2022 Update

Well, in the month of May I decided to break one of my New Year's resolutions and return to Netflix, where I consumed A LOT of pop culture media. I watched dozens and dozens of movies, and I hated most of them. Okay, hate is a strong, loaded, negative and potentially harmful and toxic word, and I don't want to use and throw it around too much now, but I know I strongly disliked many of the contents, and it's not only a matter of taste, sensibilities and sensitivity. Or is it really just me? Do I hate everything now? Have I just come to that age?

While I don't regret my second chance choice, I may cancel my Netflix subscription again very soon. If it's mostly making me miserable, then what's the point?

I still want to consider myself a passionate and loving geek girl. I want to try to be positive, with so much negativity and hate in the world. However, there is nothing wrong with being more selective and, yes, picky with your tastes and interests. I am now divorced from, or at least keeping my distance from, some of the fandoms and areas of pop culture where I had felt happy and safe in in the past, but don't anymore. Due to me either outgrowing them, and realising them to be problematic and not making me happy anymore, or due to the persistent toxicity and unbridled hate in certain fandoms. Plus personal, family issues.

It's a healthier living that way, I think, and it leaves space for other things to love and be passionate about. No clutter, crowding or hoarding. Selfcare FTW!

I don't even think I like anime and manga anymore. I've liked and loved a handful of them, but SO MANY of them have pissed me off, in the past and in the present. And I don't like things that make me angry and upset. When it comes to the media I enjoy now, with scarce exceptions it's down to rewatching or rereading old favourites, and that's it.

If I don't love something, or if it's not occupying a warm, comforting and hopeful part of my heart and mind, then I don't keep it. It's as simple as that.

But back to Netflix: below I will give my final thoughts on the TV series' I have watched on the streaming platform this past month. I mean, when it comes to the films, the only ones I remember liking very much are Moxie (a rewatch), Yes, God, Yes, and Little Women (2019). Other films I've loved recently are not on Netflix, like Turning Red, Heathers, and Some Like It Hot.

Happy!

Anyway, onto the shows:

Netflix

Arcane: League of Legends - I skipped this last year because, well, it's based on a game series I've never played and had barely heard of beforehand (except that Jinx is apparently a very popular character). Video game adaptations have hardly had the best of reputations, anyway, to put it kindly. But I knew I had to see Arcane sooner or later due to the HUGE amount of praise it's receiving EVERYWHERE, from all walks of life. So, I finally checked it out.

Yeah, it is amazing. I had to view this nine-episode first season twice for me to fully understand and appreciate it, but it was definitely worth it. Arcane and other animated shows like it, that strive to be the best they can be with their beautiful and creative medium, they show the limitless possibilities. They show that yes, animation deserves to be taken seriously; just as seriously as live action, when telling - crafting - fantastic, resonating and relevant stories, and creating unforgettable, iconic and human characters. Why has this not been generally accepted yet, in this day and age?

Arcane contains practically everything and more. Its origins don't matter; the meticulous care, attention and love put into every single facet of its creation is incredible. I haven't seen such a perfect - i.e. adeptly executed - and beautiful tragedy in animation since Puella Magi Madoka Magica.

As of now, if I were to come back to Netflix in the future for one reason, it would be to watch the second season. I wouldn't say no to another rewatch, either. Bravo.

Heartstopper - I absolutely love the Heartstopper comics with all of my heart. And I knew it would only be fair to the TV adaptation for me to keep my expectations cautiously middling, and to keep an open mind no matter what happens; no matter what creative changes and decisions are made.

Overall, the first season is sweet, cute, adorable, wonderful, and so damn hopeful. As hopeful and optimistic as the comics. It loves the LBGTQ community and it shows it with nearly every shot and scene. A trans actress playing a trans girl character should not in of itself be so praiseworthy nowadays, as it is, finally, mandatory and a no-brainer in casting (I hope it is, at any rate), but that's where we are. 

The trans rep is only one of Heartstopper's revolutionary (why is it still so revolutionary!?) achievements. It's mainstream! And British! Oh how far we've come!

How many other shows - other anythings - can you think of that overtly acknowledge that bisexuality exists!?

With all that said, I probably won't watch the second season.

Why?

One name: Tao. 

I don't know why the show changed him to be massively insecure, knee-jerking-ly temperamental, violent and confrontational. But worst of all, he's a gaslighting, toxic friend to Charlie. He was never so horrible in the comics!

