#To see a character who is introduced as being capable and having conflict in her own right have most of her subsequent scenes

[panvani]

Person writing 2 paragraphs about how the way people treat Jeanne VnC is insaneeellyyyy misogynistic but somehow choose the 1 complaint that seems that it could be totally sincerely delivered in good faith

[mayasaura]

This might be the most "well duh" statement in history, but something I'm really looking forward to in Alecto the Ninth is.... Alecto.

We've seen little glimpses of her here and there, through the Body and through Nona, and the picture I see them painting is definitely of someone who has been hurt very badly, and who is very angry about it, but there's more to it. She's more complicated than that.

She's conflicted about necromancy itself:

It's not that she hates or fears necromancy—it "feels nice", she has positive associations with it, but it also makes her sad that Palamedes is capable of doing it at all. Is that regret? Does Alecto regret having introduced necromancy into the world? Does she consider herself to share in responsibility for the consequences?

Does that have to do with why she's frightened of herself, and of who she thinks she'll become if she remembers herself? She's understandably afraid to remember what was done to her, but she's also afraid of the person she'll be once she does. She thinks that person—Alecto—is incapable of love.

And it could be that her fear is only of being a person who has suffered. That she doesn't want the pain. But this series has never been shy about complicating that narrative. No one in this story is a perfect victim. Very few characters have avoided suffering terrible and undeserved harm, and few have avoided causing it.

I want to know who Alecto is. Why Nona thinks that Alecto, who is defined by love, whose final words were "I still love you," is incapable of loving. Even more, I want to know why Alecto's later actions make that fear seem kind of.... reasonable. Why the Body—who was never anything but gentle and kind to Harrow—hurts Harrow on waking, and seems to not even understand hurt has been done.

Who else has Alecto hurt, and how does she understand it? What harm has she caused, and how is she going to face up to it? What role will Harrow and her relationship with Alecto play in that?

I have some ideas, but I don't really know. And I dunno. I'm pretty stoked to think we might find out.

[anthurak]

One of the more subtle details about Hazbin Hotel that I’m particularly interested to see is what the actual Power Dynamics between the various characters are going to look like.

Because with everything we’ve seen from Helluva Boss, I have a hunch that there has actually been a bit of misdirection going on in the promotional material. Specifically in how the Overlords like Valentino, Vox, Velvette and even Alastor are presented as these very powerful and dangerous threats to the Hotel and that Charlie and Vaggie are probably in way over their heads trying to deal with them.

Buuuttt… then we ALSO have everything that Vivzie has mentioned behind-the-scenes about the class and power rankings of Hell. Specifically, the fact that apparently only the most powerful of the Overlords like Valentino and Alastor can be considered simply on par with the Goetic Nobility like Stolas in terms of power. Or even more notably, the fact that Charlie herself is apparently just as, if not MORE powerful than the Kings of SIN.

And thanks to Helluva Boss, we have a pretty good idea just HOW POWERFUL the likes of Asmodeus, Bee-lzebub and Mammon are. Which in turn could very well be giving us a hint of just how powerful Charlie might be.

Basically, I have a hunch that both the audience AND the Sinners (even those close to Charlie like Angel Dust) are MASSIVELY underestimating just how POWERFUL the Princess of Hell REALLY is. Like how her normally upbeat, friendly, ‘Disney Princess’, ‘Just wants to help everyone’ demeanor belies the fact that she may very well be fully capable of obliterating the likes of Valentino, Vox or even Alastor with EASE if she really wanted to.

Imagine if this ends up being a big reveal at some point? Like we get these subtle hints in the early episodes that Charlie may be quite a bit more powerful than she’s really letting on, perhaps by giving us a glimpse at what her parents are capable of. Until at some point one of the Overlords just takes things a bit too far. Say, Valentino is getting ready to full-on destroy the hotel, or about to straight-up kill Angel Dust for good with one of those Blessed Weapons we know are floating around?

Only for Charlie to just straight up DELETE Val with a metaphorical snap of her fingers.

And before I go into the broader narrative implications of all this, it’s also worth mentioning that this deliberate underestimation could apply to Vaggie as well. Because if Vaggie really is a former Exorcist, ie; a Fallen Angel like a lot of people are theorizing, this would likely mean that she’s fully capable of permanently killing Sinners, even the Overlords, if she really wanted to. Meaning that while Vaggie might not be as powerful as Charlie, she is no less DEADLY.

(As an aside, regarding the ‘mechanics’ of what could make Charlie so dangerous to sinners beyond simply raw power: We know that Sinners can only permanently die to Angelic Weapons. In other words, the ‘Holy’ power of the Angels and Heaven destroys them for good. And remember who Charlie’s father is? Not just an angel, but one of the most powerful angels to ever exist.)

What I find so interesting about all this is that it could completely upend a lot of the character and power dynamics we might be expecting. For example, totally recontextualizing Alastor’s motivations in supporting Charlie and her Hotel; as powerful as he might be, he’s still far beneath Charlie.

As well as introduce what could be Charlie’s real personal conflict and arc for the show. Because Charlie still wants to HELP the sinners of Hell, and almost certainly doesn’t want to be or act like some all-powerful being lording over subjects they consider fall beneath them. Even though she could.

And of course, being an ultimate overlord is very likely what Lucifer will be ENCOURAGING Charlie to be. Which in turn feeds nicely into Charlie’s conflict with her father.

Finally, let’s consider Charlie’s motivation, paired with what she could become: She wants everyone to be happy and safe and generally the best, and she has the absolute POWER to IMPOSE her idea of ‘happiness’ and ‘goodness’ on others if she really wanted to.

Now is it just me, or does that sound a LOT like what we saw of HEAVEN in Helluva Boss?

What if Hazbin Hotel ultimately presents Heaven, the Angels and possibly God him/her/themself as the TRUE antagonist of the show, AND a full-on villainous counterpart to Charlie?

[sugar-grigri]

Crazy theory, but since I don't really read them, I don't know if it's ever been mentioned before.

I've already talked about this urge to discover the demon of death. So much so that fans see them in every new character introduced.

We know that Pochita punctuates both the birth and death of demons with his chainsaws.

I've always been surprised by the way Pochita calmly took hold of Makima, allowing Denji to knowingly save her by recommending that he give her love

Just as I'm surprised by Fami's interest in separating Chainsaw Man just as Yoru is stubbornly intent on revenge

How can these three horsemen of the apocalypse have so much interest and connection with a single demon?

We already know that Fujimoto has opted for the metaphorical, choosing the instrument designed for childbirth: the chainsaw, as the keystone of his story.

Chainsaw Man is intrinsically linked to birth and death

Denji's rebirth alone is linked to death having been cut up as well as Pochita?

