#Christine being a compassionate character that wants to see the good in people doesn’t mean she wouldnt do some shady selfish shit

[garnet-xx-rose]

“Love Never Dies is unrealistic because Christine would never go back to Erik and sleep with him while still with Rao-“ Yes she would, yes she definitely would and I’m tired of acting like she would not

[wexhappyxfew]

Shannon! I have a question for today, it might be a little broad, but how did you come up with Natia’s character? :)

AMY!!! hello! sorry that i have *just* gotten to this as my weeks have increasingly gotten insanely busy between my job starting back up, school, college stuff, and ap exam chaos as well haha! i did this at about 11pm(?) and i'll be queuing it up for the morning for you, but outside of tumblr, i've thought a lot about this question and what i really wanted to include in this question. having almost spent 10 months spent writing and developing natia to who she is today makes a whole lot of stuff move through my brain when i go back to my developing stages for her! thank you for the question (and the broadness, never fear, i absolutely love it!)

Natia's character really came from the idea of just wanting to really push myself out of the box and *out there* to see what I could do. And I will say Landslide is one of my most *out-there* projects in terms of content - I mean we have Death as a personified character, crazy Agent Mortem, all these past connections to Natia? It's chaos haha! But, I had experimented previously with a partly Polish-OC, Hazel Parker of "The Soldier of Stars", and from that, I went, well there's no centrally focused Polish OC yet that I have seen (this was back in like June-July 2020 mind you, so there probably has been Polish OCs created since this time!!) and I had always felt that the Warsaw Uprising was inherently important! I also read up on the Polish Resistance and how they were the most effective resistance group of continental Europe during the war, with ultimately the Warsaw Uprising being their last final push that did sort of end that.

Something I've really enjoyed about creating Natia's character was putting a great focus on her flaws. Now, her strengths are just as important - she is a great soldier in the field, she's highly intelligent and can make quick decisions on the fly, she withholds a lot of strength when it comes to situations where she needs to focus, she's observant, and she keeps herself fairly humble when not bursting at the seems. She doesn't let herself get stepped over very often (unless it's Mortem) and if anything she will insert herself, and show what skills she has, but she won't go overboard. She's also passionate about her country and her people and she always has something to fight for and even when she feels all hope is lost, she withholds a tiny little sliver no matter what, even if she doesn't feel it. But her flaws I feel are a massive part of her character. She's stubborn, she won't let people help her, she has trouble expressing emotion, she numbs herself more often than not to not feel the pain that she is supposed to feel, she blames everything on herself, she gets hot-headed quite easily, and grows to the point of nearly irrational at some moments in time and even will let her emotions get the best of her in times like this. But that makes up who Natia is as a character and who she is as a person in general.

But even with the strengths and flaws of her character, it makes her very much still a human being. And that was one of my main goals when creating Natia - make her human enough to make that angst HURT, but make her human enough that when you see her succeed or even the little wins here and there, you want to cheer. Because those are human moments. And I know this sort of character creation is not for everyone, but for me over the past near-year, this has been one of my favorite things about creating Natia because I've found myself able to relate to her even though I'm so vastly different from her.

I did some research on a British-Polish SOE Agent, Krystyna Skarbek otherwise known as her alias Christine Granville and I took a few liberties from this amazing woman and used it on Natia. But things such as Agent Mortem, Death/War connection and the eventual introduction of another character Solomon Campbell (who will be in Part 3), as well as the Resistance group of Part 1 and her siblings and parents, are all more of my own ideas and connections!

Something I have had a LOT of fun doing is showing that even though on the exterior Natia seems cold-hearted and dark and numb, and whatever other *cold+dark* ideas can be thought up, she is very much underneath -- not that. We can see how much evidently she cares for someone like George Luz; I mean even Joe Liebgott has pointed it out to her. She always is just trying to do her best and do what is best in the situation - no longer it is about what is good or bad anymore to her, it's about doing what's best in the situation for the time being, and I really love that aspect of her character a lot! We can see that when the war ends, she wants to live on the English coast, far away from war all alone with a dog and even a little goat in a seaside cottage. She grew so attached to the word AWOL after Joe Toye came and sat with her that night in Holland and they talked for once about something other than war. She even withheld her name, her nationality and just about everything else to keep the idea of the cold-face agent she thought she was up so the men of Easy Company don't have to know the real her. But -- was it to protect her...or to protect Easy? All these little ideas I threw in there to show that she is actually, very, compassionate in many ways, and caring and attentive and observant of the men and women she works with.

I really try to show that Natia listens when she listens to someone speak and she observes and she pays attention more than anything. And she ends up, holding information like that close to her and finding comfort in it.

My goal with Natia was to show that there can be a balance to "the bad-ass fighter" idea who fights for what she believes, but also remain human as well. We can see how much things affect her, especially the loss of friends. Of course, she doesn't show this to other people, but to use as readers, we see this and we see her occasional breakdown - and in a way, she continues living on their legacies because she listened to what they had to say. For example, Zdzich told her to not let the war overtake her, and throughout the story so far, we've see her sort of repeat this to herself in various ways. Because Zdzich meant that much to her. She's lost so much by this point in war that almost it's so sad to see that she, from what we all know of BoB, still has to go through so much, but at that point, she's fought so much, that all she can do it keep pushing on with it.

I think one of the most interesting moments from writing Natia was when the first few chapters were actually uploaded on platforms and there was someone really coming after Natia for her decisions and for this, that and the other thing (amy if i vaguely remember i think you remember who this person is as well because you clapped back at them once, and man your response was GOLD!!!). One of those things was Natia's approach with food (TW: mentions of struggling to eat with food, references of depression and struggling to eat, mental health issues relating...) and the person who commented would always be saying something about how she needs to eat, and she needs to remain strong and she needs to snap out of it with her depression and all this other stuff and to be honest, I sort of sat there for a moment like??? But there's reasons WHY she's not eating? Why she's holding back? (And of course ones I had mentioned so...) But let's move on.

Mental health was a prevalent thing in World War 2, though it was not looked upon fondly and Natia essentially does have depression as well as a border-line eating disorder. And so when the comment said that she had to snap out of it, I don't know it sort of off-put me because I have family with both those disorders and they've had treatment for it for years and you can't just snap out of it. I really tried to stress that 'the snapping-out-of-it" does not work, and the person kept firing back a bit at it, so I just moved on from it and ignored it. Natia's struggle with eating, as one can see, also comes from the heavy guilt and grief that is slowly uncovered throughout the story of what Natia has done and what has happened throughout the course of the war to her. Natia's number one thing she constantly does and has now become the focus of many character relationships with her (ie Doc Gene Roe) is the clenched fists, that she squeezes until they bleed and eventually need wrapped up by the Doc. Something she also refuses to accept she has a problem with. As we can see, acceptance is a concept she struggles with more than anything and something she will essentially have to learn to simply, accept.

That's just sort of one of the many bits of information about her character that I added, especially in society today as mental health is so important and so I just wanted to share a bit of the backlash I got from someone for it. But I guess that's life, but I'll continue to write Natia Filipska as an OC who does struggle with depression because of her life in war.

Natia's character and her story is probably one of the most complex characters and stories I've written and crafted and created and I'm just extremely happy with how she ended up coming out in the end! I'm about to go and do some writing and editing for her and it's just so exciting writing her because of all these various levels she withholds and she slowly lets uncover as the story unfolds! I just love it! OH - and we can't forget about the infamous mentions of the piano....yep that'll be coming up soon haha!! <3

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AMY!!! IT MEANT SO MUCH!!!! just getting to talk about Natia a little bit and her character and what my mind set was creating her - it means so much. my mindset with her is somehow always changing and shifting as she goes through her character arc throughout the story and how her developmental shifts and it's just something i really love and enjoy more than anything!!! <3 so thank you for letting me just talk about it for a little while as well as my thoughts and opinions, it means a lot :)

[writersramble37]

WIP INTRO - Drowning in the Music

Title: Drowning in the Music  Genre: Romance, Fantasy Current Status: Second draft Synopsis: 

After narrowly escaping death, Clare awakens in what she once deemed a fictional story, the Phantom of the Opera. She finds herself face to face with the Phantom himself. Although he may be a mysterious masked figure, Clare knows exactly how his story unfolds. Fighting to find a way home and to survive in a foreign era, Clare wonders if her presence alone will alter the story for better or for worse. 

Yes, it’s totally a fanfic. Am I ashamed? Nope! I first started this story when I was 14 freaking years old. Was it good? Ummm. . .Nope! I had the right idea, but the writing was just so. . .*shudders* Cringey to say at the least. I had just discovered the Phantom of the Opera, and completely fell head over heels in love with it. I also tormented my loved ones all throughout my high school years by talking about the Phantom of the Opera nonstop. 

But, I’m 23 now. And looking back at my first story, I realized it was in serious need of revamping. I still love the story, but I can look at it in a more analytical way, rather than being completely taken over by fangirly “feels”.

I’ve also since visited the Opera Garnier in Paris, where the story takes place! Michael also proposed to me right outside of it because he knew how important this place is to me. This story has also influenced my career path, as I grew to become incredibly fascinated by psychology. I found myself desiring to understand how/why people tick the way they do. I’m majoring in Psychology, and currently work in the mental health field as a direct support provider. So to say that the Phantom of the Opera has left its mark on my life would be putting it lightly.

My original version is available on fanfic, but be warned, it’s crap. However, it did blow up in popularity much to my surprise. At one point, my story was the second most reviewed Phantom of the Opera fanfic on there. I was incredibly proud, and my readers have always been very kind and amazing. My story has since become a trilogy. I have grown tremendously as a writer, which is why I want to rewrite it.

This WIP has:

Time travel! Clare is from present day, but finds herself traveling back to 1870. She also finds herself in Paris, France! She is unsure how she managed to awake in a completely different time and place. Last she recalls, she was drowning. She wonders if it’s water or death that is a mysterious passageway. 

Homesickness. Although most would be thrilled to awake in a fictional world, Clare is worried about her life back at home. She misses her family and friends, and wonders if she will ever see them again.

