init commit

destruction/2020-04-24 Knives Out.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Review written 2023-06-04. I believe I rewatched it perhaps two other times between my first watch and now.
+
+This film and its sequel tricked me into thinking it was clever. It thinks it is, but it's not. It wasn't until I heard several criticisms that I realized how contrived and messy so much of it is. It's well shot, well edited, well acted, and I certainly found it entertaining, but Rian Johnson clearly knows only how to tell broken stories, some of which are crafted expressly to trick the audience into thinking they're clever. Complete with obnoxious dialogue making petty attempts at social commentary and pop culture references that aged before the films even release. Watch Clue (1985). It's far more clever, funnier, well-written, and has aged far greater than this film will. Even The Private Eyes (1980) is more internally consistent, albeit far sillier.

destruction/2022-01-17 alex pc.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+07/25/2021
+
+- blu ray
+- clear side panel
+- rgb of some kind
+- bluetooth is more important than wifi
+
+stuff I need to bring:
+- thermal compound
+- twist or zip ties
+- monoprice velcro cable ties
+- "ifixit" kit
+- static discharger thing
+- additional screwdriver
+
+@Dr. Vey117#9699
+this is the completed parts list :sunglasses: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/RaincloudTheDragon/saved/pdkrD3
+
+so just a few notes:
+- g2a windows of course, but that comes last
+- i will direct your building of the machine but a PC isn't yours unless you install at least the CPU yourself. Dumbledore said that.
+- I'll help you set up software stuff i.e. drivers, windows update, and steam library
+- not sure if the power supply or motherboard comes with the two required SATA data cables, worst case scenario we run down to a store & grab some
+- keep in mind that if you can find a cheaper monitor or a used one from the DI or your dad or whatever this can bring your overall price down quite a bit although you have to keep in mind input method just in case you need to buy a VGA adapter or sum, depending on the video card you end up choosing you may be limited to either hdmi, displayport, and DVI, or just hdmi and displayport. (I personally use an HDMI to VGA adapter from ONN; there are plenty of options for this scenario :yum::v:)
+- I would HIGHLY suggest looking into this great deal for a used GTX 1660 6gb, the original card is worth about $230, and $180 is a great deal and also this card would be arguably better and for less (although I'm only 85% sure there would be clearance for it in the case) consider it before someone else buys it because this is a great deal https://www.mercari.com/us/item/m66173024620/
+- had to use a wifiless motherboard (same as mine in fact, also note that this decision took off ~$100 from the budget)because all the ones with onboard wifi were far too expensive, so you can make the choice between the two usb adapters, one is wifi + bluetooth and the other is just bluetooth, wifi one just costs a tad more
+- because your video card is better than mine I will pester you to run shaders on the server and test stuff out
+- arguably this machine will be better than mine and will have cost you less :pensive: i need a job. or a 1660.
+
+1/17/2022 (built 1/15/2022)
+
+Tons of fun building this with and for a friend. One of the best parts was the motherboard. If I had to change a single thing, it'd be the case.
+
+To start off, I've built or rebuilt 3 PCs with the 2600. Great processor for the price point, especially if you can nab a used one like we did here, as its price has fluctuated significantly since I first bought one in April 2020. (You can get one used for $100 if you're lucky, but it goes for upwards to $340 brand new. I had originally bought mine for around $270.) Despite my liking of the 2600, I have a bit of disdain for the Wraith Stealth. Having the AMD logo sideways was always a weird design choice, but I'd never tried to rotate it until now, and that was a bit of a disaster. Their current design is so close to a simple release of the decorative shroud on the top, to a click back in at a 90 degree rotation, but they decided to make the top shroud screw in, which means you have to remove the fan from the heatsink as well. If you don't ensure that the top shroud is mounted properly, you may accidentally snap part of it trying to screw it back in as I did. I should have been more cautious, but they could also have either made it easier to reorient the shroud (6 screws is ridiculous for such a small change), or just make it come in a non-sideways orientation in the first place to help the OCD crowd like me. In any case, at least my mistake didn't effect cooling. I also much prefer the Wraith Prism for its use of mounting brackets alone. So much easier to install and a lot more peace of mind when it comes to proper thermal contact, but the Stealth is still adequate and a good addition to come with this relatively low-priced processor. I was unable to check the processor's thermals due to software difficulties but I assumed them to be adequate.
+
+The 2600 has a maximum ram bottleneck of 2933 mhz. This is only a problem if you don't know it or you're confused about your motherboard, or rather, if your motherboard itself is confused... The other two 2600 systems I've built, both sporting ASRock motherboards, were perplexed with this bottleneck. One of them was able to boot at the modules' rated speeds, and could even run games somehow, but would blue screen because the CPU wasn't capable, so applying it to manually run at 2933 did the trick. The other would bootloop even if it was manually told to use 2933 mhz. The auto setting selects 2133 which is less than optimal. (This issue may be remedied in a later chipset or revision of the boards in question. One was the A320M and the other the B450M, respectively. When I search for a replacement I'm less likely to choose ASRock for this and other reasons.) In this build, the Gigabyte B450 Aorus M did not disappoint. It immediately detected that the ram's max speed was 3200, but that the processor's bottleneck was 2933, and applied it immediately with no issues whatsoever. I was pleasantly surprised. All motherboards should be like this.
+
+The ram itself is decent for its price, but was concerningly difficult to remove from its plastic casing. I've never dealt with ram being so tightly packed in its plastic. No problems installing.
+
+We went with the trusty Crucial P1 500gb for the boot drive, and for once I got to use a motherboard with a built-in NVME heat spreader. Again, this mobo is great for its price point, even without wireless networking. I would have preferred a used drive with more storage to replace the 1TB (you can get a used 3tb for the same price no problem) but new hardware with warranties are always nice.
+
+Aresgame makes some pretty adequate PSUs for great prices. This is the second one from them I've used. Who needs modular when you can run a 2070 Super on a $34 PSU? Great for smaller budgets as long as you're willing to deal with a lack of modularity. I wish I had done this with my first build. On the topic of the 2070 super, our Zotac card was detected to be too big for this case by PCPartPicker, but it fits just fine in the top PCI slot and if the drive cage was removed it could fit on the bottom as well. If it weren't for my disdain for this case, I would try to get this fixed so it displays properly on the site, but I will soon provide many details on why anybody hoping to build an MATX Mini Tower system, especially with an optical drive, should steer quite clear of this case.
+
+What a great build. I sure hope the case is just as good...
+
+The Deepcool Matrexx 30 MATX Mini Tower case is the most egregious display of design inadequacy I have ever seen. It looks just fine for its price, and we chose it because it had an optical drive bay. This was the biggest mistake of the build and I'll describe why, extensively. If you want only my final thoughts, read my final paragraph.
+
+First off, cable management and simply the ability to fit your cables where any other case would allow you to is a nightmare. They could very easily get away with an additional quarter inch and it would mean a world of difference. I don't see why MATX Mini Towers tend to squeeze from the back panel so much and leave it to the panel itself to jut out from the case, it's frankly unnecessary. It doesn't need to be that much bigger to be manageable.
+
+The drive bay is serviceable. I appreciate the amount of options it supports. I will be contrasting this case with a more competent, albeit more expensive case for the same standard, Fractal Design's Focus G Mini, which I've built in previously. This case, in comparison, has only two 3.5" drive bays, though the caddies it comes with create a superior mounting experience.
+
+The rear PCI features three classic bend-and-break covers and one regular, cheap cover with no holes. I would prefer all or at least two of them to be like the first. It's just a waste of resources and leaves the rear coverless if you need to experiment with mounting in multiple slots.
+
+This case does not know how to agreeably function with the MATX standard. The standoffs to the far right of the motherboard were not installed in the case, I found this odd but I quickly realized that the designers of this case were not prepared for the user to install a MATX board; the cable management holes to the right fall UNDERNEATH the motherboard and are utterly blocked by it. This forces you to either route the cables through the hole behind the sata SSD mount further to the right, or to forget routing them through the back entirely, which would be far easier but obviously not pretty. If the SSD mount didn't have this hole, you would be required to use the ugly option. At least you could fit the side panel on with no trouble. Additionally, there is only one small port next to the PSU for routing its cables, though this is hardly its greatest flaw. There are approximately zero routing holes on the top despite there being space for them. Your CPU power cable will float in your case and there's really nothing you can do about that beyond creating your own modifications.
+
+This case has less than stellar airflow. I observed other reviewers saying they were completely unable to mount a fan to the front and thus being required to resort to messy tactics and case modding to mount, but I didn't have much trouble myself. I believe you would have to cut the front panel in order to install a fan or two in the front to show off RGB better, but I'm not entirely sure what other users were encountering or attempting with their fans. I'm fairly certain mounting two 120mm fans at the front is possible yet difficult and they really could make that easier. There is plenty of space for two additional fans to be mounted on the top. I have no idea why they didn't opt to just cut some holes in the top, especially considering they didn't have to worry about blocking the nonexistent cable routing holes. A common theme with this case is that the design does things it has no space for, and doesn't do things it does have space for. The Focus G Mini has this additional mounting space and two 120mm fans can be mounted on the front with none of the struggle or confusion. It even has a great mesh and dust filter. It's a far easier MATX Mini Tower case to build in, and while I'm not without my gripes with it, it's still vastly superior.
+
+The front panel's features are average. I really like its buttons, they're more satisfying to press and may even be higher quality than the Focus G's buttons. The power LED is just fine as well. The HDD LED is not only red, but it's on the reset button. This is a bizarre choice. It really makes it seem like there's something wrong and may even prompt an inexperienced user to press the reset button. The Focus G, by contrast, has a separate indicator light in white, as is more common.
+
+The front panel's cables are completely connected to the front panel. I have never seen this and it's not preferable. I don't like the idea of pulling the front panel off and having all the cables come with it. Again, Fractal's Focus G Mini avoids this crisis entirely. The mesh in the front hardly qualifies as a dust filter and if it weren't for the lack of airflow, you would be very worried about how dusty this system would become. It is visually pleasing though. What's not visually pleasing is that the inadequate design of this case in being completely unprepared for the MATX standard causes the 24-pin of your motherboard to prevent the optical drive from being mounted without jutting out of the front of the case a good inch or two. This is the most embarrassing aspect of this case's design. The entire reason we picked it was because it was the cheapest, most good-looking case for the MATX standard that had a 5.25" drive bay. What we didn't know was that this was a sad display of an attempt at an MATX case. This case needs an additional 1-2 inches out the front if you need both an MATX board and an optical drive. The only solution to this failure is to either modify or replace the case. Again, the Focus G Mini succeeds in that it sports two 5.25" bays with the ability to mount it on the upper or lower bay. (In that case, my fans were obstructing the drive if it was mounted from the top, but I could mount it on the bottom with no problems whatsoever.) This case only allows the lower bay, which perplexes me, because then it doesn't need the standardized double bay in the first place. I'm even fairly certain it would have the space if it had a hole to be mounted in the top bay, especially considering there aren't any fans or cable routing holes to obstruct it, though again, that's hardly a good thing. It almost makes me wonder if they intended you to only install some sort of front panel modification into the 5.25" bay. Regardless, a standard optical drive is impossible to fully insert into this case, is unable to be screwed in without jutting out even more, and even pushes back the mess of front panel cables that really should be separate from the removeable front panel and routed to the side into the back in the first place. Again, this case loses out to the Focus G Mini and probably a plethora of other cases that *actually* abide by the MATX standard.
+
+I may look to design a 3d-printed modification that adds an additional inch or two to allow the drive to be mounted properly. If so, I will update on how it went. It may be more trouble than just getting a better, more suitable, more competently designed case.
+
+The Matrexx 30's only saving grace is its side panel. It's tempered glass with thumbscrews. That and its size are its only victories over the Focus G Mini, which is larger and has a less than stellar acrylic side panel.
+
+An ITX board could potentially remedy many of the issues I've outlined, but there are far too many good ITX cases out there to deal with the other pains of this case. For a similar price point or perhaps $10-20 more, you could get a case with none of these torturous issues and just as much prettiness. My Focus G Mini from Fractal, for around twice the price, has some of the same issues but again, is vastly superior. There are likely to be a plethora of options that are even better and more worth your money, but I use this example because it's the only other MATX Mini Tower case I have experience with. Many others who have built in this case say that you are getting what you paid for with this case. I disagree strongly. This case is cheap, but there are cheap cases created with cheap materials that have a fraction of the headache that comes with this one. In my eyes, a cheaper case shouldn't be lazily designed, but rather created from cheaper materials, not supporting as many features, or coming with less accessories. Purchasing a cheap case shouldn't result in features literally failing to function as intended or parts that are intended to be used in the case being unable to be installed without creating significant difficulties for the installation of other parts. I contend that this case is too expensive for its design quality. It would be more worthwhile to purchase if it entirely removed the optical drive bays. I would rather build in a cheap case with less features than in a cheap case with horrendously botched and dysfunctional features. Again, I don't see why competent manufacturers can't create a case with good design fundamentals for gamers or other users on a budget. It certainly goes to show that when you pay for a part, you must pay for good design and well-implemented features first, and visual impressiveness second. **In conclusion, no matter how low your budget is, if you are trying to build an MATX Mini Tower PC, it is worthwhile to spend a little extra to get a case that successfully abides to standards and implements its features properly. The price point of the Matrexx 30 is not worth the difficulties you will encounter building in it, not by a longshot.**
+
+Thanks for reading and I hope you found my extensive and long-winded description informative. I am considering converting this into a video.

destruction/2023-01-19 i hate ajr.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+I gave AJR a shake after hearing a couple songs and hearing about the relationship between Jon's fans and their fans. I really like Living Room, it's got this childlike allure to it and the sound is really unique with their dubstep influences, a lot of the concepts they portray in that album are executed in an interesting way. I'm willing to give most of Living Room a pass for it being released in the very beginning of their careers, but I really think they had this spark of hope and creativity that kind of got squashed out lyrically after that album; after that, their sound becomes a bit derivative and the more creative elements of their music are overshadowed by their awful lyricism.
+
+It's fascinating going between some of my favorite artists vs AJR and seeing some of the cringeworthy things they will say in their songs. The overall issue I have with their lyricism is that it's extremely on the nose and they talk about shallow, boring things in a shallow, boring way. Contrast THC with The Click. THC had Woodstock cut from it because the vision of the album was focused on being able to be listened to by any human and to be able to relate to the concepts, feelings, and experiences in it. The Click is sort of all over the place, thematically focusing on partying, alcohol, and the artist's complaints with being an artist and not getting enough attention. At its best it focuses on childhood nostalgia (Sober Up) but it's quickly overshadowed by poor lyricism. Netflix Trip has an interesting premise: describe your life as though it's a show being binged on Netflix. But it's so on the nose that it hardly leaves you wondering about it later. A Jon song, you can listen to many times over months and months without realizing what it truly means. An AJR song tends to be understood by the 2nd listen and gets old really quick. Jon's lyrics are far more mature and frankly more intelligent. In Cautionary Tales, Jon speaks of an elusive artist from the third person, shutting down fame, hiding in the shadows, but keeping his pen sharp enough, striking down gods and killing armies. AJR talks about being happy about not being famous (I'm Not Famous), cutting off friends and avoiding people due to being a workaholic (Come Hang Out), wondering if someone they thought were cool as kids thinks they're cool for being famous (Joe), and, most frustratingly to me, if a popular brand of headphone sponsored them, they could pay $20k for the recording costs of the song itself (Beats). It's boring and unrelatable. I hate hearing the juxtaposition of someone bragging about how they played shows in Belarus (Joe) and around the world in general, yet he can't get his shit together and pay for his own drinks and how he wants his friends expecations for him to be so low that him adhering to the bare minimum expectation of paying for your own drinks makes him a hero in their eyes (Bummerland). I feel like playing shows around the world and creating certified platinum records should get you enough money to buy your own drinks. It's just kind of pathetic and frustrating to listen to as someone who makes $13/hr and yet can still buy my own shit. He speaks of not being able to choose between playing live shows on tour and literally being there for his partner giving birth to their child (Christmas in June). IDK about you but if I was having a child I'd probably prioritize that over anything else. Again, it reads as pretty pathetic. AJR fans tend to disagree with this one but the line "if you're racist don't come to my show" just comes off as the singer patting himself on the back for being against racism as if that's some big achievement (3 O'Clock Things). Racism is also brought up briefly in Birthday Party, which is also an interesting concept that's butchered by poor lyricism that often just comes off as again, cheezy and a bit condescending. Nobody should expect to be worshipped for treating people equally, that's kind of a baseline for being a good person. Jon's lyrics about everything, up to and including racism, is far more mature (Let's Begin).
+
+Lyrically speaking, their best song is probably Ordinaryish People. It took the concept of not fitting in and explored it in a much more interesting way than perhaps all of their other songs. And it has the Blue Man Group so automatic win.
+
+I think their true talent lies in their production. They never fail to mash interesting sounds up with interesting concepts in a great mix. However, this talent is lost on their poor lyricism and I'm hoping their upcoming album won't be more "cool concept, cool instrumental, shit lyrics" like it was in practically all their work. If they grew up lyrically then Jon fans would probably stop seeing them as the annoying little brother. I just want them to improve and mature with their art because it's frustrating to me to see how it could have been better.

