‘The Platform’ movie review

By: Eva Olson

Image taken from: Platform
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8228288/

‘The Platform’ is a Spanish horror/thriller movie released in early November of 2019. This movie follows the main character, Goreng, and his journey in this vertical prison that has a moving platform that stops at each level to give people food. Because there is only one platform carrying food, not every level gets food. Every level has two people on it and every month you get sent to a random level. Throughout the movie, Goreng has to fight for survival and learn who he can and can’t trust, and he has to make some tough decisions that make him question his morals.

I thought the movie was very suspenseful and had me on the edge of my seat almost the entire time. I thought the pacing was perfect and helped create suspense. The plot was very interesting and I thought it was very original and not like a typical horror movie. I thought there were a lot of good plot twists that weren’t predictable and surprised me a lot. I liked how the movie didn’t rely on jump scares for suspense.

This movie was pretty gory and had some pretty gross scenes. There was a decent amount of blood and other kinds of gross things (think about how character may have to get food). There were multiple scenes where I felt the need to look away because it was too gross. Although it was kind of gory, it wasn’t constant and in every scene which I liked.

I thought all the characters were very interesting and I liked how everyone wasn’t specifically good or bad and they were conflicted at times. I also liked how the relationships between the characters would change constantly. I thought the acting was good and they did a great job casting each character.

I thought this movie was very good overall. I think I would’ve liked it better if the movie was originally in English so the dialogue would match up (it was dubbed in English) but the movie was still good. If you’re looking for a suspenseful thriller/horror movie then this is a good option.

I give it a 7.5/10 rating.

Video games: Fun pastime of destructive force?

By: Isaac Lund

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2017, 43% of U.S. adults said that they often play video games. According to this same study, 57% of Americans aged 18-29 owned a dedicated gaming console.

With video games and online media in general becoming an increasingly important factor in our lives with the onset of the pandemic, whether video games are productive or not is information we can’t pass up.

Video games definitely have their upsides, or else they wouldn’t be so popular among high schoolers and adults alike. Things like cooperative in-game goals and voice channels allow people to build social networks, a skill that is essential throughout the rest of life as well.

Video games also hone decision making speed with fast-paced success-or-failure choices placed in front of players on a constant repeat. This same system also helps players to improve hand eye coordination and reflexes.

Finally, video games can replace more harmful vices and are proven to reduce cravings for other unsavory addictive behaviors.

Image taken from: Yourteenmag.com

All things considered, video games aren’t without their flaws either. If gaming becomes an intense addiction, it can cause psychological issues and even add on to already-present mental health disorders.

Gaming without moderation can also reduce physical exercise and hygiene, and can isolate one from family and friends, especially if played alone.

Also, while gaming often provides a needed escape from the stress of life, it can distract from, and increase, procrastination towards things that need to be done, such as schoolwork.

Video games can be an amazing form of entertainment, both interactive and cooperative. But playing video games without emphasizing their social aspect, or playing enough to cause serious addiction, can lead to a destructive spiral difficult to escape.

Is it worth the risk? That’s up to you.

The benefits of reading

By: Mary Koch & Ella Sutherland

Reading is important. Although it may not be as fun as watching a movie or TV show, it’s much better for your mind and body.

Reading is an easy way to wind down, especially after a stressful day. Just reading for a few minutes everyday is proven to be more effective than an entire yoga session. Having something to take our minds off the day can be beneficial in getting a good night’s sleep. Unlike your phone or the TV, a book can help you relax before bed which is always important.

Reading helps to strengthen overall brain function and increase memory. Scientists found that it can lower beta-amyloid, which is a brain protein connected Alzheimer’s, by keeping the mind ready and active. When you read your brain is becoming more creative and more imaginative. If you need to remember something it is easier to do if you read it aloud.

