What the blub.

Worldview: Biblical. Content: Story Analysis & Stuff I Like (Don't reblog to argue with me unless you're ready to back up what you believe. I reply.)

[artist-issues]

Some Things I Believe About Stories

Stories should not be PRIMARILY created to entertain. They should be created to teach, or encourage, or inspire, USING entertaining qualities. The Romans used entertainment to distract the populace from corruption. J. R. R. Tolkien, on the other hand, described "escapism" as "a prisoner of war escaping from enemy camp to go back home." You're not running from reality to fantasy when a story does it's job. You're running from the dark, twisted side of the world to something that reminds you of the good, the true, the beautiful, the correct. You've been imprisoned by bad ideas and confusion and dark perspectives, and the story shows you how to escape and get back to true and beautiful reality. It's got a point, it's not just for diversion.

Stories should be made to serve others and leave the world better than they found it. Storytellers should not only tell a story to exorcize their personal demons or point to how clever and artistic they are. That can be a nice bonus. But the point should be to serve the audience. Think about it. When it's made, it's timeless; it will be read or watched or listened to by the next generation, or the next. What are the storytellers letting fall into the hands of the people who come after they're not around to explain or gain a profit?

The storyteller should be passionate about the story while they make it. This could look like a sense of duty, or fun, or just excitement. But those outward emotions usually signal an inward understanding of how important the story is, and therefore, a level of compassion and care for the eventual audience.

You can like a story or dislike a story. You can interpret a story or misinterpret a story. Those things are subjective. But whether or not a story is good is objective: it can be measured. Does the story say what it is trying to say in the clearest, most compelling way possible? If yes, it's a good story. If no, it might be great entertainment. It might be funny. It might be cool. It might be quotable or franchise-able or profitable or even memorable. But it's not a good story if it does not say something in the clearest, most compelling way possible.

A story's main point, or theme, is the most important thing about it. The characters, the set design, the pacing, the soundtrack, the language, the use of color or lighting or blocking etc.; all of those pieces work best when they are unified in the goal of communicating that main point or theme.

Death of the author = death of the story. It's point is to say something. If you claim the speaker's intent is meaningless, so are the words spoken. If you claim it can mean anything, your words are meaningless too. We all might as well tell no stories and blabber gibberish instead. It’s one thing to say you understand what the author intended, and you like to think of it in/wish it were another way. But it’s quite another to say that what the author intended is unknowable or doesn’t matter. You’re either calling the author a bad storyteller or, again, recommending we all speak gibberish.

Both form (the quality of the story and it's elements) and content (the main point or lessons) matter. Without one you have a lecture, not a story. Without the other you have entertainment, but no valuable, timeless, beautiful truth to make it a “story.”

[noodles-07]

[thisbibliomaniac]

Go to church !

[thisbibliomaniac]

Go to church !

[artist-issues]

Have you seen Project Hail Mary? I'm hearing great things about it, and it seems to have themes of sacrifice, friendship, and bravery. Interested to know your thoughts because it may be the rare popular movie with an actually positive message.

Yes, I have seen Project Hail Mary! Just the once.

I don’t have anything really bad to say about it. The only critique I could even try to wedge my foot onto is “Grace is forced to be selfless, which isn’t selflessness at all, so he’s not learning selflessness. He’s more learning ‘belief in himself.’” He only saves the world because he might as well, now that he’s been kidnapped and forced to and there’s literally nobody else to do it. But if he could choose, he’d go back home safely and condemn the kids he was teaching to slow death.”

But then, of course, that critique does have weaknesses because Rocky gives up time with his mate to refuel Grace’s ship, and gives up his own safety to save Grace’s life when he’s unconscious. And Grace then, when he has the chance to go back home, gives that chance up to save Rocky’s life. So he does eventually get to selflessness.

I just guess I don’t love the “you were right” portion of the movie. I don’t love that Grace’s superior, the “Sign of the Times” lady, ‘believed he would save everyone, and she was right, he did.’

