#and they both undergo character development for some of their flaws

[llycaons]

sorry but the argument that jc is a good leader because his disciples do what he says and people are scared of him is absolutely bullshit imo, didn't we just watch a show where a ton of people in positions of power abuse the people working under them because sect leaders have essentially no check on their power?

[deception-united]

Let's talk about character arcs.

Character arcs refer to the transformation or development of a character over the course of a story. This typically involves changes in their beliefs, attitudes, or behavior in response to challenges and experiences and how the confrontation of their flaws leads to eventual personal growth.

Developing compelling character arcs is essential for engaging storytelling and characters that resonate with your readers. Here are some tips to help you craft effective character arcs:

Establish Clear Goals: Each character should have clear, specific goals they want to achieve. These goals can be external (e.g., defeating a villain, finding a lost treasure) or internal (e.g., overcoming fear, finding redemption). The arc will revolve around the character's journey towards these goals.

Create Flawed Characters: Characters should have flaws or weaknesses that they need to overcome throughout the story. These flaws make them relatable and provide opportunities for growth.

Initiate Change: A character arc involves change. Whether it's a positive transformation or a tragic downfall, the character should not remain static throughout the story. They should evolve in response to the challenges they face and the experiences they undergo.

Conflict is Key: Conflict is essential for driving character development. Characters must face obstacles, both internal and external, that challenge their beliefs, values, and abilities. These conflicts force them to confront their flaws and make choices that impact their arc.

Show Progression: As the story progresses, illustrate the character's growth and change through their actions, decisions, and relationships. Show how their experiences shape their perspective and behavior over time.

Foreshadowing and Setup: Lay the groundwork for the character arc early in the story through subtle hints, foreshadowing, and backstory. This helps create a sense of continuity and believability in the character's development.

Include Setbacks and Failures: Characters should not succeed at everything they attempt. Setbacks and failures are crucial for character growth, as they provide opportunities for reflection, learning, and resilience.

Internal and External Arcs: Characters should experience both internal and external arcs. While external arcs focus on tangible goals and obstacles, internal arcs delve into the character's emotions, beliefs, and personal growth.

Resolution and Transformation: By the end of the story, ensure that the character undergoes a significant transformation or resolution that reflects their arc. This conclusion should feel earned based on the challenges they've faced and the choices they've made.

Consistency and Authenticity: Maintain consistency in the character's development and ensure that their arc feels authentic to their personality, motivations, and experiences. Avoid sudden or unrealistic changes that don't align with the character's established traits.

Hope this was helpful! Happy writing ❤

Previous | Next

[extremely-judgemental]

Subtext is completely lost in this fandom. I partly blame SJM for it. This is a rant from both reading and writing standpoint and leans towards the characters since I like to psychoanalyse them.

The one thing that tired me the most in these books is the excessive narration. I don’t mean the wordy description to support world-building but the never-ending monologues. SJM takes ‘show, don’t tell’ advice literally with the visual cues when it should apply to the characters and their personalities as well. Where subtext usually exposes depth of these characters and lets you decide who they are, SJM strips away that chance by writing it down for you word by word. The reason so many are going with 'in the book' argument is exactly this.

Here’s what I mean.

In real life, people don’t think linearly. They have an idea about themselves as much as they have about everyone else around them. There are self-imposed restrictions on their thoughts based on who they believe to be and who they strive to be. And it shows in their interaction with outside world. Say, when someone is ashamed of their actions, they will deny it for as long as possible. Someone who regrets something, they will sugarcoat it.

But in her books, her characters think clearly—way too clearly so that you latch onto the ideas she perpetuates. You don’t get to know them based on their thoughts, words, and actions, and see how these three support each other. You don't get a chance to draw conclusions as to if they are the hero/villain and good/evil based on their actions. If their behaviours match their words or if their choices are acceptable. Because SJM sets it in words for you. The characters come with a label beforehand. (Feyre, Rhysand and Inner Circle are good guys. Tamlin, Eris and Nesta, sometimes Lucien are evil.) It's why so many toxic and abusive themes are dismissed because it’s the 'good guy' or the 'morally grey guy’ who does it.

