#and it has nothing to do with the other characters likability either!!!

[couldbebetterforsure]

Hi there everyone! My name is Willow and my toxic otome game player trait is that the longer it takes to unlock the route of the character I’m most interested in, the faster my motivation for playing the game plummets 😃😃😃

[some-pers0n]

I'm gonna be blunt and say that I really don't think a lot of people kinda get these two characters. Sure, yeah, there'll be people like "Psshh no?? Me?? I know exactly who these guys are" and like, yeah maybe you do. Maybe you'll read this while nodding your head and whatnot. Maybe you won't.

Either way, I think there's a decent amount of people who don't...get Qibli and Winter. I mainly see it in shipping stuff. I know it's kinda idiotic to go looking for character stuff in shipping-- you know what?? No. I think it's perfectly sound logic to try and look for meaningful character writing in ship stuff, especially with fanfics. I've got that aroace mindset where I can only comprehend a ship if it has a clear and exact thematical and character-driven purpose.

Anywho, I think there's something to be craved with how Qinter is talked about in the fandom. I think there's something in general to be desired when discussing Qibli and Winter in general (or, hell, most of the characters) or other ships they're in, but I want to discuss Qinter mainly as a means to view them through the lens of a relationship. Some sort of duo and pair. Two young dragonets trying to survive.

Winter and Qibli come from incredibly similar backgrounds. That sounds ridiculous at a first glance, but when you think about it, they do. They both were raised with terrible parents who held them to an unrealistic standard that neither really wanted to be.

Winter was forced to become a child soldier and be the best of the best, despite his best rightfully not being absolutely perfect and having a ton of heart and soul in him. Ironically enough, his sheer loyalty to his friends that he displays later would be commended in the IceWing army, but is only looked down upon because he's showing anything other than pure apathy at existence and disgust when confronted with the other tribes. Winter is a kind soul who was shaped and twisted into becoming somebody far meaner to fit the idea of what his parents wanted him to be. It's a mask he wears to fit in. To be at least be tolerated by the dragons he only wants the approval from.

Qibli was raised in the slums of Scorpion Den. The back alleys and dark, seedy streets that are avoided. He had to fit the build of a thief. A petty pickpocket that lurks around like his family, doing nothing more than swiping whatever goods they could get their hands on. Qibli was kind and sweet, which obviously was a terrible sin in the eyes of his family. Like Winter, this planted a seed of wanting to be loved, although to a significantly larger extent than Winter felt. Qibli became obsessed with the idea of being loved as he hated being seen as nothing. He wanted nothing more than to be praised and admired because of just how neglected he was. So, he pretends to be somebody likable. Somebody who others care about. A mask to conceal the dragon he feels can never be loved.

Because of their backgrounds, they feel at odds when they're introduced to one another. Qibli is the laid-back jokester type while Winter is snarly and angry. Thanks to Moon's powers though, we get a look into them even before their book.

We see that Qibli is paranoid and his brain is constantly trying to predict others. He's always in a state of stress and fear, putting on a performance to try and be liked and see which dragons are the biggest threats to him. He's never gotten used to living outside of the crime-filled Scorpion Den, and the memories of childhood where he had to lay awake thinking that some dragon who his mother stole from will murder them all in their sleep remain. He's scared and afraid.

Winter managed to convince himself that he is this mean and nasty dragon, but really he's not. There's moments of hesitancy in MR from him. He's also just. generally not really that much in the wrong in the book. Sorry my Winter Apologist side is coming out but y'all hate too much on a character who was just kinda mean for some random dragon he only knew for a couple days at most by then doing stuff that was very suspicious. Yeah obviously Moon is the protagonist and we like her and know the full context, but Winter?? He doesn't know anything!

I digress however. They're in. not the best of states. Sure, yeah, Qibli had ran from Vulture and Cobra and was now Thorn's adoptive son of sorts, but he was obsessed with Thorn to the point of almost blind worship. He hailed her as some grand dragon because he had never been loved before. Being loved by somebody felt incomprehensible. He wants to repay it since he feels like he doesn't deserve it.

Winter on the other hand has just gotten away from a terrible situation, where his family more or less just hates him. They hate him so much it's not even funny. Winter had gotten Hailstorm, somebody who Winter loved and admired, was stolen away by the SkyWings and presumed dead for years because of him. He blames himself. He constantly thinks that he should've been the one taken away instead. He doesn't see himself worthy to live, especially not compared to Hailstorm. Hailstorm is charming, smart, strong, and better in every capacity to Winter. How could he ever live up to that?

Their shared flaw is that they feel inadequate. They feel as though there's something inherently flawed with themselves, something that they need to hide away. It was shaped because of their similar backstories, where they were neglected and abused and put down because of them never being able to meet the unreasonable expectations placed on them. Because of this trauma, their personalities in the present are shaped to try and fit in.

It's only by being with the Jade Winglet do they begin to unlearn those habits. I would imagine that, in moments where they chat with each other for the first real time (not fighting or anything), they...notice how alike they are. Like holding up a mirror to themselves. Despite how differing their personalities are, they feel one in the same. The other side of the coin.

It's why I think Qinter really works as something more than a cheap means for comedic relief. They bounce off each other really well and in an interesting way, which makes for their interactions feeling a lot more meaningful when they put away the act and show and are genuine. I honestly think that they would want to help each other out. They see themselves in the other and don't want them to feel like they have to do this, but they can't even save themselves.

It's only with time however. Healing is a process. It's sure as hell hard to do it all alone. It's why I love a lot the themes of friendship and togetherness in arc 2 especially. All of the POVs learn how to be more confident and sure of themselves through their friends. I just wish that Qinter was talked about in a more intellectually stimulating way than "yellow boy laughs at blue boy for being angsty teen"

[savvthedate]

Skz! Smalltown!AU

Plot; after getting kicked out of her old private school, Y/N is sent to live with the family of her mother's closest friend in her mother's hometown. As Y/N struggles to get used to her new life she meets several interesting people.

RELEASE; N/A

Characters

Chan - The hardworking boy nextdoor

• The son of Y/Ns mother's friend

• almost religiously devoted to his family's shop

• dreams to make it big as a music producer, until then he's stuck here

Lee know - Mayors' Son

• Rich douche bag (it's an act I swear stay with me now)

• his family's been in this town longer than anyone, and for some reason the last 3 mayors have been relatives

• honestly thinks this town doesn't do him any justice

• should be protecting his reputation (he doesn't give even half a damn)

Changbin - Manny McManface

• son of the local sheriff (don't know if this is a good thing or bad)

• brought up to be the best damn QB out there, but he ended up doing wrestling and spending most of his weekends with felix

• stress on 100, he's got expectations to meet and he doesn't know where to start

• sweetest person here (next to Felix)

• biggest protective older brother energy

Hyunjin - Vincent Van Hwang

• parents aren't really that big in town (there the local florist) but trust hyunjin is well known for the wrong things

• if he's not at school, he's either at his one of two jobs; delivery boy for his parents, or at his cashier job at the only fast food place in town (an off brand McDonald's called tastywing)

• working hard for his parents

• gets in the most trouble out of literally anyone in town (if it weren't for his parents relations with Sheriff Seo he'd honestly be screwed)

