#but the inability (and unwillingness) to share about LITERAL MURDER

[barnbridges]

these two are my girlfriends.

[cfr749]

Initial Thoughts on Chenford in 6x07

All right... I'm feeling... a lot at the moment, so just sharing my initial reactions before seeing anyone else's. I'm sure my feelings will evolve. Also this turned into a GD essay and I'm sorry.

The Good

Grey acknowledging that Lucy was going through a lot ABOVE & BEYOND the break up. I just wish he'd mentioned the shooting, too. Lucy deserves to be more than her relationship with Tim and I need to actually see that in the future.

Lucy laying out 2 key things in her conversation with Grey - how easily Tim walked away and that he had no right to make that decision for her

Prior to the last scene (see The Ugly below), I thought Tim's interactions with the therapist were reasonably well done; if only therapy was that easy in real life lol

"You've always got a home with me" - I loved this final scene between Lucy and Tamara. I don't really have feelings either way about Tamara at this point, and this still hit me right in the heart.

Smitty's poll made me laugh, but also another solid indicator that these writers / producers do in fact really enjoy laughing at the expense of the fandom and shippers (which, whatever, I don't care that they do, I'd prob do the same; but it does irk me when people act like these writers should be worshipped because of all the things they "give" us)

The Tim

"I'm not depressed. I broke up with her."

"I was her TO." Not her friend, cuz god knows Tim has yet to deal with the fact that he started banging his former Rookie I suppose.

I dunno whether to put this in The Good or The Bad at this point; it depends on where they take it, so instead Tim gets a section all about why he's a dick.

To be clear, I do not like that Tim is a dick. But I actually do kind of like that it is very clear TO THE AUDIENCE that Tim is being kind of a dick. Do I still think people will bend over backwards to defend him? Of course they will.

From my perspective, I love Tim, I understand that he thinks he's doing the right thing, and has lots and lots of trauma. I've never seen Tim as a character that magically healed at some point between Seasons 1 & 5 (please see his storyline with his dad, his ongoing issues with UC work and unwillingness to confront or deal with them, his feelings about therapy historically, his inability to dump Ashley, etc. etc.). He's never been perfect and he doesn't need to be.

All of those things are true. None of those things give him a free pass to be kind of a dick. He still has to take accountability for how he treated Lucy (which, to be clear, was like sh*t).

The Bad

Lucy being petty AF with the invites to Tamara's dinner - let her be ANGRY, but give me villain Lucy over this dumb sh*t.

Lucy having no one other than Grey to talk to.

Others acting like Lucy is actually kind of pathetic (why do these writers love sh*tting on her so much? girl could not be down and kicked any harder at this point) -- Celina / Nolan and the double dumping crap, Lucy thinking Grey paid actors and him telling her she was out of her damn mind

The last interaction between Lucy and Tim. I am so angry for her. I needed to see that from her, but instead it felt kind of like her being dumped / a kicked puppy all over again. We got it, thanks. What's next? Lucy being incredibly happy with the hottest man on earth? I'm here for it tbh. Lucy plotting Tim's murder? Also here for it at this point. LOL.

The Ugly

I could not hate the implication of that final scene with Tim and the therapist and the door shutting more. There was ZERO reason they couldn't have had him show up during the day, and it actually disgusts me that they are pushing this line again, but especially with Tim. I am literally NEVER this dramatic, but in this case I really hope they did that to just get a reaction, because if anything were to actually happen between Tim and the therapist, I'd be 100% done with this ship and show as would a whole lot of the audience (I think). If I kept watching, it would only be to see Lucy be absurdly happy without Tim.

Well, what'd I miss? What did y'all think?

