The Turbotastic Asian Reviews: “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle”

What is up guys?  Turbotastic Asian here with an all new installment of “The Turbotastic Asian Reviews”.  You might be wondering why I have not reviewed any films since my “Dr. Strange” review.  The honest truth is that though many of the movies I have seen, though I enjoyed watching them, I did not feel any strong emotions about them, good or bad.  Such movies include “Alice Through the Looking Glass”, “The BFG”, and (I’m sorry guys) “Beauty and the Beast”.  I liked them, but I felt that I could not bring anything new to the table or say anything about them that had not already been said.  One reason for this is that two out of three of those films were based on a pre-existing franchise and I felt that they followed their original a bit too closely.

However, recently, I saw a movie that I thought so amazing and well-executed in every way, that I just had to review it before I got too far into the semester!  Of course, I am talking about the new “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle”.  When I saw the trailer for this film, I thought that it was going to be a funny, sort of dorky child-like movie.  But when I actually saw it in theaters, I realized that it was ten times more epic than that!  I do not care how good or bad Rotten Tomatoes rated it; this is a very very GOOD film!


“Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” is based on the children’s book by Chris Van Allsburg about a children’s game coming to life.  There are now three versions of this story in existence, and each one portrays the story differently.  In the original book, it’s a zoo-themed game, in the Jonathan Hensleigh 1995 film, it is space-themed, and in this version, it is, as the title implies, jungle-themed.  However, this movie is different for two reasons: 1) Unlike the former two that were board-games, this version is a video-game (probably for relevancy), and 2) In the former versions, the games came to life in the players’ world; in this version, the game sucks the players into its own world and the only way out is to win the game (as is typical for this type of plot).

During a humdrum detention period, four high-school students, Spencer, “Fridge”, Martha, and Bethany, find the gaming console and decide to check it out.  They choose their avatars and get sucked in.  Their mission is to find a gem stolen from the eye of a sacred jaguar statue and return it to said statue located on the top of the mountain overlooking the jungle.  Along the way, they find another player named Alex, who they learn had been afraid of losing his last life, and was thus stuck in the game for 20 years.  The five of them work together to win the game so that he can return home to his family.  All the while, they each find their hidden talents and learn the importance of friendship.

Plot: 4.5/5

Much like “Dr. Strange”, this plot was simple enough to easily stick in my mind yet engaging.  It toys with the idea of role-reversal in that the players in their real lives are nothing like their avatars in the game (more on this later).  One thing I like is that there is some risk included.  Each of the characters has only three lives and it is implied, though never tested (for obvious reasons), that if a character loses all three lives, they die for real and can never leave the game.  Therefore, there is this subconscious dread of one or more of the characters dying near the end of the movie, even though by killing a central character off, that would defeat the purpose of it being a comedy.  My only problem with this is that there is a scene where they are eating bread in the market place, but it is never explained whether or not bread refills their lives.  Usually in video-games there is some way to refuel.

There is some drama involved as well.  Usually, when it comes to drama in comedy shows, it is either a hit or a miss for me.  If it is not done properly, it can ruin the whole experience.  However, the drama in this film is relatively short-lived and none of the characters says anything too brutal to the other.  Plus, there is a nice amount of sweet moments mixed in with the humor and drama.  I like all the little instances of the squad using teamwork to solve a problem.  I like the scene where Bethany sacrifices one of her lives performing CPR on Alex after he got bitten by a mosquito (one of his weaknesses).  I like when Spencer and Martha share their first kiss.  Overall, this was a very well-rounded film.  You have action, you have comedy, you have suspense, and you have drama that is not too overplayed!

I guess the only other thing I have to scratch my head over is exactly how long the kids were in the game.  I mean, it is not like in The Chronicles of Narnia where no matter how long one is in the wardrobe, no time passes at all in the “real world”.  Alex had been in the game for 20 years, which amounts to only a few months in game-time.  How long does that amount to for the other four, who had only been in the game for the equivalent of a few hours? Also, how do you explain the fact that at the end of the movie, we see Alex married with two children, if he had just gotten home from being stuck in the game.  Unless he reunited with a girlfriend he acquired before his disappearance, but even that is rushing things a bit.  However, that is just a nitpick and doesn’t really hurt the overall plot, so I won’t count against it.

Characters: 5/5

This might seem like a no-brainer, but if the characters in a movie/show are relatable to any audience member and does not pander to any specific group, they are automatically good characters (at least in the making).  Yes, you could say that the characters of Spencer, Fridge, Martha, and Bethany are pandering to the high school-age audience, but they still have their unique characteristics and quirks.  Spencer is the gamer-nerd who’s afraid of pretty much everything about the outside world and Fridge is the secretly insecure school jock and they both get detention because Fridge made Spencer write his history paper for him.  Martha is the shy yet opinionated girl who makes a brutally honest speech to the gym teacher about being in school to learn rather than have fun, which sends her to detention.  As for Bethany, she is the girly-girl/queen bee who pretty much idolizes her phone.  You can guess what she was in detention for.