• people literally love his talent for art, but the majority hate him. You'll either hear "Van Gogh" or "Man go"

Han jisung - Local Loser

• working day and night like a dog at the local library just so he can afford a guitar

• aspiring rock star plays literally ever festival

• literally goes up to people hitting them with "you look like you got potential"

• always seems to be free

• doesn't get out much

Felix - That one guy

• the most likable person you'll ever meet, it's almost concerning

• part time model who's out of town often, but when he's there it's a sunny day

• has to work at tastywing just to make ends meet

• he's so sweet you couldn't even tell he's dated half the girls in town

Suengmin - dog washer

• lives alone (not really, his parents are always away)

• he either has nothing planned at all and just sits around or he's busy with the most random shit

• he works at a dog grooming place, but you swear you never see him there

• hardly works but is always dressed head to toe in designer

• has the biggest house in town, and with his schedule always doing something in said house

Jeongin - Pastor's Son

• His parents own the one church in town

• if you meet him on a Saturday you wouldn't even think he had a holy bone in his body, until you go to church that Sunday and hear him recite scriptures to the congregation

• if hyunjins not doing anything stupid, you can count on Jeongin to do something to keep it interesting

• do not be fooled at all, no matter how he acts trust and Believe he's never even been alone with a girl for more than five seconds, he just acts bold in front of others

[mornington-the-crescent]

Why do Leftist writers in Hollywood suck at creating/writing relatable, likable, or decent characters?

The short answer, because they're talentless hacks.

The long answer... That would take a fair amount of time to get into.

Most leftist writers in Hollywood have very limited experiences. They typically grew up in cloistered, left-leaning urban bubbles; if they have traveled at all, it was likely to other cloistered, left-leaning urban bubbles, either domestically or abroad. They live and work in and around Los Angeles, a deep blue enclave in the deepest blue state in the Union. The only people they ever associate with are people with similar life experiences to them: Left-leaning people who grew up in left-leaning bubbles, who also work as television writers or actors.

So, under those circumstances, when you have never been exposed to a world or to people outside of sheltered left-wing environs, it is very easy to tell yourself that your way of thinking and living is True and Correct, and is in fact the default; it is the way that a Good Person lives. After all, it's how they live, and they are a Good Person: They have all the Correct Opinions, they have Correct Values, they consume the Correct Media. QED.

It goes back to the old communist tactic of the "struggle session": If you do something wrong, you must be brought up in front of all of your other peers and ridiculed for it. As has been said, part of the reason why the left is so insufferable is because they are more obsessed with not doing the wrong thing, than they are about doing something right. Doing something right doesn't get you buttpats and accolades, unless it's the correct sort of "right thing", and it's done publicly not for its own sake, but to remind other people what a Good Person you are. Doing the Wrong Thing, on the other hands, gets you ridiculed, it gets you shunned; you are branded a heretic and a traitor to the One True Cause. And these people will turn on their own at the drop of a hat: It's worth pointing out that J.K. Rowling agrees with the left on about 99.99% of everything; it's that .01% disagreement that has them baying for her blood.

So, what does all of this have to do with the price of tea in China? Well, two things.

The first is that for the most part, these writers are producing content not for general audiences, but for each other. Or, rather, for people who have the same narrow band of experiences as they do; when the rubber meets the road, whether you grew up in the cloistered, left-leaning bubble of Los Angeles or the cloistered, left-leaning bubble of New York doesn't really matter that much. They're not making things to entertain a mass audience; they're writing shows and characters to demonstrate that they are part of the in-group, that they know all the right signs and phrases, that they are a Good Person. Remember, being good only counts if you're doing it publicly, and to remind others that you are good, too. So, producing content on the assumption that the population as a whole has the same values as you do, that will in reality be completely alien to a large segment of the population who have never been to Los Angeles or New York, is not a recipe for relatable characters.

The second part... It has been said that the main difference between how the right and the left view the world is that the right believes that the left is misinformed, whereas the left believes that the right is evil. The left believes that anyone who doesn't think and believe and act exactly like they do is motivated by active, willful maliciousness, and literally nothing else. And this is borne out by studies where Democrats and Republicans were asked to fill out surveys based on how they thought that a member of the other party would answer; Republicans were spot-on on how Democrats would respond, while the Democrats were wrong far more often than they were right.

So, you, as a Good Person, are tasked with writing content which might be viewed by Bad People. What do you do? Why, you do what you do when someone of your own party misbehaves: You shun them, you mock them, you shame them. You trash them, and everything that they believe and everything they stand for. Because they are Bad People, and so the things that they like must be Bad Things, and so deserve to be dragged through the mud. After all, if the things that they liked were Good, then they would be Good People; they are Bad People because they like Bad Things, and the things that they like are Bad because they are Bad People, and around and around it goes. So, they write things which attack a large part of the population, and they mock and deride a lot of the things that said large segment of the population find important and valuable. And while, to the people on the left, such portrayals are cheered, to anyone not firmly in the LA or New York bubble, such portrayals come across as small-minded or mean-spirited.

At bottom, it comes down to this: They forget that, as storytellers, their first duty is to tell good stories. Not to preach, not to lecture, not to proselytize. To tell good stories, about interesting characters, doing interesting things. But when the only people that you know are boring, and the only things you do are boring, then you don't know how to write people and stories that people can relate to.

[hbpseverus]

i just don't understand how anyone can be as hypocritical as some marauders fans with their treatment of snape compared to other characters. and i'm not even taking issue with the marauders themselves here, they are flawed and complex but overall good characters, and while i myself don't love them i see why other people do, and i also see why people dislike snape. generally nothing wrong with that.

but then tell me why they are stanning evan rosier? a character we really know nothing about other than that he was a pureblood slytherin who became a death eater? i just do not get it. he didn't even get a redemption like regulus. we know that he died in battle against aurors, as a proud death eater who enjoyed duelling which lets us assume he has probably also killed a person or two along the way, unlike severus.

so, literally how does this make any sense? why do they show grace to every character except for severus? not that i would be a fan of it, but at this point they could just give sev a new fanon personality and make him more likable as they have done with like, every other character in the series. what makes him different from regulus and evan? it could be because they don't like his adult character, but that becomes irrelevant in marauders fanon where every teenaged character is assigned a new personality anyway and apparently adult evan rosier being an active DE doesn't disqualify him either. sooo is he just not aesthetic/attractive enough? i don't want to believe they would be so shallow but at this point what else could it even be?

i'm yapping about this because a person repeatedly, for days now, has been telling me that it is morally wrong and problematic to like snape and that cancelling people for liking him is perfectly reasonable (insanely chronically online statement btw). then i go on their profile and see they're posting positively about rosier et al. and when i point it out they tell me it's fine because his fanon character is different. so... can i headcanon that snape was actually always super sweet and kind and a cinnamon roll who never did anything wrong ever and then it's finally okay to like him? i have no interested in making him that uninteresting, i just wish i could understand this logic.

[not-wholly-unheroic]

This is a weird question, but y'know how some versions of Hook are super serious nearly all of the time (like in the novel and in Peter Pan and the Pirates) and some of them are only semi-serious (like the Cyril Ritchard one)? Where does Disney Hook sit on that scale of silly to serious? What do you think the ideal ratio is?

