#also imo having more episodes with her and in general would have presented something I’ve been thinking about since the finale

[turtleblogatlast]

[ cw: death mention / family death mention / ]

Mhmm I sure love thinking of the reality where we did get more time to really know Karai and her dynamics with the bros. Losing her hit hard in the finale, but it would’ve hit much, much harder had we known Karai longer and really saw her relationships develop with everyone.

I especially would have been interested in her dynamic with Leo, as past iterations often have the two of them clash in ideals and the like while still sharing many characteristics. Two sides of the same coin, and all that. Her specifically being the bros’ Gram-Gram also adds a whole new dynamic as well.

Imagine how interesting it would be, to have Karai start off on Leo’s side for once, showing wholly just how alike the two are at their cores and bonding as family without the worry of betrayal or animosity that other iterations suffer through, only to have Karai die anyway. Their parting hug and the desperate look of horror Leo wears later on would have hit that much harder, I feel.

[legally-allowed-to-slime]

here’s every taylor swift song that i think fits dl!scott’s relationship with pearl, but from his pov. i’ve never actually watched his pov from start to end but it’s just the vibes from the parts that i did see

going to reiterate, these are the songs that are exclusively about him and pearl in double life. i don’t know that much about scott to assign him songs on other stuff

oh, and it goes without saying, switch the pronouns where applicable

(left to right, top to bottom: I Knew You Were Trouble, We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together, Blank Space, How You Get The Girl)

obvious picks first. this is what scott’s externally presenting to pearl, as a decisive, snappy breakup. to some extent it’s true in that pearl chases after scott in a backhanded way but it’s definitely not this simple, even if scott wants it to be.

blank space (3rd ss) especially is them in a very twisted way, in that they’re obsessed with each other but hate each other at the same time, which is why they interacted more frequently than strictly needed in DL, but always with outcomes that were beneficial to neither party.

(Castles Crumbling, Red, Babe, Midnight Rain)

we never actually get an explicit mention of LL (afaik) from dl!scott, but in the first episode when pearl brings up GGG, he basically shuts it down, so i think his general attitude was that pearl ruined it so he had to move on. these are songs about change.

i think there’s a certain element of regret but not that he himself screwed up but rather the circumstances led to their estrangement (which is why i put in castles crumbling). he viewed it more as a “it had to end at some point” fling i think (like in red).

this is one of the things that pearl and scott saw differently on. DL!pearl was LL!pearl, looking at DL and wondering how it would have happened, while scott was DL!scott and saw LL not as something that was destroyed between him and pearl, but rather as a “before” state that was bound to turn into something else.

(Should’ve Said No, All You Had To Do Was Stay, Look What You Made Me Do, This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things)

but you know what dl!scott does explicitly mention? that he felt that pearl abandoned him, not the other way round. should’ve said no in particular takes the black-and-white stance of “you cheated on me”.

since he was quite smug about it all the songs featured above are very boppy (from albums like reputation and 1989), your stereotypical taylor swift songs trashtalking her exes.

linking it to taylor: the rep songs were actually about her “haters” (kanye west etc) and i think it’s very on-brand for scott to view pearl as a #hater. also their titles of “look what you made me do” and “this is why we can’t have nice things” are straight out from textbook manipulation 101.

pearl would be more the type to use those lines on scott, but i feel like scott was thinking those lines and channelling them constantly. he definitely internalised them more while pearl was just saying them to avoid focusing on her own self-hate. but for once this post isn’t about her so let’s move on.

(You’re Not Sorry, That’s When, Innocent, The Moment I Knew)

if i could describe scott’s attitude to pearl in one line it would be “i’m not mad, just disappointed”. anyway these are all songs where taylor has been wronged in some way, and while they’re definitely not an accurate portrayal of how the events unfolded, they definitely fit scott’s perception as him having to cope with this horrible partner/ex. he’s wrong, but hey, quoting the great princess celestia, there’s no wrong way to fantasize.

focusing on innocent (3rd ss), i chose it because it was funny. it’s essentially a song about forgiveness and telling the other person that they can always fix themselves, which was a very scott way of looking at things imo. it’s very reminiscent of the dl!finale in its benevolent, saintly condescension and straight out dismissal of the other person’s feelings.

the moment i knew (4th ss) is about knowing when your relationship with someone is over (taylor songs are not hard to interpret: this song was based off her boyfriend not coming to her 21st birthday). with how scott says welcome home cheaters in the first episode and going on about martyn and pearl being reckless, it’s pretty clear that he felt that pearl had committed a grievous sin against him. and maybe she had, who knows? it’s a scott’s world and you’re lucky to be living in it

pit stop! c!scott would unironically listen to You Need To Calm Down and i’m not even joking

(Is It Over Now?, I Did Something Bad, Getaway Car, Karma)

very shady songs. they’re mainly mid-season scott, when he treated pearl with the most detachment (they swing between the two poles of attraction so much i can barely keep track, but i can pinpoint at least this).

scott wishes he could ever be i did something bad like sl!gem was, but as i said, this is his biased perspective so obviously to him pearl is the bad guy, like how scott was the bad guy in pearl’s story. it kills me to say this but dl!pearl was genuinely awful at some points so i don’t entirely blame him.

getaway car is semi-LL, about the part of scott who realised that he did pearl dirty, especially with their shared history, but at the same time doesn’t want to take accountability for it

(imgonnagetyouback, Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus)

these ones are kinda iffy, but if you squint i guess you could see scott being conflicted in the final sessions? tbh they lean more into the fandom interpretation of galaxy duo, which is more of love and hate at the same time. either way they both end up dead

(High Infidelity, But Daddy I Love Him)

i know i said i was only going to talk about dl!scott in relation to his perception of dl!pearl, but i guess how he talked to pearl about cleo and how he talked to cleo about pearl kind of counts.

anyway the whole chosen soulmates thing was kind of a banger. only scott smajor could have weaponised it to tell his bitter ex why she was inferior and therefore undeserving from the start. divorce duo’s entire relationship was built on spite, which they both superficially acknowledge, so there’s that at least.

while we’re here someone tell me if i hallucinated cleo telling pearl “i’m you but better” at some point. i swear it happened but i might just have straight up imagined it

lightning round

aka i’m too lazy to come up with explanations

aka scott would never ever confront his feelings like this but since i say so then these songs apply

conclusion

no conclusion. this post never ends, much like pearl’s hate for scott. thanks for watching and don’t remember to subscribe

as one of taylor’s more problematic songs i feel it fits dl!scott (song is renegade by big red machine, ft. taylor swift)

anyway we’ve had far too many people (that includes me) tearing apart dl!pearl’s pov, i think scott’s pov has just as much potential if we just dig a little deeper. he was just as much an unreliable narrator as pearl was

[nightmaree-eyess]

I’ve seen a lot of people on TikTok complain about how they rewrote the YouTube version into first three episodes and about the show in general and imo I think they’re just looking for something to hate. In this essay I’ll be telling y’all why I think these are the stupidest arguments you can make coming from someone who watched the original once in like 2016 and recently and just finished lazy in space and will definitely revisit this show.

People on TikTok hated how the first three episodes were written compared to the original cause they “changed the dialogue”…..yeah cause it’s not the YouTube version. They changed he story a bit to make sense with the rest of the show and the story they wanted to tell.

If they didn’t change things here and there there would be too much shit to fill in new viewers with so they combined episodes and gave us what we needed so we wouldn’t be lost. If you’re that upset that they didn’t add in every little detail it’s on YouTube just watch it there.

Some people said that the relationship with bee and puppy cat and bee and deckard are very different from the original. That bee and puppy cat didn’t seem like friends but that puppy cat only acted as comic relief and that bee and deckard weren’t as close.

I didn’t see an issue with bee and puppy cats relationship in lazy in space. If anything I thought they were building that relationship especially when 1. Puppy cat finds out bees a robot 2. Puppy cat confided in bee and tells her that the ward was coming for him and that’s why he was stress eating and bee said “no matter what you tell me about yourself how I think about you isn’t gonna change” 3. When puppy cat got bee a present and bee was like “hehe you love me” and he was like “nooooooo” when we all know he does. 4. He literally remembered that bee wanted to have a scavenger hunt for birthday cakes 3 months in advance. I think only a friend would remember this. LIKE FFS HE MADE HER A LIFE SIZED CAROUSEL CAKE!!! We don’t get any of that in the OG. Just the robot scene. People said that it was more impactful in the OG but again I have to disagree cause in lazy in space puppycat asks bee more questions to get to know her more (I believe correct me if I’m wrong)

If bee and deckards relationship didn’t change then it would’ve been kinda weird considering they aged deckard down in lazy in space (that’s what I heard correct me if I’m wrong) but even if that’s not right bee acted like a parental figure towards him in lazy in space but not in the original. (Also this is just a me thing but I felt like deckards crush on bee was kinda one way and bee saw him more as a friend so that’s also why I didn’t see a huge difference between their relationship)

Another argument I saw was the pacing of the show. They said it was too fast?? Literally where? Going back to the first 3 episodes they cut some shit out because it didn’t go with the story they were trying to tell so yeah it might feel fast but it was the same.

In conclusion I think people just wanna hate on this cause it’s new and they have nostalgia for the old one. It’s on YouTube go watch it. It’s not going anywhere. (But with animation being treated like shit recently let’s hope not)

[worstloki]

Okay, this is gettin’ real screwed up here.

I watch a lot of TV. Probably too much. And I’ve seen characters beaten to their knees before, sometimes even with collars. And yeah, there’s usually someone standing over them, and it’s been a woman sometimes. The kind of scene we got in episode 5 of Loki is not new ground.

But here’s the thing. In EVERY OTHER SCENE I can remember like this, the person kneeling is the hero. They’ve been brought down, fully humbled before the sneering villain, and in a few minutes something will happen to get them back on their feet again. It’s usually a tense moment, a “what if they break?” that makes you want the hero to win. You aren’t rooting for, or even liking in some cases, the person standing. You’re cheering for the person on their knees.

This doesn’t seem to be the case with the Loki show. Yes, the viewers may be rooting for Loki, but there’s no hatred for Sif there. She’s not proved herself to be a cold, heartless villain, ruthlessly pounding the hero until all he can do is kneel at her feet.

Except…she did kind of do that. But it isn’t treated as something bad. It’s treated more as something Loki deserved, in my opinion. The show wants us to feel like he deserved to get repeatedly beaten up and told horrible things, just for cutting off a lock of Sif’s hair. I’ll grant, it’s peanuts compared to what happened to him in the mythology. But it’s still bad. Especially since they had him acknowledge it, repeat her cruel words back. They’re playing it off as if Loki is still the villain by himself, and is only good because of other people- Mobius, mostly, but Sif is part of that.

That’s not the way Loki’s character is. In the comics particularly, his biggest arcs are always about reinventing the labels given to him, changing “villain” into something good, something he can use, and doing it by himself. Yes, there’s outside influence, but ultimately Loki is the one who decided to change.

The show is not letting him do that. The show is portraying him as a stubborn jackass who refuses to change until other people show him the light- either with psychological torture presented as therapy, or with beating him up a bunch of times until he gives in. The show and its characters are forcing Loki to become good- they aren’t showing him doing it by himself. He is not becoming one of the good guys, he’s being essentially enslaved by them, and the show is passing it off as somehow all that good influence finally rubbed off on Loki’s cold, villainous heart. That’s why him betraying Mobius was shown as so bad even though Loki barely knew him and had been psychologically tortured by him- Mobius is written as a character who can choose to be good, and Loki is written as a character who must be forced to be good.

And something about an entire show revolving around an independent character being treated as a villain, literally enslaved by the “good guys” (back when the show still wanted us to think the TVA weren’t shady as all hell), beaten to his knees with a collar around his neck until he accepts that he deserves to be alone because he isn’t “good” like everybody else…that doesn’t go down right for me.

The TVA being presented in not just a neutral but often reliable light is something I thought would change once Loki literally called out their propaganda and Sylvie called them fascists, but, for some reason the authoritarian genocidalists are not being presented as a bad thing and it irks me too.

It's especially weird because of the way what Loki claims to have wanted by making choices for people and what Mobius claims the TVA do ARE THE EXACT SAME THINGS, except Loki, until the show, hadn't done that of his own volition and was being tortured during the invasion and is treated terribly for something he didn't even succeed in doing, while the TVA successfully erase events on a mass scale but are presented as having a higher (or at best, - equal) moral ground.

