Onward: Censored Fiction

In a move surprising to literally no one in the world, the repressive anti-democratic, misogynistic, homophobic theocracies of Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (remember that time we saved your ass Kuwait?) have refused to allow Disney/Pixar's new movie to run in their countries because of a gay cyclops.

Huh? No. If only right? Different cyclops I'm afraid.

Sort of a non-garbage fire
version of Netflix's Bright.

You heard me, a gay cyclops. I should probably explain that this movie, Onward, is a mash up of fantasy tropes and road-trip movies in which two elf brothers drive around in their van trying to save their father who is pants. Look, I don't know, I'm just going on the trailer here. The important thing is that there's a scene where a cop-who's a cyclops and voiced by Lena Waithe-says: "It's not easy being a parent...my girlfriend's daughter has got me pulling my hair out."

See? Gay cyclops. Oh the scandal. Anyway, these countries-who incidentally are U.S. allies because oil, took issue with this characters' single line reference to raising a child with her female partner and banned the film outright thus saving millions of children who would have otherwise caught the gay from the film.

Move over COVID-19..

Jingoistic? Maybe, but in my defense look
at who our President is because of them.

Meanwhile Russia, not content with selecting our President for us, is now giving our filmmakers notes. Onward is screening in Russia, but the government has insisted on changing Waithe's line to make it less gay. The cyclops now refers to her "partner" instead of "girlfriend." You see, that way the insecure mob goons who run the rusted-out hull of the former super power can feel less threatened by a cartoon. Ok, Russia is super-homophobic, that's not exactly news. So what am I on about?

I'll layoff the stereotypes when Russia
improves its LGBTQ rights record.
Yeah, I know, so probably never. 

I'm on about Pixar or Disney or whatever, that's what...or whom. Look, we can all agree that Russia sucks and is a grim oligarchic vision of our own Trumpy future, but Disney gave in to them, right? Like, someone from the Russian Ministry of Dick Moves, whom I can only assume is both drunk and wears a gold cross on a chain that nestles in the thick chest hair visible through the open-V neck of his Adidas tracksuit and-huh? What? This country once banned a brand of milk because the carton had a rainbow on it. I'm not the asshole here.

Above: OMM's entire staff, Monica
Cole. So I guess I should say asshat.

Look, obviously homophobia is a global issue and not limited to a few religious oligarchies and the country that gave us Yakov Smirnoff. The ironically named One Million Moms has already accused Disney of "...indoctrinating children with the LGBTQ agenda..." But while America is full of asshats like the OMM people (or person, see right) whose entire livelihood is based around making other people's lives more difficult, they don't have the force of law behind them. The Russian government on the other hand is openly hostile towards LGBTQ people. 

So when Disney agrees to change a line, even one line, because it might offend homophobes or run afoul of a country's anti-LGBTQ laws it feels like they're legitimizing it. I know they love money, I mean, love it, but this acquiescence makes including a queer character, and in fact the company's stated support of LGBTQ rights, ring hollow. 

Pictured: The cyclops in question seen here on
the right, indoctrinating children with her gayness.

(source: one mom)

Today in beating a dead Sith Lord:

Look, I thought The Rise of Skywalker sucked. I mean, I'm not loosing sleep over it and I'm not starting a petition or anything, but I, like a lot of people, thought it was a weakest entry in a series that's half weak entries anyway and now I have proof. Mathematical proof.

"Steve, I don't know what to tell you, the math checks
out: nobody likes you and you stink. Numbers don't lie."

-Some math bully

Pictured: me, complaining
about Rise of Skywalker. Again.

Ok, well, opinion-based proof...anyway, This past week has brought the twin revelations that the decrepit re-animated corpse of Emperor Palatine that we see in Rise of Skywalker was actually a clone of the original Emperor and so was Rey's father. Which kind of makes Rey Palpatine's daughter rather than granddaughter, but we're not here to argue semantics, we're here to re-litigate why TROS is demonstrably the worst Star Wars movie. Yes, I know I said I was done with this debate, but like Palpatine's corpse, I'm bringing it back for no clear reason.

