#I just love that this comic defines those spheres so well

[ailelie]

I’m re-reading Talon and am remembering all the reasons I love Casey Washington. Single mom of a genius father who fell victim to his own intense paranoia while she was still a child and built a security empire from it. Targeted by the Court of Owls when they wanted to control said-empire after her father’s death. Escaped Gotham (with some help, admittedly) and instead of going on the run built an underground society and strike force in New York dedicated to helping others escape from criminal or at least shady organizations much more powerful than themselves and protecting them. She is extremely intelligent, a good strategist, great with computers, extremely driven, a good and loving mother, an amazing leader, and charismatic. How do you not love Casey Washington?

[maybe-homestuck-now-or-something]

I really wanna talk about homestuck in relation to this post but like, idk if I wanna add to it because it might be a total derailment of the topic but homestuck is such a weird apocalypse narrative.

like... the way it handles it is so odd because earth itself is not very well characterized before the characters leave it. the characters themselves are massively well characterized, and that takes up the bulk of the narrative, but like... we never even hear them talk about school? or much of anything more than their shared interests and what's immediately happening to them. and in a way, that is kind of authentic. because when kids get together to hang out, the last thing they ever wanna talk about is dry, boring stuff about their mundane lives. they'll mostly just yell memes at each other, talk about anime, play video games... it's possible to simultaneously know nothing about your friends, but feel closer to them than ever, because you're mostly around for the parts of their life that they want to experience when they're having the most fun. you see them as they are when they have the most agency to choose that. and that might be totally divorced from the reality of how their day-to-day life unfolds.

in this way, homestuck presents these characters as people who have shed that mundane portion of their lives. they are now left with only the part that they typically share with their friends. and in reality, if a SBURB type apocalypse were to literally happen to you, it'd be traumatic as hell. but this is the place where homestuck chooses to ask you to suspend your disbelief. let's just believe that John didn't have any other friends or family to think about when the world ended. let's pretend they left zero people of any interest whatsoever behind. all they are shaking off is the society that they were obligated to participate in so mundanely. they no longer have to make any compromises with anyone... they get to fully center themselves.

okay, so that's obviously not entirely true... playing SBURB is a cooperative experience, and being friends with someone doesn't always mean that your relationship is easy. but homestuck allows the narrative to become self centered. it's about one individual and the tiny sphere of influence they have, among solely the people they've developed meaningful bonds with. it allows them to become a case study.

so when the world ends, the world is not necessarily what matters. what matters is the identities of a few specific individuals who we spend a lot of time cultivating our own connections with as a reader.

and that all becomes incredibly interesting when you consider classes and aspects.

basically, in terms of the post linked above, classes and aspects are the harry potter houses, the factions, the "what bender are you" or MBTI type... they're not the only way you could categorize the characters, but they're the most universally applicable to all of the characters that are important in the narrative. and what's interesting is just like... what classes are for, and how complicated it actually is to know what aspects are, or what they mean.

starting with classes, these are basically a series of archetypes that are specialized so that everyone has a role to play that makes them uniquely valuable to a collective. if we're considering this in terms of DnD, you can think of what classes might make for a balanced party, and how having a balanced party makes it satisfying to play the game. no one player could handle everything on their own, and at the same time, everyone feels needed. nobody is useless.

this already seems fundamentally different from some of the means of categorization that I listed above. a lot of these systems are meant to divvy up the characters into societally recognized in-groups and out-groups... people who can be identified as allies or enemies. even if the groups are ascribed certain archetypal skills, the goal is rarely so explicitly for the archetypes to work together, or cover each other's weaknesses. Avatar is probably what comes the closest to this idea, with its underlying endeavor to find harmony between the elements, but homestuck uses classes both as a way to communicate unique specialization, and as a way to unify the characters by their need for support.

and that's a little weird isn't it? these characters just shed all of their obligations to a broader society, and we're taking that as a freeing event... right? but there is a difference between society and community, and while homestuck might use the destruction of society as a catalyst for adventure, it uses the formation of community as the driving force behind the story's progression. the characters are all motivated to work together and help each other... and that doesn't always mean that it works. even within a community, one person's drive to center themselves and their own personal growth can trample others who were trying to do the same thing. perhaps not everyone in the community consents to being cooperative. perhaps the difference in archetype could drive someone to become competitive instead. and these are all value-neutral observations... no archetype is specifically acknowledged as being evil, even when they have friction with one another.

basically... this is character writing. and I find it funny that these broad categories that kids like to identify themselves with are seen as ways of flattening characterization into broad strokes like "the brave one" or "the sneaky one" or what have you, because in the case of classes, the characterization becomes deeper. and I think that's because the categories are used well... the characters all have specific relationships with the stereotypes they're ascribed by others, and the archetypes they're told they must fulfill. the classes don't define them, but they do give them something to contend with. can they fulfill their role? can they live up to their purpose? is there a place in the story for someone with an archetype like theirs? do they want to be this?

aspects get even trickier, and for this I might just link to a video I really love that covers a lot of the thoughts I've been having. it's kind of front loaded with a lot of technical talk about computer science and philosophy, and tbh I love that homestuck does actually link up those concepts with so much of it's presentation, but the main bit that intrigues me is the way the video talks about aspects as irreducible components of thought. like the periodic table of elements, but for ideas.

this drastically elevates the importance of each character's assigned category, and makes it function so much better as a tool for characterization. because, like, the aspects are actually really abstract. when someone says their aspect is "wind" or "light" you could take that 100% literally if you wanted to... but by the time you've read enough of homestuck to connect those to John and Rose, you probably understand that it's not that simple. and other concepts, such as astrology, have taught you that this is the sort of system that you're supposed to interpret, right? what is a capricorn if not a loose collection of traits that give you a certain vibe? that's what we're working with when it comes to aspects. otherwise, how would you know what void, or doom, or mind are? tbh it's actually pretty genius that astrology was worked into the comic as an aesthetic element, just so we'd all be mentally primed to do this kind of categorical interpretation... hell, even the actual signs themselves constitute a framework with which you could analyze the characters, like, how does Nepeta display typical leo traits, or how is Vriska a stereotypical scorpio... it all still works, even as you understand that each individual is more complex than the traits which support that interpretation.

in this way, the aspects are never really explained exhaustively verbatim, and are almost solely defined by the traits you've observed from individual characters, who act as representatives for what these categories actually are. or at least how they function in this instance, which is what's relevant. it's not just superpowers, and it's not just archetypes... it's both at the same time, and you come at them from a character-first perspective when you're trying to figure out what they mean. the characters inform your knowledge of the categories, and the categories act as a framework for analyzing the characters. and I love how homestuck tricks you into assuming that it has a lot of little rigid categories for the characters to slot into, and how quickly it becomes apparent that everything is way more abstract than it first appears. and yet, it all still means something. and it's really interesting to, say, compare two different time players to try to piece together what is typical for that archetype, while also accounting for their class, and trying to understand how that changes the roles they play and the ways they behave. and then you have the trolls' caste system on top of that, and the astrology angle I mentioned earlier, and there are honestly so many overlapping ways to think about it all, and I think that's the point.

[davidanderson7162]

Cartoons for Everybody

It is not true that just children take pleasure in cartoons. Cartoons have been showing up in print media as well as television for decades. They are extremely entertaining and also are suitable anxiety busters for the worn grownup. For youngsters, animes can be academic in addition to enjoyable. It holds true that there are some that are violent, those are best prevented. It would certainly make good sense to pick intelligently what you desire your children to see Kids TELEVISION Online.Kids TV Network

Exactly how do they profit your youngsters?

- Some animes carry messages in social understanding. Cartoons almost always have stories that centre round a hero. The hero is always combating evil as well as victories. Happy endings are constantly great to have.

- There are those that develop vocabulary. Kids learn new words as well as enhance in their speech.

- An added advantage is that, those youngsters watching programs like these find out to focus. This helps them focus as well as educates them the ability to follow consecutive episodes.

- They learn life lessons, they discover sharing and exactly how to recognize right from incorrect. They find out that it is not always the large and also the solid who constantly win.

- Animations constantly obtain stored away as terrific memories and those pleased associations are carried appropriate into adulthood.

How do they profit adults?

- Viewing an anime when you're ill in bed is a splendidly recovery exercise. Remember those times when, as a youngster you did precisely that?

- Researches reveal that viewing cartoons lowers the danger of anxiety associated illness in adults. A great laugh launches endorphins in the mind. These endorphins make us really feel far better mentally and physically and are the best de-stressor that money can't purchase.

- Individuals like these find they associate better to kids as well as have a much better understanding of them.

- Obviously, this is a great way to kill time as it keeps individuals out of mischief. The still mind, as they claim, is the devil's workshop!

Throughout the years animes have actually advanced from one dimensional characters on the screen as well as paper to a three dimensional one. Modern technology has made cartoon personalities realistic. Both adults and children connect to the story Children TELEVISION Online.

Anime Vs Cartoons: What's the Difference?

In the "Anime" neighborhood, for most fans as well as fans, "Anime" is "Anime and also "Cartoons" are "Cartoons". For them both of the things are truly different from each various other.

Firstly, many individuals obtain puzzled between an Anime and also an Anime, even if both are animated that doesn't imply that they both are very same. There are a lot of differences in Anime as well as Cartoons. While both are caricatures that might be computer animated, anime generally has visually distinctive functions for characters. So, below I will certainly now clarify the difference in between these 2. Anime are Japanese computer animated production, that are available in various layouts like, television series such as dragon sphere z, Naruto, one piece etc., computer animated brief films, and also full-length films. However animations are two-dimensional illustrated visual art, non-realistic or semi-realistic illustrations.

Anime characters have distinct facial and also physical features that are extremely comparable to truth, their large eyes and tiny mouth are developed due to cuteness. On the various other hand, cartoons physical features are very much from reality than anime. Anime characters additionally reveal various kinds of distinguishable faces whereas animes do not.

Cartoons are normally made to make people laugh, so the style mostly is funny. Yet there are likewise several animes that are academic, showing something good to mainly young children and also youngsters in an enjoyable, interactive way. For example, mickey mouse, Donald duck, pests bunny and so on

. Unlike cartoons, anime does not adhere to just one or more genres. Anime programs and also movies are all based on some sort of story which proceeds through the whole series, for instance, bleach, one item, Naruto, etc. Anime is based upon real-life problems or something that are closer to human feelings and also have a lot more categories than cartoons such as, dramatization, school life, slice of life, love, activity, and so on

. However if you check out both of them as different entities, or as same, you will not be able to locate a clear difference between the two, which is why a lot of the people get puzzled in between both and wind up calling anime as well as animes are very same Children TELEVISION Online.

The initial animation was stated to be generated in 1499. It depicted the pope, holy Roman emperor, and the king of France as well as England playing the game of cards. However, Japanese animation began in the very early 20's, when Japanese filmmakers were trying out various methods. By 1930s, as an alternative to the live activity sector, computer animation was established.

As anime are two-dimensional numbers drawn and utilized in animations, as caricatures in papers, and also publications. If we were to define what Anime is after that the basic suggestion of several of the common as well as agreed upon notions would certainly be "Japanese, animation, vibrant layouts, as well as hand-drawn" would certainly be primary buzzwords.

Today, Anime only appears to refer "animations just from Japan" to make it extra understandable for individuals. After all this is human nature to like the important things which are conveniently understandable and conveniently categorized.

To make the distinction more clear, let's take the example of the tom as well as jerry and dragon sphere z. So, you may believe what's the difference in between both when they both are computer animated and have excellent visuals, histories, sound impacts as well as even the computer animated drawings behave. But, there are lots of distinctions in them which differentiate them from anime to animation. Like, their principles are absolutely different, as you know every episode of tom as well as Jerry is various as well as is not associated with any of the previous episode or continuing some sort of tale from a point but in dragon sphere z every episode is connected to the previous one, and proceed the story from where it stopped in the previous episode. And their categories are various too, as tom and also Jerry is purely based upon a pet cat and also mouse battle and made to make people laugh and their watch time enjoyable. On the various other hand, dragon sphere z is sort of a journey of a saiyan to conserve the Planet and also the universe from several dangers, he defends conserving every person, with the aid of his family members, close friends and fellow saiyans. Dragon ball z is can be categorized in various categories, like activity, experience, comedy, very power, etc

. An additional thing in which some individuals may unique anime as well as cartoon would certainly be that cartoons are for youngsters whereas reach of anime can be extended to many various other age and other locations Kids TV Online.

However what I believe is, cartoons are not simply children product, because as we can see in the newspapers, as well as on television also, there are many cartoons containing as well as targeting lots of political, spiritual sights. Most of these messages are concealed as well as indistinguishable for kids, to ensure that grownups can appreciate viewing them with youngsters. Whereas some of the anime consists of high grown-up material and thus are not secure or good for little kids to see. Those type of anime are made completely concentrating on adult target market. But there are likewise some anime collection which are definitely risk-free to enjoy with children. However nowadays, even normal anime's might have some scenes which are not meant to be enjoyed by kids.

So, I think, where cartoons are secure for kids to see, anime shouldn't be thought about secure sufficient for them. But despite just how old you obtain, you can still appreciate it as it is.

I really feel that, anime has much deeper thought in them, well created characters, broad story-line, a solid style, sensible background animation, the real world scenarios, discussions, expressions, etc. all of these things bound us together to view all the episodes (whether there are 12 or 24 or more than a thousand of episodes) of the anime collection. Whereas on the various other hand, animes, regardless of whether they are telling a story or simply going for funny, have superficial characters and themes.

Cartooning for Kids: 3 Books That Can Help You Get Started

Many children I understand love to attract eventually. Several of them love it a lot, they take place to produce video games, comics, cartoons, and comics. If you are seeking some exceptional books on cartooning for youngsters, below are three that can aid you get going.

Among the outright finest general intros allows Publication of Cartooning by Bruce Blitz. He starred in a public tv program for years, and I was able as a young person to learn from his techniques.

Guide covers whatever from basic cartooning abilities, like integrating various facial forms, features, and hairdos, to make various characters. It likewise demonstrates how to attract bodies and also add motion to them so they are funny and also dynamic, and not just stalling.

He does a terrific work of introducing animation results as well as devices. Those are the kinds of things that make animes enjoyable and bring them to life, like the wavy lines appearing of a piece of pizza, to show that it smells excellent. Or the lines on a pool of water or a mirror, to reveal they are reflective. And also one of the most enjoyable of all, those little grains of sweat or activity lines, like when someone has actually just thrown a sphere Children TELEVISION Online.

There is also a great deal of mention on just how to create cartoons, consisting of how to lay them out, invent jokes, as well as do your lettering. For kids who wish to attempt their hand at superhero-type comics, he covers different means to make your male go from dopey to wonderful, from absolutely no to hero. Likewise included are numerous positions you might utilize, like training, taking off, flying, and also boxing.

This extensive work additionally has an area on animation portraiture or caricature. In this way you can draw funny pictures of on your own, good friends, family members, as well as teachers, and offer those away as presents. You may even wind up offering your job!

An additional outstanding summary is Everything You Ever Wanted to Know concerning Cartooning yet Hesitated to Draw. The writer is a Disney-trained musician, so it's a perfect recommendation if you like that design. Yet it too covers every little thing from expressions and also drawing action presents, to cartoon format.

One specific area I such as is exactly how to attract your animes from various camera angles, like way down reduced. That way, if you are trying to attract something from the viewpoint of a very tiny character, like a computer mouse seeking out at an individual, you can obtain an excellent funny aim to your job.

Art for Children: Cartooning: The Only Cartooning Book You'll Ever Need to Be the Artist You have actually Constantly Intended to Be motivates youngsters to try out various techniques to obtain their own designs. The design hangs and also open, so it's easy for kids to comply with. There is also info on composing jokes as well as developing panels Children TV Online.

So if you have an interest in cartooning for children, these 3 books to help you get going are perfect. You will have 3 completely different designs to examine, and you will have great deals of suggestions on attracting fundamentals, plus information on how to put whatever together into your own anime creations. Delighted cartooning!

8 Memorable Youngsters' Anime Adaptations to Motion Picture

When a well enjoyed children's TV series makes the change from the little to the hollywood it normally spells a break from tradition and also an attempt to interest an entire new target market. Computer animation resorts to live activity, rough-and-ready image resorts to CGI, obscure commentary artists are replaced by prominent Hollywood stars as well as puppets are switched for real-life actors. To commemorate the incredible brand-new film of eponymous cult TELEVISION series Stories of the Riverbank [talesoftheriverbank.co.uk/ trailer], here are some motion picture gems that really improve their kids' TELEVISION starts, and also some stinkers that ought to have adhered to what they're best at:

Garfield (2004 )

On the one hand, Bill Murray seems like he's constantly been the voice of Garfield - his effortlessly sarcastic wit seems completely suited to the lasagne addicted fat feline. On the various other, pretty much whatever else regarding this movie sucks. The performing's not up to much and also the animation's nothing short of tragic. The initial comic strip as well as anime series didn't endeavor to far from Garfield's litter tray, so this attempt to stretch things to more than an hour just ends up a mess.

Little understood fact: Bill Murray recorded a lot of his audio for this in Italy while shooting "The Life Aquatic" on a watercraft.

Authorities Garfield website - garfield.com/.

Tales of the Riverbank (2008 ).

Though not a cartoon, this new motion picture is absolutely worth a mention: when Johnny Morris initially placed his voice to these shore pets in the 1959 TELEVISION collection of the same name, it could have been debatable. However it turned out that making pets appear like they were chatting was a huge success. Today the adorable Hammy Hamster once more joins GP, Owl as well as buddies in a fracturing feature length waterfront prance. With a winning, British voice actors and also an innocently jolly story, this motion picture is set to become a company family members favourite. Little understood fact: In the '60s TV program, the animals were adjusted to look like they were speaking utilizing peanut butter on the roofing of their mouth.

Official Website - talesoftheriverbank.co.uk/ trailer. TOTR on IMDB - imdb.com/title/tt1043748/.

Teen Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990 ).

There were the Samurai Pizza Cats and after that there were the Bicycle Rider Computer Mice from Mars - yet both were bad copies of what was undoubtedly the supreme animal/mutant based cartoon activity collection embeded in a drain ... including a speaking rat. "Teen Mutant Ninja Turtles" was a computer animated TELEVISION show in the 80s, a trilogy of live-action films in the 90s as well as more lately a computer system cartoon animation (TNMT). The films are mainly dreadful - however watch out for an instead snazzy-looking Vanilla Ice in Adolescent Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Glop. Traditional. Little recognized fact: In the UK the TELEVISION series was called Adolescent Mutant Hero Turtles as the word "ninja" was considered as well terrible.

Scooby Doo (2002 ).

Among the much better remakes, this is about as close as you're going to get to the original collection without returning to full animation. All the one linings are there, as are all the trademarks that made the original such a smash hit. There's additionally a healthy and balanced dosage of self mockery to make certain the grown-ups can enjoy it as high as children. Any person that located Scrappy Doo more than a little bothersome in the original will enjoy the spin at the end. The only secret that still remains is this - what worldwide IS a Scooby Snack ?? Little recognize truth: In a very early version of the film, a certain Jim Carrey was connected to play Shaggy.

Official Scooby site - warnerbros.com/sd_brand/index.html.

Thunderbirds (2004 ).

The initial puppets had lots much more magic and also personal appeal than the 'live' actors in this substandard remake. Creator of the initial TELEVISION series, Gerry Anderson, also contradicted a $750,000 deal to write an endorsement of the film for its launch. A substantial flop. Enough stated.

Little bit understood truth: The motion picture is routed by Jonathan Frakes that played Riker in Celebrity Trip.

Flintstones (1994 ).

Translating a computer animated classic right into a live-action film using the real world actors isn't always simple. Perhaps the most essential item of the jigsaw is the spreading. In the case of 1994's Flintstones they soooo really nearly got it right. John Goodman as Fred Flintstone - place on. Elizabeth Perkins as Wilma - made for the duty. Rick Moranis as Barney Rubble - all good. Rosie O'Donnell as Betty Debris? - Um ... intriguing. At the very least the sound-track (courtesy of the BC52s) appears wonderful!

Little bit recognized fact: Halle Berry plays a character called Sharon Stone (obtain it!?).

Transformers (2007 ).

Hardcore Transformers fans who bear in mind the 1980s hit cartoon show may really feel a little peeved that, in a separation from the original collection, Spielberg as well as co. have decided to opt for some more modern-day automobiles. So Bumble-bee's no longer a huge yellow VW Beetle! Boo! Nevertheless, those that can not bear in mind the initial (virtually anybody under the age of 30) will enjoy the continuous robo-action.

Bit understood fact: The 1986 "Transformers the Movie" was one of Orson Welles last ever movies - one of his very first was Person Kane.

Tom and also Jerry the Granddaddy of Kids Cartoon Movies.

Everyone has their very own preferred animation flick or tv show; as a matter of fact animations are now a big component of a youngster's very early years as well as in addition to enjoyable to adults too. If you were young in the 60's, 70's or 80's after that you'll have been lucky sufficient to have actually enjoyed the initial hand attracted animated standards, like the Flintstones, The Jetsons or among the most prominent as well as lengthiest running, Tom and Jerry.

The Tom as well as Jerry reveal begun as a TV series and then took place to become a number of feature movies; it has been running given that the 40's and also has because won 7 different Oscar awards for ideal animated short. Back then you needed to await the program to come on at a specific time, though today were fortunate enough to be able to purchase a Tom and also Jerry DVD set anytime we like and also relive the magic in our very own houses.

The characters are easy Tom a troublesome house cat with a preference for mice and also Jerry a reluctant mouse with a kind heart; both are friends at heart, however constantly wind up attempting to win one over on each various other generally with Jerry winning the day. The simple as well as funny slapstick comedy of this crazy duo is what's made it so popular in nations around the world; you'll find the preferred films playing in practically any kind of resort area on all continents.