A slow-burn romance. Because those are the best. Erik (the Phantom) has his heart set on Christine. Although Clare isn’t actively pursuing Erik, she finds herself caring for him more and more as the story unfolds. 

Hurt/Comfort genre. Lots of feelings are involved in this story. Erik has never been treated like a human being before. Clare is determined to change this.

Contrasting upbringings. I wanted to show the contrast between Clare and Erik. Erik grew up abused and neglected. Clare did not. Although these characters still manage to cross paths and have a positive influence on one another. I wanted to highlight that everyone is human and grew up with their own forms of pain and heartache. Just because you come from a different background doesn’t mean you can’t form a compassionate connection with someone. The main message I want to convey in this story is that a little kindness can go a long way. 

Changing events. Although it’s a Phantom of the Opera fanfic, I show how Clare’s presence has an affect on the classical gothic novel. I show that one person can cause entire scenes to disappear, or play out drastically different. On the other hand, some events are fated to happen.

Special thanks to @letswritestories101 for tagging me!

Please send me an ask, leave a comment/tag/reblog if you would like to be on the taglist! Or interact with this post.

Tag List (participate if you would like - no pressure!):

@ambiguouspuzuma

@lady-of-himring

@mindingmyownbusiness

@pens-swords-stuff

@rhikasa

@twst-nadira-oc

@ficsinhistory

@ispeakforthebooks

[gracie-p8-officialblog]

Defending Christine Daae

I never thought I'd have to write a post with that title, let me tell you.

Because when I first heard of Phantom of the Opera, I was under the impression that everybody loved Christine just as much as I did. I mean, how could you help it? Well, I was wrong. It would seem that there are, in fact, people out there who don't share my exact opinion (shock of shocks) and who dislike Christine for various stupid reasons.

Now, I'm not here to point fingers at anyone or to belittle anyone's opinions in anyway, and blah-de-blah [fill in the rest of long boring disclaimer any way you wish]. But I AM here to defend one of my favourite female protagonists in a work of fiction! And defend her I WILL! IN THE NAME OF THE MOON!

Um, pardon me. Don't know how that last sentence got in there.

Now, on the internet, I've heard some flak about Christine, and though I'm not here to make anyone feel bad (see above) I do want to refute those points about her, point-by-point. (Hmm. Redundancy.) One of the biggest points against Christine is her choice to be with Raoul instead of the Phantom, who *ahem* TOTALLY needed her because he had a bad life and he taught her to sing! My opinion?

I don't think that means Christine owes him love. Appreciation and thanks, yes. But not love. The only thing he ever did that was worth any kind of love was letting Christine go. And she isn't some sort of consolation prize! It's NOT her job to fix the Phantom, only he could fix himself!

C'mon people! The two pretty much fit the qualities of an abusive relationship (emotional manipulation, throwing her around, restricting her from seeing other people etc.) And it’s kinda disturbing. “BUT!” You cry, “CHRISTINE REJECTED THE PHANTOM FOR A SHALLOW REASON! HE WAS UGLY!”

While I do understand what you’re coming from, I would like to inform you that it was actually his toxic behaviour towards her and murderous qualities that drove her away from him and made her choose Raoul. In “Final Lair”, she said one of the biggest burns in Gothic thriller history “It’s in your SOUL where the TRUE distortion lies...”  The Phantom's problem isn't with his disfigurement. No, the problem is with what he's allowed his disfigurement to make him. He's become so obsessed with the idea that no one loves him and no one will ever really care for him that he believes anyone who stands remotely in his way is just out to get him. So what does he do? He murders people whom he gets annoyed with. First Buquet, then Piangi, and finally (almost) Raoul. And that is DEFINITELY not okay! 

I think Christine saw him as more of a teacher, or a friend, or a... father figure, in a messed up way... which is more evident in the book on how she is both afraid and sympathetic for the Phantom. 

While not condoning his actions,  I do wish the Phantom could have found someone to love him. Good gracious, his final lines “IT’S OVER NOW THE MUSIC OF THE NIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHHTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” makes me tear up every time.  Gah. I'm in danger of sobbing, too, but I really want to get this post done, so I will conquer myself and think of something Funny instead. *thinks* I know! Gerard Butler’s version of the “All I Ask Of You (Reprise)”. That’ll cheer me up and make me laugh XD!

In all seriousness, I know that Erik is unstable and violent. But I also know that he really IS a gentle, misunderstood soul. You can be both, you know. The unstable and violent side of him, unfortunately, triumphed- and his dreams, his desires for love, his castle on a cloud came tumbling down because of it.

And so... onto the next point, another common argument used to bash Christine is that she’s considered to be flat, boring and goes through ZERO development! But in actual fact, there’s so much going on in her head and goes through quite an emotional travesty that it’s almost impossible to call her bland!

She is deeply wounded by the loss of her father, and has this incredible musical talent which stayed in a state of diamond in the rough before being discovered by her “Angel of Music”. He trains her, not realizing that she is becoming the center of an unhealthy obsession, genuinely believing in her naivety that he is some benevolent spirit sent by her father, therefore bringing her a sense of comfort. She is a pious girl, after all, and being religious myself, well, such a reaction from someone who believes like her is believable though naive. Can we blame Christine for that? NO. How is she supposed to guess?

And now, let's talk about "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again", aka. The Christine Empowerment™ song! I feel like the difference between a good portrayal of Christine and a great portrayal of Christine, is based on how good their rendition of this song is. It is a crucial part of the plot. One of the reason The Phantom and Raoul appeal to Christine is because of the connection they represent to her dead father. Of course, Raoul actually knew her father and the Phantom uses his memory to manipulate her. At this point in the show, Christine has become disillusioned with Raoul and is afraid of the Phantom. She realizes through the song that the only way she can’t move forward is through letting go of the past, and getting over the death of her father. This fuels her actions through the rest of the show as it makes her realize that if she wants her happy ending, she must take charge of her destiny and earn her own agency! And the Phantom, trying to use her in the moment where she was probably at her most vulnerable since she is questioning herself about her entire life, only catalyses her decision. She performs in Don Juan Triumphant, because she knows that everything is up to her, and that she cannot let the Phantom keep on destroying her life.

As for her unmasking the Phantom in "Point of No Return", Christine did this in a way to show him that she refused to be controlled by him any longer. It is certainly not the most intelligent thing to do, nor the nicest, but again, her behaviour is explainable. But as said above for Erik, it doesn’t excuse her. And it shows how she was beginning to be able to resist his pull/spell/enchantment/whatever you like to call it on her!

I adore and admire Christine Daae as a character so much, and it was her actions and story arc that really started my love for this story. Christine's ability to love unconditionally and selflessly is so profound. Even though the Phantom put her and everyone else through lots of horrors, she still doesn't hesitate to show kindness towards him but makes sure that her abuser NEVER hurts anyone EVER again. She loves Raoul so much that she's pretty much willing to sacrifice her freedom and happiness so Raoul could be free. No matter what circumstances she is given, she will still put the ones she loves before herself no matter what, even if it means giving up a chance to save herself. I know most of us won’t ever be put in such an extreme scenario but Christine is such an inspiration of how to love others and believe in them despite flaws and bad sides. She inspires me to see the good in people. It’s so easy to be cynical and hardened in this world, and I think that Phantom of the Opera reminds us to have kindness and light in our hearts, even in challenging circumstances.

I would also like to add another moment of character. Think what it must have taken to prepare for the female lead role in a 3-act opera. Christine wasn’t even an understudy. In a matter of minutes, she went from member of the ballet corps to the lead role, and she had to rehearse and remember new music, character, blocking, and vocals. Not only did she prepare in time, she performed so well that she became a hit. This reveals, not only the skill and beauty of her voice, but also her concentration, diligence, and acting capability. Everyone hails the Phantom as the ultimate musical genius—and he is—but they overlook the implied extent of Christine’s skill.

She went through the loss of both parents, manipulation, being stalked, and knowing that the person she loves most has his life on the line - because of her. And then she literally gets off of her knees and shows her abuser the first form of kindness he has ever known. Not even the Phantom was strong enough for that; he gave up on the world far too early. Christine is the embodiment of courage and kindness; she teaches us to love and forgive those who have been awful to us, and to protect those we love even if it means our own suffering. But she no longer succumbs to the Phantom and makes sure her abuser never hurts anyone EVER again. Seriously, this girl is AWESOME! And this was in the 18th century! It's really sad that such a great character is overlooked by many...

It seems that Leroux really understood women... That we can be emotional, we are vulnerable but not weak... And emotion really helps us when we keep them in control!

Christine, in a nutshell, is a kind, observant, compassionate, trusting young woman–a too trusting at first–but with a spine of steel and determination once she’s drawn the line. She loves people deeply, but she picks up quickly on the realities of the situation. She has the strongest character arc in the story and makes the choices to grow and to move on. Yet she remains gentle and compassionate, uses her love to bless and not manipulate. She’s a layered character who grows. And there’s so much more to her than meets the eye.

