My Favorite Richard Linklater Film

I admit that I haven't been giving Richard Linklater his due, and I've taken him for granted.  Last year he made two excellent comedies that were wholly unlike each other, and I realized that he was well overdue for one of these posts.  One of my longstanding issues with Linklater's work is that he's best known for a couple of lovingly nostalgic films about his school days, but his experiences in high school and college in no way resemble my own, so I always found it difficult to relate.  However, there was one of his early films that did feel very much like my college experience.

"Slacker" is an experimental film that consists of a series of barely connected vignettes with a sprawling cast of various people in Austin, Texas, inhabiting a neighborhood on the edge of the UT campus.  They are of all backgrounds, colors, and creeds, and include a few familiar faces if you're from the area, but can generally be described as oddballs.  I love how scroungy and youthful this movie feels, with the POV jumping from fascinating character to fascinating character in a variety of environments.  Linklater himself starts off the chain of vignettes, an anonymous guy in a T-shirt telling his troubles to a taxi driver.  Each new scene feels like a chance encounter that you absolutely might have, just walking through an eclectic college town, trying to mind your own business.

In the commentary track Linklater recorded for the movie, he claims that "Slacker" was made so he could play with structure, so the content was often a secondary concern.  He relied on his cast and collaborators to fill in the individual stories, incorporating anecdotes from people's pasts, half-remembered third-hand gossip, conspiracy theories, and a few subtle references to classical literature and cinema.  There wasn't a traditional script, and much of the dialogue was improvised.  The subject matter veers from alien abductions to world politics to love lives to dietary concerns to Uncle Fester from "The Addams Family."  It doesn't make sense on paper, but the in media res vignettes, with no beginnings or endings, do form a coherent narrative in the mind of the viewer, because this is the way that we actually experience life.  

Linklater describes the film as taking place on the margins, a place for self-discovery, for discourse, and for expression.  The characters are fictional, though some are based on real people, and everyone we see is an actor.  Many were specifically recruited because they fit the profile of "slacker" - the misfit nonconformist who doesn't easily slot into regular society, but still has plenty of opinions to share.  Linklater never meant for the term to have the negative connotations it would pick up later.  The characters do not have names, and are credited by memorable descriptors like "Been on the moon since the '50s," "Sidewalk psychic," and famously "Pap smear pusher."  While the specifics may have been negotiable, the vibe was always very deliberate.

"Slacker" is probably best remembered for kicking off the '90s indie wave, specifically a generation of filmmakers who self-financed their first features and embraced DIY methods and aesthetics.  It was made with a $20 thousand budget and shot with no permits, and certainly looks like it.  However, "Slacker" got the attention of key critics, was embraced by younger audiences as a cult film, and made enough money to inspire other Gen X filmmakers to try and replicate its success.  

As for Richard Linklater, he's well known for never giving up his particular, collaborative, rule-breaking approach to filmmaking.  I strongly considered writing this entry about one of his decades-spanning projects like the "Before" trilogy and "Boyhood," or maybe one of his animated films like "Waking Life" and "Through a Scanner Darkly."    Or I could have gotten meta and talked about Linklater making a film about one of his filmmaking heroes, Jean-Luc Godard, inventing the improvisational style of filmmaking that Linklater put to use in "Slacker" and many of his other films.        

However, in the end I'm writing about "Slacker" because I genuinely like the film and I get the film in a way that I don't quite get most of his others.  I guess I just relate more to these characters and their experiences, which is to say that I guess I'm a slacker too.  

What I've Seen - Richard Linklater

Slacker (1990)

Dazed and Confused (1993)

Before Sunrise (1995)

Waking Life (2001)

School of Rock (2003)

Before Sunset (2004)

A Scanner Darkly (2006)

Bernie (2011)

Before Midnight (2013)

Boyhood (2014)

Everybody Wants Some!! (2016)

Last Flag Flying (2017)

Where'd You Go, Bernadette (2019)

Apollo 10½: A Space Age Childhood (2022)

Hit Man (2023)

Blue Moon (2025)

Nouvelle Vague (2025)

---

"Battlestar Galactica," Year One

I've made a few attempts at watching the 2004 version of "Battlestar Galactica" over the years, because it's one of the most influential and popular science-fiction television series ever made.  However, there are some significant barriers to entry, not the least of which was that it kicked off with a miniseries that I had trouble getting a hold of.  But more importantly, "Battlestar Galactica" is a grim, visually unappealing show that is primarily about military forces at war with a brutal enemy.  I like some science-fiction in this vein, but the armed conflict wasn't such an overwhelming component of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" and "Babylon 5."  Also, I'd come across enough spoilers for the show and criticisms of its storytelling that I had a pretty good sense of its major weaknesses.

