#OUTSIDERS. BUT THE WRITERS AREN'T MEAN TO THEIR AUDIENCE

[silvsarts]

“I will never stop coming after you.”

[kallypsowrites]

I feel like I've seen so many TV cancellation announcements for stuff that I might've watched but now might not. And it really just emphasizes how much the current system is eating itself.

Binge culture means that people are expected to consume a show right as it drops. Because so many shows are binged now, even weekly shows are held to the same standard. If they don't perform well during the initial release, they are written off because binge numbers are the numbers that matter.

So you get more and more people who are afraid to get invested in shows because it might get canceled on a cliffhanger. Because of that, they don't tune in to watch something until they're sure its going to continue. So the next bingeable show gets less viewers. It gets canceled. More people join the 'I'm not going to watch yet because I'm afraid to get invested' crowd. Less people watch TV.

And it sucks because people like this are often the most ardent fans of a work--the ones who will write fanfiction and make fanart and write long analytical posts convincing people to watch a show. The people who will make a new show their whole personality because that's how hyperfixation works. I am amongst that crowd. I can't let myself get invested in something anymore unless I know that I'm going to get emotional payoff.

TV execs have been continuously breaking trust with fandom spaces for the past several years. They don't give shows a chance to find their legs, to grow an audience, to gain a cult following. They kill something in it's cradle in service to the numbers.

And it's not just the fans who suffer because of this. It's writer's rooms. I'm going to school right now for screenwriting and its BAD out there. So many writers who pour their heart and soul into a concept only to never get to bring it to fruition. There's no room for slow burns. For thoughtful storytelling. For trusting the audience. There's no room for real creativity. So the shows that do get renewed are often competent but uninspired or sequel/franchise content. Cause that's what gets views.

I cannot imagine how disheartening it is as a writer to start so many projects and never get to finish them. Think about your own writing. If you were working on a fanfiction but knew at any moment someone could stop you updating because you aren't getting enough hits/kudos, would you find joy in that anymore? I sure wouldn't.

I believe that a lot of the best storytelling is going to come out of indie spaces in the next few years--writers and artists moving outside of Hollywood and making their own low budget stories. Because it's almost impossible to thrive within the current system.

It's not the writer's fault. It's not the fan's fault. It's the way TV has become. And its going to crash and burn and I'm sure execs will find a way to blame anything but the system they created.

[thesoftboiledegg]

"Unmortricken" was a lot. In fact, it might have been a little too much.

To start, I loved the glimpse of what exists outside the Central Finite Curve. The visuals were stunning and reminded me of M.C. Escher's drawings. The Jetson-like family was a nice touch--if anything can happen, who says they can't have different animation styles? All those colorful portals make me wonder what's lurking just out of sight.

It's also funny that the space outside the Curve is full of Rick's favorite thing: crystals. If he took a trip there, he'd come back with his pockets stuffed with gemstones.

Evil Morty's reappearance gave us a decent character study. Since he wasn't the antagonist, we saw him interact with the C-137s as a regular person. Morty's a little impressed, and Rick has a grudging respect for him. Others have called Evil Morty the Rickest Morty, and I agree: similar intelligence, similar technology and similar bloodthirst.

I was glad that he left in the end because that's what his character arc is about anyway. He doesn't want to be part of anyone else's story, not even another Morty's.

However, that's also part of the issue that I had with this episode. Seeing Evil Morty was great, but it was also a little...pointless? You could've had the same story without him. He's not working with Prime, and he has no ties to C-137 after "Rickmurai Jack," so it felt like the writers just said "Hey, you know what would be cool?"

I'm not against writers having fun and giving the audience what they want. "Spider-Man: No Way Home" (yeah, groan at me, Marvel haters) is fan service in blockbuster form, and it was one of the best theater experiences I've ever had.

Still, if Evil Morty came back, I think he should've had a separate episode. The episode juggled C-137 Rick, Morty, Evil Morty and Prime Rick pretty well, giving them satisfying interactions with each other, but no Evil Morty would've meant more relationship development for the C-137s.

Evil Morty's backstory also didn't reveal much about him. I mean--yeah, we all figured that he had an abusive Rick and got fed up. The fact that he had a "regular" Rick instead of a deranged lunatic does make a point about the banality of abuse. Monsters aren't always raving maniacs who torture people in their basements. Ordinary people can wear you down with a slow drip of toxicity and neglect.

I enjoyed this episode, and Evil Morty's return was exciting, but cramming the series' two biggest antagonists and storylines into twenty minutes was a little overwhelming. New plot developments kept showing up, too: Rick found Prime! Prime's various lairs! Omega device! I would've preferred a two-parter.

I'll admit that if you told me that we'd see Evil Morty and Rick Prime in the same shot, I never would have believed you, but here we are.

On that note, Prime's characterization was perfect. No attempt at a cutesy, sad backstory; he's a laughing monster until the end. And is it really the end? He has regeneration abilities, but C-137 acts like he's dead and even gives up the search. This leaves us with a few options:

C-137 killed him.

Prime fooled C-137 into thinking that he's dead when he isn't.

C-137's keeping him alive for later use.

Hopefully, this is more complicated than it looks because I'll be disappointed if this is the end of Prime. He's a brilliant reflection of C-137: the Rick he'd be without his tiny shred of humanity.

And Prime's a maniac, but he tells C-137 the truth. Rick broke into Prime's house. He pretended he belonged with this group of strangers. He latched on to Prime's grandson because he never had his own. His brutal, violent streak never went away no matter how long he tried to play house.

Prime says "Admit it! You would have been me!" In season three and parts of season four, Rick was close. His love for his family--love that he pretended he didn't have--and desire for their approval just barely pulled him back. But what kept that spark alive? How close was he to becoming a cold, unfeeling shell?

In the end, C-137's not satisfied after he destroys Prime--and weirdly, I'm not satisfied, either. Beating Prime to an unrecognizable pulp doesn't bring Rick's original family back. It doesn't erase the atrocities that Rick's committed. It doesn't make his grief go away. It doesn't change the fact that Rick teetered on the edge of turning into the monster that he despised.

What's more satisfying is that Rick didn't turn out like Prime. His Morty doesn't give two shits about Prime, but he loves him. He hugs him in relief (come on, Rick, hug him back already!), cries out "Rick? Rick!" and shakes his body when he thinks he's dead, and talks excitedly as they return home.

Rick's going to therapy, which Prime would have mocked. He went from having nobody to living with FIVE kids if you count Morty and Summer. Even he and his Jerry are pretty tight.

Rick knows this, but he still feels empty all the time. Vengeance doesn't work, drinking doesn't work...wouldn't it be easier if he just switched off his humanity and laughed at everything, even his own death?

But now that he knows how it feels to be loved, especially by his hypothetical grandson, I think he'll always find himself at the Smiths' doorstep.

[bloomeng]

I feel like something a lot of people miss when discussing DC canon is context.

