The Major Flaws of the Current Movies Targeted towards the Younger Audience

I noticed I have not published such articles for a long time. Furthermore, I've wanted to write about this topic since long, because it worries me a great deal.
So, let's discuss what the major flaws of modern movies are - the ones that target the younger audience. This falls in my professional field since I am mainly a children's writer and my screenplays and games too, are directed towards the younger audience.

People can argue endlessly about the quality of modern movies. That is not the issue I am going to talk about - people's tastes differ and so does their impression of the movies. What I am going to mention, entails most of the movies equally and has a direct impact on the younger generation's education, as well as the development of their subconscious.
1) The primal flaw of the modern-day movies: they are usually based on something already created (e.g. book, myth, legend, tradition, etc.), yet do not follow the mythological, symbolical, or educational pattern of their source material in an accurate way.

The creators rarely ever do thorough research into the topic before they begin the production. They alter the world and concepts they've based the movie on, without even thinking what the original might've meant. Consequently, the well-developed symbolic pattern of the original material is lost, and the child gets a disfigured pattern instead, which greatly affects their subconscious (since it mostly operates on symbols) and their intellect, too. They do not know the original story and believe the information they have received through the movie version is correct and unaltered. They have no desire to read the source material since they believe they already know the contents, when, in fact, they know nothing.

Many movies can serve as a good example of this. Let's discuss two of the most popular ones: Hercules of Disney, and Thor of Marvel.

Disney's Hercules is a favourite movie of millions of children. They enjoy watching it even to this day, and many of us young adults have grown watching it, too. However, the Greco-Roman mythology it is based on is pretty messed-up in the movie.

• I deliberately did not use the term "Greek mythology" and said "Greco-Roman", because, even though the movie uses Greek names for all the gods and other characters, the main character is named after its Roman version - Hercules. In the Greek version, it should be Heracles. What was the problem with naming the heroes accurately so that they would follow a single pattern (e.g. giving the hero his Greek name, or giving the other characters their Roman names, respectively)?
• Another main problem is Philoctetes, or Phil - the trainer of Hercules. He is depicted as a satyr, when in fact he was a hero of the Trojan War, a human. He became famous after Heracles' death, bearing his legacy, and not vice versa (Philoctetes inherited Heracles' weapons and went to war, while in the movie it is actually Philoctetes teaching Hercules how to be a hero).
  Heracles' true trainer, who also trained Achilles and many other heroes mentioned in the movie, was Chiron, a centaur. Why did they substitute him with a satyr in the movie? Chiron, as a civilized centaur, was a very important symbol in the Greco-Roman mythology: only the creature of wild blood but great wisdom such as he could train superhumans such as heroes were. Satyrs are more suited for leading people off the path of grandeur, not towards it. Furthermore, if they showed two natures of centaurs in the movie (Chiron who taught Heracles well, and later Nessus whom he had to defeat (which is pretty accurate since Heracles did kill Nessus in the mythology)), it would give children a good example: that even the same creatures can be of different personalities, and even among monstrous species, there can be found some good people.
• More than that - the timeline of heroes is really messed-up: as we said, the Trojan War came after Heracles, while in the movie it is shown that Achilles lived long before Hercules. Furthermore, they say that the ship of Argo is already long destroyed, while in the Greco-Roman mythology, Heracles actually sailed on Argo with Jason, but didn't follow him until the end. The myth of Argo was Heracles' contemporary legend.
  Why would they do that? They could just omit the myths that hadn't happened before or in time of Heracles and mentioned only those that were actually accurate. It wouldn't really hurt the movie, and the jokes would've worked regardless.
• There are many other mistakes in the movie, but some of them fit a kids' movie well, so they should be present (like the fact that Heracles wasn't actually Hera's son. It is important for the movie that Hercules would be born a pure god so that he'd choose his way of life later on, and make an important decision due to love). However, the above-mentioned mistakes could not be forgiven, because the mythological symbols were very important in those cases, and for children, it would've been even better to depict them accurately.

