Top 5 Saddest Disney Moments

            I have not been posting nearly enough this year and I want to steer back from that.  To that end I have found a 30-day blog challenge and fluffed it out to 31 entries (since December has 31 days).  I have done a 30-day challenge before for movies, though that one was poorly executed (I started it in the middle of a month, at one point I posted 2 entries on one day, it is a mess).  I did another one just this year in August on Video Games, that one was better, go read it after this one, all of it.  Or don’t, no pressure.

            Today is day 17 and the topic is “Saddest Moment”.

It is another Top 5 List, because I could think of 5 entries and they were all sad, so I am going to make a list.  Strangely, even though there are 5 entries, there are only 3 types of Sad… You’ll see what I mean.

Number 5

I have shockingly little connection to this movie.  I am sure I have seen it, but I have almost no memory of it and know that it is sad more as a cultural touchstone.  Everyone sort of knows what you are talking about when you mention it, and its effect on children has been parodied a number of times.  I am speaking of Mother’s death in the movie “Bambi”.

This is a great scene, the snowfall obscuring the whole world is a fitting metaphor for the loss of a caregiver.  The sad impotent calls for help as the world grows colder and darker… This is sadness type 1.

Number 4

This one is sadder, mostly because of how it happens to a much stronger and more interesting character.  There are lots of elements, the scope of the threat, the immediacy, and the surrounding sense of dread and betrayal.  Is it not enough to lose your father, but to think you were responsible?  That is the icing.  I am talking about Mufasa’s death in “The Lion King”.

Less symbolic than the snowfall certainly, instead you have the action’s pace continue as Simba must flee the hyenas while going into exile while still grieving.  He is alone, guilt ridden, and sad… This is also sadness type 1, death of a parent.

            Ever seen grownups cry in a movie theater?  Cause these next three deal with the sort of sadness that strikes more at the heart of adults, but to children serve more as dark prophecies for them to deny until self-reflective episodes in their 20’s and 30’s when they attempt to write blogs on sad Disney movie moments.

Number 3

We all grow up.  But we don’t always get to grow up with our fictional characters.  When I am 70, Batman will still be 30 something.  When I am 80, Captain America will still be 30 something.  When I am dust there will probably still be Lego bricks in toy chests.  We do not get to take the things we loved as children with us.  Not because these things are unimportant or lack value, but because we change as people.  It is important to leave our treasures with those who can take care of them and treasure them so that those parts of us do not disappear.

This entry comes from the rare Disney franchise that has sequels, the sequels grow the themes of the story, and they reflect the time that has passed in the real world.  I am speaking of Andy saying goodbye to Woody and Buzz in “Toy Story 3”.  This is sadness type 2-A, loss of childhood via loss of treasured possessions.

(The audio quality on here will give you cancer.  Just a warning.)

Number 2

This is a more obscure entry.  I would venture to say that most people have not seen it, and that I am kind of an outlier in that I managed to watch it when I was a little kid.  “The Fox and the Hound” is about a puppy hunting dog, Copper and his time befriending a fox cub, Todd.  Why they did not name the copper colored fox “Copper” I have no idea.  That is not what we are here for.

The point is that as the hunting puppy grows into a hunting dog he and his friend grow apart.  I think just about anybody can identify with one of these two sides right?  Your friend goes off to the military or college, or you go, and returning home you two have lost that connection you had previously.  People grow and they grow apart.  Especially from when they were children.

Spoiler alert, this movie ends with Todd going into exile in the woods after being hunted by Copper, and them both having to team up to fight a bear.  The final cleft between the two is tear welling.  This is sadness type 2-B, loss of childhood via loss of best friend.

Before I get to my number 1—and since I can’t go a blog without reminding everyone how much of a cultured twit I am—I would like to point out how the idea of a wild man and a cultured man becoming friends to battle a giant and then one of them leaving the story is kind of like the first few chapters of “Gilgamesh”.  It is not a 1-to-1 comparison, just a theme.

In that story the wild man Enkidu befriends Gilgamesh and they go on adventures and ultimately Enkidu is killed.  I see Todd the Fox as Enkidu in this story and I wonder if watching your childhood friend die saving you from a threat after you had just been hunting them would be sadder than the parting on strained terms ending that was present?  Should Disney have killed Todd?  It might have been sadder on one level, but certainly less identifiable.  What do you think?

