Category: Hollywood Style

The Saturation Complex of Geek Culture

I had mentioned in a post earlier that there is a prevailing idea that misconstrues how geek culture came to be. I can’t really say where this came about, although I strongly suspect that films and TV shows of the 1970s and 1980s paired with gendered conceptions surrounding geek culture are to blame. Whatever the cause, it has fueled this conception, leading to a sort of alienation complex as the geek community shifts and changes.

As a result, there is this saturated version of history, which relies on the idea that women and minorities have not been a part of geek culture until very recently (as in, within the last decade). As a result, there has developed a constant push against women and minorities joining in on geek culture, with particular “tests” placed against women in order to test if they’re “qualified” to partake in the geek community. These blockades grow increasingly pointless as geek culture continues to gain popularity, and yet for some reason persists. Perhaps I can explain why.

You see, it all starts at the source of geek culture: Science Fiction (Sci-Fi). In the saturated version of geek history, the first Sci-Fi author was Jules Vernes, best known for his book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. As a result, this causes men who believe this start to think that women and other minorities have no real right to enter and write about Sci-Fi.

However, if you make one quick Google search, you’ll find that this version is incorrect. While Jules Verne was one of the earlier Sci-Fi writers, the real first Sci-Fi author was Mary Shelley, who published Frankenstein in 1818, a whopping fifty years before Jules Verne. This makes the Sci-Fi genre not a “boys only” club, but a club founded by women.

Shelley wasn’t the last female Sci-Fi author, either. Well-known ones include Octavia E. Butler, Margaret Atwood, Ursula K. Le Guin, and Suzanne Collins. Sci-Fi has never been a “boys only” club, although it is often pushed to appear that way.

Comics, by contrast, didn’t really diversify until recently. In its early days, the comic industry was very much “boys only”, mostly outright refusing to hire women and other minorities. This isn’t unusual, however; the entertainment industry as a whole was that way.  That isn’t to say that women and minorities weren’t in those realms, but it was very difficult to break in, particularly from the 1920’s-1970’s. This realm makes it a whole lot easier to promote the saturated history. Since women and other minorities were barred, it was easy to say that they didn’t belong and exist in the space. Despite the fact that the majority of comic readers in the present era greatly outweighs the “traditional” readership (white men), there is still this stigma that pushes women and minorities away.

The same goes for the video game industry. Women and minorities were mostly barred in the early days (as they were discouraged and stigmatized from getting STEM degrees in college), meaning that they couldn’t break in until more recently. This has created a frictional environment that extends beyond game development and into game playing, leading to online harassment and common claims of not being a “real gamer” to anyone that doesn’t fit the geek stereotype. To be honest, the “fake gamer” argument is ridiculous: if you play games, you’re a gamer. You don’t have to be best of the best, but if you play video games as a hobby, then you qualify.

The reason there is such a push back against diversity entering geek culture mostly stems from a victim complex among the “traditional” geeks. Despite the fact that geek culture has been gaining continuous popularity over the last two-three decades (exploding after the premiers of Walking Dead and Game of Thrones), the news for some reason has not hit the geek community. Or, rather, it has not processed.

The “traditional” geeks seem to be in denial about just how popular geek culture is, moaning and groaning how they are such victims and such a minority, while at the same time fighting against anyone that doesn’t fit their own characteristics and pushing them away. They like to act like they’re still the kids that get severely bullied, although just about any kid with a computer nowadays has access to video games and anime. It’s a bizarre complex that sticks out like a sore thumb.

Comic Books Have Always Been Political

With the releases of Wonder Woman and Black Panther, I couldn’t help but notice quite a few people mentioning that they didn’t like the fact that these movies were “adding” politics to comics. This always bothered me, because anyone who knows anything about comic books (unless they choose to ignore this) knows about how politics have always been a part of comic books. I’ll explain why.

You see, most comics had their main start as anti-Nazi propaganda in the late 1930’s and especially during World War Two. Characters such as Superman and Wonder Woman from DC, and Captain America from Marvel represented the “heroes” of democracy, clad in Star Spangled Banner attire as they kicked the asses of the bad guys, who represented ultimate evil. What even pushes the point further is that the general majority of comic writers during the time period were Jewish, which Nazis despised. The characters and comics were written in support of the US’s involvement on the Western Front, fighting the bad guy and saving the day.

The end of the war was not the end of politics in comics, either. You see, comic books are an art medium, and their one of the most obviously political mediums, as well. However, because of their fictional nature, the political side is often ignored. Which seems odd to me, especially when considering the fact that there will be entire characters created in response to certain affairs on either the national or global sphere. Black Panther came about as a result of the Civil Rights’ Movement. Miss Marvel came about as a combatant to the rise of Islamophobia. X-Men’s whole premise is about discrimination against minorities.

Even comic creators will argue that they, and their works have always been political. They argue that they put their messages in superhero comics, with important messages being portrayed in an obvious-yet-not-quite-obvious way. It could be in an important conversation, or self-reflection, or a grave mistake. In any of these forms, there is a message, more often than not reflective a political or social message.