Demons are born out of fear of one thing, so I know it might be strange that Pochita, representing chainsaws, represents death and isn't the chainsaw demon.

But two things: firstly, the impostor is actually the real chainsaw demon.

Fujimoto likes to undo our first impressions, so I find it absolutely INCREDIBLE that Denji should be the impostor from the start, the false Chainsaw Man in a part 2 that focuses on identity.

Secondly, how can simple chainsaws have so much power? I mean, sure, they're scary, but how can they have so much power as to be able to wipe out demons? Why should it be the chainsaw demon who's capable of this, and death remains crouched in the shadows?

This would also explain his promiscuity with the other Knights of the Apocalypse.

The demon of control wanted to play with Pochita - death was the only thing she couldn't totally control, the only thing she aspired to be on an equal footing with.

If Pochita understood her so well, it was as the fourth knight of the apocalypse. If Makima considered him her equal, it was because she couldn't control a demon she knew to be of her own rank. The logic follows with Nayuta.

The demon of war doesn't accept death, it accepts to spread it through conflicts and weapons of mass murder, but a general doesn't accept that death can touch him too. To spread death represents victory, to be touched by it a defeat that demands vengeance.

Famine works hand in hand with death, and is feared because suffering and death are the end result of not being able to eat. She's the one with the clearest goal at the moment: to save humanity. She doesn't hesitate to recruit her fellow Apocalypse members, whether it's proposing it to Nayuta, trying to recruit Asa and Yoru, or splitting Chainsaw Man in two to work with the pure state of the death demon.

The public hunters' aim is also to protect mankind from Nostradamus' prophecy, but by paralyzing death's actions as much as possible. They exploit Denji's flaws and desire to be normal to the full, threatening those around him. While the church, represented by Fami, titillates Denji's heroic side, his abnormalities, they want death to act.

It would also explain why everyone close to Denji is disappearing.

All the signs are pointing to Asa's imminent atrocity.

Wouldn't it be incredible to think that it's because death is in Denji's belly ?

Everything would then make sense: it's normal for Denji's development to stagnate, and for him to go through so many existential crises.

He doesn't know his own identity

What's more, it doesn't contradict my most meta theories: Fujimoto places himself in the work through Denji (cf. chapter 133), just as he responds directly to his fans (chapters 136 and 137).

We're all hating him, seeing all our favorite characters meet unfortunate deaths

It would all make sense if the manga we were holding in our hands, "Chainsaw Man", actually referred directly to death right from the start.

It would all make sense if we saw Part 1 as Denji's introduction to the ranks of hunters governed by an early death.

It would make sense for Aki's love for him to be a metaphor for accepting death, in the continuity of mourning.

It would make sense for Power to be reassured by Death when traumatized by the demon of darkness: she died twice for love, and the total disappearance of body and spirit allows us to escape the darkness.

I don't know if this theory holds, but let's agree...

It's poetic

[beforetimes]

what's irritating about jean's character in the original trilogy is that when she's first introduced through her interaction with senator kelly in x-man (2000), she's very clearly depicted as an intelligent and capable woman. it's very easy to assume that she's the de facto face of the school because she went as a spokesperson for mutants despite charles also being in the crowd.

so to take this character we become acclimated to independent of her relationship with other characters and to suddenly switch-up to have her become a plaything for scott and logan to fight over is very jarring. and i'm not trying to say that i thought she could only be discussed in the context of her relationship with logan and scott but outside of that initial scene where she's speaking up for her fellow mutants, there's very little care given to her as a character.

in x-men (2000), 90% of her dialogue feels like it's solely dedicated to this flirting game going on between her and logan. she barely feels like a character and exists solely to be a roadblock or the 'sexy lamp' archetype in the movie. we just barely see her at all. i feel one scene where her presence would've made sense and built up more of her character would be where storm goes to speak to senator kelly so he's not alone when he dies. since we're introduced to kelly through an argument with jean, wouldn't it be a full circle moment to go back to him conversing with her before accepting his death and they both make peace with each other? i just feel they really wasted her character in this first film.

i feel like in x2 (2003) they became somewhat aware of the criticism (i'm assuming as much at least) because she exists as a person outside of the context of her relationship with logan and scott. but even then it's very little and the most we learn about her is she's conflicted/having trouble concerning her powers and wants scott.

now, at the end she has her moment of nobel sacrifice where she knows the only way she can save everyone is by dying herself. and it feels like an incredibly shoehorned in last-minute decision to get her out of the way as well as having something to point at to say 'see, she has more depth here! would a shallow character do this?' which like, if executed right could have given her more depth. but at this moment in time the only reason we're sad about jean dying is because logan and scott are sad. not because we lost a particularly fleshed out character.

even at the end of x2 where charles gives this speech and declares she made a choice to save everyone at her own expense in the attempt to add some posthumous value to her character in the series, 'her choice' is immediately co-opted by logan to centre around the two male love interests again. i don't understand this insistence that jean grey can not exist as a character without having her tied back to logan and scott in every aspect again and again and again.

x-men the last stand (2006) is the worst of the trio for her character. boiling her down to this character who kills scott, tries to manipulate logan with sex, has a dark alter ego, and kills the man who raised her feels like a blatant attempt to just entirely ruin her character to make people who might have even liked her a bit just hate her. which sounds cartoonishly evil but is genuinely the impression i got sometimes. she swung from this character who existed only as a love-interest to this seductress-type character where she tries to satiate lust or something like that through logan after killing her long time lover. and she needs to be 'put out of her misery', cycling between this evil sexual version of herself and this innocent sad person that's appealing to logan to fix everything for her.

x2 ended with her dying for everyone. the last stand has her asking logan why he would die for everyone, directly contradicting her final statement in the last movie. it's like jean doesn't even mean anything to the writers anymore. she's a love interest. she's a sacrificial lamb. she's an evil seductress with no remorse. she's only evil because of an alter ego and otherwise she's still pure and innocent. like what the fuck is going on.

she dies begging to be saved. she gets put down like a dog after logan says he loves her. and that's all we get. just ridiculous. the original trilogy treats her character like absolute garbage.

at least in the days of future past-verse she's allowed to be a character. she's snarky and has a developed camaraderie with someone other than her love interest. her powers are displayed more before immediately spiralling into her being destructive and we get an emotional connection with her built up. she feels like an actual character. dark phoenix was still awful but we at least get a more complex version of this arc which is something she takes control of.

by the time we get to dark phoenix and jean sacrifices herself again it feels much more earned. she has quite literally no other choice but to stop herself and she isn't left to herself to spiral out of control. she doesn't need someone to come in and kill her to put her out of her misery because she is a character who is repressed and angry with good reason and has people who love her more than just romantically. she has a connection with these people, a reason to save them and to give herself up rather than having to ask someone to do it for her.

like, whatever man. it's five in the morning and i was thinking about this and just got so frustrated. the original trilogy was so deeply committed to making her the shallowest character they could manage. maybe in a misguided attempt for her to act as an audience stand in with logan and/or scott? i don't know. i wish we got to know the intelligent woman we got introduced to in the beginning of the first x-men movie instead of whatever plot device she became.