Number 1

            And because Pixar hates your happiness on a personal level, it is the opening to “Up”.

I do not think anyone will even argue with me about this.  This is the sort of sad that cuts on multiple levels, of looking back on someone you lost, all the opportunities you each missed out on, and all the pain of the deep personal tragedies you had to share.  This is sadness type 3, forlorn and regretful.

            Share your own thoughts on this in the comments.  I know I am not the only person out there who is nostalgic for Disney products, and I am sure many people disagree with my selection for today’s entry. 

I picked Disney stuff just because I knew there was so much of it to talk about and it lends itself to discussion in the comments.  So please, tell me how my opinion about cartoon movies is biased and how your opinion on cartoon movies is objectively right.

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

My Thoughts on the "Ghostbusters" Franchise

            Let me talk a bit about one of my favorite things ever: Ghostbusters.

            The original film holds a special place in my heart as the movie I have seen the most in my life.  My estimates are inexact (as most of the times I saw it were prior to my turning 5) but I think a guess of 100+ times would not be out of the question.  I could quote whole tracts of the movie’s dialogue before I even knew what they meant.  My father brings up wistfully the numerous times I would talk to strangers at the grocery store introducing myself as, “Hello, my name is Ray Stanz, I’m a Ghostbuster” which I pronounced “Gose-Busser”.

More than that, I am a big fan of the cartoons.  I own the gigantic premium box set of “The Real Ghostbusters” and I feel the biggest misstep of the marketing of “Ghostbusters (2016)” is that they have not released “Extreme Ghostbusters” on DVD (it is the most underrated cartoon of the 1990’s).  I watched “RGB” to the point of destroying the VHS tapes of it my grandparents had at their house.

I owned and played with dozens of the toys, to the point where they fell apart, with bits snapping off, pieces going missing, and paint flaking off.  More than “Masters of the Universe”, more than “Transformers”, more than “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” this was the toy line that dominated my childhood (till Lego showed up and took over completely).

I even liked the sister(?)… knock-off(?)… rival?  We’ll go with rival.  I even liked the rival show “Filmation’s Ghostbusters”.  Which had two guys and a gorilla fighting ghosts and monsters sent back in time from the undead hellscape of the future.  It was mostly garbage, but still entertaining, if for no other reason than the music had a lot of get up and go.

The Gorilla Invented all of their equipment.
This used to be a live action series.

If I had the resources I do now (the internet) I would have collected and read the comics which for some reason only ever saw success in the UK.  I have a collection of the first 25 (thank you IDW) and will maybe get others in the future (honestly, the stories are freaking bananas and include an Ecto-4 which is a god damn rocket ship, and the first adventure includes the ghost of an intelligent alien slug monster).

I thought the sequel was fine, bit too much of a rehash of the first movie (kind of a lazy script when you get down to it) but harmless.

The video game was also fine and served as a good unofficial “Ghostbusters 3”, the game play was fun, and the writing (while hampered because there are clearly roles meant for Louis Tully and Dana Barret) is ultimately comparable to “Ghostbusters 2”.

I plan to see the new one this weekend.

That all being said I feel that I disagree with something that a lot of people list as the reason they like the original movie.  A lot of people seem to think that “Ghostbusters” only works because of Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Bill Murray.  That their singular chemistry allowed it all to come together.

I disagree.

The idea of “Funny guys fighting monsters/ghosts” has been around a while.  It is a simple premise, and while the execution of that premise varies WILDLY in both how it is done, and how well it is done.  The idea of “comedians fighting ghosts/monsters/aliens” is too broad a concept to be fenced in to just those three actors plus the extended cast (this is not to cast shade at Ernie Hudson, who I feel is underrated both in the franchise and as an actor in general, but he is a supporting character in the story).  Dan Aykroyd did not invent the idea.

Though, back in Mickey's day of fighting "Lonesome Ghosts" they didn't have proton packs.
They had to make due with a shotgun and a deerstalker cap.

The biggest issue I have with Ghostbusters (and I say this keeping in mind all of the positive things I have said above) is that they did not grow the concept.  The 1980’s was filled to the brim with talented comedic actors and special effects that got better every year.  The first “Ghostbusters” was set in New York and used several well-known comedians (and considering Eddie Murphy and John Candy were both originally in it, they didn’t even get their original picks), WHY THEN WAS THE SECOND ONE DOING THE SAME THING?

