Tag: media

The Beanie Babies of 2025: Labubus and their Doomed Fate

They’re everywhere. Whether in person or online, you’ve more than likely seen them- fuzzy little monsters with wide toothy grins. They come in a variety of colors and poses, and can be small key chains or large decorative figurines. Everyone is obsessed with them, to the point where fights have broken out in stores just for the chance to get one.

But… what are they?

These fuzzy little monsters are called Labubus. They’re the creation of Kasing Lung, a Hong Kong-born artist living in Belgium. They’re one part of his The Monsters collection, which was highly influenced by Nordic folklore and mythology that Lung grew up learning about during his childhood in the Netherlands.

Labubus were actually first introduced ten years back in 2015, the first of their figurines having been produced by How2Work. However, their production and sale shifted over to the Chinese retailer Pop Mart in 2019, where they have been sold from ever since.

While Labubus would start to enjoy wider popularity once they came under Pop Mart, it’s important to note that they didn’t immediately become the overwhelming trend seen currently. In fact, while toy collectors would buy them for collecting purposes, they were a bit reviled by others for being “ugly.”

However, that all changed in April 2025, when the K-Pop idol Lisa from Blackpink posted one attached to her bag on her Instagram story, admitting both that they were her favorite toy and that she loved collecting all of them.

Lisa posting pictures with several of her Labubus

From that point, Labubus became all the rage. Other celebrities have posted showing off their Labubus. They’ve been to Milan fashion week. They’ve been taken on a “tour” of Thailand. They’re going to get an animated series. People have spent hundreds, if not thousands, on the Pop Mart blind boxes trying to collect these little imps, with the rare “mystery color” being the most sought after for each blind box series. They are the “it” thing.

But… if we know anything about trends like this, is that this one is not going to last very long.

Just like Funko Pops and Beanie Babies, Labubus are currently set to follow the same trajectory: a couple of years of excessive hype and popularity, then a sudden market “burst” and devaluation. Then, they’ll appear en masse in thrift stores and land fills, tossed to the wayside by the disinterested masses.

They won’t vanish entirely, of course- just as new funko pops and new beanie babies are released, so too will new Labubus. But they’ll once again return to being a niche toy, mostly forgotten in favor of the next big thing.

This pattern has happened time and time again. Why? Because that is just the nature of trends when it comes to non-essential goods. People don’t exactly need Labubus, or any other type of trending figurine. They don’t even need certain clothing, and clothing technically falls under the category of “essential.” But when something trends, it makes people want the item, out of sense of F.O.M.O., or “fear of missing out.” In our consumer society, people can’t help it.

But never in the history of the world has a trend like this lasted all that long. Especially in the age of social media, when new things are popping up every single day in a relentless wave. It’s simply impossible for the trend to last. Look at Stanley cups, for example: last year people were camping outside of stores and literally rushing to get their hands on the newest color. Now how often do you hear about them?

No matter how overwhelmingly popular Labubus may seem now, it’ll only be a matter of time before something else catches the attention of the general public and they are tossed aside. When or what will that be, is uncertain. But what is certain, is that this trend is doomed to die.

The Evolution of Fake News

Although the term was popularized in the 2016 US presidential elections, fake news has had a rather long existence, spanning over a century. It’s no new thing, although at the moment, the proliferation of fake news has built up points of great contention, trust, and turmoil.

Fake news can trace it’s history all the way back to the Spanish-American War of 1898, which was, in essence, caused by William Randolph Hearst and his newspaper the New York Journal. During this time period, the “fake news” was classified as “Yellow journalism” as the yellow tint of the printing of Hearst’s paper differentiated it from it’s rival newspaper. Hearst’s newspaper pushed out fabricated stories about the violence of the Spanish towards Americans in the Caribbean, utilizing emotion to encourage the American public to want war. This triggered a period filled with fake news, which became so rampant that a challenging newspaper rewrote it’s tagline to support “real news-not fake news”.

Despite the anxiety over the fake news, yellow journalism was able to successfully turn the people to want war, which kick-started the Spanish-American war.

Fake news did not die after the war. Instead, it went someone dormant, as there was major backlash against such fake news at the dawn of the twentieth century. However, fake news would make a new rise during World War One, churning out propaganda about the barbaric nature of the Germans, particularly against Belgium. Now, this isn’t to say that Germany did not act violently against Belgium, a peaceful country, but the fake news industry blew much of the invasion way out of proportion, churning out stories that rang not just in the US, but throughout the allied nations.

Not only that, but rampant propaganda an fake news actually fooled the entirety of the German public, who thought the entire span of the war that they were winning the war. And since the German military maintained mass press censorship, the public never knew they were losing until Kaiser Wilhelm II declared surrender.

Fake news would keep making appearances in spreading of the First Red Scare in the US, feelings of isolationism both in the US and in Europe, and the decade of harsh reeducation of the German public during the rise of Nazi Germany. Following the end of the second world war, fake news would appear intermittently, spiking during times of conflict, and declining during periods of relative peace. With the dawn of the internet, however, fake news found its new home.

The way that fake news is presented has changed in terms of proliferation, although its function and purpose has not changed in the slightest. It fueled conflict and dissent during the 2016 presidential elections, and continue to fuel political polarization and divide, particularly as the global public is much less likely to do the research to find the truth. Currently, the media stands in a precarious position, being both the source of truth and also of sensationalist fake news, which in turn damages the trust of the public. This problem becomes incredibly difficult to resolve especially as sources of media are so vastly expanded, with just about anyone, including myself, holding the ability to push out news, whether fake or not.