Anyway, this background information comes as a surprise because none of it is in the movie itself. It is instead drawn from the soon to be released novelization of the film. The book evidently explains away some of the story holes and murkier plot points of TROS, and this is what's sticking in my proverbial craw.

Yeah, but I see movies so I don't have to read...

"Aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!"

                               -Palpatine, shortly

                                before exploding

And just to be clear, stuffing more lore into TROS would not have been the solution here. If anything, less would have been preferable. But the movie's premise, like the plot line the director felt was so interesting that he needed to abandon the other, more inventive plot lines established in The Last Jedi, was that Palpatine is alive again and he's Rey's grandpa. But instead of caring about that, we're too busy shrugging and wondering how that could possibly be the case since he spectacularly fell down a shaft and exploded in blue flame in Episode VI.

And really, doesn't establishing him as a clone raise more questions than it answers? Like, if he's a clone, why is he so old? The movie is only set thirty years or so after Return of the Jedi, so shouldn't he be a younger version of Palpatine?

"Old? I prefer to think of myself as Palpatine Classic."

-Some limp meat puppet

"Yeah, but that's like way easier so..."

-Some director

And where are the rest of his fingers? It's almost like the art director didn't know he was supposed to be a clone. And how come he didn't-ok, look, I'm going to stop there. I'm not saying that J. J. Abrams needed to stop mid-movie and explain sci-fi nonsense that allowed Palpatine to come back from the dead. What I'm getting at is that it's the director's job to tell a compelling, interesting story. Not throw a bunch of shit up on screen and then leave it to the expanded universe writers to explain away all the stuff that didn't work.

This practice of back-filling plot-holes is not something the writers on Star Wars movies invented and they're certainly not the only ones guilty of it. But with The Rise of Skywalker, it feels like the studio has given itself permission to release an coherent movie (easily the least coherent in the series) with the expectation that tie-in material will clean up the mess. And not for nothing, but historically speaking, attempts to "explain" Star Wars invariably only makes it worse, so maybe stop? Please?

"Micro-organisms Anakin. The Force is just micro-organisms that live in your cells. There's
no such thing as magic, and sooner or later we all die. Anything else I can explain to you?"

-Qui Gon Jinn making the case for why they 

should have stopped with Return of the Jedi

The Marvelous Misappraisal

I mean, if America ever needed a Nazi
melting ghost box, now is the time.

I'm not like an economist, but a thing is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it. It's how movie theaters can charge five dollars for water and how Apple can get a thousand dollars out of people for an iPhone. And it's also how James Supp, a host and appraiser for Antiques Roadshow can value the Ark of the Covenant at one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. Now, I know what you're thinking. That sounds kind of lowball for a box full of ghosts that can melt Nazis.

It's not the Ark of the Covenant. That is, it isn't the biblical golden chest full of the Ten Commandments. Instead, this Ark was built for Raiders of the Lost Ark, the original and objectively best Indiana Jones movie.

Yes, objectively. Know how I know? Because Raiders contains exactly
zero CGI chase scenes with Shia LaBeouf swinging on vines. Fact.

Yeah, maybe go back and watch
that part. It's...uncomfortable. 

Ok. So the titular lost Ark. The thing they're all raiding in that classic movie that still holds up to this day-uh...mostly holds up...well, if we're being honest, Raiders is pretty problematic in its portrayal of indigenous peoples and there's evidence in the script that Indy and Marion's previous relationship was super inappropriate, but still, a classic that holds up if you take it in the context of-look, the point is, for a hundred and twenty thousand dollars, it seems like it should at least be magic, right? Oh, and again it's not the real Ark. Well, obviously.

Remember? Top men? Like the guy
at the end of the movie? Reference.

