Category Archives: rant

I have seen a glimpse of the future and dislike it

Note: If this is your first time to TotalFluff, please visit this brief explanation. Thanks!

Maybe I should start doing a weekly rant or something. Because I AM ANNOYED AS HECK.

I generally use Google Chrome for my web browsing, due to my computer seemingly have developed a semi-allergy to Firefox, and Internet Explorer being internet Explorer. (And besides– who on earth uses “Seamonkey”?)

But recently, they turned my bookmarks thing into a trial user for the betatest bookmark stars system. AND I LOATHE IT.

The way things work right now, I have a nice system to my bookmarks. Few people would necessarily be able to follow it, because I have a few things that I “just remember” where they are, but that’s beside the point. The point is I have a system.

And besides, I often do my bookmarking, or visiting of old bookmarks, without using a mouse at all.

And that’s where chrome REALLY messed things up for me. They made it so I wasn’t able to use my keyboard to put a file into a designated folder. I needed to click. EWWW. That is legitimately one of the most obnoxious things a web browser has ever done to me– made it so that I need to use a mouse for something I should be able to use Hotkeys for.

In fact, that’s part of why I kept using Firefox for so long– for a while, Firefox still allowed me to email webpages, all through hotkeys.

Then, eventually, they basically stopped that feature. And everything else got to be too obnoxious.

But the point stands. I KEPT USING A BROWSER THAT I DIDN’T LIKE FOR THE SAKE OF HOTKEYS. I ABANDONED IT WHEN THE HOTKEY CAPABILITY LEFT.

So all that to say, GOOGLE, YOU BETTER LET ME BE ABLE TO USE MY HOTKEYS!!! I LIKE CHOOSING WHERE MY BOOKMARKS GO, VIA ARROW KEY AND SPACEBAR!!!!

Fortunately, however, I was able to find a friendly help site that showed me how to get back to normal bookmarking. So, I can currently use my keyboard to bookmark and sort my bookmarks. So I’m only currently disgruntled and potentially aggravated, not actually furious… for now.

Have a great Saturday!

WHERE DOES THIS TANGLED TANGLE COME FROM?!

Note: If this is your first time to TotalFluff, please visit this brief explanation. Thanks!

Fluffsters, I’m annoyed.

I somewhere yesterday, and the speaker said something that I highly disagree with, and so I’m writing to rant express my thoughts.

You see, he tried to use a reference to the movie Tangled. And although it could have been done well, he instead decided to go with the “fact” presented on this meme:

WRONG flynn rider meme

As I said, this could have been done ok except for one minor detail… THIS “FACT” IS WRONG IN EVERY SINGLE WAY.

To clarify: Your rant is about Disney? And you are ranting about Tangled, again?

Yes, you read that correctly. For some reason, there seems to be this hypothesis that Flynn is a Disney Hero, because he doesn’t sing and dance. I disagree. I disagree heartily. I disagree with the entire premise that Flynn Rider is the only Disney character to question why everybody is singing.

To refresh your memories, here’s the scene being referred to.

So, yes. He has an expression of “Seriously?” throughout the entire scene. He also explicitly says “Sorry boys, I don’t sing.” And that is where the entire premise of the meme stems from.

SO, here we go.

First, the premise that Flynn is even questioning why everybody is singing.

I would like to make the case that he’s not even doing that.

I trust you are going to explain? The character does seem to have a look of disbelief throughout the entire time…

Don’t worry, I’m getting to that.

You see, I’d claim that his disbelief comes not from the singing, but from the content of what’s being sung… and by who’s singing.

The entire point of the song is that the folks of the Snuggly Duckling are a study in paradoxes. They look “Big, mean, and scary.” What are they doing singing about their dreams… Especially dreams that are so ridiculous? From Flynn’s perspective, dreams of that sort, and singing about dreams of that sort is not cool.