[dust-jacket-analysis]

One of the more frustrating things about miraculous is that it could be so well written.

(Spoilers, duh)

Like... we see instances of good and nuanced writing. We see it in the episodes of Chloe's (wasted) redemption arc (still not over it). We see it in the realistic ways Marinette Copes with the trauma and pressure of being a superhero at 13/14. Just everything to do with the Agrestes' is so good (it really deserved to be in a show with a TV 14 rating or higher IMO).

It's in the way Marinette and Chat Noir foil/juxtapose each other. Marinette's Kwami is the Kwami of creation, Adrien's is the Kwami of destruction. Marinette is trapped and overwhelmed with the responsibilities of her hero life, Adrien finds freedom in it.

These things PROVE that the writers are capable of writing a good show. Proves that they could if they really wanted to. And I don't know why they don't want too. Or why the fumble it every chance they get.

Even the nuggets of good writing in the love square show it (and is then wasted, a separate post entirely).

But then the writers do things like Chloe's character assassination and the sloppy way they write in Zoe (I love her but that was a hot mess).

The numerous identity reveals only to be taken back through time. Just the way they generally drag that out is absurd. An Identity reveal wouldn't make the show less interesting. In fact, it'd introduce a whole bunch of new conflicts that would make the show MORE interesting. We could watch as Ladybug and Chat Noire navigate being in a relationship and fighting Akuma's (or whatever new threat there is). Trying not to let their protectiveness of each other get in the way of their duties as Paris's superheroes. Maybe see them try and hide their relationship when they're in their superhero persona's so no one can exploit that in each other. Or they don't and have a whole plot line geared towards the media harassment they face as a result of being Paris's new number one couple (tie it into Adrien and how he's had to deal with media harassment all his life? Show the unhealthy effects of that, and also show how Marinette has to learn to cope with it).

The Hawkmoth reveal could've been devastating. Watching them fight, watching both of them realize who he is. Adrien having to try and pick himself up and keep fighting, Marinette realizing how he must be feeling and trying to take on more of the burden. The impacts of both of those things after.

I will say I like the way it was handled in the show given what we had so far. I like how many secrets Marinette has to keep from Adrien. I really want to see how she copes with that much of a burden. And eventually, I'm excited to see what happens when he learns how much is being kept from him. How he copes with that, and how that effects and warps their relationship.

I really do just wish Miraculous would take advantage of its premise more. Of the love square it set up and the lore it has to explore. But it's held back by being a kid's show. it floats in between, trying to cater to its majority audience (teens and young adults) and its original but minority audience (kids). It has dark premises but is too formulaic to take advantage of those premises. It has the potential for an extremely nuanced dynamic in the love square but doesn't take advantage of it because of how it (once again) needs to be formulaic.

I also wish it would lean more into maturing with its audience. We see it start to do that in seasons 3+ but it still teeters the edge between kid's show and young adult show (that children could watch because it doesn't have sex or swearing or anything). It's been on for almost a decade, everything who was originally watching is all grown up. So acknowledge that and let your show grow up with them.

I do have hopes for the new season and the London special. I think the writers are finally becoming more plot-heavy and realizing who the audience they have is. Rather than the audience they were aiming for. But it aches to think of all the content we could've had if the writers had been on their game the whole time. Instead, we have a loveable, lacking, sloppy mess of a show that has gripped my soul. The hyperfixation is real.

[lover-of-mine]

No, because the thing is, 911 has 3 established main couples, 2 we see them getting together, bathena and madney, and the other is introduced to us already established, henren are already married when we get introduced to Karen. But an interesting thing there for me, is that Karen is introduced to us while Hen does something that most people find unforgivable, cheating, which makes us sympathize with Karen even though Karen technically only exists to be Hen's wife, so even tho the audience is usually biased towards the main character, we end up caring about Karen more, which makes it so even though she only exists through Hen, we like her, we like them together. Madney and Bathena on the other hand work because they exist individually, we care about all four of them, the relationship is an extra point for the character, it's not why they're there, so it works because we are not heavily biased in any direction. And that's the thing that makes me question what's going on with the love interests for Buck and Eddie. Ali barely existed for us but there's a really heavy point against her with the whole not being able to deal with Buck's job. Taylor is right off the bat introduced to us as someone who will use anything to get on top, including wanting to capitalize on Bobby's addiction, so we always end up suspicious of her because she was willing to hurt a character we care about for her own gain, so she never really had a chance, she only exists through Buck, and she already hurt someone else, so most of us don't care that Buck cheated on her and we're not really surprised when she uses the Jonah thing, so no real chance there. Natalia is a little too excited about Buck's death at first, I personally can't get past the cool comment, that feels insensitive but maybe that's just me, but either way she learned more about Buck and she left, so right now, she only exists through Buck and we know she's capable of leaving at any inconveniences (I don't really think finding out the guy you're trying to date is a sperm donor and is gonna end up housing the mother is just an inconvenience but you get me) so we will be heavily biased towards Buck on any future conflict because Buck is the only one we care about there and she left him before. Imma add Lucy here because it's also interesting the way that Lucy is the one that has the best fighting chances here, Buck and Luck could work and be a fun couple to watch, Lucy is a firefighter so it would be easy to make her exist outside of Buck and make the relationship balanced but the whole kissing Buck while he's drunk and dating someone else makes it so most people will be biased against it, the same cheating thing that makes us root for Karen and despise Eva, ends up working here, even if it's very mild version because we don't really like Taylor. And like, Shannon, she was always written to be fridged, it is very clear that Eddie was always planned to be a single dad army vet widower, so she never had a fighting chance to begin with, but she left Christopher, abandoned Eddie to deal with it all, so most people would never root for her anyway, because even Eddie is shown as not sure of her. I kinda think Ana falls into the same category as Ali, I don't think we see enough of her to care about her, but the panic attacks really kill her chances even if she didn't have something wrong about her introduction. And, well, Marisol has 3 seconds of screen time, there's not enough information to do anything there. Also, I think Lena falls in the same category as Lucy, it could work if they really wanted (I don't think they did) but Lena was the person that took Eddie to the first fight so she has points against her.

So the thing is, the show knows how to build relationships, so what the fuck are they doing with Buck and Eddie considering they are making sure they work together and individually if there isn't some sort of plan to eventually get them together?

