Black Mirror’s “USS Callister:” Understand but Do Not Defend Toxic Nerd Culture

SPOILER ALERT. Don’t read on if you haven’t yet watched “USS Callister” from season four of Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror.

Since the series released at the end of December, there has been a lot of talk about “USS Callister,” an exceptionally well promoted episode that was far from the Star Trek parody we all expected. Highly in tune with the show’s best moments, Black Mirror’s most cinematic episode to date is a chilling critique of systemic issues in science fiction fandom and nerd culture at large.

To quickly recap, the plot goes like this: after her first day working for the developers of the online virtual reality videogame Infinity Nannette Cole wakes up in outer space aboard the USS Callister, a ship reminiscent the original USS Enterprise. The crew of the Callister, her coworkers at the Callister Inc. tech company, inform her that she is a digital copy of Nannette created by her boss Robert Daly, and that both the Callister and its crew are trapped in an offline development version of Infinity where Captain Daly rules as a god in a make-believe world.

The episode’s themes are hinted at from the beginning as Nannette explains how she left her previous workplace after being the victim of bullying. Her new workplace is apparently little different, filled with disrespectful interns and gossiping coworkers. Though Daly’s psychopathy is quickly revealed, he is introduced as a shy loner who is clearly mistreated by these people. It is implied that Daly, like Nannette, has long been the victim of bullying. For ten minutes, he is one of Black Mirror’s most relatable characters. The audience understands that, at one point, Daly was perhaps little different from the countless young men who find a much needed (and harmless) escape offered by fandom.

It’s here that some concerns about the episode have arisen. A lot of viewers take issue with the episode arguing that science fiction fans shook the Daly stereotype years ago. This is true. In the age of Elon Musk, The Big Bang Theory, and a third Star Wars trilogy, it’s acceptable and sometimes even cool to be a nerd. But I after watching this episode, I can’t help thinking of the acquaintances who regularly attend Calgary’s Comic Expo every year yet view themselves as somehow different from the cosplayers. Passionate nerds continue to be othered.

Straight out of a little boy's imagination

This increase in mainstream superficial interest in nerd culture has, I think, played a huge role in why the fandoms I love are becoming increasingly taken over by an internet-filtered toxic ethos. For decades, nerd culture has centered on a degree of enforced but proud difference from a superficial mainstream society. The fact that this difference is currently being commodified on every level (Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe is a great example of this) is a strong force in the maintenance of toxic nerd culture.

Viewers who insist that Trekkies long ago shook the Daly stereotype misunderstand Brooker’s characterization of Daly as a literally different person inside the game. The sadistic and cruel Captain Daly has escaped so far removed from our reality that he has forgotten the philosophical motivations of the Space Fleet he loves. Meanwhile, programmer Robert Daly is a soft spoken individual who displays a clear sensitivity to the world around him. He seems to maintain the earnest passion we nerds identify with, and he is clearly a person who has long suffered as a social pariah. It is implied that, in the real world, Nannette’s desperate pleas for kindness might have been heard by Robert Daly, if her voice had not been filtered through the ears of Captain Daly.

At the episode’s beginning, Robert Daly was the character with whom I have identified most in four seasons of Black Mirror; he then he became the singular most disgusting villain in the show’s history. This is no accident. In a show where each episode’s core theme can be summed up in a sentence, the juxtaposition of the two aspects of Daly’s character is where this episode’s central concern lies.

Robert Daly

One wonders what sort of a person Robert Daley might have become if he had a strong social group to ground him in reality. Watching this episode, I found myself wondering who Robert Daly might be if he spent his time around a Dungeons and Dragons table rather than an online community populated by the likes of Gamer691. I assume that the reason Aaron Paul’s character picked this tag is that Gamer69 was taken. How might this world have changed a more innocent version of Daly?

The point Brooker is trying to make is that while many are born with the potential for evil actions, few are destined for them. Without a secure anchor to reality, these behaviours can and will escalate. This is especially true in an online space where the loudest voices are generally bullies living out their own fantasies of power.

In the end, Captain Daly has become so isolated from his redeemable characteristics that it is simply unrealistic to suggest he represents any kind of fandom stereotype. The sympathetic and understandable character we were introduced to at the episode’s outset has been replaced entirely by a sociopathic sex predator. Here, Brooker’s message is pretty clear: a monster is a monster is a monster, regardless of circumstance.

At the end of the day, “USS Callister” is an attempt to understand toxic behaviour without in any way condoning it. The episode sends nerd culture a prescient message: while escapism is important, it cannot to happen in isolation from its real world consequences.

But a criticism of toxic nerd culture is too simple a takeaway for Black Mirror. As always, Brooker wants us to look at ourselves and understand that, while horrific actions cannot be excused, a little kindness and human connection goes a long way to preventing them from happening.

Ten Years Later

Today is September 1st, 2017. It's nineteen years later, and Albus Potter boarded the Hogwarts express this morning, ten years after we all turned the final page.

It's silly, really, to care so much about an arbitrary date in an imaginary universe. It is only a story, of course.

But maybe not. After all: fiction is hardly the same as not real.

Harry's story meant a lot to me as I grew up. In many ways, it defined large parts of who I am today. The books, after all, matured alongside me. As so many have noted, Harry and his friends grew up in tandem with their audience. Harry's trials were my trials. Not the werewolves and the Dementors, but the crushes and the insecurities. The loneliness, the fear of a confusing world. These I could relate to. Harry's story was my Hogwarts, a place I could always retreat to and feel welcome.

Harry's adventures were my escape and my inspiration, an example of what the fantasy genre does at its best. Not only did the books inspire a lifelong love of reading stories, they helped me define how I came to understand my world. By holding a mirror up to our world, the story showed me the insidious malaises of celebrity worship, mob mentality, and economic, racial, and gender inequality.

Harry helped make me empathetic for the world. In the Luna Lovegood I saw my quirky school peers, and wondered who might need a hand in friendship; in Sirius Black, I saw the father figures in my life, and wondered if perhaps the bad guys aren't always the bad guys. After reading Chamber of Secrets, I remember wondering who the "mudbloods" of my world were, and how I could avoid being complicit in such awfully hateful attitudes. These are just a few examples, though I could easily fill a book with ways the books inspired me to an awareness of and a genuine desire to fight cruelty and injustice.

