I saw e.g. Shrek 1-2, Monsters Inc. and some others as an adult, and absolutely loved them. So you never know.

To my shame I have to admit I have never seen The Lion King... but I recall my big brother, who saw it when he was probably in his 30s or 40s or something (a long time ago), praising the movie. He saw it with his son, but liked it himself as well, a lot. I have to watch that classic at some point, maybe Aladdin too, which I haven't seen either (and I mean the old cartoon Aladdin, not the new one with Will Smith, which I haven't seen either but am not interested to see either).

Uh, yup.

Do you have some scientific studies which prove your idea that sympathy/empathy are mostly learned, and they must be taught to children, or otherwise they will fail with them?

I have two sons, and I claim me and my wife have shown just as much affection to both of them, trying to teach them what is right and what is wrong, etc.

Yet, it is clear to me that my younger son is much more empathic and social than the older one. I claim it is not about me teaching him being more empathic, than his older brother. He is also much more social to other kids. I believe firmly they are at least mostly traits they were born with.

Also the studies I've seen with e.g. some child psychologists like David B. Cohen seem to imply similar, that the whole "tabula rasa" idea, how we are allegedly just blank boards at our birth and how we will become is only dependent on what we see and learn in our lives, is bullshit. Like claiming that boys tend to like cars and other mechanical things while girls tend to like dolls (and people) is just learnt behavior, and that specifically is bs. The studies have shown that already in very young infants, boys _in general_ tend to be more interested in things, while girls _in general_ show more interest towards people.

All that of course doesn't mean that what we face and how we are raised as kids wouldn't affect us as human beings and our psyche, but still. Different people are born different.

The little demon dog next door...

Jungle Cruise, at least based on the trailer, looks like a silly and fun adventure film, which is why I kind of want to watch it. I don't expect anything stellar, but I've often been surprised by the entertainment factor in this silly-but-fun-adventure genre. E.g. Fool's Gold, Sahara and Journey to the Center of the Earth.

I didn't say sympathy / empathy was learned... I said that children are naturally hateful little buggers and parental intervention is needed to correct anti-social behaviors. Behaviors like hitting, biting, and so on have well been documented. You don't need to hit the child back, but impress that the behavior is unacceptable.

A child's mind is much more black and white, which is why they have harder times with over application of suffixes. "I tooked the book" , lacking exposure to different languages while young also makes it harder for the child to learn a new language as an adult. The issue is that you break the black and white thinking that occurs early on so when the mind develops it is more capable of switching to grey thinking. Hence why it is important to introduce differences early.

No, "the studies" show that bullies pick on children who enjoy different play styles and in many cases the bullies are the parents. The studies show that gender typing toys becomes so ingrained in a child that a toy he is currently enjoying playing with will be dropped, like a hot potato, the instant the helmet of the doll comes off and reveals that it is a barbie. My children play with a boy, liam, who enjoys playing with barbies. My son enjoys watching barbies on youtube. Gender typing toys has been thoroughly debunked, it's parents and bullies who enforce the whole boys are meant to do this and girls are meant to do that.

http://people.uncw.edu/hungerforda/Infancy/PDF/Children's%20gender-based%20reasoning%20about%20toys.pdf

If we go further, you'll see there is also age-typing going on, where kids who enjoy playing with a toy that is inappropriate for their age likewise get negative outside influences for doing so and thus shy away from them. This can be worse because if one child is smarter but younger the other child will often complain about not having big girl toys.

Extensive studies have shown time and again that boys are attracted to boy-type toys, and girls are attracted to girl-type toys, even before they can walk or talk. They even extended the study to include primates (chimps I think), and they showed the same pattern. There are always exceptions, which are waved about by SJWs, but that's normal and proves nothing.

What grinds my gears is politically charged posts disguised as gripes about movies. For the record, female Indiana Jones was already done by Tomb Raider.

The Jungle movie may have sucked, but it isn't like they tried to subvert expectations. My advice is: don't get into things so much. I haven't watched many new movies, but one I saw (Tomorrow War) was pretty meh with nonsensical plot and some pretty mediocre set pieces. I just don't have big expectations from movies anymore; shows are as good quality these days with less initial time investment, longer, more satisfying story arcs, and generally better sub plots.

waking up during hollidays at times your supposed to either already be at your work ( for like minutes ) and you actually feel guilty about wearing your adam costume or awake at exactly the same time as that you need to leave for work what sometimes even comes accompanied with a sense of a " yes, i still got it "

also

people who feel that life is a NSA code waiting to be broken

Um I believe its to do with indiana jones being a kind of misogynistic white guy character that Disney has essentially not so much white washed, but burnt at the stake to appear 'woke' to the sensibilities of the fragile armchair guardians of inclusion & disestablishment ism (you know the Social Justice Warrior League).

I mean he never even inferred they were worse because they were gay or feminine; just that it was a total 180 from it's source that stood out.