But it's not the real prop Ark either. It's an Ark and it was made for the movie, but it was a prototype to test some pyro effects. The real prop Ark is in George Lucas's private collection at Skywalker Ranch, presumably being worked on by top men. Top. Men. This ersatz Ark however belongs to an anonymous San Francisco man who says that it was built by his father who worked at Industrial Light and Magic, the company that did the film's visual effects and it spent the intervening four decades full of blankets in his apartment.

Would you describe that scene as
epically iconic, or iconically epic?

After gushing about how iconic the Raiders of the Lost Ark is and how successful the franchise is, host James Supp pumped the owner for more info. The man explained that his Ark is one of the prototypes and built out of picture frames, hot glue and some old trophies spray painted gold. Supp then valued the Ark at eighty to a hundred and twenty thousand dollars, but suggested that it could possibly go as high as two hundred and fifty thousand at auction. Yes, dollars. With a D. So I'm left with some questions.

Pictured: James Supp, seen here with a
box that, like most boxes, wasn't in a movie.

Chief among them being, "wait, really?" And, "Are you sure about that James Supp?" I mean, no one's disputing the iconic-ness of Raiders of the Lost Ark. His use of the word, sure, but not his sentiment. What I am questioning is who would pay a quarter of a million dollars for this guy's hamper? Fans sure, but this isn't even the movie's fake Ark, it's a fake Ark a prop artist built to see if the fireworks would fit the real fake Ark which again, is not this Ark. Oh, and this might not be the only prototype prop. 

I don't want to tell James Supp how to appraise things people find in their garage, but I do want to point out that this rando's gold box is, by his own admission, cobbled together from junk and stuff you can buy at Micheals. So are we even sure he didn't, you know, cobble this together from junk and stuff he found at Micheals? 

I guess what I'm saying is that if someone offers to sell you a box that they
totally swear is the Ark of the covenant, maybe ask for some provenance before
handing over two hundred and fifty grand. Or at least make sure the paint is dry.

What? It's not my fault they're rubes.

It takes some...what's the word? Hutzpah? Unmitigated gall? No...fundamental inability to shut one's damn mouth and behave like a human being. Yeah, it takes some of that to make the coronavirus about yourself.

Pictured: Donald Trump, seen here talking precious time away from golf
 and violating the emoluments clause to spout gibberish at a campaign event.

"And if this doesn't work, Super-AIDS!"

-Democrats, apparently

The Presi-well, the guy who technically won the electoral college in the last election, held a rally for himself on Friday in South Carolina and-I guess it's a campaign rally? There's an election coming up, but he's been holding rallies for himself since taking office. He is, above all, an insecure, small man and I think the screaming, rabid-foam fans applauding whatever nonsense falls from his word-hole helps him combat the objective truth of his ineptitude. Anyway, he suggested that the coronavirus is a Democratic hoax. Because of course he did.

"Damnit! I can't believe the impeachment hoax
we tried on Trump's perfect conversation failed!"

-Nancy Pelosi, I guess

Here's what he said in a conversation he pretended to have with one of his people in response to the Democrats' criticism of how he's handled the response to the outbreak:

"One of my people came up to me and said 'Mr. President they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia Russia. That didn't work out too well.' They couldn't do it. They tried the impeachment hoax that was on a perfect conversation...This is their new hoax"

-The President, talking to himself

before a raucous crowd of dumbs

Pictured: the literal Nazis
the GOP is currently courting.

Cool. I'm positive that happened. I'm sure the sycophants he surrounds himself with routinely come up and fellate his ego with sound-bite worthy anecdotes about how great he is. Huh? No, I'm serious, I do think that happens. It sounds like sarcasm, but this is the world we live in now. Speaking of the not-so-subtle racist undercurrent of Trump's entire platform-huh? We weren't? Well, aren't we kind of always though? Because you'd better believe he made this about non-white people flooding our borders and spreading diseases:

"Whether it's the virus that we're talking about, or the many other public health threats, the Democrat [sic] policy of open borders is a direct threat to the health and wellbeing of all Americans."

-The guy trying to cut the CDC's budget,

blaming disease in general on immigrants

"Ughhhh...we're here for your jobs and free healthcare...ugghhhh...oh, also brains...."

