Idol Worship

In the event of worshipping an idol, we begin to lose a sense of skepticism, hanging on nearly every word of whomever is the subject of our interest. In truth, everyone has had at least one or more people they have been influenced by and possibly look up to, often seeking this person or people, for guidance on any given number of topics, which can be ideal when help is needed. However, a large number of people tend to forget that their idol is still only a human who has faults.

The main cause of idol worship comes from an abnormal level of admiration. This particular form of admiration usually begins in childhood when a kid finds an adult or teen mentor (and even a fictional character or possibly an athlete) who inspires them to push themselves above and beyond their limits, leaving a long lasting impression. Because of these kind of interactions, people who fall into this category generally have an issue accepting when their hero has made some bad decisions in life, wanting to believe the idol is perfect.

Reasons people view idols as perfect-

Individuals who refuse to see their idol in a negative light often present a low level of self esteem and lack confidence in themselves once they come to the realization the person who inspired them may not have been as great as once thought, leading them to have self doubt and become depressed. People who share this view also appear to be overly obsessive in terms of their fandom as well as some of their favorite activities. Others who suffer from this condition may become angry, feeling hurt and betrayed, resulting in holding slightly nihilistic views or having anti-social behavior.

In the end we all need someone in this world to guide us in the right direction, help us make a difference and reach our goals. As a whole, humans are prone to making mistakes, many of which can be corrected and is essential for ones growth from childhood to adulthood, however this does not mean we should view our idols or mentors as a higher power; they are far from being perfect.

In the event of worshipping an idol, we begin to lose a sense of skepticism, hanging on nearly every word of whomever is the subject of our interest. In truth, everyone has had at least one or more people they have been influenced by and possibly look up to, often seeking this person or people, for guidance on any given number of topics, which can be ideal when help is needed. However, a large number of people tend to forget that their idol is still only a human who has faults.

Coming soon...

Change of plans

Due to unforeseen issues, I have decided to hold off on a few articles I planning to finish this year, instead I will be working on a few older articles for Theoretical Inquiry that need my attention. The next theory I'll be focusing on has to do with Pocahontas and whether or not Disney's portrayal of her life was a tasteless film romanticizing events that never took place; so keep an eye out for it. For any past theories, check out the box on your right titled: Theoretical Inquiry.


-Kwan

Random: If Humans Were To Go Extinct Would We Be Worth Remembering?

Art by Jeremy Chong.

Earth is filled with a vast number of cultures, traditions, and customs derived from the minds as well as actions of one of it's most interesting inhabitants: humans. It is often subject to debate whether another species would consider us to be inferior, destructive, and dangerous, or intelligent, fascinating, and compassionate. The major problem found once this particular question of how an alien species would view our species, lies deep within our own limited view of alien thought processes along with personality traits. When asked what they think could happen if Earth was visited by extraterrestrials, humans often claimed to view aliens in one of two ways:

1. World dominating conquerors- in this view, aliens are regarded as tyrants who would wage war with humans, enslaving all who do not perish, eventually claiming the planet as their own.

2. Peaceful helpers- this view centers around the idea of E.T.'s visiting, offering technology far beyond what we have ever seen.

With views of alien species mindset as well as their motives, both merely assume they are adherent to the very same form of thinking we often used in our efforts to discover new countries, states, etc. Each view also asserts aliens are prone to similar emotions with their own collection of biases. Neither view has been able to answer the question in a satisfactory manner. Perhaps the issue isn't the differing views, but maybe the solution can be found in how we have been perceiving them as completely separate possibilities when in reality, it's more than possible for the answer to be a combination of both. If we are to assume another intelligent species may be similar to us, we have to consider some aliens could potentially be dangerous to us while others may be harmless.
Given the massive size of our universe, it's fairly reasonable for one to come to a conclusion; aliens probably will have multiple sub-species in relation to them (in one way or another), but will differ in a multitude of ways with distinct physiology, reflecting on their native planet, leading to an infinite number of possibilities.
Much of our existence in the universe has significantly altered the environment we inhabit for better or worse with a number advancements in science and technology, but as of right now our significance in the universe itself can only be defined by how we relate to our fellow humans and what we choose to believe of it, as well as how much higher we choose to believe our importance is in comparison to other species. Beyond that, our importance as a race of humans in this universe is much smaller than we want to imagine. If humans had become extinct some years before any kind of contact could be established and aliens discovered our history I think there would be a certain percentage (not sure how much) of them that might be intrigued by it and find us fascinating while another percentage wouldn't. Much of it depends on exactly what they're after or where their own interests of other life forms lie. As to whether or not we'll be worth remembering, in a sense I would say yes for two reasons: 1. many of our failures and cognitive dissonance can be used as an example to expose problems they may have in their society if any.
2. The more positive traits of the human race as well as their accomplishments might be of interest purely to have a record of things that happened in the universe along with the negative portions for the sake of  having a source to reference.  

Random: Is The Vampire Diaries superior to the Twilight Franchise?

Since the very beginning of it's series, The Vampire Diaries has shared a few notable comparisons with the movie series Twilight, not only for it's use of vampires, werewolves, etc. but it's tendency to focus on a love triangle as a core element of the plot in their first three seasons.
 Despite this reliance on the love triangle aspect, V.D. has proven to be more versatile in it's method of storytelling by employing a variety of other known mythical creatures such as doppelgängers, witches, werewolves, hybrids, ghosts, travelers, and more. In addition to their vast amount of mythical species, there are three other components that place the vampire diaries above twilight:

1. Acting:  In the first film of Twilight's franchise the acting is stale, lifeless and dull, seemingly lacking any form of emotional depth, making you feel as though the characters are pretty much bland with little to no development. However, the vampire diaries have had  some relatively decent acting since their first season, with nearly all of it's main cast receiving a great deal of character development as the series progressed. Of course in this case, diaries, has a clear advantage over twilight since it is a TV series versus a movie series. It's worth mentioning the reality of V.D.'s main cast only needing two and a half seasons to achieve character development versus Twilight's characters never receiving any over the course of five movies.

