On Tuesday, Oct. 1, Students for Life hosted Dr. Alveda King for a lecture on campus. King is the niece of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is a former Georgia State Legislator, minister and anti-abortion civil rights activist.

Marketing materials for the event stated that she would be speaking about continuing King’s legacy and civil rights activism. During King’s talk, she spoke mostly about her own abortions and resulting spiritual journey that has led her to advocate against abortion for the last few decades.

“I believe in women’s rights, but you know many of those little babies in the womb are women,” King said to an audience of over 100 attendees, which included both students and older folks. “So you have to ask this question. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body, but the baby’s not her body. So you have to ask next, where’s the lawyer for the baby?”

Students for Life, a registered student organization, is an anti-abortion group that is “dedicated to the promotion of the culture of life at Georgia Tech, [and believes] life is valuable and should be protected from conception until natural death with the utmost dignity,” according to the group description on Engage. The organization had fallen inactive for a time but recently became active again. It is lead by fourth-year CS Brian Cochran.

Cochran represented Students for Life at the Sept. 17 meeting of the Undergraduate House of Representatives (UHR) at which the organization submitted a bill to fund the Alveda King event. Students for Life requested a total of $2346.16 from SGA to cover the cost of paying King to speak, as well as various publicity materials. The minutes provided by UHR detail a debate concerned about free speech and feelings of safety on campus.

“Dr. King is a known homophobe who has previously said things that can negatively affect the community, and we can’t censor her talk,” said Saif Kabariti, fourth-year ME and representative for international students. “I also don’t think it’s a good message to the community to say that we’re funding a speaker and that we stand behind what she says. I oppose this bill.”

Kabariti was likely referring to King’s comments at a 2010 rally for the anti-LGBT group National Organization for Marriage, where she said “It is statistically proven that the strongest institution that guarantees procreation and continuity of the generations is marriage between one man and one woman. I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to be extinct and none of us wants to be. So we don’t want genocide, we don’t want to destroy the sacred institution of marriage.”

Several representatives felt an obligation to provide an opportunity for King to speak, even if they disagreed with her opinions, stating concerns on the precedent that their decision would set.

“I think there are many different ideals held by student orgs, and if there’s interest in hearing her speak, I think we should provide it to them. No one is being forced to attend this,” said Lauren Bohling, fourth-year MGT and representative for the College of Business.

Both the graduate and undergraduate student governments eventually decided to reject the bill. According to JacketPages, the bill failed 24 to 4 in UHR.

The bill was delayed a week in Graduate State Senate (GSS). Cochran returned to GSS the following week on Sept. 24. He stated that King had agreed to refrain from speaking religiously, and that Students for Life had a contract regarding speaking topics.

GSS representatives considered waiting to hear the contents of the speech and perhaps retroactively funding it, but they were concerned about the precedent this would create. The bill failed 15 to 6 in GSS with 5 representatives abstaining.

Students for Life received financial support from the Georgia Tech Parent Fund and with this money went forward to host the event.

“I am disappointed the SGA did not mimic the enthusiasm we felt from students for our event,” said Cochran. “We will be appealing the decision of the SGA and expressing our concerns for free speech on our campus.”

After King was finished speaking, Cochran selected from audience-submitted questions — specifically, questions that included asking King for advice on how to get involved with her work or how to broach topics she discussed with their peers.

The event concluded with a few words from Cochran, who encouraged the audience to talk to him if they want to get involved in the activities of Students for Life.

On Tuesday, Oct. 1, Students for Life hosted Dr. Alveda King for a lecture on campus. King is the niece of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is a former Georgia State Legislator, minister and anti-abortion civil rights activist.

Marketing materials for the event stated that she would be speaking about continuing King’s legacy and civil rights activism. During King’s talk, she spoke mostly about her own abortions and resulting spiritual journey that has led her to advocate against abortion for the last few decades.

“I believe in women’s rights, but you know many of those little babies in the womb are women,” King said to an audience of over 100 attendees, which included both students and older folks. “So you have to ask this question. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body, but the baby’s not her body. So you have to ask next, where’s the lawyer for the baby?”

