The Paris Agreement

by Equilateral Posted on June 4, 2017

I tried to read the original text of the Paris Agreement, but holy shit I felt like I was reading in circles. So I hit Wikipedia instead. So let’s break this down and try to understand its many parts, because it really is more than the image memes and whatever slop you’re seeing on Facebook. Strap in though, it’s going to be a long ride. I’ll hide the prologue under a cut, you can skip that if you already understand the agreement and why Trump pulled out (lul) of it. If you just want the TL;DR, skip all the way to the bottom.

Prologue: What is the Paris Agreement?
  1. The agreement builds upon the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted on 5/9/1992 in New York.
  2. The goal is to implement changes that will hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2C (35.6F) above pre-industrial levels and push to limit that to increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. This is done through the development and implementation of technologies and methods to lower greenhouse gases, without threatening food production.
  3. Each nation submits a plan on how they will contribute to this effort, however there is no enforcement mechanism or penalty for not meeting target reductions.
  4. NDCs, or “Nationally Determined Contributions” governs each nation’s contribution towards the effort, but is determined by a number of factors, mainly their developmental state, and effects on the nation’s economy and food production. Smaller, less-developed countries would naturally have smaller targets, but benefit from the pool’s contributions, where larger more-developed countries would have double-duty to reduce their emissions to voluntarily-determined target levels, and fund initiatives for smaller countries and impoverished nations to assist them. It is also stated that countries can “pool together” to meet their targets, or larger countries can pool with smaller countries to help meet targets.

The two major issues with the Paris Agreement are:

  1. The target percentage to cut emissions to is not enough, according to many.
  2. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement does not have any kind of enforcement mechanism. Nations are required to report their emissions annually, but no action would be taken if you fail to meet the targets.

Similarly, Trump’s two major concerns, as noted by The Washington Post and New York Times’ analysis of his speech were:

  1. The agreement would significantly hurt the production of coal and other fossil fuel-based energy sources, as well as the production of various industrial metals and related industries.
  2. Trump believes that the The Green Climate Fund, which is the arm mentioned above countries are to assist with funding climate change initiatives, would be unfairly redistributing money from richer nations to poorer nations in that countries like the US would have to contribute more to the pool than smaller nations.

So was this a good move, or will this doom the planet? Well that’s kind of hard to say, really. It depends on the individual person as to whether or not they believe in climate change and greenhouse emissions. Since the Industrial Revolution, the release of greenhouse gases and other contaminants is said to have caused global temperatures to rise, polar ice to melt, and the oceans to rise. Plenty of scientific data is out there that supports this, and to the layman, that is cause for concern. On the opposite side, there are any number of people who deny climate change, or mitigate away many of its concerns with arguments like “There isn’t enough data” or “We’re going into an ice age”. The more moderate of “climate change skeptics”, as they’re called, acknowledge that the climate is changing, but suggest that it is part of a natural cycle, and that our affect on it is minimal. Most skeptics are driven by economic and political angles, especially among conservative parties who do not like regulations on emissions or policy that restricts energy production. This is what is motivating Trump to pulling out of the Paris Agreement, because he sees this as a damper on US energy production. It would be, but it doesn’t have to be.

Now my position on climate change is that I believe it exists, I believe there is sufficient scientific evidence that supports that claim, and that unchecked, we will do irreparable damage to our environment. No atmosphere equals no air which equals no life. Since we are nowhere near being a space-faring civilization, it’s not as if we can’t just get on a ship and set course for the next Earth-like planet and ruin that too. However, unlike many, this isn’t a short-term doomsday clock, and I find it largely pretentious of most people to give a shit about something they know they won’t have to deal with in their lifetime, or probably the next ten lifetimes. The hysteria by some people in news cycles to paint this agreement as the be-all-to-end-all is made moot by the fact that it doesn’t even have an enforcement mechanism, and basically suggests “Hey, do this if you want, I guess, I dunno.” which perfectly encapsulates what the United Nations has become in the last three decades. However, that does not mean we should do nothing, or kick the can down the road for the next ten generations for someone else to fix. Industrialization brought about a rapid rise in our quality of life, and we should not look back at that as a mistake. Rather, we need to continue to spurn innovation on the next generation of energy and goods production, and that is what this agreement would have helped facilitate. The United States had nothing to lose by staying in this agreement.

