Wish list for 2021 (apart from, y'know, the obvious)

Happy Boxing Day! 2020 is nearing its end, and this might be my last blog post of the year. So instead of doing something comparatively ambitious, like gushing over the latest Pixar film Soul and having to explain exactly why it's wonderful (though I'll get to that at a later date, hopefully), I'll follow my own tradition and make a list, this time of things I wish to happen cultural-consumption-wise in 2021. That I would like us all to be able to get out of pandemic mode goes without saying. I'd better not start to think of those people who, with a smug, slightly pleased air, claim that "it would be naïve to think that things will ever return to what they were before", or I'll not feel Christmassy at all.

A new epic, multi-episode adaptation of a Dickens novel. I guess? I know I'm always whining over this, but I think it's fair to say that British costume drama is not in its best form at the moment. When I was sighing over the BBC only turning out villain-light stuff like Cranford back in the day, I didn't know how lucky I was. The Luminaries moved at a glacial pace, and overall the Beeb seems more concerned with polishing a progressive image than with presenting the viewer with something timelessly entertaining and thought-provoking, as a stellar Dickens adaptation should be. In short, I'm not sure I trust them with Dickens at the moment. ITV is a possibility, but I doubt they'd be prepared to take a risk with one of Dickens's lesser-known novels, like Barnaby Rudge or (you knew this was coming) Dombey and Son, and I would much rather see them adapted than yet another David Copperfield, Oliver Twist or Great Expectations. 

I suppose we costume drama nuts aren't entirely dependent on British TV anymore. There's always Netflix, for instance. However, after having seen the first episode of Netflix's Bridgerton, I'm not sure that - how shall I put this - they're that concerned with historical accuracy. I know the version of the past we see in period dramas is always incredibly sanitised, without all the filth, rotten teeth and premature aging that would have been part of (for instance) real 19th-century London. Still, I would like a Dickens TV series to be set in some approximation of Victorian England (or 18th-century England in the case of Barnaby Rudge), not Cloud Cuckoo Land. To sum up, I'd rather not have a Dickens adaptation at all than a botched one.

Disney animation getting its act together - and coming up with a new, strong villain Not only have the latest films from Disney animation, Frozen 2 and Wreck-It Ralph 2 - Ralph Breaks The Internet been lacklustre, they were seriously lacking in the villain department. The same can be said for Pixar's films since quite a while back: while the heart-warming Soul is a return to form (I liked Onward too, but Soul is better), it does not have a villain. (The biggest threat comes from an over-zealous soul-counter who is, after all, only doing his job.) I don't think I would have liked there to be a villain in this particular film, but the non-Pixar films could definitely have done with one. 

The trailer for Disney animation's next film, Raya and the Last Dragon, leaves me a little torn. The animation is beautiful, but the plot seems reminiscent of Moana/Vaiana: Plucky girl goes on a quest to save her home, followed by cute animal sidekick (not so cute in Moana's/Vaiana's case) and ultimately joined by a wacky character, who's supposed to be the answer to the problem but who proves unreliable, so the plucky girl has to do most of the work herself. Add to this that Raya is a trained warrior, and so is in danger of falling into the personality-free kick-ass category of heroines. Still, one shouldn't deduce too much out of trailers: those for Soul were pretty awful. It could be interesting to explore South East Asian folklore, if this is what the film is setting up to do. Question: are there any interesting villains in South East Asian folklore that we might have a chance of seeing in this film?

Chris Chibnall making a decent fist of series thirteen of Doctor Who - then bowing out I've always had my doubts about Chibnall as show runner, but I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, I really did. After two series and a special, though, I'm still not convinced by the Chibnall era. It's not always been awful, but it has very seldom been wonderful. Chibnall hasn't even been able to convince me that making the Doctor a woman was a good idea. I was rather taken with Whittaker's Doctor to start with, and I think I can stand her whimsical bounciness more than most - I'm grateful that we've been (for the most part) spared moral grandstanding from her. When she was supposed to go into darker, more serious territory in series twelve, however, she left me rather unconvinced: there was a great speech in The Haunting of Villa Diodati which she nailed, but other scenes worked less well. The whole controversy about the Doctor not knowing how to respond to Graham's fears that his cancer might come back could, I think, possibly have been avoided if Whittaker hadn't chosen to meet Graham's outpourings with a blank stare. Alien? Possibly. Doctorish? Not really. And though it's hard to dislike the Thirteenth Doctor's "fam" (though I hate that "fam" stuck - what's wrong with companions, anyway?), they're not as engaging as companions of the past.

We will be given a shortened run of Doctor Who next year, which was more than I dared to hope for (I'll probably be blogging about it in 2022 when the DVD is out). Before that, there's the New Year special which, judging from the trailer, looks like pretty typical Chibnall fare - competent, but not great. Captain Jack is back - good. Tru- I mean Robertson is also back - not so good. (I really like Chris Noth in Sex and the City, but not as an unsubtle American politico bad guy.) There's still a chance that Chibnall will produce a perfectly serviceable series thirteen - preferably retconning some ideas from series twelve that didn't go down so well -  but after that, could we please get someone else as show runner?

More Star Wars content to get really nerdy about I've not yet blogged about The Mandalorian, which I've finally been able to see as I now have a Disney + subscription (I got it the very day the streaming service was introduced in Sweden - the Mouse need fear no rebellion from me). Suffice it to say, for now, that it's as just as good as everyone says. One of the great joys of the autumn and winter of 2020 has been watching The Mandalorian, then the nerdy comments and discussions about The Mandalorian on YouTube. And now Disney has announced half a dozen or so Star Wars-inspired TV series, so there seems to be more geeky fun where that came from. Not all of the series sound that interesting, but hey - I'm prepared to give pretty much all of them a try. That Thrawn guy, who's slated to appear in the Ahsoka Tano series, sounds very promising.

