Astro Boy (2009):

Astro Boy (2009):

I finally got around to watching Astro Boy (2009), and you know what? I liked it. Not loved it. Not “This redefined Astro Boy”- kind of liked. But, liked it.

Let’s just get this out of the way. Yeah, the visuals are kind of dated. It’s very 2009 CGI. Shiny metal, slightly rubbery faces, and that weird in-between era where animation hadn’t quite figured out how to stylize humans yet It’s fine. It works. It feels like a Saturday afternoon kids’ movie.

One of my biggest mixed feelings is how they re-imagined the world. In the original anime created by Osamu Tezuka, Astro’s adventures spanned the cosmos. There were robot wars on the Moon. Moral dilemmas across continents. Wild sci-fi ideas that felt boundless.

Here, Metro City is basically a floating city-state, hovering above a trashed Earth. It’s very “Metropolis-lite.” It grounds the story, which makes sense for an American family film, but it also shrinks the scope dramatically. The universe feels smaller. Safer. Contained.

They do sprinkle in nods to older characters and lore, which longtime fans will recognize. But the characterizations? Totally different. And that’s fine. I get that they were probably setting up a new franchise direction. It’s just… this version of Astro Boy, aside from the name and powers, feels barely recognizable.

One thing I genuinely enjoyed was the humor.

Yes, including the now-infamous:

“I have machine guns in… my butt???”

It’s dumb. It’s juvenile. It absolutely got a laugh out of me.

There are also some sweet friendship beats, especially once Astro lands on the surface and ends up with the junkyard kids. It leans heavily into the American “ragtag group of misfits who come together” formula. Predictable? Sure. But it’s warm.

One thing that really stood out to me is how simplified the themes are. Classic Astro Boy wrestles with identity. What does it mean to be human? Can robots have souls? Can they coexist with humanity? His heart, metaphorically and sometimes literally, is tied to something spiritual.

In this movie, it’s Blue Core vs. Red Core. Good vs. Evil. Intention vs. corruption. It’s very literal. Almost like the movie is afraid to wade into anything messier or more philosophical.

Astro’s journey toward humanity gets glossed over. Instead of grappling deeply with what he is, the emotional takeaway becomes: “He’s a good friend.” Which, to be fair, Astro has always been. But he’s also a robot navigating a complicated world. That complexity gets reduced to “outsider kid trying to fit in.”

It works for a children’s movie. It just feels restrained.

The voice cast is kind of stacked, which makes the restraint even more noticeable. Nicolas Cage plays Tenma in a surprisingly subdued performance. Bill Nighy brings dignity and warmth to Dr. Elefun. Donald Sutherland goes full militaristic villain as President Stone. Nathan Lane as Hamegg is easily the most fun performance in the movie... he sounds like he’s having a blast. There’s also Kristen Bell (pre-Frozen) as Cora and Samuel L. Jackson as Zog, the ancient construction bot.

It’s such a tremendous lineup. And yet the script keeps everything so safe. Even during the big climax, a showdown with President Stone who's piloting a giant robot, it never really lets Astro go wild. He fires lasers out of his hand cannons, looks at them, and goes, “Huh. Cool.”

And that’s kind of the vibe of the whole movie.

Huh. Cool.

But not much more.

I don’t hate this version. I actually think it’s a perfectly decent kids’ action movie. Throw in some good snacks, settle in, and you’ll have a good time.

But compared to the 2003 anime series, or especially the original 1960s or 1980s Tezuka vision, it feels cautious. Smaller. A little too afraid to let Astro ask the big questions. A little too determined to translate everything into simple, digestible morality.

Astro Boy has always been a good friend. But he’s also a robot built after Tenma's grief for his dead son. A machine searching for humanity. A hero navigating prejudice and war and loss.

This movie hints at those things, and then backs away.

Still, it’s always good to revisit Astro Boy in any form. And for what it is (A mid-2000s Americanized reboot trying to introduce him to a new generation.) it’s good.

Not cosmic. Not profound.

But good.

Emi Ibarazaki and Social Penetration Theory:

Emi and Social Penetration Theory

Intro: As mentioned earlier, Emi aligns with Social Penetration Theory, which asserts that as relationships develop, communication moves from superficial topics toward increasingly intimate disclosure. Interaction gradually penetrates the communicators’ public personas to reach their core sense of self.

EMI (SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY):

If Shizune’s route is structured around influence, Emi’s is structured around layers.

Social Penetration Theory visualizes personality as layered:

• Outer layer: surface traits, routines, public persona
• Middle layer: emotional patterns, guarded vulnerability
• Core: trauma, identity, unresolved grief

Emi’s route maps almost directly onto this model.

