Godzilla: King of the Marketing

I spent the week prior to its release hyping myself way beyond reason thanks to this trailer, I checked the Monarch Sciences website constantly, I read through all the Declassified files again and again, and I watched the tracker move slowly eastwards for the California cost. To tell the truth, I knew Godzilla: King of the Monsters was going to be at SDCC, my only hope was that whatever got shown there was released to the public, and a month ago now because I'm a slob, shortly before almost nineteen straight minutes of screaming and crying, the trailer dropped. Now, if you couldn't tell, I'm very excited about this film, but that's why we're here, so I can ramble about this film's brilliant marketing so far, and what I think of the trailer.

The film's marketing, it could be argued, began in 2017 with the release of Kong: Skull Island, which featured a post credits scene teasing Godzilla: King of the Monsters. In my spoiler review for Kong, I wrote about that scene and expressed that I was very, very excited to see these monsters on the big screen, but that I was concerned that the film would either not do the monsters justice, or try to and end up being a bloated mess, a fear that I still hold, even after seeing that trailer, but that's just something we'll have to wait and see on. Really though, the post credits scene seems somewhat cynical upon reflection, since it was already announced that Mothra, Rodan and Ghidorah were all coming to the big screen through the Monsterverse, making the scene unnecessary, I now call it cynical because of how excited it made me, because that's all it was designed to do, to get people excited to see King of the Monsters jacked up in anticipation for a film that, at that point, hadn't even started filming. There's a reason it had that effect however, because I love these monsters; I wrote an entire previous draft of this post that opened with me rambling about what Godzilla and these three monsters mean to me, but I figured that it was a bit much, so, now that I've calmed down a little bit, I've decided to tone down the freaking out. To cut a long story short however, I adore Godzilla, have done my entire life, and these three monsters; Mothra, Rodan and Ghidorah, are monsters I've grown up watching and loving, along with others like Anguirus, Gigan, Mechagodzilla, Hedorah, Biollante, Destroyah, Ebirah and so on and so on. The very concept of seeing some of these on the big screen in a major Hollywood production is something I've always wanted to see, and something I never thought I would see, but here we are, it's happening, and my inner five year old is out of control.

It wasn't until recently however that the marketing for the film really kicked off. It did so with a pair of production stills being released, one of which not really being very interesting, since it's just a photo of Vera Farmiga and Millie Bobby Brown's characters, but the other, that's where things get really good. It was a photo of Godzilla as he appears in the film, complete with some ever so subtle redesigns that make him look even more perfect. But first, something you may notice is that Godzilla appears to have a bit of belly; which was a criticism a lot of people had with how he looked in the 2014 film, that he was fat. I never saw it that way however, in fact, as I said earlier, I think that design was perfect, and he was literally as big as a building, so I never really saw calling him fat as even a valid criticism, Shin Godzilla, I felt, fit that description far better, with thighs like Squidward after he broke into the Patty vault, or even Godzilla in the recent anime films, where he looks a meatball with limbs. But yes, in this picture, it's noticeable, he's a big boy, but I still don't mind, I still love the way he looks, now even more so, and his belly is something I'm almost certainly not going to notice when I'm watching the film, but hey, I guess fat shaming's okay so long as he's a three hundred foot tall fire breathing lizard, but me, no, I value what's on the inside. Bigger changes are obviously the spines and the atomic breath, the atomic breath looks less like it did in the 2014 film and more like it did in the Toho Godzilla's of the 90's and 2000's, which is to say it doesn't look like a blue flame, but instead a mean arse laser beam, a change I like, but it isn't a massively important thing, as it's changed in appearance many times, going from a flame, to a laser, to a flame again, and from blue to white to blue to orange to blue to purple, how Godzilla looks has always been more important to me, and the 2014 film hit the bullseye in that aspect, at least for me. His spines are also bigger, and the glow on them when he's charging his atomic breath is far more pronounced, and even has a very pretty pattern to it, again, I love this change, and his glowing spines look tremendous in the picture, especially thanks to that patterning. The picture itself is unremarkable overall, but it gives a really good look at Godzilla, and the minor changes they've made to his appearance are very welcome in my opinion, he looks incredible, even with the beer belly.

Things went into overdrive with Godzilla: King of the Monsters' marketing in the week leading up to the trailer, thanks to a solid marketing campaign, and a so-so teaser. The teaser, like the production stills, was nothing to write home about, it showed Millie Bobby Brown in what looked like a bunker, trying to radio Monarch, before sounds of destruction come through from the other end, and she covers her ears in fear. The star of this teaser wasn't Brown or what could possibly have been Ghidorah's roar, but the camera operator in the background, because for some reason, the teaser wasn't very well put together, with a visible camera operator in one shot, and bandages on Brown's hands that disappear between shots. This is shit that could be easily overlooked were it in the context of a two-hour motion picture, but this is just a forty second teaser, so to have two of these editing oversights in just forty seconds is very unfortunate, and hopefully not indicative of the rest of the film's quality of editing. But that teaser lay out the breadcrumbs to Monarch Sciences, a viral website full of declassified Monarch files documenting the study of three superspecies; Titanus Mosura, Titanus Rodan and Monster Zero, complete with an interactive map of all the world's Monarch facilities and a Godzilla tracker. Following this site was a stupid amount of fun; watching the tracker kind of reminded me of the Santa trackers kids watch on Christmas eve, if you know what they are, and seeing it slowly move across the Pacific from Japan to the California coast was incredibly sweet, because he's coming from Japan, get it? but also because I knew what it meant, Godzilla was heading to San Diego, Godzilla: King of the Monsters was going to be at Comic Con, again, this is something I already knew, but this tracker gave me hope that it'd be a trailer, which in turn gave me hope that, assuming it was released publicly, I'd get to see Godzilla: King of the Monsters in action. That was only part of the story however, because what made me more excited were the documents; more specifically, the pictures. This is some excellent teasing; with the files being locked, and only accessible if you have the proper clearance, with each level of clearance giving you more information and a better picture, I did eventually figure out crimson clearance and got to see the files, which featured satellite images of Titanus Rodan and Monster Zero, and an archived photograph of Titanus Mosura, which is the real punch in the balls because her bioluminescence makes it just a photo of a vaguely Mothra shaped ball of light. But still, I was hooked on this Monarch Sciences website, I wanted to know everything it had to offer, and I was more than ready for a trailer, assuming it was made public.