destruction/2023-01-23 2005 marvin's.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+01 Good Day: It's amazing that you can hear little laughs and the "if you have a computer" etc ad libs so clearly. Tempo is dramatically increased (or just doesn't slow down in comparison to 2008?) at "why and by" which I really like. I'm not sure if that's because it just has more energy or because I'm not used to it.
+02 Greener: I'm sad they abandoned the hard panning for the intro licks. Having the 2-note base with the chords alternating from R to L is really great. Andrew's keys again are so prominent and I really appreciate it. The solo plays mostly in L and echoes softly in R, which is so sexy. Hearing and singing along with the harmonies in the chorus used to be really hard but it's so easy to hear in this version.
+03 Welcome To Tally Hall: You can actually hear the original samples and so much stuff in the background in the intro. I didn't even know there was a door opening. Joe's beatbox sounds so much more organic. Joe hard panned L and andrew's keys on R :cook: Zubin's vox sound extremely different to the 08 rerecord. I really like Joe's rapping takes too.
+04 Taken For A Ride: The transition from 03 to 04 in the 2008 version is vastly better. The hard 808 type sound is interesting but a bit jarring. Very interesting to hear the background vocals kick in earlier with a ton of reverb. Also no fermata; they keep in time or close to in time. I think the strings in this version are synths! Andrew's talkbox doesn't get drowned out in the lalalala part! Love the massive amounts of reverb on this whole track but especially on the trumpet. The lyric "doing chores" is very clear specifically. It often sounds like "to enjoy" in the 2008 ver.
+05 The Bidding: WTF THAT TEMPO IS WILD also removed instruments and backup vocals???? The backup vocals for "don't shop around" are also clear. I always thought they said "no trouble" but I guess not. This version goes so hard. I'm just imagining getting handed this at a tiny concert in 2005 and listening to it afterward and how amazing that would have been. After Zubin's part there's a much more distinctive reverb/distortion. Love it.
+06 Be Born: this version is also faster and extremely wide. It's a little busy tbh. The "alright" before the second verse is far less prominent, breaking the general pattern of this album's mixing style. This one is kind of inferior to the 08 version tbh.
+07 Banana Man: one thing I failed to mention is that along with reverb, they may actually use the classic megaphone in many of these vocals. In the 08 version, they do it in post to make the master cleaner, but it's kind of anti-tally to do it in that way imo. Doing Chester Whitmore dirty. There's a cha-cha-cha before the tempo change that I've never heard before. The insane monkey sound part is very distinct as well. I'm just noticing it now but the amps on the electric guitars are much harsher. The break has whispering in it??? What does it say? I also made a mistake and kept my direct monitor on which essentially wrecks a lot of the sound on a harsher mix like this by accidentally adding in more static that sucks out a lot of the sound. Joe's vocal effect is inferior in this version.
+08 Just Apathy: WTF THIS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TRACK. The instrumental parts themselves are completely different. Very prominent piano sounds and less strings which is amazing. They even swapped a chord in at least one place!! Probably the most different one in the entire album. Faster tempo as well. This track would probably be less hated on if this version was the wider known version.
+09 Spring and a Storm: The thunder and rain sound crusty in a good way. I love the small reverb on Joe's voice! The "uke" is far less harsh, but the muted drums are far more harsh. The background guitar at "would it please you to listen" is something I've heard in live performances but always missed in the 08 version. It's something that happened to Turn The Lights Off as well ("bet you got a bone to pick with me" used to be far more prominent in live recordings and the demo but the studio release relegated it to the background but then muddled Rob's lyrics in that part. Or is it Zubin's? I can't remember). Mr. Moon sounds amazing! You can actually hear Andrew in L! Harmonies are very distinct! This version makes it far easier to make a cover. In live performances they often cut out the guitar bit at the end so I'm glad it stayed here and you could hear it with the storm at the same time!
+10 Two Wuv: Bass is too muddled, bad amp. Drums sound too harsh. The bee sample is sorely missed in the 2008 version and it's very charming, not sure why they cut it. Very interesting that Mary Kate is in R and Zubin in L for the phone call. I kinda wish I could randomly hear the alternate bridges whenever I listen to this song. Background vocals at "without you and you" are great. I don't like fadeout tracks. I feel like it's a missed opportunity for something funny especially for this song.
+11 Haiku: I swear the crowd samples are the exact same. Including Joe's small muttering in the beginning. I love how Joe's voice sounds very distinct and it actually sounds like he stole the mic from Rob. The chorus is much bigger, probably because of Andrew's xylophone being brought to the front more, Joe's backups are more prominent as well. Joe's "HE WROTE A HAIKU FOR YOU" and subsequent ad lib are again much more audible. Andrew's keys at the end of the song I swear don't even exist or are super quiet in 2008.
+12 The Whole World And You: Andrew's vox are so much better in this version. They're raw, and you can hear the proximity effect with his mic. It just sounds good, idk. Tempo might be increased. Background laughing and clapping is more distinct.
+13: vox are hard panned to L. Overall wider mix. I just wish we had a studio guitar only version of this intro. Best we got was the laundromat live version.
+14 Ruler of Everything: background AAH's are less clear because they're overlapped by other instruments. I think you can actually hear Joe not sing the lead vox because he needs to breathe after each "aah". It's super easy to tell between Rob and Zubs. I likey. The second flibbity jibbity's vocal effect is very cool and I kinda miss it. Chimes are either a different instrument (not likely, it's a specific Alesis keyboard) or on a harsher amp. I swear this outro is far longer.
+15 Hidden In The Sand: Ocean sounds are too staticy. Longer intro. Joe's vocal effect is far less effective for what he was going for in this track. Background vox are way too quiet and have no vocal effect. Joe's final oohs are far too quiet. Inferior version. Though I think its intro is longer and the outro with Marvin's farewell message comes earlier which I like, I wish the ocean sounds weren't so long in this track overall and if I had made it I wouldn't have reversed Marvin's words. Would be the sickest outro to the album ever to just hear Marvin himself ask you, "Wouldn't the world be better off if we took nonsense seriously?" and then that's the end of the album.
+
+Very good mix overall. Would change some things but again I wish this mixing style was more prominent in the industry and we didn't just have centralized vox and everything else completely drowned out.

destruction/2023-03-25 boxdScream1996.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Both victim and killers make arbitrarily stupid decisions just for gratuitous kills and to drag on the plot. Completely destroys all tension or investment in characters surviving or winning. If I know the victims are going to giftwrap themselves to be killed, how am I supposed to care? Beyond that, it's got far too many contrived situations to take it seriously. This movie is full of itself; it's trying to be meta and self-aware about other horror films and cliches but isn't able to deliver on it due to a lack of logical consistency. Matthew Lillard is the only redeeming quality of the film. He's hilarious and takes the facepalming edge out of the more egregious scenes. I suppose it'd be unfair to discredit the actors, but their performances are lost in the bad writing.

destruction/2023-04-15 boxdCrazyStupidLove.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Reviewed 2023-04-28
+
+Very tonally confused film. Quite enjoyable, but some of the drama went unexplored and the ending resolution would have made more sense if they had spent more time, narrative time or writing time, ironing them out.
+
+I really enjoyed the big confrontation sequence. The setup is pretty great, it's reminiscent of the Lindsay Lohan Parent Trap, one of my favorite films I watched as a kid. Cal goes back to their house to try to remind Emily of their first date; Robbie is helping Cal present her a mini golf set. Hannah is revealed to be their daughter, who has brought Jacob along to introduce him to her parents. Bernie is absolutely livid at Cal, thinking he was having a sexual relationship with Molly, his 17 year old daughter, which was her fault for taking nude pictures of herself and addressing them to Cal, so she's in hot pursuit of her father, much to the confusion and chagrin of her mother. David Lindhagen, the one who has been referenced as the one having an affair with Emily the whole time, then shows up, in the flesh.
+
+The dramatic irony is extremely strong and disjointed.  Jacob doesn't know Cal is Hannah's father. Cal doesn't know Jacob is in love with his daughter and that's why he made the effort to change his ways. Hannah doesn't know Cal and Jacob know each other and that her boyfriend has been helping her father become a womanizer and in that they became close yet grudging friends. Bernie doesn't know Molly took those pictures of herself and addressed them to Cal without his knowledge or consent in a stupid, juvenile attempt to get with him. Cal doesn't know Molly did this and thus doesn't know why Bernie is trying to strangle him. All the others are completely oblivious to this entire subplot. Robbie has a crush on her, but she finds it embarrassing and annoying. IIRC, the only other one who knows of this is Cal, and the only ones who know about Lindhagen are Cal, Emily, and Jacob. Cal hates Lindhagen obviously. So this goes about as well as you'd expect. It's insanely entertaining and cathartic to watch.
+
+I take issue with the ending. Cal's interruption of Robbie's speech is fine, and a lot of what he says, albeit embarrassing and a bit difficult to watch, make sense and set up the ending fairly well. But it happened too fast. I don't think Cal would have given Hannah and Jacob his blessing so quickly. I don't think Emily would have forgiven Cal for his actions so quickly. Obviously the teacher isn't happy but I don't think she walks that back which is good. There's just overall a lot of forgiving and forgetting that happened too quickly in an out of character manner.
+
+The 17 year old girl giving the 13 year old her nudes to "get him through school" is fucking weird. Besides being disgusting, it's illegal; she's a minor who created pornographic images of herself and gave them to another minor. Creation of child pornography and distribution of child pornography to a child. These are serious charges that aren't without consequences. The film is blissfully unaware of how messed up this is because it got caught up in the payoffs it wanted. It just reads as a classic Hollywood thinking sexualizing children or exposing them to adult content is ok. Was this scene not controversial when it came out? He's going to have some really twisted and unrealistic expectations of what he deserves from her in a couple years. If she continues to interact with him after turning 18 and she doesn't shut down any sexual advances made from him, this could really be considered grooming. Not only that, but her actions seem to indicate a promise that the two of them will be together several years down the line. What if she thinks twice? What if it doesn't work out? The only reason she made this hint at a promise was because she thought he'd look more like his father in the future. "I had a crush on your dad, here are the nudes I took for him, hopefully once you're of age we can have a sexual and romantic relationship." Reverse genders and I feel like they wouldn't have done it. Hello writers? Are you awake? This should have been immediately nixed on the second draft. If it was an on-set decision it should have been edited out or the director, script supervisor, SOMEONE should have shot it down.
+
+Besides those hiccups I reckon it's pretty solid. Not sure how to rank it in light of these flaws.

destruction/2023-04-29_1 StarWars.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Watched the despecialized edition (v2.5) it was quite nice. I grew up on the Special Editions from 1997, and I really do prefer it without the edits Lucas imposed on them later. There's a certain charm about the film being the way it was intended to be originally, without the muddled misdirection of 20 years later. Many of those changes were unnecessary. Lucas chose several elements to "fix" that really didn't need fixing. And then denied fans the ability to see the unadulterated film as it was originally seen. Thus I massively appreciate the despecialized edition's efforts to preserve history. One thing I was confused about this time around: Leia knows they're being tracked; it's the only reason they got away. Yet they still go to Yavin on the off chance they can analyze the plans and find an exploitable weakness in the Death Star. So they knew they were being tracked, they knew their data may not be exploitable before the Empire uses their station to destroy them at their next location, so they risk the entire rebel base at Yavin regardless? Perhaps I missed something that made it clearer as to why they did so. I thought they should have landed elsewhere, swapped ships (assuming there was a tracker left upon the Falcon) and then headed to Yavin. I'm just not as aware of what their options were as I could be. Regardless, the world is very rich. Within just a few minutes we're given enough information to know where we are, what the stakes are, who the players are, what they want, etc. It really works. It works without unnecessary edits and to a certain degree, without sequels. Though I'm glad they left enough plot threads open so we could follow the journeys of the characters afterward. I'm glad this film made money, otherwise we may never have gotten what came afterward, good and bad. We deserved to see where the characters went and these films delivered. Not perfect, but pretty stellar.

destruction/2023-04-29_3 Der Fuehrer's Face.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Fascinating. Very much a product of its time, but to a certain degree stands the test of time. Making fun of Nazis shouldn't be controversial. I think many people in our modern time missed the point of this. It's a pretty obvious middle finger to/parody of Hitler and his regime, it's just different to how we tend to do it today. It's pretty funny, too. Has a decent message, albeit extremely hyperbolic. I wonder if kids at the time grew up with this as their only frame of reference for what WWII in Germany was like.

destruction/2023-05-28 boxdEdgeOfTomorrow.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+Everything up until Cage's first death was pretty hard for me to follow. I didn't understand why pretty much anyone was trying to do, but I analyzed it again. One thing I'm quite sure of is that General Brigham is unreasonably evil in his treatment of Cage. He was forced to die for the military, completely against his will, his freedoms usurped.  Forcing him into their ranks was cruel and unusual punishment; they sent a non-combat ready PUBLIC AFFAIRS officer to be traumatized and die in a modern D-Day against ALIENS because he wasn't qualified for the job and therefore refused. His refusal was ignored by Brigham, so in desperation he threatened to blame him for when the attack went wrong. This desperation and the action borne of it is very much in character; he's never been in combat, doesn't know the first thing about it. So obviously he doesn't feel qualified and would feel quite terrified to be given control over all the UDF's forces for the upcoming invasion of France, for which he'd only have a couple hours to prepare. But he does know public affairs, so he plays to his strengths, because he knows how easy it would be to threaten Brigham's position. This obviously backfired; he was "arrested," more like abducted, and sent to UDF's Heathrow Airport military base. Which is pretty evil. He could have just taken it up with Cage's superiors and had him court martialed. You're telling me a man in Brigham's position couldn't do something to punish him or ruin his career without killing him behind the back of his military allies? The American military would surely be livid to hear that Brigham CIA'd one of their own public affairs officers to die in a battle he wasn't qualified to lead *because* he refused to lead it *because* he knew he wasn't qualified. I don't even believe Brigham when he says he already had approval from Cage's superiors to give him those orders. Especially considering his actions directly afterward indicate that he knows how to bend the rules and is willing to lie to military collaborators to manipulate them to do what he wants.
+
+Now, Sergeant Farell didn't know exactly what he was doing, as Brigham had demoted Cage to Private, falsely labeled him as a deserter, and alleged that his officer's uniform was the result of him stealing one in order to desert. But Farell isn't entirely innocent, far from it. He makes the executive decision to put what he understands to be a private with absolutely no combat skills whatsoever, into a Squad that will be on the front lines of their attack the next morning. The only training he gets is "some Basic," and all we see of this in the film is him with the rest of J-Squad doing a lap within Heathrow, and push-ups if Cage, or presumably any of the others, misbehave. They refuse to help him know even the basic functions of his suit, which besides being evil and cruel, actively puts the rest of them in danger. They put him in a suit that he didn't even know how to operate. Why would you ever give a soldier a gun when they don't even know how to turn off the safety? Not only are they attempting to kill a man whose only crime was insubordination/blackmail (which is a stretch), they also are putting the rest of their company in danger by forcing him into their ranks. He could sabotage the mission in a million ways when he doesn't know how to operate this dangerous weaponry. J-Squad should be absolutely pissed at Farell; what kind of a Sergeant would put such a woefully unprepared man into this position? The base is on lockdown and you believe he's a deserter claiming to be an officer; it makes sense he would refuse to give him a phone call. But you're going to deploy the next day and you see that he hasn't a single clue what he's doing. You're putting your entire Squad and potentially the mission itself in jeopardy. Is this what we do with deserters? Give them highly powered modern weapons in the form of mech suits that they don't even know how to operate? Put them into the front lines the next day? So they can face the threat of death they hoped to avoid by deserting and do something rash with the equipment they don't understand? It's evident Brigham wanted him killed for his reasonable actions, he's evil, I get that. But sending him into combat doesn't guarantee that he gets killed without bringing harm to your own soldiers. They're not immune to bullets; he could go rogue and attempt to kill as many of their own men as he could out of spite for him being there. He doesn't know how to operate it, there are a million things he could do that could accidentally kill their Squadmates or worse. Why Farell follows those orders given the situation is beyond me. You could argue he dismisses Cage's grievances as deceit, but wouldn't his Squadmates be concerned at his qualification? Wouldn't they bring it up to Farell? That they feel endangered by his presence in their Squad? Why would they mock him right before landing? Yes, he's a dead man, but you could be as well due to his predicament. This is a narrative problem; the writers entirely missed the fact that a single unprepared or unqualified soldier doesn't mean one dead man, it could potentially mean his entire squad. I could provide endless examples, but to keep it broad and simple, what if they're trying to kill an alien, Alpha or otherwise, and his incompetence causes their position to be revealed? The entire inciting incident is predicated on cruelty, pride, and an astounding lack of understanding of the consequences of unqualified individuals being placed into combat roles.
+
+If I recall correctly, we don't see their basic training jog in the first day. I have a contention with this. In a Groundhog Day-style film like this, it's very important that we see the initial permutation of the day in as much of its entirety as possible, otherwise we may get confused, thinking that a sequence is the result of the protagonist's actions rather than something that would have happened independent of him. However, I appreciate their ability to utilize the strengths of this format. One big advantage is that once we've seen enough of the looping, we can assume that new skills or knowledge the protagonist suddenly has were acquired in previous unseen loops. This is one of the few situations where the skipping of exposition is almost better than keeping it in. How does he know how their ships work and how to pilot them? Well he's been loading the same save state for years, potentially, having done nearly everything he could possibly have done in that single day looped over and over again. It's great to see this format used in a combat scenario with very high stakes, because many films of this style confine the actions of the protagonist to conversations and social interactions only, hardly ever involving death. In this film, the loop is maintained by death, and the lives of millions in this war on the aliens are our stakes, which is pretty fresh for this format. I really want to see Vatraski's loop at Verdun made into a film and I'd love to see an extended cut.

