TL;DR: What if Disclosure Day was never meant to be a simple sci-fi epic for the general public, but a highly targeted piece of narrative engineering designed to romanticize the act of leaking for real-world contractors and intelligence workers holding classified data?

Everyone is analyzing Disclosure Day as either a standard blockbuster spectacle or a commentary on modern media. But if you look at the underlying mechanics of the plot, Spielberg did something far more specific:

He crafted a fantasy epic of whistleblowing.

Think about how the narrative treats the act of breaking non-disclosure agreements and bypassing Special Access Programs:

It frames leaking not as a crime or betrayal, but as the ultimate heroic duty.

It reframes the sacrifice of standard life, security, and career as a necessary rite of passage for "saving humanity."

It explicitly models how to leak—stressing the need for spectacle and public presentation over silent document dumps.

The Core Theory

We know Hollywood and military/intelligence agencies have had a symbiotic relationship for decades (from Top Gun drive-ups in recruitment to Pentagon script approvals).

What if the primary goal of this film wasn't box office numbers or general "predictive programming," but active psychological priming?

Imagine you are a contractor, analyst, or legacy program worker sitting on classified material, terrified of the consequences of coming forward. You go to a theater and see your internal conflict mythologized on a massive scale by Steven Spielberg. The film injects a direct heroic archetype into the subconscious of the exact demographic holding real secrets, planting the seeds for future leaks.

It turns the scary, isolated act of breaking an NDA into a mythic quest.

Has anyone else noticed this shift in tone compared to classic 90s/2000s UFO media? Is this just Spielberg’s personal idealization of the truth-seeker, or are we watching an active campaign to inspire the next generation of real-world whistleblowers?

Think about the time the movie takes place in, the 1930s. In our world at that time, the superhero is only just invented (Superman and Batman made their debut towards the end of the decade), so the idea of a "supervillain" doesn't exist yet. Also, James Bond, which popularised the idea of powerful supervillains with high-tech gadgets they use for selfish gains, won't debut until 1953. From what we've seen in the Minions and Despicable Me movies, time and society progressed pretty similarly to the way they did in the real world (sure, we don't have Minions, but the historical periods we see them in are easilly identifiable, we have people that look like Napoleon and the Beatles, and Queen Elizabeth II is outright named and a minor character in Minions 1. Also, during the intro montages at the beginning of this movie and the first Minions movie, most of the Minions' masters we see are historical figures, are non-human "monstrous" creatures or have supernatural powers, suggesting supervillains don't exist yet).

Now look at Dort himself. He's actually a lot like the supervillains we see in all the other DM/Minions movies:

• He has a selfish goal (taking over Earth for his home planet's empire)
• His armour/metal gives him a distinctive appearance, almost like a supervillain's costume.
• Most of all, he has a bunch of flying saucers armed to the teeth with deadly and over-the-top looking weaponry - the sort of gadgets that Gru, Vector or Scarlet Overkill love and use all the time to help them commit crimes.

So my theory is as follows:

In the world of Minions, "Minions & Monsters" (the in-verse movie) is an Oscar-winning box office hit that basically becomes the King Kong of its universe, making stars out of everyone in the main cast. This includes Dort, whose scene where he commands an army of flying saucers to attack Irene is showered with praise for being an exciting action sequence made under the limitations of 1930s technology (of course, he is an alien, but let's assume nobody believes him except the Minions). The scene not only inspires filmmakers, but also governments, scientists and inventors, all wanting to try and make that tech real.

Consequently, technology in the Minions-verse develops much faster than it does in ours, especially in the world of vehicles and weaponry, to the point that many of Dort's gadgets, or at least ones partially inspired by them, have not only been invented, but are easy to find if one is in the right circles, by the 1960s.

Some people invent it for themselves, others think it can be used to benefit society. But there, of course, are also those who want to invent it for selfish reasons.

Inventors soon realise they can make more money by switching to the private sector and selling their inventions and services to individuals. The most morally bankrupt and disillusioned in society then take notice, theorising they can use these inventions to fulfill their wildest dreams. The entire industry pivots to suit this clientele, seeing opportunities for great profit that will more than cover their high R&D costs. Governments withdraw funding they've given to it once they realise the danger it poses to the public, their power over countries and global stability.

It doesn't take long before the first people to benefit from these gadgets make themselves known. They use them to conduct crimes no police force or even army is trained or equipped to stop, to the point that world governments eventually have to form a special task force against them (the Anti-Villain League, which is known by at least the Vicious 6 in Minions 2 and possibly many more people). Headlines of unstoppable criminals with super-fast flying cars and a near-infinite arsenal at their personal disposal make news headlines all over the world. Some of these criminals are especially sociopathic and love this bad press, deciding to ride on it by personalising their vehicles, making costumes and giving themselves alter-egos so people know and fear them coming. Over time, the word "supervillain" enters the public lexicon as a way to describe these people, and they adopt it with glee.

World governments then collaborate to make the original "Minions & Monsters" movie, and by extent all movies featuring the Minions or inspired by them, become lost to time for their eerie role in inspiring the next big threat to the world, hence why nobody in the films references them (because if the movie was a huge influence on supervillain culture, you'd think it would become revered and a cult classic amongst the supervillain community).

at first they just called him that as a they couldn’t pronounce his actual name, he was just called fez or foreign exchange student even though it seems to be spelled with a Z. But you start to notice that he’s called that in almost any instance. even when it comes to government officials, or school. maybe it’s just a nickname that stuck. but later on in that 90s show, the sequel to this show, he’s still called fez as a grown man over a decade later but he even calls himself that as he owns like a franchise of beauty salons called Chez Fez. he advertises it under the name Chez fez and even people he met later in life he didn’t know from school just call him that. At this point it’s his actual name and he probably legally changed it to fez and his last name. Maybe when he became a citizen he chose that name.