2.  Vampire lore: In it's defense, Twilight has created a unique version of vampirism, daring to go for something different, but their version of vampires lack the gothic feel as well as dark tones of which all forms of bloodsuckers have been known for, making them appear to be watered down light weights. Removing this aspect takes away one of the central points of their creation, leaving them to be far less intimidating. In contrast to this, Vampire Diaries, has been more faithful to the gothic atmosphere of vampire lore while being able to add their own unique spin to it. V.D. also presents itself with a more realistic approach in execution.

3. Characters and story: As previously stated, Vampire Diaries' most interesting aspect is the versatility it possesses in it's story structure, using a good amount of realism, blending old myths and legends with modern day themes, as well as jumping back and forth between character's past and present through the use of flashbacks. This method of story telling gives us a more interesting visual representation of events, making it a modern tale with trace elements of a period piece. In regards to the overall story of Twilight, much of it is very similar to it's TV series counterpart, but the weakest parts of the franchise are some of the same things that make V.D. a good show. Twilight's stories lack a great deal of versatility in the writing department, under utilizing any of the potentially great elements it may have. In a sense some of the aspects attributed to their vampires are pretty creative and imaginative, but it fails to make up for it's one dimensional storytelling. Given the fact Twilight has a considerably lighter tone than V.D., it doesn't hold the same level of maturity or realism that diaries has continued to display.

Characters in Twilight, particularly the main ones of the series, feel more like archetypes of a character instead of actual people; one exception to this might be Bella, who has come off as a naïve, desperate girl who makes ridiculously bad choices when it comes to a man. For example; even though Elena, Bella's TV series counterpart, plays the same type of roll in her respective series, she has shown noticeable differences in her resolve. Elena is more or less; smarter, stronger, and far more mentally stable having gone through much more losing parents at a young age unlike her movie counterpart. However they both share a few similar flaws and have made some seriously dumb choices. What makes Elena superior is her ability to realize her mistakes as well as admit to them in order to become a stronger woman.


In truth, both series do their best telling an almost identical tale about a woman's love for a vampire having significant differences made apparent in execution, but in the end what it really comes down to is which of the two is able to deliver a more believable performance, possesses better writing, and has more interesting, fully developed characters to entertain beyond a simple love triangle plot. In every single area presented, Vampire Diaries has proven itself to be the better of both series.


                    

                              This has been another addition of Random, thanks for reading.

Update

Hi everyone, I'm officially back from an unexpected hiatus with a brand new laptop to resume making some articles. I have a lot planned for everyone to check out soon, so expect a new article for Theoretical Inquiry and Random in the coming weeks.

-Kwan

Random: Are Sequels & Reboots worth it?

Sequels: Often regarded as a follow-up or continuation of another movie, sequels have received mixed views from audiences who were both excited as well as disappointed by how well the film was produced. There has been a plethora of viewers claiming originals are always better than the sequel, even though more often than not, this statement has been proven false. Great examples of this are; Dark Knight and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Many sequels are able to surpass the first film in the franchise due to having a pre-existing figure and story which provides them with opportunity to create a new chapter in the series. In the process, much of a character's history or origins can be expanded upon which can add more depth to the narrative as well as the film series in general. Sequels also work as a catalyst for providing characters with growth in a similar fashion to people maturing from past events. However, sequels are far from being perfect. Many of them have continuity issues, often contradicting source material introduced by previous films and some have absolutely no link to the original movie at all except for the name being used in it's title. Another problem with sequels come whenever a franchise expands beyond the second movie. The main reasons as to why they fail after the second film usually depends on whether or not the following films are nothing more than a half baked attempt to re-create their original one. Once a franchise begins working from that angle, much of it's series turns out to be repetitive.


As we move forward, current times have shown us just how well a sequel can be if enough care is given to a story's narrative, development of characters, along with great dialogue. When it comes to films continuing where their first left off, there will always be a bunch that misses their intended mark, but for each miss, we can be sure to find one winner able to hit a home run right around the corner.



Reboots: Many of the reasons people love reboots generally comes from the nostalgia they feel from the original, wanting to re-live that exhilarating experience, but in a new way. It is for this same reason alone, people also hate them. Reboots are amazing for breathing life into a dying or already dead franchise, re-imagining a story, filling it with a brand new twist. Because of this, a large portion of the original films fanbase becomes a hard bunch to please since their nostalgia goggles are always present, scanning for any changes that seem too much of a drastic departure from what it's message was. At the heart of the matter, reboots are necessary for reviving any franchise for another generation to experience their own piece of cinematic gold, so it's not just about pleasing the generation who is familiar with it's source material. Several have failed to capture the original's essence simply because what was achieved in the past had become known as the first of it's kind. It held an advantage since it was original and different from what audiences were expecting; leading to it becoming a host for their own nostalgic fantasy, but does that make them worthy of attention?


Despite the shortcomings of what any Reboot attempts to regain and bombs in the process, when the script is able to recapture what the original content had aimed to create with actors who understand their character well enough, a director who respects source material and finds an incredible way to enhance or put an intriguing spin on it, it becomes something even greater than the original, improving anything the first of the franchise may not have been able to present because of limitations found in the era it was created. So, in a sense reboots are worth seeing, but you must be willing to look beyond nostalgia to embrace it's potential of creating a home in your hearts and fondest memories. Of course there will always be many installments that will not live up to it's hype, but even if only a handful will deliver what has been claimed; a few gems will always be better than none at all.