Students for Life, a registered student organization, is an anti-abortion group that is “dedicated to the promotion of the culture of life at Georgia Tech, [and believes] life is valuable and should be protected from conception until natural death with the utmost dignity,” according to the group description on Engage. The organization had fallen inactive for a time but recently became active again. It is lead by fourth-year CS Brian Cochran.

Cochran represented Students for Life at the Sept. 17 meeting of the Undergraduate House of Representatives (UHR) at which the organization submitted a bill to fund the Alveda King event. Students for Life requested a total of $2346.16 from SGA to cover the cost of paying King to speak, as well as various publicity materials. The minutes provided by UHR detail a debate concerned about free speech and feelings of safety on campus.

“Dr. King is a known homophobe who has previously said things that can negatively affect the community, and we can’t censor her talk,” said Saif Kabariti, fourth-year ME and representative for international students. “I also don’t think it’s a good message to the community to say that we’re funding a speaker and that we stand behind what she says. I oppose this bill.”

Kabariti was likely referring to King’s comments at a 2010 rally for the anti-LGBT group National Organization for Marriage, where she said “It is statistically proven that the strongest institution that guarantees procreation and continuity of the generations is marriage between one man and one woman. I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to be extinct and none of us wants to be. So we don’t want genocide, we don’t want to destroy the sacred institution of marriage.”

Several representatives felt an obligation to provide an opportunity for King to speak, even if they disagreed with her opinions, stating concerns on the precedent that their decision would set.

“I think there are many different ideals held by student orgs, and if there’s interest in hearing her speak, I think we should provide it to them. No one is being forced to attend this,” said Lauren Bohling, fourth-year MGT and representative for the College of Business.

Both the graduate and undergraduate student governments eventually decided to reject the bill. According to JacketPages, the bill failed 24 to 4 in UHR.

The bill was delayed a week in Graduate State Senate (GSS). Cochran returned to GSS the following week on Sept. 24. He stated that King had agreed to refrain from speaking religiously, and that Students for Life had a contract regarding speaking topics.

GSS representatives considered waiting to hear the contents of the speech and perhaps retroactively funding it, but they were concerned about the precedent this would create. The bill failed 15 to 6 in GSS with 5 representatives abstaining.

Students for Life received financial support from the Georgia Tech Parent Fund and with this money went forward to host the event.

“I am disappointed the SGA did not mimic the enthusiasm we felt from students for our event,” said Cochran. “We will be appealing the decision of the SGA and expressing our concerns for free speech on our campus.”

After King was finished speaking, Cochran selected from audience-submitted questions — specifically, questions that included asking King for advice on how to get involved with her work or how to broach topics she discussed with their peers.

The event concluded with a few words from Cochran, who encouraged the audience to talk to him if they want to get involved in the activities of Students for Life.

Following last weekend’s narrow loss to the Clemson Tigers, North Carolina seemed positioned to come to Atlanta and mow down any team who came in between them and a victory. However, although the Jackets have not exactly had a promising start to their season, Tech appeared to hold off the North Carolina Tarheels for at least the first quarter before falling behind as the game continued. Between the injuries of key players and near constant swapping out of quarterbacks, the Jackets struggled to keep up and lost 38-22.

After the first quarter finished with an uneventful three points by the Heels and zero from the Jackets, the second quarter saw a bit more action in the way of scoring. Quite a few passes throughout the first half of the game were deemed incomplete as both teams struggled to get their offensive players up and running, yet North Carolina was able to get their feet underneath them and put up 14 more points in the second quarter. The Jackets finally got their first points up on the board at the midpoint of the third quarter, placing the score at 17-7, Carolina. The final quarter saw a continuation of Carolina’s dominance, while the Jackets tried their best to hold on to the momentum which they had built during the second half. Quarterback James Graham acknowledged that the team “picked up the tempo a little bit” after halftime, as did Collins by saying that the team “did a good job of getting the rhythm and getting moving”, but it was too little too late. 