Outer Layer: Energy, Routine, Accessibility

“I like running. It’s what I do.”

“You’re coming running with me tomorrow, right?”

Her communication is playful, energetic, routine-based, and forward-looking. Morning runs become the foundation of their relationship. They share time, jokes, and light teasing.

This reflects high breadth but low depth. They talk often. They spend time together. But the conversation avoids emotional gravity.

“They’re just legs. It’s not a big deal.”

Even when discussing her prosthetics, she keeps it surface-level. The statement minimizes depth and redirects focus away from trauma and toward functionality.

Emi’s outer layer is transparent but controlled.

Middle Layer: Selective Vulnerability

As intimacy increases, emotional friction appears. Hisao begins asking questions about her accident and her father. Emi responds with deflection:

“Why does it matter?”

“It was a long time ago. I’m fine.”

These are penetration barriers. She is not hostile; she is protective.

Social Penetration Theory emphasizes reciprocity. Hisao opens up about his heart condition and allows emotional depth. Emi does not fully reciprocate.

“Running helps me not think about stuff.”

This line is pivotal. It acknowledges “stuff” without naming it. The middle layer is partially visible but sealed.

Physical Intimacy and Emotional Asymmetry

Physical intimacy develops before full emotional disclosure. Emi allows closeness physically, yet resists emotional excavation.

“Don’t make this into something it’s not.”

This reveals asymmetrical penetration:

• Physical layer: accessible
• Emotional trauma layer: restricted

Intimacy does not progress evenly across all dimensions. Emi controls the rate and direction of access.

Core Layer: Grief and Emotional Avoidance

The emotional climax forces confrontation with her core. When Hisao pushes too forcefully, conflict emerges. The core contains her father’s death, the accident, and fear of stagnation.

“If I stop moving, I have to think about it.”

Running is not just athleticism. It is emotional containment. Greater intimacy requires risk. For Emi, that risk is reliving loss.

The Rift: Premature Penetration

In the negative trajectory, Hisao presses too hard. Emi withdraws emotionally. Penetration without consent produces retreat. Depth must be mutual.

Resolution: Voluntary Core Disclosure (Good Ending)

In the good ending, disclosure becomes voluntary rather than extracted.

“I don’t want to keep running away.”

This marks full-layer access. She allows Hisao to witness her grief without deflection.

The communication dynamic shifts from activity-based connection to emotion-based transparency. Disclosure becomes reciprocal rather than forced.

Summary

Within Katawa Shoujo, Emi’s route exemplifies Social Penetration Theory through:

• High-breadth, low-depth beginnings
• Controlled vulnerability
• Conflict caused by premature emotional pressure
• Resolution through voluntary, reciprocal core sharing

Emi does not resist intimacy itself. She resists losing control over how intimacy unfolds.

Shizune / Misha and Social Influence Theory (2026):

Intro: As established earlier, Shizune and Misha align with Social Influence Theory, which argues that relationships develop as a result of change in belief, attitude, or behavior caused by another person’s actions. Power is the potential to produce that change.

SHIZUNE / MISHA (SOCIAL INFLUENCE THEORY):

Shizune represents coercive and structural force.
Misha represents legitimacy and normative reinforcement.

On Festivals / Life (Misha translating for Shizune):

"Human beings evolve with each new generation! The ideals and beliefs behind a festival will inevitably change with time! Now, it's about delicious fried food and amusing little games that you play to win prizes! Hahahaha!"

This statement reframes tradition as adaptive behavior. Festivals are not sacred constants; they are evolving systems shaped by participation.

That mirrors Shizune’s approach to relationships and institutions:

• Meaning follows engagement.
• Structure sustains participation.
• Ideals shift, but activity remains.

Misha’s enthusiastic delivery normalizes the philosophy. Shizune supplies the framework; Misha supplies social accessibility.

On Decision Making (Shizune):

"We are going to play for it... The oldest game known to man, upon which the fate of nations has been known to rest: Rock, Paper, Scissors."

For Shizune, decisions are rarely casual. Even minor disagreements are formalized into competitive systems.

Rock, Paper, Scissors functions as:

• A procedural equalizer
• A depersonalized method of conflict resolution
• A ritualized distribution of power

This preference for structured competition extends beyond isolated scenes.

Shizune:

• Has mastered snapping loudly despite being deaf; an intentional physical assertion of presence and control over attention. She has one of the “loudest” characters act as voice (Misha).
• Prefers strategic board games such as Risk, where territorial dominance and calculated expansion determine success.
• Turns even leisure activities, like a fishing trip, into competitive metrics of performance.