…Nnno, she believed he had the skillset to create a chance to save everyone. But if she believed he had the moral character and goodness to sacrifice himself for the planet, why’d she drug him and murder him by sending him on a one way trip against his will? He didn’t have the moral character and goodness. He had to be forced to be selfless, which isn’t selflessness.

I think the movie’s really offering one value: you can be brave and selfless when you have someone to be brave and selfless for.

But even then, Grace wouldn’t have been brave and selfless for Rocky until he really got to know Rocky, and Rocky bonded with him and offered him companionship and a chance at going home…when the alternative was death alone in the soul-sucking vacuum of space. Yeah, who would want to give up a new best friend when that fate is the alternative? It’s not until Grace could go home but chooses to go back to Rocky’s aid that you can say his actions are really heroic or selfless, not self-interested. …and ugh. Even then. Even then, they’ve already gone to great lengths to show that Grace had nobody on Earth to return to. No family, no friends. (The friends he could’ve claimed he had drugged and murdered him.)

So I guess the real value it has is “lay down your life for your friends.”

Anyway, I liked the movie. But I didn’t get the same feeling from it that I got from Twisters. The reason I compare the two is because both are simple, non-complex, solid stories. (What’s interesting is that Project Hail Mary is original. Twisters is a sequel/franchise thing.) But Project Hail Mary, while simple, non-complex, and solid, lacks the… I think it lacks growth.

That’s all.

I think Ryan Gosling’s character was already kind of a nice guy who wanted connection with others and wanted to prove he could be someone worthwhile. And in the end, he has a connection with an alien and was worthwhile. But that’s all kind of self-focused. Like I said, yes, he gives himself up for Rocky. But he already wanted a friend. He didn’t have anybody else back on earth to go back to. So although that part is emotional and wonderful, and I’m not saying he did a bad thing by saving Rocky, I am saying—he didn’t do as moving and gripping a thing as Kate Carter driving into a tornado with Tyler Owens.

Kate Carter had to overcome fear of failure and loss to try and help others. Complete strangers, actually. And she did it. Grace had to overcome…scientific obstacles to maintain the connection he always wanted.

So I guess what I’m saying is, Project Hail Mary is a worthwhile movie and I’m glad it was made and I think it has some good things to say. But I also think it’s a smidge overrated. Just a smidge. That is, I think we’re all so starved for a simple, non-sexualized, non-franchised, non-grandiose, good plain story with sacrifice and goodness in the themes that Project Hail Mary was always going to be a hit in this time.

So maybe it’s not overrated. Maybe it’s more of what we need.

I’m just still watching old movies that are “new” to me, that have much more work put in to expand on goodness. Like I just saw Rain Man for the first time. So not to beat the same old drum but if your diet is of movies that are made with thunderous weight of hard work in every scene, and that hard work is all put on showing off the good, beautiful, and true as deeply and as plainly as possible—when that kind of movie is your consistent diet, and then you go see Project Hail Mary, you’re like…”Yeah, I liked it.”

And that’s all. Good. Not as good as Forrest Gump or Rebel Without a Cause or Twisters, but still good. Still really glad someone made it. Still really glad people like it so much, and I hope it encourages filmmakers to keep making things that are Good, Beautiful, and True. And work harder and harder at making those things.

My favorite part is “words of great encouragement.”

[artist-issues]

How would you answer the Euthyphro dilemma? Yes, it was originally applied to the Greek Pantheon, but some use it for the God of the Bible as well.

"Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?"

It’s both. If you obey a command of God, your obedience is “Good.” The act is good. The command itself is also “good—“ and that is because of God’s nature, as goodness. “Goodness” doesn’t exist or have meaning without God. The fact that He commands it is just an outward expression of the pre-existence of Goodness—which is the same as saying “the pre-existence of God.”

I think it’s a question that pretends to be important but actually has zero consequence. What’s the consequence of this question? You’ve already established that the thing you’re obeying is good, so why not do it? “Why not do it?” Is a much more important question.

Unless I misunderstand the euthyphro dilemma.

[artist-issues]

Rise of the Guardians doesn’t lend itself to a sequel.

