Tale As Old As Time

So... I'm about to fangirl hard for a bit. Just a warning.

Yesterday morning, the trailer for the live-action Beauty and the Beast came out.

I cannot even begin to tell you how LONG I have been waiting for this! I first heard about this back when it was only an idea, even back before Maleficent (2014) was in the works. I had heard rumors that Disney was wanting to do a live action of one of my favorite Disney movies of all-time, but there were all sorts of rumors at the time about a number of movies. Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Jungle Book, Pete's Dragon... Now, years later, all of these are coming to life. This includes Beauty and the Beast!

After the live-action Cinderella was announced, I suddenly remembered the rumor about Beauty and the Beast and decided to look it up. I found info talking about how the project was in the works. I continuously checked up on it. Finally, last year, it was announced that the project was officially in the works and that they were searching for actors. I gleefully watched as each role was filled. I approved whole-heartedly of each one. (I was on top of it each time an actor/actress was announced.) To name a few:
Emma Watson as Belle
Dan Stevens as the Beast
Luke Evans as Gaston
Kevin Kline as Maurice
Josh Gad as LeFou
Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts
Ewan McGregor as Lumiere
Ian McKellen as Cogsworth

Yes, yes, YES to all! After all the actors were announced, I stayed very up to date on everything as they began filming. It seemed to go by pretty quickly (for a filming schedule, that is). I assume a lot of this is going to be post production; special effects and such.

But after filming concluded August of last year, everything went silent. I have been anxiously waiting for a trailer of some sort. At least a picture or a poster to let us have a glimpse of what this movie will look like. I have seriously been DYING!

Finally, yesterday, we got a trailer! It was just a teaser, bit it was more than enough for me.

I honestly began to tear up when that piano began. I was even hyperventilating a little bit. (I might have a problem XP)

So, my thoughts and comments... PERFECT! This is how a teaser trailer should be done! I loved the vibe that it set. It was so mysterious. Slightly ominous, but ended on a familiar note with the theme song and the rose. Ahh! Plus we got some incredible shots of the set! If nothing else, this is going to be a beautiful movie.

That castle! Look at it! So good! 

The ballroom! I cannot wait until we see Belle and the Beast dancing in it! Just imagine all those chandeliers lit up and Belle in her dress! OMG it is going to be breathtaking!

Do I spy Lumiere there? Might be, might not be. Either way, great shot.

I loved this shot of the candles melting, accompanied with the prologue music. I don't know the significance, but so awesome! Perhaps it's something from the prologue, "as the years passed, he fell into despair"

So many props to Disney for making the portrait of the prince actually in the style of a traditional French painting of the time period (Baroque style painting)

And that transition of the scratch marks through the face! Just like the animated movie. Yes! Perfect! Ah! 

Also, can I say, I like that the prince is younger in his portrait. It actually portrays that time has passed from when the spell was cast until Belle arrives. That he was a young(ish) boy when he was put under the spell. It makes that line in 'Be Our Guest' make more sense ("ten years we've been rusting") in context with the rose blooming "until his twenty-first year."

I loved the design of that door!

I mean, look at it from the outside! The lock is so oddly shaped, but then its crookedness shows on the inside as well. So cool!

Of course the rose. But I'd also like to point out Belle's blue dress. You can't see it very well, but I was freaking out over it (yes, things like that get me excited). I can't wait to see it in full. (Just imagine what I'll be like when I see the yellow one.)

And then... Emma Watson as Belle! AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!! She is going to do SOOOO AMAZINGGGG!!!!!

Also, Ewan McGregor and Ian McKellen's voices as Lumiere and Cogsworth caused a bit of a flip out as well. "It's a girl!" "Yes, I see it's a girl, you fool!" "What if she is the one!" AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!! I cannot wait to see their designs! I am just beyond excited for this film!

Plus it is going to be following the broadway musical, so there will be songs! Not just the songs from the 1991 movie, but all the songs from the play! That means Alan Menken amazingness! :D

Now I only have to wait until next March... *sigh* Well, that's less than a year away. It's closer than five years away, which is when I first heard about the project.

If you are not looking forward to this flick, you need to reevaluate your life.