Your brain needs to stay active, and reading is a good way to do that. You don’t need to be reading non fiction or a textbook either; it’s best if you read something that interests you, so you’ll pay attention and maybe learn something. Reading helps with memorization, vocabulary, and communication skills. Those are all important skills not only in school, but in life when you’re applying for jobs or trying to get promotions.

If you have trouble focusing on everyday tasks or hard ones, reading can improve your focus and concentration skills. When you read something that you are interested in it forces you to really think about what you are reading and therefore helps you focus more. If you continue reading everyday, or as much as you can, I believe that your concentration levels will increase by a lot.

Mental health and mental illness can even be affected by reading habits. It’s become so common that it has a name, bibliotherapy, and bibliotherapists will give books they think will help especially with things like grief, anxiety, and depression. Fiction books are often used because when people can relate to the characters it’s easier to connect with them and understand your own feelings. Depression can make people feel alone, and reading can give people an outlet, and it can make people feel like they have a safe place.

Reading can improve your writing skills as well. If you read different styles of writing you will be more open to trying different writing techniques. If you start reading and you pay more attention to the author’s writing style, then it will help you find your own writing style.

Reading can also help in medical recovery. It can alleviate stress while your body is trying to repair itself. For example heart attack patients have found reading poetry beneficial during their recovery.

Reading can help people empathize with each other by showing situations and how they make people feel. It also exposes people to more emotions they might not see or feel in everyday life which is something that not everyone has access to.

When asking other students how they felt about reading most responses were positive. One 9th grader said, “I think it helps people understand new topics and expand their imaginations.”

Another student said, “It can distract you from reality which is a nice change.”

Reading is a great resource for school too. Being able to find a book when you want to learn about something is a great skill, and you’ll likely learn more than you would by looking up answers on Google.

Next time you have some free time before you turn on the TV, try picking up a book. You might be surprised at how fun and interesting reading can be.

From more information, please visit:

Plato’s foundation

Image taken from: “File:David – the Death of Socrates.jpg.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Aug. 2016, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates#/media/File:David_-_The_Death_of_Socrates.jpg

By: Parker Rowan

I recently read 5 dialogues from the Greek philosopher Plato. The dialogues of “Euthyphro”, “Apology”, “Crito”, “Meno”, and “Phaedo”, are some of his writings where he recites the teachings of Socrates’ through a series of conversations between Socrates and various other Athenian residents, in which Socrates establishes a very clear, and critical pattern of thinking. 

During your time in school you may have heard of, and participated in, a “Socratic Seminar” during which you were asked a question that you and the other students were directed to discuss and dissect what the question was asking, and what it meant. Socrates was the one to invent (or at least popularize) this style of thinking, hence the name “Socratic”.

This type of question and answer based discussion has become essential in our courts. If you have ever watched a show, or movie about lawyers or court cases, you have probably heard of the term “cross examination”, which is when the person on the stand is asked questions by a prosecutor in an attempt to pick apart their story and dismiss or disprove it. Socrates is the foundation for this. 

This leads into Socrates’ influence on the courts, and debates in general with the concept of “burden of proof”, which in law means that the accuser (in criminal cases the prosecutor, and in civil the plaintiff) must lay objective truths both parties agree upon, by providing evidence to establish such.

Socrates’ style of questioning and discussing has had a major impact on our courts, changing the way we argue and discuss evidence in a trial. Before Socrates, as you can see in “Apology”, there was not much room for disputing evidence. Before Socrates, one would approach the courts as an accuser, displaying their accusations to a jury. Then, the defendant would approach the court, and the same jury with their reasons as to why they are innocent.

Before Socrates, many did not have proper debate skills, and so couldn’t prove they were or weren’t being wrongfully accused, and often pleaded using their family or health as a means of defense. 

