Quit Jerkin' Me Around!

How’s Disney+ been treating you? I haven’t subscribed yet, I can’t afford another streaming service right now, but it seems to be a big hit…outside of lacking certain titles. And cropping shows. And how it crashed on launch day. Come to think of it, is it worth getting Disney+ right now?

Either way, for as happy as I am that people are talking about The Mandalorian (no spoilers!), I’m a little miffed at the anti-Disney snark floating around the internet again. To be fair, anti-Disney snark’s nothing new. And I’m not innocent, either. But in light of the critiques, I have to wonder if a lot of this is reactionary or toxic. (It’s probably both.)

Now, I grew up on Disney content. I was born in 1990, during The Disney Renaissance, so it was easy viewing material. I remember wearing out my VHS tape of The Little Mermaid from overwatch, and many of my VHS covers have bite-marks from young me chewing on them. I still have a Perdita plushie from when I was 4, and she’s seen lots of love. I even remember seeing Toy Story in theatres at a birthday party, and it made an impact. In short, Disney was a big part of my childhood!

I mention this not to sound biased, though I probably am, but to understand where I’m coming from. Disney was a part of my formative years, and even now I enjoy much of their output. But I’m not a blind fan. I don’t worship the ground they walk on, and I’ve been critical of their business decisions. I’ve even avoided movies they’ve made that didn’t interest me, including many of their recent live-action remakes. So when I mention “Disney snark”, it’s not like I don’t understand it.

That said, it still bums me out that so many people are vehemently anti-Disney. And not in a “Disney’s a monopolistic corporation” kind of way, though that’s true. I’m talking in a “Disney’s a monopolistic corporation, therefore you shouldn’t support them” kind of way. Also, I’m talking in a “Disney’s a monopolistic corporation, so we’re gonna make you feel miserable for supporting them” kind of way. Both of those attitudes aren’t only unhelpful, they’re actively harmful.

And I hear them constantly. Whenever Disney exceeds, it leads to a reminder that they’re evil. Whenever they swallow another entity, there are guilt trips lobbed at fans for being “part of the problem”. And whenever they fail, the “Karma Police” are on full-force. It’s never-ending.

Why are so many of the anti-Disney individuals self-righteous anyway? So Disney’s shady? I’ve got news for you: all corporations are. So Disney’s made decisions that’ve been “wrong”? Again, so have all companies. It doesn’t mean blindly defending the firing of James Gunn over old Tweets he’s long since apologized for, but it doesn’t mean that I’m Satan for still watching MCU films. There are more-effective ways of expressing your frustrations than making people miserable.

Also, what happened to “There’s no ethical consumption under Capitalism”? If everything we consume is mired in some form of dishonesty, then shouldn’t that apply to “purer forms of art” too? This doesn’t mean not advocating for change, but sitting back and condemning people who watch Disney media as a form of escapism doesn’t help your cause. If anything, you’re a jerk.

Look, life sucks. Work’s hard, politicians are corrupt, we’re depleting natural resources at an alarming rate, and attempts at advocating for change are met with disdain by those with power. Between fighting for equal rights and wanting a better tomorrow, we occasionally need to relax and recharge. Entertainment does that. And for many people, that’s in the form of Disney content. Why, then, are people making Disney fans feel guilty over that? Isn’t it hypocritical? Isn’t it self-righteous?

It’d be so much easier to improve the world if we stopped being jerks over stuff we have no control over. And yeah, Disney isn’t saintly. Between their monopolistic practices, their worker abuse, their constant attempts at whitewashing their shady past, their attempts at performative wokeness presently, or even how they had ties to The Trump Campaign, Disney has, and will continue to have, lots to answer for in their backlog. I won’t claim otherwise. But if we’re not on the same page about how people are still entitled to enjoy Disney content from-time-to-time, especially if it’s well-made, then why even bother fighting for change? What good will that do?

For as much as we strive to make the world better, we should never deprive people of their happiness. Whether it’s letting an activist buy a Starbucks drink, or letting people who can’t drive Uber to a union strike, or-yes-even letting people unhappy with the state of the film industry enjoy a Disney film, there’s enough anger that a little joy is needed too. So let someone have that, okay? Life’s way too precious for people to be dicks, even over Disney content.

Disney and "Wokeness"

There are many buzzwords in entertainment, both good and bad. Chief among them is “woke”. Whether or not you know what the phrase means, it’s been used to the point of overkill. Perhaps the biggest example is with The Disney Corporation, particularly their films. But is Disney, the poster child for family-friendly entertainment, really “woke”?

Full disclosure: there are other issues I’d rather concern myself with. For one, there are two major wars in The West right now, and there’s been plenty of misinformation about both. Two, more informed people have expressed their thoughts. And three, it’s exhausting. Yet since this won’t go away, and because leaving Twitter/X has made my Views take a hit, I have to drive up engagement. I hope I don’t regret it…

Gina Carano, who had a minor role in The Mandalorian, is suing Disney for $75000 over “wrongful dismissal”. I’d go into the minutiae, but it’s a headache. Besides, this article explains it better than I could. All I’ll mention is that Carano, who was fired in 2021 because of inappropriate Tweets, is being bankrolled by Elon Musk. That’s right, the biggest wildcard billionaire of all time. What could possibly go wrong?

I’m less surprised than tired. Carano hasn’t let this go, and she’s gained a weird fanbase that’s used her situation to gripe about Disney since. Whether it’s criticizing Kathleen Kennedy for “ruining Star Wars”, or even the “MSheU” nonsense, Carano’s found herself thrown into the mix. What’s worse, attempts at using reason are met with “Why are you defending a multi-billion dollar company?” responses. I’ve made no secret that I’m mixed on Disney, but I guess I’m playing defence now. Because I’m calling this bluff.

Let’s be clear: Disney’s not a woke company. At all. Ignoring their history of racism, or even their political scandals, Disney’s a corporation. Corporations are out to make money. Money, as anyone with a degree in finance can attest, isn’t inherently woke. If it were, CEOs would be donating their bonuses to charities.

Disney’s goal is to make products for consumers. In their case, families and children. That hasn’t changed since their inception. What has changed, however, is what defines “families and children”. Because demographics morph over time. What might’ve constituted a family’s evolved over the past century, and businesses have had to adapt. We’ve seen this in Disney’s approach to catering to minorities and different types of families. That’s a large chunk of their base.

Disney has other types of fans too. Following their acquisition of Marvel in 2009, they’ve acquired superhero fans. Following their acquisition of Star Wars in 2012, they’ve acquired Star Wars fans. Even following their acquisition of Indiana Jones-do you see the pattern? Disney’s attempts at consuming brands has landed them with an ever-growing and ever-diverse set of fans.

With this in mind, is it any wonder why Disney’s been making content to appeal to them too? Especially since these fans are diverse? It’s not so much that Disney’s “woke” as they are “smart” about branding. They’ve seen where the needle’s headed, and they’re catering to it. That’s the reality here, folks!