Artist Portrayals in Media: So Horribly Accurate

In comedy, we’ll always find that artists are either portrayed as air-headed “connected to the earth” white people, or pretentious jerks. That’s how they have always been portrayed since the dawn of the 1990’s and 2000’s, and that’s how they will be portrayed until the end of time. At this point, the portrayals are iconic.

The only problem with these portrayals is how horribly accurate they are. No, really, it’s insanely accurate. Need proof? Go to a modern art museum. Not even that. Just open an art history book or biography. Time and time again, you’ll find that artists tend to be extremely arrogant and pretentious, trying to act like they are on some higher tier of existence than the common folk. This isn’t the case for all artists, but it is the case for a majority of them.

This is especially true in the case of most modern artists, who think they can get away with painting a blank canvas white and selling it for a million dollars. Well, they kind of can, given that the culture surrounding art and art critiques inflates an artist’s ego to the point of no return by going insane over said white-painted canvas. The culture only makes the artist’s attitude that much worse, encouraging them to make paintings that can be done in less than five minutes. Not even paintings, but also sculptures (there was a case where an art piece which was literally a pile of trash was accidentally thrown out by a cleaning lady who didn’t know it was part of the exhibit). The culture helps further the monster. But it doesn’t create it.

No, the artist grows into the stereotype in college, and even high school. They make friends with other artists, learn about art and somehow get it in their head that they are more “unique” and “free” because of it. They invest themselves in their craft, and become infected. Then they get mad when people make fun of said infection. They insist that the stereotypes aren’t true at all, then act exactly like their stereotypes (even down to dressing like them, just without the beret and scarf). It’s almost sad.

But, like I’ve already said, this stereotypes doesn’t apply to all artists. There are a few that lie outside of the stereotype, who are actually fairly normal, and even make fun of the stereotypes and the people who act like them. They are, unfortunately, few and far between.

Some Horror Favorites

I’m not going to lie when I say that for the most part, my favorite horror movies are almost all classics. I definitely prefer the classic thriller to the modern ghost story, mostly because most of the horror movies I’ve seen are just repetitions of the same plot. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, hardcore exceptions, but I can’t help but turn towards the older films. I thought as a good way to wrap up my horror movie month that I would display four of my favorite horror films.

The Shining

For some reason, everyone thinks that this movie is overtly scary. While I would agree it has its moments, I would rather argue that its a layered and complex psychological thriller. This is especially helped by the fact that I watched it three times in three weeks at night when I was twelve. No nightmares came out of it, and I wasn’t deterred from roaming through my house. I enjoy the film’s cinematography, and how the story is structured. It spends most of the time slowly-building the father’s psychological deterioration, before culminating in the quick attempts at murder. The hotel is quickly developed as a source of evil and darkness, something the son, and eventually the father, pick up on. It’s artfully done.

Coraline

While this is a kid’s movie, I think it certainly belongs on my list of favorites. Coraline centers around a girl who feels like she doesn’t quite belong in her family, who seems to ignore her in favor of work. She discovers a fantasy land that caters to her every desire, but quickly realizes that it’s everything but. It’s creatively designed, providing drastic color differences to contrast the real world from the fake one, making the fake world all the more desirable. The film’s plot, as well, is well-executed; not feeling rushed or too cheesy, but working well in tandem with the plot. Coraline is smart, sassy, and atypical in terms of kid’s characters for it’s time. And on top of that, the villain is actually quite freaky looking. She’s bony, disfigured, spidery, and cruel, and as a kid I was actually quite freaked out by her.

Silence of the Lambs

Now, this is one that I was okay with the first time I saw it, mostly because I didn’t really pay much attention. I was fresh off of reading the book (yes, there is a book), and spent most of my time just comparing the two, rather than just enjoying the film in itself. I saw it again a few days ago, and I have to say I enjoy it much more. It’s not really scary, more just gruesome and anxiety-inducing, tugging on the senses to make the audience feel uncomfortable or worried at just the right points. While I’ll admit it does rely a little too much on the close-up shots, which are used mostly during conversations, it is otherwise an extremely good movie. Each character has their own distinctive personality and characteristics, and all are seemingly well-fleshed out (although I would have preferred they fleshed out the villain just a bit more). The film has earned its spot on my list.

Pan’s Labyrinth

Last but not least, this film is one that I only saw this year. I’ve known about it, but never got around to watching it until I was invited to go to one of the midnight viewings that happen during the fall in my town. I have to say I don’t regret going.

Pan’s Labyrinth is not so much a horror, film. It leans much more towards tragedy. It takes place in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War, focusing on the changeling Ofelia trying to find her way back to the land under the hill. The film utilizes the contrast of hot and cool colors, having the realm of the Fae be much warmer in tones than the human world. It also makes an interesting parallel between the dangers of the human world versus the dangers of the land of the Fae, with the dangers of the latter being more conquerable than the former. It blends fantasy with reality to make an incredible comparison between what the innocent child can see versus what the disenchanted adult can see. Each character dynamic is fluid and distinct, leading to a lovely film.