Socrates’ showed the people a better way to argue, and that the better defense is to break down what they are truly saying and dispute it with evidence through question and answer based responses. During Socrates’ trial, early in “Apology”, it was made very clear that Socrates was not a popular resident of Athens, one might even call him somewhat of an outcast, but despite this he was able to get 140 of the 500 present in the jury, along with 5 out of the 10 judges, to vote against giving him the death penalty, by breaking down his accusers accusations of “corrupting the youth”, and proving that it was a falsehood. 

Although it didn’t work out for Socrates, his teachings have helped shape our court systems, and many of these teachings have been used to help prove the innocence and guilt of so many. Through Socrates’ teachings, Plato was able to help establish a foundation for our justice system.

Recommended reading: Five Dialogs Second Edition (Hacket, 2002)

‘Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings’ movie review

By: Eva Olson

Image taken from: Newspaper
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9376612/

A new Marvel movie recently came out on September 3rd called ‘Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings’, and I went to go see it. It follows the story of Shang Chi and his complicated past with his father, who wears the ten rings and uses them for money and power. His father sends assassins to bring him home to help him search for Shang’s dead mother, and destroy her village because he believes that she is alive and the village is keeping her prisoner.

I thought the theme of the movie was great; there was a good balance of both sad and funny topics in the movie and I was never bored while watching it. The funny parts made me laugh, the fight scenes were suspenseful, and I loved the bond between the main character and his best friend.

I thought they did a great job with the casting for the characters and the costumes were very good in my opinion. I also enjoyed how there were many ties to the original Avengers movies and other Marvel movies and characters.

I also loved the overall look of the movie. The visual effects made everything look so realistic and interesting and the fight scenes were perfect and very entertaining to watch.

The pace of the movie was very good and so was the camera work and scenery. I also loved the cultural representation in the movie. The plot was amazing and I loved the way the movie ended, the after credit scene also left me wondering.

I really hope there will be a sequel but overall, the movie was very good and if you like Marvel and haven’t seen it I would one hundred percent recommend watching it. 9.5/10 rating

How queerbaiting came to be

By: Annika Getz

Many people in the LGBTQ+ community are familiar with the term “queerbating”, but most that I’ve spoken to aren’t aware of the history behind it.

For readers who don’t know, queerbaiting is the practice of implying certain characters in movies or television programs to be LGBTQ+ through subtext, without ever outright saying it. This is often meant to appeal to queer audiences without off-putting straight ones.

Studios try to draw in queer audiences through the promise of representation, without ever confirming it, lest they upset their homophobic audiences. This is a common practice, which has been going on since the beginning of LGBTQ+ representation.

Some popular examples of queerbaiting include: ‘Voltron’ (2016-2018), ‘Supernatural’ (2005-2020), ‘Sherlock’ (2010-present), ‘Merlin’, (2008-2012), ‘Star Wars’ 7, 8, and 9, ‘Teen Wolf’ (2011-2017), ‘Supergirl’ (2015-2020), and many many more. And while I have not seen all of these shows, the general consensus is that they each hint at queer characters/relationships, without any follow through.

But where did this practice come from? Who first had the idea to trick queer viewers into
watching purely heterosexual programs?

The answer is an entirely different, and much less harmful practice called queercoding. Queercoding is very similar to queerbaiting, the main – and most important – difference between the two, is intent and reasoning.

Queercoding began back in the mid 1900’s, and is, much like queerbaiting, the act of hinting at characters being LGBTQ+, without confirming it. The difference however, is that when characters were queercoded, it was because prohibitions of the day stopped them from being openly queer. There are, of course, no rules, present day, stopping companies from adding gay characters.

The beginning of queer representation was in the early 1900’s. Gay characters were used for comedic affect in silent films. Men dressed in more feminine outfits were used for quick, cheap jokes. Some examples of this type of portrayal include ‘Algie the Miner’ (1914) and ‘The Soiler’ (1923). This evolved into what we now call the Sissy stereotype. Gay men are portrayed as feminine, weak. This was, and is, used to enforce straight men’s masculinities.