The hilariously ironic part about the teens’ avatars in Jumanji is that the avatars are played by completely different actors than the actors for the teens in their non-Jumanji lives.  And the actors who play their avatars are big name Hollywood stars (including Alex who is played by none other than Nick Jonas himself).  Spencer’s avatar is Dr. Smolder Bravestone, played by Dwane Johnson, AKA “The Rock” (quite a stretch from the dorky video-game nerd with the overprotective mom).  Dr. Bravestone is the brave and handsome leader of the four.  Fridge’s avatar is “Moose” Finbar (played by Kevin Hart), Dr. Bravestone’s wimpy, annoying sidekick with a laundry list of weaknesses (including cake, which makes him explode for some reason).  However, Finbar is a zoologist, which in itself gives him some moments of greatness.  Shy and socially awkward Martha turns into Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan), an expert in dance fighting.  Some of the most epic scenes in the movie are just her beating up their pursuers to the song “Baby I Love Your Way”.  Last but by no means least, Bethany is initially horrified to find that not only had she left her phone in the real world, but she is now Professor Shelley Oberon, the navigator of the group.  I’m not going to go into too much detail about this one, other than don’t let the name “Shelley” Oberon fool you.

Throughout the game, the four of them learn and grow into their new identities.  Spencer learns to be strong and courageous; Fridge learns to humble himself and be a new kind of team player; Martha learns to loosen up and have more fun; and Bethany learns that there is more to life than selfies and Instagram and not to be afraid to get down and dirty.

Humor: 5/5 (At least the first time around)

I have already covered the humor in this movie a bit; I don’t think there is much more to say about it.  Other than this is one of those movies that is definitely better the first time you watch it.  I rewatched it a week and a half after I saw it for the first time, and for some reason, it just did not do it for me like it did the first time around.  One reason I think this is is that this is one of those movies that just has such a vast amount of unexpected twists and jokes and even some shock value that just isn’t there the second time, because I’ve already seen it and thus already know what to expect.  This is also one of the reasons I have not gone out of my way to watch Mall Cop again, despite upholding and glorifying it on my blog.  The first time though though, you are hanging on at the edge of your seat either in suspense or doubled over laughing.  Overall, the humor in this film, as well as the other aspects, is  amazing and well done; just don’t watch it a dozen times in a row.  Actually, this is one of those movies that would be fun to drag in someone else to watch it who hasn’t seen it before. Then it is not so much rewatching the movie as it is watching the reaction of the other person who gets to watch it for the first time.

Even though this movie might not be as special upon rewatch, I am still going to give it a full 10/10 review!  The quality and quantity of the good aspects far outweigh the bad and the message is both familiar and presented in a very unique way (Take that, Zootopia!).  Lastly, I could be wrong, but if you are a gamer or know one, you might especially relate to and enjoy this movie.  Definitely a winner for me!

This is the Turbotastic Asian, and I’m signing out!


Turbotastic Theory (Sort of): Inherent Sin vs. Child Innocence

Hey guys, Turbotastic Asian here.  This post is going to take a slightly different form than what I usually do.  Rather than a fan theory, I have a more professional, scientific “theory” to share.  It isn’t really so much of a theory as it is a paper I wrote for my Personality Theory course, due to my gracious and kind psychology professor promising extra credit points to all who posted their integration writing papers online.  I know this might seem boring to some of you familiar with my usual blog topics but hey, extra credit is extra credit.  Hope you enjoy anyway!

Children and Wickedness

The Bible states that all people are born with a sin nature. However, society holds to the idea of the innocence of children. Can these two ideas be reconciled in some way? Is wickedness entirely inherent, or do outside forces play a role? The purpose of this study is to discover the point in life where children act upon their emotions or desires through deeds of wickedness and how they acquire these thoughts to do so.

Saul Levine is well aware of the possibility of young individuals, such as adolescents, wreaking havoc on society. He brings up the question of how aware are these young folks of what they are doing is wrong and how well they understand the consequences of their actions. To cite Piaget, until the child reaches the age of 12, he or she only has a narrow view of morality, in that he or she knows that certain actions are right and wrong but not why they are so. This understanding first manifests itself at age 12, during what is known as the stage of Formal Operations, when youths begin asking more in-depth questions about the consequences and implications of their actions and behaviors. However, it is only when they reach their adolescent years that their sexual and aggressive hormones cause them to act upon their impulses in sometimes disastrous and detrimental ways (Levine 1997).

Gerald David Williams disagrees with Levine’s idea and argues that children are capable of aggression and destructiveness even as early as from infancy similar to what the Bible teaches about an inherent sin nature. However, this wickedness, Williams resolves is not altogether inherent; rather, it is taught through child neglect and depravity. The child realizes from an early age that certain desires and expectations are not being met, and this understanding can lead to detrimental actions, even before the child completely grasps the concepts of right and wrong (Williams 2002).

Wanting more up-close and personal research, Andrzej Werbart interviewed 16-year-old Emile, a young man contemplating a school shooting. When asked what drove him to consider this, Emile confessed that he had developmental problems that led to being bullied at a young age before transferring to high school. He also mentioned his parents’ frequent fighting and alcohol consumption as being deeply disturbing to him. As an escape from these disturbances, he became addicted to video games that warped his mind into thinking that they were real and that reality was much like a Nietzschean Beyond Good and Evil influence; therefore, he felt like it would not matter if he went ahead and shot his classmates, as nothing truly existed. He reported to Werbart that he just wished that he could live in the Internet, where he would be revered as a god. One of the conclusions that Werbart came to was that Emile’s developmental problems were a factor in his inability to separate thought from actions and reality from fantasy (Werbert 2014).