Which brings us to the 21st of July, when Warner Bros. Pictures' official YouTube channel uploaded the first trailer for Godzilla: King of the Monsters. And first, I'll explain what happened to me because of that trailer. I'd had a glass of Gin only moments before, so I was a bit buzzed, I saw the trailer in my YouTube subscription feed, and had to run out of a crowded room and find somewhere quiet. I sat and watched the trailer, all the while my heart was pounding and I was out of breath, don't know if that was the trailer, the Gin, or my mad dash to find a quiet place. Throughout the trailer, I slowly started to chuckle, which turned into a giggle, which turned into an insane, maniacal wheezing laugh, before emerging from the quiet place back into the light, literally bouncing up and down with excitement. Later that night I watched Game Night with my family, but all the while I was thinking about the trailer, I started writing my fanatic ramble about the trailer, but dropped that and just watched the rest of Game Night, from the back of the room where no one could see me cuddling and cradling my NECA twenty four inch Godzilla, yeah, I kind of went a little nuts, and got a few scratches, because that Godzilla toy is a spiky mother fucker. I've since calmed down a fair bit in the month since the trailer dropped, maybe because I've been distracted by the Welsh coast, and then by giant sharks and edgy memes, but it's time to take off the fanboy lenses and look at it at least a little bit more objectively. So, let's try to stay objective and discuss the trailer, I don't think this will go well.

The Trailer opens with Millie Bobby Brown on a roof top as a storm roles in and consumes the surrounding buildings. Because it's just a trailer, we don't know where that storm is coming from, but given what we know from the Monarch files, it's most likely to be Ghidorah. What's interesting about this intro sequence is Vera Farmiga's voice over, in which she says that a mass extinction has begun, and that it's humanity's fault. Something I've always praised the 2014 film for is its Lovecraftian overtone, an overtone perfectly described by Ishiro Serizawa in his quote, "The arrogance of man is thinking nature is in our control, and not the other way around," a quote I've rambled on about ad nauseam. What he's describing there is the Lovecraftian notion that mankind is ultimately meaningless in a world that's bigger than we could ever comprehend, but that we, in our arrogance, think we understand and have power over, when that isn't and will never be the case. It's a wonderfully dark philosophy that makes Godzilla a very fascinating film, and it's adhered to in some degree in Kong: Skull Island through its portrayal of Kong and his role in this kaiju ecosystem. But then Godzilla: King of the Monsters comes along and doesn't seem to get that at all, at least from the buzz. Word is that in the film, Vera Farmiga figures out a way to control the monsters, an idea that completely flies in the face of Serizawa's line. But given Farmiga's lines in the trailer; describing the Titans as Earth's original and rightful rulers, and describing humanity as an infection, to which the Titans are a cure, it's possible that there might be some using the technology against itself going on. But like all things with this film, right now it's too early to tell, I heard that there's other groups in the film besides Monarch, so maybe that's where the controlling the monsters comes in, or maybe it's the other way around and Monarch are looking to control the monsters, and this other organisation is some sort of cult looking to return the Earth to its rightful rulers, or maybe it's both of those things, and it's a cult who want to return Earth to the Titans by controlling them and using them to cause an apocalypse, a supposed plot leak paints a picture very similar to this, and even makes Farmiga a villain by having her side with eco-terrorists wanting to end the world, which is corroborated by the trailer being cut together to pit Kyle Chandler against Farmiga, and it also mentioned them having a dead son, which is further corroborated in the trailer, but that plot leak also has Brown side with the eco-terrorists, which isn't supported in the trailer. And it included Godzilla being killed with an oxygen destroyer and then being brought back from the dead with a nuke, which sounds ridiculous, and though Serizawa, who supposedly detonates the nuke, does appear to die in a big explosion in the trailer, it's entirely possible that whoever came up with this leak saw this trailer and filled in the blanks, or maybe they really did attend a test screening, and they're just an awful writer, guess we'll have to wait and see. But philosophy aside, I'd love to see a monster apocalypse, that sounds fucking awesome, like something from the old Toho days; like Destroy All Monsters and Final Wars.

That's all very speculative however, so let's talk about what's actually in the trailer, and yes, it does appear that King of the Monsters is bringing us a Godzillapocalypse. The film asserts its scale in the first five seconds of the trailer, with the storm consuming the buildings, the wind suddenly changing direction in time with the voice over reinforces the idea of the world changing, while the storm consuming the buildings is visually suggestive of the lights going out, so to speak, man and all he has achieved being swiftly crushed by nature. Wow, I just went full film studies there, literally everything having meaning and intent, I over analyse, what can you do. Continuing the over analysing, Mothra is seen emerging from under a waterfall, while Rodan literally erupts from a volcano, again, this is deliberate, as Mothra has always been portrayed as a benevolent being, and it looks like that still applies in this film, as suggested by her emerging from a waterfall, denoting majestic, while Rodan emerges from a volcano, denoting violent, which is backed up by the Monarch files listing his behaviour as "Destroyer." Getting back to reality, Mothra, Rodan and Ghidorah are all in the trailer, which I was very surprised by, but unsurprisingly, the trailer never gives us a good look. This is smart move, as, first of all, the film's still a year away, two hundred and eighty days to be exact, but also because, like the trailers for the first film, it displays a level of constraint, which is vital in making a good trailer. I really want to know what these monsters look like, and the trailer doesn't give me that, it leaves holes that need to be filled, which is what a teaser is supposed to do, it teases. What is here though is promising, like Godzilla in the 2014 film, they aren't radically different in appearance from their old Toho versions, they are instead very recognisably, even in this hidden state, Rodan still looks like a giant Pterosaur, Mothra still looks like a giant Butterfly, and the ominous, silhouetted shot of Ghidorah looks like it's from Final Wars. These are the classic Toho monsters translated to the big screen, and they look like they're going to be beautiful. I'm excited to see all of them, but I'm most looking forward to seeing Mothra, because while beautiful may not necessarily apply to the other two, it most certainly applies to her. After Mothra is Ghidorah, I can't wait to see Ghidorah, because Ghidorah's badass.

