The Character development In Sword art Online is bad

 

Why Sword Art Online Has a Bad Character DevelopmentBy: Amari Dixon

So, Have you ever heard of an anime called Sword Art online? If you have any questions, let me give you a quick summary of this show. This anime is about a Person named Kirito and his friend Asuna. In this anime, Kirito, Asuna, and many other characters get stuck in a video game where they have to clear floors and get to the 100th floor to "beat" the game and go home. The reason why Kirito is super special is because he is a beta tester which means he has played the game before anyone else and was able to get some knowledge about the game. In addition, If you die in the game, you die in real life. This short anime is about the main protagonist trying to return home.

Before discussing character development, I want to discuss the main character, Kirito. First, they try to make him all edgy, but it just makes it more cringe. Because first, Kirito is definitely not an edgy guy. The only honorable episode in which he was edgy was when he decided to shift all the beta-tester hate onto himself and was at all edgy about it. I don't have a problem with a character being edgy, but when you switch a character from edgy to not and back to edgy, it gets confusing and weird,s, making us, the viewers, know nothing about the character. 

Now, on to my first claim about character development: no side characters get to grow or have a chance to shine. THE ONLY TIME WHEN THEY DO IS WHEN KIRITO COMES. It is annoying. I know Kirito is the main protagonist, but not giving any side characters a chance to grow alone is sad. In addition, it is OK to have the main character help them, but IT IS NOT FINE FOR THEM TO BE HELPLESS AND DO NOTHING. For my second claim I would Like to talk about some aspects of why Kirito gets no character development. Kirito only gets some in ONE arc which is the Aincrad arc, where he goes from keeping people at a distance to learning to rely on others again. Besides that, he stays the same character for the rest of the story. Also, In the anime, he is basically unbeatable he never really struggles as a protagonist. The protagonist's struggle and trauma are a great aspect of character development, but Kirito has none of that.

Overall, I enjoyed art online. Yes, I said it. It is not a bad anime just because of the character development. I still hate anime in general, and the character development and the characters are not as good as many other animes. But did I find it fun and enjoyable? Yes, I did. In the end, Sword Art Online is a bad anime, but it is still enjoyable. It is short (unless you watch Sword Art Online II), but I encourage you to watch it and see what opinions you have.

https://www.cbr.com/kirito-unlikable-traits-ruined-sword-art-online/ 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdKFrEoXM9Q

https://www.amazon.com/Sword-Art-Online-Aincrad-manga/dp/0316371238 (the manga)

Are Paper Books Better Than E-Books? By Alana Santiago

In my opinion, the debate between paper books and e-books boils down to personal preference and convenience. There's something undeniably nostalgic about the feel of a physical book in your hands—the smell of the pages, the weight of it as you turn each one. For many readers, myself included, there's a certain joy in flipping through the pages of a well-loved book and seeing the progress you've made. The experience of a paper book can't quite be replicated by an e-reader.

However, e-books offer their own advantages. They're incredibly convenient, allowing you to carry an entire library in the palm of your hand. Whether you're traveling or simply short on space, e-books provide unparalleled accessibility. Plus, they often come with features like adjustable font sizes and built-in dictionaries, enhancing the reading experience for those with visual impairments or non-native language speakers. From a practical standpoint, e-books can't be beaten in terms of portability and functionality.

Yet, despite their convenience, e-books lack the charm of paper books. There's something special about browsing through bookstore shelves, running your fingers along spines, and discovering hidden gems. Paper books also offer a respite from screens, providing a welcome break from the constant bombardment of digital stimuli. The act of disconnecting from technology and immersing oneself in the pages of a physical book is an essential part of the reading experience.

Paper books have a cultural significance that transcends their contents. They serve as tangible artifacts of human history and creativity, preserving stories and ideas for future generations. There's an emotional attachment to physical books that goes beyond the words on the page—they become mementos of cherished moments, marked by dog-eared pages and marginal notes. In a world increasingly dominated by digital media, the enduring appeal of paper books lies in their ability to evoke nostalgia and connection.

While both paper books and e-books have their advantages, the choice between the two ultimately depends on individual preferences and circumstances. For some, nothing can replace the sensory experience of reading a physical book, while others appreciate the convenience and versatility of e-readers. Personally, I find value in both formats, recognizing that each offers its own unique advantages and charms. Whether it's the comforting weight of a paperback or the sleek efficiency of a digital device, what matters most is the joy of immersing oneself in a good story, regardless of the source.

Are Sport Athletes Paid Too Much?

 Are Sport Athletes Paid Too Much?

Kabir

   Above is a picture of Jaylen Brown, a basketball player for the Boston Celtics. In 2023, he signed a contract that could potentially earn him $304,000,000 over the course of 5 years! That's around $60,000,000 a year, and $150,000 per day. 

    Jayson Tatum, the star role player for the Boston Celtics, barely earns half of $60,000,000 a year. So any argument for the importance of Jaylen Brown and the talent he provides for the Boston Celtics being the driving factor for his absurdly high contract is invalid, especially considering the official NBA website doesn't rank him in the current top 70 most impactful players. Also, he is only 19th in the NBA points per game statistic, which would be impressive if not considering his contract. The average American income is around 50-60 thousand dollars, and Jaylen Brown makes triple that a day, without being exceptionally good at the job he does. While this paragraph seems like a giant hate message, I like and appreciate Jaylen Brown and this only serves the purpose of questioning his high salary. 

