'the dream merchant' book review

I just couldn't stomach it all after reading 1 out of 5 'books' within the book so I can't write a review on goodreads so I decided to write one here instead.
Obviously I didn't like it. The author seems to have this idea that withholding information makes a story intriguing and mysterious. If it was just one or 2 interesting big points that were unexplained, I'd be interested in finding out, but rather it was a lot of tiny details that wasn't told to the readers until the last minute. Josh never got satisfying answer to how the institution found out about him and it might be shown in the next books, but let's move on from that mystery and here's 20 more mysteries for you to ponder. Like everyone talking to Josh seems to give him like a quarter of any full explanations and it's not even a mystery half the time, it's just withheld information that is just told later on. I mean I guess that could be classified as a mystery, but most books make mysteries actually engaging like a puzzle and intriguing. This is just 'hey do this.' which Josh doesn't know how to and there are 0 hints to what this is, then just a few pages later someone goes 'oh you don't know what this is! Here's what it is' which is just annoying.

Something else that was annoying was the poor explanation of the science behind the whole thing. It actually is my downfall. I know it's a fantasy book and there's no set physics like the real world, but as a scientist, I like a bit of explanation and some sort of realistic view of things. The idea of a joined dream world itself is fine, but when someone starts bringing in time travel it makes things a bit more prone to plotholes and ridiculousness. Anyway, what I didn't like was the poor explanation of how items could be taken in to the dream world and taken out of the dream world. Well when I say poor explanation, I meant there were none. People just accepted it as is. A lot of things were accepted as is in fact. Like the associate kids just hang around the building Willy Nilly, how did they get there, do their parents care and what about time zones, or is everyone British? Why does Josh and baz take the bus when jumping there is way easier? What triggers jump? How do they jump between space? No explanations, just accept it.

Also just wanted to note I reread this part where Josh talks to this guy called Melvin like 10 times, but he never mentions gipart just max, but he figures it out?? Like this was so confusing.

Overall if I could rate the book having only read 1/5th of it, I'd give it maybe like 2/5

Rant about Strike for Climate change

I was writing reports all weekend so I missed this. I'm going to rant a bit now. I don't expect anyone to read this since this blog has like a maximum of 2 views. I am annoyed at this secondary strike (Possibly more according to some other news). I'm hoping most students do not attend. First off I need my students in my class. I've read so many people saying "one day of missing classes won't do much". If it was just one or 2 students away, then yeah, they have friends that are in the class who can help them later, the majority won't be affected and my whole term plan can go ahead. The problem comes when more than 40~50% are away. It's harder to justify continuing the lesson. Too many students would've missed content and the power of mass is that if a few too many students complain about the difficulty of a lesson, you have to make changes. We have a very tight schedule in Physics due to our school's math department not teaching algebra and trigonometry to about half of our year 11 students, meaning we actually have to teach that in physics class. I spent 2.5 lessons on simple torque problems because students did not know how to rearrange equations. I know that doesn't mean much for some people, but it just means I just need a bit more time to slowly drip feed them how to rearrange equations at the same time as learning a new concept. We have 4 lessons per week and one lesson missed screws up the whole scheme that now some content will have to be crammed into a 2~3 hours than 4 which takes a lot of toll on the rest of the students who weren't a part of the protest.

