What Mahito did: Manipulate Junpei into being his friend and then killed him in front of Yuji, laughed about Yuji's desperation to save him, killed Nanami, got Nobara into a coma, destroyed one of Todo's hands
Yuji with Mahito at the end:
What Sukuna did: Threaten to kill Yuji's friend multiple times, ripped Yuji's heart out of his chest and then tricked him into making a Binding Vow that he would have to forget in order to bring him back to life, laughed at Yuji when he desperately begged him to try and save Junpei, told him over and over again that his mere existence would bring destruction simply by being his vessel, destroyed Shibuya and killed countless of innocent people, ditched Yuji to make Megumi his new vessel, then sinked Megumi's soul as deep as he could in darkness in order to keep control of his body, killed Tsumiki, killed Gojo, killed Kashimo, killed Higuruma, killed Choso, almost killed Yuta and pushed him into using Kenjaku's CT to get into Gojo's body, kept praising literally everyone else but Yuji (while still trying to kill them), who he kept talking shit about instead, got pissed when Yuji showed pity and told him that he would kill every single person still left alive that Yuji cared about before finally killing him
Yuji with Sukuna at the end:
72 notes
·
View notes
Semi-coherent Nope thought of the day: the way that the Haywoods and Ricky/Jupe understand and react to Jean Jacket is an extension of the way they navigate the experience of working in Hollywood as POC.
Ricky cannot differentiate his identity and experiences from the narratives which Hollywood has imposed on him: he's the Asian kid from Gordy's Home and Kid Sheriff; he still calls himself Jupe and runs a theme park based on a role he played as a child. He relates to the Gordy's Home incident not through the lens of his own memories but the media around it — the SNL sketch he describes to Emerald, the memorabilia in the hidden shrine in his office. It's his inability to conceptualize the world outside the lens of spectacle that prevents him from understanding what Jean Jacket is and why she behaves the way she does — he starts from the assumption that he can make her into a theme park attraction and works backwards from there.
In contrast, the Haywoods and OJ in particular are characterized by their ability to see things as they are, and their insistence that others do the same with them: they make a deliberate effort to combat the erasure of Black people in Hollywood — and their own ancestors in particular — by recounting the history of Haywoods' Hollywood Horses at the start of each safety meeting rather than resigning themselves to being the nameless "horse guys." Similarly, OJ refuses to accept the official narrative surrounding his father's death — that the coin that killed him fell out of a prop plane — when it contradicts his own memories of the event, and it's his trust in his own judgement, coupled with his refusal to anthropomorphize animals (including extraterrestrial ones) is what allows him to accurately predict Jean Jacket's behaviour. Neither Jupe nor the Haywoods deserve to be treated the way they are under the Hollywood system, but OJ and Em find a way to avoid being (literally) consumed by it, while Jupe does not.
182 notes
·
View notes
I want to like CRY so much
I just finished replaying it and I have so many opinions, as always. This game is unique for me in that I WANT to like it so badly but it just doesn't quite work. However, I stubbornly replay it and ponder what it could have been because I wish I liked it more. I especially feel this way because I live in New Orleans and its just so CLOSE to being good!
More thoughts under the cut.
PROS:
I actually think they did a great job with the setting. It's raining so hard that the power goes out and the streets are too flooded for cabs? There are weird creatures and bugs around every corner, some of which are messing with your belongings? The best food is from some sketchy stand served by some random Shorty person? Accurate, welcome to New Orleans. I can even forgive Bess for eating crawfish with the shells on with a spoon.
The characters are also good. Lamont is completely underutilized to where I'd never believe he was the culprit, but I can imagine running into all of these people throughout my day and it makes sense that they would all also interact with each other off-screen.
The core mystery is really interesting. It's the classic Nancy-gets-sucked-in-to-a-case-on-vacation scenario, but she really does stumble into the situation by accident in this one and has a personal stake because she gets attacked by the skeleton man. The progression is believable as she starts to unravel the skull mystery and discovers that Bruno's death was actually kind of suspicious.
My favorite ND trope, secret room/hideout/study revealed midgame, with a lot of things to look at and click on, is present.
CONS
The music is kind of a miss. It's not bad, but it should have been so much better. It has this boring CLK old-timey feel and they kind of missed the mark in my opinion. I think a more upbeat track with some brass, maybe something bluesy, maybe something modern would have added more variety.
