Game of Thrones: predictable?

    

     I think by now we have all heard of "A Game of Thrones" or as the HBO show calls it "Game of Thrones."  "A Game of Thrones" is the first book in "The Song of Ice and Fire" series written by the illustrious George R. R. Martin.  These books were loved by many for years before eventually being picked for the HBO series.  At the time the series started "The Song of Ice and Fire" was four books long with another three on the way.  George wasn't exactly known for his prolific writing skills at the time, so it came as no shock to his readers when it was stated that he hadn't finished "The Winds of Winter" in time for the sixth season of HBO's show.  Readers of the series famously had to wait six years between books before.  What I'm trying to say is George writes at the pace of a procrastinating fifth grader.

    With all that said I have made it my mission to avoid watching the show while I work my way through all the books.  I have a Facebook, and a Twitter so most of you can tell that isn't possible.  Nevertheless I have worked my way through a few of the books (slowly so maybe "The Winds of Winter" will come out before I'm done).  Now there is a lot of talk about who Jon Snow's parents are, and as I understand it HBO has just come out and said it.  Many people are acting like this is some kind of huge spoiler that HBO has released upon the world like a scourge of demons.  But honestly if you read the first book, and weren't able to put this together on your own I'm very concerned for your mental well being.  This is where you stop reading if you've somehow avoided this revelation.  No seriously I'm going to start making jokes about it and everything anytime now.  No one will launch a war to rescue you from this...Okay here we go.



    The absolute first thing I want you to remember is that when George R. R. Martin started to write these books he intended to write them as a trilogy.  Then as so often happens to writers he found more in his world to write about.  This expanded further and further until the series took on a monstrous size, bloating and bubbling into a swamp monster that consumes the minds of all that come in contact with it (this is the weirdest compliment I have ever given).  However "A Game of Thrones" was written before the great expansion started, and still has the elements of a trilogy.  Things you can tell from reading just the first book: Daenerys Targaryen, Jon Snow, and Tyrion Lanister are all extremely important characters to the series.  Why?  Well these are the three characters that are out of place in the first book.  Jon is a bastard that doesn't really know his parentage.  Tyrion is a Lanister (maybe) the only one that is a POV character at this time.  Daenerys is a princess without a home.  Ask yourself why would we want to follow these characters?  Holy crap-nugget it's because they're important.  But we follow other characters aren't they important.  Well...Yeah in a special snowflake kind of way sure.  But if you look at these you'll notice a theme: Ned is a noble Lord of the house Stark, nothing to prove.  Cat is the noble Lady of house Stark, useful for her reactions, but otherwise just like Ned.  Arya is Ned's daughter and a tom boy, her stories will always be about how she's found herself in a more and more violent profession.  Sansa is the helpless damsel, that is the sum total of her role.  What does that leave us with?  Jon the ultimate underdog, a boy that no one expects too much greatness from.  Tyrion a dwarf that gets by on his wit, and intellect (a writer's favorite).  Finally Daenerys another huge underdog, so much so she doesn't even have a land to call her own.



    Throughout every Ned chapter in the book there is a theme of showing him as the ultimate stand up guy, and having go through what can only be called PTSD flashbacks.  George R. R. Martin pairs Ned with King Robert, both in the events of the book, and the past that only gets referenced.  This is a common trick in fiction, pairing one character with the mirror opposite.  Ned is the epitome of honor, civility, and chastity (no not the stripper you pervert).  While Robert is in no uncertain terms a drunk womanizing glory hound (speaking of weird compliments).  This makes it weird that he would have had a bastard at all doesn't it.  Both Jon and Cat mention in their chapters that Ned never speaks about who Jon's mother is.  Cat has her suspicions as to who it is but it never gets mentioned.  Ned on the other hand gets excited when he finds out that Jon is going to join the Night's Watch, and says he'll tell Jon about who is mother is then.  Weird.  It's almost like he wasn't talking about it to protect Jon or something...why would that be?  Not to mention in every one of those PTSD flashbacks Ned is talking to his sister that is asking him to promise her something, I wonder what that could be?  No honestly think about it what could you possibly want someone to promise so bad that you wheeze it at them on your death bed, over, and over.  Promise me you'll take out the garbage Ned!  No that doesn't make sense.  Promise me you'll kill all the bastards that took me!  Hmm...maybe but that doesn't seem quite right.  Promise me you'll take my son, raise him as your own and protect him from harm!  Bingo!  That's the kind of thing you ask for as a promise on your death bed.