[desertbroad]

kaj + (inverted) tropes: part two! * * i don’t know all the actual Official TM names for these tropes, so most are made up. also, you might notice the regular trope list (part 1 of this headcanon) is significantly longer. this is because kaj has a few main inverted tropes but tons more regular ones, since tropes are like atoms: they make up everything. i just wanted to focus on the few inversions that created her character and let the rest come naturally! under a read more for length. ** also as of 7/6/19 part one isn’t done yet. yes i know please don’t shame me ok IM GETTING TO IT

fridged woman (aka back from the dead)—

for this one i took inspiration from laura moon from american gods, with a few tweaks (love neil gaiman, but some of the things about her character are...a bit squicky). unlike a good number of women in media, kaj isn’t shoved over gently and pronounced dead so that a man can grow from her pain. in fact, she’s shot in the head twice, pronounced dead, & buried. while her “death” means more pain and character development for the characters surrounding her, it means pain and character development for her, too. truth be told, she survives a hell of a lot more than any average person should, especially one with her low luck stat. half of this is the fun and wacky way new vegas’ world works (obviously, no real person could survive all this), but also because of her good ol’ courier determination. things that should’ve fridged kaj but haven’t include: two shots to the head, numerous combat scrapes, being stabbed, having her brain/heart/spine removed, having a bomb collar attached to her neck, killing an entire fortification of trained legionnaires, stepping on landmines, etc etc. the courier is pretty much the bruce willis of fallout.

world ending vengeance—

specifically applies to certain characters. while most others who piss kaj off get the full brunt of her wrath (see: caesar, mr. house, elijah, general oliver, ulysses), benny, along with dr. mobius & the think tank & mcnamara*, get a pass. in fact, she lets him go not once or twice, but on three separate occasions, even knowing he’s likely to betray her again. the reason why? not even kaj knows. some people speculate it’s because she likes him / slept with him (incorrect; she liked house to a degree, and slept with caesar); others speculate it’s because they’re so similar (also incorrect; she shared an alarming number of similarities with ulysses & elijah). the theory that comes closest to the truth is that she pities him. it fits in line her past behavior with mobius & the think tank, who were physically unable to see the effects of their actions and thus were spared a horrible fate. likewise, kaj seems to have judged benny to be innocent in her own personal court, and though he continues to be a thorn in her side again and again, she refuses to “sentence” him for anything. it helps his cause that his plan helped her take over vegas, and he created yes man, one of the only living beings she’s ever fully trusted. also a slight inversion of kaj’s maneater / black widow trope; the one person she truly should seduce and kill, she doesn’t.

that said, benny doesn’t get away from their encounters without any punishment—after narrowly escaping being crucified, both kaj and benny have matching rope burns around their wrists. it’s her morbid idea of a joke.

*mcnamara doesn’t fit within this trope, but kaj spares the bos for veronica & christine’s sake, despite yes man’s warnings. also for the off chance that they might convert to being her allies (they don’t, and this choice helps lend itself to more BOS trouble all over the wasteland).

white man cowboy—

kind of a simple inversion that’s been done before, but an important one and one that i like a lot. for starters, the “john wayne” cowboy is a bastardization of a history that was made up of ethnic minorities and whitewashed for hollywood aesthetic (also fuck you john wayne). while none of my research has come up with anything about women of color or nonbinary people in the western scene, only moc (whether this is intentional or not, i’m not sure), i still wanted to write kaj as non-male. frankly, this is because i wanted her to be an inversion of tired tropes, and that included being a debonair, byronic woman / non gender conforming hero (think gentleman jack) instead of a debonair, byronic white dude. we’ve got 20 of those for every fleshed out woman/enby on screen, lbr. kaj is also a femme fatale, but only by coincidence; she’s more of a wandering heart breaker than a necessarily dangerous woman, much like many of the heroes on screen.

i also find that non-men of color are one of the most underrepresented minorities in fiction—even media that celebrates diversity simplifies them down (hamilton), or centers their narrative and entire purpose around a man (hamilton, again). nevermind nonbinary people / trans folk. for that reason, i wanted kaj’s story to be about a woman of color / someone who doesn’t conform to expectations and doesn’t allow herself to be put in the sidelines for a white person or a male to lead her life. and regardless of whether a woman filling this swaggering, womanizing cowboy role is accurate to history or not, fallout’s setting lends itself an air of exaggeration, so i felt it was appropriate to include her here, instead of arguing with people over whether someone like her existed in actual history (my suspicions say yes, and that these people have simply been erased from the narrative for the convenience of certain people’s feelings, but still).

smarter than you look / deadly doctor (this one actually has a tvtropes page! look it up!)—

from the deadly doctor page : ‘ surely the ultimate example of the morally ambiguous doctorate. one reason for this is due to all his/her training : while having advanced knowledge on the human body can be used to save people, it also gives all the knowledge on how to injure and kill people with minimal effort by knowing all the body's weak points. some more sympathetic examples equate to the medical version of a well-intentioned extremist, who may certainly have good (or at least sympathetic/understandable) intentions but ruthless medical ethics. ’

one of the most important things kaj took from her thorough education is medical training—unable to depend on anyone after being traumatized, trusting any doctor who happened along to treat her illnesses was out of the question. she was also smart enough to know the original kaj wouldn’t be around to heal her up forever. thus, she began her training as a self preservation instinct; but over time, as she grew and relearned how to be compassionate and empathetic, she decided to use healing for good, too. trained as a young girl by the original kaj, and then later trained officially as a combat medic by the ncr, kaj has spent a countless amount of hours inside army tents, healing wounds and assisting doctors with tough cases. she even keeps a medical bag on her person for exactly that sort of situation (especially since supplies in the mojave aren’t exactly easy to dig up). though she’s a big scientist in general (the big mt saw to that), medicine is her specialty. she’s even stitched up her own wounds, though it’s not something she particularly enjoys (it takes a lot of whiskey and something for her to bite down on).

for reference, consider this scene of anton from no country for old men (TW: he’s performing self surgery, so it’s pretty gruesome). though both anton and kaj’s lifestyles are rough and even sadistic at times, they both still have medical training—if not to protect others, then to at least protect themselves. and like anton, it shows kaj’s inability to trust anyone with her most important commodity: herself. this makes her surgery in the big empty doubly as horrifying, given she took specific pains for something like this to not happen. it’s why she refuses to leave without all of her organs (also, stubbornness). all of this is just one of the ways kaj is way more ... well, everything than she looks. which leads into...

underestimate me if you dare, aka femme fatale (sort of?)—

though fallout prides itself on being a soft reset on the world, people’s perceptions of minorities are still ... iffy, due to real world influences by the creators. thus, the people around kaj often jump to assumptions about her based on her identity—mostly, that she’s weak. once, it offended her, but now it’s a perception that she encourages. after all, she’s not flat out strong like your usual hero, but is more of a hamlet-type; smart, perceptive, fast, and willing to strike from the shadows. it’s hard to do any of that if you’re putting on a big performance about your power (though admittedly, she’s been known to go big or go home if she’s planning on killing everyone; if she’s not faking nice and telling you what you wanna hear, trouble’s ahead).

of course, the reality is that kaj is a powerhouse. but these perceptions about her supposed weakness are why posing as a legion member is so easy—those who think she’s weak underestimate her or keep their distance, which gives her leave to do what she wants. she’s viewed more like a pet than a person by most, and though it frustrates her at times to pretend, it also gives her leave to do more, than if she were to simply pose as a man.

all that said, kaj doesn’t exactly qualify as a femme fatale. most of her lovers are just information givers, and they escape from their interaction unharmed. kaj killing her bed mates is actually less likely than her just sparing them and letting them go, none the wiser. of course, you kill one tyrant (maybe two or three) and suddenly you’re a black widow—

[joytoasheshq]

below is christine’s sample application for ned stark. applications won’t be posted in full with acceptances. this is to provide another example of what i’m looking for in applications. a big thank you to christine for providing this sample, and making me cry over papa wolf! hope this is helpful and enjoy!!

OOC.

name: Christine

age: 26

pronouns: they/them

timezone: EST

triggers: {omitted}

in the game of thrones you win or you die, would you be open to your character dying?: as much as the idea crushes me, it would feel DISHONEST to say no (and I’d be more than happy to play another character after Ned ofc)

anything else: n/a

IN CHARACTER.

full name: Eddard “Ned” Stark

gender + pronouns: nonbinary, he/him    it’s only recent that Ned’s felt comfortable exploring his gender identity and sexuality; raised in a family of cops, there were certain standards of masculinity that were expected of him and he never felt fully comfortable opening that particular box of worms. but within a supporting and loving relationship with a woman he trusts entirely, he’s felt better about exploring that side of himself and admitting that he never fully fit into the boxes he tried to fit into when he was younger.

age & dob: 35, July 21, 1983

faceclaim: Yahya Abdul-Mateen II

personality: + he’s reliable, above all: he can be counted on to do what he says he will do, no matter what it is. it makes him easy to trust, easier to understand. straightforward and loyal to those he’s promised his loyalty to. + a compassionate person, he has an understanding and empathetic soul. always willing to listen, to provide a word of advice. x being honorable is a double-edged sword, a coin with two sides: it endears him to some, makes him valued by those who have reason to value him. but it also makes him easy to manipulate – he is not playing the game that everyone else seems to be playing, which means that more often than not he ends up a pawn. x as a father, a husband, a brother, and a friend, he is protective; he’s lost too many people not to be. he’ll defend those he cares about as far as he needs to in order to keep them safe. - with all that, though, comes a naive optimism that can be dangerous in a world like this. it’s not that he expects anyone to be as honorable as he is, not that he doesn’t understand that people lie, and cheat, and steal, and kill. he knows this better than anyone. but he sees no point in going on if he can’t have some kind of hope, can’t let himself see the best in people. - his morality is inflexible, with no shades of gray: there is what’s right and what is wrong. and he knows the world is not so simple– knows people do wrong things for right reasons and right things for wrong reasons, knows there is always a way to blur the line. but that blurring is a slippery slope, and it’s easier to keep focus on that simple binary of right and wrong and let everything else fall into place around it.

headcanons:

( trigger warnings: pregnancy complications, death )

1. His father is a cop. His father is a cop, and his father’s father is a cop, and his father’s father’s father was a cop before that. He grows up in the shadow of it, never a question in his mind of what he would grow up to become: the men in his family, they protect the city, they always have, and so will he, when he’s old enough. Just like his father. Just like his older brother does, a few years before he can.

High school, college, the police academy. He is a star student. He prides himself on being a just and honorable man, just like his father. Just like Brandon. He models himself after them in every fathomable way. He admires them. His father, chief of police. His brother, charismatic and well-loved and engaged to a woman he so clearly adores. They are his heroes: he lives happily in their shadow, feeling a little like a child among giants, like he’ll always be reaching up to try to be as tall as them, like he’ll always be tripping over the shoes they leave to fill.

When they die– both of them, at once, as if one wasn’t enough to shatter him into pieces, as if one wasn’t enough loss to have him grieving for a lifetime– when they die, trying to subdue the riots, to stop the chaos, he tries to fill their shoes. He becomes a part of things, not just a rookie cop but a voice for the people, or, for Robert maybe, or– god, but he gets lost in it. The violence, the chaos, the city in turmoil. It is impossible to see a clear way out, through the fog and the confusion and the grief.