Lastly, Pringle M. L. Kellmer and J. B. Edwards wanted to do their own experimentation on this issue. In 1964, they organized a self-report on 288 junior high students, consisting of three main tests. On the “Ideal Person Test,” the students named and described the most inspiring people to them; on the “Moral Wickedness Test,” they listed what they considered to be the worst and most abhorrent crimes in society; and on the “Moral Incidents Test,” “10 hypothetical situations, involving honesty, loyalty, responsibility, and punishment, were presented together with alternative methods of characters personally unknown to them.” The results of the first test stated that both male and female students cited primarily male figures, but the males cited them based on accomplishments, whereas females cited them based on religious or moral qualities. The results of the second test showed that both males and females cited unanimously bad deeds, but more females cited crimes involving animal and child abuse, theft, lying, and swearing. Finally, the results of the third test revealed that children at the age of 13 or 14 did, in fact, understand simple moral issues, but some of the more intellectually challenged students were more prone to be confused or to lack good judgment.

Is the Bible itself for inherent sin or for child innocence? Actually, it is for both. On the one hand, all children are born with a sin nature. “The intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” (Genesis 8:21 NIV.). However, that is not to say that children are responsible for sin at such a young age. The bible acknowledges that children sometimes act foolishly or wickedly because they simply do not know any better. Romans 5:13 states that “sin in not imputed when there is no law.” This means that a child has no capacity to sin because he or she does not know what sin is yet. In fact, Jesus Himself commands us to strive to be as innocent and humble as a little child if we ever expect to enter the kingdom of Heaven (see Matthew 18:2 NIV.). It is only when a child knows and understands what is right and wrong, but does wrong or fails to do right anyhow that he or she is sinning. Therefore, there is such a thing as child innocence; it just does not last forever.

This is not exactly the same thing, but I have two personal stories that correlate to sin and innocence. The first one is from when I was six years of age. My family and I were at a friend’s house for lunch and I found this tiny blue mantle clock that could fit inside one’s pocket. Deciding to “borrow” it, I did slip it into my pocket and take it home. Unfortunately, I forgot to empty my pocket and my mom found it while doing laundry. Both she and my dad were angry with me for stealing it, but then were less angry when I explained that I did not even know that I had stolen it. At that age, I had learned through television shows that as long as you return whatever you took to the owner before the owner knows it is missing, it is not considered stealing. After I explained this to my parents, they were a little more understanding but still insisted that what I did was wrong and that I needed to apologize and give the clock back.

Fast-forward another five years. I was sitting at the dinner table, relaxing and eating dessert. I was stretching my fingers by holding them up one at a time, including my middle finger. When my mom saw me holding up this finger, she laughed in surprise and gently warned me not to do that in front of other people. She explained to me that people only show that finger when they want to say a bad word.

Notice that I got in trouble in the first story but not in the second; I was also younger in the first than I was in the second. What gives? Isn’t this the opposite of child innocence? Actually, no. You see, when I was six, I had already learned the Ten Commandments in Sunday school, so I should have known better than to take something that did not belong to me, and not let T.V. and movies sway my conscience. Therefore, in that sense, I was not innocent of that sin. On the other hand, I was innocent of the sin of profanity, since even at the age of eleven, I still had never been taught about the act of flipping someone off, nor had I seen it occur on T.V. yet.

Next time you are with friends and their five-year-old sibling or other younger relative, you might want to refrain from calling him or her “a little demon brat”. Chances are they are not old enough to know better or control themselves. Jesus commends them for their innocence and wants us to follow their example.

This is the Turbotastic Asian, and I’m signing out!






The Holy Bible, new international version. (1984). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

Kellmer, P. M. L. & Edwards, J. B. (1964). Some moral concepts and judgments of junior high children. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 3(3), 196-215. ‘


Levine, S. (1997). “The development of wickedness- from whence does evil stem?” Psychiatric Annuals, 27(9), 617-623.                                      


Werbart, A. (2014). “Emile, or on devastation: when virtual boundlessness meets inner emptiness.” The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 83(1), 71-96.

Williams, G. D. (2002). Failures unmended: a pastoral psychological study of a tragic vision of evil in the writings of D. W. Winnicott. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62(10-B), 4828.   



Turbotastic Theory (Special): Is Thanksgiving Really “All That”?

What is up guys?  Turbotastic Asian here, and welcome to a special holiday Turbotastic Theory!  Ah, Thanksgiving is just around the corner! A time to catch up with family. A time to gather around a bountiful feast and give thanks to God for another prosperous year. A time to yell at our television screens and pitch fits when our team drops the ball. It is just one gigantic gig! So, is it blasphemous to say I think it’s kind of overrated?

Cue the booing

Alright, alright! Just hear me out. While it’s certainly not the worst time of the year, I don’t think it would scratch my top three favorite holidays of all time. Even as a kid, I found Thanksgiving more dull than anything else. For some reason, the holiday is even duller now than I remember it being then. As a kid, I could never place my finger on exactly why I was so bored with the whole ordeal. Now, as an adult, I think I know why: It’s because nothing about Thanksgiving screams “Unique!” or “Special!” like Christmas or Halloween. If you don’t believe me, here’s a long list of aspects of Thanksgiving that everyone loves, that I will unpack and analyze for you.


