Are There Any Sequels To Bad People?

I get a little giddy thinking about the people behind 'The Magic School Bus' — there's a cozy, real-world origin to the zaniness. From what I've dug up and loved hearing about over the years, Ms. Frizzle wasn't invented out of thin air; Joanna Cole drew heavily on teachers she remembered and on bits of herself. That mix of real-teacher eccentricities and an author's imagination is what makes Ms. Frizzle feel lived-in: she has the curiosity of a kid-friendly educator and the theatrical flair of someone who treats lessons like performances. The kids in the classroom — Arnold, Phoebe, Ralphie, Carlos, Dorothy Ann, Keesha and the rest — are mostly composites rather than one-to-one portraits. Joanna Cole tended to sketch characters from memory, pulling traits from different kids she knew, observed, or taught. Bruce Degen's illustrations layered even more personality onto those sketches; character faces and mannerisms often came from everyday people he noticed, family members, or children in his orbit. The TV series amplified that by giving each kid clearer backstories and distinct cultural textures, especially in later remakes like 'The Magic School Bus Rides Again'. So, if you ask whether specific characters are based on real people, the honest thing is: they're inspired by real people — teachers, students, neighbors — but not strict depictions. They're affectionate composites designed to feel familiar and true without being photocopies of anyone's life. I love that blend: it makes the stories feel both grounded and wildly imaginative, which is probably why the series still sparks my curiosity whenever I rewatch an episode.

I get pulled into this character’s head like I’m sneaking through a house at night — quiet, curious, and a little guilty. The diary isn’t just a prop; it’s the engine. What motivates that antagonist is a steady accumulation of small slights and self-justifying stories that the diary lets them rehearse and amplify. Each entry rationalizes worse behavior: a line that begins as a complaint about being overlooked turns into a manifesto about who needs to be punished. Over time the diary becomes an echo chamber, and motivation shifts from one-off revenge to an ideology of entitlement — they believe they deserve to rewrite everyone else’s narrative to fit theirs. Sometimes it’s not grandiosity but fear: fear of being forgotten, fear of weakness, fear of losing control. The diary offers a script that makes those fears actionable. And then there’s patterning — they study other antagonists, real or fictional, and copy successful cruelties, treating the diary like a laboratory. That mixture of wounded pride, intellectual curiosity, and escalating justification is what keeps them going, and I always end up oddly fascinated by how ordinary motives can become terrifying when fed by a private, persuasive voice. I close the page feeling unsettled, like I’ve glimpsed how close any of us can come to that line.

I've gone down the rabbit hole on this before, and the short truth is: there isn't a single real person named Megan who the movie is directly based on. Michael Goi, the filmmaker behind 'Megan Is Missing', marketed it as being 'based on true events' and said it was inspired by various real cases of teens being groomed and exploited online. What he and others seem to mean is that the movie is a fictional composite built from patterns found in multiple stories — the MySpace-era chatroom grooming, catfishing, and a handful of tragic abduction cases that were sadly all too common in the 2000s. A lot of viewers tried to pin the film to one specific missing girl or murder, partly because the title and found-footage style make it feel like documentary evidence. Those theories circulated a lot on forums and social media, but there’s no verified, single real-life Megan who matches the movie’s plot. Law enforcement records and missing-person databases haven’t produced an official case that the film lifts scene-for-scene. Instead, the director and supporters argue the film is meant to dramatize a broader, real phenomenon: how predators groom kids online, how vulnerable teens can vanish into dangerous situations, and the very real consequences of naiveté combined with malicious intent. I’ll admit the ambiguity made me uncomfortable — the 'based on true events' tagline is a powerful storytelling tool, and it can feel manipulative when a director blends numerous real tragedies into one invented narrative. That said, part of why the movie stuck in people’s minds is because it reflects real patterns and risks. For anyone watching, I think the important takeaway isn’t to hunt for the single real Megan; it’s to recognize the genuine warning signs the film amplifies and to have honest conversations with young people about internet safety. Personally, I find the way it blurs fact and fiction unsettling but effective at making those dangers feel immediate.

Crowds have a voice that writers can't ignore, and 'we the people' is a goldmine for political thrillers. I love how a mass movement can be treated like a living character: predictive, noisy, optimistic, and sometimes terrifying. A novelist can mine protest chants, viral videos, and grassroots organizing to build scenes that feel electric and immediate. Think of a chapter that starts with a hashtag trending and ends with an empty city square after curfew — that emotional swing is pure fuel for suspense. Beyond spectacle, the collective brings moral grayness. Ordinary people make extraordinary choices, and authors use that to complicate heroes and villains. A whistleblower may be cheered by thousands one day and hunted the next; a politician’s fate can hinge on a single unpopular policy amplified by an outraged electorate. That unpredictability—so rooted in real civic life—gives political thrillers their pulse, and I always find myself glued to pages that capture that communal heartbeat.