He’s not proud of it. But at the end of the day, all he’s got is the people he has left – Benjen, Robert, Jon – and a determination to never let it happen again.

2. She’s dying, when he finds her. His sister, little Lyanna. She’s always been little Lyanna but he feels it now more than ever, holding her hand in bed, thin and shaking. Complications with a pregnancy he had no idea existed. Complications that an adequate doctor could have fixed, if they’d gotten there in time, if she’d given birth in a hospital where the doctors would have had files about her history of blood clotting, if someone had been there to catch the signs of a pulmonary embolism, if only, if only, if only. If only she hadn’t felt the need to run away, when a pregnancy test confirmed her fears. If only she had felt like she could tell anyone. But she’s dying, already, and he’s not a doctor; he’s barely even a cop, 23 years old and only six months on the force.

There’s nothing you can do, she says, her voice weak. It’s okay, it’s not your fault. Just– promise me something, please.

And he’d promise her anything, in that moment, his little sister, promise her the entire world and do anything he could to deliver. When the doula hands him her son– premature, too small, tiny hands gripping at nothing, tiny mouth searching blindly in the air for a mother to latch onto– he promises.

He leaves Dorne with the baby in his arms, and when the baby starts to cry, he finds that he is crying, too. Can’t stop himself. He has buried too many people, for his age, and all in a year. A father, a brother, a sister. He knows it isn’t true– knows there’s Benjen, still, knows there’s Robert, knows there’s Jon– but for a moment it feels like his world has shrunk down, and the only things left in it are himself and this baby boy and the snow falling around them.

He is a good man. He will be a good father. He will keep every promise to his sister he ever made. He will keep her child safe, call him his own. Tell whatever story he needs to, so that no one knows what Lyanna didn’t want them to know.

3. Cat is… a revelation. An unexpected surprise. He knew her, of course, before it all. Brandon’s girl. He’d looked forward to calling her a sister-in-law, once. She is bright and she is clever and she is kind and she is too much, for him, too good to be true. He’s… trying, as far as fatherhood goes, but he never meant to be a father at 23, at 24. He’s quit the force, living off the meager inheritance his father left behind until Jon is old enough to go to school, because he can’t bear the though of leaving his son alone, of hiring someone else to watch him, of doing anything that might separate them. Because what if something were to happen? What if he were to lose Jon, too?

He agrees to dinner with Cat because he’s always liked her. He’s never thought of her as anything other than Brandon’s girlfriend, Brandon’s fiancee. Never wanted to: they were so in love. Brandon was so happy. Brandon would have done anything for her. He agrees to dinner with Cat because he needs someone who is sharing in his grief, and because she says she knows a great babysitter who can help out for the night.

He doesn’t mean to fall in love.

But she’s not Brandon’s anything, anymore. But Brandon’s gone. And they get along in so much other than their grief. More than he expects. And dinner one time turns into dinner once a week, turns into nights spent together, turns into moving in… and Catelyn makes him a better man. Makes him a better person. Makes him feel like maybe he can actually do it all.

She’s the one who encourages him to start something new. To build something from the wreckage. And so he starts Stark Security – he’s got the skills he needs, after all, even if he isn’t willing to risk his life anymore. Even if he isn’t willing to risk his family.

And they start a family.

4. Fatherhood suits him, it turns out. First Robb and then Sansa, and then the twins so soon after. And Jon, of course, a few years older than them all, and growing up so well. Just entering his moody pre-teen years. Stark Security means he can sit behind a desk, keep a regular 9-5, pick the kids up from school and be home in time for dinner every night. He takes up cooking, old family recipes. He reads bedtime stories and helps kids out of baths and into fleece footie pajamas. His face is sore from smiling, his voice hoarse from laughing. His chest feels warm, and large, and full, when he hears his childrens’ voices.

The loss still hits him, sometimes, like a wrecking ball. He wants to tell his father about something funny Sansa said. He wants to show Brandon a picture of the twins. He wants big family cookouts on warm June evenings. He wants someone to tell him they’re proud of him.

But there are better things to fill the gaps, better balms to salve the wounds. His kids, they give him purpose, give him a reason to get up in the morning and try to be a better person every single day. And his family gives him something to fight for, something to protect. They make him want to make Westeros a better place again.

INTERVIEW

vi. do you feel fulfilled in life?

    “I do. I really do. When I quit being a cop, I thought I might never feel that way again. You know how it is: you grow up around all that, you start to think there’s one right path towards fulfillment or whatever. But my kids– It’s worth everything else I’ve ever lost, just to have them.  They make me feel fulfilled every day, even if they’re a handful sometimes.”

vii. have you ever lost someone you loved?

    “Yeah,” he says, and it comes out more as an exhale than as a real word, hardly any voice behind it. Just the word is enough that he almost gets lost in it, the memories. Dad and Brandon’s funeral – one funeral, two caskets, and the way the sky opened up as soon as they’d been lowered into the ground like the world knew how impossible it would be to go on without them. Lyanna, and all the secrets she carried with her when she went, all on her own. Sometimes, he remembers it and he thinks for a minute it might break him. It might, except that he’s got people now who will help him keep going.

    “Yeah, a couple a’ people. It’s– it sucks, doesn’t it?”

ix. who was your last text to, and what did it say?

    “Let’s see,” he says, sliding his phone from his pocket and unlocking it with his thumbprint. Opens texts, scrolling back through one or two unanswered ones to the last one he sent…  CATELYN 😍 displayed across the top of the screen, and a few messages in a row below it, hey babe omw home / picking up dinner want me to pick up anything else? / 😉 /  maybe–

As he reads the messages that follow, he can feel his cheeks grow warm, blushing slightly. Maybe not the most appropriate series of messages to read out loud… He clears his throat, scrolls back one message father.

    “It was to Robert,” he says, before reading it out loud: “The good donut shop or the cheap one?”

EXTRAS (OPTIONAL):

x. pinterest x. inspo tag & edits x. playlist

[ambivalentman]

AN ATHEIST KING: THE LOSS OF BELIEF AND CHARACTER IN MUSCHETTI’S IT (2017)

This essay features several spoilers for IT (2017). You have been warned.

A DISCLAIMER BEFORE WE BEGIN

I was, at one point, a hard core Stephen King fan. When I entered my 20s, I owned every book written by him in hardcover -- with the exception of special edition stuff like My Pretty Pony -- including several first editions (like a beautiful first of The Shining). My copies of George Beahm’s The Stephen King Companion and The Stephen King Encyclopedia were already dog-eared and annotated. My prize possessions were the four issues of Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction I had which featured the first publication of The Gunslinger, and the other I had which included “The Moving Finger.” My parents thought I was weird, most girls thought I was scary, and at one point even my grandma suggested I seek therapy.

This was until about 2000. Then, an event took place which caused me -- like those in the Loser’s Club -- to abandon childish things. It was a bad decision, but I gave up my Stephen King collection.

I didn't rediscover my love for King until recently. Sure, I dabbled a bit these last few years, reading Under the Dome and 11/22/63, but I never fully re-embraced the hero of my youth. Until I decided to re-read IT, his 1986 masterpiece about a group of wounded people forced to face a truly terrifying force as both children and adults. I saw that Andy Muschetti was adapting the novel for Warner Bros., taking over for Cary Fukunaga, who -- despite being a true auteur -- fell out of Warner’s graces. All news surrounding the new adaptation was overwhelmingly positive, and it had been a long time since we last saw a great movie based on King’s work.

Back in April, I broke my right hip. After two surgeries, being fairly immobile has given me time to read more, so I picked up IT. Revisiting IT transported me back to that time when I was obsessed with King. The experience was overwhelming, like when adult Bill Denborough gets back on his enormous metal steed, Silver, and recalls how he once raced the devil on that bike to save Eddie Kaspbrak. A flood of joy came from reading King’s pulpy prose again. Going back to that tainted town of Derry to hang with the Losers helped make my rehab a little easier. And though I am still on the mend, I am ready to rekindle my love for King.

Which brings me to my other love: cinema. I don't write much about the movies anymore, but I am chomping at the bit to discuss and evaluate IT. There hasn't been a more anticipated film this year for me.

And no film has both pleased and disappointed me more.

WHAT MAKES A GOOD KING ADAPTATION?

Because of The Dark Tower, IT, and the forthcoming Gerald’s Game, there have been lots of clickbait “Stephen King Movies . . . Ranked” lists popping up online. Nerdist had a particularly interesting one, in which their top 10 looked like this:

10. Creepshow (1980)

9. IT (2017)

8. The Dead Zone (1983)

7. Dolores Claiborne (1995)

6. Stand By Me (1986)

5. The Mist (2007)

4. The Shining (1980)

3. Carrie (1976)

2. Misery (1990)

1. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Despite the ranking, most King fans and movie lovers alike will agree with this list (although Creepshow over Pet Sematary or Christine? Really? Sincerely?). Two of these films are directed by Frank Darabont (Shawshank, The Mist), and two by pre-what-the-f-happened Rob Reiner (Misery, Stand by Me). And the new adaptation of IT made the cut. So, if we can acknowledge these are the canonical King adaptations, what makes them the best? It's a pretty steep drop off in quality after the top 10. There's Pet Sematary, Christine, 1408, and The Green Mile, meaning that out of 44 movies based on Stephen King’s novels (not including TV mini-series), there’s really only about 14 good-to-great ones. If this were baseball -- King’s favorite sport -- Hollywood would be batting a respectable .318. Be that as it may, this is not baseball, and producing only 1 solid movie for every 3 is pretty awful.

This suggests that adapting Stephen King is tough. Why, though? His books are packed with memorable characters, scenes, and visuals. You could almost say he writes movies. His dialogue is colloquial and specific, and he has a great sense of pacing. While you could easily point out that lots of his stories share only a couple variations for endings -- destruction or aliens -- he is a strong storyteller with a keen understanding of cause and effect and narrative fairness. There's a reason, after all, that he inspired a generation of writers and filmmakers like JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, and the Duffer Brothers.

