Jon Snow and Ice Dragons

It is the popular belief that "A Song of Ice and Fire" pertains to Jon Snow, because he is a product of a Stark (Ice) and a Targaryen (Fire). But how can we be sure that the title implies that Jon Snow is Azor Ahai or the main protagonist of the story? When you think of it, it could be that the title pertains on how Jon Snow will be the biggest villain in the end of the story; kind of how "Lord of the Rings" pertains to Sauron.

Ice dragons are pretty much hyped in the books and the TV series, because the army of the dead will not stand a chance against Dany's fire dragons. Who is the best candidate to control an ice dragon than Jon, who has dragon's blood and a certain affinity to the cold?

Why The Hobbit felt inferior from The Lord of the Rings

Although there are lots of stuff from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy that Peter Jackson managed to incorporate in his latest Hobbit Trilogy, there are still some that were failed to be included to improve the films. The Hobbit Trilogy successfully mirrored (and most of the time improved) the technicalities of LOTR. The fight scenes are impressive and the visual effects are a lot better. What Jackson failed to integrate in the prequel series is the emotional connection of every character to the audience.

There's a reason why we didn't feel any impact when Thorin or Kili died. It is because we haven't invested our feelings for them. We saw them fighting and altogether venturing their journey of a lifetime, yet we didn't see them interact as much as Sam and Frodo in LOTR. That's why the end result felt cheap and powerless. The little things like Gimli and Legolas's funny moments, Merry and Pippin's filling around, and Sam's monologues about bravery and friendship, let us cultivate the feelings that they implanted in our hearts. Things like these made the movies unforgettable. Neglecting them made the Hobbit series as generic as all of the fantasy films that stemmed out of the The Lord of the Ring's legacy.

Probability and Sherlock Holmes

I was always concerned on how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle uses probability to justify Sherlock Holmes's evidence in indicting a certain suspect. He always assumes that the more the events there are to imply, the higher the probability for the whole scenario to happen. The truth is actually the opposite. The more uncertain events you're presenting to prove a point, the lower the probability that we get the right conclusion.

For example, if you saw a man with a dirt on his shoe. You could imply from this that the man didn't cleaned his shoe last night. You can imply from this that the man is probably tired last night and doesn't have the time to clean it up. You can imply from this again that he probably have gone to party last night, that's why he didn't get time to clean his shoes. It can go on and on until you land to a conclusion that the man has a dog in his house.

The problem arises when you put implication over another implications. Because you are never sure in every implication, the probability of the whole scenario that the man has a dog will be diminished. To address this problem you need to put another evidence to improve every level of implication. For example you know that it didn't rain morning of that day, then the event of him cleaning his shoe last night will be more probable to happen. Doyle uses this most the time. He puts more evidences in every level of Sherlock's implication. Still, we are uncertain in every conjecture that we devise, no matter what happen, the conclusion that we get that the man has a dog in his house will be more uncertain to happen. It is not the other way around that if we deal with more implications, the higher the certainty for the conclusion to be true, even if you could see that the whole story fits.

The Lord of the Rings re-release

Since The Hobbit film series already ended, are there any plans in re-releasing The Lord of the Rings film series? Kind of what they did with Titanic wherein they re-edit it to be released in 3D. I still remember watching The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 3D and although the film is not as good as any of the LOTR films, the experience I had watching it is still great, mainly because of how good the 3D-ness was done. Imagine watching the original trilogy in breathtakingly good quality.  It could also gave them opportunity to repolish those effects they did on the original series that are not that good since the technology nowadays is better. I kind of hoping they will thought of releasing it on 2021, the 20 years after they released The Fellowship of the Ring.

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child review

Albus Severus is having a hard time being overshadowed by his overly famous father, Harry Potter. In order to create his own name in the wizarding world, he and his friend, Scorpius Malfoy, will embark upon a task to change the past and save a life. Meanwhile, secrets from the past are being unravelled and new dark forces are coming about. The new generation of the wizarding world is again in deep trouble.

The first part of The Cursed Child was really nostalgic. It brings us again to the epilogue of The Deathly Hollows where Albus is first time to ride the Hogwarts Express and is discussing to his father the possibilities of him being sorted to Slytherin. Hogwarts had changed, yet certain customs like sorting students in their respective houses using The Sorting Hat is still present. The entire premise is intelligent and imaginative. Using the time turner to save a life of a deceased character is a great fun to read. It tickles the mind of the readers on some possibilities on what might have happened if Dumbledore's army lost the Battle of Hogwarts. It also lets us meet some of the characters that had passed away in the battle. The new generation of characters are colorful and they didn't drag the whole story down. Scorpius and Albus forms a great tandem that is reminiscent of the book series' trio: Harry, Ron and Hermione.