The exact same thing was done in Ragnarok where Loki's "turning point" from a tricksy villainous scoundrel happened because Thor left him frying on the ground and gave him a pep talk filled with lies and general slander about how he could be better - and people see that as good because Thor is framed as a hero, and it's because instead of accepting Loki is a complex character they take what the narrative tells at face value and that is that Loki fights the protagonist(s) so he's bad.

I personally don't like the narrative pushing a character that is canonically an abuse victim and attempted suicide and was tortured right after as someone who needs fixing because he's lusting for power and needs it to gain a sense of control during a retcon which is occurring for the sake of calling him a complete bad guy who needs to change (probably because no actual original character development could be thought of?) after he was just confirmed as queer and colloquially (i assume) called a narcissist because of twisted love.

That he deserves to be alone was presented neutrally as a joke even as he was repeatedly getting beaten to the ground, and then both people he could call friends were removed from his immediate vicinity right after.

Loki isn't being presented as a character that has done a huge mix of good and bad in the movies, he's being presented as an oft incompetent idiot that deserves what he gets because he shouldn't have run away from captors, or he cut Sif's hair, or he killed his mother, or he dared to think he had any importance or could do something good, because the truth is he's an evil lying scourge.

"But maybe," Mobius says, "Maybe he wants to mix it up. Sometimes you get tired of playing the same part. Is that possible? He can change?" And everyone's already forgotten that moments before the mission Mobius said to Loki's face that the TVA has pruned a lot of Loki variants because he's so nice! look! he has hope in him when no one else does! It's also easy to forget the "and hey, if it doesn't work, I'll delete him myself," right after because the guy was smiling through it and the scene is followed by Loki really badly trying to explain the logic of being a trickster who everyone knows is a trickster.

A lot of people payed more attention in Ragnarok than to the other Thor movies so it's not a new retcon and people seem fine with the extremely strange take that 'loki is bad but he can do good sometimes,' because the character is more animated and acts foolish and that's generally more fun for comedy, which is fair for people to prefer imo, people find different things entertaining.

But I do solidly hope the show doesn't go that way though and takes a side with Loki on the narrative stance eventually because I've seen a lot of people who just. miss that the TVA's concept is bad. And those who think they're "reforming" Loki. As if the guy needs anything but a break at this point lmao he only got away from Thanos like 2 days ago please just let him rest for a bit he's a fail villain and it's cringe to have your supposed 1st open queer character get beaten to a pulp by Sif and then put wack sexualizing shots for it too :/

it's like the show itself is trying to sell the angle of "Loki is a villain" and I'm a clown who is still wanting that to be intentional because if it is? It could be amazing and playing with how different parties are framed would be s p e c t a cu l ar and could encourage people to reassess the hero coding in other movies including ones Loki was previously in - but we're reaching the last two episodes and I don't feel like that'll happen.

I feel like even if Loki does reach the end of the show as a transformed person it'll be done leaving the audience with "perhaps you're not so bad after all, Loki," and then also give credit to Mobius or Sylvie or whoever else was involved, simply because as even of yet Loki hasn't taken on a lead role in the show. I'd argue he hasn't really contributed anything worthwhile to plot either. As you've said, he's being shown as someone who needs to change but isn't really motivated to. Aw man they better not make romantic love the reason he wants to change.

[asterekmess]

Heyo! So I’ve been in the sterek fandom for quite some time now and I’ve been wondering about how you would describe stiles’ personality?

I’ve never actually sat down and watched a full episode of teen wolf (and honestly I’m not sure if I ever will considering everything I’ve heard about how they treat derek and his history but idk who knows I’m very curious in a lot of the plot lines and character development), and a lot of the stuff I know about the show I’ve scraped from fics, gifs, and meta posts

For me personally, Stiles’ personality and characterization is so fluid and nuanced that sometimes I have trouble pinning him down (tho derek doesn’t have trouble with that *wink wink*) So I would love to hear your thoughts! Sorry for the long ask, this grew legs and an ugly mug shdhdhhdjdcj anyhow have a great day :D

Well, everybody's got different perspectives and opinions on Stiles' personality, honestly. Even when you try to stick to 'canon' things, there's a lot of room for interpretation on the why when he does things, or what it says about him as a person, etc etc etc.

Personally, I see canon Stiles as kind of an asshole. I mean, I love him, and he does some incredible things, and he's clearly got an intense love for those close to him. But I do make him kinder in fics, or I at least make him regret being a dick.

In canon, we're given a Stiles who cracks 'dead baby' jokes (he's talking about human sacrifice, so the conversation was already plenty morbid. This wasn't out of the blue.) Who begs for Scott to let Jackson die (though it's made clear that this wasn't serious, and he later works to save Jackson's hide like ten times over), and who will mercilessly poke and prod at people's insecurities or painful pasts, especially when worked up. Isaac's previous abuse isn't a no-go topic. Derek having 'dated' (read: been assaulted at worst and at best, been lied to) serial killers isn't something he's going to tread lightly around. He doesn't try to soften things to save someone's feelings most of the time.

He's presented as someone who is incredibly impulsive, with his emotions, words, and actions. It's kind of implied this is because of his ADHD, but that doesn't explain how often the impulsively cruel or harsh things he says aren't retracted or apologized for, or just generally regretted. Yes, ADHD people are impulsive, and yes sometimes our mouths get away from us and we can end up saying some Fucked Up shit to people because we literally couldn't control the words coming out. But that doesn't mean we're cruel or evil or mean. We still feel bad for doing those things, and those of us who are decent people, try to fix or repair what we've messed up. I am...not a fan of how often ADHD is used as an excuse to make a character a dickhead because "he has no filter." No filter means we struggle to control our thoughts and what we say, it doesn't make us heartless.

So, when I'm writing him, I fix it. Even if he still Does something fucked up, I have him care that he did it. I have him realize what he did or said wasn't okay and respond to that knowledge in some way. Which to some people, means I'm just ignoring what a fucker he is, but imo it feels like a horrible fuckup on the creator's parts, so I'm just correcting the mistake. He's no less Stiles just bc I taught him to say sorry.

Anyway. I'm trying NOT to ramble here.

To answer your question, as best I can; Stiles is sarcastic. Stiles is passionate to a fault. His emotions are BIG, whatever they are. Good, Bad, or even apathy. Whatever feelings he has are just intense. He is very much a no gods, no kings, no masters, kind of man. There isn't really an 'authority' to him, except maybe his dad sometimes. He puts family, and those he considers family, First. But that doesn't mean he isn't selfless. Because he is. Incredibly so. Uncomfortably so.

He walks into gasoline for his friends. He puts himself in the position of losing the only parent he has left, for his classmates. He cares enough about strangers to insist a drunk girl he's spoken to for five minutes max stay hydrated and give her a bottle of water. He literally handed over his mind on a platter to a fox demon for someone he barely fucking knew, to keep her safe.

Loyal. Humorous. A fighter. Family-oriented. Clever. Passionate. Strong, physically, mentally, and emotionally. And a very good liar, in my opinion.

He doesn't lie very well in the show, not to people's faces. He'll stumble around a "I haven't seen him since the last time I saw him" or "are you asking me to tell you what I would have told you if I were going to tell you it?" but at the same time, he can repress and hide away his feelings and his pain in a way not even Derek manages.

He asked Caitlin questions about her girlfriend, and worked to solve the human sacrifices, literal minutes after finding out he'd just lost his oldest friend. He drove Lydia to the warehouse to save Jackson after having the shit beat out of him by a man who'd been learning to cause pain since he was a CHILD. And he never gives away how incredibly broken he is for more than a couple seconds. and it's a little frightening, because he convinces people in this show who are lie detectors that he's okay, when he's a fucking mess. Even Derek shows his pain.

You're right that he's nuanced, and part of that is because when you see him in meta or in fic, what you're seeing is a dozen versions of him sort of compressed into a flat image. Because he changes throughout the show, and while some of his core personality stays the same, a lot of stuff changes. So one fic might harp on his insensitivity, and callousness toward Isaac or how easily he says "just let them die" when talking about Derek or someone else. And then another will dive into how fucking far he's willing to go, travelling all the way to mexico and facing down a hunter clan a dozen times more powerful than the argents with no one but a banshee at his side, just to get Derek back. Or how he saw Malia hurting and sat with her on a couch and held her hand. One is a much earlier version of Stiles, from the start of the show, the other from his midpoint. Near the end, you're able to say that he was so torn about leaving Derek while he was dying, he had to be Begged to go save Scott. That he manipulated an ENTIRE FBI investigation in order to save and protect Derek. (im focusing on derek bc sterek, but also bc his relationship with Derek is the Biggest Arc he has in the show, and the most solid)

You're going to read about different versions of him, and I totally get how that's confusing.

We all sort of bleed ourselves into him and either bring certain canon characteristics to the forefront, or straight up add our own so he's more relatable to us.

So while I can't really help you pin down any specific Stiles, just know that there's not really a 'true' Stiles that anyone can confirm or deny. It's all just perception, so however you see him, go with it. Strengthen it. Explore it. I'm sure you'll find people who see what you do.

[himboarcher]

reasons i've seen folks say that grad critics hate grad:

they hate travis (in fairness, i’ve def seen some comments of people shitting on trav for the sake of shitting on trav, but it’s not super common and typically gets downvoted into oblivion on reddit.)

it's not balance / travis isn't griffin (???????)

they hate neurodivergent people (again, in fairness, i have seen a handful of comments that could come across this way! but most of the time when travis being ADHD or his NPD is brought up, it's by defenders saying that criticizing travis is ableist because he's neurodivergent or, in one particular comment, infantilizing him bc of it and literally comparing grad to putting a kid's artwork on the fridge. there were some comments early on that pointed to him being a narcissist as the reason for things people disliked about grad, but everyone seems to have realized that that's a shitty train of thought and left it behind.)

they're just toxic haters (again, there are a small handful of people like this because this is the internet, but the genuine criticism greatly outweighs their bullshit. i 100% think that the people, which is mostly just one dude who is also insufferable on reddit, who have been responding rudely to positive tweets under the episode announcements lately are out of line and need to stop. there's been an influx of that lately, presumably because people are frustrated that after over a year of grad going on, there's been no improvement to most of the major issues. that's still no excuse to be a dick to folks, though.)

vs some of the actual reasons i don't like grad:

the racism / racist tropes, and the way that they’ve straight up ignored this criticism and will likely never acknowledge it. pretty wild considering a core tenet of their brand is their willingness to acknowledge when they’ve messed up and do their best to course correct.

clumsy attempts at inclusion that are shallow and often end up being fairly offensive ("...ask me about my wheelchair," anyone?)

on a related note: i don't think that travis had bad intentions, but as an nonbinary person, it feels othering to me that travis only has enby characters give others their pronouns unprompted. i'm thinking specifically of kai here. having listened to their introduction, i don't think it's as bad or awkward as some people have said, but i can't remember travis ever having another NPC tell the PCs their pronouns, especially not a cis character. it's not a huge deal, but it's something that rubbed me the wrong way. admittedly, i don't think it would bother me so much if travis hadn't dropped the ball so much with performative inclusion in the past.

okay i'm putting the rest under a read more because even without getting into all of the problems i have with it, this got Long.

little to no player agency. player choices are ultimately meaningless and have little to no effect on the world. even when he seems to go along with a plan they come up with, it always ends with them having to go back to travis' pre-written script (see: subpoenaing the xorn, but not really because they had to go with travis' original plan of "send the xorn home through the rift".) the players repeatedly get told things about what they think or feel or what they've been doing to an unnecessary degree. fitzroy is the only one who really gets space to play and decide things for himself, and that's only because travis has decided he's the main character.

the NPCs are all too nice and willing to give the PCs anything they ask for and more, unless the PCs are trying to follow their own plan and then the NPCs are completely useless. but honestly, aside from gray, all of the NPCs are just.... nice. travis refuses to even let his antagonists be mean or cruel or even more than just slightly rude, because that'd be a bummer and we don't want that! the "twist" of gordy the lich king actually being polite and chill is not a twist at all because everyone is like that in this world. the NPCs are also wildly overpowered, but then suddenly absolutely useless when the PCs actually want their help.

too many cliffhangers that are dropped immediately at the beginning of the next episode. i feel bad for travis because so many of these cliffhangers actually set up good momentum and seemed like things were gonna get interesting, but almost every single time he just dropped them at the beginning of the next episode. like when althea showed up to interview the boys and the next episode started with travis being like "actually you went to sleep, she said she'll be back tomorrow!"