But if they made one, the villain should be The Pied Piper. And instead of endangering kids’ childhood using fear, like the Boogeyman, The Piper would endanger childhood by causing strife with the parents, making the kids feel like they don’t belong in their own homes.

Plus he’s enticing kids with wanderlust, which sounds fun, so he starts to feel like the photo-negative of Jack Frost and definitely tries to outdo him in terms of style and flamboyant charm. And maybe because he knows “memories of childhood” would be a big threat to his work on the parents, the Piper straight-up kidnaps Tooth Fairy (since kidnapping the fairies themselves didn’t work out for Pitch)

And then you can have Bunnymund and Jack Frost fighting armies of super rats and Sandman trying to hold his sand-constructs together as the Pied Piper’s musical vibrations destabilize them, and then North seems to be the only one who’s a match for the Piper in group showdowns, until the Piper summons his chief hench-rat and it’s the Mouse King from the Nutcracker

I know Rise of the Guardians can’t have sequels

but in this pitch I will—

[minnesotamedic186]

@wind-the-music-box

[wind-the-music-box]

I see the vision, but I do have to point out that the Pied Piper doesn't have any issues with kids and only led them away because the town didn't pay him

So what I'm SAYING is we need to give this guy a motive.

[artist-issues]

Taking kids away from their parents as punishment to the parents is also a terrible thing to do to the kids. Piper definitely didn't care about the kids when he put that plan into action.

[the-vault-apprentice]

It is a rotten thing to do to the kids, but...

As far as I know, doesn't he take the kids to a better place?

It would make a compelling story and an excellent villain, though....

[the-whitmore-excursus]

The town made a deal with a fey, and didn't pay, so he took their children away under the mountain to be raised as fey.

Stories about the fey all revolve around the underground in some aspect, from Tam Lin and the "in yon hill he dwells", to the goblins that steal babies away to the Labyrinth, to the Mountain King himself

And deals as well. Often the main character will deal with a feys intermediary, a human who is already under their command. The human will say "yeah I was scared of -inserting fear here- and milady of the wood has made that fear go away" but they aren't happy. Its clear that the human sold their freedom.

[artist-issues]

...I'm not convinced you know the full history of this tale.

But even if you did—even if you're right, and it's a cautionary tale to the parents—surely you're not arguing that the children in the story benefited from the parents' evil? Surely you don't think that's the point of the tale, that the children get something GOOD out of their parents' folly?

[artist-issues]

Rise of the Guardians doesn’t lend itself to a sequel.

But if they made one, the villain should be The Pied Piper. And instead of endangering kids’ childhood using fear, like the Boogeyman, The Piper would endanger childhood by causing strife with the parents, making the kids feel like they don’t belong in their own homes.

Plus he’s enticing kids with wanderlust, which sounds fun, so he starts to feel like the photo-negative of Jack Frost and definitely tries to outdo him in terms of style and flamboyant charm. And maybe because he knows “memories of childhood” would be a big threat to his work on the parents, the Piper straight-up kidnaps Tooth Fairy (since kidnapping the fairies themselves didn’t work out for Pitch)

And then you can have Bunnymund and Jack Frost fighting armies of super rats and Sandman trying to hold his sand-constructs together as the Pied Piper’s musical vibrations destabilize them, and then North seems to be the only one who’s a match for the Piper in group showdowns, until the Piper summons his chief hench-rat and it’s the Mouse King from the Nutcracker

I know Rise of the Guardians can’t have sequels

but in this pitch I will—

[minnesotamedic186]

@wind-the-music-box

[wind-the-music-box]

I see the vision, but I do have to point out that the Pied Piper doesn't have any issues with kids and only led them away because the town didn't pay him

So what I'm SAYING is we need to give this guy a motive.

[artist-issues]

Taking kids away from their parents as punishment to the parents is also a terrible thing to do to the kids. Piper definitely didn't care about the kids when he put that plan into action.

[the-vault-apprentice]

It is a rotten thing to do to the kids, but...

As far as I know, doesn't he take the kids to a better place?

It would make a compelling story and an excellent villain, though....