(Warning: Mentions of canon sexual assault scenes)

So today I saw a discussion about Alfred's fanon perception versus canon reality. I wouldn't say op was criticizing people for thinking of him as a sweet old man, merely just pointing out that he's canonly not so innocent and it goes unaddressed. He was the one who nudged Tim into the Robin mantle and he was the one who stripped it from him and gave it to Damian without asking. There's a whole plotline about how he had a daughter that he abandoned. He was the one who put up the "soldier" plaque memorial. All of these things are true, however, I don't think it was the writers' intentions to paint a lot (not all) of his actions as negative. In fact, the writing often goes out of its way to paint Alfred as a martyr. That doesn't make his actions right, nor does it mean that someone is wrong for being upset with him, but it also means that people aren't stupid or wrong for interpreting his character as this beacon of virtue. It's also notable that most people are probably more acquainted with his animated and film adaptations where he hasn't done any of the things I've listed.

Context is always important when analyzing media, but it is ESPECIALLY important when discussing DC because of the sheer volume of authors writing for a single character.

This is why there are so many arguements about whether or not Bruce is a bad father. When you have so many authors writing a character for close to a century, you're going to have inconsistencies and their takes on the character will contradict. We can go in circles bringing up issues that prove either side, but it's futile. Everyone is entitled to their feelings towards things that happen in canon, but I don't think it's fair to pass ultimate judgement based on something that was often written by one shitty writer.

Now disregarding DC canon is something the fandom is selectively good at, but the curtesy is not extended evenly. Going back to Alfred for a moment. A legit criticism of the writing is that he abandoned his daughter and that isn't really addressed outside of the issue that introduced it. And I think the reality is that DC often recognizes their mistakes after the fact and isn't equipped to handle the conversations they start so they quietly retcon. Which isn't great, but I also think it's a silent mercy. See not addressing something is bad, but putting out offensive media is more detrimental IN MY OPINION.

This is even more evident when it comes to DC's history with depicting sexual assault. They constantly back themselves into corners. I really appreciated that Gail Simone's Batgirl run retconned the Joker's sexual assault against Barbara. SA is something that is important to talk about but it's also something that needs to be treated with care. What happened to Barbara was not a productive conversation. There were so many gross undertones of the Joker specifically sexually assaulting her. Same with Talia sexually assaulting Bruce. There are very real racist undertones. There is a time and place to discuss male victims and the way male rape victims are written off, but the story is not concerned with having that conversation. So now we’re not only not having that conversation but we’re also stereotyping and villainizing POC women which also has real world consequences.

Now this next part might get me boos from the audience but to me this also extends to Dick and Tarantula. I know a lot of people want DC to acknowledge what happened, but to that I'm like why? Devin Grayson is a notably bad writer when it comes to Dick. There are racist undertones to having Tarantula sexually assault Dick. Devin is literally known for making Dick Roma for fetish reasons. Before this Dick Grayson was a white character, who was already written to be flirty and sexual. These are all important things to consider about the context of the writing. I think it would actually be best if DC did what Gail Simone did with Batgirl. I think it’s unfair to not give these WOC characters the same treatment of understanding when their actions are shitty because of shit authors.

Real world context is vital for understanding these fictional stories. Batman can't kill because that would mean they would have had to be constantly introducing new villains and it would be less child friendly. Robin was introduced to the story because they were trying to market to children. Batman continuing to recruit children is about marketing to kids. The hyper-focus on Dick's romantic life was in part an effort to fight gay allegations. These are all important factors to consider if you're discussing DC critically.

Like realistically yeah it sucks so bad that Alfred and Bruce allowed children to fight crime. But it's also notable to mention that Dick forced Bruce's hand, Bruce was really trying to stop this kid from murdering a man. It was a compromise. Alfred and Dick may have pushed Tim to become Robin but he was already one foot out the door. Damian and Cass were trained by assassins. None of these kids are realistic depictions of children, even if they are relatable. When you read a superhero comic you are suspending a certain level of disbelief and I don't think it's the hot take people think it is to criticize Batman for allowing kids to fight.

Like cool, then we don't have a story. Nothing about superheroes are realistic. Why is this the line we draw in the sand?

I didn't know when to bring this up, so I'm going to awkwardly tack it on at the end. So the "Nothing Butt Nightwing" webcomic... Yeah it looks not good, but a lot of people are calling it out for sexualizing Dick, which once again to me fails to understand the outside context. There is a difference between sexualizing and sexualization of an ethnicity. As I mentioned, for most of Dick's run he was a white character who was written to be flirty. Devin was fetishizing him, but allowing Dick to remain a flirty character is not an act of fetish based sexualization. Personally I think it’s more harmful to get rid of core aspects of his character now that he is canonly Romani. Not to mention that if we address the SA with his character we are now back in this place of stereotyping and bad undertones. So until DC is ready to tell a legitimate story about male SA victims I'd rather the Dick Grayson thing be left silently in the past. I'm so hyper aware that I'm in the minority though. I agree it could be really powerful to have one of those stories be told but consider how harmful it would be to continue to imply these things about WOC.

[hotwaterandmilk]

I'm seeing "Wedding Peach was unsuccessful" trotted out on Twitter again and it's honestly kind of funny to me. You can dislike the series, but you're rewriting history if you suggest it was a massive commercial flop/astronomical failure — it simply wasn't.

The Wedding Peach TV series maintained viewership throughout its run which is why it aired an entire year's worth of episodes (the full length it was intended to run) and didn't get cancelled like Nurse Angel Ririka SOS, for example.

I'm not going to pretend it did Sailor Moon numbers, dear god, it absolutely didn't get close hence why it wrapped as it did. I would suggest looking back now, that it was the definition of a mid-performing title for the time period. It sold toys decently but not outrageously, it got viewers but not an outstanding number, and it garnered a small but dedicated fanbase of male otaku. All of which is par for the course when it comes to a mid title in 1995.

Wedding Peach DX was produced because the TV series LD sales were decent enough to warrant it. Children were not buying LD box sets at this time, adult fans were and it was this interest that justified the creation of the four DX episodes as direct-to-video releases. If a series doesn't sell well they don't make more episodes, let alone higher quality deluxe episodes specifically for the home video market (and thus for older audiences with spending power).

It is very important to point out that Wedding Peach DX had NO INVOLVEMENT from the original creative team. Tomita Sukehiro and Yazawa Nao did not contribute to its creation, Tadano Kazuko didn't provide designs. Yuyama Kunihiko was the driving force behind the production of the DX episodes and he served as both director and writer for all four episodes (bringing on Wedding Peach animator and soon-to-be frequent Pokémon collaborator, Ichiishi Sayuri to serve as character designer).

What inspired these to be fanservice dreck to the level they ended up being is honestly beyond me. I mean the otaku market definitely wanted more episodes featuring the characters (and more songs featuring the seiyuu, if you want to see how keen otaku were for FURIL please see this post) but part of what they liked about the characters at the time was their (barfbarfbarf) perceived purity and innocence. The DX including panty shots and swimsuits kind of threw them for a loop. Even now, if you look at discussions about the DX among otaku there's a bit of a divide in opinion.