Redshirt sophomore Jordan Mason continued his streak of high performance, leading the team in rushing yards by an astonishing amount. If Collins could hone another player’s skills to come anywhere close to Mason’s, the team could have quite the tag team when producing rushing yardage, yet that may not be where Collins plans to place his focus in years to come. Along with Mason, players such as redshirt sophomore Adonicas Sanders and sophomore Malachi Carter had memorable plays at the wide receiver position. Carter noted that the team felt more comfortable after picking up the pace, playing at a quick tempo similar to the tempo at which they practice.

Both teams had their fair shares of notable plays, but a quick glance at the total yards put up by each team shows the vast difference in offensive prowess. Furthermore, the passing yards recorded by the Heels was over double that of the Jackets at 376 yards to the Jackets’ 171 yards, while the rushing yards were nearly the same. Yet, it was not that the Jackets had a poor rate of completion, but that they failed to pass at the same frequency as the Heels. Clearly, Tech is still stuck in the rut of a triple-option team that former head coach Paul Johnson created. 

In his press conference following the game, Collins spoke on the fact that “executing the third down was getting to [the team]”. While the Jackets were able to carry out first and second downs on a regular basis, that last stretch was where they often fell short. However, each week the team makes visible improvements, so the Jackets could still have the potential to win a few games before the season is out.

One of the more underrated Tech rivalries of the past decade is set to renew on Saturday as the Jackets host the North Carolina Tarheels. Tech leads UNC 30-20-2 overall, but throughout the last five years, UNC has led 3-2.

Under the presence of leadership from head coach Mack Brown, who returned to UNC this year after coaching at the school from 1988-1997, the Heels have found unexpected success in their first season. North Carolina opened the season 2-0 with wins over a highly-touted Miami team and South Carolina. Despite dropping consecutive close games to Wake Forest and Appalachian State, the Heels came away with a moral victory against No. 1 Clemson, taking the Tigers to their final possession before ultimately falling 21-20. Per College Sports Reference’s strength-of-schedule metric, UNC has had the toughest schedule in the country to date, so the team is considerably better than their 2-3 record may indicate.

Leading the charge for North Carolina is freshman quarterback Sam Howell, who has already shown signs of promise against some of the best defenses in the country. Howell ranks fifth in the ACC in passing efficiency rating with a respectable 153.1 figure, but that number has come despite facing defensive powerhouses in Clemson and Miami, both of whom rank in the top 25 when it comes to points allowed per game. Howell’s solid performance against such stifling defense bodes well for North Carolina, given that Tech’s defense to date has been middling at best. This game represents an opportunity for the Heels to explode.

Meanwhile, Tech’s offense has struggled against a much less impressive strength of schedule — following the Jackets’ embarrassing offensive performance against Temple in which the only two points Tech scored came on a safety play, Tech ranks dead last in the country in points per game out of all 130 FBS teams. Tech’s attempts at moving towards a pro-style, pass-heavy offense have stalled out so far — as in the past decade when Tech ran the run-heavy option, the Jackets rank fifth-lowest in the country in passing yards, ahead of only option programs. Even Tech’s normally resolute run game has struggled — Tech has averaged 4.1 yards per carry this year, a steep decline compared to last year’s 5.7 figure.

Injuries have played no small part in Tech’s woes, as the offensive line has been decimated. Both Jahaziel Lee and Kenny Cooper are out for the season, and as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted this week, Tech is down to only ten scholarship offensive linemen. With wide receiver Jalen Camp also out for the season, and QBs James Graham and Lucas Johnson questionable for Saturday, the burden will fall to Tobias Oliver and Jordan Mason and the remnants of Tech’s ground game from last season to manufacture offense.

Imagine Music Festival was back for another crazy weekend at Atlanta Motor Speedway this past weekend. This year’s lineup featured some familiar names for regular Imagine attendees as well as new artists. It is well known that Imagine’s lineup is revered year after year, a feat that is especially impressive for a smaller scale EDM festival. The size of Imagine now compares to festivals like EDC, but it is still niche compared to festivals as big as Bonaroo and Coachella.