Apocalypse is a very apt word it seems, as the trailer features a shot of Washington DC in ruins, with Rodan flying around and a massive storm in the background with an unnaturally yellow glow, which could only be Ghidorah, as well as a shot of Rodan's shadow flying over a city, leaving a trail of total destruction in his wake, not to mention an abundance of tornadoes and lightning storms most likely created by Ghidorah's ability to create storms and Rodan's wingbeat being as strong as an atomic blast wave. The trailer doesn't hide the destructive force of the monsters, which is something I actually like, the first film did a good job of showing that danger, that these monsters have the power to literally end humanity, an extension of its cosmic philosophy, and this film does look like it's taking that concept to its inevitable extreme, the monsters actually ending the world, which sounds awesome. Equally awesome is one shot of what I'm almost entirely sure is the finale from the 2014 film, the backdrop of darkness with the orange glow of the city on fire is very reminiscent of the HALO jump scene from that film, complete with what looks a lot like the Transamerica building, going back to that supposed leak, apparently Farmiga's and Chandler's son was killed in the San Francisco battle, so a flashback wouldn't be too surprising, if only to tie the two films together more directly, and maybe there'll be a bit of Godzilla in the flashback, which would be rad. The trailer does do something interesting though, and that's that it doesn't put the monsters together. Like how they're doing a great job of teasing their appearance by only providing brief glimpses, the trailer never once features two monsters on-screen at the same time, which is smart because, again, the film is a year away, giving away all the awesome in the trailer would be stupid, though if in the next trailer, we see Godzilla and Rodan throwing down, I'd probably be the opposite of disappointed in all honesty. The director of this film, Michael Dougherty, has also said in interviews that King of the Monsters will have more monsters besides the main four, who or what these other monsters are, and what kind of role they'll play in the film, I do not know, though it's unlikely to be any of the classic monsters, sadly, no Anguirus or Gigan or anything like that, certainly something more in the spirit of the MUTO's and the Skullcrawlers. But what is certain is that the film will have a lot more monster action than the first, as this is also something Dougherty has said in interviews. Assuming the action is good, this can't go wrong, especially given that the lack of action was a major point of contention for haters of the first film, so maybe this sequel will be the film they wanted the first one to be, so long as it's good. But sadly, I've been taught just this year that it's possible to fuck up Kaiju action and make it boring.

Then there's the strangest thing about the trailer, the choice of music. Both films in this series so far have done a fantastic job in their trailers with regard to their choice of music, though they're clearly both going for very different tones, tones that, when you think about it, should be the other way around. For the trailers for the first film, the music used was Requiem by Gyorgy Ligeti, an ominous and foreboding piece of music that is grotesque to listen to, in a good way. And in that first trailer, as the heroes jump from the plane and fall through the storm and smoke into the burning ruins below, it's not hard to see the intention in the use of that particular piece of music, it is to invoke a sense of dread, a feeling of terror and foreboding as they fall, a figurative decent into hell. This is accompanied by the voice over from David Strathairn vaguely talking about how none of them have faced a situation like this one, and how their courage will never be more needed than it is today, which reinforces the foreboding by creating an atmosphere of un-knowing. This tone is continued through the rest of the trailer with images of death and destruction, along with shots of the film's heroes reacting to something, a something that we never see, which only adds to the un-knowing. This trailer builds an atmosphere of dread around the film, one that would actually be very fitting for this trailer, given that it appears to depict the end of the world, and that Ghidorah is in this film, a monster the Monarch files described as a "living extinction event." Instead this trailer uses Clair de lune, a choice I wouldn't expect for a kaiju movie, given that it's a soft piano melody, one I never could have imagined would end up not only being a perfect choice, but fucking epic. The rendition of Clair de lune that accompanies the trailer is used to create a sense of majesty and awe, one that suits the monsters perfectly, and still reflects the Lovecraftian nature of the kaiju, while swapping out dread for wonder, taking these monsters from the nightmare that they were in the first film, and making them spectacles in the sequel, which makes sense given that at least one of them is benevolent, maybe two if you count Godzilla. This is considerably better music than, for example, Pacific Rim: Uprising, which, for some reason, went for War Ready with a bit of 2Pac, which didn't really convey anything of the film in the way that Requiem did for Godzilla. Let's take another example; The Meg, for which the trailer featured Bobby Darin's Beyond the Sea, a very upbeat tune that created a fun and light hearted tone, a mood that might be the only way to like The Meg, because it's a really stupid film, but one I loved. Trailer music is important in that it can be used to create a mood around the film, which makes Clair de lune a brilliant choice for Godzilla: King of the Monsters, assuming they don't fuck it up.

I suppose you'd already know how I feel about Godzilla: King of the Monsters, but yes, I am hyped, it's not hyperbolic to say I've wanted to see this film for my entire life, I've wanted to see my favourite monsters on the big screen since I was a toddler, and now I finally get to see that, and you can be damn sure that when this film hits the screens, I'll be seeing it in IMAX, now there's only to hope they don't mess it up, because this is an opportunity, monster movies are coming back thanks to films like Godzilla and Pacific Rim, and if it is a success, which it very well might be, King of the Monsters could be for the monster genre what Avengers Assemble was for the superhero genre, or it could be soulless trash like Pacific Rim: Uprising, either way, I'm really looking forward to it, because Mothra, Rodan and Ghidorah on the big screen with American money behind it, it's happening, somebody pinch me.

Battlefield 5 Digs its own Grave

This was originally going to be bolted haphazardly onto the end of my Doom Eternal post, but like everything I write these days, that got long, so I thought it'd be best to break this off and have it be its own post. I just want to say a few things, like for starters, I and thousands of other people on the internet told you so, because Battlefield 5 looks like it's on the road to failure and it's EA and DICE's fault. So about two months ago I wrote a very long post about Battlefield 5 and its bullshit. In my screed; Battlefield 5 and the Vandalization of History, I talked about the trailer's portrayal of World War 2 being completely off the mark and being borderline insulting to history, despite DICE's inconsistent claims of authenticity and immersion, how this is a bad thing for the game, and how the game's devs are digging their own graves by insulting their customers and doubling down on their naked politicisation of Battlefield, and it looks like now those chickens have come home to roost.

Remember this? It was the statement that made me boycott Battlefield 5 when I first wrote that piece two months ago, and when I wrote it I didn't care who was behind the interview, I only cared about what they had to say, but it looks like I was wrong to take that approach because he wasn't just some nobody, he was Patrick Soderlund, EA's chief design officer, a man with his fingers in a lot of EA's pies. If anything, this makes his fuck up even more enjoyable to watch, because he really, really should have known better, especially given the distrust that gamers have for his company, to tell people critical of an upcoming release to not buy the game, and to collectivise those critics as uneducated misogynists is probably the worst thing he could have done, and it looks like he's feeling that fuck up, as is EA as a whole. A week ago, Soderlund stepped down from his position at EA, hardly surprising in and of itself given the awful reputation the company has with the gaming masses, especially since the Battlefront 2 debacle was only last year while he was Chief Design Officer. But what makes this so brilliant, and yet so ominous at the same time, is that the day after his stepping down, news started to break that Battlefield 5 was haemorrhaging pre-orders and that it's on its way to being a complete failure upon release. I'm going to be honest, if I were a Youtuber and I made a video on this topic, I'd be unable to wipe the smug look off my face for the entire video, because EA and Soderlund and DICE and all the other cunts had this shit coming.