At this part of the year, I’m sure that all your mouths are salivating over the very thought of mashed potatoes, turkey, and pumpkin pie. My question is why? Why do we wait 364 days to chow down on this one specific day? Can’t we appreciate the fact that we get to eat every day of the year and not be dreaming about the last Thursday of November?


No matter which team you root for, Thanksgiving seems to be the one holiday that is the biggest on promoting team spirit, either by gathering around and screaming at the big screen or going outside and throwing the old pigskin around yourself. Again, nothing that we couldn’t do any other day of the year.

The History Behind the Holiday

While preparing this blog post, I realized something strange about the holiday that is Thanksgiving: It’s one of the only major holidays we as Americans celebrate that doesn’t revolve around a saint or a religious event. We have St. Patrick’s Day, (St.) Valentine’s Day, All Saints Day (more commonly known as Halloween), Christmas, which centers around both St. Nicholas and the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Easter, revolving around His resurrection. Thanksgiving gives us neither and instead presents a heartwarming story of a feast between the pilgrims and the Indians. Charming story and all, except for the fact that it never happened! The Mayflower and coming to America is all real, but not the Indian part. It’s all a lie fabricated by the school system; the only thing shared between the Americans and the Indians was disease:

Therefore, why would one want to celebrate a holiday that is partially made up to begin with?

The Going Around the Table and Saying What One’s Thankful For Tradition

Oh boy, I’m sure I’m going to get some flack for this, but there are several problems I have with this one. First, like I’ve been saying, this is something that we can and should do every day. Second, this tradition makes Thanksgiving feel more like a guilt-trip than an actual holiday. Those who know me well know that I am a bigger complainer than I would like to admit; therefore, complaining about what I don’t have or haven’t achieved sometimes comes more naturally to me than giving thanks for what I do have and have achieved. Therefore, when it’s my turn to tell the others what I am thankful for, I feel guilty if it takes longer than five seconds to think of something. Holidays should be a time to relax (at least after the hard work and preparation is through), not a time to feel guilty or put people on the hot spot. Third, consider the two proceeding holidays after Thanksgiving:

Where it lands on the calendar

Ok, maybe Black Friday isn’t an official holiday, but like many other Americans, I do have to scratch my head over the fact that we rush out to the malls (some of us in the wee hours of the morning) to grab the best deals, not 24 hours after we had just celebrated a holiday giving thanks for what we already have. I get that it marks the first day of the Christmas season and it’s “mainly” for getting a head start on one’s Christmas shopping, but that just makes me feel more guilty for taking myself on a shopping spree to Hot Topic. Plus, why does Thanksgiving have to be so close to Christmas? It is basically the same thing, minus the presents. Like I mentioned before, the whole “first Thanksgiving” story is pretty much folklore anyway, so it doesn’t technically matter when one celebrates Thanksgiving or even if one celebrates Thanksgiving at all.

So, I’ve glitched about it so much, you’re probably wondering what I do like about Thanksgiving. Well, I do enjoy going home and seeing family. It’s nice to not have to wait another half a month for Christmas break. I love waking up relatively early and watching the Macy’s Parade. My favorite part (as you might have guessed) is the Sesame Street float; this year, I’m especially excited to see if my new muppet namesake, Julia, is going to make an appearance. And yes, even though I had that one beef with it earlier, I do enjoy celebrating Black Friday with my best friend. We go out to the mall, buy some Hot Topic paraphernalia , grab dinner, and see a movie together. This year, we plan to see The Man who Invented Christmas. Lastly, the message of remembering and sharing what you’re thankful for, though clique and somewhat guilt-tripping, is still a great tradition. If anything, I wish we did that every day, not just on Thanksgiving.

Again, let me make it very clear that I don’t hate Thanksgiving! I am certainly not the Thanksgiving equivalent of Scrooge or the Grinch or anything like that. I just don’t see the hype that many people put into it. In fact, I think that putting so much excitement and anticipation into it takes away from the true meaning of the holiday and the message it conveys. Having a thankful heart shouldn’t have to be on just one day, but everyday!

Let me know if I am on to something here or if there is really something about this holiday that I’m missing!

This is the Turbotastic Asian, and I’m signing out!

The Turbotastic Asian’s Theory-Buster: The Children from Chronicles of Narnia are NOT the Four Founders of Hogwarts

What is up guys?  Turbotastic Asian here with a new segment I like to call “The Turbotastic Asian’s Theory Busters” (Like “Myth-Busters, but, you know, with theories.)  This is a segment where I find fan theories that other people come up with that I myself do not agree with, explain them, and then elaborate on why I don’t think they work.  I don’t know if this new segment is going to catch on or not, but it is certainly worth a try.

To be clear, no matter how harsh or critical I might be on a particular theory, I would never insult or attack the people who come up with them or believe them.  I don’t think you are a bad or stupid person or anything like that.  At worst, I might say that you need to go back and re-read/watch the franchise before completely putting your faith in a fan-theory, but that’s about it.  Alright, on with the blog post.

