#and i'm a little bitter about it

[stevefightmerogerss]

watched gotg3 last night and my one big takeaway from the film is that the character arcs between bucky and rocket are so similar like the way they were imprisoned against their will, the fact that they were forced to be something for a cause 'bigger than themselves', the horrific experiments they endured. it was something i didn't expect to see going in, and it kind of makes me a bit sad that they didn't explore any of this with bucky because i really am curious how they would have approached it ://

[viperra1]

tw: blood, suicidal ideation (? probably ? it's Boone we're talking about so. yeah)

so make it one for my baby and one more for the road.

[on-stolen-sunbeams]

"the internet is written in ink. once it's online it's forever."

YEAH SURE IF IT'S POPULAR AT THE TIME PEOPLE CAN GRAB SCREENSHOTS AND WAYBACK MACHINE IS A THING BUT DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY OLD RECLISTS HAVE BROKEN LINKS AND HOW MANY LIVEJOURNALS HAVE BEEN PURGED AND HOW MANY OLD WEBSITES WERE NEVER ARCHIVED EVER AND NOW I CAN"T JUST BROWSE?!

the internet is a freaking graveyard, ok. the names are inscribed in stone but are faded and unless the person was famous we'll never know who it is. Also matter how much I dig I'm only gonna find bare bones (if that) in so many cases. It's only as permanent as we make it.

[shikai-the-storyteller]

I genuinely love how each character on the QSMP is living in a different genre, so two characters doing the same thing have different consequences, and it has different weight on their story / the QSMP narrative as a whole.

For example, Cellbit killing 4 Federation workers is treated very seriously, and we know his actions will have serious consequences in the future.

Meanwhile, Etoiles wiping out every single Federation worker on his way out of an infiltration mission is par for the course because man's living in a shonen anime.

[whatudottu]

Welcome one and all to my version of the party's loopified designs, featuring my many broken bones and blood stains I especially put into Odile who I tackled second unlike the alphabetical order that I have presented here! I'll have in-depth discussions on each designs and matching practice portraits under the cut but before that-

Siffrin 'barely taller than a preteen' no middle name no last name Loop is still barely taller than a preteen but now that preteen can claim fire to their height!

Alphabetical order GO!

Bonnie, who I've been calling Bonfire (which if that ends up being their name I can imagine Bonnie calling them 'Fire' while they call Bonnie 'Face' to match), was the last of my designs because frankly I knew from the start what their design was going to take influence from and also knew I was going to draw fire :P They were based on bonfires (of course) and also specifically the Burning Man effigies just for a humanoid figure, plus being a chef cooker and a campfire and also a very heated expressive person.

Their flames are hot but not actual wood burning so the Favour Tree (and Mirabelle in the height chart) are not at risk of combusting, they're just incredibly bright-

Isabeau my first design, with influences from @basilpaste 's Lock (with a dressform body) and @nullapophenia 's original version of Husk (the faceless identityless sketch), I have combined them both to make a mannequin it/its loopified design that finally gets to be capital T Tall all for the low low price of being Changed against its will and suffering another bout of body dysphoria that it can't fix anymore :) :) :) When I was referencing mannequins I actually noticed how long their legs actually were let alone how they were perma-stuck in that Barbie-like highheel pose and thought why don't I just curse Isa with something he previously wanted :P

Something something Isabeau actively Changed not only his body but his personality to become someone he wouldn't be ashamed of, yada yada Loopsabeau is back to hating itself and has started to become a person it despises to match (also like a mannequin it's head and arms are technically painlessly removeable :P)

Third in order and third in design is Mirabelle, who technically is the only loopified design with technically hair and clothes, but the hair are the tangled roots of the Favour Tree and the clothes are like the carved hardstone statues of religious figures :P Initially my Idea for Mirabelle was to make her kinda like her statue, with the wonky expression of someone who made it without much mastery over details, not to pit anything against Mira, no, no. Thought about maybe abstract statue design but I couldn't find a version I liked but I did always imagine her statue being weathered in some way, there was a reason why I saved her for third I couldn't pick what I wanted. But then I remembered the broken Change God statues, thought about the 'blessing' that ended up being a curse, and then thought about overgrown weathering and gave her the roots.