Still, I considered "Battlestar Galactica" a big blind spot that I was determined to try and address.  So, now I've watched the first season, including that pesky miniseries, and I find myself very ambivalent.  So far, I like many of the characters, especially Adama (Edward James Olmos) and Roslin (Mary McDonnell) as these constantly clashing military and administrative leaders of the Caprica survivors, and Starbuck (Katee Sackhoff) for being such a great maverick figure.  I'm less enthusiastic about Gaius Baltar (James Callis), the weaselly scientist who constantly sees visions of a seductress Cylon, Caprica Six (Tricia Helfer) trying to lead him astray, and the planetside adventures of pilot Helo (Tamoh Penikett) and Cylon Number Eight (Grace Park).  The fairly one-note Boomer (also Park), Apollo (Jamie Bamber), Tyrol (Aaron Douglas), and Saul Tigh (Michael Hogan) haven't had much of a chance to show what they're made of yet.

However, it's really the plot and themes that give me pause.  So far, the miniseries and the premiere episode, "33," have been the most impressive parts of "Galactica" because the stakes are so high.  They depict the conquest of the planet Caprica by the Cylons and the evacuation of the human survivors aboard a ragtag collection of spacecrafts.  This is a messy and haphazard business, and the first part of the season is largely spent trying to secure water, fuel, and other necessities for longer term survival.  The sacrifices that have to be made are horrible, and there's a real sense of urgency and terror as the situation develops.  However, as the season goes on, and the humans manage to establish a more manageable status quo, the business of finding a new homeworld and identifying the Cylon infiltrators are the new goals, and they're a lot less compelling.  I find the Cylons particularly disappointing, since artificial life forms are often the most interesting characters on science-fiction programs, but the Cylons just act like regular humans for the most part.  We don't learn much about Cylons as a species, except that Caprica Six and several of the others we meet are religious fanatics obsessed with divine plans and finding salvation.  There's religious symbolism all over the show, from the Twelve Colonies, to Gaius being set up to be both a Judas and Messiah figure. 

And all this would have been fine if "Galactica" had more interesting characters or the stories were more tightly written.  However, "Galactica" strikes me as rather dated in its worldbuilding and very limited in its production quality.  It's a convenient idea that all the human characters in the show are of non-Earth origins, so there's no need to deal with any real world political, religious, or cultural issues.  However, all the basic social structures are exactly the same as what we'd expect on Earth.  As a result the "Galactica" universe often feels very shallow, and often very limited by being framed from a military POV.  Most big crises only take an episode or two to resolve, but nearly everyone is harboring melodramatic secrets throughout the season.  You can see the creators pushing back against the "Star Trek" model that featured a more sanitized, utopian future.  "Galactica" has sex and swearing (kinda), everyone is very fallible, and the harsh realities of space travel come into play more often.  However, they're really fumbling the tone management.  Every time the creators try to venture outside of the narrow confines of the gritty military adventure, things get awkward.  Everything involving the politics and media comes across as oddly retrograde.  The costuming is awful.  The episode with the dinner party tries for a more humorous touch, which is a disaster.  And the theme music sucks.  

Part of the issue is that I've gotten used to shows like "The Expanse," and "Foundation" that have much bigger budgets, access to better acting talent, and movie quality effects.  This isn't the fault of "Battlestar Galactica," which was groundbreaking for its time, and noticeably more ambitious than its contemporaries like "Star Trek: Enterprise."  However, this does impact the watching experience, and though I've committed to finishing the series, it's going to take more effort and patience than I was hoping I'd need.

---

The Movies I Watched on the Plane, 2026 Ed.

I really should be working on the backlog of prestige pictures I need to watch, but I recently spent a lot of time stuck on international flights with nothing to do except watch movies, so I ended up watching an awful lot of movies that I wouldn't have watched in other circumstances.  A few of them turned out to be very good, titles that had fallen into my cinematic blind spots.  So, I wanted to talk about some of these - both the movies and the blind spots.  