[carefulfears]

if y'all don't mind me talking about those fish for the second night in a row...i just love all of the little details of characterization on this show so much and i think mulder's fish are a perfect example of this

(you can find my last post about them here)

mulder has fish as early as the first episode of season two, about which set decorator shirley inget said on the DVD extras, "so, we got him a fish tank, and it's kinda nice, 'cause he's got a little pet at home"

the fish are his pets! they're what he comes home to, and the tank is tucked in the corner of the one area of his apartment that he actually uses, that he's actually comfortable in, right in between the couch and his desk

it's why we're so familiar with it and see it so often

he's literally always sitting next to it

it’s always tended to, cared for, and decorated. filled with rocks and plants.

and, of course, his UFO aquarium accessory. which, you could say he saw at the pet store and bought, i would argue that it was a gift from someone

after mulder leaves in season nine, the tank and his fish can be seen in scully's apartment

throughout the show, we see scully, doggett, and van blundt feed the fish, with both scully and doggett pausing in mulder's apartment to feed them whenever they come over while he's away

mulder jokes about them when running off on an assignment in the pine bluff variant

and checks on them upon returning after his abduction, immediately noticing that one is gone

the thing about this to me is, that mulder is a natural caretaker. we see this kick in instantly with his mother, with scully, and with all of the victims and witnesses on the cases that he takes on.

above anything else, mulder is defined by being the big brother, and he's good at instinctually caring for others

however, one of the many contradictions and conflicts of his character, is that the flipside of that core defining characteristic is that he's the big brother who lost his baby sister. who, at least from his point of view, failed at caring for her and keeping her safe, and never allows himself another chance

he isolates, he will not let himself connect to or focus on anything other than work, he doesn't own a bed. he doesn't see his family, him and scully "just work together," he packs up and leaves town 48 hours after his baby is born. safer without him there, that oughta protect everyone.

isn't that the joke of fish? they're the pet for people who can't take care of something real, who aren't capable, who don't have the time. they're low-maintenance, they don't expect anything from you, they're the starter.

they're how you introduce a child to responsibility, to looking after something that's alive.

mulder could have something real, but just like he stays confined to that one corner of his meticulously decorated apartment, he stays confined to that entry level of connection and responsibility. he picks out rocks and plants and sets up aquarium bobbers and makes sure they're fed. the tank is always clean. when he comes back from the dead, he's missing one molly, and it's the first thing he notices and gravitates towards. they have a new home when he has to pack up and go.

he knows how, and he'll tend to whatever is in front of him, but he'll never have more than that.

[arkus-rhapsode]

I guess this is still a controversial opinion in 2023, but… I think Micaiah is a good character. Like yeah I understand there are a lot of newer FE fans who are getting introduced to her through stuff like Engage and Heroes, but if you’ve been around as long as me you know that Micaiah probably was the “love or hate her” character of FE pre Edelgard/Rhea discourse.

I’m probably not gonna sway anyone who has already picked what side they fall on. I’m just gonna give you my opinion as one guy on the internet who has lived through a lot of discourse and what he thinks.

I think there are three primary complaints that people still pull out with her: She’s a Mary Sue, she’s dumb, and she’s a bad unit.

Now look, I’ll give you the bad unit. She’s a lord character that doesn’t have a lord build. She’s a light mage. Now Radiant Dawn is infamous for its difficulty and stat variation, so pairing an interesting idea of a lord who’s not a combative unit is an interesting idea on paper. But in execution it’s just really hard to play. So I get why people don’t like her as a unit.

The Mary Sue argument I’ve never been a fan of however. Yes, she has special healing powers, future sight, and all the apostle powers. But like… That’s kinda just what a lot of FE lord characters get? They get a special weapon only they can use, they have a magic blood that gives them power, they are secretly the descendant of some ultra important person or god and they’re destined for something. Like it’s kinda always just been there with FE lord characters. Hell, even non lord avatar characters like Robin and Byleth are just secretly reincarnations of gods. I think with Micaiah the issue comes in that she’s in the same game as Ike. Who was bucking the trend as a playable character that wasn’t a lord, wasn’t magically destined for anything, and isn’t secretly a child of some Uber royal. So Micaiah does feel like an oddity, but I’d argue this does create an interesting conflict of a traditional MC vs a non traditional one.

And finally the “she’s dumb” argument. So I understand that games are an interactive medium. And people value being able to make their own choices. But in the intersection of narrative and gameplay focused games, there are characters and events we don’t have control of. Micaiah makes a choice to liberate her homeland but doesn’t want to be its ruler. When Pelleas the son of Ashnard comes along and seems like a good guy, she gives it to him. This makes sense from Micaiah’s perspective-despite loving her country she doesn’t want to rule it. So when a seemingly good individual with recognized lineage comes in, she’s willing to give it up. But we the audience can see this is flawed, Sothe in game mentions this. And ultimately Micaiah’s choice is what brings Daein under Begnion. Where now she has to do things she doesn’t like in a desperate war.

I feel like in media there’s a criticism of “why don’t these characters do the logical thing that I would’ve done in this situation.” And I think games as an interactive medium enhance that as they want to make their own choices. But in a narrative a character doesn’t always need to make logical sense. A character can exist independent of what the player wants and takes actions that the viewer may disagree with. But an action a character takes that they may disagree with isn’t inherently a sign of bad writing. I personally believe that if it makes sense for the character within the context of the story, they are capable of making mistakes. And often times these flaws are what facilitates character development/introspection.

So when Micaiah makes her choice to not be ruler, it makes sense from the perspective of someone not interested in ruling. However, her choice has consequences, ultimately forcing her to do more of the things she was trying to avoid. And even if Pelleas lives or dies, Micaiah by the end of the story is now queen out of obligation rather than personal interest. The game at least seems self aware of audience would react to a flawed decision by having Sothe be the voice of obvious concern. But let’s for a moment think if she did the logical thing. Had Micaiah just held onto power at first and did nothing, there really wouldn’t be a plot for Daein or a journey for Micaiah. And it probably be a much more dull story.

Characters are allowed to be flawed and make mistakes. Make choices we don’t personally agree with. But the important thing is that flawed actions have actual consequences to them. And basically all of Daein suffering from someone who made a bad choice and is now living through it and ultimately has to rise to the position that she denied in the first place is a suitable consequence.

I think actual bad choices in narratives tend to be actions that have no real conflict as the plot needs to bend to make that choice make sense or justify a bad choice. Rather than an action having a tangible consequence that needs to be dealt with internally or externally.

So yes, Micaiah made a dumb call in Radiant Dawn. And it led to an interesting story and character development.

Now I do have issues with Micaiah: I don’t like that Yune ultimately takes over for most of part 4. I don’t like that there are no supports in RD so I had to wait till Engage to see how she may feel about certain characters. Yes, I think that she is ultimately eclipsed by the true MC of the game Ike. And yes, I don’t like her future sight. I have never liked precognition as a storytelling concept. I’m just not a fan of its inclusion.