    So the first book all but tells us that Lyanna Stark is Jon's mom, but who is his dad then?  Ned?  Eww, no.  The book pretty clearly states that Ned and Robert went to save her from Rheagar and his rape-palace (a.k.a the Tower of Joy).   Wait...wasn't Rheagar the prince, and the next in line for the Iron Throne at the time?  Yup.  Weren't all his children killed?  Well...mostly.  Does that mean that Jon is the rightful heir to the old throne?  Yup.  But what about Dany?  Well Targaryen's are known to marry each other aren't they?  Yeah, but...ohhh.  That's right, that's where this whole thing is headed.



    Hey mean old writer man you ruined the story for me!  I did say there were spoilers up at the top didn't I?  I gave you like three warnings, that's more than my two year old needs.  Well...I don't believe you, so there! Why am I imagining you as a snotty six year old?  I may need mental help...  Anyway, the evidence is all right there in the book.  If you don't believe me read it again, or for the first time, I won't judge.  Man you read quick.  You mean all the things I talked about are there, wizard!  Oh but you don't believe me because you think that the author Mr. Snail Fingers himself meant this as the prolific thing it is.  Well you should have clicked the link I provided earlier.  That's right I have you in a mental checkmate.  Your welcome.

What's Smart Mean?

    

    What is smart?  Might sound like a silly question to some of you, but honestly think about it.  What is, smart?   Is it the ability to retain large amounts of information?  How about the ability to problem solve?  The ability to come up with new ideas?  Truth is as a culture we're all mixed up on what exactly this word means.

   Einstien gave my all time favorite quote on the subject.  "Everyone is born a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it's going to spend it's life thinking it's retarded."  To me this speaks to the many facets of intelligence.  To the fact that there isn't just one form of "smart."  For instance I have always been good a math.  To me it's easy.  Because of this I have been judged as "the smart kid" in many situations.  But if you asked me which two colors go together in an outfit I would stare at you blankly.  Smoke would come out of my ears.  I'd start to shut down.  Hell, if it weren't for my wife I would think all colors are just light and dark versions of the primary ones.

      Your sitting there saying, but writer-guy (in my head you're a surfer...I have no idea why) you like totally can't say that color differentiation is the same-like thing as like math, dude. (yeah I'm sorry for that)  Well...yes, and no.  Math is a high abstraction task.  It requires the ability to think about things as concepts instead of as realities.  Colors on the other hand are real, and right there in front of you.  Let me ask you this stranded on a deserted island which is more useful the ability to calculate how tall the hill is with trigonometry, or the ability to tell which berries are ripe enough to eat without getting sick?  You said the berries right?  I'm concerned about you if you didn't.

   

    



    So let's say you have a guy who recently wrote a piece on, oh I don't know...quantum mechanics.  Does this make him smart?  Nope.  It makes him good at science, smart in science.  Or at least it allows him to appear as such.  We have all been conditioned to see the skinny nerd as the symbol of smart.  You know the type: sits in the corner with books, talks incessantly about math, or science, or computers (or anime...the list goes on).  I'm here to tell you though, that's only one type of smart.  That nerdy guy in the corner reading probably isn't that good at social situations (hence the alone time with books).  The meathead at the gym, probably knows more about muscular metabolism than some doctors.  The carpenter knows wood, like things you wouldn't think someone could know about wood (fun fact: carpenters are the reason trees don't run for political office).  My point is that people are all smart in individual ways, and not to let yourself fall into the trap of thinking there is only one kind of smart because that severely limits you.  And as a society, we really can't afford to have people setting limits on themselves.

Quantum Weirdness

image credit: slac.stanford.edu

    Recently I heard someone talk about a thought experiment called "Schrödinger's Cat" when they did they got it wrong.  That is why I am about to inflict some quantum mechanics knowledge on all of you...Wow your eyes glazed over fast...No, wait don't go this'll be interesting I promise.  So before I delve into imaginary animal cruelty I want to give a short primer on what exactly is going on.