There some instances that they included plots in the book that is not on par with their universe. Things like the escape from the Hogwarts Express (seriously, that thing is dumb), the quickly made polyjuice potion just to fit the story, and somehow out of the blue conversation about fears of pigeons. I imagine lots of the diehard Harry Potter fans cringing on those scenes. Also, other key characters are not present in the story. Neville Longbottom (my favorite character in the book series) didn't join the old gang. Neville is actually a faculty member of Hogwarts now and most of the plot is in the school, that is why it is hard to understand why they didn't give him any parts of the story.

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is a  satisfying yet flawed continuation of the beloved franchise. It brings back all the memories we have from the original book series and gives us one last taste of the magic it brought to us, although it doesn't offer more than nostalgia.

Watchmen and Ethics

Almost three decades since it's written, Watchmen, by Alan Moore, still manifests itself as one of the best works of fiction ever written. It established graphic novels as a tool to deliver groundbreaking plot and to convey message that still echoes in the modern times. One particular topic that is still debated by the public is its ending. The ambiguity of Watchmen's final moments left a tinge to the minds of its readers, because it presents the conflict between two opposing bodies of ethics: Deontology/Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism. 

In deontology, a person believes that there are certain things that are morally right or wrong based on their nature. In Utilitarianism, a deed being right or wrong depends on the benefit it produces. Since most human beings are not absolute when it comes to detecting right deeds from wrong, no matter how many times we think about who's the person who did the right thing in the end of the novel, our mind is conflicted between Rorschach and Ozymandias. The two characters fully embodies the two ethical concepts, including their strengths and weaknesses. 

Rorschach, also known as Walter Kovacs, being the righteous guy of all the Watchmen, sees the horrid thing inflicted by Ozymandias an unjustifiable act even though it is clearly for the better. He didn't compromise because he has his principles; he will never compromise unjustifiable acts even in the face of armagedon. In deontology, it's someone's conscience that imposes what's right and what's wrong, and killing lots of people by implanting horrid images that tend to make them kill themselves is a huge ripple in one's conscience.The problem with him and deontologists is they don't think about the consequences of their act. They have certain rules that if broken, the act a person did is already a wrong thing. They will continue to do the thing that they think is morally correct even though the results will impose a greater threat. At the end of the book, if Rorschach successfully exposed Ozymandias, he will then make the deaths of millions of people all for nothing, amd yet in a way will avenge their fate.

Ozymandias or Adrian Veidt on the other hand, uses logic to know what to do next; measuring what act will impose more happiness to people. In utilitarianism, one good basis on measuring the benefit of a deed, which in the book Ozymandias uses, is the number of people that will benefit from it. Surely, it is better to have a million deaths than seeing the perish of billions of people. Also, the end of the book tells us that his plan really did work in unifying the world. It's the logical thinking that works when you are utilitarian, and most of the time you should not listen in your conscience. There are certain problems in a utilitarian thinking. One problem is the unpredictability of future. There are certain instances that we thought our deeds would improve a situation, but it does not. What if Ozymandias's plan didn't work out to be as he anticipated? One million people just died for a lost cause. Another problem is the limit on measuring the benefit of the deed. When will we stop measuring the happiness that an act would give? This weakness of utilitarianism is highlighted by Dr. Manhattan. He had a conversation with Ozymandias before he disappeared from their world. Adrian asked whether he did the right thing in the end, but Manhattan just replied that nothing ever ends. 

A lot of other works also utilizes these two concepts in order to make a big impression to the audience or reader. Another work by Moore, The Killing Joke, has an ambiguous ending that tests Batman's morality and also the readers'. The last page presents a possibility that Batman killed the Joker once and for all. Killing the Joker would violate his principles, yet letting him live may impose greater danger to the public. On the game The Last of Us, in order to create a vaccine for the pandemic tha killed almost all human beings, the Fireflies need to extract the substance inside Ellie's brain that would evidently kill her. Joel is unwilling to sacrifice Ellie, that's why he rescued her from the camp and killed the members of the Fireflies. These kinds of endings works because most of the people are not absolute when it comes to their ethical beliefs. We always use both our conscience and logical thinking that causes imternal debacle in our brain. At the same time, it also tests a person's response whenever s/he encounter dilemmas.

Game of Thrones in the Modern Times

There is probably no TV series more popular today than Game of Thrones. The medieval fantasy, based on George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire book series, has been a phenomenal success, critically and commercially. The show boasts its unique storytelling, unpredictability of the plot, and bold killings of main and supporting characters.