But let’s put aside the hyperbole and hysteria most of America is known for and look at this fairly, consider these discussion points:

  • On what level should the United States play as a world leader, and with what financial level of support should it give to smaller countries had we stayed in the agreement?
  • Given the rise of natural gas and solar sources of energy, should coal continue to be used?
  • How damaging are climate regulations to the industrial sector in terms of jobs and economic output?
  • If the United States is not going to be part of the agreement, what else can we do to contribute?

On what level should the United States play as a world leader, and with what financial level of support should it give to smaller countries had we stayed in the agreement?
One of Trump’s primary arguments was that the money going into The Green Climate Fund was basically socialism in that it unfairly took more from the richer nations to give to the poorer nations. Given the language of the Paris Agreement, with its affirmations to what amounts to social justice, it’s hard not to view this as just that, socialism. On the other hand, China and the United States are the two largest producers of greenhouse gases. Considering the United States is second on that list, I kind of expect us to chip in a bit more to the pot because it’s largely on us to reduce that to where the rest of the world is. You might say “Why should we pay more? China is bigger than us and produces more than us!” That seems true, but you have to consider both countries population, and percentage of emissions globally. China has 1.3 billion people and generates 22.7% of global emissions. India also has 1.3 billion people and generates 5.7% of global emissions. The United States has 326 million people and generates 15.6% of global emissions. Russia has 143 million people and generates 5.4% of global emissions. You can’t really draw direct comparisons between land mass or population, as China is a large country with the most people and the most emissions, but Russia is larger geographically, but with less people and less emissions. The population difference between the US and China is almost a billion people, yet the emissions difference is 7.1%. The emissions percentages of the fourth through tenth largest populations after the US, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, and Mexico equal 13.3%, just slightly below what the US generates. That means for our 326 million people, we generate 2.3% more emissions than 1.2 billion people in just seven countries. Yet according to the graph the NYT posted, we were going to pledge $3B to that fund, an average of $9.41 per person. Is that considered enough per-person to contribute towards resolving the problem?

Now, you’ll immediately say “Sweden is paying $60 per person. Why aren’t we?” Sweden is a country of 9.9 million people. They’re pledging $581M to the fund. That breaks down to the $60 per person you see. The US pledged $3B to the fund. As mentioned above, we have 326 million people. So that breaks down to about $10 per person. We are the largest contributor to the fund, but because we have a larger population, the per-person contribution is less. Sadly, news media will spin this to suggest we should be contributing more out of obligation for poorer countries. They also neglect to mention that China, Russia, and India, all whom are above 5% in emissions, are absent from that pool. Benefit of the doubt maybe, but chances are, their contribution will probably not be as significant as ours. Even if we halt our contribution now, we’ve already put $1B into the pool. That’s only $0.5B short of Japan’s contribution. We’re still doing pretty good compared to most countries with only a third of what we pledged.

Which puts me in two camps. One is that we are contributing a lot to something that has no mandate or mechanism for these countries to actually hit their targets. Putting $3B out there seems like a feel-good policy, but it’s just $3B more on top of foreign aid we already pump out. Uganda, for example, is mentioned in the NYT graph as being a recipient of aid to help reconstruct wetlands. According to USAID, for FY2016 we disbursed $345M on various projects, mostly related to education and environmental support. The Washington Post published an infograph last year before the election that visualized US foreign aid against Obama’s proposed $4.15T budget, a mere $42.4B most goes to economic aid and development, the rest to security and military. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, Nigeria, Ethopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, and Mozambique are identified as the top recipients of aid, while Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Mexico, and Colombia are mentioned as the top recipients of security aid. For 1% of our budget, we’re helping fund half of the developing world and a quarter of the developed world do various things. Which puts me in a second camp of that an additional $3B is not going to really tip the scales of this at all with respect to the overall budget. This is Trump, like the rest of his budget, attempting to find savings by trimming away things he just doesn’t care about. It certainly fits his “America First” policy, but unless he intends to pair back more of the foreign aid budget along with it, it’s a useless gesture made to placate a few dying coal companies and buy Steve Banon another yacht. Or a round of golf at Mar-A-Lago, I guess.

