Welcome Back From the Dead: Ghostbusters (2016)

Welcome Back From the Dead

Let me get it out right away: yes, I am a feminist. Yes, I am a progressive. And yes, I have a confessed love of funny women. I also hate to see my movies injured. Now that I think about it, Dan Aykroyd has particularly bad luck with both with Ghostbusters 2, and particularly Blues Brothers 2000 serving as examples of awful Hollywood cash-ins creating abominations of cinema; however, this foray showed promise. So I walked in the theater for the reboot of Ghostbusters without either excitement or dread.

I considered adding a tangent just for Kate,
but I'll leave that to another day.

Obviously there was a great deal of controversy regarding the feeling that the all female cast was too much of a push for PC diversity. If it weren't for Paul Feig's incredible ability to be a man who can also make good femal characters, I might have had no hope. Recently I read Bossypants by Tina Fey, and she made an observation that seems suited to respond. I pray my Lady Fey can forgive any misquotation, but "Only in comedy can an obedient white girl be considered diversity." Tina Fey, like a sizable portion of both the original and new Ghostbusters casts made her name with Saturday Night Live. I find it interesting that a renowned institution long plagued by the misogyny (see John Belushi) is capable of producing such outstanding actresses, and they all shine like diamonds in this movie. Make no mistakes, no one pretends the characters are anything but women, but they shake the standards of the witty love interest so often reserved to the women of comedy. This movie is feminist in the best, most subtle way. It has well written, intelligent, and strong female characters, and it doesn't make a big deal about it. Great characters who just happen to be women. All of the principal actors (Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones) are brilliant, and perform their roles marvelously. While everyone made a great performance, I must say that McKinnon stole the show. With her typical devotion to character, McKinnon provided an element of randomness that helped differentiate the reboot (?) from the original.

I think that's why so many people are getting angry here, where they were okay with the equally stellar Star Wars: The Force Awakens. As much as I truly love The Force Awakens, and think that it is a terrific movie, it followed the story beats of A New Hope almost to the letter. Thanks to J.J. Abrams, it was an unquestionably well made movie, but it was also supremely familiar. Feig decided to do something different. While there are certain allusions to the prior series, including cameos from surviving actors (RIP Ramis), the film uses an old firehouse to mock the idea of failing to differentiate. This is not the original, and for a comedy, that is a good thing.

Is the new Ghostbusters as good as the original? It's hard to say that was the best Sci-Fi Comedy ever made, and this is different. In a good way. This movie makes smart decisions to make itself unique and different from the rest of the industry. I can't hate a movie for not being as good as the best to ever exist in it's genre. More importantly, even if the OG GB can't be beat, a joke is only funny for so long. Example: Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side! (Insert laugh track). It's not technically a bad joke, but no one laughed at that because we've all heard it before. A comedy revival can't be exactly like its predecessor because we know the punchline. Feig made a movie that not only progressed the series (who only had two good entries including an Xbox 360 game), but also did a lot to progress the comedy genre as a whole. Having women placed comfortably and intelligently in the limelight continues to open the door for more women to follow into further terrific rolls. You should go see Ghostbusters. It's a good movie, and worth a watch, but it's also an economic product. Still prefer Bill Murry? I can't blame you, but that movie is easily available in the format of your choice. It's even on UMD. Get over your nostalgia. If we want more good movies made by talented directors, starring superstar women, you need to vote with your wallet. Go and prove once and for all women are funny.

Rewritten in Red Ink

Rewritten in Red Ink:

How China’s Ruling Party is Impacting Hollywood

Abstract

The focus of this paper is to examine the economic and soft power ramifications from the interweaving of the American and Chinese film markets pursuant to globalization and international relations between the two great powers. This paper finds that there have been economic and artistic benefits to both parties involved in the matter, particularly in the development of China’s domestic film development; however, the Chinese Communist Party and its affiliated censorship enforcement mechanisms are altering the international perceptions of not just China, in a manner that could potentially shift international perceptions of the world in favor of China. That said, if China does not correct course, the World Trade Organization could bring serious consequences against the world’s most populous state.

Background

Since the foundation of the major studios of California, America, and particularly Hollywood, has ruled the film industry worldwide. Long able to create films with only the American consumer in mind, Hollywood rarely, if ever, had to bother itself with the concerns of foreign markets, but that all changed when economic globalization took turned the business world upside down. Now, with the film industry getting larger and more profitable than ever before, movies continue to grow more expensive, one of America’s largest industries is having to get increasingly creative to continue turning profits.

It is no secret that much of America’s former manufacturing glory has been sent to the Far East. What isn’t as often acknowledged by the average armchair economist is the expansion of the market available to American businesses, and that includes Tinseltown. While the Chinese population at large still face great challenges on the human rights and personal income fronts, the average income of the population of most citizens is increasing rapidly, growing almost eightfold from 2000 to 2014 (O’Conner and Armstrong). With this newly found disposable income and a newly forming middle class, China has grown to be the world’s second biggest cinema market, second only to the United States (China’s Film Industry) and is expected to become the largest market by 2018 (O’Connor and Armstrong). With the looming giant rising on the horizon, it is high time to analyze the ramifications of Hollywood’s newfound gravy boat.