I think Quentin Crisp, English writer and actor, said it best “There’s no sin like being a woman. When a man dresses as a woman, the audience laughs. When a woman dresses as a man, nobody laughs.” This type of portrayal was but a preview of what was to come though.

One detail which will become relevant involves the 1915 Supreme Court case of Mutual Film Corporation vs. the Industrial Commission of Ohio. It was there that it was decided that free speech did not apply to film. They said that “Because film can be used for evil, we cannot regard censorship as beyond the power of the government.”

In 1922, Hollywood was reeling over movies recently released, portraying, sex, violence, orgies, and other indecencies (there had also been some real-life scandals with many popular stars at the time). It was then that studio heads hired William H. Hays, former postmaster general, to rehabilitate the film industry.

In 1924, Hays released “The Formula”, a list of recommendations for studios to follow regarding what should and shouldn’t be their films.

In 1927, Hays suggested that studio heads get together to discuss censorship. Both MGM and Fox agreed to meet. It was from this meeting that the Hays Code (released in 1930) was born. The Hays Code was a list of do’s and don’ts that studios had to follow, in order for their movies to be screened. This list included things such as profanity, nudity, drugs, white slavery (though unsurprisingly, black slavery was left out), miscegenation, childbirth, sex perversion etc. The Code essentially put a ban on gay characters. Some groups, mainly the Federation of Women’s club, wanted theaters to be raided by the police if they screened films which did not adhere to the Code.

Films were to go through the Code Office before release, and if they should have any indecent material, the script, characters, camera angles or anything necessary would be changed before its release, examples include ‘The Lost Weekend’ (1945) which was originally about an alcoholic coming to terms with his sexuality, that was altered to be about an alcoholic struggling with writer’s block. And ‘Crossfire’ (1947) originally about homophobia, but rewritten to be about anti-semitism instead.

Many studio heads, some of them gay themselves, were upset by the censorship, which had stopped progress of gay representation in its tracks. It was from their desire to portray gay characters on screen, and their inability to do so, that queercoding was born. Screenwriters knew that LGBTQ+ audiences would be able to recognize a coded gay character, while they flew under the radar of straight ones.

Some good examples of queercoding include, ‘The Maltese Falcon’ (1941), ‘Young Man With a Horn’ (1950), ‘Rebel Without a Cause’ (1955), ‘Ben Hur’ (1959), and ‘Suddenly Last Summer’ (1959). I could continue listing films, but I fear this article would be too long for anyone to read, so we’ll move on.

The only other way for gay characters to be portrayed in more obvious ways, was through villains, or death.

The villain trope is shown well through the popular 50’s and 60’s cliché that was lesbian prison movies, which portrayed lesbians as big and scary antagonists, who were often authority figures amongst the inmates (though never guards of course). This made many young lesbians fear their queerness, and often try to deny it, lest they end up in prison. It also made straight people afraid of lesbians, and was overall just pretty harmful.

Joel Cario, from ‘The Maltese Falcon’ (1941) is another good example of a queer coded antagonist. Like many male antagonists of the time, he was more feminine, and fit the sissy stereotype as much as a villain can. He was even confirmed to be gay in the book on which the movie was based.

This is a trope which has wormed its way into the modern day. Many antagonists, particularly in children’s movies, are coded to be either queer or genderqueer (or just defy gender norms).

This subconsciously instills a distrust of LGBTQ+ people in the youth. Some examples include Scar from ‘The Lion King’, Governor Ratcliffe from ‘Pocahontas’, Hades from ‘Hercules’, and Ursula from ‘The Little Mermaid’. This coding is even more obvious when you compare the villains to their hero counterparts. The male protagonists are usually hyper-masculine, and the female ones are incredibly feminine.

Another popular trope of the time which has made its way into film today, is the trope known as “Bury your gays” which is just what it sounds like. Gay characters being killed off while their straight counterparts get to live.