So, the popular Chronicles of Narnia/Harry Potter fan theory holds that the four Pevensie children, Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy, ultimately went on to become the four founders of Hogwarts; Peter is Godric Gryffindor, Susan is Rowena Ravenclaw, Edmund is Salazar Slytherin, and Lucy is Helga Hufflepuff.  Now, I will admit that at first glance, this theory does make some sense.  For one thing, both take place in London.  For another, the personalities of the four children are very reminiscent of the four Hogwarts founders and what they value: Peter is the brave, bold one, Susan is the wise, well-knowledged one, Edmund is the crafty, sometimes jerky one who likes to stir the pot, and Lucy is the kind, loyal one (also she is the one who found the wardrobe first; Hufflepuffs are known for being good finders).  Also, when they are kings and queens of Narnia, their crowns and robe colors correspond with their Hogwarts colors: Peter has a red and gold robe with a gold crown, Susan a blue and silver robe with a silver crown, Edmund a green and silver robe with a silver crown, and Lucy a yellow and black robe with a yellow crown.  Lastly, in the Last Battle, they were killed in a train accident.  Could this train have been the train from Platform 9 3/4 from King’s Cross?

Now this theory really only one problem about it, but this problem is way too glaring to overlook: Why would Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy want to learn magic and become witches and wizards in the first place?  For one thing, they seem much more into normal, human weapons, like daggers, swords, and bow and arrows.  What would they care about spells and wands?

For another thing, the White Witch in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and the Emerald Witch from The Silver Chair are both mortal enemies of Aslan.  As Randy Alcorn once wrote, in Narnia, there is no such thing as a good witch.  Basically, all witches (this includes wizards as well) are enemies of Aslan.  But the Pevensie children were Aslan’s friends.  Why would they alienate themselves from Aslan by becoming the people Aslan detested?  If you don’t believe me, think back to Prince Caspian, where Lucy casts the spell that turns her into the person she wants to be (her sister) but then Aslan appears and rebukes her for it.  Aslan himself did not want Lucy (or any of the others)  to fall into the way of witchcraft and sorcery.

Another thing about correlating the Pevensie children with the four Hogwarts founders that confuses me is that even if the Pevensie children did abandon Aslan and get caught up in the witchcraft and wizardry at Hogwarts, how exactly did their names and practically everything about their stories get changed?  Now, I normally have no problem with the idea of two or more different fandoms existing in the same universe/continuum; I think that’s cool.  But the catch is that this type of theory mostly only works if there is substantial amount, or at least an equal amount of evidence from both/all of the fandoms involved to support the theory.  The Disney Pixar Conspiracy Theory does this beautifully.  The problem with the theory in question is that pretty much the only evidence to support it comes from Chronicles of Narnia; there is virtually no clear evidence from Harry Potter, other than, “Oh, they wear the same colors” (which, honestly, could be sheer coincidence).  The reason I bring this up is that even though the FoH never make an actual appearance in the series and we are not told a whole lot about them, it is obvious that they had their own families (and the Pevensie children were siblings) and their own stories. And speaking of stories, you would think that J. K. Rowling would have thrown in a little wink or nod to the audience that at an early age, the FoH all became kings and queens of another magical land prior to discovering Hogwarts.  That seems like a pretty big part of any famous witch or wizard’s origin story!

Lastly, and this is a little thing compared to everything else, but what is the house animal of Gryffindor?  A lion!  Do the people who hold to this theory believe that this lion is Aslan himself?  Did Peter, Aslan’s protégé, make him his house mascot?  Do you realize how sacrilegious and blasphemous this is?  Using an image of Aslan to celebrate something that the true Aslan would never allow happen on his watch?  If he had legitimately done that on top of everything else, I do not think there is any way Aslan would have allowed him (or any of them) back into his presence in The Last Battle.

And there you have it!  The “Pevensie Children=Founders of Hogwarts” Theory: BUSTED!  Before I end this post, I just want to reiterate what I said at the beginning.  If after reading my thoughts on this theory, you still hold strongly to it, that is totally cool.  Hey, not everyone agrees with some of my fan theories.  Also, both Hogwarts and Narnia are magical worlds where anything can happen.  And who knows?  Maybe Aslan forgave the Pevensie children or even make an exception for them.  I just wanted to skim the surface of this theory and pull out things that I found that did not line up.

This is the Turbotastic Asian, and I’m signing out!

Turbotastic Theory: Why Does Patrick Star (SpongeBob’s Best Friend) Act the Way He Does?

Disclaimers: 1) A couple considered titles for this post were “The Turbotastic Asian Reviews ‘I’m With Stupid’: A SpongeBob Episode”; or “Turbotastic Theory:Who is The True Villain(s) in The SpongeBob Episode, ‘I’m With Stupid’?”  I was thinking about these titles, but then decided that my theory was going to be more extensive than just the one episode.  2) Obviously, I do not own any of the media in this post.  The videos belong to TheMysteriousMrEnter, Pieguyrulz, and ChannelFrederator on YouTube.  These guys are big inspirations to me.  The clips featured in the videos belong to Nickelodeon.  Alright, on with the theory.

Hey guys, Turbotastic Asian here back after a long hiatus, with another Turbotastic Theory.  So, this might be an unpopular opinion, but my favorite character from the whole SpongeBob SquarePants franchise is Patrick Star, the little, yellow fry-cook’s adorable sea star best friend and pink partner in crime.  The way Patrick became my favorite character on the show is actually a tragic one.  Up until the age of 13, Squidward was always my favorite one, due to his lovable, hilarious grouchiness (in fact, my first personal character-shipping was Squidward/Grumpy (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs) but I digress).  However, my older brother passed away right before I turned 14, and his name happened to be Patrick.  Therefore, in his honor, my favorite character switched from the cephalopod to my brother’s ectodermic namesake.

