For the first time, I really liked my Grindelwald design… Two parts of one sketch, the plot of which is absurd and impossible to tell. And that's why I like him.
someone probably said this already but in spiderverse i think it's interesting how when pavitr was first introduced everyone thought something bad was gonna happen to him bc of how confident and optimistic he was. and then in the actual movie we see that something bad was supposed to happen to him (police chief dying!) but it doesn't! miles stops it! and miguel berates miles for this, says it's going to cause the universe to collapse or whatever.
there's this idea that tragedy is inherent to spidermans growth, and while it's true that some spiderpeople learn important lessons through loss, no one stops to ask, is it really necessary? yeah, maybe the chief was supposed to die. but why does spiderman have to be formed through tragedy? why do we (as heroes) have to let people die? pavitr didn't lose anyone, and he's still a good spiderman! maybe, if he doesn't suffer, he'll end up better off for it!
so while miguel is arguing for all this big picture stuff about saving the multiverse he's lost sight of what it really means to be a spiderman, he's not looking out for the real individual people. yeah it's just one person who would die, but that one person means something to someone. shrugging and saying "stuff just sucks sometimes, we can't do anything about it" is the opposite of what superheroes do. pretty obviously, miles arc is also a reflection of the struggles people face in real life, working within unequal systems, where it's easy to shrug and say "that's just the way it is" and not ask "but why does it need be this way? can't we do something about it?"
miguel is arguing that you can't have your cake and eat it too. presumably, miles and co. are going to find a way to get around that and change things for the better (and maybe that's why miles has that line about two cakes in the advisors office!)
for me at least, theres always been a really stark divide in the 'child character is the main antagonist' sort of stories.
on one hand. theres stories that rely on the shock factor of a child being evil, because we're supposed to believe that kids arent capable of that sort of thing. i guess its supposed to be frightening but the novelty always wears off really quickly for me.
i think 'a child is the villain' always lands most successfully for me when a kid is given power beyond their years (either by adults around them or otherwise supernatural/societal forces) and then everyone is floored when they arent exactly responsible with that power. and sometimes theyre even selfish! not because that kid is evil, but because theyre a kid.. acting like a kid would in their situation.
it means that any sort of story that follows requires a protagonist to reason with someone who may not even understand the harm theyre doing, or worse - not have the life lived to understand why they should care in the first place. and also, i think watching what happens when u have an destructive force seeking comforts that any child deserves doing whatever they can to have those things is (to me) much more interesting than 'child who is fucked up and evil for no reason but being born that way actually'
but do i still go on ao3 to search up its most popular homoerotic ship and get infodumped all the necessary lore in order to enjoy the fics? yes, give me 14 more of that.
Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. For this he was chained to a rock and tortured for eternity.
Oppenheimer (2023) dir. Christopher Nolan
Watched Re-Animator. Think these two should get to kiss
Edit: DISCLAIMER: Before you decide to watch Re-Animator, make sure to check for content warnings, there is a scene that a lot of people choose to skip!