That said, I don’t dislike Micaiah. I do actually find her an interesting character who was allowed to be flawed and not fall into the newer FE game trap of trying make her more likeable/actually secretly in the right the whole time. And maybe it’s weird that something like this discourse is still kinda around. But with stuff like Engage and talks FE4 reboot and just a general Tellius conversation still existing I felt like I might as well say where I stand on who used to be the most controversial FE character.

[assassyart]

Odd question.

Who would you say was more unfairly sidelined?

Angela Cross, Sasha Phyronix or Talwyn?

Hmm. That's an interesting one. Sure, I'll bite!

I guess this may be a bit controversial, but I don't really think Angela was "unfairly sidelined" at all. She had her place in the story in Going Commando, a prominent one at that, and despite me thinking her arc kinda sucks in GC, it doesn't erase the fact that her character was basically done after Going Commando. Her one goal was to stop Fizzwidget Qwark from releasing the crazy Protopet.

It's only now with ACiT and RA that Angela actually serves a purpose beyond Going Commando (and even saying that is a stretch, considering the purpose as of right now is just a mix between "where did she go?", "is she a lombax?", and the fact she is presumably with max apogee). She was never *intentionally* sidelined, in my opinion.

Overall, she was just a fan-favorite side character until they accidentally messed up with the whole "last Lombax" thing, and she didn't really seem all that important to the main characters beyond being a girl Ratchet thinks is pretty and wants to impress lol.

The other two, on the other hand... they both have it pretty bad.

Sasha is never brought up after Deadlocked's intro scene until the comics, post-ACiT. Even in the comics, Ratchet and Sasha's relationship is barely touched on, so we don't really have any idea of why they broke up besides that one site that claimed it was because of political differences. Sasha is treated like she wasn't important to the cast when she clearly WAS important to, at the very least, Ratchet. She isn't that important of a character to the story which is why I wouldn't be all that surprised if we don't see her again, but she was still IMPORTANT to a character and that alone means she deserved more than just an offscreen send-off in the comics.

It's like they specifically took Ratchet to a completely different galaxy so they could avoid past characters and introduce new ones, and OH HEEY WAIT A MINUTE, does this kinda sound familiar...?

Because it happened again. That's essentially the same thing that Rift Apart does. To avoid the elephant in the room (Ratchet's important relationships with other characters that would add to his hesitation with risking it all to go find the Lombaxes, i.e. Azimuth, Vendra, Talwyn, Cronk, Zephyr, Tachyon, etc.) they straight up just ignore having to talk about those characters by putting him in a position where they will never realistically be brought up— a different dimension, with new characters.

Despite Into the Nexus cementing Talwyn as an important character and RA being the sequel to Nexus, Rift Apart chooses to play it as safely as possible by vaguely mentioning her in one very easily missable dialogue that is, while cute, not important whatsoever towards Ratchet's inner conflict.

If this was the first time her character was treated like this, it wouldn't be a big deal... but this isn't the first time. She was (allegedly) axed from A Crack in Time, axed from Full Frontal Assault, had her role minimized in Into the Nexus, and was reduced to a credits cameo in Rift Apart. Anytime she DID have screentime, it was rarely spent developing her or her goals, and instead developing Ratchet's character and motivations.

Things do HAPPEN to Talwyn, but they happen so that she can be more relatable to Ratchet, not because it'll benefit her character.

In conclusion: sasha got the worst of it by being completely ignored until the comics because she was too cool and capable and will probably never show up again. angela isn't that bad because she still gets referenced and the door is still wide open for her to be included in a future game whenever IG decides they've had enough fun messing with going commando fans, but i do understand and sympathize with the pain of waiting over twenty years to see her again. aaaaand talwyn is a big ole mess but she's my mess so i love her no matter how many times they cut her from the games :D

[glitchtown404]

MONONOKE STORY IDEA | PT.1 (Might write a fic for it haha)

OKAY, SO.

The plot mainly centers around a daimyo (大名) family— or family of a feudal lord. It goes into lots of family dynamics and unresolved conflict. I’ll be splitting up sections (Mononoke, characters, etc) with bolded text. Pay in mind that this will be a long post!!

If you have any advice PLEASE comment!

(Also so sorry if there’s any grammatical errors or just bad sentence structure— I’m just rambling.)

1) PLOT

The plot is mainly following the two siblings of the feudal lord’s family.

The eldest sibling (will refer as ES) has a bad illness that has him stuck at home and bedridden half the time. ES is mature and smart, and is basically the prime example of a good heir. However, the youngest sibling (will refer as YS) is the next in line to take their father’s role as a feudal lord. This is mainly because the family believes that ES won’t be physically capable of handling the role. YS is childish, doesn’t study, and isn’t really capable of seeing the larger picture. This ‘incompetence’ leads to a lot of tension between the two siblings. ES feels frustrated since he believes that YS isn’t worthy of being the heir, and YS just wants to get along with his sibling. This, alongside with more family tensions relating to the situation, create a mononoke.

The actual plot would probably start with Kusuriuri visiting the estate after noticing activity of mononoke. He most likely meets YS first, who offers to give him a place to stay after seeing him lurk around their residence. YS introduces the medicine seller to ES, which prompts a scolding about bringing in strangers. It takes a while, but eventually he’s convinced and offers up a room.

Kusuriuri acts as… a family counselor of sorts. He tries to defuse situations while trying to find the form (形), truth (真), and reason (理). He learns of their scandals and exposes them to try and defeat the mononoke.

(Coughhh,,, thinking about maybe making some sort of illegitimate child situation but I’m not too sure.)

2) THE MONONOKE

And with that, we’re now on the topic of the mononoke.

It took a while, but I finally landed on the akaname. They’re small, goblin-like creatures that feed off of grime and filth. Presumably, they eat the filth in bathrooms— but it’s also been speculated that it’s actually less of physical dirtiness and more of a reference to impurities in the soul but I’m not too sure,,, (this is because of the kanji aka (垢) in the name)

This could reference more to ES’ illness and how a lot of families back then viewed sickness as a ‘curse’ or filthy. Especially for higher ranking families since it could impact their reputation. There is also a lot of resentment each family member holds against each other (hate, disgust, etc) which the akaname could feed off of.

The form is this— the akaname. The truth would be the true source of all these feelings, and the reason could be linked to the family turmoil/secret?? Still working this out.

3) CHARACTERS

Like we have established before, there is Kusuriuri, the eldest, and the youngest sibling. I’ll go more in depth with them and other characters.

Also for clan names, I was thinking maybe Suiren (睡蓮)?