I actually looked up Black hairstyles and mostly wondered what specific hair texture Mirabelle had (she wears it in a fro of course, but she has flyaways that aren't coils, but she described her own hair as kinky and :P) so that if I were to mimic hair with tree roots I can get an appropriate matching hairstyle (settled on megatwists). Hah, if Mira has 4C hair, considering how long her hair actually looks, if she to wear her hair in twists she might actually have elbow length hair :P

I spent 8 non-consecutive hours on Odile can you tell? Can you see my hands bleeding my wrist breaking my eyes drooping? Yeah so Odile was again, my second design and it took me a week to recover, and she's a combination of gem and mirror suit with all the little fragments floating around her the 'diamonds' that represent all her family members party plus the ones she originally had in sets of 2. I also put geodes where parts of her body have broken off (inspired by how when the King strikes she can't move, plus also being a glass canon) where when I was actually drawing those geodes that they kinda use the Change symbol?

Circle within a circle within a circle, regardless of how wiggly it is, and at the centre is a cluster of crystals. That was an accidental reference to Odile's mixed heritage but hoo boy what a connection! Her missing pieces are a combination of 'being too old for this' fragility and also 'i didn't want to render more mirrors sue me'

Anyway I am going to put my wrist in a cast and imagine loopified party members with their pre-wish counterparts :P

[the-carlos-cow-eyes]

What Bellamy Blake deserved: NOT FUCKING THAT

[thunderboltfire]

I have a lot of complicated feelings when it comes to what Neflix has done with the Witcher, but my probably least favourite is the line of argumentation that originated during shitstorms related to the first and second season that I was unlucky to witness.

It boils down to "Netflix's reinterpretation and vision is valid, because the Witcher books are not written to be slavic. The overwhelming Slavic aestetic is CDPR's interpretation, and the setting in the original books is universally European, as there are references to Arthurian mythos and celtic languages" And I'm not sure where this argument originated and whether it's parroting Sapkowski's own words or a common stance of people who haven't considered the underlying themes of the books series. Because while it's true that there are a lot of western european influences in the Witcher, it's still Central/Eastern European to the bone, and at its core, the lack of understanding of this topic is what makes the Netflix series inauthentic in my eyes.

The slavicness of the Witcher goes deeper than the aestetics, mannerisms, vodka and sour cucumbers. Deeper than Zoltan wrapping his sword with leopard pelt, like he was a hussar. Deeper than the Redanian queen Hedvig and her white eagle on the red field.

What Witcher is actually about? It's a story about destiny, sure. It's a sword-and-sorcery style, antiheroic deconstruction of a fairy tale, too, and it's a weird mix of many culture's influences.

But it's also a story about mundane evil and mundane good. If You think about most dark, gritty problems the world of Witcher faces, it's xenophobia and discrimination, insularism and superstition. Deep-seated fear of the unknown, the powerlessness of common people in the face of danger, war, poverty and hunger. It's what makes people spit over their left shoulder when they see a witcher, it's what makes them distrust their neighbor, clinging to anything they deem safe and known. It's their misfortune and pent-up anger that make them seek scapegoats and be mindlessly, mundanely cruel to the ones weaker than themselves.

There are of course evil wizards, complicated conspiracies and crowned heads, yes. But much of the destruction and depravity is rooted in everyday mundane cycle of violence and misery. The worst monsters in the series are not those killed with a silver sword, but with steel. it's hard to explain but it's the same sort of motiveless, mundane evil that still persist in our poorer regions, born out of generations-long poverty and misery. The behaviour of peasants in Witcher, and the distrust towards authority including kings and monarchs didn't come from nowhere.

On the other hand, among those same, desperately poor people, there is always someone who will share their meal with a traveller, who will risk their safety pulling a wounded stranger off the road into safety. Inconditional kindness among inconditional hate. Most of Geralt's friends try to be decent people in the horrible world. This sort of contrasting mentalities in the recently war-ridden world is intimately familiar to Eastern and Cetral Europe.

But it doesn't end here. Nilfgaard is also a uniquely Central/Eastern European threat. It's a combination of the Third Reich in its aestetics and its sense of superiority and the Stalinist USSR with its personality cult, vast territory and huge army, and as such it's instantly recognisable by anybody whose country was unlucky enough to be caught in-between those two forces. Nilfgaard implements total war and looks upon the northerners with contempt, conscripts the conquered people forcibly, denying them the right of their own identity. It may seem familiar and relevant to many opressed people, but it's in its essence the processing of the trauma of the WW2 and subsequent occupation.

My favourite case are the nonhumans, because their treatment is in a sense a reminder of our worst traits and the worst sins in our history - the regional antisemitism and/or xenophobia, violence, local pogroms. But at the very same time, the dilemma of Scoia'Tael, their impossible choice between maintaining their identity, a small semblance of freedom and their survival, them hiding in the forests, even the fact that they are generally deemed bandits, it all touches the very traumatic parts of specifically Polish history, such as January Uprising, Warsaw Uprising, Ghetto Uprising, the underground resistance in WW2 and the subsequent complicated problem of the Cursed Soldiers all at once. They are the 'other' to the general population, but their underlying struggle is also intimately known to us.

