Dragon Ball Super - Broly (2019) - Protagonist vs Antagonist

Despite my love of Dragon Ball, it's a series I've never been soft in criticising, particularly in its protagonist Son Goku. If anything I find indulging in his and the series' flaws to be something of an enjoyable passtime. In truth I don't give Dragon Ball enough credit where it's due in both its influence on me and my favourite stories. Dragon Ball is an incredibly flawed franchise, its films even more so, to the point where I would suggest out of the 21 films produced so far, only 2 could be qualified as good, Dragon Ball Super - Broly being one of them. That being said, the main praise I see for this film is that it is a visual marvel, which it absolutely is, practically 2/3 of the film is fight scenes and they are masterfully crafted-Apart from the CGI but we can forgive that-it is to no rival the best fight scenes in Dragon Ball history. Where the film deserves far more praise however is with its characterisation.

Dragon Ball Super - Broly as suggested by the name, features Broly-a longtime popular film antagonist-in his first canonical appearance in the franchise. Broly as a character became a hit with the fans through design alone. I hold that there is no hyperbole there, he has a terrible backstory, zero personality and exists just as one giant muscle with a cool haircut. I doubt any fan would question that, his films go from 'meh' to 'terrible' but goddamn he looks good. This being the first film featuring Broly to be written by series creator Akira Toriyama holds true to the initial origin of Broly while also reinterpreting  him to be......Good.

The best thing this film does with Broly is turn his initial perception into his new origin, just a big walking muscle controlled by his father to fight Goku because of reasons. The film takes that view of him and has the characters Cheelai & Lemo (Who btw definitely need to become series regulars) and they try to bring more to the character, to try and give him his own goals and home outside of this mindless fighting machine. He of course does still fight Goku but Goku himself acknowledges his hatred and desire to fight him doesn't come from a believable place. There is no logical reason for Broly and Goku to be enemies, though there are many layers to the manipulation, this is all the reasoning Goku needs. Broly is not his enemy, they have no reason to fight outside of the fact they are really strong. This in turn connects to the best elements of Goku as a character. Goku loves fighting, his main goal in life is to always get stronger, always find the next big fighter to fight, its why he has let so many of his greatest enemies live, because why would he waste such power when he could fight them again and get even better?

Logically speaking this makes for a terrible character, letting such big threats survive and really every time it's worked out so far is just because these antagonists end up creating strong relationships with secondary characters, Piccolo with Gohan, Vegeta with Bulma, Majin Buu with Mr Satan, etc. Broly however is the first one where it is entirely Goku's connection with him that redeems him. Broly is relatively neutral as a character, he is just manipulated by his father or by Frieza into causing so much destruction. Goku's desire to fight strong opponents is matched by his belief in free will, recognising Broly is not fighting for his own needs, it becomes a battle not to get stronger, but to free Broly from those who control him. It's why the film ending with Goku letting Broly live and promising a rematch someday is arguably the most well deserved antagonist redemption in Dragon Ball history, it is an antagonist that is perfectly understood and saved by Goku alone and frankly is the best story to involve the character since probably the original Dragon Ball series, before even Z came along and relied on a fantastic supporting cast to pick up the mess that Goku constantly left behind, but not this.

Dragon Ball Super - Broly has a lot going for it in terms of calling in the best Dragon Ball film, considering it has the best representation of the series protagonist and the best fight scenes in an action oriented series, it's understandable why people would give it such high praise. While calling it the best Dragon Ball film is something I'm not sure I can decide as Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods still holds a special place in my heart as the perfect highlight of the series best elements while adding new qualities and promises of adventures that I'm not sure can be overtook, what I can say is this film provided the best representation of Goku in literally 30 years, as well as recreating the iconic villain of the franchise into someone with depth and purpose, as well as the best animation in the franchise's history, it really is a tough call. I'm never going to argue against quality Dragon Ball, and if nothing else, this film has made me want to talk more and more about the good stuff of the franchise because frankly, I've spent too long mocking it for the bad when it deserves so much more.

-Danny

So These Things Exist in Pokemon Detective Pikachu (2019)?

