Hotel Transylvania Is Toxic - [A Look Into The Dracula Family]

My Conclusion about Prince Adam - A Disney Theory

I already know I'm probably gonna make some people disagree with what I'm gonna say, but honestly? I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else comment on this yet. If you genuinely are going to be offended just from me having my own opinions and observations about a FILM, then I dunno what to tell you, bro. I perfectly understand if you disagree with my theory, but that's what it is---a theory, not fact. You can still like the movie.

Now finally addressing the main point...

So, according to some other fan theories, the Beast/Prince (his name is Prince Adam, don't know why they never mentioned it in the movie, but apparently, that’s his name) was a child when he was cursed by the enchantress since the flower was supposed to die during his twenty-first year.

And the movie specifies that enough time had passed to the point where the rose began to wilt and lose petals—which was the condition it was in before he met Belle anyway. Chronologically, this would mean Prince Adam got cursed when he was eleven. So if that were to be the case, then yes---the Enchantress would be the real villain here for cursing a child that followed the simple rules of 'stranger danger.' And for a while, I also believed this conclusion.

However, there's something else in the movie that I think disproves this theory entirely.

When Belle enters the West Wing despite the Beast telling her not to, she notices a ripped painting of a man. Then when the beast gets transformed back into a human at the end of the movie, he looks like the man in the ripped painting.

In order for that painting to have been made, he was way more than likely already a grown up before he became a beast---hence how the original artist even got the facial reference to know what to paint. You really expect me to believe this is a random painting of someone else who just HAPPENS to look like Adam? I don't think so.

Same creepy wide blue eyes, same length hair, same skin color, etc. And sure, the shading and colors are a bit different, but the similarities are still there.

There’s no way he was around 11 when that portrait was painted. Even if he was let's say in his late teens, he still would not have been young enough for him to be a smaller child. The ABSOLUTE youngest I think the prince could've been in order for that painting to be made and ALSO look like that is at the very LEAST 15.

Even in the beginning of the film, it shows Prince Adam definitely not looking like a kid. He's also wearing a SIMILAR collar to the one he wears in the torn painting.

That dude don't look 11 to me. And keep in mind, the curse said he would die during his twenty-first year if he didn’t find love. The curse very well COULD'VE meant his 21st year of being a BEAST and not necessarily point to his AGE. Considering the controversy around what Belle's ACTUAL age could/might be, I'm not gonna comment on that. But TLDR: I don't think Prince Adam was a child when he got cursed in the movie due to the ripped painting of him found in the West Wing.

You are a genius, this makes so much sense.

This is no longer a headcanon now. It IS canon. Because as you said, there's literally no other way to explain otherwise why she was able to be an avenger.

My Beef with Wanda Maximoff - An MCU Rant

Sorry not sorry, I will ride the Wanda-ain't-shiitake train till the wheels are worn out. I do not care what her fangirls say. And if you're legitimately going to be so overly offended just from me disliking a FICTIONAL character, I highly suggest you click off, make some tea, and watch a Ghibli movie.

How many times does it need to be said? Just because someone suffers from some form of (small or big) trauma, IT DOESN’T GIVE THEM A PASS TO DO EVIL SH—

I really REALLY sincerely hope there's lore or bits I'm missing here (and if so, PLEASE tell me because I WANT to be wrong so BAD). But from what I know and remember, I feel as though I have every right to be disgusted with who Wanda is as a person.

It frustrates me so much how this carmine-colored narcissist will whine about people being scared of her, but she does stuff only a scary person WOULD do.

Purposefully setting the Hulk off so you could use him as a wrecking ball on innocent civilians in Johannesburg during Age of Ultron? Seems scary as heck.

Literally warping the universe itself to hunt and kill a teenager who did nothing to you during Multiverse of Madness? Seems scary as heck.

Brainwashing an ENTIRE town JUST so you can live in delusion about your man not being dead during Wandavision? Seems DOUBLE scary as heck.

Don't even try to defend what she did in Age of Ultron. Even if she supposedly didn't INTEND to have civilians killed, she sure as HECK didn't seem all too sorry that it happened. She wasn't ‘regretful’ that she did it. She was only ‘regretful' when Bruce confronted her on it. She has the nerve (the utter AUDACITY) to hate Tony Stark for the same CRAP that she does (if not worse, which let's be honest—it’s worse).