Given the rise of natural gas and solar sources of energy, should coal continue to be used?
Oddly enough, the top search result I got from “coal production versus natural gas” was a Powerpoint presentation by three Texas A&M University students. It’s simple, but it adequately explains how each system works, and shows how current future systems may work to increase energy production. At the end, it does say that they do not have a solid conclusion on which is more effective, but that underground natural gas production would be preferable. The thing is, this has been the case for most of the last two decades, natural gas is continuing to expand and push coal to the bottom of energy production because it is cheaper, and cleaner to produce. Because we have not built a new nuclear station since the 1970s, and most of the currently-operating reactors are being decommissioned soon, meaning natural gas is now the second-most source of energy production in the US in 2016 and ahead of coal by 14% and nuclear by 20%.

However solar is quickly rising as an energy source, doing 39% of all new electricity generation in 2016 alone compared to natural gas. Improvements in the technology as well as incentives for folks to mount roof panels, as well as battery storage, is enabling this to continue to grow, especially in the “sun states” like the US southwest. When you consider regional energy usage, the US northeast tends to favor oil-based furnaces because most homes were built in the early 20th century using older energy production systems. As homes are renovated and systems updated, we’re switching to natural gas, electric, and solar.

Trump placed a big gambit on “coal states” during the election because he believed they served a vital part to US energy production and the loss of those jobs would be paramount to the economy. Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, and Pennsylvania are along the top producers of coal in the US, producing 639 million short tons of the 897 million total by 25 states. According to a recent NPR article, a coal miner’s average salary is about 80K a year, versus a solar installation expert’s salary of 50-55K a year. The question is posed; Why can’t coal jobs turn into solar jobs? The article suggests one answer is location. The top five producing coal states are in the mountains or areas of the country with the least demand for solar energy. Like the northeast’s legacy oil framework, a lot of these areas are still powered by coal, and require coal miners to continue powering them. It’s easy for people living in the big cities where they don’t know where their power comes from and don’t really care, or people who have solar on their roof and wonder why you don’t too. To dismiss these coal miners and the coal industry because “It’s dirty and fouls our planet” is rather mean considering the fact that at one time, coal powered the country and kept the lights on.

Again, I can be in two camps on this. Coal is a dying, legacy industry. I understand these five states rely heavily on it for their economic growth, but that is all the more reason to look into becoming a state that spearheads the next development. You also have to consider that coal is a dangerous job, where miners risk their lives to mine this resource. All energy production jobs carry risks, but those risks are far less in renewable energy than fossil fuel energy. Trump, like many Republicans, plug their heads and stick their heads in the sand about renewable energy because they are funded by fossil fuel companies with an interest in maintaining power domestically. However on the flip side, we cannot simply abandon coal easily because it does still account for 15% of our energy production in the country. We need to maintain coal as a transition source until we’ve increased our production of renewable energy sources, or increased our usage of natural gas and nuclear to offset coal if it could be eliminated entirely.

But more importantly, we should be very invested in research, development, an implementation of renewable energy sources moving forward. Rather than protecting legacy frameworks and jobs, we should be looking to create new frameworks and jobs in these emerging sectors. Companies and investors go where the money and security are, if you build it, they will come. I could go on about how we should be investing more in nuclear as well, but that would be a topic for another day.