ES:

As mentioned, very studious and a proper candidate for their father’s role. However, he is struck with a mysterious ailment that the family keeps under wraps (I’m thinking of maybe hemophilia?). He’s often at home and looks over the estate.

YS:

Young boy who is next in line for their father’s position as a feudal lord. He’s considered childish, and isn’t quite in touch with reality. But he’s still a sweet and outgoing person.

Their father (idk how else to word this..):

A stubborn and distant man. He doesn’t speak often to his family, but shows more of a liking towards his youngest son (much to the distain of his wife). Often praised for his strategic skill.

Their mother (again, don’t know how to word this):

A quiet yet caring woman. She often looks over her sons and isn’t one to judge. However, one can notice the distant look she carries when looking at her youngest.

The housemaids (maybe 2-3 main ones):

Don’t really have much of a thing for them yet. However, I do know that one happened to engage in an affair with the father and birth YS. She was taken in soon after they found out. Also, YS happens to look more like their father— so it can be assumed that ES looks more like the illegitimate child (again, also bc of illness (people back then were really judgy)).

4) RELATIONS:

This section isn’t exactly relations, but it’s meant to show the disgust/hate (doesn’t matter how small) each person holds and where it’s directed.

YS: Slight hate towards his mother

ES: Himself, YS, his father

Mother: Father, YS

Father: ES, maybe mother?? (They were in an arranged relationship. He only really loved that housemaid.)

Housemaids: Mainly directed to ES, some at YS

This is what the mononoke feeds off of.

END

ANYWAY. That’s all I have so far. I’ll be making a hashtag that I add stuff to so if you’re interested check it out :-))

Thank you for reading till the end!

[thankskenpenders]

In the wake of Frontiers I've been thinking a lot about Sage, so here are some spoilery thoughts on her and the possibilities for further stories with her

One of the most interesting things to think about with Sage is where she could go next. And I hope that she does have somewhere to go next and that she doesn't become yet another one-off character who's off limits for the comics and future games. You can't just introduce a character like "Eggman's AI daughter who he actually genuinely likes" and then just memory hole her like she was just created to be a story hook for one game and nothing else. My main worry is just that they would consider her appearing elsewhere a spoiler for the five minutes you spend thinking she died at the end of the game, which I really really hope doesn't mean it'll be 5+ years before we see her again

Really, though, she creates some interesting conundrums if placed outside of the context of Frontiers, and I really wanna see how they tackle this

The thing is, Sage is a sympathetic character. She's nice, once you get to know her. She's level-headed and avoids unnecessary conflict. She encourages Eggman to work with Sonic when she sees it as the best option, and she's kinda friends with Sonic by the end? But... she's also still Eggman's new second-in-command. And they have an adorable father/daughter dynamic, sure, but this still makes her Sonic's enemy in the long run. This isn't a critique - in fact, just the opposite! I think it leaves the door open for a lot of interesting possibilities. They didn't really have to address this much in Frontiers since Eggman isn't the villain of that game, but should Sage come back as a recurring member of Eggman's team, I'm fascinated to think how they square these conflicting sides of her

Do they make her more villainous, supporting Eggman's attempts to conquer the world, playing up the Sage who gleefully reported on her wins against Sonic? Does she try to reign Eggman in more? Hell, how will Sonic feel about her once the truce with Eggman is over? Does Sonic try to get Sage to leave the Eggman Empire? Or do they make her a friendly rival of Sonic's, one who works against him due to her allegiance but still respects his capabilities with no actual animosity between them? I could see this working well with how nonchalant Sonic often is about having to fight Eggman, and "villain who the protagonist just has fun fighting against without really hating them" is a pretty shounen thing to do, but it's not the only route

Should she appear in the comics, the other elephant in the room is Belle. On a BumbleKast a couple months ago, Ian acknowledged the parallels and said that Sage and Belle just happened to be conceived around the same time - and that he felt sorry for potentially undercutting Evan there. But he also said that the possibilities for interactions between them in the comics were fascinating, and BOY do I wanna see that happen now. Belle was created by Eggman when he was Mr. Tinker, and therefore resents him now that he's back to his normal self. She struggles with whether or not he's even the same man now, and how being created by Eggman reflects on her. Sage, though? Sage just loves Eggman, period. She loves him as her father, and she seems to love working with him. The possibilities for the two as foils of each other are endless. Does Belle wish Sage would come over to the Restoration? Does she envy Sage for being loved by Eggman? Is Sage cool with the fact that Eggman technically has another daughter out there who just isn't part of the Eggfam? Does she view Belle as a traitor? There's so much you could do there

And also yes I want to see her interact with Metal Sonic like in all the fanart. Sage is good! We need more Sage!!

[postmodernmulticoloredcloak]

Good Omens 2 Episode 1: what’s in a name

So I have just watched the first episode of season 2 of Good Omens, and I am going to write this post instead of watching the next episode right away for two reasons: one, watching tv for too long gives me a headache, and second, I refuse to let the streaming companies’ obsession with dropping entire seasons at once stop me from enjoying the journey, and enjoying the journey for me means stopping to think and write about things.

So this is my reaction to episode 1 of Good Omens season 2. Spoilers, duh.

The fil rouge that runs through the episode is the theme of names. We have Aziraphale who introduces himself by name in the flashback to Crowley, who does not reciprocate that kind of introduction, which paints a picture of where they stand in relation to each other, i.e. not exactly on the same page.

And then we have Maggie, who makes a gift to Nina based on her name (the Nina Simone record), but Nina cannot play it, which represents how they cannot be on the same page at all due to circumstances.

Of course we have James long for Jim short for Gabriel. And then we have Muriel, who is asked her identity so she has to say her name but also insists she’s nobody. Also, in the first scene with Michael and Uriel, Michael states their names out loud, which emphasizes how their identity is tied to their name, which highlights how Gabriel not remembering his name and then being forbidden from using it is an encapsulation of his struggle with identity. (There’s also the clothes - being naked is as far as you can get from the normal condition of angels with their pristine outfits, but that’s quite an obvious imagery trope.)

So this is an episode that deals with identity and how it relates to interpersonal relationships.

The first scene is absolutely lovely. They are immediately comfortable with each other - Crowley feels free to act nerdy, Aziraphale, despite his fear of saying anything “inappropriate” at all, expresses his concerns regarding Crowley’s attitude. But they’re not quite on the same page, due to their differences in personality. Crowley is nerding out about the nebula and doesn’t quite get that Aziraphale is trying to connect in a different way (exchanging names). So Aziraphale feels that Crowley doesn’t care about him, but then Crowley shields Aziraphale with his wing. Crowley is not the kind of person who likes to use words to express emotional matters, Aziraphale is (thus how he makes Crowley speak his apology out loud, complete with dance). Crowley’s love language is actions, not words, more specifically actions to protect Aziraphale.

