#True Protagonist [Gordon]

[mariocki]

Lalla Ward makes a brief appearance as Lady Augusta, intended bride to an ill-fated aristocrat, in A Ghost Story for Christmas: The Ash Tree (BBC, 1975)

[thatonefreemanversefic]

the cicero

the fryman 😔

[catzy88]

Did you know that Leigh Whannell has written and is directing a new movie called Wolf Man (2025)? With a protagonist whose name is Lawrence who "while returning to his hometown, is afflicted by an ancient curse after being bitten by a werewolf."

Well, if you're a fan of the Saw franchise and a Chainshipper, you're in for a real treat. For this is the long-awaited spin-off of the Saw franchise, picking up where Saw VII left off, telling the tale of what happened to Dr. Lawrence Gordon after he locked Detective Mark Hoffman into the same bathroom Lawrence previously shared with photographer Adam Faulkner-Stanheight in the first Saw film. What we didn't see in Saw VII, is that Lawrence took Adam's skeleton with him to finally bury his remains and hopefully bring peace both to himself and Adam, too.

But when Lawrence returns to his hometown, it becomes clear that there are supernatural forces in the work there. Lawrence himself is bitten by a werewolf, and the bones of Adam he buried? Turns out the ground he buried them in wasn't ready to accept them. And so, one day when Lawrence is taking a stroll in the park, someone with a camera bumps into him. And lo and behold, if it isn't the man who has been dead for years. Or who is at least supposed to be dead.

Turns out, dying and getting back to life takes its toll, so Adam doesn't remember Lawrence, their game, or much of anything of his life before really. What a perfect setting for starting over with a clean slate, right?

If only Lawrence didn't turn into a bloodthirsty monster every full moon, with the ancient curse's only cure being the kiss of a true love. But who would love a crippled, old doctor with a detestable past of being the apprentice and accomplice of a heinous serial killer, now with added lycantrophy? The answer may be closer than you think...

[tibby]

sorry i'll stop spamming you all with saw x thoughts for now but one more thing. which is that it's fascinating that in the saw film that humanises john the most it still brings to light his hypocrisy and cruelty, but that one of the most glaring examples of it feels unintentional. because we're meant to believe john genuinely cares for carlos, that cecilia's decision to force him into the game is where she crosses the unforgivable line, because carlos is a child and therefore innocent. but this same grace is never extended to diana gordon, or corbett denlon, or daniel matthews. all children, all innocent. their only "crimes" were things their parents did (and THOSE crimes ranged from being a bad spouse to police brutality). the idea that john cares about their lives of children is laughable, since there was never a guarantee that diana, corbett, and daniel would live to see the end of their parent's games.

and i don't think this was an intentional thing to call out, because saw x is a movie about humanising john. but it's fascinating to me that it's after carlos gets involved that cecilia calls john out on his hypocrisy. it's possible she knows about diana gordon but corbett and daniel won't play any games until months later. she is not trying to make a point about that, but rather john's ideology and personality as a whole. but the moment it happens hits specifically because she is being portrayed as The True Antagonist at the exact moment she does something john himself has no qualms about.

of course, i could be wrong, and maybe this WAS the point the film wanted to make. but given how it's been talked about as exploring john's character and humanising him and framing him as the protagonist for once...well. i don't think they realised that in cecilia, they were giving us a character that has paralleled john more than anyone else in this franchise.

[bb-bare-bones]

Transformations in Re-Animator: Body Horror at its Finest

By Tabby Knight (Instagram - tabby.knight6)

Artwork by Dy Dawson, @xgardensinspace

I love Re-Animator. I’m in love with it. Seriously, disgustingly, violently in love with it. If I could marry a film, it’d be Re-Animator (and I’d be sure to court it first—flowers, chocolates, disembodied hearts floating in jars, the works). If I could marry a character in a film, it’d be Herbert West, which probably indicates—not that I needed an indication—that there’s something really very wrong with me as a human being.