Of course, this difference in size is reflected in the difference in price. To attend a festival like Coachella, an EDM-lover would have to shell out $500 for the ticket and then more for flights and overpriced food at the venue. Imagine has friendlier pricing with tickets around $200, and for an Atlantan, Imagine as a first choice is a no-brainer. Fanatics and baby-ravers can both enjoy the festival — one, two and three day passes are available, plus camping.

The first to arrive this weekend were the Thursday night campers, who enjoyed food trucks dedicated to the camping site, free showers, a silent disco and a blacklight room. Besides some trouble with attempted theft of cell phones and other personal effects by a couple individuals, campers were generally happy with the experience. For the people that have not camped at festivals before and really enjoy a wooded environment, Imagine likely is not the best place to start.

Unlike an environmental experience at Electric Forest Festival in Rothbury, Michigan, Imagine is more like giant sleepover. More amenities and pastimes are added for the campers each year, and the number of campers continues to grow.

Friday night marked the first day of sets, which was supposed to be headlined by Diplo, until he pulled out earlier in the week. Imagine tweeted: “Diplo is sorry to report that due to unforeseen circumstances he is no longer able to perform at Imagine Festival.” Friday already had some big names like Matoma, but Imagine did not disappoint bringing in a replacement for Diplo.

DJ Diesel closed out Friday night. It might sound like the organizers went out and found some no-name artist to replace Diplo, until one learns that Diesel is actually Shaquille O’Neal. For a basketball player, he was a surprisingly good DJ and brought the hype factor Imagine wanted.

Saturday rolled around with bigger and more familiar names like Alison Wonderland. Headliners included Zeds Dead, Above and Beyond, Lane 8, GJones and Louis the Child. This year had more art, shade structures and dynamic installations that concert goers could walk through or sit in. As usual, there was a wide variety of restaurants and shops, including Island Noodles, a staple food of many festivals.

The Disco Inferno stage returned for another year with the ball of fire and some new accents. For the most part, concertgoers had little to complain about. A couple critiques on Reddit and Facebook noted that the portable toilets needed sanitation.

Altogether, Imagine does a good job considering the needs of attendees and a great job arranging acts and production. There were few to no errors in the audio or visuals, and acts generally stayed on schedule. Those who only got a one day pass found themselves wishing they were back at the speedway for another day. Imagine is a great way for someone getting to know EDM to try a low-risk festival and is a must-do for any EDM lover.

It is about time for a dance break and Fitz and the Tantrums is here with the soundtrack for it. The electronic band’s new album “All the Feels,” released Sept. 20, pairs vibrant beats and catchy melodies with empowering and emotional lyrics.

Though the music video for the title track “All The Feels” suggests that it is about a romantic relationship, the song itself can be applied to many life situations, and when combined with the rest of the album really does give “All The Feels.” It has a positive message of self empowerment and doesn’t shy away from the subject of mental illness and the roadblocks it can put in front of major goals or even daily tasks.

“I Need Help!” speaks to the importance of learning to ask others for support with lines like “Sometimes, I just need a little help / Why do I try to take the world on by myself / I’m asking you please, a little help / Tell me you’ll be there when I need somebody else.”

“I Just Wanna Shine” includes mentions of anxiety — with lines like “Goodnight stress, see you in the morning / I don’t gotta guess, you’re always there for me / Sowing them seeds of doubt, I think you like seeing me freak out” — but has an overall focus on overcoming it and not listening to self-doubt as the chorus repeats “I just wanna shine like the sun when it comes up / Run the city from the rooftops, ‘Cause today’s gonna be my day.”

Five of the album’s 17 songs, “123456,” “Don’t Ever Let Em,” “I Need Help,” “I Just Wanna Shine” and “All The Feels,” were released in advance of the album and all have accompanying music videos. “123456” introduced many new listeners to the band when it was used in a promotional stream for Apple but was considered “too poppy” for many long-time fans.

Fitz and the Tantrums has been categorized as electronic, pop, alternative and indie pop and the band does not seem constricted by any of those labels ­— though some fans seem to want them to be. Others admire the variability of the Fitz sound. Some fans also complained about a lack of vocal features from “co-lead” singer Noelle Scaggs. It would perhaps be more accurate to call her a backup singer for the band, not just on this album, but for most of the band’s work.