    In the early 1900's scientists preformed this experiment that found that all matter is both particle and wave at the same time, called the double slit experiment.  Big deal, the ocean has waves and particles!  Yea...sorta...see, what this is saying is that when observed matter collapses into a particle, and energy becomes a wave.  This is important because before this we all thought matter was matter, and energy was energy.  Oh, ho-ho not so fast scientists, said the universe, everything is both...until you look at it.  Trippy?  Yeah.  The subject of this post?  No.  Bored?  Keep reading, you'll be able to impress your friends by knowing this.

    Onto the man known as Schrödinger.  Erwin Schrödinger was an Austrian physicist that was born in 1887.  Given the time frame it's no surprise that he was somewhat of a classical physicist.  Because of that he found the idea of wave-particle duality to be something weird that only the kids could be into.  So standing on his porch, waving his cane, he mocked the kids that wouldn't get off his lawn.  "Oh, yeah everything's both particle and wave alright.  I'm also the queen of England can't you tell."  Okay he didn't say that, but it was similarly sarcastic.  What he came up with was the thought experiment now known as "Schrödinger's Cat"  which goes a little like this: Imagine a cat, now imagine a box that completely obscures the cat from any form of observation.  In the box with the is a poison that will rupture and kill the cat at a random time.  Kind of like a kid napping.  So at any time the cat could be dead.  Now what?  Well in his then jovial tone ol' Ernie said that until we open the box the cat is both dead and alive.  Ha-ha-ha went the physicists with their strange, and metaphorically abusive sense of humor.  Well...not exactly...most of the world thought he was serious.

    The early quantum theorists looked at this example, and said "Hey this Schrödinger guy came up with a great example. Let's start using it to teach the concept."  And thus "Schrödinger's Cat" was born...and killed...sorta.   The most important point to the experiment of course is that things are both particle and wave at the same time.  Which opened up the floor for Einstein to discover general relativity (E=mc^2), but that's for another time.

    Wow you made it through.  Not as painful as you thought now is it?  Oh you've been chewing migraine strength Advil the whole time?  Well I did too the first time I read about it.  Your welcome for your first "Quantum Headache" ha-ha-I'll shut up now...

Paw Patorl: a parent's nightmare

 

credit Amazon.com

    I want to take a second to talk to you all about a show that has touched my heart.  By that of course I mean I have been forced to watch it over and over again by a tyrannical three year old.  This show's name is Paw Patrol.  If asked to give a brief synopsis I would say it's best described as a show about a town that was so irresponsible it placed an eight year old in charge of all it's emergency services, and paid for mutant dogs to staff it.  Whoa!  Cool your jets man, you're likely thinking.  How dare I attack a kids show like that, after all it's not really supposed to make sense right?  Well kinda (also didn't you see my post about Frozen?).  See most of these shows manage to play around with the schizophrenic visions that are a child's imagination, but this show, this show just goes off the wall.

    You see in this show an eight year old boy named Ryder leads a team of dogs eponymously named the Paw Patrol.  Each dog has a job related to public safety in some way.  Chase is the police/spy (more on that later) dog.  Marshal is the fire/ems dog.  Zuma (Who names a dog that?  That's like what you name your favorite scooter) who is the water dog.  Sky is the lone female full time dog, and she is the one that flies (even though she's now largely irrelevant.  Keep reading you'll see).  Ruble the construction dog.  Rocky the recycling dog. Lastly there is the per diem dog Everest, she is only called on when they end up in the snow (and even then sometimes she isn't).

    The first question I remember asking was where is the EMS dog?  Well turns out they thought the show needed a recycling dog so they just made the fire dog also the EMS dog.  Marshal by the way is the bumbling idiot of the group, but that's okay he always tries his hardest...sigh.  So what does the recycling dog do you ask?  Oh he repairs things of course.  Wait you say, what about that rumble, or whatever, isn't he the construction dog?  Yeah, but they had to fit the recycling dog in there somehow.