But the heart wants what it wants, and ever since I watched Stuart Gordon’s 1985 splatter-fest as a bloodthirsty undergrad, streaming the film in low quality on my cracked, ageing iPhone, my heart has wanted Re-Animator. I love everything about the film, from its lead characters to its buckets of blood to its ridiculous, oh-so-quotable moments of barefaced comedy (“You’ll never get credit for my discovery. Who’s going to believe a talking head? Get a job in a sideshow.”) and I know just about everything about it, too. I’ve seen its sequels (Bride’s a messy triumph, we don’t speak about Beyond) watched interviews, deleted scenes, actor and director commentaries, the works. I’ve also tracked down just about every other horror film featuring the dynamic duo of Jeffrey Combs and Barbara Crampton, seeking something of the same calibre to scratch that gory itch. A few films have come close, but none so far have surpassed it. As a lifelong viewer of 80’s corn-syrup gore, I can assure you that Re-Animator is unmatched. It stands alone.

There’s a lot of talk about Re-Animator as a cult classic, and rightly so. There’s also talk about it as a comedy (true) a splatter film (also true) and a landmark of Lovecraftian canon (absolutely). But what I don’t see talked about as much, is that it’s a pretty impressive piece of transformation horror—verging on body horror, really—in the same vein as Jekyll and Hyde, The Fly, or American Werewolf in London.

At its core, Re-Animator is a film about uncontrollable, transforming bodies, both the obvious and the subtle. From its opening sequence (Doctor Gruber’s freaky, bulging eyes that explode right out of his head) to its final, blood-soaked showdown, the body is a constant site of change.

There is, first and foremost, the transformations brought about by Herbert West’s re-agent: the re-animation of the tranquil dead to aggressive, violent zombies. By that same token, the re-agent also transitions Dean Halsey from a rational human being into a creature who mindlessly kidnaps, restrains and strips his own daughter, and aids Doctor Hill’s transition from a creepy, unethical professor to an all-out, murderous sexual predator (albeit a decapitated one).

But there are also the subtle changes. Dan’s patients are always in motion, crossing over from life to death (it’s funny to think that in a film set primarily in a hospital, none of the patients on display actually make it out alive) and the bodies in the morgue are always shown in transitional states of rot and decay. Almost every shot of a body (or its parts) displays these changing states in full detail, a constant reminder of human fragility—our own lack of control over our own bodies, and the inevitable breakdown of the flesh.

But my favourite transformation—and perhaps the most criminally overlooked—doesn’t actually occur in the body at all. Or at least, not at first glance. It’s the transformation we see in All-American good guy Dan Cain: our squeaky-clean med student protagonist, and eventual accomplice to Herbert’s maniacal experiments. At the start of the film, Dan appears to have it all. Good career prospects, a super cute girlfriend (Megan Halsey, I’m in love with you) and what appears to be a fairly concrete spot on the Dean’s List: Dean Halsey even goes so far as to describe him as one of Miskatonic’s most promising students—no mean feat, considering he’s regularly bedding the ultra-conservative Dean’s only daughter. The only identifiable flaw in his apple pie life would appear to be his inner struggle with mortality. Not his own, you understand, but that of his patients. He refuses to accept that dead is emphatically, irrevocably dead. And of course, it’s this struggle that sets up the rest of the film.

Throughout Re-Animator’s speedy 90-minute runtime, we see Dan transition almost seamlessly from an upstanding member of society to a man who willingly injects a volatile substance into the corpse of his dead girlfriend, despite knowing full well what the consequences will be. In essence, he transforms from a regular guy into an all-out monster. Granted, he’s a monster with a conscience (we see that very clearly in Bride of Re-Animator) but arguably, so are your American Werewolves and Brundleflies.

In fact, you could argue Dan’s a little bit worse than most transformative monsters: Dan’s conscience, such as it is, always seems to disappear when faced with the prospect of his own self-interest. Despite all his prior reservations, his reluctance to revive Dean Halsey (until it suits him) his fury at Herbert’s murder and resurrection of Doctor Hill, all of it seems to dissipate in the face of Meg’s death. Then, suddenly, there’s no hesitation, no ethics. He barely hesitates in retrieving the reagent, measuring up the dose, or injecting Meg in the brain stem. His transformation—man to monster—is complete. And he didn’t even have to shed his skin to do it.

This is, in part, what I think is missing from the 1989 sequel, Bride of Re-Animator (aside from Stuart Gordon in the director’s chair). Bride’s a good movie, and I like it a lot, even if it does lag a little somewhere around the middle. But what really lets it down is the absence of that underlying transformative arc – we as an audience aren’t particularly unnerved by Dan’s second descent into medical madness, because it’s not exactly shocking or new. We’ve already seen the very worst he could do first time around, and anything Bride tries to offer us naturally falls short. A better direction for the sequel might have been a role reversal—maybe Herbert gains something of a conscience while Dan continues to lose his? But then of course, there’s the risk that Herbert might also lose some of the callous edge that makes him such an iconic anti-hero (and makes me love him so, so much). It’d be a fine line to walk, and interestingly some fanworks do a great job of it, but it’s never quite transferred to the realm of sequel film.