The fact that people ignore the political side to comics shows not only how well the messages are hidden, but also the success of the popularly sanitized version of nerd culture. What is the sanitized form of nerd culture? Well, it’s a version of anything to do with “nerdy culture” (i.e: Comic books, Sci-fi, fandoms) that erases the political and diverse history of nerd culture so that it only looks like white men were involved in nerd culture until recently. There are many drastic effects of this sanitized view, but I’ll get into that another time. The point is, the sanitized view of nerd culture is the most commonplace, and the most inaccurate form.

All-in-all, to say that comic books have never been political is drastically incorrect. Comics have always been political, and will always be political. To say otherwise is misguided.

How Fandoms Go from Fab to Drab

Fandoms, which are a subculture centered around supporting or following a certain piece of media, are everywhere in Geek culture. Just about every TV show, movie, book series, and more has a fandom, some small, some tremendously big, and many in-between. If something extremely popular is released, usually its fandom explodes for a few months, or even a few years, before mysteriously collapsing and disappearing. If you’ve ever seen this occur, then you have just witnessed a fandom going from fab to drab.

How does this occur? Fandoms have normal lifespans, with the very small ones usually dying out fairly quickly after the piece is released (known as “going dead” in fandom terminology). Medium and large ones that continue in their drab phase can live a long time-I’m talking about decades of survival (Star Wars, Star Trek, Back to the Future). This is all a part of a natural cycle.

However, Fandoms that go from fab to drab have a relatively short and volatile lifespan, which can lead to fall-backs and resurgences, all before their eventual collapse. This usually comes as a result of several factors.

The first is the development is what’s known as toxicity. Every fandom has a few bad eggs. But when there’s enough of them, all attacking people and bullying people over differing ships and opinions, then the fandom gets labelled as “toxic”, both by people outside of the fandom and the few remaining clear-headed people still in the fandom. Fandom is supposed to be about a community coming together, not tearing each other apart. This is an issue that can occur in just about any large fandom, as major groups (particularly shaped around “ships”, or couples that people root for) belittle minor groups, essentially bullying them out of the fandom.

The toxicity does not stop at people in the fandom, either. I remember the days of Superwholock (The combination fandom of Supernatural, Dr. Who, and Sherlock) when the fandom would attack any outsider that questioned them or criticized them, building up their own reputation as toxic. The same thing happened to the Undertale fandom, leading to its demise within only a year of the game being released.

Which leads me to my next point: Hatred towards the fandom. When a fandom is toxic, it not only builds up a bad reputation, but cuts its own supply off of newcomers. When people are discouraged or turned off from joining the fandom, even the largest one will eventually fall. Every fandom needs newcomers to survive; too few or none at all will kill just about any one of them (Superwholock was an interestingly unique case, but in order to explain it in full detail I would need to talk about it separately).

When fandoms are faced with these two issues, they become increasingly volatile, lashing out against others and fully consuming themselves in their toxicity, which only furthers the problem. They solidify their own fate, even if they don’t know it.

Fandoms that once start fab, welcoming all others and becoming a large fandom that bonds over a certain media, can either quickly or slowly turn drab, turning against itself and ruining itself as others watch on. It’s an interesting and prevalent cycle that normally only happens to the biggest and trendiest fandom of the time, providing a serious lesson to others about growing too big too quickly.

The Differences Between LA Theme Parks

There is an industry in Los Angeles that goes mostly unacknowledged, but still draws millions of tourists every year. That industry is theme parks.

Now, you might be wondering how that goes unacknowledged. LA is the home of Disneyland, Universal Studios, and Six Flags Magic Mountain, all of which are major amusement parks. Millions of people come from all over the country, and even the world just to visit these places. They will never be forgotten.

What I mean by the fact that they go unacknowledged is the fact that no one ever tells you the difference between each park. And I don’t mean the obvious, each being owned by different companies and centering around their own respective shows and films. I mean their actual core, what you can expect to find attending these parks. For me, having grown up in LA, the difference are obvious. For someone who’s either only visited one or even none of the locations, you might not know the difference.

Well, to put it shortly, the difference are this: Magic Mountain is for rides, Universal is for attractions, and Disneyland is for something in-between. Let me break it down a little more.

Magic Mountain is part of a larger chain or theme parks, with this location in particular being located in Valencia, on the northern end of Los Angeles County. The theme of this park is DC universe, and you will find plenty of rides and areas following that theme (Batman, Riddler’s Revenge, Superman, etc.). The park wastes no time in displaying what it is; a theme park for roller coasters. It doesn’t have really any attractions, more focused on providing an adrenaline rush with various and innovative new rides. They do have a kid section with Loony Toons, but I wouldn’t say it’s a place to bring your children.

Disneyland, on the other hand, has some more leeway. Located in Anaheim, in the heart of Orange County, it’s a place with both attractions and rides, putting more into the combination experience that allows children both young and old. Although, I don’t really see the point of bringing a child under three or four to Disneyland: first, they can’t really go on any rides, and second, they won’t remember anything about the park. Disneyland focuses on different films that it owns the rights to, and builds rides and areas centering around them (Star Wars land, opening 2019, is expected to be one of the largest world expansions to the park). Disneyland wants to provide a more general and rounded experience, which explains why it has both rides and attractions.