Secondly, a lot of these kids... are actually quite the hypocrite that makes you mad. A lot of these kids aren't aware why we have this climate problem and how they're a part of the problem. They will go to this protest thinking they've done so well for the climate when in reality, a lot of them get dropped off by cars at school regularly, and even got dropped off to the protest. They often buy brands and products that are known to be a part of the problem (the clothing industry produces a lot of pollutants, but I know one student who went to the protest bought a bunch of new branded shoes). They freely trash the class and school because they can't be bothered picking up their trash and "The cleaners are paid to do this". They buy food and products packaged in plastic, drink out of plastic straws which will add to the large pile of plastic that the world is sitting on. They often go on trips with their family, on plane trips and cruises that add to the CO2 gases around the world. They protest for methane, but buy and eat meat and dairy products freely. They are oblivious to the population crisis and they don't care about how many children people are having. They some how think that the government and corporations are this evil place that dumps plastic and pollutants in rivers, but in reality, they're just mass producing what the students themselves buy instead of environmentally friendly stuff. I'm not saying all these students are bad, but the amount of change in attitude I saw after the last protest made me realize that not many of these students actually care about the planet, they just care about feeling like they care and taking a day off to be with friends to 'feel' like they care. If they really cared, they'll study to become a politician, a scientist, an entrepreneur that makes products that are environmentally friendly, they'll ride their bicycle to school and keep the school a nice and tidy place, use less plastic and buy environmentally friendly product and tell their parents to too. I loved how some Australian students took this initiative and rather than skipping school, they went and planted trees on their own time. I hope our students do the same.

I hate the focus of women in STEM

So as a science teacher, every year we have different science conferences. This year, was the year for the NZIP (new zealand institute of physics) conference. I almost always go to these conferences, not really for too much professional development since a lot of the stuff gets repeated, but for keeping up with connection and the newest technology in physics so I can promote it better to students.
In any case, promoting women in physics or STEM subject comes up every now and then and they have projects in some universities to get more women taking physics. I hate it. I think it's stupid and is rather detrimental to the cause than be helpful. I know this view is going to be hated by a lot of feminazis and butt hurt sensitive millennial, gen-z or whatever you call those nut jobs, but luckily no one looks at my blogs.
So here are few of my reasons.

1. By saying women aren't taking STEM courses for any reason beyond the fact that they simply want to study something else, has hidden implications that women are not capable of making good choices in life. Here are some 'ideas' that some people seem to have, especially feminazis. They think for some reason, STEM subjects are sexist. That because there are more men in there, they some how chauvinistically pushed out women. This could be true in places like... america... (haha that's partially a joke) or male dominated countries where women aren't even allowed in the same class like... I don't know... Saudi arabia where women only make up 14% of the workforce. However in this day and age in most developed country like I said, (New Zealand is definitely one of them), women are brought up to be strong independent individuals, equal as men to make fair judgement of their own future and they're not put down by men. I teach science and physics. I observe more female students caring, studying and focusing on their own future. In fact, a lot of them roll their eye at how immature some boys can be. At high school physics, none of them care that there are slightly more boys in class. A lot of them sit, chat and discuss physics with them, and the boys don't treat them any differently because they're female. Simply saying "because men", "because media" or "because sexism" implies that women are weak individuals that are pushed around by everyone. If by any chance, this implication is true, then the focus should be how to train women not to be pushed around, rather than "fighting sexism".

2. This whole push down plays women's success in other fields. Here are some interesting stats, there are now more young graduating female physicians than men in some countries. In 2018 more women were awarded a PhD than men in america. "Data from APA's Center for Workforce Studies show that women make up 76 percent of new psychology doctorates". There are also more female veterinarians around the world. Are these not successes? What if women WANTED to take something other than STEM? What if they simply wanted to become a teacher? Is that a... BAD THING? No, in most developed countries where there is a stronger sense of equality women are succeeding in different ways, not in a bad way, just in a different way. So by saying women are not taking math at university is a bad thing, is like saying women who are doctors, nurses, educators, artists, writers are not as good as women who have taken a STEM subject.

(After writing it, I realized I raged in reason 3 and ramble on about 3 ideas that all lead to the one factor that girls aren't exposed to math early on)