These desires did not evolve solely out of Harry Potter of course. The series was merely one of numerous forces that shaped the person I've become (a mother who predisposed me to empathy, the crippling loneliness and insecurity of the introverted, to name a few more), but I always felt a special kinship with Harry that filled a hole in my soul where nothing else could. This, perhaps, is why the books transcend the medium of mere literature in my mind. Harry Potter represents the first time I found a book and my connection to its world truly magical. Since then, I've found hundreds of worlds such as this, hundreds of characters that feel truly real to me. But Harry was the first. And the first is always special.

Of course, Harry was never my favourite character in the series. Oh no, far from it. Harry was always flawed, frustrating, and often foolish. But he always had good intentions. And don't we all succumb to our flaws sometime? You see, I am not, and never have been, the favourite character in my own story. Yet Harry gave me hope that perhaps I could still bring some good into the world. Perhaps one day I might even become the favourite character in someone else's story.

Harry's story is not for everyone, and many of those who came late to the series have not connected with the stories as I have. In this way, the series' popularity has perhaps been to its detriment. I would no longer consider myself a "potterhead" (a term I have always resisted, much as continue to resist the asinine "Whovian" label). I no longer reread with the same avid obsession. Yet I still pick up my worn hardcovers every now and then, and revisit a part of myself that will never leave me.

For those who understand I need say no more.

All is well.

September 1st, 2017

A Short Review of Spider-Man: Homecoming

A while back, I wrote a piece addressing my thoughts on Spider-Man joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe. A few months later, when Captain America: Civil War came out, I wrote a review with my updated thoughts on Tom Holland’s web slinger.

Now, after his first solo outing, I am truly convinced: Tom Holland is Peter Parker.

As I’ve said before, the choice to make this incarnation of the character so distinctly innocent, so obviously a kid, serves to give him a degree of relatability that previous incarnations have lacked. 

This Peter Parker, true to the comics, is a fifteen year old social outcast who’s stumbled into a world that’s bigger than he is. And, unlike the Greek Gods and billionaire playboys of this universe, Peter has to deal with the very real struggles of teenaged angst, high school, and dating.

Spider-Man’s ability to navigate the fantasy of superpowers as well as the monotony of daily life is the true strength of his character. This is why he holds such a special place in my heart, as I know he holds a special place in so many others.

With Spider-Man: Homecoming, I am happy to see that the role has been placed in good hands. The tone of the movie is light, paying homage to the world he came from with references to The Avengers and Civil War, with Tony Stark playing a main role. This crossover allows for a certain passing of the franchise torch, and shows a degree of forethought on the part of the writers. With the knowledge that Robert Downey Jr and Chris Evans can’t anchor the franchise forever, Spider-Man: Homecoming marks what I expect to see in the post Infinity War era MCU, with a new generation of superheroes coming to the forefront.

A lot of thought seems to have been put into how Holland’s Parker learns to use his powers. The villain he faces in Homecoming, the Vulture, is arguably relatively weak on the scale of MCU villain hood. The film’s dialogue notes that Vulture would be finished if Iron Man or the Avengers were to notice him. In fighting the Vulture, we see an immature, eager, and clumsy Spider-Man learning his limits and learning to use his powers wisely. This dynamic between Parker and the movie’s villains makes for some entertaining scenes, including one hilarious interrogation scene. On a technical level, this learning curve also allows for a certain break in the monotony of super-hero action scenes. Rather than yet another film where Iron Man fights an army of robots, we have a refreshing mixing and matching of super-powers.

Spider-Man: Homecoming is one of the best films to have been released in Marvel’s shared universe, possibly the best behind only Civil War. More down to earth and relatable than many of its counterparts, Homecoming is a perfect Spider-Man film, staying true to the character and the tone of the world. Unlike many character introductions, this film dispenses with the well-trodden origin story, instead infusing backstory references to the dialogue.

Ultimately, Spider-Man: Homecoming is well worth the time and money to see in theatres, a truly loyal and heartfelt portrayal of my favourite superhero.

9/10

Logan: A Milestone Superhero Film

On-screen adaptations of comic book superhero stories have been around for decades, but the 2008 release of Iron Man and the growth of the Marvel Cinematic Universe kick-started a generation of blockbusters with superheroes at its core. It’s impossible to go more than a month or two without the release of a new entry into the canon. And while most of these films are hollow reiterations of the same action tropes – relying on beautiful stars and overbearing special effects – Hollywood occasionally produces a masterpiece within the framework of the genre.

Logan is one such masterpiece. Arguably one of the best superhero films of all time and certainly the best X-Men film since X2, the film is reminiscent of last year’s Deadpool, flipping the worn out superhero genre on its head.

After a decade of confusing timelines and alternate continuities, Logan brings the X-Men franchise back to its base. The film deals with concepts that much of the genre seems to forgotten, tackling complex themes you’d never find in an Avengers movie.

The film explores ideas of mortality and pain that Hugh Jackman’s previous solo outing, The Wolverine, introduced. In the year 2029, a visibly aged Logan (who has long given up the mantle of Wolverine) struggles with the slow and steady degradation of his powers. Meanwhile, Patrick Stewart’s equally decrepit Charles Xavier struggles with dementia and seizures.

Embedded in a brutally realistic and vaguely dystopic future, Logan asks uses the framework of the superhero film to ask relevant and timeless questions: what are the psychological and physical effects of aging? What happens when the most powerful mind in the world begins to break down? What happens when the immortal becomes mortal?

Much like Deadpool the film understands where it’s come from. It understands the tangled mess that the X-Men franchise has become, and does not try to resolve it. Where Deadpool addressed this issue with humour, Logan does so with cold, hard reality. Logan exposes the man behind the curtain, highlights the writer’s hand that is so often the curse of the superhero genre. Logan is grounded in reality more than any genre film to be released in the last few years.

