Tag: movies

California Expands Film Credit, Adds Animation for the First Time

On July 2, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom officially approved the expansion of the state’s Film and Television Tax Credit Program, standing alongside labor representatives, entertainment leaders, and state officials. The program, first started in 2009, offers tax incentives for entertainment companies that choose to film in California. It was enacted as a way to try and counter-act the trend of productions leaving not only Los Angeles, but California as a whole, and has been successful to an extent in bringing productions.

The Hollywood sign in Los Angeles

However, the credit program was far from perfect. In its most recent phase, it offered up to $330 million in a “first come, first serve” basis. Projects that were the quickest to get up and running could get their hands on the tax credit, while those who were slower missed out. This factor created an unfair playing field, with larger more established studios rushing to get their share for readily available projects while smaller studios struggled to catch up. Even worse, there were no separate categories for who could get the tax credits, meaning that animation, which is generally much slower to ramp up than live action, was basically entirely shut out.

Not only that, but as companies found themselves missing out in California, other states and other countries began to offer better and better incentives, which swooped in to sway the companies to go to them. This led to a “production drain” in California that progressively worsened, reaching its peak in the 2020-2024 period. Paired with covid and strike-induced shutdowns, and company cutbacks, and the unemployment rate for entertainment production workers skyrocketed to being one of the worst in decades.

The solution to this problem? The program needed massive changes.

And change it finally has. The process first began on October 27, 2024, when Governor Gavin Newsom suggested a massive overhaul to the Film and Television Tax Credit Program, raising the credit limit to a staggering $750 million per year, more than double the existing limit. If such a change were implemented, it would skyrocket the state’s tax program to be one of the most generous of any state, surpassing New York’s $700 million and only being beaten by Georgia’s limitless credit program.

At the time, the change seemed like a wonderful, but far-fetched dream. California’s budget was tight, and with how bad the state of entertainment was, there was great fear that it was coming too little, too late.

But in 2025, the state legislature began to work with labor unions and entertainment leaders to flesh out the expansion. In June, the legislature passed the expansion with an overwhelming majority. And as of July, the bill is now officially approved.

Newsom poses alongside labor representatives, entertainment leaders, and state officials after the passage of the expansion.

But a mere expansion wasn’t the only new element of the program. Alongside it came further adjustments in regards to how the new funds would be allocated, with animation given explicit allocations to prevent any more shut outs. Not only that, but the expansion will also now work to support the film-making ecosystem as a whole, including post-production, scoring, and VFX, which relies heavily on in-state labor.

These new changes are a much-needed adjustment, making the playing field more fair but also allowing for more productions to get their hands on the tax credits and prevent them from having to move out of state. With hope, the new expansion will also help encourage companies to greenlight new productions by helping with budget shortfalls, and help with reducing the unemployment rates for entertainment production.

Director Pushes Back the Release Date for the ‘Sonic’ Film

This past weekend, director Jeff Fowler announced that the release of the Sonic film to February 14, 2020, three months after the originally planned release date.

The announcement brought relief to the art and animation communities, who had been anxiously searching for updates since the heavily demanded redesign of the Sonic character was announced. Messages of happiness from the communities rounded about social media, all of them positive towards the push back date. Even some memes were made, joking about how people could now take out their “hot date” to see Sonic on Valentine’s Day, noting that the release date now falls on the holiday.

Aside from the jokes and happiness, some artists and animators have pointed out the fact that Paramount actually listened to people’s demands to push back the release day and prevent their artists from being “crunched” and overworked, relating it to how the gaming industry, which is notorious for “crunching” their workers, now has no excuse to do so.

Both the movie and gaming industries have a long history in overworking their animators, arguing that the “crunch” was necessary in order to release games and films in a timely manner. Their claims for necessary “crunching” have previously been met with dissatisfaction, but begrudging acceptance, particularly as the animators did not have the legal protection to stand their ground. With the announcement of the push back, however, the “necessity” falls under great question.

‘Sonic’ Director Agrees to Change Design of Sonic

Earlier this week, the first trailer for the new live-action Sonic was released, leading to a wave of criticism from the internet. The model of Sonic that appeared in the trailer was thought to be much worse than what had been seen in teaser posters, with the classic hedgehog looking like a weird fuzzy nightmare with human teeth.