Restoration vs. the World

This semester at BYU-I, I just happened to take World Foundations II and Foundations of the Restoration at the same time. World Foundations is a history class and we have been talking about the history of the Christian church a lot. The class literally picked up at Medieval times and has been progressing forward from there. The church has been hugely involved in historic events so we talk about it a lot.

Meanwhile, I have been taking Foundations of the Restoration which is basically all about the LDS church and what we believe. We talk about some history of the church, doctrine, and specifically the things we believe in (even more specifically, the Articles of Faith). 

I have found it very fascinating to see how everything in history since he Great Apostasy was all leading towards the Restoration. I mean, clearly it took a very long time, but it was all leading there. 

Constantine

I know that the Christian church strayed very far from what was originally taught when Christ came to the earth, but it was a miracle that it did not die out completely. All the persecution and death threats. It was not until the Roman emperor Constantine came about that Christianity was finally legalized.

Each unit in my Restoration class is focused on an Article of Faith. As we’ve focused on each of them, I’ve really come to appreciate our church and our beliefs more fully. It just makes so much sense. I mean, I’ve always know this stuff, I grew up with it, I’ve recited these Articles of Faith more times than I can count, but now, studying them like this, it’s all clicking into place.

“We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” It’s so simple, but it’s true. We do! And something we have discussed in class is the fact that, unlike many other churches, we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings. In Joseph Smith History 1:17, Joseph Smith distinctly “saw two Personages” (emphasis added), God the Father and the Son. And the most clear definition of the three members of the Godhead is Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 in which it says, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”

One day in class, we were talking about “God the Father” and “Jesus the Father.” God is the father of our spirits while Christ is the father of our redemption. 

Christ’s father is always Heavenly Father. When he came to earth, he was born of Mary, but his father was still Heavenly Father. Joseph was a stepfather. Since he performed the Atonement and was resurrected, His father is still Heavenly Father.

In the pre-mortal life, Heavenly Father created us. When we came to earth, our dads helped provide a body for us and thus became our earthly father. After death, Christ performed the Atonement for us to help us become “born again.” He is the Father of our redemption.

I just really liked seeing that in that perspective.

Without Adam's transgression, they would have been unable
to have children and then none of us would haven been born.

The second article of faith talks about how “we believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” This is one of the biggest misconceptions in the other churches. At the exact same time that we were discussing this article of faith, we were talking about all the different splits in the Christian churches in my World Foundations class. This church believes this and this church believed that. Thus, the reason why there were so many different churches in Joseph Smith’s day and the reason he felt the need to go and ask for help in the grove that one spring day.

Nowadays though, I hear most churches say that it was originally God’s plan for us to be born into paradise, but because Adam and Even ate the fruit, they sinned and were kicked out, therefore God had to revise His plan that included a Savior coming to Earth to atone for our sins and such. They believe that man is born evil and that it is Adam and Eve’s fault that we are not in paradise right now. Latter-day Saints do not believe that. 2 Nephi 2:25 reads, “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”  We believe that it was always part of God’s plan for Adam to partake of the fruit. He gave Adam and Eve two conflicting commandments: have children and do not eat the fruit. They could not keep both. The first commandment was to have children. Why would He give two conflicting commandments if He didn’t intend for one of them to be broken?

The third article of faith is sort of a heavy one because it talks about the Atonement. The Atonement is so central to the plan of salvation. Like I just said above, we are imperfect, so how could we possibly be expected to return to God’s presence? It was planned from the very beginning by the Father so that we could return to Him one day. It is the plan according to Moses 6:62, “This is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time.” We know that “no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom” (3 Nephi 27:19), and since we are so imperfect, we need an Atonement. There is hope for us to be saved if we just ask, (“I know that God will give liberally to him that asketh” 2 Nephi 4) and also through the Atonement of Christ. Because we are so imperfect, we need something/someone that is perfect to redeem our sins so that we can return to our Father’s presence. The Atonement was Christ’s sacrifice for us, both physically and spiritually. It was the most important event in the history of the world. Alma 7:7 says, “behold, there is one thing which is of more importance than they all... that the Redeemer liveth and cometh among his people.” 