In this way, the film tackles issues we’ve all had with the superhero genre. Of course it’s rewarding to see Iron Man fight off a hundred robots and then meet up with Thor, but is that really plausible? Is it really plausible that after 14 films, there hasn’t been a single major character death in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

Logan calls bullshit. At one point, it is revealed that the young Laura is a fan of the in-universe X-Men comics. Logan’s reaction to the fictionalization of his stories is suitably cynical: “Maybe a quarter of it happened, and not like this.”

Indeed, if we lived in a world with super humans, it would not be a polished and clean one. It would be dirty and scarred, imperfect as our own. Logan knows this.

Logan takes our expectations of the genre – and our disillusionment with it – and crushes them beneath a clawed heel. There are no city-levelling battles, no clash of titans. Stadiums don’t fly and there are no robots. The Wolverine does not fight ninjas. Yes, the film uses its R-rating to the fullest potential, letting Wolverine show us what he is capable of; there is plenty of brutalization and dismemberment, in shocking yet somehow beautiful detail. But these scenes are window dressing. They are not where Logan’s weight lies.

No. Logan’s conflicts are far deeper, far more poignant.

In real life, people die. Mistakes are made. Conflicts are not resolved by the time the credits role. Sometimes, the heroes are not good people. Stories rarely have neat resolutions, and even rarer are those solutions happy ones.

Logan does not have a happy ending. And that’s okay. Because life doesn’t have a happy ending.

Ultimately a beautifully poignant character piece, the movie’s strength lies in the interplay between the two leading actors. In their swan song, both Jackman and Stewart offer their best performances yet, giving new dimensions to their characters as Logan struggles to continue taking care of himself and his mentor. Logan shows how apparently inhuman characters deal with intensely human problems. 

By giving us relatable themes of aging and loss, Logan shows us the true potential of the superhero genre. The struggle of Logan and Charles is our struggle. We all have ghosts, and we all have secrets.

One day, we all lose our powers.

Logan is a story about one man’s attempts to come to terms with the things he has witnessed, what he’s done. An attempt to find purpose in an existence that has become meaningless.

Isn’t that something we can all relate to?

Logan represents the way forward for a genre that has become stymied. It joins the canon of great genre films and, hopefully, marks what we will see in the years to come.

I’m sad to see Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart go. I’ll miss their iterations of their characters. But their time was up, and this movie was the perfect way to say goodbye.

Beautiful, powerful, a masterpiece of cinema: for realizing the limits – and therefore the potential – of its genre, Logan is one of the best films I’ve seen in years.

Rogue One: A unique Star Wars film

Last year’s The Force Awakens provided us with a nostalgia-driven reincarnation of traditional Star Wars themes and motifs. In an obvious attempt to mirror the tone and structure of the Original Trilogy (sometimes too obviously), the film gave us a new cast of heroes to root for, a new set of destinies to unfold over the next few years. Once again, we saw the fate of the galaxy placed in the hands of a few swashbuckling heroes.

Rogue One is a very different sort of film. I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s a better film than last year’s addition to Star Wars canon, but it certainly succeeds in one aspect that The Force Awakens never could: for the first time, we have a truly unique Star Wars story.

When he began the Original Trilogy back in 1977, George Lucas created something incredible. Not only did he spawn a multimedia franchise that has come to infuse itself into the minds of people the world over. Lucas created a self-contained world in the manner of the greatest fantasy stories, a universe in which there is a constant battle between the forces of good and evil. Star Wars isn’t just science fiction: it’s Tolkien in space.

One of the things I’ve always loved about Star Wars is the depth of the world building. Lucas’ original films created a lived-in universe that science fiction had not seen before. In just a few hours of screen times, the films gave the universe depth and history. The audience knew that there were stories behind the stories they witnessed. This is what has allowed for an expanse of comic books and novels spanning thousands of years.

However, the main film series has always been forced (no pun intended) to focus on central themes of good and evil, fate and destiny. The rest of the universe has necessarily been left to the avid fans, those who purposely seek out the world beyond what we see onscreen. In order to make the main canon accessible to casual and serious fans of all ages, the series has been constricted to broad and romantic themes. To focus on anything else within the main story would have changed the nature of Star Wars.

The Original Trilogy revolved around the fate of the entire galaxy, a battle between the forces of good and evil, and an attempt to bring peace and prosperity to the galaxy. It seems that the Sequel Trilogy will be doing the same, dealing with the revival the lost guardians of peace and hope in order to fight an oppressive and cruel regime.

The oft-maligned Prequel Trilogy also dealt with such themes, though it also attempted to expand the world behind the Original Trilogy. One of the reasons these films are so disliked is because they failed to find a balance between capturing the grandiose themes of the Original Trilogy and providing ultimately implausible outer-space society with an element of reality. In its efforts to explain how the Empire came to be, the Prequel Trilogy lost some of the magical spark necessary that tied it into the main canon.

This is where Rogue One comes in. Free from the constraints of the main storyline, Rogue One has a degree of independence – and thus, originality – that no Star Wars film has had. By following characters who are secondary to the grander storyline, the film gives us a chance to see what life under the Empire is like. We see the realities of fighting a rebellion. Rogue One reminds us that the revolution of the Original Trilogy did not happen without sacrifice. Though Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, and Princess Leia might always walk away unscathed, most members of the Rebellion simply don’t have that luxury. Many are forced to do unspeakable acts, watch their friends and families die in horrific manners. Rogue One gives a previously unseen degree of reality to the Star Wars universe, taking some of the romanticism out of the events of the original films.

The characters of Rogue One are not heroes, not in the same sense that Luke and Leia or Finn and Rey are heroes. These characters are criminals and murderers. They’re the people in the background, the fodder for battles that leading heroes always survive.

Occasionally, Rogue One invokes the grandiosity of the main franchise. The Force, and the morality surrounding it, are intrinsic aspects of the Star Wars universe. The difference in this film is that these elements are secondary to the gritty realities of the universe. Rogue One is, perhaps, the most relatable Star Wars film for this very reason. The characters it involves are not perfect. They aren’t black and white, far from it. These people are conflicted and complex, and they are not always good people. The battles they fight are not fun. War is hell, wherever it is fought. Sometimes, Star Wars might forget this. Rogue One does not.