Another thing, how rich looking do you like Hook to be? Toned down like his OG stage appearance or crazy, stupid, impractical wealthy looking like Hoffman's Hook?

Love the blog btw :)

Aw, thanks so much! I’m always happy to hear someone is enjoying my content and I’m not just rambling about my favorite character into the void. 😅

So…as this is primarily a Disney Hook blog, I’m admittedly a little bit biased in my preference. I love most versions of Hook (though there are a few I actually really dislike because I feel they do a disservice to the character), but Disney has a special place in my heart because it was Disney’s version that first drew me to the character and convinced me to read the novel. I was intrigued by the fact that he could simultaneously be a legitimately threatening villain and also show emotions like fear and despair that we so rarely saw in animated villain characters from that era. It was these moments of “weakness” that made him actually seem human to me. A Hook (or any character) who is TOO stoic and frightening either becomes entirely unlikable because the audience can’t relate to them or they become a sort of flat, boring stereotype, a sort of caricature of villainy.

The more classic Disney villains are generally meant to be the sort of character we love to hate and hate to love. They’re supposed to be a little over the top and larger than life. They’re meant to revel in their villainy while still being entertaining. We’re supposed to like them at least to a point even if we seriously disagree with their moral standpoint on things. There are a few, however, who become a little too “real” and who I genuinely despise… Frollo comes to mind. There is nothing “fun” about Frollo. He’s a racist, misogynistic, ableist man who mis-uses the name of God and his authoritative position to get what he wants. Is Frollo a well-written villain? Oh, absolutely. Is there anything about him that I find likable or redeemable? I mean, he has a good singing voice… But that’s about the only nice thing I can say about him. He’s a terrible person and I have zero sympathy for him at his death.

But to return to Hook specifically…. What I find interesting is that although Disney’s Hook is often accused of being too silly, really the only thing that makes him a comical villain is his fear reactions to the crocodile (and octopus if you include the sequel). And that is entirely a function of the lens we are given to view him as the audience. The music we hear in the background as the crocodile’s theme is rather lighthearted and the other characters (the heroes) are often making fun of him in the scenes where he’s having a complete breakdown and running/swimming for his life. But if we switched the music to something more ominous (check out the Drewe & Stiles Peter Pan musical theme for the crocodile—it’s frankly terrifying) and saw things from Hook’s perspective…it would really give off the same vibes as, say, Jaws or Jurassic Park. I strongly suspect that if it were our heroes being chased by the crocodile, things would look/sound/feel very different. Case in point…go watch clips of Pinocchio where Jiminy Cricket, Pinocchio, and Geppetto are fleeing Monstro the Whale and compare them side by side with Hook’s interactions with the crocodile. One is portrayed as comedic while the other is an action scene where we feel like the characters are genuinely in danger…but realistically, the same thing is happening in both. (Side note… I was absolutely TERRIFIED of that scene in Pinocchio as a kid. I literally had nightmares about it…so maybe I just relate a little too hard to Hook’s reaction and that’s why I’m so defensive of him.)

Compared to certain other Hooks, Disney’s is rather…soft, high-strung, and prone to being emotional but…that’s actually what I like most about him. That said, there are absolutely moments when we are reminded that we should be afraid of him. Heck, he shoots a man dead in his first few minutes of screen time which is more than most villains do. During the scene in Skull Rock, he climbs up behind Peter and—if Wendy hadn’t warned him in time of Hook’s approach—would have sunk the claw in through Peter’s eye socket. Not to mention the fact that he threatens Tiger Lily’s life and afterlife, sends a bomb to a child, and would have gladly allowed every single one of the Lost Boys and Darlings to walk off the plank to drown when they wouldn’t sign on with his crew. We also have him mention in passing “boiling in oil…keelhauling…marooning…” which would seem to imply that these are things he has done before and is willing to do again. In Return to Neverland we arguably have some even scarier moments on-screen. That final showdown with Jane…there are moments where you can see the murder in his eyes. He nearly lops off Jane’s hand at one point and then immediately attempts to run her through with his sword when that fails. A few seconds too late and she would have been a goner. In those moments, we are reminded of exactly what Hook is capable of and why the children should be afraid of him.

Disney’s Hook is, I think, a good mixture of scary and sympathetic; humorous and heavy…and that’s why he’s my favorite Hook. He’s very human and it makes him a lot of fun to play around with as a writer.

To answer your second question regarding Hook’s opulence…I tend to prefer my Hooks to be somewhere in the middle—wealthy but not totally impractical. If you go back through the series I did looking at versions of the Jolly Roger in different Peter Pan media and what we could learn about that particular Hook from his ship, Disney and Isaacs come out as two of the “middle ground” Hooks who I would label as well-off (unlike Jude Law’s Hook, who seems more like any other average sailor in terms of his wealth) but not rich to the point of impractical extravagance (like Hoffman’s Hook).

[madamegemknight]

How about MOTU hot takes? From any iteration (the 80s cartoon, the comics, the cgi reboot, the other serious reboot)

rubs my hands together maniacally. boy oh boy crispy you are ENABLING me here we go >:3

The 1987 movie really isn't as bad as people make it out to be. It's not great, don't get me wrong, but the people who made it were clearly passionate about what they were doing and it's a fun (if somewhat aggravating at points) ride. Dolph Lundgren is a good He-Man who understands that the character is just as much about his heart as he is his muscles, the way it and the Power Tour serve as sister experiences to each other with their incorporation of music and Earth storylines is fascinating to examine, and while Julie's subplot about her dead parents is utterly pointless, I think Kevin and Julie are two genuinely likable characters who deserve a second chance in the grander scheme of things.

The Greatest Show on Eternia is the worst episode of the Filmation series and should have never been made, but the way Masters of The Multiverse chose to "address" it was immature, childish, and nearly tipped the comic into edgelord territory for me. If something is bad, you should take the time to figure out what went wrong, then try and fix it - you shouldn't murder the only tolerable character in that episode and then have an aside about how the Eternian Circus is being thrown into chaos because of that murder that does nothing to progress the overall plot!!! wadda heck!!!!

CGI!Krass did literally nothing wrong. She was a deeply traumatized kid who was absolutely correct regarding pretty much everything (especially wanting to guard the Tiger Tribe instead of running off and ignoring it forever like Adam did, considering the later reveal that the Dark Masters kidnapped Justine), and the fact that the show is more willing to blame her flawed behavior on "evil rock that makes you evil in her helmet" than acknowledge she watched her parents die and literally cannot be in enclosed spaces without Adam as a result is legitimately disgusting. CGI tries so hard to have their cake and eat it too that they end up portraying Krass as in the wrong for wanting things to stay the same with Adam while ALSO establishing in one of the tie-in books that if she'd never met Adam she would have never even partially recovered from her trauma.

Speaking of which, considering that this IS apparently a hot take outside of my own little circle of incredibly cool and correct mutuals: CGI Season 3 is bad. It is so bad it makes the flaws of the previous two seasons, which I could mostly ignore up until that point, painfully obvious. It is genuinely upsetting to me that a series where the SOLE SURVIVOR OF A GENOCIDE BRAINWASHED INTO BELIEVING THE PROPAGANDA HE WAS FED ABOUT THE COLONIZATION OF HIS PEOPLE is made into a villain will be some kid's introduction to MOTU, ESPECIALLY considering how tolerant and accepting the Filmation series was.