-the paranoid fantasies

of the American right

Super relatable you guys...

But surely he wasn't saying the disease itself was spread by Democrats out to make him look bad (ha!), right? Well in a press conference on Saturday he insisted that he was indeed referring to the Democratic criticism as the hoax and not the disease which, ok, sure. The usual response to criticism is to counter it with contradicting evidence, not to say that it's a hoax, but whatever. After all, we all know he's not great at word talking. It makes him relatable to the people or something.

"Better warm up those thoughts and prayers."

-the thin, silver line between 

us and a global epidemic

He went on to say that "there's no need to panic." And that "this is something that's being handled professionally." No, he didn't resign. But he has put noted science-denier and coat-tale rider Mike Pence in charge of the government response. Anyway, back to the question of exactly what he meant when he refereed to "their new hoax." What I'm saying is that his supporters- that is the kind of people that show up to the love fests he throws for himself-aren't exactly known for their keen intellect and skeptical nature.

What? Where's the lie?

Am I a huge jerk for saying that? Sure I am. And is dismissing the President's supporters as a bunch of ignorant rubes part of the narrative he uses to unite them? Absolutely it is. So in a way we-that is the left-are partially to blame. I get that. But to be fair, they are supporting a racist, misogynistic goon who uses transparent lies and bluster to get whatever he wants and what he wants is often in direct opposition to the interests of the people who vote for him. So yeah, the thing is I'm not sure I'm wrong. They kinda are a bunch of ignorant rubes.

And when he suggests-without necessarily outright saying-that the coronavirus outbreak is at the same time a Democratic hoax (which it isn't), a disease resulting from immigration (which of course it's not), and not something to worry about, they believe him. What they hear from him is "I'm the only one who cares about you and your family." He isn't and he doesn't but that's how we got here.

This must be a tough time to be a Republican. On the one hand there's a Democratic virus out there,
so universal healthcare sounds like the only way to avoid loosing the election. On the other hand, most
Republicans would rather die than see their tax dollars go towards helping others. Quite a bind they're in...

More like The Buy Republic...

The Rise of Skywalker was both the end of the Skywalker Saga and the first time anyone called the Star Wars movies the Skywalker Saga. And since by law, Star Wars can only come in three series of three movies, many fans are asking what now? 

According to the rules the marketing department just made up, making a tenth numbered
Star Wars film would mean that Disney could no longer call it a saga. Their hands are tied.

No judgement here, but do stoners know 
the rest of us think these things are dumb? 

Go outside? Play a sport? Watch a movie that's not part of a long-running, interconnected franchise? Nonsense! Luckily for us, Disney is not going to miss an opportunity to milk one of their most important IP's just because we're totally sick of it. They are, first and foremost, storytellers. Enter Star Wars: The High Republic. An umbrella term under which new Star Wars tie-ins like books, comics, toys and-huh? Yeah, The High Republic, I know. I too predict an uptick in hackneyed and poorly photoshopped Star Wars stoner jokes.

So anyway, The High Republic is an era of the fictional Star Wars universe two hundred years before The Phantom Menace which, according to Starwars.com: "...will not overlap any of the filmed features or series currently planned for production, giving creators and partners a vast amount of room to tell Star Wars stories with new adventures and original characters."

The last thing anyone wants is a confusing story
that contradicts pervious entries in the series...

Pictured: not a committee. 

Ok, so the idea is to allow the writers some creative freedom without bumping into Star Wars canon which, despite the pruning of the Expanded Universe a few years ago, is still pretty damn dense. And the announcement trailer-books have trailers now-makes a lot about how Disney has gathered this big group of sci-fi writing talent together to collaborate on a shared narrative world in which the stories will all connect in a rich tapestry of-wait, does this sound like writing by committee to anyone else?