I've said this many times now, this shit just doesn't work, bolting progressive politics onto a beloved franchise and telling the fans who aren't happy with that that they can get fucked is how you kill a franchise; need I drag Ghostbusters back up from the morgue to demonstrate. Social Justice doesn't sell, insulting your customer doesn't sell, and sell it hasn't with Battlefield 5, with a number now floating around that it's falling behind Trash Ops 4 by as much as eighty five percent in pre-orders. And I thought the like dislike ratio on the reveal trailer was bad, assuming the eighty five percent number is actually true, that is a disaster, that is Battlefield 5 possibly being dead on arrival when it launches in two months. This actually makes Soderlund's very timely resignation all the more suspicious, for obvious reasons, why did he step down the day before this story broke? Bear in mind that the loot boxes fiasco was only last year, that's still fresh in a lot of gamers' minds, and it's certainly still very fresh in EA's mind because they were at ground zero of the controversy with Battlefront 2, really, it's quite impressive that they'd be stupid enough to let the battlefield 5 situation get this out of hand, or are they, did Soderlund resign on his own, or was he forced to. Soderlund is on record telling people not to buy Battlefield 5, so when the sales numbers come in and they're in the gutter, which is already happening even before the game launches, EA can and will look at him as a possible cause. This leaves us with two possibilities; option one, Soderlund was aware that this was partially his fault and opted to jump ship before the numbers got out, or, option two, EA wanted his head because they know it's partially his fault, but as a gesture of good will, they gave him a choice; step down, or get fired. This really isn't that hard to believe, because EA has a reputation for its ruthlessness with companies and individuals under its roof, but Soderlund had been a part of EA for a long time and had seen the company through many a success and many a failure. I'd personally have just fired him, but then again, it's not like EA can take the high ground, because while Soderlund maybe an arrogant mong, EA's the most hated company in gaming, and the Battlefield 5 controversy is tied as much to them as it is to Soderlund, so firing him wouldn't the fix the problem they have.

But now for the fun part, like that wasn't fun, but there's more, oh boy there's more. Cast your mind back to 2016; the most hated Call of Duty do date and Battlefield 1 were launching back to back, just two weeks apart, but wedged in the middle was a third shooter, Titanfall 2, and when the dust had settled, the two goliaths came out on top, and the little David was unable to slay them, Titanfall 2 sold far below expectations, despite being very well received by people that actually did buy it. Battlefield 1 and Infinite Warfare took home the gold while Titanfall and Respawn Entertainment's future was left fully in the hands of the studio killer. Fast forward back to current year, and once again history is repeating itself, but this time's it's goliath's turn to suffer. In 2018, we have yet another Clash of the Titans on the horizon; Trash Ops 4, Battlefield 5 and Red Dead Redemption 2 all releasing in a two-week window, with just a week between each release, and Battlefield 5 is in the middle. This would be bad enough for Battlefield 5 without the controversy, since it's stuck just a week behind the most hated Call of Duty to date, but it's still going to sell because it's CoD, and just a week ahead of the most anticipated sequel of the year, maybe even of the decade, Red Read Redemption 2, a game with more hype behind it than Trash Ops 4 and Battlefield 5 combined, and with nowhere near the same amount of controversy. But maybe Battlefield 5 would have fared well enough, after all, it's Battlefield, it's a long running and very loved shooter series, and it's following up one of the most hyped games of recent years in Battlefield 1, enter Soderlund and that terrible reveal trailer. Battlefield 5 has a stomach ulcer inducing amount of controversy behind it; it had an awful trailer that gave people the impression that the game would be SJW garbage, then it had EA's Chief Design Officer confirming that impression and telling people who don't like SJW garbage that they were stupid and not to buy the game, seemingly completely unaware that social justice and being called stupid is really unpopular with the normies. Now we're seeing the game apparently falling eighty five percent behind Trash ops 4 in pre orders, in addition to Soderlund either getting booted or jumping ship, in addition to the very crowded release window, it ain't good, it really seems that we're watching a train wreck in real time.

The near future is looking very bleak for Battlefield 5; it seems that Soderlund's ultimatum to gamers has seen a seismic response, one that no doubt has EA trembling. I would say that Battlefield 5 probably won't be a total flop, but that apparent eighty five percent lag on Trash Ops really gives me doubts as to whether the game will even do better than Titanfall 2, the reason I'm not sorry though is that unlike Titanfall 2, when Battlefield 5 fails, it'll be deserved, because a message must be sent to EA and to all the other gaming giants; get woke, go broke. Is this the end of social justice in gaming, probably not, is this the end of gaming giants talking down to their customers, probably not, is this a blow that will hit them where it hurts and make them think twice next time, almost certainly, meanwhile I'll laughing all the way to my local Asda to pick up my copy of Red Read Redemption 2, and Battlefield 5 will be forced to lay in the bed it made for itself.

Doom Eternal is Problematic

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Meg movie review

Here's what you need to know; it's been five years since a mission went horribly wrong for deep sea rescuer Jonas Taylor and his friends, and Jonas is convinced that the rescue was compromised not by his own actions, but by a sea monster. Now, when a scientific outpost off the coast of China makes the find of the century, Jonas' past demons come back to bite him, quite literally, as they unwittingly release an ancient alpha predator back into the world, one that they must now deal with before it has the chance to make humanity scared of going back in the water forever.
I watched The Meg, I surprised myself by dragging myself, and my dad, out to the cinema for the end of the night showing of that Jason Statham shark film as I've heard it called a few times. And what were my expectations going in? I bet you know, I thought The Meg was going to be awful, but I did go in thinking that maybe there'd be a good time in there somewhere, so was there enjoyment lurking in the depths of this film, I guess you'll have to keep reading and find out.

The Meg opens with a prologue that wouldn't feel out of place in a in a 90's Godzilla movie, as a nuclear submarine rescue comes under siege from some unseen creature, and Statham makes the tough call of abandoning his friends and the remaining sub crew to the deep just in time as the sub implodes. Something that really works about this prologue is how well it shows the effect this event has on Statham, as he sees the unseen creature cave in the sub's outer hull like it's made of cardboard, and the sequence does a decent job of showing the decision playing on his mind, as he silently contemplates the ramifications of leaving everyone else behind, a decision we, the audience know to be the right one, but that naturally leads to off screen conflict which leads to Statham ending up where we next see him; living off the grid in Thailand and spending his days getting drunk. It's at this point that we are introduced to the crew of Mana One, which is a good time to discuss characters. Statham's Jonas is our lead, and what really do you need to know, it's Jason Statham, he's a no nonsense badass that gets shit done, the film does begin to play with a more psychological aspect to Jonas, leading to a very effective scene when he gets back in the water for the first time, but when the Meg shows up, that gets forgotten, and he just becomes a badass, complete with quips. This isn't necessarily bad however because of how likable he is, something the film cunningly establishes through his interactions with the little girl who's on the research station for some reason. The reason is that her mum works on the station, Li Bingbing's Suyin, who you'd never guess is forty five from looking at her, but I digress, she's our leading lady for The Meg, and she's serviceable; the sort of strong, independent fish (how meta's that) that gets in a sub and takes matters into her own hands, most notably with a fun little sequence involving a shark cage, and the obligatory final battle with the Meg. But naturally, she's not just Statham's partner in crime, she's also the obligatory romantic interest, and what's weird about this is how understated it is, and how well it works as a result. It plays out less like two people falling in love and more like two people having crushes on each other and being really bad at hiding it, and for some reason this wasn't incredibly cringe worthy, in fact it was kind of cute, though it strangely lacks the payoff you'd expect, as Statham never gets to kiss the girl, not even at the end of the film, instead we just get a heavy implication that they fuck after the credits roll, which I suppose has the same effect as a kiss.