    After watching it for the eight hundredth time it dawned on me that this show is possibly the most irresponsible town imaginable.  Not only does it's mayor think that an eight year old is fit to run it's emergency services, but she also thinks anything, and I do mean anything, is a reason to call him for help.  Holy abuse of power batman.  Not to mention this teaches kids that anything is a reason to call 911.  Ouchy I fell and need a bandaid, better "yelp for help" so marshal can bring me one.  Seriously that's what he does when he's the EMS dog, hand out bandaids.

credit paw-patrol.wikia.com

    In a later episode named "air pups" all the dogs get jet packs.  You might be able to see how this makes the whole show kind of stupid for one character, the only female that's eligible for benefits (what would those be anyway, milk bone insurance?).  Yes I'm talking about Sky.  See now that they can all fly, even the dog that's scared of heights, Marshal (I told you he was the bumbling idiot right?), it makes her ability to fly pointless.  Yet there she is every episode talking about how she could fly up there, wherever there is.  Then she yips twice because that's the only way any of them can get their equipment to work, and flies up to do some kind of malarkey.

  
    Here's where I turn everything on its head, the fact that Ryder is in charge makes sense.  It makes sense because every adult in the town is severely mental disabled.  The mayor thinks anything is a reason to call emergency services like I said earlier, but is also so dumb that at one point she rows a boat in circles without noticing.  The only other adult we see on a regular basis is the marine biologist that can't handle basic tasks like watching his own boat, or not getting stuck at sea.  Finally there's the pet chicken that the mayor has named Chickolletta (yet more evidence that the mayor isn't all there).  This bird is on a mission to screw things up.  It routinely gets itself into dangerous, and stupid situations.  At one point it finds it's way into a submarine with a cat, and starts messing with the controls causing it to dive with them in it.  Mayor-calls-too-much calls the Paw Patrol to come save her pet.  Then they all laugh about what they learned, even though I'm pretty sure the mayor, and the marine biologist from hell are both incapable of learning.  Hooray for abuse of power.

can you say "government overreach?"

    Speaking of abuse of power, let's talk about Chase.  Chase has two settings police, and spy.  Let's just pause for a moment and think about that.  That means that the writers thought hmm...what goes well with police?  Oh I've got it spying!  Good!  I meant to explain the Patriot Act to my three year old anyway.  Paw Patrol just made it convenient.  Not to mention NSA-dog always seems to know what costume to be in before Ryder tells him what he needs...hmm I wonder how?  No matter how he must be sharing that information with his buddies, because all the other dogs seem to have the same "clairvoyance."

    The last thing I want to harp on is the over present marketing.  Every other episode seems to introduce some new vehicle that was clearly made to be a toy.  There's the Paw Patroller a large bus driven by a robot dog; who honestly could replace all of the paw patrol for a quarter of the cost.  Then there is the Tower which you too can have for the low-low price of $50.00 ($49.99 really but come on).  Not to mention the hundreds of costume changes the dogs go through.  Then there is the cleverly named Air Patroller which is as you may have guessed an airborne Paw Patroller flown by the same robot dog.  Where is our beloved leader getting all this money from?  The mayor?  Is that her one spot of competency?  She can raise funds?  Or is this a dystopian future where super PAC's run even town governments, and dog labor is cheaper than people labor?  Either way I sure don't have the money for all the made in China, no-lead-paint-we-promise toys.

    I can feel my sanity slowly slipping away with every episode.  God help you if you're in my shoes too.  Leave a comment if you are, so I can start putting a support group together.

Change and how it works

credit ecampusnews.com

How does change happen?  Some people would answer that it's sudden, and violent.  Others would say that it's a gradual process, but peaceful.  Then of course you would get the occasional shrug, and "dunno"  that seems all too common sometimes.  Now I'm sure you're wondering which is the right answer, or at least which is the right answer according to me.  Well like any other self respecting writer, I'm not going to tell you, not yet.  No instead I'm going to talk to you about trade offs.