The new trailer led to floods of memes, particularly surrounding the actor Jim Carrey, who is set to play the antagonist Eggman, saying that he will “carry the whole movie”. It also led to many artists editing the Sonic design to appear much more like his classic model from the games, leading to questions of how one artist can make a better design for a character in seemingly a few hours, when a company spent years making a monstrous design.

Well, the level of criticism seemed to reach the director, who understood what he needed to do loud and clear. Yesterday via Twitter Jeff Fowler announced that they would be changing the Sonic model to make him appear more like his classic features, which he imagines would appease fans and critics.

The announcement comes just six months before the supposed release date of the film, which excites some, but worries others, particularly artists. The media industry is rife with exploitation for artists, especially as these artists cannot unionize and advocate for themselves. The idea that they would have to change the main character’s model in just six months, with no announced push-back date, leaves the very great and dangerous possibility that these artists will be forced to work overtime for little pay in order to fix the design.

It’s not as though the artists can protest for better work conditions, either. With the media industry being so competitive, these artists can face harsh punishment for pushing back, or even get fired, and be replaced by someone willing to work the hard hours. It leaves the artists in a classic position of either doing what they’re forced to, or find themselves without a job.

The announcement to change the Sonic model comes only a week after developers and artists expose the exploitative work conditions in trying to quickly crunch out new content for the popular game Fortnite.

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.

Narcissists: Funny in Pop Culture, Awful in Real Life

There’s nothing like seeing family for the holidays that inspires you to write again. And no, fortunately most of my family are not narcissists (or narcs, as I’ll say throughout the rest of this).

What is a narcissist? There are several definitions. The most common version that we see of narcissism (which is coined from the name “Narcissus”, who was so in love with himself that he slowly starved to death) is narcissistic personality disorder, which can be diagnosed by a therapist. Someone with this disorder is manipulative, self-centered, has a victim complex, and is generally a wretched human being.

NPD is not the only form of narcissism that exists. There is a spectrum for those who have narcissistic tendencies, but generally don’t qualify as narcissists. It’s much more common and obvious to notice by outsiders (people outside the family), and are generally brushed off as negative traits.

So, I won’t go into any detail, but hanging out with family for the holidays got me thinking about the contrast between how narcs are portrayed in pop culture versus how they are in real life. Narcs in both film and television are often portrayed in a funny light. They’re self-centered, but that in turn makes them the but of the joke as if eventually works out against them. They are obviously bad people, who are bad at getting their way and only put themselves in embarrassing situations because of it. They are a perfect and easy way to add a joke surrounding the rudeness of people.

Narcs in real life, however, are awful and deceptive. They care only about themselves, and not about anyone else, including their own children. A good example of this kind of behavior would be to mention something I’ve witnessed. A kid was asked by an adult what they got for Christmas, to which they responded that they got nothing. Upon the adult investigating further, he found that this was allegedly because money was “tight”, according to one of the kid’s parents. Well, interestingly enough, this person had just come back from not one, but two trips, one on a cruise, and the other to Las Vegas.

The parent in question had also turned down a job offer (that would have offered great pay, great benefits, and a long-term job), in order to go on the cruise. Now that parent complains about not having a job, acting on the permanent victim-complex that narcs seem to have.

That was only a mild example of a narcissist. Scrolling through the subreddit r/raisedbynarcissists, I read about some of the horrors these people faced at the hands of their families, who were narcs. I won’t disclose any of these stories, as I don’t have permission, but I encourage anyone who wants to to view some of the stuff that these people must face.

The point of comparison is that narcs are hardly funny outside of pop culture. Yes, some of their behavior is odd and sparks a good bit of laughter, but for the most part, it is atrocious and scarring. They’re also manipulative, gaining favor and sympathy from others, which in turn turns them against the victims of the narc behavior. They’re not obvious in nature, which also contrasts from their pop culture portrayal, making it much more difficult for people to actually see when someone is a narc.

Watching the Meg: So Bad it was Good

Last night after coming home from class, I noticed my landlady and one of my housemates watching the latest shark movie the Meg. It was fairly early in the movie, so I decided to sit down and join them. I didn’t think the movie would be good, but I was entirely right in that assumption. But I have to admit, there was something about how bad it was that made it so entertaining to watch.

