Post 150: What Big Picture? How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days

This is a plot hole that has annoyed me for quite a long time. In the movie How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Andy (main character) justifies her writing for a fashion and beauty magazine and basically "selling out and writing fluff pieces" (she doesn't say that exactly but implies it) is all in hopes that the editor will like her work and give her free reign to write whatever she wants.

Her idea of what she wants to write is serious, hard-hitting pieces on political and social current events. So, my question is, is she an idiot? It's the only way this idea makes any sense.

I took one and only one journalism class in University but I still know this is stupid. A main idea we discussed is 'audience'. It is important to know your audience. So how is it that someone in the industry, who supposedly went to University for this career and has an interest in it, would actually think that there was any way at all that the editor of a fashion and glamor magazine would let her write any of those kinds of articles?

People who pick up those kinds of magazines may be looking for health and dating tips, but what they are really looking for is light and casual reading. Not something that will make them think about the political turmoil people countries away are suffering. There is no way Andy would have actually thought she would get the choice to write those articles for the same magazine. Unless she was an idiot. And it does seem at first like she is thinking of it as paying her dues where she can go somewhere else with this experience but when she is talking to her boss and her boss says she has free reign with in reason for the material that fits with the magazine, she is shocked. She wouldn't have been shocked. It's a fashion magazine, not the Times. It would be like someone working at Disney being surprised when their boss said they couldn't show the kids Saw.

And what makes it seem even more ridiculous is that she has friends at the paper and clearly has worked there awhile and been in the meetings hearing topics discussed, does she really think that the reason those kinds of articles were never suggested or brought up was due to lack of interest by writers alone? How did she not realize it wouldn't fit in with the magazine?

I feel like this is simply a matter of the person writing the movie not actually having any real background knowledge of journalism and a lack of common sense in the matter OR a desperate need to make sure that she was 'different' because heaven forbid she actually enjoy writing about fashion or dating. No, no. It needed to be beneath her in order for her to be deep. I mean, it's fine for her friends, one who we rarely see or learn anything about and the other who is clingy, over-emotional, and insecure. But Andy needs to want a "serious" job. There is really no other reason her character needed to want to write about other things. It doesn't really affect the plot much. And as it is, it actually hurts the plot more than it helps. 

Post 120: What Big Picture? Killers

Killers (2010) a movie starring Katherine Heigl and Ashton Kutcher. Basically the plot of the movie is:

Watch a hit-man fall in love with a female control freak. Then watch as a few years later the people in their lives turn out to be killers who try to kill them but fail and die in horrible ways all because of a misunderstanding that doesn't make sense.

Katherine's character is a control freak who meets Ashton's character while she is on vacation. He was a spy and retires after meeting her. They get married and years later his old boss calls him and gives him a post card. Then their neighbors, coworkers, etc. all turn against them and try to kill them.

The big twist at the end? All of the killers sent after them were sent by her father for a large bounty. Turns out Ashton's character's boss was corrupt and when Katherine's dad saw the postcard, he thought Ashton's character was corrupt and because apparently her dad works for the government Katherine's dad thinks Ashton's character is trying to kill him.

My big issues with this?

For one, some of them were their neighbors for years. If Ashton's character just came under suspicion, then why were all these killers already in their lives?

Also, a lot of the killers that attacked the couple, while mainly aiming at Ashton, almost killed Katherine's character in the process. Why her father didn't just kill Asthon himself is beyond me. I mean, he had access and he could have just given him something that made it look like he had an allergic reaction and died.

This would be easy. It would be cheap. And it wouldn't put his daughter in any danger.

But, no, he sent killers after his son-in-law and, at the same time, put his daughter in great danger. Without warning her, helping her, trying to get her out of the way, or even instructing the killers not to hurt her. I mean, why not have her and her mom go to a spa together for a few days. That gets her out of harm's way. Or, do anything at all for that matter? Oh, that's right! It might give away the nonsensical plot twist.

My second issue came at the end, when the father and son-in-law are arguing at gunpoint. The father says that he saw the postcard and wanted to kill Asthon before Asthon killed him. Which didn't really make sense because the postcard was asking for a meeting, not telling him to kill someone. So, it wasn't really definitive proof of anything. I mean, one post card asking for a meeting and suddenly he is sending dozens of people to kill his daughter's husband.