Flynn basically says as much when he ends up joining the song. First, he has a look of contempt when the folks ask him about his dream. Then, he simply says “I don’t sing.” He doesn’t make any sort of judgment call about singing in general, just about himself singing. Then, he sings about his dream, he sings “I have dreams like you, no really! Just, much less ‘touchy feely’…“. To repeat, this is what he’s especially baffled by in this scene. IT’S NOT THAT HE IS QUESTIONING EVERYONE SINGING. HE’S QUESTIONING THE TOUCHY-FEELY OF IT. Especially in light of the fact that it looked like they were going to cause serious problems for Rapunzel, not start talking (or singing) about touchy-feelies. So, NO. FLYNN IS NOT QUESTIONING WHY EVERYONE IS SINGING AND DANCING. HE’S QUESTIONING WHY THEY’RE SINGING/DANCING ABOUT TOUCHY-FEELY TOPICS. (I feel like he would not object to Aladin’s “One Jump” song, for instance…)

So, yeah. He’s not actually questioning the singing and dancing. But even if you don’t buy into that argument, I HAVE EVEN STRONGER EVIDENCE THAT HE IS NOT THE ONLY CHARACTER TO QUESTION THE SINGING AND DANCING.

As my evidence, take this scene from a Disney movie:

Did you catch that?

“No, don’t sing. LET’S JUST WALK.” (emphasis added.)

And then, “He knows this song, too?”, “I don’t dance”, and “I don’t sing”.

Also, note that Robert, unlike Flynn, never actually joins the singing routine. In fact, he’s actually trying to stop the singing because it’s NOT NORMAL.

The Disney movie “Enchanted” is OBVIOUS PROOF BY COUNTEREXAMPLE that THIS ENTIRE MEME IS FALSE. Flynn is NOT the “only” Disney character to question everyone’s singing and dancing. (Even if you don’t buy into my argument above.)

Although actually, if you don’t buy into my argument, then you’d probably be required to accept Cogsworth as another example of a Disney character objecting to random song and dance routines. Take the first ten seconds of this clip of “Be Our Guest” as proof.

Thus, my point is made. THAT MEME IS FALSE AND I HAVE NO CLUE WHY PEOPLE MADE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE IT IS WRONG. FLYNN RIDER IS NOT THE ONLY DISNEY CHARACTER TO QUESTION WHY A RANDOM SONG AND DANCE ROUTINE IS OCCURRING.

Have a great Monday!

A “Nothing Original” Trailer

Note: If this is your first time to TotalFluff, please visit this brief explanation. Thanks!

Greetings, readers!

YouTube showed me a trailer for a movie that looks like it’s going to be successful, by having practically nothing original at all.

The movie? “Chappie”.

The premise? Police robots (ala the movie I, Robot), and somebody turns one of them sentient ala Short Circuit and “I, Robot” (the movie).

It looks like the robot then turns into something of a superhero, while at the same time Earth goes into full panic mode because “Sentient Robot o noezzz!!!” And of course there’s the evil scientist who created the original police robots to get rich, and the good scientist who designed “Chappie” the friendly sentient robot, and who seems to be a hardworking, caring father ala every cliche’d movie with two scientists ever. Ok, slight exaggeration. Slight.

So I can’t tell if it’s a pure ripoff of Short circuit (in which case it’ll be bad and nobody will know, so it will still be a successful movie because so few know about Short Circuit), a combination of Short Circuit and Iron Man (in which case it’ll be bad, but still a successful movie because so few know about Short Circuit), or Short Circuit and Transformers (in which case it’ll be really bad, but still a successful movie because so few know about Short Circuit.)

Here’s the trailer. Maybe you can tell me.

And for those of you unaware of Short Circuit, here’s an old trailer for that, too:

Thoughts?

Kids Pictures turned Real

Note: If this is your first time to TotalFluff, please visit this brief explanation. Thanks!

Greetings, readers!

I am not exactly sure why such a thing exists, but there is now a company that will turn children’s drawings into stuffed animals… for $250. It also comes with a long wait-list that only opens once a year.

Readers, this is one product that I do not understand. Why would someone spend that much for a stuffed creature like that? I fully understand the artistry involved in making a hand-made item like that. I agree that the artist should be compensated. I just do not understand the demand-side of the curve.

Furthermore, why would someone be willing to spend that much for a toy… that will take a year to be completed? At which point the child will probably no longer like the level of artistry they were at? If these were for the mother of the child, I could understand their popularity. But what child truly cares that much about a drawing, of the quality at which they are drawing? More to the point, what child cares that much about the drawing… an entire year later? And how many children truly see their drawings when they look at their art? How many, instead, see what they wanted to draw?

If the child sees what they wanted to represent with crayon and paper, does creating what is actually on the page in “softie” form make the child realize how inaccurate their drawings are? Or doe the children care?

If any of you wish to explain this to me, I would enjoy reading your thoughts.

Rant: Animated Hair.

Note: If this is your first time to TotalFluff, please visit this brief explanation. Thanks!