My Takeaway from the Jake Paul Series

If you’ve been involved in the Youtube world, then you would know that a few days ago, Shane Dawson wrapped up his eight-part series on Jake Paul. The series ended in an almost two-hour long finale, a good 90 percent centered around the final interview that Shane had been building up to throughout the series.

Despite my qualms about the second episode, I watched the series in its entirety. I will say that while I admire the amount of research Shane went through, approaching multiple different people that were involved in Jake Paul’s life in order to get their perspectives, I have to say that in the end, Shane let his bias show a little too brightly.

Not in the sense that he ignored that Jake Paul is a sociopath (which he’s not), but in the sense that in the end he went a little too light on calling out his past. He did ask about the assault case, the cheating situation, and other such things that people had been wondering about. He provided advice on what Jake Paul should do, to which the latter figure seemed enthusiastic to accept. But the interview as a whole was a little underwhelming. Shane promised that the interview would allow no mercy, and spent the whole series making that promise, but when he got to the actual interview, I couldn’t help but be bored. I sat there, constantly checking how much time was left, wondering when the harder questions were going to come in. In the end, I felt that we weren’t given what we were promised, because Shane learned to like Jake Paul.

And, to be honest, I did feel some sympathy towards Jake Paul. Throughout the show, the strained and frayed family dynamic came up, which provides some insight on who Jake Paul is behind the scenes. His Dad raised him to believe it was okay to act like this, and his brother did some awful things that would mess with someone. Working with a father and brother, as well, is also very dangerous, as it blurs the line between work and family. It can destroy families.

There’s also the fact that Jake Paul holds himself in a toxic situation, living in the Team 10 house and almost never taking a break. Even his girlfriend can sense it, and wants them to move away so that they aren’t constantly in the limelight. That kind of situation would mess with anyone.

And yet, at the same time, I hesitate to sympathize. The situation between Alyssa and Jake still makes me wonder, especially as some aspects to each side of their stories holds differences, making it difficult to believe one person or another. Shane never fully fleshed out the situation through third-parties without bias, adding a sense of dissatisfaction and uncertainty. The uncertainty makes me hesitate.

Also, despite him being in a messed up situation, we can’t ignore the fact that Jake Paul has done some crappy things. There were bad choices he made outside of the ones discussed in the series, and they were choices that he made. Of course, college males can act as dumb as him, but being an influential figure, especially with a demographic of kids 8-16, he needs to know better. And I’m glad Shane pointed that out, cause in certain ways Jake didn’t seem to understand the amount of influence he actually had on kids. Constant merch plugging, his music, and pranks, his talk against school, all of that can leave an impact on a kid, shaping their views. He didn’t seem to understand that.

Now, in the end, Jake promised to change things. But words don’t mean anything if no one acts on them. I want to see him act on it, and the best way I can imagine that being is taking an extended break from Youtube-possibly even moving back out to Ohio. To think on himself and his actions, to come back and change his content. I won’t believe the guy until he’s actually presented the social sphere with his change, and possibly moved himself into a situation where he has a break from the chaos. While I do hope that he does improve, I will only believe it when I see it.

Things to Note From Rockstar’s Work Conditions

I would have written earlier about this, but was away from my computer and couldn’t get to it. But about a week ago, it was discovered that in order to make Red Dead Redemption 2, programmers and other staff had to work 100 hour weeks over a three week period in order to finish the game. This caused a swift backlash on the Internet about the conditions, with everything from news journals to podcasts criticizing what Rockstar had done. Co-founder and VP Dan Houser argued that these overtime shifts were “optional” to employees in defense of the habits, saying that these people opted-in overtime to finish the newest game.

However, when some employees (granted permission by the company to clear the air) took to Reddit for Q&A, that clearly wasn’t the case. A QA tester from the Rockstar Lincoln studio in the UK clarified that the public doesn’t often hear of the working conditions as a result of employees signing a NDA (non-disclosure agreement), preventing them from taking issues to the public.

He also clarified that the overtime shifts aren’t really optional but expected, as they have to make up an overtime shift if they for whatever reason can’t do an initial one. As for weekends, they have to make it up as a “double” weekend if they miss out on working one. The QA tester does clarify that they are paid for their overtime. He does establish the difference between a typical work shift and an overtime shift, the main difference being about 2 1/2- 3 hours longer. The overtime shifts are usually implemented near the end of the creation of a video game, in order to have it released by the proper date they planned for. While that doesn’t alleviate the issue of exploitation, it does explain that the overtime hours aren’t the norm.

Now, in the midst of this controversy, I noticed that some freelance artists, programmers, ans video game designers took to Twitter and other forums to explain their story. They didn’t center their stories around Rockstar, but rather their experiences as contract workers for other companies. What they explained was rather interesting.

Just about 100% of the time, the people were explaining that they voluntarily took on the hours, for fear of being dropped from their contracts. Despite some being told by their own employers that they don’t need to work so hard, they still overworked, trying to be as productive as possible and thus more valuable. All of these cases end in a nasty case of burn out.

What is burn out? By dictionary terms, it means to completely ruin one’s health or energy through overworking for a long period of time. People will permanently disfigure themselves, or place themselves into life-threatening situations that way, all because they wouldn’t let their body rest. Ever heard of people dying at their desks in Japan from working too much? Yeah, that’s an extreme form of burn out.