So where did it all start? Most individuals do not understand that Tom and also Jerry has had more than one maker in over 50 years of broadcast; the initial 2 were the gifted William Hanna and Joseph Barbara. They came to the MGM workshops in the 40's with their concept and Tom as well as Jerry became a reality in individuals's houses. After a brief time the program was reduced and the team broke up until the 1960's when MGM made a decision to reboot the project, they hired Gene Deitch for 2 years, but his eccentric imagination didn't mix well with the program. In 1963 the workshops employed a new director Chuck Jones who became the next creator of the motion pictures.

An instance of an especially excellent film is the magic ring which came out in 2002, it was composed and also routed by both of the original makers as well as additionally worked together on by Chuck Jones. If you're a fanatic of the lovable pet cat and also mouse duo after that you'll love this movie, it would certainly also be a wonderful introduction to the personalities for your very own youngsters.

[awastelandheart]

Sebastian’s personality analyzed through his theory-crafted natal chart: The perspective of a professional astrologer.

PART ONE: SUN SIGN.

i apologize in advance to any capricorns i unintentionally read to filth in this post.

          i think out of all the bachelors   &   bachelorettes, Sebastian has the oddest, most abrasive post-marriage dialogue. i’ve heard plenty of people over the years complain about how awkward being married to him is   &   i, myself, tend to not marry him when i play since locking him in pelican town like that when he so clearly wants to leave feels bad. even before marriage as well, he has a lot of almost cringey   &   certainly concerning dialogue. Sebastian’s not a man that’s made for marriage or long term relationships i think, at least not in his early to mid 20s which is how old i believe he is in canon. unlike the rest of the bachelors   &   bachelorettes, his character arc   &   development don’t do much for melding him into someone worth being with. even Shane who is troubled in a much more obvious way than Sebastian has more moments of reflection that convince the player that he’s a good person despite his flaws. Sebastian may seem to be gentle in his internal struggle, it’s easy to believe that, at most, he’s rude   &   depressed, but i think there’s a lot more to unpack here that suggests he’s violent, angry to an awful degree,   &   possibly the worst marriage candidate, if not just the worst townie out of the whole cast.

          to start off with, i believe Sebastian’s sun sign is Capricorn. my reasoning for this is a blend between a post on reddit i found that used a simple algorithm to convert the in game dates to real dates. taking into account the slightly flawed method that gives each date 2-3 days worth of wiggle room,   “ january 17th ”   implies he’s on the Capricorn side of january. to be honest, when i was first thinking about what sun sign i wanted Sebastian to have, i was leaning towards Aquarius since he has several lines about escaping the town   &   wanting his freedom   ( both being very Aquarius-like qualities ),   however i think the case for Capricorn is much easier to make. to start off, i’ll give a run down of the most defining Capricorn characteristics, then i’ll move onto showing in-game examples of how Sebastian demonstrates these traits   ( while leaving room for his other natal positions that i’ll extrapolate on in more posts to come ).

          Capricorn is an earth sign, reveling in stability with a handful of almost toxic traits to display if that stability isn’t achieved. ruled by saturn, or kronos if you wanna get greek, Capricorns are at a constant war with themselves between the general human experience   &   cutting out as much superfluous expression   &   feeling as possible. the story of kronos is very reflective of the Capricorn struggle:   it’s the tale of a man   ( god, but that’s not important )   whose wife is predicted to bear a child who will surpass him   &   take his legacy. kronos, in his anxiety to prevent this change, begins eating each of his wife’s children as they’re born until one day, his wife replaces one of the newborns with a rock so that it will survive kronos’ consumption. of course this leads to the child growing up   &   indeed surpassing kronos just as the prophecy foretold. the lesson to be learned from kronos is one of restriction   &   the inevitability of time.

          between their earthly reliability   &   love of practicality, Capricorns are viewed as the traditional fathers of the zodiac sphere. they guard their values of yesteryear close to their chest. anything too different is cast far away from themselves or, rather, consumed until all traces are disposed of. thankfully not as stubborn as poor Taurus   ( another earth sign ),   Capricorns have a touch of adaptability in all their logic. their modality is cardinal, implying they take charge of situations. they are the leaders next to Cancer, Libra,   &   Aries:   any good leader knows when to give up their morals for the betterment of their charge. to boot, Capricorn is represented by the mythological creature, the sea-goat   ( a creature created by dear old kronos, himself, consisting of the torso of a goat   &   the tail of a fish );   the goat half delivering on that steady earthly nature of an unrelenting climb to the top of a mountain called life, yet the inclusion of the ocean in this aesthetic implying an amount of emotion only water signs can relate to.

          in the typical male-dominated, fatherly way, however, emotional expression does not exist for Capricorns, resulting in this implied depth to lurk well below a Capriorn’s surface. they are deeply independent in a way that leads to intense loneliness. they must do everything for themselves, another thing lovely kronos has taught us here. why look for a different solution to this problem when i so clearly have found one for myself, the ruler of saturn proclaims. a Capricorn’s independence is almost panic charged in this way. they so dearly want to be seen as capable that they will shred their own livelihood as a price. they are masters at self control for it, each having taught themselves the art of stoicism from a young age. Capricorns are at best, friendly in a superficial way. knowing their loneliness is created by their own hands but never knowing how to move passed their own cold   &   distant heart to enact any change necessary to improve their relationships.

          something that is often associated with Capricorns   &   the other earth signs is the act of earning money. while Taurus enjoys earning money to support their lavish, venus-ruled lifestyle   &   Virgo sees money as something to worry over thus resulting in them hoarding it, Capricorns crave for their income to be stable   &   plentiful in order to provide for their loved ones, or for the more lonely Capricorns, to provide for themselves.

          saturn is the first planet to take a substantial amount of time to complete its cycle through all the signs. compared to earth, which takes one year to complete its solar rotation   &   jupiter which takes 12, saturn takes upwards of 30 years. we astrologers take that as symbolical for how Capricorns get significantly better with age, as well as their   “ slow   &   steady wins the race ”   attitude. Capricorn is a sign of wisdom but only at the hand of experience. young Capricorns frequently find themselves discontented with their environment   &   lifestyle, craving a stability that cannot exist without first having established themselves in the world. every seven years it’s said, a Capricorn reaches a new level of understanding   &   maturity, as it is about every seven years that saturn completes 1/4th of its solar cycle.

          Capricorns, like Scorpios, love their privacy. regarded as one of the more shady signs of the zodiac, a Capricorn is the type of person to have everyone believing they know everything there is to know about them while simultaneously only ever revealing surface level knowledge about themselves. Capricorns love having friends   &   spending time with their loved ones, however they lack a sense of trust that would allow them to form deeper connections. while a Capricorn does experience their emotions as thoroughly as the rest of the zodiac, they have an equally intense insecurity about expressing them. a Capricorn lives their life wanting to be depended on or at least wanting to provide for those that do depend on them. emotions are seen as a weakness that cannot be spared.

          with the basic personality of a Capricorn outlined, i’ll now go through some choice quotes that demonstrate these traits   &   then talk about a few parts of his heart events that do the same.

“ if i just disappeared would it really matter ? ” “ i was thinking... people are like stones skipping over the water. Eventually we're going to sink. ” “ what am I going to do today ?   probably nothing.”

          when the player first meets Sebastian, he is overtly depressed   &   never goes out of his way to hide it. there is a solemn dark cloud filled with rain, ready to burst constantly following him   &   it’s difficult to ignore. this seriousness is very characteristic of many signs, Capricorn being one of them as it is ruled by Saturn, an outer planet with a very melancholic tone.

“ hey, don't let me stop you from getting your work done. if you aren't busy i don't mind if you stick around. ”

          this quote demonstrates the productive mindset of a Capricorn. compared to all the other bachelors, Sebastian is the only one to ever really consider the player’s work schedule.

“ i was so close to screaming at mom for throwing away my old comic collection   ...  but something stopped me. hmm   ...   with age comes wisdom. ” “ the older i get, the less i'm drawn to the city. ” “ sometimes i feel so angry  ...  but when you show up i always start to calm down. maybe i'll mellow out with age. ”

          while these quotes are also depicting other personality traits, for now i want to emphasize Sebastian’s constant referencing to the passage of time. time is always on a Capricorn’s mind, even the less self aware ones always feel the effects of its passage harsher than other signs. after dating   &   at points in marriage, which is when these quotes are from, Sebastian begins to view time as something more positive   &   optimistic. he recognizes that he has anger issues, at the very least,   &   hopes they’ll get better as time goes on. it’s quite the feat to make a Capricorn see growing older as something positive instead of something anxiety inducing, so from this alone we can really tell that Sebastian is absolutely in love with the player, without a doubt.

“ i couldn't sleep last night so I went for a night ride on the motorcycle. i need to stay independent, even though we're married. that's just how i am. i still love you, though. ” “ hey   ...   want some coffee ?   i needed some   ...   woke up early from a nightmare   &   i just couldn't fall back asleep. ” “ hey. i couldn't sleep last night so i took a walk to the caves. ” “ i'm going to take a walk today. i need some time to myself. i'll see you in the evening. ”

          Capricorns tend to be almost predisposed to sleep issues due to their immense amount of anxiety that comes with the disconnect between productivity   &   incapability, or craving emotional connection   &   viewing emotions as unnecessary. Capricorns are also fiercely independent, so independent that it’s no surprise Sebastian’s the kind of person to sneak out of bed   &   go off alone when feeling anxious instead of waking his partner up for comfort.

“ i don't want to get soft now that i'm a married guy. maybe i should start eating more hot pepper   &   working out ?   just an idea   ... ”

          while i’d also be willing to chalk this expression up to Sebastian being anxious about not passing as masc, i’m also willing to attribute this to a Capricorn being afraid of time passing   &   “ missing out ”   on life. growing soft can be a fear of a sign so dedicated to seeming tough   &   dependable.

“ i don't really feel like doing work today. maybe i'll see what's on tv. ” “ i did some work on the laptop today. ” “ i'm debating whether i should work or just read comics all day. ” “ you know, i should be doing something productive right now. i just lose focus too fast   ...   maybe i should drink more coffee ? ”

          Sebastian references his work so frequently, in typical Capricorn fashion because the urge to justify one’s pleasures by mentioning the fact that they’re also being productive is something ever-present. they are a very guilty breed;   on top of their other burdens, they feel especially bad for moments of relaxation or times when they should be doing something, but cannot bring themselves to.

“ you’re probably making a lot of money on your farm, huh ?   i guess i should get a job soon   … ” “ we should raise more slimes. in big quantities they can be really profitable. ” “ i did some work on the laptop today. i was actually brainstorming some ideas for a game i want to make. with your farming income, i can afford to do what i want with my life. it’s pretty amazing. thank you. ” “ hey. look at me. never forget that i love you   ...   you’re everything to me. now go make us some money. ” “ are we doing okay on money ?   i don’t want to have to sell my laptop   ... ” “ *sigh*   ...    if gas wasn’t so expensive i’d ride my motorcycle to the city today. so what do you do when you aren’t working ? ”

          Sebastian talks SO much about money   &   to me, it’s really hard to imagine concernedape didn’t intentionally make him a Capricorn with this much dialogue about income when no other bachelor or bachelorette has any mention of the topic   ( except for harvey who mentions he’s afraid he’s not bringing in enough money from the lack of people in town ).   the biggest one that jumps out at me to really signal a significant change in his personality after marriage is when he mentions having the freedom that comes with a steady income, a freedom that now allows him to do what he really wants which is, apparently, to make a video game. another one that jumps out at me here is his immediate association with feeling like he should get a job after assuming the player is making a lot of money. since income is such an important subject for Capricorns, it’s easy to imagine Sebastian feels inferior in comparison to the player since he’s   “ just ”   a freelancer.

“ i often felt unappreciated at home   ...   but here i feel like i really belong. ”

          this quote kind of hits Capricorn’s need to be appreciated   &   useful directly on the head   &   is a good transition for me to talk about the fact that Sebastian never progressed very far in his career while living at home with his family because he felt unappreciated. compared to how he almost immediately has a dialogue line after marriage where he tells the player he’s been inspired to make a video game, it’s easy to see the almost instant maturity Sebastian obtained just from moving out;   something he had assumed was in the far off future, implied by his heart scenes.

now let’s break down Sebastian’s heart events.

          his first heart even opens with him busy working, already a very Capricorn setting honestly, as i’ve said a few times now since Capricorns are prone to productivity. Robin enters after a moment   &   informs Sebastian that Abigail is looking for him, to which Sebastian responds to ask if his mother had informed Abigail that he’s working. Robin says that while she had, Abigail still intends on visiting Sebastian at some point today. Sebastian’s next piece of dialogue is very important.

“ *sigh* no one takes my job seriously. ”

          this is an incredibly Capricorn thing to say, both because Capricorns always feel the need to be taken seriously   &   also due to their signature insecurity about income.

          the scene continues so that the player can ask Sebastian what his career goals are. he explicitly says:   “ well, i’m trying to save up so i can move out of here. probably to the city or something, ”   which by itself is obviously very Capricorn, both nailing their need for income, their constant validation that they deserve what they want,   &   their desire for independence, however his dialogue continues for another textbox that contains the most Capricorn lines i’ve ever heard.

“ you know, if i went to college i’d probably be making six figures right now … ”   

          Sebastian is so very   &   obviously obsessed with money, it’s crazy to think he’s any other sign but Capricorn. this portion of the heart scene ends with him saying, 

“ but i just don’t want to be a part of that corporate rat race, you know ? ”   

          this dialogue i’m willing to attribute to another one of his signs at a later date in another post, but in my experience, i’ve known several Capricorn suns that feel the same:   that while they strive for a stable income, they hate participating in capitalistic culture.

          this first heart scene ends with Sebastian dismissing the player, saying he   “ has to get this module finished by tomorrow, ”   indicating he has a very set schedule when it comes to his work. organization being yet another characteristic trait of Capricorn.

          Sebastian’s second heart scene opens with the player catching him working on his bike. after a moment of introspection, Sebastian starts talking, again, about how when he saves enough money, he’s going to get out of the valley, just him   &   his bike. this scene doesn’t have anything specifically Capricorn about it   &   i plan on revisiting it when i talk about his other placements.

          likewise, Sebastian’s third   &   fourth heart scenes don’t have anything outrageously Capricorn in them   --   in fact neither scene tells us very much about Sebastian in particular aside from pointing out that he likes tabletop games   ( which obviously isn’t exclusively Capricorn by any means, but i’ve known so, so many Capricorn suns that have been hardcore into dnd over the years   ...  )   &   has social anxiety. i’ll most likely dip into his fourth heart scene a little more when i talk about his other placements, though.

          Sebastian’s fifth   (   &   final before marriage )   heart scene is, of course, important,   &   probably the most memorable for anyone who’s played Sebastian’s route, but it honestly doesn’t tell us much about his core personality. what it does tell us is how he acts   &   feels when he’s in love, so i’ll definitely come back to this scene when i talk about his venus position.

          &   that’s on his heart scenes !

          so, in summary, i believe Sebastian has a Capricorn sun because he shares many qualities with how astrologers perceive the position. of course this is all just my personal interpretation, but i hope this was an interesting read   &   shed some light on the kind of person Sebastian is !

[rem289]

Q: Why are you writing this post?

A: Because during the Christmas holidays I started to receive attention from the Zootopia fandom which led me to re-discover some concepts that I thought I had made clear, and since this didn’t turn out to be true, I am forced to reiterate them.

Q: What happened?

A: I discovered that someone had reposted, obviously without my consent, an old comic of Aoimotion and mine on reddit, a site I don't like and on which I had already said not to publish my actually and old contents. This repost "reminded" this fandom of my existence, and after this event some people came to ask us questions such as "when Nick and Judy would reappear in our work?" and the like.

You can imagine how much it bothered me, so I went to reddit and wrote to immediately delete the content. Unfortunately, doing this I couldn’t help but notice how the post had become a place to waste insinuations and insults aimed at me and Aoimotion. In particular, the comments of three users stood out: @ggctuk , @owningsuperset7​ and @hammytotherescue

Q: Why did these users get your attention?

A: ggctuk, which I have no idea who they are, have proclaimed themselves as the narrative voice of the events that have taken place between us and the fandom, providing a lot of incomplete and, in the worst case, completely wrong information, about why we left the fandom and about the alleged "abusive behaviors" we had against translators.

Owningsuperset7 spoke about us (like he does every time the occasion presents itself to him), defining us ungrateful towards the fandom "that had fed us". But "fed" in what sense? It seems to me that we have been those who have definitely "eaten" very little… or likes can be monetized, just like the views on youtube, and I didn't know it? Did they break the keyboard in order to put those likes on our works? If it’s so, I'm sorry, but I certainly wasn't the one who pointed the gun at their head to follow my work. Always remember that paying attention to a work is always and only a reader’s choice. No creator has power over these phenomena, we just create and publish, the rest is always an unknown factor. So expressing yourself as a seduced and abandoned lover on an old and free work doesn’t make you a victim, it only makes you ridiculous. Anyway, I know the subject, who had already decided in the past to talk on DeviantArt before I blocked him, and I decided not to tell him anything in that moment, also because, what can you say to a person who clearly has problems that go beyond fandom? Sometimes ignoring is the kindest choice you can make.

Hammytotherescue instead claimed that he and I were friends in the past, before the duo formed by me and aoimotion became toxic. Since I had no memory of this person and I hate when someone alludes to relationships with me that don't exist, I wrote to him privately on Tumblr asking him if he could kindly refresh my memory about this "friendship" he was bragging about.

Q: How did it end?

A: The conversation, which I report below because I, unlike him, have nothing to be ashamed of, is as follows:

As you can see, Hammy never replied to my last message . But in reality the story was not over. A few days ago, in fact, I discover that the user in question "vented" in the post of reddit, not under my comment (so that I received notification of his reply) but in response to another comment that had been left to me. Showing, as always, the incredible maturity of these people.

After reading this comment, I decided to act by reporting the user on reddit, but the answer I received can be summarized as: "since you are a content creator, you deserve insults regardless." In short, a response as useful and smart as the people who gave it to me. So don’t worry Hammy, you won't be banned from reddit because the only braincell shared by you users agrees that defining a toxic and manipulative person is, to quote one of the wise moderators I talked to, "a fairly typical level of criticism". All is well that ends well.

Q: You mentioned "concepts to reiterate". What would they be?

A: Let's start by denying what ggctuk wrote in that reddit's post, given how much popularity his comments have gained.

My split from this fandom started because I simply lost interest in Nick and Judy and preferred to do something else, something of my own. Black Jack gave us the opportunity to invent many original characters and they was those I wanted to work on. We have never worked for ulterior motives other than having fun together. When we recognized that we no longer have anything to give to this universe, we declared it openly and closed this chapter of our "artistic life". This split could take place in a peaceful and calm way, I would have taken my own path and you yours, since it was obvious, since BJ times, that you had very little interest in our original contents. You also reiterated this between the lines of these last comments, so really, I make a terrible effort to understand your logic of contents belonging to your fandom. It's not your fault, don't worry. You have been spoiled by this entrenched habit of creating any anthropomorphic animal and attributing it to your precious and super-nutritive fandom. Once you labeled this attitude at heresy, now everything is fine as long as it helps you keeping this universe going, honestly, I just pity you. However it seems that your obsession with me prevents you from accepting the fact that my life would have continued even without this fandom and that I would have lived very well even without the amount of likes that fanarts could give me. Indeed my life would be even more beautiful if I didn't have to waste time like I am doing now.

Both me and aoimotion together gave you a lot, and in the end we simply got it back. Jack is a prime example: yes, he is a character born from the scratches of Zootopia's artwork, but thanks to our work he has evolved to the point of becoming a completely original character. This fandom has not been able to accept it and until the end has tried to claim him as its own, and even now it can’t accept that we have instead taken him back, and even less can you bear that we are successfully using him in our original works, which is why you insist so much on his "Disney" origin, as if this defines his identity, and for months you have made fun of us saying that we were claiming something that belongs to Disney as our own. Unfortunately, beyond a doodle and a hint of a hypothetical background, Disney has absolutely nothing. Whatever weight you have attributed to "Jack Savage" is only thanks to our work, Disney has nothing to do with your mania and it has nothing to do with everything we've built up over the years. Still, you took our job and stuck it over the "Disney" label, and that was even when Black Jack was long gone, so don’t use that excuse anymore. You even tried to attribute Cynthia to the Disney universe by calling her "Skye", since you are so desperate to keep your fantasies going, and when you had nothing more to say, you said that my art style was "clearly inspired by Disney". Did you think I could condone such an attitude? I suppose these statements derive above all from the certainly very poor culture that you have of the world outside the fandom (or fandoms), however there are artists who WORKED for Disney, who TEACHED drawing techniques at the Disney Academy and who work at own productions with that style, without anyone attributing anything to the major. If you don't believe me, try using the web for something constructive, like doing some in-depth research on the subject.

As for the matter of our alleged abuses on translators, I will only say two things: the translations started because of my naivety, and we prohibited them because the translators abused their role and went out of control, acting as if the comics belonged to them and / or as if there was a special relationship of complicity between me and them. I'm sorry I gave false hopes to these people, unfortunately I didn't have time to realize the misunderstandings that were being created and how our work was being used. There is a clear difference between the fan content and the original content, so now more than even, less our work passes into the hands of others, the better it is for us.

Now let’s analyzing the brilliant messages of Hammy, both on Tumblr and on reddit:

In both cases, what I see is a desperate need to cling to Rem's "pretty" facade while simultaneously demolishing the person behind Aoimotion. These insinuations suggest that the only possible Rem to conceive for your narrow minds is the kind and lovely one, and everything I say and do that does not fall within this definition is the work of aoimotion.

I will never go into detail about the dynamics between me and her, because frankly it’s not your business and I don’t want to give you further ground to cultivate your absurd speculations and your degenerated ideas. If you have decided to treat us as two two-dimensional characters of some fourth category fan fiction born from your fragile minds and then feel disappointed or offended by my attitude or a severe response I can give you, you cannot help but blame yourself and not who is my friend .