Universal, located in Studio City, focuses almost purely on attractions. That isn’t to say it doesn’t have some rides, like Ride of the Hypogriff, Revenge of the Mummy, and Jurassic Park (now being renovated to Jurassic World), the vast majority of its “rides” are actually attractions, using CGI and moving cars to create almost VR experiences. It once again focuses on films that it has the rights to use, even if it doesn’t own the films itself (Harry Potter World and the upcoming Nintendo Land are big ones). This park isn’t very kid-friendly, meant more for teenagers and adults. There are few attractions meant for young kids, especially considering how dark some of the attractions can get. Universal’s take on rides is unique to me, as most other parks don’t invest so much into perfecting the rides in the same way.

The Shows of my Childhood

A few days ago, I sat down and watched Will you be my Neighbor? with some family members. I was hit with a massive wave of nostalgia while doing so, old memories that I had nearly forgotten suddenly coming back up. Which got me thinking about other shows I’ve watched as a kid. I thought I might just say a few as a break from my two week hiatus.

1. Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood

The show premiered in 1968, geared towards treating children like intelligent beings and helping them deal with various issues, from large and political to small and social. It’s hosted by Fred Rogers, who not only shows up in person, but also controls all the puppets, dealing with other cast members. The show ran for over three decades, with the final episode occurring in 2001. I remember watching both the newer episodes and the older ones, although I was very young when I actively watched them. My memory is fading of the show, although I do remember certain parts of different episodes.

2. Teletubbies

While my sister watched Barney, I watched Teletubbies. The show centers around these characters known as “teletubbies”, who have antennas on their heads and TVs on their stomachs, which display real children. The four characters, Tinky Winky, Dipsy, La-La, and Po, each run around and play in an idyllic world, playing all day until a siren raises and calls for them to go to bed. The first episode aired in 1997, and took a break before returning to end in 2016. The show was one of those almost mindless shows, not violent or blatantly bad for children but not really having any substance, either. I liked it, however.

3. Rugrats

This show, premiering in 1991, centers around a baby’s imagination and life from a baby’s point of view. The Rugrats gang go on different adventures at the behest of the older Angelica, although their adventures mostly take place in and around their houses, without them going anywhere. It’s last episode occurred in 2004. It was unique for it’s time, playing with young children’s imagination and entertaining children through their own means. Every episode was something new. I remember watching it almost religiously, loving each and every episode.

4. Spongebob

Of course, how could I forget the biggest hallmark of kid’s television of the early 2000’s? The first episode premiered in 1999, and still continues to this day, centering around the life of Spongbob in the underwater town of Bikini Bottom. In it’s hayday, it was funny and unique, displaying characters who are both stereotypes but are also three dimensional. Even Mr. Krabs, who’s largest character aspect is greed, has character development and other aspects. I can’t speak for the show now, however, as I haven’t watched any episodes since 2008. What I’ve heard is not good news.

How Aggretsuko and Gudetama Took the World

Hello Kitty has long been the star of the Japanese company Sanrio, since stepping onto the scene in 1964. Since then, numerous characters have been released through the decades, with characters such as Cinnamroll, Bad Badtz-Maru, and Chococat gaining some popularity and recognition.

However, there are two Sanrio characters, both of which are two of the company’s newest characters,  have taken not only social media, but also pop culture, by storm. The first of these two is Gudetama, who’s name is derived from “gude” (the Japanese onomatopoeia for having no energy), and “tama” (taken from the Japanese word for egg, tamago), is exactly what his name prescribes: a lazy egg. Released in Japan in 2013 and internationally 2014, the egg gained almost immediate popularity among Millennials and Generation Z kids for his adorable appearance and lazy attitude. His character release was accompanied by a series of online shorts displaying his daily “adventures”, and little emotes that display his range of laziness.

Gudetama maintains popularity as a result of his cuteness, but also his lazy attitude. Young people relate to his lazy attitude, because they want to be like him, lazy and having no problems to deal with (work, school, taxes, etc.). They want to be able to just do nothing. They also like his “kawaii” nature, his simplistic design making him absolutely adorable.

The character also has a very recognizable aesthetic, adding to his popularity: orange and yellow. Two colors that might otherwise be seen as garish and non-kawaii colors are made a central part of Gudetama’s aesthetic, which works incredibly well. It makes his aesthetic unique. All his merchandise is sold in this aesthetic, with shirts, jewelry, stationery, and other items being sold in the pastel yellow and yoke orange colors. Even the plushies of him tend to center around those colors, adding all the more to his absolute essence.