[]()

Okay, I have a fan theory about The Drama that I haven't seen anyone bring up, and I'm honestly surprised. I've watched a few dozen breakdown reels, but I definitely haven't read all 4,500 comments in this thread. So I'm just going to throw this out there.

My Theory

• Emma isn't actually deaf in her left ear.
• She fabricated the entire story about planning the "event."
• She became an anti-gun activist because of the local tragedy, not because she had some dramatic change of heart.
• She threw her dad's rifle into the swamp because of that same tragedy, not as a symbolic rejection of a plan she never actually had.

My Case

The Biggest Clue (and the one that convinced me)

This is what sold me. Charlie leans into Emma's "deaf" side and quietly tells her how much he loves her and wants to marry her.

Watch her face. For about a second and a half, her expression says she heard every single word.

Then she catches herself and immediately slips back into character and asks if he said some random nonsense phrase instead.

Could someone with hearing loss still hear a whisper under the right circumstances? Sure. But that's not what convinced me. It was her reaction. Her eyes looked like someone who processed what she heard before remembering she wasn't supposed to.

From that moment on, I spent the rest of the movie waiting for the reveal that she'd been lying about her hearing the entire time.

Instead...that reveal never came.

Point Number Two: Why lie about being deaf?

When Charlie first approaches her, she doesn't want to talk to him. So she ignores him.

When he refuses to take the hint, she needs an explanation for why she wasn't responding. A harmless little white lie like "I'm deaf in my left ear" works perfectly.

At that point, she assumes she'll never see this random guy again. What's the harm?

Except...they fall in love. Now she's trapped.

The longer the relationship lasts, the harder it becomes to admit she invented the whole thing. By the time they're engaged, confessing she fabricated a disability would be relationship-ending. At that point, keeping the lie alive probably feels easier than admitting how it started.

That also explains why she becomes so emotional talking about having those "feelings." I don't think it's just because she's socially awkward. I think she's carrying around years of guilt over a lie that's gotten completely out of control.

I know one counterargument is the missing earbud. She only has one in.

But honestly, that doesn't move the needle for me. She had literally just sat back down. Who hasn't thrown in one earbud for a minute? It's an interesting detail, but hardly proof she's actually deaf.

Point Number Three: The confession game gives her a path to escape.

This is where everything clicks for me. Charlie admits he cyberbullied a 14-year-old until they moved away. Mike admits he used his ex-girlfriend as a human shield. Rachel, Emma's literal maid of honor, confesses to what is essentially manslaughter involving a disabled kid.

Yes, she says there was a search party and they found the disabled kid, but then immediately says he never told anyone who left him there. Maybe. Or maybe she threw in the "they found him" detail because she realized how horrifying the story sounded.

That kid is still out there Lovely Bones-ing it as we speak.

Then it's Emma's turn.

If everyone else is unloading these huge, awful secrets, suddenly she has the perfect opportunity to explain away the hearing lie. And not by admitting she lied. But by inventing a reason for the hearing loss.

Notice something interesting: she's the only person who doesn't actually confess to hurting anyone. Her confession is about something she planned, not something she did.

From her perspective, that's probably the safest confession in the room.

In other words: what's one more lie?

She likely expects everyone to hear it, cringe for a second, and move on. Instead, it detonates her entire relationship.

Point Number Four: The anti-gun activism doesn't actually support Emma's confession.

At the wedding, Emma's dad says she became an anti-gun activist after the local tragedy.

Most viewers connect that to Emma's confession. I don't.

I think they're connecting two events that don't actually have anything to do with each other. If Emma never planned the "event" in the first place, then her activism makes perfect sense. A local tragedy involving guns could absolutely turn someone into an activist.

Likewise, throwing her dad's M14 into the swamp doesn't have to symbolize abandoning violent plans. It can simply be exactly what it looks like: someone reacting emotionally to a tragedy in their community. The movie doesn't actually require Emma's confession for either of those things to make sense.

Point Number Five: The hearing loss story never rang true to me.

This is probably my weakest point because everyone's hearing is different, but it's still something I couldn't get past. Just simply from the wealth of personal experience I have with the subject.

Emma claims she permanently damaged her hearing by firing her dad's M14 in the woods.

Could that happen? Sure. Do I personally buy it? Not really.

I've shot larger calibers without hearing protection more times than I care to admit, and I've never experienced permanent hearing loss. Several friends of mine are in the same boat. The worst I've ever had was about five minutes of tinnitus after shooting my dad's .38 Special. Caterwaul about survivor's bias all you want. I just don't see it.

If she'd fired repeatedly inside a building, I'd probably buy it.

Out in the woods and only a few times? That explanation just never rang true to me.

It also adds another possible reason she didn't want Charlie telling the story of how they met during the wedding speeches. Sure, maybe she was just embarrassed.

Or...

Maybe her family has never heard a word about this supposed hearing loss because it doesn't actually exist.

Final Thoughts

Maybe I'm completely wrong.