[kazoo-world]

Look okay I was really nervous for the finale I didn’t love the direction of episodes 6 and 7 in terms of where the budget cuts took us and I liked most of the finale (I am even on board for Izzy dying, honestly, and thats a hot take I suspect a lot of people disagree with but that’s another post). Two things, though:

Ed killed. Ed killed a lot of people in episode 8. I can understand coming back to his love being the thing that breaks in him the fear of being the Kraken, of it being so easy for him to do what he has to do, because he knows he has to do it and love is worth breaking that promise to himself. And I am fine with D Jenks thinking Ed is ready to grow in the sense that he is willing to kill for the right reasons or let go of the way he views himself for doing it/has trauma flashbacks and whatever about killing. Kind of inherently funny to have a character grow in their unwillingness to murder by having them murder more. But please oh my g-d how was there not even a little look into Ed’s emotional state, a marker of this growth or change? He didn’t blink and it doesn’t seem to have affected him at all that this change has happened in him. That doesn’t feel quite right, considering this is a HUGE step for him, that there is no character beat for it. We get Izzy’s speech on killing for a family, but I can’t stand by allowing another character to speak Ed’s thoughts when we got literal Shakespearean soliloquy from Ed on the delights of fishing.

Secondly, I am all for Ed and Stede owning an inn, but please they need to have a conversation why was there no conversation shown the reason is budget cuts but Ed even asks him if he’s having second thoughts and Stede just says no, almost implying that the growth is…their inability to be comfortable telling each other no, and that romance means giving up your dreams to share your partner’s dream. I am not happy with this. They need to settle explicitly on having a shared vision for their lives. This is a big change for Stede, someone who is presumably dealing with the complicated emotions of having chosen to be with Ed over his dream to become something as a pirate. It would be so much more romantic to hear and see Stede tell Ed that he genuinely wants the life Ed wants for himself, and for Stede to find a place for himself in that dream that appeases his own needs, so that it is a dream they build as a couple. I suspect the beginning of season 3 will get into how they deal with this decision and their relationship, mostly in terms of the comedy of errors of being domestic and trying to start a business without sufficient planning, but if it doesn’t, I will not be happy.

[troybeecham]

Fr. Troy Beecham

Sermon, Proper 23 A 2020

Matthew 22:1-14

“Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. Again, he sent other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.’ But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’ Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so, the wedding hall was filled with guests. “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.”

This is the third parable of Jesus in a row as recorded in the Gospel according to St. Matthew about the kingdom of heaven. Given the teaching of the prophets, those Jewish listeners who heard Jesus’ parable would have readily associated a festive meal with the celebration of God’s covenant people after the Day of Judgement. This parable falls under the category of the “hard sayings” of Jesus because in it he unflinchingly speaks about judgement and punishment, and we 21st century Western folks find it difficult to think in such ways. We have been taught to perceive Jesus, and God the Father, as being our buddy, a laid-back self-help guru who only wants us to be nice to each other. Being nice to each other is certainly a laudable thing, but when we cast Jesus in such a non-Scriptural role it can obscure, or completely eliminate, the clarity of Jesus when he speaks about judgement and punishment. We must also remember that he preached this parable only days before his crucifixion. Knowing how little time he had left, Jesus pulls no punches, but rather pleads with us to be changed and made ready for what is to come.

One particular criticism of Jesus in this parable is that it sounds harsh to our ears, and the punishments seem disproportionate to the crime. For his contemporaries, this language sounded like the realities of their lives, even appropriate, and some took pleasure in hearing about the just punishment of the wrong-doers. They heard their own prejudices affirmed: all the “bad” people, the “wrong type of people” were getting their just punishments. As much as we like to think that we have matured out of seeing God as Judge, we today are just as happy when we hear how our enemies are going to “get what’s coming to them”. I see it in print daily as we judge each other over our responses to the political and social issues of the moment, the absolute glee as each side fantasizes about how their enemies are going to suffer when their candidates win or lose. We can make no spiritual progress without the willingness to look at our secret desire for the judgement of others and the desire for a wrathful God when it comes to our enemies.

But is that all there is to be seen in this parable? Can God only be a wrathful enforcer of arbitrary rules on the one hand or the indulgent, doting father who cannot see that his children are anything other than wonderful on the other? God, Jesus teaches us, is much more than either of these extremes. Let’s look further into the parable to see why.