destruction/2023-06-02_1 Three Caballeros.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Definitely an improvement on many animation bits. Many of them were quite hilarious. Me and at least one of my friends couldn't help but to genuinely lose it at several bits, especially the penguin in the beginning. Of course I still have the same criticism that I have with many of Disney's first works; they act more as animation showcases and setpieces than they do as telling coherent, well-written stories. They do a fantastic job at being animation showcases; they're beautiful. The setpieces are wonderful, but it's quite dated. Back then, being animated and beautifully so, was enough. Now, we've been, or at least I've been from a young age, accustomed to seeing the art form used as a medium for a narrative. So it feels unsatisfying to see such high budget, creative problem-solving, and new technologies be "wasted" on something that lacks substance. One of my friends who I watched this with described this and others like it as "animation tests," which obviously isn't accurate overall, but it's a decent descriptor of what they feel like. The result of having no overarching narrative, rather having a collection of short stories, doesn't make it feel like a movie. Which isn't very objective but it's an interesting insight to how our perspectives have changed.
+
+Speaking of changed perspectives, it's interesting to see yet another Disney+ disclaimer on this. My friends and I agreed that there was a big dumbing-down of cultural elements, but that the intention of this was to foster a positive, more understanding relationship between Americans and everyone south of North America. And in that respect, I find it overall to be both successful and respectful. I don't see where they get the idea that there are harmful racial depictions; sure, the live-action men in the Baia sequence were all wearing the exact same outfit and could absolutely be argued to be stereotypical, but it wasn't a stereotype integrated with the intent to put a culture down; rather they clearly wanted to introduce their culture to Americans and accept them with open arms. The characters of Jose Carioca and Panchito Pistoles were created with the purpose of giving Brazilian and Mexican cultures a representation equivalent to Donald Duck; their appearances in Saludos Amigos and this film are obviously intended to show an American cultural icon metaphorically representing Americans, becoming friends with similar metaphorical proxies of their own respective countries. "You like Donald? Well watch him meet and become close friends with Jose as Jose spends time with him and shares his culture. Watch the two of them then meet Panchito, who does the same with his." Perhaps this could have been better if it wasn't as meta; rather than a presentation, they could have made them a narrative. But if they did, perhaps it wouldn't be as educational? Regardless, the cultural disrespect of these films is either entirely percieved, or quite possibly accidental.
+
+Some may criticize Panchito's appearance, gunslinging, vocalizations, behavior, etc, as stereotypical. Perhaps this is true. Perhaps this is true of all three of the Caballeros, at least to a certain degree. But I think back then, the stereotypes existed not to make fun of them, but to give them a proxy by which to represent them. Whether or not this is just, is up to debate. Me personally, I love the American stereotype of a swearin' sailor-mouthed gunslingin' flag-totin' bible-lovin' American. I can like the one-sided portrayal because I know it's not accurate to me and I would like to think people in other countries understand that too. This character isn't me and he doesn't represent me; he represents a simplification of the culture that surrounds me. Perhaps some of this stereotype is true to me, some of it's hyperbolic, and some of it's not at all what I'm like. But I don't mind it one bit, neither do I mind other, more offensive stereotypes like that of the obese, rich, selfish American. I only get frustrated when someone tells me that's exactly what I am as an individual as a way to demean me, especially if it hasn't a semblance of truth to it. Unless it's in good fun; I was raised LDS in Utah and many of my out-of-state friends make Mormon Polygamist jokes in reference to this. I find it funny. Being able to laugh at/with ourselves and each other with the mutual understanding that it doesn't define us as individuals is one of the beauties of living in a melting pot, no matter where said pot resides. It's something I think today's culture is sorely lacking. Another example of this positive effect, the Ultimis Crew from Treyarch's COD Zombies are all extremely stereotypical, and I love them all. Though I understand it's not representative of all individuals in their respective cultures, it endears the cultures to me as a whole. It neither makes me hate them nor fills me with false ideas of how every individual in those group behave. Anyway, to my understanding, Mexicans are, on average, positive on characters in this vein. For whatever reason Speedy Gonzales comes to mind. To my understanding, most cultures are fine with hyperbolic stereotypes, so long as they aren't used against them with the intention of dismissing them as all bad people and destroying their individuality. Sometimes it seems the people frustrated with these characters are conflating the racist stereotypes that target people, with the stereotypes that poke fun at certain aspects of them. Poking fun and genuine racism are obviously two very different things. I love Tank Dempsey; I do not love getting told I'm responsible for school shootings just for living in a country that has a problem with preventing them. I'd imagine Mexicans love characters like Speedy Gonzales; they do not love being told they're responsible for all sex trafficking on the Mexican-American border. I wish this did not have to be explained. Stereotypes can be weaponized to be disrespectful and then some. They can be utilized for the opposite effect. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater; there are many benefits to be had from taking stereotypes less seriously. Both in the respect that we shouldn't arbitrarily percieve inoffensive ones as offensive, and that we should stop using them to denegrate cultures, ethnicities, and nationalities we do not understand.
+
+The one inaccuracy that my friends and I agreed may be harmful is their historical erasure of Tenochtitlan; if children watched this, they may have been falsely told that Mexico City and Mexicans as a whole existed independently of the Aztecs, which is far from true. This misconception and simplification of history was not created by this film, rather this film's participation in it is symptomatic of the issue itself. There were many events that caused historical aftershocks in our culture to where we forget where much of Mexican land, culture, and even genetic heritage comes from. Mexico City was not founded by Spaniard Conquistadors. Mexicans are not 100% descended from Spaniards. Mexico as a whole, similarly to many continents changed by colonization, is downstream of the clashing of two or more groups of people; the native and the foreign. Spaniards brought their technology, ingenuity, morals, Christianity, and more, and distributed it into native culture. Their people and culture mixed. The moral implications of this, the actions of individuals or of the groups as a whole, have been and will continue to be debated for millenia. Regardless, it's important not to forget when making what is intended to be a respectful exploration and explanation of other cultures to American children or adults alike. Your history must be accurate and must not haphazardly blot out these aspects. But I realize that this is an extremely difficult thing to do. How do we ensure that there is no misunderstanding about what happened in history without going into immense detail that won't be understood by the children in the audience? How do we accurately tell the events as they happened without historical inaccuracies, without offending, but without going into all the nuance of a textbook or documentary? It's a problem that if I were tasked with doing on this project, I wouldn't know where to begin and would likely require consulting from historical experts and test audiences alike. Do the historians find my portrayal to be accurate? Did the Mexican audience like how I portrayed their culture? The Brazilians? What do each of these groups have to say about it? Should I edit the film further before release to cater to their respective critiques? It's easy to criticize with 79 years of hindsight. With the information at hand and the intentions they had in mind, I'd say this film did a pretty good job at what it was intending to do. 
+
+However, if I were tasked with making it, I would have opted for a narrative story. Saludos Amigos, which would likely be renamed, would have been a film that perhaps pits Donald a sticky situation being stranded in Brazil, meeting Jose, who helps him, and they become fast friends as Donald inadvertently is exposed to a significant amount of his culture. Perhaps they'd promise to meet again in America, so Jose could explore American culture in the same way. Thus, The Three Caballeros, as its sequel, could have Jose visit Donald in America, the two of them being on vacation in Texas perhaps, eventually something leading them to cross the border and meet Panchito, so they can explore his culture as well. I'm just throwing out ideas, but perhaps if these were narrative stories rather than presentations, they could have resonated more with audiences from all three cultures and have become just as culturally significant as the likes of Snow White, Pinnochio, Dumbo, Bambi, etc. Perhaps the cultural ramifications of these films would have been more effective towards the results they were going for and these films would be far more timeless. Perhaps they wouldn't be maligned as culturally insensitive and thus a part of a forgotten bygone era that many today wholly dismiss for this percieved injustice. Onee big advantage of making it a narrative would be that they don't have to go into detail about the history; they don't have to be educational and accurate simultaneously. They can be accurate and respectful, but don't have to explain complicated history to children or ignorant adults. They could show the journey of specific characters and have the emotional understanding of those cultures be downstream of our connection to them. If you tell a story with the intent of metaphorically having Americans, Brazilians, and Mexicans bond with an understanding of their respective cultures, so long as that story is well-crafted, your respect for those cultures will shine through your work. Those that appreciate your work, at both a young and old age, will likely have individual consicous or subconscious changes to reflect the change you wanted to incite in them. Doing it as a silly yet enchanting presentation, while it has its benefits at being able to be more detailed, may not be as effective and presents challenges as I've discussed that will age your work drastically.
+
+One final thing worth mentioning: it's fascinating to see the characterization of Donald in both this and Saludos Amigos. In a more modernized characterization, he just seems to be extremely quick to anger, and he gets humiliated often, though not in the same sense as many characters are humiliated in... more contepmorary writing rooms. These two films seem to make him, for lack of a better term, horny. I don't object to simply having an animated character react to attractive women, animated or otherwise, but some of his behavior in these films are questionable to say the least. Back then it was culturally acceptable to... treat women that way. But it comes off as... strange, to say the least? He's extremely down bad in a way that hasn't seemed to age well. It's entertaining, but in a meta sense I'm laughing more because I'm somewhat appalled that this was okay to animate 79 years ago. Though I've definitely seen far worse examples of issues in this vein outside this film specifically.
+
+Overall, while this work has aged poorly in many ways, at its heart, it's most certainly not with the intention of being disrespectful. Indeed, it's quite the opposite. Disney ought not to malign this work by poisoning the well against it with the exact same disclaimer they trot out for everything. It seems more like they're ticking a box as to not offend people, rather than actually judging this work on its own at face value.

destruction/2023-06-02_2 Make Mine Music.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+I could have sworn this was on Disney+ before. As I have hinted at previously, I have a principled position against Disney picking and choosing which parts of their history they are going to make available, acknowledge, or claim to hold themselves accountable for. But I don't get why this one seems to have been forgotten in comparison to some of their other anthology films from that era. There's nothing, as far as I noticed, that would even require their cultural insensitivty disclaimer. So it's odd that it's yet another bit of forbidden Disney fruit. One of my friends suspected its lack of inclusion was due to the implied nudity at the beginning. I disagreed; I seem to remember worse things being present in previous or later Disney films that *have* been brought back. So I'm not sure, beats me.
+
+There are many animation bits, as I've discussed in my reviews of similar films from this era, that make me and my friends laugh. Some of these are because they were intended to be funny. Some of them are because the film has aged, and our sense of humor has evolved to find some things funnier than they were intended to be given contexts we have that they did not. For example, in the segment where these characters dance to upbeat Jazz music, a woman is drawn with a large butt. She gets mad at the pencil/animator for doing this, so the pencil obliges her by erasing the extra mass from her body. We didn't find this amusing in the same way I'd imagine the culture of its period did, because our generation is very appreciative of larger women, while theirs found those body types unattractive and possibly shameful. We found it funny because we riffed on it in protest of the joke, while their generation found it funny because back then, it was more common for women to want to be thinner and to have smaller butts. Another animation bit that may not have even been a joke, we found very funny. A boy spins a girl into a shapeless blur that he twirls around his entire body like a lasso. We thoguht this was ridiculous to the point of hilarity. I'm not sure this was supposed to make audiences laugh as hard as we did but I'm not sure why. It's just kind of interesting.
+
+The baseball section made a lot of sense, for the most part. If I'm not mistaken, the characters get very angry at the umpire's decisions and they shout *twice* that either the umpire or certain players should be killed, and they use the word "kill", verbatim. I speculated this may possibly be another reason why Disney opted not to stream it on their platform. This sequence is pretty enjoyable. We likened the large, cocky character's design similarity to later characters Gaston and King Louie; Gaston due to the large chin and cocky nature, Louie due to the extremely top heavy stature, large arms, and orange sideburns. We were all quite confused by the transition that happens right as the final pitch is made. We found it jarring and funny, and this was likely unintentional. We joked that he hit the ball so hard, he caused reality to malfunction. "He didn't break the sound barrier, he broke the *space* barrier." The calm intercut is beautifully painted and animated, but very bizarrely placed. Why did they need a 30 second unrelated intercut to explain that he struck out? It distracts and takes away from the reveal. I appreciate their storytelling; I could absolutely believe that he was going to hit it out of the park, but it was also just as plausible to think he'd miss, losing his team the game. It just would have made far more sense to fade to the rain rather than the park. I wonder why they made this decision. Perhaps it was because they didn't want the audience feeling bad for him. Because I'd imagine that seeing him sadly standing in the rain immediately after would endear him significantly to the audience and thus take away from the humor of him frustratedly trying to hit the ball as he dropped it. There's a lack of catharsis there. It would be a much more emotionally satisfying story if it was done differently, though perhaps that's not as objective as I'd like it to be. Hear me out. What if we saw this cocky player go from thinking so highly of himself, being surrounded by the adoration of women and fans of his team alike, thinking he's entitled to a certain kind of pitch, thinking he's so good, then losing his team the game. Standing sadly in the rain, alone, after the entire disappointed audience, team, coaches, and enemy team alike left him there with his guilt and shame. He could take this guilt and frustration he exibits right at the end to fuel him to actually be as good as he thought he was, to make it up to his team and fans for letting them all down. He could train and try again and again, failing many times along the way, but learning lessons. Perhaps he's booted from the team or they don't accept him for his mistake. Perhaps he has to prove himself to them. Perhaps he struggles immensely to achieve this. But perhaps he finally succeeds, winning them the game, but with a realization that even though he's succeeded in being as good as he thought he was, that now he has been humbled by his struggle and his mistake. So he goes forward with the knowledge that he isn't entitled to the admiration of his peers, but in doing so is far more deserving of the respect he once had. Perhaps he ensures it doesn't go to his head again and becomes a real baseball legend rather than a charlatan with an ego unbecoming of his skill. Would that be a better story? It could very well be, if executed well. But it likely wouldn't have fit in the confines of this format. I just enjoy presenting rewrites and exploring the possibilities on how a story could be improved.
+
+We found the Peter and the Wolf section to be confusing; them seemingly killing a couple characters and then bringing them back was confusing but I didn't think of it much deeper than that. The hat love story was weird and I expected the ending to be more along the lines of Disney's short film Paperman (2012), but it was coherent enough. The opera whale section was utterly bizarre from beginning to end. The transition from Willy's final performance to instantly being harpooned at sea was jarring. Cool transition, but it takes a second to realize that there's a time skip. It is also not explained how a single harpooning lead to his death, though one of my friends argued that, in real life, the blood in the water can cause sharks to have a feeding frenzy on whales. While I can imagine why they wouldn't put that in this movie, that doesn't help the issue of us missing the information to help us understand why he died. "He got harpooned, but he's still fine. See? He tore away from the boat, he's getting away. Never mind, he died." I think the writers were unaware of that not being a death sentence. Like if in Finding Nemo, the fishers cast their nets, but the nets break and all we see is their perspective of the nets disapperaing, we're going to assume Nemo got away. If we then cut immediately to Dory, Marlin, and other characters mourning his loss, we'd be confused and potentially insulted. Anyway, we found him singing in heaven to be quite jarring as well. Putting a sign that said "Sold Out" on the gates of heaven as the final thing we see in the entire film was something we found to be ironically funny in a way I'm sure they didn't intend it to be back then.
+
+Overall, it's along the lines of Fantasia, definitely funnier, less budget, but subjectively I found it to be more engaging. But perhaps that's more because of the slow pacing of that film and overall due to my frustrations with its format and manner of storytelling. But that's a review for another day. I plan to go back and leave some thoughts on previous films, some of them in the Disney animation chronology and some not. I want to say a couple words on almost every film I see just for fun. Thanks to @drvey117 for logging his films consistently so I at least have the dates of when we watched them.

destruction/2023-06-03 master and commander.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+Keep in mind I was extremely tired and distracted when I "watched" this movie. I didn't pick up everything, so my views on this film as of yet will struggle to be objective. I may get details terribly incorrect, perhaps to a hilarious degree. So this review comes prescribed with a huge grain of salt.
+
+There was definitely a lot that I missed, but from what I could actively discern, this was pretty fantastic. A gripping character drama at sea with well-founded, in-character, and rational decision making. One thing I didn't get is why the Captain put the youngest, the children, aboard the ship in charge of their respective companies. Doesn't seem like the most rational decision to make when it was done for the purpose of capturing a French ship much more well-gunned and manned as their own. But they win the battle anyway. There's quite possibly something I missed to indicate that these young boys could have been taught how to be proficient in decision-making and leadership in these combat scenarios, because they absolutely seem proficient beyond their years. Actually they behave like fully grown and experienced men in the face of bloodshed and explosions. For which I'll be hunting for significant justification upon a potential rewatch. 
+
+I absolutely loved that battle scene, however. The French put up quite the fight; they feint their enemies the moment they attempt to board, pretending to all be dead, use some great tactics overall to try to win. They come off as quite competent but are absolutely slaughtered. I wonder if there was some detail or subtext I missed that implied that their warning was a bluff and that they were depleted of men, resources, or both somehow and were simply attempting to avoid battle. I think my tiredness just made it very difficult to capture all the film was putting in front of me. But I couldn't help but to be very excited by the entire sequence. My favorite part was the part where one of the boys releases the British prisoners and they instantly, without hesitation, take up arms and rush into the thick of battle to assist their brethren. They were surely POWs from other ships or captures during the war, naval or otherwise, but they knew immediately to support their brothers in arms and had no second thoughts about doing so. In fact they were quite eager. Seeing people united is a big weak spot of mine; it almost always illicits an emotional reaction in me. I appreciate the back and forth in this section. There's a definite sense that they couldn't have done it without the planning and decision making of the captain being as good as it was. He's a brilliant tactician and a great captain, despite all the struggles they had at sea up to that point. He knew how to unite the men emotionally, to have their respect, and he knew how to help them do their jobs as effectively as possible to achieve their goal of capturing the French's ship.
+
+Paul Bettany's character is absolutely my favorite. I love his expertise, his emotion, his principled positions, his relationship with both the captain and especially Midshipman William Blakeney. I was quite invested in the two of them and his ability to survive so he could continue to mentor William. I wish there was more I could have gotten out of it; I was tired and distracted so I missed out on quite a lot. I must rewatch this at some point.
+
+I would describe this to the average person as, "You know Pirates of the Carribean? It's like that, but realistic. And better." At least the first Pirates was internally consistent despite its magic. I'll always appreciate the franchise for its swashbuckling adventures, but they're pretty ridiculous beyond the first. This is for if you love seafaring adventures,19th century worldbuiling, in a realistic setting with pretty stellar writing. At least so far as I can tell given my mental state in consuming it.

destruction/2023-06-17 the truman show 1998.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+Yeahh, I think this movie might actually be perfect.
+
+I was shown this for the first time a couple of years ago, and I don't think it resonated with me properly. I missed what was going on or something. I didn't realize the incredible depth there is to every character, the world, all events as they play out. I'm not sure why I didn't think too much of it until this rewatch. But it's very emotionally resonant now in a way that I didn't see before, and I think a big part of that is because of the excellent worldbuilding and character detail. I love to see Truman being himself, his mind being blown by the revelations he gets, and how he forces Meryl to break character and to subsequently leave the show. The interactions play out exactly like what a real fake scenario would be like. The characters act like real people would act, if they were forced to pretend like they were in this film.
+
+In a deleted scene where the "new main cast" have a meeting, it's revealed that Christof plans to keep Truman in his fake world until he dies, to be replaced by his son-to-be. It's truly dystopian. Marlon is the one who asks this question as a direct confrontation to Christof, who ignores the question and ends the meeting. You can tell by his face, and it bleeds into a lot of the subtext of Marlon's scenes, that Marlon genuinely cares about Truman. He knew him his entire life, and despite him always knowing in the back of his mind that he wouldn't be there spending time with him if not for the show, he's concerned about what's going to happen to him. It's like he thinks Truman deserves to know one day, and that day is coming soon. I wish there was more of this arc explored, but objectively the story functions without it.
+
+Christof's character is intentionally implied to be synonymous to Truman's true father. In the interview, they drop exposition revealing he was legally adopted by the corporation. The way he watches him sleep, lightly caressing the screen. The way he confronts the woman who truly loved him, how he tells her she doesn't know what's best for him. The way he's pained to see him go and tries his utmost to keep him from walking out of that door and out of the lives of him and all the others who watch his show. Christof truly thinks what he's doing is not only okay, but he cares for Truman in his own twisted way. Perhaps when he started out, it was all for money and for doing something unprecedented. But in the end, he became a sort of starving artist, all he cared about was keeping Truman in his world, and for keeping the world happy. I love the way that when it counted, we saw him feeding his lines directly to the actors, but at that final moment, he finally spoke to him himself for the first time in his life.
+
+I could talk about this movie endlessly, there's so much depth to every second. But I won't do it today.

destruction/2023-06-23 song of south.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+It's not racist. But it's very out of touch.
+
+All the characters treat each other in respect to how they behave. The only exception is really the Favers brothers, who pick on Johnny and Ginny just for the sake of it. But everyone treats each other in reaction to their actions, not their race. In fact, race is largely ignored in this story. For a story that's meant to foster reconciliation between black and white people, this is a good idea. For a story that's set in the American slave south *during slavery*, this is a VERY bad idea. It damages the worldbuilding significantly to have slaves be friends with their masters. To a child, or perhaps simply to someone entirely ignorant to the history, it may come off as simply the people in the same community getting along despite their differences in class. But when you're aware that these people are slaves and slavers, it undermines a significant amount of their positive interactions. Why would Toby want to be friends with Johnny, when Toby has to wake up earlier, get dressed, get to work doing chores that Johnny can do, all while Johnny is still in bed in his PJs? There would be a natural discontempt and jealousy with the pampered state of the child. But they act like this massive difference doesn't exist. Similarly, Johnny enjoys Uncle Remus's stories and considers him his friend. He'd rather be in Remus's shack than the large, well-furnished home he's staying in. Which would be an interesting detail, but the story treats their difference in living conditions as if it doesn't exist. The characters would surely react to these differences, there could be some sort of drama about it. But this movie is set on the story it's trying to tell. Rather than taking the natural discontempt these groups would have with each other for their differences and taking that as a challenge, the writers decided to act as though those differences meant nothing. As a movie in a historical situation, this is ignorant of the historical context it's portraying. I do not blame people for describing it as romanticized or idealistic. It's an erasure of the struggles that these people went through as slaves. If they wanted to have this dynamic between the characters they ought to have set it in a different period.
+
+But there are no racist portrayals of black people. In fact, there are no racist characters in-world either.
+
+As mentioned earlier, the Favers brothers, as bullies, seem to have a natural bigotry against anything and anyone they can pick on. But they don't mistreat any black people for being black. In fact I think they only interact briefly with Toby a few times when him and Johnny stop one of their dogs from escaping through the fence, and with Uncle Remus when they're trying to get Johnny's dog back. They don't direct anything negative toward them; they only pick on Johnny and Ginny. Because they're bullies. I would think the intrinsic bigotry of bullies would realistically extend to black people as well but as I say, I think the writers explicitly didn't want a single mention of race in this film.
+
+I've heard some say that Sally is racist due to the scenes where she asks Uncle Remus to stop telling his stories or interacting with Johnny. I think her motivation is pretty clear; she thinks the stories could cause him to behave outside of how she's been trying to teach him. I don't think she has reason to believe this, so it's a bit of a plothole I suppose. But her issue is with the stories, not with who's telling them. It's about a lack of trust in the material. I'd probably fix this by getting Grandmother to convince Sally to have Remus tell the stories with Sally present, to make sure she's there for parental guidance. And then she can realize they're not a problem. Actually my proposed fix would be quite focused on adapting the story to focus on Johnny and perhaps his family trying to fit into this world he doesn't understand, and trying to become friends with Toby despite their differences. That, if executed properly, could be a much more effective story about reconciliation between the races; treating people as equals.
+
+It's bad for the story for many reasons to treat all characters as equal when they are objectively not in equal standing; some of these characters are enslaved to the others, creating a significant thematic dissonance. But it's very important to remember that this film came out over a decade *before* the civil rights movement. And yet it's quite respectful to black people. In many racist cartoons and other media from this period, you'll see exaggerated, ugly appearances of black people. They're portrayed as uneducated, stupid, sluggish, selfish, and generally no good. In contrast, Remus is a kind, insightful old man, with wonderful stories that provide enriching ideas to children. His vocabulary is fairly advanced and his wordplay is quite clever. He speaks in an accent that is indicative of where he came from, but he still comes off as exaggeratedly uneducated, far from it. All the other black characters, unless I missed something, are similarly portrayed in an inoffensive, respectful manner.
+
+The Uncle Remus stories themselves are just Disney's imagining of the original stories. Their voiced by black people, in fact the actor for Remus himself voices Br'er Fox. Make no mistake: these stories are historically significant Black Culture. To erase them is an injustice and incredibly disrespectful. The closing of Splash Mountain in Magic Kingdom and Disneyland is a disgrace. Those rides were a physical portrayal of Black Folklore as imagined by Disney. This portrayal was, at every level that I have researched, 100% respectful. It's completely removed from the film itself and its issues in being unsympathetic or ignoring the struggles of the slaves it portrays. It's a stylistic portrayal of Uncle Remus's stories in and of themselves. It is not and will never be racist; those stories were created by black people. I'm sick of people being so race-obsessed that they assume that anything that involves black people in any way is racist. Watch the animated scenes of this movie in isolation from the live action segments. They have absolutely zero negative portrayals. These haphazard assumptions cause people to take actions to erase black culture and I can't stand it. These stories are wholesome, and Disney's portrayal of them are enriching to all types of people. Only the live action segments of this film ignore historical context. But even that may not create harmful ideas in the heads of children who may consume it. It just may have to be recontextualized once they're old enough to understand the history.
+
+The story of Tar-Baby is falsely maligned as racist. The story in and of itself was *created* by black people. The term Tar-Baby and the black appearance of the object in the story was later *weaponized* by racists. You can find minstrel-like advertisements of hand soap on google images under the brand name Tar Baby. It's been used as an epithet and it can certainly be a slur. But the story in and of itself wasn't intended for this. The tar baby was a decoy; it could have been made of anything other than tar. It's just an unfortunate coincidence that they could so easily weaponize the appearance of the object itself and the description of the object being ripe for use as a slur; it just sounds derogatory and makes that transition easily. The wikipedia entry on this is quite informative.
+
+Overall, the story is significantly damaged by the dissonance I've detailed. But it's still mostly internally consistent. The characters are pretty great, and their journeys follow a logical progression besides the issues I've outlined. It's just a troublesome watch due to what it forgets, ignores, and erases. It's a better story that's more culturally significant than many of the disney entries thus far. But its issues are more sensitive to people, which has caused Disney to effectively deny its existence. Which is a shame. Don't pretend like it didn't happen. Make it available so we can see what happened, so we can learn from the bad parts and benefit from the good. I personally believe kids can watch this without much guidance. Just make sure they don't toss around the phrase tar-baby and maybe explain the history better. Maybe this should be considered teen-rated. Whatever the case, I think it should be up to the parents and thus it should be available for everyone who wants to see it.
+
+===
+
+If I had to write a disclaimer, I wouldn't put the "racist depiction" schitck that they have for most things. Although I suppose Aunt Tempy could be considered along the lines of the Mammy stereotype so perhaps it's worth mentioning. The main issue with this movie is its ignorance of the struggles of black slaves in the time period is set in. It's unreasonably idealistic and unsympathetic, and that's what the disclaimer should say.