First, there were the bad movies that I knew were going to be bad: "A Bad Moms Christmas" (2017), "Bicentennial Man" (1999), and "Rambo: Last Blood" (2019).  The first two were exactly what I thought they would be, but I liked the actors involved so I sat through the crass comedy and the schmaltzy sci-fi with terrible writing for them.  I didn't know that "Rambo: Last Blood" existed, figuring that the series had ended with the 2008 entry, so I gave it a shot.  I appreciate the first half for being a more realistic take on "Taken," where the lone vigilante gets beaten up, and doesn't accomplish anything he set out to do.  The second half is just a standard orgy of violence against an endless stream of faceless Mexican baddies. 

Then there was "Hope Gap" (2019) is a small, personal British drama that I completely overlooked.  Even when I was browsing the movie selections on my flight, I repeatedly passed this over, confusing it with the similarly named romantic drama "Hope Floats."  It's the only film directed by noted screenwriter William Nicholson, and it was not very well received at the time of release.  There was zero awards attention, despite some very strong performances.  "Hope Gap" is a family melodrama with a very strong sense of place, and worth seeing if you like any of the three lead actors: Bill Nighy, Josh O'Conner, and especially Annette Bening as the difficult mother.  It reminded me a lot of "45 Years," but messier.

However, the three films I really want to focus on are "Step Up" (2006), "Legends of the Fall" (1994), and Hearts in Atlantis (2001).  These are all films that I knew about for years, but were never a priority for me.  All three were much better than I expected - not great, but certainly deserving of my attention.  The original "Step Up," directed by Anne Fletcher, and starring Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan, came out during a period when I wasn't paying attention to movies, and I had largely outgrown teen fare, so it was never on my radar.  I knew who Channing Tatum was eventually, and the "Step Up" sequels got some good press, but the franchise was always talked about in terms of spectacle instead of its dramatic bona fides.  The first "Step Up" isn't reinventing the wheel, and Tatum is still very rough as an actor, but it's a solid young adult romance that makes some of the old tropes feel new again.  There are parts of the film that are undeniably weak, but I still had a great time with it.

"Legends of the Fall" was a movie that I had meant to watch at a few different points over the years, because it has one of Brad Pitt's most famous thirst trap roles and it garnered enough of a reputation to keep it in the pretentious film nerd conversations.  It won a Best Cinematography Oscar.  However, it is very long and usually classified as a western.  I'm still not great with westerns.  However, I'm always on the lookout for good adult dramas and epic romances, which have gotten much rarer over the years.  So it was a nice surprise to find out that "Legends of the Fall" was earnestly an epic romance from start to finish.  There's some anti-war messaging and a silly shootout at the end, but for the most part, it's full of simmering family melodrama and improbably hot people angsting all over the place.  And sometimes that's exactly what I'm in the mood for.  There are a couple of other movies in this category like "A River Runs Through It" that I should probably get to.  Also, I haven't watched "Yellowstone," which is apparently heavily influenced by "Legends of the Fall," and I don't intend to.    

Finally, "Hearts in Atlantis" is an adaptation of a Stephen King short story, and had absolutely no traction with critics or audiences.  It wasn't a bomb, and it certainly has its defenders, but it tends to get passed over and forgotten, even by King fans.  I understand why, because "Hearts in Atlantis" is an outlier from King's work, more of a childhood memoir than a genre piece, and its exploration of the supernatural is much subtler and quieter than King's usual horror stories.  The movie, directed by Scott Hicks, is small in size and scope, about an eleven year-old boy and the few people in his life.  However, it is incredibly poignant in retrospect, because the boy is played by Anton Yelchin in his screen debut, and he's fantastic.  So is Hope Davis as his mother and Anthony Hopkins as the mysterious lodger who comes into their lives.  There are a couple of structural similarities to "Mr. Harrigan's Phone," but "Hearts in Atlantis" is a much more well developed piece of work, and I was delighted with it.  

Until next time.

---

"Sentimental Value" and "Blue Moon"

The latest Joachim Trier film is about subject matter I'm not predisposed to enjoy.  Renate Reinsve plays Nora Borg, an actress who occasionally suffers from extreme bouts of stage fright.  Stellan Skarsgård plays her estranged father Gustav, a celebrated director who has a new film project he wants Nora to star in.  Nora turns Gustav down, so he brings in an American actress, Rachel (Elle Fanning).  As the project progresses, it stirs up many issues from the past, not only related to Gustav and Nora's relationship, but to Nora's sister Agnes (Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas), and Gustav's long-deceased mother Karin, who suffered trauma from her experiences in WWII.   