For me, it’ll always come back to that final shot—the plunge of the Re-agent filled syringe before Barbara Crampton’s iconic scream and the dramatic cut to black. There’s only one ending that comes close to scratching the same depraved itch in my strange little brain, and that’s the closing line in Stephen King’s Pet Semetary:

“…Darling.”

[corruptimles]

Remember those really popular 'Henry saves everyone' BATIM AUs that were really popular back in the day? I found a game that literally does that as a true ending.

My Friendly Neighbourhood has a true ending where the protagonist Gordon restores sanity to all the puppets, helps them out by giving them back their eyes/ giving them food/ fixing their piano/ watching a movie with them etc, and at the end they reboot the show and live happily ever after. I was watching a bunch of the cutscenes today and the voice acting is great! I have no idea why it didn't reach the popularity BATIM did.

ooh i remember watching the demo for that game and I enjoyed it but you're right, it didn't take off as much after that. I also wonder why? maybe its mascot designs didn't feel enough to blorbo-ify? (mascot in loose terms) not enough popular youtubers played the full version? marketing? the demo didn't have enough for people to create several headcanons and theories and fanfiction about that compounded on itself to an insane degree before the release of the full game so it didn't have the effect other media that released in chunks get for better and for worse? it didn't get memed on?

the popularity and success rate of indie horror will always be a fascinating thing to me

[femur-bandit]

We need more true silent protagonists. Link and Frisk respond to people with their voice in game, they don't count. If I'm correct Red is a silent character, but not a silent protagonist. Gordon Freeman and Chell are two true silent protagonists, even if they might have the ability to talk (Chell canonically does) they don't ever let their voice be heard, even if it might be beneficial to do so. Other people in game comment on their silence. Give us more characters like them.

[pl0xm4st3r]

Rant incoming. I'm really just writing this for myself because I don't want to keep pestering my friends about Persona 3 Reload as I play it. I'm sure all of this has been talked about ad nauseum in the fandom but I don't really interact in fandom spaces. I want to but it's these kinds of thoughts I know people have talked about before that dissuades me. I don't feel I have anything to add.

Anyway, a friend and I were talking about how each of the Persona protagonists are blank slates, and they brought up how despite this, they still think it's possible to play "as them." Which is to say, they all manage to have distinct personalities despite the game not giving you much in terms of characterization.

The first place I noticed this was in the few dialogue options you get. I've only played Persona 5 Royal and I'm in the middle of P3R (Beginning of October), so I'm comparing those. I noticed that Makoto has a lot of instances where you can pick some variation of "What a pain" meanwhile Joker never says anything like that that I can remember. Joker does have instances where he's annoyed, but he tends to be snarky rather than purely dismissive. I think my friend put it well when he said that it paints the picture of Makoto being someone who's constantly in his own head. The fact that he always carries around an MP3 player and can tune out at any moment adds to that. And that brings me to character design.

Obviously with both wearing uniforms, there's a limited amount of expression in that alone. What's more significant here to me is posing. Makoto is slouched over, hands in his pockets, looking down. Joker has a wide stance, and while his head is at a 3/4ths as well, his head is turned more up, and he has a slight smile. Now, in-game they're a lot more similar (slouching and having their hands in their pockets all the time), but I do think this is a significant difference in how Atlus chose to present them.

And my final point is that their characters reflect the themes and aesthetic of the game. Like, obviously this is true, they're each the protagonist. It would be an strange design decision to make them stand out from the rest of the game for no reason. I bring it up because, like I mentioned at the beginning, they're each blank slate characters, so it's hard to latch on to anything with them. And yet, I read a distinct personality from each of them, one reflected by the spirit of the game. Persona 5 is about rebellion and standing up for what you think is right, it's incredibly lively. Meanwhile Persona 3 is markedly more melancholy, and it's mired in death everywhere thematically. I read Joker as far more confident and fiery, while Makoto is more closed off and sad.