3. They totally and utterly ignore the actual cause of all this which most physics teachers have been screaming for YEARS. One of the BIGGEST reason why women don't do well in physics... is simply because their math is too weak. Before I continue, I should make it clear. Women and Men are DIFFERENT. IT IS NOT A BAD THING. Women and Men are both strong and independent creatures that can do whatever they want but people hate it when I point out this fact that they're still different. Now I'm not saying all women and men are different. There are always outliers since personalities, traits and characteristics are all slightly individualized but we do still have a bell curve. Therefore in general, there are a few definite differences between men and women. For example... Remember how I said more of my junior girls focus and study harder? (by the way this is statistically true, women do better in new zealand education in terms of gaining something called NCEA credits), this is because more women 'care'. Genetically and historically speaking women who survived and passed on their genes were child bearers and carers, which means they did have to worry a bit more then men about their future. This is also why there are more women who experiences anxiety, depression and loneliness (ok this is a bad thing). But in general, women caring more is a GOOD thing. As I've stated there are more female doctors, nurses and teachers. Women and men are 2 sides of a coin that compliment each others. Some men might do more dangerous, tricky or sometimes even dirty things (like builders, police, truck drivers, car mechanics etc) and some women do other important things like caring, curing, educating etc. In any case, before I explained the whole math thing, I had to explain the difference first.
Women do poorly in physics because they're bad at math. In new zealand education especially, most primary schools don't have a specialized math teacher. They also don't memorize timetable in a lot of them, and lastly but most importantly, they don't do ANY algebra in most primary school. As a matter of fact, some primary school teachers hate the idea of math and say stupid shit like 'what's the point of memorizing timetables if we have calculators??' (fucking idiots who have not actually learnt shit in university. I HATES THEM!!!) If any of these fuckers who say that actually study physics in university, they would realize how important memorization is. Human brain is a complicated network of neurons that are constantly making new connections. We learn from repetition mainly, because we need to teach our brains that the information we need to learn should be in the long term memory by telling it 'hey! we use this information often, you should keep it!'. Now here's another important part that people seem to forget or just not care about. Making connections between ideas only comes easily and clearly when both ideas are in the long term memory. Here's an example. Teach a kid that '3 x 4 = 12'. Then ask them a few weeks later 'a x 4 = 12, what is a? If they have memorized their times table, they'll easily say 3. NOW, we can teach them the secondary idea, the link, and how to. '12/4 = 3, hey look! it's the same number! it's because we're doing something called 'rearranging'' In stead, if you skip that part, if the kid never memorized the idea of 3 x 4 and you just tell this kid, 'a x 4 = 12. To find a we divide each side by 4 and 12/4 is 3 so your answer is 3', it becomes less clear, and definitely not easy.
Phew. anyway, now I'll get to my final conclusion of all these explanations. Women care more and statistically they're more prone to anxiety. When it comes to learning physics, if the students math is not solidly in their memories, making connection on how we interpret information and calculate that given information becomes much harder. Look at kinematic equations like, " d = v t + 0.5 at^2 ". First look at the equation gives some students anxiety. We get over that hurdle and tell them "you just need to put in the numbers to where it goes first". Easy step. "5 = 0 x t + 0.5 x 9.81 x t^2"... by now, if you came into physics without practicing and memorizing how to calculate and rearrange something like "5 = 2 + 2 x 4 a^2", this step will now give you the next anxiety. Now here's a problem with anxiety, when people become anxious, it's a physical thing. Chemicals are actually imbalanced. This actually causes the brain to not work like they're meant to. Suddenly, this added new challenge and hurdle makes people's brain just turn off and make it harder for them to practice, memorize and learn new things.
Now, I pointed out the difference in men and women. Male students, they care less and they just do. Making connections is an important part, but to them it's more 'Hey, I'll just do kind of what the teacher does, and hope for the best.' A lot of them don't have that anxiety blocking their brains like some female students do. You see this in university as well. They just take engineering even though they're not fully prepared for it just because it's a cool subject. I know this whole anxiety seems really negative, but it really isn't a completely bad thing. Like I said, this is the reason why girls study harder and care about their future. The only actual problem is that they were stripped of their opportunity to pursue engineering and physics because the stupid primary sector decided math was too hard for students and they're going to revolutionize it with their stupid modern learning environment or learning using tablets. I HATES THEM!!!!!!! I HATE EVERY SINGLE FCUKING PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS WHO SAYS 'why do you have to memorize timetable when there's calculators'???!?!?!?!! FUCK!!!!