I tend to have trouble with films about actors and acting, and foreign-language films about acting in particular for some reason.  There's always something about them that strikes me as indulgent and disingenuous.  "Sentimental Value," fortunately, isn't about acting for very long.  It's about navigating a tricky family situation and the place of art in trying to process and reckon with difficult emotions.  It's also about the inadvertent passing of trauma from one generation to the next, as Gustav has to reckon with the fact that his attempts to bring his children into the creation of his art might have had effects on them that he didn't anticipate.  The performances are key to why "Sentimental Value" worked for me while many similar films did not.  The parent-child dynamics between Gustav and Nora, and Gustav and Agnes feel genuine in their complexity, even if the specifics are unfamiliar.  Gustav's urge to create and collaborate is expressed wonderfully, as well his attempts to try and compromise for the sake of his loved ones.      

"Sentimental Value" is not a film that I'd seek out if it weren't for the awards buzz and Joachim Trier's involvement.  I found it very sweet, very personal, and more uplifting than I expected from a Scandinavian family drama, especially from this director. I'm used to his films being far more emotionally fraught, and was a little caught off guard by how gentle and approachable this one was.   Reinsve and Skarsgård absolutely deserve all of the awards and kudos they've been getting, and I hope that both continue to work with Trier in the future. 

On to "Blue Moon," a film that I had no real expectations for.  It's about Lorenz Hart, played by Ethan Hawke, the lyricist who was half of the famous Rodgers and Hart songwriting duo that wrote the song "Blue Moon" among others.  The movie takes place in 1943, specifically the opening night for "Oklahoma!" the smash hit musical that  Richard Rodgers (Andrew Scott) has created with a different lyricist, Oscar Hammerstein II (Simon Delaney).  Hart knows that he's being left behind, and spends an eventful evening at Sardi's, the famous Manhattan Theater District restaurant, gabbing with the bartender Eddie (Bobby Cannavale), wooing his latest object of affection, the much younger Elizabeth Weiland (Margaret Qualley), and watching the success of "Oklahoma!" unfold. 

"Blue Moon" is a very small film, with really only one major location.  It does that awful thing that biopics do, where other famous names keep dropping in, and you find out that a minor character is somebody who's going to be a big deal a few decades in the future.  However, it has a script by Robert Kaplow that is wonderfully funny and full of clever wordplay.  Linklater's direction is nothing fancy, but holds plenty of appeal.  And "Blue Moon" also has one of the best performances of Ethan Hawke's whole career.  He plays Lorenz Hart at a low point - aging, balding, barely keeping his substance abuse issues at bay, and absolutely seething with resentment and jealousy about Rodgers' new success.  As someone who doesn't care much for "Oklahoma!" I was on his side almost immediately, listening to him grouse about the musical's obvious shortcomings.  Hawke has never looked worse on screen, and he made "The Lowdown" this year.  However, Hawke as Hart is also charming, engaging, and full of passions and yearnings he aches to express.  He chatters endlessly, revealing some surprising sides of himself as the evening goes on.

There's a slightness and a stageyness to "Blue Moon" that's keeping it off my list of favorites for the year, but I think that suits the film.  It's one rough evening in the life of a fascinating character, who tells some anecdotes, has a few fateful encounters, and imparts one or two life lessons before disappearing into the mists of theatrical history.  It doesn't need to be more than exactly what it is, silly cameos and all.  I enjoyed it very much. 

---

Madam President in the Media

In 2024, during the leadup to the presidential election, I was struck by the fact that the "Barbie" movie had decided to cast Issa Rae as President Barbie.  I thought that the depiction of an American President analog being neither a man nor Caucasian seemed pretty novel and inspiring, especially in light of the fact that Kamala Harris had a pretty good shot at actually landing the job.  

So I made a list of all the fictional American presidents that I could find who were women of color.  The list was not very long, and included President Montez and President Talbot from “Veep,” (2012) Marina Peralta from "Falling Skies," (2013) Constance Payton from “State of Affairs,” (2014) Susan Brayden from the Arrowverse TV shows (2016), and Elena Canero-Reed from "Diary of a Future President" (2020).  I couldn't quite count Olivia Pope in “Scandal,” (2012) who is hinted at becoming a future president, but we never see it.  There were a few throwaway lines about Oprah and Michelle Obama being president in alternate universes in some recent science fiction shows.  Oh, and Amanda Waller was president in one of the DC direct-to-video animated movies.