The rest of the film's characters however are where things take a dive, pun intended, because I had to IMDB the film just for Suyin's name, but then I had to IMDB everyone else because it occurred to me that past Jonas and Mac, I didn't remember any names from the film. The problem here is that the film doesn't really have much of a memorable or fun cast, rather it has exactly the kind of people you'd expect in this situation, you have the brilliant, composed and articulate head scientist, the rich idiot, the black guy, the edgy chick, the fat guy and the ex-wife, I'm sure that if you've ever watched a film before, you could very easily fill in the blanks there. You could argue however that this works in the film's favour, and I will now kind of do that, because these characters are all completely functional in their respective roles, but not one of them stand out in any meaningful way, and when they start dying, which you know they will, their deaths lack impact for the most part. The fat Asian guy whose name is Toshi according to IMDB has a moment of self-sacrifice that's pretty sombre, and is effectively foreshadowed beforehand, but later in the film when another character tries the heroic death thing, it has nowhere near the same impact, and as the film forgets him, so does the audience. And at no point does the film break the mould, the people you'd expect to die, with a couple of exceptions, end up dying, and the film never breaks the unspoken rule of cheesy movies of never killing dogs and or children, which is, if you couldn't tell simply from hearing the premise, an indication that this film is cheesy. This is, as I alluded to earlier, where the complete lack of audience interest can be interpreted as a strength, as with less time spent developing the characters, more room is freed up for the monster, and in this regard, The Meg is a solid monster movie. The plot has no big twists and turns, it's very simple and straight forward, science wakes up a monster, and the heroes must now find and kill it before it can find and kill them, don't expect any Lovecraftian overtones like Godzilla or nail biting suspense like Jaws, because it really isn't like that, neither of those films ended with a pun either, or had a character sing a song from a Pixar film, but The Meg has both of those things.
 
So it's not as good as Godzilla or Jaws, that's basically what I just said, and yeah, that's true, in fact given what I've said so far, this should be a pretty mediocre film, but I've seen many mediocre films over just the past couples of months, most notably Pacific Rim: Uprising, and I wanted to like that film, but I'm being very honest when I say that coming out of The Meg, I had a massive smile on my face, far bigger than the one on my face when I came out of Pacific Rim: Uprising, and that's because The Meg succeeds in one very important way that Pacific Rim: Uprising fails, it's fun. The earlier scenes of the film in the trench and then later with the shark cage have a good amount of suspense to them, even if they're over reliant on jump scares, the visual effects are surprisingly good for a film of this nature, and while the shark is unremarkable in its appearance, which is admittedly a nitpick on my part, the scenes where it's on screen and bringing the carnage are very entertaining. More important than the design though is that it doesn't have any kind of personality, which is weird, because this film isn't scared of venturing into the absurd, so why don't they make their Meg look nuts and give it some kind of malicious personality, even monsters like the Indominus from Jurassic World has some degree of personality, so why not the Meg, but I suppose a monster whose job it is to eat things indiscriminately doesn't need much in the way of development. And the finale where Jonas and Suyin take the Meg on in a fight is brilliant, it's stupid, but it's brilliant, it's exactly what I expected and wanted out of this film, and I was very satisfied. I have some more nitpicks though, mainly the already mentioned issue I have that the Meg isn't a very remarkable monster in its appearance or behaviour, again, this isn't Jaws, but also how, for some reason, this Shark film is a 12. Why on earth is this film, of all films, not a 15, it's bizarre that I've now had this issue with two films this year, but why not make this film 15, why not have gratuitous gore, it's a sci fi film about Jason Statham hunting a prehistoric shark, why not have even more fun with that premise. The film's fine without the gore, I just think it would have been more fun with, the character deaths would have certainly been more impactful if their deaths were horrific, but in the end the most horrific death in the film is that of a baby whale, I guess I'm just a sadist like that. And on a final note, as just an observation, the film is a collaborative effort between a few American and Chinese film companies, and when you're watching the film you can really tell because the film makes no secret about it, it panders, a lot, like, Transformers level pandering, and that obviously doesn't ruin the film, but it can get a bit distracting in this distinctly American monster movie when there's suddenly a Chinese pop song playing. But hey, at least no one's accused this film of whitewashing yet, not saying it won't happen, I'm sure some progressives actually do have brains, and this film is a Chinese-American film set in China but with a white guy in the lead role, and for some reason I'm suddenly thinking about The Great Wall, can't imagine why.

Chew on This
I really should have hated The Meg; it's a dumb, cheesy film that, like its titular monster, feels very out of its time, films like The Meg don't really get made anymore outside of the realm of low budget direct-to-video, and usually there's a good reason for that, they suck, but almost certainly against my better judgement, I found myself really enjoying The Meg. Yes, its characters are flat, but they get the job done and the Meg and Statham steal the show anyway, yes, most of its good ideas are under developed and underutilised, but at least the film tried. It has good visual effects, the screenplay is dripping with the rankest cheese, and the film has a much more relaxed, light hearted tone than pretty much every other shark film made as of late that didn't premiere on Syfy. The Meg doesn't strive for greatness, probably because had it done so, it would have failed, and I will concede that The Meg isn't particularly remarkable or of a high standard of filmmaking, but I still had a big smile on my face for most the movie, I still loved it all the same. The Meg is a fun time and I'd gladly watch it again, and it's definitely worth watching.

Battlefield 5 and the Vandalization of History

Ready for little trip down memory lane? no, well tough shit, because down we go. And yes, this is old news, but at this point, you shouldn't be surprised, frankly you'd be more reasonable to be surprised if I didn't give this horse shit a bloody nose, because as I said in my Solo: A Star Wars Story review, I don't like identity politics, especially when they're forced, so when I saw the Battlefield 5 trailer, I was ever so slightly mortified, and since then this situation has only been getting worse and worse. I did start this post immediately after the reveal show, but then I fridged the blog for a month, so better late than never I guess.