[artist-issues]

No, he doesn't take the kids to a better place! No, that's not what's implied in the original folk tale! It's implied the Pied Piper is doing something horrifying, everywhere, including in the actual real life TOWN where an inscription about losing all their kids can still be read.

This would be the whole point of the sequel I'd pitch—everyone wants to chase stories, right now, where kids ESCAPE their parents. Found-family stories. Burn-the-old-family, they-never-got-me stories. Like the grass is greener away from the people who try to nurture and protect you.

In reality what people need is to see that their parents aren't perfect, but neither are you, and unless someone is legitimately abusing you, you need to stick it out, have patience with the parents who have given up their lives to try and care for you, communicate, and extend a little bit of grace and trust to each other. Then you'll grow. Together. And return a little of the unconditional grace and love they were extending to you when they lost sleep rocking you to sleep, cleaning and wiping you thousands of times, missing career promotions, keeping you from falling and hitting your head—when you could not give them anything in return in those moments, and they COULD HAVE dropped you at an orphanage and literally done anything else with their lives and time and money other than spend time and resources caring about you. You'll just start paying a little of that grace, a little of that love, forward if you STICK IT OUT. Instead of running after the first flashy outsider who appeals to your constantly-evolving emotional state long enough to convince you the grass is greener and drag you away from someone who, imperfect as their expression is, LOVES you.

No, the Pied Piper is not BETTER than the parents for the kids. No.

[artist-issues]

Hey!

Wake up! I need you to pay attention.

When people say “Disney-ifying” what they mean is “you took a story with history and grit and made it more palatable and ruined it.”

But if all stories are signposts, pointing to truth, then all Disney does is take the story that was written in an arcane language and make it readable for the current generation.

”Disney-ifying” a story is a good thing when the main themes are kept intact.

Case in point: The Little Mermaid by Hans Christian Anderson is considered grittier because it has blood and she dies without the Prince and turns into seafoam at the end. So it’s considered “dark” and “deep.” But the main themes of that fairy tale were “true love is understanding and sacrifice.”

The Disney version lets Ariel live and have her happily ever after, and there’s no blood and more singing. …But in the story, Ariel is still willing to give up her life for the sake of the Prince, and it ends with her father giving up his life to save her, then giving up what he wants for the love of her.

As long as the main themes remain intact, Disney-ifying something pays tribute to the original story and helps new audiences engage with the original story.

Don’t lose your critical thinking skills just because, like the Roman populace screaming for death in coliseums, you’ve cultivated a taste for blood and darkness and you think “unpalatable” stories make you more refined and “real.”

Now, if Disney scrubs it clean of the original themes and inserts their own—then you can start using “Disney-ifying” like it’s bad.

[artist-issues]

Rise of the Guardians doesn’t lend itself to a sequel.

But if they made one, the villain should be The Pied Piper. And instead of endangering kids’ childhood using fear, like the Boogeyman, The Piper would endanger childhood by causing strife with the parents, making the kids feel like they don’t belong in their own homes.

Plus he’s enticing kids with wanderlust, which sounds fun, so he starts to feel like the photo-negative of Jack Frost and definitely tries to outdo him in terms of style and flamboyant charm. And maybe because he knows “memories of childhood” would be a big threat to his work on the parents, the Piper straight-up kidnaps Tooth Fairy (since kidnapping the fairies themselves didn’t work out for Pitch)

And then you can have Bunnymund and Jack Frost fighting armies of super rats and Sandman trying to hold his sand-constructs together as the Pied Piper’s musical vibrations destabilize them, and then North seems to be the only one who’s a match for the Piper in group showdowns, until the Piper summons his chief hench-rat and it’s the Mouse King from the Nutcracker

I know Rise of the Guardians can’t have sequels

but in this pitch I will—

[minnesotamedic186]

@wind-the-music-box

[wind-the-music-box]

I see the vision, but I do have to point out that the Pied Piper doesn't have any issues with kids and only led them away because the town didn't pay him

So what I'm SAYING is we need to give this guy a motive.

[artist-issues]

Taking kids away from their parents as punishment to the parents is also a terrible thing to do to the kids. Piper definitely didn't care about the kids when he put that plan into action.