I mean, her father was supposed to be some high level member of the intelligence agency and he didn't even bother to do any more research or observation after that. He didn't try to see how the meeting went or check to see if there were any more communications between them, he just took out a hit. I mean, if he had checked in, he'd have seen that Ashton refused his old boss's offer to get involved in anything and insist he was retired.

My third issue, also with this scene, is the only reason that her dad dropped the gun and calmed down was because she said she was pregnant. He didn't bother seeing if his son-in-law was actually corrupt, he just dropped it when he found out that he was going to be a grandfather. Like really? You weren't that worried about your daughter's safety before. You weren't worried about depriving her of her husband before. But suddenly, it doesn't matter, because she's pregnant.

My last big issue is that a lot of people died over this misunderstanding. And if they actually worked with or for her father, that meant that they were spies working for the government not just killers looking to collect some money. Yet, no one seems to have cared at all that so many people died for nothing. Literally nothing. Dozens of people died. More were injured. People they worked with. People they hung out with. But does any one care that they died over a misunderstanding? Nope. My neighbors tried to kill me so I killed them? I blew up my coworker? Who cares?! I'm going to be a dad. My coworkers were all murdered because I leaped to conclusions? Men and women put their life on the line and will no longer be going home to their families because of me? My son-in-law might be corrupt and trying to kill me? Who cares?! Bust open the champagne, I'm going to be a grandpa.

Post 105: What Big Picture? The Purge

Let me start off by saying I haven't watched this movie or its sequel. I have a big problem with the movie's premise.

Essentially, according to the trailer and description, the movie is set in a universe like our own, except that every year there is an annual 'Purge' where for 12 hours all crime is legal. During this 12 hours, the country/town/world (I actually don't know what scale the purge is on) falls into chaos.

The main premise of this movie seems to be: the only thing keeping people from turning into thieves, murderers, and rapists is fear of punishment.

This raises a lot of questions for me, both about the movie and about what that would actually mean.

Some of the questions I have:

1. If this was an annual thing, wouldn't stores have really good security? And wouldn't people have a whole heck of a lot of security features on their house?
2. If it is legal for 12 hours and illegal again after, can people be persecuted and/or prosecuted for things that they did during that time once they are illegal again? What if they committed assault during the 12 hours, but then the person died after the 12 hours were up? What about people who committed theft? It is illegal to possess stolen property, so even if it was legal to steal it, it would be illegal to own it.
3. Is this like the Hunger Games, where there is really only a loose explanation of why they are doing this and everyone just accepts it?
4. If this is more than just a city, is the 12 hours different depending on the time zone?
5. If people do steal from work or don't show up to work or hit their boss while it isn't a crime, can they be fired for their actions later?
6. What about religion? Just because murder is suddenly legal, doesn't suddenly mean that there aren't religious or moral reasons not to do it. So, does this proposed place not have religions?
7. If people do turn into murders just like that, then why don't people just lock themselves in a panic room for 12 hours? I mean, is that one person they sort of want dead really worth risking being killed themselves?
8. Why are people suddenly hurting people? I mean, I feel like theft would be a much bigger issue than assault or murder.
9. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is okay. There aren't laws against having affairs or insulting people, but that doesn't make them right. So, are people really just like 'oh, cool murder is legal now; let's go kill that co-worker who was annoying me'? And I mean, what about after? Are their coworkers just going to go back to work and be like "oh yeah, you murdered an entire family of people, but its cool because it was during the purge so can I borrow a stapler?" 
10. Doesn't the idea that it is only the consequences that matter suggest that the people in this place would do all the same things if they thought that they wouldn't be caught? So, it isn't really even the laws that were stopping them to begin with.

Sometimes I consider watching, just to see if any of these questions are answered. However, I keep coming back to the fact that this just seems like such a disturbing idea to me. 

Post 103: What Big Picture?: Hogwarts' Houses

Over thinking, a term used when someone gets nit-picky about the details. Often used when someone loses focus on the big picture when watching a movie, book, or TV show. Basically, they start getting a little too hung up on the fact that reality doesn't always hold a place in works of fiction.

This will be a series where I do just that.

Starting with Harry Potter's famous houses: Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin.

Here are some of the main traits associated with each house:

Gryffindor - individualistic, daring, desire for fame, adventurous. 
Ex. Thor would probably be a Gryffindor.