I found it funny at the time that reality might be more progressive than Hollywood on this topic.  The joke used to be that you only saw a black or woman president in apocalyptic disaster movies before the Obama administration.  However, it was sobering to discover that a woman of color being the American president was simply not something that existed, even as a speculative concept, in the mainstream media until the 2010s.  Nearly all the examples listed in the previous paragraph are from television shows. 2023's "Barbie" is the first major film I could find that has a black woman playing a president character in live action, and she's specifically the President of Barbieland.  For the first movie with an explicitly non-white and non-male American president, it looks like the honors go to Viola Davis as action-hero President Danielle Sutton in "G20," an Amazon/MGM action film shot in 2023 and released on Prime video in 2025.  Angela Bassett also played the American president twice last year, in the Netflix miniseries "Zero Day" and later in summer, in "Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning."  

It feels like we've had a bumper crop of Madam Presidents lately, perhaps as the result of Harris's nomination in 2024 pushing Hollywood to play catch-up.  Scripts were written then for media that's only reaching our screens now, because production times have increased so much.  I haven't looked into whether the 2016 nomination of Hillary Clinton caused anything similar, but her specter has lingered in the media consciousness.  The Madam Presidents of "The Diplomat" and "The Night Agent" seem very Clinton coded to me.  However, I think it's important to note that there are plenty of white male Presidents around, and they remain the default.  White male actors like Harrison Ford, John Cena, and James Marsden are still more likely to be cast as the American president in 2025 than anyone else.

I can't help wondering if Kamala Harris's election chances were influenced by this.  Actually, scratch that.  I know they were influenced by this.  If the images of black and Asian women presidents were so negligible before now in fiction, can it be a surprise that so many rejected the possibility in reality?  There weren't many fictional African-American presidents before Barack Obama was elected, but there's every indication that characters like President David Palmer on "24" reflected a willingness to at least entertain the notion, and having positive, visible examples may have even helped the American public to consider a non-white POTUS more seriously.  Similarly, fictional female presidents were around long before Hilary Clinton got the Democratic nomination in 2016, but they were overwhelmingly white women.  

We tell kids that anyone born in America could grow up to be president, but our media reveals that we think otherwise.  I'm using Kamala Harris as an example here, but she's far from the only one with an identity that doesn't fit the existing image of the American President.  Alexandra Ocasio Cortez doesn't.  Andy Kim doesn't.  Pete Buttigieg  doesn't - I couldn't find any fictional gay presidents who were comfortably out of the closet from before 2025.  This was never on purpose, of course, but as with so many things, Hollywood could do better.  

---

"Tron: Ares" and "Predator: Badlands"

There are certain things about my personal tastes in movies that means no one will ever take me seriously.  For instance, I enjoyed "Tron: Ares" way more than "Predator: Badlands," even though I know full well that the "Predator" movie is better than the "Tron" movie.  Aside from Jared Leto, everything about the aesthetics and sensibilities of "Tron: Ares" appeals to me, and I'm pretty good at compartmentalizing things I don't like.  "Predator: Badlands," despite some very creative and daring choices, fundamentally rubbed me the wrong way.  And I think it's worth spending a post looking into this in more detail.  

First, "Predator: Badlands" represents a big step forward in Dan Trachtenberg's further rehabilitation of the "Predator" franchise.  Now we have a movie where a Predator, or more accurately an alien Yautja, is the protagonist.  Dek (Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi), the runt of his clan, goes to the hostile planet Genna in order to hunt a legendary beast called the Kalisk.  He meets a damaged synthetic being named Thia (Elle Fanning) with a bubbly personality, who convinces him that working together will help him accomplish his goals more quickly.  They also pick up a native Genna creature, eventually named Bud (Rohinal Narayan), who helps them survive the difficult environment.  However, the biggest threat they'll face turns out to be from a completely unexpected source.      