At least Tony Stark DIED out of an effort to save everyone, whereas Wanda usually tends to only help others when it benefits HER.

Wanda is nothing more than a Multiversal brat with a god-complex and no one can tell me otherwise. If something does not go 100% her way, she completely acts out and throws a reality-warping tantrum.

“Oh, but she tried to fix everything in Wandavision!”

Yeah, only after finding out she was BRAINWASHING people!

How the FREAK do you reality warp an ENTIRE town (especially at the large radius she used her magic) and expect NO one to be under mind control? Would you NOT try to fly around the premises to see if ANYONE else was there?

Once again, even if this was an example where she didn't INTEND for it to happen, then that proves another great flaw that she has.

Wanda hardly (if ever) thinks through her actions. And then when her actions bite her in the butt, she has the nerve to be surprised. Wanda almost never (and I'm being generous here) considers how her actions harm or affect others until it turns around and affects HER.

She did not deserve Vision, he was too good of a man for her, sorry not sorry.

Just the stuff she did BEFORE Multiverse of Madness ALONE is enough to not like her.

Let's not even get into the fact she never ACTUALLY apologized to Bruce Banner for everything she put him through. All she said at most when he confronted her is, “I know you're angry…”

Oh wow, REALLY? I couldn't POSSIBLY understand why Banner would EVER be angry at you for essentially brain-raping him (going into his mind and memories without his CONSENT) and using his worst fears against him to trigger Hulk so you could use him like a personal killing machine, further lessening the very few support systems he already HAD. She should feel grateful Banner didn't immediately throw her through a wall upon seeing her.

“But she became an avenger and helped them in Endgame!”

I could not give less of a DOOKIE about the fact she did that. Wanda fighting Thanos was literally the ONLY option she possibly had if she didn't wanna turn into dust along with the other half of the population. Sure, she also did it because she was forced to kill her boo BECAUSE of Thanos, but let's be honest—she would've had to fight him regardless. Her handing Thanos’ butt to him (while a very cool scene) doesn't prove JACK about her character.

The fact she ever BECAME an avenger after effectively traumatizing the MAJORITY of them is mind-boggling to me.

“Oh, I'm sorry I weaponized all of your traumas against you for my own personal gain because I wanted to work with a genocidal robot, can I join you guys?”

“Sure, Wanda! Come into the team and we'll pretend like you didn't do a darn thing!”

(The fact this isn't even ALL that she's done is absurd, I can still keep going—)

Don't even get me STARTED on Multiverse of Madness. And before anyone tries to say, “She did it so she could have a reality with her children!”

BRO, HER KIDS WEREN'T EVEN FREAKING REAL—

Wanda Freaking Maximoff wanted to murder a TEENAGER all for some children that were not even ACTUAL people. And when she did have them, didn't she make them FIGHT against the military in Wandavision or am I mistaken (which I VERY MUCH hope I am because what the he---)?

I do not care whatsoever what her reason is or what trauma she went through. Attempted murder of a minor (ESPECIALLY in this case, a minor who didn't even do anything) is inexcusable to me.

There is no way in frog fingers you guys are ACTUALLY trying to justify and/or downplay a grown ADULT trying to murder a CHILD (because that's what America was—a CHILD).

(Her and Miguel O'Hara would get along GREAT, when's the collab--)

And by then, she had ALREADY brutally murdered a whole bunch of people and probably corrupted the multiverse even FURTHER than she already had.

It wasn't until an ALTERNATE version of her (who ACTUALLY had her kids) told her to sit the [BLEEP] down (I'm paraphrasing here, but you get my drift).

Wanda is NOT a victim. Is she a good villain? Yes. But this witch isn't a victim. Not anymore at least. She doesn't apologize for her actions. She doesn't take responsibility. She doesn't reflect on what she does.

And even when she DOES finally do ANY of those things in ANY capacity, the damage is already done. In fact, it's not JUST done, it's also BURNT inside the oven causing smoke to go everywhere.

There is no rhyme or reason you could pull out that will convince me to be anything short of angry with this character and I'm so tired of her fans trying to defend her just because she was a lab rat and lost her man.

Once again, it's not bad to like a character that does awful stuff. But please, for sanity sake, STOP acting like they're a lost little angel BECAUSE you like them. I know they say "hurt people hurt people" but that still doesn't justify doing bad stuff just because bad things happened to YOU.