Orko is a good character and plays a vital role in the franchise overall! Wow yeah it's weird to remember how that used to be a hot take in any non-tumblr MOTU fan community until like...2021. Crazy that huh.

Maybe not a hot take per se, but I don't personally think that Trollans have that different of a lifespan/age rage from Eternians. As far as I'm aware, the only implication of that being true is from the UK comics, and even there it's said that "it has been suggested" that Orko is over 500, not that he is - and this is also the same comic that said that nobody knows what Trolla is like, something that is patently not true, so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that maybe the UK comics have some slightly incorrect information and possibly shouldn't be blindly trusted when determining major factors about a character! There are several times in the Filmation series that he either flirts with or shows a very clear attraction to adult Eternians (something that would be Weird if he was aging at a different rate than an Eternian), and while he does call Adam "kid" when they first meet, that's just how Orko talks - he says "atta boy" unironically for crying out loud. I have always envisioned Orko being around the same age as Adam, if a little bit younger, and while Trollans probably do age at a different rate on account of being a different species, it's probably not to that extreme of a difference otherwise it would have been mentioned elsewhere.

Netflix She-Ra is not special for having Adora start out as a brainwashed soldier who has a crisis over realizing she's been fed imperialist/fascist propaganda her entire life. That is literally the plot of The Secret of The Sword, which was released in 1985. I love Netflix She-Ra dearly and always will, as without it I would have never become a fan of MOTU in the first place, but head in my hands if someone calls it bold and innovative for doing things that the OG series did back in the 80s one more time, I am gonna wind up on the evening news 🙃

[black-queen-rising]

The people taking this dialogue as a legitimate “character flaw” or literally just at face value at all and not as a continuation of the blatant disrespect the writers have not just towards Rhaenyra as the heir of twenty years, but towards anything that could even vaguely be construed as “women’s work”, is the most perfect encapsulation of just how entrenched misogyny is into the very heart of our pop culture and how the popularization of fantasy has managed to worsen our societal view of soft power by painting it as not only weak, but frivolously feminine, unimportant, and a waste of time.

Since the beginning of the show the writers have almost exclusively portrayed Rhaenyra as disinterested if not opposed to her role as heir, as a politician, and a woman in power broadly all against the original canon and all glaringly, not to make her look worse or better or likable or incompetent (they do all those things, almost every episode, with however they need her to affect the plot in that given moment because they’re incapable of having the characters drive it organically) because it’s not truly about her at all. It’s simply because they cannot fathom a story where a woman is politically adept and as a result either 1. evil or 2. boring, and that is fundamentally because once again they are so biased and against portraying anything that could even vaguely be construed as women’s work or at all “feminine-coded” in an even neutral-but-interesting way they do for (stereotypically) masculine-coded activities like sword fighting, horse back riding, dragon riding, hunting, archery, not to mention just the concept of the political conversations that drive these stories, let alone an actually positive way.

They have taken a story that at its core was always an indictment of structural misogyny and how it will literally cause societies to tear themselves apart over nothing. But because they decided at the outset they wouldn’t and couldn’t portray the structural part of said misogyny without scaring away their intended audience, and decided instead to base this all around ultimately meaningless ~team discourse~ (because literally everyone meeting their downfall as a result of the consequences of systemic misogyny is the point) their alternate path has been to over-exaggerate and ultimately turn to spectacle every single woman involved’s individual suffering at the expense of everything else about their characters. It doesn’t matter if that was the intent or not the principle result of this adaptation has been the continual disempowerment and degradation of women and their agency combined with an almost impressively voyeuristic portrayal of their suffering.

The women in this show are not allowed to have interests or hobbies unless it’s to serve to make them seem “bad” in someway, whether that be the discomfort around Helaena’s bugs, the total lack of any positive representation of Alicent’s religiosity, or how the women dragon riders are broadly painted as aggressive, violent, and unnatural. I don’t even have specific examples to list from the other “team” because in order to be portrayed as “likable” to the general audience the women of Team Black are barely allowed to have personalities, let alone distinguishing interests or characterizing hobbies. The agency and autonomy they have been stripped of, collectively, from both historical precedent and actual ASoIaF, is almost entirely in their refusal to allow women’s work to be portrayed positively. There are no balls, no sewing circles, no garden parties, no trappings of power and contests of will in the jewels and gowns Rhaenyra must now loathe to be (their deeply narrow and biased view of) “likable”, there are no female mentorships, and no female friendships, and at every chance they have had to portray these things at both a societal and personal level they have chosen to veer away and instead reinforce their suffering. They have removed women’s avenues and halls of power from this story, while making it very clear there are no others that exist in this world, and they cannot participate in the men’s; if they could this story wouldn’t exist. So we are left with a group of people who are supposedly driving this story, who this story is supposedly about, but they are internally and externally isolated, largely removed from the public eye, angry or distressed to be there on the rare occasions they’re present, disempowered, stripped of personal agency and will, and we’re still told they have power. But if we search for it the only logical conclusion is that any power which does not center on how much suffering they have been through, or how much more they may be dealt, is not only gone, it was never there in the first place.

I don’t enjoy Rhaenyra’s quasi domestic abuse any more than Alicent’s visceral sexual shame and I don’t enjoy the infantilization of Helaena’s character any more than the erasure of Rhaena’s and it is deeply concerning how many people look at these decisions, and nod their heads and say “yes, this is realistic, and not only is it realistic it’s, GOOD, because without horrific psychological and physical abuse and ultimately a complete reduction to every female character as peace loving victims of powerful men’s cruel machinations we could never even SEE how misogyny is so damaging.” And the mindset that drives people to claim that those of us who call out how this is, the definition of benevolent misogyny and say we’re crazy, that we can’t see the complexity, that actually we’re the ones somehow falling back into sexist tropes, or asking for a black and white story when instead the black and white has simply become an insultingly reductive view of evil men versus helpless women and when all else fails, accusing us of wanting a boring story because it’s either not focused on gratuitous individual female suffering, or is focused on the kind of political power every single featured female character on both sides of this conflict wielded in the original book instead of evil man conversations and eviler man dragon-battles, is at its heart why we have come to a place in pop culture where one of its most marquee properties displays and embodies these problems so glaringly in the fucking first place.

[autumnteawithfriends]

Wait, Millie is bisexual? I don´t remmember Millie being bi, Moxxie yes, but Millie? Damn, when o where they said that? Jeez, poor Millie, she have a lot of potential and all her stuff but everything around it is just "telling", not showing anything. Even in the chapters where she was supposed to be the focus… they rob her of that development.

And, to be honest, why does she just feel like a medal or a decoration? True, as a bi, I don't consider my orientation as a personality, but it's not an "add-on" either.

Really, Moxxie and Millie's relationship feels like Charlie and Vaggie, where one has a personality and the other is just there for her partner.

The stolitz, or well, Stolas, literally devoured the show. Visually the show is beautiful, when the colours aren't killing the eye, but the script (and the character and world building) is a rollercoaster with very dangerous holes.