[artist-issues]

Let me get this straight.

Dave Filoni has that whole monologue from a fan-panel where he explains that Darth Vader’s tragic issue is that he cannot look at the past, he is always considering it to be dead, and that part of himself, Anakin Skywalker, to be dead—so in that sense, you have to look at Darth Vader as a separate character from Anakin Skywalker, because Vader himself has detached from everything that Anakin was, intentionally.

And eeeeverybody loves Filoni and his takes.

But when Riann Johnson constructs a whole movie (Star Wars: The Last Jedi) around fleshing out the same concept, of two men who are trying to sever themselves from past mistakes because they can’t face them—

—That’s not allowed?

And then one of those men learns that you’re supposed to grow out of your mistakes and the other refuses to do that, creating a dichotomy that is so red-vs-blue, light-vs-dark, so Star Wars.

Come on. Try and step two inches away from your adamant List of How Star Wars Things Should Be and look at it from a better perspective. Star Wars: The Last Jedi is very good.

[artist-issues]

You've often said that it's not in your power, or anybody's power, to change someone's mind. That it's only in God's power.

I don't mean to sound degrading to your beliefs, but if only God can change minds...why evangelize? Why does anyone evangelize if nothing they say or do, according to their own religion, is going to sway others?

He changes minds using what we say. From our point of view it looks random—my father tried to evangelize his own father for 13 years with apparently ho effect. Then some random dude at a construction site started evangelizing my grandfather out of the blue and my grandfather gave his life to God. Random.

Except it’s not. Nothing’s random. God picks and chooses what “plugs in” to specific “ports” in people’s psyches. Because we don’t know if what we say will be the thing that plugs in, we say it as often as possible to everyone. But mainly we do it out of love and obedience, because we know He can be trusted with the outcome of our obedience.

It’s like storytelling in that way. Whether or not someone “gets” what a storyteller is trying to say with their story ultimately is out of the storyteller’s control. It has a lot to do with the individual audience member’s personal experiences effecting how they approach certain concepts. The storyteller can’t control that. But does that mean they don’t try to communicate as effectively as they can? Of course not. They do the best they can, and hope someone “gets it.”

It’s better for Christian’s. We do the best we can knowing God will make the end result good. My dad evangelizing for 13 years with seemingly no effect was not a waste—because he was obeying God, and God wastes nothing. How do we know the bystanders weren’t affected by what he was addressing to my grandfather? How do we know that everything he ever said to my grandfather didn’t need to be said, so that, 13 years later, when a random stranger started talking on the construction site, there was a foundation in my grandfather’s brain for what he was saying?

We don’t. We never know all the variables. God does.

That’s the beauty and the dichotomy of reality—God gave us the ability to choose, and He’s powerful enough to remain in control of the outcomes of our choices—He uses our choices. We get to work together without the pressure of believing what we do is the only hope.

[artist-issues]

Watch for this lie:

"You're not perfect, and that's ultimately always okay."

Sometimes it comes in these alternate forms:

"Nobody's Perfect."

"That's just what it means to be human."

"That's just me."

"Our flaws make us who we are; we are beautiful."

Wrong. Wrong. Flaws are flaws. I feel like I'm trapped in a nightmare where nobody's making sense anymore.

Imperfections are bad. Imperfections in a bridge drown people. Imperfections in the cells are cancerous. Imperfections in relationships warp relationships.

Thinking of constant conflict as "exciting" is toxic, so don't even try.

Listen to me—just get back to common sense. Flaws are bad and you should acknowledge that. Perfection is unattainable and you should acknowledge that, too. But don't run from the problem.

You don't have to be perfect because Jesus can be perfect for you. And you should want to grow out of your flaws and turn away from them because they're evil and they hurt you and others and you love Him. Not because eliminating your flaws will earn His love—you can't earn it or mess it up—but because eliminating your flaws, the battle, the grind, the cutting out of the cancers on your character, is all part of you becoming who you really are. And you can't do it without Him.

In conclusion, these stories are trying to dupe you:

Steven Universe

Devil Wears Prada 2

The Barbie Movie

KPOP: Demon Hunters

Candy-coated poison. Do not listen. Stay away.