In the 50’s and 60’s, whenever characters were a bit too obviously queer, too at risk of being picked up on by straight audiences, the screenwriters killed them off, so the movie could pass the code, and be released.

One good example of this is the 1955 film, ‘Rebel Without a Cause’. Both boys in this movie are pretty heavily coded to be queer, though the one who’s more obviously gay of the two (the one without a female love interest), Plato, dies at the end of the film.

After around 30 years, the code was beginning to weaken, and characters were becoming a bit more obvious with their queerness. Movies like ‘Ben Hur’, and ‘Suddenly Last Summer’, which were both more heavily coded (both were written in 1959, and by Gore Vidal, who would later confirm certain characters to be gay), were being released, and put real strain on the code.

‘Some Like it Hot’ (1959) is considered by many to be the final nail in the coffin, though the code would technically stay in effect until 1968. The film was about two men dressing in drag as a disguise, to escape the mafia bosses trying to kill them. It plays with the idea of gender identity and norms, without fitting the sissy stereotype. It’s more than the one off joke of “man dresses up as woman and it’s the funniest thing to ever happen,” trope from the 10’s and 20’s.

In 1961, the film ‘The Children’s Hour’ was released. In the film, two women, Martha and Karen, run a school for girls. One of these girls, angry after being punished for misbehaving, falsely accuses the women of being lovers. After the accusation, a string of unfortunate events ensues, including a lawsuit. Martha then admits her romantic love for the unambiguously straight Karen, who obviously, does not reciprocate Martha’s feelings. The film ends with Martha committing suicide. The message was that yes, queer people existed, but they were immoral, filthy, and not something discussed or tolerated by decent folk.

However, also in 1961, the movie ‘Victim’ was released, depicting the first gay protagonist. While it was banned from U.S. cinemas, and given an X rating in the UK (it was later given a rating of PG-13), it was still major progress.

In 1968, the code was finally taken out of effect, and two years later, the first real LGBTQ+ movie was released: ‘The Boys in The Band’. No one dies, and everyone’s out. This sadly wasn’t the end of homophobia in cinema though.

‘Brokeback Mountain’ (2005), though wildly popular, faced serious criticism from a baptist church upon its release. The film was picketed, and when one of the actors, Heath Ledger, passed away, a religious hate group even protested his funeral. They claimed he had died for his portrayal of a gay character onscreen.

It’s this type of protest that scared studios into queerbaiting, and while their concern is understandable, it’s also incredibly harmful. Queer people have a hard enough time finding representation without being tricked into watching shows and movies without it.

There’s also something worth saying about the possible profit off of actual LGBTQ+ films. The movie ‘Love, Simon’ (2018), grossed 66.3 million dollars worldwide (40.8 million in the U.S. and Canada) against a $10-17 million production budget, making it one of the most domestically successful teen movies to be released recently. Many moviegoers even saw it several times in one day, according to social media posts made shortly after the film’s release.

To summarize: queercoding was one thing, but what it’s turned into is a complete – much more harmful – other. While much progress has been made with queer representation in the media, there’s still a long ways to go. And if I ever had a chance to talk to a major studio head, I’d ask them which side of LGBTQ+ history they’d like to be on, one which benefits the community, or continues to marginalize it?

For more information, please visit:

A.I. Generated Music Article Title

lil robot guys playing some trumpets from the Toyota Kaikan Museum in Nagoya, Japan Image taken from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/09/affordable-home-robots-james-dyson

You guys ever have the Travis Scott Burger™ at McDonald’s®? Cause I have, and it was glorious. I could feel my big stinky gullet grow with every bite of it, truly an experience for the ages.

But, why in the seven seas did I take a big ol’ chomp of this Travis Scott sandwich in the first place?

Well…because it was funny, because it was a hamburger with the name Travis Scott on it, and that amused my rat brain into giving money to McDonalds in order to get this regular burger with barbecue sauce. Like that was the only thing about the burger by the way, like it literally was just a regular burger, like they didn’t do anything wacky like put apple sauce and elk tongue on it (which is how I usually take mine).