So, what is the Meg about? The whole plot is about a marine research group run by a private billionaire that accidentally allows a megalodon, the prehistoric ancestor of the shark, out of of the thermoclyne layer of the ocean (which is somehow locked in place by a freezing layer of water?). The megalodon, once free, begins swimming around, destroying boats and reeking havoc on the the researchers. The group works to stop the megalodon before it reaches the coast of China and kills hundreds in a lust for food.

Yeah, the plot already sounds ridiculous. It gets worse. The movie is filled with cheap and cliche dialogue, particularly between the main action dude (who is super buff and gritty, by the way), and the love interest. The dialogue made me crack up quite often, especially when they tried to use it to be emotional/dramatic. It was superficial and corny.

Expanding on that, just the interaction between all the characters feels so fake. Like, it was impossible to get into the characters or treat them like real characters fake. Their interactions were short and superficial, with no character development or deep interaction. When some of these characters reacted to their friends dying, I couldn’t feel anything because none of their interactions felt real in the first place. Even with the main guy’s ex-wife, I was rather confused about where they stood. They were still friends? But their marriage was kind of messy? I didn’t even know. They were all just barely fleshed out versions of stereotypes, or not even anything really at all.

And the romance they build between the main guy and the girl? God, was it weird. Whoever wrote the film clearly tried to make the romance super obvious. They even involved the woman’s eight year-old daughter, who basically gave the okay to having the dude bang her mom. That made my housemate cover her face with the blanket, and made my landlady laugh.

On top of all this, the film had lots of social commentary surrounding Chinese pollution and their process of de-finning sharks. Which, is good commentary, but kind of strange when paired with a movie all about killing a giant shark. I guess you could say the commentary means that the meg is just a metaphor for mother nature exacting its revenge, but that would probably be asking too much from this movie. But the commentary was obvious.

Yet at the same time, there was plenty of product placement. Nike, some watches (I don’t remember what brand), some cell phones, light up shoes, etc. The product placement was all over the place. And I’m going to bed all the brands featured pollute the environment in some way, which kind of negates the point of the commentary.

All-in-all, it was a bad movie. But I stayed and watched the whole thing, just for how entertaining it was. It was a pretty comical movie, even though I highly doubt it was supposed to be taken that way. I just couldn’t help myself. It was fun to see how bad it really was.

What is Black Friday Really?

While this event is portrayed most often as being exclusive to the US, there are actually over 20 other nations that participate in this event. Every year, a few more countries seem to jump on the bandwagon, as well, as the idea of making more money through providing massive sales is becoming increasingly more appealing to international businesses, despite declining sales in the US. But the US is the birth-land of this event, so I will be focusing on it for the sake of fully explaining what it is.

Despite what most stories have you believe, Black Friday started around 1960 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as hordes of suburban shoppers and tourists would flood the city the day after Thanksgiving to be prepared for the Army-Navy football game that happened on that Saturday of each year. Cops were overworked trying to deal with all the people, and shoplifters ran free, causing the term “black friday” to be pinned to the day.

Black Friday didn’t really take off as a national commercial event until the late 1980’s, when companies took advantage of the name and decided to try and make the event appear more positive. The only problem was, that developed an entire culture around bombarding stores in order to get that early holiday shopping done.

I’ll give you a hint about how that happened: pop culture and media advertisements. Stores began advertising their “Black Friday” deals, pushing to the public that it would be a one-day only sale of a lifetime deal. This happened on TV, radio, anything they could push it to that would gain an audience. And it did.

By the 1990’s, you start seeing depictions of it in movies and TV shows, with whole episodes or portions being dedicated to people trying to go Black Friday shopping, waiting in line or getting hindered for some reason. Even going as far as the mid-2000’s, shows, particularly comedy shows, would frame at least one episode about trying and failing to go Black Friday shopping, or going Black Friday shopping and basically participating in a Battle Royal-type scenario because of it. It became ingrained in US pop culture for a long while, only fueling the drive for Black Friday shopping.

Even now, there are still adverts for Black Friday sales. It gets mentioned on the news, on social media, on Youtube channels.  People make memes about it, we hear news about it (especially from Walmart, who is notorious for having straight brawls in their store).
It still gets talked about and remembered, meaning it will not be going away for a long while.