The second character, Aggressive Retsuko, a.k.a Aggretsuko, is a red panda who is an assistant associate at a Japanese company. Her work is oppressive, and she vents her frustration by getting angry, drinking, and singing death metal at a Karaoke bar. She was initially released in Japan in 2016, and then abroad in 2018, paired alongside the anime series about her life. She takes a much more adult perspective than Gudetama, and gained instant popularity because of the fact that she has to deal with her terrible boss (who is an actual pig) and fake coworkers. Many people entering the corporate work force have to deal with these same issues, and only wish they could vent all their frustration in the same way.

Although I haven’t seen much of her merchandise, I know it sells. She’s too popular for it not to sell. She holds a place at anime conventions, and has become a staple for the fact that she’s so relatable. It does help that she’s also very cute.

Both of these characters deal with issues that Millenials and older Gen-Z kids can relate to, although they represent opposite perspectives. Gudetama represents the joy of being able to be endlessly lazy, with no real troubles to deal with, while Aggretsuko deals with releasing stress when faced with the worst of work conditions. It’s interesting to see how they’ve taken off in popularity, and continue to remain popular.

How Movies and Memes have made me Connect Art and Music

As I was walking through the National Museum of Art in Washington DC, I couldn’t help by hear constant genres of old music (Classical and Medieval), as I walked through the impressively European artwork. While hearing the music for so long (I spent hours in there), I was reminded of the time of when I was in other museums (in Rome, LA, San Francisco), and each time I heard music that I had subconsciously connected the artwork to.

There are only two reasons why this has occurred. The answer: movies and memes. Why these two? Well, I could argue that shows have also helped, but they gained their inspiration from movies and documentaries. Movies and documentaries often connect the old European art to classical music, Native and Polynesian art with traditional flute music, and so on and so forth. Documentaries are really to blame for this, particularly art and culture documentaries, pairing famous artworks alongside music that just gets stuck in your head.

However, it’s not just documentaries, as I mentioned earlier. Movies, too, sometimes only vaguely related to the artwork, can have music that can pop into my head, despite not even being in the same country (in some Roman churches, the soundtrack to Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame kept playing in my head). For some reason, my mind connects one to the other, and there’s no way to get out of it. And I’m certainly not the only one.

But where do memes come in? Well memes, the epitome of how people process pop culture and politics in the name of humor. These can take shape in the form of pictures, videos, and just about any other digital medium that you can work with. While sometimes art is used to make clever historical memes (there was a period of Washington painting memes that flooded my dash), the gifs and videos are what really get me.

Oftentimes the gifs are attached to some dumb song or another, and the videos are edited to have music in them. So rather than classy music binding itself to art in my mind, its dumb music that makes me smile or crack up. It’s dumb, but my mind seems keen on connecting my memories to the present, something I’m certain all of our brains do. Brains like to do stuff like that, especially when we get a first glance at famous works via pop culture. Sometimes it’s kind of nice, and other times it’s not.

Beauty and the Beast, and the Case of Disney Getting it all Wrong

I have certainly missed the craze of analysis over the Disney live action films. That all happened after the release of the live action Beauty and the Beast, with some people ranting and raving about how much they loved it, and others harshly criticizing the film for its lack of originality. I am far from the first to talk about this film, and I will not be the last. However, I’ve noticed that most criticisms of the film often ignore certain aspects that I felt were especially irking, and fail to connect what happened in this film to the overall live action trend. So I thought I would put in my own two cents, and see where this takes us.

Now, the whole Disney live action trends started with the success of Maleficent in 2014 and Cinderella in 2015, both of which provide different perspectives of the stories told. Maleficent  provides an alternative look at the tales of the original 1959 classic Sleeping Beauty, although it was a rather half-baked attempt. I thought that Disney might be getting their footing with the release of Cinderella and Jungle Book, which flesh out relationships and motives and situations just a bit more, without only repeating the story.

I was proven greatly wrong, however, with the release of Beauty and the Beast in 2017.

Not only was the film a straight copy-paste of the original story with almost no additions, but the changes they did make just degraded an already good story. This film, like the other three before it, attempted to correct past criticisms of the original work, despite the fact that the film they are trying to correct something that is negligible. Cinderella provided insight on what happened to her father, which the original film failed to do. It explained why Cinderella dealt with the abuse, something the original film didn’t do. This film tries to elaborate on how the magic works in the castle, something that the original film didn’t need to do.

There it is, folks. This film tries to provide logic to a world of magic, something that didn’t really need to be elaborated on. Like the magic dishes, and some other things that move in the house. Not everything that moves needs to have a soul attached to it, which in turn explains the trashed furniture in the West Wing. The Beast didn’t just straight murder his servants. You can assume that a castle would have furniture in it before everyone else got turned into furniture.

Which leads me to my next problem with the film- the fact that the furniture explain the West Wing to Belle completely ruins a major plot point in the film. They not only convince the Beast to give her a better room, rather than let him make the decision for himself, but also give her a tour of the castle, mentioning the West Wing and thereby ruining the impact of Belle actually going to the West Wing. The betrayal aspect of her going to the West Wing despite his wishes is lost.