Thanks for the ask!

Yes, she was confirmed to be bisexual

Honestly, the main reason why she feels like a decoration is because Viv likely wants strong female characters in her show, but doesn’t actually want to commit to making them interesting because that requires actually writing them as people, and you can’t do that when your a misogynistic fujoshi stuck in their 2010s Wattpad phase that just wants to see gay men have sex constantly

Also that’s been a recurring problem with the romances Viv writes. She gives one a surprisingly likable personality only to give their partner a two dimensional love interest who’s only personality trait is being their partner. It happened with CherriSnake because Cherri legitimately has nothing going for her aside from her romance with Pentious. Chaggie ups the ante by retconning Valkryie as a former exterminator and her keeping it a secret…yet that revelation somehow doesn’t cause actually meaningful relationship conflict between the two. Moxxie and Millie are by far the worst because these two don’t have any type of development.

Stolas can get kicked in the balls for all I care, calling him a bitch feels pretty weak right now and Blitz deserved to completely cut ties with him. The fact that Vivziepop wants us to sympathize with a classist rapist racist asshole is insane

[bobbydagen24]

While I love World Tour something that's always Bugged me is The Hickory's Betrayal plot point.

Hickory is a stranger who they meet at a convenient time who seemingly sticks his neck out to help our main characters for no Reason other than Moral Goodness

and who Branch warns Poppy about Trusting but who she chooses to trust anyway and after a Journey where some trust is built up between the characters

Hickory is eventually Revealed to be a Bounty Hunter who was just getting close to them so he could find out where they had their string so he could give it to Barb

all in all not a bad plot point in the story personally it caught me by surprise the first time I saw it Hickory is a fairly likable character that from what I can understand most of the audience Grew fond of

and Poppy and even Branch Deffo built up a little bit of trust and maybe even friendship with him in the movie making his betrayal work on pretty much every level

a Twist needs to to work except the problem is the movie Really undersells it

after his betrayal he leaves the movie and is only seen again briefly at the end and its a little comedic scene where he proudly remarks about having taught Poppy the trick with using sweets as ear plugs.

my main problem is Poppy having no Real Reaction to his Betrayal as Hickory's turn is done seemingly just to get Poppy caught by Barb and that's it narrative wise

when I feel it should have been more of a turning point for Poppy's character as she's a overly trusting person

who in the last movie got betrayed by someone she trusted very much which Hurt her a great Deal.

and Despite warnings from Branch about Trusting Hickory she still chooses to keep being a trusting person only to get betrayed again

this should have a way bigger Reaction from her even tho she didn't know Hickory all that long she was clearly starting to view him as a friend

and she went out on a whim by trusting him but she got Burned yet again this should have either made her furious or emotionally Devastated her

instead she has very little Reaction to it and it Really didn't seem to at all change her character as in TBT she's back to being overly trusting such as

instantly taking Brozone's sides when Branch is mad at them going out of her way to make excuses for these total strangers

and comforting Crimp and trusting her as soon as she sees her Despite her being a willing accomplice in torturing her boyfriends Brother.

Hickory's Betrayal should have been used as a way to Develop Poppy into a more cautious person less Trusting person

that way the movie wouldn't literally be throwing away this likable character simply because they needed a way for Poppy to be captured for the climax

and his Betrayal would have a legit character Growth purpose so I feel Poppy should be more emotionally impacted by his turn

and he shouldn't just leave the movie after this he should Remain by Barbs side as a Remorseless Henchmen who is nothing but cold to Poppy when she tries to ask him how he could do this.

and Ideally the movies wouldn't just forget about this and Poppy would be a little more cautious when Trusting strangers in future movies

as Poppy's character Development seems to be undone in every movie making it very surface level tbh

so yeah Hickory's Betrayal has always Bothered me from a plot perspective for this Reason as he's an example of a Good Twist Villain in the way he's set up

( unlike someone else who I will be making a post on very soon ) but like I said the movie Really underplays this aspect and it makes it feel very pointless tbh

as there's a million other ways they could have had Poppy get caught by Barb along with the string without the Hickory Twist.

[catbeeisafraid]

I don’t have like a ton to say about this but I have mixed feelings- also spoilers ✨

I like Crystal I really do but at times her dialogue bothered me and some of her behavior was kind of obnoxious to me- like at times when she started aggressively inserting herself into situations and just kind of made it about her? Like in episode seven (though this happened many other times too) where she was having a total fit about not going to hell when it’s clearly for her own good and not about her no matter how much she cares? and I totally understand that this is her being written as an immature teenager who hasn’t been dead or a teen for 30-100 years but as a teenager this sort of selfish immature writing kind of gives me icky feelings because I know so many people who are mostly emotionally intelligent not just raging all the time.- and I mean that for a lot of teenagers and teen girls in writing, to make them tough and likable they are made volitile and annoying which to me is not likable (my opinion, I just don’t like the trope that’s not what I’m talking about right now anyway-) I do think she had good development and I liked her a lot better by the end, some people on other forums were saying that her actress was weaker than the rest of the cast and I don’t really know about that? I think maybe she was artificial at times but I’m blaming that on the writing. I also didn’t like her dialogue about her “crazy demon ex” either, it felt very forced? -Not her emotions about the whole mind cage thing I get that but just all of the “UGH WHY ARE THEY SO FUCKING NOSY IM JUST TRYING TO GET OVER MY STUPID STUPID CRAZY ABUSIVE STALKER DEMON EX BOYFRIEND UGHHH ILL DOUBLE KILL THOSE BOYS IF ITS TGE LAST THING I DO” that felt out of place to me- Lastly I get that this is also an aspect of her teenager-ness but I didn’t like the amount she cursed? I have no qualms with cursing but it felt to me like when little kids and middle schoolers start cursing where they just explosively yell fuck when like literally nothing warranting that kind of expletive has happened? She curses too often it makes her sound really stupid? Like the ep 7 “take me to hell I won’t die” thing, she was screaming at Charles who was being pretty reasonable like “fuck that I’m going he’s my fucking friend too fine then fuck it- fuck you ill find another way to get to hell” like yes she was emotional but that isn’t what teenagers sound like guys?

idk- I’d love to hear what other people think and to be clear I do like her I just focused on the negative- I guess it’s a human thing. She had lots of strong points just I ending up not liking how much she was on screen, this isn’t really about you? It’s about the dead boy detective? Give me more ghosts or Edwin or Charles or Jenny or Niko or Mr walrus please? They were fun I like them? I just felt like there were times where she was over shadowing Edwin and Charles and they are what’s actually important to the show? I think I’d like her more in smaller doses- I felt like I spent too much time having to stop and be like “girl step back this is not about you, you are not the star right now”

and to the argument of her actress being inexperienced or over acting or just not great- I have no specific feelings on this but like the other main cast had for the most part very little screen acting experience and were Fantastic so i don’t know what to feel in that area? so yes, i think crystal is an interesting character and i think she grew on me and developed in the season but i also definitely think that she’s annoying and I’m conflicted because i don’t want to not like her-..

what are your thoughts? Id love to hear different perspectives but please be nice to me because I’ll probably delete this and cry (unless that was your goal, then carry on)

that was all like super ramble-y sorry- but I hope I communicated semi accurately! Thank you

[pastelwitchling]

Thoughts on Percy Jackson and the Olympians, episode 3:

(Disclaimer: I loved everything about the episode except, mostly, Annabeth herself. So if you're going to get offended because someone doesn't like the same fictional character, because that's what Annabeth is, and if you're going to try to turn the argument into something else, please don't bother reading.)