How damaging are climate regulations to the industrial sector in terms of jobs and economic output?
The GOP argument to climate change, and what drives most of their deniers, is regulations and impact on business and industry. I imagine most leftists are rolling their eyes right now, but chances are they are “community organizers” and non-profit leaders who have never had to worry about the impact of government regulations on their business. Regulations are a legitimate concern in business, and environmental regulations can often cripple or kill businesses outright. Now you might say “So what? They were probably polluting the air or water anyway. Screw them!” but that’s easy for you to say if you don’t work in one of these jobs. That’d be like reading about the latest state worker union negotiation and saying “Who needs so many state workers anyway? Screw them!” Fact is, regulations can often hamper a company’s ability to continue operation, or force them to close because the cost to comply with new or increased regulations would not be sustainable. This happens most often with energy production, textiles, automobile, construction, and fishing. A change in vehicle emissions regulation, for example, affects the automobile industry because they will then have to go back to R&D and re-develop their vehicles to meet target emissions. Usually, the loss a company incurs from this can be regained over time as they market newly compliant vehicles towards markets eager to purchase them, but for many smaller companies, they end up going out of business or being purchased by a larger company. The change in emissions compounded with the 2008 recession forced the end of several iconic US companies like Pontiac and Dodge. Fishing industries are always affected by changes to marine regulations in order to preserve marine species and its waters. But generally, the threat of eradicating a fishing area of wildlife would be more detrimental to fishing companies than someone saying “Maybe don’t over-fish there.”

Trump named a number of industries and threw out percentages of how much they’d be out of if this agreement moved forward. A lot of that are based on assumptions which are based on studies which are based on speculations. As someone who routinely shouts FAKE NEWS and demands facts, he curiously lobs out a US Chamber of Commerce study that predictably will be bias towards businesses because it has to be. As I espoused above, many industries will take a hit in the transition towards lowering emissions by 2025 because that means they have to change how they produce. Some companies will fail. Others will come in with new technologies and methods and succeed. That tends to be the core tenant of capitalism and kind of calls into question what Republicans believe when it comes to free market economies. Like the above paragraphs on energy production, the impetus for lowering carbon emissions is an excellent motivator for a “clean energy” company to start up and take advantage of that momentum to become a successful industry. I am not surprised that Trump would stump for legacy industries, as he should, someone should represent their interests. Rather, it is curious that Democrats are not really getting behind new industries seeking to assume their place within the economy. That would better show the American people that the impact of this agreement upon US industry and jobs may have an impact, but has the potential to get better over time. Really, Trump should be embracing new industries and seeking to promote them further if he wants to hit a 3% GDP increase in his term. If he were to achieve that, he’d easily win re-election in 2020 from states who haven’t gone red in decades. I think he is capable of doing that, but he will be hamstrung by both Republicans, who don’t understand anything made after 1960, and Democrats who don’t care unless it’s being taxed at more than 40%.

If the United States is not going to be part of the agreement, what else can we do to contribute?
A few people have suggested that our not being part of the Paris Agreement may not even matter, that individual states, and private industry, will continue reducing emissions and promoting policy to do such. I do not oppose this idea mainly because it promotes something I am finding a renewed interest in after this past election, and that is state sovereignty and federalism. Already, states have announced they are continuing to support the Paris Agreement and banded together to form The United States Climate Alliance, which currently includes California, New York, Washington, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Oregon, and Hawaii. California is the second leading state in emissions at 6.59% of total emissions in the US, behind Texas. Pennsylvania, which is third nationally, is considering joining the alliance, as is Ohio who is fifth nationally. The fact so many states are willing to break away from the federal government more often on major issues in both Obama and Trump’s terms signals a return-to-form for states realizing that they are not always bound by the federal government on all things. This is a good thing. States should be encouraged to go their own way when they believe the federal government is not acting in their best interest. You might say “Well that’s not right, we can’t have states breaking away, that is how the Civil War started!” True, that is how the Civil War started, on slavery, but the way this country was founded and operates relies on state and federal governments to check-and-balance each other.