that time travis specifically said in his exposition dump that the thundermen left their horses behind because they thought the centaurs might be offended by them riding horses, only to later on rag on them for being surprised that the centaurs had horses they could ride.....

also the centaur arc in general, but i already listed racism above, so.

the way that the toxic positivity and parasocial tendencies in the mcelroy fandoms have made a large portion of the fandom take ANY criticism as a personal attack on travis and/or on themselves for enjoying something others consider bad, either morally or just quality-wise. it’s okay to admit that something you like has problematic elements or just isn’t as good as it once was. you can and should engage critically with the media you consume.

related to above: the way travis has handled genuine criticism, which is to throw public tantrums on his twitter or make weird passive aggressive tweets & ultimately ignore all the genuine criticism and advice he's been offered by claiming it's all subjective, even after he specifically asked for it and set up an email for folks to send in genuine, objective advice for him (after he threw a tantrum on twitter and replied to someone's criticism publicly, which resulted in his followers dogpiling on that person bc how dare they insult their internet best friend). while i was writing this last night, he actually announced that he’s taking a break from Twitter and acknowledged that he’s been using it as an echo chamber where he can easily get validation from folks, and honestly i’m happy for him that he’s recognized this problem and is stepping away for a while! i hope he’ll genuinely use this time to reflect on how he’s been behaving and find a more healthy way to use social media. i’m leaving this point in because i think his Twitter being such a positive echo chamber was encouraging him to do stuff like this, and him somewhat acknowledging his behavior doesn’t mean it can no longer be discussed.

rainer. extremely cool concept in theory and i was very into it until that awkward "does anyone want to ask about my wheelchair?" moment. also when travis had her use her mobility aid to RAM INTO A DOOR instead of just fucking knocking???? also all the times travis has tried to force a romantic relationship between her and fitzroy, despite fitzroy displaying no interest in her in that way. also, just to clarify: as an ace person, i don’t think this is aphobic! (and it’s kind of a stretch to call it that imo, especially since griffin never explicitly said that fitzroy's aromantic!) i just think it’s weird and awkward and a little uncomfortable for me personally, mostly because it reminds me of the times i’ve been in similar situations.

less of a problem than a lot of the other stuff and more just bad writing, but the forced emotional moments. in general, nothing in grad feels earned (why are the boys heading a war? when they have multiple actual heroes with combat experience on their side and a supposedly powerful secret organization? and the thundermen are like 21 years old max and have only had like ~10 fights in the entire campaign?) but there've been a couple times where travis has tried to force unearned emotional moments, presumably because he knows people enjoyed those with the last campaigns. but the difference is that in balance, the big emotional moments happened because they were earned. in grad, it's just travis throwing a baby pegasus at us for a few minutes and then the next time she shows up, it's supposed to be a tearful goodbye.

there are absolutely no stakes. remember when the thundermen got told that if they left, gray would kill 10 students? and then they left and came back and it turns out that what gray actually meant was, "i'll tie ten students who are mostly nameless NPCs to a tree and throw some dogs at them that you can easily stop in time, then throw a tantrum because how dare you but i'll leave before you can really do anything to hurt me lol" travis did have fitzroy's magic get taken away, but like. it didn't really do anything? also all he had to get it back was be coerced into using drugs by an authority figure and trip in the woods?

we're told that the school is weird and the hero system is corrupt, but the world of nua is still presented as more of a liberal utopia than anything? althea getting fired because of a corrupt villain is the only time we've somewhat seen corruption, but even then, she was still allowed to get (what seems to me, anyway, but admittedly i don't know for sure bc nothing about the HOG makes much sense) a fairly important job from the very people who stripped her of her hero license or whatever the fuck heroes need?

travis doesn't actually seem to understand how capitalism or bureaucracy works and just chalks up everything to "red tape." also more on the rest of the boys than him specifically, but the "let's destroy capitalism!" thing turning into just pushing some filing cabinets over................... okay.

and one last piece of extremely subjective criticism: it's just kind of.... boring. i think a lot of people, myself included, would be willing to overlook 90% of the problems with graduation if it didn't feel like such a slog to get through.

also people saying that we can't or shouldn't criticize graduation because it's "free" is absolutely absurd for several reasons. first, something being free does not make it above criticism. second, there ARE people who directly financially support the show with monthly donations. three, there's a difference between something being free and something being not for profit. podcasting is their full time job. they make their living off of money made from TAZ and MBMBAM (and probably their other shows to a lesser extent). this not a fun home game that they are graciously recording and sharing with us. it is a product they are producing that they make money off of, both from ads in the episodes and merch & books based off of these podcasts. they have marketed themselves as professionals, and both griffin and travis have been on panels where they are marketed as professional DMs and appear alongside other professional DMs (which makes it incredibly frustrating when people say that travis is just a newbie DM and we can't criticize him because of that. if he's a newbie, then he should not be taking part of panels as a professional DM where he speaks as an expert). TAZ is free in the same way that an episode of NCIS is free. i may not pay for it directly, but the creators are paid to create it and profit off of me consuming this product. so saying we should be grateful for any mcelnoise that the benevolent good boys share with us and that we're not allowed to criticize it "because it's free" is absolutely wild.

[bellatrixobsessed1]

What do you consider demonizing Azula vs objectively describing her less flattering traits and harmful actions?

Honestly, it all comes down to word choice and language at the end of the day imo. If someone’s character analysis is presented with a certain tone I’m more inclined to say that they are demonizing her. For example saying that “ as a child Azula demonstrated red flags for mental illness and should have been helped” is a lot less antagonizing than “Azula was born evil, she liked to tease and bully Zuko from the start.” One of these statements addresses the complexities of her situation (a broken home and several poor adult influences/examples) while the other basically places full blame on a child. Things like that. I really, really do believe that it’s all about the tone an Azula analysis is presented in. 

Personally I would agree that some of her childhood behaviors, like setting Zuko’s pants on fire and burning some of the bushes in the place garden were huge red flags. They are harmful actions. BUT a lot of those could be 1. attention getting antics because her mother usually paid more attention to her when she misbehaved. 2. Her emulating Ozai and his attitude. And stuff like, “dad’s going to kill you.” Is very much Azula mimicking what her father demonstrated as well as her father actively rewarding her for behaviors like that. These are definitely harmful actions that started getting worse as she got older. An analysis like that is fair and not demonizing imo, because it recognizes that Azula is still a kid and it doesn’t write off the possibility for her to unlearn some of these behaviors later in life with the right help. 

While something like, “even child Azula is a insane, look what she did to Zuko! What kind of sociopath sings-songs about someone’s dad killing them!?” Here is an example of using buzzwords and implying that mental illness as something that automatically makes someone evil. It puts all blame on Azula while factoring out the adults in her life that either sat passive or actively taught her these behaviors. This, imo, is demonizing. 

One of my biggest peeves at the moment is when they say that fucking Ozai and Zhao are more redeemable. Zhao was literally seen in the Avatar universe version of Hell. It is canon that he did not get redemption. So by extension it is canon that he is NOT more redeemable than Azula whose fate is still ambiguous. And there is not one argument that can convince me that the grown ass man who burned his own son’s face off while tearing apart his self-worth is more redeemable than a fourteen year old girl. There is not one argument that can convince me that a man who made a weapon out of his daughter and (heavily implied) abused his wife (at least emotionally) is more redeemable than a fourteen year old girl. Usually I try to keep an open mind and be nice about my opinions in these discourses but I just can’t with this one; I think that this particular statement is stupid as hell. Ozai and (especially in canon and in Hell) Zhao are NOT more redeemable than Azula. Bye, miss me with that dumb shit. 

Some more specific examples that come to mind are;

 When people make Azula out to be a murderer and/or a sadist

The turtle duck thing

Baby Azula.  

The murder thing drives me nuts because, first of all, she’s a solider. She’s at war. Her one kill was a combat kill, he came back to life, and he was entering the Avatar state. Now correct me if I’m wrong but Aang killed Zhao in the Avatar state. You can’t tell me that no one died or was seriously injured in the episode ‘The Avatar State’. So of course she’s gonna shoot him down; he could have killed her just as well. He had no control over the Avatar state at the time. 

Furthermore she has the least amount of collateral damage. And one of the smallest body counts. Aang has killed so many background characters via the Avatar state. Sokka killed Combustion man. Sokka, Suki, and Toph killed several soldiers by crashing those war blimps in the finale. I think that you get the point. But none of them get called murders like Azula does. Everyone seems to be well aware that all of those were combat kills. The reason they get called soldiers instead of murders is because they are protagonists. 

Azula is not a murder. She is a solider. Combat kills are different than murder. They are horrible and unfortunate all the same but it isn’t murder. 

And then there’s the sadist claim. At best I think that that’s a misinterpretation of character. At least from my personal POV. I've seen it argued that she’s not a sadist but only because it’s more coinvent not to be; that she would be one if  she had time for it. But I think that a true sadist wouldn’t give a shit if it’s not convenient. If she were a sadist I feel like she would go out of her way to hurt people like Chit Sang even if it’s not necessary. Azula does only what’s necessary and that’s it. I do think that Azula is merciful. Perhaps not conventionally so but she isn’t cruel. She takes prisoners and as far as we’ve seen on screen those prisoners aren’t treated particularly bad (by Azula anyhow). She doesn’t torture her prisoners and she doesn’t kill them. 

Now, I will give more of an open mind to people who say that she is an EMOTIONAL sadist of sorts. I do think that she gets a kick out of scaring people and bullying people. I’m on the fence with this argument though because how much of her getting a kick out of Zuko’s suffering is her also being relieved that it is not her. And how much of it is more run of the mill teenage bullying? This is one thing where I’m more than willing to hear from the other side. 

I think that the murderer and sadism thing is very much an attempt to demonize her. I think that it can be an exaggeration of her unflattering behaviors. I’m not saying that the things she did aren’t harmful but I do think that some people over exaggerate them or make up stuff that isn’t there; I’ve seen people state that she ‘probably killed so many soldiers off screen’. There is no canon evidence to support this? Likewise these are generally the same people who tell Azula fans that they can’t say Azula was abused off screen. 

The other big one is the turtleduck one. Zuko demonstrates how Azula feeds turtleducks. He throws a piece of bread. I don’t know where the rock thing came from. Furthermore I very much think that Azula chucking a loaf of bread at a turtleduck is just a small child being a little shit. When I was like five or six I yeeted a good half a loaf at a duck because, “the more food they get the happier they are, right????” To me that just seems more like a small child who has not learned impulse control than a child who likes hurting animals. This whole argument, at least imo, is actively demonizing a child for actions that aren’t exactly uncommon for children. The problem is when the child doesn’t learn that yeeting whole loafs at turtleducks is a bad thing. THIS is where I see a fair argument forming because (as of late) Azula didn’t seem to have unlearned this behavior. This is an example of one of those red flags I mentioned in the first paragraph. Which is where some nuance and critical thinking needs to come in. The complexities that I mentioned above about how the child isn’t 100% to blame here. The adults in her life should have tried to teach her better and/or Ozai need to fuck on off and stop teaching her to do wrong. 

And finally baby Azula. I’ll just drop a link here because I already talked about this. But the tone of The Search literally tried to demonize a whole baby. The way the narrative decided frame her was really unnecessary. I really don’t see how this scene contributed to the story other than to remind readers that ‘Azula was always evil, see!’ Nevermind that she’s sleeping in a whole crib. Because that’s a literal infant. 

Anyhow I might come back to this later to add more or clarify but I’m about to make lunch so I’ll end this here for now. Feel free to discuss further. I definitely don’t mind hearing from the other side so long as arguments are respectful and open minded.