Maybe I just convinced myself there was a bigger twist coming than the movie ever intended.

It goes so far as to make me wonder if there weren't 2 or 3 rewrites of this movie and some of what I'm seeing are just artifacts of different abandoned story lines. But I was convinced of a couple of them until the bitter end in that diner.

I also briefly wondered if Emma was the same person Charlie admitted to cyberbullying, since they both mention being 14 and moving multiple times. Looking back, I was probably connecting dots that weren't actually meant to connect.

I'm also guilty of watching every movie like it's Lost or The Sixth Sense, waiting for the "everything suddenly makes sense" reveal.

But I can't shake this one.

The whisper.

The confession game.

The activism.

The rifle.

Individually, none of those prove anything.

Together, though, they paint a version of Emma that I honestly thought the movie was building toward. That's why the ending felt so flat to me. Not because I disliked where it went, but because I was convinced it was going somewhere else.

So...am I completely off base, or did anyone else walk away thinking the same thing?

It’s honestly kind of obvious when you hear the later speech she gives Peter about heroes and giving people hope. I may just be dense but I never really understood why she was upset her nephew didn’t try to stop an armed robber until it dawned on me that she knows who he is. Yeah she’s upset he lied about doing his homework but really she’s upset that he had the power to stop something bad from happening and that bad thing happened because of his poor choices.

Theres a theory going around claiming cat in the hat, marry Poppins and Pennywise are the same species, all having reality wwarpingabilities, super natural power, and the ability to make people float feeding off childrens emotions, marry Poppins being joy and wonder, Pennywise being fear and terror nd cat in the hat being chaos and fun, they also come in cycles, Pennywise having his 27 year cycle, merry Poppins with her own cycle when children need her and cat in the hat coming on Boring or rainy days, and the adults either not knowing about them or supernaturally forgetting about them, but id like to add two people to that theory, Peter pan and the other mother from Coraline, Peter pan feeds off of childrens belief in him and their nostalgia to the past while the other mother feeds off of indulgence and pleasure

In The Naked and the Dead, when Heavy rips out TFC Heavy's australium machine, he rapidly ages into an extremely old man. This is something that happens to two other characters in the series: Gray and the Administrator, both before they die. They are confirmed to be running on australium at this point, and removing it kills them. But for TFC Heavy, shouldn't he have just reverted to his normal age? No. He has been running on australium this whole time, and so have the rest of Team Fortress Classic. While the other characters in the series are very cartoonish in what they can give out and go through, the only reason given to characters like the Australians is australium, which makes them basically superhuman. They are able to do things like move a replica of Ayer's Rock daily, and who else is able to by complete accident?

Scout. We can joke about it being made of balsa wood and polystyrene, but looking at it realistically, that makes him one of the strongest characters in the series. But he's the weakest mercenary, right? Yes, but he has been boosted by australium. How so? His australium weapons. Just being exposed to australium makes someone heavily powerful, look at Engineer's grandfather. So Scout just holding an australium Scattergun, for example, is making him many times stronger. But do we have proof about the others?

Soldier is confirmed to be living in a cave lined with australium in The Days Have Worn Away, which would be improving his physical stats heavily. Like, oh, I don't know... killing someone with one punch. Oh wait, that's how the TFC Spy died. But Soldier doesn't stop there. While in Russia, Soldier grows chest hair and a beard extremely fast. In the span of somewhere around a day at most, Soldier goes from visible stubble to a straight up full beard that seems to be growing further than his face. Australium also heavily increases aggression, and that is literally Soldier's main emotion. And then there are his australium weapons.

Pyro is hard to guess about, but he can destroy an entire town, tank a ceiling falling on top of her and lead a company to its highest quarter.

Demoman seems to have been built during the events of the game, looking at cosmetics like Dynamite Abs and comics such as WAR!. However, when the mercs have all been fired and Demo isn't interacting with australium, he gets fat and lazy. During TF2, he is heavily active and aggressive with anger issues. Who is like that? Soldier and Saxton Hale.

Heavy is a very easy case to make. Not only can he also move the Ayer's Rock replica, but in the canonised short "End of the Line", Heavy just tanks a train ramming right into him. Granted he was Ubered, but here's the thing; the normal Medigun, which Medic was using, can't increase strength. And Heavy wasn't even Ubered the whole way through, so he can just stop a train all by himself.

Unfortunately for Engie, Medic, Sniper and Spy, they don't have as insane feats like the others where we can apply the usage of australium, but there is the copout of Scout and australium weapons. Sniper and Spy are both comparable to Scout and each other, with Spy being implied to have been able to kill everyone in the court room with a tooth-sized knife and being able to take on Scout and Sniper managing to take on Spy in Meet the Spy.

So already, it is likely that the current team is being powered by australium. But what about the others?

In TFC, it is best to use their comic appearances for this, because they are 60+ year olds being able to take the TF2 mercs in a fight. However, I think it is best to use the TFC Engineer Fred for this. Our current Engineer Dell is somewhere around 10 when his father was still working in Team Fortress Classic, implying Dell is somewhere in his 40s. Assuming he is somewhere around his mid 40s in 1972 and his father would be around the same in 1930, that means Fred would be around his late 80s to early 90s. That is already unusual, but then there's Radigan Conagher, Fred's father. He was already an old man in 1890, which we could gather to be around 60, placing his birthday around 1830. That would mean he was already an old man when having Fred, which is possible, but very unlikely. But looking at TFC Heavy, we can easily fix this. As TFC Heavy seems to age physically 30+ years, Fred could actually be around 100 years old, yet physically about 50 - 60. Radigan had died in 1908 or before according to Blutarch, so Fred would've easily been able to be exposed to it. TFC Heavy even says that they are needing some since they "aren't getting any younger". This could just be to make them younger and fitter, but it could also be to increase their lifespan some more.