Actors

Hollywood: This name is used in reference to the American film industry as a whole (and occasionally other Western studios). Any references to the geographical location are intended to be read as such, and should be thought of as a group of businesses within the industry because that is how they function in the context of this paper. Different production companies, studios, and specific films will be referenced specifically as required, but the industry does have a tendency to follow certain trends, and, like any industry, those trends are always to follow money. While all All actions made by the businesses and their leaders are made with the goal of maximizing profits in the long term, and allowing artists to create unique products as an added benefit.

Chinese Communist Party (CCP): The ruling party of the world’s most populous nation, and one known for strictly policing the content available for consumption and most aspects of public life in the nation. Recent years have seen the party slowly begin to open the nation. President Xi Jinping, the elected head of state and party, expressed in a 2014 speech that he still considers the purpose of Chinese art to be the original mandate from Mao, service of politics, namely the politics of the CCP (O'Connor and Armstrong). While the Party does want to grow both national revenue, provide entertainment to the people, and grow a new domestic industry, the ultimate goal is still to advance the agenda of the Communist’s of China.

State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film, and Television of the People’s Republic of China (SAPPRFT): Certainly the longest names to be featured in this paper, SAPPRFT serves as the CCP’s primary method of censoring the content fed to the people. The primary goal of SAPPRFT is to advance the Party’s agenda through the expressions, or lack thereof, in the media. Any actions taken by SAPPRFT can be seen as actions of the CCP, but a specific enforcement mechanism.

Events

The Beginning

Shortly after crackdowns on free expression, the CCP closed its film market to exclusively domestic films in 1979, and most of those were propaganda films (China’s Film Industry). Unsurprisingly, “the film market dwindled, with attendance falling by 79% from 1982 to 1991” (China’s Film Industry). So, while America and most of the world were busting blocks to see such classic hits as Star Wars, Back to the Future, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Ferris Buehler’s Day Off, and Star Wars: The Return of the Jedi, Chinese audiences were electing to not see the declarations of the greatness of the the CCP and their People’s Army. With so little money available to the hands of the Chinese consumer, there really wasn’t much need to pay to see more propaganda proclaiming the greatness of the authoritarians above them. That all changed in 1991, when China took its very first small step toward Hollywood.

In 1991 “[t]o revive its movie business, China brought in its first foreign film in 1994 — Warner Bros.’ The Fugitive, starring Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones” (China’s Film Industry). Universally regarded as a groundbreaking moment in the history of both countries, and a major boon for Hollywood, this crack in the door to China’s cinemas marked a new period for both markets. Regardless, Hollywood was a stranger in a strange place, and the traditional tactics for making a blockbuster would need some work to be up to snuff for the world’s most populous nation.

Growth and Expansion

The situation in China has been rapidly improving for the average Chinese person, and “Chinese consumers have increased their recreational spending in recent years with rising income levels and an increase in discretionary funds” (Zhitao). In addition to having the world’s largest population, China is seeing a period of immense growth in prosperity for the people of China that might be likened to the United States following the Second World War. There’s more than a vague concept of an increase in spending, “In 2015, box office revenue hit a record $6.8 billion, up 49% “ (China’s Film Market). This data makes it abundantly clear that China’s film market is not only massive, but still growing. Qiaowei Shen, a marketing professor with the University of Pennsylvania, notes that China has potential for even further growth. According to Dr. Shen, the average Chinese person goes to the cinema less than once a year. “There’s huge potential [for growth] if the average Chinese person [just] goes to the movies two times a year, then box office receipts will increase by two times” (China’s Film Market). If China can maintain its current rate of growth, then they will have outpaced the United States as the world’s largest film market by 2018 (O’Connor and Armstrong). This leads to a new and lucrative revenue stream for Hollywood, the current heavyweight champ, and a new industry for China to come screaming into.

In 2014, the top ten box office hits, were an even split between domestic and imported films (Jing). 2015, the following year would prove to be an even bigger year for the burgeoning market. In the course of just a few months, China saw its all-time box office record broken not once, but twice by Fast and Furious 7 and Monster Hunt, an American film and a Chinese film, respectively, in the course of a few months (O’Connor and Armstrong). These two years of unqualified success were nothing if not proof of the viability for both domestic and imported goods in the cinema. With these back to back record breakers, Hollywood and Chinese industrialists alike are pouring funds into developing domestic means of production to feed the market.