[dateamonster]

i, for one, would love to hear your deep read of zombieland saga *eyes emoji*

ok i just got through lowkey ranting about zls (mostly abt how much i love junko this season) to my friend so i think im sufficiently warmed up to make a first class fool of myself on the internet by becoming another Guy Who Get s Heated About Anime

so i’ve been thinking abt this a lot since zls revenge came out- and just in general but i mean given this season is literally called Revenge it now feels especially relevant to talk about zls as a story about second chances and seeking personal growth after hitting absolute rock bottom. like in this case that rock bottom is obviously death, the greatest low you can achieve, but its also not just that i dont think. bear with me.

the zombie angle is obvi crucial to the show like its the hook its twist its the instigator for a lot of the wacky situations and hijinks and such but its also? not super necessary sometimes? or at least it feels that way. what i mean is the show is so much about the characters and their personal arcs in a way that i find so human and relatable that i sometimes legit forget this is a show about zombie pop idols

even the overarching goal that drives the plot forward of “saving saga” (though i feel like we still dont know everything there is to know abt that) has to do with this theme of second chances. its a story about comebacks, about trying to breathe life into something that seems dead. thats maybe sort of obvious, but its been hitting me how much that like core thesis informs the characters and makes their own resurrections feel.. more personal ya know?

sakura loses her shot at her dream in a split second accident and for a while isnt even able to process that because of her lost memories, while ai was at the top of her game when she died and now has to watch her former friends and fans move on without her, and lily was a child star who was literally killed by her commitment to making other people happy, only finding her love of performing again after her death. franchouchou and the mission to save saga was the reason all the girls were brought back from the dead, but it also becomes their second chances in that it gives them a reason to keep trying in the face of loss after loss.

its a funny cute show but its also got some pretty grim stuff baked right into the foundation and i think the reason it works and doesnt feel super tonally dissonant is because its so consistently heartfelt. its so easy to get sick of shows with “never give up!” type messages when it feels like the characters triumphs are assured and their struggles only ever temporary, but it never really feels that certain for franchouchou, and the losses they face send ripples of fear and doubt through its members that come back into play the next time the group is put to the test. junko doesnt lose all her anxieties after one successful show, and the way saki, who prides herself in her sense of strength and rebellious nature, struggles to contend with change and situations outside her control still feels as real every time because imo theres an understanding that that stuff leaves lasting marks, even to the resurrected, even to a zombie.

not to go even more off the rails than i already have, but i think its really interesting the many different ways zombies as a type of monster are portrayed and the way zls relates to that. the common thread as i see it, if such a thing can rly exist, is this fear of decay. not even necessarily death itself but degradation, deterioration, the processes through which every person is stripped of what makes them themselves, reduced to a husk with only the most base instincts still intact, moving around and affecting some pale imitation of life but completely empty inside.

zls as a zombie story is interesting to me because while i think those sort of fears are still present (the scene recently where saki fully realizes she’ll never get to grow up still strikes me as incredibly dark for the episode it was in, though im not saying thats a bad thing) zls supposes that a person can indeed overcome that state of decay.

it doesnt treat the idea lightly; positive change is HARD and a thousand times more so for these characters who have already reached what should have been their lives natural conclusion. the sorta thesis i feel like zls and particularly revenge are presenting is that personal growth is a constant battle against the path of least resistance, the predisposition towards stagnation or defeatism that occurs after a traumatic loss. it’s not enough to be handed a second chance, you’re still just another mindless zombie until you decide to try and be more, and even then you have to keep making that choice every day that youre alive.

so yea hopefully this doesnt all read as some totally insane Reach but like once again, it may not necessarily be that deep, but it COULD be. and thats whats important to me <3

[ectora]

So, after the post of season 2, I decided to continue with season 3. I wanted to do Until episode 9 cause that’s the strict half but I knew there was along break after episode 10 so I was like let’s do until ten. For the second part, I might do it for every episode separately in some sorte of episode review or whatever, or just wait for the end of the season and do a global season 3 post. We’ll see I guess, I’m an indecisive so I hate taking decisions lmao. Anyway, let’s get to it.

Screen time

Macy : 3h03m10s (10/10)

Mel : 2h47m12s (10/10)

Maggie : 2h40m57s (10/10)

Harry : 2h09m34s (10/10) (+Jimmie 7m37s)

Abigael : 47m40s (5/10)

Jordan : 1h02m24s (9/10)

Again, those numbers are not to the second but scene wise. The only time I would separate the screen time in the scene itself was if the focus was completely on one character (vision + sound) and we know another character is there but we don’t really see them).

As before, here a graph of the screen time per episode for each character.

*harry and jimmie’s screen time are mixed for the graph but again, Jimmie’s is like 7 minutes.

And here a graph of all the characters screen time by episode so it’s more easily comparable.

Now, again, the screen time is pretty obvious on the fact the sisters are and stay the focus of the show. But far. Though I’m Ngl, I was really surprised to see Maggie being the last of the three sisters. She had way more screen time in season 2 but idk in season 3 it also felt like she was also a bit ahead. At least of Mel. But I think that’s a question of how they handle the story. I think Maggie is actually the one with the best treatment out of the three sisters, with the more consistent development. So maybe that’s why she feels more present. Because she’s actually getting development. Mel, imo, can’t really say the same. She doesn’t have that much more screen time than Maggie and yet, to me, she feels a lot more less developed. Macy had her story focused around men last seasons. And if this season hasn’t fixed that issue when it comes to Hacy imo, I do feel she gets a bit more personal development. But still, Maggie feels the most developed to me.

Jordan is more present in the story so that’s good. I love him and I hope they can find him a good place in the story as a human because he’s a sweetheart. To be honest however, he could have a bit more screen time Ngl. Same can be said for Abigael. I personally have the feeling that the story she has now wasn’t necessarily planned if I’m being honest, which is why it feels so detached. And obviously she needs to have her story more liked to the main storyline and TCO so her presence can be more natural and cohesive. However when you think about it, half the episode when we’re half way through the season, for a regular/main character, it’s a bit weird. I hope going forward, they’ll fix both these issues. Have her be in more episode and linking her to the main story.

Detailed screen time

As I did last time, here are the tables with their detailed screen time with each other main characters.

* group means 2+ characters of the core six that doesn’t involve all three sisters.

To be honest, these tables brought light on issues we - I think- were already aware of. Mel/Macy for example is basically inexistant. It’s really sad to see them barely share scenes just the two of them. Like Mel and Maggie have really nice scenes together where we can see them talk and bond. Macy has that sometimes with Maggie too. But Mel and Macy ? We barely even know what their relationship is if I’m being honest. Like it feels like Maggie and Mel have each other and they make Macy have Harry. He is her one to go, the one they develop her relationship with the most which, imo opinion, shouldn’t be the case.

It brings me to my next point. I know it’s only half season but TCO purely together isn’t even the biggest screen time anymore. Hacy actually is. Love them or not, that’s not the topic, I think there is the need of a discussion about how they slowly shifted the focus of these two characters toward each other. The pairing isn’t an issue, the way it’s handled kinda is. Because at the end of the day it’s also a disservice to both of them. I know COVID is to be taken into account and that they’re limited in the interaction and that Harry is the most integrated of the three main supportive characters but it is still an issue. Even in the story, Harry is all about his relationship and sometimes forgets his duties. Macy’s first thought is basically Harry. They could have used some of this time to develop further the sisters between themselves. Like Maggie and Mel don’t feel as centred on their romance while Macy definitely feels like it’s the major characteristic of her character right now. Same with Harry.

In a general manner however, they’ve been doing better with the sisters sharing scenes that aren’t all about fighting but there is still some serious work to be done. As said, Mel and Maggie for example have some nice scenes where it’s a bit more domestic. They talk about their actual lives more. Maggie has that a bit with Macy too but it’s mostly Mel/Maggie. While Macy talks to Harry.

When it comes to their personal time, by that I mean without the core six, they have around the same time so that’s good. Tho again, as I said before, they have around the same time but it feels like some character just have better written development.

I’m also glad to see Jordan and Abigael share screen with a bit more characters but also would like to have more mix between the mains. It’s almost odd at this point to see Jordan interact with anyone else than Maggie and Harry. I loved his episode with Macy but it almost felt random because he shared 90% of his time with Maggie. Abby it’s a little bit less the case because I feel like in season 2 she had the opportunity to share scenes with all of them (and I want more cause I love it) but now I would like to see her interact with others more too.

PAIRINGS

Hacy : 53m11s

Joggie : 18m18s

Abimel : 12m37s

Melby : 5m58s

That’s probably one of the things that annoy me the most in the show so bare with me.

Let’s start with the small things. I’m Ngl, I’m a bit confused about Maggie. Jordan is pretty obviously supposed to be her love interest I think we can all agree on that. I don’t know if they’re trying to throw some love triangle drama or fake drama with Antonio but well. In any case, I think they’re just a bit more slow burn. And I do think they’re actually the best written romance in the show since the beginning. Maggie never feels centred around Jordan. And tho Jordan does majorly gravitates around Maggie, he also gets a story and development. And yet their love connexion is obvious. Don’t know why they can’t do that with others.

I think I made my issue with Hacy rather clear. Not the ship itself but the way the show does it. I mean their time is clearly superior to everyone else (and i know it’s because Harry is technically the fourth character in terms of importance and is integrated in the story but still, I think there are still things to be fixed about this) and I think the way the show tend t have these two continuously gravitate around each other first is a disservice and just too much at this point. Like in ten episodes they have had more than the entirety of season 2. I’m pretty sure it means something.

Which leads me to my last point. And the most annoying one. Mel. It’s a whole other level. The show has a serious issue on their hands. Mel is the only sister that isn’t straight. And her relationship are not even remotely treated the same as her sisters. Season 2 was one thing. But season 3 makes it so painfully obvious. And it’s not ok. She has two potential ships. And yet, the screen time of these two combined is barely above Maggie’s with Jordan. And not even half Hacy’s. And that’s a genuine issue. I need the show to start treating their lgbt relationship the same way they do the straights. I’m tired of ghosts. I’m tired of unseen. I’m tired of two dimensional. Of the lack of development. Or the unbalance with her sisters. It’s enough.

Talking about her potentiality, the show definitely has me confused with the whole Abimel/Melby situation. They’re hinting hard on the first one while keeping the second in the background. Which is entirely confusing. And low key a problem too. Because yes I ship Abimel but I do think Melby deserves better. And if the show is just keeping melby while they can develop Abimel then that’s just weird too.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Melby just doesn’t feel like a relationship the show has any interest of putting effort in. Ngl, when Mel said at ClexaCon that the writers didn’t really give them backgrounds or anything, it didn’t sound like freedom, it sounded like they just didn’t care enough to develop it. Sometimes, it almost feels like they just kept it around because of the Abigael backlash, so have a sapphic relationship while they can develop something else on the side. Ruby has a charming actress so she has that working for her, but her character is very superficially developed, they didn’t bother to give her depth and it doesn’t feel like it was meant to last with the whole not wanting to be involved in magic thing. I’m not trying to bash anyone or any ship, but that relationship does feel very superficial in terms of writing. And honestly if they’re just keeping it around while building something else, it’s in itself annoying due to the nature of the relationship. Like at that point it’s not even the bare minimum.

Abimel seems more build up already. They’ve been hinting at it since season 2, poring them all the time. The lines. The tensions the chemistry. The connexion. It genuinely feels like that’s were they were going toward. Because it just makes sense. It also makes sense in terms of pairing. All three sisters have their love interest in the main cast. Enemies to lovers trope. As said, it makes sense. But also who actually knows. Because let’s be honest, the show has an history with not treated sapphics the same way as straights. Which is even more obvious in this first part of the season and looking at the numbers. Again I understand Ruby is not a regular (which reinforce my previous points). But likes. That’s what brings me to say again and again that at this point, the show needs to either actually commit to that relationship and make Ruby an actual part of the show or let it go. Because what we have right now ? Not ok. Because they give us zero energy. And I’m pretty sure that if they wanted to actually do more, they definitely could have. Right now, the show is under a pretty bad light when it comes to lgbt characters and their treatment. It’s a bit ridiculous and it’s just not right.

Anyway, I think this concludes my rant. I’m sorry it’s very, very long and for WHAT 😭 I have too much time on my hands I’m telling you. Anyway, if you read all of that I hope you’re enjoyed but also you probably, too, have too much time.

[variousqueerthings]

Tory Nichols Is Not Okay (and other predictable book-titles)

I’ve been trying to figure out some things around Tory that make me very protective of her as a character + hopeful for more in-depth writing of her character in upcoming seasons.

1. within the story she differs from literally every other main in that she’s the single character without a support network to fall back on. Even Robby, who’s having A Tough Fucking Time, could theoretically have a moment where he figures out that Kreese (and probably Silver once he’s in the picture) is the fucking worst and Daniel, Johnny, Shannon, and Amanda would want him to come back, hell I imagine that next season will have Daniel and Johnny thinking a lot about how exactly to convince Robby to give them a second chance - as of end season 3, Tory hasn’t got anyone fighting in her corner at all.