People falsely assume that their lifestyle in a city like Portland, OR should be the same lifestyle had in a town like Bentleyville, OH. That is the sentiment that powered this previous election, where Trump sought to represent “the deplorables” “the forgotten” or whatever other names were coined for those who live in much of the country whose only method of retaining a voice in presidential elections are The Electoral College. That voice put Trump in the White House because it was tired of fronting a large portion of America’s economy for being called racists, sexists, homophobes, and transphobes by rich upper-middle-class white people in the cities. Those same people are now trying to suggest that these people are also responsible for climate change or that they are climate change deniers, influencing Trump into pulling out of the agreement and killing Obama’s Clean Power Plan. That assertion is dubious, but a fair number of leftists are trying to make this issue very political and suggest that if you so much as question the Paris Agreement or climate change, you are a denier and worthy of scorn. That does not bode well to actually educating people about climate change and the US’ political stance on the issue. As I’ve explained in detail above, there are a lot of factors that go into this overall picture, and plenty of concerns that everyone should have when dealing with such a complex issue as climate change.

Which is why the best way to fight back against this decision is not to continue to pick at Trump or his administration, but to be part of the solution and show people how it will benefit them. The great thing about The USCA is that it lays down the framework for people to join the effort to continuing the goals of The Clean Power Plan and the Paris Agreement without the need for government. It also means that should the USCA succeed, and succeed without the use of federal assistance, that means states have had the power all along and don’t need “the federal teet” to make ends meet. For the state I live in, Connecticut, who relies so much on federal assistance, it would be nice to see them accomplish things without federal aid and assert financial independence and a properly-balanced budget. But ironically enough, if more states follow suit, this will have accomplished many small-l libertarians’ dream of leaner, limited (federal) government which could be the 4D UNDERWATER BACKGAMMON Trump was playing all along, although I don’t think he actually realizes what he is doing. All of his actions are, in essence, draining the swamp in a slightly different way than we thought it would.

TL;DR: The Paris Agreement was a flawed plan not because climate change is fake, but because it does not enforce itself like the Kyoto Protocol, and does not really do enough to encourage lower emissions levels. Politically, it was a landmine Obama placed for Trump to step on that would either cause him to lose further support from his base, or alienate the country from other world powers on an important issue. That said, Trump should have remained in the agreement, and instead worked on alerting the terms of the deal for the US’ involvement in the agreement, ensuring that coal remains part of the transition process while encouraging renewable energy industries to grow.

Also, with respect to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, you’re fuckin’ hilarious getting up there and giving us the business when you approved the Kinder Morgan project last year, and signaled support for the Keystone XL pipeline as well. You cited jobs and the economy. Funny. So did we with respect to The Paris Agreement. Weird. It’s almost like that matters, occasionally.

Posted in Originals | Tagged | Leave a comment

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

by Equilateral Posted on May 23, 2017

Occasionally I pen more than a social media’s post full of words on a movie I saw, and I felt this was warranted with Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 because, well, I may be of the dissenting opinion that it was not as good as it could have been, and weaker than it’s predecessor. But in order to explain why, I must spoil the movie. So if you have not seen the movie, I suggest watching it before expanding the S-S-Spoilerinos selection below. Otherwise, you will be spoiled. No tears for your inability to heed warnings.

Like the first movie, GotGV2 opens with “Mixtape 2”, as seen in the end of the first film, this time to Groot dancing as the team fights an intergalactic space monster on a platform full of space batteries owned by a race called the Sovereign. The plot basically starts from here when Rocket steals some of these supposedly-valuable batteries, which angers the Sovereign and their leader, Ayesha, after Quill explained earlier that any slight against the Sovereign is punishable by death, especially the theft of batteries. The plot unfolds over the next two-and-quarter hours into an interspace adventure as Quill’s long-lost father finally locates him and reveals to him the origins of his birth and reason for being in space.