But you have to get it into your heads that when you talk about us in a personal way, you refer only on the basis of two web profiles. You don't know us personally and above all you don't know me. Being an extremely reserved person, I always decided to use social networks to share my artistic side or my interests related to entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. "Rem289" has always been only a blog, a showcase on the web, I’ve never attributed a real emotional and above all personal value to it, even before Zootopia. For the rest I prefer to live my personal life off the web. Unfortunately, you have been so careless as to decide to hit my personal sphere, my friendships and my affections. So no, Aoi didn’t take over between you and me, but the person behind Rem289 took over and you paid the consequences.

Still on the subject of aoimotion, it seems that the moment this comment was written on DA has remained particularly impressed: https://www.deviantart.com/comments/1/765376682/4647911119

This great insult, which among other things is attributed to her as if I didn’t think the same (if not worse) about you, has become the new reason why aoimotion is ugly and bad and is the reason why she deserves to be insulted and disparaged at the slightest opportunity, even during a conversation with me in which she’s not involved in any way.

Now, since this term seems to me rather dated to be used as a matter of indignation during your debates, and since I still find it rather ”soft” to use to outline my intolerance towards you, in order to give you another thing to think over, I will give you an attribute which seems more correct to me: you are sick. Confronting you is like talking to someone who has been brainwashed. You are a broken record that always says the same things over and over again. I can't even feel sorry for you, what I feel is just a great sense of unease. (Of course there are people that still participate in this fandom and are perfectly normal, but those are exceptions and they already know we think good of them.)

And it’s precisely your illness that prompted me to dissociate myself so violently from the fandom. Not aoimotion, as you have been saying for months between an insult and another that you address to her because perhaps you are too afraid of me to address them directly to me, which is rather contradictory since I should be the sweet and pretty one of the duo. After all, it's better to treat me like a poor brainless fool who lets herself be manipulated rather than admit that I also have my own ideas and that, you don’t say, you don't like them.

Q: In any case, you have no right to deprive your fans of old content they love so much, you just want to be spiteful! Why did all your old WildeHopps comics disappear from the web?

A: The decision to delete the contents created by me relating to the fandom from my web platforms or those shared with my partner was not born in the least out of spite or "punishment" towards the members of the fandom. It was a decision made to dissociate my name and my current work from fandom, because unfortunately it created difficulties for my image and real difficulties for readers to understand (you can go on and say that if people think your work is still Zootopia-related is not a big deal, but I assure you it is). All that came after, are only and exclusively speculations built on purpose to find the most sinister reasons of why it happened. Publishing content is only an accessory part of the job itself, a percentage of the process. Deciding to publish, not publish or cancel a publication is at the pure expense of the author, and no consumer has the right to impose his will on the creator. I understand that they are perhaps too complex concepts for you, since it’s clear that you are used to measuring the value of things based on the likes they receive, but this current of thought also exists and I hope it will be useful to you someday, in the remote possibility that decide to take moments of deep reflection (which would be more and more useful than tapping your fingers on the keyboard).

(Little curiosity: in the last few weeks we have forwarded about twenty reports to various sites to remove our old contents posted there without our permission. Not only all twenty reports have been accepted, but the contents have all been removed in less than 12 hours from the date of reporting. This is to remind you that if we don’t want our content on the web, we have them removed and it’s the reposters who pay for it, not us.)

Q: Well, however you can't force us not to talk badly about you or aoimotion, in fact, you can't stop us from believing that she's been manipulating you for years. Almost certainly it’s she who is writing this post without your knowledge, isn't it?

A: The people of the web are notoriously lazy and are therefore often uninformed and constipated in developing their own concepts. They spit sentences without even knowing what they’re talking about, they choose "comfortable" truths, such as the fact of attributing to aoimotion every not nice word that comes from me, and when this phenomenon is reflected on real persons, unfortunately it’s quite difficult to manage.

We are attributed with labels, words, concepts, faults, relationships that don’t belong to us and that are difficult to get away from. A simple comment or a wrong statement towards a person can spread like wildfire and end up marking them for life. Needless to say, these conditions often prevent these same people from continuing with their activities, which instead are healthy, in a serene and peaceful way. Even now, instead of drawing, I’m writing this latest post to defend me and my partner from your sick slanders. Those who allow themselves the luxury of damaging the "active personalities" of the web are people who fully enjoy anonymity behind a screen, and often people who have the matter of regulating them (like the reddits moderators, who are a joke at best) limit themselves to considering certain behaviors "ordinary” in the creator / consumer relationship. The mere fact of normalizing certain behaviors doesn’t smooth out the rules of civilized life, makes these "authorities" complicit and therefore only adds a problem. It’s more than evident that some people are not yet able to distinguish the boundary that exists between objective opinion and direct and personal insult, but from people who lose sleep at night because they have been defined as “lunatic” I don’t expect anything less. Who knows what you will do now that I have called you sick.

I conclude with a message to the interested party:

@hammytotherescue​: I don't know how old you are, however, judging by what you write and how you write it and how you act, I deduce that you should not be more than 14-15 years old. Unfortunately I regret to tell you that the fact you are a minor doesn’t mean that you don’t have to take responsibility for your actions, and if you still have doubts about understanding where you have gone wrong I advise you to ask your parents for advice. I gave you the opportunity to confront me but you ran away to cry on a public platform. Hasn't anyone taught you that real life doesn't work like that? If, on the other hand, you are an adult, I sincerely feel sorry for you, I say this from the bottom of my heart.

I know how comfortable it is to hide behind a group or in this case a fandom to vent one's dislikes towards the individual. This time you and your friends have received the same treatment, you have not caught generic appellations addressed to the fandom but I decided to speak to you personally. My only advice is to use this experience to learn how it behaves on the web, and when you have learned it, you could teach it to all your friends, perhaps starting with @owningsuperset7​.

For @ggctuk: I hope you will appreciate my effort in writing this long post, as so the next time you talk about us again, you can use it as a reference to explain how things went 🤗

[mobius-prime]

1. Sonic Miniseries #0

Table of Contents / Next

Don’t Cry for Me, Mobius!

Writer: Michael Gallagher Pencils: Scott Shaw! Colors: Barry Grossman

Ah, the very first story, in the very first issue, of the very first era. This is where it all began, folks. And it’s as generic as it can possibly be. I mean, the comics weren’t intended at this point to become the dramatic, emotional journey through the longest running video game comic ever that they ended up being – this was just the initial miniseries after all – so it’s not exactly unexpected. They did need a stage-setter beginning episode, after all. That said, boy is this the most 90s thing I’ve ever seen.

So, a few important things to note first. I'm listing the writer, penciller, and colorist for each story in each issue, because I find all to be particularly significant. You can clearly see the direction of the comics' storylines change drastically as time goes on depending on who the main writer is, and as for the pencils and colors, the art style of the comics also went through very significant changes as well as some pretty clearly defined "eras" over time, and since I find the different art styles interesting to note, we'll be noting who the main artists are. Here, we begin with Michael Gallagher, who was the head writer at the beginning of the comics' run; our penciller is the apparently very excited Scott Shaw!; and finally, Barry Grossman is our colorist, and remains so for a long time in the early eras.

Anyway, we begin with a very typical encounter between Sonic and Robotnik at the beginning of this story. Robotnik chases Sonic, Sonic throws weapons-grade 90s sass like none other, we get some establishing dialogue that tells us a little bit about what the current situation between them is, meet a villainous goon… the works. Robotnik is using the Mega Muck that made its first appearance in SatAM, which I’m sure has inspired absolutely zero fetishists to do any weird Sonic art in the back corners of DeviantArt. They also do that thing that comics do where the characters just kind of explain exactly what’s happening on panel as it happens:

It should also be noted that in this first issue, Robotnik has normal human eyes. That wouldn’t really be noteworthy on its own until you see what he starts looking like later. *shudder*

We see the beginning of Antoine and Sonic’s rivalry in this first, rather silly story. Sonic also likes to break the fourth wall quite a bit in these early issues, speaking directly to the reader and often encouraging them to interact with the panels by placing their finger here or there. Pretty cute for a kids’ comic, but they dropped that gimmick early.

As this is the first issue, many characters’ designs aren’t finalized. Rotor is called “Boomer” in the early issues, Antoine is missing his trademark French accent, and Tails and Sally look almost unrecognizable from who they became over the course of the comics:

The plotline of this first story is very simple and pretty much a stage-setter for how the issues are going to go down. The Freedom Fighters discover a leak in their base, which comes from the trees crying because Robotnik bulldozed a lot of them. (Weeping willows, is the joke.) They go up to investigate, Robotnik attacks, Sonic defeats him with the power of a magic ring, and they save the day. Doesn’t have much impact on the overarching story of the entire run of the preboot, but I include these early issues for a very specific and important reason which I’ll be getting into much later in the story.

Oh No – Robo! No Mo’ Mobo!

Writer: Michael Gallagher Pencils: Scott Shaw! Colors: Barry Grossman

First of all, can I say that that title is absolutely hilarious. I don’t care how cheesy it is – that’s genuinely clever and funny.

So, this is where the comic lays out the backstory of everything it’s shown so far. A lot of this actually ended up getting retconned, but it still offers a lot of insight, especially into how Sonic himself viewed Robotnik’s takeover. He and his Uncle Chuck ran a chili dog delivery stand, until Robotnik staged his takeover of the world. Interestingly, there is no grand moment of takeover shown – rather, it makes it seem like Robotnik had been spreading his sphere of influence for a while, until it finally overlapped with where Sonic and his uncle lived. Uncle Chuck and Sonic’s dog Muttski were captured and roboticized, and Sonic met Sally for the first time as he tried to stage a rescue. From there – well, I’ll let the final few panels do the talking for me:

Again, a lot of this was retconned in later issues, but I will still include it all in the analysis as though it’s canon, for reasons that will eventually be explained.

A few more interesting things to note: first of all, we learn that Sonic’s middle name is Maurice. This is obviously very important because it’s hilarious. It wasn’t even retconned either, this is canon information about Archie Sonic.

Second of all, we get our very first hint at something very important to the plot of later issues. When Robotnik shows up to capture Chuck, Chuck clearly recognizes him. This isn’t elaborated on, yet. Emphasis on yet.

And finally, in this very first issue we get our first look at Sonic shedding tears. This might not seem significant, especially given the goofy nature of all the events surrounding it, but Sonic as a character has almost never, in any canon he’s been in, cried. He cries I think only once in the anime, which a great deal of emphasis is put on as a shocking and unusual event, and never cries, to my knowledge, in any of the games. He’s meant to be an incredibly strong of heart character, who never gives into despair, and yet here he is, crying over the loss of his uncle. This is something SEGA put strict limits on in much later issues, when they started taking more interest in keeping the plot and characters of the comics in line with their vision, so it’s pretty significant to note, I think.

As a side note, I decided for funsies to check how much money Uncle Chuck and Sonic were charging for their chili dogs. They made 200 of them and Sonic wants $300 in payment, which means on Mobius, a freshly made and instantaneously delivered chili dog costs a whopping $1.50. Can you freaking imagine? Every person on the planet would be subsisting on those things for that price. World hunger would be solved. At least for those who are willing to eat intestine-wrapped processed junk meat. (I kind of hate hot dogs, sue me.)

Well, so marks the end of the very first issue of the entire Sonic Archie preboot. While there wasn’t much plot to speak of, there were some interesting little tidbits in there. Writer Ian Flynn in particular, in the later years of the comic, loved to bring back ancient characters and concepts from the very first few issues to star in new and improved, and much more serious, roles, so we still have a lot of ground to cover here.

[ultralullstuff]

Is Paris Burning?

There was a time in my life when I liked to dress up as a male and go out into the world. It was a form of ritual, of play. It was also about power. To cross-dress as a woman in patriarchy -then, more so than now - was also to symbolically cross from the world of powerlessness into a world of privilege. It was the ultimate, intimate, voyeuristic gesture. Searching old journals for passages documenting that time, I found this paragraph:

She pleaded with him, “Just once, well every now and then, I just want to be boys together. I want to dress like you and go out and make the world look at us differently, make them wonder about us, make them stare and ask those silly questions like is he a woman dressed up like a man, is he an older black gay man with his effeminate boy/girl lover flaunting same-sex love out in the open. Don’t worry I’ll take it very seriously, I want to let them laugh at you. I’ll make it real, keep them guessing, do it in such a way that they will never know for sure. Don’t worry when we come home I will be a girl for you again but for now I want us to be boys together.”

Cross-dressing, appearing in drag, transvestism, and transsexualism emerge in a contex where the notion of subjectivity is challenged, where identity is always perceived as capable of construction, invention, change. Long before there was ever a contemporary feminist movement, the sites of these experiences were subverisve places where gender norms were questioned and challenged.

Within the white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy the experience of men dressing as women, appearing in drag, has always been regarded by the dominant heterosexist cultural gaze as a sign that one is symbolically crossing over from a realm of power into a realm of powerlessness. Just to look at the many negative ways the word “drag” is defined reconnects this label to an experience that is seen as burdensome, as retrograe and retrogressive. To choose to appear as “female” when one is “male” is always constructed in the patriarchal mindset as a loss, as a choice worthy only of ridicule. Given this cultural backdrop, it is not surprising that many black comediants appearing on television screens for the first time included as part of their acts impersonations of black women. The black woman depicted was usually held up as an object of ridicules, scorn, hatred (representing the “female” image everyone was allowed to laugh at and show contempt for). Often the moment when a black male comedian appeared in drag was the most succesful segment of a given comedian’s act (for example, Flip Wilson, Redd Foxx, or Eddie Murphy).

I used to wonder if the sexual stereotype of black men as overly sexual, manly, as “rapists”, allowed black males to cross this gendered boundary more easily than white men without having to fear that they would be seen as possibly gay or transvestites. As a young black female, I found these images to be disempowering. Thay seemed to bothallow black males to give public expression to a general misogyny, as well as to a more specific hatred and contempt toward black woman. Growing up in a world where black women wer, and still are, the objects of extreme abuse, scorn, and ridicule, I felt these impersonations were aimed at reinforcing everyone’s power over us. In retrospect, I can see that the black male in drag was also a disempowering image of black masculinity. Appearing as a “woman” within sexist, racist media was a way to become in “play” that “castrated” silly childlike black male that racist white patriarchy was comfortable having as an image in their homes. These televised images of black men in drag were never subversive; thay helped sustain sexism and racism.

It came as no surprise to me that Catherine Clement in her book, Opera, or the Undoing of Women would include a section about black men and the way their representation in opera did not allow her to neatly separate the world into gendered polarities where men and women occupied distintcly different social spaces and were “two antagonistic halves, one persecuting the other since before the dawn of time.” Looking critically at images of black men in operas she found that they were most often portrayed as victims:

Eve is undone as a woman, endlesslyy bruised, endelessly dying and coming back to life to die even better. But now I begin to remember hearing figures of betrayed, wounded men; men who ham; men who have women’s troubles happen to them; men who have the status of Eve, as if they had lost their innate Adam. These men die like heroines; down on the ground they cry and moan, they lament. And like heroines they are surrounded by real men, veritable Adams who have cast them down. Thay partake of feminity: excluded, marked by some initial strangeness. Thay are doomed to their undoing.

Many heterosexual black men in white supremacist patriarchal culture have acted as though the primary “evil” of racism has been the refusal of the dominant culture to allow them full access to patriarchal power, so that in sexist terms thay are compelled to inhabit a sphere of powerlessness, deemed “feminine”, hence thay have perceived themselves as emasculated. To the extent that black men accept a white supremacist sexist representation of themselves as castrated, without phallic power, and therfore pseudo-females, thay will need to overly assert a phallic misogynist masculinity, one rooted in contempt for the female. Much black male homophobia is rooted in the desire to eschew connection with all things deemed “feminine” and that would, of course, include black gay men. A contemporary black comedian like Eddie Murphy “proves” his phallic power by daring to publicly ridicule women and gays. His days of appearing in drag are over. Indeed it is the drag queen of his misogynist imagination that is most often the image of black gay culture he evokes and subjects to comic homophobic assault -one that audiences collude in perpetuating.

For black males to take appearing in drag seriously, be they gay or straight, is to oppose a heterosexist representation of black manhood. Gender bending and blending on the part of black males has always been a critique of phalocentric masculinity in traditional black experience. Yet the subversive power of those images is radically altered when informed by a racialized fictional construction of the “feminine” that suddenly makes the representation of whiteness as crucial to the experience of female impersonation as gender, that is to idealization of white womanhood. This is brutally evident in Jennie Livingston’s new film Paris is burning. Within the world of the black drag ball culture she deicts, the idea of womanness as feminity is totally personified by whiteness. What viewers witness is not black men longing to impersonate or even to become like “real” black women but their obsession with an idealized fetishized vision of feminity that is white. Called out in the film by Dorian Carey, who names it by saying no black drag queen of his day wanted to be Lena Horne, he makes it clear that the feminity most sought after, most adored, was that perceived to be the exclusive property of whte womanhood. When we see visual representations of womanhood in the film (images torn from magazines and posted on walls in living space) they are, with rare exceptions, of white women. Significantly, the fixation on becoming as much like a white female as possible implicitly evokes a connection to a figure never visible in this film: that of the white male patriarch. And yet if the class, race, and gender aspirations expressed by the drag queens who share their deepest dreams is always longing to be in the position of the ruling-class woman then that means there is also thedesire to act in partnership with the ruling-class white male.

This combination of class and race longing that privileges the “feminity” of the ruling-class white woman, adored and kept, shrouded in luxury, does not imply a critique of patriarchy. Often it is assumed that the gay male, and most specifically the “queen”, is both anti-phallocentric and anti-patriarchal. Marilyn Frye’s essay, “Lesbian feminism and Gay Rights”, remains one of the most useful critical debunkings of this myth. Writing in The Politics of Reality, Frye comments:

One of thing which persuades the straight world that gay men are not really men is the effeminacy of style of some gay men and the gay institution of the impersonation of women, both of which are associated in the popular mind with male homosexuality. But as I read it, gay men’s effeminacy and donning of feminine apparel displays no love of or identification with women or the womanly. For the most part, this femininity is affected and is characterized by thatrical exaggeration. It is a casual and cynical mockery of women, for whom feminity is the trapping of oppresion, but it is also a kind of play, a toying with that which is taboo.. What gay male affectation of femininity seems to be is a serious sport in which men may exercise their power and control over the feminine, much as in other sports... But the mastery of the feminine is not feminine. It is masculine..

Any viewer of Paris is Burning can neither deny the way in which its contemporary drag balls have the aura of sports events, aggressive competitions, one team (in this case “house”) competing another etc., nor ignore the way in which the male “gaze” in the audience is directed at participants in a manner akin to the objectifying phallic stare straight men direct at “feminine” women daily in public spaces. Paris is Burning is a film that many audiences assume is inherently oppositional because of its subject matter and the identity of the filmmaker. Yet the film’s politics of race, gender, and class are played out in ways that are both progressive and reactionary.

When I first heard that there was this new documentary film about black gay men, drag queens, and drag balls I was fascinated by the title. It evoked images of the real Paris on fire, of the death and destruction of a dominating white western civilization and culture, an end to oppressive Eurocentrism and white supremacy. This fantasy not only gave me a sustained sense of plearure, it stood between me and the unlikely reality that a young white filmmaker, offering a progresssive vision of “blackness” from the standpoint of “whiteness”, would receive the positive press accorded Livingston and her film. Watching Paris is Burning, I began to think that the many yuppie-looking, straight-acting, pushy, predominantly white folks in the audience were there because the film in no way interrogates “whiteness”. These folks left the film saying it was “amazing”, “marvelous”, “incredibly funny”, worthy of statements like, “Didn’t you just love it?” And no, I didn’t just love it. For in many ways the film was a graphic documentary portrait of the way in which colonized black people (in this case black gay brothers, some of whom were drag queens) worship at the throne of whiteness, even when such worship demands that we live in perpetual self-hate, steal, lie, go hungry, and even die in its pursuit. The “we” evoked here is all of us, black people/people of color, who are daily bombarded by a powerful colonizing whiteness that seduces us away from ourselves, that negates that ther is beauty to be found in any form of blackness that is not imitation whiteness.

The whiteness celebrated in Paris is Burning is not just any old brand of whiteness but rather that brutal imperial ruling-class capitalist patriarchal whiteness that presents itself -its way of life- as the only meaningful life there is. What would be more reassuring to a white public fearful that marginalized disenfracnhised black folks might rise any day now and make revolutionary black liberation struggle a reality than a doumentary affirming that colonized, victimized, exploited, black folks are all too willing to be complicit in perpetuating the fantasy that ruling-class white culture is the quintessential site of unrestricted joy, freedom, power, and pleasure. Indeed it is the very “pleasure” that so many white viewers with class privilege experience when watching this film that has acted to censor dissenting voices who find the film and its reception critically problematic.

In Vincent Canby’s review of the film in the New York Times he begins by quoting the words of a black father to his homosexual son. The father shares that it is difficult for black men to survive in a racist society and that “if you’re black and male and gay, you have to be stronger that you can imagine”. Beginning his overwhelmingly positive review with the words of a straight black father, Canby implies that the film in some way documents such strenght, is a portrait of black gay pride. Yet he in no way indicates ways this pride and power are evident in the work. Like most reviewers of the film, what he finds most compelling is the pageantry of the drag balls. He uses no language identifying race and class perspectives when suggesting at the end of his piece that behind the role-playing “there is also a terrible sadness in the testimony”. This makes it appear that the politics of ruling-class white culture are solely social and not political, solely “aesthetic” questions of choice and desire rather that expressions of power and privilege. Canby does not tell readers that much of the tragedy and sadness of this film is evoked by the willingness of black gay men to knock themselves out imitating a ruling-class culture and power elite that is one of the primary agents of their oppression and exploitation. Ironically, the very “fantasies” evoked emerge from the colonizing context, and while marginalized people often appropriate and subvert aspects of the dominant culture, Paris is Burning does not forcefully suggest that such a process is taking place.