My theory is that King's greatness resides not in his ideas or execution, but in the spirit of his writing. King's voice is the soul of his work. When you read him, it feels like you are sitting down with a friend, listening to him share a great story. King feels familiar, like family. And the filmmakers who get that make films which reflect it.

Take, for example, the number 1 film on Nerdist’s list, The Shawshank Redemption. The use of Red’s voiceover narration immediately brings us into the tale of Andy Dufresne. Stand By Me and Dolores Claiborne also use great voiceovers. But in films like Misery, Carrie, and The Dead Zone, we are given protagonists who become our friends. We find Paul Sheldon to be kind and thoughtful, Carrie White to be sweet and misunderstood, Johnny Smith to be tortured and alone. These films understand deeply what King was aiming for with his characters. So, when Reiner changes events in Misery, it doesn't matter because not only did he truly “get” Paul, he also truly “got” Paul’s relationship with Annie Wilkes. Each of the films on this list, with the exception of IT (and Creepshow because it was an original script), truly grasped the core of King’s characters and their relationships to each other.

King is often considered a humanist author. His characters, including his villains, are often subjects for sympathy. In his work, there is a lot of insight into human nature, both light and dark. King is an observant author, grounding his most supernatural stories in a real world, with real people. This is best illustrated in his character relationships and interactions. Red and Andy develop first respect, then admiration, then deep friendship over their years in Shawshank. It is a relationship founded on honesty as they are the only honest men in the prison. Their mutual trust is what establishes the foundation for Andy’s escape plans, and ensures his success. In The Dead Zone, Johnny’s broken relationship with Sarah is haunted by lust and vitality, the very qualities Johnny loses touch with after his accident leaves him with a power which zaps the life from him with each use. Carrie White’s naive hope she can actually fit in is fulfilled by the compassionate Tommy Ross, which makes the tragedy of her coronation that much more devastating. The films capture these ideas to profound effect, which is why they endure. Once the novelty of plot dissipates, you are left with characters and their connections to each other and yourself. We enjoy a movie for plot; we love a movie for character.

King writes wonderful characters, and the best films based on his work never fail to capture those characters ideally.

Except IT.

Sigh.

THE PART WHERE I EXPLAIN WHY THE NOVEL IS A MASTERPIECE

It is not hyperbole to call IT “King's masterpiece.” Lots of critics have done it. By its publication in 1986, IT was the purest, most ambitious distillation of themes and ideas King had explored since Carrie in his fiction (and even in non-fiction dissertations like Danse Macabre). If you're reading this, chances are you know the story:

Every 27 years, the seemingly quaint hamlet of Derry, Maine becomes the feeding ground for an entity that has dwelled under the town’s surface for centuries. In 1958, after 6-year old Georgie Denborough is murdered by the creature -- assuming the shape of a murderous clown called Pennywise -- big brother Bill and his Losers Club come together to put an end to the evil. They are only marginally successful, as 27 years later, the Losers are called to return to Derry to kill IT for good.

IT is a multi-generational horror novel, spanning hundreds of years. We meet the Losers first as adults, all of whom (with the exception of Mike Hanlon, who chose to stay behind in Derry and become its resident historian and librarian) no longer remember the events that took place during the summer of 1958. Mike’s ominous phone calls, reminding the adults of the promise they made -- to return if IT ever resurfaced -- unlocks each adult’s dormant memory. As the novel unfolds, so does their collective remembrance of summer ‘58 and all the horrors it contained. King uses the flashbacks to highlight the differences between childhood and adulthood.

As with any epic sized novel, there are a myriad of themes to unpack. IT dives deep into ideas about childhood trauma, the power of personal shame, community corruption, racism, generational sin, and the coming of age ideas expected from a novel about kids becoming adults. For me, where the novel finds its most compelling thematic territory is in its exploration of belief. King wants us to recognize it is the purity of innocence, and the simplicity of belief that binds these kids together, and that the jaded cynicism of adulthood, with all its fears and anxieties, is what threatens to destroy them.

This theme hinges on the role of Pennywise. He is a shapeshifting, Lovecraftian monster, tapping into the fears of his quarry to exploit during the hunt. He appears to Ben as his dead father, to Mike as a pterodactyl-like bird, to the germaphopic Eddie as a leper, and to Richie as the lycanthropic Michael Landon in I Was a Teenage Werewolf. When Pennywise goes after Bev, it is by turning her sink into a geyser of blood which only she can see. Bill is tormented by the memory of his dearly departed brother, whose school photograph Pennywise animates and makes bleed. Children have very primal fears, and that which adults see as fake or absurd, kids often embrace as real. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, chupacabras, zombies . . . children do not reject fantasy outright as adults do, making them susceptible to both profound fear and hope.

We see this in the Losers’ response to IT’s attacks. They are terrified, but never stop seeking solution. They find their weapons in objects. Even after he learns his asthma inhaler is a mere placebo, Eddie still uses it to calm his nerves, and later fires it at Pennywise, believing its contents to be battery acid. With Bill’s help, Ben melts down two silver dollars into bearings for Bev to shoot at the monster with a slingshot. When Stan gets trapped by Pennywise after finding himself alone in the house on Neibolt Street, he manages to escape by chanting the names of every bird contained in his field guide. The kids build an underground fort, which they convert into a smoke house to go on a Native American “Vision Quest.” It is during this dangerous endeavor that Mike and Richie seem to travel through time back to a primordial era where they witness IT’s arrival. The Losers’ passionate adherence to ritual and talismans give them a collective power. This power keeps them unified, and even frightens their tormentor. Belief is their truest weapon, especially belief in each other.

The other themes King addresses throughout IT are compelling, but it is this idea about belief that gives the novel its soul. There is no cynicism in King's approach -- he captures the imagination of these children with remarkable affection, and this results in each kid winning our hearts over. Pennywise may be the allure the book needs to attract its audience, but these kids are what inspires guys like me to re-read a 1,000+ page book.

They are also what inspired me to struggle with a movie engineered for my celebration.

IN PRAISE OF MUSCHETTI’S IT

Before I tear apart IT, which is very popular, having made over $200 million domestically in its first two weekends, I want to praise it. Despite having some huge issues, the film does some things very well. There is a good reason why this movie works for so many people.

The major reason IT works is because of its energy and general nostalgia. While these elements often fade on repeat viewings, they are so engrossing during a first one. Being set in 1989 puts the setting during a period Gen Xers remember fondly and for which Millennials pine. Movie theater marquees are showing Batman and Lethal Weapon 2. A poster for A Nightmare on Elm Street 5 is a coming attraction. The kids ride Schwinns, use Kodak Carousels, don’t have cell phones, and wear denim cutoffs. The aesthetic is perfect. Producer Seth Grahame-Smith revealed in an interview with Birth.Movies.Death that he prepped nostalgia lists for all of the child actors, from music to movies to video games to fashion as a way to show them what summer ‘89 in New England was like for him. The work paid off, because the town of Derry is authentic in its nostalgia. It is impossible not to be drawn into this world.

And this world is scary, even without Pennywise. As with all idealized nostalgic perspective on days long gone, there is a darker undercurrent (as if we punish ourselves for embracing such idyllic memories). Perhaps the darkest element are the adults of Derry. Kids go missing and the “Missing Persons” posters are simply papered over as new children are added to the list. A leering pharmacist flirts with Bev. In the library, as Ben investigates Derry’s ugly history, the Librarian lingers in the fuzzy background, grinning maliciously. Not one adult exhibits empathy for these kids, including Bill’s dad or Stan’s rabbi father. Certainly not Bev’s father, who inhales his daughter’s hair like she’s fresh out of the oven, and obsesses over her virginity with a fervor that would make even President Trump uncomfortable (or envious, if we're being honest). In some ways, the more visceral nature of the film captures Derry’s innate badness more clearly than the hundreds of pages King devotes to the subject in his novel. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand pages.

Muschietti and his casting director also got the casting perfect. As with the films of JJ Abrams, criticize all you want, but it's impossible to trash the impeccable casting choices. Each of these kids perfectly embodies the characters they portray. Kudos especially go to Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Jack Dylan Grazer, and Finn Wolfhard as Ben, Bev, Eddie, and Richie. Ben’s beautiful sensitivity, Bev’s intense devotion and passion, Eddie’s passive-aggressive resolve, and Richie’s unending stream of bullshit are as sharp and resonant here as they are on the page. Even Jaeden Lieberher, as Bill, and Chosen Jacobs, as Mike, look and feel right. Unfortunately, the script makes some poor choices with their characters that nearly derails the film. But more on that in a bit. Without a doubt, these kids are legit actors. No scene better proves this than the swimming scene in which everyone is stripped to their underwear and dives into the lake from the frighteningly high cliff. The scene could have been incredibly exploitative as the boys ogle Bev, but instead the quality of these performances makes their pubescent sexual discovery innocent and real. Consider this a great contrast with the perverse exchanges Bev has with the adult world. It is both ironic and terrifying that Bev is perceived more as an object by adults than by teenage boys.

While the film finds many of its most effective scares in the presentation of Derry, and the juxtaposition of innocent and corrupt images, the advertisements promise that we will be scared senseless by Pennywise the Dancing Clown. As portrayed by Bill Skarsgard, this Pennywise bears little resemblance to the seductive, menacing clown Tim Curry created for the 1990 ABC television miniseries. Skarsgard’s Pennywise is serpentine, alien, with dead eyes and a slithering voice. His costuming suggests his age, and the cracks in his makeup reveal a facade. This Pennywise is less playful and charismatic, and hungrier. He drools as he corners the kids in the Neibolt house. And his shapeshifting is frightening, especially when he presents himself to Eddie as a relentless leper. Skarsgard’s performance is wonderful and wholly his own. He will invite comparisons to the iconic Curry, but ultimately his Pennywise will stand alone.

IT’s success as a film can be broken down into these three elements: Derry, the kids, and the creepiness of Pennywise. But its failure can also be broken down into three parts, too.

1) The absence of a thematic soul

2) The abandonment of characterization

3) The confusion of style for substance

A LOSS OF SOUL

A great adaptation isn’t necessarily about doing the book, but about capturing the soul of the book (or finding a soul no one even knew existed, ala The Godfather or The Shining). A movie can look the part, but if it fails to reveal that essence of spirit, it will eventually crumble. In the case of IT, the movie is about as hollow as the space behind Pennywise’s eyes.