By the way, english is my second language so this whole article was poorly written. But hey! Why do we need to memorize grammar and spelling when there's word doc and grammarly right?!?!!?!?!?!?! FUCK


Very bad non-APA referencing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/women-are-now-a-majority-of-entering-medical-students-nationwide/2018/01/22/b2eb00e8-f22e-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.17cb9abbc0a6

https://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2011/01/cover-men

A dog's purpose movie review (spoiler alert)

Well... My year 10 students (around 14~15) wanted to see it so I put it on. End of the year, happy times anyway.
It was stupid.
A tearjerker at first but after depleting the sympathy well by using predictable dog-death, heart-string tugging moves with people falling in love with dogs etc, the movie became dull and boring. The dog just randomly remembered it's past life and then lastly the ending where he was reunited with his old owner felt so forced that I couldn't stop cringing...

This guy named David Brake on rotten tomato explained it pretty well "This film fails to earn a single emotional reaction of its own merit. Instead it preys on sadness offering little in return but misery and saccharine sentimentality."

I guess I'm not a bit fan of pet movies in the first place. There's usually very little creativity involved. It's just human-dog (or cat) falling in love with each other, one gets lost, goes on an adventure, gets found. Tears are jerked and people feel happiness when they reunite. I mean, if it's just a comedy like 'a pet's life' where it's wacky and it's for kids, I usually just swallow it nicely because... well it's comedy. A nice relaxing friday afternoon laugh. But for 'a dog's purpose' it had some funny moments, but it wasn't really comedy. It was supposed to be in the 'life' genre, but the life stories were way too simplistic and boring. Maybe it was because the movie was just for kids?? I don't know, like it dealt with depression poorly, almost like it was written by someone who doesn't actually know what depression is, or how loneliness can get. Too many short stories like the police and the family oriented lady made it impossible to actually engage or fully invest in a character (mostly because the characters were so bland, but still). Like when the dog fell in love with another dog named roxy, the narration were the only indicator that we, as an audience were supposed to also see the merit in the dog. Why? No reason. Just some little event to link the owners together. I don't even understand why the dog wanted the owner to know he was Bailey. What did that knowledge bring to the dog? Or the audience? It does a little bit in showing that "oh my purpose was to get back to my old owner to make him happy again" I guess??? I don't know...

In any case, I probably won't ever see this again

This is the end Movie review

It was boring.

One thing I hate about the recent batman movies

I don't really have much rights, so-to-speak, to talk about batman or superman. DC superheroes were never really my thing. I've watched some cartoons and enjoyed the few I watched, but it never pushed me further. I did however, watch all the batman movies. Partially because batman is like the big boy's man toy type of a thing where grown men can feel mature enough at the same time as replay their child-like heroism play in their mind. So my boy friend (and my ex for the older ones) basically dragged me into all the batman movies. And mind you I loved the reaally old batman movies as well.

So here's the batman I liked. Not the old-old 1960s ones haha, I'm not that young, but the 1990s ones with Michael Keaton! The movies were so well made. I know it sounds cheesy (because in reality they weren't well made) but they were well made for a very specific audience and that's why it worked so well. They were made for children (not toddlers), but children. It was glorious. It wasn't too violent to frighten our young minds that were still innocent enough to be scared by the odd darkness and actual realistic death with blood depicted in movies, but it was vibrant enough to show a 'scary' monster! Think of penguin, one of batman's main enemy. He had a ridiculous feature. Big, round body, pointy, crooked nose, dark, narrow scheming eyes with his totally mental pajama outfit. He even had green blood for god sakes!! It was a children's nightmare, but an adults laugh. So obviously, as a child, I found the movie absolutely entertaining and lovable. "Batman saves the day!" was the focus and there wasn't anything deeply serious. Joker was equally eccentric. He played a crazed man very well that scared our little minds. Oh and don't forget the over-the-top, cool new kid, Robin and the hilarious backstory Catwoman. Just to reinforce, I liked the old batman series. I grew up with it and as a child, it really was memorable and enjoyable.