The concert tour supporting the album is coming to the U.S. and Canada between November and March next year. Standout songs include “SuperMagik,” “Stop” and “Livin’ For The Weekend” which comments on today’s gun culture. Fans have waited over three years for the release of this, the fourth Fitz and the Tantrums album. If they want to feel something then they won’t be disappointed.

When Geoff Collins was hired as Tech football’s head coach, change followed swiftly. Out went the triple option, and in came new assistant coaches, practicing routines and recruiting tactics. And the Jackets have seen returns there. Take the case of freshman running back Jamious Griffin, a four-star prospect who would almost certainly not be at Tech if not for Collins, or the two four-star prospects who have already committed to the 2020 recruiting class. Those acquisitions represent exactly the sort of in-state talent the program struggled to get in the late stages of the Johnson era.

But some changes will not be nearly so seamless, and Tech’s on-field product is one of them. Even from my pessimistic view of this season, I never thought the Jackets would lose to the Citadel Bulldogs. The Bulldogs are a Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) team, a full level below Tech. Their highest-ranked recruit this year was a two-star prospect, per 247Sports.com. And unlike that Appalachian State team that stunned Michigan in 2007, the Citadel was not even a powerhouse at its own level — the team was winless heading into Atlanta.

Major upsets are not infrequent in college basketball. All it takes is a shooter from the underdog getting red-hot, a star from the favorite having an off night and a few lucky bounces. But in football, where every play is a matter of physical confrontation, teams with as much as a talent advantage as Tech had are supposed to dominate. Instead, the Jackets found themselves gashed by the same triple option they had practiced against every year prior.

In the aftermath of the loss, some were quick to blame Collins. The team played undisciplined football, giving away 45 yards of field position on unnecessary roughness penalties. It still does not have a starting quarterback, as Collins’ insistence on switching Lucas Johnson and Tobias Oliver repeatedly seems to indicate. And at the end of regulation, confusion between Collins, Oliver and the officials over when the clock would start running led to a wasted opportunity to win the game without putting the ball back in the Bulldogs’ hands.

And in fairness, Collins has made himself an easy target, especially to fans who appreciated Johnson’s quiet, no-nonsense approach. One shudders to think how Johnson would have responded if a reporter asked him whether the team would be holding up “Money Down” signs.

But despite the small civil war this game has sparked on Tech discussion boards, with Johnson loyalists and Collins revolutionaries clashing, I maintain that patience is a virtue, and of vital importance for a rebuild.

Collins hasn’t even had a full recruiting cycle yet. We don’t know what kinds of players offensive coordinator Dave Patenaude wants to fill out his offense or what defensive coordinator Andrew Thacker needs for his unit. The remainder of Tech’s schedule offers few candidates for likely wins, but this was never going to be a strong season for Tech.

And I think that ultimately, it will be worth it a few years from now, when Collins has truly made this program his own. So if patience is a virtue, let our moral strengthening begin.

The National Football League (NFL) is in full swing, with the bulk of week four’s games set to take place this weekend. Taking the field alongside some of the best and brightest stars of the game will be a number of Tech alumni, including Harrison Butker and Shaq Mason. Here is what some former stars of The Flats have been up to in the NFL.

Harrison Butker

Butker, Tech’s most prolific scorer in history, has turned into one of the best kickers in the NFL. The Tech grad features prominently in a high-powered Chiefs’ offense led by reigning NFL MVP Patrick Mahomes.
Butker recorded the most extra-point attempts in the league last year. After helping the Chiefs reach the AFC Championship game, Kansas City rewarded their kicker handsomely with a five year, $20M extension, making him one of the highest-paid kickers in the NFL. Butker has been his usual, automatic self so far this year — the Decatur native has not missed a field goal and has lost out on only one extra-point attempt for the first-place Chiefs.

Shaq Mason

As one of the most prominent Tech alumni in the NFL, Mason has established himself as one of the best offensive-lineman in the league. Pro Football Focus graded him out as the best guard in the league following his 2018 season. Mason has been an iron-man for the Patriots, appearing in every game for New England except two, and it was Mason who played every offensive snap in the Patriot’s most recent Super Bowl victory over the Rams last February. Like Butker, Mason’s team has shown their appreciation with their checkbooks, inking the former Tech center to a five year, $50M extension prior to kickoff of the 2018 season.