This isn’t in the sense of characters competing about trauma or who-has-it-worse or who’s more likely to become a villain or anything. It’s just something interesting I’ve noted, because there’s never been a character like her in the movies or the show, one who is going through stuff quite as bad as what she’s being presented as going through: No support, no money, no friends.

2. I find it interesting that she doesn’t (at the moment) have any direct connection to either Daniel or Johnny - the two cores of the show. Sure she was Johnny’s student for a hot second, but I don’t think they had a single meaningful interaction.

She interacted with Aisha first, which - when they wrote Aisha off the show (actually probably the thing I most disagree with in this story, because it left several question marks hanging in the air) - meant that the first grounding element she had in the story was lost.

Then she interacted with Sam and I think the core of their rivalry - that Sam represents everything Tory can’t have VS the complicated mix of privilege (which I’m hoping will be brought up) + the way Cobra Kai took her best friend and boyfriend from her + everything she’s internalised from Daniel - is really really cool and some of Tory’s strongest moments come from that, because the two play off each other so well and this show is all foils and nemeses. Hopefully the show won’t try to simplify this into “boyfriend troubles.”

Then there’s Miguel Which, obviously there’s some complicated stuff going on there, but in the end, beyond jilted lovers, I personally find her actual relationships with Aisha and Sam more interesting, although the general sense of “oh great, betrayed again, why did I think anything different would happen” + at the same time getting an insight into something inherently self-destructive, (in that she deliberately went for a guy she knew wasn’t over his ex) has some good elements to it.

(there’s Hawk as well, but that’s more casual-trauma-friendship-with-a-dose-of-egging-each-other-on, the two of them aren’t really close).

And lastly there’s Kreese. Who is. The only person who knows what she’s going through. We have one episode with a couple of scenes + a handful of comments that indicate where she’s at and where she’s at is not good. 

3. Tory is maybe a tough sell right off the bat, because of several factors: she’s mainly angry and violent, she’s (as stated above) not emotionally connected to the two leads and her only other relationships right now are antagonistic or written off the show or... Kreese. Robby is going to be there in season 4 which’ll offer some nice opportunities, but for the moment they’re pretty much strangers.

She was introduced later than anyone else we’ve got right now (characters from the movies notwithstanding, but we do already know those + they are connected to Daniel) and her first meaningful interaction was with Aisha, who, I will reiterate, I feel should not have been written off the darn show, but I digress. There was some really interesting interaction going on between her and Aisha and failing to make good on that kind of meant that there was a sense of floatiness to Tory’s first introduction - suddenly this relationship doesn’t matter, oh okay I guess? Reboot. 

That being said I think she’s a very bold addition to the show and I’m curious about where the story will go with Tory next, since imo her first two seasons were about building her character to a point where she could become an Antagonist with some hidden depths. 

I’m expecting based on the first three seasons of the show that those depths will be revisited and respected.

4. I think I’m hoping for Sam to realise what’s going on there, for Sam to try and help, for Sam to realise that, actually, Tory’s problems extend faaaar beyond her and she was more like the straw that broke the camel’s back. I’d like this as well because while it might’ve been a weakness before that Tory wasn’t connected to Daniel or Johnny, now that can become a strength - the story can really start to move beyond them and into the ways that the younger characters interact with each other in a more forgiving + healing + understanding way (using their lessons, which... might? become more unified now? perchance? since they’re on the same side for the first time in... ever?)

I’d like for another adult to get involved there, but I’d absolutely love it if the first steps came from Sam and Tory, rather than Daniel or Johnny or any other adult noticing this kid needs some help. It’d be sad and hopeful all at once for them to have the realisation that sometimes kids just fall through the cracks, but then Tory can be supported by her peers first and foremost.

I wouldn’t necessarily say this needs to happen in season 4, but the sympathy extended to characters like Hawk, Robby, Johnny, Daniel, etc. in the writing needs to be extended to her as well. And for that to happen she needs to connect with someone other than Kreese.

Also, of course, Tory and Robby are going to be Sadness Bros next season, pretty sure they have horror stories to tell each other while they bond - I’m hoping this doesn’t become a romantic relationship, but it’s a show that likes its romantic relationships, so we’ll see. Fingers crossed. (also if Tory should be dating anyone it’s Aisha, right????) Point is, that’ll obviously give her more grounding with another main that isn’t I’M GONNA KICK YOUR ASS!

I think this is where the initial elements of those aforementioned depths can be explored more thoroughly. Robby wouldn’t just be willing to listen - he’d be the first character to really Get It. He’ll probably be the first person to understand her and so the first protagonist we’ll get to really relate to her through (again, to me Miguel doesn’t count, he didn’t know her at all). 

Anyway I want for Sam and Tory to become the ultimate remixed version of Daniel and Johnny, in that they fully cannot stand each other for X amount of the runtime, only to find common ground at the last moment and perchance do some gay, friendly karate matching. 

(Also Tory’s bi, right? Yeah, Tory’s bi. I see your flannel!)

Tory has the potential to be a great slow-burn character, so I’m excited!

[mc-critical]

Something I can never bring myself to understand is the MY fandom’s seeming obsession with *proving* Mahidevran or Hürrem as the more morally correct, more noble, more respect-worthy etc sultana. Or measuring whose actions and beliefs were the most justifiable or who suffered the most unfortunate circumstances. It seems to completely ignore the fact that most characters in the franchise, sans a small handful of characters, fall into the category of morally questionable or ambiguous. I feel like both Mahidevran and Hürrem are both victims to the same terrible circumstances and the enviornment in which they both lived and were forced to adapt to was a catalyst to a lot of their deplorable actions and beliefs. They both came to the palace as concubines with no family nor money to their names (I can’t recall if this was held consistent in the TV series for Mahidevran’s case or not but I know this is the case for her historically as well), both of them had their worth and their livelihood tied to their ability to produce princes and please the Sultan (who will take any opportunity to remind these women that they are a mere piece of property to him anytime they attempt to assert themselves in any way.) Then there’s the looming threat of the principle of fratricide that basically haunted them throughout the entirety of their motherhood. I’m in no way saying the immoral decisions they made was justifiable or somehow okay (Mahidevran killing Mehmet, Hürrem killing Mustafa, etc.) I just feel that there’s a lot of black-and-white thinking at play whenever the Mahi/Hürrem discourse comes up. What do you think?

Thank you for bringing this up, because it's probably the thing that bugs me the most about this fandom (outside of Tumblr currently). You voiced my overall thoughts into words so well!

I think these double standarts come from many places that can be both the only reasons for a person or just one of the many. In my experience, this "black or white", "all or nothing" attitude stems from the absolutist belief that people should pick sides and root for only one character (usually the protagonist) in a narrative. They're using the standard, superficial narrative roles of the protagonist and the antagonist in terms of Hürrem, thinking that for some reason the protagonist is always morally right in all she does, simply because she's the protagonist and we're supposed to unconditionally root for her. And if they don't like the protagonist, they choose root for "the other side" instead. They're better than that anyway, so of course, we should root for them!!

To be honest, the earlier seasons of the show make an attempt in justifying this assessment, with them having the narrative voice be rooted in Hürrem's favor, despite of all possible problematic actions that tell a different story altogether. MC Hürrem was given very understandable and sympathetic motivations, thorough character exploration, gradual character development and the privilege of far too obvious Plot Armor (make no mistake, every historical figure in the show has Plot Armor, but with the many attempts at her life, Hürrem's in particular, was way too glaring at points, sometimes to a ridiculous degree.) and the writers making her enemies doom themselves by their own failings, with her seemingly only enduring the "charade". (Valide's flanderization post-E38 is the most egregious example of this.) People I've encountered that are excusing Hürrem's behavior, are citing precisely the first episodes to present their arguments, often refusing to go beyond that. Mahidevran's motivations, while as nuanced as Hürrem's, don't seem as delved into in comparison at first (the origins and backstory of MC Mahidevran are shrouded in ambiguity, and while this is thematically appropriate for her character arc, as I explained here, it definetly doesn't help her case in bringing in more vocal sympathy.) and it could seem that her character is simply antagonistic to Hürrem, doesn't go anywhere and later revels in the depths of her ambition and wounded pride earlier than Hürrem began that similar development of hers. Some Mahi stans could see that probable difference of treatment in narrative and support her simply because of that, as well.

Assessing moral ambiguity isn't all that easy in the grand scheme of things, but it especially falls short when the narrative voice seemingly doesn't support it at first. But many miss that there's a very thin line between the actions and the narrative voice, that only turns into a very deep incongruity as the series progresses. I don't know, perhaps determing the moral ambiguity is indeed so complex, confusing and conflicting, since the whole story could get too complex and many might wonder who they'll root for now when everyone is so problematic. And that's a show that began as a simple soap opera, no less! Why would they even put in the effort in this case?

Not many people are used to ambiguous and questionable character development and are still trying to prove that there is one main positive characters in the show, which is why they try to make Mahidevran or Hürrem more morally right and justifiable than they actually are. They are so passionate about the debates they engage in, because this time period and MC is truly so ripe in analysis and it could be very fun to figure out where these characters come from and go through their 4-seasons long evolution in one chosen context, but by doing this, they so often miss the depth and nuance of the subject at hand and it all turns into a one-sided discourse that drives me nuts.

There is a historical context of the issue is also important to note, in my opinion. Both Mahidevran and Hürrem are historical figures and quite a bit of facts and deeds of theirs are now widely known. Most people in the fandom have opinions of them in advance or could've gained opinions of them a while after they began to watch the show. (There are also numerous fictional interpretations of the events during Süleiman's reign and the players in it, which may also play a part in the overall judgement.) Either way, the known historical facts about them (and other fictional interpretations one could've read, of course) could influence their points of view by a certain amount and use these general impressions to present them while analyzing the characters in the show. I've heard numerous arguments that this Hürrem isn't like the Hürrem the history knows about, that she isn't "their" Hürrem and what they read about her isn't depicted all that much in the show, which takes a lot away, according to them. I especially hate when they call MC Hürrem a one-dimensional "evil" caricature that only has vileness and smug about her, no conscience, no complexity whatsoever. (no, MC Hürrem isn't as simplistic and is much deeper and more nuanced. As far as fictional interpretations go, what they're describing is Hürrem in "The Sultan's Harem" from Colin Falconer, not MC Hürrem! In the MC/K franchise's terms, all they're doing is reducing her to the level of MCK Turhan Sultan, which is disrespectful to this character, to say the least. Turhan is the exact thematic contrast to Hürrem smh while Falconer's Hürrem is the most absurdly evil caricature imaginable, at least IMO, please and thank you!) Or even more unbelievably and outright hilariously, considering Hürrem's actions and the Sultanate of Women overall the downfall of the Ottoman Empire o.o and that's why Hürrem is so ruthless, so cruel, always intentionally, of course. This is plain ridiculous. Mahidevran, on the other hand, is presented by this clique as her "victim", as a completely innocent victim that had everything taken away from her. That Hürrem had stood between her and Süleiman and "ruined" their family. This take ignores every other factor of this falling out (Süleiman, that is) and a part of the nuance of Mahidevran's character. Reducing her to a simple "victim" doesn't cut it at all. Conversely, we have fans that simplify MC Mahidevran's character beyond every belief, loving the historical figure, but claiming they made her an "evil" and "stupid" bitch that cries and whines all the time. It's limiting and one-sided and even if it appears so, there are way far more layers to her character, that develop consistently throughout the narrative. The historical context of the time period itself is usually brought up in the debates, too, justifying whoever they want to justify by "It's a war, only the strongest ones survive!" or "You eat or get eaten! We should understand their time period, not judge by our contemporary times !", which is understandable and valid, but the only thing they end up doing is applying this logic only to their preferred characters when it should be applied to everyone. They try their best efforts to make one more morally right than the other, but they continually fail in the process, because the metric they judge them from is plagued by double standarts.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that excusing one of them, but not the other for most situations is wrong, because Mahidevran and Hürrem.... aren't all that different. What most people seem to miss, is that their character arcs are so contrastingly paralleling, because both of their endings were far from victorious and they got it for the exact same character reason, gained in a different way and in a different time. The persistent insistence of the fandom wanting a main character necessarily having a triumphant grand finale fails flat immediately, because there is no true victory in the franchise. They also miss the negative character development of both of them, them having to do the exact same stuff in many instances, both of them letting go of their pasts and/or former attachments, becoming vicious and ruthless in order to adapt to the circumstances, both of them had to make moves out of desperation because they felt threatened and they both protected their lives and the ones of their children at the end of the day. Heck, they're way more alike than they're different in my book. There is no morally right, no more noble here. Both of them had no qualms to do whatever it took to secure their own future and as you said, the narrative presented very neat motivations for them to do so as a whole. There is always a shade of grey and yes, who has the lighter shade of gray could be up for debate due to differing sympathies and perceptions, but that mustn't stop people to at least try looking at the "bigger picture" and try to view their characters with a bit more criticality, depth and respect.