Trachtenberg does a lot of important worldbuilding in "Badlands," and the most notable decision was taking advantage of the franchise's connections to the "Alien" universe to borrow a few concepts like synthetics and evil megacorporations.  The plotting, however, strikes me as out of character for "Predator."  This is the first PG-13 "Predator" film after all the previous ones were rated R, including "Prey."  The carnage is all alien on alien, or alien on synthetic, which ultimately means that it's all CGI beasties doing the fighting.  The action's not very intense in any case, with little blood or guts to speak of, and the found family storyline is downright cutesy at times.  This is all executed very well, with a lot of strong storytelling choices and nice character moments, but I had a tough time staying invested in what was going on.  Dek was a little too generic as a hero, and I never felt like he was in much danger.  Thia is already missing her legs from the outset, so no real stakes there either.  

I expect that mismatched expectations were a major reason for my disinterest.  I went into "Predator: Badlands" expecting a much grittier action film than what I got, which is essentially a family-friendly adventure movie more in line with the recent "Godzilla" and "Jurassic World" sequels.  This isn't a bad thing, and I think the franchise shows a ton of promise, especially since Trachtenberg has shaken up the status quo and introduced all these new variables to the old "Predator" formula.  However, for the first film where the formidable alien killer is supposed to be the one at a disadvantage in the deadly hunt, I can't help but feel disappointed at the violence and mayhem have been recalibrated a few notches lower than I was led to believe.   

Expectations are also probably why "Tron: Ares" managed to surprise me.  The buzz around this movie has been terrible, largely due to known creep Jared Leto having landed the lead role and reportedly being instrumental in why the movie exists in the first place.  Directed by Joachim Rønning, "Ares" skips ahead many years after "Tron: Legacy" to a future where Kevin Flynn's company ENCOM is now run by Eve Kim (Greta Lee), and its rival Dillinger Systems is headed by Julian Dillinger (Evan Peters), the grandson of Flynn's old rival.  Technology has been developed to materialize anything from the Grid into the real world, but only for twenty-nine minutes until disintegration.  A race is on to find the secret "permanence code" that will remove this time limit.  Dillinger has created several programs, including Ares (Leto) and Athena (Jodie Turner-Smith) to act as his agents against ENCOM, in both the real and digital worlds.

The trouble with "Tron" has always been that it's a fantasy of how computers might function if they worked by child logic, with anthropomorphized programs as major characters, and neon-lit cyberpunk environments representing the digital world.  The 80s gaming-influenced aesthetics and design are so cool to look at, but there's no rhyme or reason as to how the physics of the impossible characters and weaponry behave.  So, you seriously have to suspend disbelief to enjoy what it's doing.  "Tron: Ares" decides to create its setpieces around what would happen if you brought the old lightcycles, recognizers, and other game creations from the original "Tron" into the real world, and let them wreak havoc on a major city.  And to the filmmakers' credit these sequences look fantastic, making great use of the familiar imagery, and coming up with new variations on classic concepts.  There's also none of the dodgy digital de-aging that plagued "Tron: Legacy," and all the effects work looks gorgeous.  

When it comes to the story and characters, however, it's all terribly flimsy stuff.  There's a lot of rushing around, chasing Macguffins, and typically terrible Hollywood depictions of hacking.  Leto's Ares is a boring self-insert, but inoffensive, and I found it easy to ignore him.  Since the rest of the cast includes Greta Lee, Jodie Turner-Smith, Even Peters as the villain, and Gillian Anderson as his Thatcher-esque mother, this wasn't difficult at all.  Okay, so Greta Lee having to do a lot of running around and screaming is obviously not a great use of her talents, but I actually buy her as a tech giant CEO.  I also like Peters and Anderson as the Dillingers with their toxic family dynamic.  When Jeff Bridges inevitably shows up for his cameo, it's handled very well.  The movie gets a lot of the little stuff right, and deploys some good fixes, despite getting so much big stuff wrong.

As is traditional, the best part of "Tron: Ares" is the score, provided by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross as Nine Inch Nails, their first official project in a long while.  As a formerly edgy child of the '90s, Nine Inch Nails remains pure sonic catnip for me, and I'll appreciate the movie forever just for being the reason that this soundtrack happened.  And I know that's terrible, and I really can't bring myself to care.      

---

The Hate Watchers

I've been toying with writing a post like this for a while now, trying to put together some thoughts and observations on hate-watchers without getting caught up in the outrage loops that they operate in.  I'm going to have to tread carefully here, because this kind of material can get really volatile really quickly.