Rogue One manages to maintain a degree of the levity found in the franchise’s other films. The humour is generally grim but often laugh-out-loud. There are enough throwbacks to let us know that this film exists in the same universe, ending just moments before A New Hope. Secondary characters from the Original Trilogy such as Mon Mothma and Grand Moff Tarkin play central roles. R2-D2 and C-3P0 even make a cameo.

Vader's pun game was on point in this film

Another thing Rogue One does well is its treatment of its antagonists. While Orson Krennic might have been a pretty lame flop of a villain (he basically spends the entire movie whining and getting shot down by his superiors), classics such as Wilhuff Tarkin and Darth Vader are given excellent treatment. Though Peter Cushing (the actor who played Tarkin in 1977) is long dead, his character was brought back to life in beautifully rendered (not to mention controversial) CGI that allowed us a new opportunity to examine one of Star Wars’ most interesting villains.

The real villainous spotlight, however, is Darth Vader. Though the infamous Sith Lord only plays a minor role in the film, his two scenes are among the best we’ve ever seen. In keeping with Rogue One’s themes of realism and shades of grey, Vader’s treatment in this film reminds us exactly why his first appearance in A New Hope had the rebel soldiers shaking in their boots. The new film’s final sequence brutally illustrates that, though he might achieve some degree of redemption a few years onwards, Darth Vader is not, at heart, a tragic anti-hero: he is a cold, cruel, and powerful murderer who will cut down anything in his way.

Rogue One is a film that would not have worked if it had been a part of the main series. The deftness with which it handles the complex realities behind this fantasy universe gives me a new hope for this anthology series (pun very much intended). Rogue One is not perfect. At times, one can see the studio’s invisible hand; there are sections of dialogue that I wish had been rewritten. But in its goal of creating a unique atmosphere and realistic tone, Rogue One is most certainly a success.

Why Jared Leto’s Joker exemplifies everything wrong with Suicide Squad

In light of underwhelming critical reception, the performances of a few talented individuals are Suicide Squad’s only saving grace. Jared Leto’s portrayal of the Joker, in particular, has been the subject of much praise, with many fans complaining that he was not given enough screen time. This complaint is surprisingly apt, given that the film’s mishandling of the character represents many problems originating from a case of too-many-cooks-in-the-kitchen.

Just as the film failed to determine a consistent tone, the writers seemed unable to decide whether the Joker was a sub-plot character or a primary villain. This confusion led a sense of pointlessness to the character, especially in light of the previous two years of promotion. Furthermore, despite all the hype surrounding the intensity of Leto’s performance, the end result is rather underwhelming, leaning heavily on Heath Ledger’s previous incarnation of the character.

Throughout the film, we see the Joker attempting to rescue Harley Quinn, the object of his twisted desire… and that’s about it. His plotline is secondary, a tangent that doesn’t really fit with the film’s storyline. Certainly, Leto’s villain is engaging while he’s on camera, yet one feels like they are watching different movies as the story jumps back and forth between the Joker’s pursuit and the Suicide Squad’s mission.

The relationship between Harley Quinn and the Joker is analyzed through clunky flashbacks that do not give either character the depth needed to fully shine. Though the pair are not the only characters introduced in such rushed exposition, they do provide the most prominent example of the writers’ failure to follow the basic “show and don’t tell” rule. Shots of the Joker seducing Dr. Harleen Quinzel are too rushed for the viewer to empathize with the truly appalling nature of their relationship, and the end result is far more unsatisfying than if their backstory had been left a mystery.

Through this twisted relationship, the writers had a perfect opportunity to portray the depth of the Joker’s depravity, the horrifyingly seductive nature of his madness. Instead, they opted to use the Joker as a promotional piece and Harley Quinn as a fetishized sex object. Given that Margot Robbie’s performance was, perhaps, the film’s greatest aspect, it was disappointing to see her constantly tied down to a tangent plotline. The scenes in which the Joker was not mentioned were her strongest by far.

Margot Robbie's performance was the highlight of the film,
but she was continually tied down to a pointless plotline

Suicide Squad reeks of studio meddling, best seen in the handing of the Joker, right down to the casting of Jared Leto. The character seems to serve no purpose other than to create cool shots for the trailers and increase the film’s marketability.

Given how soon Suicide Squad comes after Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece The Dark Knight, comparisons to Heath Ledger’s previous incarnation were inescapable. As Ledger’s Joker was easily one of the greatest cinematic performances in recent memory, any actor taking up the mantle so soon would inevitably do so in his shadow. Viewers wanted to see how Leto would fair, and the studio knew this. Thus, they continually manipulated the Joker’s promotion and portrayal in order to increase hype around him.

Indeed, Leto’s reputation for method acting was probably the reason he was cast in the role. Consider the stories circulating of his intensity on set. According to the reports, Leto was so into character that he terrorized cast and crew with gifts of anal beads, used condoms, and dead animals. Will Smith even went so far as to say that he never met Jared Leto, just the Joker.

This echoes the stories that circulated back in 2008 about Heath Ledger’s method acting and the circumstances of his death. Reportedly, Ledger spent a month locked in his apartment preparing for the role and emerged fully in character, presenting an on-set intensity that few actors could match. Shortly afterwards, he died under initially unclear circumstances. All this led an air of mystery to the film and to the villain, and farther deepened the film’s themes of madness and power.

Unfortunately, intense acting does not always equal a good performance, something Suicide Squad doesn’t seem to realize. Such intensity of acting has to be combined with effective writing and direction, as well as a purpose. In The Dark Knight, Ledger’s performance was used to enhance Nolan’s themes and ideas; in Suicide Squad, a generic summer blockbuster with little substance to it, Leto’s performance seems empty and pretentious.

In scenes like this one, Leto's intensity could have been
used to elevate the film somewhat

Suicide Squad’s Joker owes a lot to his predecessor. The attempted realism, his mobster-like stylization, and the on-set stories of the actors all echo back to Heath Ledger. Regardless of the film’s (many) writing errors around the character, this heavy reliance on his predecessor gives the character a sense of familiarity that doesn’t mesh with the praise Leto has gotten.