    You see we all want to know what the right answer is, but more often than not there isn't one.  Instead there are just two (or more) options that are opposites.  In woodworking there's a saying "Measure twice, cut once."  Which I always felt translated to "You can do it fast, or you can do it right."  Another example of this is when the United States was first struggling with the idea of electricity.  We had two options: AC, and DC.  DC was relatively safe, but would require power plants on almost every block of New York City just to power the city.  AC on the other hand, could travel miles down a power line without needing a boost, but touch it, and you're probably dead.  Ultimately we chose AC power.

credit youtube.com

    Wait, you say, what does all that have to do with change?  Well imaginary reader I just invented, for one wouldn't you say that adding electricity was a rather large change at the time.  And for two it's called foreshadowing you uncultured bafoon.  Wait, where are you going?  No, I didn't mean it, come back.  Okay that's better, but still.  Read, then ask questions like that.

    But if you insist on me talking about change.  The first way to make large changes is through force.  That said certain criteria must be met to use this method.  For one you must either be a large majority in the region you're trying to change, or you must be exceptionally smart.  Before you say it, if you think you're that smart, you most certainly aren't.  That option is so rare it's not even funny.  Seriously, I'm trying to laugh at it and I can't.  Further you have to be ruthless.  When I say ruthless, understand I do mean ruthless, like raze it all to the ground kind of ruthless.  Like the Soviets burning their own land in World War Two, ruthless.  If you're not ruthless enough you will do nothing but create enemies.  However should you manage to pound the opposition into the dirt hard enough, congratulations you made the change you wanted.  Just ignore the pile of bodies you just created.  Man they're really starting to stink though.  What?  You recognize some of them?  Well, duh.  Some of your people will die too if you use the force method.  So in other words make sure the change you want is worth it.

credit ibtimes.co.uk

    The other method is the polar opposite of the first.  Where the first is fast, this is slow.  Where the first is satisfying on a primal level, this one is intensely frustrating.  We can call this one the peace method.  This one requires those that want change to be beyond reproach, all...the...time.  Perhaps more frustrating still, it requires the idea to be objectively right.  What do I mean by beyond reproach?  I mean that when protesting, and getting sworn at by whatever the opposition may be, all members must remain calm, and polite.  When asked to leave, they must leave, but return the next day.  None can spout hate, or anger.  Who the hell has done this you ask? Well, there's Dr. Martin Luther King jr. Ghandi, and Women's suffrage to name a few.  They weren't perfect, but they were close for this method.  All three of those movements advocated for themselves without allowing aggressive or hateful rhetoric.  They stood above the violent tactics in favor of stating their message so all could hear.  All three said "this isn't fair."  And all three were objectively right.  They didn't even result to the name calling (at least not as a movement) that we all seem to do.  Because they did that, they had people criticize them, call they're ideas stupid, violently oppose them, but ultimately they were accepted.  In other words, no getting mad and yelling names, or chanting phrases (I'm looking at you Social Justice Warriors, and angry Trump supporters) let it all roll off you like water on a duck's back.  Be your idea correct, change will, happen.

credit metrospirit.com

Background for Captain America: Civil War

 

credit movieweb.com

    Marvel's latest cash cow Captain America: Civil War has set the internet ablaze with keyboard warriors arguing who was right.  Now I'm not one to write a spoiler free article, but I think there are some things that need looking into before we can start saying who's right and who's wrong.   Though both teams are made up of factions of the super team that is The Avengers, the real fight comes down to a "Billionaire Playboy Philanthropist" and the literal personification of 1940's America (Honestly the only way he could be more America is if he was riding a bald eagle whilst firing an M1 Garand in the air, and cold clocking Hitler...oh he did that last one?  Yeah there you go).  Truthfully we need to look at the experiences of our trust fund baby, and our anthropomorphic America, before we can pass any judgment on who's right.