The best aspect of Pokémon and what makes it such a unique and interesting franchise is the world building, after all, a world that has super powered animals scattered across the globe along with proof of aliens, gods and the afterlife would certainly create a rather unique living experience. It is also why a lot of people’s “problems” with the Pokémon world can be explained away through the fact their world functions differently from ours on a societal and biological aspect. People arguing that Pokémon fighting each other is akin to dog fighting or animal cruelty when it is in fact the literal action of evolution in their world, along with the fact Pokémon aren’t enslaved animals as it’s shown they have to give their consent to be put in Pokeballs. Detective Pikachu continues this trend, it’s development of Ryme City and the world around it helps further develop a believable and distinct world that fits into the Pokémon universe while also creating something new in its own right.

That being said, many of the little details in the film also leads to a multitude of confusing implications that connotes a world that is similar to ours in ways that it…really shouldn’t be, or at the very least is a massive coincidence and leads to scenarios that I would like to see further discussed. For example, as it’s been noted by many people, Pikachu saying the line “Get me the Hell out of here!” suggests that a Hell exists, or at least the idea of hell and Christianity as a concept still occurred in the Pokémon world. Now introducing religion in general into this is a headache on its own, as Arceus-The POKÉMON GOD-is also referenced in the film so would the definitive proof of a god not in some way effect other religions? Then again, I suppose the film doesn’t show literal proof of Arceus, just the idea of him, but the film also makes subtle references to the original series and Arceus is canon there so he should be here right?

There are also several jokes made in the film that make me question things, such as Climate Change is apparently an issue facing the Pokémon world. How would that even work? Pokémon themselves are used as energy sources; do they not count as renewable energy? Or do Poison types apparently plague the eco-system that much it’s actively ruining the planet? Pikachu makes a Seinfeld reference at one point, what in god’s name does the Pokémon version of Seinfeld look like? What Pokémon would Kramer have? He feels like a Ludicolo kinda guy. Does Jerry have to put up with his girlfriend’s Lycanroc? Does George get into a fight with a Nidoking? Honestly, I would give my right arm for 9 seasons of whatever the hell this crossover would be.

Of course, none of this matters, they’re all just small observations to be made and funny connotations made from some throwaway jokes and…wait a minute. The fake movie Angels With Dirty Souls from Home Alone is featured in the movie but is treated as an actual noir film. Does Angels With Dirty Souls exist in the Pokémon universe? Is that a real movie!? You know what? If living in the Pokémon world wasn’t already appealing enough give me that movie and suddenly I’m in a better world than ours in every conceivable way…except for the Climate Change stuff, that’s a bummer.

-Danny

Howl's Moving Castle (2004) On A Rewatch

So here's a fun fact, Howl's Moving Castle was the first ever Studio Ghibli film I watched, just under a decade ago when a friend of mine recommended it to me and said it was her favourite film by the company. Unfortunately, I ended up really disliking the film, I found it to be very strange, very unfocused and rather vague. Of course a lot of that comes down to Hayao Miyazaki's style as a storyteller and it being one that I just wasn't used to, now here we are many years later where I've seen the majority of his work and have come to love that style, so I was curious to see how my feelings on the film would have changed in that time. Frankly speaking I... still don't like it, but for very different reasons from before.

Truthfully speaking I do appreciate the film a lot more than I used to, but that comes down to appreciating Miyzaki's style as a whole, his films are never ones to focus on narrative or arcs or world building, but instead prefer to focus on the emotions of the characters and having you understand that rather than the world around them. It's well noted that Miyazaki storyboards his films before writing them, emphasising a more storybook layout of storytelling, highlighting the visuals and feelings rather than a plot. Watching a Miyazaki film is like floating in a calm river, it can be incredibly soothing and beautiful if you just let yourself get swept away in the environment. The issue here is that this idea is not original Miyzaki’s, but was based on the book of the same name by author Diana Wynne Jones, and while I have not read the book, I can very much get the sense that it did have a much bigger focus on world building, establishing rules and creating a structured narrative, and this comes to clash with Miyazaki who doesn’t focus on these things, there are no rules to how a world works for him, they just do and you go along for the ride.