destruction/2023-06-23_002 2023-12-11 song of south.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+It's not racist. But it's very out of touch.
+
+All the characters treat each other in respect to how they behave. The only exception is really the Favers brothers, who pick on Johnny and Ginny just for the sake of it. But everyone treats each other in reaction to their actions, not their race. In fact, race is largely ignored in this story. For a story that's meant to foster reconciliation between black and white people, this is a good idea. For a story that's set in the American slave south *during slavery*, this is a VERY bad idea. It damages the worldbuilding significantly to have slaves be friends with their masters. To a child, or perhaps simply to someone entirely ignorant to the history, it may come off as simply the people in the same community getting along despite their differences in class. But when you're aware that these people are slaves and slavers, it undermines a significant amount of their positive interactions. Why would Toby want to be friends with Johnny, when Toby has to wake up earlier, get dressed, get to work doing chores that Johnny can do, all while Johnny is still in bed in his PJs? There would be a natural discontempt and jealousy with the pampered state of the child. But they act like this massive difference doesn't exist. Similarly, Johnny enjoys Uncle Remus's stories and considers him his friend. He'd rather be in Remus's shack than the large, well-furnished home he's staying in. Which would be an interesting detail, but the story treats their difference in living conditions as if it doesn't exist. The characters would surely react to these differences, there could be some sort of drama about it. But this movie is set on the story it's trying to tell. Rather than taking the natural discontempt these groups would have with each other for their differences and taking that as a challenge, the writers decided to act as though those differences meant nothing. As a movie in a historical situation, this is ignorant of the historical context it's portraying. I do not blame people for describing it as romanticized or idealistic. It's an erasure of the struggles that these people went through as slaves. If they wanted to have this dynamic between the characters they ought to have set it in a different period.
+
+But there are no racist portrayals of black people. In fact, there are no racist characters in-world either.
+
+As mentioned earlier, the Favers brothers, as bullies, seem to have a natural bigotry against anything and anyone they can pick on. But they don't mistreat any black people for being black. In fact I think they only interact briefly with Toby a few times when him and Johnny stop one of their dogs from escaping through the fence, and with Uncle Remus when they're trying to get Johnny's dog back. They don't direct anything negative toward them; they only pick on Johnny and Ginny. Because they're bullies. I would think the intrinsic bigotry of bullies would realistically extend to black people as well but as I say, I think the writers explicitly didn't want a single mention of race in this film.
+
+I've heard some say that Sally is racist due to the scenes where she asks Uncle Remus to stop telling his stories or interacting with Johnny. I think her motivation is pretty clear; she thinks the stories could cause him to behave outside of how she's been trying to teach him. I don't think she has reason to believe this, so it's a bit of a plothole I suppose. But her issue is with the stories, not with who's telling them. It's about a lack of trust in the material. I'd probably fix this by getting Grandmother to convince Sally to have Remus tell the stories with Sally present, to make sure she's there for parental guidance. And then she can realize they're not a problem. Actually my proposed fix would be quite focused on adapting the story to focus on Johnny and perhaps his family trying to fit into this world he doesn't understand, and trying to become friends with Toby despite their differences. That, if executed properly, could be a much more effective story about reconciliation between the races; treating people as equals.
+
+It's bad for the story for many reasons to treat all characters as equal when they are objectively not in equal standing; some of these characters are enslaved to the others, creating a significant thematic dissonance. But it's very important to remember that this film came out over a decade *before* the civil rights movement. And yet it's quite respectful to black people. In many racist cartoons and other media from this period, you'll see exaggerated, ugly appearances of black people. They're portrayed as uneducated, stupid, sluggish, selfish, and generally no good. In contrast, Remus is a kind, insightful old man, with wonderful stories that provide enriching ideas to children. His vocabulary is fairly advanced and his wordplay is quite clever. He speaks in an accent that is indicative of where he came from, but he doesn't come off as exaggeratedly uneducated, far from it. All the other black characters, unless I missed something, are similarly portrayed in an inoffensive, respectful manner.
+
+The Uncle Remus stories themselves are just Disney's imagining of the original stories. Their voiced by black people, in fact the actor for Remus himself voices Br'er Fox. Make no mistake: these stories are historically significant Black Culture. To erase them is an injustice and incredibly disrespectful. The closing of Splash Mountain in Magic Kingdom and Disneyland is a disgrace. Those rides were a physical portrayal of Black Folklore as imagined by Disney. This portrayal was, at every level that I have researched, 100% respectful. It's completely removed from the film itself and its issues in being unsympathetic or ignoring the struggles of the slaves it portrays. It's a stylistic portrayal of Uncle Remus's stories in and of themselves. It is not and will never be racist; those stories were created by black people. I'm sick of people being so race-obsessed that they assume that anything that involves black people in any way is racist. Watch the animated scenes of this movie in isolation from the live action segments. They have absolutely zero negative portrayals. These haphazard assumptions cause people to take actions to erase black culture and I can't stand it. These stories are wholesome, and Disney's portrayal of them are enriching to all types of people. Only the live action segments of this film ignore historical context. But even that may not create harmful ideas in the heads of children who may consume it. It just may have to be recontextualized once they're old enough to understand the history.
+
+The story of Tar-Baby is falsely maligned as racist. The story in and of itself was *created* by black people. The term Tar-Baby and the black appearance of the object in the story was later *weaponized* by racists. You can find minstrel-like advertisements of hand soap on google images under the brand name Tar Baby. It's been used as an epithet and it can certainly be a slur. But the story in and of itself wasn't intended for this. The tar baby was a decoy; it could have been made of anything other than tar. It's just an unfortunate coincidence that they could so easily weaponize the appearance of the object itself and the description of the object being ripe for use as a slur; it just sounds derogatory and makes that transition easily. The wikipedia entry on this is quite informative.
+
+Overall, the story is significantly damaged by the dissonance I've detailed. But it's still mostly internally consistent. The characters are pretty great, and their journeys follow a logical progression besides the issues I've outlined. It's just a troublesome watch due to what it forgets, ignores, and erases. It's a better story that's more culturally significant than many of the disney entries thus far. But its issues are more sensitive to people, which has caused Disney to effectively deny its existence. Which is a shame. Don't pretend like it didn't happen. Make it available so we can see what happened, so we can learn from the bad parts and benefit from the good. I personally believe kids can watch this without much guidance. Just make sure they don't toss around the phrase tar-baby and maybe explain the history better. Maybe this should be considered teen-rated. Whatever the case, I think it should be up to the parents and thus it should be available for everyone who wants to see it.
+
+===
+
+If I had to write a disclaimer, I wouldn't put the "racist depiction" schitck that they have for most things. Although I suppose Aunt Tempy could be considered along the lines of the Mammy stereotype so perhaps it's worth mentioning. The main issue with this movie is its ignorance of the struggles of black slaves in the time period is set in. It's unreasonably idealistic and unsympathetic, and that's what the disclaimer should say.

destruction/2023-08-17 joehawley.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+The more I look into Joe's situation, the more I'm convinced that he suffers from significant mental illness, if not namely paranoid schizophrenia.
+
+I understand that the document(s) and audio recording has been taken down out of hopes that Joe can get help. I would still implore others to come to their own conclusions in reviewing the facts. If I make any statements in error, please correct me in the replies. Bottom line is that interacting with Joe in any way is not a good idea and to harass him benefits nobody.
+
+To start, the document frames many of his communications and actions as manipulation. I do not personally think, due to what I'm about to say, that Joe is capable of playing mind games in this way. This does not mean that his communications were neither hurtful nor dangerous; quite the opposite. I think his lack of awareness makes him more dangerous. But I personally think the writers of the document, his victims, colored their recollections of the events with some of their feelings of hurt and distrust. I don't know Joe and likely never will. But I want to extend him the benefit of the doubt as I would with anybody; I find it unlikely that he is aware of his actions. Though Eden admits, in their recollection of at least one of these incidents, that it simply "*felt* like a manipulation tactic, whether intentional or not." My intention here is to provide somewhat of a rationalization for why I think the hurt he caused, up to and including the verbal abuse and unwanted sexual advances towards his victims, were not intentional.
+
+Make no mistake that none of this excuses his actions. I'm sure we can all agree on that. But if we want to understand why it happened, we have to accurately examine his behavior and base our judgements off of that.
+
+His behavior is not that of a sane person, let alone a sane person who is also bigoted, a predator, and emotionally abusive with full awareness and attempts to justify his wrongdoing. His behavior is that of someone who cannot properly percieve, and thus does not understand, reality.
+
+I've seen several recordings of him in his post-2011 years that struck me as odd. I've remarked on them on the subreddit in the past, but to list a few:
+
+- In a 2018 instagram livestream, Joe makes several odd remarks. Actually the entire recording is utterly bizzare. Here are some highlights that I think speak to his mental state one way or another.
+
+    He states that he thinks [bacon should be illegal](https://youtu.be/kkBSAWxcvIA?t=124), following that statement with a seemingly unrelated explanation about styrofoam in cigarette filters being the real cause of cancer, and that tobacco could possibly be *good* for your lungs. 
+    
+    He segways (pun intended) into saying that marijuana was probably too complicated to be smoked thousands of years ago due to its similarity to the human genome. I have no idea what he means by this.
+
+    He says medical marijuana is "probably great in raw form" but that the zombie apocalypse is a difficult situation. Mid sentence he implies that the 72 viewers of his instagram livestream were responsible for this apocalypse. He makes several grandiose statements about the number of current viewers throughout the stream. The way he speaks of them is as though they've entered into some sort of magic ritual that will change the world.
+
+    He states that "drugs and music are sort of interchangeable relative to zeitgeists" in response to someone wondering how the topic switched from music to drugs.
+
+    Someone asks him to rap the ruler of everything rap, which he remarks seemingly to himself as "kind of a... scary idea..." And then says the first couple lines out loud slowly in a funny voice before moving on to other comments.
+
+    He states that there are lots of parasites living inside us that doctors won't tell you about.
+
+But seeing more of his conversations and hearing at least one phone call... He's very clearly unwell and has been for a while. So many of his sentences and responses are nonsensical in or out of context. I'm no expert on schizophrenia specifically, as many have speculated, but I wonder if these patterns of communication are common with such troubled individuals. He non-sequitrs constantly, like with his descriptions of his past trauma. He sees situations happening around him now as a paranoid extension of past traumas. 
+
+For instance, he implicates an unnamed individual as having "something to do" with him getting hit by a car. Not much is known about this alleged incident, but I'm assuming based on the context that this unnamed individual was another fan, who was friends with Nymn and Eden, which makes it highly unlikely they had anything to do with such an accident. Plus, his wording is strange. If he was hit with a car, surely he'd know who hit him? The accusation that the redacted individual had "something to do" with it reads to me as him linking his past traumas to unrelated individuals and lashing out because he has no ability to percieve the lack of correlation between past events in his life that were painful to him, and current people and events that are most likely benign and completely unrelated.
+
+Again, I'm no expert on paranoid schizophrenia, but it reminds me of one Gary Stollman. For those unaware, Gary Stollman was a paranoid schizophrenic whose condition got so bad that he held a KNBC anchor at gunpoint [on air](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL9jGWqvkIE) to read a small statement of his. I researched this topic because I thought what he had to say was really interesting, given he mentioned the CIA, and the video that had mentioned it dismissed it as insane nonsense. Upon further research, I came to the same conclusion, but the video didn't do a good job of explaining the fascinating story behind *why*. His father had been on KNBC for many years and Gary had seen his act as the only way to get his statement read and seen by the world. His statement alleged that he was being stalked by the CIA in an elaborate sting operation involving aliens. He wrote a [45-page document](https://www.scribd.com/document/52361592/gary#) several years later detailing his experiences and why he believed what he alleged and committed this crime on air. He describes getting a phone call from his father, where his father described ludicrous scenarios to him. He would ask his father about them later, and his father was unable to recall these situations. He got a call from his mom, who he insists "was not my REAL mom!" due to the "tonal qualities" of her voice over the phone. And all of a sudden he didn't recognize his own mother, thinking she was some sort of replacement sent by a team of CIA and Alien collaborators. He described his interactions with the operator, swearing up and down that a female phone operator would call *him* consistently asking *him* questioning him about people he didn't even know. The biggest moment that solidified my understanding of his condition was when he described him thinking that because of a single thing that a college counselor mentioned offhand, that almost every single other student had dropped out of all classes, and some of his awkward interactions with his classmates going forward, meant that the CIA had replaced every single one of his classmates with agents to spy on him. "It was as if they were playing parts out of a movie, the way they were carrying on during class. Something just wasn't right. It seemed like they had been assigned various "roles", and their actions in the class made me believe that they had been put there for some specific purpose." It seems to me that Gary's transition into was was likely paranoid schizophrenia was gradual enough that he thought he was the only sane one when really, he needed serious help. When your perception of reality suddenly slips and it seems like nothing makes sense, it's heartbreaking to see that he became extremely distrustful of everyone and assumed the only thing going on was that something as ludicrous as aliens colluding with the CIA to specifically target HIM of all people. He frames his brief tenure in a mental asylum as a targeted attack by the CIA to keep him quiet. He couldn't see the people trying to help him, his parents, family, the professionals, were trying to help him. He genuinely thought due to his condition that he was surrounded by replacement people in a top-secret government-funded effort to experiment on him and keep their alien fratenization hidden from the public. From what I can find, he may never have gotten the help that he needed, especially considering his 45-page recollection was penned several years later. His faith in his delusions, as far as I'm aware, never faltered, so he never got better. It's heartbreaking and it's a shame.
+
+I bring up this example because it may shed some light on Joe's mental state. All people are different, but perhaps their disconnection from reality has some key similarities. Joe, like Gary, appears not to interact with reality, but with a false perception of it caused by paranoid delusions. Again, his responses are often full of non-sequitrs. He frames situations in this grandiose way that implies he assumes collusion between unrelated people. He reacts with anger, profanity, and rudeness at the most benign things, like being asked to clarify some of his cryptic, one-word messages to help his corresponder understand where they were meeting. He refers to Nymn's call as "committing physical violence" against him. He viewed an informational instagram post about SA as a personal threat "in context," as he says, about a relationship that had ended, to my understanding, over 15 years ago. It seems highly unlikely that he's aware, almost of anything happening around him. It's all augmented by delusion. So perhaps when he interacts with people in this way, to him, he's defending himself to what truly are unfounded attacks, perhaps even that of a physical nature, against his reputation and his person. But we can't put on his glasses and see the world as he sees it. Without that perspective, we may never understand why he behaves this way. I saw a fan on [twitter](https://twitter.com/idcabout_names/status/1691637491307077651?s=20) say that his "mental derangement" has drasticaly hindered his "true self" and that he one day may see the line of right and wrong *as he once did*, as long as he can get help. This struck a chord with me. I don't think Joe can be expected, in his current state, to differentiate the line between right and wrong, when he can't differentiate his current interactions with fans from his relationships that have ended in the past. If he thinks getting a calm phone call kindly asking him what happened last night and what he meant in his rage, equates to *physical violence*, if he thinks an instagram post about SA is a personal threat due to allegations that were made against him in the past... If he thinks all those things, how can we expect him to even begin to understand trans issues? The connotation that slurs have for society at large? How can we expect him to be a decent person when he lives in the augmented reality he seems to live in?
+
+None of this justifies his actions. From all I've seen, he appears to be undeniably dangerous. His sexual behavior towards minors, and, moreover, his lack of awareness of any wrongdoing, is nothing short of mortifying.