Now we get to the... hmm... not new, since a 'newer' batman came out, but 2000 batman so to say. let's call it the Christian Bale Era (I'll just say Christian). Now, old people are bad at judging new ideas and concepts coated on an old character. Just look at my reviews for spiderman. I didn't like the new spiderman for silly reasons like his outfit. Dealing with nostalgia is always going to be hard because old people always hold on to a feeling rather than the actual content so even when the remake is good, which seems to be rarely the case (now even young people seem to think this way which is interesting), most people who grew up with the older version will criticize the new one for not being like the original. I built this little rant up to this point to point out one thing. I actually liked the Christian batman, because again, it did the same thing as the old batman which is target a very specific audience. This time, it was for adults. It did a perfect job of getting the attention of those millennial (hahah I hate saying that word, but it is true) that were children when they saw Keaton's batman who grew up now to be adults. This new batman had adult problems and actually delved more into the psychology of batman like an adult. It was the end of silly enemies. Joker, even grew up (metaphorically). Who knew!!! That a silly, insane clown, can actually be portrayed as batman's equal! Where batman was order, joker was chaos! No wonder why Heath Ledger who basically came up with this persona is praised as the best joker. This joker wasn't just insane like the old joker, he demonstrated how he can actually manipulate batman on a psychological level. Just to be clear, I'm going to be hated for this, but I put both Heath Ledger and Jack Nicholson both on the same level. For me, it felt like they were just for different audience and just portrayed the character in a different light. But enough about joker. As I was saying, this Christian batman faced... a tad more serious trials. He had mental breakdowns and ranted in a party, 'the dark knight' even starts the movie off with batman having trouble with people imitating him and fighting crime, putting themselves in danger, all because batman became a symbol. His mental struggle seems real and relatable when he cannot save both Dent and Rachael, resulting in Dent becoming the Two-Face. Conflicts were played very well, there was grief, corruption, jealousy and most importantly, internal turmoils which made the batman movies more mature and enjoyable as an adult. 