This isn’t to say Miyazaki doesn’t tackle issues such as war or morally grey characters before, it’s just always been on his terms and he gets to say as much as he wants to on the subject matter, and I get the sense that he’s trying to be faithful to the plot of the original and it’s a concept that certainly allows for his usual sense of creative flair and style, the two just don’t match on a blueprint level. Miyazaki is always about visuals and atmosphere, two things that you don’t get from a book, and isn’t guaranteed to blend well. I get the sense that if Miyazaki had chosen to be less faithful then this could have made a stronger piece, as it is I found myself constantly getting confused by the rules of magic or the political motivations behind this war or how people seem to fall in and out of love and change sides constantly because…it happened in the book?

I acknowledge most of this criticism is in speculation but honestly if I’m wrong then that just makes it look worse for the film having only half-committed to something when they never needed to. Claiming it’s issues are due to the film trying to be faithful to book is me giving it the benefit of the doubt and trying to lessen the blame by saying it’s clunky because it chose accuracy as a crucial component.

As I stated none of these are problems I had with my original viewing, nor were the positives things I acknowledged at the time, frankly my dislike of this film and love for other Ghibli films held me to the belief that everyone’s first Ghibli film is going to be one of their least favourite and for the most part I still hold to that. However, I look back on my initial problems with the film being elements such as the main character Sophie being a blank slate who exists just to be a self-insert fantasy for girls to place themselves into because they find Howl attractive. Which is still technically a true statement but is also not a valid criticism of the film? Well, technically speaking it is, Sophie being a blank slate makes her a dull protagonist and also a rather inconsistent one as she has far more personality as an old woman than she does a young one that they feel like two completely different characters (While also changing accents for some reason). Her being a self-insert fantasy is the part that’s not a problem, I only viewed it as one because it wasn’t a fantasy character meant for me, despite the fact many of my favourite characters are my favourites for the very same reason. 

I find this relevant personally because context is everything to a film and looking back on a film I haven’t seen in many years and what I found to be valid criticisms then versus now I find interesting and honestly slightly proud of to see myself grow and better myself as a critic of films, finding more to appreciate in a film that I once wrote off as terrible while also looking for more legitimate issues rather than “This isn’t made for me so it’s bad”. Mind you I was just a highly opinionated teenager at the time, like most have been, it’s just always interesting to see how things change and makes me curious on how I will view this film another decade from now and how I will be different from then and how I view films will be. Opinions are fluid, context matters and situations change, there’s no point dying on a hill or permanently writing off a film because you have no idea what will matter, but I find myself moving in the right direction and I hope I continue to do so in the future.

-Danny

In Defense of Endgame's Thor

Yes, the last 4 posts have been comic book related, I promise this'll be the last one...maybe, but I just had to discuss this.

*Spoilers for Avengers: Endgame*

So, one of the more debated elements of Avengers: Endgame was the portrayal of Thor. Some of the critiques against him are that it mocks depression, others say it trivializes obesity, even some who say it completely undoes Thor’s character arc from Thor: Ragnarok (That last group apparently has no idea how a character arc works). These are issues that I can definitely see the arguments for but in fact I find Thor’s depiction in the film to be the most unique and complex. For those of you who haven’t seen Avengers: Endgame and for some reason read spoilers on line like a madman, let me explain. At the beginning of the film The Avengers ambush Thanos, discover the stones have been destroyed so Thor kills him in a fit of rage. Cut to 5 years later where Thor is now an obese, alcoholic loner wasting away his life like The Big Lebowski (As so referenced in the film). He submissively rejoins the team in one more attempt to save everyone, still behaving like the chill alcoholic until their time travel adventures results in him reuniting with his mother the day of her death, they have a deep conversation that reignites Thor’s fighting spirit, they return to fight Thanos, they win and the film ends with Thor joining the Guardians of the Galaxy, leaving Asgard in the rule of Valkyrie.