An additional difference between them that is highlighted in the scene is how Aziraphale cares primarily about people, while Crowley cares primarily about nature (stars, ducks). Crowley is interested in the universe as a whole, and doesn’t have much affection for people in general. Aziraphale loves people. And that’s why one stayed up and the other went down, of course.

And of course the difference between their priorities is the source of their conflict in this episode, as Aziraphale sees a vulnerable angel (something he can relate to very much) and automatically decides to help him, but Crowley’s priority is Aziraphale’s safety.

Nina and Maggie are wonderful mirrors for our main characters, although way behind on the relationship process than Crowley and Aziraphale are. Nina needs to keep Maggie at a distance, due to her being already involved with another person and thus being unable to let herself connect with Maggie. Nina is perfectly capable of being affable and sweet, as shown with Aziraphale, so her curtness with Maggie can only be explained by the fact that she finds Maggie cute, and that’s why she cannot let herself get close to her, so she does her best to put up a wall between them.

Basically, Nina doesn’t have the player to play the record on - she does not have the circumstances to metaphorically let herself listen to Maggie’s music.

On the other side, Aziraphale has a record player, and has started listening to his beloved music, but Gabriel’s arrival interrupts him, just like Gabriel’s arrival creates a conflict between him and Crowley.

(The records are gay love, yeah.)

Crowley’s anger, though, forces Maggie and Nina to connect a little more - I would say something about anger not being a primary emotion, but stemming from love, but we were all here for Supernatural meta first, so it’s way redundant.

Speaking of Crowley being, um, smoking, let’s change the topic to fire/heat and light.

At the beginning, Crowley is trying to make a nebula happen, but forgets the first step i.e. “let there be light”, and Aziraphale helps him remember to do it.

Then there’s the empty box of match sticks in heaven. Out of place, because there should not be any material object in heaven. I’d say it represents a source of light and heat, but it’s empty, so it is and is not at the same time.

Conversely, Gabriel is naked and cold but then Aziraphale gets him a blanket and hot chocolate and he stops being cold. Not quite fire/light, but still warmth. So, again, heaven is coldness (but not quite in the right conditions to change, thus the match stick box being empty) and earth is warmth. (Hell is coldness too, of course, with its damp, dark spaces and ineffective neon lights.)

Then we have Crowley’s lightning and smoke, which makes the electricity (light) go off in the coffee shop, but then Crowley comes back and fixes it.

(A note: the box with the arrows pointing up - clearly representing “up up” is empty. Boxes are empty, heaven is empty, Gabriel is naked. Something something metaphor.)

Cinematographically speaking, the episode all revolves around sources of light, like the sun (I love what they did with the lighting when Gabriel gets to the bookshop). In case you missed it, in the flashback scene Crowley protects Aziraphale from being hit by the sun, which bounces off Crowley’s wing:

And then, insert something about lamps here that traumatizes Destiel people.

In fact there’s the quote on the match stick box:

[ID: partial screenshot showing the quote “Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out - Job 41:19”.]

I’m sure the exploration of this theme is just the beginning.

I guess these are the things that stood out to me during my watch. I’ll conclude this post with a final consideration: this is it! Now we’re talking - it’s a queer comedy! It sets itself absolutely as a queer comedy. It goes straight to the point. It’s no longer a comedy with a queer overtone. It’s a queer comedy. I love it. I can’t wait to watch the rest. But still one episode at a time.

[autisticcassandracain]

Everyone's crimes:

Raven: busy going evil and/or being dead 80% of the time, annoying and pretty fucked up will-they-won't-they with Wally that makes neither of them look good.

Dick Grayson: the writers' specialest little boy who needs to be the smartest person in the room always, has the narrative bend over backwards for him constantly to the point where he gets a brainwashing arc that means you could argue nothing bad he did has ever been his fault since like, issue 26 or something.

Donna Troy: got married to Marv Wolfman's self-insert, little miss perfect.

Garfield Logan: group sexual harrasser and self-described chauvenist pig, won't stop complaining about his trauma and daddy issues (and yeah they're pretty bad but in the immortal words of Donna Troy 'that's not exactly unique in this group'), depressed funny guy except he's not funny 98% of the time.

Victor Stone: won't stop complaining about his trauma and daddy issues 2 electric boogaloo (again they're bad again that's not exactly unique in this group and also there's only so many times you can have the same character conflict before it gets annoying).

Koriand'r: idk I guess she's annoyingly clingy towards Dick but if a female character is stuck in an annoying relationship you should always blame the guy, it is always morally correct. She's written by a guy and Dick's that guy's specialest little boy, of course she's shafted. She's done nothing wrong ever in her life no I am not biased do not look at my icon —

Wally West: self-described conservative, primary character trait is not wanting to be here and complaining incessantly about it, see above point about blaming the guy in reference to his relationship with Raven.

Joey Wilson: honestly I have no clue why you'd find Joey annoying. He's too nice? Got no-homo'd too hard before they changed their minds and made him canon queer twice? Had a badly written villain arc bc the writers didn't know what to do with him? Idk. His worst crime is being attached to Deathstroke who IS annoying. Annoying by association.

Kole Weathers: introduced to die and it shows, if you thought Kori was clingy wait until you meet Kole's pathologically clingy ass. That said if I'm honest she's mostly here so I can justify putting Danny Chase on the list as well.

Danny Chase: fourteen years old but he thinks he's the smartest most capable person in the room and he's not even right. The narrative desperately wants you to think he's cool but he's just kinda not. Worst part here is that since I'm literally ten years older than him l can't even be bothered by him bc if I am that makes ME the loser. Damian Wayne did the annoying arrogant over-competent kid schtick better (source: me and my bias).

[lyledebeast]

Showing, Telling, and Mel Gibson

Braveheart (1995) and The Patriot (2000) are not only both violent epics very loosely based on historical events, but their protagonists are very similar up to a point. William Wallace declares that he has returned from years abroad "to raise crops and a family. And if I can live in peace, I will." Benjamin Martin also cites family commitments in his refusal to support South Carolina in seeking independence from British rule: "My wife is dead. I have seven children. Who will care for them if I go to war?" Numerous critics describe The Patriot as "American Braveheart" emphasizing the themes of vengeance and national identity that drive both films. Superficial similarities aside, these films are very different, and the main difference comes down to the protagonists themselves. Through consistent characterization, Braveheart is able to show that Wallace is who he says he is, something The Patriot fails to replicate in Martin.

We are introduced to Wallace as a little boy who is horrified by the excessive cruelty English king Edward III visits on the Scots, and he grows into a man who is is horrified by the excessive cruelty English king Edward III visits on the Scots. Apart from gaining an education and a whole lot of muscle mass, Wallace does not change much within the first half hour of the film. In fact, he has not changed much by the end of the film's nearly three hour run time. Some cite his lack of development as a writing flaw, but simple characters can still be effective. And one thing Wallace certainly is capable of is learning.