Fluffsters, there is yet another problem in the world.

And that problem is animated hair.

This concern came up at one point shortly after watching Frozen for the first time, and then again after rewatching it. And seriously, what a problem there is! It gives totally unrealistic expectations! I mean, look at Anna. She goes from being a disheveled mess to OMG AMAZING CORONATION HAIR in less than a second.

And then Elsa. First of all, her hair is also amazing-perfect. Then there’s the issue of the physics of her hair doesn’t work. On coronation day, she starts with her hair up in a twisty-bun-y-thing, and then during her big song, it becomes a french braid. Well Fluffsters, there is no flippin’ way that can happen. Believe you me, I’ve tried to figure out any way to replicate it, since the movie certainly implies that there’s only one hairstyle at that time.

So all that to say, animation is totally unfair.

Happy Saturday!

A Rant About Doll-Hair

Note: If this is your first time to TotalFluff, please visit this brief explanation. Thanks!

Ok, Fluffsters, this is not fair.

Fluffy, that’s your cue to ask “what’s not fair”?

I know that’s what you think. I ignored it.

A world class melodramatic actress skipped a cue?

This isn’t an actual play.

Ok, fair enough.

But yes. Doll’s hair is so not fair.

Especially the Kirsten, the American Girl Doll’s, hair.

It looks perfect. It looks nice and gold and like real hair. And it looks like something where you can try new styles on it, before trying it on your own hair. Or on hair of someone who might actually hurt if you pull too hard.

And instead? It’s THE WORST HAIR TO PLAY WITH. It feels greasy. And it tangles like no other. Seriously, I have curly hair. It tangles. I need to wear it in braids before I go to bed or else it all becomes one giant knot.

Compared with this doll’s hair, though? It’s so easy to work with.

And that, Fluffsters, is just not fair.

But how’s your life going?

I hope you have a happy Sunday!

A “cheesey love song”

Note: If this is your first time to TotalFluff, please visit this brief explanation. Thanks!

Hello, Fluffsters! Happy Sunday.

Before I get to the main purpose of the post, I am going to rant. Christmas music. Is. Taking. Over.

Why do people need to start playing Christmas music by the end of the FIRST FLIPPING WEEK OF NOVEMBER?

…Do you not like Christmas?

It’s not Christmas that I’m ranting about. It’s the music that gets played non-stop from November through the end of January that is absolutely obnoxious.

Seriously. We only just finished Halloween. In America, we’ve got Thanksgiving coming up. Why can’t we give the holidays the time they deserve, and wait on the Christmas music? And other Christmas stuff?

Ok, rant over. That actually provides a nice transition into the topic I’m wanting to talk about.

You see, I figure that if we’re starting to discuss holidays too early, why not jump on the bandwagon? So today, I’m presenting:

A Love Song for Valentine’s Day.

All ranting aside, this is actually a really cute song. Disclaimer: A friend’s friend wrote it. But it’s still amusing. It’s slightly (okay, more than slightly) cheesy. But that makes it charming. You have to see to understand.

In the singer’s defense, she didn’t tag it as a Valentine’s day thing. And from what I understand, love songs can be popular throughout the entire year. (Unlike Christmas songs, I might add…)

So, without further ado, the Cheesy Love Song I mentioned.

Happy Sunday, Fluffsters! I hope you have a good week.

Analysis of why “The Fox” song might be offensive

Note: If this is your first time to TotalFluff, please visit this brief explanation. Thanks!

Hello, Fluffsters!

I’ve been thinking about the fox song that was talked about in yesterday’s post, and I realized I may have been wrong about it.

You’ve come to the realization that it’s a bad song?

Maybe. In fact, it might actually be fairly offensive, when you stop to think about it.

Because it insults your intelligence? Don’t many things in life do so?

What? No! That is to say, I’m not offended by “the fox song insulting my intelligence.”

On the contrary, it just communicates at a brainier level than most expect.

Why am I suddenly getting the feeling that I don’t want to know where this is going?

I don’t care.

Here’s why I think this song is potentially offensive: after thinking about it, I realized that foxes are typically thought of as introverted type creatures. According to wikipedia, they typically live alone.

Many of the other animals mentioned throughout the song (dogs, cows, elephants, and birds, for example) live in groups. By using the groupish animals as a type of counterexample, the composers are clearly setting this song up as a contrast between two groups: Extroverts (group lovers), versus introverts (solitary types).