The overall look and feel of the film is largely retained from its predecessor, from its very flashy opening sequence intended for 3D-audiences to its dramatic final arc that given recent family circumstances hit home especially moreso than normal. We did not watch it in 3D, because frankly I think that doesn’t really lend itself anything useful to a plot-driven film, even in action sequences. But the film lacked punch, an important punch that sustained the middle of the first film. The problem is, the punch that was needed to keep the middle of this film going would probably not have served the plot, and it’s forcing me to conclude that the film’s plot did not make a good second entry into what may well be another ten films. Many reviewers likened this plot, and its underpinning setup, to the Fast and the Furious franchise as a way of suggesting that Marvel intends to draw this franchise and formula out beyond the usual two or three films most film properties enjoy.

So what did this plot do wrong? Well I am going to need to spoil quite a bit. So second warning, skip over the selection if you have not seen the film.

S-S-Spoilerinos
GotGV2 deals with three major themes, in order of appearance:
1. The Jurai Sovereign and Ayeka’s Ayesha’s near-orgasmic need for revenge over a few batteries, used somewhat ironically to save the universe from what would have threatened her race of Borg-with-emotions.
2. Family and near-family ties between the Guardians themselves (Quill, Gamora, Draw, Rocket, and Groot) and others like Quill and Yondu, Yondu and the Ravengers, Gamora and Nebula, and Drax and, well, everyone.
3. Ego, Quill’s father and small-g-god with a fairly hefty, but quickly-spent payload of an origin story for Quill and company.

So let’s go in order here:

1. The Sovereign
Like the first film’s Nova Corp, The Sovereign are presented as a high-tech, but imperial society with a rigid caste system with which each person “born” into the society is assigned specific tasks and roles upon their lives. Quill explains that they are very methodical and particular about their customs and will punish, usually by death, any slight they deem unacceptable, especially by outsiders. Unlike Nova Corp, however, once Rocket sets off their queen, Ayesha, by stealing their valuable batteries they were hired to protect, they served as both the way in which Ego finds Quill, and to light up the final battle and showcase more Rocket-developed hardware.

The apt comparison to Tenchi Muyo’s Ayeka Masaki Jurai is almost uncanny, right down to other Sovereign characters featured during the spacefighting scenes, and even in the remote-control technology used. Even the two cultures, the Jurai and the Sovereign, operate similarly in their imperial roots, but it’s almost as of the big-G-God Washu spun a subset of the race off into the Guardians universe to marry them to the Borg in terms of efficiency, only retaining that snotty overtone Ayeka was famous for in the show in Ayesha, even down to her fascination (and maybe love interest) in Quill. A bonus scene in the end credit depicts her new creation, whom she calls “Adam”, but according to the Marvel wikis, may be Adam Warlock. I imagine this plot line will converge in the next Thanos-related film since Adam Warlock regards Thanos as an enemy in the comics.

2. Family
The Fast and the Furious was probably the most apt description by many reviewers for describing this subplot of the film, depicted in the various relationships that were being discussed during transit, downtime, and even in major action sequences. Certainly, this helps character development, but I would admit the only real development we got from it was Quill and Yondu at the end, when Yondu explains his role in Ego’s offspring and how his defection and raising of Quill made him more of a father to Quill than Ego was. This made Yondu’s death especially powerful as a closer, and as someone who is used to commenting on the extremely pointless death-to-illicit-emotion-in-lifeless-character trope in anime, I was pleasantly satisfied with Yondu’s demise here given his role in the two films, although as I’ll detail in a bit, he stood to have served longer. The other relationships really felt forced, save for Rocket, who has always felt like an outside character trying to fit in, but lacking that grace, stays sarcastic and rude for the sake of brevity as the film moves from scene-to-scene. Quill and Gamora are no closer to each other than the last film, Gamora and Nebula basically played out Frozen in space, Drax is still Drax, though he might have found his non-dancer in newcomer Mantis. Groot is, well, Groot, though the end-credits scene was genuinely funny for his archetype.