Marvel's Thor. You can argue that it isn't actually mythological since it depicts Æsir gods as aliens... but no, it is just futuristic but is largely based on the Norse mythology. Hence, they had no right to mess it up. 

• The main problem here which I still can't get over with is that Loki is depicted as Thor's adopted brother. In fact, if anyone's adopted brother, he could be only Odin's one, since they were sworn brothers in the mythology, and Loki was much older than Thor. I understand they wanted to depict a brotherly feud, but messing up the mythology to such an extent was insupportable. The brotherly feud could've been depicted between Odin and Loki and could've been traced back to their reign. Loki could've been Thor's evil uncle scheming behind the scenes (like, following the pattern of The Lion King, for example). The comic and the movie, much altered, would still come out a hit regardless. (Yes, I am saying "the comic", because that is the source of all misguidance. The comic altered the pattern of the mythology, and the movie followed the comic. Both are in the wrong).
• The second problem which could've been solved even easier than the above one is that Laufey, the leader of the giants in the movie, was actually Loki's mother and not a father. Yes, Laufey was female. What was the problem with depicting her as such? It would've served as a good example for feministic movement, too - that the leader is actually a female and not a male. An argument here could be that a mother wouldn't actually leave her son behind (like Laufey left Loki in the movie). But why would a father, then? If we preach about equality, then monstrous ice giants can be equally bad parents regardless of their gender.
• The third problem is in Thor: Ragnarok. Hel was actually Loki's daughter and not Odin's one. Fenrir too was Loki's son. A better idea would've been to describe how Loki couldn't tame his children and they rebelled against him, since he has been defeated, and now wants to cooperate with the Æsir, while Hel desires the throne (I've already altered the first movie so I am following my alteration pattern, that Loki is Thor's uncle). Loki was always a versatile god in the mythology, nobody ever knew what was going on in his mind, so this kind of a pattern would've been acceptable. It would've actually been interesting as well. Instead of Odin's daughter rebelling and being evil, describing Loki's relationship with his daughter would've been quite exciting to watch. It would also bring in the cousin feud (Thor vs. Hel) which is a rarely discussed matter in the movies but is quite interesting and new.

2) After discussing the above problem thoroughly, let us proceed to the second major flaw of the modern movies. This flaw is actually tied with the above one: messing up the original stories, creators try to make their own patterns, which lack the necessary symbolic meaning. It is often caused due to the creator's lack of education in the particular topic they're writing about (sorry, creators, of course, I don't mean you all. I am just stating my objective observations). 

A good example of this would be Frozen 2 of Disney. Yes, that exact 2019 movie which all of you have probably seen in the cinema and have your opinions about. 

SPOILER ALERT: since it is a new movie, this article might contain spoilers, so if you have not seen the movie yet and do not wish to get spoiled, do not read beyond this point.

Frozen 2 has a lot of issues, starting from how poorly they continued their own story of Frozen, ending by how they messed up the Saami mythology they based their movie on. They even signed a treaty with the Saamis, so I believed it'd be marvellous to watch... but no, the only accurate thing they portrayed was the people based on the Saamis - the Northuldra tribe; and the use of reindeer in their culture (which were present in the first movie as well, so I don't know how the treaty has actually changed anything here). Oh, and the songs as well - yes, songs based on the Saami traditional music were actually accurate, hence very beautiful and pleasant to hear. I guess the treaty was mainly connected with the songs, after all.