Among the great problems facing the Chinese market is distribution. According to Shen, “Adding movie screens and building cinemas, especially in the smaller cities, will spur growth of the entertainment industry in China.” As it stands, China is adding an average of fifteen screens a day and is expected to have significantly more than America by 2017 (China’s Film Market). Liu Shuyao is an investor looking to expand the revenue through more high tech means. Shuyao is the founder of 100 TV, a company making an internet streaming service exclusively for mobile devices in the Asian market (Jing). With this advancement, even the most remote of villages could gain access to a pocket-sized silver screen, potentially providing an even wider market, as demonstrated by services such as Netflix and Hulu in the West. This presents possibly the most dramatic opportunity to expand the Chinese film market; however, businesses aren’t satisfied with just delivering the product.

In late 2014, the Dalian Wanda Group made a major move to bring production into their home turf with the announcement of the “Movie Metropolis,” in Qingdao an $8.2 billion dollar venture to produce a location that would have not only twenty soundstages for production, but also a nearby resort and amusement park for the families of actors, and a potential billion dollars in annual funding for production (Verrier). Since the announcement, there have already been pledges from Leonardo DiCaprio, Nicole Kidman, and Harvey Weinstein to work with the studio (China’s Film Industry). In addition, DreamWorks Studios has begun to developing movies in China, specifically setting up the Oriental DreamWorks Studio in Shanghai for the animated movie Kung Fu Panda 3 (O’Connor and Armstrong). By adding Chinese actors and shifting the production to China, there were mutual benefits to gain for both sides of the equation.

Cooperation

In an effort to defend the growth of domestic development, the CCP has placed strict requirements on imported films. There are a few ways for American films to enter Chinese cinemas, and due to the production restraints currently being worked around, the most prominent is the profit sharing method. Under a 2012 World Trade Organization Agreement in 2012, foreign studios are limited to 34 releases a year, with 25% of profits going to the original creators, and 75% going to various film related destinations in China (O’Connor and Armstrong). This is where the appeal of a foreign office, such as Oriental Dreamworks with Kung Fu Panda 3, comes into play. If a film can claim the status of being co-produced domestically, there is no limit on the number of films that can be released, and the revenue share goes from 25% to 43% (Jing). To be co-produced “can include having at least one scene shot in China, casting at least one Chinese actor, receiving a minimum one-third of the movie’s total investment from Chinese companies, and, in general, illustrating ‘positive Chinese elements’” (O’Connor and Armstrong).

Beyond merely making money, there is also an element of craft that both sides can improve upon with the mutual assistance of the other party. When learning to do anything, it makes sense to work with the best, and no nation has ever done film as well as America. From Charlie Chaplin to Christopher Nolan, silent films to Michael Bay, it is difficult to compare to the breadth of film available from Hollywood. For now. As more films make the jump to China, the industry is learning fast. “To support China’s burgeoning film industry, the influx of filmmaking know-how is just as important as the box office revenue from imported Hollywood films,” (O’Connor and Armstrong). Film is like any other commercial product, and no one wants to pay for low quality products. To make higher quality products, a manufacturer needs more than high quality parts, they also need to know how to put them together in a sensible manner. While China has yet to produce a filmmaker of the caliber of Akira Kurosawa, they are fertilizing the industry to yield one.

When it comes to making a product, the best way to learn is by doing. “Speaking about Southpaw, a recent film co produced with Dalian Wanda Group Corp., the Weinstein Company’s former Chief Operating Officer David Glasser stated that the Chinese ‘were on the set and involved in production, post production, marketing, everything’ because ‘they wanted to learn how we do what we do,’” (O’Connor and Armstrong). James Cameron, best known for producing some of the world’s highest grossing films such as Titanic and Avatar, made significant moves for both economics and craft. In preparation for the upcoming installments of Cameron’s Avatar franchise, Cameron’s production company, Cameron Pace Group, made a mutually beneficial arrangement with Tianjin North Film Group and Tianjin Hi-Tech Holding Group. This deal will give Chinese filmmakers will gain access and knowledge to on the use of high tech and cost effective means of 3D film production, and American filmmakers get increased access to make more money at the Chinese box office, and given the financial success of the original film, the sequel could get even bigger with incredible, and otherwise limited, market for a franchise that could very well go on to be one of the largest of all times (O’Connor and Armstrong). A sometimes small increase in revenue might seem pointless in an industry that gives out gold statues to various workers throughout the year, but filmmaking is expensive, and every additional ticket sale, particularly to a billion people, can save a film.

The return of superstar Arnold Schwarzenegger for Terminator: Genisys was expected to be a return to former box office glory following the transgressions of prior installments Terminator after the original trilogy. The box office failed to agree. During its run in the States, terminator failed to break $100 million during the summer blockbuster period, rendering is a flop (Lang). That changed when the “Governator” headed East. Once Terminator: Genysis broke into the Chinese market it nearly caught up to the entire American run in just 8 days, “clawing its way from flop territory into profitable terrain thanks to a big lift from Chinese audiences,” joining the likes of Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and Pacific Rim as movies saved by the East where profitability is concerned (Lang). While the market decides what products are worthwhile, and what films are not, the additional income for movies, particularly those that might be considered risky, does allow for greater creative freedom for filmmakers who might know what they are doing, but want to experiment with something new. To put millions of dollars into an investment that might not pay off is a frightening proposition, but with the chance to double your earnings in China, the risk grows much smaller and more financially questionable endeavors can get the funding they need. While this may lead to some dud products along the way, it took questionable product attempts like the Geo Metro to produce a solid product like a Tesla or Prius; however, not all changes empower the creatives and the consumers.