    Right then, let's get started.  First up is Tony Stark, a man so rich he can blow up his mansion several times and still not worry about his finances.  You see Tony grew up with a genius inventor for a dad, and a mom that doesn't get mentioned much in the cinematic universe.  Before this movie we get to see some of what Howard Stark is like as a young man in Captain America: The First Avenger.  He's an eccentric man, not without pragmatism, and patriotism.  Unlike Tony who one could say was one hit of ecstasy away from being the literal embodiment of a rave.  So what happened to cause Tony to veer off so far from his father's footsteps?  Well Howard Stark died of course.  To Tony's memory x Stark died in a car accident (Spoiler Alert: It totally wasn't a car accident).  Even though this isn't the most tragic Stark death in our collective memory, I think we can all agree that loosing his father at that young an age could seriously mess a guy up.  Combine that with enough money to buy Colorado, outright, the whole state, and you have a recipe for snorting blow of hooker's asses (though that may have just been the money too...).  Of course Tony grows up in the first film, and presumably stops his hooker-ass-blow-parties, but that doesn't relieve him of the gilt he has from all that partying...and illegal arms sales.  Then over the course of five movies we watch Tony's character develop, and in each movie he seems to make colossal screw ups that bite him (and everybody else) in the ass all the time.  To summarize: Iron Man 1 he sells arms to terrorists/builds a super-suit that gets copied; Iron Man 2 he pisses off a Russian physicist by not giving credit for the idea he used/angered a ruthless competitor; The  Avengers he almost kills himself trying to save the world; Iron Man 3 still reeling from his own mortality he tries to fight crime with automated suits, and has to fight yet another scientist he pissed off; The Avengers Age of Ultron he creates a homicidal killing machine bent on saving the world by killing it.  With all these failures it makes sense that Tony would feel that he needs somebody to watch him.  In the end Tony is really just a boy that misses his dad, and wants someone...anyone to watch over him, and tell him he's doing the right thing.

credit screenrant.com

    Now onto Steve Rodgers a.k.a Captain America.  The first thing anyone should ever say about Cap'n Rodgers is that he is a man out of his time...literally.  I'm sure we all know that Cap here was originally from the 1940's, and that's the most important thing to remember.  Let's all take a little trip in my time machine back to 1940.  The world is raging in World War Two.  The Axis powers have taken over France, and are bombing the proverbial hell out of the United Kingdom.  Where's the United States you ask?  Well You see we're still at home.  Despite how badly beaten our allies are at this time the majority of the United States is against getting into the war.  We saw that as Europe's problem, and we we're just concerned with America problems.  That is until the Japanese made the mistake of trying to bomb our Navy out of existence (and failed mind you).  This is the America Steve Rodgers grew up in, an isolationist America.  An America that just wants to be left alone to deal with it's own problems.  An America that doesn't believe in large coalitions since that's what started World War One in the first place.  What's that angry Tony Stark fan?  Steve Rodgers was all about entering the war effort?  Well yeah, that was the patriotic thing to do at the time.  Confused?  You see old Uncle Sam was all about isolationism, but when he did go into the war, he went all in.  Add that in with what the Cap has seen up till now (S.H.I.E.L.D. being hydra, Ultron killing people faster than the world could react, and Hydra forming out of the Nazi's) and it's a small wonder that he disagrees with too much regulation.  But all that is secondary to the fact that Cap is a man that stands by his friends.  You see Good ol' Steve had one true friend in the world growing up, and that was Bucky Barns.  Bucky as we all know became the winter soldier after falling from a train car.  Steve gets thawed out into a world where he's the only one from his time still alive and young, or so he thinks.  Then he finds out Bucky is still alive.  Now I want you put on  your imagination scarf and try this for me: imagine that you go to a foreign country, and are told you can never return.  Then you see an old friend from home there with you.  Tell me would do what was in your power to keep that little piece of home with you.  Of course you would.  That's what's going on with Cap'n Bald Eagle, and metal arm.



    While I'm on the subject of the Winter Soldier, let me just say that while none of the things that he's done are by any means excusable, he's also not at fault.  Oh man, listen to that chorus of imaginary voices yell at me.  You called Elsa a villain even though she didn't really mean to do all those things.  How can the Winter Soldier be different!  Well imaginary people who vastly outnumber my actual readers, that's simple: Elsa had free will.  See the thing to remember about my pal righty-the-soviet-death-machine is that he was brain washed.  Not like kinda brain washed like normal POW's get either, he was Scientology level brain washed.  You can see in the new movie that there is a combination of words that if used together will cause him to become a literal slave.  Okay, but Elsa didn't have a choice either, her powers would just go off when she didn't mean for them to.  Not to mention she has an anxiety disorder. Well first off I'm not so accepting of a diagnosis of anxiety disorder since you're imaginary, and I didn't go to medical school, so that's out.  Second yes, I get it she didn't intend on doing the things she did, but it was her negligence that made her more of a villain.  The Winter Soldier literally can't undo what he's done, and even still he's not running from it.  Does that mean he turns himself in...No.  That means he grieves for, and feels the gilt of, his past actions.