The parallel to this parable as recounted in the Gospel according to St. Luke follows a dinner at the home of a Pharisee, whom Jesus challenges to invite those who cannot repay his hospitality: the “the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind”. It is more than mere hospitality and money that is being examined here. To share a meal with the cripples, the lame, and the blind would render the Pharisee unclean according to his understanding of the Torah. This is no simple thing, but literally an issue of the Pharisee being in right relationship with God. Jesus challenges him to see that his understanding of the Torah is clouded, and so is his soul, with the prejudices of his time. His slow, or complete lack of, response is entirely understandable. How easily could any of us be told that the core of our beliefs is wrong, have been wrong, for centuries, and that our right standing with God is in jeopardy because of our inability, or unwillingness, to have our beliefs challenged and redirected in a new way? This is no less true for a culture as for an individual. Change is difficult, especially around our core beliefs about God, ourselves, and each other.

But change is at the heart of Jesus’ proclamation of the coming of the kingdom of God. We all of us are called to be changed, or using biblical language to repent, and to be open to God in ways that usually challenge and frighten us. Allowing the Holy Spirit to come and transform us from within is frightening when you think about the consequences of a truly transformed life. Jesus uses the language of being born again, being born anew, born from above. We must be born again, a throughgoing and wholesale transformation of our values, our core beliefs, and our conditioned loves and hatreds. Anything less is to show up, as the parable says, to the banquet wearing the wrong robes.

There’s a contemporary parable in the Talmud:

A king who summoned his servants to a banquet, but did not appoint a day or a time. Now kings can be unpredictable: one day merciful, another wrathful. The wise invitees dropped all that they were doing, got dressed in their best, and sat at the door of the palace to await the pleasure of the king. They said to themselves “It may not look like a banquet is being prepared, but this is the palace of the great king! He can order a banquet at any moment and his will shall be done!” The foolish invitees went about their daily lives, saying to themselves “We will wait until we hear that preparations are being made, and the we will bathe, clothe ourselves in finery, and present ourselves to the palace of the great king.” Without warning, the king ordered his servants to prepare a banquet immediately, to open the doors and escort his invitees into the feast. The wise ones entered into the presence of the king, prepared and adorned in their finery, but the foolish ones hurried to the palace and entered the presence of the king unbathed, clothes in dirty work clothes, totally unprepared even though they had been told to prepare for the banquet by the servants of the king. The king warmly received the wise, who entered rejoicing, but with the fools he was angry. Then the king proclaimed “Those who heeded my invitation, prepared themselves and waiting for me cleansed and dressed in finery, let them be seated with me and rejoice with me. But those foolish ones, cast them out, confiscate their lands, and let them be placed in chains!”

Kings are unpredictable. They keep their own counsel and answer to only themselves. It is entirely their decision as to when they will open the doors of the kingdom and set out a feast. But the king’s son, Jesus, and his servants, the prophets and the apostles, have proclaimed the invitation of the king. To refuse to come, to refuse a king’s command, is treason; to kill his son or his servants amounts to insurrection, so the king will send his troops, his angels, to put down the rebellion. We have been invited. We are awaiting the command of the king. How have we responded? Have we allowed the Holy Spirit to enter into our lives to transform us? Have we welcomed the Son, our Savior Jesus, into our souls so that we might be born again and clothed in the robes of his righteousness? Have we dropped everything to await the Day of the Lord at the doors of the kingdom, ready to enter when God calls for the end of time and the Day of Judgement? Or are we still clothed in the rags of our own busyness, our own righteousness, and filled with the prejudices, hatreds, and loves of this world? There will come a day when we must all stand before the judgment of God. Are you prepared?

My prayer is that we may all receive the invitation of God with the wisdom that is the gift of grace, and so yield ourselves and our of our lives to his Holy Spirit that we might be born again and clothed in the righteousness of Jesus, having our deepest selves remade in his image so that we may love what he loves and desire only what he desires. We must be prepared, my friends, for no one knows the day or the hour except the Father.

Lord, we pray that your grace may always precede and follow us, that we may continually be given to good works; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

[galacticnewsnetwork]

What Happens When Fandom Doesn't Grow Up?