Uh, are you sure you’re not reading too much into thi-

Now, that simple classification itself isn’t too much of a problem. As I’ve ranted about earlier, people tend to try to put others into boxes. It’s annoying, but that’s not the purpose of this rant.

No. The purpose of this rant is threefold, because the song can be seen as insulting both introverts and extroverts. And animals.

Now I’m just confused. Again.

Actually, Fluffy, it’s not that complicated. Here is my analysis:

How The Fox Song Can Offend Animals.

As I mentioned earlier in the post, the singer goes through and talks about different types of animals, and what they say. He then goes on to talk exclusively about the fox. This dismissal doesn’t qualify as equal opportunity for all animals. In fact, there are a number of animals he doesn’t even mention that have equally perplexing noises, or lack thereof. What about the giraffe, for example? Why don’t they have their own song? Or chorus line? And how about parrots, too? They’re great imitators- what are their natural noises? Does anyone truly know? How do we know that parrots’ natural noises haven’t been tainted by child birth? But do they even get mentioned? No!

And then the fox itself. The artist doesn’t even try to be reasonable with what the fox might say. Furthermore, they use what must be a computer generated fox to indicate what they really think sound like. All foxes that watch that video will likely feel insulted.

Of… course.

And then there’s the introvert/extrovert aspect.

Why the fox song might upset extroverts.

Extroverts. They love groups and attention, right? Well here, they only get a second on camera. Tops. They’re introduced, given a single line, and then dismissed. This is unfair. Why can’t extroverts have more camera time?

Also, they’re being so casually dismissed. By indicating that we know what the extroverted animals say, that says we know all that we need to about those creatures. If you further that argument to extroverts in general, you’re indicating that you know exactly what an extrovert is going to say all the time, and that it doesn’t matter! That’s very offensive! It also indicates that what people say is all that matters. Well, whatever happened to “actions speak louder than words,” Mr. Ylvis?

Ylvis also presents foxes as mysterious, and therefore awesome. The others are presented as unmysterious, and therefore uninteresting.

Now Webmaster, I really don’t think the song was meant to be viewed that wa-

But that’s not all.

Why the song could offend introverts.

The entire song is about trying to get someone (who doesn’t want to say anything) to speak.

By choosing a fox, which is one of the more introverted type of animals, Ylvis plainly decided to make this a metaphor for all introverts.

Clearly…

That means that all the artist says about foxes is meant to apply to introverts.

So when Ylvis sings “What does the fox say?”, he’s actually saying “What do introverts say?”

Now, on the surface this doesn’t appear to be an entirely offensive question. But upon deeper analysis, the true intent can be seen, and thus indicate the potentially malicious idea behind this. In reality, there are at least two problems behind this question.

The first, and the most obvious one, is the inherent idea that Ylvis deserves to know what you’re saying. He’s not saying, “please, dear introverts, would you tell me what you’re thinking? Or what you’d like to say?” No. Instead he’s writing a song, comparing introverts to a single type of animal, demanding to know what introverts are saying. (Side note: That also seems to imply that he thinks introverts speak an entirely different language. Thanks a lot.)

The next problem, and one that can only be understood by the greater context of the song, is the indication that all introverts think exactly alike. The analysis here is also fairly straightforward. The composer uses many different types of extroverted animals, all of which say something different. Now, the composer just uses a single fox, to represent all the shy introverted people. He clearly thinks they must all say the same thing.

I don’t think I’ve encountered anyone else reading this much into that song. It’s certainly not that bad a song! It just insults the intelligence of the listeners. Seriously, just sto-

That’s not all, though. Oh, no.

The artist then tries to come up with ideas for what the introverts foxes might say. Or so they claim. In reality, can anyone deny that they’re just using this as an opportunity to make fun of the quiet folks, by making up loud obnoxious things that introverts clearly would not say, and are thus trying to bully all quiet people into conforming to the artist’s standards?

As I said, the song could easily be considered offensive.

…You don’t actually believe what you just wrote, do you? Please tell me you realize that the song did not intend to say all that you just said it said? And that it’s biggest problem is its lack of content, not its overabundance of it?

Of course I don’t! I just wanted to rant about it in a way that you’d be forced to defend the song.

WHAT? That is so not fair.

Funny, though. And it worked, didn’t it? You did claim the song wasn’t actually that bad.

Anyways, Fluffsters, happy Monday! I hope you have a good one.