destruction/2023-08-17 joehawley_002.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+The more I look into Joe's situation, the more I'm convinced that he suffers from significant mental illness, if not namely paranoid schizophrenia.
+
+I understand that the document(s) and audio recording has been taken down out of hopes that Joe can get help. I would still implore others to come to their own conclusions in reviewing the facts. If I make any statements in error, please correct me in the replies. Bottom line is that interacting with Joe in any way is not a good idea and to harass him benefits nobody.
+
+To start, the document frames many of his communications and actions as manipulation. I do not personally think, due to what I'm about to say, that Joe is capable of playing mind games in this way. This does not mean that his communications were neither hurtful nor dangerous; quite the opposite. I think his lack of awareness makes him more dangerous. But I personally think the writers of the document, his victims, colored their recollections of the events with some of their feelings of hurt and distrust. I don't know Joe and likely never will. But I want to extend him the benefit of the doubt as I would with anybody; I find it unlikely that he is aware of his actions. Though Eden admits, in their recollection of at least one of these incidents, that it simply "*felt* like a manipulation tactic, whether intentional or not." My intention here is to provide somewhat of a rationalization for why I think the hurt he caused, up to and including the verbal abuse and unwanted sexual advances towards his victims, were not intentional.
+
+Make no mistake that none of this excuses his actions. I'm sure we can all agree on that. But if we want to understand why it happened, we have to accurately examine his behavior and base our judgements off of that.
+
+His behavior is not that of a sane person, let alone a sane person who is also bigoted, a predator, and emotionally abusive with full awareness and attempts to justify his wrongdoing. His behavior is that of someone who cannot properly percieve, and thus does not understand, reality.
+
+I've seen several recordings of him in his post-2011 years that struck me as odd. I've remarked on them on the subreddit in the past, but to list a few:
+
+- In a 2018 instagram livestream, Joe makes several odd remarks. Actually the entire recording is utterly bizzare. I think just about everything he says speak to his mental state in one way or another, but here are some highlights to consider.
+
+    He states that he thinks [bacon should be illegal](https://youtu.be/kkBSAWxcvIA?t=124), following that statement with a seemingly unrelated explanation about styrofoam in cigarette filters being the real cause of cancer, and that tobacco could possibly be *good* for your lungs. 
+    
+    He segways (pun intended) into saying that marijuana was probably too complicated to be smoked thousands of years ago due to its similarity to the human genome. I have no idea what he means by this.
+
+    He says medical marijuana is "probably great in raw form" but that the zombie apocalypse is a difficult situation. Mid sentence he implies that the 72 viewers of his instagram livestream were responsible for this apocalypse. He makes several grandiose statements about the number of current viewers throughout the stream. The way he speaks of them is as though they've entered into some sort of magic ritual that will change the world.
+
+    He states that "drugs and music are sort of interchangeable relative to zeitgeists" in response to someone wondering how the topic switched from music to drugs.
+
+    Someone asks him to rap the ruler of everything rap, which he remarks seemingly to himself as "kind of a... scary idea..." And then says the first couple lines out loud slowly in a funny voice before moving on to other comments.
+
+    He remarks that one of the chatter's names matches the name of a teacher from his middle school.
+
+    He reads the time off his watch then shows his watch, notably set to the inside of his wrist, remarking specifically the watch's model, insignia, and where he got it.
+
+    He quips that the "worst curse word on instagram" is probably "buses".
+
+    In response to a chatter saying "scars are weird," he states that there are lots of parasites living inside us that doctors won't tell you about.
+
+    He discusses his song space station level seven, but his final remark seems very odd especially after having just recited some of his own japanese lyrics. "that's cliche at this point as we both know, jane"
+
+    "it's an elevator song, bora insisted it was a ladder" the elevator seems to be referring to the elevator song from a video game he was citing as an inspiration for the song, while the mention of bora i would guess is a strange recollection of what was likely a discussion they had when they were working on the project.
+
+    when asked what else he does for work he again remarks on the number of watchers and replies that "every moment is work"
+
+    some people asked his thoughts on the lgbt community, which he didn't see. but someone said "lgbtizzies" and he read that and remarked something to do with that topic. he cuts out but appears to say "i always- sexual- but I'm gay" without more context not much can be assumed but it didn't seem antagonistic in the very least. some may interpret that as him saying he's a part of the community. some chatters appear to reiterate the idea that he did refer to himself as gay, but many didn't seem to hear it properly either.
+
+    "hally tall is trying to tell me what to do" "please say the f word"
+
+    "why do people keep requesting to be on the video and then decline it. own up to your own request!"
+
+    when someone gets featured he becomes grandiose
+
+    in response to her saying "incredible" he says "lacking credibility"
+
+    "i'll say the fuck word for you joe" "awesome well fuck! you said it!"
+
+    "peer pressure, i'll tell you how i die" i drown at the age of 102, but it's a secret so if anyone tells they'll die too (very grandiose and bizzare) "when you know how you die, you know"
+
+
+Worth mentioning is that his state in this video seems relatively calm when compared to his other actions, where he got very angry and rude over seemingly nothing. He only mentions a couple times that people were "telling him what to do" but doesn't seem angry at all. I'd imagine later versions of him would be angrier at some of the chatters.
+
+
+But seeing more of his conversations and hearing at least one phone call... He's very clearly unwell and has been for a while. So many of his sentences and responses are nonsensical in or out of context. I'm no expert on schizophrenia specifically, as many have speculated, but I wonder if these patterns of communication are common with such troubled individuals. He non-sequitrs constantly, like with his descriptions of his past trauma. He sees situations happening around him now as a paranoid extension of past traumas. 
+
+For instance, he implicates an unnamed individual as having "something to do" with him getting hit by a car. Not much is known about this alleged incident, but I'm assuming based on the context that this unnamed individual was another fan, who was friends with Nymn and Eden, which makes it highly unlikely they had anything to do with such an accident. Plus, his wording is strange. If he was hit with a car, surely he'd know who hit him? The accusation that the redacted individual had "something to do" with it reads to me as him linking his past traumas to unrelated individuals and lashing out because he has no ability to percieve the lack of correlation between past events in his life that were painful to him, and current people and events that are most likely benign and completely unrelated.
+
+Again, I'm no expert on paranoid schizophrenia, but it reminds me of one Gary Stollman. For those unaware, Gary Stollman was a paranoid schizophrenic whose condition got so bad that he held a KNBC anchor at gunpoint [on air](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL9jGWqvkIE) to read a small statement of his. I researched this topic because I thought what he had to say was really interesting, given he mentioned the CIA, and the video that had mentioned it dismissed it as insane nonsense. Upon further research, I came to the same conclusion, but the video didn't do a good job of explaining the fascinating story behind *why*. His father had been on KNBC for many years and Gary had seen his act as the only way to get his statement read and seen by the world. His statement alleged that he was being stalked by the CIA in an elaborate sting operation involving aliens. He wrote a [45-page document](https://www.scribd.com/document/52361592/gary#) several years later detailing his experiences and why he believed what he alleged and committed this crime on air. He describes getting a phone call from his father, where his father described ludicrous scenarios to him. He would ask his father about them later, and his father was unable to recall these situations. He got a call from his mom, who he insists "was not my REAL mom!" due to the "tonal qualities" of her voice over the phone. And all of a sudden he didn't recognize his own mother, thinking she was some sort of replacement sent by a team of CIA and Alien collaborators. He described his interactions with the operator, swearing up and down that a female phone operator would call *him* consistently asking *him* questioning him about people he didn't even know. The biggest moment that solidified my understanding of his condition was when he described him thinking that because of a single thing that a college counselor mentioned offhand, that almost every single other student had dropped out of all classes, and some of his awkward interactions with his classmates going forward, meant that the CIA had replaced every single one of his classmates with agents to spy on him. "It was as if they were playing parts out of a movie, the way they were carrying on during class. Something just wasn't right. It seemed like they had been assigned various "roles", and their actions in the class made me believe that they had been put there for some specific purpose." It seems to me that Gary's transition into was was likely paranoid schizophrenia was gradual enough that he thought he was the only sane one when really, he needed serious help. When your perception of reality suddenly slips and it seems like nothing makes sense, it's heartbreaking to see that he became extremely distrustful of everyone and assumed the only thing going on was that something as ludicrous as aliens colluding with the CIA to specifically target HIM of all people. He frames his brief tenure in a mental asylum as a targeted attack by the CIA to keep him quiet. He couldn't see the people trying to help him, his parents, family, the professionals, were trying to help him. He genuinely thought due to his condition that he was surrounded by replacement people in a top-secret government-funded effort to experiment on him and keep their alien fratenization hidden from the public. From what I can find, he may never have gotten the help that he needed, especially considering his 45-page recollection was penned several years later. His faith in his delusions, as far as I'm aware, never faltered, so he never got better. It's heartbreaking and it's a shame.
+
+I bring up this example because it may shed some light on Joe's mental state. All people are different, but perhaps their disconnection from reality has some key similarities. Joe, like Gary, appears not to interact with reality, but with a false perception of it caused by paranoid delusions. Again, his responses are often full of non-sequitrs. He frames situations in this grandiose way that implies he assumes collusion between unrelated people. He reacts with anger, profanity, and rudeness at the most benign things, like being asked to clarify some of his cryptic, one-word messages to help his corresponder understand where they were meeting. He refers to Nymn's call as "committing physical violence" against him. He viewed an informational instagram post about SA as a personal threat "in context," as he says, about a relationship that had ended, to my understanding, over 15 years ago. It seems highly unlikely that he's aware, almost of anything happening around him. It's all augmented by delusion. So perhaps when he interacts with people in this way, to him, he's defending himself to what truly are unfounded attacks, perhaps even that of a physical nature, against his reputation and his person. But we can't put on his glasses and see the world as he sees it. Without that perspective, we may never understand why he behaves this way. I saw a fan on [twitter](https://twitter.com/idcabout_names/status/1691637491307077651?s=20) say that his "mental derangement" has drasticaly hindered his "true self" and that he one day may see the line of right and wrong *as he once did*, as long as he can get help. This struck a chord with me. I don't think Joe can be expected, in his current state, to differentiate the line between right and wrong, when he can't differentiate his current interactions with fans from his relationships that have ended in the past. If he thinks getting a calm phone call kindly asking him what happened last night and what he meant in his rage, equates to *physical violence*, if he thinks an instagram post about SA is a personal threat due to allegations that were made against him in the past... If he thinks all those things, how can we expect him to even begin to understand trans issues? The connotation that slurs have for society at large? How can we expect him to be a decent person when he lives in the augmented reality he seems to live in?
+
+None of this justifies his actions. From all I've seen, he appears to be undeniably dangerous. His sexual behavior towards minors, and, moreover, his lack of awareness of any wrongdoing, is nothing short of mortifying.

destruction/2023-09-14 nintendo direct.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+unabridged nigtendo direct thoughts:
+
+splatoon 3 dlc: don't care happy 4 u tho
+Mario vs Donkey Kong: i find it really funny that the point of the game is for mario to prevent DK from stealing marketable mario toys from a factory. lulmao. kinda looks like a super simple baby game but i've never played the franchise so idk.
+Prince of Persia: i like the artstyle, very different looking from my experinece with this franchise. could be promising. main character name sargon btw i just thought that was interesting
+Horizon Chase 2: generic poopy mario kart knockoff
+Super Crazy Rhythm Castle: generic poopy mario party knockoff
+SPYxANYA Operation Memories: best twitch chat said "a game where you roleplay as a child... seems to be for a CERTAIN demographic" :pepelaugh:
+Super Mario RPG: artstyle looks goofy af in nintendo's newer graphics. i feel like the lighting and modeling just looks a bit out of place among other nintendo games as of late? but a fair amount of the cinematics were reminiscent of the rendering style and quality of ssbu/world of light, which i thought was cool. doesn't mean your stupid wood doll is getting in the game you freaks. but hey as remakes go this is a bit of a fan favorite so actually good on ya big N.
+Another Code Recollection: WHY TF DOES SHE MOAN EVERY MOMENT SHE'S ON SCREEN who tf approved that?? really awful english voice acting in general. looks like a fat L of a game that nobody cares about. leaks overhyped it with "it was *a* DS game guys" yeah that could have been anything but we got this? also it looks like this spoils the climax of the game and presents us with like all the story elements immediately. if you wanna give us a trailer to a game that we didn't really know about at least present it in an interesting way. it actually looks like it has potential because it doesn't look as generic as a lot of the crap they spew out but they presented it terribly. L nendo.
+Princess Peach Showtime: looks quirky but uninteresting. I'm sure others will have fun with it tho. villain looks like a kirby boss.
+SaGa Emerald Beyond: generic poopy persona knockoff. it's such a bingo board/drinking game thing for nintendo; you can just see them in the board room like "how do we present this in a way that western retards will think we're *not* corporate to the point of retardation? i seriously can't imagine a single person who would buy something like this, especially when presented this way. "play as x character who has x backstory, and y character with y backstory, turn based combat, epxansive world in a way we never seen in this before!" stfu nobody cares
+Tomb Raider Remastered Collection: I agree with Arex's assessment that this seems reminiscent of the GTA """remaster"""... the visuals are hardly "upgraded," it really just looks like an upscale, and ngl the slight improvements in textures and models look super out of place in some places. like... idk. maybe if the halo mcc-ish feature of being able to swap between the different styles on the fly is cool...? if this is more overpriced scam garbage I want them to Do Not Pass Go Do Not Collect $200... remasters have their place. but if you sell this collection for anything less than $20... nigga I'm pretty sure the games are all already on PC/steam. I'd rather you just take these same games and do a full spiritual remake of the events in the game, like ff7 intergrade. it would be way cooler if they literally just took assets and engine behavior from Shadow of the Tomb Raider (2018) and just built around that.
+Detective Pikachu Returns: I agree with arex, graphics do look bad. Weird that the cover seems to have a completely different rendering style, but welcome to the switch's bargain barrel hardware. Instantly fixed if they just got ryan reynolds to voice DP. I have vague interest in this series but they could seriously do so much better in so many ways, starting with graphically.
+Trombone Champ: I agree with fruitman's assessment that it's pretty late to bring this to switch, but this was actually presented quite well, for once there was a little bit of self awareness in the announcer guys voice when he said "the controls are... unique" overall nothing to be mad about, it's an indie game that'll do well and people will have fun with it on this platform.
+Battle Crush: again, nintendo is so out of touch to think their main audience needs to be told that the point of a game like this is to "get your enemies health to zero"... nigga just tell us it's league of legends battle royale fall guys and move on you might sell more copies that way
+Wartales: all i needed to hear was "timed console exclusive"... yeah looks crap, this type of game will fare terribly on the switch's hardware. if this is just tryna capitalize on baldur's gate fever i think it's going to do pretty poorly... idk crap about this genre tho.
+Contra Operation Galuga: another cool "reimagining" but man you niggas can't help but to do more to do so much less can't you. i agree with arex, likely to be overpriced.
+Unicorn Overlord: generic poopy octopath knockoff. again, it's just so out of touch. the voice is deep and weird and the things he says are shallow and weird WAIT IS THAT A 10FT TALL MUSCLE MOMMY IN ARMOR WITH EXPOSED THIGHS nvm 10/10 will buy
+Luigi's Mansion 2 HD: "HD" is an overstatement... if it had released on gamecube or especially if it was on wii u I'd just be like :pepeidk: just play that?? but 3ds to switch is an upgrade. i tentatively agree with fruitman's take; everyone thought we wanted more luigi's mansion until we got more luigi's mansion. like everything after the first game was just... ok to my understanding. never played myself ofc. this is a W tho overall.
+Nintendo Museum: seems very out of place but broke up the monotony, seems cool
+Amiibo: don't really care but it's cool they finally got all smash roster
+F-Zero 99: biggest middle finger to f-zero fans of all time. MAKE A MODERN F ZERO GAME WTF ARE YOU DOING?? I'm sure it's fun but this is not even close to what people want out of nintendo's IPs. but actually arex that game was called "Super Mario Bros. 35" that's actually insane that its servers were only online for 6 months.
+Bandle Tale: no alex the ENTIRE thing is a stardew knockoff. don't reward them for this unoriginal crap
+Song of Nunu: looks marginally less boring. the past couple minutes really put the L in league.
+WarioWare Move it: warioware never misses, big W, for Wario.
+Eiyuden Chronicle Hundered Heroes: is this the third octopath-like of the direct? just stop. the idea and style is getting old. once again, the presentation just makes me want to give myself a manual dose of anesthesia. it's described in the most sterilized and boring way they possibly could describe it. out of touch af. "visit your home base, known as the headquarters" :pepega: seriously stfu, no more, mercy, pls
+Eastward Octopia: again the earthboundish artstyle is unique but... nintendo stop ripping off stardew challenge: impossible
+Wargroove 2: again, I'm really getting sick of the sterilized triple A nintendo pixel art RPG/strategy games just stfu go do something you're good at instead of trying to capitalize off the efforts of better-motivated indie devs
+Dave the Diver: at least this is more out of the box with 3d modeling. kinda cool
+Mario Kart 8 DLC: really couldn't care less myself as I don't play the game rn but genuinely good for you guys maybe I'll enjoy this one day
+Among Us update: free map cool, funi animation cool. fruitman read out a nintendo chat member saying "we won" and his response was like "wdym among us fans are constantly eating good" and it's like yeah I'm just suprised that stupid game isn't dead yet
+Paper Mario Thousand Year Door remaster: I strongly agree with fruitman's take that this remaster is highly unnecessary despite how much thousand year door fans have been clamoring for it for years. As he says, that game has aged very very well and looks great emulated. In his playthrough, he was frustrated with the insane amount of backtracking the game required of him on every single level. If you're going to revisit this game to port (ultimately it's more of a port than a remaster let's be honest) it to switch, you ought to be making some mechanical improvements... when fans of this game complain for a remaster it kinda screams to me more so that they're just too lazy to boot up Dolphin on whatever hardware is capable of running the game. It's legit not that hard; I played through all of new soup wii on my old laptop, upscaled to 720, and that laptop was nothing special specwise. It just goes to show just how much money nintendo could make by launching their own multi-emulator platform or just releasing stuff to steam. Because evidently nintendo babies need to be handheld (pun intended) by daddy corpo with an official remaster of every single game they liked from previous gens every single time a new console comes out. Nintendo WANTS you to be dependent on them in that way so they make more profit, so why do you retards beg and encourage them?? You niggas really want to pay minimum of $30 every single past gen game you could just play or emulate legally with your own hardware (or otherwise)? My unwavering corporate advice to nintendo is this: DO NOT be afraid to cannibalize yourself. It may prove to be the best thing profitwise to happen to the company in decades, and will help gamers everywhere be enriched by the experience of your games in the process. My unwavering consumer advice to nintendo babies is this: grow tf up and stop paying and moreover BEGGING Nintendo to PLEASE sell you an overpriced unnecessary remaster of every game you enjoyed because ofc they're going to do it if you're so willing to pay for it that you will BEG to pay for it. Don't let them get away with being lazy corporate slobs who throw an expired, rotting leg of ham out to the wolves to briefly satisfy their hunger. If you give them that road, they'll take it every time. So don't give it to em and practice some freakin standards for your purchasing decisions for cryin out loud.