    The reason the Celtics are able to spend this much money is because of the high NBA salary cap, which is based on the leagues revenue from the previous season. From the 1984-1985 season the salary cap as gone from $3,600,000 to $123,655,000 in the previous season. This is reflective of the huge increase in popularity and income by the NBA. If any team was to go over the cap, they would have to pay a luxury tax for every dollar they go over (more than $1.75 per dollar exceeding). You might expect the Celtics to worry about this luxury tax and exceeding it with Jaylen Brown's contract, but like federal taxes, there are loopholes. The Larry Bird exception allows a team to resign one of their players if they've been in the team for a certain number of years, even if it means exceeding the salary cap. While the Celtics aren't going over the salary cap, they wouldn't really have to worry because Jaylen Brown has been with them his whole career. 

    In the WNBA, the highest paid athlete, Jackie Young, earns $250,000 a year. This is primarily based on the amount of revenue certain teams bring in a year, which didn't used to be much in the WNBA. Hopefully with the boom in popularity in the WNBA with the introduction of superstars like Caitlin Clark, they will be able to pay all of their players more. I think it would be a helpful gesture if the NBA could divert and contribute some of their income to grow the WNBA, which would be mutually beneficial because both theoretically make more money. Instead we see a major imbalance in salary cap: the $123,000,000 of NBA vs $1,500,000 of the WNBA, Jaylen Brown's $60,000,000 a year vs Jackie Young's $250,000. 

    In conclusion, this is a very subjective and complicated decision to make. If you think Jaylen Brown's salary is too high, then what about movie stars and business owners. Adam Sandler reportedly made $73,000,000 in 2023. In my opinion, these teams and athletes aren't laundering money (probably) or doing anything to break any rules, they're operating within the lines. So, while there are much better uses for the money, I think Jaylen Brown is rightfully owed that money, purely because it is income that he and the Celtics helped bring into the league, and the Celtics believe he is worth that much. 

https://www.nba.com/stats/leaders

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/advanced?CF=MIN*GE*15&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&dir=-1&sort=PIE

https://frontofficesports.com/the-25-highest-paid-wnba-players/#:~:text=Las%20Vegas%20Aces%20two%2Dtime,contract%20extension%20with%20the%20Aces.

https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/38273363/wnba-player-survey-2023-biggest-issue-league

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/forbes-highest-paid-actors-of-2023-adam-sandler-margot-robbie/

Should Stores Sell Violent Video Games to Minors?

 Should Stores Sell Violent Video Games to Minors?

Should stores sell violent video games to minors? This is a very interesting question because there are many sides to it, which I will be covering. There's the legal side, and the ethical side. For the legal side, I will be seeing whether it is legal or not for minors to play violent games. In terms of the ethical side, I will give my opinion on whether I think teens should be able to play violent games, and whether I think it contributes to violence in the real world. I am a minor myself so I may have a bias, however I will be using reputable sources. I will be discussing the meaning of a rating and how valid it is in determining the law. To clarify, for the legal part I will not be discussing whether it is legal for teens to play violent games, but whether stores should sell them. Many teens already play violent games such as Grand Theft Auto and Red Dead Redemption, including my 11 year old cousin.

I will be discussing the legality of the question first and then move on to the ethical side. It is not illegal for minors to play or purchase violent video games. The Mature rating given by the ESRB is just that; a rating. It is like a rating on a product or a recommendation. If a cool water bottle has a few bad reviews on Amazon, doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it, although it is recommended not to. In the case of retail of violent video games, it isn't illegal to sell minors video games for the most part. However, in certain places like Illinois, there are laws and fines put in place against retailers selling minors video games. According to the Illinois General Assembly website, it is illegal for retailers to sell minors video games, and if they do they will be charged with a $1,000 fee. This doesn't make it impossible or illegal for minors to play violent video games, as they can get it from a non-minor who bought it or buy it online, however, I am focusing on whether stores should sell them to minors or not. I think that this law is a good idea because it makes sure that minors aren't being sold violent games, however if a minor REALLY wants to defy the recommendation then they could buy it online or through similar means. It prevents minors from experiencing the violence while not making it so illegal for minors to play violent games that they would be charged for playing it. 