This fact is why I am often saddened by YouTubers complaining about how much they hate Patrick and how much of a jerk, bully, and even psychopath, he is.  Here is a small list of videos from YouTube for those of you who might not know about these complaints:

These arguments do make sense, and I can see why people think Patrick is a horrible person and a horrible role model for children.  However, I also think that there might be another side of Patrick’s story that people do not seem to get.  What’s more, I think I have found that side of his story, which I will get to momentarily.

First, let me make it clear that like Pieguyrulz, I am in no way defending Patrick’s actions nor am I saying that those who hate him are wrong.  If you dislike this guy, that is totally cool.  I don’t like half the characters my friends like.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  I admit that sometimes, Patrick’s actions are pretty stupid, immature, malicious, whatever name you want to give them.  My purpose of writing this theory is only to give you my idea of why Patrick acts the way he does.  The truth shall now be revealed!

Like I said, Patrick is not a very popular character among YouTubers.  The episode that they commonly gravitate toward to prove his jerkiness is the pre-first-movie SpongeBob episode, “I’m With Stupid”.  For those of you who are unfamiliar, this is the episode where SpongeBob acts stupid in front of Patrick’s “parents” to make Patrick look smart by comparison.  TheMysteriousMrEnter commentates on this episode in the first video listed above (3:35-6:25).  Unfortunately, I can’t find the full episode anywhere, so you guys will just have to take me at my word.

This is often cited as the first, true “Patrick’s a Jerk” episode.  All the episodes that came before it show him as just a playful, lovable, not-too-bright kid who, when he did mess things up or came across as inconsiderate, only did so out of ignorance.  This is the first episode where his darker side is revealed.  Now, this is a very controversial episode in that there’s an equal amount of people who enjoy it (Pieguyrulz) as people who don’t (obviously TheMysteriousMrEnter). The people who enjoy it, do so for the comedy and the awesome but kind of creepy twist ending, whereas the people who do not enjoy it dislike it for Patrick’s maliciousness and hypocrisy and for the lack of transition between Patrick’s amusement at SpongeBob’s feigned stupidity and Patrick’s taking advantage of SpongeBob’s feigned stupidity.  Where do I stand?  I’d probably give it a MEH-.  I don’t find it particularly funny (with the exception of the adult jokes) and can see how people could take offense at Patrick’s actions.  However, I don’t think that it is the worst P.-F.-M. SpongeBob episode in existence either.

Furthermore, I would like to point out a problem have with the episode, despite no one ever bringing it up.  This problem is hinted at right from the very beginning of the episode, when Patrick is freaking out and trying to get things ready for his parents’ visit.  When SpongeBob asks what’s wrong, Patrick shows him the letter from his parents, stating that they are coming over to celebrate Starfish Day.  The letter ends with a comment to “please try to remember but not too hard or you’ll hurt yourself like last time.”  What kind of parents would write something like that to their own son?  I mean, at this point, it is unclear if they meant it that way or not, but one can clearly see what kind of impact this comment has on Patrick.  As you saw in the aforementioned video, poor Patrick is in tears; he’s really hurt and upset!  Patrick sobs, “SpongeBob, my parents think I’m dumber than a sack of diapers! :'(“.  As soon as his parents show up, they continue to treat him like an idiot up until SpongeBob shows up and then they start condescending him right along with Patrick!

If you haven’t guessed by now, I have reason to believe that Patrick himself is a victim of psychological abuse.  This could be the reason for both his stupidity and his jerkiness.  In terms of his stupidity, my theory is that Patrick might have started off being really smart, but then his parents abused him over something minor and made him feel like he was stupid.  Because he was told he was stupid at a young age, Patrick started believing that he was stupid and therefore began acting stupid.

Notice how I said he acts stupid and believes himself to be stupid.  I do not believe he actually is stupid.  Apparently, neither do the people on YouTube.  They agree that Patrick is definitely smarter than he acts, which makes his actions all the more jarring.  This point is made clear in the post-first-movie episode, “The Card”, the episode TheMysteriousMrEnter credited as being the worst episode of Patrick being a jerk/idiot.  Again, for those of you unfamiliar, “The Card” is the episode where Patrick buys a Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy trading card that SpongeBob really wanted.  Patrick promises to give SpongeBob the card at the end of the day, but until then, he completely mistreats the card and drives SpongeBob crazy.  Once, when he walks straight into Goo Lagoon with it and SpongeBob saves him from drowning, SpongeBob questions Patrick about his mistreatment of the card.  Without missing a beat, Patrick matter-of-fact-ly states, “Well SpongeBob, you can’t always expect my usual brand of stupidity.  I like to mix it up; keep you on your toes!”

To summarize TheMysteriousMrEnter’s thoughts on this, the reason why this is seen as the most infamous Patrick episode is because that one little quote suggests that every single stupid thing Patrick had done in the series up to this point had been completely on purpose.  And if you’ve a huge SpongeBob buff like I am, you know that that is a lot of stupid antics.  All of the antics that Pieguyrulz listed in the second video are only a handful and they are from the pre-first-movie era only!  Basically, in this line, Patrick is saying that he himself is aware that he is stupid.  But then, if one knows that they are stupid, are they even that stupid at all?