The DX episode sales were (as far as I can tell based on magazines from the time) also mid, but enough to cover four episodes. Three and four don't seem to have sold as well as one and two, but again the stats from the time aren't comprehensive. I think the fact that there weren't any after episode four says it all, honestly. OVA episodes are expensive to produce and it was extremely common for them to stop immediately if the sales weren't there. DX didn't justify its existence beyond those four episodes and Yuyama moved onto a far more successful project in Pokémon.

On that topic, I think it's important to note that Wedding Peach was OLM's first television series (albeit a coproduction with KSS). If it and the studio's adaptation of Mojacko hadn't made some level of profit it would have been quite difficult for them to adapt Pokémon. Neither Mojacko nor Wedding Peach set records with their viewership or sales numbers, but they both did "OK". It was in Pokémon however, that that OLM truly found a successful property with the series still running today. Sometimes you've got to have a few runs at producing things before you find success. Wedding Peach was one of these early runs, a project where a lot of people cut their teeth but one that didn't justify its own continuation beyond a certain point. Just a very standard media mix from the mid-90s, in other words.

Wedding Peach is a problematic title with indifference through to outright objection to representing love outside of heterosexual romance. Looking back now it feels like an absolute dinosaur on so many levels. Between the anime's fatphobic episode and Momoko dropping some gender essentialism, I'm not surprised people want to relegate it to the dustbin of history.

However, I think it is very telling that Tomita Sukehiro, when presented with the opportunity to tell a similar story in the modern day, chose to represent not just queer love, but platonic and familial love in Wedding Apple. While he can't undo the regressive and cringy elements of the original series, as a creator he has progressed and I'd like to think we can all continue to improve our outlooks and output as we grow.

Disliking Wedding Peach in the modern day is completely understandable. I'm not going to pretend anyone should watch it in 2024 without knowing that it is a camp, cheaply made relic of a time when heterosexuality was considered magic. However, just because it pandered to all the worst things trending at the time doesn't mean it didn't sell enough products or hold enough viewers to justify its production. It did, it just wasn't a strong enough property to go beyond that and that's representative of mediocrity rather than mind blowing commercial failure imho.

[storm-driver]

hi, i have feelings about cartoon nostalgia and the audience perception of them 20 years on

this is gonna read hyper-specific, but bear with me

i refuse to credit butch hartman for the way danny phantom came out during it's first two seasons, at least outside of the initial pitch and the idea of the protagonist having white hair. i know the majority of enthusiasts for this show are more than aware of hartman's antics at this point. these anctics, i won't get into. other people are far more suited to explain that stuff vs me, a random guy on the internet. but there's very specific topics that i don't often see get brought up in detail, like the production and staff behind this show.

i'll get into it below the cut so as not to clutter your dashboard. but if you're not familiar with the actual production history of danny phantom, this might be interesting to read.

it's common knowledge these days that stephen silver is the one who developed the design for danny based on hartman's original rough sketches. the similarity between each drawing is apparent, but you can see clear as day which design was gonna be more apt for animation and overall audience allure back in 2003.

he also did character designs for hartman's other poster child, Fairly Oddparents. the trend is similar, though far from a huge concern. character design overhauls happen all the time in media production. designs might be too complicated for animation, so they get stripped down. or maybe things aren't complex enough and more nuance needs to be added. that's normal stuff, and i am not dunking on hartman for not nailing danny's design right out the gate. i'm pointing this out in case you've ever looked at butch hartman's recent work and wondered "how are these done by the same artist?"

the answer is they weren't. hartman had to adapt to stephen silver's conceptual designs in order to work on the storyboards. take from that what you will.

onto the actual writing.

butch barely wrote a single episode for this show's first two seasons.

steve marmel helped write at least 28 episodes of the original two seasons, with writers like sib ventress and marty isenberg bringing a good amount of episodes to the table, as well.

butch hartman is credited primarily for directing and storyboarding this show. the episode pitch and writing was by other people almost entirely. the ONLY episodes in the first two seasons that hartman is credited with having written are mystery meat, one of a kind and splitting images. and he's credited with co-writing these episodes alongside steve marmel and mark banker. ie, he did not write these episodes on his own. and allegedly, butch hartman had a tendency to be credited as a writer for an episode, even if he only wrote a few lines of dialogue. again, take from that what you will.

past that in season 3, he wrote infinite realms, torrent of terror, forever phantom, urban jungle, and ofc, phantom planet. which a lot of people know, these episodes in particular weren't the most enjoyable, nor was the overall direction of them very good.

a director's job is to make sure that the overall tone, feel, and message of the show is being kept consistent with intent. that means meeting with producers, who are the ones managing the, y'know, producing part of the whole project. it may sound like the director is the one heading the project if it's their job to keep things in check. which, i will not deny, hartman must've put in a good deal of work to make the show come out as well as it did.

but pile that with some of the off things per episode. the mean-spirited way that characters tend to be taught lessons, the voice direction getting a drastic change in season 3 (you can hear it explicitly with david kaufman suddenly going for higher pitches instead of the usual one he's done so far). there's really only one consistent motif in the entire show's OST. which isn't a bash against the music producer. it's a concern that the director of the show never asked him to change things up, and ONLY stuck to this one motif.

to briefly touch on the mean-spirited thing. there's multiple instances in the show where danny or someone else is seen fighting back against whatever has given them trouble, or they're taking matters into their own hands to ensure they won't be hurt ahead of time. and repeatedly, the show likes to kick these characters back down for trying to stand up. it's a trend in all of butch hartman's shows, and it's treated more like comedy than anything else. it's up to audience perception on how to view it. but for me personally, it starts to feel like an overused gag and turns into something more malevolent after seeing it overused almost every single episode.

okay besides that, i actually wanna look at specific examples of episodes that steve marmel wrote for. again, this is the guy who's more or less responsible for the show's serialization.

the complete list of episodes is as follows:

Mystery Meat, Parental Bonding, One of a Kind, Attack of the Killer Garage Sale, Splitting Images, What You Want, Bitter Reunions, Prisoners of Love, My Brother's Keeper, Shades of Gray, Fanning the Flames, Teacher of the Year, Fright Night, 13(Thirteen), Public Enemies, Memory Blank, Reign Storm, The Ultimate Enemy, The Fright Before Christmas, Secret Weapons, Flirting with Disaster, Micro Management , Kindred Spirits, and Reality Trip.

multiple episodes listed here are from the first season, which a lot of people consider the show's best. and of the handful listed for season 2, he wrote all of the hour-long specials.

i would be here for hours talking about how steve marmel tackles all of these characters and concepts significantly better than hartman does in season 3. but that's a topic best praised elsewhere. point is, if you watched any of these episodes and thought to yourself "wow, that was actually kinda clever," steve marmel is more or less the guy responsible.

butch hartman was in charge of direction, but that does not give him exclusive credit for every single line of dialogue or plot beat. there could be a LOT we just don't know because people on production staff don't want to comment. but the writing consistency taking a dive off the board by season 3, which is the same season that steve marmel departed from the project due to conflicting direction in the story? you might deduce that butch hartman was not the prized writer and artist behind this otherwise beloved cartoon.