But why oh why am I telling you this story?

Well…it’s because I just wanted to say that we, as individuals, like people’s names being attached to a product. Remember being a kid and buying that Spongebob Go-Gurt, that literally was the same as regular Go-Gurt, but it had good ol’ Spongbob on it?

It’s basically that, and now when I’ve happened upon this cool lil’ thing of A.I. generated music, it got me thinking of just how far could we take it, in regards to marketing a personable celebrity person attached to it.

If you don’t already know, a while ago, at an obscure song competition in the middle of Portugal, I think it was called Eurovision or something, they premiered a song that was entirely generated by an artificial intelligence, or A.I. The melody, instrumental, and lyrics were all procedurally generated by a computer microchip, and it was honestly pretty interesting, and it was legitimately structured like a real song. Here it is if you’re interested in watching it.

Anyway, but more compelling than that (at least in my dumb lil’ opinion), was this A.I. Travis Scott song I happened upon, because as opposed to the Eurovision one, which was just an isolated song, sung by a text to speech robot voice, with a lil’ machine avatar, this fake Travis Scott song, actually has opportunity to be sold and marketed, in place of an actual human production team that could create a product very similar to it. Like honestly, while this specific style of music isn’t really for me, I could see a song like this being popular to an extent, (though the lyrics could use a lil’ work in like, actually making coherent sense).

But in regards to brands, how marketable could an A.I. artist be? Like sorta if a Gorillaz type like fictional character(s) was/were the icon of it, and all their songs were generated by a big wacky computer machine, how far could we take it.

Shot from the game Detroit: Become Human where robots are basically a replacement for humans and are gonna take our jobs and are gonna drink our milkshakes and build our Ikea furniture and there’s nothing we can do about it, which it really makes you think and scratch your chin with your big ol fingers very inquisitively and go “hmmmmmm”

Well, that concept was explored in Detroit: Become Human to an extent where there was a guy playing a guitar on a street corner with a sign saying “real human music”, which was a pretty wacky scene, but I dunno if that’s gonna happen or not, for a couple reasons. Mainly because people’d probably see it as a fad, and sorta have an aversion to it, even if it did get to a level where you couldn’t tell otherwise, and also because A.I. artists would probably end up creating songs that attempt to appeal to everyone, which usually ends up appealing to…no one.

So, honestly, Ed Sheeranbot5000 isn’t gonna replace people anytime soon, at least in my opinion, but the concept of already established artists feeding their songs to an algorithm, and just trying to put stuff out that’s generated by that without anyone noticing, is a different story. But I feel like most artists who make music would actually wanna, y’know… make music, at least to an extent.

Like, I know not every part of the production of a song, at least with a large portion of artists, is really done by one guy in whole, like of course there’s a team of people who you’d never even think about in most major productions now. Like a few guys to mix and master stuff, production in the backing track/instrumental, needing to credit a guy who does sample tracks that producers pay to download and plop into their DAW then add extra drums and stuff to it if needed, and even if a song is made using reference vocals and ghost writing, at the end of the day, there at the very least is a team of people, who all would have a passion for what they do to an extent, who come together and just make something, and just put lil’ details in, that I don’t think technology really could calculate.

I mean, until it can. But, I dunno. Just enjoy what’s already out and gonna be out, and watch movies, read books, do whatever you wanna do to blow off steam, cause by the time A.I. could perfectly replicate what humans could create, in regards to art on that deep or personal of a level, they’re basically human at that point, so I guess it’ll be fine.

But, who’s to say, I dunno. Happy pride month everyone.

Hollywood science: Fact or fiction

By: Grace Helmke

Hollywood has allowed us to visit incredible places and experience thrilling adventures filled with death-defying jumps, and heart-wrenching love stories. It has allowed science to come alive in a way that’s never before been seen. It has led us through stories of time travel, cloning, and so much more.