I know I'm gonna ruffle a lot of feathers when I say this, but I think this is something people don't really touch on when it comes to the topic of female modesty (at least not too often).

A big criticism I have when it comes to the topic of female modesty (especially in some ‘Christian’ spaces) is that most who speak on it often approach it from the lens of “Immodesty makes men lust.” And regardless of how true that is, lots of women roll their eyes when they hear it because lots of us have experienced harassment (and a lot of women even sexual abuse) from men REGARDLESS of WHAT we are wearing.

Whether or not the message of “dress this way and men won’t harass you” was your personal intention or not, that is unfortunately the message that has been pushed on a LOT of women from the time we could first walk by OTHER people.

Sure, clothes have an effect on how people perceive us, I’m not gonna pretend it doesn’t. You obviously can’t walk into your office job wearing a low cut halter top and booty shorts—you have to dress for the environment you’re in (durr).

But clothes definitely have not stopped people from doing what they want to do to us at the end of the day. I think the main reason why lots of women roll their eyes when the topic of modesty comes up is because we’re being told the solution to a problem that we know for a fact has not actually worked.

If people kept telling you that wearing a helmet prevents serial killers from targeting you, but serial killers kept targeting you anyway, would you be more convinced to wear a helmet? No, because wearing a helmet didn’t change anything.

Lots of women realize this reality and so I think that’s why a lot of women dress with the mindset of “I’m gonna wear whatever the heck I want because it clearly doesn’t matter what I wear or don’t wear—men are still gonna behave the same.”

I’ve gotten harassed by a male ‘friend’ who bullied me in highschool and snuck around to obtain my phone number (without my permission) so that way he could flirt with me despite me telling him to stop (pretty tame all things considered). And all throughout high school, I wore nothing except big hoodies, jeans, and sometimes sweatpants.

Modesty is important, I agree. But stop promising women that it provides GRAND changes in how men will treat them. So many women have experience that proves it really doesn’t. Because it’s not about the clothes and never will be about the clothes, it’s about the character of the men we interact with. So if the only way a man can respect a woman is if she covers herself head to toe like a box, I don’t know if I can consider him a respectable person.

Sure, modesty can help people respect you more---but stop telling women that it ELIMINATES mistreatment from men---because it doesn't. And to tell something that isn't true is a lie.

Supernatural Romances make NO sense - A Random Opinion

Here's the thing: As much as I enjoy these concepts or tropes, they don't make sense when you take the time to think about it. Don't believe me? Let's go down the list then.

Vampire romances: The concept of a vampire romance really doesn't make sense when you take just five minutes to add all the aspects together.

Sure, it can be intriguing or whatever (especially if there’s a unique way in which the premise is handled), but let's really boil down the contents of its true implications here.

A vampire is a creature that feeds on human blood. Vampire romances USUALLY (not all the time, but usually) involve a vampire falling for a human rather than a vampire falling for another vampire.

Let me say this again. Vampire, which eats humans---then has stories where they then fall for humans.

That's like a chupacabra hooking up with a goat. What sense does it make for a creature to fall in love with something it usually tends to eat?

Even if the said predator of this relationship has no intention of eating their mate or harming them---would you, as a rational person, feel comfortable knowing that your partner has to harm YOUR species and eat them for their own survival? I highly doubt it.

"Oh, I know you kill people and drink their blood, but I know you won't kill ME! I'm just DIFFERENT--"

It literally makes no sense.

Zombie romances: Zombie romances make even less sense to me. Because now instead of a creature that simply wants your blood, it’s a creature that quite literally wants to rip your stomach open and eat your intestines like Twizzlers.

At least with a vampire, you could just have IV blood bags for them to drink to put off their thirst for a WHILE. But when it comes to zombies, they literally rely on eating the WHOLE entirety of the human.

Once again, it’s like a chupacabra dating a goat. Oh, but what if the zombie doesn’t want to eat or harm their partner?

Well, then we get into even more ethically concerning details on the human’s part. Because aren’t zombies walking corpses that eat people? And if a human is willing to date or become uh…'entangled’ with a zombie, isn’t that a form of necrophilia since the zombie is literally just a man-eating corpse? 