I have always been taught that a few little words, especially to a young child, can dramatically influence their lives, sometimes for the better, but also sometimes for the worse, which is what might have happened to Patrick.  Another piece of evidence for Patrick’s psychological abuse can be found in the episode “The Bully”, where it is revealed that Patrick was college friends with Flats the Flounder, the new kid at boating school, set on kicking SpongeBob’s butt.  We don’t know exactly what Flats’ story is, other than his dad is terrified of him (child neglect?).  Therefore, I might be stretching this a bit, but sometimes the reason bullies gang together is that they can identify with each other more than they can anyone else.  This might even suggest that Patrick is better/closer friends with Flats than he is with SpongeBob, whose parents have been totally loving on and encouraging him from the start.  Now, this could be explained away by the friendship montage featured in “The Secret Box” that display SpongeBob and Patrick hanging out together as babies/young children, but it could be possible that they went to different colleges and Patrick formed a friendship with Flats then.

An even better piece of evidence can be found in the episode “Valentine’s Day”.  This is the episode that I remember absolutely hating as a kid, maybe even more than “I’m With Stupid”.  If “I’m With Stupid” just bored me, “Valentine’s Day” totally infuriated me.  In this episode, Patrick acts like a selfish, spoiled, self-entitled, little brat just because he thinks his best friend didn’t get him a Valentine’s Day present.  I mean, Patrick didn’t get SpongeBob anything either.  At least SpongeBob actually tried!  But I’m getting ahead of myself here.  The line of dialogue that ties into my overall theory was the line right before Patrick snaps and tries to destroy the amusement park:


When I was a kid, I just thought that Patrick was just being an overdramatic crybaby at this point.  As ChannelFrederator states, this line of dialogue could suggest that Patrick is a psychopath, as one symptom of psychopathy is egocentrism and the perpetual desire to be the center of attention.  However, to further support my theory, Patrick might have actually feel unloved at this point because his parents never truly loved or appreciated him for anything.  Usually, children, or even adults who have suffered abuse of whatever kind, grow up having a very warped idea of love and no matter what their friends do, say, or give to them, they still suffer with feelings of not being loved or appreciated.  Furthermore, when their friends fail them, as Patrick thought SpongeBob had, this feeling is made even more prominent.  This could also explain why Patrick was so upset about not being able to create anything in “The Googly Artist” but then sold some shoddy thing to the first person who asked for it: he had finally found someone who did appreciate his efforts, no matter how small.

The lack of love and appreciation from his parents pretty much explains Patrick’s “stupidity”.  It could partly explain his “jerkiness”, but again, that might only be part of it.  Like I said before, when Patrick turns on SpongeBob in “I’m With Stupid”, his parents do too.  They had always been laughing at SpongeBob ever since he arrived at Patrick’s house, but when Patrick starts taking it seriously, like he actually thinks SpongeBob’s the dummy, his parents just go along with it.  If those were my parents and I was doing that to my best friend, they would have immediately scolded me and had me apologize.  I mean, if you and your friend are joking around, and your friend is acting stupid on purpose with the intention of making you laugh, which is similar to what SpongeBob was doing at the beginning, that’s one thing; but actually making fun of how your friend is dressed or other personal details is another thing altogether.  This shows that Patrick’s parents do not know a thing about discipline and actually teaching their son how to treat those around him.  Also, they themselves act just as idiotic as Patrick, if not more so.  Therefore, one cannot blame Patrick for being a hypocrite in this episode without blaming his parents.

Lastly, I want to talk about that loophole some of you might have concerning this theory.  Some of you might be skeptical about this theory and ask, “But Turbotastic Asian, wasn’t it revealed that the two sea stars in the episode weren’t even Patrick’s parents at all?”  I am going to say that, yes, you are correct.  When fashioning this theory, I did hit this little loophole and almost had to scrap it.  However, the letter that Patrick received before the episode started, was, undoubtedly, written and sent to him by his real parents.  Also, notice how when his fake parents show up and start treating him like a moron, he doesn’t even question their identity.  At first, I passed this off as just his stupidity.  However, the more interesting reason why Patrick doesn’t question them may be that they treat him just like his real parents treat him, so he naturally assumes that they are his real parents.

So there you go.  This is my theory as to the story behind Patrick’s abnormal, sometimes irritant actions.  Let me know if I’m onto something or if there is just not enough substantial evidence to support this idea and I am spewing some random nonsense.  Do you think that Patrick was/is a psychologically abused child?  If not, what do you think is the reason Patrick, best friend of SpongeBob, behaves the way he does?

This is the Turbotastic Asian, and I’m signing out!

Parting Words

This post is going to be a little shorter than my usual posts and I am not going to do my usual salutation or outr0, as this is an additional post and not my actual weekly post.  Plus, you are probably tired of hearing it by now and I have already used it in last night’s post, so it would feel annoying doing it a second time in the same week.

Anyways, like I said in my last post, I have really enjoyed reading your posts and sharing mine with you.  I feel like I’ve learned a lot about all of you and hope that you have learned more about me.

Speaking of which, you might be wondering why so many of my posts are either reviews or fan theories and very few about my actual life. Some of you might even have the crazy conspiracy theory that I am really a filming major disguised as an English major (Haha JK!).  But nope! I am, still, very much an English major.  The main reason why I write more about TV and movies than I do about my true life events is that TV and movies are generally easier for me to remember and write a well-organized analysis of.  With real life, I can’t do that, with some exceptions, such as my Halloween costume blog post.  It’s not like in Harry Potter, where I can re-watch my memories so as to remember word for word, what happened.  Usually, I can only remember the most important bits and pieces of something after some thought, and most of those memories would not be long enough to reach the word minimum.  TV and movies, on the other hand, are easier to automatically think of something long enough, or in my case, more than long enough, and then write about it in almost one sitting.