A good thing about the delay is that I can show with no uncertainty the true extent of the reveal trailer's cockup. Featured is a pair of screenshots from the Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 5 reveal trailers on the Official Battlefield YouTube channel, Battlefield 1 being the massively successful previous instalment in the series released in 2016. What you can see is fairly self-explanatory, Battlefield 1's trailer was very well received, while Battlefield 5 is being shit on by those dislikes, with in fact a bigger lead in the dislikes than Battlefield 1 had dislikes in total, significantly bigger; nearly sixty-four thousand. This goes beyond merely a mixed reception, this is a disaster for Battlefield 5, an almost biblical fall from an approval rating of ninety eight percent to just forty three percent, this isn't a good situation for Battlefield 5. The obvious issue here is that the response to this video could hurt the game's sales, something that is very observable in Battlefield's main rival, Call of Duty, which had a terribly received reveal trailer for Infinite Warfare, followed by low sales, and though the response hasn't been so brain-meltingly bad for Battlefield 5, this could have the same effect. That as well as later cockups like the announcement of a Battle Royale mode that no one asked for, or the really odd choice to have Trevor Noah, a "comedian" and show host hosting the live show and making a fool of himself by demonstrating his complete lack of experience and understanding with the Battlefield franchise. But on the plus side, Battlefield 5 has made the smart move to ditch the season pass, which will inevitably garner some good will, especially considering that Black Ops IIII, a dumpster fire of a game and Battlefield's biggest competition this year, is going hardcore on the season pass model; locking all DLC behind the pass, and then locking the pass itself behind over-priced special editions of the base game, which makes EA, of all companies, look consumer friendly by comparison. Also unlike Call of Duty: Black mark 4, Battlefield 5 will have single player content in the form of the mini campaigns returning from Battlefield 1, which still doesn't replace a single, full campaign, but is better than nothing. But if Battlefield 5 is doing this right, garnering positivity from the public for its consumer friendliness, why is that trailer such a disaster, why the four hundred thousand thumbs down?

Let's ignore the elephant in the room for a moment and consider that the trailer itself is rubbish; it's a messy, poorly edited, nonsensical train wreck that doesn't represent the gameplay. First, let's look at how Battlefield 1's trailer works so well, to get a better idea of why Battlefield 5's doesn't. Right away, the Battlefield 1 trailer lets you know that this trailer is in game footage running on the Frostbite engine, and not pre-rendered, which is important because now the viewer knows that what they're seeing is actually the game, making the level of visual fidelity and sheer brutality of it all more impressive. The trailer is a mixture of multiplayer footage, and sections of the single player element, providing a good degree of visual diversity in the presentation; with battles on the sea, in the air, on mountains and in forests and deserts, giving the conflict of the trailer a greater sense of scale by showing how the game's conflict; the first World War, spanned from the hills and farmlands of Europe to the mountains and dunes of Arabia. The trailer is edited extremely well, with rapid cuts from scene to scene, but done in a way that still makes the action comprehensible, and is in rhythm with the beat of the music, giving the trailer a great degree of energy, it's exciting. And then there's the music; Glitch Mob's Seven Nation Army, which perfectly fits the tone of the trailer, and is possibly the most effective element of it. All of this makes a trailer that is impressive, epic, exciting, but still easy to understand, and provides a good picture of what the game is like. Now compare that to Battlefield 5, there is no epic Glitch Mob, no snappy, exciting cuts to the beat of the music, not visual diversity, at least of the kind that's good, no indication that the trailer is in game footage, which it clearly isn't as shown by the 'gameplay' section of the trailer, and it's cut together into a one-take that makes the action incomprehensible and jarring. People die and then reappear seconds later, there's no clear visual distinction between good guys and bad guys, and there are more explosions than a Michael Bay fever dream, plus the trailer is obnoxiously colourful, like it's colour saturation's been turned up, it doesn't look natural. Nothing about this trailer works, it's without effective musical accompaniment, it's messy, ugly, obnoxious, incoherent and fake, it's crap. But what makes this so absolutely befuddling to me is that during E3, when DICE was showing off the game, they released a multiplayer trailer that fixes literally all of these issues; it opens with the caption that it's in game footage, it has music, it's well edited, the visuals are appealing and not fake looking, and the trailer shows off vehicle and air combat as well as ground combat in a comprehensible way, while also providing a glimpse at the game's single player. This is actually a good trailer, and why they didn't release this for the reveal, but instead gave us that turd ball is completely baffling.

But that's all water under the bridge now, there are bigger issues with the trailer beyond it just being a bad trailer, issues that come from a far deeper, darker, juicier place, I of course refer to Battlefield 5's insulting reinterpretation of history, and DICE's insulting response to the subsequent and very justified backlash. The trailer, in addition to looking fake thanks to the sickly colours and overdone explosions, features things that just don't make any sense in the European theatre; like a teddy bear strapped to the side of a tank, or blue war paint, or a guy with a Japanese Katana, the complete absence of any kind of Axis iconography like the Swastika, and the elephant in the room, a woman with a prosthetic arm. I feel like I've been here before, and that's because I have, before WWII released and it was revealed that the game would censor the Swastika and let you, should you so desire, play as a black female Nazi. First up, I'll repeat my point on the censoring of the Swastika, why are you doing that; I said in Bring on the Meteor VII that this censoring is counterintuitive, because the Swastika has, for 80 years, been a symbol of evil, a symbol of the horrors the Nazis brought upon the world, but it's gotta go, because it might offend some poor, weak minded idiot apparently. But like I said back then, all this really does is disembody the evil of the Nazis, with the unintentional effect of undermining the meaning of the symbol, I've since described this as historical sanitising, which it absolutely is; some things about history aren't very nice, you could even call them 'problematic,' but all hiding that history does is distort people's interpretation of the truth, it's insulting to them, and disrespectful of history, and in the case of the war, disrespectful to all the people who died because of the Nazis, and all the people who died protecting our freedom from them. But this stretches much further than that, and there's a reason for it, a very, very bad reason.

