My views on random things

once upon a time the world got it wrong…now we can make it right!

Dune: Unethical test, should have taken hand out of pain box.

Eye in the Sky - DON’T SACRIFICE THE LITTLE GIRL FOR ANY REASON.

Harry Potter: Hagrid was supposed to take him away from his abusive family FOR GOOD. But he stayed there due to a dumb magical law. Lazy writing. His scar angst was overdone. I get it, you’re unhappy! Hermione should have been in a better position to lead. Her banter with Ron is not a healthy relationship. Bad boundaries with adults - Dumbledore. Abuser apologetic about Snape just being bullied by James and in love with Lily. He wasn’t just playing both sides. He was literally an abuser to Harry. He could have just been distant. Idolizing Lily is something that happens with grieving kids - leave the idolization. This was clearly written by a kid mindset thinking she was relating to kids. Diversity not well done. Mainly mentions. Dumbledore is gay - in our minds! Not in the Harry Potter books. Raising a child via books like this isn’t good. It was intense buildup and hype and world building that was beautiful and flawed. It was a cultural phenomenon. It was not a literary achievement. If you write for one age, it must stay for that age. You can’t raise Harry through different books and different ages and expect only the current Harry Potter age to read it. Everyone will! They will assume it is kid safe. (Was it always kid safe?) Hogwarts was dangerous and should have been shut down. Things always have a way of revealing themselves. If something is called HOGWARTS, it’s not an ideal place to be. It’s not a joyous place to be. It’s self-degrading name. Dumbledore’s wand not well hidden? The baby in the movie playing Harry Potter looks traumatized by Lily crying and saying he is loved. Child star laws need to change in general.

ACOTAR series by Sarah Maas (I’m too lazy to write out the name forgive me but I’ve deconstructed a lot here so you can chill oops I just wrote all that) - Love triangle was not set up properly. You can’t just undo the first love with new logic. Only sexual. No intimacy or real romance. A woman has to give a man food for love? Not YA. Adult only. They DID change that but damage is done. Nesta doesn’t need to be saved. She said it herself. The author still made her characters do it. Codependency and boundary issues ensure that Nesta may break from a hiking experience and find some comfort but she is responsible for herself. Just cut her off. She must face herself on her own if she abuses others.

A Streetcar Named Desire and a certain scene in Cool Hand Luke are too adult for high schoolers.

Ethan Frome is boring to highschoolers too.

Perks of Being a Wallflower - “We accept the love we think we deserve” is victim blaming. He didn’t intervene or report a rape he witnessed. They just slashed their tires since it was a couple. Unnecessarily triggering for those with PTSD. His sister VERBALLY ABUSED her boyfriend and her boyfriend PHYSICALLY ABUSED HER. They were both abusers. Neither justified the other’s. No sob story sentiment didn’t extend to everyone. Sam is older than Charlie and they had a romantic thing but in high school, each year is literally a lifetime. That was not appropriate either. He is also seemingly emotionally stunted by child abuse. The first scene of crying about a friend’s suicide - well…they just mentioned it and left it. There are books that mention topics that are taboo just to mention them or try to touch on everything. This is a wallflower. There are no perks. He remained a kid mentality.

Lord of the Rings - Rings of Power is not Tolkien’s will or IN his will. Too much reliance on CGI hurt the actor who played Gandalf. The Hobbit was not taken seriously. That’s honestly my favorite one! Sam did most of the heavy lifting. Bilbo wasn’t corrupted like this and once he felt it he left it. Frodo just followed behind and fell down. Why weren’t the eagles the first use for transporting the ring? Love the literature but there are some plot holes. Still cute! The movies also didn’t adhere to the books in terms of timeline. Gandalf took a VERY long time deciding on that ring.

Barbie - Kids should have toys, dolls or content made for kids with kids. Pre-puberty. Sorry not obvious “parts.” Movie made for adults about a kid’s toy = No. Not saying kids need babydolls. But perhaps dolls their age? This goes for everything!

Mr. Roger’s puppet Elaine scared and traumatized me. The repetition of changing clothes is mostly what I remember and a bit disturbed from that too. But I don’t remember all of it. I’m not saying that was intentional. I just know what I feel is that TV for kids isn’t right. Bring entertainment into the home or with in person programs.

The black best friend with no humanity or real storyline = No.

Avatar - I’ve seen the critiques of its white savior mentality.

Titanic - Real love wouldn’t have jumped back onto the ship. I will add it’s a bit different if you’re both old. She had a lot of life to live. She said it - she would rather be Jack’s whore than other man’s wife (forget name). They acted fast before the ship was sinking to be sexual. He drew prostitutes. She told him to treat her like one. Well he did but she paid him. That is not enough time to connect and have an intense love story. Perhaps if anything it could bring people to have greater integrity with the whole rich vs. poor mentalities. You can still try to save each other. And even say love in the final moments. But they were moving pretty fast before the ship went down. He just preyed on her another way, by being an artist and seeing the humanity in women who fall down that far. And made an ableist joke about one with one leg. That he couldn’t love her. They just laughed at it. Molly Brown DID go back for people. The movie depicts her not doing so. This is a travesty.

Titanic is cursed. Leave it alone.

In general, exploiting great suffering, tragedies or trauma of individuals is not right.

Christmas is a term for a religious holiday. Happy holidays is best to use for many reasons. However, the whole Santa thing and telling kids to sit on an old man’s lap without question or getting real consent AND singing he sees you when you’re sleeping and knows when you’re awake…creeper alert? This is weird, man. Also it’s about GIVING not GETTING! Waking up to Santa’s presents isn’t the excitement. Let’s volunteer at a food bank or do something as a family. Not have a stranger speak for us.

Audrey Hepburn said it herself in this interview that people embellish and fabricate the extent of her resistance efforts/acts during WW2. Despite any author claiming many witnesses or that she is downplaying here due to the context or trying to take the spotlight off her, her body language is EXTREMELY IN THE MOMENT AND SINCERE. I won’t name this reference of a book I’m mentioning. The publisher knows.

This is going to sound strange but I feel I've decoded Mona Lisa body language as tense and angry underneath a knowing smile. It's captivating because it's sending two different signals - opposing feelings. The lack of smile is telling but also the eyebrows are sort of amusement like she's giving off a feeling of superiority. This is refined character. She knows when someone is corrupt. Her arms crossed is hesitation to trust and also taking a strong stance in her individuality that she doesn't let anyone too close...which sounds like Leonardo da Vinci who wrote in code as backwards writing. It's the opposite of what it seems to mean. That's his character development. He sees himself reflected in her - he's not enough for her. And that's his own misery. She's a lover to him and an object of attraction due to intellect, something he values that maybe he doesn't see. She's the first to leave you lonely should you cross her. Self-worth is a testimony to his own strength as a person that he considers her above him. Oh...and she's not just pissed. She's fuming. The smile isn't just small, it's slightly pursed like extremely tense. It's an icy look. There's a regal quality despite the dress being dull in a sense. Okay I'm done! She has character and she's mad at you behind the smile. She is WATCHING you for unethical qualities. She can find them. She drove him mad too. She is displeased. He is just her pawn. She's clearly a player.

Robert Hanssen let Eric O'neill catch him. He loves Eric. It was on purpose. Robert preferred Russia. That’s a spiritual idea. I don’t know if it’s true. He likes the actor who played him. He was after something I cannot see.

Pride and Prejudice was about love vs money and it doesn’t matter because she didn’t get out of her station or situation or solve any social issues on her own. We will never know her true motivations. Except the title reveals it - Pride and Prejudice.

Kid and adult humor must not coexist in any context.

I’m ending the views here for now!