Week in the Way: Aliens Unboxing, Andor, Willow, Tulsa King, and "Strong Female Leads"
Welcome back to another edition of Week in the Way! I’m headed to Utah this week, so may be out of the loop a bit for those that follow me on Twitter (if Twitter even still exists when I put this up…yet another reason to have a Substack), but I’ll still be around if anything of note is worth discussing.
We’re going to start this week with a video, which is up on my YouTube Channel, The Arctic Ninja Network, which is my first Unboxing video in over a year. I know unboxing videos are everywhere and they may not register for everyone, but I love me some cool shit, same as you, and want to give you a peek at this stuff so that you can see for yourself if it’s worth buying.
This particular video is on the Aliens M4A1 Pulse Rifle from NERF and Hasbro Pulse, which I bought a year ago and it finally showed up. I had kind of forgotten about it, but got excited again when I found it was on its way. Anyone in my age group would have absolutely killed to have this thing in 1986, but having it in 2022 is still pretty cool. At any rate, check it out below and see if it’s something you need for your collection of geeky goodness, or if a fifteen minute unboxing video will suffice…
I know it gets tiresome, but I’m early days in building up the Substack and the YT Channel and would love it if you subscribed to both. A paid subscription helps immensely in keeping me going, even if just $5 bucks a month, which is the cost of a fancy coffee. If you’re strapped, all good, my content is still free to you. Paid subs will get special incentives starting in the new year, which will be fun.
If you want to continue to hear an outside and honest voice from someone who has been in the movie news world for over a decade, I’ve got you covered. Also, I will bribe you with giveaways (to my Nope winners, the discs are in the mail). Also, if anyone is interested in using the new chat feature and maybe having a movie discussion or Q&A, just put it in a comment on this post. Again, early days, but maybe that will be of interest.
Andor
So, a strange thing happened along the way of me disliking a show…I started to like it. Andor, the Tony-Gilroy produced prequel to a prequel show starring Diego Luna has slowly and steadily become one of the best-produced Star Wars projects since The Force Awakens (I know some of you are The Last Jedi fans, but no one can argue its divisiveness). Week-to-week, Andor’s story unfolded, which is all about the birth and growth of the Rebellion, which is fairly blah in terms of the story, as we all know where it all leads and then some.
But, where Andor succeeds is in the smaller details, such as The Eye of Aldhani event in episode 4 (and the heist sequence), life inside of an Empire-run prison (and the ensuing prison escape in episode 6). Inside these episodes are all kinds of minor things that stand out in a big way, from creatures to droids to ships and details that feel like they are part of the same Star Wars universe where the original trilogy was made, rather than the CG-infested waters of the prequels and sequel films. The show is shot on location, a major shift from shows like The Mandalorian, The Book of Boba Fett, and Obi-Wan Kenobi, all of which look fairly cheap and “stagey”, while Andor looks more akin to a polished film.
The reason for this is the on-location sequences and heavy use of practical effects. Everything looks dirty, lived in, and used in the world of the Rebels, while everything is polished and neat in the world of the Empire. Regardless, both aspects look real (or, at the least, convincing), which is where the real strength of the show is.
The last two episodes (I watched a screener for the finale) push the narrative of Cassian Andor being a prominent figure in the Rebellion and high on the list to capture, but I’m perplexed by that as he was simply one person involved in the heist on episode 4, not a mastermind behind it all. This is one of Andor’s major problems, as it’s so convoluted that it’s near impossible to make sense of what the hell is happening. Seriously, I started watching with subtitles turned on.
The finale is a tense showdown that transpires after the death of a key player, drawing Andor back to his roots, while showing a deeper look at the dedication of Stellan Skarsgard’s Luthen Rael, who has been the highlight of the show for me. Skarsgard brings a gravitas to the role and is by far the most interesting person to follow, with some of the best dialogue in the whole of the first season. Without spoiling anything, the season ends very open-ended, leading to the next (and final) season of the show that will lead into Rogue One. The plot doesn’t advance by much, but certainly teases an evolution for all the key players (including Syril and Dedra).
As I’ve said before, the biggest issue I have with Andor is that all this amazing writing and production value is going into not one, but TWO seasons of a story that we already know the ending to. I know some folks were interested to hear about those “spies” from A New Hope that died getting those Death Star plans, but really, did we need a movie AND two seasons of a show to tell that tale?
Not after the shit show that was The Book of Boba Fett and Obi-Wan Kenobi (The Mandalorian gets a pass, because, well, it’s awesome). If anything, Gilroy’s work on Andor makes me wish he had done Kenobi, or done something Jedi involved in an arena or time frame that hasn’t already been covered. Knights of the Old Republic is something that keeps coming up again and again from the lips of Star Wars fans, but Lucasfilm appears to be dead set on delivering a poorly-executed version of what we’d like (Obi-Wan) or nothing at all (no new films in four years, with nothing in production still).