Sure, we could argue whether or not zombies are living or non-living. But let's be honest here: the majority of the time, zombies do not look cute. They are rotting parts of their bodies, they look dead, they smell horrible, they’re covered in blood, and sometimes missing a limb or two. If you’re unironically attracted to that in real life or something (not including those who JUST like the stories for the stories), you are mentally ill—there’s no way around it for me. You are attracted to something that looks like a corpse. That in itself is necrophilia and it’s honestly gross from an incredibly literal standpoint.

Even if the zombie were to look like some cutesy/idealistic anime character or something, it still doesn't change the fact that this thing's practically DEAD.

Sure, like vampire romances, it could be interesting depending on the intricacies of the story. But it still makes no sense when you write it down on paper. Wow, you’re dating a creature that looks dead and has to fight off the urge to eat people every single second they're on this planet. How quirky. 

Ghost romances: Ghost romances also don’t make sense on paper. Now, this one is a bit more loose in my opinion since ghost archetypes are often experimented with in terms of what they can do or not do. It’s just one of those things where it really depends on the story world and the premise it's placed in. However, from the very cultural and general stance of how ghosts work, they can’t touch anything (except when it's to conveniently scare people, so even then, their intangibility is transient) and they can’t age. 

I’m sorry, but aren’t the driving points of a romance being able to see the characters display affection and/or get old together? And if a ghost can’t touch anything, what’s the point in being romantically involved with someone you can’t kiss? I get there’s long distance relationships, but if they’re in the same room with you—why would you want that? 

Even if the subject of physical intimacy wasn’t an issue, there’s still the prospect of aging. Because if your boo (pun intended) died young and is a ghost, that means they’re physically stuck at that age forever. Even if they were to be centuries older than you, wouldn’t it be weird to see some elderly person smooching on a young looking supernatural?

Let me put it like this. A human woman at 25 years old is in a relationship with a male ghost. The said male ghost died at 30. Sure, she could get away with dating him for another five or ten years, but eventually, the human woman ages in appearance physically and looks older than her ghost partner. And if she lives long enough, she’s gonna be 80 while her boo still looks 30. You’re seriously telling me that DOESN’T look weird from the outside? Wouldn't you be weirded out if some super old person was smooching up with someone decades younger than them?

At that point, to avoid any oddities, you’d be better off killing yourself in whatever spot they’re stuck to so you wouldn’t have to worry about aging out of proportion in the relationship (and if not aging, then to touch them). That sounds like a lot more work than it’s worth.

Werewolf romances: Werewolf romances are the only sort of supernatural romance I could possibly get behind—and even then, it’s still highly dependent on how the said story chooses to handle the workings of lycanthropy. 

At least with this partner, they most likely can turn humans who won’t HAVE to kill you out of survival. You don’t have to be sorry about some super weird complex age gap. And you can touch them. Sounds like a pretty decent basis so far. BUT there’s always a catch.

A werewolf is (duh) a person who can turn into a wolf (or wolf-like monster). When it comes to these beings, it really is a roll of the dice. Because some versions will make them seem they have no thought process or control at all—whereas others give them complete control. So to call a werewolf automatically dangerous to the well being of their human partner is rather tough to say off the bat. Though, I do know that all of that fur that sheds off of them will be annoying to deal with (and that’s not even counting all of the things they might chew up---like your shoes).

And while I would be inclined to agree that being in a relationship with a werewolf could most definitely be a form of beastiality, at the very LEAST a werewolf can revert back into a human the majority of the time. So as long as you’re only doing stuff with them as a human, you should technically be fine, right?

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I still don’t find much appeal in becoming romantically involved with someone who can become some giant creepy wolf abomination, but at least there’s SOME things in there you COULD manipulate depending on which universe you land into.

Overall, while I do think supernatural romances are indeed a fun concept (and I DO tend to enjoy some of these stories), there’s no way in HECK I think they’re ACTUALLY plausible (unless you add some major--MAJOR--plot armor).

If not friend, then why friend shaped? 😭

Sorry not sorry, y'all have got to stop destroying people's property in the name of 'protest.'

I don't care how valid you think you are in hating another person. I don't care what your politics are. I don't even care what the heck you believe or don't believe. You could have the most valid reason ever in the world, and I still wouldn't care because this is atrocious behavior.

By y'all destroying, breaking, setting fire to, and vandalizing Teslas by putting Swastikas on them, you are committing legitimate CRIMES. You are breaking someone's property. And not even because the actual person with the car DID something to YOU, but because you don't like the PERSON who bought the BUSINESS to have the cars made (because Tesla was around before Elon ever had his hands on it).