I don’t know what people want, other than to whine about the “Good Ol’ Days”. I like a lot of classic Disney films, don’t get me wrong! But they can’t and shouldn’t detract from newer ones. If that means changing or updating facets to appeal to racial and gender minorities, so be it! That doesn’t displace the backlog of content for those pining for those Good Ol’ Days, whatever that means…

That’s not what this is really about, though. Like the trend of calling pro-LGBTQ+ content “grooming”, claiming that Disney’s “woke” is a sign of detractors refusing to expand their mindsets. It’s no different than mass-purchasing something and destroying it to “prove a point”: the company gets the money, while you’ve wasted yours. Is that an efficient way of making your point known? I don’t think it is.

By claiming Disney’s “shoving wokeness” down people’s throats, detractors of Disney forget that they’re going where the money is. That’s what it is, money. It’s not even a sincere form of it either, such that queer communities have a name for it: Rainbow Capitalism. It’s progressive only because of money, not because it’s genuine. How’s that being woke, exactly?

I wish I could dedicate more energy here, but I can’t. So I’ll end with the following: you know how I mentioned that Gina Carano’s suing for “wrongful dismissal”? Keep in mind that Disney asked her multiple times to tone it down and apologize, something she’d refused to do. She was a brand ambassador for Disney, whether she wanted it or not, and she was let go for not upholding her end. That has less to do with wokeness than branding, something Disney cares deeply about. Essentially, I wish Carano the best at falling flat on her face…again.

Besides, if Disney were “woke”, then they wouldn’t have filmed the remake of Mulan near a Uyghur concentration camp. Something to think about.

Disney's Mass Lay-Offs

I’m not sure if you noticed, but Disney recently laid off 1000 people.

This is my issue with At-Will Employment. I know it’s effective in removing bad employees, especially when they drag down production, but there’s no long-term job security guaranteed for anyone. Additionally, many of those who were fired had been there for over a decade, even helping to shape divisions like Marvel and Pixar. In fact, one person even mentioned that he was fired in front of a Loki mural he’d created. Talk about irony!

It sucks because I was defending Disney’s decision to axe a live-action Robin Hood remake a month ago. In that, I said the following about the company’s new heads: 

“…It’s possible they’ll disappoint, especially since they have to appease shareholders, but this is a step in the right direction…”

I didn’t expect Disney’s new CEO, Josh D’Amaro, to disappoint me this quickly! However, he did. It’s as if he took everything people were frustrated with Bob Iger over, particularly cost-cutting, and fast-tracked it. It’s even more harrowing when you consider that Disney laid off their home media division, which means they’re most-likely not going to have physical media releases anymore going forward. Smooth.

It’d be easy to point the finger squarely at Disney here, but this problem has been plaguing Hollywood for some time. Between financial straits, the rise in streaming and A.I., grunt workers are always the first to get squeezed. It doesn’t help that WB being purchased by Paramount indicates a lack of government oversight, especially given Paramount’s CEO’s attitude about Hollywood in general. We already saw that with the Scream franchise…

I’m getting off-track here. While it sucks that Disney laid off 1000 employees, it shouldn’t be surprising. Like I said, At-Will Employment allows for this! It also doesn’t guarantee job security, and you’d be foolish thinking otherwise. So while I wish those impacted the best, I’m not shocked. I’m frustrated, but not shocked.

You know what sucks more? The people at the top won’t be impacted. In a healthy work environment, the CEO would take pay cuts to retain workers. That’s what Nintendo did when the Wii U wasn’t panning out financially. However, loyalty to your employees isn’t something that exists in The West, so perhaps that’s unfair to mention. I wish it weren’t, though.

I wouldn’t be as annoyed if businesses didn’t consider their employees disposable. Yes, A.I. might seem like a good choice right now. And yes, cost-cutting is a real concern. But that shouldn’t mean gutting people who made you what you are. Disney didn’t become successful based on the decisions of one or two people. They became a juggernaut because of the grunt workers who brought their voices to the table, each and every one. Be it designers, marketers or idea people, these individuals all contributed. Letting them go like this, even if they’re going to be hired now on a per-need basis, is a slap to the face.

So what now? I don’t know. Disney’s made interesting creative decisions since this development, including re-releasing several classics in ASL, but that’s not enough to turn a blind eye. If anything, it feels like a distraction. And while it’s nice to see “We Don’t Talk About Bruno” in sign language, however difficult it must’ve been to animate, it leaves a bitter taste considering many of the people involved aren’t employed by Disney anymore, going by the timeline of this announcement.

It feels like I’m rambling here, but it’s only because I like Disney’s output. They’ve made and released some of my favourite movies, and they know how to weather storms. Buying and bankrolling The MCU has benefited that franchise immensely, and their investment in Star Wars has mostly paid off. Which is all the more reason why this sucks. Considering we won’t see the long-term impacts of these firings for several years, I also shudder to think what’ll happen creatively for them.

I’m not running a corporation, I get it. I don’t have to listen to shareholders breathing down my neck. But it’d be nice if the higher ups treated grunt workers with respect. Perhaps some are worth firing, but 1000 of them? And with short notice? Could there not have been one-on-one evaluations of their performances before making this decision? Or would that have been costly?

This’d also be less irritating if A.I. weren’t such a hot topic in Hollywood nowadays. I know it’s enticing, truly! But getting rid of people for it isn’t the answer. It’s also not cheaper, as we’re now learning. Besides, why fire someone and replace them with something that doesn’t create?

Disney, specifically D’Amaro, has lots of explaining to do. It’s possible D’Amaro’s the better choice to succeed Iger than Bob Chapek, especially given how that panned out, but this isn’t a good start. Companies act as though people are replaceable, and they might be, but this isn’t the answer. Especially since human labour’s the lifeblood of a corporation, whether they want to acknowledge it or not. I only hope Disney doesn’t learn this the hard way…

On Toxic Gatekeeping

I’ve noticed a trend in film discourse, particularly online. It’s worrying because it makes discussing entertainment less fun. And while I’m not guiltless, I finally have to put my foot down. Let’s discuss toxic film gatekeeping.

What’s toxic gatekeeping in entertainment like? Look at how someone judges how people enjoy entertainment. I’ve seen it happen everywhere, irrespective of quality. It makes the arguer look like a snob, and it discourages those on the fence from giving something a fair shake. But most-importantly, it makes someone enjoying something, which I think more people should try more, a chore. In order to explain what I mean, I’ll give some examples:

Avatar:

I’m not referring to the Nickelodeon series here. Rather, I’m referring to the James Cameron movie. I’ve covered this before in another piece, but certain points need reiterating. Because now that a sequel’s been announced for later this year, 13 years after the original, there’s definitely a large enough gap to accurately assess it.