In defence of the Star Wars sequels: The Force Awakens

Now that I've been half-way cultured for a time, can I be a geek again? Can I? 

My original idea was to write a defence of The Rise of Skywalker, which I really enjoyed when I saw it at the cinema, but which has been widely criticised, partly, in my view, for snobbish reasons ("too much fan service"). However, many of the things people complained about regarding the sequel trilogy's finale have their origin in the other two films, whether it was a story line followed through, or completely disregarded, or picked up again after having been shot down in flames by The Last Jedi. And as I can't possibly fit a defence of all three sequel films into a single post (they all have merits, in my opinion), it makes sense to apply some order and method and begin at the beginning, working my way through one film at a time (hopefully, with less nerdy posts in between).

We start, then, with The Force Awakens. I remember this film as being well received by critics and public alike, and it remains the strongest of the sequels. There were some quibbles that it was too derivative - many plot points were reminiscent of the very first Star Wars film, A New Hope - but seeing where the sequels then went, I don't think many people mind the reminders of the good old days now. Instead, with the completion of the trilogy, other things seem to have started to grate on the viewers in a way I can't remember them doing at the time.

A legitimate complaint against the sequels, which has its root in The Force Awakens, is that they in some ways spoil the happy ending of the first trilogy. Much of the success of the Star Wars franchise depends on the immense likeability of the original trilogy's golden trio: Luke, Leia and Han Solo. Even a villain-lover like myself wished them well. There was such triumph at the end of Return of the Jedi: the yoke of the Empire was lifted, there was widespread celebration and the heroes were free to live their own lives. Leia and Han could get married, and as Luke didn't seem to buy into all of that "you shouldn't care for anyone" Jedi nonsense, it wasn't out of the question that he could find a nice girl (surely?) and settle down.

From what we can gather from The Force Awakens, though, the trio were never given much of a break. In their private life, one can assume that things went well until Leia's and Han's son Ben turned to the Dark Side and became Kylo Ren. But after that, Luke vamoosed to a far-away island to brood, and Han and Leia split up! This saddened me even at the first viewing. Sure, they are reconciled later, but as with Rumbelle in season six of Once Upon A Time, I was yet again left to wonder:"Wait, so are they together as in really together now, or as in 'let's unite to save our kid?'". And then Han dies. 

Politically, the fall of the Empire was supposedly followed swiftly by the rise of the very Empire-like First Order. Defecting storm trooper Finn remembers being abducted by them as a child, so they've been around for quite some time. And this isn't some pesky little fringe of old empire nostalgics we're talking about - the First Order is so powerful that Leia's opposing force calls itself The Resistance (whereas, as Leia has the backing of the New Republic, it should really be the First Order who are the resistance in this scenario). How much breathing space did this leave the galaxy far, far away, one might ask?

Ruining things for Luke, Leia and Han did have some powerful payoffs, though. The only way not to touch their happily-ever-after would have been to make the sequels entirely their own thing, with none of the Old Guard (except perhaps a droid or two) reappearing. The First Order could have risen later, after a long, prosperous era while Solo and the Skywalkers held the fort. But would we really have wanted that? The price of seeing Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill again was that bad things had to happen to their characters. That's how drama works. And they were great. Some of the most memorable moments from The Force Awakens involved the Old Guard: Han and Chewie reentering the Millennium Falcon, Han reuniting with Leia, Ben/Kylo killing his father... If happy endings from the original trilogy had to be spoiled, this was the right way to do it.

Fans minding what had become of the old characters I understand. What I don't quite get is the Rey hate. When she first appeared, I had the impression that most viewers liked Rey. With time, though, the protests grew. Rey was a "Mary Sue", a too-perfect character who ruined the story by being good at everything and admired by everyone. How, the fans asked, could someone who hadn't had any force training at all almost kill the powerful Kylo Ren in a duel? How could she be such a fighter after having lived her whole life on an isolated desert planet?

Well... if living as a scavenger on a desert planet after having been sold into slavery as a kid doesn't make you tough, what will? Rey would have more experience of fighting off low-life than Luke did in A New Hope - he was sheltered by his uncle and aunt, after all. And yet, with little more training than trying to hit a humming ball and shooting womp rats, it's he who destroys the Death Star. I don't have much trouble with over-capable protagonists as a rule - every film can't have a training montage, after all. Sometimes we just have to accept that the hero/heroine know their stuff, even if they're relatively unprepared, just so we can move on with the story. 

What matters is that the main character shouldn't be bland or too perfect. And Rey, in my view, is neither. I've previously mentioned her as an example of a strong female protagonist done right. She's not flawless: she almost passes on the opportunity to be a part of The Resistance because she's so hung up about her missing parents and feels she should go back to Jakku to wait for them. That duel with Kylo Ren? She's in with a fighting chance because she's so furious about Han's death and tapping into the Dark Side of the Force with gusto. On the subject of Kylo Ren, there are sparks between the two from the start, and you can't tell me that Rey only fancies his good Ben Solo side.

I'm not one to deny that there seems to be an ongoing trend - in films, on TV and sometimes even in books - of supposedly "strong" female protagonists with little personality and interest whose main characteristic, apparently, is that they can "kick ass". I've not seen the live-action remake of Mulan, but reports of what they have done with the character fill me with horror. But Rey, in my book, isn't one of these bland heroines, and her being the focus of the new trilogy doesn't take anything away from characters from the old one, like Luke. But more of that another time.