So. This is a bit difficult because I feel very conflicted/wary about what's to come, mostly because Disney has not been historically good at girl power or badass female characters. Let me just say this; while I used to love the CW's Flash, it quickly went downhill when the Flash took a backseat to his own show for the CW's half-assed "girl power" message. I fear the same might happen here.

Let me be very clear about something. It makes sense why Annabeth would seem like the more formidable opponent at the start of the story. She was more or less that in the first two books because, not only is she the daughter of the goddess of wisdom and battle strategy, but she'd spent a lot of her life training for quests, studying about the gods, and she just knew more than Percy did. I didn't like Movie Annabeth for most of the first film either for the same reasons I'm about to list below, please keep that in mind.

My issue will come here; if Percy starts to take a backseat to his own show just so we can highlight how great and awesome Annabeth is and girl power rules and whatever, I'm going to be very, very miffed. Again, it's fair for me to worry about this now because Disney is all tell and no show when it comes to women. Just like they did with Marvel, just like they did with the most recent Disney Princesses, it's more important to them to show how woke they are instead of caring about the actual stories they tell. And I'm Middle-Eastern, so don't even try any of that self-righteous white woman racial crap with me, okay?

I know I'm saying what a lot of people probably think but aren't allowed to say, but -- call me crazy -- I want the show based on the Percy Jackson books to focus on Percy Jackson. To be honest, I've never loved ANY of Rick Riordan's female characters, save for Ana from Daughter of the Deep, as well as the other female characters in that book, but that's not even in the Percy Jackson world, so it doesn't count. And I ONLY say this now because, again, Disney has SUCKED with their female characters. It's all pandering and nothing but pandering.

The first book especially always frustrated me with the way Grover never really seemed to defend Percy against Annabeth's snobby behavior, so this aligns fine. I'm not really saying anything against the character either (not yet), as this frustration with how unfair and snobby she is towards Percy very much aligns with the book. I guess I was just hoping that since I always hated Annabeth in the books and she was actually likable in the second episode, that maybe the show would be better about her portrayal. I was actually thinking how cute they would be as a couple in the second episode, but now? I'm kind of back where I was with the books, I don't see why she deserves him, not yet.

Much like Grover was in the episode, I was just looking at a lot of her behavior as Really? The guy had NO reason to invite you on this quest, you NEEDED him to pick you, and you still act like he's the idiot for caring about his mom and not knowing anything about this world that he's just found out about, and it's so freaking entitled, I --

I've been part of the Roswell, New Mexico fandom since season 1, and I know just how ridiculous people get when you DARE criticize a character who HAPPENS to be played by a black actress. I don't give a crap. I'm critiquing the CHARACTER here, and I'm disappointed, not with her, but the writing itself. It's too soon to tell, I know, but I do hope Disney is better about Annabeth's character than the books were, because I saw Book Annabeth as rude, selfish, and unfair, it bothered me that everyone in the story still idolized her despite how toxic her behavior was (save for Percy, but just in the beginning, and then he was fine with her hitting him and calling him stupid all the time), and I saw glimpses of that in episode 3, so I'm hoping for better.

Also, that whole, What are you afraid of? conversation felt so weird and forced. They JUST started the quest, Percy is throwing in suggestions, Annabeth treats him like he's stupid for it, and then demands to know why he's scared of who he is, and I'm like ?? What warranted that question? He hasn't used his powers yet, he hasn't refused to use his powers yet or talk about his father or anything, so why would he seem afraid of who he is? It just makes no sense.

Honestly? At this point, I just feel bad for Leah because Annabeth is a very difficult character to make likable in my eyes, and it's made worse when the writing won't allow her to be any better.

Aside from that, I really did love the episode a lot. I wish Grover had done more to defend Percy in the beginning, but he did the same thing in the book and he eventually did step in. Medusa was actually great. I hated the actress's character in the Flash, so I was wary, but she really knocked it out of the park. I love some of the extra details they put in, like Percy giving her a chance because of his mom and kindness (fatal flaw, if you know you know), I LOVED the consensus song, and YES! I was SO worried they wouldn't have Percy send Medusa's head to Olympus, but they did and he was perfect and it was AMAZING! When Annabeth said that what Medusa said isn't what happened, I would've liked an explanation of what actually did happen. Then again, it feels like there's a bit too much exposition already, to be honest. Like there were more creative ways to explain Thalia, there were more creative ways to explain Annabeth and Luke finding camp, and I don't know if it's because I've memorized the books at this point, but it feels like so much of the episode is just dedicated to explaining things that don't really need explanation or could be saved for later to show through flashbacks or something. I don't know, just more creative than standing and sitting there while someone explains everything.

It works great sometimes, like with Sally and Percy, but other moments just feel very... exposition-y.

I love this show. It's the highlight of my week. I maintain that we are getting the best possible adaptation. It's just because I love this story so much and it's so sacred to me that I can't help but critique. I don't think the books are flawless (i.e. the female characters), so it stands to reason that I won't find the show completely flawless either. Is it still sacred to me? Absolutely. Percy Jackson has always been too important not to nitpick, I think.

[justchillandshipit]

Warning. I'm moping.

**I said all this, but then remember how broken Buck and Eddie looked when Chris left. I just can't handle it. The tears.**

I am so gutted about Chris leaving. I've always loved Eddie's dedication and love for his son. It is a big part of his character. This was something special about him that made him stand apart from other characters. I could end the post here because that alone is just devastating.

But I can't leave it alone. I have entered another mopey phase. I was thinking about Eddie the other day. If Buck becomes wrapped up in Tommy, and his new Bobby-approved relationship, then I have to wonder who Eddie is as a character. Who is Eddie now that he might not be part of a super-couple. He was always more than just that. Right? Will Eddie just fade away into a side character? Buck and Eddie will still be friends, but without the Buddie, slow-burn-undercurrent of tension, the friendship hits different. Even when they were with other people, scenes were written that made them gravitate back to each other. (Buddie did not come into existence just because two hot guys were friends. We were seeing content written with multiple interpretations, but there was something in direction, acting, idk. that made it more) I'm not sure we're getting that anymore.

Buck and Eddie hung out all the time. Buck cooked for Eddie and Chris. Buck watched Chris while Eddie did different things, and the two of them had moments they wouldn't have had if Buck hadn't already been present due to Chris. If Buck prepared a meal just for him and Eddie, that would be dating, and they've made it clear they aren't going that route. Eddie has also been framed as a bad@$$ ex-military guy. It once made him unique in the show, but he shares that with Tommy now and Tommy is also a pilot. Eddie was a great father to a child with different needs. That has been taken away as well.

In one of Ryan's interviews, he talked about learning to love himself. I think there is potential, but for the life of me, I can't imagine what kind of story arc you would put with that. He has no foil. He has nothing to push against, and I'm just not in a place where I can see them introducing a character I would appreciate as a love interest. They could still do a new love interest, but that defeats the purpose of learning to love yourself first.

