THE ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN CHARACTER'S QUARTER-LIFE CRISIS FROM THE MOVIE "SOUL" BY PETE DOCTER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Analysis of the Main Character’s Quarter-Life Crisis from the Movie “Soul” by Pete Docter Rianna Jona Sumampouw Elisabet Natalia Umbas Abstract The presence of the film "Soul" by Pete Docter has been momentous for the portrayal of the quarter life crisis. Disney Pixar definitely had an impact on the perceptions of those who had gone through that phase. The purpose of this study is to dig deeper into how we can understand what Pete Docter wants to convey a message of not only achieving one’s dream but also feeling you lost a part of yourself. Besides that, it also demonstrates how humans tend to forget the good people that helped them achieved their dream resulting them in being selfish and visualizes an interesting way of quarter life crisis that could clear up some doubts of the afterlife. It will shed light on the science and reasons behind such influence in their personal lives and determine how they view the characters who are facing a quarter life crisis. In turn, conceptualizing the level of care in understanding characters will help gain a better understanding of how the film industry can work and the role it plays in sending messages to its audiences is beneficial. In doing this research, the researcher used qualitative method and collected the data by watching the movie “Soul” to analyze the main character’s quarter-life crisis. Some of the data has been taken from internet and books. Based on the analysis in the previous chapter, the researcher would like to conclude on how to solve the quarter life crisis from the hit Pixar movie “Soul” by Pete Docter. The exploration and development of Joe's character did not feel forced because Joe is portrayed as an ordinary man who is learning to live, the audience can most definitely relate to this experience. The story that focuses on Joe’s character who is depicted as flat has an interesting balance as the character named 22 adds a bit of flavor to the storyline, giving it a contradictory flavor. The characters Joe Gardner and 22 offer important advice to those who are still confused on their purpose of life. In addition, the director and scriptwriter Peter Docter seemed to want to invite the audience to participate in questioning the purpose of life through scene by scene. It may seem simple, but it's actually very meaningful
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".