You're not fine the way you are. The answers are not inside of you—the only answers you'll find there are "I'm flawed." And that IS a problem. And that IS something destroying you. And that IS something that can be solved—just not by you. The constant eternal "you you you" surround sound is what these stories feed. Do not listen. Stay away.

[miidniite]

our flaws aren't what makes us human, what we do to better them is

[artist-issues]

You can’t better them completely. You can just change their shape.

[artist-issues]

Here's the thing.

Aang and Katara doesn't work as well as Zuko and Katara because very rarely does Katara benefit from being in a relationship (even friendship) with Aang. Very rarely does he grow her as a character, just by being himself.

Look at who she is.

Katara's main character traits are compassion, loyalty, and hope (could be translated "faith.")

Compassion = she's kind, and her knee-jerk reaction is to notice when people are hurting and immediately act to make them feel better/have more.

Loyalty = The chips being down, mind-numbingly bad circumstances, extreme danger, and even a lack of gratitude can't cause Katara to turn on or let go of someone she's decided to care about.

Hope = When there's a choice between being pessimistic and being optimistic, Katara will always choose "I believe the best outcome is about to happen." It's why she and Sokka are great devil/angel-on-shoulder traveling companions for Aang from the beginning—she's always seeing beauty and the opportunity to do good or see things improve, and Sokka is usually seeing something to complain about, something that needs fixing. But it's also why she's Aang's closest relationship in the show—she represents all of the good people in the world who believe in him and need saving and want to help him, and he represents the idea she believes in that Good WILL conquer Evil against all odds.

They're close. I'm not saying they're not.

But I'm saying look at those character traits—compassion, loyalty, hope—and then tell me which of those traits Aang woke up in her. Tell me how he makes up for her weaknesses, or encourages her strength? She's already demonstrating compassion, loyalty, and hope, even before Aang comes into her life, and before she really gets to know him.

They seem like kindred spirits, definitely. They're both compassionate. They're both loyal. They both lost someone to the war. They both would rather heal than destroy. They both enjoy making friends and loving others.

But he doesn't give her anything she didn't already have. He doesn't challenge or grow her.

And what's worse, he can't even really provide anything to her, externally. They set up this dichotomy where Katara is a powerful bender, too, and can take care of herself in a fight, so she doesn't need his protection. As patient and kind as he is, she's more patient and more kind, more often. Whenever he doubts himself she always believes in him, even when he's given her every reason not to trust him—which I admit is the most compelling part of their relationship, but even in this facet, it is KATARA providing something AANG needs.

Rarely, if ever, is that flipped. Usually because she's nurturing him. The nurturer is not nurtured by the person they're nurturing. She behaves like his mom, offering comfort when he's anxious, belief when he's insecure, encouragement when he doubts, care when he's getting careless.

Aang doesn't offer Katara anything except an object to place hope in. Aang can't be allowed to protect her physically or provide anything for her—because she has to be a strong woman. But she can offer him plenty.

The only time this is kind of challenged is in Southern Raiders when Katara is laser-focused on bitterness annd vengeance and Aang challenges her to forgive and choose mercy. But Katara very rarely actually struggles with vengeance. And when she does, it is not Aang who shows her how to back out of vengeance. She just sort of...does it on her own.

But Zuko has the POTENTIAL to challenge Katara to be a better version of herself, to grow and change. Because he, himself, grows and changes. It's why that one scene, under Ba Sing Se, kicked off the Zutara thing.

The reason they have "chemistry" is because her big character flaw is "loyalty to a loss--" so when someone she's loyal to is hurt or taken from her or brutally betrays her (Jet) all that ferocious energy she would have spent on loving that person goes into hating whatever took that person from her.

She sees Zuko as the kind of person who took her mother from her, and her loyalty-to-loss kicks in. But then Zuko reveals that he's lost someone, too, and she literally has to see him differently. Not just because he's revealed that has actual feelings—but because he could have snapped at her and argued with her accusations, and INSTEAD she's learning, from that comment "that's something we have in common," that he is different than she is.