What was the point in me writing all this? For one, because I just have a bunch of thoughts bundled up. But it's also because I enjoy writing fanfiction, and I've been wondering how you write characters like these while keeping them accurate. It's hard enough to stay accurate the side characters with more established personalities. How do you write blank slate? It gives you more freedom, but at the same time there is so little to base anything off of that it's easier to go off the path of true characterization. In other words, "he would not fucking say that." How do you write a Joker, a Makoto, a Link, a Gordon Freeman?

[ironworked]

60 Sec Rec: Halt and Catch Fire

I'm going to borrow from a Vox article for the summary and a reason to watch:

"[...] originally set up the series as a conventional antihero drama about the sneering, self-proclaimed genius Joe Macmillan, who hijacks a small Texas computer manufacturer in the early 1980s and tries to get it to build his dream machine. He’s joined in this by two computer whizzes who can do the work while Joe offers the Steve Jobs-style bravado — Gordon Clark and Cameron Howe. These early episodes struggled to stand out from the glut of other antihero dramas rattling around in the 2010s. Yet they’re also necessary for setting up the series’ larger idea, which is that Joe might think he’s a genius, but the thing he really needs is to be tempered and improved by the people around him." [Vox]

"It also absolutely nails a tone that’s tricky to manage: optimism, tempered with a sense of how hard it is to accomplish anything with real meaning in this world." [Vox]

This show is a stand-out for the way it focuses on its characters and their relationships. Very rarely have I seen a show that lets all its protagonists be brilliant, and assholes, and sad, and flawed, much less one that lets them not just evolve but change their dynamics. Their arguments make sense, you can see why they're drawn to each other and also why they fight.

It has some scenes that will have you teary-eyed even if you're not a crier, because they're just so... they feel so real, so true.

Created by Christopher Cantwell and Christipher C. Rogers (Paper Girls, Lodge 49). Written by the showrunners, plus Jamie Pachino (Chicago PD, Fairly Legal), Zack Whedon (Southland, Fringe), Jason Cahill (Fringe, The Sopranos), Mark Lafferty (White Collar). Directed by Juan José Campanella (Law & Order SVU), Karyn Kusama (In Treatment, Yellowjackets), Daisy von Scherler Mayer (Yellowjackets, Bosch). Starring Lee Pace, Scoot McNairy, Kerry Bishé, Mackenzie Davis, Toby Huss, Annabeth Gish, ... Kathryn Newton (10 eps).

Previous: Deadloch - Dead Boy Detectives - The Tick - This Close - Kung Fu - Nancy Drew - Kevin Can Fuck Himself - Silo - The Flight Attendant - Severance - Hacks - Hit The Floor - Black Sails - 12 Monkeys - T@gged - The Diplomat - The Mick - Timeless - UnReal - Kings - All Rise - Barry

[rustyelias]

This ask/character dissection contains events from Red Valley, including major spoilers, blood and injury, and the fear of death.

*takes a breath*

Okay so I have become some what of a Clive Schill blog of late, and given that Red Valley in of itself isn’t wildly popular, and that Clive Schill is simultaneously the comic relief and antagonist of the show, there aren’t many people to talk about him with.

Initially, he comes off as just an arse. He’s mean to the protagonists, seems to have no remorse for his actions and is generally shown to also just be bad at his job? His main character traits are his “colourful” insults and his status as the Redval sugar daddy.

This doesn’t really change until near the end of season two, at which point he’s noticed Bryony’s treatment of the mc (Warren) and steps in. His concern is framed as a need for Warren to be in the best shape possible, for presenting to the world as a “solution to cryosleep”, but I do think he was also genuinely uncomfortable with the situation and wanted to get Warren out of there.

This all goes tits up when they return to Red Valley and the season finale happens. Won’t go into details but this winds up with Clive getting shot in the knees. Warren has simultaneously had a brain haemorrhage, and Gordon (mc no.2) has also just been shot. The focus is placed on getting the two mc’s inside of cryopods before they both bleed out. Clive is left forgotten on the floor of the lab.

He is eventually helped by someone else, and doesn’t die, but I think this is an incredibly important moment for his character. His entire story revolves around moving up the corporate ladder, and his desire to be the first to crack hypersleep is Always framed as a desire for recognition (and money).

Clive Schill is terrified of being forgotten. This also ties into his fear of death. He is terrified of dying and nobody remembering him. I think this fear translates into why he’s always so loud, so quick to argue and insult. He’s trying to be noticed.

So when he’s left on the floor bleeding out, with everyone else focusing on saving Warren + Gordon, it’s a huge fucking moment for him.