Rooting for both conflicting sides is still seen as questionable and contradictory by some, but there really is nothing wrong with exploring their motivations without justifying them, no matter where your sympathies extend. I think it creates a more unbiased outlook on the both these characters and the themes around them and it's always awesome to see people doing that in any fandom, really.

And both Sultanas are worthy of respect, I said what I said.

[theroyalmisfitmess]

I think the writers might be keeping an eye out for the general reactions and episode 10 might have also been a way to taste the waters and see if people would want creddie endgame. tbh I’ve seen a lot of people actually wishing for it to happen, more than I was expecting and that makes me happy. I tend not to follow too closely what the writers say cause at the end of the day they could be lying to prevent spoilers, so I prefer to make my own conclusions while watching the show. if we were talk about that aspect though, Miranda is a producer on the show and she seems pretty open to the idea of creddie so my hopes are on her. that being said, I think creddie also makes sense from a narrative stand point. how many random carly love interests can be introduced before it gets redundant? they can’t really drag the beau vs wes thing for a whole season, having a slow burn between your two main characters who already have a romantic past is definitely more interesting to watch than seeing both of them meet love interest to love interest imo (i’m clowning really hard rn but I’m excited for s2)

i have major trust issues with screenwriters, so i can heavily relate. so far though, icarly has been surprisingly good. season 2 is definitely something to look out for! if creddie truly is the route, i am praying it's done carefully. a lot of material from their past could be incorporated and tied to their present.

side note: i kept rewatching the scenes where beau and wes were fighting over carly and freddie's face was shown in view. and i don't know why, but my heart suddenly breaks every single time i see his reaction 😭

[penroseparticle]

Would it be appropriate for me to be That Dumb Bitch™ and ask for all of the music asks? Because I know I'm gonna ask them all on Anon anyway and I really love your opinions,thoughts, and suggestions on music

Thank you so much💜 ily(platonically)

And I hope you're drinking water

ILY too anon

We both know I’m drinking Diet Cokes rather than water. But I appreciate it! And of course you can be That Dumb Bitch. I approve of all Dumb Bitches as I am one too. all 30 questions coming right up!

your favorite album opener I know it’s pretty basic to answer Arctic Monkeys is a good band, but I am pretty basic so here we are. AM is a near perfect album, which is not news to anyone, but few people know that Do I Wanna Know? is the first track on the album. Masterful. 

a song starting w/ the same first letter of your first name Cheat, by Emily Burns. It’s just a quiet, competent, earworm. And it’s a pretty nice message too- if it were me I wouldn’t have cheated, end of. I like it.

a song outside of your usual genre I’m not super into Metal. That’s not to say that I don’t enjoy it, my brother pretty much exclusively listens to hard rock and metal and such, so I have some stuff I like. But it’s just one of those genres someone has to introduce me to songs in. That said, I really like Cold Water by Protest The Hero. Good stuff!

a song that reminds you of your favorite season Almost Lover by A Fine Frenzy is SUCH a Fall song, I swear.

a song from a lifelong favorite artist I think my lifelong favorite artist is Ms. Lauryn Hill, if we’re going by the artists I’ve loved longest- that’s obviously influenced by my mother, who LOVES Jill Scott, Lauryn Hill, etc. I’m going with a Fugees song, not an independent, but it’s still fantastic- the classic “Killing Me Softly With His Song”.

your current “on repeat” song Montero by Lil Nas X is still on repeat and I’m not ashamed.

a song your friend introduced you to that you ended up loving Shout out Anna for introducing me ti Leikeli47! Girl Blunt was the song and now I just love her in general but Girl Blunt is good. I think my fave is Wash and Set though, so have a freebie on me.

a song that speaks the words you couldn’t say I have a hard time asking for things for myself so Rose’s Turn has always been a song I think but don’t say out loud. Starting now it’s gonna be my turn? Too unrealistic tbh.

a song that captures your aesthetic (can be ideal!) Bambi by Hippo Campus

a song about the place where you live I have played Welcome to DC so many fucking times (By Mambo Sauce because this city is a fucking joke) and I am thoroughly sick of it. When youth hockey teams use a song as their warmup song it gets old REAL fast.

a song from an international artist I LOOOOVE Maluma, sorry not sorry, and El Perdedor is one of my favorite songs of all time tbh.

a song you can scream all the words to Love In The Morning by Chris Jobe. I just really enjoy the song idk why. Also it’s a very simple song and it’s easy to sing.

a reboot of a song/songs you already loved (remix, mashup, acoustic, etc.) I love Passionfruit, but Drake is a... problematic artist to enjoy nowadays. Yaeji did a very slow, lilting, quiet cover of it that I quite like. So now for my Passionfruit fix I support a small artist and not, you know, Drake

a song with the name of a place in the title Oh god. Vienna is literally the name of like 4 songs that I love (The Fray, Billy Joel, Lambert, and Ultravox, so I’ve gotta go with that one tbh. Lambert is instrumental and Ultravox is some chill ass 80′s stuff, and everyone knows the Billy Joel one.

a song that reminds you of traveling Feel It Still by Portugal the Man reminds me of a trip I took to NYC because someone I went with loved the band.

your favorite childhood song My favorite childhood song is What Kind of Pokemon Are You? From the 2.B.A. Master album for pokemon. It is my fave because that cd is the first piece of music I ever bought for myself.

a song that reminds you of a good time Midnight by Caravan Palace. I have seen Caravan Palace three times live, more than anyone but Betty Who, and I ALWAYS have a fantastic time at their concerts. Just. So good.

a song that reminds you of a bad time Season 2 Episode 3 by Glass Animals is how I describe depression to people- it’s not just that I’m like, blank or sad or bland. It’s that I go through the motions and it doesn’t feel like anything. I do things I love and it feels like nothing. You kind of just can’t do anything to get out of it, your stuff just stops working.

a song from an artist whose old music you enjoy more than their new music So it turns out that my favorite album by FAR for OkGo is Of The Blue Color Of The Sky, a fairly old album of theirs. I like most of thier stuff and obviously all of their videos are great, but my favorite song of theirs is from this album- Needing/Getting.

a song that empowers you I like other Lady Gaga songs more but Donatella makes me feel like I can punch through Concrete idk why

a song from a local artist DID YOU KNOW GINUWINE IS FROM DC. ANYWAYS STREAM PONY

a song you related to in the past and present, but for different reasons Let’s Dance To Joy Division by The Wombats is a song I’ve always related to. Back in the day it was just loud and fun and very good, and now I really think the message of “Everything sucks but we’re gonna celebrate what we can” is something I try to absorb as much as possible now.

your favorite cheesy pop song Classic by MKTO is an objectively bad song that I constantly have in my Spotify Wrapped. I legit can’t explain it. Is it good? no. Is it original? Also no. Is it interesting? No! I don’t get it but I’m under the spell

a song from a soundtrack (musical, movie, video game, etc.) A PROMISE FROM FIRE EMBLEM: THREE HOUSES WAS MY NUMBER THREE SONG ON MY SPOTIFY WRAPPED LAST YEAR SORRY MOM SORRY GOD

the song currently stuck in your head OR the song you are listening to right now My music is on shuffle but it just hit Hot Girl Bummer by Blackbear

a song that taught you a lesson Which to Bury, Us Or The Hatchet by Reliant K is one of my favorite songs and really is an object lesson in letting things go. What’s more important? The person or the problem? And sometimes it’s the person, so you bury the hatchet, and sometimes it’s the problem, and you bury us (the relationship). It’s a good song imo.

an instrumental song Teleblister by Clever Girl

a song you always skipped, but ended up loving once you listened to it My favorite song from The Blessed Unrest by Sara Bareilles is Cassiopeia and I straight up skipped it every time I listened for the first like, 6 months I listened to the album.

your favorite album closer good kid, m.A.A.d city is a perfect album as well, and Compton is the last song on the album. Perfection.

your all-time favorite song Such a hard question, and not always easy to answer to be honest. It fluctuates. But for me I think my all time favorite song is currently  

[for-peace-war]

No, really. Lovecraft Country sucks.

These are spoilers, but I also don’t give a shit because it’s a bad show and I hope you skim enough to fucking skip it.  I took a few days to decide if I hated it enough to write this and well, I do. 

I will try my best not to say “X is a bad actor,” but instead stick with the characters as they’re intended save for one particular issue.

The Story

It isn’t very Lovecraftian.  And don’t take this as me saying Lovecraft was some kind of master of his craft.  I think he was an absurd racist that used xenophobia as his guise for what truly horrified the sane mind. That being said, the element of the unknown is definitely the hallmark of his world and that in no way is represented in this show.  It could easily be called “Goosebumps: The Black Version” and it’d be just as authentic--if not more so, really.

The story deals with the Bible (?) and magic that comes from uh, knowing the names of things.  You speak a made up language and then you do some kind of confusing magic that has no real purpose or point.  I sound dismissive of this because I am, to be clear.  They could have just as easily had this language be something whites stole from Africans and then perverted into their own means of power (it’d be a pretty easy parralel to any number of imperialist issues left behind in Africa, huh.)

But anyway, it has a tentacle monster. I think we see a big scary octopus at one point.  But the monsters are often in your face and it’s probably less scary than Stranger Things S1.

Honestly, the characters repeat “autumnal equinox” so much that I felt I was going to have a fucking breakdown.  Just the writing is very empty and no one seems to really care about anyone else on the screen except for in a rare moment between the only two characters that make it far and matter. 

Characters

They aren’t very good.  There are tropes present, which isn’t bad at all, but the way the characters interact, speak, and in general move us through the story feels stilted, often nonsensical, and entirely reliant on the viewer assuming that the latest sentence spoken is the only one that matters.

Atticus “Tic” Freeman

A war criminal that derives his power from the white blood inside of him. Again, dismissive but true.  We see this man struggle to connect pieces to a puzzle and eventually he pays the price for it, but not in the way Lovecraft would have someone pay for endeavoring beyond their realm.  Rather, something about fate and a book. Look, honestly? Who gives a shit.  Tic murders a woman in coldblood and it’s never really touched on.  There’s a lot that could be said about militaries, oppression, etc, but we often see these characters enact violence and then the story skips merrily beyond it.  So yeah, he summarily executes a Korean woman and then is later shown torturing another, but it’s okay because he feels a little bad and fucks the Korean sex demon woman.  More on that later.   I felt nothing for him.  He didn’t have some deep animus over being a torturing war criminal.  He was just kind of moving through scenes and having confusing fights with his girlfriend/baby mama.

Letitia “Leti” Lewis

This is what empowerment shouldn’t look like. It amuses me that the show claimed to subvert some kind of norms when the primary love interest (and ultimate heroine) remains the lightest skinned sister in the room.  She is able to maintain the appeal of the ingenue while at the same time having the understood attractiveness of her complexion. As far as Leti is concerned as a character, she too seems to be a pretty shitty person.  We hear that she has “transactional” friendships and she seems pretty much all about self-survival and rarely if ever puts up where others do.  She’s a heroine in the sense that the story makes her be heroic, but it never addresses how her flaws are ultimately all self-inflicted and unnecessary.  She could just not be a shitty person.

Hippolyta Freeman

Well. Hidden Figures was an excellent film, and I think that’s where Hippolyta came from.  In a more serious series, perhaps she and her daughter could have had a very touching arc that would deal with survival and exceptionalism in a world that maligns you for your very being.  Unfortunately, in reality she just comes off as a character that’s quirky in a world that’s also quirky and she doesn’t get to harness her power. There’s an entire episode dedicated to how she discovers who she is and the result is well, her hair turns blue and she makes robots?  I think the character TYPE is great, but they misused her here in all ways.