Indeed, I found the performance to be quite underwhelming. Was it good? Sure, especially when compared with the rest of the film. Was it amazing? No, not really. If you take away the hype, Jared Leto’s Joker is an unoriginal version of the character with very little to distinguish him from his predecessor. Or any other psychopathic film villain for that matter.

Simply put, Jared Leto’s performance is not as ground-breaking as he would like to imagine.

Suicide Squad was a (sometimes enjoyable) mess. The film couldn’t figure out what it wanted to be, and it relied too heavily on the hype surrounding a single secondary character. Despite being one of the film’s better performances, the writing of Leto’s Joker hindered the development of Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn (the film’s strongest asset), and caused an already confusing plot to become even more jumbled. All told, Leto's Joker represents a squandered element in a film with so much wasted potential.

Game of Thrones: The Finale

So now we’ve all had a few days to digest the game of thrones finale, I thought I’d share some thoughts on it. Warning for anyone who hasn’t watched it yet, spoilers are coming.

First thought: holy shit.

This episode was jam packed with far more than I expected. After the amazing “Battle of the Bastards” (arguably the best medieval battle ever seen on TV or film, and certainly the most realistic), I wasn’t sure how “The Winds of Winter” would hold up.

Somehow, the showrunners gave us a finale that not only wrapped up loose plot threads, but also gave us some truly epic moments.

First off, let’s begin with King’s Landing. As much as I despise Cersei, I have to hand it to her: we all underestimated her. The writers have been building up the presence of the wildfire for most of the season and they pulled off the scene in the most spectacular way possible. With excellent performances from Jonathan Pryce and Natalie Dormer, the viewer’s shock mirrors that of the characters as we all realize the depths to which Cersei will go to achieve her goals and get revenge.

I guess this is why they call it King's Landing...

Perhaps the best scene from King’s Landing dealt with the fallout of Cersei’s plan. The silent simplicity of Tommen’s suicide really hammered home the sick brutality of his mother’s actions. In the wake of all this destruction, I really hope Jaime finally comes to his senses and redeems himself by turning against his sister.

Speaking of siblings, the actions of the youngest surviving Stark sibling provided another fantastic scene. The death of Walder Frey, one of the show’s most viscerally sickening characters, was a suitably satisfying moments. Arya’s list is slowly getting shorter, and I can’t wait to see who she crosses off next. Villains of Westeros beware!

Hell yeah a girl is Arya Stark! 

This episode was chock full of such fan-service moments. Tyrion’s naming as Hand of the Queen was not exactly surprising, yet it was immensely rewarding. He is a character who’s had a really rough time of it, and it is quite heartwarming to see him finally get some recognition for all the work he’s done. From the start, Tyrion has grappled with prejudice and discrimination (largely from his family) despite the fact that he is probably the most intelligent character on the show. I’m glad he finally has some of the respect he deserves.

Now, perhaps (plot-wise) the most important moment of the episode was the conclusion of the Tower of Joy scene. We finally see the confirmation of the R+L=J fan theory. The importance of Jon’s parentage cannot be overstated, as his identity as both a Targaryen and a Stark gives him the most legitimate claim to the Iron Throne, even more so than Daenerys. Whether Jon wishes to take advantage of this claim (unlikely) or whether Bran is even able to tell anyone of his discovery (slightly less unlikely) remains to be seen.

The revelation of Jon’s parentage represents one of my only major criticisms of this season: book spoilers. For those who only watch the show, this isn’t a big deal. But for those of us who have read the books, it’s quite disappointing to have the gun jumped on these points that George R.R. Martin has spent decades developing, from Jon’s parentage to the true meaning of the word Hodor. Understandably, such revelations can’t really be helped, but that doesn’t make them any less disappointing.

My only other criticism of the episode (and the season) are two largely useless plotlines, one dealt with in this episode and the other not.

After nine episodes, we finally returned to Dorne and, again, I find myself wondering why this plot tangent is even in the show. The decision to kill Doran Martell seemed a poor move on the writers’ part when it happened, and it seems even more so now. Why did Doran need to die if they were just planning on subbing Ellaria Sand into his storyline? The treatment of Dorne has left me more confused than annoyed, because the choices made don’t seem to follow any discernable logic.

That being said, seeing the colourful Dornish spearmen marching alongside Daenerys is something I’m excited to see next season.

This season’s other tenuous plotline rests in the Iron Islands. Even in the books, the introduction of Euron Greyjoy and the Kingsmoot seemed to come out of left field; in the show, it just seems like an excuse to send Yara and Theon to Slaver’s Bay (now renamed Dragon’s Bay). Surely they could have come up with an easier way to engineer this? Doesn’t the fact that Yara and Theon stole all of his ships kind of makes Euron a lame duck? This is another instance where the writers attempt to address a secondary plotline yet have neither the time nor the space to do it justice.

"I don't care if he's a bastard: he's my king!"

Overall, however, the finale was a great end to another wonderful season. All the pieces are on the board and we’re rapidly hurtling towards what is sure to be an epic finale. The fact that we have to wait another ten months to see what happens next breaks my heart, but it’s sure to be worth it. For all its faults, Game of Thrones has earned (and continues to earn) its spot as the best show on television, just as Jon has earned the title of King in the North. Both have had their ups and downs, and they continue to make mistakes, but, in the end, we remain loyal, and the world is better off for it.

As always, thanks for reading J

Game of Thrones: Mid-Season Update

Now that we’re past episode seven, two thirds of the way through the season, I feel it’s time to give an update on my thoughts about Game of Thrones.

Warning for those who are not up to date, this will contain spoilers for the current season. Read at your own peril.

Overall, I’m fairly happy with this season, but I do have my concerns.

As some may recall, I was wary about the (predictable) decision to revive Jon Snow. Five episodes later, and I’m still not entirely sure what I think. As much as I love Kit Harrington’s interpretation of the character, I can’t help but feel that the writers continue to play it safe. With the exception of the episode immediately following his revival, they have largely glossed over the psychological effects of of the ordeal.