to dredge up an easier-to-tackle target, season 3.

my criticisms are 18-year old echoes at this point, you've heard them all. from otherwise pointless episodes that don't develop the characters or world, to completely out-of-touch writing (looking at you, phantom planet) that juxtaposes the characters with everything we've been told about them so far. it became a slog of a season that didn't have any build-up to it's finale. the occasional gem of an episode like frightmare helped in some aspects. or the promise for something later with d-stabilized. but it all gets swept under the rug thanks to a rushed finale with poor build-up, bad writing direction for the characters, and most importantly, an unlasting effect on the viewer. (or a negative lasting effect, which is arguably worse)

for a season that knew it was on its last leg before inevitably needing to give up, there's seldom few episodes dedicated to advancing an overall narrative, and thus give a slimmer of hope for a satisfying conclusion. instead, the show goes all in with villain-of-the-week stories, and even the returning villains are hardly taken seriously or given more to do besides just being there.

of course, we know the reason steve marmel had left the project was because hartman wanted the show not to taken a more story-focused drive. it almost starts to feel like spite that kept the show so horribly grounded, letting it become stagnant before eventually being forgettable.

all this is in service of letting people know, it really wasn't butch hartman that made the show, not alone. death of the author and all that nonsense aside, he pitched the concept. and it takes a lot of love and dedication to make a concept something you can physically see and adore. don't let him swath in all the credit. recognize the others who made the work you can still enjoy.

[olderthannetfic]

https://olderthannetfic.tumblr.com/post/755884216959516672/someone-whose-fanfic-i-left-a-comment-on-is-angry

I'm just throwing out a slight assumption based on another fic that got added to TV tropes: The author mentioned getting a lot more hate and negativity after their fic was added to the TVT in the comment, like noticeably.

They explained in one of the comments to another why they had to mod lock the comments and the fic, and it was in an author's note in a new chapter they later removed. People who didn't like some of the side ships, and people who didn't like the main ships dynamic, started complaining and demanding random shit of the author. I think the AN explicitly mentioned threats and other explicitly threatening comments. It's not really a new that people coming from third parties to look at a fanfic seem to act like they're entitled to demand the author write exactly what they want or change parts of the fic, while they're consuming a story written for free.

Like, sure, you are publishing your story for any readers. But you can't deny that most fics never reach the popularity to become known outside their tag range, so most people aren't prepared nor do they expect to suddenly have to deal with people with absolutely zero interest in their writing, who're just there to insult you and your work coming in through third parties. It's kinda the same deal like with the Goodreads, you're writing for the fandom and for free, not to be put next to original works with much bigger audiences behind them and who're actually getting paid for their writing. And then recieving criticism as if the person had actually paid you.

As a fic writer the expectation is you write for fellow fans, your audience is a small part of fandom people who have interests at least partially aligning with your own. If you write original works, you write for anyone interested in what you have to offer and try to get a wider audience to get more sales and attention.

Side note: It often feels like people give writers a lot less breathing room when it comes to harassment, or having their works plastered into spaces they didn't agree to. Like, any writer complaining is told it's their own fault, and to shut up, and if they didn't want random people with no connection to the fandom or even ship to read it they shouldn't ever dare publish a fanfic ever. A writer mentioning being uncomfortable having their fanfiction plastered into spaces for professional works and with a high rate of unwanted criticism and some times really entitled trolls are expected to just "Suck it up, you knew the risk when you published your work." When they really didn't. How are you supposed to expect that amongst millions of fanfics, your little passion project is going to be shoved onto Goodreads as if it was some kinda professional publication? It also doesn't give the fanfic writers any benefits, AO3 is an archive, stats mean nothing, they're a bit of a vanity boost, but at large you don't get anything from having your work put into professional spaces, no recognition, no money, and you're forcibly held up to the standards or original fiction by entitled people. 🤷‍♀️ -Btw I know I'm a bit dramatic, and all that, but I still think it's weird how fanfic writers are some times held to standards of published original authors.

--

TV tropes is full of clowns from parts of fandom where a lot more so-called concrit of the "U suck" variety is the norm on top of the overall pattern of more eyeballs meaning more wankers.

[vidavalor]

"You love trains": Crowley & Aziraphale inspired 'North by Northwest'

Putting my film studies background to good use here with some film history & historical context under the cut.

The "what does the J stand for?" exchange in The Blitz, Part 1 and the inability for the audience to initially understand what Aziraphale is mouthing in The Blitz, Part 2 are both references to Hitchcock's classic spy thriller, 'North by Northwest'. I didn't link the clip that goes along with The Blitz, Part 2 in case some of you have never seen this film because it would ruin your experience of it. (Definitely watch it if you have not as it's a masterpiece.) Since The Blitz scenes are taking place in 1941 and 'North by Northwest' was released 18 years later in 1959, Crowley and Aziraphale aren't referencing the film in the dialogue but, instead, could be presumed to be the source *of* the dialogue in the film... just like how Shakespeare lifted Crowley's love poetry for 'Antony & Cleopatra'... and the 'North by Northwest'-referencing part of The Blitz, Part 1 *is referencing* the 'Antony and Cleopatra' reference because it's the reveal of Crowley's first name. But... it gets even better...

The writer of 'North by Northwest' was legendary Hollywood screenwriter Ernest Lehman, whom we're now presuming to have been a friend of probably at least Aziraphale's. Lehman wrote a dozen or so classic films and, outside of 'North by Northwest', is most famous for writing adaptations of several famous musicals, including the adapted screenplay for... 'The Sound of Music.' But, no, somehow, we aren't done yet with how amazing this is lol.

The thing that makes this all even funnier is that 'North by Northwest' is responsible for probably the most famous train metaphor in cinema. I'll spoil just this bit as it won't really ruin the overall movie for you if you haven't seen it but don't go any further than here if you don't want to be spoiled at all. If you've already seen it, you totally know what I mean. *laughs*

In 1959, when this film was released, you still couldn't really show sex on screen in a mainstream film. If you showed two people in a bedroom at all, they were cisgender, heterosexual and married and they slept in two separate beds. The level of sex happening in the above clip was *wild* for the era and the fact that it was put into the film the way it is-- that an unmarried woman picks up a hot guy on a train and they sleep together and she's still the heroine of the film and all of that-- was really nothing short of feminist revolution in a film in this era.

The film has a famous "love scene" of sorts that follows not long after the one I linked above, where the two of them are in a cabin on the train and starting to get it on but constraints of cinema coding at the time limited how far it could go. So, to imply that the main characters do, in fact, sleep together, the film famously cuts away to a shot of the train entering a tunnel-- making the train itself symbolic of sex. Because of how famous the film overall--and this scene in particular--became, it became a thing to use trains euphemistically for sex in other cinematic works following it. There is literally no way that Crowley and Aziraphale have not seen this movie so while Aziraphale was happy to make The Bentley into a sexual metaphor while angling for the car keys, Crowley is half-heartedly griping in flirty response by continually referencing trains, another sexual mode of transportation-- the one that that they inspired lol. Hence Aziraphale's bemused little lololol-but-won't-give-him-the-satisfaction-of-seeing-my-amusement face here:

Sunglassed!Cary Grant is Crowley and the old movie chemistry and the semi-coded flirty banter and someone please, please write a fic where Aziraphale says "I don't particularly like the book I've started"-- I will pay you lol.

