Scooby, Shaggy, Fred, Daphne and Velma collaborated on a case? That not only had great jokes, but it was a clever way to execute the shared universe idea. It’s not like film, particularly animation, hasn’t made this work before…

I’m annoyed and disappointed because I expected more from SCOOB!. I actually expected relatively little, but I was still disappointed. It makes me sad when a Scooby-Doo concept falls this flat, and I thought we were done with the “second-rate shared universe” idea after the 5th failure. And while I’m sure there are smarter people at Warner Bros. than me, it doesn’t make me less sad. It actually makes me more sad, honestly.

So yes, that’s all I have to say here. Wake me up when a good Scooby-Doo movie comes to the big-screen, will you?