He goes on to form a business partnership with the person who saves him, they make Aloha Eternity, a cruise ship that utilises cryopreservation. He gets his recognition.

And then…

There’s growing unrest surrounding cryogenics. The world is rapidly going to shit thanks to climate change, partially due to big companies like Overhead (this is the one Clive, Bryony and the entire Red Valley team work for). The leaders and higher ups of said companies all plan to hypersleep (in cryopods) for 1000 years until the world’s unfucked itself. Clive helps this happen with the tech development he’s funded.

And when the time comes, he is not offered a place in the cryopods. Instead, he is made CEO of Overhead Industries. He got his fucking dream come true, because he was deemed expendable enough to let die in the real world. (Before this his cruise ship got blown up by terrorists, truly he has nothing)

So yeah uh there are some mildly coherent thoughts about Clive Schill. There is more where that came from but from here the thoughts get a Lot more incoherent.

Such as Bryony referring to Clive as “the shovel bit of the shovel”

She uses him for his status in Overhead and his money.

Also I think Clive is incredibly touch starved. Never comes up in the show because the only time people get close to him is when they’re hurting him (Warren’s headbutt)

Oh and he looks like Alexander J Newall. And Murph from D20. Just a mix of those two.

And he’s a musician. Like a really talented musician. I have no basis for this hc other than the fact I feel it in my soul.

Anyway if you’ve read this thanks so fucking much, and if not it was still great screaming into the pit

raaah!!! i love him! it's been a while since I last listened to red valley but omg! he is such a character to say he is treated like the comic relief or what I called him that prick��️ he has SO much going on!

Bro really gave his whole life to this business only for them to basically leave him to die in the fucked up world :( also the fucking cruise business bsjdjdjjdj

I love how I went from loving him because he was just the worst to loving him because he is a complex character. Gosh after he was shot man :(

jskskxkdkjd he is SO touch staved you get it! you get it!!

“Also he looks like Alexander J newall” oh god oh fuck its him:

Okay yeah after my relisten of rqg I am 100% going to listen to Red Valley

[mariocki]

The Headless Eyes (1971)

"You've tried to alienate yourself but, Mal, I'm here, you -"

"Why? For two years I have been trying to live alone and to be able to accept this. Why are you here?"

"Because you haven't convinced me."

"Of what?"

"That you're incurable."

[year2000electronics]

HLVRAI 2, and Super Paper Mario 11?

YOU GOT IT

2. …my three favorite characters and why I love them so much.

GORDON: i love the way wayne plays such a frantic protagonist. he's simultaneously the straight man to a lot of the science team's bits but that's not the whole story because every bit of character this man is given makes him feel deeply DEEPLY abnormal. hes convinced hes the only one here but his dream is to stream on justin.tv. love it when men Yell.

COOMER: not only is holly hilarious but coomer has the strongest narrative arc in the series. she found a concept and STUCK with it. coomer perfectly interlaces "most comedic old man ever" and "deep existential dread" and neither parts of him feel like they clash with each other its just so. banger. hes so funny but i care him so much. when hl2vrai drops i just know whatever happens w him is gonna be INSANE

BENREY: yeah i mean. yeah. benrey is easy to overhype i get it especially cos theres so many ways to dilute how literally funny his character is. i love how weirdly polite he can be when hes not antagonizing gordon. hes such a little brat and yet hes so niceys. he also just works really well in the idea that like yeah he is the antithesis to improv but also narratively speaking he allows gordon to funnel a lot of negative energy into him, and having a character who is primed to NEVER agree with gordon makes the group dynamic twist up in hilarious ways. i just also think the way scorpy does bits is funny as fuck

11. …what I think of the central character(s).

THAT WOULD BE THE FOUR HEROES YEAG... i think a very common and very true critique levelled against SPM specifically is that sometimes it feels like youre happening to play a game that has mario In It. like yeah sure mario is the hero of prophecy but thats only because the game is directly telling you that. what doesnt help is that although i think the four heroes each have pretty cool and distinct flavours of being written, i think it gets lost in the waysides a little as you have them available as playable options 90% of the time, which means that the only standout moments are when control of them is wrenched from you (ie the character statement of peach being the only one who ends up in the overthere, the world 8 boss fights against the bleck minions, Luigi) so its like. i wish i could get into em more but i think its just a flaw thatd always be there. i dont know. i dont know.