As I mentioned earlier, the thing to note in both of these areas is that the overtime is promoted as voluntary or optional in terms of the legal working contract. But workers argue that the “optional” overtime was actually expected, or perceived to be expected, thus feeling the pressure to take up the overtime. It’s a dangerous expectation that can easily result in the damaged health of an employee.

How Science Fiction Works Better in TV

I began watching Westworld recently to celebrate turning in my essay, and quickly got invested in it. The world, character arcs, and dynamism of the hosts intrigues me, especially as more of how the whole thing works slowly gets more developed and explained. Seeing how the show introduced its dynamics got me thinking about other sci-fi TV shows, and how they compare to movies of the same genre. The more I thought about it, the more I thought that sci-fi as a genre does much better in the realm of TV than film.

Why is that? Well, sci-fi often involves complex world/story-building when done right, and needs to be set out in a way that doesn’t seem rushed or boring. In film, there is only a two-two and a half hour span to introduce and develop the story and the world. Often times, that means there are aspects that are underdeveloped, rushed, or simply never explained. Which, when portrayed in a particular, more natural way, can work out.

Think of Mad Max: Fury Road. There wasn’t much actual explanation of the post-apocalyptic world, but there was visual representation, paired with just the right amount of explanation where the audience could understand how things worked. Of course, there were aspects left out; but the most important aspects are understood.

Now, the case of Mad Max is a case of sci-fi in films done well. More often than not, however, it takes a film multiple movies in order to explain itself and the world, sometimes dragging out stories that aren’t interesting enough or good past film 1 or 2. Or, in the case where there is only one film, the world is not explained enough, or simply isn’t interesting. Other times the story line is so bad and rushed that the world suffers as a result, too. In any sense, something is missing.

In the case of TV, however, there is a lot more to work with. Worlds can be properly flushed out and can work as an element of intrigue for the audience as it slowly unravels (in good shows, of course). Shows usually have a minimum of eight episodes to work out their world and dynamics, providing much more time and space to develop everything. The added fact that it usually comes out one episode a week even adds more to the suspense, maintaining greater interest than if it came out once every 2+ years. Sci-fi is a large and infinitely creative genre, and needs plenty of space to exist as a valid genre.

Sci-fi has had a long history in both film and movies, but is notably more prolific in TV, and much more recognizable. In the last decade particularly, sci-fi has been on the rise, after a period of falling behind fantasy. Sci-fi in TV shows also has the luxury of existing for longer, as average great shows can have as many as 9 or 10 seasons without appearing old or run-out, a heavy contrast from film. Shows can take on many more story arcs, as well, adding greater levels of complexity that otherwise couldn’t or wouldn’t exist.

Sci-fi can exist in both film and television, and has phenomenal pieces in both sets of media (Star Wars, Star Trek, Stranger Things), paired alongside bad pieces. However, I tend to notice that TV overall has better sci-fi series than film, particularly in recent years, most likely as a result as the care and space provided through TV. TV has provided sci-fi a grander space, and has lent it greater popularity than film, causing the genre to have an overall better quality.

You Can’t Rely on Old Media for Depictions of the West

Recently, Rockstar has announced that Red Dead Redemption 2, the sequel to its instant classic of Red Dead Redemption, will add black cowboys, portraying a more realistic perspective of how the Wild West would have been.

However, like all things with time period games, there are those who dissent to having these characters added. Fortunately, it’s not nearly on the same scale as some other games, but it still exists. One argument of the dissent that stuck out to me was the idea of how historically “inaccurate” it was to have black cowboys. These arguments are based off of old Hollywood and TV portrayals of the West, somehow justifying their arguments. If P.O.Cs were not portrayed then, then therefore they simply weren’t actually present, right?

Wrong. Let me give a little insight on the actual realm of the West. The West, with its notoriety for being a “lawless wasteland”, was much more racially open than the rest of the United States. A former part of land owned and controlled by Spain (and later Mexico), the wide and mostly unpopulated expanse had plenty or room for the proliferation of Vaqueros, or the precursor to cowboys.

The Vaquero lifestyle was mostly used by Mexicans and some Natives, who gained influence from the Spanish ranchers on the Missions. However, when the land was won over by the US in the Mexican-American War, the Vaquero stopped being a purely Hispanic profession. Caucasian and later black cowboys began making an appearance on the scene, taking up the Vaquero (later renamed cowboy) lifestyle to live a “free rancher” life.

Black cowboys initially started as slaves tending to their masters’ cattle ranches while they were away at war in Texas, although there were some that escaped West before incorporation into the US to escape their former masters. In this, black Vaqueros gained the skills that would make them invaluable to the cattle industry, allowing them to prosper following the end of the Civil War. As many as 1 in 4 cowboys were Black, travelling throughout the West to help ranchers herd their cattle.

Now, this didn’t make the West some racial paradise, as discrimination against Latinos, Blacks, Native Americans, and later Asians (who came in to help build train tracks that would help connect the Continental US) was still a common phenomenon. But it allowed more freedom than other parts of the US.

Now, with all that in mind, how does this relate to old media? Well, if you’ve watched any spaghetti Western film or TV, you’ll easily notice that the diverse history of the West simply does not exist. If there’s a Native, they’re violent savages killing the poor white woman for fun. The Asians are portrayed as dirty, cheap, and lying. There’s not even a mention of Blacks or Hispanics.