Adults are insisting childhood brands from 'Star Wars' to Marvel continue to cater to them, but does preserving the past limit the future?

There’s a proverb that says, “you can’t take it with you,” popularized by playwrights George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart in their 1936 Pulitzer Prize-winning production of the same name. The expression was in reference to our inability to take our material possessions with us to the afterlife, though opinion differs on whether this advice is a suggestion to spend freely, or to not worry about collecting pricey material possessions at all — the conclusion being that our possessions only have worth in the present, or that they may not have as much value in the grand scheme of life as we think.

Though the idiom is seen through the perspective of mortality, it works just as well when viewed through the lens of life’s transitional periods, particularly childhood to adulthood. The notion that we can’t take it with us is arguably a sibling to 1 Corinthians 13:11, which states: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways.” Perhaps these expressions once carried weight, but in our current age of pop culture, a living and breathing monument to nostalgia, it has become harder and harder for adults to leave the things they loved as children behind.

From superheroes, Star Wars, fairy tales, and cartoons, the things many of us loved as children remain something we love today – protectively, passionately, and even problematically. This fierce nostalgia is arguably even more common with Millennials whose instantaneous embrace of the internet has allowed very few childhood staples to slip through the cracks in memory. Even if we’re not buying lightsabers, Hulk hands, or Barbie Dream Houses anymore, these characters and concepts are possessions that reside with many of us and sometimes define a key aspect of our identities. Previous generations, less driven by early age consumerist culture, don’t quite have the same involvement as late game Gen Xers and Millennials. In other words, no one is asking for a Lincoln Logs movie. Our inability, or maybe our unwillingness, to put childish things behind us and accept their temporary value isn’t an inherently negative facet of generational culture. But it is interesting how this modern nostalgia presents itself.

Courtesy of Walt Disney Studios Motion PicturesAvengers: Infinity War Still

If you take a brief perusal of the Twitter reactions to the teaser for the live-action Kim Possible TV movie that Disney Channel released last Aug. 10, you’ll find plenty of opinions from people upset with the casting, claims it could never live up to the cartoon, or fans hyped with the addendum that "this is for us, not the kids." These passionate, often volatile responses about a once popular kids cartoon are overwhelming from adults. Similar sentiments came after Nickelodeon announced a CGI animated version of the Rugrats and released an image of the updated Chucky. More alarming were male commenters on Twitter photos for the new She-Ra cartoon, noise that basically resulted in a claim that the cartoon character should be “hotter,” and closer to the depiction of the character in the 1985 Filmation cartoon.

There’s an intense desire that these new iterations and reboots not be for the kids of today, but for those in their 20s and 30s. A quick search online will deliver any cartoon character from the '90s you could think of as adult contemporary versions. Some artists, like Brandon Avant, whose work went viral last year, have brought a real craft to these reimaginings of the characters from Doug, Goof Troop, and Arthur, as adults in their 20s, tattooed and stylish. There’s certainly fun to be had in alternative depictions of fictional characters, but there’s also a sense that many fans of these '90s shows would prefer these versions brought back to life on TV and movie screens, as opposed to anything geared towards children.

This feeling of ownership stems from an idea that kids today don’t care about certain characters anymore, at least not in the same way that those of us who grew up in the late '80s and '90s did, or do. Perhaps there is something to that. How many of the properties popularized in the '80s or '90s would still be popular without the adult fandom that keeps it alive through memes and Buzzfeed posts? Of course there are properties like Star Wars, Marvel, and Disney animated movies that are eternal. But there are also properties like Gargoyles, Animaniacs, and So Weird that would draw a blank for many kids today. Even once popular shows and platforms like Looney Tunes and The Muppets have fallen out of favor among children in terms of the position they used to hold with previous generations. While the rumored Space Jam 2 starring Lebron James may bring some children back on board with Warner Bros’ classic library of toons, there’s also the fact that that project currently seems to be more anticipated by those who grew up with the original 1996 film. Perhaps the only way to keep some of these characters and concepts alive is to cater to the now adult audiences. But what happens when these characters grow up?