Livingston’s film is presented as though it is a politically neutral documentary providing a candid, even celebratory, look at black drag balls. And it is precisely the mood of celebration that masks the extent to which the balls are not necessarily radical expresssions of subverive imagination at work undemining and challenging the status quo. Much of the film’s focus on pageantry  takes the ritual of the black drag ball and makes it spectacle. Ritual is that ceremonial act that carries with it meaning and significance beyond what appears, while spectacle functions primarily as entertaining dramatic display. Those of us who have grown up in a segregated black setting where we participated in diverse pageants and rituals know that those elements of a given ritual that are empowering and subversive may not be readily visible to an outsider looking in. Hence it is easy for white obsevers to depict black rituals as spectacle.

Jennie Livingston approaches her subject matter as an outsider looking in. Since her presence as white woman/lesbian filmmaker is “absent” from Paris is Burning it is easy for viewers to imagine that they are watching an ethnographic film doumenting the life of black gay “natives” and not recognize that they are watching a work shaped and formed bya a perspective and standpoint specific to Livingston. By cinematically masking this reality (we hear her ask questions but never see her), Livingston does not oppose the way hegemonic whiteness “represents” blackness, but rather assumes an imperial overseeing position that is in no way progressive or counter-hegemonic. By shooting the film using a conventional approach to documentary and not making clear how her standpoint breaks with this tradition, Livingston assumes a privileged location of “innocence”. She is represented both in interviews and reviews tender-hearte, mild-mannered, virtuous white woman daring to venture into a contemporaty “heart of darkness” to bring back knowledge of the natives.

A review in the New Yorker declares (with no argument to substatiate the assertion) that “the movie is a sympathetic observation of a specialized, private world”. An interview with Livingston in Outweek is titled “Pose, She Said” and we are told in the preface that she “discovered the Ball world by chance”. Livingston does not discuss her interest and fascination with black gay subculture. She is not asked to speak about what knowledge, information, or lived understanding of black culture and history she possessed that provided a background for her work or to explain what vision of black life she hoped to convey and to whom. Can anyone imagine that a black woman lesbian would make a film about whete gay subculture and not be asked these questions? Livingston is asked in the Outweek interview, “How did you build up the kind of trust where people are so open to talking about their personal experiences?” She never answers this question. Instead she suggests that she gains her “credibility” by the intensity of her spectatoship, adding, “I also targeted people who wer articulate, who had stuff they wanted to say and were very happy that anyone wanted to listen”. Avoiding the difficult questions undelying what it means to be a white person in a white supremacist society creating a film about any aspect of black life. Livingston responds to the question, “Didn’t the fact that you’re a white lesbian going into a world of Black queens and street kids make that [the interview process] difficult?” by implicitly evoking a shallow sense of universal connection. She responds, “If you know someone over a period of two years, and thay still retain their sex and their race, you’ve got to be a pretty sexist, racist person”. Yet it is precisely the race, sex, and sexual practices of black men who are filmed that is the exploited subject matter.

So far I have read no interviews where Livingston discusses the issue of appropriation. And even though she is openly critical of Madonna, she does not convey how her work differs from Madonna’s apropriation of black experience. To some extent it is precisely the recognition by mass culture that aspects of black life, like “voguing”, fscinate white audiences that creates a market for both Madonna’s product and Livingston’s. Unfortunately, Livingston’s comments about Paris is Burning do not convey serious thought about either the political and aesthetic implications of her choice as a white woman focusing on an aspect of black life and culture or the way racism might shape and inform how she would interpret black experience on the screen. Reviewers like Georgia Brown in the Village Voice who suggest that Livingston’s whiteness is “a fact of nature that didn’t hinder her research” collude in the denial of the way whiteness informs her perspective and standpoint. To say, as Livingston does, “I certainly don’t have the final word on the gay black experience. I’d love for a black director to have made this film” is to oversimplify the issue and to absolve her of responsibility and accountability for progressive critical reflection and it implicitly suggests that there would be no difference between her work and that of a black director. Undrlying this apparently self-effacing comment is cultural arrogance, for she implies not only that she has cornered the market on the subject matter but that being able to make films is a question of personal choice, like she just “discovered” the “raw material” before a black director did. Her comments are disturbing because thay reveal so little awareness of the politics that undergird any commodification of “blackness” in this society.

Had Livingston approached her subject with greater awareness of the way white supremacy shapes cultural production -determining not only what representations of blackness are deemed acceptable, marketable, as well worthy of seeing- perhaps the film would not so easily have turned the black drag ball into a spectacle for the entertainment of those presumed to be on the outside of this experience looking in. So much of what is expressed in the film has to do with questions of power and privilege and the way racism impedes black progresss (and certainly the class aspirations of the black gay subculture depicted do not differ from those of other poor and underclass black communities). Here, the supposedly “outsider” position is primarily located in the experience of whiteness. Livingston appears unwilling to interrogate the way assuming the position of outsider looking in, as well as interpreter, can, and often does, pervert and distort one’s pespective. Her ability to assume such a position without rigorous interrogation of intent is rooted in the politics of race and racism. Patricia Williams critiques the white assumption of a”neutral” gaze in her essay “Teleology on the Rocks” included in her new book The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Describing taking a walking tour of Harlem with a group of white folks, she recalls the guide telling them they might “get to see some services” since “Easter Sunday in Harlem is quite a show”. William’s critical observations are relevant to any discussion of Paris is Burning:

What astonished me was that no one had asked the churches if they wanted to be sared at like living museums. I wondered what would happen if a group of blue-jeaned blacks were to walk uninvited into a synagogue on Passover or St. Anthony’s of Padua during high mass -just to peer, not pray. My feeling is that such activity would be seen as disresectful, at the very least. Yet the aspect of disrespect, intrusion, seemed irrelevant to this well-educated, affable group of people. They deflected my observation with comments like “We just want to look”, “No one will mind”, and “There’s no harm intended”. As well-intentioned as they were, I was left with the impression that no one existed for them who could not be governed by their intentions. While acknowledging the lack of apparent malice in this behavior, I can’t help thinking that it is a liability as much as a luxury to live without interaction. To live so completely impervious to one’s own impact on others is a fragile privilege, which over time relies not simply on the willingness but on the inability of others -in this case blacks- to make their displeasure heard.

This insightful critique came to mind as I reflected on why whites could so outspokenly make their pleasure in this film heard and the many black viewers express discontent, raising critical questions about how the film was made, is seen, and is talked about, who have not named their displearure publicly. Too many reviewers and interviewers assume not only that there is no need to raise pressing critical questions about Livingston’s film, but act as though she somehow did this marginalized black gay subculture a favor by bringing their experience to a wider public. Such a stance obscures the substantial rewards she has received for this work. Since so many of the black gay men in the film express the desire to be big stars, it is easy to place Livingston in the role of benefactor, offering these “poor black souls! a way to realize their dreams. But it is this current trend in producing colorful ethnicity for the white consumer appetite that makes it possible for blackness to be commodified in unprecedented ways, and for whites to appropriate black culture without interrogating whiteness or showing concern for the displeasure of blacks. Just as white cultural imperialism informed and affirmed the adventurous journeys of colonizing whites into the countries and cultures of “dark others”, it allows white audiences to applaud representations of black culture, if they are satisfied with the images and habits of being represented.

Watching the film with a black woman friend, we were disturbed by the extent to which white folks around us were “entertained” and “pleasured” by scenes we viewed as sad and at times tragic. Often individuals laughed at personal testimony about hardship, pain, loneliness. Several times I yelled out in the dark: “What is so funny about this scene? Why are you laughing?” The laughter was never innocent. Instead it undermined the seriousness of the film, keeping it always on the level of spectacle. And much of the film helped make this possible. Moments of pain and sadness were quickly covered up by dramatic scenes from drag balls, as though there were two competing cinematic narratives, one displaying the pageantry of the drag ball and the other reflecting on the lives of participants and value of the fantasy. This second narrative was literally hard to hear because the laughter often drowned it out, just as the sustained focus on elaborate displays at balls diffused the power of the more serious narrative. Any audience hoping to be entertained would not be as interested in the true life stories and testimonies narrated. Much of that individual testimony makes it appear that the characters are estranged from any community beyond themselves. Families, friends, etc. are not shown, which adds to the representation of these black gay men as cut off, living on the edge.

It is useful to compare the portraits of their lives in Paris is Burning with those depicted in Marlon Riggs’ compelling film Tongues Untied. At no point in Livingston’s film are the men asked to speak about their connections to a world of family and community beyond the drag ball. The cinematic narrative makes the ball center of their lives. And yet who determines this? Is this the way the black men view their reality or is this the reality Livingston constructs? Certainly the degree to which black men in this gay subculture are portrayed as cut off from a “real” world heightens the emphasis on fantasy, and indeed gives Paris is burning its tragic edge. That tragedy is made explicit when we are told that the fair-skinned Venus has been murdered, and yet there is no mourning of him/her in the film, no intense focus on the sadness of this murder. Having served the purpose of “spectacle” the film abandons him/her. The audience does not see Venus after the murder. There are no scenes of grief. To put it crassly, her dying is upstaged by spectacle. Death is not entertaining.

For those of us who did not come to this film as voyeurs of black gay subculture, it is Dorian Carey’s moving testimony throughout the film that makes Paris is Burning a memorable experience. Cary is both historian and cultural critic in the film. He explains how the balls enabled marginalized black gay queens to empower both participants and audience. It is Carey who talks about the significance of the “star” in the life of gay black men who are queens. In a manner similar to critic Richar Dyer in his work Heavenly Bodies, Carey tells viewers that the desire for stardom is an expression of the longing to realize the dream of autonomous stellar individualism. Reminding readers that the idea of the individual continues to be a major image of what it means to live in a democratic world, Dyer writes:

Capitalism justifies itself on the basis of freedom (separateness) of anyone to make money, sell their labour how they will, to be able to express opinions and get them heard (regardless of wealth and social position). The openness of society is assumed by the way that we are addressed as individuals -as consumers (each freely choosing to buy, or watch, what we want), as legal subjects (equally responsible before the law), as political subjects (able to make up our minds who is to run society). Thus even while the notion of the individual is assailed on all sides, it is a necessary fiction for the reproduction of the kind of society we live in... Stars articulate these ideas of personhood.

This is precisely the notion of stardom Carey articulates. He emphasizes the way consumer capitalism undermines the subversive power of the drag balls, subordinating ritual to spectacle, removing the will to display unique imaginative costumes an the purchased image. Carey speaks profoundly about the redemptive power of the imagination in black life, that drag balls were traditionally a place wher the aesthetics of the image in relation to black gay life could be explored with complexity and grace.

Carey extols the significance of fantasy even as he critiques the use of fantasy to escape reality. Analyzing the place of fantasy in black gay subculture, he links that experience to the longing for stardom that is so pervasive in this society. Refusing to allow the “queen” to be Othered, he conveys the message that in all of us resides that longing to transcend the boundaries of self, to be glorified. Speaking about the importance of drag queens in a recent interview in Afterimage, Marlon Riggs suggests that the queen personifies the longing everyone has for love and recognition. Seeing in drag queens “a desire, a very visceral need to be loved, as well as a sense of the abject loneliness of life where nobody loves you”, Riggs contends “this image is real for anybody who has been in the bottom spot where they’ve been rejected by everybody and loved by nobody”. Echoing Carey, Riggs declares: “What’s real for them is the realization that you have to learn to love yourself”. Carey stresses that one can only learn to love the self when one breaks through illusion and faces reality, not by escaping into fantasy. Emphasizing that the point is not to give us fantasy but to recognize its limitations, he acknowledges that one must distinguish the place of fantasy in ritualized play from the use of fantasy as a means of escape. Unlike Pepper Labeija who constructs a mythic world to inhabit, making this his private reality, Carey encourages using the imagination creatively to enhance one’s capacity to live more fully in a world beyond fantasy.

Despite the profound impact he makes, what Riggs would call “a visual icon of the drag queen with a very dignified humanity”, Carey’s message, if often muted, is overshadowed by spectacle. It is hard for viewers to really hear this message. By critiquing absorption in fantasy and naming the myriad ways pain and suffering inform any process of self-actualization, Carey’s message mediates between the viewer who longs to voyeruristicly escape into the film, to vicariously inhabit that lived space on the edge, by exposing the sham, by challenging all of us to confront reality. James Baldwin makes the point in The Fire Next Time that “people who cannot suffer can never grow up, can never discover who they are”. Without being sentimental about suffering, Dorian Carey urges all of us to break through denial, through the longing for an illusory star identity, so that we can confront and accept ourselves as we really are -only then can fantasy, ritual, be a site of seduction, passion, and play where the self is truly recognized, loved, and never abandoned or betrayed.

Bell Hooks

[theliterateape]

"You’ll Never See His Like Again!": Revisiting Comics Legend Stan Lee’s Best, Most Literary (and Vastly Underrated) Story, The Silver Surfer (1978)

By Jarret Keene

Stan “the Man” Lee is dead, but his creations are alive, pouncing across theaters, game screens, and t-shirts with equal parts vitality and sorrow. Today, Spider-Man and Thor and Captain America and Black Panther and so many others dominate our media landscape to a degree unthinkable 40 years ago when my father bought me The Silver Surfer graphic novel from a B. Dalton inside Tampa Bay Mall.

Back then comics (22-page floppies) were relegated to a single spinner rack in mall bookshops, a gimmick to draw kids into the store so their parents felt obliged to pick up garbage Sidney Sheldon’s thriller Bloodline. But The Silver Surfer didn’t fit in a metal rung; instead it was displayed amidst the regular literary trade paperbacks. Today it is vaguely praised on obscure blogs as being among the very first efforts to push comics into the realm of the literary epic during a brutal moment in the history of the comics industry. Staggering inflation, a crushing 1977 (and then a 1978) blizzard, and rising paper costs nearly sank DC Comics. Marvel, though, endured such challenges with Stan Lee’s relentless cheer, his grace under pressure, his courage to always try something new when everyone else cowered, caved.

In the late 1970s, the U.S. continued to fall apart. There was the ongoing energy crisis, serial killers like Ted Bundy lurked in every shadow, the Jonestown mass suicide played out like a dress rehearsal for a larger and more diabolical event, toxic waste burbled in landfills adjacent to pleasant neighborhoods, and Soviet Russia  rattled its nuclear saber. You wouldn’t know this from reading Marvel Comics, every issue offering a column called Stan’s Soapbox, wherein Lee waxed passionately, positively, and with the eloquence of a poetry-reading pitchman, about what was forthcoming from “the House of Ideas.”

Today Marvel is an idea-resistant shell of the company Lee built and oversaw, a house of ideology teeming with dour, OMG-chirping social-justice superheroes (gay mutant Iceman, lesbian Latinx warrior America Chavez, Muslim teenager Kamala Khan a.k.a. Ms. Marvel, female cancer-stricken Thor). Instead of debuting new characters, the current editorial team is content to reverse race and flip gender of, and add a dash of disability to, classic characters. In its prime, though—and starting in 1961 with the first issue of Fantastic Four — Marvel excelled at depicting authentic outcasts who felt a fierce responsibility to protect even those who hated them, feared them, wanted them dead. Lee’s characters — which he co-created with Jack Kirby, the artist who visually defined comics for an international audience — didn’t nurture wounds of identity and grievance; they waged their internal battles on a mythic scale. In the same way Oedipus confronted the ignorance of his birth, in the same way petulant Achilles struggled to overcome his narcissism, so did hapless high school reject and science nerd Peter Parker combat his own teenage doubt and ego and feelings of inadequacy.

Amazing Fantasy #15 (1962) containing the debut of Spider-Man, is arguably the single greatest and most important comics story ever written, its 11 pages defining not just the Marvel superhero but also the last half-century of U.S. comics. “With great power comes great responsibility” wasn’t merely an inspirational and moral slogan; it was also a metaphor for American exceptionalism, which could only result in senseless death (like, say, the murder of Peter’s uncle, Ben) if not applied toward just and proper ends. Parker is spoiled, his own worst enemy. He’s a purveyor of fake news, taking photos of himself in action as Spider-Man and selling them to the Daily Bugle to cover the cost of college tuition. We love Parker for his flaws, though, and for his commitment to overcoming them. We cherish his humanity even as we’re thrilled by his brawls with violent predators like Kraven the Hunter, bulky crime boss Kingpin, hideously armed Doctor Octopus.

The Silver Surfer isn’t human like Parker. The Surfer is carved from the “doomed messiah from beyond” mold a la Superman (or Beowulf or Jesus). But he isn’t adopted as a baby and given a Midwest upbringing. He is a silver-skinned alien riding a floating board, arriving on Earth to determine if it’s suitable for his planet-eating master Galactus. Lee and Kirby made a wise choice in never pinning down the exact size of this god of interstellar death, who, like the Surfer, was first introduced in the pages of Fantastic Four #48–50 (1966). That three-part story is a must-read, yes, but then, a decade later, Lee and Kirby collaborated on a 100-page retelling of the Surfer-and-Galactus saga, only this time the superheroes were removed, leaving just the god and his fallen angel. The result is a romantic, philosophical, and artistic statement that outstrips everything else Lee and Kirby collaborated on prior — which is saying a lot. It is also the last major work either of them would produce for Marvel, or for any company thereafter.

Today Marvel is an idea-resistant shell of the company Lee built and oversaw, a house of ideology teeming with dour, OMG-chirping social-justice superheroes

The Silver Surfer was published by arrangement with Fireside Books, an imprint of Simon and Schuster in New York known for publishing a famous chess book. Based on a Kirby sketch, the cover is by artist Earl Norem, known for painting the covers of men’s adventure magazines and more than a few Marvel mags (like Savage Sword of Conan). Indeed, the painted cover gives the book literary gravitas. The interior art is all prime Kirby, with eloquent inks by Joe Sinnott, colors by Glynis Wein (first wife of the late Len Wein, who created Wolverine). The Silver Surfer is a feast for a comics-lover’s eyes; my battered copy still radiates visual power. But it’s the heartbreaking story and dialogue that set this effort apart from anything else in the history of comics and in the bibliography of Lee and Kirby.

Here the protagonist must choose between living forever to serve a devourer of worlds, or else die alongside eight billion earthlings to be rejoined with the obliterated love of his life, lovely and golden Ardina. In The Silver Surfer, Lee gives us a hero who sells his soul to the devil so as to thwart a holocaust and save a populated globe. He only meets a few dozen — many of who attack him physically. But he understands their potential to grow beyond their limitations. It’s not a story in tune with the 1970s, that post-Vietnam, post-JFK, post-Watergate era during which Marvel delivered dark, humorous characters like Ghost Rider. No, this was something else entirely.

The opening splash page is the closed fist of the planet-eater: Behold! The hand of Galactus! Behold! The hand of him who is like unto a god. Behold! The clutch of harnessed power — about to be released! The tone here is elevated, serious, Lee is writing in a style that evokes the Old Testament of the King James. The second page is a splash, too; in it, the mitt of Galactus opens and from it erupts the Surfer, who “streaks through the currents of space — ever-seeking, ever-searching — for he alone is herald to mighty Galactus.” The image is the visual distillation of an artist’s self-confidence, his arrogance. After all, doesn’t every artist believe himself to be God as he  manipulates his characters, his images, to suit his imaginative fancy? It’s also a breathtaking rendering of a big bang, or a biblical birth of the universe, without a benevolent designer in control. Here the god of the universe is a destroyer.

The universe seems endless and infinitely alluring to this mysterious star-wanderer, who yearns for  his own homeworld, Zenn-La, lost to him forever for reasons Lee doesn’t initially explain, but we presume Galactus ate it.

The Surfer enters the atmosphere of “a verdant sphere” unlike any he’s seen before. Soaring high above the streets of New York, he doesn’t hide from view. He is fascinated by the fear in the eyes of people, noting “how it is always the young who are the first to accept — and to trust.” He sees a woman who reminds him of Shalla Bal, a woman the Surfer loved on his own world. Haunted by her memory, he pursues this woman through the alleyways of Manhattan while imagining a conversation with this Shalla Bal lookalike. We learn that, years ago, the Surfer sacrificed his mortal body to Galactus to save Zenn-La from destruction.

Finally, the woman abandons him to his painful recollections… and then Galactus suddenly appears in a whirlwind of crackling energy, ready to devour Earth.

He congratulates the Surfer on a job well done and articulates in excruciating detail how he plans to sate his appetite: “Here shall I drain the gently rolling seas. Here shall the bountiful land yield to me its gift of life.” It is an impending act of reverse creation, a backward Genesis. But the herald of Galactus isn’t having any of it. When the Surfer fails to convince his master that the price of eight billion souls is too high, he lashes out at Galactus with “the power cosmic,” using it seal the destroyer in a concrete cocoon. It doesn’t hold Galactus for long. Disgusted, the world-eater blasts the Surfer from the sky, cursing the herald to live amidst “the dunghills of man” for a spell in order to ponder his mistake. Then Galactus disappears.

The Surfer recovers from his fall, then disguises himself by altering his appearance to resemble a male fashion model from a billboard. He wanders the city with admiration for its denizens until muggers approach him in Central Park. The Surfer shoos them away with a pyrotechnical display, then pledges to walk around without hiding his identity; concealment did nothing for him anyway. Meanwhile, we witness Galactus gorging on a planet in another solar system. Sated, his thoughts turn toward his missing herald. What can Galactus do to make the Surfer submit? The world-eater’s counsel, a sniveling Master of Guile, advises Galactus to provide the Surfer — our alien Adam — with an Eve, someone to betray the Surfer’s heart.

And so beautiful Ardina enters the picture. She sneaks the instantly smitten Surfer beyond Earth’s atmosphere, and they share in the pleasures of the spaceways. Floating now on a patch of green ringed with bright flowers in a neighboring galaxy, our hero is tempted to give up his standoff with Galactus. In the same way Dido tempted Aeneas to give up his destiny to found Rome, so does Ardina begin to entice the Surfer to submit to her — and by extension Galactus. He refuses, says he’s willing to die to save Earth, and so Ardina leads the Surfer on a journey into human darkness. “You will perish for a worthless cause,” she warns. She shows him “brutal images, a morbid montage of heart-rending scenes filled with carnage and strife.” Domestic violence. A child killed by a hit-and-run driver. A mass execution. Bombed ruins of a once-thriving city. The Surfer is jarred but not dissuaded.