George Freeman

Well, well.  If the series had remained about George, Tic, and Leti adventuring through America and encountering sundown towns and monsters both human and otherwise, I think it’d have been okay.  The issue is, they wrote this series by the numbers so George is immediately thrown away.  He’s a wise and circumspect guy that has his own flaws (he has patrarchical notions built around protecting/babying his genius wife, clearly), but the flaws he has are understandable and well reasoned. George dies early on.  Then he sort of doesn’t, I guess? But the fact he did was really the nail in the coffin for this series.  The moment they did that, the rest just became empty strokes.  A story where George witnessed the others dying and going back to his wife and daughter would have had so much more heart to it, but well.  Uncle George is literally one of the few bright spots.

Ruby Baptise

Much like her sister, Leti, Ruby is a terrible attempt at showing empowerent on the one hand, and a masterwork on the other.  The bad first: she’s a rapist.  I’ve been called a nigger before and while it didn’t feel great, I don’t think I’d have been justified in just sodomizing the person that did it.  That entire sequence was weird and they tried to hype it as her reclaiming something, when really it spoke to a disgusting and gratuitous tendency toward Ruby: she’s always too much. Ruby, IMO, should have been Tic’s love interest.  In a sense.  First, because Wunmi Mosaku was a very attractive woman with impressive acting chops (she’s where I’ll break my moratirum, sorry), but also because it wouldn’t be what you’d see in every other show now: light-skinned pretty sister, dark-skinned sexual eikon.  And that’s the issue with Ruby there: she’s always too much.  She’s sexual by existing and that isn’t necessarily to her benefit since Leti, the good one, is an actual virgin before her sudden period sex. So the narrative has already spoken as to how it views sex. Yet, because they tried to give Ruby these strange strokes, she comes out as an interesting character.  She has feelings, aspirations, and dreams that she’s kept from and that’s very real. In a story about the absurd, a sense of realness is a familiar handhold to gather your wits.  She’s all that, really.  It’s why she has the best relationships in the show, which is AGAIN an issue, but well. I’ll say Ruby was never bad to have on screen though I was disgusted with how often her blackess (and Blackness in general!) became the source of grotesque horror.

Christina Braithewaite

This is where I get annoyed.  My issue with Christina is that she should have easily been the most hated character, but they overplayed their hand with not showing how nefarious she was.  In fact? Christina and Ruby’s relationship is the only meaningful, real, and understandable one in the entire series.  I felt no joy during her downfall, because I didn’t really get to see her doing anything bad? Just, consider what the show is.  It’s about Lovecraft’s lore, ostensibly, which treats all non (specific types of) white men like dogs.  So Christina comes at it from the “white” but “woman” perspective and you know, she has moments of duality that you can say is she more white or woman here.  But they don’t execute on how sinister she should be.  She’s a little rude at times? Yet she is the only person to treat Ruby like she should be treated and she’s the only person that seems to have a goal outside of “the quest.” It really bothered me that she came out so well done, because either they needed to have her for two seasons and make her far more nefarious after the first, or to just make her less a force for good.  She saves the characters more than a few times and pays for it by being killed when she’s at her lowest.  Yeah, it’s... a weird take.  

Ji-Ah

What can I say?  There are depictions of sex in the series, and they’re all negative: most of Ji-Ah’s scenes, Montrose’s angry self-loathing sex with his boyfriend, Ruby’s morphic horror scenes.  In the case of most of those, there’s something being said.  Ji-Ah is a monster, literally, that could be seen as Lovecraftian in the sense she’s an exotic Asian woman that kills men that sleep with her.  So, HBO was like “we’ll blow our tits and ass budget on her,” and she exists for a series of sex scenes and vague, inscrutable... shit, maybe SHE is the most Lovecraft of all the characters! Anyway at some point she joins the party after confusing drama with Leti because they both fucked Tic.  It’s okay though, because Ji-Ah isn’t here for any of that now.  She’s the one who had the best friend that had her teeth yanked out by Tic, and also who was there when he shot her other friend in cold blood, but they get over that and she’s now their friendly red panda pal or some shit.  It’s fucking trash.   Much like the Freemans (sans Tic), I think she’d have done great in another show. But they rushed her story and it felt less Ghost Nation (Westworld) and more Masturbation (Jordan Peele).

Diana Freeman

Confusing.  A stock character (quirky kid that does art, is impetuous, and won’t take no for an answer) that is given a lot of screen time.  When she sort of hijacks an episode when two ragamuffin girls chase her down and infest her or something because racist cops.  Well, the story veers to her direction.  What can I say?  If you like 11 from Stranger Things but wanted her to have Mike’s attitude, well.  Here you go.

Montrose Freeman

He could have been a good character, I guess. He seemed unnecessary and often was there purely for an x-factor of “uh?”  Like, his infamous scene where he slits a two-spirit Native American’s throat after we learn that this indigenous person had just been restored after being raped by bad guys.  So there’s that.  Also I guess he was self-loathing so he beat his son (that may not be his son???) and also liked fucking dudes, which was I think where we were supposed to care about him. It’s like someone saw Omar was a gun-wielding desperado of drug theft and decided, “Well what made him okay is he’s gay!”  But it didn’t add much.  I get he was angsty but other than Tic calling him a “faggot” (one of the few good scenes between them in terms of emotion), it all seemed empty and kind of meandering. At no point does Montrose seem a part of the team.  He just half-mumbles, gets angry, cries, and falls apart.

Captain Seamus Lancaster

He’s barely a character, but I need to include him for another point. He’s the “bad guy.”  I guess?  He uses the bodies of black men to stay alive, which is actually a really smart reference to black bodies fueling the American system, but it comes off as cheesy because it just never comes up.  He’s cartoonishly bad in a way that he’s less sinister than a meme.  Compare him to say,   Ridgeway from Colson Whitehead’s The Underground Railroad. One’s a sinister representation of an oppressive system and the other’s well, a joke.

Racism

How could this not be a theme?  The issue, as was shown with Lancaster, is that it isn’t even remotely handled with seriousness.  The best scene of racism is in the first episode when Tic, George, and Leti are forced to leave a Sundown county before they’re lynched by the racist sheriff.  The anticipation and animosity lead to some serious anxiety and it was a nailbiter.

But after that?  White people say “nigger.”  Then they get, I don’t know, raped or spit on or who knows.  A lot of black people talk back to the cops anyway in the 50′s and that’s cool.

But the real monsters of the series are all black people.  Let’s go through it: 

Tic brutalized women in the Korean War.

Montrose killed the two-spirit person.

Ruby rapes the shop owner.

Diane crushes Christina’s throat.

Ruby literally sheds her flesh in repeatedly gratuitous acts of the grotesque.

Even Ji-Ah, who’s not black, is a monster in the literal sense.  We do see the doctor that experimented on black people, but that’s about 5 minutes at the end of an episode that has a baby’s head on a man’s body so I was too busy laughing at the absurdity to take any real meaning from it.

The truth is, in Lovecraft Country, white people always should do their best to kill or keep black people down.  It definitely doesn’t speak at all to any togetherness or what have you.  Just, well. Magical negroes doing bad stuff because nothing can stop them.

The show misses the chances to show real horror in race.  Hell, the Tulsa Riots are reduced to a backdrop for a confusing book scene.  But then again, Emmett Till becomes a kind of empty reference point that we then see a white woman act out... for some reason? 

Again, the only characters with any chemistry are Ruby and Christina, which is very unfortunate for any number of reasons. As far as a statement that racism is bad goes, I mean. I barely saw it.  If I was a racist I’d be like hell yeah, Lovecraft was right they are dangerous.

Even when people try to indicate the horrors of it like, “Oh, the Korean War scenes are bad because we see how men are forced into the military complex!”  We didn’t see a white officer say “Shoot her, boy,” it was just two black guys killing women with no care at all. And no compeuppance, so that’s cool.

The Music

Sucks.  Thanks Peaky Blinders for making modern music over gif sets a thing.

Conclusion

I sure as hell would never watch it again.  If I can get one other person not to, then maybe it’d be worth it. It’s not a good show.  It’s not “smart,” and there’s no secret subversion in it.  It’s just... bad.

I won’t post on it anymore.  Please, in true Lovecraft fashion, trust me when I say that this show is so bad it cannot be comprehended. 

[calamity-bean]

the forbidden barkskins pilot scripts

So I’ve just read these May 21, 2018, versions of the Barkskins pilot and episode 2, and… assuming they ARE legitimate old scripts... where to begin.

The major beats are mostly the same, and so is much of the dialogue. Some of the dialogue is the same but is spoken by other people. (Reading Yvon’s words come out of Bouchard’s mouth was a bit of a shock.) And some stuff is very very different. It was also still set circa 1690 at this point, like the novel, while we’ve since established that the show is more 1670s.

The supernatural elements are more pronounced in this version, or maybe they just feel that way because there’s a script pointing them out? For example, the necklace Yvon retrieves from the dead Iroquois (dead Huron, in this script) is said to have a “strange black obsidian orb” in the center, which feels significant, especially considering pilot-Hamish later decides to wear himself. Right after the stone “GLOWS.” Okay fashion icon, rock that clearly cursed necklace, I’m sure nothing ill will come of that.

Oh yeah but definitely the most egregiously more pronounced supernatural element has gotta be the uh

CRICKET-HEADED CRAB DEMON

This is from the scene just before they find Renardette, which doesn’t actually happen till the beginning of ep 2. Hamish and Yvon would still just see the wolf, but through Clape’s eyes we’d see… that.

Speaking of Hamish and Yvon...

Yvon was supposed to be in his 30s... and Hamish in his 40s. SCREAM? Okay, just completely flip that dynamic, I guess! Granted, our Hamish is definitely still an old man at heart.

Overall, Hamish’s characterization is pretty much like we know him. Yvon… I’m deeply frustrated by how shallowly Yvon was characterized at this point. He’s got barely ANY lines, he does not have his wit or his levity or his love of poetry… You know the stereotype of the stoic, serious Native warrior? That’s the impression I’m getting. “Large,” with “hard black eyes,” says the script. Besides being stereotypical, think how much less contrast there would be in Hamish and Yvon’s dynamic if they were both so stiff and somber.

Hamish mentions that he helped “clear” Potawatomi and Huron from around “the lakes.” I did not love this. Like… I get that in every version, Hamish is very much an agent of colonialism and imperialism, but he starts out with still such a sense of ethics and honor, and finds it so difficult to believe how ruthless the HBC is willing to be, that I find it hard to imagine him having already participated in the direct, firsthand violence of clearing Native people from their land. And I just prefer not to think of him being directly involved in that.

On a lighter note! Hamish and Cross were still brothers-in-law, but Randall was not married to Hamish’s sister. Oh no. He was married to the sister… of Hamish’s wife.

MARRIED HAMISH… the mind boggles.

I mean, fuck, I’ll volunteer to be his wife, though, where do I apply.

Regarding other characters…

There’s no sign of Renardette till ep 2, because ep 1 cuts off before she’s found, and the pilot’s opening scene is quite different. Instead of Ren fleeing, we see a guy sinking a body in the bog — presumably Cross sinking that body he later wants passed off as his own?

The presence of the filles du roi is MUCH reduced. There is no Mother Sabrine. No mention of Melissande till ep 2, and she’s not actually present; it sounds like she’s still back in France, as Trepagny is negotiating to marry her via letters. We get one brief glimpse of Delphine in the pilot, which, although brief, does reinforce my suspicion that the writing has something planned between her and Duquet:

(We do still see that moment in the actual show, of course, but I feel like this script emphasizes that he’s into her specifically, not just the filles in general, and the mouthing her name… yeah.)

The thing about Melissande is interesting... She’s stated to be the daughter of an aristocrat, but even though we do (in the show) see her claim that she’s upper class, I personally never believed it. I always got the impression that she’s pretending to be of much higher status than she actually is, and that’s still my take on it.

Mari was still Mi’kmaq in this pilot, as she was in the novel. This accounts for a little difference in the scene where she and Duquet discover the marks on the ram; instead of calling them “a sign of Strendu,” she calls them a sign of Chenoo — both of which are, broadly speaking, man-eating giants, but the former is from Wendat culture and the latter Wabanaki. She also tells Duquet that the beast in the woods (which he thinks of as the loup-garou) is Chenoo.

Obviously I’m not going to get into every detail here, this is too long already, but… yeah! Interesting to see how things have changed — very much for the better, imo. I’m so relieved that subsequent development brought a lot more complexity to Yvon, expanded the presence of the female characters, and generally brought more nuance into the writing and characterization, including that of minor/background characters, which I didn’t even get into here.