China and Censorship

Among the glaring points of China’s policies regarding film is the policy that films display “positive Chinese elements.” The problem is, the SAPPRFT and their bosses in the CCP have never fully defined what they mean by the elements. America has the Motion Picture Association of America, but China has no ratings system, so all films must be considered acceptable to all audiences regardless of where it is produced (How China’s Censors Influence Hollywood). With that strict standard, SAPPRFT has never clearly defined or codified what is considered acceptable to Chinese audiences, so strange things will get caught up by the censors.

Now, with no age restrictions, some removals could be justified. For example, scenes with sexual tones from Cloud Atlas and Skyfall (Kang). Further restrictions regarding violence, nudity, and general sexual themes, have barred or altered foreign films like Brokeback Mountain, The Departed, and The Life of Pi (O’Connor and Armstrong). Regardless, these rules are sometimes sacrificed for positive Chinese elements. “The Flowers of War, a Chinese film starring Christian Bale, graphically portrayed the Nanking massacre with scenes depicting overt violent and sexual content. But because the film stoked anti-Japanese sentiment and was regarded as China’s top contender for an Oscar, it passed Chinese censors easily,” (O’Connor and Armstrong). This gives completely Chinese films a major advantage of creative liberty over their foreign counterparts, where a Chinese film would not meet such roadblocks in America, where films have a wide array of ratings with established guidelines that does not include nationality.

Some of these changes are harmless. For instance, the film Looper changed the fictional world capital from Paris to a considerably more likely Shanghai (Kang). The change didn’t alter the plot, and by bringing the underrepresented Asian community into the film, could be a net positive. Optimistically, “the Chinese-driven expansion of jobs for Asian and Asian American artists in Hollywood will trickle down to directors and screenwriters, so that Asian/American perspectives and experiences can one day coexist in multiplexes alongside ‘mainstream’ ones” (Kang). In an interesting turn, Chinese audiences have even seen concessions to appeal more to their demographic.

The prior concession mentioned for Looper was a change made to appeal to Chinese audiences more, but it is not a lone experience. Oscar nominee Gravity made a direct appeal to China by showing their space program as competent and selfless when helping the troubled American, and the inclusion of Chinese products and landmarks in Skyfall among others, and the remake of Red Dawn underwent digital editing to switch the antagonist from China to North Korea (O’Connor and Armstrong). More dramatically, the Chinese audience featured additional content compared to the rest of the world in Iron Man 3. “For the Chinese release of Iron Man 3, moviemakers inserted a scene of doctors, played by major Chinese movie stars, discussing surgery on the superhero” (How China’s Censors Influence Hollywood). While not received with particularly positive fanfare, it does represent a change in a big budget movie based around an all-American to directly appeal to the Chinese market.

Not all changes are so innocent. Some changes might be suspect, like the removal of James Bond killing a Chinese man in Skyfall or the removal of Tom Cruise walking past clothes drying on outdoor lines in Shanghai in Mission Impossible III (O’Connor and Armstrong), but still, harmless to the overall plot. Other changes are of a more fundamental sort. Even Chinese co-produced movies already approved can meet troubles on the way. Recently, the reboot of The Karate Kid was co-produced with Chinese investors. “The Karate Kid was shot with a Chinese-sanctioned script. SAPPRFT, however, still rejected the film’s initial request for distribution in China after production was complete because the villain was Chinese. The Karate Kid’s release in China was delayed and 12 minutes were removed from the film before it opened in China” (O’Connor and Armstrong). Why couldn’t that be included? Because the CCP forbids any negative portrayal or implications about China. The Party is unwilling to allow the portrayal of any Chinese person as being worse than another, and that’s just the beginning of the pro-China censorship.

A 3D re-release of Top Gun was rejected because the Chinese censors felt that the expert pilots of the MiG aircraft too openly projected American dominance. The memory-erasing devices from Men in Black 3 were removed because the censors felt it could be seen as a criticism of China’s internet censorship policies. Most extremely

the Sony production Captain Phillips was denied distribution rights in China on political grounds. The changes required to get Captain Phillips past censors would have been impossible considering the objections of China’s censors to central elements of the film. A Captain Phillips executive identified the tone of the film as a source of discomfort for censors, particularly ‘the big Military machine of the U.S. saving one U.S. citizen. China would never do the same and in no way would want to promote this idea’” (O’Connor and Armstrong).