Existentially, the realization that there is no life after death is crushing. Yet, other than his decision to reclaim Winterfell, Jon seems to be plodding on as usual. After he sulkily leaves the Night’s Watch, Sansa’s arrival is the only reason the character is not consigned to oblivion. That said, I love the new interaction between the two half siblings. Both characters have been inalterably changed by their experiences, and the showrunners have done a fairly good job of exploring the dynamic between characters who have largely not interacted onscreen.

You should probably ditch the ponytail, Jon... Your dad could pull it off, but you can't.

The reintroduction of Rickon Stark really frustrated me. Understandably, the writers wanted to motivate Jon to take back Winterfell, but the execution was clumsy. Last time we saw him, back in season three, Osha was taking Rickon to Last Hearth, seat of the Umbers, a family who was fiercely loyal to Robb Stark. The knowledge that Rickon was out there, safe, as a Stark ace in the hole, was comforting knowledge against all the horrors they have had to endure. To reintroduce him as the prisoner of Ramsay Bolton seems like an unnecessary ploy to create tension. Personally, I believe there was enough motivation for Jon to rally the north without adding Rickon as a prisoner.

Speaking of artificial tension, I still can’t get over the ramshackle Dornish storyline.

I didn’t talk about it in my other post due to my word count and the assumption that the story would have farther developments. However, we have now gone six episodes since Ellaria Sand and the Sandsnakes staged a coupe in Dorne and there seems to have been no repercussions. We have seen nothing more of these revolutionaries, and there seems to have been little or no reaction throughout the rest of Westeros. Aside from the actual scene’s clumsy execution, this leaves me wondering… why is Dorne even in the show?

In the books, the Dorne plot was dry but intriguing. One knew this was a possible game changer in Westeros’ larger political conflicts. The show’s adaptation of this storyline? Not so much.

While certainly Game of Thrones has done an excellent job of streamlining other plotlines for the TV format, the excursion into Dorne represents a failure to do this. In A Song of Ice and Fire Doran Martell was a wildcard who’d worked for decades to bring about the fall of the Lannisters. When Arriane Martell and the Sand Snakes (who Ellaria and her daughters are based upon) unwittingly threaten this plan, Doran lets them in on it. At no point is he assassinated: as of right now, he’s alive and well and plotting away.

The Sand Snakes look as dissapointed with the Dorne storyline as I feel

For someone who has not read the books, I imagine this plotline seems pointless. For someone who loves the books, it’s downright frustrating. The showrunners need to find a way to wrap it up, as there has not been adequate set up, nor do they have the time, to do it justice.

The Iron Islands plotline is another one that doesn’t fit smoothly into the show’s narrative progression. Even in the source material, the Kingsmoot seemed to come out of left field. In the show, the reintroduction of Balon Greyjoy in addition to new characters seems out of place. The new dynamic between Yara and Theon is really engaging, and both actors give excellent performances, but the politics of the Iron Islands seem inconsequential on the grand scale of the show. I can’t help but feel like this is going to be another plot tangent that is left ultimately unaddressed.

That being said, the show is doing an excellent job of bringing together certain tangents left wide open in the books. George R.R. Martin has always stated his intention to expand from the relative insularity of the first book, into the middle books’ vast wealth of viewpoints and landscapes, before drawing the threads back together for the final books, giving the series a degree of symmetry.

Despite this, we have largely yet to see this closing of threads in the books, with A Dance with Dragons introducing even more viewpoint characters. The show seems to be moving more actively towards this goal, as can be seen in Sansa and Jon’s attempt to rally the north, Arya’s upcoming return to Westeros, and Danaerys’. One senses that the final act of the saga is about to begin.

Perhaps my biggest disappointment about this season is the apparent spoilers for the upcoming Winds of Winter. As George R.R. Martin originally intended to have ASOIAF’s sixth book out before this season, it divulges certain key plot points, such as the apparent identity of the mysterious Coldhands, the nature of the White Walkers, and the possible confirmation of the R+L=J fan theory. That being said, I am by no means jumping on the anti-George R.R. Martin bandwagon. As I’ve said many times, I’d rather he take six years to write a good book than six months to write a bad one. To quote Neil Gaiman for the umpteenth time, “George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.”

Not only is this one of the show's most badass scenes,
it's one of the most important to the plot

Ultimately, despite its flaws, Game of Thrones remains the best show on television (certainly better than whatever The Walking Dead has become) and one of best page to screen adaptations. The problem with a show this good is that its few flaws, even the minor ones, stand out against such strong writing and performances.

This season has seen some epic and powerful moments, such as young Eddard’s duel at the Tower of Joy and the tragically beautiful “hold the door” scene. The reintroduction of the Blackfish, Benjen Stark, and Sandor Clegane seem to promise great things to come.

I’ll probably write another piece once the season is over, so stay tuned.

As always, thanks for reading J

Still

A review of Captain America: Civil War and my updated thoughts on Spider-Man joining the MCU

A couple of months back, I wrote a post explaining why I didn't think Spider-Man should be included in Captain America: Civil War. Simply put, I didn’t believe that justice could be done by including him as a secondary character in a larger story.

Having seen Civil War, I have been proved wrong.

"Avengers: Civil War"

Titling the film Captain America: Civil War is a little bit of a misnomer. Really it should have been called Avengers: Civil War. But I imagine Disney simply didn’t want to draw attention away from the upcoming Infinity War films. Besides, what would a cinematic portrayal of the Avengers be without Chris Hemsworth’s Thor or Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk?

This is, perhaps, the most mature film to have emerged from this series. Rather than dealing with cosmic entities and alien invasions, Civil War attempts to present a realistic approach to governments dealing with super powered beings. At the same time, the film does not become trapped by the seriousness of this premise. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has always effectively balanced realism, plot, and entertainment without being bogged down in any of them, and Captain America: Civil War is no exception.

The movie has some major plot holes, and in many places one can clearly see characters being guided by the writers’ omnipotent hands. Some of the action scenes are over the top, and I find it hard to believe that Iron Man’s armour only would only begin to show damage when it provides the most dramatic effect. Martin Freeman’s American accent is about as believable Tom Cruise playing a Nazi colonel.

I refuse to take Falcon seriously as a member of the Avengers.