Okay, I'm going to go into full-on rant mode for the rest of this segment. Strap in:

Tao in the Heartstopper TV series is a symptom of an almost-never-diagnosed trope that I have recently come to recognise and hate with enough fury to never want to watch television again: he's the offender in a toxic friendship, which do exist in fiction (nearly always it's unintentional), and most definitely exist in real life, and he gets away with it even within the story's framing because he plays the victim. Constantly. Vehemently. How far he'll go to deliberately make people he supposedly cares for suffer is, quite frankly, scary. It's uncomfortable to watch. And we are still meant to sympathise with him, sometimes even over his victim, or more so than his victim. We are meant to side with him when he accuses his "friend"/target-for-all-his-issues of being selfish, never mind his own blatant selfishness.

Yeah. Fuck that.

PSA: You are not a bad friend if your entire universe does not revolve around the needs and wants of any of your friends. You are not a bad friend if you do not spend every single day, and every free time, and every waking second, with any of your friends. You are not a bad friend if any of your friends are not your number one priority all the time, no matter what. A true friend would understand that you are a person, an individual, with your own life, and that it's not the end of the world if you choose not to include them in some things - if you choose not to tell them absolutely freaking everything about yourself. That's up to you, and it's fine. A true friend would at least try to come to terms with the fact that things change and don't last forever; everyone grows, sometimes for the better (like in confidence), and it doesn't have to mean an end to a friendship. Adapt. Develop. Be supportive and happy for a friend's happiness.

But a toxic "friend" wouldn't want any of that. For they are not a real friend. For example, any new person in the friend's life - the toxic abuser's insecure way of thinking will automatically see the person as a replacement of them, regardless of context. They see any little, innocent change as a personal attack on them, an affront to them, a rejection of them. Because toxic friends see their friend as more of a security blanket than a person. It's codependency, not love and mutual respect.

And when the toxic "friend" gets angry and blames their problems, issues and actions on their friend, who did nothing wrong - who didn't do anything, period...I hope I don't have to explain how fucked up that is. Fear of being alone is no excuse to be a dick to someone close to you. Someone you like, understand (supposedly) and consider your family. But if you choose to be nasty to them, for petty, childish and selfish reasons, then the problem is entirely on you, and you should see a therapist.

It's not even insidious; it's obvious. But practically everytime I see toxic friendships in fiction it is never seen as such, and it acts like the victim is deserving of at least some of the blame, and so is required to say sorry, more than the toxic friend does - a million times more, in case the enabling of abuse wasn't clear enough yet.

The bad keeps coming: everything from above applies to Heartstopper, which has the added context of Charlie being a victim of bullying, with depression and low self esteem, and Tao knows this - he makes it very clear through dialogue that he does know this, and that he is aware of all of Charlie's problems - but despite his acute knowledge he still chooses to be a dick to Charlie. Solely because he feels like it. He is no better than the homophobic bullies; arguably worse since the words and actions of Charlie's best friend towards him will hurt him much more. Charlie, like the beaten down abuse victim he is, apologises first, many times, and he puts Tao's wants before his own. This is seen as the right thing to do.

Gaslighting at its finest, folks.

Why? Why are we still here? Why are toxic friendships not fully recognised yet, as toxic romantic relationships are? Though even then there persists a resistance and struggle, like when the audience is meant to side with an insecure and emasculated male partner when his female partner has a successful career and is happy. Because patriarchy!

It's one of the major problems I had with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, too, and look at the continuous popularity of that (and Joss Whedon is an abusive and bigoted monster and can go straight to hell).

It's exactly like that insulting and borderline offensive workaholic parent cliché that was bloody everywhere in movies in the nineties, and thankfully, deservedly died around the mid noughties, because, you know, adults working long and hard is needed so their kids don't go homeless and starve, because that's how life works, and not being home every second of every day with your kids does not make you a bad parent. Toxic friendships need to be seen through a similar critical lens.

You know we're in a bad place with this when Ralph Breaks the Internet of all things is pretty much the only mainstream story there is that is aware of the existence of, and examines and deconstructs, toxic, codependent friendships. It doesn't even do it that well, but it's all we've got! Except, there's also Jennifer's Body, and the children's book Castle Hangnail (see my review here).

Pardon my phrasing, but it's heartbreaking that the Heartstopper TV series is progressive in every vital aspect except for when it comes to platonic friendships that border on toxic and abusive. I could tolerate the unnecessary and one-dimensional inclusions of Imogen and Isaac, but not Tao's Flanderization.

