The Magic and Mediocrity of Puss In Boots

I have not slept right for three weeks. The enigma of “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” has consumed me. It was supposed to be a throw-away sequel to a dying franchise; instead, it has become one of the strangest cinematic phenomena of the new decade, selling out theaters and scoring a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes. Yet, something else was afoot. As I swallowed my journalistic pride and curiously sat with fellow movie-goers for an hour-and-a-half to watch this supposed masterpiece, the truth was slowly revealed. Hiding in plain sight: the most promising, mediocre movie you have ever seen. Watching “Puss in Boots 2” is like watching an elementary school child paint a beautiful finger portrait. Such accidental brilWe expect nothing out of the child, but for a moment, just a small moment, the child has captured our hearts, made us believe that maybe the beautiful portrait was no accident at all, that maybe this child, with such inexplicable tiny wisdom, knew exactly what they were doing all along. But as the child proceeds to dump an entire bucket of red paint over the canvas, for they know not what else to do, you remember that the child is just a child, and the portrait is just an elementary-school art project.

This realization is heartbreaking because in truth, the first 25 minutes of “Puss in Boots 2” is pure euphoria.

It is simply flawless. The Spanish-Western-style action is punchy, the soundtrack and visuals are off the charts, and subtle twists in the plot electrify the story to keep things fresh. So you can imagine my confusion when, by the climax of the film, instead of enjoying a grand payoff of emotion, I sat there unfulfilled.

What started as an exciting Spanish-Western thriller slowly dissolved into a generic, and I mean generic, fairytale movie along the way. Some will argue that since “Puss in Boots” is from the “Shrek” world, a famously fairytale-run society, fairytale elements were inevitable in the new “Shrek” spin-off. I would completely agree; however, in “Puss in Boots 2,” a complete blanketing of fairytale elements washes away any unique charm from the start of the movie, dumping red paint all over an already complete canvas.

In the end, the sleepless nights will not stop. The sullied canvas that is “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” will continue to bear the stain of near-achievement, while dissatisfied audience members like myself will continue to ponder what could have been. Here I will lie, tonight, tomorrow night, and the night after that, picking up the broken pieces of my own naive fairytale, reminiscing about a dream once more.

Chat GPT: Risk or Resource? Behind The Neon Curtain: “Love Island”

HARRY YANG Staff Writer

For a prototype that was only launched at the end of last year, Chat GPT has received an outstanding and surprising amount of attention. This artificial intelligence was developed by OpenAI and has taken the world by storm. It uses a large word bank to make complex sentences and paragraphs through pattern recognition. Although, Chat GPT can be a force of harm in the hands of students without academic integrity, Chat GPT, like any other resource, is still a tool that helps the academic endeavor of students.

Chat GPT is a software that has the potential to be used in every major job in Silicon Valley. It is the newest innovation in the wave of artificial intelligence taking over industries all over the world.

It can be used without a second thought and is also free (for now). However, anything good can be used for harm: cases of students using Chat GPT to cheat during exams and essays have circulated throughout the news. The concern for many schools is the fact that students are essentially plagiarizing from Chat GPT and the internet. Even though Chat GPT can write an article for you, the reason teachers assign essays is because of the process and not the end goal. They want students to learn how to become skilled writers.

However, Chat GPT has the influence to change this process. The development of the essay will change to become the gathering of information and proofreading of the AI. The technology behind this service uses pattern recogni- tion and can make mistakes by using either old information or by analyzing a pattern wrongly. For example, if someone asks Chat GPT to code, it will code.

However, it can “code” by getting enough information from the internet to answer your question. This can cause errors in the AI. These errors in the technology can help train students to analyze blocks of text and recognize errors. As technology advances, more jobs need to be dedicated to recognizing and analyzing errors in AI.

As a result, this means that even though Chat GPT can be used as a tool to write and copy essays from, not all information from the AI will actually be correct. In other words, Chat GPT cannot be used to cheat in school assignments.

I believe that Chat GPT will be prevalent in the future whether people like it or not. There can always be people and students that abuse this technology. However this tool will only make the lives of students and employees easier. I think that the whole education system will change because of the use of Chat GPT.

I believe that the process will change and will incorporate the ability to proofread articles.

Schools should not ban Chat GPT, instead, they should embrace it; they should prepare for the future and not delay it. The world is not black or white. Chat GPT is neither inherently good, nor harmful. Instead it is a mix of both. Only time will tell how schools will deal with this emerging piece of technology.

SOPHIA YAO Opinion Editor

Note: I will only be talking about Love Island UK in this article, since it is the original Love Island and undeniably the best iteration.

Images of perfectly tanned legs, horrifyingly overfilled lips, artificially blue water, and ridiculously chiseled abs fill your screen, interspersed between neon flashes that look like they came out of Graphic Design 1. Welcome to “Love Island”!

“Love Island” features about 40 contestants ranging from the ages of 18 to 31 trapped in a villa without communication to the outside world. They’re all so ridiculously attractive that they all sort of blur together, and none of them end up being attractive at all. Over the course of two months, these contestants couple up, recouple, recouple again, and either get dumped from the villa or go on to win 50,000 euros with their partner. Plenty of drama, challenges, screaming matches, and mental breakdowns occur along the way, soundtracked by overplayed pop music. Basically, “Love Island” is the per fect formula for high caliber reality television: it’s trashy, it’s shallow, it’s cheesy, it’s petty, it’s cheap, and it holds no value whatsoever.

Or does it?

I am a firm believer that “Love Island” has more layers under its flashy, neon skin. Within the isolated walls of that villa, discon nected from the artifice of everyday life, social dynamics, human connec tion, and emotional growth take the spotlight. Completely separate from the noise of the outside world, “Love Island” contestants are judged solely on their character, their actions, and the choices they make when they have nowhere to hide.

Take, for example, Tommy Fury from season five. Fury was a man who stuck to his morals and stuck to his girl; he stayed out of dra ma, steered clear of misogynists, and always defended what he be lieved was right, even if it meant going against his close friends. With his girlfriend Molly-Mae Hague,

Fury cruised to second place in the “Love Island” finale and definitely did himself proud with his excellent display of kindness, honesty, and love. Fury and Hague have been together for three years and are expecting a baby this year.

But not all “Love Island” journeys are as smooth as his, and not all contestants value morality and honesty like him. For example, firefighter Michael Griffiths, also from season five, was a completely different story. At the beginning, Griffiths was just as much of a Prince Charming as Fury. He was patient with his partner Amber Gill, he was a moderator in arguments, and he prided himself on his fairness. That all went downhill when he recoupled with another girl at the Casa Amor recoupling, practically cheating on Gill, and then had the audacity to pin the blame on her, revealing his true colors. At the end of the day, the girl Griffiths was coupled with got sent home, and he went crawling back to Gill on his hands and knees. Thankfully, Gill rejected him and went on to win “Love Island” with Irish boytoy