No, the Western shows and films represent and idealized White version of the West, one which claims the cowboy as purely American made, despite its Hispanic origins. It’s about the finding the Classic love in the Wild and Gritty West, centered around White actors in a purely whitewashed realm.

Even as late into the 1990’s, media surrounding the West was heavily geared towards portraying it as white dominant, with only a few outliers that portrayed otherwise. It was only in recent years with Django Unchained, Hateful Eight and Magnificent Seven that the whites-only narrative has fallen back, showing another, previously unacknowledged side of diversity in the Wild West.

Old Media has a particular representation for portraying false narratives, and is unreliable for arguments trying to prove historical accuracy. Media changes stories and narratives all the time for entertainment, especially in older films and TV shows.

Most Horror Movies Suck

Most horror movies suck. This isn’t a result of a new phenomenon, where an over-reliance on jump scares and cheap tricks has lowered the quality of horror movies. No, this is something that has existed since the dawn of the horror genre in film.

Now, you might be saying, “There’s plenty of classic horror movies”, or “there’s been good ones all the time”. Yeah, I’m not talking about the classics. I’m talking about everything else.

Let me put it into perspective: in the entire movie medium as a whole, there is a very disproportionate level of bad movies to good ones. For every great film, there are plenty of okay or even mediocre ones that came out before it. The ratio for horror films is even worse. The horror film industry is a very prolific one, meaning that combined with the critically-acclaimed classics (some recent ones including Cloverfield, Get Out, a Quiet Place, and Hereditary) come many, many more bad horror films. And that’s just on the level of mainstream media.

The problem is, although the production value for horror films has increased exponentially (in the earliest years, most horror films were pushed to the side-lines, almost to the level of B movie films. That isn’t to say that any weren’t, however: quite a few were. The difference in levels of production value drew more attention to the really good horror films, making them classics.

The good classics were remarkably known for their story line and the emotional investment of the actors, paired with excellent and perfectly timed cinematography. Suspense was deeply intertwined with these films, causing the audience to actually be invested, even long after the further development of movie effects and realism to make films pop more. The bad ones by contrast knew they weren’t very good. They made the most out of lowered budget and “lesser” actors, becoming mindless entertainment. Even the high quality bad horror films knew they were bad, at least to some level. There was a distinction in how the bad movies presented themselves, specifically separating themselves from the good ones.

Nowadays, it’s much harder to tell. With the increase in production value all around, and the overall increase in popularity for horror films, even the bad ones take themselves seriously. They try to act like the good ones, hiding otherwise boring, similar plots under the guise of an enticing trailer. The only indication might be picking up the ridiculousness or the stupidity of the plot in the trailer, and even then sometimes they’re misleading. I’ve been tricked into seeing plenty of horror films that look promising, only to see the same story line played out. The only difference would be the positioning of the jump scares.

Another issue is, when a great horror film comes out, there are often sequels that follow. And usually with each sequel that comes out, the quality of the film gets worse (exceptions include Cloverfield). As a result, the whole series, including the first film, gets devalued.

Horror films have the unfortunate trend of having a few really good horror films within a few years, and tons of bad horror films. Although This trend is starting to shift (2018 was an unusual year for having more good horror films than bad ones), there is a long history of really bad horror movies. There’s nothing wrong with that, as rom coms also had the same trend. The difference is, there is still some creativity to horror coming back, which has kept it alive through a particular decade of flops. Rom coms and horror films had a shared decade of mediocre majority films, but rom coms, holding too much to the classic formula, fell to the background. Horror films were able to barely cling on, until recent films have fully pushed it back onto its feet. We’ll see how horror movies evolve over the next few years.

The Downfall of Telltale Games

Now, I am a few days late to this whole drama, but that has let me get a glimpse of a little extra content.

Last week, Telltale games declared that it was going to be shutting down, laying off most of its staff (who were expecting an eventual closure, but not so sudden). Official reports argue that a failed round of funding (the last backer abruptly pulled out) caused the shut down. The company is only staying open in order to finish the Minecraft: Story Mode for Netflix, then is shutting down permanently. This puts a halt to the much anticipated final season of Walking Dead and trashes the production for a Stranger Things game.

While officially, financial problems led to the closure, this development was a long time coming. Telltale games exploded onto the mainstream scene with the insanely popular first season of Walking Dead, released in 2012. Every gamer who was played that game, with streams for the first chapter popping up. As the game had promised that the endings would change based on your actions, people were trying to get the best ending possible. The first season was pretty good at making it seem like it changed based off actions, as well.

However, people quickly realized in the second season that this was not the case. Major events occurred no matter what, taking away the purpose of trying to find different outcomes. Another problem as well was the fact that the only character that remained consistent was Clementine (and later the child), while all other characters seemingly disappeared. Even the spin-off game was a dead end, with none of the characters making it into the actual game. This made it so there was too many characters to get invested in, turning people off.

This also ruined interest in Game of Thrones and Batman, two games that were reportedly good, but too long and unchanging for people to really be invested in. It only goes downhill from there, as Telltale keeps releasing more and more games, none of which had anywhere near the same popularity as the first season of Walking Dead. As a result, the company was merely digging itself into its own grave.