To be clear, Avatar isn’t a masterpiece. It never was. But it’s still good. And I’m not saying that because I haven’t seen it since it came out, either. I’ve actually revisited it several times since 2009, each time thoroughly enjoying it.

I think part of the gatekeeping here’s rooted in unreasonable expectations. This is a James Cameron film. Cameron dominated the 80’s and early-90’s, with each of the 5 films he directed leading up to Titanic being well-loved classics. So when he went mainstream with Titanic in 1997, going full-on romance amid a historical tragedy, people were turned off. Thankfully, time’s been kind to the film...

However, it’s Avatar that made people jump ship in an aggressive and toxic way. Titanic might’ve been “overly commercial”, but it was a “one-off”. Avatar, on the other hand, was Cameron in his element, yet it became another Titanic. Given the general disdain for environmentalist movies, especially since they’re often done poorly, it didn’t take long for the backlash to start. Being the highest-grossing movie of all-time for a decade didn’t help.

Honestly, I don’t know where to start. Avatar’s discourse was when I started to realizing that film nerds were annoying and toxic. People whined left-right-and-centre about how lame and “unoriginal” the story was, calling it a mishmash of Pocahontas, Ferngully: The Last Rainforest and Dances with Wolves. The problem here, aside from being pedestrian, is that it ignores how storytelling works. We don’t tell stories for “originality”, we tell them to teach. And since there’s “nothing new under the Sun”, it’s inevitable that there’ll be overlap.

Besides, I don’t think it’s true. There might be commonalities, but there are commonalities with every other environmentalist film. And there are commonalities with every movie, too. Avatar’s basically a Hero’s Journey story, something every story adheres to in some form. There’s a reason Joseph Campbell called it The Man with 1000 Faces: because the story can be re-skinned in over 1000 different ways. That Avatar feels familiar isn’t a blight on its quality, because then you have to criticize every story in existence. Is it worth opening that Pandora’s Box?

There’s also how the highest-grossing movie was about environmentalism. Well, so what? The environment’s a serious issue, and discussing it isn’t a problem. And while it has its issues, that it’s criticized for that saddens me. But that’s exactly how it’s gone down.

I can chart how the movie’s toxic discourse has changed over time, especially whenever James Cameron has discussed franchising. Back when it first came out, people insisted that “too many people like it”. Now that there’s been distance, people are insisting that “no one liked it”. Which is it? And the answer’s “no” either way. I won’t act like Cameron hasn’t been irritating either, but please let it go already. It’s been long enough.

Star Wars:

This one’ll net the most attention, but Star Wars has generated more headaches than warranted. Whether it’s crapping on The Prequels for being “the worst ever” (which they aren’t), or attacking The Sequels for “ruining Star Wars” (which they didn’t), the fanbase refuses to grow up and accept that it can be a lot to lots of people, instead being three generations of fans yelling at one another. It’s really telling.

I’ll start with The Prequels. I don’t think they deserve the hate they receive. They’re not “great”, but when you get past the clunky writing and wooden acting, there are moments in all of them that are worth your time. The first has the fight between Qui-Gon Jinn/Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Maul, set to one of the best pieces of music in Star Wars history. The second has the battle between Yoda and Count Dooku, which is really cool to watch. And the third has many great moments, including the Order 66 montage. Not everything about these films work, but if you focus on what they are you’ll definitely find stuff to enjoy.

The Sequels are met with resistance too. Here, the argument is that Disney’s “ruining Star Wars”. For one, Star Wars has always been qualitatively-inconsistent. And two, what?! These movies highlight the evils of Fascism and the disunity in politics. It’s been the modus operandi of the franchise since inception, when it was commenting on The Vietnam War. Showing off The First Order as clowns also isn’t out of place when the Stormtroopers in the original films were incompetent.

People are getting mad at Disney for continuing what was already in the franchise’s DNA. And when they’ve tried expanding the universe’s morality, something Star Wars: The Last Jedi attempted, the backlash has been even more severe! How dare Luke be a “burnt-out hermit”? He was always a flawed character, and this is the extent of that. How dare Holdo take out The First Order’s fleet, as opposed to Admiral Ackbar? I’m sorry that matters to you. How dare good and evil be challenged? Isn’t that true to life?

These movies aren’t untouchable pieces of art. Ignoring their finale, which is a can of worms on its own, Snoke’s fate was disappointing, and I don’t like how Maz Kanata acquiring Luke’s lightsaber was never explained. But even going to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Palpatine being able to return and having a granddaughter ignores how: a. he’s openly been able to cheat death, and b. he wasn’t always a decrepit, old man. Besides, I think the backlash is overblown and gross. Especially since the whole subplot existed to highlight the distinction between blood family and chosen family. That seriously needs more discussion.

I know change is hard, but this is Star Wars! This is the franchise that gave us corny dialogue and silly set-pieces. It’s also the franchise that copped-out with two on-screen deaths in Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi, such that Disney retconned them both. If we can tolerate the silliness of the older entries, yet claim that the silliness of the newer entries is “too much”, then I weep for our imaginations. Because Disney might as well use Deepfake technology to-wait, they already did that? *Sigh*

The MCU:

Considering how often I’ve discussed this, you’d think I’d have nothing else to say. You’d be wrong. The MCU’s slowly becoming a double-edged sword, in that defending it makes it look like I’m blind to its flaws. I’m not, the franchise is corporate and often pro-military propaganda, even if not on purpose. It also isn’t always the most ambitious.

That said, this is where people are the most gatekeeper-heavy. The franchise is often bashed for being “pedestrian” and “the death of cinema”, and not always from film fans. Even Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola have dubbed it “not cinema”, despite that being loaded and subjective. Yet since they have influence, the argument gets parroted by people who don’t really understand it. And I’m tired.

You don’t have to like The MCU. You also don’t have to like everything about it. I found the sexism in Guardians of the Galaxy obnoxious. I thought The Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3 was handled poorly. And I wasn’t big on Eternals. But that’s acknowledging flaws that actually exist, as opposed to inventing problems and acting like they hold back the franchise from being “good”.

But that’s exactly what keeps happening. Whenever The MCU is a talking point online, it’s almost always in relation to something “wrong with it”. Whether it’s the shot composition, or the colour-grading, or even the dialogue, there’s no end in sight to these “issues”. And if that doesn’t bother you? Well, then you’re worth judging!

You know what the worst part is? That if someone says this doesn’t matter, and to “let people have fun”, RedLetterMedia is brought up like a trump card. It’s not. It’s a cynical YouTube channel saying something that might’ve originally had meaning, but that meaning has been lost over time. It’s not even clever. It’s merely an edgy response to a valid counter-claim.

I’m not sure what to add, other than asking if the gatekeepers have ever been in a relationship. And if they have, was it healthy? I know that sounds mean, but you’d honestly think they were hurt by The MCU. Not that it matters, because The MCU isn’t a person. But who am I to judge?