Hufflepuff - practical, humble, loyal, risk averse. 
Ex. Spiderman would probably be a Hufflepuff.

Ravenclaw - wise, curious, creative, fair. 
Ex. Bruce Banner (not Hulk-Banner) would probably be a Ravenclaw.

Slytherin -  cunning, confrontational, traditional, group-oriented. 
Ex. Natasha (Black Widow) would probably be a Slytherin.

Now, what is my problem with the Houses? I actually have four problems with them.

1.) What's the point?
2.) More harm than good.
3.) Why isn't this setting off red flags?
4.) Stereotyping.

What's the point? It seems very clear that students are divided into houses based on their personality. But, what is the point of that? They still take all the same classes so it isn't like they are being divided to give them the best education. If they were divided and given different classes or at least classes in different styles to best address what they want to learn or how they learn then I would understand it.

However, this does not seem to be the case. So, dividing them by personality seems to serve no purpose.

More harm that good. Separating them into houses by personality means that they get very limited interaction with people who are different than them. Outside of classes, they never really had to work with people that were different. They are even separated for meals. Which means that they are not being properly prepared for when they leave school and have to work in an environment where they might be surrounded by people with different values, ideas, and personalities.

Red flags. I suppose this could be tied in with the first one. However, one thing that annoys me is something that came up in the first book/movie. Ron: "There wasn't a witch or wizard that went bad that wasn't in Slytherin". So, basically, everyone who has ever gone bad - was in one house. And no one stopped and said, 'hm, maybe we should do something about this?' (In the books, this isn't the case but seems to still be the case that like 90% of those who went bad were in Slytherin).

I'm not saying they should assume being in Slytherin makes a person bad, but perhaps they could have put in measures to prevent future Slytherins from going bad. Like maybe classes in tolerance or counselling. Maybe some sort of Muggle outreach. Because a lot of them have problems with Muggles, but really going to a school miles away from any and surrounding them with other people who think muggles are inferior isn't going to help them better accept them.

And I happened across Fanfiction that had a legitimate point about the problems that could come up in allowing Muggle-Born students into magic schools. And it was that because they have a stronger tie to the muggle world they are more likely to inadvertently expose magic. And, looking at Hogwarts curriculum, a lot of the things they are learning will only be helpful if they stay in the magical world.

How are potions or the historical wizards going to help them if they want to be a muggle lawyer?

So, there are some legitimate issues. But, at the same time, not teaching them how to control their magic is just as dangerous. But these are all issues that could be resolved if there were talks and discussions to help address these issues that some of the Slytherins have.

Stereotyping. There is a lot of stereotypes surrounding the houses. Especially in the idea that all Slytherins are villains and Gryffindors are heroes and Hufflepuffs are the "left overs" (even Harry didn't want to be a Hufflepuff).

Let us a take a moment to look at some of the horrible things Gryffindors have done: James' horrible bullying of Snape, the twins’ locking Montague in the Vanishing Cabinet (getting himself out almost proved fatal for him), Hermione hexing the DA parchment, Harry using a hex on Malfoy (without knowing what it would do, causing serious harm, and almost killing Malfoy).

Also, looking at the examples you may also see that separating people also means giving them an enemy. Gryffindors and Slytherins seem to hate each other. But does the school address this?

James bullied Snape. Hermione hit Malfoy. The twins tormented Montague. Harry hexed Malfoy.

A Gryffindor hurts a Slytherin: seems to be a re-occurring theme.  

But they're obviously hero-types. So, it gets overlooked. After Harry hexed Malfoy he got detention. Detention! He almost killed him. Hogwarts is essentially a school where students are not only allowed to carry weapons but encouraged to use them. There should be more classes on how to resolve issues without violence or magic. Especially for Slytherins and Gryffindors whose first instinct appears to be wiping out a wand when ever someone upsets them.

On the other hand, when ever something bad happens everyone looks at the Slytherin house. When the final battle came Slytherins were put on the spot. Like someone from another house couldn't have possibly caved in to the fear of dying? Like maybe the Slytherins didn't want to fight because it would mean fighting family or friends?

At some point, you have to think that they just get to the point where they give in. After being treated like they are destined to turn bad, they start believing it to.

Conclusion: Hogwarts needs to start using these houses to better the school and its students or it needs to get rid of the way they are sorted. Because as it is, they seem to be doing nothing good for anyone.