[kvalenagle]

Creature Fantasy Writing Tips #1 Sentient and Sapient are Different Words (and You Probably Mean Sapient).

There aren't a lot of resources devoted to writing creature fantasy, animal fiction, xenofiction, or similar human-free works, and I thought I'd help out a little by offering a few tips. My goal here isn't to judge or tell you that you're doing it wrong, but instead, I'd like to help you avoid a few pitfalls or give you more options as a writer. I'm also writing these after my brain is fried from getting my novel work done for the day, so hopefully this'll be coherent and fairly typo-free. With that in mind, here's your first tip. Sentience implies an awareness of self as an organism, while sapience implies wisdom, creativity, and near-ish human levels of intelligence. I think what throws people here is all those scifi documentaries about the "search for sentient life" in the cosmos. That phrase doesn't mean they're searching for little grey men with UFOs, it means they're searching for life larger than single-celled organisms.

If you sit outside reading this, turn around, and see that a squirrel has stolen your lunch, it is accurate for you to say "my sandwich was stolen by sentient squirrels." But if the squirrel shouts insults at you, came up with an elaborate plan to steal your sandwich, and this is part of the squirrel's four-year-plan to control sandwiches in your city, the squirrel is sapient. (It's also sentient, but since all squirrels as we know them are sentient, it'd be redundant to mention that.)

"So how far down do you have to go before life stops being sentient?" I've seen studies on sentience in beetles, so I'd assume below insects.

"Wait, but then.... where is the line between sentience and sapience?" This is a little tougher. Are crows, dolphins, gorillas, or whales sapient? It's a topic for debate, and rather than give you an answer, you can use those as an example of what the line looks like in your own writing.

This distinction can feel a bit pedantic, especially when your favorite scifi and fantasy writers are probably getting it wrong all the time. The thing about creature fantasy fans, though, is that they're here for sapient non-human protagonists, and they know the distinction. You will get angry letters if you mix these up.

That said... if you are writing sentient xenofiction, that's okay! Your audience may be smaller, but a book like Raptor Red by Dr. Robert T. Bakker was immensely popular and influential despite having just a normal Utahraptor as the protagonist. Depending on how you write them, you may get some claims that you're anthropomorphizing your characters. Maybe you want that, maybe you don't. That's entirely up to you. We'll talk about anthropomorphism and disanthropomorphism later on.

That's it for tip #1 =] Just a simple pitfall that writers find themselves in. I apologize ahead of time as you're going to see a lot of non-creature scifi/fantasy fans and authors say sentient when they mean sapient, and it's going to start to irk you as you fix it in your own writing. Just remember to be kind =] Unless you're in a situation where the difference matters, it's probably best to let it slide if someone uses sentience where they mean sapience. If anyone has any questions about how creature fantasy, xenofiction, furry fiction, or animal fantasy differs from other genres, feel free to ask any questions, and I'll try to answer them.

[booksandpaperss]

How Stranger Things (poorly) handles racism as a topic compared other heavy topics it successfully tackles

before we get started, I would to direct you all to some other accounts who have already discussed this that you should check out either before or after reading this post: @wewebaggit @googoogagaeyes @elekinetic and anyone else please feel free to tag yourself or another account that’s discussed this and I’ll happily boost it

Content Warning for in show examples of racism and discussions of racism, as well as mentions of homophobia and the AIDES epidemic

.

. While we're discussing historical accuracy in stranger things and homophobia + ignorance being present even in well meaning characters, I want to point out that if the writers of the show weren't so squeamish about addressing racism in any in depth way, than this type of historical accuracy would be for racism too.

what I mean by this: in this sense, the show is not consistent. It's clear that the writers have done their research on 80s homophobia and how openly prevalent it was, if the AIDES allegory in season 2 and the way homophobia was very clearly present in seasons 1 and 2 (it still is in seasons 3 and 4 but the first 2 seasons showed it in the scope of the entire town), but racism was just as overtly prevalent, and yet the writers have neglected to address it in the same thoughtful and coded way. if the show was just as consistent about racism as it is about homophobia, than the white characters would be at the very least shown as ignorant just like the straight characters are.

and I'm not going to say that it's completely ignored, because that's not true:

-in season 2; mike makes an ignorant comment that implies Lucas should have been Winston because he's black, and Lucas calls him on it. There's also the very racist undertones (that are practically overtones) of Billy's treatment of Lucas. -There is almost nothing in season 3 except for a jokey joke when Nancy says the whole party is her family and the receptionist, who is a black woman, gives Lucas a skeptical look.

-Season 4 is a little better, with the implications (key word: implications, I'll come back to that in a moment) of Lucas's season 4 arc being that he was trying to fit in because he didn't want to be racially targeted and bullied for being a nerd at the same time anymore, that he felt like even more of an outsider compared to the rest of his otherwise all white friend group who, as far as he knows, are all cishet and giving him shit for wanting to lessen how much he's perceived as an outsider because he's automatically seen as even more of a "freak", and his friends just weren't getting it because they were white and ignorant. So the writers aren't blind to race and racism.

However. None of the examples that I've just listed are addressed later in any in depth way; not like the homophobia is. The only one that's even remotely delved into instead of simply being glossed over is Lucas's s4 arc, and even that is still very flitted around and left up to interpretation of the audience.

The writers seem to have a very "hit and run" sort of policy with addressing racism. They clearly know they should, and they at least seem to know that having a black character in an 80s setting with a cast of mostly white characters inherently creates a lot of racial subtext-

-for example, the very loud subtext of Jason (a white boy much older than Lucas) seeing Max (a white girl) in a trance alone with Lucas (a black boy) and immediately assuming the worst + Jason's white friends tackling an 11 year old black girl to the ground: subtext that I'm still not sure if the writers and directors were even aware of bc they never addressed it and their track record isn't great-

-but they hardly do anything about it.

I'm not surprised, considering this show is headed by two white men, but what really gets me is that they all truly could have tried harder. Like I said earlier, it's clear they've done research and put thought into addressing homophobia (it still could've been handled better but that's an entirely different conversation), and it's evident from Max's s4 arc that they also did research on Depression, PTSD, and the impacts on someone of their abusive family member dying. So the lack of care and thought put into addressing racism in the same way is clearly more than ignorance (which would still be bad, when you're writing a show this big in 2023 with topics like this you're actually, shocker, responsible for making sure they're addressed properly, ignorance is a choice at that point), its just fucking lazy. they don't care. And this not caring is inherently harmful on a show this big and frankly, I'm tired of so many viewers and people in this fandom straight up ignoring this fact, just like the show runners.