The Realism of Detective Pikachu: What I Liked vs. What I Didn’t

The new trailer for the live-action pokemon film Detective Pikachu dropped this week (completely eclipsing the Toy Story 4 teaser trailer and the Dumbo trailer), leaving fans and general audiences alike with mixed feelings. Some thought taking pokemon to a realistic level helped bring us one step closer to imagining pokemon in our world, while others thought the realism was both weird and unnecessary. I can’t say I lean either way, but I can say that there were some renditions that I liked, and some that I thought were God-awful.

Likes:

Pikachu- I have to say, they did make Pikachu look really cute, though I didn’t quite imagine him being that tall. He looks like his original depiction, but fuzzier, with cute wide eyes and small little arms. Even though his rendition might not be that difficult to transfer to live-action, I still thought they did a good job. I just wished Danny Devito voiced him.

Bulbasaur- In the trailer they have a pod of Bulbasaur crossing a river, and I have to say they all look pretty spot on. They’re cute, they’re reptilian, and I couldn’t find something inherently wrong with their rendition.

Charizard- We only get a quick shot of one trying to eat Pikachu in the trailer, but I thought they did a pretty good job depicting him as a fearsome dragon pokemon (though he is flying and fire type). From what I could tell, they did a good job in translating him over.

Don’t Likes:

Psyduck- There’s nothing exactly wrong, save for the fact that he looks like he’s seen some shit. Which, isn’t exactly an issue, especially as his cartoon form looks kind of the same way. But there’s just something about the live-action version that is just so much creepier.

Mr. Mime- I don’t like his skin. While I wouldn’t like him fuzzy, either, I just don’t like the way his skin is. His face, also, looks like someone took a Teletubby face and slapped it onto him, which I feel looks so much weirder. I never really liked Mr. Mime to begin with, and I especially don’t like his rendition in live-action.

Jigglypuff- Oh boy. What isn’t wrong with this one. First off, he looks almost exactly like this one meme made years before, where someone drew Jigglypuff as more “realistic”, and everyone laughed about how strange it looked. How horrified we were to find a shockingly similar image play in the movie trailer. Everything from his eyes, the tuft of hair, to the body in general just screams off.

The End of an Era with Stan Lee

This morning, comic book artist, editor, and publisher Stan Lee passed away, signalling the end of both an icon and an era in the comic book universe. Stan Lee was not just a famous figure in terms of Marvel, but was also responsible for being one of the leaders of comic book and superhero culture, marking his place in pop culture history.

Stan Lee has had a major impact on Marvel comics, creating figures such as the Fantastic Four, Spiderman, Thor, X-Men, and Hulk. Stan Lee has also been responsible for multimedia projects and acting as a brand ambassador for Marvel, despite past lawsuits against the companies for appropriate compensation for artists. In 2001, he founded the intellectual property company POW!, and later on received the Medal of Arts honor. He also published his autobiography Excelsior! The Amazing Life of Stan Lee.

Lee also helped build Marvel’s blockbuster brand, inspiring the production of Iron Man, X-Man, Thor and the Avengers. The man was also known for making a cameo in almost every Marvel film, the new Fantastic Four being an exception (to which he had jokingly remarked that that was the reason the film had flopped).

Stan Lee was an important person for pop culture, and his contributions to it will not be forgotten anytime in the near future. He helped spearhead Marvel into what it is today, and his death with certainly leave an impact on the company and the people who follow it. You will be missed.

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.

The Impact of Slasher Films

When horror films are analyzed for their greatness, the genre of slasher films is never included in the mix. We always turn to the more complex artistic thrillers such as Dracula, Rosemary’s Baby, the Shining, and An American Werewolf in London in order to present the hallmarks of horror. Some of the very few remarked-on slasher films include Halloween and Psycho, renowned for their complex relationships with their mother, calling homage to Freud’s Oedipus Complex.

But interestingly enough, despite the fact that slasher films are almost never remarked on in film academia (other than to be criticized for their garish nature), they are a major source for parody and imitation. While that may appear counter-intuitive for the genre being taken seriously, the fact that it is so imitated and parodied does say something about where slasher films lie in the horror genre.

Let me explain my argument by first studying the core or slasher films. Slasher films are exactly what the name “slasher” entails- violent murders, heartless serial killers, predatory chases, and other such forms. There is hardly room for the deep psychological thriller aspect, more focused on providing the gore and grotesque. The slasher film’s goals are both to make the audience laugh at the almost cartoonish nature of stable character archetypes and feel uncomfortable by the homage to basic and “savage” animal behavior- not just in the killer, but also among the good guys as well.