So what? Who cares if a couple films don’t make it to China? Well, it isn’t that simple.

Because the ideas on acceptability vary so widely from censor to censor, Hollywood has no way of knowing what will make the cut, and practically every studio on the planet is hoping to make the cut into the 34 foreign films allowed into the People’s Republic. “Hollywood studios with an eye to global box office gold know they cannot ignore the Chinese market” (China’s Film Industry). With such stringent guidelines, that is a goal much easier said than done, and it is having a decidedly negative “chilling” effect on the industry which is making creatives much more hesitant to say exactly what they want for fear of not making the cut to enter China.

Filmmakers don’t want to have to make cuts. It is their film, and to let someone else alter it is to sacrifice creative ownership. Artists and producers alike want to avoid making new cuts to films not only to secure artistic vision, but also to prevent diminishing returns for the initial investment in the film. Unfortunately, “[t]he ambiguity of China’s censorship guidelines, and the Chinese government’s sensitivity to international affairs and political concerns, result in studios anticipating objections and making changes without direct pressure from SAPPRFT,” (O’Connor and Armstrong). This should be a major cause of concern for politicians around the world.

The Grand Scheme

Ideas are power, and worldwide film distribution shares a lot of ideas in a lot of different places. China’s effort to influence the world film industry shows a “concerted effort in China to move into the global entertainment and media industry to build China’s soft power [...] The cultural sector is one of the pillars of China’s Five-Year Plan, meaning the government makes an effort to support Chinese investment in entertainment [...] Aside from being good business, it is a way to protect China’s influence in the world,” (China’s Film Industry). Consider censorships, like those in Captain Phillips or in Top Gun, mentioned in the prior section.

Consider the remake of Red Dawn. The original showed a caricature of the Soviet Union, America’s great rival of the time. In the original script for the new movie, the filmmakers substituted the Soviets for the current rival superpower, China. Regardless, it is much more reasonable that China, with its seemingly limitless resources and advanced military, attack the United States than North Korea. If anything, it could be seen as a legitimate insult to Chinese capability to say that the Koreans posed more of a threat than they do, but this is the same country that won’t allow the reboot of a classic family movie unless the villain is not Chinese, and if they won’t let the United States Air Force appear to be capable of making decent pilots, they certainly wouldn’t want a campy piece of teen action portraying American youths from Colorado causing serious trouble for the People’s Army. Even if these films are harmless, there is no likely policy change on the way.

President Xi Jinpeng of China has previously affirmed Mao’s original mandate that “[Chinese] art serve politics,” (O’Connor and Armstrong). While the ruling Communist Party is more than happy to grow a new world dominating industry, it is ultimately a means of influencing and controlling the hearts and minds of the Chinese people toward the politics of the party that filters the content allowed to their cinemas. China need not be the only menace to be seen on the silver screen, but it is unreasonable to think that they never be shown as having flaws. This would not only stifle creativity but also have major impacts on how the world power is viewed. It really is ironic that Hollywood, an American institution as much as any other, once plagued by grand accusations of being the cronies of communists during the infamous Hollywood Blacklistings of the Red Scare, is now being heavily influenced, if not outright controlled, by the ideals of the Chinese Communist Party.

That doesn’t mean the States aren’t putting up a fight. It was previously mentioned in this paper that there was a 2012 agreement between the United States and China to allow more American films to enter the Chinese market, but the “Memorandum of Understanding” was more complex than simply allowing in more films into the country. This was actually an effort for China to avoid penalties from the World Trade Organization (WTO) “In April 2007, the United States brought a World Trade Organization (WTO) case against China for its restrictions on imports of films and other audiovisual and entertainment products. Two years later, a WTO panel found China’s constraints on film imports were in violation of its trading rights obligations” (O’Connor and Armstrong). Five years later, a 2012 ruling from the WTO declared that China would have to further open itself to foreign films in order to satisfy its its trade agreements, and that is not the end of the politics. “While the deal did not bring China into compliance with the WTO ruling, it did provide a temporary settlement to the dispute,” (O’Connor and Armstrong), and in 2017, the WTO will again review China’s film importation practices, and could potentially have trade regulations altered by 2018 (O’Connor and Armstrong). This could potentially force China to allow further access, likely uncensored, into the country from co-signers of the prior agreement including the United States, United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia (Jing). Maybe the situation will change for the benefit of the West before too long, but “You will not see a Chinese communist as a villain in a Hollywood big budget movie anytime soon” (China’s Film Industry).

Conclusions

There ain’t no business like show business, but the film industry is still having to change with the times of economic globalization. There is a lot of positive progress to be made for China, America, and the rest of the world, both artistically, and financially, but both art and money serve as means of obtaining power and influence on the global political stage. In a world trying to determine its prime superpower, both the soft power of art and the economic power of the almighty dollar and yuan are being fought for on the big screen. There may not be a single shot fired for the sake of greater ticket sales, but the ability to influence the minds of moviegoers around the world, and to buy the support of those beyond convincing is without doubt a great power to any state. While Hollywood and Beijing might be in conflict to win the box office, there is no reason that the relationship can not be mutually beneficial; however, before that can happen, China is going to need to learn to play fair.