Disney:

You knew I’d whip out the big guns eventually, didn’t you? There’s plenty of fair criticism to make about Disney as an entity. Lord knows I’ve done my fair share! I also have to tread carefully in light of recent controversies, especially the walk-out by employees. So I’m prefacing this now by saying that any criticism here is focused on their creative aspect, not their business aspect.

Claiming that liking Disney products is a crime against humanity is silly and dumb. Disney isn’t a singular entity. They’re a conglomerate of entities, including Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars. That they own so much might be an issue, but it doesn’t mean that everything they put out is “bad”. Acting that way is elitist. And no one likes that.

But that’s what happens anyway: mention Disney, and an argument happens. Mention that you like Disney products, and uh-oh! Here come the fun police, ready to judge your tastes in entertainment. It’s tiring. Not to mention, it’s toxic.

I’m not joking, either. You think it’s necessary reminding people that Disney’s “evil”? Newsflash: that’s not a new revelation. Disney’s always been “evil”, even going back to their inception. That doesn’t diminish their impact, nor does it diminish their body of work. But it’s the truth.

I don’t get why this is controversial: yes, Disney’s practiced unethical business behaviours before. Yes, Disney’s perpetuated harmful stereotypes. And yes, Disney’s a greedy corporation. But anything you can lob at Disney, you can also lob at any corporation. Disney’s not special in that way.

It doesn’t help that there are people who hate Disney for bigoted and cynical reasons. Whether it’s “supporting” Pride, or recent issues like Turning Red being a tween movie about a Chinese-Canadian girl growing up in the 2000’s, Disney fans can never win. And that bothers me. Life’s too short to gatekeep children’s entertainment. Focus your energy elsewhere.

There’s not much else to add, other than that people need to stop blanketing Disney based on higher management. It’s true that corporate Disney’s monstrous, and that needs calling out, but creative Disney isn’t monolithic. In many cases, creative Disney doesn’t even agree with corporate Disney. We’re seeing this with the employee walkout over “Don’t Say Gay”.

Biopics:

I think it’s only fair to end with something different. It’s more muted, not as prevalent, yet still has weight during Oscar season. Let’s talk about biopics. You heard that right.

Life has many interesting stories worth telling on film. I know that sounds demeaning, especially since movies are fictionalized, but it’s true. Holocaust stories, for example, make great movies. Period piece stories also make great movies. Even some of the best sports movies are based on real events. Life’s often more interesting and bizarre than fiction.

So why do biopics get so much backlash? I know there are an overabundance of them every Fall and Winter, and that The Academy loves them, but so what? There are an overabundance of action movies every Summer, yet no one protests their existence. Or if they do, it’s not as loud. What gives?

Does life scare people? It scares me too, but that’s why it’s worth learning from. Like how fiction helps process hard truths about life, reality helps understand those truths. In some ways, I’d even argue that it helps more than a made up story, as fiction bends the truth. That’s an important distinction.

“But wait!” I hear you interject. “Don’t biopics also fabricate information?” Yes, but that’s a by-product of fitting life into a three-act structure. Even when you’re adapting true events, you still need to take creative liberties. And since not everything in life translates well, that’s necessary for good storytelling. It sucks, but film can’t educate you on everything. That’s what Wikipedia’s for.

Biopics also play around with style sometimes. Rocketman, one of the best music biopics, used Elton John’s oeuvre to be a literal musical. Rush, my favourite sports biopic, is a thriller that features racing. And Schindler’s List, one of the greatest dramas ever, is a three-hour epic about one man’s relationship with his Jewish accountant. These stories couldn’t have been made in any other format.

I get frustration surrounding the overexposure of biopics. And yes, many are trash. But many films in general are trash! You really think being “bad” is anomalous to biopics? It’s not.

That’s why I don’t get the anger behind the existence of the genre. People act like biopics are lame, when what they’re really implying is that real life’s lame. And it’s not. Real life’s exciting for many reasons, you’d have to be dense to not see that. Also, you need to get outside more. Seriously, touch grass.

That about does it! Hopefully you understand why film gatekeeping’s so toxic, and if not…feel free to send hate mail. I promise I won’t read it.

The Church of Prattology

The past few days have had several events that’ve given me mixed reactions. For one, Disney released a teaser of Raya and the Last Dragon, which was exciting. Then there were a couple of US House Reps live-streaming games to secure votes, which is cool, but I think people might also be normalizing these politicians too much. And then there was Chris Pratt’s coworkers defending him from accusations of homophobia and bigotry. Let’s talk about that. 

Pratt’s become a superstar while under The MCU umbrella. How could he not? He’s charming, charismatic and funny. And he radiates a likability that keeps him in the public eye. I enjoyed his turns as Star Lord, Emmet, Owen and Barley, and I’ll probably enjoy many more of his roles. There’s no denying it, Chris Pratt’s talented!

Which is why some of his personal views are upsetting. To be clear, my issue isn’t that he’s conservative. Contrary to popular wisdom, there are many conservatives in Hollywood, even in acting. Besides, acting technically overrides personal politics. I also can’t control what someone believes, nor should I try.

My concern stems from how open Pratt’s been with his views. It began when Ellen Page came out as a lesbian and went on to criticize a homophobic church in The US. Pratt, a member of that church, went on the defensive, stating that while he didn’t condemn its stance, he was more than willing to accept Page anyway. Even if Pratt wasn’t direct, his claim was still homophobic. It was also a bad attempt at damage control. 

This was already bad enough as is, not gonna lie. Yet despite receiving flak in the years since because of his tendency to passive-aggressively quote Bible verses on Twitter, Pratt’s general politics remained low-key for a while. It’s only in recent weeks that everything got out of hand again. Aside from an ill-timed swipe at voting in The US, especially with gerrymandering and voter suppression being real issues, Pratt was also a no-show at a Biden fundraiser. This got him into hot water again online.

And now, as if that wasn’t distressing enough, Pratt’s co-workers, namely Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, have also taken heat for coming to his defence. Ignoring personal issues with Ruffalo having broken ranks before and not now, it feels like a selective defence given criticism against Brie Larson, Zendaya and the likes in the past. Why were they silent about the criticism directed at these women? Why the double-standard?

Think about it: a few years ago Brie Larson stated that diversity was lacking in Hollywood. Irrespective of her phrasing, she received plenty of backlash from the comic and film nerd community. Despite support from the talent at DC, the only Marvel cast member of note to defend her was Don Cheadle. So now that Chris Pratt’s being criticized for valid reasons, like homophobia, why are his cast-mates suddenly rushing to his defence? 

This is why I don’t “stan” people, especially celebrities: not only are they human and prone to disappointment, but they routinely form cliques that make it hard to sympathize with them. They also shield their own way too frequently. This is yet another example of that. Besides, stanning people is creepy.