• In the Saami mythology, gods and goddesses play a major role. The main symbolic animals, as we said, are the reindeer. The only two creatures which Frozen 2 depicted and could be acceptable, were Earth giants (which could be identified with Sieidi stones that had spiritual significance) and the spirit of the wind (he was not shown in any particular shape but instead depicted as a twister, so it can be acceptable. Even though, in the mythology, the god of winds was actually a man). 
• The Salamander symbol has no connection with the Saamis. As a mythological creature, it is actually connected with Talmud, hence the Jewish mythology. Furthermore, it can be found in medieval legends, as well as alchemical legends (take Paracelsus' works, for example). Granted, it is a fire spirit indeed, so thanks Disney, at least you didn't mess up its symbolical meaning. But putting a salamander as a fire spirit when you could actually use a genuine deity of the Saamis? - That is a failure. 
• The water horse has no connection with the Saamis either. Saami god of water was a man, just like the god of the wind. Disney's modern fetish is to not give men as big of a role as they were giving them previously (note Kristoff, who practically has no role in the movie and is basically Anna's attribute). Hence, they probably decided to not depict elemental spirits as men. Well, Disney, at least could've given the water an abstract form of a wave then, rather than depicting it like a horse, which is more related to the Celtic, the Germanic, the Norse, or the Georgian mythologies. Oh, here to note - none of us has actually given you the right to use our material, have we? Celtic and Georgian people are not that numerous either, and we have our rich cultures, which should be respected. Taming a water horse with a magical bridle is actually a Georgian mythological pattern, so Disney, we could sue you for this.
• Instead of following the Saami mythological pattern, Disney invented their own legend of some northern river which keeps memories and the sisters go there to find the answers to their questions. This symbolical pattern and the way it is described in the movie really lacks sense, added that Elsa's becoming an ice queen and a type of an Avatar (a reference to The Last Airbender series) is really confusing. They could just name the movie Legend of Elsa: The First Icebender, in that case. Did they ask Nickelodeon beforehand, about using their main plot-pattern? - I highly doubt it. And no, Saamis' legend about a spiritual guide who is a bridge between the two worlds, is really different from what they've depicted.
• The way Frozen 2 plot revolves, is not based upon anything, and the original story it has created is meaningless. Heroes going to a river to get answers to their questions, the river containing their mother's memories, who has never actually reached the river first, and the mother contacting the daughter through some mirror-like portal inside the river? - There are many issues.
  In some legends, rivers do contain mysteries and they can answer to heroes' questions, so the way it started, it was good. It had suspense, it had mystery, it had an adventure. However, then it messed up. "Water is keeping our memories", they said. In the symbolism of water, it works this way: if one looks into the water, it can retain their memories. It works like a mirror. However, since we know Elsa's mother had never reached the shores of Ahtohallan River and looked into it, it would've never contained and kept her memories, but only Elsa's, once she had looked into it. Elsa's memories would give no answers, so it would've all been to naught.
  The argument that the mother had actually been at the river? - Then where was the information about it? It should've been given beforehand. The sea had delivered her memories to the river? - Why wasn't it mentioned? That argument is groundless too. Furthermore, it implies that Elsa, as the spiritual bridge, could read her mother's memories from the sea itself, so there was no need for any river. Only that river was magical? - That is exactly what doesn't make any sense, if we remember that the entire water is, in fact, a spirit.
• For Frozen 2, the best idea would've been, if Elsa's mother were an "Avatar" before her, or if she were a spirit herself. In that case, the story would've been a well-built legend of a spirit-woman mating a mortal king in order to give humans an offspring that could've been a bridge between the two worlds, so that the humans could be forgiven for their crimes and could find a means to solve their problems. Elsa's mother could've been the goddess of light and sun of the Saamis - Beaivi - disguised as a human woman, Iduna. She would've been connected with the Northuldra people regardless since she was their goddess. Her daughter (who is also a Saami mythological entity), Beaivi-nieida, would've been a prototype for Elsa, while Anna was a pure human offspring. As a daughter of the goddess, the Northuldra would respect Elsa anyway and would believe in her guidance. The movie plot would acquire accurate symbolic significance (demi-goddess, daughter of a goddess, brought to save people from calamity, and her mortal sister helping her in the affair). It would give meaning to why Elsa stayed in the wild, too. It would've been epic to watch.

There are many other movies which are as messed-up as the above-mentioned ones, but I am not going to speak about them all since it would take a whole book to write it all down. I believe, by the three examples shown above, you have gained an idea of what the major flaws of the modern movies are, why they are flaws, and how they could be resolved if the creators had dived into the original stories more.