Yet, despite the number of things one could say was wrong with this movie, it does something very right. As with all of the MCU’s films to date, the undeniable problems with Captain America: Civil War are eclipsed by some intangibly endearing quality. Unlike many comic book adaptations that attempt to transcend the genre, Civil War succeeds because it firmly embraces the best aspects of its source material. In its aesthetics, its narrative, and its action, Captain America: Civil War thrives as a comic book movie.

Civil War’s combination of entertainment value, quality casting, and pure heart allows – no, demands – that the viewer simply forget its problems and embrace its better aspects. In its ability to do this while tackling mature and realistic themes, Civil War is arguably the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s best film yet.

Also, there’s an undeniable pleasure to watching our favourite superheroes duke it out.

But what about Spider-Man?

As some of you may recall from my previous post, I was rather skeptical about whether Civil War could do justice to Spider-Man’s MCU introduction. Among so many top notch characters, how could the directors accurately capture the heart of what makes the character so uniquely endearing?

Apparently the Russo brothers understood these concerns, as the film seemed to consciously address them. The choice to cast Tom Holland as a high school Peter Parker, true to the original source material, was an effective method of distinguishing his portrayal from those before him. This Spider-Man’s age is very apparent in his actions and his dialogue. Though his screen time is short, the banter he engages in with other characters is incredibly amusing, one of the film’s most endearing aspects.

The choice to make Spider-Man so distinctly innocent, a kid who’s stumbled into this world of super powers and epic battles, gives him a huge degree of relatability, which has always been Spider-Man’s best quality. As an admirer of the Avengers, just as the viewer is, this Spider-Man finds himself thrust into the middle of battles he is only just beginning to understand, forced to engage in combat with people he admires.

The best depictions of Spider-Man embrace the character’s coming of age story, and I’m willing to say that this seems like no exception. Skipping the origin story did little to hinder his introduction – though I’d like to see the loss of his uncle dealt with in the upcoming standalone film – and Tom Holland provides a unique performance to distinguish him from previous portrayals. Visually and stylistically, the character fits into the tone already establish by the MCU.

I really love the paternal relationship introduced between Peter Parker and Tony Stark. The two actors have some great chemistry, and I think there’s some great potential here. I’d love to see many more “I’ll call Aunt May” jokes.

At the same time, this dynamic lends another layer of thematic significance to the film. As I noted, Spider-Man is young and impressionable, a teenager struggling to come to terms with his new identity. Tony Stark, arguably, takes advantage of this, as Captain America notes during the film when Spider-Man insists that he “has to impress Mr. Stark.” Tony Stark uses the young Parker’s admiration to compel him into a fight where he has no real stakes. This situation poses some questions about the morality of manipulation, an added layer of significance to a film that already questions the extent that one should go to do what is right.

Overall, I was highly impressed with Captain America: Civil War. The film’s ability to handle mature themes without losing entertainment value gives it a rare place among the ranks of comic book movies. Spider-Man’s introduction exceeded my highest expectations, and I’m really looking forward to seeing his follow up movie, as well as that of Black Panther.

Some of the action sequences are predictably over the top, and there are a few big plot holes, yet the film embraces its comic book heritage in a manner that one can’t help but like. Arguably, this is the MCU’s best film yet.

I’ve never liked arbitrary numerical ratings, yet I know that many people do.

8/10

Game of Thrones season six and the fate of THAT character

Well, now I’ve finally caught up… it’s time to talk about Game of Thrones! Warning, this review will contain spoilers for season five of the television show, as well as book five in A Song of Ice and Fire, so if you haven’t gotten there yet, don’t read on! There will also be a section with spoilers for the first two episodes of season six, but I’ll flag it before we get there.

The debate over Jon Snow’s fate has raged for months now, as anyone who has been in contact with social media over the past few months knows. Furious arguments have been made for both sides, with Kit Harrington’s haircut and presence on set being used as supposed proof of his still being alive. Generally, I fell into the “dead is dead” camp, to echo D.B. Weiss’ words in the wake of the tragic onscreen death, despite the fact that I am certain he is alive in the books..

I came to this conclusion after a lot of thought, expending far more mental energy than one ought to expend on a fictional character in a fictional world. I knew the death was coming, yet my initial reaction was certainly one of heartbroken denial (why, Ollie, why???); however, I came to revise that prediction after a little bit of back and forth. While Kit Harrington’s presence on set and his refusal to cut a haircut he purportedly hates are certainly compelling evidence, I simply couldn’t bring myself to believe he was still alive.

Fuck you, Ollie.

 Perhaps this was just the pessimist in me. But with the actor and the show runners insisting so fervently to the contrary, how could the character be alive? With all the anticipation of the season, no manner of bringing Jon back to life could possibly live up to the hype. Furthermore, the show is beginning to branch out farther and farther on its own. This season consists entirely of new material that did not originate with George R.R. Martin’s novels. Showrunners David Benieoff and D.B. Weiss have big shoes to fill on this front. Given the relative certainty of Jon’s return, in one form or another, in the novels, killing him permanently on-screen seemed like the best way to boldly distinguish their adaptation as a unique entity.

I was open to the possibility of my being wrong, but expecting to be proved right. As far as I could tell, this was the smartest direction for the show to take.

Sunday night, we found out the truth…

SPOILERS AHEAD. STOP NOW IF YOU DON’T WANT TO READ THEM!!!!!

Seriously, stop reading.

Now.

Look, I’ll even leave you a massive gap in the page.

What happens from now on is your own doing.

Apparently I was wrong, and I’m not sure how I feel about it. Certainly, I leapt for joy like everyone else as Kit Harrington took that frantic gasp and became more than just an on-set cadaver. Yet I had very good reasons for believing he would remain dead, and thought it would be the best thing, artistically, for the show, despite the pain.

I let out an exclamation of joy, just like everyone else.
But was this really a good idea?

To the credit of the writers, they seeded the idea of resurrection as far back as season three with Thoros of Myr’s resurrection of Beric Dondarrion. That Melisandre witnesses this, not to mention continued references to her otherworldly powers, mean that the eventual manner of Jon’s resurrection is not out of place in the show.