But, it didn’t let that on to its employees. In fact, the company had just hired people weeks before they had the massive layoff, with people even moving across the country in order to come and work. As a result, a massive class-action lawsuit has been filed against the company, as with the sudden layoff with an almost immediate cut-off of benefits, they have violated California labor laws. Some argue that in suing a bankrupt company, they are wasting their time, but it’s important to solidify that these laws apply to gaming companies, who might otherwise think they’re exempt.

The Saturation Complex of Geek Culture

I had mentioned in a post earlier that there is a prevailing idea that misconstrues how geek culture came to be. I can’t really say where this came about, although I strongly suspect that films and TV shows of the 1970s and 1980s paired with gendered conceptions surrounding geek culture are to blame. Whatever the cause, it has fueled this conception, leading to a sort of alienation complex as the geek community shifts and changes.

As a result, there is this saturated version of history, which relies on the idea that women and minorities have not been a part of geek culture until very recently (as in, within the last decade). As a result, there has developed a constant push against women and minorities joining in on geek culture, with particular “tests” placed against women in order to test if they’re “qualified” to partake in the geek community. These blockades grow increasingly pointless as geek culture continues to gain popularity, and yet for some reason persists. Perhaps I can explain why.

You see, it all starts at the source of geek culture: Science Fiction (Sci-Fi). In the saturated version of geek history, the first Sci-Fi author was Jules Vernes, best known for his book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. As a result, this causes men who believe this start to think that women and other minorities have no real right to enter and write about Sci-Fi.

However, if you make one quick Google search, you’ll find that this version is incorrect. While Jules Verne was one of the earlier Sci-Fi writers, the real first Sci-Fi author was Mary Shelley, who published Frankenstein in 1818, a whopping fifty years before Jules Verne. This makes the Sci-Fi genre not a “boys only” club, but a club founded by women.

Shelley wasn’t the last female Sci-Fi author, either. Well-known ones include Octavia E. Butler, Margaret Atwood, Ursula K. Le Guin, and Suzanne Collins. Sci-Fi has never been a “boys only” club, although it is often pushed to appear that way.

Comics, by contrast, didn’t really diversify until recently. In its early days, the comic industry was very much “boys only”, mostly outright refusing to hire women and other minorities. This isn’t unusual, however; the entertainment industry as a whole was that way.  That isn’t to say that women and minorities weren’t in those realms, but it was very difficult to break in, particularly from the 1920’s-1970’s. This realm makes it a whole lot easier to promote the saturated history. Since women and other minorities were barred, it was easy to say that they didn’t belong and exist in the space. Despite the fact that the majority of comic readers in the present era greatly outweighs the “traditional” readership (white men), there is still this stigma that pushes women and minorities away.

The same goes for the video game industry. Women and minorities were mostly barred in the early days (as they were discouraged and stigmatized from getting STEM degrees in college), meaning that they couldn’t break in until more recently. This has created a frictional environment that extends beyond game development and into game playing, leading to online harassment and common claims of not being a “real gamer” to anyone that doesn’t fit the geek stereotype. To be honest, the “fake gamer” argument is ridiculous: if you play games, you’re a gamer. You don’t have to be best of the best, but if you play video games as a hobby, then you qualify.

The reason there is such a push back against diversity entering geek culture mostly stems from a victim complex among the “traditional” geeks. Despite the fact that geek culture has been gaining continuous popularity over the last two-three decades (exploding after the premiers of Walking Dead and Game of Thrones), the news for some reason has not hit the geek community. Or, rather, it has not processed.

The “traditional” geeks seem to be in denial about just how popular geek culture is, moaning and groaning how they are such victims and such a minority, while at the same time fighting against anyone that doesn’t fit their own characteristics and pushing them away. They like to act like they’re still the kids that get severely bullied, although just about any kid with a computer nowadays has access to video games and anime. It’s a bizarre complex that sticks out like a sore thumb.

How Fandoms Go from Fab to Drab

Fandoms, which are a subculture centered around supporting or following a certain piece of media, are everywhere in Geek culture. Just about every TV show, movie, book series, and more has a fandom, some small, some tremendously big, and many in-between. If something extremely popular is released, usually its fandom explodes for a few months, or even a few years, before mysteriously collapsing and disappearing. If you’ve ever seen this occur, then you have just witnessed a fandom going from fab to drab.

How does this occur? Fandoms have normal lifespans, with the very small ones usually dying out fairly quickly after the piece is released (known as “going dead” in fandom terminology). Medium and large ones that continue in their drab phase can live a long time-I’m talking about decades of survival (Star Wars, Star Trek, Back to the Future). This is all a part of a natural cycle.

However, Fandoms that go from fab to drab have a relatively short and volatile lifespan, which can lead to fall-backs and resurgences, all before their eventual collapse. This usually comes as a result of several factors.

The first is the development is what’s known as toxicity. Every fandom has a few bad eggs. But when there’s enough of them, all attacking people and bullying people over differing ships and opinions, then the fandom gets labelled as “toxic”, both by people outside of the fandom and the few remaining clear-headed people still in the fandom. Fandom is supposed to be about a community coming together, not tearing each other apart. This is an issue that can occur in just about any large fandom, as major groups (particularly shaped around “ships”, or couples that people root for) belittle minor groups, essentially bullying them out of the fandom.

The toxicity does not stop at people in the fandom, either. I remember the days of Superwholock (The combination fandom of Supernatural, Dr. Who, and Sherlock) when the fandom would attack any outsider that questioned them or criticized them, building up their own reputation as toxic. The same thing happened to the Undertale fandom, leading to its demise within only a year of the game being released.