The fourth Article of Faith starts to get a bit more specific because it talks about baptism, the laying on of hands, repentance, and such. I know a big thing that other churches often have a misconception about is baptism. The fourth Article of Faith specifically says “baptism by immersion.” Many churches believe in infant baptism. This goes back to the idea that we are born evil. Therefore, we need to be cleansed of that evil right way. The LDS church believes that the Atonement covers children’s sins until the age of accountability (which is eight years old). Also, sprinkling is unacceptable, it must be full immersion. 2 Nephi 38 talks about how we need to be baptized: “if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!” D&C 68:27 lays out baptism and the laying on of hands very plainly: “And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.”

I cannot imagine what my life would be like without the gospel in my life. I believe that gospel principles keep me from the worst of the worldly indulgences because I know they are wrong and that I am a daughter of God. The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, having a prophet today, proper priesthood authority, and other Latter-day, restored principles are such blessings in my life. They give me so much hope. I have a firm belief in the Atonement of Christ. I know that it is entirely for our benefit and that we would not be able to make it back to our Heavenly Father without it. Whether it is our sins or actual physical trials, He is there. I am so grateful to be a member of the one true church. Amen.

Batman VS Superman: A REVIEW (spoiler free)

First off, I just want to say that I did enjoy this movie, just not IMMENSELY. It was a good flick, but it was not AH-MAZ-ING! My roommate pointed out that it was probably because I had such high expectations for it, but in all honesty, I didn't really know what to expect. I stayed away from all details about it as much as possible. I only watched the trailers and that was it. I just expected an awesome action movie with two amazing superheroes. But then I got... Well, let me break it down.

EXPECTATION: Awesome action and boss fight scenes.
REALITY: Mediocre action.
For the first half of it, there was hardly any action at all and when we finally got to the action, I admit, I was kind of disappointed. It was not boring, for sure, but I do think it could have been kicked up a notch.
Of course, the whole build up was to the fight between Batman and Superman. And their fight was... fairly decent. The thing was that it was not the most interesting in the movie. In fairness, it was a difficult fight to pull off. I mean, they had to pull Superman down to Batman's level (I was always saying this before! There was no way that Batman was ever a match for Superman! But I digress...). Then, with the setup the movie gave us, it could not be too long of a fight so... yes. I do give them props for what was done.
The two action sequences that stuck out to me were the car chase scene and the raid on the house where (someone) was being held hostage. Both involved Batman and they were pretty awesome. They were the highlights of the movie for me, they were so boss!

EXPECTION: Interesting story.
REALITY: Slow paced, complicated.
For real though, the first probably half of it is all explaining and build up. They jammed an awful lot of things into one movie. I mean, I get it, there are two universes colliding here, but one thing I've learned in my English classes is about "cutting clutter" to make it "clear and concise". I know, sometimes you really want to put something in there because it's just so good, but sometimes you have to cut it out because it's unnecessary, doesn't flow, and/or makes it too long. Thus was the case for Batman vs. Superman. There were a ton of subplots going on. I think DC is trying to set up other movies. They're trying to catch up with Marvel. But the thing with Marvel is that they spanned their movies over lots of time and different movies, they didn't introduce them all in one.
Anyways, as to the story itself, it did have a pretty decent setup, I thought. There just was a lot of talking about it. Like, for crying out loud, get to the action already!
And one more criticism: There were some definite "what the freak is happening???" moments. There were some really bizarre moments which I'm not sure added to the story at all.

EXPECTATION: A great villain.
REALITY: A fantastic villain!
I've said before that usually it's the villain that makes the story for me. If you can pull off a great villain, it can save everything else, because they are the source of the conflict (and the conflict is the reason the story is interesting).
I knew who the villain was going to be before going to see it, so I did have high hopes. He's the most famous Superman villain, his greatest nemesis. But I only saw a couple glimpses of him in the trailer (and I recognized him, yes thank you), but that was the extent of my knowledge. I didn't know how he was going to be portrayed. I was not disappointed though. He was so great! I don't want to give anything away, but the performance was so spot on, his plan (though there was a gaping loophole) was completely nuts. Those I went to see the movie with said they were confused about his motivation, but I pointed out that I think he was just one of those villains who was evil just for the sake of being evil. And you rarely see that. I really enjoyed it.