My worry is that just because they can do something does not mean they should. On some levels, this decision feels like a bit of a cop out. As I said, Jon’s death would have been an effective way for the show to distinguish itself from the books moving forwards. I think they might have missed an excellent opportunity, and I can’t help but wonder if, perhaps, they simply capitulated to common demand. The show’s writers had an opportunity to include the ultimate red herring while enforcing the brutality of their world.

That said, I do think the manner in which the resurrection was handled was pretty good. I can’t wait to see where they go with Jon, how the process changes him. How will he wrestle back control of the Night’s Watch and fight off the impending march of the White Walkers? People have often complained that Jon is not an interesting character, too close to the archetypal fantasy hero. While I have to agree with this, I have never thought it a bad thing. It is grounding for the viewer to have a character who is intrinsically good in a world with so much ambiguity. Jon’s coming of age story is relatable, and he provides someone we can constantly root for even as Tyrion, Arya, and Daenerys dabble in shades of grey.

Also he has great hair.

Basically, the writer inside me says the showrunners made a mistake while the fanboy inside me is crying tears of joy.

As for the rest of the season, I’m interested to see where Melisandre goes from here. What effects do all these events have on her? If Arya’s storyline stays true to the books, it’s sure to be a fun one. Where will Sansa go from here? Whose head will Robert Strong crush next? Can the writers salvage the Dornish clusterfuck they’ve set in motion?

I’m excited to see where this season goes. Do I think that reviving Jon Snow was the best decision? No. Do I think the writers can pull it off? I hope so. I’ll be sure to share some more of my thoughts as the season progresses, so stay tuned!

As always, thanks for reading J

My Problem with Spider-Man joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Fair warning, this is one for the nerds (if you hadn’t already gotten that from the title).

When Disney gained the distribution rights to the Spider-Man character last year, I was quite torn about the web-slinger’s impending introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Simply put, I am not excited.

                                     

I don’t claim to be a superhero expert. I’m only loosely familiar with the comic books, and much of my Spider-Man knowledge is based off of the old cartoons. That being said, Spider-Man holds a special place in my heart, as he does with many people, young and old. Seeing the latest trailer for Captain America: Civil War and noting the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach, I began to think more closely about why exactly I love the character so much.

Spider-Man is, arguably, Marvel Comics’ most successful creation. Since his introduction in 1962, he has entered popular consciousness more than any superhero except for perhaps DC’s Batman and Superman. He’s appeared in countless television shows and cartoons, three separate movie franchises, and innumerable action figures. There’s a Spider-Man ride at the Universal Studios theme park, and the character has appeared as a balloon in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. Eminem once stated that he was one of his favourite superheroes.

But why is Spider-Man so popular? His powers, while incredibly cool, are not terribly original (strength and agility, flight-like abilities, projectile “weapons”); his costume is striking, yet objectively no more notable than any other colourful comic book heroes such as Iron Man or Wolverine.

Spider-Man’s success comes from the man behind the mask. Peter Parker is the quintessential high school nerd, bullied and lonely, an archetypal character who is incredibly relatable for so many readers. Whereas most other super hero alter-egos (Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, etc.) are confident – often famous or affluent – adults, Peter is a high school student struggling with all the normal challenges of adolescent life. Spider-Man was one of the first comic books to feature a teenager as the lead hero, which helped it to resonate with the primarily young adult audience. He dealt with real life issues – bullies, relationships, grades – in addition to his crime fighting escapades. Young people could see their own imperfections and insecurities reflected in a lead character who rises above them to become a hero.

In addition to his relatability, Peter’s motivations for becoming Spider-Man are simple yet compelling. When he first acquires his powers, he is largely concerned with using them to make money through wrestling. His reaction is immature, yet it reflects the innocently self-centered knee jerk response many adolescents might have when given the opportunity for quick cash. Likewise, when Peter ignores a fleeing burglar because it wasn’t “his problem,” the seemingly harmless selfishness resonates with the readership. Only when this burglar goes on to murder his Uncle Ben does Peter begin to mature into his abilities, realizing he could have (and should have) stopped the criminal and prevented the senseless death of his uncle. Like so many people as they grow up, Peter comes to realize that his choices have consequences. In this case, his choice not to act resulted in the death of the man he loved most. The effect that the tragic preventability of Ben’s death has on Peter is echoed in the signature line: “with great power, comes great responsibility.” If you can help others in any way, you should. This moral message has been a big part Spider-Man’s popularity, helping him to appeal to so many people for so long.

Which brings me back to my feelings about his joining the MCU. The franchise began in 2008 with the release of Iron Man, and most of the films are currently distributed by Disney. Up until recently, the studio was unable to include Spider-Man in the franchise as Sony held tight to the distribution rights for their own Amazing Spider-Man series. However, a deal made between the two companies last year has given Disney the ability to include the character in their films, hence his appearance in Civil War.

Introducing Spider-Man to an already well established (and quickly wearing out) franchise is a mistake, as it does not give the writers enough to room to flesh out the character’s backstory. Civil War has an ensemble cast that includes almost every major character to have appeared in the franchise up until now. It is simply impossible that Spider-Man will be given a fitting introduction when he is dwarfed by those around him. By throwing him in as an excess character simply because they can, Disney and Sony are sacrificing any chance of properly introducing his backstory and motivations. Consequently, they are sacrificing the richness of the character.

In general, reception to this latest trailer seems to have been strong. People like the decisions that have been made. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll take all the Spider-Man I can get. But if there is going to be yet another incarnation of the character, I’d like to see it done right. I wasn’t a fan of Sony’s Amazing Spider-Man movies. As much as I love Andrew Garfield, I don’t think he was right for the role, and the films couldn’t seem to establish what sort of tone they were going for. Yet they at least attempted to include the moral backbone that makes the character so compelling.

A solo Spider-Man film in the MCU is slated for a 2017 release, but the damage will be done by then. The way the character is being introduced represents a blatant money-grab on the part of the studios. Everything about the marketing represents an attempt to get as many people through the box office as possible. I think this is a tragedy, as it compromises the rich appeal of the character.

As always, thanks for reading! Also, I've added an email bar to the side of my website, so if you would like to follow my posts, feel free to add your email address!