destruction/2023-10-01 mason fb marketplace.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+https://pcpartpicker.com/user/RaincloudTheDragon/saved/gddLyc
+
+LEMME TELL YOU MAN
+
+So basically, we show up with everything, big monitor included. Hunter grabs me, nat, arex in that order. We roll up and get goin downstairs. Boys are playin smash and enjoyin sodies as I ramble. I realize I need PSU, compaq fan, and 2.5 hdd from me house. Yer parents come in and chat for a bit. Hunter and I leave to my house briefly basically right at 6 when evening conference sesh starts. Meanwhile your parents went on a date or sum and mason shares some popeyes biscuits with nat and arex. I remove the PSU and gather the rest, we return, I suffer for several more hours, the boys leave at around 9 as I continue to troubleshoot. Nat arex hunter take me monitor to nat's car, Hunter goes home, arex goes home, nat comes back but doesn't want to come back inside (which potentially created more problems than if he had just played it cool lulmao). The twins had like come and gone at some point, their friends too, ava's friends, idek who was going in and out the house tbh. But Ava gets home and asks me if the red car sitting outside is Hunter's and if he's chilling inside it and I was like nah it's Nat's but yeah I think he's just sittin in there. The exchange was kinda hilarious because she says sum like "i didn't know who was in there and I was scared" and I reply "yeah Nat's scary" and she says something like "yeah i know" :BAH::BAH::BAH:
+
+why this crap took so long:
+
+So besides the fact I knew pinout for PSU might be a little sus I thought it would be pretty plug and play. I was wrong af. Luckily I had a cheap 400w PSU I was using for tv room pc and I have another DI 750w to replace that so we good. I'll be owed a little money for it but that's fine. I also slapped the 2.5" 160gb ps3 hdd in there because I COULDN'T mount any of my spare hdds in there :ihe: I mounted the HDD with a SINGLE screw. Im boutta order like 500 ssd screws I swear on me mum. I grabbed a compaq fan for exhaust because there was neither exhaust nor intake and it was the least I could do and it was the only fan of that size I knew I had. The disk drive requires the stupid gay faggotron like micro sata power that they use in laptop form factor disk drives like that so we just gave up on that; there are adapters if he really wants to rewrite freaking dvds one day. The *real* problems arose with the mobo. The STRUGGLE was I *just* wanted to pop my SSD in to actually TEST gamign on it before we packed it up assuming it was ready. But for some inexplicable reason it REFUSED to recognize literally anything other than the HDD that came with it as a boot option. I was like ok so this ssd's boot options must just be frerfd so I'll just slap win11 on it right now and be done with it but NO my tiny11 usb didn't work either?? Luckily I had another one and I had laptop just in case. But MAN just trying to figure out if TPM was forcing me to not be able to boot without a specific boot config or something made me go INSANE. I had to remove and then replace the cmos battery, clear the cmos by physically ripping out the funni cmos thing and doin the manual pin short. And that didn't even fix it. The bulk of my time spent on this was JUST IN TRYING TO TEST IT WITH ANOTHER WINDOWS INSTALL. Because the mobo sucks and I want to take it out to the back and Old Yeller it. But anyway we ended up with a very interesting build in the end:
+
+- i3-8100 quad core 3.6ghz 65w tdp, priced at $109 on amzn so that's already a massive W
+- no intake on this case (gay) but side panel makes it ok to have a negative pressure profile since the psu and exhaust fan will pull into it so it's hot but not impossibly hot
+- evga gtx 970 4gb 2-fan: fairly hot, but fairly freaking good. daisy chained 2x 6 pin :boohoonibba: BUT it's got driver support and packs a punch for 50 bucks that's a steal, thx for finding that deal. Only trouble is, its fans were being rarted and I can't explain why. I coulda sworn the temps and fans were fine when i testbenched it at home. But in order to get optimal performance you MUST configure MSI Afterburner to use its own automatically defined fan control. Otherwise it will be at 60 celsius at idle because the fans refuse to kick up properly. I dunno man. shreds like a mf tho. Got 175 fps in risk of rain. Your internet sucks btw, google fiber shafted yall and it's a crime. but all things considered downloading games and drivers and whatnot was the smallest timesink overall.
+- poopy yet adequate default cooler was fine but behaved quite strangely. When the CPU fan was plugged into the CPU fan header, the case fan turned off after POSTing. Even when gaming it wouldn't ramp up. It said N/A in bios. Idk. But when I swapped them, the case fan would go slower than I would have liked, but at least both of them would turn on. Made me wish I had a splitter handy so I could just plug em both into the CPU header no trouble. But it works. If the STUPID MOBO just had an ADEQUATE BIOS with ACTUAL OPTIONS in it then maybe I woulda had NO ISSUES. But it has SMART-controllable fans and there are free programs for configuring those. It's not a requirement but it would be nice. I just wish Afterburner had case fan control in it??? Like why tf not retards?? Why does this always have to be the mobo bios' decision or some proprietary software?? Maybe I just need to find a software I like. Shouldn't be as hard as they make it tho that's for sure.
+- Besides the mobo literally not giving me the option to just TELL THE FANS WHAT TO DO, it also kneecaps the system in OTHER ways :xemmyPissed: they did the retarded proprietary thing where the mobo has the pinout for additional ram slots, but they leave them unsoldered because they know most people won't need to upgrade for that. But that's not even a problem since we got a 8gb ddr4-3200 dimm with this system, right? Well no. I put it in slot A because for some reason it was installed in slot B and that causes problems sometimes. But either way it's shafted because the mobo has NO OPTION for changing RAM speed. It's not even buried man. It just doesn't exist. So ddr4-2600 is the best it can do. I wanted to switch him out with literally anything that wouldn't waste that additional speed but it would have taken too long. Like idk maybe I could say hey I'll trade you for 2x sticks of 8gb ddr4-2133 and then I'll subtract that from what you would owe me for the PSU or just call it even? Whatever the math was on that it woulda taken too long to figure it out. Either way idk if the bios can be flashed but if it can there may be a lot of immediate fixes. I'll say what's good about this mobo: plenty of USBs, front panel usbc, sd card reader, wifi chip and antennas wired right up, pretty efficient spacewise, built in TPM, all features pretty solid. Just the crappiest bios that shafts the hardware because american megatrends is a dick. Literally would have been perfect if they learned to code/think.
+- sandisk extreme 120gb ssd: this thing is listed on amzn as $160 WTF HUH but for some reason I coulda SWORN it was win10, after I tested it on my ssd, it magically became win11. I swear I'm not schizo, the setup screens literally changed even tho it was the same SSD. Couldn't tell you how that happened.
+- 160gb ps3 drive: it can store games i guess lol. woulda given him more but no 3.5" slots
+
+For probably $20-30 over $150? Actually the best value system I've made to date. Couldn't have done it without your dealfinding. I wish I had gotten this value in 2016 or 2020. Cuz it's on par(ish) with pyro v1.0 performance-wise, but like 1/3 the price o that bad boy... Snowflame was like $700 and this thing DESTROYS it for value both then and now.

destruction/2023-12-11 jim carrey grinch 2000_001.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+I saw this film once as a kid, it's older than me so I probably saw it in like 2005 or something, so it was super fuzzy. I remember thinking it was kinda scary but that's all I really remember was the first 20 minutes or something. I saw it for the 2nd time in my life last night, the 10th, and I must say, for a comedy, it's quite heartwarming and clever. It's not perfect, but it's actually quite nuanced.
+
+They offer multiple criticisms for the over-commercialization of Christmas within the first couple shots, and throughout the film. The original story simplifies the message into "all the Whos love Christmas and the Grinch couldn't steal their love for it"
+
+ and instead of "whatever the reason, his heart or his shoes" it actually gives a great exploration for why the grinch was "evil"
+his backstory is a little contradictory to the story and I think it damages the message ever so slightly, but it really is quite great to see that he was rejected and mocked and kinda traumatized due to just being different, so he, kinda like megamind, decided that if everyone was going to see him as evil, he was going to embrace it
+honry generator — Today at 12:31 PM
+but he's miserable because nobody ever treated him well and the only person (his age at least) who liked him was too shy to say it
+the jokes were also really freakin clever
+i was laughing out loud when sara's family wasn't cuz they've seen it a billion times and they were like how have you seen this and i was like idc bruh that's funny

destruction/2023-12-11 jim carrey grinch 2000_002.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+I saw this film once as a kid, it's older than me so I probably saw it in like 2005 or something, so it was super fuzzy. I remember thinking it was kinda scary but that's all I really remember was the first 20 minutes or something. I saw it for the 2nd time in my life last night, the 10th, and I must say, for a comedy, it's quite heartwarming and clever. It's not perfect, but it's actually quite nuanced.
+
+They offer multiple criticisms for the over-commercialization of Christmas within the first couple shots, and throughout the film. The original story simplifies the message into "all the Whos love Christmas and the Grinch couldn't steal their love for it" but this film adds nuance to that. Some of the Whos *do* cry boo-hoo, they *do* believe that Christmas is contingent on packages, boxes, and bags. But Cindy-Lou doesn't, and when her dad stood up for her, they managed to convince the rest of whoville of the same, which melted the heart of even the Grinch himself.
+
+I actually really loved the nuance that was shown with the book of Who. When Cindy-Lou nominated the Grinch for Cheermeister, the Mayor, who is a tyrant (albeit a cartoonish one), was scrambling for reasons as to why he couldn't come. Cindy-Lou knew that the law applied to the Grinch as well, but the person in power and the culture at large didn't want to accept that, and thus the Grinch was treated like a second-class citizen since his self-entered exile as a child. This is a fascinating commentary on discrimination, and could certainly be applied to political topics throughout history... And it's a ""children's movie""... I love it.
+
+And instead of "whatever the reason, his heart or his shoes" it actually gives a great exploration for why the grinch was "evil". His backstory is a little contradictory to his character and I think it damages the message and worldbuilding ever so slightly, but it really is quite great to see that he was rejected and mocked and kinda traumatized due to just being different, so he, like Megamind, decided that if everyone was going to see him as evil, he was going to embrace it. It touched my heart when he asked Cindy-Lou why she didn't think he was evil. He lived his entire life used to that treatment, so he had no idea how to interface with someone who actually cared. He had no frame of reference for that whatsoever. I'm reminded of Good Will Hunting, though I haven't seen all of it.
+
+But he's also miserable because nobody ever treated him well and the only person (his age at least) who liked him was too shy to say it. He's self-destructive and self-loathing, and admits it. This is exactly the reason why he also feels satisfaction and superiority to the rest of the Whos. He simultaneously feels as though the Whos can be given "long enough to be jealous of [him]" and also runs from his past by hurting himself. The fact he used himself for his OWN crash test dummy, hurting himself in the process of trying to make his machine safer for no reason, because he doesn't care about his safety, was not only a genius joke, but fits into his character perfectly. The punchline of "that's what these tests are for" was perfect.
+
+Perhaps this is me projecting my own perspective onto the film, but hear me out. The Grinch is a little fruity. Not because he's explicitly bisexual, but because he's an agent of chaos that is too crazy to be afraid of kissing a man for the hell of it. But it plays 
+
+But even as an agent of chaos, he has his limits in that he refuses to harm an innocent, pure child who only ever treated him with kindness. His heart is small, but he's not heartless, and Cindy-Lou used that tiny shred of Whomaity that he still had in him to change him for good, even when he wanted nothing else but to reject this help. Again, I'm projecting my own beliefs, but she is Christlike by nature, schooling the men in power as a child, teaching them what's right, being the only right one when everyone was wrong, the only one who was willing to defend the most sinful man from the world at large. This stupid Jim Carrey kid's movie made me cry. Dr. Seuss may have always liked his stories to be simple for helping children learn what's right, but even with the raucous tone of this film, the beautiful message was preserved. This is where I take issue with many Christians. They throw the baby out with the bathwater when they refuse to acknowledge how much good can be gained from any given film. Because they can't abide the fact that it says "bitchin" a single time, they lose out and completely forget that Cindy-Lou can be interpreted as an allegory for Christ, and this story as a whole can serve as an edifying reminder of the Plan of Salvation. Cindy-Lou Who for President.
+
+Now that I've convinced both Christians and non-Christians that I'm insane, one final note of potential value projection on my behalf. I possibly laughed the hardest at the line that called the taxpayers of Whoville "generous" for paying for a car. It's not generous to give away somebody else's money that you stole. The taxpayers are REQUIRED to pay taxes, which inherently means any good or evil committed with the taxes incurred are inherently not their responsibility. They cannot claim neither the good nor bad that came of their taxes because they don't have a choice in paying them. This is why the film made the joke. Actually, I'm not projecting, the writers share my value and see the same irony that I do in stealing money via the threat of the Executive Branch being touted as charitable. My girlfriend's family was taken aback by my laughter, probably because they've seen it a million times, have it memorized, and are desensitized to the cleverness of the jokes.
+
+
+
+//kinda reminds me of how many times they say bitchin in american graffiti cuz of cultural context
+
+//when the grinch gets complimented by young who (ciny lou? or other?) reference - rudolph "she thinks I'm cuuuude!!"
+
+//i was laughing out loud when sara's family wasn't cuz they've seen it a billion times and they were like how have you seen this and i was like idc bruh that's funny

destruction/2023-12-11 jim carrey grinch 2000_003.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+I saw this film once as a kid, it's older than me so I probably saw it in like 2005 or something, so it was super fuzzy. I remember thinking it was kinda scary but that's all I really remember was the first 20 minutes or something. I saw it for the 2nd time in my life last night, the 10th, and I must say, for a comedy, it's quite heartwarming and clever. It's not perfect, but it's actually quite nuanced.
+
+They offer multiple criticisms for the over-commercialization of Christmas within the first couple shots, and throughout the film. The original story simplifies the message into "all the Whos love Christmas and the Grinch couldn't steal their love for it" but this film adds nuance to that. Some of the Whos *do* cry boo-hoo, they *do* believe that Christmas is contingent on packages, boxes, and bags. But Cindy-Lou doesn't, and when her dad stood up for her, they managed to convince the rest of whoville of the same, which melted the heart of even the Grinch himself.
+
+I actually really loved the nuance that was shown with the book of Who. When Cindy-Lou nominated the Grinch for Cheermeister, the Mayor, who is a tyrant (albeit a cartoonish one), was scrambling for reasons as to why he couldn't come. Cindy-Lou knew that the law applied to the Grinch as well, but the person in power and the culture at large didn't want to accept that, and thus the Grinch was treated like a second-class citizen since his self-entered exile as a child. This is a fascinating commentary on discrimination, and could certainly be applied to political topics throughout history... And it's a ""children's movie""... I love it.
+
+And instead of "whatever the reason, his heart or his shoes" it actually gives a great exploration for why the grinch was "evil". His backstory is a little contradictory to his character and I think it damages the message and worldbuilding ever so slightly, but it really is quite great to see that he was rejected and mocked and kinda traumatized due to just being different, so he, like Megamind, decided that if everyone was going to see him as evil, he was going to embrace it. It touched my heart when he asked Cindy-Lou why she didn't think he was evil. He lived his entire life used to that treatment, so he had no idea how to interface with someone who actually cared. He had no frame of reference for that whatsoever. I'm reminded of Good Will Hunting, though I haven't seen all of it.
+
+But he's also miserable because nobody ever treated him well and the only person (his age at least) who liked him was too shy to say it. He's self-destructive and self-loathing, and admits it. This is exactly the reason why he also feels satisfaction and superiority to the rest of the Whos. He simultaneously feels as though the Whos can be given "long enough to be jealous of [him]" and also runs from his past by hurting himself. The fact he used himself for his OWN crash test dummy, hurting himself in the process of trying to make his machine safer for no reason, because he doesn't care about his safety, was not only a genius joke, but fits into his character perfectly. The punchline of "that's what these tests are for" was perfect.
+
+Perhaps this is me projecting my own perspective onto the film, but hear me out. The Grinch is a little fruity. Not because he's explicitly bisexual, but because he's an agent of chaos that is too crazy to be afraid of kissing a man for the hell of it. But it plays 
+
+But even as an agent of chaos, he has his limits in that he refuses to harm an innocent, pure child who only ever treated him with kindness. His heart is small, but he's not heartless, and Cindy-Lou used that tiny shred of Whomaity that he still had in him to change him for good, even when he wanted nothing else but to reject this help. Again, I'm projecting my own beliefs, but she is Christlike by nature, schooling the men in power as a child, teaching them what's right, being the only right one when everyone was wrong, the only one who was willing to defend the most sinful man from the world at large. This stupid Jim Carrey kid's movie made me cry. Dr. Seuss may have always liked his stories to be simple for helping children learn what's right, but even with the raucous tone of this film, the beautiful message was preserved. This is where I take issue with many Christians. They throw the baby out with the bathwater when they refuse to acknowledge how much good can be gained from any given film. Because they can't abide the fact that it says "bitchin" a single time, they lose out and completely forget that Cindy-Lou can be interpreted as an allegory for Christ, and this story as a whole can serve as an edifying reminder of the Plan of Salvation. I can feel the Spirit during this film while other Mormons have skill issue and religious trauma. Cindy-Lou Who for President.
+
+Now that I've convinced both Christians and non-Christians that I'm insane, one final note of potential value projection on my behalf, this time from the Libertarian perspective. I possibly laughed the hardest at the line that called the taxpayers of Whoville "generous" for subsidizing a car as a reward. It's not generous to give away somebody else's money that you stole. The taxpayers are REQUIRED to pay taxes, which inherently means any good or evil committed with the taxes incurred are not their responsibility. They cannot claim neither the good nor bad that came of their taxes because they don't have a choice in paying them. It's not a charity if it knocks on your door, holds you at gunpoint, and robs you. If a charitable organization did that, we'd call them terrorists. When our Government does that, we call them Democrats and Republicans. This irony is why the joke works and why they wrote it. Actually, I'm not projecting, the writers share my value and see the same irony that I do in stealing money via the threat of the Executive Branch being touted as charitable. My girlfriend's family was taken aback by my laughter, probably because they've seen it a million times, have it memorized, and are desensitized to the cleverness of the jokes. So their reaction was "how haven't you seen this before?" and my response was, "I kinda saw it, but that's just hilarious either way." In so many words. I don't want to talk over a movie when that might ruin their experience. Nobody but other film lovers want to watch a movie with someone who majored in Digital Cinema. I know I suck, so I keep Me to Myself. And that's on Masking folks. Wait, wrong Jim Carrey movie.
+
+
+
+//kinda reminds me of how many times they say bitchin in american graffiti cuz of cultural context
+
+//when the grinch gets complimented by young who (ciny lou? or other?) reference - rudolph "she thinks I'm cuuuude!!"

destruction/2023-12-16 Warrior 2011.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+A masterpiece in just about every way. No handholding in the writing; just context clues. It's like watching a documentary, it's truly a Fly on the Wall film. Every shot is crammed, even the few aerial ones, it makes you feel like you're there. It's so immersive and feels so real. THe only thing that breaks this immersion is the unique training montage. I think it serves its purpose, but breaks from the immersive language of the rest of the film in such a way that it would have been better to axe it for a more standard, intercut sequence.
+
+The colors are really something; I haven't seen the special features so forgive me, but I'm assuming it was shot in digital LOG/RAW, colorized EXTREMELY well, and then added a subtle film grain filter on top of the entire film. It works extremely well for every scene, but may come off as a bit cheesy during the Texas and Iraq cutaways. The mock-camcorder footage wasn't very well done and thus broke some immersion as well, but it makes up to little of the film to make much of a dent in the story.
+
+I'm not even gonna talk about the story in much detail. It's complexly heartwarming. Extremely valuable. We need more films like this.
+
+Acting was stellar, the script supervisors knew what they were doing, the specialists who know about the sport, sports broadcasting, the Marines, everything is just spot on, and that realism was communicated to everybody who worked on this film to create something immensely fantastic and again, extremely immersive. Bravo. Take notes, current and future filmmakers. They got it so right.
+
+5/5

