Category: Q & A

Questions, and Answers, from the man himself

Deano’s answer to: “Why do parents let their kids watch Star Wars at such a young age (4-7 years old, for example)? Isn’t all the Darth Vader / killing stuff psychologically not good for little kids?”

Posted on by Deano in Q & A

My daughter is currently rolling along just fine with old Tom Baker Doctor Who episodes… Which fall around the same era/level of violence. Based on her total lack of reaction to the violence and “scary monsters”, I’ve settled on her turning three as the time most appropriate to opening the original trilogy can of worms.

Far more than the content, though, is HOW it is consumed. When she watched Ghostbusters the first time, we stopped it twice when it got too scary – and we talked through the story whenever she was confused or had questions. We do the same with Doctor Who, and now she’s the one explaining the basics of time travel to mommy whenever we’re watching a 20 minute episode while waiting for dinner to come out of the oven.

Watch it with your kids, watch their reactions, and be ready with a pause or stop when things need explaining, or get to be overwhelming. And yeah, if they start having nightmares, or freaking out their teachers/fellow students at school, maybe tone things down for a bit. 😉

UPDATE:

After her birthday, my daughter was home sick from preschool for a few days, and we went ahead and tested the waters, watching Star Wars. I told her as we started, and consistently during the tense parts of the movie, that she could let me know, or just turn away from the screen if it got too scary.

Her thoughts on Star Wars:

  • the only things that are definitively killed are robots (Storm Troopers, droids) bugs (Greedo) and maybe Obi-Wan Kenobi (though she also theorized that he simply jumped out of his clothes, and was running around the Death Star naked).
  • Darth Vader dresses a lot like Batman, and might be a ninja.
  • “When the orange guys go ‘pew-pew’ on the skeletons house, and they fly in the hole, and then the other man and his doggy comes in and scares away Darth Vader and he spins and spins, and then and then it all goes boom and the doggy doesn’t get a medal from Princess Leia.†“

In short, kids often make different connections with narrative works, and Star Wars is no different. Where you may see a movie depicting at various points

  • planetary genocide,
  • good guys shooting first (if you still watch on VHS, anyway),
  • and of course adults playing in wet garbage,

it’s more likely that your kids are seeing something else (okay, they probably also see the garbage thing, and are plotting how to replicate it on trash day using the garden hose and a city sanitation vehicle). The key job for you as a parent, is to understand what it is they see, and help “nudge” their potentially harmful interpretations back on track.

Again, as I mentioned prior to my update, it’s much more important that whatever you let young children watch, you watch together. Even something seemingly innocuous like the Berenstain Bears(*) can off “go off the rails”, or significantly diverge from what you would consider “healthy messaging” on a given topic, so simply looking for and relying on a movie rating or age advisory is bad, lazy parenting, and often worse than letting your kids see fictional battle stations housing thousands of living beings blow up to the cheers of the protagonists.

(* see: http://www.toplessrobot.com/2008… for the proof)

(† that part still pisses me off, every time, and she noticed it too! Made me so proud…)

This answer originally appeared on Quora: Why do parents let their kids watch Star Wars at such a young age (4-7 years old, for example)? Isn’t all the Darth Vader / killing stuff psychologically not good for little kids?

Deano’s answer to: “How did the misconception that DEFCON 5 is the “worst possible situation” get ingrained in popular culture?”

Posted on by Deano in Q & A

Perhaps the movie DEFCON 4 can shed some light on this phenomenon somehow?


Given the consistently low ratings of the movie, it is easy to understand how one might think that “DEFCON 5” would be even worse, as a potential sequel.

This answer originally appeared on Quora: How did the misconception that DEFCON 5 is the “worst possible situation” get ingrained in popular culture?

Deano’s answer to: “Does Luke Skywalker have a middle name?”

Posted on by Deano in Q & A

You would initially think, as an attempted assassin of the Emperor, he would need to follow the standard “three names” rule, at least for the intergalactic evening news. Especially given the vast number of inhabited planets in the galaxy, you’d think there’d be hundreds, if not thousands of people with the same first-last combination among the stars.

But you’d be wrong, for two simple reasons:

  • It is Darth Vader who actually kills the Emperor, though it’s fair to assume no one but Luke actually knows this and lives to tell the tale.
  • This all happened a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Before the three name rule went into effect.

This answer originally appeared on Quora: Does Luke Skywalker have a middle name?

Deano’s answer to: “If John Rambo fought the Predator in the jungle, who wins?”

Posted on by Deano in Q & A

Considering that John Rambo’s fighting prowess is based on “higher than average human musculature”, combined with a deep ingrained tactical and strategic knowledge of the dynamics of both organized and guerilla military forces based solely on Earth, that he might have a very hard time dealing with the Predator.

Given a scenario as depicted in the original film Predator (1987 Movie), it is likely that John Rambo would’ve most closely resembled the decision-making processes and final outcomes of either Billy Sole (Sonny Landham), or Major Alan “Dutch” Schaefer (Arnold Schwarzenegger). Essentially, winning the battle would be dependent on how much intelligence he can gather before a final showdown, since the Predator behaves unlike any earthbound enemy he’s ever faced.

Still… “in the jungle” provides us with a lot of flexibility… What if, instead of the Predator visiting Earth, we view things from a scenario like that of the more recent movie Predators – John Rambo is abducted from Earth, to battle on an alien world with/against other humans and predator factions.

In that scenario, Rambo would have a greater chance of understanding his “fish out of water” status, and switching to a primarily survival-based evasion tactic long enough to allow for a greater reconnoiter of the situation. While it’s highly unlikely that such a scenario even has a true “victory” condition – how do you get back home to Earth, for one thing – it’s probable that he would last longer, and possibly take out a greater number of Predators before being brought down.

The summary is simple: despite appearances, John Rambo is a seasoned soldier who depends on good military intelligence and tactical support to conduct a successful campaign. Getting either of those during an encounter in which a Predator set the rules of the game is highly unlikely…

But he wouldn’t be (in his younger days, anyway) a bad choice to put on a team of humans who knew what they were facing from the very start. In fact, mightn’t that be the perfect “epic win” solution for the plot to Expendables II? Not all of the badass action icons of the 80s were actors, after all… 🙂

This answer originally appeared on Quora: If John Rambo fought the Predator in the jungle, who wins?

Deano’s answer to: “Who is stronger: The Hulk or The Thing?”

Posted on by Deano in Q & A

It depends on the Hulk. Kinda.

At various times, the Hulk has had:

  • A fairly “stable” power level, affected only slightly to moderately by his anger level
  • A power level (and even physical body) that increased in direct proportion to anger level
  • A power level (and physical body) that decreased in direct proportion to anger level (‘Smart Hulk, Savage Banner’ – some of the most interesting modern Hulk stories in the modern era)
  • Many, many other permutations of the above (The Maestro, various Banner/Hulk splits, Grey Hulk, etc etc).

The Thing, honestly, would have a hard time beating down any of these (Savage Banner excluded)… Nevertheless, The Thing tends to be depicted as being “Stronger than a Hulk at rest”, that is, having a more consistent strength that can beat a “barely transformed classic Hulk”, and able to stand toe-to-toe against a moderately angry one.

The only problem is... There appears to be no limit to the rage potential of the Hulk, and fighting tends to make him more angry (he just wants to be left alone, after all).

Thus, whether they are fighting each other, or even working together, even if the Thing starts out stronger than the Hulk, that advantage will inevitably give way to the ever-increasing power level of the Hulk, at least until whatever conflict/issue is resolved that allows Big Green to calm down again.

This answer originally appeared on Quora: Who is stronger: The Hulk or The Thing?