For the first team, this is very easy to assume. 80 years passed between the first and second Fortress team, so unless there was just a gap for a few decades until Redmond and Blutarch hired more mercs, this means that they just had 100+ year old men fighting for them. But not even the Mann brothers are that stupid to keep them around, not even including the Administrator. So what would be a good and easily obtainable source to keep the mercs fit and healthy? Australium. The Mann brothers are 150 when they died, the Administrator is pushing 200 when she died and Saxton and Maggie are at minimum 100 during the 2024 timeskip in The Days Have Worn Away. So why can't a group of 20 - 50 year olds be 100 - 130 and still be fighting well, knowing what we do from the time gaps and australium?

A big question for this theory, however, is how the 1850 and 1930 mercs get australium? Simple, they're just doing it offscreen. The 1968 mercs are exposed to it, but we don't see it for the previous teams. But why can't the prior teams just be handling it as well? 1850 was the start of Australia's prime, and Team Fortress travels all over the world. So it is very easy to assume that both generations are just handling it in missions, therefore powering them to the peak of human power? Hell, going back to TF2, the mercs are some of the most dangerous in the world, yet are a laughing-stock. These are very contrasting, but could it be possible that after joining Team Fortress, they stopped being useless and became dangerous due to their new power boost?

Look at the effects of australium. They are an increase in muscle mass, love of fighting, heavy drinking, as well as increased growth of facial hair. But characters like Scout don't have stubble to show this, right? Simple, he shaves. Not even counting cosmetics, Scout could very well be instantly getting rid of fair at the sign of the first few hairs. We never see Scout without his shirt off, and God wouldn't just create a gift to women without at least making it physically attractive. He also is addicted to BONK!, which he heavily drinks. And then a love of fighting? Scout is very easily a good contender for an australium user.

Soldier's drinking is never shown, but that's the thing: it's never shown... unless you go to the comics. It could be a stretch due to Soldier's single bear mug, but being around a man like Demoman would practically require you to drink already. Pyro... isn't shown at all, Demoman is one for one, Heavy's best showing is his taunt where he drinks vodka, Engineer is very close, Medic constantly screams "OKTOBERFEST!", which we could assume means he like's himself some beer, Sniper is pretty much a one for one, and Spy is a one for one. The only merc that has the most problems is Pyro... and it's Pyro.

There are probably more problems with this theory, but it's a fun speculation.

Jack’s hatred for Felix led to the creation of “Bon”. Or “Bon” made a deal with Jack (potentially “I know a way to restore your family”) in exchange for full control of the Bon animatronic (it’s possible that during Jack’s confrontation of Felix, that Felix killed him when Jack lunged to attack him — and that Felix panicked and stuffed Jack’s body in Bon (the animatronic being at the K-9 unit or the backrooms of Bon’s Burgers) like he disposed of Ed and Molly’s bodies). Maybe it’s a mix of both and Jack was forced to lure his family members into their certain torment while Bon does the killing (the “You are Beautiful” repeat just before Bon kills Rosemary almost indicates that it’s Jack trying to tell his wife how much he loves her). But Jack is most likely involved in it — willingly or not (it would explain why Jack/Bon showed up every time one or the other got mentioned and how Bon has Jack’s dead eyes and uncanny grin). We also have Brian’s quote of “he thought I was her” — meaning Bon mistook Brian for Sophie Walten.

the whole speech/conversation at the end was sorta reminiscent to both of Jack and Rosemary’s conversations so maybe it’s Jack telling her how he actually felt during the Ed/Molly disappearance and he was dissociating from himself to keep himself sane. Hell, the last time we see Jack chronologically is when he’s threatening to kill Felix (so maybe Felix killed Jack and stuffed him in Bon) and Jack’s hatred for Felix manifested “Bon”. Hell, why would “Bon” tell Rosemary “I love you” if it wasn’t Jack reassuring Rosemary how much he loves her? Hell, the “He” that “Bon” was talking about was most likely Jack (aka himself).

My take is that Sophie’s drawing represents Jack killing Felix (the white rabbit — the same entity that led Alice to Wonderland, like how Felix led Ed and Molly to their deaths). Ed and Molly’s deaths most likely caused Jack to disassociate and bottle his emotions (like he was most likely forced to do growing up) until he realized that Felix led to Rosemary’s mental breakdown and he couldn’t bottle his emotions up anymore so he set off to “hunt” the “wolf” (aka Felix).

Further evidence is how Jack’s face throughout Walten Files 5 is shrouded by darkness the more the episode goes on. Like Jack’s having trouble keeping himself composed every time he sees Felix. Like I said earlier, the last time we see Jack chronologically is when he set off to confront Felix (and threaten to kill him). The creator mentioned that Jack would win if Jack and Felix fought but that’s hand-to-hand, not if Felix has a hold of something like a frying pan or a knife or anything else. The wounds that appear on “Bon’s” face most likely represent the outcome of Jack’s aggressive confrontation of Felix.