luigi counts as one of the four heroes though and super paper mario luigi is one of my FAVOURITE luigis for this exact reason. because you only have him playable for a world or two, that means he makes a lot of decisions and has a lot of screentime that Only Luigi Could Have so hes BURSTING with personality. honestly spm luigi is one of the most interesting portrayals of luigi i could go on and on and on

i guess tldr theyre pretty good i wish they were connected to the story more

[ill-try-to-do-book-reviews]

Incidents Around The House

Josh Malerman

RATING: 🕯🕯🕯🕯🔥 (4.5/5)

It has been almost two months between me finishing this book and me finally getting around to writing my review of it. In that time, however, I have found myself thinking about it over and over again, horrified and impressed with the writing and imagery it invokes.

Other Mommy is a positively terrifying horror villain, and the way this story is portrayed exclusively through the eyes of a child who seems to have a harmless, if not remarkably creepy, imaginary friend is fantastic.

SUMMARY: To eight-year-old Bela, her family is her world. There’s Mommy, Daddo, and Grandma Ruth. But there is also Other Mommy, a malevolent entity who asks her every day: “Can I go inside your heart?”  

 

When horrifying incidents around the house signal that Other Mommy is growing tired of asking Bela the same question, over and over . . . Bela understands that unless she says yes, soon her family must pay. 

 

Other Mommy is getting restless, stronger, bolder. Only the bonds of family can keep Bela safe but other incidents show cracks in her parents' marriage. The safety Bela relies on is on the brink of unraveling.  

 

But Other Mommy needs an answer. 

 

Incidents Around the House is a chilling, wholly unique tale of true horror told by the child Bela. A story about a family as haunted as their home.

MY DETAILED REVIEW (SPOILER WARNING): Okay, I need to talk about that bathroom scene. I know there is an entire book around it (an entire, fantastic book!) but that bathroom scene is, quite frankly, one of the most chilling scenes I have read in any book ever. Even thinking about it now makes me nauseous.

The way that the reveal creeps up on you gets me so bad. Bela, sitting on the toilet, after having braved the hallway all by herself. It's dark outside the hallway, but not in the bathroom. The bathroom is well-lit, and it's safe. The toilet is cold, but her legs are warming it up. And the hair on her legs is a little itchy, but that's nothing to wake anybody up over. And her legs are hairy, and itchy, and the hair is really dark, and she is on Other Mommy's lap.

Like, that's terrifying!! Even now, at my big grown age of 22, sitting in my room in the dark, writing up a review about a novel I read two months ago, I had to turn on my phone's flashlight to light my room up while I write. Other Mommy has positively scarred me, I fear.

Enough about the bathroom scene, though. I want to talk about the novel as a whole, and especially about Bela and how much children really do see.

The way that her mother's affair is hinted at, repeatedly, by Bela innocently observing her actions and the things that she says, the way that Bela feels responsible for her parent's relationship and how aware she is that if Daddo knew about the affair it would hurt him, was all fantastic. It's a great contrast to her reactions towards Other Mommy; this absolutely awful horror of a creature is living in her fucking closet and asking to 'live in her heart', and Bela is uncomfortable by this, but not terrified the way adult readers (and her parents!) are, because this is normal to her. Her mom's affair is normal to her, even if she knows it would hurt Daddo. Having a bizarre creature who talks to you about 'carnation' is normal.

I feel like Bela's portrayal in this novel is amazing. I don't really ever read horror novels with young protagonists (this may be my second, after The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon), but I absolutely love Incidents Around the House. From what I've seen from other reviews, it can be a rather hit or miss novel, but it's definitely one I want to revisit eventually.

[whatisthisnonsense]

It's My Friendly Neighbourhood.

It's seemingly a normal mascot horror game, except the true ending, which involves using every opportunity you (Gordon O'Brian) get to help the puppets, involves everyone getting a happy ending!!!

I remember suggesting that we do things to spare/ save several BATIM characters years ago, and I was ecstatic to learn that this game takes the premise and runs with it!!!

Give Pearl her eyes back so she can see herself again and not run into everything, watch a movie with Goblette and help her calm down her depression, feed the puppies so they're no longer starving and attacking everyone, help Ray fix the drain system so he's satisfied and not agonising at the rubbish that's piled up everywhere, playing the piano with Arnold, my favourite moments are the cutscenes when Gordon is talking or comforting them and there's more to his character than just 'first person ghost with no past who does nothing except for react to everything' like the other protagonists from so so so so so so so many other games T.T

And yes, Gordon is explicitly stated to be a war veteran. There's just so many parallels.