Now, I know you're all wondering... how was Ben Affleck as Batman? Surprisingly, he pulled it off really well. You'll be surprised how well he integrated himself into the role. I really believed him as Bruce Wayne and Batman.
Then as for Henry Cavill as Superman... well, he IS Superman. As for Clark Kent, well, they don't really try to make him a bumbling idiot so I really don't see how nobody figures out his secret identity. (Actually, there's this really hilarious moment where Perry White's reading the Daily Planet and on the front page it's about something that happened to to Superman, then he flips the page and there's a smaller article about the same thing that happened to Clark Kent. It is literally the most hilarious thing. Like, they don't figure it out? There's pictures and everything of them).

The last thing that annoyed me was how much of a damsel in distress they turned Lois into. Pretty much all she was there for was for Superman to rescue her. She contributed nothing to the story other than that. Whyyyy????? Don't turn her into another Mary Jane! She was so awesome in Man of Steel, she did things, she helped out! Why downgrade her? I'm just contributing it to the fact that the plot was already jammed full of stuff, but still. Anyways...

So, you know what? I did enjoy it. It was not the most amazing movie I had ever seen, but it was pretty fun. It had its highs and lows, and it's highs were definitely highs. I'd say it was maybe a 7/10.

Pride and Taking Offense

I've actually been meaning to write on this for a while, then we got this assignment in my Book of Mormon class today and I was compelled to actually sit down and do it. Boy, do I have some things to say about this.

One of my dad's favorite quotes is from Brigham Young: "He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool." He says it all the time. It's ingrained in my mind forever... It's so true though.

Brigham Young (and my dad) is saying that being offended is a choice. Someone says something that upsets you, you don't have to actually get upset. You can choose to ignore it and walk away. Whether the person intended to offend you or not, you can be the bigger person and just walk away. This issue nowadays is that people like to make a stink over everything. People get offended over literally EVERYTHING! Half the time, offense was not even intended. If only people would just let it go and walk away.

Getting offended is a key component to pride. Pride is the "universal sin" as President Ezra Taft Benson says. Everyone has/will experience some form of it in their lifetime. It is the natural man within us. Pride is what began the whole discourse of everything. In the pre-mortal existence, Lucifer wanted all the glory to be given to him. This is pride.

Pride is often mistaken as conceit, bragging, self-centeredness, and so on. You know, those people who post 500 selfies a day or who brag about their 15 fancy cars and the new swimming pool they're putting in. While those are components of the sin, that is not the core of "pride".

Pride is actually enmity towards God and fellow men. Enmity means “hatred toward, hostility to, or a state of opposition.”. Basically, if you are in opposition with someone, you have pride. Now, I'm not saying that if you disagree with someone, you're a sinner, because I know we all have opposing personalities and different opinions. No, I'm saying that when it gets to the point of contention, heated arguments, hatred, and extreme competitiveness. The example that was brought up in class today was sporting events. While it's alright to support your team and cheer for them, it is not alright to belittle the opposing team to the point of animosity and cruelty. If you get angry at the opposing team when your team loses, you have too much pride in your team.

Remember the Savior in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Not my will, but Thine be done". Pride is the exact opposite: "my will and not thine be done". The prideful want things to go their way and get angry and offended when someone opposes them; this includes God. Whether you're playing a game, watching a game, in politics, arguing with a friend/family member, talking to a neighbor, or whatever, if you get angry, offended, or overly competitive, you are "lifted up in the pride of your heart".

Now, so far, if anything I have said has irritated you, consider that it might be because it is true. When people hear/read/watch something that strikes a chord, they tend to rationalize so that it doesn't really affect them. "Well, that doesn't apply to me", "It's just that one time", "That's not true! This person's crazy!", or whatever. If you ever have these thoughts, this is a sign of pride. Like I said, pride is the universal sin. It is so easy to fall into it.

I know, the Book of Mormon paints a horrible picture of pride and you think, "I'm not like that. I'm not so bad like those people". However, there are different degrees to pride.

The world tries to tell us all "You're perfect, do whatever you want. You're entitled to this, you're entitled to that...". Lies! Entitlement is another one of the pitfalls into pride. No one is "entitled" to anything and the belief that we are is a very prideful thought indeed. Entitlement is thinking that you are so special that you deserve something whether you earned it or not. Key words "thinking you are so special", even narrower, "thinking you". Pride.