Which leads me to my next point: they completely wash out the relationship between Belle and the Beast. They ruin the complex relationship between the characters, making Beast an asshole who needs a life coach, and Belle the life coach, rather than having them learn off of each other. Belle was kind and patient, but could also call out the Beast’s bad attitude in the original film. In this one, they just fight, and he never learns to do better. Their relationship becomes basic and Hollywood-style, and the ending doesn’t feel like it was deserved.

Now, in a turn away from the more interaction aspect, I am going to turn more to the other issues I have with the film. This one can be narrowed down into bullet points.

Belle’s voice:

Why, why, why didn’t they just have an actual singer dub Emma Watson’s voice? Hollywood has dubbed hundred’s of actor’s singing before, and the attempt the avoid this in this film ground my ears out. They auto-tuned Emma Watson’s singing to the point where it sounded like a robot made it, heavily contrasting from the fact that literally no one else has a robotic voice. Literally no one else.

What made it worse was the classic reprise of the song “Belle”, where Belle has a powerful soliloquy (done flawlessly by the original voice actor Paige O’Hara). In the live action version, we just get a shotty, robotic voice that just washes out with the music. Every time she opened her mouth the sing, I would be ripped out of the moment.

Belle’s Dress:

I know they tried to do what they did in Cinderella with giving the dress a much needed update, but it really wasn’t necessary. Unlike Cinderella’s kind of odd-looking dress in the original, there was nothing wrong with Belle’s dress. In fact, her’s was a favorite among many, and was a popular costume for young children. The fact that they tried to change it to something as blase as they had in the live action film got some much deserved out-roar. How do you replace such an iconic dress with something that looked like three pieces of yellow tissue paper stuck together? It just doesn’t make any sense.

Gaston:

Why try to make him unlikeable? The whole point of his original character was that he was attractive, popular, and charismatic, and was easily able to influence the ignorant townsmen into joining him for the “final battle” at the castle.

In this case, he’s a character that is considered untrustworthy by the town, leading to Le Fou paying people to sing and up Gaston’s ego. Such a move was totally pointless. You should have just kept him the same. It would have saved a lot of time on the pointlessness of trying to make him a complex character. Focus on fleshing the two main characters out, not the villain, who didn’t need to be fleshed out.

The Plot Overall:

Last but not least, I have a problem with the plot overall. Let’s face it- it’s just a pure retelling of the original story, with some pointless additions slapped on to take up more time. There was nothing of real value added, degrading the plot of the story. What was changed really had no purpose, unlike the films before it (except Maleficent, but that’s for another time). I came into that film expecting something and left it feeling like the original story was just wronged. Which doesn’t make sense, as the live action version and the original were both made by the same company.

But, that’s the problem with the desire to make money and deal with criticism. It just didn’t work here. It turned what was once an Oscar-nominated film into a straight mess. It was just unnecessary.

The Effects of Adults Playing Teenagers

Just about every time a teenager is cast for a show or movie, the role of whatever teenager there is is given to an adult. While it can make things easier (not having to worry about an actual teenagers schoolwork or schedule), this can have drastic affects on actual teenage audiences, who only see teenagers portrayed a certain way. In order to analyze this, I will break this essay down into three parts: how teenagers are casted, how actual teenagers are, and the impact of the portrayals on teenagers. While the portrayal of teenagers has certainly altered in the last five years, it’s still important to understand their previous depictions in pop culture.

1. How Teenagers are Casted

As I mentioned above, teenagers are almost always portrayed by adults. Much more often now they are portrayed by young adults (18-early 20’s), but for a long period of time they were portrayed by adults in their mid-to-late 20’s (sometimes even early thirties). And these adults wouldn’t look all that much like teenagers, either. They looked like exactly what the actors were-full blown adults. Flawless skin, toned bodies, nice hair. They look like polished versions of teenagers. Even the actors now casted to the role of teenagers (who look much more like teenagers) still are polished, and very post-pubescent.

They also act in almost stereotypical ways, with a rebellious streak that is so insane that it’s practically unbelievable (at least, in terms of mine and my friends’ parents). I’m sure there are plenty of parents that don’t actually murder their children whenever they pull a stunt crazy enough to involved the police, but I’ve only seen them appear when I was already in college.

Don’t believe me? Let’s look at two cases: Teen Wolf and 13 Reasons Why. Teen Wolf began airing in 2011, and 13 Reasons Why first aired in 2017. In the former show, the cast are supposed to be freshmen in high school, although the cast definitely look like they should be in college at least. The cast began the show in their early adulthood, however, were so finessed that they pass at all for young teenagers. The main group in the show consists of mostly hot young men with well-toned six-packs, which I had seen in many clips (I’ve never watched the show, leading to my surprise when I found out they were only supposed to be fourteen), and they are incredibly well-dressed.

As for the latter show, the actors look much more like teenagers. They dress more like modern teenagers, they’re supposed to be around 16 or 17, making them much more believable looking. These actors are only in their early twenties, and it shows. The athletes have typical strong figures, but everyone looks normal, and not like supermodels. There is a stark contrast in the way the characters are presented from previous shows, but the fact still remains-they are post-pubescent. They still have perfect skin and hair, still show no signs of changing. Not that they have to, but their presentation is very finessed and flawless.