Darren Waller

Waller’s path to success has been rockier than most — despite joining the Ravens with a sixth round selection in the 2015 NFL draft, Waller started just four games with Baltimore, spending extended periods of time suspended for violating the NFL’s substance abuse policy.

Drafted as a wide receiver, Waller converted to tight-end and joined the Raiders last season, appearing in just four games with Oakland as well. This year, Waller’s profile has risen dramatically — not only did the HBO docu-series “Hard Knocks” follow Waller through training camp, the TE has established himself as an offensive weapon for the Raiders. Waller ranks No. 3 in the league in receiving yards among tight-ends this season, bolstered by a strong showing last week where he hauled in 13 of 14 targets for 134 yards in a 34-14 Raiders loss.

Demaryius Thomas

One of Tech’s brightest athletes, Thomas was a first-round pick when he went to the Broncos in the 2010 NFL draft. The former star wideout lived up to his pedigree within his first season — Thomas was named to five consecutive Pro Bowls from 2012 to 2016, and he holds the single-season Broncos records for receiving yards and receiving touchdowns among others. Thomas was traded to Houston mid-season in 2018 and performed well despite splitting targets with star WR Deandre Hopkins. Unfortunately, Thomas tore his Achilles late in the season and was released. Thomas landed with the Patriots earlier this offseason, but was traded to the Jets in September. Thomas managed to take the field in week two for the Jets, recording a single reception in a 23-3 loss.

American audiences have been conditioned to expect their favorite movies to be changed. Whether it’s by adding a sequel or remaking the film altogether, it’s fair to say that there’s been an uptick in the amount of entertainment whose content is linked to a previous iteration.

But remakes are not a unique phenomena.

Professors of cinema studies have long commented that it is a filmmaking strategy dating back to the early days of cinema. But recently, the mere mention of a potential “Princess Bride” reboot was abruptly ended by online uproar and nearly immediate backlash. On this rare occasion, the Internet joined together to collectively agree on one thing: that the cult classic was too holy to be touched again.

And in light of Disney’s recent live-action updates to their animated features, the universal backlash almost suggests a type of perfection that carries a cultural significance beyond the control of the movie industry. More specifically, it is the notion that a movie like the “Princess Bride” cannot be improved upon.

Originally released in 1987, the “Princess Bride” is filled with traditional fantasy tropes. The plot? A princess and her one true love must overcome the obstacles separating them and live happily ever after. The protagonist? He is a character as charming as he is intelligent. Their love interest? Her sole motivation comes from her reluctance to marry an evil prince. Side characters’ are driven by either revenge or retribution. The movie should not be as highly regarded as it is, but self-awareness is the key to making it far greater than the sum of its parts.

The film is perfect in what it sets out to do, which is to make fun of the traditional fairy tale paying respect to the happiness that a happily ever after gives its audience.

Chris Miller, one half of the directing team behind hits like “Into the Spider-Verse” put it best: “It still holds up as the greatest meta story put to film.” And the unique culmination of the screenplay, acting and era creates a final piece that even the National Film Registry has recognized.

This is not to say that the “Princess Bride” will never be remade, but it will never have the same magic or artistic value as the original for the same reasons as other classic films. Consider Robert Zemeckis’ “Back to the Future,” which carries some of the same iconic status factors. By being so elaborately specific in what it sets to do that to alter anything would jeopardize the film’s own succinctness in narrative.

There is only one specific way to tell its time-travelling story. And the only way a remake of it could exist would be if it were to follow the exact same beats as the original with nothing to add, or if it were to be completely revamped at the cost of losing its connection to the original film.

What is harder to duplicate is the singular vision of a director, for when a film is attached so much to a director’s perspective, the only way of capturing the same effect would be to employ the same director. A great example of this is Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey,” a film widely regarded for the distinct vision that Kubrick set out to achieve. Its psychedelic visuals and artistic approach to its science-fiction setting make it an experience that cannot be repeated.