destruction/2024-06-05 great mouse detective exploration of Ratigan.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+Pretty solid. I may get a little too esoteric on this one.
+
+One worldbuilding weakness is that it's weird that the mouse world just so happens to mirror perfectly the human world. It's something you have to ignore and play off as a joke in order for the story to function, but it's easier to ignore because the scope of it is quite small. If it didn't exist, there wouldn't be an implication that somehow mouse society and human society are in sync and perfectly mirror each other, which is a supernatural implication. You could remove this joke and most of the plot would function as if it were just a regular Holmes piece. But I'm not sure how the original book series dealt with this confusion.
+
+One worldbuilding *strength* is that it very well understands classical British culture and governance, perhaps better than I understand it.
+
+The man who marries the Queen isn't the King; he's the Royal Consort to the Queen. This means he only has as much power as the Queen delegates to him, and if the Queen were to die, then the power structure reverts back to who is truly in succession to the throne. Oftentimes, the seventh cousin of the Queen has a more legitimate claim to the throne than her husband. Sometimes the monarchy or loyalty of other independent nations has a more legitimate claim. So when Ratigan says that he's in power, he follows it up with the stipulation that that's the case so long as the queen approves. So the situation he engineered to gain political power, so long as his automaton was convincing enough, would have given him legitimate power until he died and presumably planned a contingency. It's a cool detail that I'm not sure writers necessarily will think into for "serious" productions today, let alone for the much-neglected "children's" films.
+
+For this reason it's obvious that anyone would be opposed to his rule given that he is an illegitimate leader within their political system. But clearly his rule in and of itself would be objectionable. We only see that he has a lot of rules, but I believe the only one we see him enumerate is that there should be a heavy tax imposed on those who cannot work; i.e. children, the elderly, and the disabled. He extrapolates, in so many words, that he sees these people as drags on society at large. Now, somebody who cannot survive on their own, categorically, will die if nobody labors to sustain their life. They are incapable of creating tangible, *economic* value. Why then, is it at all sensical for one to impose a tax on a group that cannot create value? Why tax someone who has no money to tax in the first place? These are questions that have been addressed through history, but it seems to be glossed over in this moment given it's an attribute of the Badguy™ to just do evil things. But this feeds into the perception that we have that evil is an attitude, rather than a pathology that makes reasonable, but self-centered presumptions about what is right, and thus leads to terrible consequences. Taxing those who cannot work forces that tax onto the people who care for those dependents; it's expensive enough to take care of dependents, so if you tax additionally for the dependents, it makes taking care of them not financially feasible, so old people die, and having children becomes a luxury for only the very wealthy. But this would come back to bite Ratigan in the tail later, because it would impoverish the working class of his Empire, thus impoverishing him and allowing him to be overtaken and destroyed by the power and interests of neighboring nations. Freedom from tyranny is not only just, it also leads to much economic success. There have been many throughout history and in present day who cannot come to understand this, so I believe that Ratigan can realistically make the same blunder, I just don't think this is a position he would logically take given the circumstances.
+
+The challenge in creating a realistic villain is that, in order to do so, you must first understand that irrationality is a subjective term and an illusion. Every individual has an internal logic to them that makes sense given what they've experienced and learned via their environment. If we judge the actions of others, present or past, as irrational, we make the presumptive mistake of thinking their logic can never make sense to *them*, because *we* can't understand it. Someone can only be irrational, if they have the exact same understanding of the situation as those judging them. Nobody who knows they are behaving irrationally continues to behave that way unapologetically. Nobody is capable of truly comprehending that they themselves are irrational, and also decide to continue their irrational behavior. Some people may double down on said behavior, but there's an internal logic to that too. The job of the writer is to ensure that enough of that internal logic is as explicit or implicit in the story, as is required for the motivation of *any* character to logically follow. The definition of evil is not when one violates the rights of others for no reason, because nobody has literally no reason to do so. There's always a reason. The definition of evil is when one violates the rights of others, because they *excuse* it by making rationalizations of certain behaviors and attitudes they fall prey to; they prioritize one principle over all, they prioritize the rights of one over the rights of the other due to that one principle they think trumps that of all others. Indeed; if you think never to violate one principle, and so long as it's not okay to violate this principle at all costs, you can get away with violating every other possible principle, sacrificing them for the sake of what you deem to be more important. There's little evidence to suggest that Evil has ever came into power just for the sake of Evil. Evil is most likely to have always came into power due to the unbalanced priorities of a motivated person or persons, a lack of perspective in these persons, and a lack of opposition, in whatever form, at several points of failure that could have prevented that path from being taken. In other words, everybody who is evil thinks they are good, and nobody who thinks they are good thinks they are evil. Every creature given Reason, i.e. every human being, acts in their own rational self-interest. And thus the logical conclusion is that nobody should ever consider themselves good, lest they accidentally become evil. Everyone must hold themselves accountable for the mistakes they make, as to not rationalize and attempt to justify them. This isn't to say that there is no objective truth or morality; there certainly is. The issue is that, as we are not omnipotent, and thus imperfect beings, the objective truth isn't readily discernable. This is what distinguishes good and evil morally; one of them recognizes its inherent flaws, and attempts to account for them, while the other refuses to account for its own flaws, and instead justifies them to themselves and anyone who will listen.
+
+So how does this apply to Ratigan in this context? Well, his motivation in the story is implicit: power is both an end in and of itself, and he utilizes the power he's already gained as a means to that end. The ambitious seek power, we don't need to be told the exact motivations of it every time. We don't need to know how his father treated him or how he grew up to learn that, that he was always seen as a Rat growing up, that he only ever wanted the adoration of the Mice that surrounded him, so much that he pretended to *be* one while violating the rights of several others just for recognizing that he isn't one. We don't need that, because Machiavellian principles have tempted the motivations of Man since before they had a name. Power is a common motivation, common enough to assume he has his own reason for doing so, so additional detail isn't necessary. But the story itself *presents* very little rationale in that situation for him to enact such an obviously evil policy. At least, it glosses over it. He says, old people, the disabled, and children can't take care of themselves, thus others, by necessity of them suriving, are forced to take care of them, therefore, a tax will be imposed on them so they... are incentivized to stop being old, disabled, or children? How can he expect them to just figure that one out? Hmm... perhaps I could attempt to Steel Man this position via Logical Form.
+
+1. He who is not willing to work, let him not eat; nobody is entitled to the fruits of labor they haven't worked for, or haven't provided fruits of equal value to trade.
+    I assume this aphorism as premise 1 because it's a premise I believe to be true, but if prioritized over all, has lead to evil. It hails back to the New Testament, and may be older still than that. It was a rationale for policies in Jamestown in colonial America, but was used to justify the policies of Lenin, then Stalin. Given Ratigan's brief rationale, I can assume he believes this.
+2. Children, the disabled, and the elderly, are incapable of labor.
+    Self-evident, and Ratigan clearly voices agreement with this premise in the film.
+3. Incapability of providing labor to take care of oneself, requires the labor of another to sustain their life.
+    Assumed from 1 and 2, but neither vocalized by Ratigan nor demonstrated by his in-film behavior.
+4. Thus, our society's labor is absorbed by these dependents. [From 3]
+    Assumed from 1, 2, 3, and 5, but not explicit in film.
+5. Thus, our society's productivity is slowed by these dependents. [From 4]
+    This argument is explicitly expressed by Ratigan.
+6. Thus, these dependents should be heavily taxed, to the end of turning them into a net positive on society. [From 5]
+    Also explicity expressed by Ratigan, though it's a stretch to say he wants them to improve or be better; he likely just doesn't want to worry about them.
+7. However, given they are incapable of labor, there is no value for them to provide in the first place. The only of these three ailments that promise eventual labor, and thus value to society, are children, in that they may become capable adults one day. [From 2]
+    I would speculate that Ratigan probably doesn't believe this. I included this premise to account for the fact that childhood is always temporary, whereas people hardly ever are "cured" of disability and age.
+8. Thus, they must figure it out. If they cannot provide enough value to society to pay the tax, regardless of the willingness of their kin to provide for them, they deserve to starve. [From 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7]
+
+Obviously this justification requires significant mental gymnastics, and its conclusion is evil. If I sat down with Ratigan I'd want to understand what makes him think this way. If Ratigan were real, I would know there is a rational explanation to his behavior, rooted in his pathology. So I'd know the answer is out there somewhere, I just have to think and test scientifically to find it. But it's overly generous to any story to assume that the writers integrated an explanation for this, if it's not in the story. So Ratigan's form of evil goes from nuanced evil, i.e. "I care about the rights of the people, thus it is morally correct to prevent freeloaders from exploiting the working class by taxing them out of existence. It's only coincidental that this tax goes in my pocket and benefits me, it is the right thing to do." to cartoonish, obtuse evil, i.e. "I just don't like disabled elderly children and I'll steal their crutches and suck them dry of their life force to benefit myself, muahahahaha."
+
+Is this standard too much to ask of a children's movie, given how steeped in politics, culture, and Epistemology it is? I don't think so. Just because children haven't yet the capacity to comprehend politics doesn't mean it can't be in the film in any capacity. My counterargument would be Kent Mansley from The Iron Giant. He's the villain, by far the most major antagonist of that film. But he acts in his own rational self-interest. It wouldn't be good news for him to attempt to interrogate, coerce, threaten, and entrap Hogarth, a minor, let alone without his mother present. This is because these actions are wrong, in that they violate his rights. So why does he do it? Because he *thinks* he's fighting for the greater good, he sees Hogarth's rights as a worthy sacrifice for not only his own career, but national security as a whole. He has immense hubris and thinks he's better than this small town. "Big things happen in big places. The sooner I fill out my report, the sooner I can get back to them." He thinks his career in DC and the work that he does is more important than the *entire town,* let alone the least of them, a troubled yet clever child who lost his father to war, now cared for solely by an overworked mother. This causes his knee-jerk reaction to fire the missile at the Giant, even though doing so would sacrifice everyone in the town, including himself. This was caused by a lack of foresight, caused by an overcorrection, caused by a paranoia for political enemies abroad, caused by a war that was resultant from a lack of shared values and common understanding between two or more nations. During the cold war, there were many a paranoid person who would certainly have been willing to sacrifice a small coastal town to ensure a single victory against the Soviets. It makes perfect sense that a Mansley could have existed in such circumstances, and his motivation is internally consistent. I don't have to agree with him in order to understand that *he* believes in his actions. And it's exactly that reason that the audience doesn't resonate with his actions, not only because he has a disdain for and mistreats these small-town residents, not only because he's awful to Hogarth, who, as our emotional vehicle we like, we side with. It's because he's wrong, and wrong people *exist.* His other behaviors, to each individual, could be the most egregious thing he's done. The five-year-old could dislike him because he's rude and controlling to Hogarth, who we love, and he tries to kill the Giant, who we also love. The Mother could dislike him because she's seen men like Mansley, or because she also has children and works tirelessly to benefit them, so when she sees a mother love her son, she sees herself, and when that son is mistreated, she sees that as an attack on herself due to her love for that child, in deed. Fathers could think the same thing, or perhaps, for the more politically inclined men, they could see his prioritization of national security over the rights of the people as indicative of the evil and tyranny of D.C., or that of the CIA or other government agencies. Or you could simply not like his narcissism. Any conclusion drawn from what is literally in the film is valid, the only difference is what the priority is given the subjective perspective of the viewer. Well-crafted stories emulate a version of their own reality that have no errors, and are thus real. Just because one can't see an error doesn't mean it isn't there, and vice versa. Flawless stories tend to reflect reality so well, that they give us a mirror with which to assess ourselves. Sometimes they points out things to us that we didn't realize were a great aspect of ourselves. Sometimes it's the opposite. But it happens to be that, when a story is well crafted, people of all ages can enjoy them, and the truth they glean from it is something of worth to them at that time. You could have a children's story so reflective of reality, that both children and adults can gain a valuable understanding of themselves, regardless of their maturity. If a story, in any of its aspects, is based on contradictory premises, it is the responsibility of the writer to solve those contradictions, lest the story be deprived of its purpose. I'm not arguing that no story without mostly real-world elements can exist, I'm arguing in favor of internal consistency. Without internal consistency, a story, categorically, cannot exist.
+
+Long winded tangent as always. So, to bring it back to this film, can Ratigan feasibly exist without a rational explanation for his motivation? No. Can the world itself exist without a rational explanation for how two different worlds can simultaneously exist in the exact same way, in two different scales across two different species? No. Does that make the story entirely worthless? Absolutely not! There's always something of value in any story. It's just difficult to scientifically measure, so we're forced to make the case for or against any story in seeking higher truth. Just because the worldbuilding is shaky doesn't mean the characters aren't good, but a character's quality is also dependent, to a degree, on that of the rest of the story. The triangle of storytelling is worldbuilding, plot, character. Each affects each other, and all other elements of any story serve to bolster each. They are all essential mechanical elements of the story. Tone and Theme are not the foundation, but the *result* of good storytelling. So if you want Theme, you must build upon the mechanics that allow Theme to exist. If your foundation is faulty or nonexistent, your Tone and Theme will be exceptionally damaged, and the same applies to this film. However, if this film's worldbuilding were stronger, there could be more reasonable assumptions made that make it possible for the same scene to play out the exact same way. This just requires additional elements, more meat, peppered throughout the film to effectively provide that context. There's no one universal solution to this, but some solutions are more effective than others. The job of the writer is to ensure the best overall solution is executed to fit the many needs of the film.
+
+So clearly it's not perfect. But it still has a lot going for it and is well worth the watch.

destruction/2024-06-06 sword in stone.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+Still holds the test of time pretty well.
+
+The plot is alright enough, but it seems to end on an unresolved chord. It's very abrupt; Arthur wants to run away from his responsibilities as a young king. Clearly his biggest challenges lie ahead of him. But none of that matters to Merlin, who just tells him, they'll write stories about you, you'll go down in history!! This attitude is destructive. You don't want a young person thinking that their battles have already been won, that they don't have to worry about anything the rest of their lives. In medieval times, the king wasn't *supposed* to be a slob that just sat there grinning that he won the throne (and yes, the throne of any kingdom was contantly contested by those who had any claim, so it had to be won). The reason western society rejected kings is because it was proven, through trial and error, that serfdoms, feudalisms, and monarchies weren't and could never be meritocratic. But at the time, when it was all they knew, the king was the leader of the country, and nobody tended to like him when he was full of himself and thought he could do whatever he wanted. This is exactly why the story of Arthur was so significant to the period; it encapsulated the idea that a King, in order to be a good King, must  first be a good *man*. This is exactly why the sword couldn't be pulled by the vast majority of the men in the kingdom; they were all vying to fill the power vacuum, as men are wont to do, when the person who truly deserved the kingdom was the person who didn't want it in the first place. In truth, nobody truly wanted the kingdom, because being the king comes with responsibilities. The people who wanted the kingdom wanted to abuse the position of power. This is certainly very politically relevant today. But in context of the final scene in the film, Merlin's words of encouragement are useful in that Arthur should feel confident in his responsibility, but what it would result in is a lack of fortitude, conviction, and discipline that leads to complicit behavior that leads to oppression, and beyond.
+
+Merlin's character is interesting. I forgot that he was a time traveller. But I do wonder if he's potentially from further into the future than we would think. This comes out of the poignant question of the difference between technology and magic; that when we don't know how it works, we may think technology is magic. I wonder if he uses technology to do his magic and just guises it as magic in the medieval situation. But I do kind of wonder how his foresight works. He knows someone will be dropping in, but not exactly. I wonder if it's similar to some kind of forecast, or a mathematical algorithm that simulates what will happen, which is why he went to the dark ages. I find it interesting that he calls the 20th century "one modern mess." Sort of makes you think, that he starts out the film with disdain for medieval times, but upon returning to later times, finds that humans still haven't figured out how to create a utopia, and that maybe we've always been the best we can be at any given time...
+
+I like Madam Mim's line, where she says that to her, Good is Bad. This is simplified, but it actually highlights the key difference between a good and bad villain/antagonist, as I expounded upon in my last review. She's saying that all that Merlin thinks is good, she has the opposite perspective. It's not saying that she knows she's bad and is proud of it, it's saying she knows Merlin thinks she's bad, but she disagrees and doubles down. Like, "sure, if you want to call me bad, I guess I'll own that". It's self-justifying, self-righteous behavior, and highlighting that weakness in antagonists like her is exactly how to make a good villain.
+
+Not perfect, but pretty charming from Disney as always. If every new Disney film were like this, they'd have a lot more social capital with me. Not great, but stands for something and tells a coherent, albeit flawed story, making up for a plot that expires somewhat towards the end. Perhaps an additional five minutes to tie up loose ends would go a long way.

destruction/2024-06-10 RAB bonus breakdown.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+​ @PandaFighter101  You're mistaken. Make sure you're listening to the original RAB, some people uploaded the Vessel recordings as RAB recordings. All 5 of the repurposed tracks from RAB, for the main 12-track release of Vessel, were completely re-imagined on the new album. Of the 4 bonuses, only Lovely was reimagined in the same way. I think they were intending on putting Lovely as a non-bonus, but for whatever reason, they didn't. I'd highly suggest giving the authentic original RAB a re-listen, it blew my mind the first time. Here's a breakdown of the Vessel differences:
+
+13 Glowing Eyes: has a slightly different mix but no major change.
+
+14 Kitchen Sink: drums no longer seem bitcrushed and fit into the mix better, given their sibilances are EQ'd out. I'm not sure if they were just poorly mixed, poorly recorded, or intentionally bitcrushed in the original, but it really helps the entire track.
+
+15 Lovely: COMPLETELY re-imagined for Vessel. You can instantly hear it. If you can't, you're not listening to the original RAB version. No autotune, EXTREMELY different synth choice, re-recorded vocs, removed background vocs in several places and added new background vocs in others, removed bitcrushed noises, additional vocal effects in break in verse 2, added spoken lines with vocal effect in bridge (original is empty), angelic female (?) vocal sample was reworked, Tyler's vocal sample at very end of bridge is quite different, outro piano is simplified to just chords, whereas the original had a very simple counter-melody. Vessel ending is extended an additional 3 seconds for dramatic effect.
+
+16 Forest: Wider, rounder, healthier mix. The kick in the verse has far less low frequency response, so it distracts from the vocals a lot less. I think you assume the pads weren't there in the original because they were drowned out in the mix, they're just easier to hear in the new version. Though keep in mind, different speakers, headphones, etc have different frequency responses, so that has a huge effect on what you hear as well.
+
+Overall, the general auditory style of RAB is HARSH. More nasally vocals, a ton of Tyler doing screamy gang vocals by himself, autotune, rougher mixing, harsher and more prominent synths, more electronic/bitcrushed drums, harsher piano. I prefer it over Vessel's polish most the time. But obviously I would love a RAB rerelease that was just more professional mixing like in Kitchen Sink's Vessel rework. Will probably never happen but oh well. Have a good day and stay alive |-/