Which leads me to my next point: Hatred towards the fandom. When a fandom is toxic, it not only builds up a bad reputation, but cuts its own supply off of newcomers. When people are discouraged or turned off from joining the fandom, even the largest one will eventually fall. Every fandom needs newcomers to survive; too few or none at all will kill just about any one of them (Superwholock was an interestingly unique case, but in order to explain it in full detail I would need to talk about it separately).

When fandoms are faced with these two issues, they become increasingly volatile, lashing out against others and fully consuming themselves in their toxicity, which only furthers the problem. They solidify their own fate, even if they don’t know it.

Fandoms that once start fab, welcoming all others and becoming a large fandom that bonds over a certain media, can either quickly or slowly turn drab, turning against itself and ruining itself as others watch on. It’s an interesting and prevalent cycle that normally only happens to the biggest and trendiest fandom of the time, providing a serious lesson to others about growing too big too quickly.

The Differences Between LA Theme Parks

There is an industry in Los Angeles that goes mostly unacknowledged, but still draws millions of tourists every year. That industry is theme parks.

Now, you might be wondering how that goes unacknowledged. LA is the home of Disneyland, Universal Studios, and Six Flags Magic Mountain, all of which are major amusement parks. Millions of people come from all over the country, and even the world just to visit these places. They will never be forgotten.

What I mean by the fact that they go unacknowledged is the fact that no one ever tells you the difference between each park. And I don’t mean the obvious, each being owned by different companies and centering around their own respective shows and films. I mean their actual core, what you can expect to find attending these parks. For me, having grown up in LA, the difference are obvious. For someone who’s either only visited one or even none of the locations, you might not know the difference.

Well, to put it shortly, the difference are this: Magic Mountain is for rides, Universal is for attractions, and Disneyland is for something in-between. Let me break it down a little more.

Magic Mountain is part of a larger chain or theme parks, with this location in particular being located in Valencia, on the northern end of Los Angeles County. The theme of this park is DC universe, and you will find plenty of rides and areas following that theme (Batman, Riddler’s Revenge, Superman, etc.). The park wastes no time in displaying what it is; a theme park for roller coasters. It doesn’t have really any attractions, more focused on providing an adrenaline rush with various and innovative new rides. They do have a kid section with Loony Toons, but I wouldn’t say it’s a place to bring your children.

Disneyland, on the other hand, has some more leeway. Located in Anaheim, in the heart of Orange County, it’s a place with both attractions and rides, putting more into the combination experience that allows children both young and old. Although, I don’t really see the point of bringing a child under three or four to Disneyland: first, they can’t really go on any rides, and second, they won’t remember anything about the park. Disneyland focuses on different films that it owns the rights to, and builds rides and areas centering around them (Star Wars land, opening 2019, is expected to be one of the largest world expansions to the park). Disneyland wants to provide a more general and rounded experience, which explains why it has both rides and attractions.

Universal, located in Studio City, focuses almost purely on attractions. That isn’t to say it doesn’t have some rides, like Ride of the Hypogriff, Revenge of the Mummy, and Jurassic Park (now being renovated to Jurassic World), the vast majority of its “rides” are actually attractions, using CGI and moving cars to create almost VR experiences. It once again focuses on films that it has the rights to use, even if it doesn’t own the films itself (Harry Potter World and the upcoming Nintendo Land are big ones). This park isn’t very kid-friendly, meant more for teenagers and adults. There are few attractions meant for young kids, especially considering how dark some of the attractions can get. Universal’s take on rides is unique to me, as most other parks don’t invest so much into perfecting the rides in the same way.

How I Can’t let some Books go

I read a lot of books. More so when I was younger, and had a lot more time to read around school, but that doesn’t stop me from buying potential books to read.

As a result I’ve invested my time and energy into many books, both good and bad, and even some okay. The good ones I usually keep in my room, and the bad ones usually go to the sad and lonely shelf in the middle of a hallway in my house. Trust me, there’s plenty of bad and okay books on that shelf. But hey, when you read a bunch of YA novels, you’re bound to run into many bad ones before you find a good one.

Most of the bad books I’ve read I’ve already forgotten. However, there are a few series that I just can’t let go. This might be because of the fact that among the bad series, there was a good book that I actually enjoyed. Usually this would be the first or second book, getting ruined by the third or whatever else book (In the Mortal Instruments, it was the opposite: I thought the first three books were decent enough, but liked the fifth book the most). Two series that exemplify the above for me are Hunger Games and A Court of Thorns and Roses. I thought the second books in both series were the best, but I didn’t much appreciate reading the third book, to put it politely.

But if only one or two books were really exceptional to me, why do I still cling onto its fandom? Well, I’m usually reminded of the series when I see fan art or something else of the sort. It gives me a sort of nostalgic feeling, and makes me want to re-read my favorite parts of the books I liked. It keeps me hooked onto the fandom, even if merely grabbing the barest shreds so I don’t get too invested in the culture again. Fandom culture has gotten pretty toxic over the years, and I don’t like to involve myself much in them anymore. Discussing their evolution will be saved for a different time, however.