The slavic monsters are an aestetic choice, yes, but I think they are also a reflection of our local, private sins. These are our own, insular boogeymen, fears made flesh. They reproduce due to horrors of the war or they are an unprovoked misfortune that descends from nowhere and whose appearance amplifies the local injustices.

I'm not talking about many, many tiny references that exist in the books, these are just the most blatant examples that come to mind. Anyway, the thing is, whether Sapkowski has intended it or not, Witcher is slavic and it's Polish because it contains social commentary. Many aspects of its worldbuilding reflect our traumas and our national sins. It's not exclusively Polish in its influences and philosophical motifs of course, but it's obvious it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

And it seems to me that the inherently Eastern European aspects of Witcher are what was immediately rewritten in the series. It seems to me that the subtler underlying conflicts were reshaped to be centered around servitude, class and gender disparity, and Nilfgaard is more of a fanatic terrorist state than an imposing, totalitarian empire. A lot of complexity seems to be abandoned in lieu of usual high-fantasy wordbuilding. It's especially weird to me because it was completely unnecessary. The Witcher books didn't need to be adjusted to speak about relevant problems - they already did it! The problem of acceptance and discrimination is a very prevalent theme throughout the story! They are many strong female characters too, and they are well written. Honestly I don't know if I should find it insulting towards their viewers that they thought it won't be understood as it was and has to be somehow reshaped to fit the american perpective, because the current problems are very much discussed in there and Sapkowski is not subtle in showing that genocide and discrimination is evil. Heck, anyone who has read the ending knows how tragic it makes the whole story.

It also seems quite disrespectful, because they've basically taken a well-established piece of our domestic literature and popular culture and decided that the social commentary in it is not relevant. It is as if all it referenced was just not important enough and they decided to use it as an opportunity to talk about the problems they consider important. And don't get me wrong, I'm not forcing anyone to write about Central European problems and traumas, I'm just confused that they've taken the piece of art already containing such a perspective on the popular and relevant problem and they just... disregarded it, because it wasn't their exact perspective on said problem.

And I think this homogenisation, maybe even from a certain point of view you could say it's worldview sanitisation is a problem, because it's really ironic, isn't it? To talk about inclusivity in a story which among other problems is about being different, and in the same time to get rid of motifs, themes and references because they are foreign? Because if something presents a different perspective it suddenly is less desirable?

There was a lot of talking about the showrunners travelling to Poland to understand the Witcher's slavic spirit and how to convey it. I don't think they really meant it beyond the most superficial, paper-thin facade.

[hoofpeet]

I'd probably have to read the printed version and web version back to back at some point to note all the differences but... ough

[youchangedmedestiel]

I know it's fun and all that everybody is talking about Destiel.

And I'm like the first one reblogging many of those here. Balls deep Destiel and everything. Because like I said it's fun, and it's acknowledged while it wasn't the case AT ALL before.

But I have this feeling that they don't really talk about the love between Dean and Cas. The thing is I'm not shipping them because they are just two hot guys that I want to see make out on my screen.

I ship them because of the way they love each other. And I don't want them to believe that we just think of them as being two hot guys that needs to make out, because through the jokes it's what I'm getting. Really hope I'm wrong.

[stop-breaking-my-heart-dragonage]

You ever think about how in spite of knowing their exact locations, the game never gives any indication that templar Carver has reported his mage sibling, Merril (a blood mage) or Anders (an abomination) to his superiors?

I do think about that a lot, even though I tend to ignore the Templar Carver route because I know Warden Carver to be true in my heart and soul... but I totally get the appeal of Templar Carver within DA2's narrative, y'know?

It's so fascinating, really. I've never played a run with Templar Carver, I just can't bring myself to do it, so I know I'm missing out on smaller details of it. From what I do know, this drives me crazy in the best way possible.

Deciding whether to bring him or not to the Deep Roads is such an important choice, not only because it affects his fate, but how it affects his relationship to Hawke. He tells you that he wants to go, he makes it very clear that it's important to him that he goes, too... and Hawke can just leave him behind and it hurts him. I don't think that registers enough with some people just because of how Carver is, like it doesn't matter what Hawke's motivations are [staying behind for his safety, not wanting to bring him, thinking someone should stay with Leandra, etc] it still hurts him because it tells him that Hawke doesn't need him, and Carver wants to be needed.