I’m not sure why people are surprised that Ruffalo and RDJ are defending Pratt, though. I’m sure they mean well, but it was inevitable. That’s why we should keep an arm’s length distance and revere Brie Larson instead. Or, rather, revere her until she also goofs and ruins her reputation. I didn’t make the rules, I simply follow them!

***

I think another update about my collab is in order, this one with more explanation of why it’s taking so long:

Initially, I had someone lined up for September. But then this person had to cancel on me, so it got pushed to October. Since then, for reasons I won’t divulge, I’ve cycled through two more candidates and almost gave up. It was only then that the first person got back to me again. But that meant pushing the collab to mid-November. What can you do, right? 

I don’t begrudge anyone involved for this. They have lives too, so these situations happen. However, time away from the collab means that I can work on other projects. And one of those is on a new game that I purchased for my Switch. I won’t give it away, but I’m enjoying it a lot. Maybe not as much as most people, but still a lot.

And my other projects? For starters, I’m now the proud owner of a boxset I’ve wanted for some time, so I might discuss that in the near-future too. I also have some Disney ideas on my mind, assuming I get around to them, like one on Soul. Outside of that, though? I’ll play it by ear, since my collab kept getting pushed back. Basically, if I think of anything, I’ll write about it. I owe my fans that much.

Anyway, that’s about it for now. Sorry for another update shortly after the last, and I’ll see you next time!

The Little Headache

I’ve made my thoughts on Disney’s live-action remakes known. I’ve also criticized their shameless marketing tactics. While I’ve seen and enjoyed a few of the remakes, they’re less movies and more attempts at marketing classics in a “respectable” medium, except without any of the soul. But they’re making money, so more are on their way. Case in point: The Little Mermaid.

I like The Little Mermaid. It’s not my favourite Disney Renaissance movie, it’s not even my favourite adaptation of the Hans Christian Anderson story, but it’s got catchy music, solid animation, a fun villain and ahead of its time theming. Some aspects, like Sebastian, feel dated, but more works than doesn’t. And, naturally, Disney now feels compelled to bring it to live-action. Joy!

I don’t have high hopes for this movie, let’s be clear. But while I’m positive it’ll be soulless, its casting appears to be a bright spot. In particular, the teaser had me sold on Halle Bailey as Ariel, especially since she can sing! No offence to Emma Watson in Beauty and the Beast, she’s great in her own right, but vocals aren’t her strong suit. This is a definite improvement.

Sadly, I don’t think much of the internet shares my sentiments. We agree that it’ll probably be bad, but the reason why is where we differ. I think it’ll be bad because it won’t do enough to differentiate from the 1989 classic, save awkward updates for a 21st Century audience. The internet, however, thinks it’ll be bad because of Halle Bailey. Specifically, because she’s black and in a leading role. (Now that I’ve said the quiet part out loud, I’m going to have people tell me I’m wrong.)

Hollywood has a terrible track-record with racial casting. It often feels like they gloss over the distinct histories of their source characters to appeal to the lowest common-denominator. On the off-chance they “get it right”, it usually still falls short. This is a fancy way of saying that Hollywood sucks at representation, which is why their few successes feel impactful. Doubly-so when they change the ethnicity of a blank-slate character.

Ariel’s one such character. True, her origins are European, but the original author didn’t envision much for her outside of being a mermaid desperate to become a human. She’s also not real, so interpretations can play with what she’s supposed to look like. Look at Ponyo: that movie’s based on The Little Mermaid, but it’s set in Japan and changes the protagonist into a Japanese preschooler. Somehow, though, that’s acceptable...

I wonder why Halle Bailey being Ariel bugs people. Yes, she’s black. But so what? Mermaids aren’t real creatures with defined features. You’re not sinning against period authenticity, especially since black people lived in Europe thanks to immigration, trade and slavery. Besides, she’s not even human!

You want a true depiction of what mer-people are like? Watch Luca. I know it’s set in Italy and has an entirely different premise, but its depiction of the underwater race is probably the most-accurate I’ve ever seen. Mer-people wouldn’t be humanoid if they lived underwater. They’d most-likely have gills, fins, scales and specially-shaped ears. And they’d most-likely be a different colour to-boot. The “changing into humans on land” part is where the creative license comes in, but outside of that? Boom, there you go!

I know what this is really about, though. This is the internet feeling threatened by the presence of a black woman. According to them, that’s “woke”. And woke is “bad”. Forget that black women aren’t monolithic, that won’t do.

It’s here that I ask the internet to dunk their heads in ice water. Because that’s not only a racist mentality, it’s complete nonsense. You think a black actress “ruins the spirit of The Little Mermaid”? The original movie was about body dysphoria. In fact, the original story was about Hans Christian Anderson pining for the male lover he could never have. I suggest researching the story if this is shocking to you.

Honestly, nonsense like this makes it difficult for nerds to be taken seriously. Yes, Halle Bailey’s black. But so what? Plenty of black girls have responded well to the teaser, not unlike when redheaded girls responded well to the original movie. Film doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and if this paves the way for better representation, well…I’ll take that over the shameless griping of white men.

It doesn’t help that when called out, said white men play the victim card. Like how She-Hulk angered people by existing, this casting decision has done the same. And like it or not, two dozen review bombs aren’t changing its impact. There’s a reason the general public no longer trusts IMDB, and it’s because its users are so incredibly out-of-touch with reality. In many ways, it’s not hard to feel sorry.

I get it: change is difficult. We’re used to Ariel as a white redhead because she’s been that way for 30+ years. But change is also inevitable, and other people deserve their chance in the spotlight. It’s not even like I’m defending this movie, I still think it’ll suck. But it won’t be because Halle Bailey’s black. And it especially won’t be because she can’t sing, because she can.

Who am I kidding, though? The people complaining don’t actually care!

I (Don't) Hate You!

Not too long ago, I wrote about not being a fan of Tom Cruise. While it’s easy to bemoan celebs in Hollywood, not as much attention’s dedicated to why you don’t get the hate for one. So that’s what I’ll do today. Why? Why not?!

We’ll start with one of Hollywood’s biggest punching bags. I’ve covered Gal Gadot before, but it’s worth defending her again because a lot of criticism starts and ends with something she has no control over. Basically, Gadot’s attacked for being born in Israel. More-specifically, for being proud of it. Because according to social media, that’s bad.

People don’t control where they’re born. This goes for celebrities too. But while the world understands that with every other country, Israelis have an undeserved handicap there. This goes double for famous Israelis, which the Wonder Woman actress is. I’d call this ridiculous-actually, it’s ridiculous. Let’s not sugar coat it.

The critiques of Gal Gadot circle around the same talking points: she’s a Zionist who can’t act. Firstly, use the word “Jew” when being Antisemitic. And secondly, she’s not an amazing actress, but she’s far from terrible. Many Hollywood regulars are as good as, or worse than, her, which shows when they’re paired with a bad director. Few people can survive bad directing anyway, as a lot of trust is put in the person filming. Gadot isn’t my favourite actress, but assuming she has no talent isn’t only subjective, it’s unfair when far worse actors get a pass.