However, sometimes these films have a little more fiction than fact. Today, we are going to explore the science behind some famous TV shows and movies, and determine whether or not they are fact or fiction. 

Jurassic Park’ 

Image taken from: http

‘Jurassic Park’ centers around the idea that one one could create dinosaurs from blood in a mosquito, encased in amber, and preserved for millions of years.

This is simply false.

Steve Brusatte, a paleontologist, said that the likelihood of cloning a dinosaur is close to impossible. In order to make this happen, you would need the whole genome. However, no one has ever found dinosaur DNA. So, it’s incredibly unlikely that a T-Rex could get loose and wreak havoc in the future. 

‘Star Trek’ 

A major part of the show was the crew’s ability to travel at the speed of light. They called this warp speed. Warp speed essentially distorted the fabric of spacetime, allowing the crew to travel superluminally, or faster than the speed of light.

Einstein’s theory of general relativity suggests that this is not a totally unheard of thought. In fact, it’s entirely possible. In 1994, a scientist named Miguel Alcubierre discovered what today is known as the Alcubierre Drive. His theory was that it’s possible to bend space time in a way that contracts in front of you, and expands behind you, moving you in a forward motion.

‘Back to the Future’

This classic 80s film features the creation of the DeLorean, a time travel machine.

Is time travel truly possible?

NASA tells us it is, but not in the way one thinks. In NASA’s words, “Although humans can’t hop into a time machine and go back in time, we do know that clocks on airplanes and satellites travel at a different speed than those of earth.”

So, although it’s not possible to go see the dinosaurs, or visit famous historical figures, it is possible to travel in space for three years and come back to find that five years have passed on earth. This is called time dilation, and is an incredibly prevalent topic of study in physics and astronomical sciences. 

‘Contact’

This film features a lot of fictional science and inaccuracies. It was praised for its realistic depiction of the search for extraterrestrial life.

The film used radio signals and the translation of alien language using mathematical equations. This is incredibly accurate and is rooted in science. Math is a universal language. So, it’s entirely possible that their forms of communication could be based upon science and math.

There are also some concepts that have stirred debate; such as the idea that the main character traveled through a wormhole to speak to the aliens. It’s difficult to say whether or not a person traveling through a wormhole would survive or not.

For a significant period of time, it was believed that upon entering the wormhole you would either be stretched out into a spaghetti noodle, or be expanded into molecules. Both would mean certain death. But a Harvard physicist recently discovered that not only do wormholes exist and can connect one part of the universe to another, but it’s possible to travel through it. The only catch is that you would have to do so very slowly. It would actually take less time to go to the location directly than it would through a wormhole.  

For more information, please visit:

Everything you need to know about Mother Mother’s new album

By: Caroline Crosby

Vancouver’s beloved indie-rock group Mother Mother recently unveiled their upcoming global tour in 2022, along with a shiny new album that has fans buzzing with anticipation.

For those unaware, Mother Mother is a renowned 5-piece band whose success shot to new heights at high-summer of last year. The group is no new installment, though, having respectably surfed Canadian based alt-rock charts since late 2008.

Via the video sharing social media platform TikTok, a resurgence of the group’s older music recently exploded onto a new, broader scene with an equally broad audiance.

Teenaged, and young adult, fans flocked to Mother Mother’s music in droves. Many spoke of being drawn to the unique, androgynous harmonies and daring lyrics that comprised very “on-brand” viral songs such as “Verbatim”, “Burning Pile”, “Arms Tonite”, and “Hayloft”. 

After the raging revival of the older albums ‘O My Heart’ and ‘Touch Up’, courtesy of social media, Mother Mother’s new album was formally announced on April 8 of this year. It’s titled ‘Inside’ and was informally referred to as ‘MM LP 8’ before its official debut. 