*sigh*

Hilda and the Mountain King - It's a movie, but it's a conclusion, and is included as season 2's finale, so it counts. It's decent and serviceable, if messy in some places. Maybe I'm a bit indifferent because I'd read the comic beforehand and knew what was coming, but it's very good Hilda content all the same.

Disenchantment season 4 - Yeah, I think I'm done here.

If I were to give the writers the benefit of the doubt and believe they're not making stuff up as they go along; that they'd planned for all or nearly all the plot points and threads from the start - and some instances of foreshadowing throughout the series do support this - the payoffs to the foreshadowing, after long waiting and dragging of the audience's patience, are often erratically and messily placed, like at random. Then it doesn't matter anyway - it's not a big deal - because they are treated like they don't matter afterwards. That part's done, that mystery's solved, we can move on now! They are forgotten about in favour of other plot points and threads that will eventually not matter, and so on and so forth, like a spiral of meh. If it's not underwhelming at the moment it happens, it will be in hindsight.

So in the end, nothing matters, does it?

As a result, no character truly grows or develops; one episode after their "breakthrough" and they will revert back to exactly how they were in the first season (and exactly where they were then! Nearly nobody goes anywhere and stays there! It's like a time loop!), because too many comedy writers for too long have had trouble with character development. Hell, a lot of them believe no character in a comedy series should change, ever. Hooray for mediocre and unchallenging television!

Not a good idea when you're trying to be a comedic version of Game of Thrones.

Disenchantment still contains jokes that make me chuckle, and there are a few characters left that are endearing and are worth giving a damn about, but there is just too much going on. The cartoon is a mess. 

It's like RWBY all over again.

The Cuphead Show! - Another animated adaptation of a video game I haven't played. This is a fun, funny little nod to 1930s cartoons. I'm glad that anyone can watch it. It's PG and it's like watching Cartoon Network shows in the nineties all over again. A multigenerational nostalgia dose!

Derry Girls - No. No. No. I hate it.

I will try not to swear when talking about this "comedy" because I want to be better than it.

I don't understand why something so meanspirited, cruel, hateful, over the top and obnoxious has received universal acclaim, esteem and reverence. It doesn't matter the place and time period it's set in, I will never like meanspirited "comedies" where bullying and abuse are considered funny. "But the place and time period, though" should stop being used as an excuse, anyway.

Derry Girls has also become another example of why I hate, hate, hate the Butt Monkey trope. Love all your characters, writers; if there are characters you'll use who will exist just to be targets for others to emotionally and mentally abuse constantly with monstrous, vitriolic hate for no real reason, with no relief, then don't include them at all. Apart from everything problematic about it, it's lazy. So stop it. It'll save me blood vessels, and an aneurysm.

I didn't laugh at Derry Girls once. A few teeny tiny bright spots are not enough to curry favour with me. Mercifully the first season is short at six twenty-two-minute-long episodes, but if I had to choose between watching it again and having all of my limbs cut off, I would try to negotiate a third option.

This might really mark the end of me seeing any new live action TV series again, but especially comedies. I apparently didn't learn my lesson from The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.

Ugh, I need a shower.

On that note, I'll round up my TV viewing by including a show not on Netflix - the Disney cartoon The Owl House, specifically the entirety of season 2, which I have consumed at last. A great place to end on. 

I remain in love with the series, thank heavens, in spite of how I can't conscionably say anything nice about Disney nowadays, and how I refuse to consciously support it financially. It has not earned anyone's forgiveness yet. But if it can keep up with The Owl House - plus after Turning Red - then we may talk, Disney. Brownie points, crumbs, newborn baby steps, and the relentless evil that is queerbaiting, after over a decade of your being "progressive" are no longer acceptable. Do it! Actually deliver! Be explicit! Don't be a coward! You succeeded with The Owl House so there's no excuses anymore for why you can't get with the times in your other works, like your films.

We arrive at the end of my post, where I attempt to be positive and look on the bright side of things, and largely fail. But I'm a little happier presently to have gotten all of this off my chest, all the same.

Speaking of bright sides, I've also recently fallen in love with two Broadway musicals, Heathers and Beetlejuice. Both based on classic films.

Take care, everybody. Stay safe, supportive and educated. Love you all 💖💗💖💗💖💗💝🥰