Now... comes the new batman movie... oh.... Ben Afflick... Now.. you know how I was going on and on about what audience the past two movies were for and how that made the movie successful?? Well... This is the main thing I wanted to point about the new batman and superman series. The confusion whether it's going to for adults or children. At a glimpse, the new batman seems like it'll be for adults, just like the Christian Bale one. Batman is brooding, setting is dark and enemies are... ok well badly designed enemies are one of the parts it really falls short. Lex Luthor is a joke, and not the good one. I feel like the director saw batman dark knight and thought, "oh yes. I really liked joker. I'm going to make Lex Luthor another joker", not realizing that they're 2 completely different villains with different motives. This Lex Luthor mindlessly jokes around and tries to kill superman with his terrible and childish plans. Then he starts making quotes like his some smart philosopher. It was just cringy to watch. You know how you get those teens who think their so cool and smart that they just say the darnedest things, making you slap your face in embarrassment for them? Well that's what he was like. The worst part was that he seemed to be totally unaware of how embarrassing his character is and continues to prance around the whole movie. So he's definitely not a villain like the old batman. He doesn't have depth, although he tries to be, and he lacks mature motive. The final enemy, the giant monster at the end was just a joke. An absolute waste of time. Now if this movie was designed to be a children's movie, this monster would make sense. The monster's design would've been something more for children and the fight would've been choreographed more to be somewhat interesting. But no... it was... not... They forced in a random character, wonder woman, to foreshadow the next up coming movie which was a terrible move because fighting the monster should've been built up to be a moment of reconcile and understanding like the good ol' batman and robin, but to be overshadowed by another superhero who just had a successful movie of her own?? I'm not even going to go on about the Martha scene because everyone know's it was the worst scene in the whole movie, but I will say one thing. Martha scene made it clear that the director misunderstood the true power of batman. Batman is not strong because he's physically strong or because he's rich with gadgets (well the gadget's help haha). Growing up watching justice league, we all know that. He knows that. In fact, he is painfully aware that a few kryptonite cannot stop superman, which was the initial reason why he decided to take on superman. Batman is badass, because he is the smartest guy in the whole justice league. He is aware of his strength and flaws AND the strength and flaws of his enemies. For this previous 'badass' character to fall so short like this, battling an enemy with pure strength and not his knowledge and wit, was disheartening to watch in the least. The batman we knew of would've done his research and rather than just battling head on with this demi-god, he would've had plans set. He would've done his research and it's actually not hard to find superman's identity, his personality, relationships, where he lives and what he does. Batman just freaking out like a teenage girl who found out she just stepped on her neighbours dog just made this batman really weak and almost pathetic compared to the other batman. Oh and speaking of not knowing characters... he really down played superman as well. That's actually not hard to understand why. Superman is a hard character to pull off. As you may all know, superman that we know of came out near the end of WW2. When things looked bleak and many adult and children alike did not feel safe in their own homes. Then an author came with this amazing comic book to put hope into the hearts of young minds. A superhero with incredible powers. He had a normal childhood and a normal adult setting where he works at a normal job. But when disaster strikes, he's the first one there to save the day! Most of the first couple of cartoons I've watched focused on just that. Him saving the day, over and over again with his incredible power. This gets old very quickly in the modern age where we're not constantly living in fear anymore. So for a superman movie to be successful, it requires a couple of things. A damn good storyline, great motives, a damn good villain and a damn good win. Like a soccer playing making the last minute goal that changed the winning team, an epic win that makes a kids heart pound, see and understand that he's a symbol of hope and a savior of humanity. Well there was none of that. So when something bad happened to superman (no spoilers) no one... felt any loss... Most of us were like "oh he's in trouble? Yeah na, we had wonderwoman barging in to promote the next movie, he'll be fine." or "I didn't even know people liked him that much." You know what, I'm gonna spoil it. Most people have watched the movie anyway. Kind of wish batman died instead. Because we know batman is mortal, it really would've had more impact. Of course, that's not possible because he's like the base of the justice league franchise, but you know... I can dream.

Aquaman movie review

With all the failures that the DC universe has had lately with their crappy director directing crappy Marvel-wannabe rip off movies like Batman vs Superman and Justice League, it was good to see a lighthearted and actually good DC movie for once.

Aquaman is a great movie. Aquaman (and probably Wonder Woman) is one of those DC superheroes that can pull off a Marvel like concept because the character itself is meant to be a bit more lighthearted. It doesn't deal with identity issues and PTSD or the concept of psychology like Batman does. Christian Bale Batman really pulled this off well versing Joker and Bane. The recent movies didn't really shine well on Superman either and poorly depicted his super...ness (?? haha) and equally poorly depicted his struggles. But Aquaman was built to be a character with little inner conflict and that's what makes him suitable to be a Marvel-like superhero, where he just goes on an adventure, fights some evil guys, have a bit of slapstick jokes flying about and just over power his enemies with little challenge.
I mean if you want to point out the conflicts, well here they are. Major conflicts that he had was that he was a half-breed, a fact he ignored most of the time by just ignoring the Atlanteans (... is that what you call it?), he felt a bit guilty being the cause of his mother's death, another fact he mostly ignored and the very, VERY small regret that he didn't save a pirate causing his son to be revenge-ridden. Most of those conflicts were either resolved or ignored mostly throughout the movie.
In any case, so Aquaman went on a journey, did some cool superhero stuff, got a girl in the end. Happy ending.