"Ghostbusters: Mardi Gras", "Ghostbusters: Liberty Bell", "Ghostbusters: Bambino's Curse". Just take a city, and throw comedians at it.  Lily Tomlin, Phil Hartman, Jane Curtin, George Carlin, Chris Rock, and anybody else.  Seriously now, do you think that Bill Murray invented being snide?  There are 100 cities in America that could all have their own ghost stories.  Voodoo zombie hordes, the Jersey Devil, HALF THE STUFF THEY DO ON “SUPERNATURAL” could all have been done with John Lithgow and Jeff Goldblum wearing proton packs.

A Trillion nerds on the internet and this is the only image of an alternate 80's cast.
Really wish I had Adobe Suite on this computer I would have put more into this effort.

“The Real Ghostbusters” cartoon had 140 episodes.  And while they all had different problems (they seemed to face a Gozer level world ending threat every episode) clearly there are stories that exist with people fighting ghosts.

            The reason I saw fit to write this is because I have seen a lot of people online arguing things like, “It is a big part of my childhood, they shouldn’t remake it”.  And I feel that is just stupid.  While I would prefer a movie in which the Ghostbusters already existed, and did the stuff from the movies and video game and then just had Ray and Winston showing up to hand the keys of the New York offices off to new people… That would have been better.  But, that is over with.  You can’t fence off the best iteration of a good idea.  The execution was too good not to run with in various permutations.

Just like Batman has been rebooted 10,000 times, and James Bond has looked like a half dozen people, Ghostbusters is starting fresh and hopefully is good enough to do what I wanted the series to do all along: GO PLACES.

______________________________

If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Position Open: Girlfriend

(This is a long and meandering blog about relationships, feel free to dodge it)...

Help Wanted

Position Title: Girlfriend

Potential for Advancement: Wife

Hours: Initially part time, though hours can expand if this collaboration meets or exceeds expectations

            Position available for a smart and well educated woman (those do not always go hand in hand sadly).  Must have a personal world view which is subject to change with experience and credible evidence (I don't care what you believe, so long at you can stop believing it when faced with fact).  Must be accepting of eccentric behavior and introverted habits (this is just to make the working environment amicable, cause really this describes your one and only co-worker to a "T").  Must be (at the very least) curious about fantasy, science fiction, and other broad ranges of fiction and should explore this interest through movies, books, and games (most of the job will consist of discussing these things, or at the very least listening to some fool ramble on about them at great length).

            Must be willing to (occasionally) debate and discuss important life decisions so as to help make informed choices, and must be able to support such choices even if not in total agreement (sorry, this is the advisory role); must also have personal dreams and ambitions to debate and discuss, and ultimately receive support in execution (sorry, this is the feedback role of the job, essentially advice has to be a two way street, no nagging on either parties part).

            Must have her own hobbies, interests, and friends that can exist as a social circle beyond this partnership, and must accept that I have hobbies, interests, and friends beyond them (this is a feature rather than a draw back for both parties, as I have interesting friends who are good to socialize with, and I expected to be provided with a sort of part time social circle of people that I can enjoy from time to time that are not strictly speaking "my" friends).

            Applicant must not be a gossip, holding honesty and forthrightness as high virtues (I do).  Non-smoker preferred but is not a deal breaker (I will buy you gum, binaca, or your preferred method of breath freshening, you just have then use it regularly).  Should have a commitment to personal health, self improvement, and intellectual exploration (that being said, feel free to have personal faults to, honestly if you are too good I will just get suspicious... Oh yes: tolerant of exceptionally rare paranoia).

            This is an at will partnership, but proper performance reviews should be given by both parties and (as the relationship develops) greater levels of termination notice should be expected and opportunities for forgiveness and improvement offered (seriously after a certain grace period I expect some warning signs before being emotionally gutted, just to see if I can right the course or end it before we want to kill one another).

            After full time status has been attained additional (marriage) contracts can be drawn up, and levels of financial and emotional entanglement shall reach intense levels (growing old and delirious together would be the ultimate goal of a successful partnership).