Sure, collaboration is great, but sometimes too many voices can muddy the waters (and mix the metaphors). Imagine if the people who write Star Wars listened to say, what people on the internet thought. Like, if they just took every crazed fan's suggestions and demands and threw them in a pot in some misguided attempt to try and please everyone. That'd be terrible.

Hmm? Oh, that's just J. J. Abrams at the premier of The Rise of Skywalk-huh?
No, I wasn't saying Episode IX was-ok you got me. I'm like a dog with a bone.

Pictured: concept art for The High Republic
featuring Jedi with lightsabers. Yes again,
but this time one of them is a Wookie. 

Am I being overly critical here? Probably. Definitely. I mean, don't listen to me. The High Republic hasn't even seen the light of day yet. But still, "new adventures with original characters?" I mean, it's still within the Star Wars universe, so it's not that original. And no matter how many writers you lock in a room with a whiteboard, the minute someone from corporate starts telling them they can and can't do things because it won't test well with the key demo or because it might not fit the brand, it ceases to be collaborative art and starts being product.

Who knows? Maybe these books and comics and whatever will be great. Maybe they're just just the thing to pull Star Wars out of its malaise. Still though, I can't help but roll my eyes at the idea that any new Disney Brand Star Wars Content™is going to be anything other than safe and derivative guaranteed money makers.

How dare they compromise the artistic
integrity of Star Wars with crass consumerism!

Hey, at least no nipples this time, right?

The Batsuit? No, I don't have strong feelings about the Batsuit. I'm a well adjusted adult with a job and-ok, fine. I'll talk about the new Batsuit. But only because you insisted.

New set photos? Quickly fellow nerds, to the internet! 
We have to let the world know what we would have done differently
and how much better it would have been if we were in charge!

I'm not saying internet rage is
always unjustified, just often.

So set photos of a stunt performer in costume as Batman leaked-is it leaking if it's done deliberately for marketing reasons? Anyway, obsessive Batman fans have taken to the internets to opine about whether it's the greatest interpretation of the character's look ever or whether the film should be shut down immediately and completely reshot with a different costume that better fits the expectations of the loudest (all caps) twitter users. There is no middle ground here.

That said, it's fine. The Batsuit I mean, not our culture of dogpiling on a design choice months or years before a movie is released based on out of context photos. I mean, it's Batman. His costume gets reinvented every time we see him. It's fine, I don't care. As long as the movie isn't a three hour, self-indulgent, grimdark method acting slog, I'll be good.

You heard me. Batman's about a guy in
tights fighting theme crime. It's not Hamlet.

Above: a gif of Micheal
Keaton, demonstrating his
range of motion in costume.

Anyway, Robert Pattinson's Batman costume kind of looks like Christian Bale's suit from the Christopher Nolan movies; all black and tactical-looking. It has no cape which is almost certainly because it's added later as a CG effect. And it's, well, you know, the Batsuit. Or at least a live action version of something that only exists in two-dimensions. And that's got to be tough. On paper, comic artists fudge the design to make it look right at any angle, but I suppose when your putting a person in a foam-rubber suit you don't have that flexibility-literally or figuratively. Batman is sort of famous for ninja flipping around and kicking the shit out of henchmen, which, great, lycra bodysuit. But in live action, whatever he's wearing has to look like it can take a bullet. So it needs to be simultaneously indestructible and lightweight, with total range of motion. Good luck.

Obviously they're all wrong and the 90's
Animated Batman is the best Batman.
But I say, to each their own, right?

Add on to these completely contradictory design parameters the inevitable fan reaction that comes with interpreting someone thing as recognizable as Batman, and it can't be easy. Some people like the more grounded Nolan-trilogy look, others prefer the 'roided out tank look from the Dark Knight Returns comic, while still others want the classic blue and grey from the 1970's. Everyone has a favorite veri-sorry, every obsessed fan has a favorite version of the character so there's no way you're going to make everyone happy.

Especially Robert Pattinson and all the unfortunate stunt performers who have to strap on ninety pounds of immobile rubber body armor for fourteen hours a day and pretend they're fighting the Penguin's goons. They're going to have a rough time no matter what you do.