Though Disney has always been pretty much about white washing for a G rated Audience far as I can remember.
The fact it's turning from being overly PC to being knee jerkingly 'inclusive'; well it is what it is.. pretty shallow like making a big deal over having a black person or a gay; when what their respective movements have been aiming for is for them not to be viewed as separate from the norm, but just more of the same.

That's probably not worded well in getting my point across.
There is a modern shift in movies to replace hetero sex scenes with gay love scenes and it has nothing to do with it being a normal occurrence of life (gay happens big whoop) and everything to do with not getting bad publicity.
So instead of trying to portray men in the idiotic half state of doormat/conquistador or spend any real effort developing realistic relationship character, they sidestep the misogyny neg by making it homo instead.
Women don't get butthurt over men being re-enforced as gender dominant, all the other groups have to give them a pass 'cause they have their token sacrificial lamb of inclusion and the rights holders just have to shift a few demographic choices to keep making bills.

I wasn't going to get back into this topic but yours is the second post I saw bringing this up...

His sentence immediately before the one about recreating Indy "as a woman, and his sidekick as a gay" was "This is a children's film". That is where I read the implication, as, what other possible relevance does it being a children's film have to do with the point about a character being re-imagined? If OP's sentences had alternatively been something like "This is a film about a character that was originally male and straight. But they're trying to recreate the character as a woman and make the character's sidekick gay", I would still probably groan a bit (since who says a character can't be re-imagined?) but it wouldn't have read as badly.

*shrugs*

Limited save systems.

I have such limited time these days that once the limitations and difficulties with pausing the game turn up I end up not being able to really continue it.

If only I had the time like before.

seriously? no one even mentions the largest impediment to your life, covid?

I appear to have made a poor impression. Saturday night syndrome, I'm afraid. I was 'tired and emotional'. For context, my sister calls me feminist, my gay friends call me darling, and the highlight of my year was seeing Wally Funk finally get her astronaut wings.

I'll rephrase it.

This is a children's film. It's supposed to be an adventure, a romp. Not a sermon. I have no issues with strong female leads or gay characters. I just think this is the wrong place for such overt discrimination and gender politics. Many of the scenes, including the opening scene in the auditorium, seem to have been written specifically to highlight how stupid weak white men oppress smarter and stronger women.

In one scene, the lead and her sidekick are boarding a small riverboat, and they approach with many porters carrying huge quantities of luggage. Johnson (the boat captain) tells her that she can't bring all of that stuff on board. She shows him her single bag, smiles condescendingly at him, and tells him the luggage isn't hers, it's her sidekicks (Tennis racquets and dinner jackets and such). The captain had made an assumption based upon her sex, and was mistaken. And a big show is made of it. The whole scene is completely unrealistic and unnecessary, and serves no purpose other than to make a point about gender politics. The rest of the film plays out in much the same fashion. No opportunity is missed to ram it home.

It's hypocritical too. In America, there's a stereotype that well-spoken British gentlemen are gay. This film just reinforces that stereotype. In reality, Johnson is just as likely to be gay.

I see no reason why a strong female lead needs to behave like a man. Or a gay sidekick needs to behave like an entitled schoolgirl. Not only is it unrealistic, it's insulting to women and gays.

If you remove the politics, what little is left of the film is piss poor and full of holes. I get the impression that the writers only got the job because they were prepared to prostitute themselves on the altar of social justice, and not because they could actually write. A disturbing tendency over the last few years. (Cough.... Doctor Who... Cough...).

It's too big to get angry at.

I don't have a problem with a female doctor; I have a problem with the doctor not being canonical. Missy should have been the next doctor.

Think about it..
It would not of broken the rule that you can only have 12 regenerations because she 'technically' isn't the doctor.

The character already was fascinating to the audience because while being evil was on the road to redemption and seeing as her and the doctor had this light and the dark relationship she has the ultimate repent -> filling his shoes while not being the best fit for them.

This makes way for both a new fledgling nemisis and because the master (missy) had already found a way around the regeneration limit (making others 'him') the possibiliy for more than what 6 other new 'doctors'.

She would of retained the idea that the Doctor had branched off from the moral narrative of the time lords (who had gone evil) and had an evolving inner moral compass; instead of a shoehorned in one from modern day earth.
Missy should have been the next doctor.


Now the only way to really save the series seems to be turning the holier than thou Jodie Whittaker into the evil counterpart to the master because undoing the current path of redemption is completely imbecilic (because it was instigated by the doctor and the doctor still exists) while to not do so creates an inherent Nemesis vacuum.

So how would you do that? You'd take the idea of utopian morals to their natural extreme of only really working well in lab conditions where everything or should I say everyone is controlled to a point of dystopia because humans aren't naturally good or evil and rigidly forcing them to be good is actually suppression.

But that's just what was grinding my gears about that and ultimately you've got the doctor you've got and they have the ratings/viewers they have. :P