Selfishness, jealousy, envy, and disobedience are other components of pride. Also and especially, when one fears man's judgement, but not God's. King Herod in the bible did not want to behead John the Baptist when his wife asked him to. However, he killed him anyways so that he would look good to "them that which sat with him" (Mark 6:26).

When any of these traits are pointed out, people get offended. As I explained earlier, it's often because they're rationalizing because they feel guilty. Like when the Pharisees were angry with Jesus when he told them off for their corrupt ways. They felt their power was threatened and grew angry. They rationalized that he was wrong and that clearly he was the problem, not them.

If you're having these defensive feelings and try to recognize why. You are most likely prideful in some way. I know that I am. When reviewing some of this material, I realized that I was guilty of some of it. I realized this because I began rationalizing. I didn't get angry or anything, but I began thinking, "Well, I don't do that all the time...". But I caught myself. I realized what I was doing and realized that I should probably work on that. So that's what I intend to do. I hope the rest of you will too.

Please read this fantastic talk by President Benson on pride: HERE

What Makes a Good Villain?

What indeed? Every story needs some form of antagonist, an opposing force to give the story conflict, otherwise the story is quite boring. The antagonist can com in the form of a person, but can also be internal like when the protagonist has conflicting desires or values. Of course, the most intense and exciting form of an antagonist is the villain: when the antagonist has evil intentions.

As an avid reader and movie-watcher, I have come across many, many villains throughout my life. Villains are often my favorite part of a story. Some I remember, some I don’t. What is it about certain ones that makes them memorable? I have been thinking about it and realized that a lot of the memorable and forgettable ones have many of the same characteristics, but some just stand out more than others. What is it?

First off, I believe that a hero is only as good as their villain. If the villain is lame, then the story is lame. The hero can be lame, but if the villain is good, I think the story can be saved... It’s kind of interesting. I believe it’s because the villain is the main source of the conflict and the conflict is what makes the story interesting. I mean, obviously other factors play in and can also save it, but when it comes down to the raw core of the thing, it’s all about the hero and villain in most cases. Let me give two examples: GOOD: Sir Percy Blakeney and Chauvelin from The Scarlet Pimpernel. BAD: Pocahontas and Governor Ratcliffe from Disney’s Pocahontas. 

Chauvelin from The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982)

Sir Percy and Chauvelin are a good example because they are equally matched. Both are clever in their own way, Chauvelin is threatening and conniving, Percy is mysterious, neither knows what each other is thinking, you can really feel the suspense and tension between the two characters. There is a real threat present. 

Governor Ratcliffe from Pocahontas

As for Pocahontas, Ratcliffe is threatening to the land and Pocahontas’s people, but he is pretty generic. He talks big and he is greedy, but there is not an overwhelming tension or threat. Even though what he does is bad, he is just so bland and generic about it, you forget about it as soon as the movie is over. He is just a prissy, greedy, white guy with the same old boring prejudices who wants money and power and will do anything to get it.

This brings me to my next point: motive. Even though I don’t feel that this is the most important factor when making a villain (because many of my favorite villains have some of the silliest motives, like Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty), I do think that it can definitely contribute. Common motives include revenge, power, and greed, sometimes all three. If a writer can come up with a very original and interesting motive, that will stick with readers/viewers and that will help them remember the villain. Not that there’s anything particularly wrong with the common motives, it’s just that sometimes if something is rehashed so many times, people get bored and don’t pay attention. On the other end of the scale, sometimes I think writers get so wrapped up in the motive, they don’t bother to flesh out anything else about their villains.

This ties in to my next point which is show. How do they display their power or their villainy? Whether it's a subtle, clever villain or a flamboyant, eccentric one, how is that displayed? Sometimes, I think that-- especially movie writers-- like to cover up their bland villains with a lot of show. Marvel in particular really has a problem with this. How many Marvel villains do you actually remember? Let me guess... Is it Loki? Nobody else? Maybe one or two others just vaguely? 

Let me explain why this is. In the moment while you’re watching the film, you get excited by the villain and their plot. You cheer for the hero(es) and you want the villain defeated. However, by the time the movie is over, you completely forget the villain and probably even their name. While watching it, you’re very wrapped up in it, but afterwards... nothing. That’s because of show. The explosions, the imminent threat, your fear for the hero’s safety in the moment. But stop and think about it for a minute. Their plots are usually either sort of bland or overly complicated, they have no qualities that make them stand out, they’re not clever, sometimes they don’t even have an interesting design. 