The reason I bring this up is because I plan to continue writing on this blog after this course and I would very much appreciate it if at least a couple of you could continue reading and commenting on it.   You don’t have to if you don’t want to, but if it is a Sunday night in the middle of June and you have nothing to do, why not look me up?  My blog is not dependent on audience participation, but it is much more fun to have some give and take interaction with my audience.  Now,of course this is a two-way street; I will continue reading and commenting on your blogs as well. Just note that if I do continue writing, I’ll probably do what I’ve been doing all semester: Mostly reviews and fan theories with a few RL stories here and there.

Preview: Speaking of fan theories, I actually have a new one, though I’m probably not going to post it for another ten months.  It’s going to be about the characters from Groovie Goolies, specifically the Mummy, and why he’s not as central a character in the show, despite being one of the four main monsters in the media.  Again, it’s not going to be up until next October, when it will be more relevant.  Plus, ten months will give you more than enough time to familiarize yourselves with the show.  If I were to write it and post it up now, chances are you guys will have little to no idea what I’m talking about.  Therefore, stay tuned for that one!

With that, I bid you all farewell, happy finals week and of course, a very merry Christmas!

The Turbotastic Asian’s Christmas Profile

Hey guys, Turbotastic Asian here with my almost final blog post of 2016 and for this class. I do have one more post to really wrap things up, which will be up sometime tomorrow.  I do not know if I’ll have any more courses that will require me to write on this blog, but I certainly hope I do.  It has been turbotastic sharing my writings with you guys, getting your feedback, and giving you feedback on your own writings!

Anyways, here, I am going to write a Christmas profile for myself in the style of how one might write a profile on FaceBook, with categories and all of my favorites from each of these categories.  In the comments, I will ask you, if you feel so inclined, to give me your own Christmas profile, though it will not have to be as extensive.  You can pretty much answer it however you want, using whatever categories you desire.  I just thought this would be a great way to ring in the Christmas season as well as give some kind of finality to my writing for this course.  So, let’s begin!

Favorite Christmas traditions: 1) Having the whole family over for Christmas Eve dinner and then going to the “Candles and Carols” service at our church; 2) Going skiing with my dad, brothers, and cousins and aunt and uncle; and 3) Watching holiday movies.

Traditional Christmas carols: 3) “We Three Kings” (Love the analysis and symbolism of the three gifts and wonder if the wise men really knew what they meant), 2) “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel” (Love its hauntingly, almost gothically beautiful melody), and 1) “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing” (Particularly love the Amy Grant version, where some of the stanzas are in a different order from the original version of the song; I just think that it is a nice change of tradition).

Contemporary Christmas songs: 1) “His Favorite Christmas Story” (Just heard it for the first time last night at chapel), 2) “Christmas Shoes”, and 3) “Where’s the Line to See Jesus?” (Not on iTunes yet, but you can search for it on YouTube).

Christmas movie: Jim Carey’s “Christmas Carol”, although “Elf” comes in close second. What’s funny is that all three of us, my mom, my dad, and myself have favorite holiday movies that have the word “Christmas” as the first word in the title: My dad’s favorite is “Christmas Vacation”, my mom’s favorite is “Christmas Story”, and my favorite is “Christmas Carol”.

Christmas book: (Besides Charles Dickens’ Christmas CarolCosmic Christmas by Max Lucado; it retells the Nativity story, only it is told from Heaven’s point of view, with Gabriel as the narrator.

Gifts that I have received: Snowy owl pillow pet who goes by the name Count Von Count (Big surprise); received him my Senior year of high school; poster of Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” my Freshman year of college; and English translation of Dante’s “Divine Comedy” trilogy last Christmas (my favorite of the three being “Inferno”).

Gifts that I have given: Hand-drawn pictures of my family members’ namesakes, as a majority of my family members have biblical names.  Last Christmas, I gave my mom a drawing of Deborah the judge and my uncle a drawing of the Doubting Thomas scene.  For a special touch, I try my best to make the bible character bear some resemblance to his or her corresponding family member, just to make it more meaningful and personal to that family member.

Gifts that I hope to receive this year: 1) Ravenclaw house pride scarf, 2) John Milton’s “Paradise Lost”, 3) nice wrist-watch, 4) Alton Brown cookbook, and 5) Count Von Count Funko-Pop (Funko-Pops are collectable figures, like bobble heads, only instead of bobbling, you just turn their heads around; I already have Severus Snape and Commander Spock).

Food/seasonal treats: Starbucks’ peppermint hot chocolate, although, I look forward to trying their new snickerdoodle flavor; my dad’s prime rib for Christmas Eve dinner; and my grandparents’ homemade fudge and divinity

Santa Clause(?): I am going to say that yes, I do still believe in him, technically.  However, I do not believe in him in quite the same way that I believed in him as a child.  I actually wrote my long-feature article on him, recently.

So, there you go.  If you so choose to do something like this in the comments section (which, again, is totally up to you), you can add other categories and you can leave some out.  This is just my own personal Christmas profile.  I look forward to reading some of your responses.

This is the Turbotastic Asian, and I’m signing out!