Competition is not incidental to her personality; it is her communication mode. Rather than negotiate emotionally, she negotiates through systems. Influence becomes measurable: who wins, who adapts, who participates.

In Social Power terms, this reflects:

• Legitimate power (Student Council authority)
• Coercive power (pressure through structured expectation)
• Reward power (approval, inclusion, status)

The snapping is particularly notable. Despite being deaf, she ensures auditory impact. That act demonstrates that influence is not diminished by disability. She asserts control over the communicative environment in ways that compensate rather than retreat.

On Friendship (Shizune):

"I forgot that the whole time, Misha was there, opening up to me, and giving a hundred percent everyday. I missed what I was looking for, because it was in plain sight."

This line identifies the limits of influence when it is overly systematized.

Misha’s role is relational reinforcement:

• She softens directives.
• She amplifies enthusiasm.
• She legitimizes participation socially.

Where Shizune creates structure, Misha creates atmosphere.

From a Social Influence perspective, Misha embodies referent power, which is compliance gained through warmth and identification. Her legitimacy makes Shizune’s more coercive directives sustainable.

When Shizune overlooks that relational labor, it highlights a distinction:
Influencing behavior is not the same as recognizing contribution (participation; creating a rift).

On Friendship (General):

"The world would be a different place without you or me but who else would realize it?"

This line reinforces a central concept of Social Influence Theory: influence is often incremental and unnoticed in real time.

Daily behavioral adjustments accumulate:

• Schedules change.
• Habits shift.
• Expectations recalibrate.

In the good ending, we have increased participation and contribution from Shizune and Misha through Hisao.

Shizune alters environments and structures.
Misha alters tone and perception.

COMMUNICATION THEORY IN KATAWA SHOUJO (2015):

COMMUNICATION THEORY IN KATAWA SHOUJO (2015):

Intro: I originally had bunch of Comm. notes after I 100%'d Katawa Shoujo back in 2015. These are just some of the "raw" notes I took. Without essay form. The essay can be found here, as can my other Katawa Shoujo analyses.

COMMUNICATION THEORY IN KATAWA SHOUJO:

Rin (Redefinition Theory): States that in communication with ablebodied persons and among themselves, disabled persons engage in a process whereby they critique the prevailing stereotypes held by the ablebodied and create new definitions.

Emi (Social Penetration Theory): Asserts that as relationships develop, persons’ communication changes from superficial to deeply personal topics, slowing penetrating the communicators' public persona to reach their core personality or sense of self.

Shizune / Misha (Social Influence Theory: Argues that relationships develop as a result of 'change in the belief, attitude, or behavior of a person (the target of influence), which results from the action of another person (an influencing agent)', and social power as the potential for such influence. (Update: I should probably write more on this and how Shizune represents coercive force/Misha represents legitimacy. More on this later.)

Hanako (Uncertainty Reduction Theory): Posits that when interacting, people need information about the other party in order to reduce their uncertainty. In gaining this information people are able to predict the other's behavior and resulting actions, all of which according to the theory is crucial in the development of any relationship.

Lilly (Principled Negotiation Theory): Argues that a good agreement is one which is wise and efficient, and which improves the parties' relationship. Wise agreements satisfy the parties' interests and are fair and lasting. The goal is to develop a method for reaching good agreements.

Hisao Represents The Stages of Culture Shock:

CH. 1:

Preliminary Phase

Marked by rising sense of anticipation tempered by regret of leaving.

Spectator Phase

Passive but alert spectator, marked by intensity of emotion that careens erratically; ends when passive stance is no longer possible

CH. 2: (Story/adaptation theory chosen)

Increasing Participation Phase.

Greatest variation from persons to person; after (characteristically) clash of values, questions arise: Are values arbitrary? A fabrication? Natural to one’s own culture?

CH. 3: (Bad endings stop here.)

Shock Phase.

Strikes people who have had some success in first efforts at adaptation; manifests as paranoia, fear, self-consciousness, intense judgments of others based on ethnocentric criteria; could precipitate departure.

CH. 4: (If good/neutral ending)

Adaptation Phase.

Sense of being foreign no longer exists; language and thinking are simultaneous—being both in and out of the culture at the same time.

Update: So, one can apply communication models to everyday circumstances, even in games/narratives where they might not be as explicit, but reveal themselves through cultural patterns and actions. I hope you've enjoyed these notes as much as I enjoyed writing them back then.