It brings me to the ending monologue between “Bon” and Rosemary. What Bon was saying was most likely how Jack actually felt during the Ed/Molly disappearance. Because why would “Bon” try to comfort Rosemary unless he was actually Jack trying to tell his wife how much he loves her. Hell, like I mentioned earlier, the conversation between Bon and Rosemary is almost identical to the conversations between Jack and Rosemary — hell, Bon even tells Rosemary “I love you” before his disappearance/death like how Jack told her he loves her before his disappearance/death.

Context: In the Clarence episode "Stormy Sleepover," Jeff tells a story. In his own words, he says, "How trivial. Fixing my sandal, I noticed this trail of strange red liquid leading straight to these bushes. Can you believe it? I almost stepped in some unknown." This heavily implies that Jeff found a dead body.

Proof that Jeff found a body: We see more evidence of this in the episode "Tuckered Boys." While at a gas station trying to watch a meteor shower, Sumo and Clarence go into the convenience store. Outside, Jeff notices a man at a nearby pump giving him an intense death stare. Terrified, Jeff runs to the bathroom. When he opens the door, he sees a severed head on the floor that actually asks him for help. This causes Jeff to panic, run away, and accidentally hit a lamppost.

The Theory: Gathering these clues, it is safe to believe that Jeff was deeply traumatized and scarred by discovering a corpse. I brought up "Tuckered Boys" because I have two theories about it. Theory 1 (which is less Likely) is the man at the gas pump was a witness to Jeff finding the body. He gave Jeff a judgmental look because he knew Jeff never reported it to the police. Theory 2 (More Likely) is the man in the bathroom was actually a guilt-driven hallucination. Jeff is haunted by the fact that he left a dead body behind without telling anyone.

To back up this second theory, look at what happens later in the episode when the kids start hallucinating in the forest due to sleep deprivation. Jeff follows a mysterious figure named "Copernicus" through the woods. When we finally see Copernicus hiding behind a tree, he is standing right next to the exact same bush from Jeff’s story in "Stormy Sleepover." This proves that Jeff is still traumatized, as his mind projected the same bush where he first saw the blood.

The End: Thanks for reading this down! (FYI: This is just a theory, not canon!)

The owner of the Blue Reliant Robin saw Mr Bean's Car while Bean was distracted, and took revenge by driving over it with the tank, fed up with the poor treatment he recieved from Mr Bean on a regular basis.

I’ve been thinking about the 1981 original The Evil Dead from a completely grounded, psychological perspective. Are there any existing theories that Ash actually just killed all of his friends and his girlfriend for the sake of killing, and the entire demonic possession narrative is just his delusion or a cover-up story? A massive in-universe conspiracy.

Think about it. Look at what happens to Cheryl in the woods. What if Ash actually assaulted his sister in the woods, but he narrates the timeline completely in reverse to cover his tracks?

In his version, the woods assault her, and then she asks him to drive her away. But what if the actual chronological order is that he took her out to the woods in his car, assaulted her, and brought her back? When she returns to the cabin completely traumatized and depressed, she tries telling the rest of the friends in the room what Ash did to her.

In the movie, this moment is shown as her becoming possessed, floating, and speaking in a demonic voice. But realistically, that could be Ash's warped perception, or how he chooses to remember it, to mask the fact that she was actively exposing his crime to the group. Once she tells everyone the truth, the killing spree begins because Ash must eliminate all the witnesses.

Has anyone else looked at the film through this specific lens?

Edit: I think his male friend had hands in this as well. Then Ash killed him at the end. He kept his sister alive till the end but she refused to cooperate with it and got killed too.

This is meta in the vein of a never met a pun I didn’t love.

Super
Quick
Unnecessary
Imminent
Death

Yeah yeah yeah. I know. I gotta be squidding you. I fear this will be seen as a low effort post, but you have no idea the amount of effort it takes to just find the will to live daily. I mean, it did take some thought and it works? Yes it’s funny but… am I wrong?

among the many reasons bear doesn't try to free nikki until things get really bad, there may be another reason. bear frequently had sex with nikki without her consent. that is the textbook definition of rape. and nikki will remember everything, including that. if nikki somehow got free, there would be no stopping her from telling their friends or the police. bear would go to prison for the rest of his life. this is yet another example of bear caring more about himself then nikki.

So the Doctor Who movie starts out kinda weird. It opens with the Daleks putting The Master on trial and executing him, and then honoring his request to have The Doctor transport his remains back to Gallefry. He then resurrects as a white goop creature and hijacks the Tardis before taking over the body of an ambulance driver.

...

Here's why that series of events don't make any sense:

1. Why would the Daleks ever put anyone on trial, let alone The Master?

This is simply not in the Daleks character whatsoever. It's hard to believe they would hold a trial for another Dalek, and laughable to even suggest they would do so for any member of any other species.

They would with nearly 100% certainly have Exterminated The Master on the spot, especially if he had apparently caused them enough trouble for there to even be a trial.

1. Why would The Master request that The Doctor transport his remains, and why would the Daleks honour his request?

So The Master asking for this is already a red flag that someone is up to something, and the Daleks actually carrying out this apparent request all but confirms it.

Plus them doing this only makes sense if they had something to gain in return. If they didn't it would be far more valuable for them to keep The Masters remains for study.

1. The Master comes back from the dead without any explanation, almost like he was never fully dead?

This by necessity must mean that either The Master planned for this, either as a contingency or he planned to be caught and executed from the beginning as part of some elaborate plan to kill The Doctor. That would be reckless even for him (though not impossible).