    So now that all that has been said you should be able to have a clear understanding of the two sides, and where they're each coming from.  Is Steve Rodgers perfect, no.  Tony Stark, also no.  Do they both have the best intentions at heart?  Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!  It's my sincerest hope that now that you have read this you will be prevented from writing anything silly like, oh I don't know saying Cap is Un-American, or saying that Tony is just pure evil.



    One last thought before I go...I'm really sad they didn't do the registration act in this too.  It really lost some of the metaphor it once had.  For those of you scratching your heads right now: in the comics Tony is on the side of the Government when they want to impose an act that would force everyone with superpowers to register, get training, and be at the beck-and-call.   Obviously Cap don't like that too much, so he fights back.  In other words it was a metaphor for the gun control debate.  Would have added depth, but I guess it probably would have taken more than one movie.  Oh well....

The Two Villains of Frozen

I'm going to say it, there are two villains in Frozen, and neither of them are the Duke of Weaslton.  I know what you're thinking "Who is this guy and what's his obsession with a x year old movie?"  Well...I'm a father of a two, almost three year old girl, so I've been treated to more screenings of this movie than you can imagine.  It was around screening three or four that I started to question some of the assumptions the movie has you take, and around screening ten that I was really able to make my case.

    Everything that the Duke does is perfectly rational throughout the entire movie.  When he first arrives his dialog is written to show an amount of greediness, but that makes sense when you consider he is there to promote trade between his country and Arendel.  Next he questions Anna about the isolationist state that Arendel has been in for the last several years, and although he's a bit creepy when he asks, he immediately takes Anna at her word when she say's she doesn't know.  Further on in the party Elsa accidentally fires ice at him and various other guests.  When she runs away he follows.  Perhaps because he's curious, or maybe he's concerned, but either way the moment he makes it out the door Elsa fires more ice at him causing him, and his two companions to be knocked over.  It's then that the movie first attempts to make him seem like a villain, he calls Elsa a monster.  But then again she did just SHOOT ICE AT HIM!  If that isn't a reason to think someone is a monster I don't know what is.

credit disney.wikia.com

    I hear you, I hear you, "But Elsa didn't mean to shoot that ice at him, she was scared."  Well for one, he didn't know that, and for two, that's no excuse.  If I get scared in the middle of a crowded street and start busting off caps at random strangers that's illegal regardless of if I hit anyone.  Hell even if I accidently pulled the trigger (some how) I could still be charged with a crime.

    Anyway, moving on.  Later in the film while everyone is freezing in the sudden winter that Elsa has caused, and the Duke make a comment to the effect of "We should probably kill the ice-witch-monster-thing so we can take care of this eternal winter."  Hans responds by saying "Hey, guy, that's like totally treason, and junk."  Or something close to that.  Now this scene was obviously to show what a good guy Hans is, so that later you can be so very surprised that he's bad.  But let's once again step into the Duke's shoes.  Ice queen shot ice bolts at him, then ran away, and created a winter that has frozen everyone in, taking everyone hostage.  Now he likely has no idea how to clear up this eternal winter, but it's a good bet that killing crazy-scary-ice-demon will do the trick.  Furthermore when Elsa sets off the "Eternal Winter" she does so to a population in the middle of summer.  A population that in no way is ready to deal with winter.  They haven't had time to collect firewood, or store food.  So ending this winter is imperative, as hundreds may already have died, and thousands more could if nothing is done.