Works Cited

“China’s Film Industry: A Blockbuster in the Making” Knowledge Wharton. University of Pennsylvania, 17 February 2016. Web. 14 April 2016.

“How China’s Censors Influence Hollywood.” NPR. NPR, 18 March 2015. Web. 14 April 2016.

Jing, Ji. “A Blockbuster Business.” Beijing Review 58.5 (2015): 14-17 Web. 14 April 2016.

Kany, Inkoo. “Hollywood's Changing Its MOvies to Appease the Chinese? Good.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic Media Company, 20 March 2013. Web. 14 April 2016.

Lang, Brent. “Box Office: Chinese Crowds Lifting ‘Terminator Genisys Into Hit Territory.” Variety. Variety, 30 August 2015. Web. 14 April 2016.

O’Connor, Sean, and Nicholas Armstrong. “Directed by Hollywood, Edited by China.” U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission. U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, 28 October 2015. Web. 14 April 2016.

Verrier, Richard. “China Offers Film Subsidies at New Qingdao Oriental Movie Metropolis.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 8 October 2014. Web. 14 April 2016.

Zhitao, Ding. “Further Opening the Film Market.” Beijing Review 58.5 (2015): 2. Web. 14 April

2016.

The Anit-Registration Papers: Part II, Safety

Why do we submit to the government? As a species, and certainly as a nation, people value their freedom; however, humans almost universally submit to government authority and the rule of law. Why? Many people argue, but the basis for our American union comes from John Locke's social contract where people sacrifice total freedom to secure the rights to "life, liberty, and property." Implied within these rights is the essential right to freedom needed to maintain these essential freedoms. Unfortunately, another essential part of human nature is violence. No matter how much progress we may make as a race, war, murder, and general acts of violence refuse to leave us alone. Particularly when we get scared.
People fear nothing more than what they can't understand, or things they don't know which is the reason we fear anything from the dark, to a shark, from people of other orientations to people of other nations. Imagine how scared people might get of someone biologically or accidentally empowered with abilities that made them definitively different. If white supremacists have a problem with someone who has brown skin, how will they feel about someone who occasionally has green skin? I don't think I have to explain the horrendous actions that hate groups can act out, but let's consider what happens when groups are convinced that some different poses a threat, consider what happens.
Why do homophobes act violently against gay people? No, not the religious objections, why do people assault, injure, kill, and torment someone from the LGBT community? For the authors two cents, throwing boiling water on my lover and myself seems like something that convinces a gay person that straight people are kind of crazy. There has to be more to that than a simple belief in a higher power, it is a fear for the things one knows and has always known. Why did the white middle class fear the entrance of the African-American community? Because tradition of the time dictated that they were unintelligent, and violent. Imagine if there was a group of different people who could do literally anything. Not in the figurative way where someone can work their way out of poverty to a better life, but as in the little boy sitting next to you might be able to manipulate the space-time continuum. In the Marvel Universe, that has been a reality.
Consider the X-Men (I know I've brought them up, shut up). More specifically, think about the Sentinel Program. The Sentinels were the result of Congress skipping the registration step and getting straight to the hating. The Sentinels were super-powered robots specifically engineered to seek and destroy mutants, regardless of their ability. Maybe it was an Omega Class like Phoenix or Professor X, but as I've previously mentioned there are also some mutants who posses the magical ability to not get off the couch to change the channel. If the representatives of the people within the cannon are willing to pass that plan, along for action instead of passing a budget or something, what would happen if they had their targets already marked? Magneto's fears might prove accurate.