And then something interesting happens: Ardina, designed to coldly seduce the Surfer to make him betray his convictions, ends up feeling a warm love for him.

So much so that when the Surfer, driven mad from having set foot inside a suburban home where the walls seem to be closing on him:

The ceiling — almost touching my head! No room to move! No place to soar! I see no sun — no sky — no endless reaches of rolling space! Wherever I face — wherever I turn — I am surrounded by smothering objects! Shelves and books! Pictures, clocks, and lamps! Chairs and drapes and shuttered windows! But where is the sky? Where is the cold, crisp touch of rolling space? Where are the hills, the seas, the nourishing stars in endless profusion? Without them I perish! 

Interestingly, the aspect of humankind that nearly causes the Surfer to surrender his mission is man’s stultifying existence inside tract-housing boxes.

Troubled by the experience, the Surfer races to escape Earth’s atmosphere. Riding bitch, Ardina screams: “The barrier! You have forgotten the barrier!”

The Surfer falls to Earth while Ardina re-materializes before Galactus inside his giant space vehicle. She admits she has failed. She confesses her love for the Surfer. Displeased, Galactus recalibrates her cloned body for one last mission. A mission that involves shattering the Surfer’s heart.

Meanwhile, the Surfer continues to be attacked by various humans. He is shot at, shackled and hammer-smashed, then the U.S. military blasts him with an ultra-sonic cannon, which nearly kills him. Ardina consoles him for a moment, kisses him, telling the Surfer she is with him and by his side, even after death. Which is when Galactus dissolves her into dead particles using a matrix-drone.

Now Galactus asks the Surfer to again join him in scouting the universe for other edible planets. It’s the only way Earth can be saved. The command is agonizing, for what Galactus offers is a living hell. To save Earth, the Surfer must cast off death, the ultimate escape and the one chance he has at being reunited with Ardina. But as the Surfer himself says: “Never was there a choice!”

The curse of immortality at the cost of true love is a familiar idea in ancient epics. The sea nymph Calypso offered Odysseus eternal life, but he refused it in order to be with his wife Penelope. But the Surfer has no options; he can’t be selfish enough to die and thus doom the Earth. What makes him a hero is his refusal to surrender and his willingness to embrace the agony of existence, of enslavement. He must deny himself every exit for humans to live on until they hopefully change themselves for the better. They must have a chance; the Surfer and Galactus give them one. 

The Surfer returns to the gauntlet of Galactus, disappearing within the destroyer’s fist.

✶

In this story, there is no Fantastic Four. No cameo appearances by Lee and Kirby. No clever narrative captions. Just the purest narrative of a hero fighting for an ideal, for the steadfast belief in our ability to one day rise above our petty evils, our arrogance and wrath. Lee wrote so many masterpieces of comics literature, but this one is his best because it best speaks to the principle he and his characters lived by: Never succumb to nihilism and despair. Never forget that we are similar in our anxieties and weaknesses, and that our individual identities matter less than our collective aspiration to improve our world and the lives of the people who inhabit it.

It’s a moral stance that today remains obscured by Internet social-justice frothing and the political insanity of being ruled by a reality-TV star. But the embers of Lee’s views are there for anyone to ignite and carry forward. Make no mistake: the world is poorer now without Lee. As the blurb on The Silver Surfer ’s back cover announces: “You will never see his like again!” We can, however, always see Lee’s passion and his love for humanity — for life! — in the work he and Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko and others left for us to enjoy.

Lee didn’t need to die for our sins. He endures, and so will we.

Never was there a choice.

Jarret Keene is an assistant professor in residence in the English Department at UNLV, where he teaches creative writing and ancient and medieval literature. His fiction, essays and verse have appeared in literary journals such as New England Review, Carolina Quarterly, and the Southeast Review. He is the author of several books and editor of acclaimed short-fiction anthologies. He is currently working on a critical biography of comic book legend Jack Kirby.

[hypocrisyofandrewdobson]

This isn't necessarily hypocritical, but it is an example of how superficial Dobson's views really are. He's using it this image proof of his 'support' for LBGTQA causes by proving that all of his characters are different representations of sexuality; he's color coded them according to their respective sexualities, and is very proud of himself having done so.

For those who aren't aware of what, exactly, this means: the single human male on the ship (I think Dobson expressed he wanted to get rid of Peggy, the lecherous double-hooked double-peg-legged pirate, leaving I had to look up his name Sam as the only human male), is heterosexual. Atea, of course, is gay. He retconned Alex to be bisexual. He made Talus, the little furry monstrosity, asexual.

He made this image for the express purpose of proving how 'inclusive' he makes his characters, because he thinks arbitrarily (more or less) assigning sexual preferences to his characters inherently means he's supporting the community.

His decision has nothing to do with supporting a community.

He likes to say it is, but it's pretty clear he did this just to 'fix' a problem he previously had with Alex ze Pirate, being that Alex was straight (and Dobson in recent years seems completely opposed to the idea of female characters being straight). I seem to recall she made some very light passes at the cabin boy (whose name utterly escapes me Sam, apparently, an that's a hell of a testament to how memorable his characters are), he was played as being generally clueless but liking Alex in a very naive and innocent way (with a few comics about he would walk in on Alex naked or bathing but be utterly clueless), and Atea was almost entirely characterized by wanting to bang Alex at every opportunity even though Alex never accepted her advances. He previously expressed that he wanted to turn this into a 'true' love triangle (even though it wasn't actually a triangle at all), and what better way to do that than to make sure Alex is assuredly attracted to the other two crew members, but they are both exclusively interested in her?

It's already pretty well-known (in circles that know Dobson, anyway) that Atea is an incredibly insulting representation of lesbians, being entirely defined by her sexuality and reduced to a hypersexual predator that made constant unwanted advances -- oftentimes physically -- against Alex (actions which Dobson defines as 'loving', and I'll leave that there). So there's some good  positive 'representation' there. But you know what else is good, positive representation?

He chose to make Talus -- a deranged furry monster -- asexual. This was likely done because (1) Dobson has said he's completely turned off by furries, (2) it 100% keeps Talus out of the 'relationship sphere', and (3) it's just another label he can pop onto his characters to chant 'representation'.

Because if Dobson knew anything about the asexual community he would know that it's not uncommon for people who identify as asexual to be told that there is something mentally wrong with them, regardless of their actual faculties. It's not unheard of for people to claim that asexuals are not only somehow deviant, but actually inhuman. So proudly proclaiming that a little furry mutant whose defining characteristic is 'lolcrazy' is asexual? Good, positive representation, Dobson.

The man's just checking off boxes to say 'see, I AM a good ally, I AM!' He's throwing around labels without actually thinking about them to support his own fetishistic preferences (and completely changing his own characters; Alex has gone from being disgusted by Atea's advances to gladly trying to eat her face in return) and tick off a big list of Representation Points. He doesn't put real thought into his decisions, or any organic consideration that 'oh, this character might actually be bi', it's front and center and leading characteristic to try and prove what a 'good ally' he is, or how much he 'supports the community'. This is pretty clear in his 'Muslim vampire' comic proposal, too; he doesn't lead with who the characters are, only what they are. Diversity decisions are not a part of the character, they are the character-- regardless of how insulting it actually is.

In the end, it's just base tokenism, trying to suck up to the people he wants attention from while remaining aggressively ignorant of how thoughtless he's actually being.

I actually did want to cover that section more in the post I made, but it was already starting to run long. Thanks for putting it better than I could.

[geneshaven]

610 Overview (what matters most)

So now that all the married Olicity goodness from 609 is behind us and they are locked in for the duration of the series, I guess it’s time to move ahead into the rest of the story arcs ready to unfold in the next 13 episodes.

Here is a head cannon---if the Newbies are adamant about starting up their own team, maybe they should take their act to another city. Star City is already spoken for. It won’t do to have another vigilante group save a city that has already been saved. Their objective is not original. If feels like NTA is rebelling through anger and animosity, as if they are teenagers being told they’re grounded but sneak out to the party anyway. They can never follow in Oliver’s footsteps. They haven’t shed enough blood and tears and loss to take those strides. They haven’t gone over the edge and come back stronger the way Oliver has.

**

A couple words about NTA, if I may.

Up first is Dinah. I’m sorry, but the ex-lover/partner vigilante story arc just isn’t working for me. I don’t feel that Vince has any chance  at redeeming himself, not like Oliver did. Dinah doesn’t appear to have the same temperament and belief that Felicity had when she took a broken Oliver Queen into her life and helped reshape his soul.  

Vince is not Oliver.  He does not have it within himself to let his sins go. And Dinah is not Felicity. She is filled with rage and violence. Together, Vince and Dinah are a highly volatile couple. I don’t see a happy union  for them any time soon.

Next up is Curtis. Except for those early episodes in 4A when he was still appealing, I haven’t really seen much character growth in him. It’s as if the writers are still trying to figure out what to do with him. So, he’s pissed at OTA, for not trusting him and spying. Okay, but is it any different keeping from Paul the vigilante life he chose? Is it any different that he lied multiple times to his husband every time he donned his lame superhero outfit and took a nightly ass beating?  Curtis, ask Oliver and he’ll tell you. Lying to that one person in your life who gives it meaning is not a good idea. Ask Felicity. Ask Paul.

Maybe they should make Curtis exclusively Felicity’s business partner. Except for his T-Spheres, Curtis really doesn’t bring much to the action-packed table out in the field. Would it be feasible for him to not only help Felicity develop new tech that will benefit the world, but also crime fighting gadgets to help keep the Team and the city safe?

Who could they replace him with when and if he does hang up his Mr. Terrific suit? Someone with more (and better) fighting skills?  Someone who has basically sacrificed his life to have the backs of those he trusts and loves and believes in? Someone who loves Oliver’s sister with the same intensity Oliver  does Felicity? Someone who’s name  starts with R-O-Y?

And finally, we get to Rene. I was really liking Rene. To me, he was another comic relief (funnier that Curtis) on the show. He had skills as a fighter. He was finding his niche in the Mayor’s office. And I almost felt an emotional attachment when they brought in the Zoe story. Okay, I understand Rene tragically lost his wife, and that hurts in a way that can completely define one’s heart and how they see the world in the aftermath.

All of that evaporated for me when Rene wimped out and threw Oliver under the bus by letting himself be manipulated, by having Watson push his vulnerability buttons. Again, it was a trust issue for Wild Dog, or a lack of trust. When are these rookies going to realize that Oliver let go of his own demons and decided to trust them by bringing them into the fold?

So NTA? I don’t think that’s going to work out for them. I think having them out there trying to defend the city without guidance or any kind of grounded direction is not a good idea.  I think that the real fight on their hands will be with themselves.

**

So  what is the answer? OTA. I cut my teeth on this show with Original Team Arrow. Oliver Queen, Felicity Smoak and John Diggle.  Try as they might, the writers have looked for ways to shake these characters up throughout the series. They used separation. They used lying and betrayal and a great big pile of BMD. John killed his brother and spiraled out of control. Oliver killed Felicity’s not-boyfriend and sent her down a dark rabbit hole. An entire island was blown up in a feeble attempt to make the fanbase worried. They gave John an injury he hid from everyone and then put him in the Green Arrow  suit and had him lead the Team. When Oliver found out, more trust issues and disappointment came between two brothers.

It all felt  like a writing experiment to  me.  It went against the grain of established character development. Is there a rhyme? Is there a reason?  One of the most disappointing things for me as an Arrow fan (and there have been a few over the past 6+ years) is getting my expectations ramped up, usually after waiting for summer hiatus to end and again at the mid-season break. Then those expectations fizzle out as I’m taken on a tepid journey of bullshit love interests, of WTF magic villains and promising connections that turn into ambiguous annoyance.

Still, despite those misfires, and with some kick ass fight scenes thrown in, OTA is what makes the show stronger. It brings continuity and familiarity. It gives me something to root for as a fan. It gives me, at the end of each episode and each season, belief and hope that no matter what happens, OTA will  save the day. They are at the forefront and whatever else comes about on the show, it will be shaped around our heroes.

As it should be.

**

Olicity. Well, they’re married. They have completed one another. They’re love  and strength and endgame. All their scenes in 610 epitomized this. They exude a natural essence of love and trust and peace. There is no more, ‘does she love me like I love her,’ or ‘I think you’re missing something.’ There is no more hiding unexpressed feelings, no more out of control angst or uncrossable distances. They are a team in every sense of the word. They know what the other is thinking just by a look. They feel an infusion whenever they touch each other. One breathes in; the other breathes out.

All of this makes a difference whenever danger looms. There are no longer any bad guys or girls out there who can disrupt their flow. Losing one another is no longer an option for them. Each would die for the other. Oliver is a better person, a better hero and husband and father because of the grace Felicity brings to his life. And Felicity’s life has found a balance between conquering her fears and letting love triumph in their place. She is not broken, as she thought for so many years. She is wanted and loved. And neither one will ever be alone again.

**

Cayden James and his cabal of evil cannot win out in the end. Trying to defeat the power of love and trust is like trying to swallow fire. It will only burn on the way down. That’s the thing with villains. They are always overreaching their goals of mayhem and conquest.  They think that nothing or no one out there can ever stop them. It’s a game, one they make the rules for, determining who is allowed to win and  who will  lose.

The only problem is---they always underestimate the other  players, the ones who the game  is rigged against.

Oliver, Felicity and John will always win. Why? Because they will always have each other’s backs.  So bring on 6B. Let our heroes continue to make a difference. OTA is the real momentum that keeps the city safe. NTA will do well to remember that. They very well could be run down in its wake. They need to come along instead of fight against the inevitable.

@it-was-a-red-heeler @memcjo @almondblossomme @hope-for-olicity @flowerandsunshine @dmichellewrites @mortallock @vaelisamaza @cruzrogue @ruwithmeguys @louiseblue1

[spryfilm]

“Duckman: Private Dick/Family Man” (1994 – 1997)

Television

70 Episodes

Created by: Everett Peck

Featuring: Jason Alexander, Gregg Berger, Nancy Travis, Dana Hill, Pat Musick, E.G. Daily, Dweezil Zappa

Duckman: “Did I ever tell you my Dad’s last words to me”

Cornfed: “Careful, son, I don’t think the safety is on.”

Duckman: “Before that.”

Never one to look back on ‘the good old days’ as there is little to be gained, especially when viewing older television shows, which on the most part have not aged very well I was extra pleased to see that one of the great adult animated shows “Duckman” (1994-1997) was being released on DVD, to, hopefully, a new audience which this hilarious as well as truly groundbreaking show deserves. Before the proliferation of more grown up animation there were only a handful of similarly veined shows viewers could turn to in the 1990s, of course those shows like this one broke rules, commented on the day as well as being truly funny. You may recognize the names, “Beavis and Butt-head” (1993-2011), “The Maxx” (1995), “Aeon Flux” (1991-1995), “Ren and Stimpy” (1991-1996) and “The Critic” (1994-1995), these were all in different ways genre defying as well as genre breaking something that happens all to rarely in the homogenized present we find ourselves in. Of course, some of these shows were more successful than others with the nadir being “Beavis and Butt-head” and “Ren and Stimpy”, but my personal favorite was always “Duckman”.

“Duckman”, the series centers on Eric T. Duckman (voiced by Jason Alexander), a lascivious, widowed, self-hating, grouchy anthropomorphic duck who lives with his family in Los Angeles (as mentioned in the episode “Bev Takes a Holiday”) and works as a private detective. The tagline of the show, seen in the opening credits, is “Private Dick/Family Man” (“dick” is a triple entendre).

Main characters include Cornfed (voiced by Gregg Berger), a pig who is Duckman’s Joe Friday-esque business partner and best friend, Ajax (voiced by Dweezil Zappa), Duckman’s eldest, mentally-slow teenage son; Charles (voiced by Dana Hill and later Pat Musick) and Mambo (voiced by E. G. Daily), Duckman’s Conjoined twin child genius sons whose heads share a body; Bernice (voiced by Nancy Travis), Duckman’s sister-in-law and the identical twin of Beatrice who is a fanatic fitness buff and hates Duckman with a passion; Grandma-ma (voiced by Travis), Duckman’s comatose, immensely flatulent mother-in-law; Agnes Delrooney (voiced by Brian Doyle-Murray), Grandma-ma’s doppelgänger who kidnaps her and poses as her for several episodes; Fluffy and Uranus (voiced by Pat Musick), Duckman’s two Care Bear-esque teddy-bear office assistants.

Everett Peck is the sole creator of the television show, his drawings have appeared in The New Yorker, Playboy and Time, as well as numerous books, comics and movie posters. He has participated in gallery shows in Tokyo, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C., and has written animated cartoons for Rugrats and The Critic. “Duckman” was originally created as a comic book that was first published by Dark Horse in 1990, in 1994 Duckman was turned into an animated series.

The show was animated by Clasky-Csupo, and like their better-remembered, kid-focused shows “Rugrats” (1990-2006) it has an expressive, super-deformed art style that’s somewhat reminiscent of independent syndicated comics like those of Lynda Barry and early Matt Groening. The opening credits are super 90s with colorful collages and very stilted drop-frame animation, in this case with a backup theme by Frank Zappa, whose son Dweezil voices Duckman’s charmingly vacant surf-speaking son Ajax.

Like “The Critic”, “Duckman” encounters random celebrities at times. Like “Ren and Stimpy”, he’s insanely, cartoonishly violent, mostly to his two assistants, Fluffy and Uranus; Care Bear parodies who are sweetly naive and always bounce back from whatever lethal end they meet at their boss’ hands in any given scene. Like “Aeon Flux”, the show was not shy about showing as much animated female flesh as could be gotten away with. But all that was just sizzle on the steak: Duckman balanced the humor with pathos, rubbing in the fact that the lead character’s life is miserable, but also that he loves his three sons and deeply mourns his wife.

And then, at its best, “Duckman” contained utterly scathing satire that would raise eyebrows even today. Satire is extremely important to animation espepcially those series from the 1990s, it is a technique employed by writers to expose and criticize foolishness and corruption of an individual or a society, by using humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule. It intends to improve humanity by criticizing its follies and foibles.

In the intervening years, either by way of generational change, or just increasing conformity, we’ve lost that desire to mock. Cartoons today are safe. They may proffer to highlight social justice issues, or even raise awareness of important causes, but they do so in a neutral inoffensive manner.

Televison shows like “Duckman” are important beucase its seems like we have lost the tendancy to create proper satires espceiclly in animation. Shows (even web series) are focusing more on entertainment. Animation and cartoons in general are the perfect vehicle with which to mock the deservedly mockable. Politicians, silicon valley wonks, terrorists; all are so very ripe for plunder yet remain untouched. Has western society embraced a degree of political correctness that emasculates satire? It seems that way doesn’t it? Of course provoking unwanted responses isn’t helping. Not everyone enjoys having their faults and weaknesses exposed and many are wont to seek revenge on those who do. Yet animation’s unique place in the entertainment and art spheres means that it can tackle such complex issues without losing its humurous appeal. Satire is the most accessible way of doing so, and it’s a shame it seems to have vanished form contemporary shows and films. Here’s hoping it comes back.

Interestingly there are reasons why animal based animations are popular as well as extremely popular and they are:

 –  The so-called ‘Bambi effect’ suggests that humans find animals easier to empathise with, rather than other humans, on account of their ‘cuteness’.  Indeed, this phenomenon could also possibly be explained by Sigmund Freud’s theory that as children we consider ourselves equal to animals and so find it easy to empathise with them. Although this perception often does not last into adulthood, it still positively impacts upon adults’ attitudes towards animals.

 –  Animated animals, even more so than animated humans, are able to transcend these arbitrary distinctions to become universally appealing.

 – They are universal without being bland. However, their universality does not make them bland. Because they are not human, they can be attributed other interesting and defining characteristics that do not have cultural significance.

 –  Animals are similar enough to us to allow us to empathise with them, but not so similar that we feel their pain as if it were our own. This means animated animal characters provide an excellent way to explore difficult topics whilst maintaining a slight emotional distance.

 – Unlike human stereotypes, animal species stereotypes are unlikely to offend audiences.  By using animated, anthropomorphized characters, animators are able to use stereotypes to humorous effect.  Animal stereotypes can simultaneously provide satirical humour to adults and appear humorous to children simply on account of their ‘silliness’ or ‘cuteness’.

 – As much as the use of species stereotype can be important in helping to provide humour and further the plot, subverting tropes is also an effective way to create humour.

 – As human beings we like to consider ourselves as being at the centre of the universe.  This leads us to assume in our narcissism that all species have the same characteristics as us and so we project our characteristics onto animals almost unthinkingly.

 –  Humans expect less detail in the depiction of animals than they do in the portrayal of humans.  This means that animated animals can function as allegories in a way that human characters could not.

 – A lot of the comedy of animation tends to derive from exaggeration.  It is much easier to achieve this without causing offence when the characters aren’t human.

All in all “Duckman” was not only an entertaining show but one that spoke to people in terms of society, celebrity, economics and politics of the time. What is unique is that with the intervening years as well as the changes in technology this show still stands up as well as having something to say about the world we live in today.

“Duckman” is available now on DVD and is worth checking out.

Episodes:

Season 1:

“I, Duckman”– Feeling underappreciated by his family, Duckman hunts down the man mailing him bombs thinking he’s the only one who cares.

“T.V. or Not to Be”– Duckman is hired by a televangelist to find a missing painting and has a near-death experience after being captured and suffocated with cellophane.

“Gripes of Wrath”– Duckman takes his children to the unveiling of a supercomputer named Loretta. However, during the unveiling, Loretta overhears a comment Duckman makes and alters reality to make everything go Duckman’s way… for a while.

“Psyche”– Feeling insecure about himself, Duckman gets plastic surgery for his bill. Not long after, two buxom blondes hire him and Cornfed to investigate why they only attract men who only want them for their bodies causing Duckman to have a crisis of conscience.

“Gland of Opportunity”– After an accident at an amusement park, the cowardly Duckman has the adrenal gland of a daredevil transplanted into his body giving him a new outlook on life.