But if you’re looking for character growth here, unfortunately you will not find much. Even the Fast movies did a little better at this, though not by much, and that’s your early indication Marvel and Disney intends to milk this franchise out with bare plots and little character development. Too much development in a long-run film franchise weakens it the further out you go. You either pack a punch in three, or become the next Shrek. Or in anime terms, Bleach

3. Good Ol’ Dad
I’m going to TLDR this here if you don’t want to keep reading: James Gunn blew his proverbial load all over this film without offering at least five minutes of foreplay, resulting in a film that might have felt good for a short time, but leaves you feeling extremely unsatisfying.

Sexual tension aside, Guardians ran with the father reveal AND the father-is-the-evil-plot, followed by the father-is-beaten-by-the-son all in one film. Star Wars took three films to set up Luke for his father reveal and eventual defeat, Guardians does it all in one, and badly. All of this would work for a third, maybe fourth film, after we’ve seen some more adventures of Quill and Co. with him still pondering the mystery of his father, not knowing who he was, but Gunn choose to blow the entire father reveal and dust-up in the second film, completely removing a reason to keep the mystery alive for a little while longer, especially if the end goal was to make more movies.

But what really get the rub is the original 616 Peter Quill’s father wasn’t a small-g-god, but an actual space emperor, the struggle for the galaxy remaining largely the same, but with more potential to be larger and more drawn out. My guess here is they did not want to overlap another villain on top of the first film’s Thanos, but considering the vastness of space and near-infinite possibilities, that would have been a better plot for a second movie, finding out you’re the son of a space emperor, meeting him, refusing to take your place ruling the galaxy, and setting up a third or fourth film to confront him in a major battle. Instead, Gunn those the easy route of giving us a throwaway villain with a throwaway plot that you could kind of see coming from the start, especially as other characters pile on the foreshadowing from the start of his showing up.

A better plot would have been having Quill chasing breadcrumbs about his father’s whereabouts and origin story interspersed throughout the movie as they’re on the run from the Sovereign, while Gamora deals with Nebula, Rocket deals with everyone, Groot is Groot, and Drax laughing at his own terrible jokes. Guardians of the Galaxy is much like the Star Wars expanded universe in that there is plenty of space and space-faring worlds and races to explore while you’re focused on the story. I’m not sure if Gunn felt that doing something like that would result in a slower-paced film, but it’s not as if fans rejected the first film which had that style of pacing. The first film hinged a lot of itself on its characters, witty one-liners, and space action. That makes the second movie more difficult in that you have your characters, now what do you do with them? I KNOW, LET’S DRAG KURT RUSSELL INTO THIS. Sylvester Stallone got off easy.

No, I’m afraid the main sticking point for me on this movie was the father arc. It came too soon for me this time around. I would have rather seen this as a third, maybe fourth film. I think we needed to see more Star-Lord in Space doing some wacky adventures and seeing the dynamics of him with the other Guardians before we could reasonably begin to unpack his heritage, origins, and reason for being in the universe. Worse still, we’re losing one of the franchise’s best character, Yondu, who certainly deserves this end character-wise, but Michael Rooker plays the part so well it’s going to be a shame he is not around longer to enjoy his whistling-dixie and I’M MARY POPPINS Y’ALL attitude.

Looking past the movie’s weaknesses, it was still a solid Marvel entry in its sort-of expanded, off-the-path superhero universe, the kind currently kicking ass on Netflix with Jessica Jones and Luke Cage. Unfortunately, I kind of have to wonder if things like Guardians of the Galaxy might have fared better on the small-screen on-demand universe than the big-screen. The Netflix-driven format has allowed Marvel to play with how to construct a show in a season and sell it whole-hog, as opposed to a much larger-budget film or drip-feeding it over television each week, even though that has worked out well for them with Agents of SHIELD. I think Guardians would make a great television series, but getting that cast is probably not going to happen, even though Chris Pratt got his start on network television and would be no stranger to it. It might make an even better animated series in the way Star Wars: The Clone Wars boosted the franchise’s meta-universe after the prequel-trilogy.