As for the fan art, it’s not just any old fan art. It’s usually drawn by artists I follow, who happen to have read or currently read the same books as me. When I see their interpretation of certain scenes or characters, I am redrawn to those books, even if I haven’t touched them in over two or three years. I blame nostalgia and the familiarity of the characters. My brain recognizes the characters and clicks, triggering a sense of desire to pick up the books.

Art Credit @ Charlie Bowater

Beauty and the Beast, and the Case of Disney Getting it all Wrong

I have certainly missed the craze of analysis over the Disney live action films. That all happened after the release of the live action Beauty and the Beast, with some people ranting and raving about how much they loved it, and others harshly criticizing the film for its lack of originality. I am far from the first to talk about this film, and I will not be the last. However, I’ve noticed that most criticisms of the film often ignore certain aspects that I felt were especially irking, and fail to connect what happened in this film to the overall live action trend. So I thought I would put in my own two cents, and see where this takes us.

Now, the whole Disney live action trends started with the success of Maleficent in 2014 and Cinderella in 2015, both of which provide different perspectives of the stories told. Maleficent  provides an alternative look at the tales of the original 1959 classic Sleeping Beauty, although it was a rather half-baked attempt. I thought that Disney might be getting their footing with the release of Cinderella and Jungle Book, which flesh out relationships and motives and situations just a bit more, without only repeating the story.

I was proven greatly wrong, however, with the release of Beauty and the Beast in 2017.

Not only was the film a straight copy-paste of the original story with almost no additions, but the changes they did make just degraded an already good story. This film, like the other three before it, attempted to correct past criticisms of the original work, despite the fact that the film they are trying to correct something that is negligible. Cinderella provided insight on what happened to her father, which the original film failed to do. It explained why Cinderella dealt with the abuse, something the original film didn’t do. This film tries to elaborate on how the magic works in the castle, something that the original film didn’t need to do.

There it is, folks. This film tries to provide logic to a world of magic, something that didn’t really need to be elaborated on. Like the magic dishes, and some other things that move in the house. Not everything that moves needs to have a soul attached to it, which in turn explains the trashed furniture in the West Wing. The Beast didn’t just straight murder his servants. You can assume that a castle would have furniture in it before everyone else got turned into furniture.

Which leads me to my next problem with the film- the fact that the furniture explain the West Wing to Belle completely ruins a major plot point in the film. They not only convince the Beast to give her a better room, rather than let him make the decision for himself, but also give her a tour of the castle, mentioning the West Wing and thereby ruining the impact of Belle actually going to the West Wing. The betrayal aspect of her going to the West Wing despite his wishes is lost.

Which leads me to my next point: they completely wash out the relationship between Belle and the Beast. They ruin the complex relationship between the characters, making Beast an asshole who needs a life coach, and Belle the life coach, rather than having them learn off of each other. Belle was kind and patient, but could also call out the Beast’s bad attitude in the original film. In this one, they just fight, and he never learns to do better. Their relationship becomes basic and Hollywood-style, and the ending doesn’t feel like it was deserved.

Now, in a turn away from the more interaction aspect, I am going to turn more to the other issues I have with the film. This one can be narrowed down into bullet points.

Belle’s voice:

Why, why, why didn’t they just have an actual singer dub Emma Watson’s voice? Hollywood has dubbed hundred’s of actor’s singing before, and the attempt the avoid this in this film ground my ears out. They auto-tuned Emma Watson’s singing to the point where it sounded like a robot made it, heavily contrasting from the fact that literally no one else has a robotic voice. Literally no one else.

What made it worse was the classic reprise of the song “Belle”, where Belle has a powerful soliloquy (done flawlessly by the original voice actor Paige O’Hara). In the live action version, we just get a shotty, robotic voice that just washes out with the music. Every time she opened her mouth the sing, I would be ripped out of the moment.

Belle’s Dress:

I know they tried to do what they did in Cinderella with giving the dress a much needed update, but it really wasn’t necessary. Unlike Cinderella’s kind of odd-looking dress in the original, there was nothing wrong with Belle’s dress. In fact, her’s was a favorite among many, and was a popular costume for young children. The fact that they tried to change it to something as blase as they had in the live action film got some much deserved out-roar. How do you replace such an iconic dress with something that looked like three pieces of yellow tissue paper stuck together? It just doesn’t make any sense.

Gaston:

Why try to make him unlikeable? The whole point of his original character was that he was attractive, popular, and charismatic, and was easily able to influence the ignorant townsmen into joining him for the “final battle” at the castle.

In this case, he’s a character that is considered untrustworthy by the town, leading to Le Fou paying people to sing and up Gaston’s ego. Such a move was totally pointless. You should have just kept him the same. It would have saved a lot of time on the pointlessness of trying to make him a complex character. Focus on fleshing the two main characters out, not the villain, who didn’t need to be fleshed out.

The Plot Overall:

Last but not least, I have a problem with the plot overall. Let’s face it- it’s just a pure retelling of the original story, with some pointless additions slapped on to take up more time. There was nothing of real value added, degrading the plot of the story. What was changed really had no purpose, unlike the films before it (except Maleficent, but that’s for another time). I came into that film expecting something and left it feeling like the original story was just wronged. Which doesn’t make sense, as the live action version and the original were both made by the same company.

But, that’s the problem with the desire to make money and deal with criticism. It just didn’t work here. It turned what was once an Oscar-nominated film into a straight mess. It was just unnecessary.