The trailer features a woman with a prosthetic arm, war paint and a trench coat, fighting the enemy on the front lines, storming their lines with a Tommy gun and a spiked cricket bat. This, in a World War 2 Battlefield, does this need an explanation as to why it makes absolutely no sense, because it shouldn't. Like I said in Bring on the Meteor when discussing this exact subject regarding Call of Duty, this kind of "diversity" and "inclusion" or as I like to call it, pandering and agenda pushing, kills a game's authenticity and creates a warped, inaccurate and politically slanted interpretation of history. And like I said in that post, no kids these days have picked up a book and actually learned anything about the War, so their knowledge of it comes from media; films and games, so when said films and games are distorting history to push a narrative, that gives those people consuming that media who don't know any better a distorted version of reality, which is dangerous, because that version of reality that they understand is built on a lie. But of course, argument number one against this being an issue is that it's just a game; I've heard this a few times, that it doesn't matter, because it's a game, and it doesn't matter. But if that's the case, why were DICE talking at their reveal show about creating a game that's authentic and immersive, clearly they don't want to make an immersive World War 2 game, because featuring things that just don't exist in reality breaks that immersion and authenticity. But it's just a game, games aren't realistic, so therefore there shouldn't be any effort put into being historically accurate, well you know what, that argument sucks. Yes, it's a game, and in games, liberty is obviously taken by the devs to make it fun to play; you can't respawn in real life, in real life equipment fails, and you don't magically heal from being shot, you're not completely proficient with any and all guns at your disposal, these things aren't realistic, but they are necessary, because a game needs to be fun, and when you lose a firefight because your gun jams or because they're better trained with their weapon than you are, that isn't your fault, that isn't fair, and thus, in a video game, it isn't fun. But this doesn't apply to a game's setting and aesthetic in the same way; a game taking liberties in its mechanics to make it more fun and a game claiming to be authentic to a time or place while simultaneously and arbitrarily changing that time or place's portrayal are not the same thing. One is understandable and unavoidable, and the other is a disingenuous revision of truth, one that isn't necessary, and as we'll get to, is motivated purely a political agenda.

Argument two, women fought in the war too, so this is realistic, and the simple answer there is, no it isn't; there were also animals that fought in the war, but does that mean that animal combatants were common and normal, no it doesn't. Women did fight in the war, but they weren't front line infantry, at least in the British, American and German armies, they served pretty much exclusively in support roles, apart from in Russia and in the resistance groups that rose up in Nazi territories where women did fight, and the devs know this, they have access to all this history, they've even included a female resistance fighter in their single player, which is fine, because that isn't a complete lie. But a woman fighting the Nazis in the British army, that is a lie. Women served a crucial role in the war, while men were fighting, the women manned the factories and industries at home, they also served as nurses, patching up injured soldiers, their contributions made the war possible, but when DICE says they want to tell a unique version of World War 2, they're not talking about the resistance, or the factory workers, or the field nurses who tended to the wounded, their "modern" take on the war is entirely motivated by modern identity politics. Which is obvious in their contradictions; they say they want to make an authentic experience, but then, in response to the backlash, they say that they're putting fun before authenticity, so which one is it, DICE? Argument three, the game features customisation options, which would allow you to make your soldier look however you want, and this is fine, but no it isn't, not when it breaks the authenticity they supposedly care about. Because if you lost a limb on the Battlefield, they wouldn't give you a tommy gun and send you back in, they'd send you home, you have to also take into account that the British army would do everything in their power to keep women out of situations where they'd risk dying and losing limbs, you know, places like the front line. None of this would be an issue if DICE never used the word authentic; had Battlefield 5 simply been a shooting game that loosely uses the setting while embracing its own fiction, but not based in any real events or places of the time, this level of customisation wouldn't matter, because then the "it's just a game" argument would actually be accurate, but no, Battlefield 5 is going to be "immersive" and "authentic" and tell a "unique" perspective of World War 2. At the heart of the backlash is this confusing message, the game wants to be immersive by painting a realistic picture of the war, but it also wants to break that immersion by giving players the option to look like a Mad Max character if they want. But then of course is the real reason for this confusion, the reason that scares me the most.

Featured is a statement by one of the game's developers, I don't know which and frankly, I don't care, because all we want is the statement, a statement that proves definitively that this is all about politics, and one of two statements we're looking at today, which have motivated me to not buy the game. Read this thing, read it, and then tell me that this developer isn't out of his mind. Let's break this down, shall we; first up, you knew it was going to be a fight, well tell me, how did you know? Seriously, he later says that the support was there, so why does he then say that he knew there'd be a fight, this a bit of contradiction, but he doesn't express anything specific about the fight, instead he goes straight for the emotional argument; I have daughter, don't want hurt her feel. As we'll get to, I don't buy this daughter story for one second, but let's, for now, assume it's true, do you know what you can tell her, you can tell her the truth. Why does this need to be said, a little girl, who totally gives a fuck about your identity politics, is upset that she can't play as a girl in a game set in the second world war. How about this for an idea, rather than lying to her to pander to her feelings, you tell her the truth, that the world and people and society were different back then, and that women didn't serve in the war in equal capacity to men, to a rabid ideologue like yourself, that's certainly a very hard pill to swallow, but the truth is usually too much for ideologues like you to handle, even on a good day.

But then we get to the best bit, the most amazing, retarded, zealous thing I think I've ever heard a game dev say; "I fundamentally feel to my core this is the right way and I will find myself on the right side of history." Yep, this person is mad, lock him up, he's out of his mind. Right side of history, mate, you're literally not, your reinterpretation of history doesn't even come close to reflecting things as they really were, there were no Furiosas fighting the Nazis. And when he says this is the right way, notice the context, this is an entirely moral defense. When he says right, he doesn't mean it literally, as in correct, because he can't make that case, but it is apparently the morally right, the just thing to do, except, as I've made very clear now, distorting history to distort people's understanding of it is revisionist and zealous, and if people actually buy it, it becomes dangerous, because they then base their understanding of it on your lie. What follows is less relevant, but still worth touching on; DICE are arrogant, because they still think people will play it, and they think that people will actually believe their lie, which, hey, maybe some people will, people who've never actually been taught any history in school or just picked up a history book in their free time, and people who love social justice- hang on, SJW's don't play games do they, it's always ideology first for them, they don't really care about the media, and there aren't enough of them to support your media when everyone else goes elsewhere for their entertainment. It's one of the many reasons that Ghostbusters failed at the box office, because SJW's don't care. He proves that it's ideology first by admitting that this has been a goal of his for a while, but that he didn't have enough influence to do it, and then implies that people who don't like this are stupid by making himself sound enlightened, and then proves his wokeness to us by throwing in some buzzwords; Male Dominated, Diversity, these buzzwords are out of date, I think SJW game dev.exe needs an update.