One scene that particularly highlights this is the wedding that occurs shortly after Wallace's return and after King Edward has reinstituted the right of nobles to the first night with any bride on their land. When the English lord comes to claim this right, some men in attendance get agitated and a violent conflict seems imminent until the bride offers herself up to save her husband. Wallace watches these events unfold and decides that he and Murron will marry in secret. He is, after all, trying to live in peace! But then the English target her with harassment and eventually kill her because, as the film has painstakingly established numerous times already, they are excessively cruel. This is the event that inspires Wallace to take a leadership role in the Scottish rebellion, and he never looks back.

The seeds of the man Wallace will grow into are sown in the first twenty minutes of so of the film, not only his horror at British treatment of Scots but his affection for Murron as well. And adult Wallace maintains an almost childlike inability to grasp the nuances of politics in his dealing with Scottish lords like Robert the Bruce. In short, Wallace feels like the same person over the course of thirty years, if we accept the character as being the same age as Gibson at the time of filming. The Martin who stays out of the war to protect his children and the Martin who abandons his children multiple times years later do not feel like the same person. The Martin whose shirt is splattered with the blood of wounded British soldiers he helps and the Martin whose face is soaked in the blood of a British soldier he hacks to mincemeat just a few minutes later do not feel like the same person. Given the time it takes Martin and Villeneuve to recruit and train the militia, it is well within possibility that one or more of the men whose wounds he treated were later killed while trying to surrender by men under his command. What the fuck, Benjamin?

These drastic, Jekyll into Hyde transformations Martin undergoes may well be meant to come across as complexity but succeed in giving us a hero who gets to have his cake and eat it too. A war criminal in the streets who is also, we are told, a loving father plagued by nightmares in the sheets. The problem is, we actually see the first part. The harrowing story Martin tells us about his actions at Fort Wilderness reinforces the unhinged violent personality we see in his treatment of the last British soldier in his one-man massacre and the surrendering British troops. And while he said before the war that he would prioritize his children's safety, we never see him actually do that. He asserts to General Cornwallis that British officers are continuing to target civilians but is then as shocked as anyone when a British officer actually does that. The work of anchoring his characterization is shouldered almost exclusively by characters close to him, who insist that he "has changed," that he is "a good man."

Okay.

I've often wondered since rewatching Braveheart how different the wedding scene and Wallace's reaction to it might have gone in the hands of The Patriot's filmmakers. I imagine something like this: Wallace watches, shocked, as the English carry off his friend's bride. He turns to Murron. "Murron, this is terrible . . . for them. Nothing like this will happen at our wedding, though. We're built different. The English would not dare!" And then at their wedding, the English ride up to collect Murron, and Wallace watches shocked, shocked that this would happen . . . again. Braveheart may be heavy-handed on some points, but give me heavy-handed consistency over wild characterization inconsistencies duck-taped together by other characters' comments any day.

Before I rewatched Braveheart, I had not seen a Mel Gibson movie--besides the one I write about all the time--in at least a decade. I avoided him because I had the idea that most of his roles are variations on a character I generally find uninteresting: unhinged man bent on revenge. And it could be said that Martin is not only the "middle" role by film release date but also the bridge in the gap that separates Wallace, a man without children, and Graham Hess of Signs (2022), a man without a vengeance arc. I would argue, instead, that Martin is the weak link in Gibson's filmography, a man who lacks both Wallace's purity of purpose and, as we'll see in my next post, Hess's humility.

[travalistocata]

💛💚💖💔💕 + b5

aaaa thank you!!

from these (x)

what is a popular ship you just can’t get behind, and why?

marcus/neroon is something i just can’t get into and i honestly don’t know why! it has so many things that i would like - the minor character, the possibility of tragedy, the toxic yaoi fight to the almost-death, all of that. but they just don’t grip me. i’m not some neroon hater either, at worst i love to hate him because he’s kind of obnoxious but i love obnoxious bitches. who knows.

what does everyone else get wrong about your favorite character?

i like to joke that lyta is a kitten in a wet cardboard box all alone but when she is able to be, she is capable, independent and able to fend for herself. she’s introduced to us in divided loyalties by immediately brandishing a weapon and making demands. people act as if she’s unable to do anything for herself when the biggest part of her character is that she has been purposefully held back and isolated from others. being abused is not a character flaw, actually, and being abused with no way of escaping that abuse is also not a character flaw! also it’s so, so, so much more annoying when this attitude towards her is applied to her “aren’t you tired of being nice-“ arc in season 5. she can explode things with her mind quite literally. she’s shown using her crazy ass telepathy to kill SHADOWS in the road home! and then people act as if she’d be at g’kar’s mercy as if g’kar is also not a senior citizen who has sworn off violence of any kind.

what is your biggest unpopular opinion about the series?

(strained through gritted teeth, pretending i have not seen the fifth season) the pacing isn’t that bad. some plotlines are rushed, yes (fly high byron my beautiful controversial angel) but seasons one through four were just fine pacing wise. the climax for the shadow war was somewhat underwhelming but also i don’t think babylon 5 really is, genuinely, a kind of piece of media that needs an epic space battle. especially when all of the conflict and epic space battles you are shown, you’re shown the actual tragedy behind senseless death. “talking it out” is almost lame, but it also to me quietly told me a lot about the first ones in general as well.

if you had to remove one major character from the series, who would you choose?

i’m so sorry but if lennier had just gotten the na’toth treatment and disappeared somewhere in like season 2 or 3 and showed up as a ranger in season 5 i don’t think i would have noticed much. i still love lennier but lennier’s plotlines are such nothingburger little things and are usually wrapped up in things that involve delenn, during which i’m paying more attention to what delenn is doing in those situations.

what is an unpopular ship that you like?

AS PER MY RANT ABOUT LYTA nothing quite really beats being incredibly moved by g’kar and lyta’s final scenes in the show, going to see if anyone else ships them or if i just have goggles on because they’re two of my most favorites and just seeing…That. i also like lyta/byron. like i get why people may dislike either of those ships but also i feel like a lot of people make up or exaggerate the things that could possibly be problematic about the both of them. if i read another post comparing g’kar and lyta’s established dynamic with forced prostitution i’m going to snap. like please yall my girl has gone through so much shit can she not get laid on top of it all???? also to answer the “what does the fandom get wrong about your favorite” question again the idea that g’kar is willingly doing all of THAT and intentionally perpetuating an imbalanced dynamic after he has grown up in and been victimized by systemic and intrapersonal abuse his entire life is………hmmmmmm.