Now, I come to the one villain in the Marvel universe everyone remembers: Loki. Why him? Yes, he is showy like many of the others and often has a generic and/or overly complicated plan. However, he has other qualities that make him stand out. One, he is the brother of one of the heroes making it legitimately tragic; two, he is actually clever and sly, not all show; three, he is kind of funny, not all quips and generic bantering; four, he has feelings, we see him get more than just angry and angrier and furious and mad, we see him get sad and happy and such; five, his costume is awesome; six, his power is memorable and interesting, and he uses it to his advantage in interesting ways; Lastly, his actor, Tom Hiddleston, is brilliant!

So you see, there are many contributing factors in making Loki memorable. You cannot just give someone a scary look, have them cackle and twirl their mustache, and call them a villain. There’s much more to it than that.

There are two main types of villains, I believe (which can be sub-categorized): The clever, subtle ones, and the psycho, chaotic ones. I really like both. The Joker from the Batman comics is one of my all-time favorite villains. It sort of depends on what version you’re looking at, but ideally, he’s the definition of psycho meets clever. The Dark Knight, in particular, delves deep into this. He is the pure definition of anarchy in that movie. But, in any version, you can see how twisted this guy is. A lot of the time, he has no motive and is just there to “have some fun”. He and Batman are equally matched and his power is shown is brilliant ways. He can be totally hilarious and then downright terrifying. He is unbelievably smart, but his genius is so twisted. I love this villain so much! His design is bizarrely interesting, he can be funny, he’s completely crazy, he’s intelligent, he’s scary, he’s up for the challenge of Batman. He's a great villain!

Something else writers like to do is give the villain a tragic backstory, try to make their motives more understandable and/or make the villain more relatable... and a lot of the time this falls flat on its face. A classic example of this is Darth Vader from the Star Wars movies. Darth Vader is one of the most iconic villains in cinematic history. His first introduction was so chilling. A large ominous figure standing over dead bodies, that breathing, his voice. He was terrifying. With the original Star Wars movies, you get a sense of his background through conversations and you realize the tragedy of it. It was brilliantly done, but despite this, you still feared him. and he was still interesting. In fact, his background made him more interesting. 

But then, the prequels came out and we had to actually watch his backstory. Without giving away spoilers (just in case someone's reading this who hasn't seen Star Wars... weirdos ;P), just seeing Darth Vader, a villain so menacing and revered, in that form as a whiny, "tragic" kid, ruined his image for a lot of people. My point is, villains don't always need a backstory. I mean, sometimes it works and it does make them more interesting or tragic, even relatable. But why does the villain have to be relatable? Isn't it the hero we're supposed to be relating to? This is becoming a major problem nowadays. The villain always needs a tragic past and needs to the audience to sympathize with them. Then when it doesn't work, it just makes them look pathetic. Yes, sometimes the backstory gives reason to why the villain is doing what they're doing and helps the audience understand better, but for heaven's sake, make it interesting and not generic! And even more, don't let it ruin the villain's image! One last point, sometimes it's OK for the villain to be evil for the sake of being evil. Some psychos out there, as Alfred from Batman says, "Just like to watch the world burn". That can be just as interesting to watch if it is done properly.


A lot of movies think that if a villain looks scary, kills lots of people, yells a lot, has an evil laugh, and whatnot, they’re a good villain. Not true. While that stuff can contribute, a good villain has to have so much more. Don’t be blinded by show. It’s like being distracted by a shiny object. Villains are just as important to the story as everything else. Without them, there would be no conflict and the story would fall flat on its face. Pay attention to them!

The Light of Christ

Ever since I came up here to BYU-I, I have heard one phrase used A LOT: "The Light of Christ". At first I didn't think much of it, but then, as I heard it used more and more, I began to wonder, "What exactly is the Light of Christ?". My roommates especially use this phrase a lot when describing people, mostly in context of their inner goodness and purity. However, I think it goes beyond that. 