Because he lost his mom to the war but he's not the one screaming at his opponent because of it.

The fact that he's from another nation already challenges her assumptions. But think about the potential—she is a character loyal, maybe to a fault. He is a character whose loyalty was never appreciated by his family, and they were evil, so he didn't remain loyal for loyalty's sake. When Aang is about to make a decision, Katara says, "I'll go along with whatever you decide," even if she disagrees. But Zuko is the "I know where my own destiny lies" guy.

I'm not saying Katara can't make her own decisions. I'm saying she makes them based out of sometimes-blind loyalty, and he could show her (after what he's lived through) how to strengthen what she decides to be loyal to.

I also think that obviously she could grow and help him. He's set up to be very untrusting as a leader of the fire nation. He's trying to backpedal their whole culture after he's crowned Fire Lord. Every memory he has in the palace is tinged with a sister and father who were always playing politics and fear games. Fire Lord Zuko needs someone like Katara who can believe the best of others.

They have things in common. Her culture tried to stop her from being a warrior, she kept pushing—he was told by everyone he was lucky to be born and techniques didn't come easy to him but he kept pushing. She refused to leave people in need even though they were Fire Nation enemies, and he refused to stay silent when a division of soldiers was being sacrificed.

I'm just saying, where two people don't constantly agree and have the right mixture of differences and similarities, all tied together with a decision to love each other--that's the strongest pairing.

[artist-issues]

Thoughts on the third knives out movie? I’ve heard Christians refer to it as anything from horribly disrespectful verging on blasphemous to genuinely meaningful and respectful outsider art.

And I’ll admit, I disagree - vehemently - with basically your entire worldview, but I find it fascinating enough to study, since you’ll usually elaborate your reasons for feeling any particular way about something.

I usually will, but this movie I haven’t seen.

The first Knives Out was a really well-made movie with the message “Doesn’t Matter if You Break the Rules if You’re Fundamentally a Good Person.” Which…is nonsensical. If the rules are based in goodness, and you’re a good person, you’ll follow them. If people are not fundamentally good, then that’s why we have rules. But it was entertaining and well-made, so I enjoyed it even though I felt a fistful of “Immigrants Should Be Allowed to Come in Illegally and Anyone Who Thinks Otherwise is Racist” getting crammed down my throat.

The second Knives Out was a much, much less well-made movie that preferred shock and awe and twists to good characterizations or storytelling, and it did the tired old “the elite are all always either evil through-and-through or stupid or turned-evil-by-societal-pressure-if-they’re-Women/POCs.” And the fist getting crammed down the throat this time was “It’s Okay to Riot and Be Violent; The Ends Justify the Means if You’re Oppressed.” Which, again, same fundamental worldview issue—there’s such a thing as Real Good and Real Evil. The people who oppress other people started doing so from the starting line: “The Ends Justify the Means.” And you think you’re gonna fix that way of thinking by fighting fire with fire? No. Fast forward 500 years and the Oppressed People will be Oppressors because they started from a place where anything they do is justified because at one point in history something bad happened to them. Or worse. They’ll just keep identifying as “oppressed” and they’ve made their own brain-prison.

So after enjoying the first movie but acknowledging that it’s not doing anything good for the world, then barely being able to sit through the second as it regurgitates a message that’s bad for the world…no, I’m not interested in what it has to say about my God.

Like I want to hear what Knives Out has to say about my faith.

I’m sure it goes the James Gunn route.

The “hey man, you know what’s really punk rock? Being nice to people. Just being decent, man.” The “everybody, even the $&!$king freaks, even the screw-ups, the mistakes—everybody gets into heaven. That’s what God’s all about—he made humans, that’s what it means to be human, to be messed up, and everybody gets in. And me? I’m gonna do my best and save people where I can, bro”

I call it Rocket Raccoon Religion. You could call it Superman25-Spirituality if you want.