I'm just going to point out the two small things I didn't like about the movie and it's very minor.
*Warning spoiler alert*
After Aquaman got the trident, he went into... battle... with the Atlanteans... before the movie, it seemed obvious that most of the water tribes didn't actually want to go to battle with humans. Xebel (the kingdom with the redhead) had a king that stated that he was basically going with the flow, Fishermen (people that look like a giant version of sea monkeys) had their king actually killed because he didn't want to join, Kingdom of Trench (the crab people) actually raged war because they didn't want to side and lastly/mainly the Atlantis people were mainly following their ruler, Orm.
The thing is, Aquaman could've came into the battle between crab people and everyone else by... oh I don't know... doing a big shout and showing off his new trident? If people can't hear him, maybe get the giant talking kraken to say it for him? or just simple demobilize them by using their marine creatures... I don't know, there could've been hundreds of creative ways to just stop the fight. But nooooo the director HAD to showoff how powerful and cool Aquaman was. He went in there and started, basically what I saw was a massacre. They never showed the full violence, since the movie was intended for children as well, but I saw sharks about to bite someone, kraken stepping on crab people and smashing ships with tentacles... I mean... If no one died in there, it would've been a miracle... He's the king for godsakes. Good kings don't make sacrifices of his own people just for a cool comeback. The war was unnecessary in the first place and as a king, he should've stopped it as soon as possible. And you know what else?? After Mera said "there's too much casualty. We have to stop the war" or something like that... THEY KISS!??!? WHILST PEOPLE ARE DYING IN THE BACKGROUND!!!! jesus... Like yeah, they should've kissed at some stage in the movie, but really guys?? This is the right time??? People are dying ffs! And what did she mean by 'casualty'??? Casualty is when innocents are hurt as a byproduct of war. Everyone was in the war first of all, but more importantly, people were dying because Aquaman, you weren't stopping the war, you were making it worse by sending out a bunch of sea creatures to massacre a bunch of random Atlanteans!!! grr... Anyway, that was the main thing I didn't like about the movie.

The next annoyance was that... Atlanteans spoke English. I know... I know... it's a fantasy story and how can we have a bunch of people not being able to communicate with each other... but still... Atlantis... is a part of Greek mythology. They went underwater thousands and thousands of years ago. If not Greek or Latin, they'd have some new broken old English... Like you know how with new technology and media, language changes? Most people will have trouble reading at least a few lines of Shakespeare, not only because the culture was completely different, but mainly because English has changed so much throughout the centuries. Grammar, the way people talk, words they use and the way they use it were all different. Even if Aquaman learnt Greek and Latin from early childhood, they will be totally different from the Atlantean version of it. Not to mention how his mom, queen Atlanna, came straight out of the water and started speaking English.

There was one other thing and this is also minor, because I know this is a universe that has no laws of the universe we live in and it's a fantasy story that doesn't follow science. There was a very poor explanation of how Atlanteans began breathing under water. Get a bunch of rabbits. Like millions if you want. Now put all those rabbits in the bottom of the ocean. Do you know how many of them will magically survive, start breathing under water and start being able to swim very well? NONE. THEY'LL ALL DIE. It's just not how evolution works!! Evolution works with 2 big factors in play, having children WITH mutation. Just because I throw myself into a pit of lava, it doesn't mean I'm randomly going to grow super skin and be able to breathe super hot air. If people living in Atlantis already had some mutations of being able to breathe under water, well those people would survive, reproduce with more children being able to breathe under water. I just didn't like the premise that, "oh the city sank... and people began breathing under water! Tada!!"

Actually, I'm going to rant about just one more thing. Pollution. I liked how the movie started by pointing out human faults. How we were trashing the ocean, over fishing and catching endangered species. I even liked how the rubbish were sent back to the beach. But you know what I didn't like? Aquaman... didn't really care... I mean... he might have?? But he doesn't do anything about it... He just mostly goes around saving fisherman or innocent marines in submarines that got hijacked. All he says is "don't judge a book by it's cover" or something like that and shows Mera how beautiful one city is and proceeds to continue not caring. Pollution is a big deal. Most fish that we eat are now known to carry some form of micro plastic. Coral reef are dying and fish are getting smaller due to size constraint and over fishing. You... You're not gonna do anything about it??

sigh... in any case. I'm done ranting. It's a lighthearted fiction that, as usual, I take too far anyway. It was a good movie and I did like it. I probably will see it again in the future.