Properties like Marvel, Star Wars, and Disney’s reimaginings of animated classics have managed to bridge the generational gap, appealing to children, adults, and elderly audiences. While Disney collectively has managed to find a way to appeal to almost everyone, there are a few recent examples that call into question the desire to really see our childhood heroes grow up. Rian Johnson’s Star Wars: The Last Jedi created controversy last December, a controversy that has unfortunately bled into 2018 in regards to its depiction of Luke Skywalker, who has become bitter and disconnected from the force. Luke Skywalker grew up, got old, got tired, and got fandom in their feelings over the fact that the Jedi wasn’t leading the charge across space, green lightsaber in hand. While The Last Jedi is a commentary on the failure of the previous generation, setting the stage for new characters Rey, Finn, Rose, and Poe to start their own revolution on their own terms and “let the past die,” many Star Wars viewers weren’t interested in seeing the next generation take charge and instead clung to defunct canon. While many want these characters to grow up with them, they want them to grow up on their own terms, and if not to remake the plot points of their childhoods, then at least to recreate the feeling they got from those original films.

Laurie Sparham/DisneyChristopher Robin

A similar situation of childhood properties expected to grow up under strict terms followed the release of Marc Forster’s Christopher Robin. While Winnie the Pooh remains a beloved children’s property, kept alive by various television shows and animated movies, Christopher Robin tells a story where the titular boy has become a man and left his childhood friends, Pooh, Piglet, Tigger, Eeyore behind in the Hundred Acre Wood. Christopher Robinisn’t only the first iteration of the property to be rated PG, it’s also deeply melancholy, and grounded in the working class struggle of post-World War II London. Favoring dark grays and weather-worn cinematography, along with allusions to the directorial touches of Terrence Malick, Christopher Robin often feels explicitly geared towards adults. Yes, there are moments of warmth, brightness, and the humor that made A.A. Milne and E.H. Shepard’s stories so beloved in the first place, but unless you have a kid who’s eagerly sitting down to watch Days of Heaven, there’s a lot in Forster’s presentation geared towards adults. The reaction to this take has been somewhat mixed, with a number of critics lamenting the film’s more serious insights and a lack of fun. But what’s interesting is that Christopher Robin speaks directly to the phenomenon we’ve been discussing. Christopher Robin (Ewan McGregor) realizes that being an adult doesn’t necessarily mean leaving childhood things behind, but incorporating them into adulthood. While this revelation doesn’t take Christopher Robin into Ted (2012) territory, there are interesting parallels to these stories of men who are incomplete without the literal representations of their childhood in tow.

The Happytime Murders

Perhaps this is all a rather roundabout way to approach the issue of Muppets offering unsolicited sex and hard drugs in Happytime Murders, but nonetheless, the sentiment remains true. We don’t really want to put away childish things, we want them to grow up with us. Brian Henson’s R-rated crime-comedy film starring Melissa McCarthy, earned its share of pre-release controversy, with the Sesame Workshop suing production company STX for the use of the tagline “No Sesame. All Street.” Sesame Street remains popular among young audiences, but the Disney owned Muppets have largely fallen out of favor with the last movie The Muppets Most Wantedmaking a poor box office showing ($80.4 million on a $50 million budget), and sitcom The Muppets being canceled in 2016 after one season. With Disney seemingly having no plans for the characters anytime soon, perhaps Brian Henson’s best bet to keep his father’s art-form alive, if not the characters themselves, was to appeal to a desire to see Muppet-esque characters in adult situations, something that worked well for the popular Broadway musical Avenue Q.  

Not every modern resurrection of once sensational properties has opted to appeal to adults. R.L. Stine’s book series Goosebumps, which led to a popular television series in the '90s, was adapted as a film in 2015. A sequel, Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween is set for release on Oct. 12 this year. The first film is kids’ movies through and through, and trailer for the sequel indicates that this new installment will go even further in that direction, given its younger cast. This doesn’t mean the films don’t register with adults, but rather they aren’t appealing to our nostalgia, going as far to drastically redesign some of the characters popularized by Fox Kids/YTV show and refrain from utilizing the classic theme song. The Goosebumps films haven’t grown up with us, but rather see kids of Gen Z as their primary audience.