Going back to the Zionist part, so? Many people are Zionists, even some you’d be surprised by. Besides, Gadot being labelled a “Zionist” means little when you remember that she was a combat instructor in The IDF. Say what you will, but she not only trained tougher people than most keyboard warriors, she also doesn’t care what you think. Gadot’s also one of the major celebrities to express concerns about The October 7th Massacre, something many people deny happened.

I’m not her biggest fan, either. Gadot’s no stranger to blunders, her “Imagine” video being the most-infamous. But when that same level of scrutiny isn’t applied to celebrities with far more baggage, I have to wonder if that’s a problem with everyone else. It makes me wonder what’ll happen when Shira Haas appears in Captain America: The New World Order. It also makes me wonder if people are okay…

Brie Larson gets trashed by insecure sexists nonstop. Whether it’s criticizing her foot fungus years ago, which she had no control over, or this obsession with her being “everything wrong with modern Marvel movies”, she never catches a break. It doesn’t help that whenever she’s mentioned, the fact that she “hates men” tags along. This isn’t only untrue, it misrepresents what she said at Crystal + Lucy about diversity. Because she’s right.

It's pathetic how much time the internet cries about Larson still getting work. Whenever a YouTube video pops up about Disney “dying”, she’s in the thumbnail. And not only that, it’s in a badly-photoshopped image of her angry or crying. It doesn’t help that the videos are long and largely-incoherent rants from males who don’t source their talking points. (Not that they need to, as their target audience won’t bother challenging them.)

Outside of these videos, Larson can’t live her life without criticism. Larson working out? Instant rage. Larson getting high and enjoying food? Instant rage. Larson being friends with Iman Vellani? You guessed it, instant rage.

It doesn’t help that many of her male co-stars haven’t spoken up in her defence, leading internet trolls to assume no one likes her. I don’t know where this claim comes from, and I’m surprised Larson hasn’t sued for defamation. Even ignoring that, she’s the weirdest target for male insecurity I’ve ever seen. Never mind that she starred in Captain Marvel, which was decently-received and surpassed $1 billion at the box-office despite attempts to “boycott” it.

I’m not saying you have to love Brie Larson, or even like her. If her brief stint with NFTs is indication, she’s made mistakes. But with how some people criticize her, you’d think she’s a blight on humanity. She’s not. She’s an Oscar-winning actress with opinions on her industry, which she’s entitled. She’s no different than anyone else in Hollywood, and it’s time for people to move on.

I’ll end with the most-recent example: Rachel Zegler. Ever since West Side Story, her career has shown plenty of promise. She even handled her shade of The Academy for not initially getting invited to The Oscars with tact, something I can’t say for many people. But it’s her remarks about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs that got the faux-outrage rolling. Because her taking issue with an 87 year-old movie’s a problem, somehow…

I’d ask if those criticizing her are okay, but that wouldn’t solve the problem. Nor would pointing out that her taking issue with a Disney classic isn’t why the remake will be bad. It’ll be bad for reasons totally unrelated to her, I promise! And no amount of badmouthing will change that. If you disagree, I promise that some fresh air will do your lungs wonders.

Aside from that, the hate for Zegler’s mostly carbon-copied from Brie Larson, except stranger. Zegler’s jab at Ansel Elgort, for example, wasn’t so offensive given that everyone else was already distancing themselves from Elgort before West Side Story was released! Elgort, unlike Zegler, is toxic to be around, and that’s worth calling out. That nerd-bros can’t accept that and move on is telling and disturbing. Then again, am I really surprised?

Rachel Zegler hasn’t even been in the public eye for that long. She could end up being an awful human being, we don’t know yet! But let’s not be so quick to judge her right now, especially given that she’s young. I think that gets ignored in favour of “Rachel Zegler hates Disney movies!”, or whatever nonsense people keep saying. Going outside is free…

Anyway, that about does it for now. If you’ll excuse me…

Defending Ralph Bohner

By the time this debuts, WandaVision will be done for almost two weeks. It, therefore, feels both too early and too late to be discussing the final episode. However, because #SaveQuicksilver was Trending on Twitter, it’s still relevant. And yes, there’ll be spoilers. You’ve been warned.

So…Ralph Bohner. Simply uttering that gets some people mad, assuming they aren’t silently giggling. But even ignoring the name, I think the twist doesn’t get enough respect. This is a character who, through no fault of the show, was thought to be someone he wasn’t. The show turned him into a non-reveal, angering many and confusing some. And it’s brilliant.

Anyway, some backstory:

Back in the 80’s and 90’s, Marvel auctioned off film rights for their IPs in hopes of staving off bankruptcy. One of their most-famous, X-Men, eventually made its way to 20th Century Fox. Despite this, there was a catch: two of the X-Men characters, Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch, doubled as Avengers in the comics, allowing them to still be used by Marvel and Disney once The MCU became a juggernaut. Desperate to capitalize on this, Fox used Quicksilver in X-Men: Days of Future Past in 2014, while The MCU had both Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch debut in 2015’s The Avengers: Age of Ultron. To keep the licensing even-keel, Fox agreed to focus on Quicksilver, while The MCU focused on Scarlett Witch. Sounds simple, right?

Here’s where it gets complicated. While The MCU’s Quicksilver was killed off on-screen, for the longest time the two studios never mentioned their character’s dual-identity as a mutant and an Avenger. In The MCU’s case, Quicksilver’s death was never mentioned in future movies, instead focusing one the romance between Scarlett Witch (aka Wanda Maximoff) and Vision. To add to that, a few years ago Disney solidified its acquisition of 20th Century Fox, absorbing everything it owned from Marvel, including Fantastic Four and all of the X-Men, into it. This remedied the Fox/Disney dispute over Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch by making it a non-issue.

Enter WandaVision. Having been in production following the merger, the show had an interesting opportunity to work with this. And they did…initially…by having Evan Peters, who played Quicksilver in the X-Men films, return as a “recast” version of Wanda’s brother Pietro in Episode 5. That it happened right after Wanda and Vision’s argument, highlighting that Wanda’s hold on Westview was falling apart, helped; after all, like the episode’s opening suggested, they were making it up as they went along!

So yes, there was a new version of Pietro Maximoff, or Quicksilver, to throw shade at, opening the possibility of a “multiverse”. The possibilities were endless, right? Well, no. While The MCU has been guilty of franchise maintenance before, it generally prefers telling good stories. And nowhere was this more-apparent than the show’s finale, where Pietro was revealed to be an actor named Ralph Bohner under Agatha Harkness’s control.