But the reason it is important to consider this film alongside Marvel’s other entries is that their portfolio of films is staggering, having ballooned exponentially over the last decade to almost every property they own, completely dethroning DC as they struggle to find someone able to write and direct a good Batman or Superman film, falling back on Wonder Woman for this summer. Marvel has an impressive lineup of movies, and Guardians stands out as one of them because it’s quirky, it’s different, and Chris Pratt brought his upgraded physique, charm, and that bumbling sense of humor we loved from Parks and Recreation to the role of Star-Lord, a much better-named hero than Taser-Face. I’d hope Marvel remembers this as they continue to move forward, because like Atari in the early 80’s, they risk seeing their empire collapse if they continue to shortchange their strongest franchises with weaker-plot entries to the series. Even Avengers and Iron Man films are starting to wane, to the point where Infinity War will no doubt showcase everything they have in an effort to placate to millennial attention-spans and their need for OMG ___ IS IN THIS MOVIE like how they put Spidey in the last Avengers film. Resorting to fanservice means you frankly suck as a writer and world-builder. Folks who have read my anime reviews in the past know I love a good fanservice show, but not at the expense of actual storytelling, plot, and characters. Either be pure fanservice, or don’t.

TLDR: Guardians starts out great, stalls out in the middle, and finishes strong amidst a weak plot and awkward character interactions.
Worth Your Theater Dollars? Yes, though maybe for manatee price by now given its fourth week out. Or wait for DVD/BD.
Watch For: Chris Pratt, Rocket, I AM GROOT, and comedic space action
Don’t Watch For: Weak Daddy-Issues plot, the tsundere sisters Gamora and Nebula, and Drax laughing at dumb things.

Also, keep your eyes out for two Stan Lee scenes, one during the film, and one in the end credits. And watch through all of the end credits, there are a few bonus scenes worth seeing.

Posted in Originals | Tagged | Leave a comment

Fate

by Equilateral Posted on May 19, 2017

We never know we go, when we are going
We jest and shut the door;
Fate following behind us bolts it,
And we accost no more.

– Emily Dickinson

People always tell you to “live in the moment” or “cherish every day” and other glass-half-full such phrases of optimism. Because even though we all assume that we’ll live life until we’re old, it’s not hard to turn on the news, read social media, or other sources talk about how a child died in a car accident, a person killed another person, or entire groups of people murdered in cold blood for something as intangible as money or power. Death is unique in that it is the ultimate equalizer, that no matter who you are, you will leave this mortal plane someday. Sure, we’ve constructed ways with which to pass that artificial reality on to the next person, but it will never buy immortality or permanence in this realm. Life, as it were, is the most real rogue-like gaming experience.

But what do we constitute as being the benchmark for making every day count? For, living life to the fullest?

Because frankly, just doing what I do day-in and day-out is enough for me to be happy with life. Sure, I’d like to be making a million bucks, be able to travel everywhere and see everything, have fancy things, be fed grapes by a women in Japanese maid outfits, and drive my wife and I around in fancy topless cars, but that’s just icing on the cake. The cake that is life is already delicious and moist, and full of goodness and flavor. Maybe the optimism is less about action and more about experience. Maybe when people are telling you that you should live life to the fullest, they really mean live life like they do. After all, we are creatures of attention and ego, and what better than to console one over the finality of mortality than to remind them of their own fate, a fate shared of us all.

No, for me, I believe the people who pass, if they could, would tell you to just keep living, however the hell you want to. Someone else doesn’t agree? Fuck em. We may never know the meaning of life or the purpose of our existence in this universe, but that doesn’t mean we simply hide until the end, or follow another’s design. If we knew where we were going, we would not need things like time or space. We’d simply exist within the confines of a limitless universe. Sounds exotic, but boring.

Unpredictability, after all, is why we keep going.

Posted in Originals | Tagged | Leave a comment