The puzzles. THE PUZZLES ARE SO TEDIOUS. I hate that we find this book Bruno wrote and it's just a walkthrough to getting a bunch of eyeballs through various boring puzzles for the sake of padding the game. I use a walkthrough for like half of this game every time because I don't find the puzzles fun. My least favorites are the sneeze contraption because there is ZERO confirmation as to whether you're on the right track when you do it, and the tombstone pun puzzle because walking back and forth around the cemetery is SO TEDIOUS and it has zero replay value.
Bruno's house doesn't make sense because it's fairly spacious and kept up on the bottom story and the top floor that we can access is just two horrible moldy rooms. Bruno, you dropped dead from breathing in black mold in your own house, not a heart attack. Trust me when I say I know it's humid and wet here, but there's just no reason for the upstairs to be that uninhabitable indoors.
On a related note, I wish there was more to explore, and no, the cemetery doesn't count. There should be more rooms for Nancy to snoop through (where is Henry sleeping?) and like one more place for Bess to go. Or more things to do and click on in Zeke's aside from just looking at that one box a million times. Or the option to poke around Renee's table when she's away. NOT nearly enough snooping for me.
It's so dark. It's too dark. It could have been like 10% lighter or had a partial daytime element so that I could actually see what I was doing even a tiny bit.
22 notes
·
View notes
Writing this out because I just survived a Category 5 whitesplaining event that, hours later, is still boring holes in my brain:
The reason minority representation in media has been historically subtle and implied is NOT because “if you ease people into it they’ll respond more favorably to your ‘argument’ (?!?!?)” It is because that was usually the difference between a show actually getting on the air or being killed in infancy. o_O
We should respect our roots and acknowledge the fact that it was just harder to see ourselves on screens in the past, and that the writers and directors who cared probably sacrificed a lot just to make those scraps of representation possible. We should also acknowledge that metaphorical/subtextual representation of certain identities is not inherently harmful or inferior, even in the present day.
But we absolutely SHOULD NOT take that to mean that metaphors are somehow the preferred strategy to get the general public to “learn to accept us”. It’s a ludicrous leap in logic that relies on the assumption that:
A] There’s a debate to be had about minority populations’ right to exist that needs to be “won”
B] Having the rare opportunity to openly portray a minority character/issue in media and just taking it and running with it was never successful in the past (it was)
C] Opposition to minorities’ existence is a ‘fact of life that we just have to accept whether we like it or not’, but our existence is somehow not a ‘fact of life that THEY have to accept, whether THEY like it or not’. Basically, only one side of this “debate” deserves to be protected from reality, and guess which side that is. T_T
The context of this honestly makes it much, much worse (advising amateur writers?!?!) but I don’t even have to go there, the advice is bad enough on its face.
When I first realized the conversation in the stream was heading this way I was tempted to just skip ahead in the VOD…but instead I was like “let’s not be so quick to judge; hear ‘em out, they might have a good point in there somewhere”, consequently took 800 psychic damage and now I just know I’ll be stewing about this for weeks.
Like…I know the person who said this is not a bigot, and probably didn’t even realize how dismissive and defeatist this line of thinking sounds. And I’m willing to admit that having this sort of diplomatic, ‘let’s just placate the troublemakers to keep the peace’ attitude towards social issues has its uses, and probably helps this person with their professional relationships. But if you are the sort of person who does that a lot of the time, you should be mature enough to realize that it could be a pretty big blind spot when it comes to discussing how social PROGRESS tends to work.
‘Keeping the peace’ is maybe halfway decent at preserving the status quo, and basically useless at everything else in the long run. :/ Progress, on the other hand, is not peaceful and never has been. If you ever find yourself advising a minority writer to “go easy” on their white cis hetero audience and “maybe try not to be too obvious”, you are probably giving horrendous advice. And if you have this mysterious feeling that you “sound like an a$$hole”, it’s because you do– the red flags in your brain are flying and you’re not stopping to consider why!
In conclusion, there’s a large difference between working around censors as a professional writer and trying to make do with the little wiggle room you have…and convincing yourself that it’s just better to be ‘less obvious’ and hide diverse ideas under layers of abstraction from the get-go. Before anyone even says anything to you, before the general public even has a chance to react to your work and decide whether they’re willing to accept it or not. You’re doing a disservice to yourself AND your potential audience.
15 notes
·
View notes