Game of Thrones is set on the kingdom of Westeros, governed by one ruler that sits on the infamous Iron Throne. Several families want the throne for the taking and the kingdom is separated in conflicting ideologies. While everyone is vying for the highest position, an imminent danger from the north of their lands is brewing that can bring Westeros at its knees and decimate their population.

Though the story is populated with knights, dragons, zombies, and unexplained magic, the reality that they are living is nowhere different from ours. The complicated characterization of the story encapsulates our humanity. This is not the classic case of good versus evil. We are shown with characters that make extreme decisions and experiences the consequences of their activities. Game of Thrones mirrors the different problems we encounter in the modern times and how we struggle to solve each one of them.

Religion

Westeros has multitude of belief systems. Most of their people believe in many gods. The North believes in the “Old gods” that resembles Animism. The South praises the “Faith of the Seven” that resembles Roman and Greek gods. By season 2, a growing monotheistic religion threatens the old beliefs in Westeros. This is the religion of R’hllor or the “Lord of Light.” The religion is like Christianity wherein there is a prophesized savior or a messiah to save all men of Westeros from the danger that lurks beyond the north. This shift from polytheism to monotheism depicts the sudden spread of single god beliefs in the history of the world. All of these religions are important in the fantasy series as they affect the political structure of the kingdom. Wars are also sometimes caused by the conflicting beliefs. Their power is as strong as their government since there are no clear separation between the state and church.

Sexism

The series depicts a clear picture of the ongoing patriarchy of the society. Their world is trying to impose that women are destined of either becoming a whore in a brothel or being a wife of their husband and a mother of their children. A lot of women try to break from these stereotypes. A good example is the mother of dragons, Daenerys Targaryen. Her possession of three fire breathing lizards makes her the most powerful character in the story. Arya Stark is a princess who wants to wield a sword than to wield a needle for clothe knitting. Arya is the ultimate opposite of a highborn lady. She is wild and reckless, and the story seems to head her on becoming an assassin. Brienne is a soldier often underestimated by her male enemies. But she always wins against them, because of her determination to do her duty. Women of the world of ice and fire play equal roles with men on Game of Thrones even though they are given lower status and privileges on their society.

Global Warming

Westeros is a place fueled by ongoing wars and violence. Fire and blood is the foundation of their state, and their first leaders are conquerors that used dragons and swords to unify the seven kingdoms to one Westeros. Although the main premise of Game of Thrones, from the title itself, is the fight to get the Iron Throne, we want for all the Westerosian people to unify for a single cause. The Stark’s famous words, “Winter is coming,” hints the impending danger that awaits the people of Westeros. While everyone is busy on their conquest to become the ruler, The Wall which is the only thing that separates the realm from the danger, is manned by the rotting Night’s Watch. This mirrors the modern world. Every country is fighting for economic supremacy. No one bats an eye on the environmental consequences of capitalism. Everyone in Westeros doesn’t give it any attention until the danger comes rampaging down The South. In our world, the meltdown of ice glaciers on the North and South Pole doesn’t stop companies from massive expulsion of air pollutants to the atmosphere that causes global warming. These glaciers keep the Earth cool and their decline means an imminent demise of humanity.

Economic Inequality

The clash of the few rich families trembles almost all the common people. “They are just spikes in a wheel,” Daenerys said. “This one’s on top, and that one’s on top, and on and on it spins, crushing those on the ground.” While the families play their little games, the common folk is struck with immense poverty. There is an organization who is trying to even out the rich and the poor called the Sparrows. Their leader, the High Sparrow, was given the role as the High Septon of the church and is determined to bring down the few families who are causing the ripples on common people’s lives.

Filipino Politics

Although we live in a democratic country and political dynasty is stated in our constitution as illegal, public position is still, more or less, passed by blood. Families get massive chunk of positions of the local and national government. The whole political aspect of Game of Thrones is basically Filipino politics come alive. Only highborn and rich people can sit on government positions. There are corrupt officials who uses their power to get money from the funds of the government. The throne is in huge debt on the Iron Bank because of the flamboyant lifestyle of the families. The war of kings and queens competing for the throne resembles the upcoming election. Mudslinging plays a major role in the whole game and most of the time there are violence. Personal interest drives the rich people to compete for the position. They want the throne not because they want to lead, but because they want to glorify themselves and be written on history books. In the end, after a leader rises from the war, nothing really changes for the poorest of the poor. They are still below the pyramid, crawling their way to survival.

Truly, Game of Thrones is a moving portrait of our society. Westeros is a living hell, and probably the only fantasy world no one wants to settle in. The semblance of our world with theirs is a hint that we have serious problems in our society that need addressing. The first step is to unify and solve them altogether, one by one.