Oh but this gets even better, as we look at article two in our reasons not to buy Battlefield 5, and this one's worse, believe me, it's much worse. Here we go, right off the bat with the lie, "There were a ton of women who both fought in World War II and partook in the war." breakdown time, this a lie by omission, sure, I'll concede that women fought in the war, but what you're not divulging here is the capacity in which they fought, which was not equal to the men of the war. The argument against this isn't that women weren't involved, like you try to frame it as, it's that you're lying about how involved they were, and that you're doing so to push a narrative, and as for "the unseen, the untold," oh yeah, loads of people on the battlefields of World War 2 had prosthetic limbs, we just never hear about their tales of glory because of ableism, I think that's how this works.

Giving this twat the benefit of the doubt, he may be on about the single player, which partially deals with the resistance in Europe, where women were prevalent in combat, but I'm not prepared to believe that people this zealous will be able to keep it in their pants when trying to tell a fictional story in a real-world setting. But here's the emotional argument again; a very, very familiar one; he too, different guy by the way, also has a daughter, and she saw all this backlash and just didn't get it, because she can play as a girl in Fortnite, and our twat dev agrees, "you're right, it's not ok." First up, this story is bullshit, how do I know, easy, because it's near enough the exact same story we got from the other guy; he has a daughter and wants to pander to her by distorting history, distorting in such a way that coincidentally lines up perfectly with the political agenda they so clearly have. I'm not saying these two plebs don't have daughters, but I am saying that getting the same 'think of the children' defense from both of these idiots isn't a coincidence, it's an appeal to emotion in order to deflect from their lies.

But the real reason I'm not buying Battlefield 5, and why I'm encouraging you do also not buy it, is this steaming little turd's advice to players who don't like his bullshit. "These are people who are uneducated," interjection, here's the thing you mong, when you start throwing around words like uneducated to describe your opposition without refuting their criticism, that reflects negatively on you, you can't simply call someone stupid without demonstrating that they are stupid, you have to actually refute them. But you can't refute them, because, unlike your buddy from earlier, history is actually on their side, they're right, and you're lying, and you're then trying to deflect this by using the "it's just a game" argument I refuted already today. But here come more buzzwords and lies; "And Today gaming is gender-diverse, like it hasn't been before, There are a lot of female people who want to play, and male players who want to play as a badass woman." This is, again, a lie by omission, he is omitting what the audience of Battlefield 5 is, it's an attempt to deflect from the fact that they're pandering to try and appeal to a different audience, one that, generally, isn't interesting in the product they're offering, which is also all just a deflection from the fact that they're doing all of this for the sake of their agenda.



*added on the fifth of July, I wanted to include the numbers when I wrote this
piece, but I didn't find it until yesterday, so here it is. I also expanded
a bit on some of the points I make throughout, specifically relating to this
chart and the part where I call the EA guy a mong*

I'm not refuting that women play games, one of my friends who I work with, and who I've sunk (pun intended) a fair few hours into Sea of Thieves with is a girl, she loves Assassin's Creed and Watch Dogs, so girls who play Triple A games that appeal largely to a male audience do exist, but they're not the primary market of such games as Battlefield and Call of Duty for a reason, and that reason is simply that action, strategy and shooter games generally appeal more to men than they do to women. But isn't the phrase 'gender-diverse' just so swell, I bet it gets all the SJW's of the world creaming their underwear with how woke and progressive it is, and how it completely ignores the facts of how different genres of games appeal to different demographics. And that last bit, there are men who like to play as badass women, that's an interesting point, Uncharted isn't just Tomb Raider with a sex change, it provides a different experience, if I want what Tomb Raider offers, which I do because those games are awesome, I'll play Tomb Raider. But that doesn't factor in the fact that Lara Croft is a woman, that doesn't change shit with me, I like Lara because she's engaging, intriguing, a good character, and because her adventures are fantastical and action packed. I'm just speaking for myself here, so take it as you will. But the difference between a game like Battlefield 5 and a game like Tomb Raider is that one is trying to reflect reality in an authentic way, or at least claiming to, and the other is pure fiction, there is a suspension of disbelief for Tomb Raider that Battlefield 5 can't afford to have to the same degree, not if it wants to be authentic, but we've already deduced that it doesn't. But if you needed proof of that, just look at the next sentence, "we stand up for the cause," there it is folks, peak ideologue, a true hero of the revolution, fighting for the just cause of social justice, this person is a zealot, and people like this should not be trusted to represent anything accurately or honestly, let alone the problematic mistakes of history.

And my favourite bit, this twat has an ultimatum to players; "you have two choices: either accept it or don't buy the game." I tell you what, for someone so entrenched in pussy politics, the sheer size of his balls is actually rather impressive, either that or he's a complete fucking moron. Rule number one in trying to sell a product: don't insult your customer, I've been saying this since 2015, I said this with Ghostbusters, I said this with Doctor Who, I'm saying it now with Battlefield 5. When someone doesn't like what you're doing to something they like, shouldn't it be imperative to keep them on board, to keep them in a position of liking that thing, so that they then watch it and buy DVDs and merchandise and all that jazz, because all telling them to fuck off does is shrink your market, which in turn, shrinks your profit. We're watching this happen in real time with Star Wars right now; people who didn't like The Last Jedi were stupid misogynist alt-right white-supremacist poopy heads, and in response, merch sales nosedived, home video sales nosedived, and Solo bombed at the box office. The market doesn't like being insulted and telling them to fuck off might be the worst thing you could ever do, because they will fuck off, and they won't come back. I actually want Battlefield 5 to fail now, I want the game to sell far below EA's expectations, because this twat is on record telling people that if they're not in the cult, and if they don't "accept it" like good little boys and girls, then they shouldn't buy the game. This is an unacceptable position for anyone trying to sell a product to take, and it speaks volumes to their arrogance and self-righteousness. But you know what, he's right, if I'm not going to just bend over and lube up like they want me to, I won't buy the game, they won't have my money because I'll take it somewhere else, I'll take it to Tomb Raider and Red Dead Redemption, but not Call of Duty because that game can get fucked too.

Battlefield 5 blows my mind with how eager the devs are to spit in their community's face, this is Call of Duty levels of bullshit, coming from a studio that, perhaps in my naivety, I expected better from. Good job on getting rid of loot boxes, golf clap, you're getting rid of a predatory system that should never have been added in the first place, I'm sure that'll get you some positivity, but forcing your identity politics where it does not belong, and when people get mad at you for it, then telling them to get lost is every bit as scummy, just for different reasons. I'm sorry to your kids, though not because they can't play as a girl in a game, but because their parents are zealots willing to vandalize history to push their politics and use their kids as ammunition in a culture war of their own making, one they're arrogant enough to think they can win, when they haven't got a chance. I refuse to buy Battlefield 5, and while I have no right or power to stop you, I implore you, reading this, to do the same. If this bullshit doesn't bother you as much as it does me, then enjoy Battlefield 5, more power to you, at least it gives someone joy, but I'm not joining you this time, I can't.