Now it's time for the ethicality, which is purely based on my opinion alone and a reputable source. I think that if a minor wants to play a violent game and their parents or guardians are fine with it, they probably still shouldn't be able to since ratings are there for a reason, but they can if they want to. In the end the decision falls onto their parents or guardians. Do video games make teens violent though? That's a whole different story. According to the Harvard Health Publishing website, there is a mix of research that suggests that it does and does not. Some say that video games cause aggression in teens while others say that this doesn't mean they will have violent behaviors. I will have to disagree with the researchers that believe video games do make you violent because of the lack of reasoning behind their research. According to the Harvard Health Publishing website, 64-67% of teens 12-17 play video games that "action and adventure games that tend to contain violent content". See the wording they're using? "Action and adventure"? "Tend to"? Makes you think they aren't only talking about Mature rated games and above. If you look up "Mario", a very popular game that's well known to be all ages, every single game that shows up is rated E for everyone and has a Mild Fantasy/Cartoon Violence tag. Whether they included fantasy violence in their research or not is anyone's guess, however I'm inclined to think that they did since their wording was vague. Their research also says that "some children may become more aggressive as a result of watching and playing violent video games, but that most are not affected". Does some children being slightly more aggressive mean they'll commit grand theft auto or join a mafia when they get older? Unlikely, and even if they do, hard to believe it will be because of the games they played in their teens.

To wrap it all up, my research has shown that it's illegal for retailers to sell violent or M+ rated games to teens, even though it is not completely illegal for teens to buy and play these games through other means, such as buying online. In terms of the ethical side, I still think that teens should not be playing M and A rated games that are definitely not their age, however I do not think that these games will have a violent effect on them or significantly change their behavior. The research for the side that does think this to be true is vague and imprecise. I myself do not play M rated games, so I wouldn't completely know of the mental effects that playing extremely violent games may have, however based on my findings it appears that it does not significantly impact anyone. 

- Belal Alawini

Reputable Sources: 

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+12A&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=30700000&SeqEnd=31400000#:~:text=Restricted%20sale%20or%20rental%20of,of%20%241%2C000%20may%20be%20imposed.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/violent-video-games-and-young-people.

https://www.esrb.org/search/?searchKeyword=mario&platform=All%20Platforms&rating=E%2CE10%2B%2CT%2CM%2CAO&descriptor=All%20Content&pg=2&searchType=All&ielement[]=all

The Effect of Cinematography in Horror Films

         The Effect Of Cinematography in Horror Films

By Ellie Rosch

        The effect cinematography can have on horror movies is very important. I enjoy a lot of movies, and cinematography plays a big part in my enjoyment of different movies. Think about an action movie where someone is jumping from one building to another and when they’re in the air it cuts to 20 different angles of that jump. That is to build up suspense because you can manipulate the angles to make the audience think they’ll fall and not make the jump, only to give the watchers a sigh of relief when they actually do. These tactics create extreme reactions in the audience, stimulating emotions, and horror movies are a prime example of movies that would want to convey that.

The first movie’s cinematography I want to talk about is American Psycho. American Psycho, in my opinion, is one of the best examples of using cinematography to convey emotions to the audience, mainly because it broke most of the “rules'' that were often used in horror movies before it came out. As you would expect in a horror movie, there’s a killer and when we see that first kill take place, it’s not a dark and broody scene like the first kill normally is. Instead, it’s in very bright light and could be compared to what you would normally see in a musical theater. Part of this is because the cinematographer wanted to add the comedic and insane feel of the movie, but as the movie continues and more kills take place, the killing scenes get darker and darker, representing the main character’s spiral into insanity. The way this movie plays with lighting is definitely one of the reasons that this movie is so good as it is. It properly conveys the spiral into insanity and ends the movie with the audience feeling some sort of unease.

I can’t talk about great horror movie cinematography without touching on The Shining. While American Psycho was a great example of using lighting, The Shining is supreme in its use of wide-angle shots and distorting perspective that really brings the unease and fear into shots of seemingly mundane scenes. There’s rarely a time watching this movie where you will feel at ease or safe looking at scenes that don’t even have anything dangerous in them. Part of this is because the cinematographers, John Alcott and Martin Kenzie, understood perspective so well. When characters are feeling scared, the camera angle will be above them, conveying the audience that they’re small and vulnerable, while dangerous characters will be seen from lower angles, showing that they are more powerful. Also, using the emptiness of space in backgrounds builds tension and an overarching feeling of dread; That is all used until the climax of the film. There’s a reason The Shining is such an iconic horror film and still referenced today despite its age, and the cinematographers diffidently have something to do with that.

The final movie I want to talk about is so good that it started its own horror genre. This would be the Blair Witch Project which created the found footage horror movies. Basically, when you watch a movie you are spectating other people’s lives, but in a found footage movie, it’s as it says. You are watching a film that has seemingly been recorded on a phone or some type of electronic, and you piece together the story from there. It’s not professional looking, for example some scary noise would be made and the actors are all scared and start running, but you can’t see what scared them because it was off screen. You wouldn’t even be able to see the actors running because the camera is shaking. It’s a very hard technique to pull off but the Blair Witch Project did an exceptional job. While technically this film technique had been used before in a movie called Cannibal Holocaust in 1980, it was not popular and the Blair Witch Project seemingly revived it. The found footage technique is the best way to get the audience feeling immersed in the horror film world. Part of this is because it just makes the whole movie feel that much more realistic, which is a huge part in conveying to the audience these heightened emotions of fear and unease. 

All in all, cinematography has a huge impact on every movie, but especially horror films. It can be used to create fear, but more importantly it creates a feeling of unease and immersion in the movie. These were just three of the most popular examples of cinematography in scary movies, but there are plenty of other great examples. All three of these movies convey strong emotions that make these movies that much better.