And I haven't even covered the complete lack of effort put into Patrick's backstory, or the fact that Erica is very much the sassy, mature for her age black girl stereotype (she deserves so much better). Oh, And we can’t forget the copaganda.

I'm glad that season 4 started to explore the dynamic between Lucas and Erica and expand on both their characters, and from the looks of things that will continue in season 5, so the writers have a chance to do their research, actually put effort more effort into the sinclair sibling’s characters, and improve, and I'm hoping they will but as of right now I don't trust them to, and won't unless they prove me wrong.

TDLR; the main issue is that Stranger Things is clearly a show that addresses topics like depression, abuse, homophobia, and racism, but the racism part is neglected compared to the others, just like how Lucas and Erica's characters are handled poorly compared to the white characters,. it's lazy, horribly insensitive, and racist in and of itself. There's a clear bias, and even if it improves in season 5 we still should be talking about it, and more white people (yes white queer people included, we are not exempt from this discussion, if anything we should care just as much about it as when we’re talking about homophobia) in this fandom need to start listening when black and brown people do talk about it instead of just waltzing through and ignoring it for your own peace of mind.

also I should clarify that I myself am white, I made sure I did research before making this post in order to talk about this accurately and consciously, but if I made any mistakes or said something insensitive or used an incorrect term or anything else, feel free to correct me and I will readily fix it

as a final note: please check my rebligs of this for links to more posts that talk abt this issue

[crooked-wasteland]

This is what happens when all criticism is bad faith.

You have a bad show that no one sticks around for. Something tells me she really thought Fizzarolli was going to bring people back. And the thing is, I legitimately think it did. But you have just pushed so many of your most loyal fans away, and a lot of them feel that the story they wanted to know is already finished. They know what happened with Fizzarolli and Blitz's family. They can tell whatever story they want now, and it'll make them far less frustrated or disappointed than waiting for you to stop plugging your ears.

If you would rather spend money for something like this, you could save so much more by just reaching out to your critics and actually listening. Then again, there is the possibility that you've just isolated people too far from you to give you a second chance even if you did. You don't handle yourself maturely on Twitter any more than you did here, and the Lackadaisy situation was the last straw for a lot of people to drop you and your show. All because you had to be petty and post the email online and encourage the harassment.

Bad faith would be conflating the fact you would pay for a puff article with questioning if you were involved with the news articles covering the Lackadaisy team and associating the studio and the show with "transphobia". I don't think anyone can truly claim that they know for sure, but this proves Medrano and her team are willing to mobilize outside media to try and prop themselves up.

Youtube videos make the most views in the first 3 days of a video's life. We are hitting that 3 day mark, meaning she is going to see a sharp decline in views from here on out. I think this video may reach about 12-15 million, but that's admittedly being generous and Medrano knows this.

I genuinely do think she thought more people would come back for this story than who actually did. It's not something I am necessarily happy in either. I thought and still think there are some really good ideas and inspiration for this show. But Medrano lacks the eye of a showrunner. If she had a better grasp on what it took to make a successful series, she would have known and budgeted for season 2 to be all about the Fizzarolli and Blitz relationship with Stolas and Blitz being the B plot and have IMP being the C plot. Have it run through the entire season to really immerse the audience and tell her story well. And I think that could have happened if she had only listened to criticism.

This is where she has found herself, however. Spending more money promoting her underperforming series instead of using those funds to make a good show. If she hired a writer's room instead of a press release, I think we would all be much happier.

I'm sorry, but I lose all respect for a show when the creator is paying money for a promotion piece because their views aren't maintaining like they thought they would, due to their own mismanagement of funds and public relations.

[writingquestionsanswered]

I've often heard that it's not okay to put any sort of worldbuilding info(dump) in a prologue. But what are the parameters in which it would work well? I know Avatar has done it and it was fairly brief but I'm just curious as to how far one can go with "infodumping" in a prologue without it becoming boring to the reader. Also if it does get to the point where it is too much or not necessary then what are some ways you can explain worldbuilding in the story when every character is usually in the know of how the magic system works or whatever?

Info-Dumping, Prologues, and Weaving In Details

First, it's important not to confuse "info-dumping" with providing information in your story. Info-dumping is specifically when you use exposition to "dump" a whole bunch of information into the story at once, rather than weaving those details into the narrative through a balance of exposition, action, and dialogue. In The Hunger Games, for example, details about Katniss's life and the oppressive world she lives in are doled out between exposition (her first-person thoughts), dialogue (with Gale), and action (walking through District 12, hunting outside the electric fence, the Reaping.) If it had been info-dumped, the entire first chapter would just be Katniss "telling" the reader all of those things rather than the reader getting to experience some of them through action and dialogue.

Prologues have a very specific use, are rarely needed, and are often misused--which is why writers are typically told to avoid them all together. Prologues aren't there to be used as an expository introduction to your story's world, characters, back story, or situation so that the reader is up and running in chapter one. Prologues are meant to house a scene (or small group of scenes) that take place before the main timeline of your story but which provide critical information and details the reader must know going into the story. Just as with any other scene or chapter, prologues need to be a balance of exposition (explaining), action (things happening), and dialogue. A good example is the prologue at the beginning of George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones. The scene takes place north of the wall and features some Night's Watch rangers encountering a White Walker. This scene is important because it sets up the hidden conflict at the heart of the story--the battle between humanity and the magical undead ice beings from beyond the wall. While we do certainly get some expository information in the way of world building, character details, and back story, it isn't dumped on the reader. Some of it is expository, but the rest is woven into the action and dialogue as these characters range beyond the wall and encounter the White Walker.

Even when your characters are "in the know" about the details of your story, that doesn't mean they can't think about them, interact with them, or talk about them. In the real world, we may not do that a lot, but books are not the real world. Books are a storytelling device which requires you to transcend some everyday realities in order to keep the audience informed of what's going on. Part of that means finding ways for your characters to think about, interact with, or talk about things that will help deliver the necessary details to your reader. For example, in The Hunger Games, we get a lot of world building details and Hunger Games set up through action and dialogue while Katniss walking through District 12 to meet Gale, and then hunting with him in the meadow. The entire scene exists solely to introduce the reader to Katniss, her world, the people who are important to her, her internal conflict, and the story's external conflict.

Have a look at my post Weaving Details into the Story for more help. Happy writing!

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I’ve been writing seriously for over 30 years and love to share what I’ve learned. Have a writing question? My inbox is always open!

Learn more about WQA

Visit my Master List of Top Posts

Go to ko-fi.com/wqa to buy me coffee or see my commissions

[fahbee]

No Nightingales

We, the audience, know what that means. But how do Crowley and Aziraphale know?

Crowley makes it a point to deliver this line in the most 'pay attention, this is important' way possible. "Listen. Do you hear that?" Dramatic pause. And after Aziraphale says he doesn't hear anything, Crowley continues, "That's the point. No Nightingales." Followed by, “You idiot. We could have been… us.”

Let’s talk about it.