The purpose of a remake should be grounded in social relevancy or innovation of concept, rather than be a visual facelift.

Take 1983’s “Scarface,” an update of its 1932 version. While still communicating the same themes of immorality, greed and ambition, the film changes its setting from Prohibition Era bootlegging to the Miami drug scene.

A more modern version of this would be Bradley Cooper’s “A Star is Born,” which uses the themes associated with fame and fortune in a more modern setting. And according to critics, it only improved the original 1937 story.

Contrast this to any of Disney’s recent life-action remakes. The updated graphics do not add anything to the originals at the cost of characterization and visual storytelling.

“Mary Poppins,” “Aladdin,” “Beauty and the Beast,” “Cinderella,” and “Lion King” fall to this exact blunder by sacrificing the imagination and objective artistry for the sake of money — which, unfortunately, each made quite a bit of.

Compare this to Marvel movies, where the strength of the material comes from its adaptability and numerous iterations. Three different versions of Spider-Man in less than two decades does not bother anyone, because the medium being adapted from thrives off of new ways to tell its story that with great power comes great responsibility.

The same can be said regarding the different Batmen, grom Michael Keaton to Christain Bale. Each has their own unique take and the story benefits from being retold.

But to assume that this applies to all content would be incorrect. Remaking a movie like the “Princess Bride” would attempt to manufacture the organic nostalgia that fans already have.

Not only would the film not have an audience, but it would violate the artistic and cultural significance that such unique movies have in the industry.

Patterns are not new to Hollywood. Whether it was the explosion of movies based on books like “Harry Potter”, the introduction of slow-motion action set pieces based on “The Matrix,” or even an expanded universe of characters as seen in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, trends follow impactful moments. And hopefully, Hollywood listens to everyone

The emergence of “Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine” (D.O.) schools in the world of medicine has largely been explained by the increased need for alternative tracks to medical school to meet the primary care demand of the rapidly aging U.S. population. As a premedical student, I continue to remain baffled as to why there exists this subset of medical schools to begin with.

The main premise of D.O. schools are that they are training a new cohort of physicians to look at the diagnosis as a cumulative process rather than treating based on symptoms alone, which may very well be a good thing as more and more people require less invasive or non-traditional methods of treatment and palliative care. But I am unconvinced that D.O. schools are accomplishing this aim at all. The schools will emphasize to students that there is no difference between theirs and a traditional M.D. school, that both will lead to the same specialty and residency opportunities.

They will stress to the pre-med student that both are perfectly viable ways of becoming a licensed and practicing physician, and should garner the same amount of respect as a profession, despite there being evidence that D.O. schools have lower requirements for admission. If there is such an emphasis on homogeneity of career and patient outcomes, why then do D.O. schools have a reason for existing at all?

I would argue that D.O. schools do themselves a disservice by assuring students that the two paths are largely the same. If doctors practicing osteopathic medicine still complete urology or surgical residencies, operating alongside their MD counterparts, how is that in line with a different approach to treatment? How does ‘holistic’ care play out day-to-day in hospitals in the real world? If they wish to represent a true departure from a more rigid form of medicine, schools should not be shying away from being different and should be working harder to further distinguish themselves from a baseline medical education.

Until D.O. schools are able to back their claims with data that their doctors actually provide more holistic care and have a greater emphasis on preventative measures, they will continue to fail garnering the interest of the most competitive students who wish to pursue a career in healthcare, and perhaps more importantly, the renown and respect that a profession in the healthcare sector demands.

The next half century’s approach to medical innovation will be preventative, with the advent of personalized medicine and advanced gene therapy. As aging populations have to increasingly deal with extended lifespans and how to best avoid diseases complicated and induced by age, such as cancer and Alzheimer’s, it is a medical imperative that people begin to think of medicine less as a cut-and-dry diagnosis that leads to astronomical costs as issues are not resolved, provided that healthcare policy have been slow to change, and more of an ongoing series of follow-ups. We need to be proactive, and it does not seem like D.O. schools are doing much to change the rhetoric and medical practice around that.