In an interview with ‘Rolling Stone’ last fall, the band was asked about the creative development behind the appropriately dubbed “pandemic album”. 

Guitarist, vocalist, and group frontman Ryan Guldemond answered: 

“The world stopped, and all the sudden I had a lot more alone-time on my hands, which isn’t necessarily conducive to song writing. Usually, I like to venture out and find guidance from an external, interactive narrative—travelling, people, serendipities etc. I love that process – it’s almost like you’re in collaboration with the world. But since that wasn’t an option, I set about a different kind of travel, one more inward and personal, exploring different types of therapies, meditation, and journaling as a means to unearth songs from a deeper, interior place.”

Only 4 of the 14 total tracks are currently available on streaming platforms, but the complete release of the band’s eighth album will drop on June 25 (mark your calendars!). The 4 songs immediately available, however, follow Guldemond’s poetic foundation exactly as the quote suggests. 

As established, Mother Mother’s music (both old and new), consistently works with themes such as pushing societal standards and often encourages questioning of personal identities. The most recent music video and lyrics to the fifth installment of ‘Inside’s’ 14 tracks; “Pure Love”, is an excellent example of this. It flaunts the band’s unique portrayal of the world, and provides an introspective take on self-realization and discovery. It features the sole, haunting voice of band member Molly Guldemond.

‘Inside’ takes a deeper dive into the fundamentals of these ideas, and will resonate with listeners who desire to internally perceive, learn, and grow as many individuals and communities have, regardless of the pandemic’s trials this year. 

For more information, please visit Mother Mother’s official website at:

Or, read their interview with ‘Rolling Stone’ at:

You can watch the music video for “I Got Love” at:

Why live action adaptations are bad

By: Bijou Kruszka

Live-action adaptations are getting out of hand. It seems like there’s always a new film that has everybody on the internet talking, and it’s hardly ever people saying, “Oh wow, look at this cool new idea for a movie.”

No, the discussion usually goes along the lines of, “Oh wow, I can’t believe that they’re adapting this movie, and it looks like garbage.”

How did we get here?

Technically, this trend started in 2010, with the remake of ‘Alice in Wonderland’. This movie is genuinely good, and it did what adaptations are supposed to do: stay somewhat faithful to the story in tone and plot, while adding some fun changes and fixing anything that needed to be fixed.

This continued in 2015, when Disney released ‘Maleficent’, which also follows what adaptations are supposed to do. This was the film that started the never-ending train of remakes.

After that, Disney started to release 1 or 2 live-action remakes every year. Why? Because of the money. For example, 2017’s ‘Beauty and the Beast’ made over 1 billion dollars in the box office.

All Disney had to do to make money was use the nostalgia to get parents to take their kids to see it, get a few celebrities in the cast, and boom, 1 billion dollars. They think that because some live-action movies were good, all of them would be. So, they don’t put much effort into it, leaving the terrible movies we’re getting.

Now, because Disney only has a limited amount of movies that deserved the remake treatment, they started adapting the good movies, like ‘The Lion King’ and ‘Aladdin’. Though these movies are nowhere near perfect (like the issues with ‘Beauty and the Beast’ and Stockholm Syndrome), most of their problems are embedded in the plot, and can’t be removed without heavily changing the story. Plus, the originals have added charm because of the magical elements, which are elevated because of the animation. When you take the animation away, it feels flat and dull.

Because Disney is a media giant, others are following their lead, like the ‘Sonic’ movie. Although it isn’t an exact adaptation, it is a live-action movie using a name almost everyone knows with a few celebrities in the cast.

If more movies are made like this, it does not bode well for the film industry. Not only does it feed the idea that movies don’t have to be original, but it also just means that companies like Disney will get millions of dollars for something they didn’t put effort into because people will still want to see how terrible the movie is.

In the end, live-action remakes, though fun in concept, create a lot of problems, especially with unoriginality.