What do I mean by that? Well, from what I’ve seen, characters return almost to their basic human instinct-ignoring morals, ignoring civilization, all of that. It becomes merely an act for survival, the play on fight or flight, with airs of sexuality and other such basic functions.

As I’ve also mentioned before, as well, is that the characters in the slasher films have pretty stable archetypes, even as the plots change. They rarely ever change, making it easy to imitate not just for other slasher films, but for parody films as well. It also becomes easier to carry out in sequels and remakes, as expectations for complex characters among the audience is rather low. That’s why you can have a whole series such as Saw or Nightmare on Elm Street.

But where does the impact factor come in, other than imitation? Well, I’ve recently read a piece on slasher films that remarks that students of folklore or mythology will be able to tell you how slasher films are the epitome of oral history. Their archetypes, their diverse and interchangeable story lines, and the accumulation of sequels and imitations all reflect the story patterns of oral history and stories. No telling is exactly the same, and sequels are invited because there is not set story to finish. Because of this, pop culture can take slasher films and go to the moon and back, creatively adding their own takes for the sake of both horror and comedy. This in turn leaves a greater impact on the audience. We start to associate horror with aspects of the slasher, because we see it imitated and extended so much through pop culture, not just in films, but in TV, social media, and other such forms of media. Of course we won’t forget the other types of sub-genre within horror, but we identify and associate more with the slasher.

It’s not just because of their capacity for imitation that we remember the slasher genre so well, however. We also remember it because the genre does get quite creative, without having to be so deep and layered. Chucky and Nightmare on Elm Street are both remembered as horror classics for not just their slasher nature but also their creativeness. Chucky only had two sequels, and yet we remember the first one the most because of it’s take on killer dolls-something that hadn’t really been considered in horror film before. Almost the same goes for Nightmare on Elm Street-despite its numerous sequels, it takes the audience to a place that hadn’t been considered for horror films before- your own dreams.

Slasher films can get just as creative as its other horror counterparts, and leave just as much of an impact. The only thing is, because of their seemingly blunt and gruesome nature, they are sidelined by academics, who either consider the genre beneath them, or just see the genre as part of a “murder fetish”. Slasher is not given the light of day it deserves.

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.

Aladdin, the One Live Action Remake I’m Excited For

A few days ago, Disney released the teaser trailer for the live-action remake of 2019’s Aladdin. Although the teaser trailer mostly displayed the grandeur of their CGI backgrounds, it hinted at some of the story with the overlay of a revamped “Friend Like Me”. In all honesty, it made me kind of excited.

I had always liked the original Aladdin. It was kind of like a blend of Vegas meets generic Middle East, but it worked surprisingly well. It was entertaining, aesthetically pleasing, and the songs were very good. Although it did have its flaws, I had to say overall it was an interesting film.

Usually, liking the original animated film in those ways is an automatic recipe for not liking a remake-especially when the Disney live-action remakes tend not to put that much effort into “retelling” the original. They do add some elements, but overall, the films haven’t been all that interesting or creative (especially not Beauty and the Beast, which I analyzed earlier).

But for some reason, I got genuinely excited about the live-action remake. And when I looked into who was the cast and who worked on the music, I got even more excited. I like to imagine that it’s because they are keeping the movie a musical, which means there’s going to be a whole new look to how they portray some of their most happening songs. What makes it even better is that they are still using Alan Menkel, the original composer, for these songs, even using him to compose a new song for Jasmine.

They kept the cast predominantly Middle Eastern, as well. The one fully white character is supposed to be a suitor for Jasmine, and was added to create a new dynamic of nation-politics. But other than that, everyone fits the bill for the location of Agrabba, which is a plus. Other movies have tried casting white actors for Middle Eastern roles, but increasingly they have been unsuccessful as they face public backlash. Disney played smart in casting, this time around.

I really can’t explain fully, however, why I want to see this new remake. I can’t explain why this one sparks my curiosity when none of the others have, and why I’m actually excited to see it. I can’t argue that it’s good old nostalgia, because if that were the case, I would have been excited to see the other remakes. But I wasn’t. Maybe it’s because this is the most fantastical one. There’s so much that happened in the original in terms of design and setup, that perhaps I’m curious about seeing how it can appear in a more solid form. I don’t know.

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.