While this annoyed many people, I thought it was funny and brilliant. Funny because I’m secretly 12 years-old, but brilliant because it advances the themes of grief and accepting loss that WandaVision excels at. I don’t say this lightly, either: considering the last time The MCU pulled a fake-out was with The Mandarin in Iron Man 3, and that I wasn’t a fan of it, that I think this is brilliant says something. Especially when I’m not a fan of wasted characters.

Let’s look at this reveal through my litmus test for good plot-twists. I have a theory that a good plot-twist fulfills two criteria: it has to make sense in the context of what came before it, and it has to progress the story in a logical direction. Fake-outs are no exception, as they’re also plot-twists. To that end, Pietro Maximoff being Ralph Bohner qualifies.

For the first one, it’s obvious. Aside from Pietro’s death having an effect on Wanda’s manipulation of Westview, it also makes sense: Wanda’s so unwilling to confront her trauma, so desperate to maintain the illusion, that falling for a fake version of her dead brother is in-line with that. It doesn’t matter that he’s dead, or that his “revival” gets poked fun at, because that’s a red herring. Essentially, she’s so grief-stricken that she’s willing to an accept an imposter version of her brother.

For the second, it’s trickier, but still works. Going off of Wanda wanting to see Pietro again, him being a dead end emphasizes the need for Wanda to move on. Remember, WandaVision’s about denying grief. Wanda created her sitcom reality to cope with the deaths of her parents, her brother and, more-recently, Vision. She also created twin sons for that same reason. Wanda wants all of this, but it’s not what she needs. She needs to move on.

In that context, Pietro being an actor is brilliant. Is it disappointing to all those who wanted an MCU/X-Men crossover? I suppose, though that was never the intention. Will it be walked back? Maybe, but I hope it’s walked back without ruining the thematic depth. But is it worth the vitriol? No.

It’s worth noting that unlike The Mandarin twist, it doesn’t actually drag down the story. I liked Iron Man 3 and thought the twist was funny, especially since The Mandarin in the comics is racist, but it felt like everything built-up prior had gone nowhere. Not to mention, the “real” villain was another generic baddie who shot lasers from his mouth. It may have fulfilled criteria #1, especially since said baddie was foreshadowed, but not criteria #2!

Essentially, Ralph Bohner’s The Mandarin fake-out done right. I love it, especially since it was surprising. Considering how “predictable” and “safe” The MCU has gotten since 2008, we could use more surprises. And no, HYDRA secretly being SHIELD doesn’t count, though that was also a brilliant decision. This is brilliant on its own, not because of any previous lore.

As a side-note, Ralph Bohner’s clever for other reasons. For one, despite the name, WandaVision’s show-runners clearly had Joey Tribbiani from Friends and Nick Moore from Family Ties in mind with him. Two, his first name, Ralph, is frequently dropped by Agnes throughout the show, indicating that there was foreshadowing. And thirdly, and this is personal, Ralph’s last name being “Bohner” is a tongue-and-cheek riff on how Quicksilver’s always been, and pardon the pun, a bit of a dick.

I get feeling cheated. You never want to cheat your audience. But too many people are making a fuss for the wrong reasons. The MCU gets enough undeserved criticism for flaws it doesn’t have. Having its fanbase act entitled over a well-written twist only gives detractors more fuel for their pyre. We don’t need that, especially not when we’re still trying to convince Martin Scorsese that The MCU is “high art”.

Now then, about The Falcon and the Winter Soldier…

Defending "Bean Mouth"

Am I the only one sick of the “bean mouth” debate?

A while back, I saw a YouTube thumbnail discussing why Elio failed at the box-office. There are several reasons why it did, even though I liked it, but none were present in said thumbnail. Instead, it blamed its failure on its art-style, specifically for using “bean mouth”. And honestly, it’s tiresome to hear that. Let me explain.

What’s “bean mouth”? It’s when the character’s face looks like a bean. Specifically, the character’s mouth, contorting and expanding to the shape of one. This has become so prevalent lately that it’s been criticized as being “bad”. It’s also been dubbed the “CalArts Style”, suggesting that California’s animation school is to blame.

I should note now that decade-defining art-styles are nothing new. The 60’s and 70’s, when Hanna-Barbera dominated television animation, had the “necktie style”. The 80’s, when cartoons were based on toys, had the “carved chest style”. Even in the 90’s, when cartoons were free to experiment, had the “pointy body style”. Each one was “uniform”, we simply accept it because of nostalgia.

That’s not an exaggeration. Throughout the 60’s and 70’s, TV animation was cheap, so a cut off neck would look weird to animate without a piece of clothing. The 80’s replicated the toys of the era, and buff characters were appealing to boys. The 90’s was the decade of Batman: The Animated Series, which utilized Gothic art-deco to look unique from its source material. Every decade had reasons for their characters being designed that way.

So what’s with “bean mouth”? There are two possible explanations here. The first is that it’s quick and easy. Animation’s time-consuming and costly to do properly, especially with mass labour. We take that for granted, since it’s often subcontracted to South Korea and Vietnam, but this isn’t quick either. Intricately-designed character models are difficult and cost money, while “bean mouth” is simpler. Besides, the human face looks like a bean from an angle.

The second is that this art-style’s expressive. It’s easy to joke about the style’s weirdness, but there’s no denying how lively the faces are. Since beans in real life are squishy and slippery when cooked, it’s perfect to use as a model. When combined time and cost, it makes sense. You have to cut corners somewhere!

Why’s this such a big deal for so many animation fans? Most aren’t in the animator’s chair, so they have no clue about the process. Why would “bean mouth” be bad? Plenty of shows and movies have utilized it well, and most of the time it isn’t the focus. The writing, setting and world-building also more than compensate. It’s something that, let me remind you, is no different than what other decades did.

I think the answer’s in the alternative term: “CalArts Style”. CalArts is a school in California that trains up-and-coming animators for TV and film. It’s been around for a while, but lately, according to detractors, it’s been training younger, more unique animators. Or, to be blunt, it’s training diverse animators. I cracked the code.

In my last piece, I mentioned the tendency to use KPop Demon Hunters, arguably Netflix’s biggest success story, to tear down Pixar and Disney. The example I used was Turning Red, which was criticized for being too “girly”. I’ve already called out the racism and sexism there, but it’s worth noting that it, like Elio, used “bean mouth”. And like Elio, it was chastised unfairly for that. Let that sink in.

Truthfully, “bean mouth”, or “CalArts Style”, is shorthand for racism. “How dare animators be diverse? This is outrageous!” You’ll probably hear this through terminology like “woke” and “DEI”, but the sentiment remains the same: modern animators are diverse. Modern animators use a uniform design. Therefore, modern animation is awful. If it sounds absurd, it is.

It’s also not why Elio bombed at the box-office. There are several reasons for why it under-performed: it’s an original story, and those take time to gain fans. The pandemic changed moviegoing habits, with theatre attendance down generally. Disney+ has primed audiences to wait, so there isn’t an incentive to spend money on tickets. And Disney didn’t do a great job marketing the movie. These make more sense than “bean mouth is bad”.