Christ is more than just "goodness". I mean, obviously he is the epitome of goodness, so saying you have "the Light of Christ" would be an apt description of saying you are good and pure. However, I think there is more to it, perhaps even more than we can comprehend.

If you go to D&C 88, it actually talks about what the Light of Christ is:

"7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

...

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things." (Emphasis added)

So, I'd say that's a little more than just goodness and purity. I'm not sure I even fully understand it. My BOM teacher said he didn't completely comprehend its meaning. I like to think that because Christ is the creator of all things, his presence resides in all things... How exactly that works, I don't know.

It's like the Holy Ghost, I suppose. D&C 88 talks about that too in verse 3:

"Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John."

The Light of Christ is "another Comforter" and it "abide(s) in our hearts". While the Holy Ghost is a constant companion, the Light of Christ seems to be something that comes and goes; something that shines brighter at different times. For this reason, I'd say, is why people label it as a conscience or goodness and purity. However, as I said above, it is more than that. Much more. I believe that every living person has it. While not everybody has the companionship of the Holy Ghost, everybody has the Light of Christ; because it is "in all things" and "giveth life".

Zootopia: A Review (spoiler free)

So, the latest Disney movie just came out: Zootopia. As a Disnerd, I feel compelled to talk about it.

What is this latest flick about? Well, for those of you who might not know, here's the general idea:
It takes place in a world where animals have evolved past their traditional predator/prey relationship and have formed a fully functioning society where "anybody can be anything". The plot centers around a bunny, Judy Hopps, who becomes the first bunny police officer as she tries to prove her worth on the force. She is put on a missing person's (or otter's) case and is forced to work with her natural enemy, a fox, who is a key witness, in order to find him.

So what did I think of this film?

Well, first off, I have to say that going in, I was excited, but not that excited. I had been looking forward to seeing it for a while, but mostly because it was Disney. I thought it looked kind of cute, but I was not expecting anything huge. I thought there'd be some clever jokes, pop culture references in animal form, and just a cute little story line. I really thought this was going to be more geared towards the kids. Like, "Ooh! Look at the talking bunny! Aw, how sweet!". Nothing too special.

Boy, was I wrong!

I was blown away with how amazing this film was! I honestly think this might be one of my new favorite Disney movies, I'm not even kidding.

The jokes! Ha-LAR-ious! I could not stop laughing! I think I laughed at every single one, and hard. The sloths in the DMV, the yoga scene... I was dying! Yes, there were some pop culture references in animal form and obvious product placement, but you know what? I'm gonna let it slide because everything else was so perfect! And some of it was pretty funny so...

The plot was not super cutsie and light like I thought it would be. It got pretty intense and heavy, almost intricate. It was a legitimate mystery with twists and turns. I thought I knew who did it... nope not them. THEN I thought I had it figured out. Nope, that either. It did a surprisingly good job of keeping you on your toes. (But not too much, I mean, it is still a family flick.) But that climax... I was covering my face, it was so intense!

The action was pretty fun. There wasn't a ton, but when there was, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was well animated and believable.

Wow, those emotional scenes though. I haven't legitimately cried in a movie in a while. I talk about it and exaggerate it all the time, but I have not actually done it in a long time. Then this movie got me... twice. Nick's back story, holy cow! That hit me hard! There were some other moments that were surprisingly deep and hard-hitting, especially for a kids' film.

Then, of course, the moral. What do you take away from it? Like everything else, it surprised me, and took a different turn than I expected. Yes, it had the obvious message of "follow your dream, you can do anything you set your mind to", but it was done super well. Even though this message is sort of old hat especially in Disney movies, I was pumping my fists for this poor bunny, and by the end I did feel empowered.
But then, there was another message about coexisting and accepting each other. It wasn't terribly hashed out and overkilled like it could have been (since that message is a big deal nowadays). It was dealt with very maturely and in a dignified manner. It actually showed both sides of the stick getting abused which you don't usually see. I loved it! That's how it should be!

There were a couple obvious cliches, but they were handled well, I thought. That and the product placement are pretty much my only negative criticisms. The voice acting was spot on, the animation was beautiful and flawless, and the music was amazing.

I was actually grinning all the way through the credits and walked out of the theater still smiling, with a spring in my step. I can't remember that ever happening to me before. This movie made me so happy! 9.8/10! I highly, highly recommend it!