Ava DuVernay’s A Wrinkle in Time (2018) is another film that struck a chord with younger audiences more so than adults who read the book series growing up, or those who remember the 2003 ABC television film. It’s a film that aims to be an intelligent kids’ movie, a big-budget PG experience that we rarely see in live-action theatrical releases anymore. Films like Goosebumps and A Wrinkle in Time ask us to meet kids on their level, rather than asking them to rise to an adolescent or adult level to enjoy the things we refuse to loosen our grips on. With films based on Are You Afraid of the Dark and Barbie set to receive new interpretations, and a Sandlot(1993) prequel in development, it will be interesting to see which audience demographic they appeal to and how much nostalgia they’ll give into. We’re living in the height of pop culture adaptations, and if we’ve proven anything, it’s that we’ll take these childish ways with us as far as we can.

Source: Hollywood Reporter by Richard Newby

[notjustabadguy]

“Ghost” Characters in Hogwarts Houses

Sam Wheat - Gryffindor

Sam is about as Gryffindor as you can get. The defining traits of a true Gryffindor are bravery and chivalry. These are often accompanied by a strong sense of right and wrong, an unwillingness to concede ground or admit defeat, and an affinity for action in times of crisis.

Like every House, though, Gryffindor qualities have both positive and negative aspects. The strong moral code can make some Gryffindors see the world in terms of black and white, blinding them to the grey areas. The reluctance to admit defeat can become stubbornness, and the desire for action can lead to rushing into danger, without stopping to properly assess the threats in a situation.

Sam shows all of these qualities, both positive and negative, in spades. He proves his bravery and chivalry by literally giving his life to defend Molly. In the struggle with Willie, another Gryffindor trait is displayed as well: the trademark recklessness shows in his attempt to get the jump on an armed mugger.

His strong sense of justice is shown as he unravels the truth behind his murder and makes it his mission to punish those responsible. And his persistence in this mission, despite being at a distinct disadvantage (being incorporeal and unable to communicate traditionally with the living) demonstrates the strength of his determination and his unwillingness to surrender.

All in all, Gryffindors are good people to have on your side. Some of their qualities may be slightly irritating to those who prefer calm rationale and trying to see both sides of a disagreement, but when you’re in any kind of trouble, a Gryffindor is the best asset you can have. They’re big on standing up for the little guy, loyalty to their friends and loved ones, and fighting the good fight. As such, Sam is an excellent representative of the Lion House.

Molly Jensen - Ravenclaw

Ravenclaws are best known for their intelligence, creativity, and reasoning capabilities. Though primarily regarded as the House that scores well on tests and overachieves at all things academic, Eagles are also the artists of Hogwarts—the writers, painters, musicians, etc. As such, Molly was fairly easy to place, being a sculptor.

She also displays other Ravenclaw qualities: intelligence, a reliance on academia, faith in the system and the rules that have been set in place, a healthy dose of skepticism, and an aptitude for calm, rational discourse and problem-solving.

As with the Lions, many Ravenclaw characteristics are a two-sided coin: for example, they tend to have too much confidence in the system, assuming that the established rules to govern any situation will do exactly as intended, without taking human error into consideration. Ravenclaws also like to talk disagreements out calmly, which is usually a good strategy, except some people don’t want to talk—they just want to hurt you. And that skepticism can lead to an inability to set logic aside sometimes and just have faith.

Molly’s speech patterns indicate high intelligence, and her reliance on systems of authority is demonstrated at several points—from her worry over the critic from the Times, to the outcome of her visit to the police station. The Ravenclaw affinity for talking things through shows in her attempt to inject cool rationale into the situation between Sam and Willie, inadvertently making it worse instead. And of course, her skepticism is displayed in her disbelief of Oda Mae; despite her heart telling her it was the truth, her rational mind couldn’t conceive of a world where spirits existed.