The soul of this story is the children's belief. Outside of a generic, “We gotta believe in each other!” idea to which much lip service is paid, these kids are bereft of belief in anything. This is an atheist interpretation of Stephen King's story, in which our Loser’s Club prefer brute force over imagination. In the film’s climax, Bill leads the charge against Pennywise by picking up a bat and swinging at the clown’s head. All the Losers join him. The result looks remarkable, as each strike causes the clown to transform into each child's fear, but it is a graceless, uninspired physical solution to a metaphysical problem. It also ruins Pennywise. How evil can he truly be when all it takes is an angry mob armed with sticks to bring him down?

Throughout King's novel, the Losers seek many ways to defeat the demon. They melt down the silver dollars. Eddie’s inhaler becomes a chemical weapon. Stan’s bird book is a shield, the names of the birds his mantra. And the kids buy into Native American rituals, like the Ritual of CHUD, to confront IT. Obviously, the shift in setting from the 1950s to 1980s meant losing some of these talismans. After all, the 50s Wolfman, when compared to the 80s Freddy Krueger, is a flaccid nightmare. But every monster has a weakness, even human ones. The Losers spend no time thinking on this.

Indeed, Muschetti strips them of their creativity completely. Gone is Ben’s architectural acumen, which nearly flooded the Barrens and provided an underground club house. Bill’s storytelling, which keeps the group focused, is generically spread amongst all of them. Even Bev's love for fashion and art is lost. It's shocking to me how Muschetti removed the core elements from each of these characters, leaving only their gimmicks -- Bill’s st-st-stutter, Ben’s girth, Bev’s cigarette smoking, Richie’s humor, Eddie's hypochondria, Stan’s Judaism, and Mike’s blackness. In the need to appeal to every demographic, these characters were stripped for parts.

It is a testament to the strength of the performances by this group of kids that the Losers have any flavor whatsoever. The script provides them no depth, only set pieces and surface sentiment, yet they are convincing for awhile in the dark. But like Pennywise’s many facades, eventually they slide off and there's nothing remaining.

The soul of King's story is belief, imagination, and the collective power of childlike purity. Andy Muschetti’s adaptation is more in love with Halloween maze scares than it is with pursuing these ideas. His vision of defeating our fears involves angry children with sticks, not wounded children with imagination. Audiences may like the cathartic release that comes with beating the shit out of the monster, but it does nothing to feed their souls.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

I already alluded to the surface qualities that pass for characterization in IT, but it goes a bit deeper than this. Character interaction is essential to building great characters, and this is where IT fails epically.

To prove this, let’s take a closer look at Bill Denborough.

Bill is arguably the most important of our protagonists, especially in King's novel. The story begins with him making a paper boat for his brother and sealing it with wax so it will float in the gutter water outside. The death of Georgie becomes a source of guilt and shame for Bill. And since his parents pay little to no attention to him, Bill is made to face these overwhelming feelings alone. It is his determination and inner strength that propels him to lead the Losers in their quest to put an end to IT. But, this quest, while certainly obsessive, is rooted in shame and love. Bill loves each of his friends and often goes off alone because he fears their fate will be his fault, as he believes Georgie’s fate to be his fault. This is the source of Bill’s maturity, which sets him apart from everyone else in the club. Because of Bill’s maturity, the Losers follow him without much question. They are devoted to him as a leader and friend, and willingly choose to lay down their lives if need be.

This is far from the way Bill is presented in the film. He is a Captain Ahab, chasing his white clown into the sewers of Derry. He likes his friends, but often doesn't concern himself with their feelings. In fact, at one point Richie throws a punch at Bill and the two fight over their pursuit of the monster. This Bill is not a leader; he is a dictator. He lacks empathy, and mostly cares for himself. Even worse, his quest is no longer rooted in shame, but in pure vengeance. Bill doesn't express his self-loathing at what happened to Georgie. Instead, at the end of the film, when Pennywise presents Itself as Georgie, Bill just punches IT in the face.

The shift in Bill is a subtle one, but has huge consequences for the story. By changing his leadership style, it makes the other Losers look more like followers of fear than a group of equals. In many ways, Bill is no different than the crazy bully Henry Bowers, whose friends follow him out of fear. Like Henry, Bill is on a mission to destroy, has little regard for the consequences of his actions, gets others involved who don't necessarily want to be, and doesn't listen to reason. Yet, we like Bill and hate Henry because Bill stutters and Henry likes carving his initials into the bellies of defenseless fat kids.

This is not to say Bill isn't the hero, but that Muschetti misfires with Bill by removing his core empathy and giving the character over completely to obsession. While the rest of the characters don't fare as badly as Bill does, each loses something, mainly through the cutting of interactions. On a basic level, we see this in the fact that Bev only interacts with Bill and Ben through most of the movie, yet is presented as the symbol of group unity. She can't even be bothered to share a smoke with Richie, or have a conversation with Stan and Mike.

Bill and Bev certainly present issues in characterization, but no character is more problematic than Mike Hanlon. There have already been several insightful thinkpieces about the treatment of Mike that there is little I can add, but the gist is this: Mike is presented as a token black character for no reason. Granted, most of these characters are tokens in their own way, so it stands to reason Mike would receive no better treatment. It was a struggle for me to watch one of my favorite characters in the novel reduced to a handsome black face that has to face the racist white bully. It was harder to watch Mike's love for history handed over to Ben. Mike deserved better.

All of these wonderful characters deserved better. This is what happens when style trumps substance.

THE NEW HORROR AESTHETIC

IT is the culmination of the trend in cheap seat horror to rely on the jump scare as the source of terror. No horror film of this variety has handled this trope better than Muschetti’s film. Arguably, Muschetti has perfected the jump scare. His film is a maze at Knott’s Scary Farm or Universal’s Halloween Horror Nights waiting to happen. The soundtrack is pitched to screamtastic levels. Put a camera on audiences and every 5-7 minutes, prepare to see people grabbing each other or jumping like William Castle had come back from the dead to put a tingler in their seat.

This reliance on the jump scare is aided by a color palette washed in sepia tones and deeper reds, which enable the clown to do his Jack-in-Box routine in darkness that can't elicit laughter. Muschetti and his postproduction team nailed the look of this film like mad scientists.

The beauty of this is that audiences love IT. This is a horror movie that feels like a horror film. Yet, IT remains safe, like those scary carnival mazes. When you're creeping your way through one, every darkened corner promises danger, but behind all that tension you know none of the masked employees can touch you without legal repercussion. Sadly, IT isn't allowed to touch you either. Promises of danger lurk around every shot, but it is all bark and no bite.

Take the Neibolt Street House sequence. There's a clever moment in which Bill and Richie, separated from Eddie, try to find him before Pennywise gets him and are presented with three doors to escape. The doors are labeled “Not Scary,” “Scary,” and “Very Scary.” Of course the boys take the first one, and are presented with a frightening image. You would imagine they would be forced to take the third door, but instead they double down on the “Not Scary” path and are rewarded for their cowardice. This is the ultimate in style over substance. The scene looks perfect, but says and does nothing.

Still, the aesthetic is convincing. This is how we want horror movies to look, even if they have nothing to say.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT

Since Warner Bros.’s sinks are exploding with dollar bills right now, IT will have a seismic impact on the popular culture landscape. Some things are inevitable: we will get a “Chapter Two” featuring the adults returning to Derry for a final showdown with IT. We can also expect more horror movies. Will we get more clown flicks? I'm sure there's plenty of those being prepared for VOD as I write this.

What I am more concerned about is the state of horror film. Over the last decade, we have seen a renaissance in indie horror. Get Out, It Follows, The Babadook, The Witch, The Invitation, Cheap Thrills, Starry Eyes, Goodnight Mommy, and Raw are a few of the most notable titles. This movement has brought a variety of styles and an emergence of new voices unlike anything we’ve seen since the 70s. Even a big budget haunted house franchise like The Conjuring reinforced the brilliance of James Wan and reminded us of the power in the traditional horror story amidst all the rebels.

IT feels like a sea change, though. The Conjuring made tons of money, but it didn't make this kind of money. And while The Conjuring felt traditional, IT is being presented as something new. People are talking about it like it's different. Joe Hill, King's son and respected novelist, called IT “one of the five best horror movies I've ever seen.” This movie is a hydrogen bomb on pop culture, especially as it arrived on the heels of the poorest performing summer box office in 20 years. This movie isn't just new, it's a savior.

So while we can expect more Stephen King remakes and adaptations, we can also expect less money for horror indies. Studios will want more movies to look and feel like IT, and in this narrowing marketplace, that has the potential to choke out the little guy. This is the true horror.

I hope I am wrong. Horror films are cheap to make. That is their appeal for young filmmakers looking to make a mark. Hopefully this doesn't change.

The Stephen King fan in me celebrates the love IT is receiving around the world. The cinephile in me is afraid of what this means for horror cinema going forward.

[emm-doubleyou]

Episode of the Week - 10x01: The Conspiracy in the Corpse 

For me, this was honestly one of the most shocking and unexpected moments in Bones’ history. To lose Sweets in such a tragic way- in the season premiere no less- was a complete shock to the system. I loved Sweets dearly. He wasn’t perfect. None of these characters are. He certainly made his share of mistakes. But you cannot deny that this man loved these two people kneeling before him with all his heart. What started out as a work task evolved into something truly special. And to see the three of them together in those final moments was inordinately distressing. But the fact that it was just the three of them also felt right somehow. 