2. How Actual Teenagers Are

If you’ve ever met a teenager in real life, you’d know that media portrayals of them are grossly misunderstanding. Real teenagers still practically look like children, especially as puberty seems to hit later and later nowadays. They don’t really start looking like adults until senior year, and even then it’s difficult to say they actually look like adults.

Real teenagers have acne. They are awkward, and still adjusting to their own growing bodies. Their fashion sense is still developing (if they have one at all). They get weird haircuts, they wear glasses, and they never have a six-pack. Real teenagers look almost nothing like their polished counterpart portrayed by the media. They act cringy (I’ve had my share of moments), and act in ways that they’ll grow to regret (don’t we all?). They certainly don’t go driving out to the middle of the forest to go monster hunting with their friends at two in the morning.

Most teenagers don’t actively rebel against their parents. There are some, who take advantage of parents who don’t quite know how to discipline their children, but for the most part, most adhere to their parents’ rules. At least, most of the ones I knew, anyhow. No one was able to just do whatever they wanted.

3. The Impact of the Media

During my time, some people tried their best to look nice, but for the most part, people just wore whatever they really wanted. But we were still affected by the way we were portrayed in the media. A distorted view of how we imagine teenagers evolved, with a subconscious pressure to look just like our favorite characters. We begin to try and style ourselves to certain categories, almost stereotyping ourselves into different groups (the “cool” kids, the nerds, the athletes, and everyone in-between). Although it was subtle in my high school, it still existed in other, smaller schools.

More recently, however, I see more and more teenagers trying to look like adults. This is both due in part to media portrayals, and also to the rise of Instagram models and other social media pressures. Teenagers want to stop looking like teenagers, and instead want to skip to adulthood. This was a problem during my times in high school, but I notice that it’s becoming more apparent, especially with the rapid change in appearance that teenagers put on their social media. They try to hide their teenage identity in any way they can, promoting an “older” appearance, and turning away from things that made being a teenager fun. Kids are trying to grow up too quickly, and media portrayals of teenagers only encourage this goal.

The Controversial Author of a Beloved Series

The Harry Potter books and movies have been loved and cherished for around two decades. It was a series that was recognizable to millions of people, to the point so that some of the advertising for Deathly Hallows Part Two didn’t even name the title of the movie. It has also led to the opening of Harry Potter World in both Universal Studios locations (Orlando, Los Angeles), with hundreds of thousands flocking to partake in some of the magic. The Harry Potter series was classified as the hallmark of an entire generation.

While the fandom for Harry Potter seems to be thriving, I can’t help but wonder how much this is done out of pure nostalgia, especially as more negative light turns to the series’ author, J.K. Rowling. As time goes on, I notice that former die-hard fanatics are noticing more issues with the series, particularly with the actual lack of originality that the magic world in the series has. But contrasting from these fans-turned critics are the ones that are still die-hard, constantly taking every house quiz, referencing the series when they can, and even getting permanent tattoos of famous symbols. It’s an interesting mix that I increasingly notice is coming at odds with one another.

In order to analyze why I notice some people being pushed away, we’d have to first look at the history of negative light placed on the author. You see, this all started after the release of Halfblood Prince (the book, of course), in which J.K. Rowling announced that Dumbledore, the father figure to Harry Potter, was actually gay. This came at a celebration of diversity initially, although there were some that questioned the fact that Dumbledore never revealed anything about his sexuality (no reference, no actions, nothing) in either the books or the films. Over time, this move turned purely to criticism, calling the author out for making a cheap shot of queerbaiting, especially with the lack of interaction between Dumbledore and his supposed “lover” in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them 2.

J.K. Rowling only put more bad attention on herself by claiming diversity in the books after the fact, despite never referencing those characters in her series. This gained more negative attention and criticism, although a meme has arisen around her after-the-fact claims, with people claiming ridiculous things to mock her attempts.

Now, you may think “well, she wrote the books in the 1990’s and early 2000’s, she’s from England, so it would make sense that she’d only write about white people”. There’s a few issues with that logic. She had written the books with only white people, which, if you just left it at that, is fine. There’s nothing wrong with admitting that most of the characters are white, and all of them are straight. Most mainstream series and books from that period were like that (especially European books, although they do have a level of diversity that they seem to ignore). If she had just acknowledged that fact, there wouldn’t have been any controversy. But to try and say that you had diversity, while not putting in the effort to display that diversity, or re-editing the books to show real difference, is just weak. It reads as cowardice and band wagoning, which would turn people away.

Another issue, which came up earlier this year, is that J.K. Rowling has been following and liking the posts of TERFs. What is a TERF? A TERF, or Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, is someone that focuses on promoting the equality of “biological” females, claiming that trans-males are traitors and trans-females are women-haters. They claim to be feminist, but are really not, and they are rejected by most of the feminist community, leading them to call discrimination and brainwashing. Their tweets are very difficult not to tell, and J.K. Rowling liked and retweeted several from a known TERF, which were targeted against trans-females. This caused some outrage, but not nearly as much as it should have. In fact, it has almost been completely forgotten, quickly hidden with news of a new interactive Harry Potter game. But it left its mark on me.