destruction/2024-09-22 FernGully.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+I think it tries to tell a good story, but it's bogged down by a couple things, namely its writer/adapter. Diana Young wrote the original FernGully stories, which seem to be tough finds; I suspect them to be pulps fiction, and they were only abridged into one book to tie into the film(s) and TV show. These stories were adapted for the film by none other than Jim Cox, who also wrote the Rescuers: Down Under. Some of the nonsenical aspects of that film seem to have coincidentally bled over to this one. For example, young blond boy allegedly from Australia sounds just like an American. I'm sure there's a detailed explanation to this conventional artifact, but I'm not sure how much digging I want to do to try to figure it out. Could have been the industry not thinking it was an error. Could have been Cox being completely ignorant of regional accents, which is more common than some may think. Another common element would be nonsensical antagonists. Now, I think the major antagonist fits perfectly into the worldbuilding, it's the minor antagonists in the form of the workers that seem obtuse. People have reasons for doing what they do, they don't just HAHA LET'S KILL TREE! Moreover, the cartoonishly large behemoth of a tree-killing machine speaks volumes to the creator's beliefs on human ingenuity and capacity for evil. I have a suspicion that the loggers in Young's original story didn't use a machine like this, and Cox's pathological leanings encouraged him to create a behemoth. The basis for this suspicion is that Cox's other film has a similarly obtuse machine whose purpose is also to target nature, only in that case it was via poaching. That villain doesn't speak like an Australian either, but I don't remember if he was actually American. Moving on.
+
+The psychological read on these behemoth machines is that they embody the synthesis of two concepts: the human capacity for evil, and the human capacity for technological endeavors. It seems to be a conflation of the two; an oversimplification in error. Evil without technology is practically harmless, and someone who is practically harmless will likely become evil. Technology without evil is a fantastic, if perhaps theoretical, benefit for all creatures. The fact Cox put evil machines in two of his most well-known screenplays seems indicative of him thinking technology is evil, and perhaps, that humans are evil. I don't think we should be naive on the human capacity for evil, on the contrary, some of the imagery directed towards humans in this film are quite necessary to acknowledge. But if we dumb it down to "humans bad nature good" we will absolutely become hopeless and lose our purpose, individually and at large. Machines and technology are not inherently evil. On a biological level, my supposition is that multicellular, intelligent organisms such as ourselves only exist due to a collaboration to use adaptations to the greatest good possible, which is why our bodies are desgined and function similar to machines. If we are machines of a kind, and technology is an adaptation we use in order to more efficiently tackle the problems of life, then machines are simply an extension of us. And that's valuable. The machine is only as evil as the one who designed it, the one who operates it. The only technology in this film that isn't framed as evil, is Zak's walkman, and it's framed neutral-positive. I think this is because it's not seen as technology in the same way that the behemoth is seen as technology, even though categorically, they both meet the definition. The size, scope, and most importantly, purpose of each technology differs, but they are still both technology. I think Cox forgets this when he creates such behemoths. Again, it's not to say that the symbolic significance of them isn't lost on me, I just think it serves us better to be realistic in how these machines can be used for good, too, otherwise we risk reverting to a less morally advanced, paganistic, nature-worshipping people. Nature isn't separate from us, and nature isn't benevolent. It exists to kill you. Now, that doesn't mean we should go crazy on deforestation, it means we don't need to go too crazy in the other direction either. Conservation is important. Human life is more. It's not one or the other, there's a balance to be had in everything. The implicit ideology of this film is not balanced.
+
+Crysta and Zak agreeing that Zak must go back to humans to prevent them from continuing efforts of deforestation doesn't sit quite right with me. This aspect of the film is naive. The only way I think this plan could possibly work, is if they could document what happened to the machine. I think most people would see the machine being enveloped by nature as some sort of poetic justice, however religious this conclusion is. Many people saw covid's effect on human behavior, and the resultant effect on nature, as more proof that "the real virus is us!" and this is, of course, silly. But it's enough, perhaps, to encourage people there are forces that are outside of our control. At the same time, humans exist to make order out of chaos, so naturally, chaos makes them quite curious, and they'd flock to see what forces, magical or otherwise, could have caused such an unnatural thing to happen. So I'm not sure what the best possible solution is, but I know it's not simply "Zak becomes a tree-hugging activist who writes ludicrous stories about fairies and magic to own the greedy corporate lumberjacks". That is naive as hell in both positive and negative directions; it believes people to be "better" than they are, and people to be worse than they are in reality.
+
+Also, Batty is a character that creates massive tonal inconsistency. He seems anachronistic in many ways. Speaking of which, I think this film would have been FAR more tonally consistent if the songs sang by the FernGullians were classical, orchestral, choral compositions, rather than weird 90s hip-hop. It actually damages the worldbuilding; Crysta's father reacts to Zak's rock music with "that's not music that's just noise" when the songs sang by the animals are from the exact same, human society. It's anachronistic in a spacial, cultural sense. So perhaps Batty's anachronism comes from the fact that he was a lab bat, and he apparently has some sort of antenna that tunes in to TV frequencies that leak human elements into his psyche. Zak shouldn't have known how this worked functionally, by the way. He flicks the antenna to short it, saying "wrong channel," but that's the only line that we get to explain how his cybermetric component works. Batty probably should have said something more about it; in the beginning he seems to just be having electroconvulsive seizures that make him pretend to be different characters.
+
+Apologies for the ramble, this isn't as coherent as I usually prefer to be. Worldbuilding is okay, characters are okay, plot isn't so good. If you want your kids to have valid concern for the environment, and an understanding that technology can be used for evil, but can't be thrown out, and thus must be used for good, don't show 'em this. The Lorax suffices perfectly for this moral lesson, in practically all its iterations. In any case, I don't think you can go wrong with Seuss' original book, whereas I think the conclusions to be drawn from this film are morally complex at best, misleading at worst. Tell the truth, or at least don't lie. This film seems to implicitly fail at both. Doesn't mean it's worthless, but it does mean that it's not the best. I prefer to prioritize the best.

destruction/The Rescuers.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+This hardly qualifies as a *story*, let alone as a film. Next time you watch it, try to think of the purpose for ANY scene in this film and you will find yourself grasping at straws to try to justify its existence.
+
+Classic Disney worldbuilding issues in that the mouse world is in sync with the human world. If mice had governance, their system would scale to their size. A settlement under or inside a human house would be considered a city, the society in an entire human city would act as a State. Their world would be so large, they potentially wouldn't know what's outside of these states. They may not even know that other mouse societies exist, kind of like when the New World was discovered and colonized by Europe. But of course, because it's a children's movie, we have to pretend that a ridiculous concept like this could possibly exist within the context of this story. I reject this premise. If your story is "present day, except mice have human reason," that would require a knowledge of when mice became reasoning, and how their society developed as such so they develop alongside the human cultures without their culture and policies being vastly different. The assumption I made with The Great Mouse Detective might actually be the easiest fix: some sort of cosmic force causes every single human being to have a Mouse counterpart that mirrors every single thing that happens in the human world. It's bizarre, but so is the basic concept in the first place. A Zootopia-like evolutionary pathway would make more sense.
+
+So either way, for whatever reason the mice have their own version of the UN, but again, for whatever reason, it doesn't do what the UN does, it's just the Rescue Aid Society? So the mice don't govern themselves, and try to represent themselves on the world stage via a body like the UN? Or is that a different meeting? Lazy worldbuilding. So there's a body that for some reason needs mice from every country around the world, to decide who they should *rescue*...? Alright. And they're responding to a message in a bottle, so of course they need a janitor, of all people, to enter into the top of the bottle, rather than just knocking it over, because Disney wants to animate his funny struggles. They decipher the message and decide to send Hungary She-Mouse and Janitor Mouse, because Hungary liked that Janitor spoke up, because it was attractive? Janitor is "just the Janitor" when he's voluntold, but he still thought his voice should be heard when dictating policy to (presumably) representatives from the entire world... okay...
+
+Quick aside, this may be dependent on my subjective perception and bias, but this film seems to be... sociopolitically nonsensical? It romanticizes the UN as some kind of wonderful bastion of global solidarity and peace, its visual language seems to communicate a big "diversity is our strength" messaging. Besides this being childish nonsense in that diversity has no inherent value, it becomes more childish given that the Society is presumably intended to be the mouse version of the UN. There's nothing in the story to suggest that the Mouse-UN meets elsewhere, the Society is it. So the implication is that the purpose of the UN is to... rescue people... It should be self-evident to anybody with any semblance of geopolitical awareness that this is utterly ridiculous on its face. Conversely, when Janitor and Hungary visit Ex-Wife's pawn shop, there are decals indicating that this shop is affiliated with, donates to, or is supported by, the NRA, and that they sell firearms. This seems to me to be a tell, that the creators of this film see Ex-Wife as representative of pro-2nd Amendment Americans, or at least, that the exposition of a current-day (1977) villain includes being pro-2A. This is laughable and childish. Couple this with the fact that the gun she uses later vaguely resembles a tommygun, with a box mag, that clearly fires 20-gauge, 12-gauge, or perhaps .410 rounds, yet it *sometimes* has significant spread at close range, and *sometimes* at far range, but *sometimes* has the opposite. It can simultaneously shave Ex-Wife's Stooge's hair at mid-range, and blast pellet spread holes in the ship and other objects at point blank to far-range. The barrel of this mystery weapon resembles that of a rifle, which would make it impossible for it to fire any of the shotgun rounds it clearly fires. Box magazine-fed shotguns existed at this time, and still do, but they were highly impractical for feeding plastic shells, given the plastic would get bent out of round and prevent chambering or cause misfires or other hazards, which is why most shotguns feed their rounds via tubes. Leave it to somebody who knows literally nothing about firearms to malign over half the country by implying they're just like this woman. News flash: pro-2A people also believe in gun safety and responsibility; they would clearly see that Ex-Wife's mishandling of her Impossible™ Rifle was irresponsible and demonstrated egregious disregard for human life.
+
+So did they send them to save, or did they send them to investigate? Does the Society rescue any who are in need of rescue, or do they only rescue mice, given that they may not have the resources to rescue them otherwise? What resources do mice even have? We see all the Society's equipment are repurposed items from humans. They don't manufacture their own ladders, they just use combs. Do the mice manufacture anything? Do they have any sort of market? I'd imagine leftover human technologies would drive every aspect of commerce; construction for housing or otherwise, weapons, clothing, all possible technology would come from discarded, missing, or stolen human technology. But they don't seem to iterate on hardly any of it, only in the case of a few items. Good worldbuilding would make this a CONSTANT underlying visual, but they only seem to do it for a few items. Actually, the Bayou creature's home has miniturized technology. So they can manufacture their own stove and furniture from scratch but can't manufacture their own ladders?
+
+So the Society sent a Janitor and a spokeswoman from Hungary on a mission to do *something* about an unknown person who sent a message in a bottle, and their only lead is the name of an orphanage and a name, Penny. Presumably they knew it was a human orphanage, but if that was the case, why didn't they try to figure out how to get this message to humans so that their authorities could deal with it? Surely human problems require human solutions, given that mice aren't human size and thus can only solve mouse problems? So they show up to investigate and for whatever reason they immediately find the missing orphan's possessions in the closet. Forget that her posessions would likely be redistributed amongst the children according to the natural pecking order that will always ensue within a scenario like this, forget that to combat that they'd have to have her posessions in a storage area or in the Director's office or in the posession of some other leader. It's just here for the precise reason that the mice are looking for it. This writing is lazy. What they would have had to do is go to the node of mouse society that surely lives within this building, ask them if they know of someone who's gone missing, presumably an orphan named Penny. They'd have to gather information from these mice to understand Penny's predicament, who she was, where she's gone, so they can follow her trail. But this would require a thing called *effort*. They would have had to put in worldbuilding effort to mold the society that lives there, how they function, who they are. That would require concept artists, character designs, set designs, all consistent with worldbuilding that they never took the time to build. It's clear this film spent 10% of its time in pre-production, and 90% of its time in production.
+
+Because they didn't want to waste screen time on watching their paper-thin characters complete a challenge together in investigating, they had all their exposition coughed up to them by an old cat, who wears glasses for some reason. This old cat acts like he hardly knows Penny, but then in his flashback it shows that he's her Confidant, and almost behaves as a father figure to her, comforting her. So clearly the cat isn't a character either. Poorly told stories with zero internal consistency often do things like this, where a character behaves in a way that is contrary to what we're told, because the narrative itself is trying to tell us something that cannot be true. When stories force situations like this, it insults the intelligence of the audience. Penny even references the cat later, so clearly he's supposed to be an important character to her. But wouldn't that be sad that he hardly remembers her, then? Make it make sense. You don't have to make him seem old by making him forget something then immediately recall everything in a flashback. His character design and voice acting already indicate that he's old. The behavior we see in his treatment of Penny reinforces his character much more effectively. If you're going to have an unreliable narrator, do it on purpose.
+
+So the worldbuilding and plot clearly make no mechanical sense. Does it make up to it with its characters? Well I've already described them as paper-thin. Janitor is clearly quiet, unconfident, shy, and superstitious. He cautiously notes the occurrence of the number 13 twice, and is dismissed both times. These are both in Act 1. So you'd think they're a setup, but they never get paid off. 
+
+Hungary seems to be cheerful, pretty, hopeful, brave. She's a Mary Sue, because her naivety isn't in the story, but only in my perception. In a real world, her character would most definitely have undergone some significant changes since taking office as a ~~UN~~Society spokesperson; you generally don't get to enter them soft, but you surely won't leave geopolitical discussions with world leaders soft. In a real world, her hopeful and chipper demeanor would face challenges and prove that it was naivety. Someone who starts an optimist, eventually becomes a cynic, and then their optimism arises from those ashes with an edge to it. All young politicians, male or female, follow this arc. If she was fresh, she would not see adoration from so many of her peers just for being a pretty face. If she weren't fresh, she'd be a lot more cutthroat, or at least she'd have a spine. The world bends around her; classic artifacting of a Mary Sue. She faces zero resistance and immediately gets what she wants, with a shrug and with praise. The... Society Director...? Says that it's unprecedented, but oh well, I suppose there's a first for everything. Only a child thinks government works this way, which adds more proof to the pile that this movie was written by children. So clearly we see that bad character caused by bad worldbuilding causes more bad worldbuilding and bad plot. The triangle of storytelling is nonexistent in this story.
+
+Hungary supposedly ends up with Janitor, but they have zero chemistry. Every decision he makes, he makes because she insists, and he steps up to the plate because he wants to protect her. This could be a point of drama, but it's a missed opportunity, of course. Hungary should have fought for the Society's aid to the messenger. The Society could have resisted until Janitor spoke up. So in response, to punish both of them, the Society could have said to Hungary, you can go only on the condition you take Janitor with you. Janitor protests, Hungary protests, but gives up and realizes she has to take him with her, despite his lack of qualifications and real-world Rescue experience. His cowardice and lack of initiative could frustrate her. This cynic-optimist could tell him, "oh quit being a baby, we have a job to do." He could respond, "Well wait, I'm just a Janitor, but I won't let you lead the way, what if something dangerous happens?" She could respond indignantly, "I just faced down the entire Society of world leaders and it wasn't the first time. I can handle a little darkness." He could be bewildered by this. He could protest, "but you're a woman, you can't defend yourself..." she would retaliate, &c. This would effectively create a drama, and thus stakes, for our dual protagonist. The overarching plot would still be "Will they be able to save Penny?" but the subplot, perhaps all the more important, would be, "Will they be able to get along for the sake of their mission? Will they understand and set aside their differences? Might they even fall in love?" But instead, there are no stakes for their relationship, because she likes him, and chose him from the very beginning, for no reason other than that the story made her. Any good man will tell you that the first time he put his arm around her, representing that he finally earned her trust, was a feat of massive proportions, perhaps more than any physical feat could ever require. Here, she just cuddles up to him as he worries about their trip. No hope or fear, no stakes, nothing ventured, nothing gained. If you want to push a Positive™ Social™ Message™, maybe you shouldn't communicate to men that you can deserve the affection of women without doing anything to earn it. Maybe you should communicate that being a good man requires something of you. Maybe you should make a story like The Iron Giant. But not everybody can be Brad Bird, can they...
+
+Let's talk about Penny. In order to have stakes for our overarching plot, it would be nice to have more of the audience's social capital in her. Sure, she's worth saving because she's a character, a being with moral value, but the human psyche needs to know her in order to care. Does the film endear her to us enough? Overall, not very strongly. In the beginning, it's shaky. Her strife is enough to pull at the heartstrings of the empathetic. But there's not much personality on top of it, and she deserves more flesh, much like the rest of the damn film. Fundamentally, her first struggle is in getting adopted. We can assume why an orphan wants to get adopted. But we don't have much understanding of why she wants parents. Sure, parents come with love, pampering, more posessions, more freedom, and a home. But in order or us to understand why her heart aches for these things, we must first see how little she has. We could see that she doesn't get enough love, enough freedom, because perhaps the director or the older orphans treat her poorly. We could see that her posessions are redistributed according to the children's pecking order in the orphanage. We could see that she feels like she's at the very bottom of that hierarchy, perhaps that the entire world seems to bully her, so she shuts herself out to it, that the only one she can talk to is the cat, and perhaps the cat is only talking back in her imagination. We could see that all she wants is to be accepted, to be loved, and the only way she could ever get that is if only she could be adopted. What we get is weaker than my suggestion, because it's esoteric. It doesn't allow us to walk a mile in her shoes, it just gives us a platitude some of us may be able to understand. She says that she wasn't pretty enough, and this must be the case because the Redhead, who was pretty, got adopted, and she didn't. So for some reason, this was one of the last straws that caused her to run away? It's not strong enough of a motivation, and it's not in terms that can be universally understood to people who don't understand how much a little girl wants to feel pretty and feels destroyed when she thinks others proved her she's not.
+
+But this thread is strengthened when Ex-Wife says, "why would anybody want a homely little girl like you?". Homely is an out-of-style word that means ugly, by the way. This shatters Penny. Alone, she's clearly miserable. When I see that, I think, she's going to have self-esteem issues her whole life. But other people might not see that, because we're not in her shoes, because we didn't *see* what happened to give Penny that insecurity, we just know that Penny has that insecurity. To others who haven't gone through that, or haven't empathized with someone who has, this gives them nothing. But actually, I like what happens after this scene. At first, I was looking at the scene like every other scene in the film, just trying to find a single purpose in the scene. I was thinking, okay, there's a vocalist singing a song of hope here, but what within the *story* is helping Penny regain hope? She just looked down at the swamp, then up at the stars and got there? Then, she goes to her bed and prays. She prays for help, that her bottle will make it to someone. She recieved hope from belief in something higher than herself, which admittedly doesn't make sense given it happens *after* the small musical number, but at least it's *something*. And I like that her prayers are answered moments afterward. I guess it goes to show that the writers of the film believed in *something*, but it's definitely indicative of our societal decay when they clearly didn't understand *why* they believed in it. But that's neither here nor there.
+
+I think it could have been very interesting if Ex-Wife and her Stooge told Penny that they were her parents, and this caused her to give up on her dream of having parents. "If this is what having parents is like, maybe the only person I can depend on is myself. They were all lying when they said it would be nice." Imagine the Old Cat went with Hungary and Janitor, and found Penny had given up her hope. Imagine he had to remind her, and we could watch an emotional, dramatic scene between two characters with differing perspectives for once.
+
+There's just no depth, no flesh. The only redeeming quality was the artstyle. I actually really loved the artifacting; sometimes you could see the pencil tests flit into view, most obviiously on the Gators, Nero and Brutus (who are cleverly named after two prominent Greek historical figures). I'm not sure if this artifacting was borne of a low budget, but I saw it as endearing, though it may have been a mistake. But it highlights the Disney corporations' worst aspect of its legacy and history: they will waste beautiful animation on the practically nonexistent foundation of a worthless story. If you want somewhere to put flesh, you need some bones. I lament this fact for the sake of every animator who works in film. As an animator, or rather, as someone who has talent who wants to work on good stories, it pains me to see that the pearl of talent is so often casted before the swine of piss-poor writing. Disney himself focused a little too much on animating "movie magic," and that is seen as a recurring issue in his company's stories. But at least he was working on *functional* mechanics. Truth be told, the animation is just what we *see*. It's important, but it does nothing but bolster a story. I would rather all Disney films have the animation budget of Dumbo, but the writing quality and internal consistency of Brad Bird. If we have no standards for storytelling, why don't we just animate pretty stuff doing random things all over the place like in Fantasia? But even those were at least short stories. I can't bring myself to see it as nothing but pure laziness; the audiences haven't realized the quality of the stories they're being sold is as low as it gets, so they end up a boiled frog to a corporation cutting pre-production costs.
+
+I've said it before and I'll say it again: don't tolerate poorly written stories, no matter how pretty they look. This is not a "classic," because it's good. It's because you watched it when you were young. Nobody can erase the emotional connection one has with the films and events of their childhood or otherwise. But my coming to terms with some of the stories I enjoyed when I was young, are not well-crafted, has helped me appreciate well-crafted films all the more. For example, I thought Ratatouille was emotionally significant, and I still love that film. But understanding that it's not well-crafted makes me realize that those emotional highs are lesser for it. But when you craft a story better, when your characters are molded into a world that makes sense, when it's like watching true events unfold as a fly on the wall, you don't have to think about it, because somebody else actually took the care to think about it for you. A writer who cares about their story will consider every aspect of their story as their own children. So they will make them and the world in which they live, as real as they possibly can. Children won't comprehend this, but as they grow older, the realistic world you created will have taught them lessons, made them think, in ways that bungled storytelling like this, never could. Adults may not think about it, but it'll only confuse them if you cannot communicate your story well. So, to the writers: write your story well, so the animators have something worth spending hours of their time animating over. Write your story well, so the corporation that pays your bills can confidently sell a product that is high-quality enough to be worth the price of admission. Write your story well, so that the children who may see it can have a greater understanding of the real world, and a greater appreciation of joy that can be found in life. Write your story well, so that the adults can have the same, with an even greater depth of understanding. Write your story well, so that you can say at the end of your life that you did something more than hedonistically, hurriedly jot some platitudes down, so that you may say that you stood for something and left a mark on the world that created value that would not exist, had you not done so.
+
+Some writers want to do that. But they're incentivised not to, because the industry says the juice isn't worth the squeeze. I say, let's raise our standards as both consumers *and* industry-folk, so that they may see that's not the case.