Like Brennan, Sweets was a foster child. And like many of the characters in this show, he too had a painful past. He was in foster care until his adoptive parents got him out at six years old. That was the first time Sweets experienced how a loving family should be. Unfortunately, right before he began working at the FBI, he lost both of his parents. He was an “orphan” once more. Psychology is a funny thing. While he was evaluating Booth and Brennan, did he even realize that he was growing attached to the partners, himself? He wanted to observe them, to write about them. Their relationship fascinated him on both a professional and personal level, and he wanted to study it further. He initially concluded that they shouldn’t work well together, but they somehow defied the odds. He wanted to understand how and why. But really, his feelings ran far deeper. Booth and Brennan were essentially becoming family to him. It took some time. And really, the partners were never quite receptive to his field of study. For the most part, Booth didn’t want his “head shrunk” and Brennan, of course, didn’t believe in psychology. But the two of them kept coming. And Sweets continued to see them. He began accompanying Booth on more and more cases as time went on. His work as a profiler proved extremely beneficial. Sweets also formed close relationships with the rest of the Jeffersonian team. He was being welcomed into their makeshift extended family. And whether or not he knew it, he so desperately needed it. 

Without Booth and Brennan’s partnership, Sweets would likely have never met Daisy. While the two made more than one attempt at their relationship, you cannot deny that they had something incredibly precious. I would argue that Daisy was the love of Sweets’ life. Just look what they shared, even while they were not together. They helped one another. They took turns giving each other advice.  And they even admitted that they missed what they once had together. I hope that in the months since Sweets bumped into Daisy, they lived every moment to the fullest. Third time’s a charm, after all. I hope that they treasured one another, and gave this iteration of their relationship their all. 

Sweets deserved more than life ultimately handed him. And I don’t mean that the show should not have gone in this direction. Not at all. But placing myself in the Bones universe for a moment, Sweets was an inherently good and just man who deserved a long and happy life. He was obviously bit immature at times (aren’t we all?), but he was also brilliant, compassionate, insightful, goofy, loving, composed, and trustworthy. Again, he made mistakes. They have all  made mistakes. Perhaps he shouldn’t have forced Booth to confess his feelings to Brennan on that fateful night. But honestly, Booth and Brennan were in a bit of a stalemate. Looking back on it now, I believe it was probably the best thing that could have happened to them, and for them. It wasn’t devoid of pain, that’s for sure. But they slowly but surely made their way to each other. Who knows how long they would have remained stagnant and scared without Sweets’ push. It was certainly the impetus that set the events of season 5 and 6 into motion. Sweets is still human. And he’s not a psychic. So because I wouldn’t change a moment of Booth and Brennan’s journey, I wouldn’t alter Sweets’ hand in it either. It’s controversial, I know. It’s a polarizing subject. But it all turned out more than okay. Everything happened eventually. And really, Sweets is one of the couple’s biggest fans. Both before and after they got together. And I hear Uncle Sweets made one hell of a blueberry muffin. 

In the end, it was fitting to have just the three of them spend Sweets’ last moments together. If a heart could literally break, mine would have shattered to pieces. He was always there for these two. He helped Brennan with the move and with Christine while Booth was away. “It's nothing you wouldn’t have done for me.” So very true. Sweets spends the entirety of this episode attempting to help Booth. He knows Booth well enough to know that this man’s faith has been completely shaken, and that he is unable to place his trust in anyone or anything. Sweets also points out that Booth needs an anchor. He resolutely devotes all his effort to helping Booth find his way back from the darkness. He wants to help him regain his faith. He wants Booth to execute this case in the right way. The Booth way. Not in pursuit of vengeance, but justice. 

Sweets’ conversation with Brennan at the diner is extraordinary bittersweet in hindsight. Sometimes I don’t think Sweets realized just how important he was to these people. Jokes about psychology and his age aside, he was an essential component of their group. They loved him. They cared about him. They would have bent the world for him. Even so, Sweets appears to be a genuinely surprised when Brennan wanted an opinion from “a friend.” And what she says is true, he does know Booth better. He understands Booth, as well as his motivations. And that becomes evident in the way he described Booth’s psyche to Brennan in that scene. Brennan, rather shockingly, admits to Sweets that there is logic behind some of his work. Because applying this “pseudoscience” to Booth, it makes perfect sense. She knows Booth needs his faith to effectively survive. He needs to be able to trust again. Without his faith, he will lose himself. And without trust, he will isolate himself. Brennan is obviously thankful that her husband is alive and with her. But he’s not all there. He’s clearly not himself. She sees that. Sweets and Brennan arrive at the conclusion that they must show Booth that regaining his trust is a risk worth taking. Brennan takes that to heart, metaphorically speaking.  Because we see her just two episodes later telling Booth that his world needs to be bigger than just her. He needs to be able to trust his friends. He has worked with these people for the better part of a decade. Deep down, he knows they would never betray him.  Brennan does consider Sweets a friend. More so, she considers him family. And she ends the diner conversation by assuring Sweets that he’s going to be a good father. While watching this episode the first time, I recall thinking it was a lovely moment. Now- it’s absolutely heart-crushing. He would have been an incredible father. 

Sweets’ final moments really demonstrated the kind of person he always was. Though it seemed like a visual parallel to Vincent’s death, he didn’t appear to harbor any fears or anxieties about dying. Rather, he was using his last few breaths of life to let Booth that he did his best. He shot one of the men who attacked him. But he lost the document. Booth obviously doesn’t care about that in this moment. Nothing else matters but this man on the ground before him. But Sweets keeps going. He wants Booth and Brennan to take care of Daisy, and make sure she doesn’t worry.  And with his final breath, he tries to comfort Booth as best he can. He wants Booth to understand that he’s going to be okay. In time, it will get better. “The world is a lot better than you think it is.”  That was Sweets’ last bit of council. He could have said he was afraid. He could have ineffectively begged God or the universe for another chance at life. But he chose to leave his friend, his brother, with those last words of wisdom. Because Booth has always been one of the most important influences in his life. And he simply couldn’t leave without making sure he did everything in his power to help Booth. Sweets obviously understands that he is dying. And he knows full well that Booth is going to blame himself. That’s what Booth does. Time and time again, he takes on that burden. He carries the weight of the world with him. And perhaps if he had gone in Sweets’ place, this would never have happened. Or maybe he would have died. We will never know. We cannot change the past. But Sweets doesn’t blame him. It was his choice to go. It was out of Booth’s control.  And Sweets did everything he could to fight back. It just wasn’t enough. But Booth needs to know that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. He needs to understand that he can make it through this. And that he can return to the man he once was. His life is waiting for him. His family is there for him. The world may have dealt him a bad hand (time and time again). But he has always also been incredibly fortunate. He will get his faith back. And Sweets wants to ensure that he at least tried to help him get there. This entire scene speaks volumes to Sweets’ character. About the man he was. The friend he was. And it felt appropriate to have this unbearably crushing moment happen between these three. Finish it the way they started. That seems to be a trend in this show. 

Booth would eventually get justice for his friend. And with the help of Brennan, he went about it in the right way. It’s what Sweets would have wanted. He would not have wanted Booth to sacrifice his soul in the name of revenge. That is something he could never have come back from. And Brennan couldn’t bear to see the man she loves disappear. Sweets loved Booth. Sweets loved Brennan. Along with Angela, he was probably the couple’s biggest fan. They took him in when he was alone in the world. They invited him to dinners, and to outings. They shared pieces of their painful past with him, and they shared their triumphs and joys with him,  And they literally took him into their home when he needed a place to live, and people to help get him back on his feet. They were his family. Until the very end. Actually, they are still his family. Just because he’s not there, doesn’t mean he isn’t (figuratively) in their hearts. 

In his 29 short years, Sweets left his mark on the world. His memory will never be lost. He left behind a son whom he sadly never got the chance to meet. But his son will know who his father was. Lance Jr. will never be lacking in family and in love. He has an abundance of it. And he’s a lucky little boy. Daisy and her son will be taken care of. Always. They will forever have a home with these people. And Sweets’ memory will live on through all of them. Through the stories they tell. Through the memories they recall. Through his work. And through his book. Because he also knew. 

“But I do believe Sweets is still with us. Not in a religious sense because the concept of God is merely a foolish attempt to explain the unexplainable..But in a real sense. He's here. Sweets is a part of us. Our lives, who we all are at this moment, have been shaped by our relationships with Sweets. Well, each of us is like a delicate equation. And Sweets was the variable without which we wouldn't be who we are. I might not have married Booth. Or had Christine. Daisy certainly wouldn't be carrying his child. We are all who we are because we knew Sweets. So, I don't need a a God to praise him or the universe he sprang from, because I loved him. I used to try and explain love, define it as the secretion of chemicals and hormones. But I believe now, remembering Sweets, seeing what he left us, that love cannot be explained by science or religion. It's beyond the mind, beyond reason. What I do know-- loving Sweets loving each other, that's what makes life worthwhile.”

[movietvtechgeeks]

Latest story from https://movietvtechgeeks.com/andrea-menard-talks-supernatural-cuffing-jensen-ackles-music/