So, Andor rose from the ashes of boredom and proved to be a well-produced, well-written, overly convoluted, and essentially moot series that looks amazing, but has no impact on the Star Wars universe on the whole, as its ending is already written. I guess we’ll deal with more well-made rehash for another season, but my God can Lucasfilm get its shit together sometime soon for a well-made series we actually WANT to see?
Willow
Look, I saw Ron Howard’s Willow in theaters when it was released in 1988. I didn’t love it back then, really, but I loved aspects of it. Val Kilmer as the swashbuckling Madmartigan was an outstanding role for the actor, and Warwick Davis made for a fine protagonist in Willow, a young wizard in the making. It had a lot of comedy, particularly with the Brownies known as Rool and Franjean, and a badass-looking villian in the form of Pat Roach’s skull-masked Kael (Roach is also the bald-headed Nazi who gets “propellered” in Raiders of the Lost Ark). The lead villainess is played by Jean Marsh, who I always thought was Susan Sarandon when watching the movie, and the setting is very Lucas-y, as the story hails from George Lucas.
The real star of Willow was James Horner’s outstanding score, which would become trailer fodder for the next decade (I remember hearing it in the Stargate trailer). It’s a great theme with some awesome choral verses that make it one of Horner’s most memorable works. It’s one of those scores that’s so good it deserves to be in a better movie. Not that Willow is bad. It’s quite fun, but it was a tremendous flop at the box office and gained some notoriety over the years as a cult classic, but missed the sequel window by more than a few million bucks and a couple decades too late.
Now, Disney+ has struck again and the Willow series is set to make its debut on November 30th, taking place 20 years after the events of the film, and following the now older wizard (again played by Davis) and a new hot, young batch of diversity players to team-up in an adventure across the land to stop a new rising evil. The early trailers for the show looked promising and everyone seemed to only care about one specific thing: Is Kilmer’s Madmartigan in it (second only to, will the show be any good?)
Well, I can’t give a detailed review at the moment, as the embargo is still under wraps and I can play ball for the privilege of an early look, but social embargo is up, and I can tell you with my utmost sincerity that…it’s not good. It looks good, sure, and it’s got some familiar faces and a young cast that says a lot of young things to get young viewers invested in this old, forgotten property. But, none of it feels particularly fresh, inviting, or compelling. You’ve seen it all before, trust me, and it’s been done way, way better.
The signature ploy here is making one of the lead characters a lesbian in love with her friend, and it’s played to the gills. It’s all well and good and of course there’s nothing to say that couldn’t be a reality in the world of Willow, but the problem is that it feels so blatantly and openly forced, that it’s hard to just let it ride. Instead, it feels like a woke Disney exec telling us we will watch this, we will like this, we will deal with this or risk being labeled a homophobic Nazi, which is ridiculous. If it felt genuine, nobody would care and I wouldn’t even mention it, but it doesn’t, so I did. I’ll be interested to hear what others have to say, but I guarantee you I won’t be the one and only to bring it up when this thing debuts.
I saw many of my “peers” post their social reactions and they all avoided addressing it like the plague (from what I saw, anyway) and it felt like they were all just sipping the same ol’ Kool-Aid as they don’t want to upset the Disney Gods and call the show what it really is: A ho-hum, too-late sequel series to a box-office flop that’s coasted on nostalgia, not greatness. I think the intention from showrunner Jonathan Kasdan (who co-wrote Solo: A Star Wars Story with his father, Lawrence Kasdan) was good, but he’s shown in the past that he’s very much about ruffling the feathers of fandom (see his comments on Twitter over Solo’s identity/gender politics to get an idea), and it appears he’ll be doing it again with Willow. I’ll give it to him, he’s committed, but it sure didn’t help Solo at the box office and I have to wonder what it will do for Willow. I’m one of the few who actually quite liked Solo, although I’d still rather they #ReleaseTheLordMillerSoloCut to see what could’ve been.
I can’t say anything more about Willow, as per the embargo, but I’ve watched up through episode 7 to give it a fair shake, and there’s quite a few things I want to talk about when I can. Whether you want to hear them or not may be another matter.
Tulsa King (and that other Taylor Sheridan show)
Rocky and Rambo actor Sylvester Stallone made his first foray into TV this week with Tulsa King, and it’s a terrific part for the 76-year-old actor, who is more than ready to tackle some episodic TV, especially when it hails from Taylor Sheridan and Boardwalk Empire’s Terence Winter. Sheridan has built an empire over at Paramount with Yellowstone, the prequel series 1883, and Mayor of Kingstown, with Tulsa King making a fine addition to his brand.