Kinda wish we could’ve seen that cricket demon, though. I know that on screen, not seeing the monster is often more effective than actually being shown it, but come on… cricket demon… crab demon… cricket-headed crab demon!!

[itsclydebitches]

Okay, I feel like an idiot for not getting this, but the show still portrays Robyn and RWBY in the wrong for what they did. Robyn WAS meant to be portrayed as reckless and temperamental, while Ruby was wrong for lying, and Blake and Yang were wrong for telling Robyn (Weiss was an accomplice to both). I don’t think you’re wrong, I just want an in-depth explanation, or a link to one you’ve already done on the topic, please.

No problem! I’ve definitely discussed this extensively, though sadly it’s not in one, uniform place since most of that discussion has taken place over hundreds of asks like this one. (Someday I’ll sit down and create a detailed tagging list for just such purposes...) If you’d still like a link, a somewhat decent one might be my RWBY Recaps since I touch on this issue throughout Volume 6 and 7, though even then that’s just me skimming the surface. I try to get recaps up the same day as the episode, which necessitates summarizing some issues just for practicality’s sake. 

To try and provide at least a bit of an explanation here, I’d like to highlight a question: How do you know the show portrays all these things? How do we know that Robyn is in the wrong, that Ruby shouldn’t have lied, that Blake and Yang were foolish to tell Robyn, etc.? If someone had never seen RWBY before what scenes, dialogue, and imagery would you point to as evidence for these conclusions? That’s what separates an argument embedded within a narrative (the show says that lying is wrong) vs. an argument that the viewer applies to the story (I think lying is wrong). Providing evidence is just step one though. Then it’s a matter of determining whether a) The evidence itself is persuasive, b) The evidence is substantial enough to prove the claim, and c) The evidence is not undermined by other aspects of the story. 

Let’s take a specific example: Ruby lying is portrayed as wrong. What’s the evidence for this? Over the last year I’ve heard a lot of people say, “Ruby looks guilty when she talks about her lying, so obviously it’s painted as wrong.” However, “looks guilty” is not a specific moment in the story and there is no “obvious” connection between the two. Just because a character thinks they might be in the wrong doesn’t mean the story isn’t going to come in and reassure them of the opposite. Which is precisely what happens in RWBY. Looking at the whole context of these scenes, we see a very different message than “Ruby is wrong to lie.” We start off with Yang asking whether they’re really going to keep quiet and yes, that cues the audience into the fact that everyone might not agree with Ruby. She might, in fact, be wrong. However, her response is

“What about it?” What’s there to discuss? Ruby doesn’t seem to think the conversation surrounding Oscar, Ozpin, the lamp, and lying is terribly important and as our primary protagonist her perspective holds weight. As the “simple soul” of this story we’re primed to take her viewpoint as fact and the show, in turn, follow’s Ruby’s perspective very closely: What she believes is portrayed as morally correct in this world. (That’s a whole other argument to prove but one specific example would be the airship debacle. Ruby believes stealing the airship is necessary and the story reinforces that belief all the way through). 

Ruby then gets defensive. We are telling Ironwood these things! Or, um, we will. You all saw what Atlas was like. 

Note that Ruby herself is making a very unpersuasive argument. “How things looked when we flew into Atlas” does not automatically equal “It’s perfectly justified to lie to our general.” Her justification skips a TON of conversation about, say, how the office scene severely undermines the “he’s not trustworthy” assumption that Mantle initially gave them. Thus, this flimsy argument leaves room for the other characters to call Ruby out and teach the audience that she’s in the wrong here (or at the very least that she is presenting a highly debatable perspective incorrectly as a fact). But RWBY doesn’t do that. Every character here agrees with Ruby’s choice and supports her reasoning. First Blake with “but that doesn’t mean we should trust him yet.” 

Then Weiss with “We need to play along for a while” 

Then Yang with “Okay.” 

By the end of this conversation everyone agrees with Ruby: lying was necessary and none of them are concerned with when she will decide to tell the truth. They’re satisfied with a very noncommittal “we will,” implying that - like Ozpin - it’s okay if Ruby decides for herself when someone is trustworthy enough. Could be a few weeks, could be a few years, but the point is they’re both given complete power to make that call (more on that below). The only character left who might provide a different perspective is Oscar who, yes, questions Ruby like Yang did... but then goes on to do nothing and say nothing about this from then on out. He doesn’t pressure Ruby to tell the truth. Or tell Ironwood himself. Or even grapple in the background with their ongoing lies. This is what I mean by some evidence outweighing others. A short flashback where a character very hesitantly suggests that Ruby might be wrong - mirroring a conversation we just had where the outcome was everyone agreeing with her - can not compare to Oscar keeping happily silent for the rest of the volume. He does not send the message to the audience that Ruby is wrong because his silence acts as a passive agreement. Oscar must have been persuaded like everyone else was since he’s not doing anything about this. Or even looking conflicted. Why would we think he still disagrees with Ruby when none of that disagreement is shown? Then, when he finally does break his silence it’s done with humor. 

(Sorry for the bad screenshot I couldn’t get the loading bar to go away lol) 

Oscar doesn’t treat this situation seriously, telling Ruby with weight and conviction that the lying needs to stop. Tone is important in a story and this scene’s tone encourages the audience not to take this issue seriously either. Ruby lying about Salem? That’s not a horrific topic that others have a right to be furious over! It’s just something you laugh about - oh wait 

See, RWBY’s problem is not just that Ruby’s lying is treated as a simplistic “Yeah you’re in the right” thing, but that this simplicity is coming off of a volume that directly contradicts this. Volume 6 is all about how keeping the Salem immortality secret is The Worst Thing Ever. It makes people shout, punch, drive Ozpin away, bad-talk him whenever he comes up... The evidence of Volume 6 heavily supports the argument “Keeping this secret and telling lies to your allies is really, reeeeally bad. Bad enough that no one will forgive you for it weeks later.” Which means that when Ruby does the exact same thing in Volume 7 (with far less justification imo, but that’s a whole other argument) you’d expect there to be a similar level of fury. For the story to show us that lying is indeed bad like it said it was last year, especially when one of the people who argued that lying is super bad, mere days ago in-world, is now turning around to do it herself. The show should be presenting Ruby as, if not outright wrong, at least hypocritical... but as demonstrated above, we’re not getting that. Who’s mad at Ruby? Who’s punching her? Who’s driving her away because didn’t we establish that liars shouldn’t lead? Who’s calling her a hypocrite and demanding that she change her ways? Who’s acknowledging that she’s exactly like Ozpin? No one... except for Ruby herself: 

This is very good evidence for camp “lying is portrayed as wrong.” Ruby, in a moment of self-reflection, begins to acknowledge that she may have made a horrible choice. The problem is that it’s really only “begins.” Remember, the show’s whole context is necessary to accurately read any individual lines of dialogue and this dialogue’s context is “Qrow tells Ruby she’s mistaken”: 

Not only does Qrow halt Ruby’s self-reflection in its tracks - she in turn never fires back that he’s wrong to absolve her - he does so in an entirely unpersuasive manner. Qrow claims that the difference between Ruby and Ozpin is that Ruby trusts others after making sure they prove themselves first. Problem is, that’s exactly what Ozpin did. He kept secrets until specific individuals had proven themselves trustworthy and then they learn specific information to reflect that trust. Ruby is to Team WBYJRN what Ozpin is to his inner circle. And arguably neither party reveals everything: Ozpin keeps the Salem secret but reveals everything else, Oscar reveals Salem but we don’t hear him say anything about Jinn, there being a question left, or why Ozpin isn’t there. The show sets up that Ozpin is bad for not telling the group that the relic attracts grimm, yet it fails to call out Ruby for likewise not telling Ironwood that the relic attracts grimm when he wants to entrust it to them. We also have other individuals like Yang who appear to be keeping the Spring Maiden secret. So not only is the claim “Ozpin only trusted himself” not accurate, not only are both parties only trusting after others “prove themselves first,” but arguably both never provide the full truth anyway. Qrow fails to establish that Ruby is acting any differently from Ozpin, the show fails to point out that Qrow is a fallible character whose perspective shouldn’t be trusted here, and the show likewise fails to acknowledge the incredibly important differences in Ruby and Ozpin’s situations: a thousand year old leader not telling a bunch of barely trained kids the world’s biggest secret is not the same thing as kids not telling an established ally who has been fighting this war for years this secret when he’s unknowingly wasting necessary resources on a doomed plan. The evidence tells us that Ruby is exactly like Ozpin except that Ozpin had better justifications for keeping those secrets... but what this scene tells us instead is that Ruby is ~different~ and Ruby is right to have lied. That’s the takeaway. Qrow gives the thumbs up to lying to Ironwood and no one challenges him on this, ergo that’s the story’s stance. It’s all we’re left with. We can’t claim the show thinks differently when it doesn’t show us that. 

The last saving grace would have been for there to be consequences for these lies. You can have every single character go, “Yeah! This is the right thing to do!” and then allow the plot to put them in their place, forcing them to discover later on that they were wrong. However, that (again) doesn’t happen. The consequences for lying end up being an attempted arrest... which Ruby rejects. By insisting that she shouldn’t be arrested - shouldn’t face the chosen punishment for (in part) this crime - she rejects that she did anything wrong in the first place. Ruby wins the fight in a spectacular manner, does so with confidence, and the end, like her scene with Oscar, is played for laughs. None of this encourages the audience to take Ruby’s potential mistakes seriously, let alone teaches us that they are, in fact, mistakes. She’s supposed to be the hero of this scene and just a silly kid later on. 

So if the question is “Where does the story tell us that Ruby lying is wrong?” I’d reply, “It doesn’t.” Yang, Blake, Weiss, Qrow, Oscar, and JN by further silence all agree with Ruby’s position (the exception, as far as we’ve seen, might be Ren. But as of yet we don’t know exactly what he’s upset about). The story draws a comparison to Ozpin, only to unpersuasively insist that Ruby is different from him. She also faces no consequences for her actions and never learns/admits that what she did was wrong. It’s not enough for us to apply our own ethics of “Lying is wrong” to a story. The story itself has to actually do the work to present the act as wrong and have something come out of that: punishment, growth, apologies, etc. 

Now apply this sort of work to everything else listed above. We might interpret Robyn as reckless (I do) but when does the story acknowledge that? It’s not when Qrow, our hero, agrees with her by standing at her side and attacking Clover. If the show wanted to say “recklessness is wrong” then it wouldn’t have had the hero support that (or would, at least, acknowledge that the hero is also in the wrong - something we admittedly might still get in Volume 8. If Qrow later says, “I shouldn’t have attacked Clover with Robyn” that will indeed convey that message. But we don’t have it yet). When are Blake and Yang presented as in the wrong for trusting her? Is it when the Ace Ops call them out on that, but Yang still insists it was right? (Pay attention to who gets the last word in fights - that’s often the perspective the story is upholding. By ending on that perspective it’s the one that’s given the most weight). Or is it when the Ace Ops as a whole are rejected for their support of Ironwood and soundly trounced, thereby painting all their views as equally incorrect? (If the Ace Ops are the bad guys here, why in the world would the audience think their perspective about Yang and Blake is the correct one?) Or was it when the story rewarded them by not making Robyn betray them, ensuring that Yang and Blake face no consequences for that decision? The plot never does anything that makes Blake and Yang go, “Oh man... we shouldn’t have trusted her.” Reading stories like this is always more complicated than just the first thing you spot on screen. Robyn is absolutely portrayed as temperamental... but that doesn’t mean that temperamental as a personality trait is portrayed as bad by the story. Not when the volume as a whole paints her position as the right one: Ironwood is a bad guy now and anything - even temperamental actions - is justified in the name of stopping him. That context turns what should be a flaw into something the story wants us to uphold: “Yeah! Ironwood is horrible for making this arrest! Wait...Robyn is fighting back against it? Hell yeah!! You go, girl!!!!” Her being on the supposedly “correct” side of this disagreement paints any bad actions as necessary. 

So whenever someone makes a claim about any story, ask them for some evidence. Then see if you find that evidence persuasive - compare it to your own evidence from the source, not just general feelings about what you think the source was doing. There’s a reason why professional analysis requires engaging with the primary source over and over and over again - because it’s really easy to make truthful sounding statements, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s supported by the canon. When it comes to RWBY, what RT might have intended to do and what the audience assumes is happening is often not in line with what we actually see on screen.