What does this really accomplish anyway? Yes, the film and TV landscapes are changing. Yes, there are an increasing number of shows and movies written and directed by minorities. No, that’s not bad. If anything, it’s overdue.

In the case of Pixar, it’s especially overdue because Pixar needed the shakeup. I love their offerings, but John Lasseter, who ran the studio for decades, was a creep. And he hadn’t directed anything of note in years, relying on brand recognition. He was talented, but he was holding everyone back. Now that he’s gone, marginalized voices, like Domee Shi, can actually express themselves. Domee Shi, by the way, also directed Elio.

I’d deconstruct this further, but it’s not worth the effort. I’ve already dedicated a lot more time and energy to this than I wanted, as I feel you should know why this is ridiculous. Nevertheless, arguing about “bean mouth” being bad is both childish and silly. In other words, you need to grow up already.

A Eulogy for Star Wars Rebels

How about that Star Wars Rebels?

So I wasn't on-board with this show initially. After all, it premiered in 2014, right as uncertainty about the new direction Disney was taking the franchise was at an all-time high. Additionally, its direct predecessor, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, was recently cancelled, and my only exposure to it at that point went back to the pilot movie no one liked. It wasn't until I watched Star Wars: The Force Awakens that I gave these shows a chance. Admittedly, Star Wars Rebels was already halfway through its second season by then, but I liked what I saw of its predecessor, so I figured I'd enjoy it too.

Forewarning, I'm gonna assume you've already seen it if you're reading this. It'll save me lots of effort and space trying to condense 4 seasons into a single blog. I'll also forgo defending it, as I've already done that. Instead, I'd like to give my general thoughts on the experience. Here goes:

I'll begin by mentioning that Star Wars Rebels, like its sister series before it, has the weird distinction of being cheaply-animated, yet progressively looking better over time. It's definitely more crisp and cinematic, thanks to an increase in budget, but it's obvious that this could never be made into a theatrical film. That's something Star Wars: The Clone Wars had to learn the hard way in 2008, and, thankfully, it's not repeated here. This show knows its visual strengths and weakness and never oversteps them, and thank goodness for that!

It's clear early-on who this show's really meant for: little kids. If Star Wars: The Clone Wars was created and written with teenagers in mind, than Star Wars Rebels is for younger Star Wars fans. I know this has turned some viewers off, but it's never bothered me. Star Wars has always been for children, and George Lucas even acknowledged this early-on. So a Star Wars show, let-alone a cartoon, being for kids is crucial when understanding why it was even aired on DisneyXD.

Musically, the show's on-par with Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Those who've seen my comparison piece will know what I think of composer Kevin Kiner's work, but I'll add that he's at his best when he plays to the tunes that John Williams made famous. This almost seems unfair, but it's a testament to the legacy of the movies themselves. This isn't to flat-out disrespect the shows for what they've brought to the table, however: ignoring their opening and ending themes, which'd be ear-worms either way, both have moments of brilliance on-par with the films.

But that's somewhat irrelevant, because Star Wars Rebels is all about filling in the gaps leading to the 1977 classic. I know its existence involves retconning certain details of established lore and stretching others, but considering that Star Wars is notorious for doing this anyway, it's easy to forgive. Not all franchises need to follow The MCU principle of tying together neatly, nor should they.

Nevertheless, I was worried how the rebellion would coalesce in the first season. The show indicated that it was initially a grassroots, guerilla-style resistance that did everything on a "hero for hire" method, except with two Jedi thrown in for good fun. That's how it starts off, but as the Season 1 finale came to pass, it was revealed to be more complicated. That almost makes me want to see another show going even further back, but I'm overreaching here.

The cast more than made up for that, though. Whether it was the headstrong Hera Syndula, daughter of partisan rebel Cham Syndula, the trigger-happy Zeb, the rebellious Sabine Ren, daughter of Mandalore, the grumpy Chopper, or the Master/Padawan combo of Kanan Jarrus and Ezra Bridger, a lot of thought went into making this crew likable. Returning characters Ahsoka Tano and Captain Rex, two fan-favourites from Star Wars: The Clone Wars, eventually rounded-out the crew even further, although they would always pop in and out as necessary. Either way, a fun crew for kids to relate to.

The show also had guest appearances from the films, including Lando Calrissian, Princess Leia, Darth Vader, Darth Maul, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Sidious, all of whom helped anchor the show in the Star Wars universe. Even R2-D2 and C-3PO, who've been in everything Star Wars-canon, made a guest appearance in the first season…on the side of The Empire, no-less! This wasn't happenstance either, as Star Wars: The Clone Wars did this too. Plus, the inclusion of Admiral Thrawn, a non-canon character, in Season 3 was a nice touch.

Star Wars Rebels also expanded on The Force, as every Star Wars property has. Its most-infamous moment was the inclusion of a "world between worlds", a dimension isolated from time itself that appeared toward the end of Season 4. It was never fully-expanded on, to my disappointment, but it allowed for future franchise possibilities. That it also brought back the "Father/Son/Daughter" concept from the previous series was a nice nod to continuity. My only complaint is that it also retconned Ahsoka's death at the hands of Darth Vader, but I can't bellyache too much.

There were other nice nods to continuity that I liked. Ahsoka's fight with Vader in the Season 2 finale, a fight that'd been hinted at for a full season, was a great callback to the one between Anakin and Obi-Wan, even using part of Duel of the Fates in the fight's music. The show also saw the return of Darth Maul and concluded his arc toward the end of Season 3, fulfilling a long-standing threat Obi-Wan made to him in Star Wars: The Clone Wars. These sorts of call-backs were nice and further amped the show's greatness.

Additionally, Star Wars Rebels had solid season finales. Season 1 was an excellent showdown between The Grand Inquisitor and Kanan/Ezra. Season 2 had the long-awaited fight between Ahsoka and Vader. Season 3 had the long-awaited battle between The Empire and the planet Dantooine. And Season 4 topped it off with the fight for Lothal. Each of these finales were great and sweeping, if not sometimes epic, and allowed for the show to show off what it was capable of thematically and narratively.

It's hard to say if I preferred this to Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Both shows had their strengths and weaknesses, with one being really dark and edgy, and the other lighter and family-friendly. Perhaps the only advantage Star Wars Rebels had was that its narrative didn't jump around between episodes. This did mean that it suffered from more filler episodes, but even then most of them ended up meaning something. I guess only time will truly give me a satisfying answer.

Still, I enjoyed Star Wars Rebels a lot. It's not the most-ambitious or gutsy of the Star Wars properties, nor does it live up to its full-potential, and its closing narration's a little too clean, but the show's a recommended companion-series to Star Wars: The Clone Wars. It's not for everyone, but it's definitely worth checking out.