Andrea Menard talks 'Supernatural,' cuffing Jensen Ackles and her music

In the Season 13 premiere of Supernatural, we meet Sheriff Christine Barker, played by Andrea Menard. I absolutely adored her character, and certainly hope to see her again in future episodes (TPTB: hint, hint, nudge, nudge …) For those – Chuck forbid – who haven’t seen the premiere, tell us about your character. My character is Sheriff Christine Barker, and she has a young son – late teens. It’s just a small little regular town that she’s the Sheriff in … she keeps a good hold on the place. She’s very friendly and outgoing and manages to keep her deputies in line, and people trust her. And then this little weird event comes to town … the boys come to town. What happens is my son calls me, at the station to tell me that there is this naked kid outside of the place he works. There’s this weird naked kid and so he says come and get him, mom. I bring him down to the station and he’s not very vocal, and he’s not very coherent … he’s odd. So I figure since he doesn’t know how to answer my questions, I decide to fingerprint him. I figure well maybe he’ll be in the system somewhere. Just then, I get a phone call from one of the boys that someone knows he’s here, and that someone is looking for him, I happen to have his fingerprints run, and they are the weirdest non-human fingerprints I’ve ever seen. I know something’s up. Are you familiar with Supernatural at all? Oh yeah. Maybe not in the last couple of seasons, but I do know a few things. But you do know how they operate. Oh yeah. Why do you think Sam and Dean chose to tell Sheriff Barker the truth? I think that’s a really good question … I have no idea. I think that the episode that they had just come from at the end of the season, a lot of things went down. They have the feeling that their allies are leaving, you could say. They are losing their allies … I don’t know why he chose to tell me. I think she was easygoing; there was something trustworthy about her … I think they are needing some allies. And why do you think she reacted so well? Well, she has a teenage son. She has a teenage boy that brings home a lot of shocking stuff … he’s into drugs and he’s out doing his own stuff … she’s a sheriff, she’s probably seen some murders, seen some violence … so why not, why not monsters too. She’s seen a lot. I don’t think she’s seen monsters, but I think she’s seen a lot. Your character has one of the best lines – the one about there being no such thing as crazy – which is the rallying cry for fandoms everywhere. What are your thoughts on that? I think she’s a real compassionate woman – I don’t think she likes the labels … even though I may not look it, I am an indigenous woman and so is my son. He’s a person of colour. We know that people of colour and indigenous people have been name called since people touched foot on this continent. I think that with all of the voiceless that have come into the forefront; the ones that have had prejudice, the racism, and genderism, sexism and all of those different things going on right now in the media … she knows. This character knows there’s a lot of untold stories that don’t get told. Let’s not make a judgment until we know the real story. It’s very nice to see another strong female character on Supernatural, that doesn’t get killed in the end. Will we be seeing your character again sometime soon? Let’s just say I’m making a bid for it. The thing is, who knows what’s coming next … that’s always a secret, including a secret from me too. She’s alive … and she’s been told the story. I think there’s a good chance, but who knows. That’s up to you, that’s up to the writers and the audience, whether or not they liked here … I think people are liking her. Are you familiar with the spinoff for the Wayward Sisters? Yes, I have heard of it, yeah … I think she would be a very good addition to that. I do too. When I was on set, I was making my pitch for it … you know, I’m alive still … you need help; I’m there! Do you have any funny behind the scenes stories to share? As a stranger who came on a set – these guys have been together for 13 years … there’s a lot of shorthand among the crew … here’s the part that I wanted to be able to share. Is that they’re really good people and they are very likable young men and actors and respectful … the crew really like them. That goes a long way. If you’ve been together 13 years and you’re not very nice, you won’t have the same crew from year to year. You wouldn’t want to be there. They’re really well respected; it’s a good place to be and fun, funny … people laugh. I was really pleasantly surprised because you never know what you’re going to walk into. Whether you’re going to be the stranger … but I was welcomed in and there was lots of laughter and lots of camaraderie. I can honestly say that this is a great place to work. Would you say that the camaraderie was your favourite part about being on Supernatural? Yes, I think so. I mean I’m a fan of the show as well … I love it. I love the spooky, all the characters … I love it. So when I got to be on the show I was just happy to be play a strong character and to survive … I loved that part. I really liked knowing that there was a possibility of continuance and that meant part of the family. Being a fan of the show did you have any fangirl moments? Yeah, I had a fangirl moment. When I got to cuff Jensen. Not bad. Not bad. Look him straight in the eye. Kind of a fangirl moment. [caption id="attachment_50740" align="aligncenter" width="400"] Photo: Kristine Cofsky[/caption] Do you have any upcoming roles you’d like to share? I’m in a play at the Arts Club Theatre on Granville Island in Vancouver. It’s a brand new play, so it’s a debut, for Kevin Loring – who is a fabulous writer. He’s a Governor General award-winning writer, actually for his play Where the Blood Mixes. We just opened, October 11, and close November 5. It’s a powerful play, mostly indigenous cast. It sort of throws the Thanksgiving holiday on its ass. Have you been in very many plays in Vancouver? I haven’t done theatre in a while, I thought maybe I was done because I’m a singer as well. I have a few different careers – four albums, a couple of tours … I’m in a series called Blackstone which is on Netflix as well … it’s like the Native Sopranos, I like to say. There’s another series called Hard Rock Medical that’s on Aboriginal Peoples Television Network … I’ve done some series work, but I wasn’t doing a lot of plays … me coming back with a fantastic play and a good role … I’m really proud of this one. Andrea’s music is available on iTunes, and you can reach her at @andreamenard on Twitter. Check Out Our 2017 Holiday Gift Guide: [abcf-grid-gallery-custom-links id="50643"]

Movie TV Tech Geeks News

[rosewoodprincess]

Okay so I rewatched LND and I feel like if a few things were changed, I would have accepted it as a more character fitting sequel. Due to it being the way it is, I see it as a more ‘what if under certain circumstances’ scenario. 

Madame Giry says they’ve helped Erik but I don’t believe that could have been the case. 

Erik escapes from the Opera house alone and I don’t believe he would seek out Madame Giry so soon after the whole ‘i nearly choked raoul to death but told him to take christine instead’ ordeal. I think he would have found a way into gathering the people that now work for him. his musical genius and manipulative skills would earn quite enough willing people and his general personality would have probably found a few more willing participants. A lot can change in 10 years. Furthermore, from what I saw, when Ramin sang as Phantom in LND OLC, he had no mask during ‘Devil take the hindmost’ (favourite song in LND), which would show his face holds no fear around the people he is around now. 

How do Madame Giry and Meg come into it? I had a small theory so I watched carefully this time around and compared to all the ballet in POTO, LND does not have much elaborate dancing when it comes to Meg’s performances. Yes, her voice has improved but her dancing doesn’t seem to be as good as before. One way it could work was that something caused her to stop being a professional dancer and, due to the sudden stop, the Phantom helped Madame Giry and Meg, therefore repaying his dept on being sneaked into the Opera House in Paris and having his secret kept for quite a long while, especially after having murdered a few innocent people. Also, it makes more sense than Erik accepting help after everything he did. 

Now, we have the set up of Coney Island, why do Raoul, Christine, and Gustave go there? (i have no idea if im spelling the kids name right but I really dont care). 

Oh Christine and Raoul do have problems. They do but not because Raoul grew to be an alcoholic that gambles all his money away to the point where his wife has to sing across the world to save them. Nah. Their problem is their lack of chemistry. Don’t get me wrong, they love each other, but I do think that sometimes, love just isnt enough. At the end of POTO, I do believe that Christine decided to follow her heart and go with Raoul but I also believe her soul longed for Erik. Maybe there wasn’t as much romance between them as between Raoul and Christine but that’s understandable. Erik WAS a monster. He killed without thinking about it and tried to force Christine to marry him (he didnt know what love felt like he only had Christine). Christine loved Raoul for the safety he promised and the romantic feelings between them. her heart belonged to Raoul. (the Love never dies and hearts can be broken lyrics made me think of this). She loved Erik for the connection they had through music. Raoul told her she doesnt have to sing, she can have that choice. He protected her. Erik told her to sing and sing and always dare to go beyond what she thought she was capable of. 

So yeah Christine and Raoul struggled and they decided that staying away from Paris and all their problems would do them do. spend some family time together (haha Erik comes to ruin Raouls day). Oh yeah also Gustave aint eriks idc what anyone says I dont believe Gustave is Erik’s son. I don’t believe Erik and Christine would have slept together. Not because ‘whoa he ugly’ but because I don’t believe that’s what their relationship in POTO was about. (to summarise, I doubt Erik would WANT to sleep with Christine (”but the point of no return!” yalls shout! “but be logical about the social standards and how Christine wouldnt have slept with someone she wasnt married to! and also Christine was Erik’s muse, first love, first person to not scream and laugh at his face when she saw it. I doubt their time together would be spent on anything other than singing in a boat about the phantom being there and how theres music in the middle of the night while normal people sleep). Anyway Gustave can be a talented lil prodigy have any of yall heard Christine sing in the main goddamn song?

Okay so theyre at the coney island and all goes fine and then Erik is like “hey those final moments in my ‘under the opera house’ home and those 10 years made me realise that I was a bit of a awful human being and i kinda changed but damn christine I still love you” and yeah he grew to be more compassionate. The last moment in POTO literally show him understanding that he cant achieve shit byt being a violent murderer. He isnt a good man, no. he takes advantage of Raoul questioning his relationship with Christine to challenge him to a duel- I mean a sing off that turns into a bet. At least hes trying. He wants to give Gustave all he creates because he couldnt give it to Christine. Also because he wants someone to sing his music and if Christine isnt very willing he might as well go for second best, her child. the rest seems pretty believable considering the above ideas. 

Madame Giry isnt bitter about Erik not giving them his music. She knows he cares about Christine. He made it clear that he loves her and Madame Giry is shocked at the humanity in him that she doesnt really care. Also Meg is more important to her than music. 

Now, why would Meg take Gustave and then threaten to kill herself? She didnt take Gustave to harm him, but she knew the main trio would pay attention if she took him. After 10 years of not seeing Christine and spending at least half of that time trying to get Erik to write music for her, she would grow jealous. not in a malicious way but in a ‘All I have in life is a mother and a freak show. Christine takes the main song from me and everyone pays more attention to her than me, the star’. I mean cmon who wouldnt be annoyed? She does thing to get attention from others. Maybe she just wanted to know what it was like to have a musical prodigy actually pay attention to you (”Not all of us can be like Christine” way to go Erik ruin the whole moment why dont ya).

Oh, Christine dying? nah. If anyone were to die, it would be Erik. Yes, he could have the happy ending with Christine but it would ruin things for Raoul, who still loves her. Anyway, if Christine dies, I doubt Erik would have it within him to go back to music with as much passion as before. He struggled without his muse, what if she were dead? Now, if Erik dies, Gustave would become the musical prodigy. He’s already everything that Erik could have wished for. Parental love (haha stab me right in the feels). Christine would grieve for Erik but she would have Raoul. Their love, having survived such heartbreak and so many struggles, would have grown stronger. No, it wouldnt be like it was before, but they would make it work. Christine’s soul would always long for Erik and his music but her heart loves Raoul. Also Raoul already went through so much lets give him a break yeah? he just wants a happy family because he has loved Christine since they were children. 

So if we were to accept someone dying, I say itd have to be the Phantom. If no death then maybe Christine and Raoul working things out between them but also Raoul accepting that Christine will always love Erik and maybe a happy end for Erik and Christine this time. 

anyway, thats how id go about changing some of LND key things but its just one way to go about it (better than original if you want it to work with POTO characterisation)