Where do I sit on this issue? Well, I was never able to finish the original series, despite the fact that my sister had read all seven books 4 times. I saw the movies, but was never all that invested. But the controversy has made me quite put off from investing my time and money in any of J.K. Rowling’s works or films.

The Fun of “Geek” Makeup

Despite the fact that Geek culture has been in the mainstream for nearly a decade, it was only recently that I discovered Geek-inspired makeup. Maybe this is due to the fact that I didn’t like makeup all the much until around two years ago, but it was still strange that I had never heard of it. I’ve been to cons, I’ve involved myself in many fandoms, how did I not hear about it?

Well, this is excluding the main-stream geek culture collections. Of course I’ve seen Star Wars themed lines, and also Hunger Games collections from Cover Girl and L’Oreal. And of course I’ve seen the Disney-inspired makeup. But I had never seen stores purely devoted to producing Geek-inspired makeup.

I had only discovered the makeup by chance, stumbling upon Shiro Cosmetics as I was looking for cruelty-free makeup. Looking into their site, I found they had a series of collections based off of popular media and memes, having collections centered around Game of Thrones, Into the Unknown, and Avengers, particularly eye shadows. They have cute little drawings that they come with on top, and lots of funny designs. And the reviews seem to like them.

The discovery of this site led me to start looking around for other Geeky makeup, and I was able to find quite a bit of collections. I found Geek Chic, Espionage Cosmetics, Nerdastic, and Black Pheonix Alchemy Lab, all of which had many items based around pop culture. It was astonishing, especially with the fact that the most of the colors looked so pretty. And most of them were cruelty-free.

The makeup usually has fun names, with fun designs, although if you’re looking for eyeshadow, don’t expect to many pressed palettes. Most of them are loose powder, with a few pressed palettes, which can be a little off-putting for some.

Geek-inspired makeup really started blowing up around 2015, as bigger companies began pushing out lines for the new Star Wars (Force Awakens), inadvertently boosting smaller makeup companies that based their whole existence around Geek culture. While still being considered “underground” and definitely “artisan”, Geek makeup has found its place and audience, and will only continue to grow as more people discover them.

Legends of the Weeaboo

I’ve already spoken about Koreaboos before. The people who want to be Korean, marry a Korean, want to be just like a Kpop idol or Kdrama star. They reject their own culture in the name of adopting Korean culture (or rather, what they think Korean culture is like).

The weeaboo is almost like this. Actually, they are the forefather to this. The weeaboo, rather than being centered around Korean pop culture, is centered around Japan. The weeaboo rejects their own culture in order to adopt what they believe is Japanese culture, proclaiming it as superior to everything else. They base their idea of Japanese culture off of anime and manga, imagining it as some perfect society that is more advanced than any other culture, and that it has had no bad history or political issues.

The weeaboo began to form around the 1990’s, when the West had access to popular anime and manga. Young generations now had access to watching anime, influencing an entire generation, causing some to go a little overboard and become weeaboos.

Except, at the time, they weren’t called weeaboos. Until the mid-2000’s, weeaboos were called “wapanese”, meaning white Japanese (despite people of all races having the potential to be a weeaboo). The old name was mostly given on online forums, with sites such as Reddit and 4chan coining the terms.

However, in the mid-2000’s, some 4chan moderators decided that they were sick of the term. They banned the term wapanese, causing users to scour the internet for another name. This is how they found the term weeaboo. The term came originally from an obscure comic, which is in no way connected to the actual group of people. However, it was a word that also didn’t have a meaning of its own, and was thus made what it is today.

Weeaboos are still going strong, although they now have to compete with koreaboos, causing an ironic and hypocritical battle between the two groups. They are both disgusted with one another, but can’t seem to relate the traits of the other groups back to themselves. It’s kind of weird, but amusing to watch.

The Emo Phase: People Still go Through One?

I grew up during the height of the Emo genre. Bands like My Chemical Romance, Evanescence, and the early days of Panic! At the Disco and Fall Out Boy were all hot on the scene, providing plenty of fuel to the Emo genre. Almost everyone had an emo phase; I even had a mild one. Dressing in all black, getting piercings all over and dying your hair funky colors was totally in. It was cool when I was a preteen.

But with the dawn of the 2010’s came the fall of the Emo genre. Rock, especially the hardcore rock, had fallen out of fashion in mainstream music, along with the Emo fashion. The era of the hipster was coming in.

I had thought the era of having an Emo Phase was long gone. But then my friend showed me a video of an Emo makeup tutorial from 2018. This greatly surprised me. There were still people going through Emo Phases in 2018? I had thought the closest people got was punk. I haven’t even seen a goth kid in ten years. So to see that there were still Emo kids was greatly surprising.