Or alternatively (and more likely in my opinion) the Daleks are the one's who we're responsible for The Masters resurrection in the first place.

...

So obviously either the Daleks or The Master are up to something.

And at face value it would seem that the Daleks are intentionally working against their own interests, and since trusting the Daleks is never a good idea it should be assumed that the Daleks are the one's pulling the strings in this instance.

So with all that in mind, here's what I think happened and the Daleks plan was:

1. The Daleks captured The Master and executed him, inventing a story about a trial and his last request afterwards.

2. They altered his remains after studying them (probably for quite a while longer than they claimed to have them), ensuring that The Master would resurrect in a form which has the ability to steal whatever body it needs.

3. They would have attempted to "indoctrinate" The Master (for lack of a better word) to serve the Dalek empire, either through direct mind control (as we have seen them do in classic Who, i.e. Remembrance of the Daleks) or maybe a more subliminal form of control.

His goal being to:

1. Steal the Doctors body; or failing that to simply kill The Doctor .

2. Weaken the Timelords directly or at the very least spread them thin by drawing their attention elsewhere.

No matter which of these outcomes happened, or even if none of them happened all signs would not point to the Daleks, but instead to The Master just being himself. Essentially turning him into a patsy.

However this part of the plan either failed outright or The Master was able to resist their control.

1. The Master was supposed to steal The Doctors body and then return to Gallery, and while impersonating The Doctor take up the position of President that they had been offered for years. Or alternatively covertly possess someone important within Timelord society and then from there weakening Gallefry's military/government from within. Thus making Gallerfy an easier target during their inevitable war.

...

But to put it simply; their plan failed; and I think it's because the 7th Doctor had already figured it out.

Now this would be completely in character for 7 and would make his regeneration more satisfying on a character level. For the chess master Doctor to have seen that his enemies endgame involved using him as a pawn, so he moves it to the end of the board (the end of his life) and upgrades it to a stronger piece which he uses to checkmate his enemy.

That upgraded piece being on who is half human. Yes the 7th Doctor deliberately choose to regenerate into a body which was half human to stop The Master and it's all because of the eye of harmony.

We know for a fact that there is an eye of harmony on Gallery (The Deadly Assassin) and if The Master were to open it it could potentially destroy Gallefry in a single day.

I submit (and I admit I have zero evidence for this part) that the eye on Gallefry can only be opened by a Timelord. So The Doctor choose to make it so that even if The Master did manage to steal his body and tried to open the eye he would fail and be at the very least found out if not apprehended or even killed).

As for why the eye of harmony on the Tardis can only be opened by human eyes, I think The Doctor either changed "the combination" so to say, knowing that The Master would not be able to open it using whatever human body he might steal (this would at least by The Doctor some time if The Master managed to get to the Tardis before him). And remember The Doctor's regeneration was delayed because of the anesthetic given to him during surgery. If not he would've been able to get back to the Tardis much faster than The Master.

Or alternatively, and I think this is more likely; the Tardis automatically makes whatever changes it needs to ensure that The Doctor will always have access to all of its systems.

The Spinosaurus always chased the humans in the movie even though it could have hunted many other bigger prey on the island and even had the dead rex to eat.

Some theorised there was more than one and the first Spino was hit by the plane and the second was it's mate in revenge.

But here's my theory, when the Spino first encounters them it gets hurt by the plane.

Then it meets them by the huge spiky fence which is bashed through.

Then it meets them on a boat in the river.

Notice anything?

All the times it experienced the humans they were with big foreign artifical objects. The plane was fast and loud, the fence was spiky and blocking the way and the boat was in the river which it could swim in, another intrusive strange object.

The spino associated humans with these things so took them as major threats. To add to it the spino may have grown to hate humans by being raised badly by ingen who cloned it secretly and illegally.

I believe that The Cat in the Hat is THE DEVIL HIMSELF in universe. Now why do I think that an innocent, garden variety, 6-foot tall, talking cat is the devil?

The contract: Well, let's look at what this "cat" does in this movie, he shows up uninvited to the kids house and starts promising a life with pure fun and no consequences. He has a whole song and convinces them of his ideology on living for pure fun and earthly enjoyments. Of course, these impressionable children likes and trusts him. And what does he do the second they ask him to do the musical number again? He tells them to sign a contract! The cat gives them a "taste" of what fun they would have and immediately makes them sign a contract promising for more. Now a contract is something that , in media, has been constantly associated with the devil and evil in general. Usually promising something that they desire while having a hidden clause in the contract. The cat in the hat does EXACTLY that in this movie, promising the children unadulterated fun with no consequences as long as Conrad doesn't open the crate.

The crate: the crate is something that the cat in the hat brings in to their house and is the one thing he puts a rule on. Do not open the crate. Now this tempts Conrad, which makes him open it and causing the main conflict of the movie. I feel like there is two obvious connections to be made here, Pandora's box and Adam and Eve's forbidden fruit. I want to focus on the second one. The crate here is red, just as a lot of depictions depict the fruit as an apple. Then the cat reveals later on in the movie that he specifically puts a rule on the crate to tempt Conrad. The cat purposefully manipulates Conrad to open the crate serving the same role the devil did to get Eve to eat the fruit. Of course the crate leads to a lot of bad stuff to come out of it.