I wanted the season to leave me on the hopeful side of Buddie. I wanted some sort of canon confirmation that makes the audience aware that something is there for Buddie even if the story on screen hasn't reached it yet. I wanted something substantial that isn't us reading a scene with multiple interpretations. Something clear. Some of you may recall I have been vacillating between worrying about Buddie being erased and being hopeful that it would be canon.

As the situation stands, the Will was not mentioned. Chris is gone so co-parenting is now over. They are still friends, but now the writers are putting them together in scenes differently. Buck's reaction to Eddie being shot. That was love. Whenever they had scenes together, there was an undercurrent. That doesn't seem to be present. The scenes from tonight were close, but they were driven by the wider intimacy of their connection to Chris. That chosen family, and again, at the end, Chris was gone.

Say what you will about Tommy. The fact that he was written as the place Buck went to after everything went down with Chris and Bobby, indicates a huge shift in the writing. A lot of people hate Tommy, but he's written to be likable. The hate is mostly unfair. There are a few legitimate complaints, but nothing to account for hate. Even though there hasn't been a lot written so far, time is going to fix how much content we see on Tommy. Until they write him unlikable he's going to gain traction. I'm not ready for that either. And you know Tommy hinting that he wants to be "Daddy" with Buck is going to hit right for a lot of people. (I don't get into the whole Daddy vibe but I respect that a lot of people dig it.)

Anywayz, I ramble. With no new content coming up. I'll have to see if my hope will bounce back again. Maybe I'll see an interview to sway me back to hope.

Wait. I do have one hope. I hope I haven't brought the mood down for the rest of my fellow Buddie shippers. I rely on you guys. I need you to believe in Buddie in the moments I can't.

[the-woker]

The whole Jason Todd is girl-coded debate thing admittedly just rubs me the wrong way.

I understand that there are people who consider gender as a concept and there are other people who consider gender to be something very real. Both are correct and very valid statements of expression, but someone who is genderless and has a heavy respect and fondness for the feminine and people with such experiences, I feel like what we are declaring 'girl-coded' should probably be a bit more analyzed and taken with more care.  

I have no ill-will to any of the people who post about this, they all seem like kind people, and everyone is entitled to their opinions and to posting them.  There is nothing wrong with projecting onto a character, identifying with their struggle and using that to cope with your trauma.  As someone who’s favorite character of all time is Jason Todd, and enjoys gender-weirdness,  and has been severely mistreated for being perceived as feminine before, I understand entirely. 

But there's a point when I can't help but feel uncomfortable with assigning being violent, a victim, “hysterical angry-like a girl”, expressing rage via screaming, and looking up to women in general as 'girl moments' and explicitly stating these as the reasons a male character is girl coded. And those have been the very specific points I have seen cited as what traits Jason has that make him "girl-coded."

I'm putting this all under a read more since this discussion is really not that deep, nor is it really relevant to the average Jason Todd tag surfer. It's just something I keep seeing talked about in the past few months.

Admittedly, just to begin with, the argument that what makes Jason ‘girl-coded’ is the fact that he is a victim in general, has strong connections with women, tends to like strong and muscular women, and has been vitriol in his screaming matches with other characters simply does not sit well with me as an explanation for what people are associating women with.  A female character can indeed do everything Jason did in a comic story, and I would enjoy it greatly, however staking these specific traits of his as the “feminine” ones is treading into a dangerous territory.

Especially since I’ve seen a few times now that people are claiming Jason and Batman’s fight in UTRH to be a Patriarchy metaphor and how Jason represents women’s struggles. The first problem I have with that claim, is very simply that Jason and Bruce’s fight is explicitly not about Bruce being a system that failed to protect Jason.

Nor is it about a pressure for Jason to return to conforming to Bruce and his rules.  Bruce wants him back with him, because Bruce loves Jason, but at no point does he attempt to force him to return to him, nor does he even force him to stop killing.  He certainly gets in the way and he prevents several of them, but when given the direct choice to either kill or force Jason to stop killing, he simply walks away and only intervenes after Jason attempts to kill Bruce himself. Calling this an analogy for women fighting against oppression by an organized system designed to exploit them, is not an apt metaphor, as likable and sympathetic as it is towards Jason, and I’d personally recommend avoiding it.

In general, on that topic.  The argument could be made for other male members of the Batfam (take Dick Grayson’s constant sexual harassment for being a ‘pretty boy’ for example.), but Jason is also simply just not a victim of the Patriarchy.

Unlike Stephanie Brown, Jason was accepted immediately by Bruce as Robin and as part of the family.  He was murdered by his mother for being an obstacle in her operation of stealing from starving people, and by a madman who killed him for being one of his nemeses.  His murder was upsetting but had nothing to do with him not presenting himself as society claimed he should, nor for not obeying said society's customs and arbitrary rules.

Under the Red Hood is a fascinating, engaging, philosophical, and extremely emotional piece of media and it’s a favorite for many people (including me) for a reason.  Highlighting Jason’s actions as being a ‘girl moment’ when he is intentionally trying to push past Bruce’s only boundary, however, is an uncomfortable idea to proclaim. Especially considering when and how Bruce tries to negotiate and reason with Jason. Jason quite literally holds their relationship, and his life, over Bruce in an attempt to get him to behave how he wants, claiming that he does so as an expression of femininity has horrible implications. Jason is entirely allowed to do what he wants (I enjoy it greatly. His violence is very sexy and honestly we should bring it back) but that is a gender neutral choice, and I wouldn’t say that this run nor his backstory have much in common with women’s struggles to label them as “clearly being such”.

Additionally, The narrative is also not portraying Jason as “hysterical”; this was his first proper return to comics after 20 years. The intention of the narrative is to challenge the morality of Batman and to open an in-universe line of discourse for a discussion that for years, has been, and still is relevant in the comic community.  

Jason’s death was notoriously the moment that Batman got closest to breaking his rule and so they brought Jason back to be the character who pushed him on why he maintained it.  They made Jason angry and violent to raise the stakes of what the Joker did to him, and to raise the question of if there was a crime so horrible that it was a moral failing to continue the pacifist approach to criminal reform.  Jason is being treated in a significantly kinder light than most of the characters we would traditionally see doing these actions.  We all agree Lock-up was a bad guy, we can agree that the League of Assassins is wrong, but we’re given a chance to take Jason at face value and are not immediately told how to feel despite the narrative showing us his violence in a raw and uncut way. Killing a bunch of drug dealers while rising in the ranks of the drug trade yourself is hardly a selfless act of good after all. 

Disclaimer 1:  I don’t think Jason is entirely wrong about many things.  But I simply do not believe Bruce “owes” him killing, and that it is wrong of Jason to demand this of him or anyone for that matter. Nobody owes you their innocence and you aren’t entitled to breaking anyone’s boundaries. 

Disclaimer 2:  I cannot stress enough how much I like Jason.  This post is not meant to make anyone feel bad, or make Jason seem like the “bad guy” of the fandom.  It’s simply a disservice to his character to write him off as nothing more than an angry victim and call it an expression of femininity, and a reminder to be a bit more careful when labeling and assigning traits. 