“Ride the High School”– Ajax is offered a scholarship to an exclusive boarding school, which Duckman sends him to, unaware that the scholarship is part of a plan by his arch-nemesis King Chicken.

“A Civil War”– Duckman gets jealous when his family showers Cornfed with attention, so he fires him during their next case: a death investigation for an insurance company.

“Not So Easy Riders”– To escape paying years of Duckman’s back taxes he and Cornfed flee on motorcycles.

“It’s the Thing of the Principal”– Ajax and his vice-principal fall in love and elope, leaving Bernice and Duckman to track them down, posing as a married couple themselves.

“Cellar Beware”– A home security expert gets Duckman to buy an elaborate security system—the “Interlopen Fuhrer 2000″—which first fails to prevent a burglary, then locks the whole family in the basement.

“American Dicks”– An episode of the reality show American Dicks films a day in the life of Duckman (chosen as the only agency not affected by a nationwide detective union’s strike) as he and Cornfed try to find the mayor after he’s been kidnapped.

“About Face”– Duckman dates an ugly woman whose voice he fell in love with when calling 911. People’s reactions, however, prompt her to seek a full makeover, making her gorgeous to everyone.

“Joking the Chicken”– A group of rude stand-up comics hire Duckman to stop Iggy Catalpa; a clean, mild-mannered, politically correct comedian whose bland, inoffensive brand of comedy becomes a sensation, thanks to his agent — King Chicken.

Season 2:

“Papa Oom M.O.W. M.O.W.”– Duckman becomes a national hero after saving the President from an assassination attempt, until it’s revealed that his “heroics” were an accident and he was merely trying to grope two women. Nonetheless he capitalizes on his newfound fame, penning a film for USA and planning a run for the Senate.

“Married Alive”– Bernice returns home from a European vacation and announces that she is marrying a self-made billionaire who plans to take her, Grandma-ma, and the kids away with him to Switzerland, leaving Duckman alone.

“Days of Whining and Neurosis”– Duckman and Cornfed go undercover at an exclusive celebrity-filled health and rehab spa to investigate the murder of a doctor. While there, Duckman detoxes from his various addictions.

“Inherit the Judgement: The Dope’s Trial”– In search of a free clock radio, Duckman takes the family across five states through the desert. On their trek they wind up in the small town of Coopville, where everyone is related, King Chicken is the sheriff, and Duckman is put on trial for heresy.

“America the Beautiful”– In an episode “not recommended for small children or certain Congressmen from the South” that’s “full of heavy-handed and over-obvious allegory” (according to the beginning disclaimer), a multi-ethnic group of children hire Duckman and Cornfed to find their idol, a gorgeous model named America. The investigation involves speaking to four of her ex-boyfriends, men who represent American life in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, while Duckman falls deeper in love with the idea of her.

“The Germ Turns”– At a new age fair, Duckman gets a visits from his dead mother (voiced by Katey Sagal)–reincarnated as a highly infectious germ because of how terrible of a mother she was. Hoping to escape the same fate, Duckman begins smothering his sons with affection, much to their chagrin.

“In the Nam of the Father”– The son Cornfed never knew he had arrives at the office and Cornfed travels back to Vietnam to find the mother and the truth. Duckman takes his family along on the trip for a much needed vacation and must also deal with the flashbacks he is experiencing.

“Research and Destroy”– When Ajax shows a natural talent for poetry, Duckman gets him to sign a contract for a greeting card company in search of a new writer.

“Clip Job”– Henry Melfly (voiced by Ben Stiller) kidnaps Duckman; blaming him for the decline in moral, family-friendly shows, resulting in a clip show as he argues his point.

Season 3:

“Noir Gang”– In a black-and-white, film noir-style episode, Cornfed and Duckman fall for the same woman — femme fatale client Tamara LaBoinque (voiced by Bebe Neuwirth) — raising conflicting feelings in Cornfed.

“Forbidden Fruit”– The family hires a French live-in tutor (King Chicken in disguise) to help the children with their study skills and social development, who sues Duckman for sexual harassment after he gives her an apple, which, according to Judeo-Christian ideology, is considered sexual as the apple is the forbidden fruit Eve ate and tempted Adam with. Ostracized by the public, Duckman is forced to hide out with Fluffy and Uranus while a feminist group begins forcing pro-female political correctness on the town.

“Grandma-ma’s Flatulent Adventure”– When the family fears they can no longer care for Grandma-ma, they decide to place her in a retirement home. Unfortunately, Duckman loses her while dropping her off, sending her on a wild adventure, which ultimately kills her.

“Color of Naught”– Tony Sterling (self-made millionaire and entrepreneur) and his assistant/supermodel Angela (the 911 operator from “About Face”) begins advertising “Beautex”, a beautifying cream to the city and its denizens. In truth, however, Sterling is King Chicken and Beautex (which doesn’t work on Duckman) is a virus which eventually devolves everything it touches.

“Sperms of Endearment”– After caring for a small girl (that calls her “mom”) in the park, Bernice decides it’s time to have children of her own. Her hunt for a father doesn’t go well, however, so she settles on artificial insemination— with sperm that turns out to be from Duckman.

“A Room with a Bellevue”– After an incredibly bad day, Duckman simply wants to make it to Charles and Mambo’s birthday dinner, but gets pushed too far by a dry cleaner. His ranting in the street (without wearing a starched collar) gets him arrested and committed to a state mental hospital for thirty days, where he settles into the routine and decides to stay, forcing Cornfed to break him out.

“Apocalypse Not”– While everyone in the city goes underground for a disaster preparedness drill, an oblivious Duckman thinks he’s the last man alive and wreaks havoc — until he finds a beautiful, deaf gymnast and falls for her. The trapped city folk, meanwhile, begin to turn on each other during their attempted escape back to the surface.

“Clear and Presidente Danger”– Duckman scams a vacation to a South American country, where a passionate Duckman rant about pay toilets leads to a people’s revolution and has him installed as dictator. After his first hundred days he’s just as corrupt a leader as the government he replaced, and it’s up to Cornfed to lead another revolution to bring him down.

“The Girls of Route Canal”– Charles and Mambo ask Duckman to tell them how he won over their mother to help build their confidence in approaching their dreamgirls. The story he tells turns out to be a spoof of The Bridges of Madison County.

“The Mallardian Candidate”– Iggy Catalpa hires Duckman to investigate a conspiracy: every time he does his laundry he loses one sock. However, the case is actually a ruse to kidnap Duckman and turn him on Cornfed by Catalpa’s World Domination League.

“Pig Amok”– Because of a previously unknown genetic problem, Cornfed has 24 hours to lose his virginity or he will die. After he fails to connect with multiple women (thanks to Duckman’s sleazy pick-up lines), Bernice has sex with him to save his life, but Cornfed thinks Bernice is in love with him.

“The Once and Future Duck”– Ajax accidentally opens a rift in the time/space continuum with his clock radio, bringing various future versions of Duckman to the past to see him, all different depending on different decisions he can make, causing him to fall into a paranoid spiral.

“The One with Lisa Kudrow in a Small Role” “Planet of the Dopes”– Feeling unappreciated by his family, Ajax leaves the house for a walk and is abducted by two redneck aliens from the planet Betamax. On Betamax, Ajax is treated like a genius and worshiped as a deity, while on Earth, Duckman realizes he knows nothing about his son — or any of his family.

“Aged Heat”– After his family mocks his detective skills, they refuse to take him seriously when he accuses Grandma-ma of acting suspiciously, though she has, in fact, been replaced by Agnes DelRooney (voiced by Brian Doyle-Murray), a robber who looks just like her.

“They Craved Duckman’s Brain!”– Duckman is cast in a hospital educational film. After being left in an active MRI chamber for hours, a mutant part of his brain grows an isotope that can cure cancer, which everyone wants.

“The Road to Dendron”– In a parody of the Bing Crosby/Bob Hope “Road to…”films, Duckman and Cornfed chaperon Ajax’s class trip to the Dendron in Sudan, where Ajax is kidnapped and held hostage by a Sultan, his Fakir, and a beautiful princess.

“Exile in Guyville”– In a distant future, a mother’s (voiced by former Fridays cast member Maryedith Burrell) bed-time story for her son involves Duckman and Bernice leading a nationwide division of the sexes after Bernice lambastes Duckman for developing raunchy lingerie with no thought to what a real woman would want to wear.

“The Longest Weekend”– Fed up with the shabby treatment of local government, Duckman and his North Phlegm neighbors form a block association to take on the nearby Dutch Elm Street block association–which has been lobbying the Mayor’s office–eventually leading to all out war.

“The Amazing Colossal Duckman”– Duckman contracts a very rare blood condition through a unique combination of chemicals which causes his blood to literally boil and his body to grow several inches every time he gets angry. After exploiting his new stature for a while, he realizes he is unable to control himself and exiles himself to a secluded island.

“Cock Tales for Four”– Duckman and Bernice attend a dinner party to meet Ajax’s new girlfriend Tammy’s parents, King Chicken and drunken wife Honey. Over the course of the evening their relationships change in unexpected ways.

Season 4:

“Dammit, Hollywood”– After seeing a bad movie Duckman sneaks into the studio head’s office to get his $7 back. The studio head, however, makes him an executive to sabotage the studio.

“Coolio Runnings”– Duckman adopts rap star Coolio (voicing himself) as his son to compete in the local father/son games over Ajax, hurting Ajax’s feelings.

“Aged Heat 2: Women in Heat”– Duckman is arrested for killing Fluffy and Uranus again and accidentally sent to a woman’s prison. There he becomes the star attraction of an illegal dance ring, until another girl arrives and bumps him from his slot.

“All About Elliott”– Duckman and Cornfed hire the college-aged Elliott (voiced by Chris Elliott) to be their office intern. Immediately he warms himself to Duckman by feeding his destructive side and pushing Cornfed away by sabotaging his personal life and commitments.

“From Brad to Worse”– Duckman is reunited with a man he made homeless 20 years ago and decides to try to help him get back on his feet.

“Bonfire of the Panties”– Cornfed, Charles and Mambo create an aphrodisiac to revive Duckman’s waning love life. When he forgets to wear it, Courtney Thorne-Smith(voicing herself) falls for him, but the family isn’t sure what to believe.

“Role With It”– Duckman, his family and staff, vacation together at an Indian casino, during which they’re approached by a psychiatrist who offers them treatment involving roleplaying to prevent them from what she sees as inevitable violent self-destruction and uncovers real issues among them.

“Ajax and Ajaxer”– While investigating a laboratory, Cornfed accidentally ingests a “Get Dumb” potion, which lowers his IQ to the point that he becomes best friends with Ajax, who is feeling left out of his family again.

“With Friends Like These”– After convincing himself again that he’s having a surprise party only to come home to just Cornfed, Duckman realizes he has no friends. Vowing to use his clean slate and try again to be the “best friend possible” he stumbles upon a group of culturally diverse, laugh tracked, 20-somethings at a coffee shop who immediately take a shine to him.

“A Trophied Duck”– Duckman drags the family to Dickcon ’97 in San Francisco to see him get an award. Unbeknownst to him, he’s actually being set up by Lauren Simone, a rival from his days at “Don Galloway’s Famous Detective School”.

“A Star is Abhorred”– During a night out, Bernice becomes an angry female music starafter yelling at Duckman for insulting her singing at a karaoke. Her life begins to go downhill, however, when she and the family go on tour and she gets sucked into the rock & roll life style.

“Bev Takes a Holiday”– Continuing from the previous episode, Bernice travels to Washington, D.C.to assume her new role as Congresswoman. Meanwhile, Beverly—long lost triplet of Beatrice and Bernice—hires a detective to find her family and seeks them out. Duckman spots her spying on him and, mistaking her for Beatrice, runs to her, only to be struck by a bus. In the hospital, Bev must pretend to be Beatrice for Duckman’s sake when he wakes and mistakes her for same.

“Love! Anger! Kvetching!” “Ain’t Gonna Be No Mo No Mo”– On the night of a big poker game Duckman has planned with Joe Walsh, Bob Guccionne and others, his Uncle Mo arrives and claims to be dying from heart cancer.

“Duckman and Cornfed in ‘Haunted Society Plumbers'”– In an episode with hints of Marx Brothers, Three Stooges, and Martin and Lewis classics, Duckman and Cornfed—temporarily plumbers—are hired as at a high-society party celebrating the unveiling of a “cursed” jewel: “The Sharon Stone”. Before the ceremony, though, the stone goes missing.

“Ebony, Baby”– Cornfed goes on vacation—his first in 11 years—Duckman works as the sidekick to a black female private investigator Ebony Sable (voiced by Tisha Campbell) who gets him involved in a world of murder, power, lust and blaxploitation clichés.

“Vuuck, as in Duck”– Duckman inherits a AAA baseball team as the last minute action of owner Gene Vuuck—who overhears him bemoaning the current status of the game and decides he’s a “real fan”—who is trying to keep the team out of the hands of a banker. Unfortunately, the team has no following and is losing money rapidly so he replaces the whole team with supermodels.

“Crime, Punishment, War, Peace, and the Idiot”– Beverly asks Bernice if she knows anything about Grandma-ma’s life, prompting Grandma-ma to begin a series of flashbacks of her life, with the main cast filling in for past friends, acquaintances and lovers.

“Kidney, Popsicle, and Nuts”– Duckman is in need of a kidney transplant from a blood relative, but the children are out for various reasons (Ajax doesn’t have any, Charles and Mambo share one) so he turns to his cryogenically frozen father whom, it turns out, wasn’t his father at all. He tracks down his real father (voiced by Brian Keith), a paranoiac in the sticks with his “own country,” and while he’s staying with him a standoff with the government develops.

“The Tami Show”– Duckman backs his car into Tami, a cute girl who claims her family died in a sleighing accident leaving her on her own. The family invites her to stay with them and she quickly begins incapacitating Bev and taking over the family.

“My Feral Lady”– A depressed Duckman purchases a mail-order bride, but upon delivery finds her to be a feral jungle savage. With Cornfed’s help, Duckman attempts to turn her (Kathy Lee) into a proper lady he can marry.

“Westward, No!”– While the boys are visiting Beatrice in D.C., Cornfed invites Beverly to a catfish ranch in Louisiana owned by his Aunt Jane (voiced by Estelle Getty), and a jealous Duckman tags along. After getting the ranch hands fired, Duckman and the gang must help the foreman, Big Jack McBastard (voiced by Jim Cummings), drive the 2,000 head of catfish to Texas.

“Short, Plush and Deadly”– During a taxpayer financed dream vacation Duckman, Cornfed, Fluffy and Uranus are kicked out of camp, stung by bees, and lost. The bee stings paralyze Cornfed and cause his head to swell, but turn turning Fluffy and Uranus into large, homicidal monsters. It’s up to Beatrice and Beverly to find and save them.

“How to Suck in Business Without Really Trying”– Duckman sells his last name to the VarieCom corporation for $1,000, which he immediately wastes, leaving him penniless and jobless.

“You’ve Come a Wrong Way, Baby”– After catching Mambo with a cigarette in his mouth, Bernice challenges the tobacco industry on the floor of Congress. During testimony she’s invited to a tobacco plantation by Walt Evergreen (voiced by Jim Varney)—president of an unnamed tobacco company—which doesn’t go well for the family.

“Hamlet 2: This Time It’s Personal”– Duckman sees the ghost of his Uncle Mo, who says that Duckman’s father was murdered by King Chicken and Duckman should take revenge. To do so he decides to act crazy to get King Chicken—with whom he has formed a truce to allow King Chicken time around Bernice—to admit his guilt so he can kill him with impunity. Cornfed realizes that Duckman is living out the plot of Hamlet, which will eventually lead to his death.

“Das Sub” “Class Warfare”– Convicted of fraud, Duckman is sentenced to 5,000 hours of community service, but accidentally finds himself substituting for a teacher he injures and teaching a group of intellectual high schoolers how to be “street smart”.

“Where No Duckman Has Gone Before”– A Star Trek parody where Captain Duckman (as Captain Kirk) does battle against King Khan Chicken in an episode similar to “Arena” among others.

“Four Weddings Inconceivable”– At the wedding of Dr. Stein, a series of emotional epiphanies lead to an amazing set of marriage proposals: King Chicken proposes to Bernice; Cornfed proposes to Beverly; Duckman proposes to Honey, King Chicken’s ex. After arguments between the principles, Duckman volunteers to make the arrangements for the triple wedding, purposely putting any blame on himself. Despite his arrangements, the ceremony goes off without a hitch — until Duckman’s supposedly deceased wife, Beatrice, returns.

DVD review: “Duckman: Private Dick/Family Man” (1994 – 1997) “Duckman: Private Dick/Family Man” (1994 - 1997) Television 70 Episodes Created by: Everett Peck Featuring: Jason Alexander, Gregg Berger, Nancy Travis, Dana Hill, Pat Musick, E.G.

[twh-news]

What We Learned on the Set of Thor: Ragnarok: From Jack Kirby to Planet Hulk

[This post contains somewhat spoilery info, so if you don't want to know more than you already know, don't read below the cut!]

It was just about one year ago exactly that Fandango jetted out to Brisbane, Australia to tour the magnificent sets of Thor: Ragnarok, the third and possibly wildest standalone movie for the God of Thunder yet. You can read our guide to all the characters old and new here, but below is where we’ll answer some of the most pressing questions about the movie, its plot and production.

We last saw Thor (Chris Hemsworth) soaring off into the cosmos to investigate certain disturbances in the Force -- whoops, wrong Disney franchise. Actually, at the end of Avengers: Age of Ultron, he was going to try to find out why more of the Infinity Stones were suddenly surfacing and who was behind it. In Thor: Ragnarok, he’s been missing for two years and is imprisoned on Muspelheim, where he must fight the fire demon Surtur to escape.

He finds his way back to Asgard, where Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has been ruling in place of Odin (Anthony Hopkins), and through a series of events that somehow detour to New York City, Thor ends up on the planet Sakaar, where he’s forced into gladiatorial combat at the behest of an Elder known as the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum). Little does he know that the reigning champion is his old pal, the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo).

Meanwhile, the goddess of death, Hela (Cate Blanchett), has been unleashed and seeks to destroy Asgard -- not too difficult a task with Loki running things there. If Hela can bring about Ragnarok -- the “end of all things” -- what will that mean for Thor, Loki, the Earth and the rest of the Nine Realms?

Here are some of the things we learned in Brisbane:

Where in the timeline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe does Thor: Ragnarok fall?

The events of the movie will reportedly lay down even more groundwork for the arrival of Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War, so clearly it takes place before next year’s all-in showdown with the Mad Titan. “In the timeline of the MCU, things kind of happen on top of each other, especially now in Phase 3,” said producer Brad Winderbaum. “They're not as interlocked as they were in Phase 1…so (this) kind of happens maybe on top of Captain America: Civil War, maybe on top of Spider-Man: Homecoming. Somewhere in that ball park.”

The popular Planet Hulk storyline from the comics was heavily mined for material for the story.

The planet Sakaar, the gladiatorial battles presided over by a dictator-like character (the Red King in the comics, the Grandmaster in the movie), secondary characters like Korg, the Hulk getting transported to Sakaar through a wormhole and becoming a champion…all of those elements are from the 2006 Planet Hulk story in Marvel Comics, which fans have wanted to see in a movie for years. As with many of the Marvel movies, Thor: Ragnarok borrows from that story and weaves it into something new that echoes the comics without replicating them.

"In the earliest development of Thor: Ragnarok, we were looking at Planet Hulk as inspiration,” admits Winderbaum. “Maybe not even to integrate the Hulk into the franchise, but the idea of a planet where there's gladiatorial games as being a Thor predicament. It really was a cool idea to us. Somewhere in the early conversations, when it looked like it was going that way, it was like a no-brainer. It started off as, well, maybe we put Hulk in there too? And then as soon as that spark kind of ignited, it became kind of an idea machine and suddenly he was married to the plot."

Thor is a different person than he was in his earlier adventures.

“We find Thor in a drastically different place,” says Winderbaum. “He's now spent years on Earth living with the Avengers, hanging out with Tony Stark. He understands Earth’s sensibilities. He's got a really quick wit, a great sense of humor, he understands sarcasm in a way he didn't in the first film. And so from a character perspective, we're bringing all of that personality into space with him.”

The character also finds himself in a situation on Sakaar where he is no longer the physically dominant and powerful God of Thunder of the earlier films. “Removing Thor from his environment and his world where he dominated a lot of the fight scenes and so on, and putting him in a situation where all of sudden he’s fairly equal with everybody…was a smart thing for the writers to do,” says Chris Hemsworth. “He’s perhaps gonna use his brain more, or as much as, his brawn. He’s up against it the whole way through this and no step he takes is easy when he’s climbing this particular mountain.”

The relationship between Thor and Loki has evolved as well.

Hemsworth did not want a repeat of the Thor/Loki dynamic from the previous two Thor movies and the first Avengers. “In the first films, you know, a lot of the time you’re seeing Thor kind of going, ‘Come back, Loki…’” the actor says. “I think there’s a feeling from Thor now that’s just like, ‘You know what, kid, do what you want. You can’t hurt for trying. You’re a screw up, so whatever, do your thing.’ There’s a bit of that, which is fun, but also something we haven’t sort of played with as much.”

"I've said this about Loki before, but the opposite of love is not hate but indifference," says Tom Hiddleston. “The idea that Thor might be indifferent to Loki is troubling for him, because that's a defining feature of his character: I don't belong in the family; my brother doesn't love me; I hate my brother. And the idea his brother's like, yeah, whatever…it's an interesting development.”

There is a lot more comedy in this film, which also brings out a different side of Thor and Hemsworth.

“I think it's fantastic,” enthuses Hiddleston. “I think Chris is hilarious, and I've always known him as a hilarious man, even making the first film when we first met. So I love that his comedy chops are being flexed and I think it's great for the tone; it's great for the film.”

Both Hemsworth and Hiddleston loved that director Taika Waititi had them do a lot of improv on set: “I’ve never improvised so much with this character, which has been really exciting,” says Hemsworth. “Taika will just yell suggestions while rolling -- ‘Try this, try that,’ and so on. That has, I think, really come to change the game for myself or for the film.