Despite their shortcomings, Ravenclaws are excellent to have around. They help provide much-needed perspective to the Gryffindors and Slytherins in their lives, who are often all too willing to go full steam ahead and damn the consequences.

Carl Bruner - Slytherin

Putting the villain of the film in the “evil House” may seem like a pretty straightforward decision, but as many of my Followers may have already guessed, there’s a lot more to it than that.

Most of the villains in the Harry Potter series are Slytherins, which makes many Potterheads see Slytherins in a negative light. But the Snakes have had their share of good guys too: Snape and Slughorn are excellent examples, and both of the Cursed Child heroes are Slytherins as well. And some of the nastiest antagonists in the series are from other Houses (Quirrell and Lockheart are Ravenclaws; Wormtail is a Gryffindor).

In fact, “evil” is a concept that has nothing to do with Sorting. The defining traits of Slytherin House are ambition, resourcefulness, and cunning. Snakes also traditionally prize self-preservation. In addition, Slytherin shares a number of characteristics with Gryffindor, including determination, pride, and, as Dumbledore points out, “a certain disregard for the rules.” Gryffindor and Slytherin are, in fact, very similar Houses in many respects: most of the talents of Gryffindors are shared by Slytherins, and it is only in values that they truly differ. Lions are guided by morality, whereas Snakes are guided by pragmatism.

In the Slytherin mindset, if you want something, you should take it; if you don’t need to endanger yourself, don’t. Guilt is an abstract concept which has little place in practical doings. However, this does not erase the concepts of friendship or loyalty, and can even make them stronger in certain personality types. Snakes often form strong bonds with others, because one’s friends or family are seen as an extension of oneself; therefore, it is in a Slytherin’s best interest to look out for those they are close to.

Carl’s ambition and self-serving qualities are shown over and over throughout the film—even early on, before the big reveal. In fact, one of the earliest lines references him as being “obsessed” with money, something he willingly admits. His “certain disregard" for the rules of law and morality—essentially considering them obstacles to the quickest and easiest way of attaining his ambitions—is demonstrated at several points, most notably in his laundering money, but also in his pursuit of Molly.

The Slytherin pragmatism is also showcased in this instance: while Sam was alive, the knowledge that Moll was his best friend’s girl stopped Carl from making a move. Harming his friendship with Sam would have harmed him personally on an emotional level, so it would have been going against his own interests to risk it. But when Sam died, he was removed entirely from existence in Carl’s limited worldview, leaving no “real” obstacle to a relationship with Molly, only that abstract concept of guilt.

And of course, Carl’s value of self-preservation ultimately became his downfall. Everything he did to extend his own life, even to the point of endangering Sam and Moll, only led him more surely to his eventual death. This is the great flaw in the “practicality” of the Snake House: what many Slytherins view as abstract sentiments are quite real factors in life, with real consequences.

Slytherins can be some of the best friends you’ll have: they can help the Eagles in their lives loosen up, aid their Lion pals by doing things a Gryffindor might find morally ambiguous or distasteful (usually without the Gryff’s knowledge), and they’ll fiercely protect those they are loyal to by any means necessary. But they can also be dangerous enemies if those loyalties shift. Carl’s loyalty to his friends was eventually outweighed by his loyalty to his own ambitions, and that proved disastrous for everyone involved.

Oda Mae Brown - Hufflepuff

Oda Mae was the hardest character to Sort. She has some qualities of other Houses: Slytherin’s cunning and self-interest are most prominent, but she also shows a Gryffindor’s bravery in times of great peril, and even some Ravenclaw creativity. In a way, though, that made the choice to place her in Hufflepuff even more obvious.

Hufflepuff is the “odd House out" in Hogwarts. The fandom doesn’t quite know what to make of them, nor do other Hogwarts students. Voldemort’s infamous words about Cedric Diggory as a “spare” echo the sentiments of many. A lot of Potterheads can strongly relate to the confusion demonstrated in a line from the well-known fan parody A Very Potter Musical: “What the hell is a Hufflepuff?”