Among the dark moments of Marvel is Magneto's backstory as a survivor of the Holocaust. Those were just people that a small angry man convinced Germany were harming them and their blood. If we live in a nation where people can be convinced to go to war across the world because a guy on cocaine thinks we should, than what will happen when some random guy in sunglasses has unstoppable lasers come out of his eyes.
I know what everyone reading this is thinking, what about the people who might get hit by said lasers? I will never say that isn't a relevant concern, but no one has the right to assume that might be a problem. Cyclops can keep his vision contained with quartz sunglasses, and a threat that isn't acted out isn't really much of a threat at all. Let's look at the Second Amendment.
Any way you look at it, a gun is a threat to someone or something. Even with a responsible owner, accidents can happen. Guns are designed to inflict damage on, if not kill something. Those are not humans. People need to be treated equally, and to ask people to risk their safety without reason is a true violation of basic rights. People are people, not weapons. Maybe they can hurt someone, but so can absolutly anyone else. Now, let's say you do see superhumans as weapons.
Certain people aren't allowed to bear arms, but the average person can, and even then, a person chooses to buy a gun. I don't just wake up one day with an AK in my bed. I would register it, because I am choosing to gain the ability to be dangerous. The average superhuman might not be a threat, and they certainly don't want to. That's like forcing me to take an AK and then routinely checking the rounds. Iron Man is the worst person to talk about the necessity of registration. He is free from the concerns of regular heroes. He chose to have powers, he makes his abilities, and he really doesn't need to worry about anything happening to him, or the people he loves.
That is the final security to be wary of, the security of the people around the powerful. If you're worried about spoilers, don't read any further, but know some bad things happen, and potentially in Civil War itself, and remember there's a reason the family of the President's family also gets Secret Service protection.
Tony Stark has nothing to worry about. He has enough money and influence to protect himself and Pepper. What about a poor high school student, someone like Peter Parker. In the Civil War plot line of the comics, as soon as Spider-Man shows his true self, Aunt May dies. While the stereotype of superheroes would suggest that they have no one to lose, every hero has someone close. Daredevil has Foggy. Hawkeye has a wife. Thor has Natalie Portman. V, also has Natalie Portman. Even if a hero has power that could be a threat, the revelation of their secret identity could hurt the powerless people who just happen to be in the lives of a mutant. As a billionaire arms manufacturer, Stark might be able to ensure the protection of those around him and himself beyond his powers. The average person, and therefor the average superhuman, can' t.

I would like to imagine that the presence of superhumans wouldn't scare people toward violence, but looking at the world around me, and the world contained in the Marvel Universe, I can't. If they don't give a reason, superhumans shouldn't be considered a threat, and so they shouldn't have their safety and the safety of those around them jeopardized.

The Anti-Registtration Papers: Part I, Privacy

A civil war is looming over comic book and film fans alike, and it has already begun to take its toll, driving multiple debates between myself and Tess Jones, who may be authoring the Registration Papers. The fight over the question of superhero registration is a serious one that poses serious questions for real world political and moral values. While this obviously takes place in a separate world (MCU is a fair choice, but I will also pull from canon within the books), the question addresses that world's United States.
So, while this might be a separate universe, we can assume relatively similar conditions and mindsets to those facing the real life United States. While those arguing for registration may have everyone's best intentions in mind, and I certainly feel a great deal of respect for Mr. Stark, I must take up the Star-Spangled Banner alongside Mr. Rogers (not that one) and argue in opposition of superhuman registration.
The question of how much liberty humans ought to forfeit in exchange for what measure of safety is one that is as old as government itself. While a totalitarian state is the most safe for a nation, it also asks too much of the people living under its social contract. Superhuman registration is a fundamental violation of the right to privacy found in the US constitution, and established by the Supreme Court in the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut. The majority of superhumans, and the one's I am personally concerned with, receive their abilities either by natural born mutation, or medical development, and the government has no right to know either of those.
First, genetic super humans. Prominently featured among the X-Men these are beings born through the process of evolution with whatever ability they may possess, and that's the important thing, it is theirs. Most legal arguments currently view DNA and other genetic information as being the private concern of the individual or even property. While the specifics are still being hashed out in court, it is clear which way the wind is blowing. The government has no right to know what your genetic makeup is because it is most likely your patent-able property, and if it isn't, it certainly is no one else's business.
As for those who develop their abilities through misadventure, often from radiation like the Hulk and Spider-Man, that is your own personal medical concern. The medical field is one of the primary fields of concern for the right to privacy. The only time you can be compelled to share your medical status is if your have a disease that can be spread to someone else, and even then you don't have to register yourself as someone with a disease, you're just quarantined until you no longer pose a threat to anyone else.
Many would say that someone with nothing to hide shouldn't be scared of releasing information, but if the state is fine with everyone's information being shared, why not make everyone's private information public? Maybe my exceptional height is a sign that I'm developing into Colossus, so I should be monitored to ensure I don't develop into a superhuman. That is the same argument that every major surveillance program ever used on innocent civilians, most prominently the  NSA scandal revealed by Edward Snowden. With total surveillance, the government could possibly know more about an individual knows about them self.
Not every superhuman knows that they are a superhuman. Many don't see any manifestation of their powers until late in life, and some have powers so small that they wouldn't even notice it them self, like a mutant with Dr. Xavier whose ability is changing the TV channel at will by blinking. What would be done with these truant registrations? Punishment would be unethical for someone with a condition they were unaware of, and if that argument holds, then any superhuman could claim ignorance upon interrogation. To punish people for circumstances beyond their control and beyond the rightful knowledge of the government is the wrong action.

In Part II of the Anti-Registration Papers, I will discuss concerns for the safety of the superhumans themselves.

Time Marches On

Let me begin by saying that this is a politically focused piece of writing, but I'm not going to be making endorsements or damnations. You have your disclaimer.