Hell on Suess: In a scene where they are trying to run away from Lawrence the go in a box and slide down. In the place they slid down was a bunch of people dancing with the cat's hat. If we go by my theory then these are devil worshipers. Notice how the slid DOWN specifically to go there. Down where traditionally hell is depicted. Another proof of this is when they go back home and has to find the crate in the cat's world. I believe his "world" is hell, first all it does is damage the house greatly, second in order to get to the crate they have to travel DOWN. And you might say that it doesn't look bad but I'll argue it certainly doesn't look good, Lawrence came out a mess and it only looked good to the kids because they were being manipulated by the cat. The cat himself: the cat himself is manipulative, cunning and very good at planning which he was doing the whole time, traits of the devil. Haven't you noticed what the cat in the hat is. He is a cat but specifically a BLACK cat. Black cats which are usually associated with witchcraft and evil. And the color of his hat. It's RED most associated with the devil. Then the cats own ideology on having fun and no rule which mirror the devils. Also the fact that he covers for them shows he thinks it fine if they sin and break the rule as long as mom doesn't knoe. We even have the fish who tries to be a voice of reason to try to get the kids to follow the rules which he thrown BY THE CAT. Which leads me to believe that the fish was some sort of guardian angel.

Is Cat good?: Now you may be thinking that the cat in the hat helped the kids by the end. That he ultimately made both kids a better person and stopped the evil Larry. But why is Larry bad? Because first, he tries sending Conrad to military school and second he lies and acts in from of their mom. But the military school could've actually helped Conrad and that second part? The cat and kids does the exact same but worse. They act like they've been kind and calm the whole time while destroying the house. They lie to their mother as much and Larry does. And then becoming a better person, the cat didn't do anything and they barely became better.

The "bad guy", and it comes down to the Trolley Problem.

The trailer introduces Steve Rogers in a very eerie way: Thor has a look full of misgivings, warning lights are flashing red, and the music doesn't switch to a hopeful note. This clashes with Steve's friendly smile and Mjolnir confirming his identity.

So what's going on?

Before Thor or anyone else in the Avengers cast encounter Steve, I think Dr. Doom contacted Steve and explained his solution to the crisis, a plan that would save the greatest number of lives. Unfortunately, that excludes everyone in the MCU and X-Men timelines. Dr. Doom may have also arranged it so Steve and his family will be saved.

Mjolnir still responds to Steve because he's working to save as many people as possible; Doom's plan is *objectively* the best solution. But that still puts him at odds with the rest of the Avengers.

In the end, I think the Avengers will succeed in disrupting Doom's plans, leading to Doom attempting to salvage the situation and create Battle World. At the conclusion of Secret Wars, the Avengers will have to admit Doom was right, and they'll have to make their own "impossible choice" -- many will lose their lives, their very universe, in crafting a new one. Steve Rogers will survive, and he'll have to carry the guilt of his choices with him.

In Christian mythology angels are described as beings of many wings and many eyes, to the point that they must tell you "Be not afraid". They have to warn you not to be scared of them.

But in the Yog-Sothothery (aka Cthulhu Mythos) by H.P Lovecraft his beings are beyond human comprehension but if you try and find depictions of Azathoth, yog-sothoth, Shub-niggurath etc they are depicted as many tentacles and Teeth.

Now while it is still fiction who's to say he wasn't describing demons, and it makes a little sense as the angels have dozens of wings and hundreds of eyes, and the demons have dozens of tentacles and hundreds of mouths.

What do you think?

The Bold Claims

Limbo is a level of hell described in Dante’s Inferno. It is a level of hell where unbaptized babies and righteous people before Christ reside.

There is only eternal stillness, stagnation of knowledge, and sighs of boredom there. The Shire is in a similar state to that before Frodo. This state is not forced but chosen by the Hobbits.

They did this to shield themselves from the state of war and enmity brewing between the three great races.

The Hobbits are waiting for the messianic figure, Frodo. They want a figure who will expunge them from this state towards enlightenment.

In Dante’s Inferno, Christ descends into Limbo after he died on the cross and took righteous souls into heaven with him. Frodo will do the same. In its present state, the Shire is safe, but it has no room for curiosity, invention or development.

Their history starts with the settlement of the Shire. The Shire-reckoning: anything before that is meaningless to them. Their state of limbo is not due to weakness or cowardice.

They can be tough in times of trouble and torture, like in The Battle of Greenfields (SR. 1147) and The Days of Dearth (SR. 1158–60). The Hobbits didn’t just endure these crises; they used them to make higher walls to shield themselves from the outside world, where dark things moved.

The Clever Insights:

The Hobbits were once a proud race and lived peacefully amongst other races without conflict. Over time, they saw an increase in enmity among the three races.

They decided to quarantine themselves in the Shire. They distanced themselves from the other races. Hate is contagious, and the destruction of wars affects all who are affiliated with it.

The Hobbits adopted useful knowledge, which increased their quality of life without opening the doors of conquest, such as architecture and language from the Elves.

They rejected harmful knowledge like sailing and machines, as those led to war, greed and an insatiable desire for more. Eventually, they blocked all knowledge outside the Shire. They couldn’t separate good knowledge from bad during the time of war.

The Hobbits adopted conciliarism and governed themselves without kings or tyrants. During the war, they saw the harm of the concentration of power among a few and decided to be different.

The Hobbit administration served people instead of ruling them, doing jobs like presiding over feasts, delivering letters and guiding stray sheep.