And yes, there are other contributing factors to why he joins the templars, but it doesn't matter what your relationship is to him, it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't turn Hawke or his companions in.

Sure, the meta reason is it's a video game and you're playing the main character. You're never in any actual danger of being captured by templars, and you're not going to lose your companions to them that easy.

But if we look at it through the narrative and Carver's character, that's when it gets interesting. You can max out his rivalry and be an utter asshole to him [there's a point where you can call him a brat and mock him for being stuck in your shadow, like Hawke can be real cruel about it] but it doesn't matter, you're still his sibling. He even makes a remark about how you might not know what that means [referring to leaving him behind] but he does. He refuses to kill Hawke in the end when Meredith makes the order, too.

Which can I just point out that Hawke has the option to let Bethany die in the end if she's with the circle and they side with the templars? Just saying, Carver NEVER does that no matter what, but Hawke has the option to betray Bethany like that and it's fucked and interesting and it makes me want to eat my chair-

As for Merrill and Anders, I think he knows that if he turns either of them in, then the chances of Hawke being brought in as well skyrocket. They're all friends, they're in the same group... bring one in, and you'll probably get the other two.

I also think Carver just genuinely likes Merrill. Yes, I'm a Carver/Merrill shipper, so I have a bias, but even if you remove anything romantic from their dynamic I believe that's true. Of all the companions, Merrill is the only one who doesn't make fun of him, or find him annoying, in party banters. He never snaps back at her, like he's never defensive with her, he's just a little awkward and nice.

Like, HE'S SO NICE TO HER! He tries to find common ground with her! She asks him about "swording" and he's taken aback by her saying he's good at it, but you KNOW that if someone like Anders asked him the same question, he's be all, "shut up, you're stupid, stop talking to me >:["

Think back to that banter Carver can have with Aveline post-act 1 where they're talking about how the guard wasn't the right place for him [hard disagree with you there, Aveline] and Carver says he was a bit of a tit, wasn't he.... and every companion will agree except Merrill. She doesn't say anything, whereas other companions like Anders will be like "ugh maker YES" and if you have a purple Hawke, they'll go on to other ways Carver was a tit like?? I think Carver and Merrill got along and he doesn't want to turn her in because she was nice to him! And she's a blood mage! He knows what will happen to her if the templars get ahold of her! He doesn't want to see her made tranquil or killed!

At that point, he's witnessed what bad blood mages can do, assuming you've brought him along for those quests, but even so. He knows Merrill isn't like that and he likes her, so of course he's not going to turn her in despite that being his literal duty.

Then there's Anders who Carver doesn't like. If you're in a romance with him, Carver will tell him that's why he doesn't turn him in but c'mon Carver, you know that's not the only reason. My theory is Carver may not like Anders and he knows the man's got a spirit of justice inside of him... but Anders also runs a free clinic. If he's ever taken in by templars, then so many people [including a LOT of Fereldan refugees] will be without free health care and will suffer for it. I think in Carver's eyes, Anders might be irritating but he doesn't more good than harm. Carver knows first hand how shitty refugees and poorer people are treated in Kirkwall. Anders' clinic is the one place they can go for help and actually get it, and he's not going to be the one to take that away because the templars say "magic bad."

So yeah, I'm not as informed about the Templar Carver route, but I do think about how if I did do that route, he wouldn't betray Hawke or their companions no matter what and what that says about him.

[watery-melon-baller]

theres people who only have one ship and people who don't have any ships and multishippers well im inventing a new kind of shipper and it's "all of these people are gay and a little in love with each other but the romance is up to interpretation"

[yergink]

re: the definitive cancellation. i hadn't been holding out too much hope because i didn't want to get devastated all over again, but man i think i really was expecting to be pleasantly surprised. everything else about this show has been so goddamn miraculous.

i'm just one guy in this fandom, and i don't have a particularly loud voice or anything, but i want to get it on record that this show really did have a profound effect on me. i was literally a different person pre march 2022.

ofmd's sheer earnest portrayal, love, and celebration of queer identity is groundbreaking. it's a good show. it displays an expectation of quality that's been getting harder and harder to find in the current media climate (when it comes to mainstream media, anyway).

this show and the discussion it has about queer identity, masculinity, societal expectations, had a hand in me getting closer to actualizing my own identity. it ignited in me a profound desire for more portrayals of genuine expression, and felt like a breath of fresh air in our irony-poisoned culture.

ofmd is funny. and it's loving. and it's honest. and it's obvious why it was able to form such a community around it.

it sucks that we won't get to see the proper end of it the way it was originally intended. it really sucks. but the show still exists and we all got to see it and i'm serious when i say appreciating that fact is going to be better than mourning what could have been at this point.

