"The Balance" (notice: quasi-serious post)

Whilst (that's right, "whilst") thinking about movies, I've noticed that a lot of films have been using the "there's a balance between good and evil" motif. It's a nice little tool; evil sets out to tip the balance, and a hero (perhaps jaded if the filmmakers are looking for a rebel [anti-] hero) arrives to save the day. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the concept of "the balance" really doesn't make sense. Here's my reasoning:

First of all, how do you define "balance?" Is it strictly a one-for-one basis? As in, your father dies, but a child is born to you. If not, how then would you weigh good and bad things? Does a refreshing glass of lemonade erase the anguish of failing a test? And if it more than counter-balanced that negativity, would you then have to spill your drink? Now if you think I'm being too nit-picky, you just found out another flaw; that being how strict is the balance? Does the balance only apply to the greater good of all or is each individual taken into account?

Next, can anyone honestly say that there's "too much good in the world?" You'd have to be insane to say, "You know, things are too good. I want something REALLY nasty to happen to me to keep things even." Anybody who did complain about there being too much good must be evil anyways.

Moving to the last point, a balance would not make sense for good or evil (I've personified the two in the following lines fyi). Why would a balance be appealing to evil? It is not in the nature of evil to have any kind of equality with good, and promising to not overstep "their" bounds is contradictory to evil's nature. Conversely, being good calls for the prevention/eradication of evil, so good would by nature have to act if "it" saw something unjust occurring.

I realize that might be pretty boring to a lot of people (heck, I might even agree), but it was one my philosophical moments, and I felt like sharing.

Oh! One last thing! I recently saw "Bram Stoker's Dracula;" the one made by Francis Ford Coppola and starring Gary Oldman, Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, and Anthony Hopkins. It was decent, but a lot of stuff bugged me, so if I were to rate it, I’d give it a B-. But I digress. The one main thing that bugged me is that a lot of people (and I don't know if this was Coppola intended this or not) have interpreted the ending as love redeeming Dracula (and Mina), as opposed to faith/God/religion, etc. This bugs me for at least two reasons. One, it's stating that God can be supplanted, and two, it implies that God and/or religion are without love, mercy, etc. Obviously this is not true, but Hollywood has been quite busy secularizing any kind of myth (ever notice that in these new films, vampires are still weak to sunlight, silver, and garlic, but not crucifixes or holy water?). Perhaps more on that later.

The only thing that took my mind off of that was how horribly innacurate the new "King Arthur" (starring Clive Owen and Keira Knightley) was. I wrent my garments on the inside.