My head keeps circling the aftermath of 'Adrift'—it feels like a fold where lives continue in messy, human ways. In the immediate months after the finale, the people who were physically outside the simulation are traumatised, exhausted, and under intense public scrutiny. Hospitals and clinics pull double shifts; support groups pop up in every city. Some are lauded as heroes, but the applause is thin when you lose sleep replaying someone's last words or when a tech patch means you can still smell a place you never physically visited. There are legal battles, too—families suing companies, governments trying to write emergency statutes for simulated harm, and privacy watchdogs finally getting traction. A year in, the novelty dies down and real, slow work begins. People build new routines, but fractures remain. Friendships rearrange; some relationships recover, others don't. A subset of the outside people become activists or storytellers—podcasters, writers, community organizers—trying to make sense or to force change, while another subset disappears: moving to quieter towns, changing names, trying to outrun headlines. There's also a nagging technological shadow: companies offering 'memory hygiene' services, black markets selling illicit recreations, and rogue devs promising to re-open the virtual doors for a fee. What I personally like to imagine is that most survivors find small, accidental joys again—gardens, messy dinners, phone calls that don't ping with system alerts. The big wounds don't vanish, but they thin into scars you learn to trace without flinching. In the end, life keeps insisting; that's both brutal and beautiful, and somehow the most honest outcome to me.

That child's stare in 'The Bad Seed' still sits with me like a fingernail on a chalkboard. I love movies that quietly unsettle you, and this one does it by refusing to dramatize the monster — it lets the monster live inside a perfect little suburban shell. Patty McCormack's Rhoda is terrifying because she behaves like the polite kid everyone trusts: soft voice, neat hair, harmless smile. That gap between appearance and what she actually does creates cognitive dissonance; you want to laugh, then you remember the knife in her pocket. The film never over-explains why she is that way, and the ambiguity is the point — the script, adapted from the novel and play, teases nature versus nurture without handing a tidy moral. Beyond the acting, the direction keeps things close and domestic. Tight interiors, careful framing, and those long, lingering shots of Rhoda performing everyday tasks make the ordinary feel stage-like. The adults around her are mostly oblivious or in denial, and that social blindness amplifies the horror: it's not just a dangerous child, it's a community that cannot see what's under its own roof. I also think the era matters — 1950s suburban calm was brand new and fragile, and this movie pokes that bubble in the most polite way possible. Walking away from it, I feel a little wary of smiles, which is both hilarious and sort of brilliant.

A grim, quiet logic explains why William March wrote 'The Bad Seed' in 1954, and I always come back to that when I reread it. He wasn't chasing cheap shocks so much as probing a stubborn question: how much of a person's cruelty is born into them, and how much is forged by circumstance? His earlier work — especially 'Company K' — already showed that he loved examining ordinary people under extreme stress, and in 'The Bad Seed' he turns that lens inward to family life, the suburban mask, and the terrifying idea that a child might be evil by inheritance. March lived through wars, social upheavals, and a lot of scientific conversation about heredity and behavior. Mid-century America was steeped in debates about nature versus nurture, and psychiatric studies were becoming part of public discourse; you can feel that intellectual current in the book. He layers clinical curiosity with a novelist's eye for small domestic details: PTA meetings, neighbors' opinions, and the ways adults rationalize away oddities in a child. At the same time, there’s an urgency in the prose — he was at the end of his life when 'The Bad Seed' appeared — and that sharpens the book's moral questions. For me, the most compelling inspiration is emotional rather than documentary. March was fascinated by the mismatch between surface normalcy and hidden corruption, and he used the cultural anxieties of the 1950s—about conformity, heredity, and postwar stability—to create a story that feels both intimate and cosmic in its dread. It's why the novel still creeps under the skin: it blends a personal obsession with larger scientific and social conversations, and it leaves you with that uneasy, lingering thought about where evil actually begins.

Sometimes I play out scenarios in my head where two people who'd cut down a forest to build a fortress try to love each other. It’s messy and fascinating. I think ruthless people can form lasting romantic relationships, but it rarely looks like the soft, cinematic kind of forever. There are patterns: partners who share similar ambitions or who willingly accept transactional dynamics can create durable bonds. Two people aligned in goals, strategy, and tolerance for moral grayness can build a household as efficiently as a corporation. It’s not always pretty, but it can work. Then there are cases where ruthlessness is a mask for deep fear or insecurity. Characters like Light from 'Death Note' or Cersei in 'Game of Thrones' show that power-seeking behavior can coexist with intense loyalty to a small inner circle. If that inner circle receives genuine care and reciprocity, a relationship can persist. If not, it becomes performance and control, and even long partnerships crumble. Ultimately I believe lasting romance hinges on honesty and compromise, even for the most calculating people. If someone can be strategically generous, prioritize mutual growth, and occasionally choose love over advantage, they can stick around — though the script will likely be more tactical than tender. Personally, I find those dynamics complicated but oddly magnetic.