“Taika is extraordinary in his invention,” agrees Hiddleston. “There are so many moving parts (on these big movie sets) and his quickness and the speed of his invention is really inspiring. Even with the sort of weight of this production, he's able to keep the atmosphere light and keep it feeling free and playful.”

At the same time, Cate Blanchett’s Hela may be Marvel’s greatest villain yet.

“Obviously we always think about the movies as standalones, even if they do set up a movie down the road or pay off something from a previous film,” says Winderbaum. “What we hope if we do our jobs right is that Hela is one of the best villains we've had -- maybe the best. Cate has been delivering an incredible performance. She's really scary and really charming.”

“It’s so far from anything I’ve seen before,” says Hemsworth about Blanchett’s work in the movie. “And as intimidating and scary as it is, you have an empathetic feeling toward her a lot of time from what she’s doing. You’re kind of like, ‘Ah, she’s got a point maybe.’ And then you’ve got to remind yourself that she’s trying to kill us all.”

Valkyrie is not exactly as you remember her from the comics.

The comic book Valkyrie was known as Brunnhilde, an Asgardian being and the leader of Odin’s army of female warriors, the Valkyrior. But the movie Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) has put all that behind her in Thor: Ragnarok. She works now as a hunter for the Grandmaster…and in fact it is she who captures Thor to use as fodder for her employer’s gladiator games.

"We're not trying to create a one-to-one emulation of Brunnhilde from the comics,” says Winderbaum. “But certainly the idea of the Valkyrie and what they mean to Asgard and Odin is something that we're going to be leaning into a lot."

For Thompson, she was eager to dive headlong into her first major role in a film utilizing extensive visual effects. “It's a challenge that I was really wanting to take on, a year before this movie was even a conversation,” says the actress. “I kept saying to myself and anyone that would listen, I want to do something that's blue and green screen because I think working in the space of such imagination is such an interesting job. And then I just had no trouble asking my cohorts, ‘How do you do that?’ And they were like, ‘Oh yeah, it's weird. You just do it.’”

For the first time in a Thor film, we’ll get to see how the “common folk” in Asgard live.

Fandango also toured the outdoor set of an Asgardian village -- sort of a first for the Thor films, which have previously stayed relegated to Odin’s palace or the Bifrost for the most part. Not unlike something out of The Lord of the Rings or even resembling a place like Naboo a little, the village has a feel that’s both medieval and futuristic at the same time. It’s also where Hela will wreak havoc on the poor people of Asgard. “This is for the first time in a Thor movie that we’ve embraced this sort of human style of living quarters as opposed to the great big palace itself,” says production designer Dan Hannah. “We do spend some time in the palace, but we also spend quite a lot of time in different parts of the city…partly because of Hela, who as queen of death, needs some people to kill, as you would.”

Oh yeah -- the movie also visits Muspelheim, the realm of Surtur.

Dan Hannah: “Muspelheim is essentially a Dyson sphere, which is an enormous structure around a dying star. The premise is this has been here for a long time and it’s coated in residue of the dying star and drawing energy out of the dying star. It’s populated by demons and dragons and all sorts of amazing creatures who live on the energy that’s coming out of the star. It has internal spaces that are vast holes which are just really like being inside a bicycle frame. If you imagine a bicycle frame stretched around a star, some of Muspelheim is inside, some of it when Thor tries to get away is outside on the surface of the Dyson sphere.”

The design of the planet Sakaar is influenced by the groundbreaking art of the legendary Jack Kirby.

It’s only fitting that on the 100th anniversary of his birth, the work of the late Kirby (who invented the Marvel Universe with Stan Lee) should have a massive presence in the design of Thor: Ragnarok. Touring the outside of the gates that lead into the arena on Sakaar, the bold colors and weird geometric shapes signal the influence of the master. The streets surrounding the gates are also quite colorful and crazily configured, with sharp turns and unpredictable curves.

“Yes, Jack Kirby, 1960s Jack Kirby,” confirmed Hannah as we toured the crazily shifting streets of Sakaar. “That was our inspiration. I’ve read Jack Kirby comics since I was 15 years old. So for me it was fantastic…of course, it doesn’t look anything like Jack Kirby, but it does have the influence and it’s different from anything I’ve seen before.”

"The amazing thing about Jack Kirby is his artwork is dense," says visual effects supervisor Jake Morrison. “One of the anecdotes about Kirby is that he never erased anything. He only continued to draw forward. So you see characters with six fingers and stuff like that just ‘cause he was like, ‘Right, okay, I’ll just fill the page and just continue drawing’…what he’s doing is really just filling the frame. So for us what that means is we can be very dense with the visuals.”

Speaking of Sakaar, it’s basically a giant garbage dump.

Sakaar is the endpoint of a series of wormholes that dump whatever gets caught in them -- from different parts of the universe -- onto the planet, which is apparently how Thor and the Hulk both end up there (Hulk’s Quinjet gets trapped in a wormhole, as does Thor).

“It’s a bit of a sewer,” says Hannah about the planet ruled by the Grandmaster. “There’s no vegetation in Sakaar. It’s purely made up of space waste. All the food is made from space waste.” What Hannah refers to as “scrappers” -- which may include Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie -- work in the dangerous areas outside the main city where things are constantly falling out of the sky. “It’s basically an accumulation of space debris that’s grown,” continues Hannah. “That’s how I think if it anyway . . . It’s like a landfill, basically. “

As for the city where the Grandmaster rules, it’s populated by aliens who have also come to the planet from all over the cosmos. Hannah describes it as “space Vegas.”

Producer Brad Winderbaum delved further into the development of Sakaar: “This is a planet that's like frozen in space between an incredible quantity of wormholes that have been spitting things out into this place for eons and eons. And essentially, if anything goes wrong in your intergalactic travels in the MCU, you're going to get spat out into the toilet of the universe which is this planet.”

The visual effects in the film are among the most intensive of any Marvel production.

Jake Morrison was asked which of the movie’s scenes or effects was the most challenging to create. “All of them,” the visual effects supervisor replied immediately. “It’s literally one of the most involved pictures I have ever been on. It’s visual effects heavy. All Marvel pictures do rely on visual effects to help tell the stories. But this one is absolutely enormous. The scope of the picture and the amount of elements in it is incredible.”

Even Hela’s famous antlers are created through visual effects.

During our day on the set, we saw a scene set on the Stone Arch Bridge in which Thor, Hulk, Valkyrie and Loki all confront Hela. Cate Blanchett was not in full costume, but Morrison assured us that we will see Hela in all her majesty in the final film: “The look of the headdress and all that kind of stuff is very, very iconic,” he explains. “When you have an actor like Cate, what we wanted to do is not tie her down with a physical costume that was overly complicated or weighty…if you're making this film in the 80s or the 90s you would actually have to put the big headdress on and you know exactly what that looks like. You’ve seen actors do this and they basically have a candelabra on there.

“The key is we can base it upon Cate’s physical performance,” continues Morrison about the CG parts of the costume, adding that they now capture 120 samples per second of Blanchett’s body. “We then have the option to make her costume behave in sympathy with her action completely and not have the actor feel in any way like her motion is restricted by the costume. So we’re trying to let the performance drive the picture and then we just add the fun stuff on afterwards.”

Finally, the big question…how does Thor: Ragnarok lead into Avengers: Infinity War?

“Without giving anything away, this definitely bleeds nicely into that,” hints Chris Hemsworth. “As they all tend to do. But this being called Ragnarok -- everyone knows what that means. So obviously it is going to affect the larger universe.”

[kalinara]

Rip/Sara - Gideon. Rip - self-worth. Rip - stubbornness. Rip - temper. Rip - fights. Rip - friends. Rip - era (any/all). Rip + team - era (ie., how much culturally does Rip miss/not realize he's missing/realizes he misses and doesn't care in his interactions with the team). Rip - time travel. Rip - music. Rip - concentration. Rip - aloof (what's it masking?). Rip/Sara - time. Rip - team. Rip - families. Rip and Jax - bond. Rip and Rogues - mastery.

I think you’re trying to murder me.  Fortunately, my babbling knows no bounds.

However, these will likely be shorter than my other headcanons/meta.

Rip/Sara - Gideon:  So Gideon is an interesting complication to any Rip pairing fic, because, well, she’s there.  She’s always going to be there.  And regardless of whether you see her relationship with Rip as having romantic elements, it’s still going to be a factor.

I wonder if, in a way, it would be rather like living inside of your mother-in-law.  Which seems awkward.

I have to say though, I don’t think that Sara would propose a threesome.  She did think that Gideon was hot, but I don’t really think Gideon is her type personality-wise.

Rip - self worth:  ...  Really?

Okay, I don’t think Rip is completely without self-worth, but I think that his self-worth is particularly wrapped up in the various roles he plays.  And that becomes a problem, because said roles have a disconcerting habit of disappearing on him.

He has value as a husband and father.  Until his wife and son are dead.  He has value as a Time Master, until they betray him, are revealed to be corrupt, and are destroyed.  He has value as a guardian of the spear of destiny, until he was captured and turned.  He has value as the Captain of the Waverider, until he is supplanted by a more capable alternative.

The problem with Rip is that as soon as he loses his role, he doesn’t really know how to find a new one.  I’m not sure he really knows how to define himself in his own right, without the input of the people around him.

Rip - Stubbornness:

Hah, well, that is definitely a character trait that Rip has.  I don’t think Rip is stubborn just for the sake of being stubborn though.  Rather, I think he generally has a very clear idea of what his goal is, what he wants, and how things are supposed to be.

That doesn’t make him any less difficult to deal with sometimes though.  But as we’ve seen, especially in season 1, he can be swayed and reasoned with.  And he really seems to value that the team will call him out, force him to back down, and make him see things another way.

I do feel a little sorry for Vandal Savage sometimes though.  Because Rip will not ever give up.  :-)

Rip - temper:

I tend to see Rip as being a hot-tempered sort.  His anger comes in flashes and dissipates pretty quickly after the initial eruption.

The one exception is if you hurt someone he cares about.  Then he will come for blood.  This is the man who hunted Vandal Savage through centuries.  I wouldn’t recommend it.

Rip - fights:

Hm.  I think Rip, on a whole, was never really prone to fighting.  When he lived on the streets, he was a small child.  So any fight he got into would not have ended well.  At any point that he was attacked, the goal would have been to strike quickly and escape.  I doubt the Time Masters would have had much patience for casual fighting either.

This isn’t to say that Rip can’t handle himself in a fight.  We’ve seen that he can.  But I don’t think he enjoys it the way that certain other characters do.  I think that, for Rip, a fight means that either his life, someone else’s, or the mission is on the line.  

This might make for an interesting contrast with Sara, who I think DOES enjoy the fight.  I think that if she ever realized exactly how good he was (like in the scene in Out of Time), she would be very enthusiastic about the idea of a friendly match.  And he would NOT.

Rip - friends. 

I’m not sure that I think Rip has the capacity to have casual friends.  I think he has acquaintances/allies and then he has people that he would 100% throw himself into a volcano for, with no middle ground.

And it makes some sense, given his upbringing.  You get the sense that the Time Masters didn’t necessarily produce an environment that allowed for casual friendships (though the children did appear to play together at the Refuge), so if you’re going to break the rules you might as well go all out.

...I think that might be Rip’s motto anyway.

Rip - era (any/all). 

I think that as a Time Master, Rip isn’t really supposed to have a favorite era.  But we also know exactly how well Rip seems to follow rules like that.  But for all his interest in the Wild West trappings, or his success in fighting Time Pirates, I don’t think that’s what makes an era particularly interesting to him.

I think it’s the people.  Rip’s favorite eras are the ones that his favorite people reside in.  He loves the Wild West because of Jonah.  He loves the 1940s for the JSA.  He loves the early 21st century for his team.  (And specifically 2130-ish because that’s where he and Kendra finally killed Savage).

Rip + team - era (ie., how much culturally does Rip miss/not realize he's missing/realizes he misses and doesn't care in his interactions with the team). 

Rip was raised in the future by a scary time-space cult, so he’s definitely got a different cultural background than the rest of the team.  But I think it’s less about pop-culture trivia (you never know what might be relevant to a Time Master’s studies after all.  Some future war may have been averted because of the ambassadors’ mutual love of the Backstreet Boys), and more about the way they look at the world.

I make fun of Rip’s “because, fuck you” tendencies, but the thing is, in the world that Rip grew up in, his entire life would have been wrapped up in rules and regulations.  Everything regimented.  Everything monitored.  The man lives with an AI who watches and records his dreams.  Freedom, privacy, democracy, those may not even be values in Time Master society so much as historical concepts.

Can you imagine how strange Sara, Jax, or Ray’s childhood would sound to Rip?  Or heck, even Snart and Rory’s?  

I think Rip is always fundamentally aware of how alien he is from the rest of the team.  In a way that they aren’t.  But I also think that’s part of why he values them so much.  They fill a need for him that his own culture has never been able to provide.

Rip - time travel

I think Rip, deep down, simply loves to time travel.  It’s just...fun.  He loves to visit different times and meet different people. 

If Rip Hunter hadn’t been raised by the Time Masters, he would have still somehow managed to go out and build a time sphere in his garage and do it that way.

I know, because I’ve read the comics.  :-P 

Rip - music. 

I think that Rip loves all kinds of music.  But that he hasn’t listened to much of anything since his family died.  He hasn’t sung, or touched an instrument since then either.  

However, in the time between season one and season two, that was starting to change.  He’d be in the engine room, supervising Jax’s repairs (hardly necessary at this point, but Jax was still anxious enough to want to make sure he was doing it right), and find himself humming a Rolling Stones song under his breath.  Thankfully, Jax didn’t hear him.  If the crew knew, he’d never hear the end of it.

(Jax actually did hear him.  He and Gideon were colluding on having the ship play some of Rip’s favorite songs as a surprise but Rip disappeared before they could.)

Rip - concentration. 

A headcanon to do with concentration.  Hmm. 

Oddly enough, I’ve got nothing.  :-)  I think Rip is generally very good at concentrating on tasks at hand, but that the crew would try anyone’s patience and I’m sure havoc would ensue.  (Possibly conveniently timed for when Rip has been working too long and missed food and sleep.  Making it very easy for someone like Sara or Jax to nag at him to go to sleep since it’s obvious that he wasn’t going to be able to get back in the right frame of mind.)

Oh, I know.  Rip hates concentrated orange juice.  It is a terrible thing.

Rip - aloof (what's it masking?). 

Rip Hunter is a seething mass of white-hot rage, hopeless love, and impossibly bad decisions all thinly wrapped in a veneer of British sarcasm

Rip/Sara - time. 

I have to admit, I see Time Canary as possibly the most star-crossed of any potential Legends of Tomorrow pairing that comes to mind.  Because I do think they’d be good together.  I think they have a strong emotional bond, and they’ve been good support for one another on many occasions.

But they’ve always had issues in terms of timing.  When they met, Sara was dealing with resurrection and bloodlust, and Rip had JUST lost his family.  

Later, after they’ve worked together for some time, with Sara’s bloodlust under control, her slow coming to terms with Laurel’s death, and Rip finally starting to move past his grief and trauma, he disappears. 

Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and circa Raiders of the Lost Art, I started to see a lot of signs that the two characters might be ready to come together.  Sara’s reaction when she thought Phil was Rip.  Phil’s kind of tentative attraction (I see Phil as basically Rip, with all the baggage stripped away)...

But then there was the Legion.  And evil!Rip.  And even though Sara clearly doesn’t blame Rip for what happened, that’s a whole mess of new guilt and trauma that he’ll have to work past to even be remotely able to conceive of pursuing a romance with Sara.  And Sara’s got her own issues: the captaincy, the quest, (and her understandable frustration with his general personality.  :-P)

I think the characters definitely love each other, and that it’s possible that eventually that love could move into a romantic direction, but so far, the timing has never been right.

Rip - team. 

I think that Rip Hunter loves his team to a ridiculous, irrational, near obsessive extent.  He would die for them in a heartbeat.  He has no idea what to do whenever he’s without them.  And he wants to hug them or beat them to death with a broomstick on a daily basis.

I also think that he has no idea how to communicate any of this to any of them.  And he’d probably die of embarrassment before he ever made the attempt.  So they have no idea.

This is why I find all of the teases about Season Three so fascinating.  It will be so interesting to see what happens to cause Rip to break so completely with the team, how the aftermath shakes out, and what ways he ends up functioning without them.  I’m dreading it a little too, of course.  But it ought to be a fun ride.  :-)

Rip - families. 

I always find myself wondering how Rip and Miranda initially established themselves as a family.  Because it’s not like either of them had much experience to base it on, as far as we know.  Rip’s account of his backstory involved starving on the streets and then the Refuge.  Though, if Miranda was recruited at the age of ten as well, it’s possible that she may have memories of her original family life.

But can you imagine how confusing it must have been at first?  I mean, obviously a Time Master’s education would have included concepts of family dynamics and marriage.  Since so many historical events were fueled by those kind of things.  But there’s a difference between reading about it and living it.

I’d like to imagine, from the little bit we see of Miranda, that she adapted to life in 2166 Whitechapel very well.  She seems like the sort to be able to make friends easily, and possibly she was able to study them as she went.  And Rip is the sort to follow her lead when it comes to such things.

On the plus side, having grown up very separate from modern or even future ideas of family dynamics, Rip and Miranda would have had the freedom to basically discard anything that didn’t suit them.  I’d imagine whatever they came up with would have looked rather odd to an outside observer, but worked very well for them.  :-) 

Rip and Jax - bond.

One of the things that I thought season two did really well was establish a clear and strong bond between Rip and Jax.  And that’s pretty impressive considering that Rip was gone for eight episodes, and the characters did not have a huge amount of interaction in season one.  There were a few good bits here and there: Rip choosing Jax as engineer, Rip’s concern in the 1950s, his gentleness with Jax’s father dilemma, and the endangering part of River of Time, but the real thrust of their dynamic seemed to come about in Out of Time, and carried on through Rip’s return.

I know I’ve said this before, but in a way, it actually makes a lot of sense that the two would get along.  They’re the youngest men on the ship (even though there’s a ten year age difference between them).  They’re both mechanically minded and they both truly love the Waverider in a way that only an engineer or mechanic can.  They’re not childish or silly in the same way that Nate or Ray can be.  

If there is one character that I think Rip might have been able to truly relax around and be a functioning human being with, I think it’s Jax.  (And I think we saw that a bit in Fellowship, with the jelly beans).

And Jax is one of the two characters (the other being Sara), who I think really do feel an honest connection to their mission and the quest.  He’s definitely a character that I could imagine captaining a time ship himself in the not-so-distant future.

Rip and Rogues - mastery

I am tempted to make jokes about Rip wearing a leash, but I will behave myself.

The thing that’s always been interesting about the Rogues in season one is that, of all of the characters, they were the only ones who really had any sort of experience working as a team.

The Hawks were always “us against the world” even when Kendra had her memories.  Ray, Martin and Jax were all fairly new to the superhero thing.  Sara had a bit more experience with the League of Assassins and her brief stint with Team Arrow, but those experiences have a certain level of baggage attached.

But Snart and Rory have been a criminal team, off and on, for decades.  They’ve regularly worked with other people too.  They have justifiable confidence in their skills because they’ve practiced them for decades.  And Snart, in particular, has been a leader of groups for about that long.

It’s an interesting dynamic.  Because Snart is by far a better leader than Rip ever was, but there is no way that he would have managed to lead this group.  It's not his quest, and while the crew liked and respected him, it’s not clear that they would have trusted him enough to follow him.  

One of the things I’ve always wished for was to see more direct interaction between Rip and Snart, and Rip and Mick.  (Particularly the latter, since the show is not subtle with their many parallels.)  There is some good fic out there to fill the lack, at least.  :-)

(I may have to hold off on responding to the rest until tomorrow.  :-))

[awastelandheart]

Sebastian’s personality analyzed through his theory-crafted natal chart, in game dialogue & conclusion included: The perspective of an experienced astrologer.

PART TWO: MOON SIGN. SEE PART ONE: SUN SIGN.

i apologize in advance to any leo moons i unintentionally read to filth in this post.

          so, in my last post i talked about Sebastian’s sun sign. to those who don’t know much about astrology, i’ll take a second at the beginning of this post to explain what a moon sign is   &   recap my opinions on the other post. to the people who know enough about astrology to already understand this much   &   have read the first installment, feel free to skip ahead !

          there is far more to astrology than just the first sign that almost everyone knows about themselves. the second most basic concept to astrology is that each typical planet   ( moon, mars, mercury, etc )   influences different aspects of our personality in unique ways depending on what constellation   ( read: sign )   they were in when a person was born. in my last post i talked about Sebastian’s sun sign, which i headcanon as Capricorn. 

          key sentences from my last post:

Capricorn is an earth sign, reveling in stability with a handful of almost toxic traits to display if that stability isn’t achieved. between their earthly reliability   &   love of practicality, Capricorns are viewed as the traditional fathers of the zodiac sphere. they guard their values of yesteryear close to their chest. anything too different is cast far away from themselves. a Capricorn’s independence is almost panic charged in this way. they so dearly want to be seen as capable that they will shred their own livelihood as a price. they are masters at self control for it, each having taught themselves the art of stoicism from a young age. Capricorns are at best, friendly in a superficial way. knowing their loneliness is created by their own hands but never knowing how to move passed their own cold   &   distant heart to enact any change necessary to improve their relationships. something that is often associated with Capricorns   &   the other earth signs is the act of earning money. Capricorns crave for their income to be stable   &   plentiful in order to provide for their loved ones, or for the more lonely Capricorns, to provide for themselves.

          our sun signs are the most rudimentary of our personality descriptors. it’s an accessible way of understanding ourselves as the position usually hosts our mannerisms   &   ambition. from there, the planets get more niche. our moon sign, which is the position i’ll be talking about in this post, homes our emotional experiences. where this planet is describes how we approach our emotions, how we process   &   cope with them. questions that this position answers are about what we need to feel secure in life   &   how we respond to emotional challenges. our moon sign is the universal experience of knowing what we mean but not being able to articulate it. so in this post i’ll be talking about Sebastian’s nuanced experience. 