This is the first time in the show that nightingales are explicitly, openly referred to between Aziraphale and Crowley. Prior to this moment we had God's narration and the song playing on the piano during their romantic celebratory lunch at the Ritz. But no one in-universe has mentioned the song, or alluded to its importance or its meaning to Aziraphale and Crowley.

But during this painful 'breakup' scene, not only does Crowley refer to nightingales, but he does so in a way that is makes it clear that "nightingales" is actually a code between them meaning “us”.

After Crowley says “no nightingales” Aziraphale looks hurt, almost offended. Then Crowley says "we could have been... us" (past tense) and Aziraphale's heart breaks. He quickly looks away because he knows he isn't capable of hiding this pain. We briefly see this about-to-cry expression when Crowley grabs him for the kiss. In other words, Crowley saying "no nightingales" is understood by both of them to mean "our romance, our 'us', has ended before it even truly began."

Think about what this must mean for the rest of their 1941 interaction that we have yet to see. "A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square" was published in 1940. I think it’s clear that the first time they heard that song together, they had a breakthrough in their relationship. It might have been a baby step - but it was a significant one. Something happened between them to make "nightingales" code for "us" and it makes perfect sense for that breakthrough to have happened during their romantic 1941 encounter.

But I don't think it was anything as dramatic or earth-shattering as a kiss or a confession. I think it's clear that the bookshop kiss at the end of s2 was their first kiss, and Crowley's "we've spent our existence pretending that we aren't" speech is the first time either one of them as put their feelings for each other in such plain language. Nina's "have you been together long" talk with Crowley, and his subsequent shell-shocked reaction to it, points to Crowley not even really being fully aware that what Aziraphale and Crowley feel for each other looks like romantic love to outsiders because it actually is romantic love.

So what the hell happened in 1941? I am confident that we're going to find out in s3. My guess is that they continued drinking into the night, at some point one of them turned on the radio, and then the song came on. My hope is that Crowley asks Aziraphale to dance, which Aziraphale promptly and nervously turns down (call back to the s2 line "You don't dance.") but this leads them into a discussion about their importance to one another, even if they can't actually demonstrate it explicitly - no dancing, no touching, etc. Then finally, at the end, one of them plainly ties "nightingales" to their relationship in the most achingly romantic way possible. "You'll always have me, until the world ends, until the nightingale stops singing." I'm no writer, but you see what I mean.

I also think "no nightingales" means that when Aziraphale and Crowley finally do reunite and explicitly become an "us" (complete with do-over kiss) we'll get a line of dialogue referencing the nightingale once again.

[redysetdare]

I think the reason I'm willing to give so much leeway to shows describing asexual as "a lack of attraction" without specifically saying sexual attraction is because

1. Most of society doesn't follow the split attraction model so when used in a non-sam way that definition can work

2. That's how I used to identify and how many others used to and still do identify. Hearing asexual described like that made it easier to find resources which lead to me finding I'm aromantic.

Yes, I know a non-sam allo audience and writers aren't looking at the asexual identity from the complex lense of there being non-sam aces and sam aces. I'm not saying that they are or can't be criticized.

What I am saying is that saying "asexual never means no romantic attraction" as an answer to the lack of aro rep is... Not always the case and is ignoring the wider issue of the split attraction model not being a widely used model outside of the aspec community.

I think it's important to realize that for some people, asexual does mean lack of sexual and romantic attraction. Similar to how for some people aro means lack of both as well. It depends on if the person sees their romantic and sexual attraction as the same thing or not. It depends on what label they are most comfortable with.

Yes we need more aro characters in media! Yes we need more ace characters who use definitions of asexual as "lack of sexual attraction" because we need more rep and we need writers who understand the identities they are writing for. But I don't hold it against anyone for describing ace as a lack of both attractions, because for some people that is how it is for them. I don't think we should get rid of that rep fully, but we should work on getting more informed representation in media to really show the spectrum of aro and ace identities.

I still think the representation we have right now is fine, even if you think the definition is "wrong". I think we can still do better and demand better representation without possibly hurting people who do identify with this "wrong" definition.

[xerith-42]

Stop blaming characters for bad writers

Seriously, stop fucking doing this. While this is a post that could certainly be applicable to MANY fandoms, I'm mainly directing this whole rant at my target audience which is mentally ill minecraft obsessed freaks.

If a character is written badly, gets badly fumbled by the creator, or has the ball dropped in regards to their arc in some way, a lot of people will blame the character, as if they're a real conscious person making these decisions. When they aren't. They're a block man literally being controlled by two people who just aren't very good writers and one or both of them are incredibly sexist, kind of racist, ableist, and just bad writers in general.

Yeah, Laurance does some pretty shitty things through out Season 2 of MCD, actively crossing lines he wouldn't have previously crossed. We as fans can cope by saying something something calling, or just saying Laurance is a bad abusive person, but the reality is that the writers wanted to force the series to fit a specific vision and as a result were willing to do anything to get the series to that point. In order to make Aaron the most favorable suitor for Aphmau, her previous suitors need to be out of the picture, or clearly inferior options.

Garroth suffered the out of the picture, being mostly absent outside of a few cutscenes here and there until episode 81 of season 2, but episode 81 is the culmination of the writers goals to make Aarmau happen. By the time Garroth has returned to the series, the damage has already been done. He's not getting the life he wants. And Laurance is written out of the picture as well, but only after being shown to be inferior because Jesson were pushing an agenda.

Laurance didn't deteriorate as a person due to neglect of his physical and mental well being after a severely traumatic experience. He deteriorated as a character because the writers stopped giving as much of a shit about him and instead were using the series as self indulgent fanfiction of alternate versions of themselves. That's not Laurance's fault.

And this applies to any character who was completely fumbled in MyStreet due to this similar focus on wish fulfillment from the writers. Jess has stated that the relationship between Aphmau and Aaron in Phoenix Drop High is reflective of her relationship with Jason, we all know this. This means that any characters who come off as total fucking creeps in that series (namely Gene), are not actually acting on the whims of their own autonomy or desires as characters. They are acting in service of telling a predetermined story that they are retroactively being added into for author fulfillment.

In this regard I fully support fandom cope and say that you should rewrite your little guys to your hearts content. But if you're going to criticize these characters for their actions, don't criticize them. They didn't do anything wrong. All characters are just puppets in service of the story or themes a writer is trying to push. If a character acts in an objectively terrible way, especially a way that isn't in line with their previous characterizations, that is a failing of the writers, not the character.

And I feel like largely a lot of us can and frequently do this. We're actively criticizing Jesson for being terrible low-key bigoted writers all the god damn time, it's like half of the content here. But when we get into character discourse I feel like some people cling onto bad actions of the canon too closely and I've seen more than a few posts presume some pretty terrible interpretations of characters based on these actions. Obviously Laurance is a character I and a lot of others are fixated on so a lot of discourse revolves around him, and it was seeing some... interesting takes on him that prompted me to start writing this post.

But this happens to everyone. Quite personally based on the character I was shown in MyStreet, it feels really weird that Garroth would make an insensitive comment about his brother's weight. Yeah siblings poke fun at each other and often cross lines, but if that was something Zane was seriously insecure about (which it seems like he might be) then it does make Garroth come off as a really insensitive brother, which just doesn't gel with how hard he tries to bond with Zane despite their tense relationship. And I don't think Garroth should be criticized for making those comments.