Pictured: Inevitability. 

Icheb just got Phil Coulson'ed!

Yes, that is kind of gibberish, but don't worry, I'll explain. Did you watch Picard yet? Yes, the TV show. Oh, don't roll your eyes at me like that. You know what you were in for when you click on my blog. And if you haven't caught up with the show, I'm on episode five and am about to spoil the merde out of it.

I believe it's entitled Episode 5: The One Where Picard Wears a Beret.

"Fan service? Wait'll I show up..."

-Future guest stars, 

Riker and Riker's beard

Still with me? Super. I don't really have a lot to say (not that that's ever stopped me before) other than goddamn, this show really loves to service its fans. From the get go this episode was-what? Why...why are you laughing? It did include a lot of fan service, what did you think I-oh...I see. Get your mind out of the gutter. Now, where was I? Oh, right. So much fan service. Quark from DS9 and Mot the Barber from TNG get name dropped, Picard and Seven of Nine share a moment of ex-Borg bonding. 

Oh and in a total surprise, Icheb from Star Trek: Voyager shows up to be graphically vivisected for parts. Yikes. He was kind of that show's chirpy, overly eager Wesley Crusher type; a former Borg rescued and adopted by Seven of Nine. And tonight's episode brutally killed him off thirty seconds in just to give Seven someone to avenge. See? Phil Coulson'ed.

He was also brutally recast, possibly because original actor, Manu Intiraymi dismissed
 Discovery's Anthony Rapp's accusations against Kevin Spacey as "just life." So that's fun.

Pictured: Star Trek's dumbest moment.

And avenge him Seven does going so far as to straight up murder Icheb's murder, a black market Borg-parts dealer with whom she may have had a relationship. Speaking of straight-up murdering your ex, Allison Pill's Doctor Jurati murders Doctor Maddox whom everyone's been looking for since episode one. And look, I loved this episode. I'm just saying that's a lot of murder for Star Trek. It's not that trek doesn't get dark sometimes, but one time Picard and pals where turned into children and had to save the ship from bungling Ferengi.

Oh, and there's a B-plot about recovering drug addict Raffi's attempt to reconnect with her estranged son. Her plan goes off the rails when we find out her son wants nothing to do with her because she's a crazy Mars Attack truther. Which is even more tragic since we as the viewer know that there totally is a conspiracy at work. 

"Dilithium crystals can't melt tritanium beams. Think about it!"

-Raffi, seen here holding a vape
 pen that's not helping her case

Above: these jaunty hats really help
 lighten an otherwise murder-heavy story.

But it wasn't all Game of Thrones, we some comic relief from Sir Patrick Stewart's hilarious french accent and the Freecloud dress code which is maybe best described as Spirit Halloween Store pimp. Oh, and we also get some funny moments from Elnor, the Australian Romulan samurai raised by honest-to-a-fault warrior nuns, and his inability to grasp the concept of deceit. He's a little Drax the Destroyer, but whatever, it was a nice counter to the heaviness of the episode. 

Ok, other than people who cosplay
as Starfleet officers, who even cares?

Anyway, like I said before, I'm not sure I can be completely objective about this show having grown up watching TNG. The whole show could be Picard and his Romulan roomies drinking tea and running his vineyard and I'd still watch. I'm that into it. But tonight's episode felt like the point at which the slow burn of the first four installments is finally paying off. And speaking of paying off, while the surgeon is gutting Icheb, she asks him where his cortical node is. Which, just a one-off technobabble line and who even cares right?

I care, that's who. It's a call back to a twenty-year old episode of Star Trek: Voyager in which Icheb donates his cortical node to save Seven's life. It's an absurdly tiny detail and one only there for the most dogged of fans but they stuck it in and if you know what the hell they're talking about it gives Icheb's murder and Seven's reaction even more weight. Bravo writers, bravo. That's how you service your fans.

Pictured: The EMH from Voyager performing
a delicate MacGuffin transplant surgery.