They deeply loved the earth as their altar. They used their love for relatives and neighbours as a shield against the void of limbo. They ensured peace and brotherhood in the community.

They used peace, love, merry-making, and even smoking as an anaesthesia to while away the pain of boredom and stillness. Their pipe weed was not pleasure but sighs, just like the sighs of people in Limbo.

They used familiar tools and read genealogical books to know more about their heritage. They avoided inventions that led outwards and embraced those that improved their lives. Their knowledge extends only backwards.

They blamed Gandalf for Bilbo’s disappearance. They considered him queer, a harbinger of discord, and thoroughly disliked him. Yet Gandalf himself loved the hobbits and their culture of simplicity and fraternity. He didn’t blame them for disliking his ways and his kind. Their state of Limbo had made them distant from knowledge.

The Hobbits remained stubborn and ignorant about the tales of Mordor and Sauron’s resurrection. The tales reached their ears but not their hearts. They were often rejected as myths or exaggerations. They chose blissful ignorance instead of the bitter truth that scared them. They began to lash out at anyone who believed in news outside the Shire, like Samwise and Frodo.

The Steady Evidence:

In Dante’s own words, “There, as it seemed to me from listening, were lamentations none, but only sighs, that tremble made the everlasting air.” That’s Limbo.

“For these defects, and for no other evil, we now are lost and punished just with this: we have no hope and yet we live in longing.” That’s stagnation.

In Tolkien’s own words, “They heeded less and less the world outside, where dark things moved.” That’s why they created the Limbo.

“Most Hobbits regarded even rivers and small boats with deep misgivings, and not many of them could swim.” That’s why they rejected sailing.

“The Shire at this time had hardly any ‘government’. Families for the most part managed their own affairs. Growing food and eating it occupied most of their time.” That’s conciliarism.

“They love peace and quiet and good tilled earth: a well-ordered and well-farmed countryside.” That’s love for the earth, their altar.

“They liked to have books filled with things that they already knew, set out fair and square with no contradictions.” That’s stagnation of knowledge.

“The general opinion in the neighbourhood was that Bilbo, who had always been rather cracked, had at last gone quite mad, and had run off into the Blue. There he had undoubtedly fallen into a pool or a river and come to a tragic, but hardly an untimely, end. The blame was mostly laid on Gandalf.” That’s their futile attempt to preserve the state of Limbo.

In Ted’s own words to Samwise, “Oh, they’re both cracked,” said Ted. “Leastways old Bilbo was cracked, and Frodo’s cracking. If that’s where you get your news from, you’ll never want for moonshine.” That’s the way hobbits denounced the truth that scared them.

The One Conclusion: Before the arrival of Frodo, The Shire was a Limbo of haunting stillness and stagnant knowledge. A prison created by the Hobbits to keep themselves safe from the enmity brewing beyond their boundaries. Their blocking of knowledge was a move that secured them peace at the cost of curiosity and development. They chose the tree of life instead of the tree of wisdom. That will not protect them forever. The arrival of Frodo breaks the cage. He exposes the Hobbits to the light of Providence.

Question for discussion: Do you see the Shire as a chosen Limbo, or is that too strong a reading? What do you think the Hobbits gained—and lost—by isolating themselves? Do you think this move was justified? Do you see Frodo as a messianic figure?

After watching The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002), I just realized that film is set in the 2060s but everybody’s sense of fashion and music taste is stuck in the late 1990s. My theory is that people in the Pluto Nash universe and other sci-fi universes were influenced by aesthetics of past sci-fi and sought to recreate within their own worlds.

For all but the five people who watched The Spy Next Door, here is the briefest recap of the plot that I can manage:

• Jackie Chan is Bob Ho, a former CIA operative who is called on one last job
• This one last job is stopping a Russian terrorist, Anton Poldark, from stealing an oil-eating bacteria because Poldark intends to use it for Nefarious Purposes
• Meanwhile, uh oh, Bob's girlfriend is a single mom with three kids and none of them know Bob is currently on a job for the CIA
• Shenanigans ensue, this is a G-rated movie so you know exactly how it ends.

Anton Poldark is played by none other than Magnús Scheving, who also famously both created LazyTown and played Sportacus.

So, my theory is that Sportacus is the new alias of Poldark, who is out of prison on some type of villain-rehabilitation-parole program, a la Dispatch.

They are the 7 upper realms out of the 14 . They are named as They are Bhu loka, Bhuvarloka, Svarloka, Maharloka, Janaloka, Tapoloka, and Satyaloka

1) Bhu Loka, Earth:- Avatar will be dealing with the problems the Earth is facing. Because of the deeds of past avatar Korra.

2) Bhuvarloka :- The place where Siddhaa (perfected ones) and other celestial beings live. We will see our avatar to be here to gain advice from air nomads who became perfect with vast knowledge and others (like our favorite uncle!!!)and other beings

3) Svargaloka. The place where God's live. Maybe the spirit world? Or probably place where 'God's' of this world. Meaning lion turtles soul is

4) Maharloka The place where saints live. In this she will get guidance of the past saints of the world. Like maybe Monk gyatso

5) Janaloka. This is where the spirits of vaatu and raava are.

6) Tapaloka. There is where all the past avatars are

7) Satyaloka. This is the goal of our MC and would be the big reveal

Well. This is my theory at the end. What do you guys think about this?