    This is where the movie really tries to make him out as the primary villain.  He sends his two men to "end this winter."   Note that he doesn't say "Kill Frosty-the-ice-witch."  So saying that he sent them specifically to kill her is a little hard, but still likely.  I'm going to harken back to my last point here, he thought she was holding them hostage, and killing off her own people.  What was that?  She didn't mean to?  Perhaps, but he had no reason to know that.  She ran away you say?  Sure, she ran away, freezing everything as she left, likely killing hundreds, and showing no sign of remorse.  How could anyone possibly think she was doing that on purpose.  Oh, that's exactly what anyone would think?  Oh, okay.

credit disney.wikia.com

    Fast forward, Elsa has been captured.  Anna is dying...alone...because Hans is a jackass...arguably so is Christoff.  The Duke is shown to not be on Elsa's side in all this.  Which is consistent with his actions thus far.  Then he disappears until the conclusion of the film where he's being forced out of the country by the Arendel guards.  Throughout this whole time it's very clear that he's been acting somewhat weasly, but not outright bad.  When he demands to see the, only recently reformed, queen he's told that she has decided to cease all trade with Weaslton.  For what?  Well because he tried to kill her, duh.  You mean he tried to kill her when she was a terror to her own people, likely killing many of them?  Well, yeah.  So that means that she is primarily concerned with what he attempted to do to her, not what he was trying to do for her people, and the hostages she took.  Yeah, she's going to be a great queen.

    By now you've probably asked the question "Clearly this guy doesn't see the Duke of Weaslton as a villain, but then who does he think is the other one?"  Well here's the Shamalan twist you probably have seen coming.  Elsa, is the other villain.  Cue shock, and suspense.  How could anyone see Elsa as the villain.  This is clearly a movie about her finding liberation, and freedom from her apparent anxiety, and possible depression.  The movie shows that family love concurs all, and blah, blah, blah.  Here's the point from the real world, Elsa was dangerous, out of control, and as I've said several times by know, likely a killer.  Oh but she didn't mean to do any of that, she just didn't have control of her powers.  Well going back to my gun metaphor from earlier, that doesn't really matter.

    Elsa didn't intend on any of that happening so she's not to blame.  Yeah, okay, she didn't intend harm.  Neither did any given genocidal maniac, they all thought they were doing what was right for their people.  Elsa's motivations aren't even that selfless, she literally does what she does only for herself.

    Elsa didn't know she set off the snowpocalypse.  That only really makes it worse.  She went to the tallest peak in the area.   Tall enough apparently to be snow capped year round.  She then goes on to create an ice palace for herself.  So on top of this tall mountain, in her ice palace, you're telling me that she never once looked down at her home?  She never checked to see if everyone was okay from the carnage she caused running away?  That's just irresponsible.  Listen man, Elsa has anxiety, and she is just now free for the first time in her life, you should be more happy for her.  Oh yeah, I mean she just caused chaos on an unprecedented scale, plunging a population that's not remotely ready for winter into a snowpocalypse, but at least she made a personal journey so all should be forgiven.  I mean honestly, how could anyone see that as okay.  To worsen matters she hits her sister in a way that she knows will kill her, and rather than be concerned, Elsa asks who Christoff is.  It's worth saying again here, Elsa was told when she was younger that if she hits someone with an ice blast to the heart, they are dunzo, dead, kaput.  When she hits her sister directly in the heart, she has every reason to know that will kill her, but is she worried for her sister's safety? No.  Does she show any remorse for accidently killing her sister? Nope.  But, maybe she didn't know what she'd done.  Fat chance, she clearly said "You're not safe here." to her sister before loosing the blast.  Not to mention she sees her sister clutching her heart after the blast.  But Anna said she was fine.  Man you're really clinging onto what ever you can to say Elsa isn't bad here huh?  I said it before, I'll say it again, she should have known better.  Not to mention he next idea is to create a homicidal ice golum to get rid of Anna and Christoff.

    Okay you say, fine she was kinda bad before, but everything's alright at the end so, all's well that ends well, right?  Nope.  Elsa does nothing to show remorse for her actions, nothing to stop the death storm she cast on her people, and nothing to show she isn't still a self centered ass.  Then instead of prison she goes back to being queen.  Injustice at it's finest everyone.  Not to mention the punishment she dealt out to the Duke of Weaslton, was unnecessary and self centered.



    One more thing to ruin your day before I leave you.  I don't care what the creators say, the king and queen couldn't possibly have been Tarzan's parents.  The technology they show in Frozen is behind the technology they show in Tarzan by at least a hundred years.  Watch the movie again and tell me how they could go from wooden schooners, crossbows, and candles, to steamboats, cartridge firearms, and lights in any less than a hundred years.  Elsa, and Anna's parents are dead.  Period.  End of story.