The problem with Hufflepuff is that, while many Badgers display certain supposedly defining traits—hardworking, cheerful, friendly, honest and genuine, patient, and modest—there really is no requirement for being Sorted into Badger House. As the Sorting Hat quoted Helga Hufflepuff, “I’ll teach the lot, / And treat them just the same.” Hufflepuff is essentially the House for those who do not have strong tendencies for any of the other Houses: those who are not particularly brave, ambitious, or intelligent. While Hufflepuffs can certainly be all three of those things (look at Cedric Diggory for bravery, Newt Scamander for intellect and creativity, and Ernie Macmillan or Zacharias Smith for ambition), the point is that, while they may all exist in Hufflepuffs, none of them are the driving personality traits behind any Badger.

Oda Mae fits into this “not fitting in” bracket fairly well, as well as displaying some of the more common Hufflepuff traits: namely, being open and genuine, upbeat, and fairly impartial in questions of morality. While the Gryffindors and Slytherins are busy butting heads and the Ravenclaws are either trying to separate them or rolling their eyes at the whole silly affair, ’Puffs will just get on with their own business.

Oda Mae also, in the end, demonstrates another of the Hufflepuff tendencies. Many people, both wizards and fans, tend to underestimate Hufflepuffs. They are considered rather dull, even downright stupid (“Everyone says Hufflepuff are a lot o’ duffers”), and quite timid. None of this is true. Hufflepuffs are often quiet about their accomplishments, but that should not fool anyone into thinking the Badgers are not a force to be reckoned with. Their House mascot is subtle evidence of this: a real-life badger may look cute and cuddly, but a single African honey badger is able to kill three lions on its own. Oda Mae doesn’t seem like a hero for most of the film—she just wants to stay out of danger and get on with her life the way it was before she met Sam. She is easily mistaken for strictly comic relief. But she ends up being the deciding factor in pretty much everything.

It’s additionally worth noting that one of my favorite fan theories is that Hufflepuffs are the House with the most natural talent in Divination, which is the closest thing in the Potterverse to Oda Mae’s psychic talents.

Willie Lopez - Slytherin

As previously stated, Slytherin’s defining traits are ambition, cunning, a strong sense of self-preservation, and an emphasis on achieving goals rather than on how said goals are achieved. Willie displays all of these, in practically every scene he’s in.

Willie certainly doesn’t have the intelligence of a Ravenclaw, but he does possess a sort of animal cunning—probably the only reason he survived as long as he did in the dangerous life a small-time thug. His selfishness and value of his own life above others are demonstrated in his flight from Sam’s spirit, abandoning his erstwhile partner and leaving Carl to fend for himself when things got ugly. And of course, his ambition and lack of respect for laws and ethics are displayed by his profession as a hired gun.

The trademark Slytherin pragmatism is even more pronounced in Willie than it is in Carl... this is made especially clear in the scene where Carl confronts him over his violent methods. “You killed a man,” Carl accuses him. “You were supposed to steal his wallet!” Willie simply returns, “That was a freebie!” He seems genuinely frustrated by how upset Carl is. The idea that Carl might have actually valued Sam’s life, not just his address book, is apparently unimportant to him.

Willie reminds me a lot of Crabbe and Goyle, Draco Malfoy’s goons: a somewhat dimwitted, amoral, violent personality kept around so that Draco (or Carl, in this case) doesn’t need to personally dirty his hands. He certainly isn’t a good representative of Snake House’s positive traits, but he belongs there just the same.

Image Credits:

Background: Hogwarts Sam: Harry Potter (House Crest from this image) Molly: Ravenclaw Student 1 by akirastock Carl: Draco Malfoy Oda Mae: Hermione Granger (tie and House Crest from this image) Willie: Gregory Goyle

Images of Patrick Swayze, Demi Moore, Tony Goldwyn, Whoopi Goldberg, and Rick Aviles taken from Ghost (1990).

Edited with iPhoto, Preview, and Paintbrush on Mac

This is my first real attempt at photomanipulation, and I don’t have Photoshop, so please be gentle with me!