So, a couple of years ago I noticed that there were Youtube channels that featured the equivalent of right-wing outrage farmers, except dedicated to fandom content.  The tactics are exactly the same as the what happened with Gamergate all those years ago - find a piece of media that is controversial or unpopular, drum up outrage, hurl misogynist/racist abuse at it, hide behind being a "fan" and "legitimate criticism" when called out, and reap the rewards of generating clicks and attention.  A couple of small content creators are able to generate vast amounts of negative ragebait videos, memes, and social media noise that has an outsized effect on the media narrative.

It's disturbing how often this stuff goes viral, and how many pieces of media have been subjected to these hate campaigns.  I've watched this happen to the MCU, "Star Wars," "Star Trek," "Lord of the Rings," Disney movies and even "True Detective" over the past few years.  It's common enough that the patterns are pretty easy to spot now - the primary individual targets are usually women, people of color, or both.  Kathleen Kennedy and Rachel Zegler have been internet punching bags for years.  The bulk of the perpetrators are usually young reprobates who get caught up in bandwagoning the latest target of derision, usually blowing minor issues or risky creative decisions wildly out of proportion.  The behavior seems to be driven by a feeling of being wronged, or being excluded, often by franchise media that's trying to appeal to a wider audience.  Bad actors will exploit existing fans' nostalgia and disappointment to create an us v. them dynamic with creators, critics, and other fans.  Any sort of creative disagreement going on behind the scenes will be seized on as an excuse to behave badly.      

Let's use one of the latest targets, "Starfeet Academy," as an example.   "Starfleet Academy" is the latest "Star Trek" series, which is going after younger viewers, and features a diverse cast.  Some of the most virulent outrage channels  latched on to the show based on marketing materials before it aired, but the outrage really kicked into gear when the first episode got mixed reactions from existing "Star Trek" fans.  A couple of unflattering screenshots of female cast members were passed around that got negative reactions from Stephen Miller and Elon Musk, and suddenly the floodgates were open.  The show was accused of being part of the "woke agenda" of performative progressivism, despite "Star Trek" having a long history of promoting onscreen diversity.  The show was accused of not respecting its fans or understanding its franchise, despite geeky "Star Trek" references and easter eggs in every episode.  The show was accused of being poorly written and bad at appealing to a young audience, which is a perfectly legitimate position to take.  Unfortunately, this was repeatedly used as an excuse for the continued harassment and mockery of the show, its creators, and the fanbase that did develop around it.

The ragebait content itself is strangely fascinating to pick apart.  The criticisms are very shallow and petty, usually based on outdated stereotyping and conservative dog whistles.  The vitriol is childish and fueled by tribalism and mob mentality.  The targets are never anything truly popular, because the ridicule might boomerang back on the perpetrators  subjecting them to the same kind of scorn.  Neither are they ever anything too obscure or mature, where any nuance  might be required.  A big giveaway that the content is coming from opportunists is that the producers won't stop engaging with the media they insist is awful, sometimes watching whole seasons of shows or obsessively following the box office stats of movies just to gather more fuel for their outrage.  Any positive content that they produce, highlighting media they purport to enjoy, tends to focus on a narrow list of the most universally popular and inoffensive shows and movies.  A couple of the most notable outrage purveyors started out as wannabe critics and culture commentators - there but for the grace of God and the Criterion Collection go I, I suppose.  

Hatewatchers are nothing new, but like so many other negative social phenomena they've been made worse by social media and the new content ecosystems.  The "Star Wars" prequels provided much of  the template for the more organized hate campaigns - picking high profile targets, turning extended roast and rant sessions into content, and nitpicking minor flaws ad nauseum.  I remember "The People v. George Lucas," and confess that I watched the original RedLetterMedia reviews with friends.  However, this didn't stop those movies from gaining their own following, and quietly becoming nostalgic Late-Millennial/Gen Z favorites, twenty years later.

There have been enough of these hate campaigns now, that it's getting easier to brush them off, especially the ones that are transparently being waged in bad faith.  However, they are annoying, distracting, and make it difficult to actually have good discussions about the media in question.  This is, of course, a reflection of how all public discourse is being affected more broadly by malicious instigators, with negative outcomes affecting everything from politics to basic social interactions. Once you recognize the common tactics, however, you can better sidestep the outrage and get back to enjoying your fandom.   

---