Whoever wrote those lines (Jess and/or Jason) should be criticized for writing a scene where a character is mocked by their older sibling over a physical insecurity even if said sibling would not normally do that. It's not Travis' fault that Jesson never decided to give him more of a character beyond "funny pervy guy" that's not funny in every anime they've watched until Season 5 of MyStreet. It's unfair to try and say Travis should be scrutinized for his borderline sexual harassment of some characters when it's not his fault that happened, he was written by writers who don't think this sort of behavior isn't all that bad if they make it out for comedy and punch him in the face.

And god dammit it's not Laurance's fault that his jealousy became the most prevalent emotion he felt. Laurance has always been a character to give into his vices and yet fight against them at the same time, it's what makes him compelling. If they were going to pull on those vices in order to make him a less appealing love interest, he never had a chance to really be his own character after a certain point. Because at a certain point in Season 2, Jesson stopped caring about the character they had been writing for over a hundred episodes at that point. They just wanted to canonize their self insert ship and were willing to do anything to get it.

Laurance isn't an abusive angry person who would have killed Aphmau if they got together. He's a flawed character being handled by incredibly flawed writers who are prone to making some of the worst decisions you have ever seen a creator make in regards to their character writing. He was caught in the crossfire of the adoration he received from a very dedicated fanbase, and the creator who would rather pretend he and his previous arc didn't exist for the sake of her fun. It's not Laurance's fault his arc was stilted, jerked around, and ultimately ended with him completely face planting. And yet still reliably dragging his bloodied body up at just the slightest glimmer of hope (Void Paradox).

It's deeply poetic and tragic that I can describe his character in universe and in the meta-textual sense that way, but we should never blame Laurance, or Aaron, or any other characters for things being like this.

They didn't write the show. Jess and Jason did.

[jess-the-vampire]

I loved the finale but kinda wished hunter got to stomp belos too then sobs from happiness knowing it’s finally over or belos stuck in the between realm forever or reliving his worse nightmare as a fate worse than death

Honestly the finale felt so odd to me because we felt like were were getting setups that just were not given resolution in the finale.

And these are setups post cut, so these are things the writers had to have planned while knowing their time, which makes it more odd to me.

like at that point the focus should be to only set up things you are going to touch on and that come back into play, not add things you don't.

I personally don't think hunter needed to watch belos die, but when the show gave him new powers last episode i kinda expected them to like....come back in the finale?

like hunter's dash has no role in the finale at all, it was useful for the one scene he got regarding willow and gus and figuring out flapjack is with him and everything.....but it's one episode before the finale and it is completely forgotten after the fact outside of a couple dashes in the archive that are relatively minor.

and he ends up getting a new palsiman anyway so it just feels....off to me. I mean i was expecting him to get a new palisman but it now almost makes his dash a bit more irrelevant to even have.

kinda like how they kill glyphs, but we get glyphs at the end anyway so why the loss at all if it's not really going to stick?

honestly, let's ignore the fact the way belos died really should not have killed him for a second, Eda, Raine, and King are the characters with some of the least interactions with belos at all in the show.

Like his rule had affects on these characters and their loved ones and he did try to have eda killed, but when you think of belos' victims.....these three tend not to not be the first 3 you think of.

i kinda think the death would of been a little better if none of them jumped in and the rain just did it.

There was some minor set up for camilia or the other kids to help finish him off so i almost think it would've been more fitting if they were the ones to do it if we HAD to have that.

i dunno man, i've heard all the arguments for why belos's death works, and a lot of it seems to be rooted in the fact that "Belos is not complicated, he's evil, he doesn't need a big death and yada yada"

but it's like, it's not that belos isn't complicated, it's that the show seemed too afraid of making him complicated. I mentioned this in my last belos post but there's lots of evidence to suggest he's a more 3d character, because of how his story ties into the stories of other characters, because he symbolically represents what people who grow up in these oppressive systems can turn into. There's a lot of real potential for belos to stand out as a villian that comes from sympathetic origins but can't be forgiven or redeemed.

Which is a good lesson for kids, that people can come from bad spots but that doesn't mean you can forgive their actions.

Something that would be far more revolutionary and interesting and tie into the themes of this show much better.....then implying his depth, not committing to it and making him generic, and everyone praising this as if generic big bads who get killed aren't extremely common in most shows.

Su was a rare exception of redeeming a big bad, not the norm, and everyone seems to be under the weird vast impression it's the other way around. Unless you're a lacky, you die as a villain in pretty much every show.

But instead that gets replaced with "Well he did it cause he's inherently a bad person", even tho the show directly told us the audience that he was in indoctrinated child when it came to witch hunting, that this wasn't something he got into because he wanted to but because he NEEDED to survive in the town.

The show has plenty of set up and evidence that he does have something deeper to him but backed out of it for one reason or another.

And remember here, they were cut at ER, so they added this whole caleb backstory AFTER the cut, so even if were were to say they wanted belos to be deeper and changed their mind.....they added all the bits that implied depth AFTER the cut.

like frankly, in retrospect, if you want belos to just be an ozai metaphor esq character and not have any depth to his villainy at all, caleb should of been entirely cut.

Do something different with hunter, because having this half finished thing with caleb that is not relevant to belos's end at all feels like baiting the audience with complexity they never get.

You could of easily just reduced philip's backstory as just being this witch hunter who went missing years ago and that would be more fitting of making belos one note as they want him to be during the finale.

having all this drama with his brother leaving him for a witch and philip acting out in response feels strange to even implement if it's not even going to be touched on that much.

the show draws so much attention to it too, which makes it extra odd.

'They wanted to tell a story in the bg for the audience to figure out", ok, so that implied they want us to care about belos's origin....right??? So why not pay that off and reward those you got invested?

Having a little story to figure out is neat but not when its the basis for the plot and not when it's existence is gonna be boiled down to "Well none of this is relevant to why he became evil. He was just like that".

like having his backstory told like this could of been great, but the show ends saying belos is not complex and that none of this matters to why he's evil despite caleb clearly being important in why belos hates witches to begin with.

i might be less bothered if i knew the crew wanted to showcase the brother's story someday but they don't even seem to be high on the list of toh spinoff ideas.

it all feels like teasing a really compelling story that tied into the themes and then dropping it last minute. And now people are rewarding that because apparently now making villains just evil is revolutionary despite the fact this has been done to hell and back since the dawn of time.

Belos went from potentially being one of the most standout modern day antagonists, to being just like everyone else, and i'm not sure why everyone thinks that's supposed to be a good thing when we had the potential to look back at toh and reward them for diving into what can make people into a belos and the cautionary tale behind it.

and now instead of being memorable in that category for doing something interesting, he's just gonna be looped in with every other generic modern day big bad who represents this specific kind of evil.

If belos is not going to actually be allowed to be complex, don't bait the audience into thinking he is.