The thing is, I don’t even know how the Emo kids survive. I remember Emo phases being greatly tied to the music, but those are out of fashion. My Chemical Romance and Evanescence are disbanded, and Fall Out Boy and Panic! At the Disco have greatly changed their style. When Emo culture was a part of mainstream pop culture, it was easy to find and adopt that culture.

But I don’t find it anywhere, anymore. Not in the music, not in the fashion, not even in the hair. It simply doesn’t exist anymore. You can’t even really find videos online anymore about it, which leads me to wonder how it continues. It’s rather bizarre that the trend still continues on.

The Ironic Existence of Lolis and Shotas

There is a subcategory within anime and manga culture that has an interesting, and even controversial, existence: lolis and shotas. It is a category that pertains to both males and females, portraying either gender as little children, despite them being full-blown adults. Lolis, or girls that have the appearance of being cutesy and prepubescent, are much more common than shotas, which are the male equivalent. They have two aspects of them, one that makes an appearance in normal anime and manga, and the other, which makes an appearance in the genre known as “Not Safe for Work”, or NSFW.

The former aspect, one in which lolis and shotas make appearances in normal anime and manga, are much tamer, but still controversial. They are usually immortal beings, although they can also be eighteen+ year olds, mostly to add comedic humor. Although, it doesn’t help that usually lolis are sexualized, being child-like or innocent in appearance, but scantily clad in small armor. But say they’re a child and they’ll insist that their actually 1000 years old. The biggest example I can think of is the Fire Emblem character Nowi. Nowi is a 1000 year old dragon in scant armor (literal bikini armor with boots and a cape), that looks like she’s 12 years old. It makes romancing her with anyone rather bizarre and kind of uncomfortable, just as it is strange to romance any of the shotas in her game (Ricken and Donnel).

However, this isn’t to say it’s always the case. There are a few lolis that are normally dressed, or dressed in oversized clothes to emphasize their cuteness (the scantily clad nature doesn’t apply to shotas: they are normally dressed from all the cases I’ve seen). Sometimes, the lolis are fully-dressed, making them seem more normal and not sexualized. Usually, though, the loli is dressed in a way that is clearly catering to male fans, and is very much sexualized.

This sexualization plays heavily into the second aspect that lolis and shotas play in: Hentai. Hentai is the anime equivalent of porn, which I mentioned is the NSFW aspect. In this case, lolis and shotas are sexualized alike (of course with the lolis being more common), sometimes being left alone, and sometimes being altered to be more sexual. The lolis especially, will sometimes be given insanely large breasts (we’re talking the length of their body), in order to add some sexuality, while the rest of the appearance stays the same. Shotas are often feminized, too, making them appear as submissive, while the other partner is much more adult-looking and dominant. In either case, both lolis and shotas are most often set as adults. Not all the time, however.

So, how are lolis and shotas ironic? Well, they’re usually adults, with child-like appearances. They insist that they are older, but promote an almost pedophilic image, without explicitly being pedophilic. They encourage a dangerous sexualization of young, prepubescent children, especially young girls, encouraging creepy men (and some women) to check out and even follow young girls. The sexualization pervades in the anime and manga community, tainting its media.

The Downfall of Greek Myths in Movies

Greek mythology often finds itself in the spotlight of Hollywood films. Usually avoiding the Odyssey, Jason and the Argonauts and Persesus are the most commonly found, although differing interpretations on Greek mythology, like the Percy Jackson movies (although we don’t speak of those), do make appearances.

Turning Greek myths into movies found its height from the 1960’s to the 1980’s, when claymation monsters dominated the screen rather than advanced CGI. I can’t knock the use of claymation, however- filmmakers got creative with it, and were able to make it work fairly well. As comical as they look to audiences nowadays, you have to admit that for their time, they were genius moves.

Now, however, Hollywood has lost its way when it comes to showing off the legendary epics. What used to be just portraying the tales as is (with some creative difference, but not much), is now a strange and unsuccessful attempt to make the stories more “original”. They use an excessive amount of CGI, turning the classic mischievous and playful Greek gods into serious and dramatic figures, erasing some of their most bizarre origins and reactions. The myths portray the Greek Gods as divine and powerful but characteristically flawed (they are perfect at something, hence their God status). Movies now simply turn them into perfect but overly angry figures, exaggerating their temperamental behavior.

The legendary figures also find themselves changed, too, turning figures like Jason and Perseus into gritty and dramatic figures, when they show a variety of behavior, portraying a story of morality on a complex hero. In modern movies they are now meant to fight these giant monsters, getting girl while playing a one-note tune of being a one-dimensional hero. The main hero finds himself enveloped under the fold of the typical cliche action hero, completely ruining the point of the original Greek Epic or legend that they appear in.

The aesthetic of the new Greek myth movies also are much darker. Rather than being more realistic of showing an environment like daytime Greece, they show changing skies and darker backgrounds, making the story seem much less real. Of course, they are portraying stories, but compare them to their predecessors; compare the sky, the backdrop, and most importantly, the clothes. The cloths all look Spartan based, rather than showing the diversity of Ancient Greece (which wasn’t a unified country). It all makes seeing the Greek myths on screen that much less popular.