Stallone plays a mobster named Dwight Manfredi, who serves a 25 year sentence, protecting his gangster family, only to be released and sent to Tulsa, Oklahoma to establish their reach into new territory. It’s a great fish-out-of-water tale for Stallone, who is far more laid back and acting his age, which is a refreshing (and often comedic) change for usually stoic actor.
While it’s a far less serious kind of show than Yellowstone, Tulsa King has a terrific hook that will no doubt spread its wings into something special if the writing and performances remain steadfast. Winter has shown his penchant for excellence on shows like Boardwalk Empire and The Sopranos, so here’s to hoping that Tulsa King has a similar run with Stallone leading the charge.
And speaking of Yellowstone, season 5 returned with a vengeance in terms of ratings, pulling in 12.1 viewers for the two-episode opening night, its highest yet. Costner’s John Dutton is elected governor and the show basically spends the first two episodes on dealing with that fallout, with very little else happening, which is a far cry from the start of Yellowstone season 4, which kicked off with a massive shoot out that kicked things off with a literal bang.
While it was a somewhat disappointing opening in regards to the stakes of the last season, all the characters and ingredients that make Yellowstone so damn fun were all there. It’s elevated melodrama with some exceptional writing, stellar acting, and ridiculous plotting that makes Yellowstone so fun. Aiming to make it anything else would be an error and I’m sure the new season, supposedly a two-parter, will continue that trend.
And, to address another aspect of the show that caught my eye (ire?) this week, Sheridan gave an interview to The Atlantic, making it a point to say that Yellowstone wasn’t a “red-state show”. Here’s his full quote, before I begin my rant:
Sheridan insists that Yellowstone is not a “red-state show.” “They refer to it as ‘the conservative show’ or ‘the Republican show’ or ‘the red-state Game of Thrones,’ ” he told me. “And I just sit back laughing. I’m like, ‘Really?’ The show’s talking about the displacement of Native Americans and the way Native American women were treated and about corporate greed and the gentrification of the West, and land-grabbing. That’s a red-state show?”
While I don’t think that Sheridan ever meant for Yellowstone to be a red (or blue) state show, the bottom line is that the characters, interactions, and settings all lean right (or beeline for it) and there’s no way in hell that John Dutton, regardless of where his politics lie in his own mind, would ever run for governor on a blue ticket. This is a man that foiled a robbery at a diner by teaming up with his with ranch hand and killing three criminals with a rifle and pistol. You aren’t ever going to read about a Beto O’Rourke doing some shit like that, I guarantee you.
It’s nice to think that your characters would all be apolitical as a writer, but that’s only in your creative mind. In real life people draw lines, even if they’re forced to, and they choose a side. Sure, John Dutton could be an “independent” or even a Libertarian (doubtful), but he sure as hell isn’t winning the state of Montana as either (the state has had Democrats and Republicans in the past), and he’s shown exactly zero progressive traits, up to an including a lecture to an activist about the food she consumes.
So, look, Sheridan is an immense talent and he’s won the hearts and minds of a broad audience, which sure as hell includes the red-state folks he says the show isn’t for. Trouble is, if Sheridan says Yellowstone isn’t a red-state show, the writing sure doesn’t reflect it, and the show is as good as it is because of that. Otherwise, it would be another Succession, and there are surely some blue voters in there. At any rate, it’s a silly comment and I’m willing to bet Sheridan has more to say about it all than what he elaborated on with The Atlantic. But, maybe it’s better if he doesn’t.
Emily Blunt gets blunt about “strong female leads”
Emily Blunt is an actress I’ve always admired, as she comes off as someone with a great sense of humor, a no-nonsense attitude, and a genuine desire to play compelling characters. She was solid in Sicario (another Taylor Sheridan joint), but I think she excelled for her comedic work in The Five-Year Engagement (one of my all-time favorite comedies), and was a far better action star in Edge of Tomorrow, giving Tom Cruise a run for his money, which is no easy feat.
She was equally great in both A Quiet Place and A Quiet Place Part II, showing in both that she could play a range of emotions in a varying batch of characters. One has to wonder what may have become of her had she been cast as Black Widow in The Avengers, a role she was offered, but couldn’t take due to a contractual obligation on Gulliver’s Travels with Jack Black, but in the end, she’s continued to stay busy, even if not suiting up in black spandex.
The actress is currently appearing in the Amazon Prime original series The English, where she plays Cornelia Locke, a British woman seeking revenge on the man who killed her son during the Indian Wars. I watched the first episode and it was interesting enough, although I may or may not see it through. It’s a well-made show and Amazon’s shows frequently have a tinge of refined quality in terms of how they look (but not always how they’re scripted. see The Rings of Power for an example).