          Sebastian’s main struggle is with feeling angry over his family’s neglect   &   Maru’s clear favoritism. aside from a couple instances like his snowgoon lines, we don’t actually see very much tangible favoritism. because of this, i think Sebastian has very sensitive emotions   &   maybe even a fragile ego to boot. it would be less that Demetrius   &   Robin actually treat him unfairly   &   more that he just feels this way;   that on an emotional level, it’s something perceptible but not explainable. Sebastian’s experience with his family’s neglect is less moments that he can list off or define   &   more in the subtleties. i’m not saying he doesn’t get treated unfairly at times, he most definitely does, but to other people these slights may seem superficial;   for Sebastian, they are deeply wounding.

          leo is a fire sign with the modality of fixed. many people assume that fire signs are always extroverted   &   loud, however it can be quite the opposite. this element is more about passion for their interests, innate creativity,   &   how quickly their moods fizzle out. the emotions of a fire sign come fast   &   burn through just as quickly, often leaving some form of destruction in the wake of their excitement. fixed signs are always slightly obsessive about the things that pique their interest. like a dog’s locked jaw, they end up spending more time than other people on one activity. off the top of my head, this is exactly how concernedape describes Sebastian in his dev update #12, saying;   “ he tends to get deeply absorbed in computer games, comic books,   &   sci-fi novels,   &   will sometimes spend great lengths of time pursuing these hobbies alone in his room. ”

          leo specifically is a very intelligent   &   creative sign. their interests are usually a bit nerdier than most in modern times since high fantasy lends well to a unique blend of intellectualism   &   creativity. leo moons tie their emotions to what they create   &   can be very defensive about their interests. others opinions, if differing to their own, can result in a damaged relationship. as a result, leo moons more than most tend to surround themselves with people they find relatable. i find the fact that, unlike with other bachelors, when you answer ‘incorrectly’ to Sebastian asking you your opinion on things, the system actively deducts friendship points, indicating that by not agreeing with him, you’re damaging your relationship.

          when it comes to their friend groups, leo tends to be in charge, whether by force or charm. there’s a duality to leo moons that pegs them as both the overbearing   &   pushy friend that has an opinion on everything   &   the friend that offers structure   &   inspiration to plans or events. it’s natural for a leo position to enjoy attention but more sensitive ones will prefer it only from loved ones   &   those they’re comfortable around. another canon instance to support this deduction is how Sebastian mentions that he enjoys having friends, but has a hard time being around people. he clearly enjoys attention, or else Maru’s favoritism wouldn’t eat at him so much as well, but is too much of an introvert to seek it out from anyone but those he’s comfortable around   ( ie;   Sam   &   Abby ).

          leo moon is a rather emotional position, requiring lots of love   &   care in order to function well. they feel slighted easily   &   console themselves with bouts of sulking as a result. being conscious of their appearance   &   what people think of them often means this sulking won’t happen in public but will be saved for their alone time. for more healthy leo moons, these bouts pass quickly, resulting in a healed ego   &   the ability to ‘get back out there.’ however for leo moons who feel neglected   &   unloved frequently, this brooding may become apart of their personality. anyone who spends more than a moment interacting with Sebastian in game will probably describe him as seeming like the brooding type   --   in one of his first interactions with the player, he delivers an almost poetic yet depressing line that insinuates he spends a lot of time thinking to himself.

          so, in summary, i believe Sebastian has a Leo moon because he shares many qualities with how astrologers perceive the position. he is complicated & a man with a lot of internal conflict   --   someone who enjoys all things extroverted but due to his sensitive emotions, has developed a guarded personality to compensate. of course this is all just my personal interpretation, but i hope this was an interesting read   &   shed some light on the kind of person Sebastian is !

[glassofgaytea]

FYI: A Case for Johnlock: Why SHERLOCK Should Embrace Its Ship of Dreams | ScreenSpy

Thank you!

Article link…

A Case for Johnlock: Why SHERLOCK Should Embrace Its Ship of Dreams - By Chris. B

Modern television has more “ships” than the Pacific Ocean. Virtually every character on the airwaves has been matched with another, fancied relationships dreamed up by eager fans, either to generate laughs or to satisfy personal passions.  Every fandom has its favorite pairs, but if you’re a follower of the BBC’s Sherlock, the most discussed coupling by far is that John and Sherlock, or Johnlock.  The desire to see these two together in more than a simple platonic friendship is one that is played out in blogs and fan fiction regularly, but is this something fans will ever see developed on screen? 

There are many factors to consider here.  Sadly, in 2017, there is still a certain amount of controversy about showing a gay couple in an everyday relationship, one that is not present for purposes of comic relief or sideline plot support.  Would the network and affiliates allow it?  How conservative are its politics and those of its advertisers?  Given the overwhelming popularity of the show on an international scale, I would wager their wallets would easily trump any qualms that might exist.  It is amazing how capitalism can solve all manner of perceived ills. 

Regardless, do Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat even want this to be the dynamic of their characters?  According to them, the answer is no.  In an interview with Valerie Parker in July of last year, Gatiss claimed, “…we’ve explicitly said this is not going to happen – there is no game plan – no matter how much we lie about other things, that this show is going to culminate in Martin and Benedict going off into the sunset together. They are not going to do it.” 

That sounds pretty final.  Maybe. 

Since these two have made the most of The X-Files philosophy that a lie is most conveniently hidden between two truths, there is always room for doubt.  (Really, how likely is it that a seasoned professional like Gatiss suddenly mistook the names of his characters for those of the men who portray them?) 

In any case, I think an openly romantic relationship between John and Sherlock would be well worth it.  Consider the following points and determine for yourself if this match is a just a forgettable fantasy, or if it could be an ultimate destiny. 

 5. The characters are already tightly bonded 

No one would argue with the idea that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original characters of Holmes and Watson are best friends; through each of the numerous variations presented over the intervening century plus, this is one of the few facets has remained consistent.  They are a team. Individually, though, each member of the team is lacking.  At one point, Sherlock confesses in “The Great Game” that he’s been “reliably informed” that he has no heart, going so far as to declare several different times that he is a high-functioning sociopath.  John, on the other hand, is “abnormally attracted to dangerous situations and people”; he misses the war that left him behind.  Both have a hole that they need to fill, and that is exactly what the other satisfies. 

In Sherlock, this is reinforced repeatedly.  John and Sherlock are clearly presented as two halves of the same whole, each needing the other to be a complete version of himself—John, the heart and inspiration; Sherlock, the excitement and intellectual challenge.  When Sherlock is baffled why a woman would be upset about her child’s death after fourteen years or when he too gleefully investigates a child kidnapping, John is there to mediate his reactions.  Then, when Sherlock returns in “The Empty Hearse,” he insists correctly of John, “You have missed this…the thrill of the chase, the blood pumping through your veins, the two of us against the rest of the world.”  Later, in “The Abominable Bride,” John quips to Moriarty, “There are always two of us.”  There must be.  Inevitably, all roads they take lead to Baker Street, back to their roots together.   

4. There is already plenty of precedent for it 

Sherlock has never shied away from the suggestion that Sherlock and John are more than friends.  From the outset, John is mistaken for Sherlock’s date, and the man who will “outlive God trying to have the last word” makes no correction, nor does he when a reporter in “The Reichenbach Fall” asks for a quote about whether he and Dr. Watson are “strictly platonic.”  Further, the two gay owners of The Cross Keys Inn from “The Hounds of Baskerville” assess John and Sherlock as a pair; and Mrs. Hudson, who lives just a floor below them and knows them very well, refers to one of their arguments as “a little domestic” and is shocked when John is ready to move on (to marry a woman?) a full two years after Sherlock’s supposed death.  Then, Irene Adler, who sizes people up as adeptly as Sherlock, calls out John’s jealousy about the 57 unanswered texts that she’s sent (yes, John kept track) and flatly counters John’s insistence that he and Sherlock are a couple:  “Yes, you are.”  Finally, in “The Abominable Bride,” when John saves his other half from the precipice and Sherlock gushes about John’s intelligence, Moriarty himself rolls his eyes and scoffs, “Oh, why don’t you two just elope, for God’s sake!” 

There are innumerable instances of extreme devotion shown to us as well.  In “His Last Vow” Sherlock literally restarts his own heart because John is in danger, then commits murder to protect John from the thumb of Magnussen’s extortion.  In “The Great Game” John throws himself on Moriarty to allow Sherlock to escape the bomb he wears, and in “A Scandal in Belgravia,” he dumps his girlfriend and their holiday plans to stay home and look after Sherlock, a choice he makes easily after she demands, “Don’t make me compete with Sherlock Holmes!”  (Oh, he won’t, dear; there’s no contest.)  Further, images abound of the intense and meaningful stares shared by these two, traded like stocks on internet forums and social media, all screaming of something bubbling beneath the surface.  Thus, to transition to an official couple would not be much of a stretch.  

3. It fits the transformational model of the show 

Gatiss and Moffat have shown a penchant for pushing the envelope with their version of Doyle’s characters. Would Doyle have raised his eyebrows over John’s sibling being a divorced lesbian who’s taken to drink?  I doubt the original author could have imagined Mrs. Hudson as a former exotic dancer who had been married to the head of a drug cartel.  And certainly no one anticipated that the lovable Mary Morstan would turn out to be a former intelligence agent and ruthless trained assassin. 

The creators have not been afraid to add their own special spice to these characters.  In a 2014 interview with Phil Ittner, Gatiss and Moffat asserted, “Most of [the series] is actually completely new, so there’s not a drying-up of the source…we’re slightly broadening out the world a bit and being slightly more heretical than we probably would have been at the beginning. But then that’s good, it feels like this is our version…”   To go all-in and apex this concept with the core pair would allow them to make a truly indelible mark on the enormous canon of Sherlock Holmes iterations. 

After all, side characters are only so revealing; in this universe, John and Sherlock are the only ones who matter.  The series has been proposed as the story of the development of a genius, hence its very specific title, so building Sherlock Holmes to the point where he can freely give and receive love, achieving true intimacy, would be the greatest development possible.  Gatiss and Moffat could provide that humanity for him, to create their own warm center to the notoriously melancholy sphere of the private life of the world’s only consulting detective.   

2. Proper representation matters 

All segments of society can and should have a right to see themselves recognized unabashedly by the media they consume, whether it is fiction or non-fiction.  In the twenty-first century, this should not still be the struggle that it is, yet any in the LBGTQ community know how resistant this practice is to change in the machine of social institutions.  Too often, gay characters are used as statue pieces or comic relief, sidelines or after thoughts; they are not permitted to be real and valuable human beings, but are stock characters and stereotypes, extras who inevitably get the axe if the Grim Reaper comes calling.

 Steven Moffat has been most emphatic on the issue that the showing of gay or bisexual characters in popular culture should not be approached with triviality, that it is a serious issue that should be offered (particularly to young people) in a way that denotes true acceptance.  In his Parker interview, he asserted, “You don’t want to essentially tell children that [being gay is] something to campaign about. You want to say this is absolutely fine and normal. There is no question to answer. You want to walk right past it, in a way. You don’t want to…say, as sometimes other kinds of literature or movies might, we forgive you for being gay. You’re just saying you’re gay and it doesn’t matter. There’s no issue.” 

Essentially, one’s sexuality is just an average, marginally interesting, non-personality-defining, run-of-the-mill reality.  Thus, no matter what your sexual bent, it is not odd; it is not special or different, wonderful or terrible.  It just is, as mundane to one’s whole character as eye color or shoe size.  Indeed, until this matter does not flutter pulses with its rakish novelty, true acceptance has not yet occurred.  Having Sherlock and John integrate their sexuality seamlessly into the roster of the other attributes that the audience has witnessed, to roll it into the entire picture of who they are, we would be granted a relaxed and genuine portrayal of a devoted couple that happens to be gay, one from which we could all ultimately benefit.   

1. It would count Sherlock is a global phenomenon.  

According to the Radio Times, it is shown in 224 countries and territories around the world, making it the most watched of any of the BBC’s programs, surpassing even Dr. Who, which has decades of history.  It has spawned blogs and merchandise and a number of Sherlocked fan events, which are major affairs to rival the most popular comic cons, where every artifact, set detail, and image from the show is cherished and applauded. 

The series’ leads, Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, are beloved international stars.  Thanks in no small part to this show, they are in constant demand and headline massive studio projects, like The Hobbit series of films and Marvel’s Dr. Strange.  Each has a immense following of fans, and rightly so—they are award-winning craftsmen, extremely versatile talents who deserve every bit of success they’ve acquired. 

This degree of influence and appeal leverages a lot of power. 

What this show brings to the table, the world eats; what it points to as its guides, people would notice, and what’s more, follow.  What, then, could be accomplished in social terms if Sherlock were to subtly demystify gay relationships?   What might result if a stellar product and the highly popular individuals involved indicate that a homosexual relationship is every bit as complicated and trying and boring and wonderful as every other kind? 

Respect. And with luck, progress.

Thanks, Chris. B

[dmellieon]

Why SHERLOCK Should Embrace Its Ship of Dreams

By The Screen Spy Team on January 10, 2017 By Chris B. 

Modern television has more “ships” than the Pacific Ocean. Virtually every character on the airwaves has been matched with another, fancied relationships dreamed up by eager fans, either to generate laughs or to satisfy personal passions.  Every fandom has its favorite pairs, but if you’re a follower of the BBC’s Sherlock, the most discussed coupling by far is that John and Sherlock, or Johnlock.  The desire to see these two together in more than a simple platonic friendship is one that is played out in blogs and fan fiction regularly, but is this something fans will ever see developed on screen? There are many factors to consider here.  Sadly, in 2017, there is still a certain amount of controversy about showing a gay couple in an everyday relationship, one that is not present for purposes of comic relief or sideline plot support.  Would the network and affiliates allow it?  How conservative are its politics and those of its advertisers?  Given the overwhelming popularity of the show on an international scale, I would wager their wallets would easily trump any qualms that might exist.  It is amazing how capitalism can solve all manner of perceived ills. Regardless, do Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat even want this to be the dynamic of their characters?  According to them, the answer is no.  In an interview with Valerie Parker in July of last year, Gatiss claimed, “…we’ve explicitly said this is not going to happen – there is no game plan – no matter how much we lie about other things, that this show is going to culminate in Martin and Benedict going off into the sunset together. They are not going to do it.” That sounds pretty final.  Maybe. Since these two have made the most of The X-Files philosophy that a lie is most conveniently hidden between two truths, there is always room for doubt.  (Really, how likely is it that a seasoned professional like Gatiss suddenly mistook the names of his characters for those of the men who portray them?) In any case, I think an openly romantic relationship between John and Sherlock would be well worth it.  Consider the following points and determine for yourself if this match is a just a forgettable fantasy, or if it could be an ultimate destiny.   

5. The characters are already tightly bonded No one would argue with the idea that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original characters of Holmes and Watson are best friends; through each of the numerous variations presented over the intervening century plus, this is one of the few facets has remained consistent.  They are a team. Individually, though, each member of the team is lacking.  At one point, Sherlock confesses in “The Great Game” that he’s been “reliably informed” that he has no heart, going so far as to declare several different times that he is a high-functioning sociopath.  John, on the other hand, is “abnormally attracted to dangerous situations and people”; he misses the war that left him behind.  Both have a hole that they need to fill, and that is exactly what the other satisfies. In Sherlock, this is reinforced repeatedly.  John and Sherlock are clearly presented as two halves of the same whole, each needing the other to be a complete version of himself—John, the heart and inspiration; Sherlock, the excitement and intellectual challenge.  When Sherlock is baffled why a woman would be upset about her child’s death after fourteen years or when he too gleefully investigates a child kidnapping, John is there to mediate his reactions.  Then, when Sherlock returns in “The Empty Hearse,” he insists correctly of John, “You have missed this…the thrill of the chase, the blood pumping through your veins, the two of us against the rest of the world.”  Later, in “The Abominable Bride,” John quips to Moriarty, “There are always two of us.”  There must be.  Inevitably, all roads they take lead to Baker Street, back to their roots together.   

4. There is already plenty of precedent for it Sherlock has never shied away from the suggestion that Sherlock and John are more than friends.  From the outset, John is mistaken for Sherlock’s date, and the man who will “outlive God trying to have the last word” makes no correction, nor does he when a reporter in “The Reichenbach Fall” asks for a quote about whether he and Dr. Watson are “strictly platonic.”  Further, the two gay owners of The Cross Keys Inn from “The Hounds of Baskerville” assess John and Sherlock as a pair; and Mrs. Hudson, who lives just a floor below them and knows them very well, refers to one of their arguments as “a little domestic” and is shocked when John is ready to move on (to marry a woman?) a full two years after Sherlock’s supposed death.  Then, Irene Adler, who sizes people up as adeptly as Sherlock, calls out John’s jealousy about the 57 unanswered texts that she’s sent (yes, John kept track) and flatly counters John’s insistence that he and Sherlock are a couple:  “Yes, you are.”  Finally, in “The Abominable Bride,” when John saves his other half from the precipice and Sherlock gushes about John’s intelligence, Moriarty himself rolls his eyes and scoffs, “Oh, why don’t you two just elope, for God’s sake!” There are innumerable instances of extreme devotion shown to us as well.  In “His Last Vow” Sherlock literally restarts his own heart because John is in danger, then commits murder to protect John from the thumb of Magnussen’s extortion.  In “The Great Game” John throws himself on Moriarty to allow Sherlock to escape the bomb he wears, and in “A Scandal in Belgravia,” he dumps his girlfriend and their holiday plans to stay home and look after Sherlock, a choice he makes easily after she demands, “Don’t make me compete with Sherlock Holmes!”  (Oh, he won’t, dear; there’s no contest.)  Further, images abound of the intense and meaningful stares shared by these two, traded like stocks on internet forums and social media, all screaming of something bubbling beneath the surface.  Thus, to transition to an official couple would not be much of a stretch.   

3. It fits the transformational model of the show Gatiss and Moffat have shown a penchant for pushing the envelope with their version of Doyle’s characters.  Would Doyle have raised his eyebrows over John’s sibling being a divorced lesbian who’s taken to drink?  I doubt the original author could have imagined Mrs. Hudson as a former exotic dancer who had been married to the head of a drug cartel.  And certainly no one anticipated that the lovable Mary Morstan would turn out to be a former intelligence agent and ruthless trained assassin. The creators have not been afraid to add their own special spice to these characters.  In a 2014 interview with Phil Ittner, Gatiss and Moffat asserted, “Most of [the series] is actually completely new, so there’s not a drying-up of the source…we’re slightly broadening out the world a bit and being slightly more heretical than we probably would have been at the beginning. But then that’s good, it feels like this is our version…”   To go all-in and apex this concept with the core pair would allow them to make a truly indelible mark on the enormous canon of Sherlock Holmes iterations. After all, side characters are only so revealing; in this universe, John and Sherlock are the only ones who matter.  The series has been proposed as the story of the development of a genius, hence its very specific title, so building Sherlock Holmes to the point where he can freely give and receive love, achieving true intimacy, would be the greatest development possible.  Gatiss and Moffat could provide that humanity for him, to create their own warm center to the notoriously melancholy sphere of the private life of the world’s only consulting detective.   

2. Proper representation matters All segments of society can and should have a right to see themselves recognized unabashedly by the media they consume, whether it is fiction or non-fiction.  In the twenty-first century, this should not still be the struggle that it is, yet any in the LBGTQ community know how resistant this practice is to change in the machine of social institutions.  Too often, gay characters are used as statue pieces or comic relief, sidelines or after thoughts; they are not permitted to be real and valuable human beings, but are stock characters and stereotypes, extras who inevitably get the axe if the Grim Reaper comes calling. Steven Moffat has been most emphatic on the issue that the showing of gay or bisexual characters in popular culture should not be approached with triviality, that it is a serious issue that should be offered (particularly to young people) in a way that denotes true acceptance.  In his Parker interview, he asserted, “You don’t want to essentially tell children that [being gay is] something to campaign about. You want to say this is absolutely fine and normal. There is no question to answer. You want to walk right past it, in a way. You don’t want to…say, as sometimes other kinds of literature or movies might, we forgive you for being gay. You’re just saying you’re gay and it doesn’t matter. There’s no issue.” Essentially, one’s sexuality is just an average, marginally interesting, non-personality-defining, run-of-the-mill reality.  Thus, no matter what your sexual bent, it is not odd; it is not special or different, wonderful or terrible.  It just is, as mundane to one’s whole character as eye color or shoe size.  Indeed, until this matter does not flutter pulses with its rakish novelty, true acceptance has not yet occurred.  Having Sherlock and John integrate their sexuality seamlessly into the roster of the other attributes that the audience has witnessed, to roll it into the entire picture of who they are, we would be granted a relaxed and genuine portrayal of a devoted couple that happens to be gay, one from which we could all ultimately benefit.   

1. It would count Sherlock is a global phenomenon.  According to the Radio Times, it is shown in 224 countries and territories around the world, making it the most watched of any of the BBC’s programs, surpassing even Dr. Who, which has decades of history.  It has spawned blogs and merchandise and a number of Sherlocked fan events, which are major affairs to rival the most popular comic cons, where every artifact, set detail, and image from the show is cherished and applauded. The series’ leads, Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, are beloved international stars.  Thanks in no small part to this show, they are in constant demand and headline massive studio projects, like The Hobbit series of films and Marvel’s Dr. Strange.  Each has a immense following of fans, and rightly so—they are award-winning craftsmen, extremely versatile talents who deserve every bit of success they’ve acquired. This degree of influence and appeal leverages a lot of power. What this show brings to the table, the world eats; what it points to as its guides, people would notice, and what’s more, follow.  What, then, could be accomplished in social terms if Sherlock were to subtly demystify gay relationships?   What might result if a stellar product and the highly popular individuals involved indicate that a homosexual relationship is every bit as complicated and trying and boring and wonderful as every other kind? 

Respect.  And with luck, progress. 

(via A Case for Johnlock: Why SHERLOCK Should Embrace Its Ship of Dreams)