Among the most hateful speeches for segregation the nation had ever seen, Governor George Wallace of Alabama famously declared his support for "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" in his first inaugural address. This famously led to mass protests and civil rights action in Montgomery on behalf of such giants as John Lewis and Dr. King. Following the application of a black decorated Navy veteran to the University of Alabama, Wallace famously barred the schoolhouse door personally, delivering rhetoric with the protection of the National Guard. Now, anyone acquainted with American history knows that the Kennedy's didn't let that happen for too long and the march of history resulted in the defeat of segregation and victory of truth, justice, and the American way.

The part that many forget or don't know is that George Wallace later realized the error of his ways. At the 30 year commemoration of the Selma-Montgomery march, the very protest he ordered attacks onto, Gov. Wallace sat with the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a man he had previously sought to stop from marching. As Judas realized his grave wrongs at the end of his life, Gov. Wallace realized the error of his ways. During the 1982 election, he sought the forgiveness of those he wronged, and even got significant support from the black community in Alabama. 

In that term, Wallace greatly expanded social programs including education and healthcare in the state. Does this excuse the hate he stirred, the bones he ordered broken, or the walls he reinforced between Americans? Probably not, and his legacy as a hatemonger is probably warranted, but during an election where my party is very concerned about the history of Mrs. Clinton, I feel it only fair to interject that people can, in fact, change for the better, and we should never count someone as eternal evil. While wrongdoings do deserve punishment, the people of Alabama would have missed out on a great deal of progress for the better if they had not forgiven the evils of George Wallace's segregationist policies.

So, Hillary Clinton. While she might have made some mistakes more recently that will hopefully be looked further into by concerned authorities, why should her time as a Republican be held against her? HRC interned with, and campaigned for Barry Goldwater, a Republican presidential candidate who was less than progressive for civil rights. As a party, we don't exactly want a conservative prone to campaigning against civil rights and universally opposing welfare. The thing thing is, that's not Hillary anymore, and it hasn't been for a while. As early as the 90s she was already supporting liberal ideals like Universal Health Care. Before this cycle, and her alleged sins as Secretary of State, Clinton also supported lowering tuition and an infrastructure stimulus. Are those really so terrible a history? People change, and we, both the Democratic Party and the American people need to realize that people can change for the better.

Don't believe me? Look at a martyred hero of the Democratic party from the Bush administration, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Sen. Byrd is often respected for being the only major opposition in the Senate to the disastrous invasion of Iraq in addition to other major achievements for liberals in his long time spent with the U.S. Senate. Byrd's foreshadowing speech to the Senate about Iraq is often sighted as an example of the greatness of the Democratic Party. That is to forget his prior position as an Exalted Cyclops with the Ku Klux Klan. Now, that comes with the note that there is little, if any evidence of personal acts of hatred against any of the numerous targets of the Klan, but that's kind of my point. Byrd has attested on numerous occasions that he used the Klan as a means of launching himself into politics, and from there, he did good things. He made great actions as politician that greatly benefited both his nation and his state, and wrote of his time as a Klan leader with nothing but shame. We don't remember him today as a racist or a villain, but as the noble man making a lone stand against a wrongful war on a foreign land that history will remember as a mistake. If his constituents had decided to perpetually hold the ghosts of his past against him, they would have lost out on the great man he became.

These examples don't just go for liberals; remember, Ronald Reagan also spent a respectable portion of his life as a Democrat before switching parties, and that's not where his faults for the Republican party ended. While his policies, now known collectively as Reaganomics, are the moral backbone of conservative economic policies, but also saw America spiraling into debt like never before. For those who would debate that point, there is no debate that his views on gun control did not fall in line with the Republican party at large, then or now. Pres. Reagan supported gun control, specifically calling out the banning of the AK-47 and  other assault rifles as not abridging the Second Amendment, arguably getting the ball rolling for the other Clinton's federal ban on assault rifles. That is not the legacy he hold in the party, he is remembered as a beacon of fiscal responsibility, and not a mention to be made of his stance on guns, a probable political suicide for any Republican in the modern political atmosphere. Once again a major hero of his party is forgiven for the contributions he made for their cause.

Now, this is far from an endorsement of Clinton, I feel the Bern, or an attempt to forget the racial prejudice and hatred of the past. Those are very important parts of history, and should be remembered, but don't forget that people can change for the better, and focus on the present. If living in your own past is harmful to you, living in the pasts of others is also selfishly posing a detriment onto everyone. In politics, candidates should be seen for who they are, not for who they were.

The argument of past supports are a thin argument to distract from what candidates believe in the here and now. The arguments of the past are only of value in where they brought their arguers. Wallace atoned for his wrongdoings, Byrd remembered his past with embarrassment, Reagan is enshrined as a hero. If she stops Sanders, perhaps I will back her into an era of change. How long a grace period should be given to forget the past? Decide for yourself, it's your vote. For the sake of everyone, just educate yourself and cast it.