Punnnnk rock, “I’m pro Jesus but I’m anti-organized-religion, Jesus is my #$!&ing homeboy, man”

I’m sure it edges toward that. Probably has a corrupt version of the church or someone representing the church who isn’t above-board morally, they’re actually doing messed-up stuff to people or being tempted to use the cloth for corruption or whatever. The priest might not be the murderer—Riann Johnson was at least a little more subtle than that, last movie of his I saw—but the priest probably like, was an accessory to the crime or could’ve stopped it or something. I’m sure Christians like it because that priest does or says something in a moment of purity or compassion where Christians can go, “yeah, that’s what we’re supposed to be like!” but if they pay attention, that whole “that’s what we’re supposed to be like” part of the movie is probably just a moment in a character who’s otherwise a dupe or a corrupt almost-villain.

I could be wrong. I haven’t seen it. But religious people tend to like it when they see a glimpse of hardcore-passionate-purity in an otherwise dark story told by an unbeliever. That doesn’t mean the unbeliever understands the whole picture.

But if what I just guessed at, above, is the thing he’s saying about Christianity—like James Gunn’s thing about Christianity—it’s still a counterfeit. Jesus said love one another—but the way He did was to tell people to strap on their electric chair, fry who they used to be, and become like Him. He called “loving others” demanding that they kill their old selves and live a life of changing, transforming. And if they won’t do that, Jesus said they had chosen their own eternal punishment. But nobody likes that part. So they go “down with exclusive organized religion and the judgy Christians! Just stick to the love part!” In summary:

It’s probably Riann Johnson saying, “here’s the problem I have with religion and here’s what I like about it,” in a character/plot point.

And honestly, I’m not interested.

You vehemently disagree with my worldview, but it fascinates you to hear me talk about it anyway. I’m not like that, and I don’t see the sense in being like that unless you don’t know what’s true. C.S. Lewis wrote that there’s always a million answers until you know which one is right.

I’d rather be fascinated by the real thing (whatever is true reality) than be fascinated by everybody’s counterfeits. Knives Out 1 and 2 proved to me that the director believes a counterfeit and he (naturally, like all of us) can’t keep what he believes out of what he says.

So I’ve lost interest. He can catch my interest if he starts talking about reality. I’d love to see reality from his perspective if he ever gets back to that.

[artist-issues]

Watch for this lie:

"You're not perfect, and that's ultimately always okay."

Sometimes it comes in these alternate forms:

"Nobody's Perfect."

"That's just what it means to be human."

"That's just me."

"Our flaws make us who we are; we are beautiful."

Wrong. Wrong. Flaws are flaws. I feel like I'm trapped in a nightmare where nobody's making sense anymore.

Imperfections are bad. Imperfections in a bridge drown people. Imperfections in the cells are cancerous. Imperfections in relationships warp relationships.

Thinking of constant conflict as "exciting" is toxic, so don't even try.

Listen to me—just get back to common sense. Flaws are bad and you should acknowledge that. Perfection is unattainable and you should acknowledge that, too. But don't run from the problem.

You don't have to be perfect because Jesus can be perfect for you. And you should want to grow out of your flaws and turn away from them because they're evil and they hurt you and others and you love Him. Not because eliminating your flaws will earn His love—you can't earn it or mess it up—but because eliminating your flaws, the battle, the grind, the cutting out of the cancers on your character, is all part of you becoming who you really are. And you can't do it without Him.

In conclusion, these stories are trying to dupe you:

Steven Universe

Devil Wears Prada 2

The Barbie Movie

KPOP: Demon Hunters

Candy-coated poison. Do not listen. Stay away.

You're not fine the way you are. The answers are not inside of you—the only answers you'll find there are "I'm flawed." And that IS a problem. And that IS something destroying you. And that IS something that can be solved—just not by you. The constant eternal "you you you" surround sound is what these stories feed. Do not listen. Stay away.

[artist-issues]

They paused production on the Live Action Tangled?

[artist-issues]

Ready for my not-that-hot take on Avatar the Last Airbender?

Zutara is “toxic” if they start liking each other before the show ends.

Zutara is not toxic if everything about the show stays exactly the same, except no Aang-and-Katara kiss, and then we get a sequel/spin-off after the war and that’s when Zuko and Katara start liking each other.