But, what I really wanted to address was Blunt’s comments in a recent interview with The Telegraph, stating that she’s “bored” of getting scripts with a “strong female lead”. Here’s her full quote for context:
“It’s the worst thing ever when you open a script and read the words ‘strong female lead. That makes me roll my eyes. I’m already out. I’m bored. Those roles are written as incredibly stoic, you spend the whole time acting tough and saying tough things.”
It’s an interesting comment and not one you hear to frequently from a Hollywood actress, as they’re usually arguing FOR the strong female lead role. But, what has that archetype become in modern times, but a Mary Sue style character that is always morally right, unflinchingly fearless, and overskilled to the point of absurdity in anything and everything that a man would normally do.
At first, these “badass” roles as they tend to be labeled anymore, were more about taking sexy or beautiful women and having them take on the hero role (see Milla Jovovich’s long run on the Resident Evil franchise), which is more of a wish fulfillment for men, rather than some kind of post-feminist movement to put women first. But, in the last decade the roles have shifted to a degree, with more and more of these characters becoming far less sexualized (or even desirable) or feminine, instead opting for a more stagnant stoicism that makes these female protagonists more like robots than people.
Characters like Rey (Daisy Ridley), Captain Marvel (Brie Larson), Vice-Admiral Holdo (Laura Dern), the entire cast of The 355, the cast of the new Charlie’s Angels reboot, and countless others have all emerged as a trope of sorts that leapfrogs over strong female lead and becomes “superior” female lead, a part that makes the character unflinchingly, unapologetically, and unrealistically infallible in every way, superior to every character that crosses their path and rarely suffering beyond a scrape or bruise, and maybe a few tears.
Fortunately, there are far more great roles for women out there that sidestep the trope, which has become just as toxic as the part itself, and now actresses like Blunt are speaking out about it. And, that’s a good thing, because the only people that could ever help bury the obnoxious, overdone, and obsolete trend is to stop taking those kinds of roles, or, in the least, make them into better written parts.
Blunt embodied this kind of role in Edge of Tomorrow, where she played Full Metal Bitch aka Rita, who at first came off as that prototypical badass type, but was shown to have much more to her personality than “being better than the boys”, showing a range of emotion and heart in a role that easily could’ve gone the other way.
The main problem with the woke version of a strong female role is that they are written as completely without fault, which simply isn’t realistic, by any standard. If women don’t want to be objectified or sexualized, that’s fine, although there’s something to be said about appealing to fellow humans in this way, which is a very natural thing, but going in the opposite direction to become devoid of emotion, quirk, personality, or flaws is an even greater blight on the female experience, because it makes them inhuman.
Some of the best “strong female lead” characters were also human beings, capable of error and emotion. Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) wasn’t just an alien-fighting badass, but a mother who lost her child to time and faced doubt and scrutiny over decisions she made to save her life. Furiosa (Charlize Theron) wasn’t just a bad ass, one-armed woman attempting to save a group of abused women, but someone who was fighting to save herself in the process, while finding her true home.
For all the hate she gets for not turning out to be a squeaky clean good girl ruler, Daenerys Targaryen was a passionate, strong-willed, naive, and ultimately bloodthirsty girl who felt she was due something that had been put in her head since birth. She was so amazing at winning people over with her cunning will and yes, her beauty, the things she did throughout her life were every bit as vicious and cruel as a male counterpart, but we loved her nonetheless, despite her delusions of grandeur and unwavering belief that she was in the right. That’s a great strong female lead character! A happily ever after with Jon Snow and a bunch of white-haired babies was never in the cards, but we were so convinced of her as a character that we wanted to believe it, even if we knew that it was never likely.
What women (and audiences) should be clamoring for is well-written, complex, flawed, and compelling female characters, not “strong female leads” and thankfully actresses like Emily Blunt are letting it be known that a moratorium is out for the trope, which can’t die soon enough. The world (and the female population) deserve to have their stories told as people, as well as women, in all their human glory (and shame).
That’s it for this Week in the Way! I hope you got something out of it and I’d love to hear what you have to think, whether you agree, disagree, or want to explore the topic further. While I always hope that these entries add something to your day, I am also curious as to anything that struck you, challenged you, or gave you new insight. Hearing praise, criticism, and new takeaways from my readers, fans, and followers has always helped inform me and make me a better writer (and thinker), so don’t be shy in offering your feedback on the topics at hand (and no pressure if you’ve filled your bucket and that’s good enough).
Thank you again to all my subscribers! You keep my inspired and motivated. I may write even if no one reads it, but I’m sure happy when they do. Have a great week and remember to love what you love!