            I am in the later half of my twenties and have regrettably not had a deep and sincere adult relationship.  And really I think I should strike while the proverbial iron is hot.

            I am currently in Law School (and Grad School) surrounded by highly intelligent and educated women with diverse backgrounds and personal aspirations.  And while many are in committed long term relationships and might even have families, many others are much like myself... 20-somethings who have yet to find "the one" (bleh, I hate such cliché sentiments).

            I can't hold out hope that my life will lead me to another situation in which I will again be in such a social situation: surrounded by the ideal demographic to seek out a serious relationship.  I am sharing a life defining professional experience with a group of interesting people and should not let the opportunity to meet them go by.

            I wish I was better at that though.  While I can be funny and engaging, I am also abrasive and often times intimidating.  Not to mention my own introverted habits outside of class, having a hard time asking people if they want to go out, and being unable to tell polite rejection from actual interest that simply can't be followed up on because of competing plans.  (This poor ability to read signals often leads to the comedy of errors in which I might ask out a woman two or three times who has no interest, all while ignoring another woman who I thought did not like me, but is actually interested and merely burdened by a complex schedule).

            There is also the issue of attraction.  Some attractive people can't stand me, while others have a similar sense of humor or persona but have an appearance that in another century would have relegated them to ringing bells in Notre Dame.  I know I am no Christian Bale or Ryan Gosling (for one, I cannot for the life of me get defined abs due to really liking food and only marginally liking exercise) and I cannot fault beautiful women who would dodge me because they find me unattractive.  I know it is bad to be "shallow" but attractiveness is something else to consider and is important for helping with the initial spark of a relationship.

            I don't know.  This is a rather meandering bit of writing, tomorrow I will more than likely revert back to not thinking about the long term effects of my lackluster dating habits.  This is just something that was rattling around in my head.  Probably because such a high percentage of my friends are paired off with someone, jealousy is a poor trait, but I am self aware enough to know that I am jealous of many others.

Top 10 Words I Can't Spell

            This might not come as a shock but when I was growing up I was awful at spelling.  I have some form of dyslexia or thought disorder that makes me leave off letters when I write quickly or for too long, sometimes skipping over things.  So that instead of 'The' I will write 'Th', or instead of writing 'more' I will write 'mor'.  When it comes to writing larger words I could not grasp the 'i' before 'e' concept, and relied more on sounding things out (I am a very audio focused learner, it is why I talk to myself so much, I am hearing how something sounds so that I can know I am saying it correctly).

I am a Model of Self Control.

             However before I came to the modern times of spell-check and not-giving-a-shit I came up with another solution to my problems.  Whenever I would come to a word that I couldn't spell, I would just wrack my mind for a much more difficult word to use in its place.  That way, I thought, my teacher would be so impressed that I was trying to use a harder word, that she wouldn't mind that it had a misplaced 'e' or something.

            I believe that is why I also have such odd diction, I often mispronounce words, or over pronounce them, or pronounce them five or six different ways when I first read them to try and put them together in my head so I can write them down later.  So I have some people thinking I'm crazy, others who think I am from Britain because of how I pronounce random things. 

            This practice of turning 'varios' (various') to 'miscelanious' ('miscellaneous') is what I blame my current vocabulary and stilted speech on.  However I cannot spell most of what I say, which leaves me even more dependent on spell-check and not-giving-a-shit, when I have to write things out.  To that end the 10 words I use with high frequency that I can't trust myself to spell without a pause.

11) Finagle- verb; to obtain something by dishonest means. (Phinagle)

10) Flabbergasting- adjective; surprising or astonishing. (Flabergasting)

9) Philistine- adjective; materialistic and disdainful of intellectual and artistic virtues. (Filistine)

8) Troglodyte- noun; a primitive or cave dweller. (Troglodite)

7) Auxiliary- adjective; back up. (Axilary)

6) Tertiary- adjective; not of the top priority, below secondary. (Tersiary)

5) Extraneous- adjective; irrelevant. (Extrainious)

4) Delude- verb; deceive. (Dalude)

3) Deduce- verb; figure out. (Daduce)

2) Ascertain- verb; to find out with certainty. (Acertain)

1) Miscellaneous- adjective; various and irregular. (Miscelanious, my spelling has not improved since the second grade on this one)