AND EVERYONE GETS A HAPPY ENDING IN THE TRUE END!!!!! Like, literally every character. I can't believe how rare that is in horror. Reason #47658 I love this game.

OH YES I'VE SEEN THIS not a Bendy guy I think but absolutely kudos for this man getting the goddamn memo about how nostalgia horror vibes SHOULD be

[queenofcats17]

Remember those really popular 'Henry saves everyone' BATIM AUs that were really popular back in the day? I found a game that literally does that as a true ending.

My Friendly Neighbourhood has a true ending where the protagonist Gordon restores sanity to all the puppets, helps them out by giving them back their eyes/ giving them food/ fixing their piano/ watching a movie with them etc, and at the end they reboot the show and live happily ever after. I was watching a bunch of the cutscenes today and the voice acting is great! I have no idea why it didn't reach the popularity BATIM did.

Oh yeah, I know this one! It's such a good game! I wish it was more popular too.

The thing I kept going back to with my friends is that it just feels like it has so much heart. It's such a sweet and optimistic game and I really loved it for that.

I just loved watching Gordon show vulnerability and care towards these puppets. And I really loved that the puppets aren't really evil, either! They're just overexcited and confused.

There's no huge murder conspiracy or dark background for why the puppets are alive, either. They just are.

It's just such a hopeful and heartfelt game and I really love it.

[gallyg]

Leigh Whannell writes about victims

The focus of Leigh Whannell's films tends not to be the monster or the murderer. Look at Insidious or any of his more recent standalone films, and this is obvious. So it's interesting to ponder the Saw franchise which has infamously focused on Jigsaw as a character more and more over the years, to the point where he is unambiguously the protagonist and anti-hero of the most recent film, Saw X. Of course, Leigh Whannell didn't write Saw X or any of the Saw films since Saw III, but even within that original trilogy, Jigsaw is a very developed character, arguably moreso than any other character in all three films except Amanda, who is also a villain... right?

Obviously Amanda is a monster who has robbed the earth of countless years of human life (or whatever) but is that "who she is" in Saw II and Saw III, the movies where she is a main character? I think not. Especially in Saw III, Amanda is presented as a Jigsaw victim. Not just someone who suffered the indignity of the reverse bear trap, but someone who John Kramer, the Jigsaw killer, used and discarded when he deemed her no longer useful. It was not a good turn for Amanda's life, to become the disciple of a mass murderer.

In a very real way, Amanda is the one who suffered the most out of anybody in the first three Saw films. Remember, it's 2006. Dr. Gordon is presumed dead. Jigsaw says "I was his patient, and he was mine," implying that this relationship is in the past tense. There was nothing left Dr. Gordon could do for John, and there was nothing left John could do for Dr. Gordon. Dr. Gordon bled to death believing his family murdered. Adam starved for days before being suffocated and having his face split open. And still Amanda suffered more. Because she didn't only bleed from the body, in the reverse bear trap and the nerve gas house trap (though, of course, she did). Amanda also bled from her soul. She was made to believe she was broken, and it was only through the love of her greatest abuser, John Kramer, that she could be fixed. And as Amanda learns that John has not truly fixed her, she too learns that John has not given her true love at all. Her spirit is crushed (as is her circulatory system).

And let's remember the real main character in Saw III. It's not Jeff. It's not Lynn. It's not Jigsaw, either. The main character in Saw III is Amanda. She is the one who goes through a narrative arc in the film. It just happens to resolve in tragedy. And that's why we love Saw, isn't it? The tragedy of it all?

Of course, it makes sense that later writers and directors and even fans could latch onto the character of Jigsaw. After all, Amanda's character only works in Saw III because Darren Lynn Bousman and the fans loved Jigsaw in the first Saw film and wanted to learn more about him in Saw II. It is only natural that Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan would similarly be interested in John's character arc past Saw II, and so want to dig into John's past, and learn more about why John does the things he does. That's how we get to Saw X, where Jigsaw is the main character, and he is the one most challenged by the narrative. But in the tribe of Amandas, the best part of the franchise will forever be Saw III, because even another movie all about Amanda would still pale in comparison to the movie that made us love her and then lose her in 2006. Written by Leigh Whannell, story by James Wan and Leigh Whannell.