You say you guys want people to take you seriously, that you're the party of love and acceptance, but then go around and terrorize people doing stuff like THIS. How can people listen to your side when you don't even make your side appealing to listen to?

I don't care what you think is right or not. I don't care what your politics are. Hate MAGA all you want. Hate Elon all you want. Hate Trump all you want.

But that does NOT give you the RIGHT to cause destruction onto someone else's property. It doesn't not give you the right to burn someone's belongings (especially not if those belongings cause toxic fumes to go into the air). It definitely doesn't give you the right on the grounds of politics. Because wanna know what that means? It means you're committing a hate crime. And what qualifies as a hate crime? This:

"Hate crime in criminal law involves a standard offence with an added element of bias against a victim because of their physical appearance or perceived membership of a certain social group."

If politics has you so worked up to the point where you are willing to actively ruin someone's property, do not be surprised when the political party you are a part of all of a sudden has people not wanting to listen to you.

Crap like this is EXACTLY why I don't want to be on this side of politics anymore. The reds certainly aren't the best either (absolutely not). But I can say for darn sure (as a former blue) that y'all have lost your darn minds if this is what you think is okay to do.

I don't care how justified you think are you for doing it because let's be completely honest here:

If the roles were reversed and someone’s property was vandalized with hate symbols because they were left-leaning, because they supported Biden or Kamala, you guys would be FUMING.

The hypocrisy isn't a cute look, babe.

If it wouldn't be okay for someone to do it to YOU, don't do it another person. It's that simple. And if your politics don't or can't agree with that, maybe you need a better outlook on what your politics actually are and WHY you support it. Because something is clearly wrong if you think crimes like this are justified.

Disney: Stop focusing on this dumb movie about a Hedgehog! Our Mufasa deserves that Oscar! The academy clearly thinks so as well! C'mon, watch our movie! Sonic fans: Ey, y'all hear something? Sonic 3: Nah, I can't hear anything over the sound of you guys throwing me your money.

Aww man, I want a heart shaped mouse 3:

I'm honestly so tired of how formulaic 'creative mediums' feel now and that social media is honestly one of the very few places where art is appreciated, and even then, it's on thin ice.

Everything has to be written and look a certain way and it's like I'm reading the same thing over and over again.

I understand there's nothing new under the sun but hot dang, at least let people have SOME authenticity.

What happened to the times when art got recognition because it was DIFFERENT? Because of the fact it pushed cultural norms? Because of the fact that it brought problems to people's attention?

I'm not saying this type of art doesn't exist today, but it sure as heck is suppressed and I'm sick of it.

I sure do apologize for my lack of explanation. Probably should have said this earlier. I wasn't *attempting* to say that having a child makes a man stay or betters the economy---and honestly? With how our politicians are handling it, I don't really have much faith it's going to get better---regardless of how many children we have.

I was *trying* (but apparently failed according to you) to say that men who abandon pregnant women should be condemned by society and be held responsible for what they do. Men should be more sexually responsible like they keep hypocritically telling us to be. It allows men to use women as objects instead of holding themselves to the standard of sexual fidelity they often tell us to have.

The government obviously and always will have selfish reasons for promoting certain things, but I personally think that if society considered it shameful and directly punished men for abandoning women they impregnate and trying to escape the responsibility of that, this would also cut out another aspect of the issue since people who are in favor of this procedure often say that those who oppose it don't want to address any contributing factors to why women would get abortions. And I do want actual change to be put in place to make sure women won't even have to *consider* getting one (as unrealistic as that might sound, but one can hope).

I have another post expanding on this which I *hope* might make some things more clear, but as an American woman, I have the freedom to disagree. If the logic from pro-abortion arguments were to be implemented, I wouldn't exist today---nor would a lot of people I love.

I don't hate anyone who's gotten an abortion. I don't hate anyone who genuinely believes it's right because I used to be a supporter of it and I understand the perspective. I simply think it is wrong because of how my views changed overtime. I don't consider myself to belong to any specific party because I've seen firsthand how both sides change.

I also apologize if this still doesn't explain much, but I do hope you have a good rest of your year.

I personally consider abortion to be anti-feminist due to the fact it allows men to not be held responsible for their irresponsible actions of sleeping with a woman they have no intention of loving or providing for. It allows men to treat women like commodities with no consequence.