[acespeon]

now that I've rewatched the video, I still stand by what I said earlier, because in this economy, $5.99USD/$9.63AUD might be the price of someone's next meal. It might be all they can afford for this or that medication. Or their bus fare to a job interview.

just. maybe y'all shouldn't have had the guy who drives a Tesla and eats edible gold and dishes worth over $1k say everyone can afford it

[queerfables]

There's this one popular blogger who is somehow always in the same fandoms as me which I know because every time I go to a tumblr friend's blog I see their posts there. And just recently I saw that they had made a post saying that fandom is supposed to be about fun and creativity not arguing over whose ship is the most problematic. And to this person, I just want to say, YOU BLOCKED ME FOR SHIPPING WINCEST.

[lunar-years]

i'm still very sad they didn't do anything at all in season 3 with the Nate & Roy dynamic they'd been building off in the background for the first two seasons, because the layers there were really fascinating.

Starting with like, Roy being the only one to vocally and actively stand up for Nate in season one. At the time I think Nate was appreciative, but I think in hindsight, (rightly or wrongly) it quickly morphs into this mindset that Roy is sort of patronizing and has long viewed him as this weak thing in need of protecting. It feels (in Nate's mind), like Roy swept in to play the savior when it convinced him, but even that was based more around his hatred of Jamie than it was about liking Nate. And we see Nate later think himself proven correct in that thinking after he kisses Keeley and confesses and Roy...barely reacts. Roy, who is furious and angry about everything and everyone every day of his life, is suddenly like "Oh it's fine" when Nate has kissed his girlfriend. Nick Mohammed's commentary that Nate actively saw that as a micro-aggression was so fascinating and makes a lot of sense.

Then you have Roy, who did see season one Nate as someone to protect, but then was also driven to his best performance on the pitch during his final season by Nate's no-bullshit speech before the Everton game. That scene is so effective because it's such a jarring departure for the entire team from how they've previously viewed Nate, and it works for Roy especially because Roy respects people who don't give in to the intimidation he's constantly goading them with and instead tells it to him straight, no words minced (this is why Roy gets along so well with people like Rebecca, Keeley, and Ted, and why the breakthrough moment with Jamie is Jamie calling him out at the gala, etc.). I think there IS a part of Roy that doesn't respect Nate in season 1, which is why he later reacts how he does to Nate's kiss with Keeley, and it's a mindset he's vindicated by when Nate turns on Ted. But that also gets all mixed up with moments like the Everton, with the evidence of Nate being such a good strategist that Roy later finds himself deeply envious of after becoming a coach himself.

During the time they are both coaching together, there's a dynamic there where they both (I think) believe the other person doesn't take them seriously, and it's rooted in a little bit of truth (on both sides!!) that's then wildly exacerbated by their own insecurities. Like, Nate is intimated by the fact that Roy is this rich famous hotshot publicly beloved, so that it feels way out of Nate's league to even be interacting with him. At the same time, he also thinks Roy is a bit of an asshole who doesn't see him as a threat because he doesn't take him seriously, and is (fairly) offended by it. Meanwhile, Roy is intimated by Nate because Nate is so clearly so intelligent, which I think is something Roy is insecure about in general, given his own education being superseded early on by football. He sees Nate as being a more adequate coach than himself because of this. But he also thinks Nate is spineless and whatever respect he had for him (fairly) dissolves completely after Nate goes to the press about Ted.

So it's like, this messy mixture where they both have something the other desperately wants but they can't see at all why the other would possibly be envious of them due to their own insecurities. They are, imo, the two most insecure people on the show in completely different ways. They hate themselves far more than they hate each other, yet they displace the weight of that feeling onto each other; Roy by treating Nate with indifference and Nate by dismissing Roy in his head as an asshole hotshot whose had a great life handed to him and doesn't even appreciate it, whereas Nate has to fight tooth and nail to find success. And it all boils down to them not understanding one another while also having a lot in common under the surface.

Anyway, I think it would be super interesting to see how their friendship or even just their relationship as coworkers develops after season 3, as they both make active attempts at overcoming their insecurities and doing better by themselves and each other.

[fairandfatalasfair]

"Most young patrollers who exchanged north of the Dead Lake took primed knives from home along. About half the patrollers returned, ready to take up expanded duties. None of the knives did. A steady stream of sacrifice, flowing northward."