Now the main criticism against Thor’s arc is that it belittles the effects of depression, mostly by making multiple jokes at the expense of Thor and his obesity and his alcoholism, and while true, there are a number of jokes against him, there are also just as many moments that show it’s truly a constant burden on Thor’s shoulders. Even the mere mention of Thanos’ name turns him into blubbering mess. Thor lost more than any of the other characters because of Thanos, Infinity War opens with the death of half his people (After half his people already died due to Ragnarok) including his trusted friend Heimdall and brother Loki. Even within Infinity War you begin to see him crack, take his conversation with Rocket where he buries down his emotions and disguises it with a desire for vengeance and big smile on his face as if none of this affects him:

“I’m 1500 years old. I've killed twice as many enemies as that. And every one of them would have rather killed me than not succeeded. I'm only alive because fate wants me alive. Thanos is just the latest of a long line of bastards, and he'll be the latest to feel my vengeance - fate wills it so. Well, if I'm wrong, then... what more could I lose?”

Thor has always been one to deny his emotions and use coping mechanisms. Then cut to the end of the film where he is the last one to fight Thanos, and he fails yet again, the last line of defence and he let his arrogance get in the way. Also another half of Asgardians are killed yet again. All of this comes to the boiling point of Thor finally giving up, with no fight left and he’s failed every step of the way, even getting revenge brought him nothing, the fact that Thor ended up where he did should be no surprise to anyone. As for the tone of how they portray him? Well, they gave us two serious Thor movies and people didn’t care, the one where they make jokes out of everything is the one Thor everyone likes so that’s the tone they went with, but again, it never undermines the severity of his situation.

The peak of this is when he gets to have a conversation with his mother, where his arc not just in this film but the entire franchise is summed up “Stop being who you’re supposed to be and be who you are”. From his first appearance to now Thor has been expected to be a leader, to be noble, respectable and mighty, but that’s not who he is or has ever been. He’s a fighter who protects people but doesn’t lead them, so once the stones are gathered again he literally begs the other Avengers to let him be the one to do is, he’s the one who failed before, he has to save everyone now, he has to know he’s worthy of being a hero. He’s not though, he’s not the only hero, he’s part of a team, he needs to know the weight of the universe doesn’t have to be on his shoulders and can let others take the reigns. Take the moment when Captain America finally lifts Mjolnir, in Age of Ultron Thor was devastated at even the idea someone else could lift his hammer, but here he sees that image of Steve Rogers wielding his power and he looks on in pride. Thor plays his part in taking down Thanos, but he’s not the one to take him down and he doesn’t have to be. The end of the film is Thor passing over the right to rule to Valkyrie – a natural born leader – and he becomes a teammate of the Guardians, saving the galaxy and telling jokes along the way, y’know, the thing he’s best at.

Even the obesity thing, if they magically did away with his weight once his emotional arc was complete then I can understand the problems with it more so, but through the end of the film he maintains the weight and it doesn’t affect his fighting in anyway, he’s still the god of thunder, a super powerful badass gone full Viking mode and the lightning even being nice enough to braid his hair for him. He’s the admirable, brutal fighter with a cool hairdo and the best dad bod this side of Jotunheim…wait am I attracted to Viking Thor?

To steal a line from Dani Fernandez’s article on how Endgame reflects failure and her description of Thor “I relate to feeling regret. I relate to feeling like I have no control. I relate to being scared to try again. Trying again means you can get hurt again. Why give us hope when it can be taken away? But trying again also means things can get better.” This was a Thor who embraced his emotions and his failures more than any other, he experiences loss constantly and hits his true rock bottom, but it allows him to face his true self once again, instead of being what he supposed to be, he embraced what he is. None of this is “erasing” Thor’s character arc from prior films, but is completing his decade long arc from the franchise, taking his desires vs his needs, what he desires to be is a team leader, what he needs to be is a team player.

Link to Dani’s full article: https://www.playboy.com/read/avengers-endgame-mental-health-failure

Thor in Endgame has one of the most complex arcs in the film that pays tribute to everything that came before it. It pays off a story set up from the first Thor film, calls back to Thor: The Dark World by focusing on his relationship with his mother, stays true to the tone of Thor: Ragnarok and sees him embrace the hardest failure that he tries so hard to cover up, either with comedy, with anger and with alcohol before finally able to embrace his place in life, as a team member, not a team leader. Leaving Asgard in better hands and helping people to the best of his own abilities, not anyone else’s.

-Danny