[chrkrose]

I know Team Green hates Daemon, and I agree there are 172838 reasons for him to be hated. But Nettles is one of the only things that make him somewhat likable because even though the green side keeps going on and on about the grooming, let’s be real: the public wouldn’t care as long as Matt Smith had chemistry with the other actress. People didn’t care even when his scenes with young rhaneyra were framed as grooming.

And I’m sorry, a lot of y’all takes is always framed through the lenses of “how can I make Daemon look even worse than the scumbag he is” which fair, but then don’t pretend Nettles is in the center of those thoughts because she’s not. If she was, the first point in any meta would be to determine that Rhaenyra is the true villain of Nettles story and just because Rhaenyra was a victim of Daemon, that doesn’t make her worthy of being “sisters in pain” with Nettles when 1) Rhaenyra was racist against her and 2) Daemon was the one to actually save nettles; if it was up to Rhaenyra, Nettles would be another head decorating the gates of the red keep. It’s hard to take any of those metas seriously when y’all weaponize Nettles arc against Daemon and use her just the same as Team Black does, just for a different purpose. It’s still all about victimizing Rhaenyra, and Nettles is just an means to an end. So in the end, are y’all that much different from Team Black or Rhaenyra stans when it comes to Nettles?

George loves daemon; he never wrote his arc with nettles as a commentary on his pedo tendencies. He wrote that arc in spite of his pedo tendencies. He wrote that arc as a way to show “look, Daemon killed a bunch of people, groomed a few others, did terrible things his entire life and is cheating on his queen with a way too young girl, but look how cool and badass she is and how much she suffered in her life, and this time around Daemon really likes this girl and is willing to do selfless acts for her and protect her, a lowborn girl nobody else cares about, so here, he’s light too, see how gray and complex he is?”. And the truth is that public would eat that up because even with Daemon choking Rhaenyra, killing his ex wife, laughing at his second wife’s funeral and ignoring his third wife screams while she gives birth to a demon baby, he still has tons of people who think he’s awesome. That’s just the reality of it. Now, we can argue about the problematics of the storyline, we can argue about how George wants Daemon to get away scot-free, all of this are valid points and tbh I agree with many. But it doesn’t change the story.

I can’t actually engage with team green discourse when it comes to Nettles because y’all don’t see her as a character of her own. If y’all did, y’all would see she’s way more interesting than Rhaenyra and Daemon combined. That her arc is so much more than her relationship with either of them. That she disrupts the status quo, she comes bringing with her a pletora of questions about what it means to be a dragon rider, what it means to have dragon blood. She brings the perspective of the small folk, of the ones forgotten and not cared about when the royals are destroying each other. She survives. She becomes a legend. She is sooo much more than all of this.

The reason why I want Nettles in the show has nothing to do with Daemon, Rhaenyra and whatever takes y’all have on that relationship when it comes to them both. Nettles is not the “new Rhaenyra”, she has nothing to with that character. She’s not a folder to her story, she’s doesn’t exist solely to prove a point or to be used as a weapon to help in her victimhood. Rhaenyra is not the “new Rhea Royce”. Rhaenyra is Rhaenyra, a victim of Daemon as much as a villain in Nettles story. Nettles character doesn’t exist solely to villainize or whitewash Daemon, or to play a role in his story as a folder of his previous relationships. She’s her own character, with her own arc, with her own importance, with her own role, with her own message. Her romance is her own. Her importance is her own. The sacrifices made in her name were made because she was worthy of them. Stop using her just to make your point when the point you want to make is not about her, you are not sounding any better than the ones who dismiss her as just Daemon’s bastard or want her cut off entirely from the show. Your noise is sounding very similar to theirs if I’m being honest.

[chevelleneech]

All the Twitter drama between BuckTommy and Buddies shippers today is exactly as I said it was. Over confident fans vs scared fans, only now it’s been fueled by a video in which a likable actor is being paid by both the network and fans to say he supports his character and the relationship his character is in.

I can’t even fault Lou, because he’s a working actor (I don’t know his income despite who his father is), so I don’t think he’s automatically in the wrong for being paid to tell his fans/shippers what they want to hear. The problem is BuckTommy shippers taking what is a specifically paid viewpoint and using it as ship war fuel. Oliver is pro Buddie and people use that to their advantage, but Oliver has been vocal about being okay with Buck and Eddie dating for years and he doesn’t get paid by fans to say so. At the same time though, there also never been another ship with his character and a man for him to discuss outside of Buddie.

Which is why I’m not understanding the pedestal BuckTommy fans have put Lou on, nor why they’re ignoring the fact that Oliver hasn’t exactly said he’s in favor of BuckTommy lasting the remainder of the series. He’s been very open ended about it, which is fine, and I don’t think he’d be disappointed if that is what happens. But he also did just post about Buddie, and his interviews lately have continued to be about him saying he’s open to Buddie if it happens, as opposed to him saying something to focus on BuckTommy or how he hopes they will flesh out that relationship for a while.

Which again, I would imagine he does think. I genuinely believe Oliver cares about Buck’s journey as a bisexual man and wants to see that play out in the best way possible, but it does currently seem like he’s more inclined to Buddie than BuckTommy. Which is not a good or bad thing for either side. It’s an objective observation.

So I guess my reason for writing this post, is just… why are BuckTommy fans putting more weight on how a guest star whose entire storyline will likely only ever focus on his sexuality and relationship with a man, than a lead actor who wants his character to explore his sexuality and is very vocal about being open to that exploration being with someone other than Tommy?

Because as soon as Buck and Tommy kissed, people began pushing Eddie and everything he means to Buck to the side. And now, the more we get to know Lou and the more he interacts with fans, the more those same shippers are pushing Oliver and everything he says and has said about Buddie, to the side. So it’s as if it’s not enough for BuckTommy to simply be canon. Because they are and at the end of the day, that trumps any other ship Buck could have in the future. Right now he’s with Tommy, period, but that’s not enough, I guess?

Y’all seem to want BuckTommy and confirmation that Buddie will never happen, but why? Buddie is a ship idea that has existed since season two. It is a ship that not only the fans like, but that the actors and show runner enjoy. It is a ship that if the opportunity presents itself, all the people who can make it happen, plan to make happen. That doesn’t mean it has to become canon, but paying an actor portraying a character of half the ship you prefer to say positive things about the ship, is not a gotcha.

Lou is being paid on and off screen to support Tommy, so why wouldn’t he do that? It is also good promo for the characters and the show, and there is no reason for him to not ship BuckTommy, seeing as their relationship is currently doing well. And I know fandom is going to fandom, but there is literally no reason for BuckTommys to be combative. The ship is canon, that’s a fact. Yes, it’s also a fact that Tommy was shitty in his past and that there is no solid foundation for him and Buck as a couple, but that can change come s8.

There is nothing but sunny skies in the BuckTommy forecast, so why are y’all searching for storm clouds? Buddie shippers are being insecure and crappy, but BuckTommy shippers aren’t innocent. Y’all are literally paying Lou to give you gas for the fire, then acting as if Buddie shippers are being rude for no reason. Let’s dial it back and remember this is a tv show, and Buck may not end up with neither Eddie nor Tommy.