And so, her lead or ‘good’ characters fall flat since they have everything figured out. They know themselves inside out. They are never wrong about themselves, there’s no part they hide from themselves or the others. There’s nothing for you to read and identify the beauty or ugliness in the character. There’s no depth in them because they don’t contradict themselves, they don’t struggle to be someone they always believed to be. They don’t have to prove anything to themselves or others. They say what they think and they do what they say. They are very aware of their shortcomings and they all seem to know the exact consequences of their decisions.

Feyre doesn’t change in the three books. Her ‘rags to riches’ story doesn’t lead to much character growth. She starts out as an adamant, reckless child and ends up being arrogant, reckless woman with a crown. She doesn’t undergo a shift in personality but climbs up the social hierarchy. And that’s considered character development. Rhysand remains the same throughout. He starts out as a villain but later revealed as a good guy playing bad. Instead of growing into a hero—given his crimes, his ill deeds are negated with sympathetic backstory. And from there, it’s a flat line. There’s no growth.

In the end how does the character change in the aftermath of the events? Which of their beliefs are shattered and rebuilt? What is the emotional impact on the other characters? SJM does offer some closure on these regards but they are solely focused on a list of traumas and specific reactions set by SJM herself. And so readers refuse to think for themselves how these scenarios may play out and take the words relayed through the unreliable narrators who are essentially preaching SJM’s biases. Also, when they are so explicitly written down, there’s not much room for subtext. After going through pages and pages of justification, it tires you from using reason.

Even if we get past this (writing) flaw, there are other major issues. Story telling is a way of experiencing life. It helps build empathy, compassion and understanding of the world. Even in a fantasy book, when that world doesn’t exist, when the characters aren’t real, their journey are drawn from real life experiences. Relating to these characters is subjective and solely depends on the reader, but determining the rightness of their actions is not. This too is warped as SJM dictates which behaviour is acceptable and how far through her lead characters(Feyre vs Nesta imprisonment). Instead of allowing you to judge the choices, the verdict is spoon-fed through the ‘hero’. If the characters are forgiven, it’s not abuse. It’s a simple mistake. (It’s a mistake if it happens once and if there’s a changed behaviour after the apology.) If the characters are happy in the end, their acts are admissible. Unless SJM stamps the word ‘abuser’ and ‘bad guy’ in block letters herself(Tamlin), it's not even considered a possibility.

In short, in this fandom, ‘reading between the lines’ is acceptable as long as it supports what the author preaches. When it contradicts ‘it’s in the books’. Logic is valid only if you use it to justify the fan favourites and applaud them. Empathy is conditional. Compassion is conditional. Critical thinking is so discouraged that it’s pitiful.

[zvezdacito]

// TWST Book 7 spoilers, thoughts of Malleus's writing as a character

So I was reading some other people's opinions on why some people consider Malleus overrated/annoying, and tbh this makes me really sad. The general consensus is that a lot of people fixate on certain sides and can only see him as one extreme or the other and it results in many ppl thinking a watered down version of his character is how he is in canon.

I feel that its such a shame because he's the most interesting, compelling and well-rounded take on his character archetype I've seen.

From my observation, usually they kinda make this archetype (the broody misunderstood 'everyone fears him like a monster except for one special person') someone you can't take that seriously, because of how his struggle usually kind of written in a way where everyone involved feel less like actual fully fledged original characters and really just one note tropes interacting with other one note tropes.

To elaborate: What i mean when i say this is usually ppl who hate him kind of just do because of plot requires them to and to show how all their haters are "normies" who can't get him because 'he's not like everyone else'. The misunderstood guy still usually has toxic personality issues but the story really tends to make it feel like they don't fear him for that but because they're shallow and have prejudice to ppl like him, so his personality issues are not framed as wrong or character flaws.

I don't think there's anything inherenrly wrong or mediocre with the "one special person who gives him a chance before anyone else" trope like I'm literally a Malleyuu enjoyer lol but like i said its all in the execution cause otherwise it fails to be compelling and believable. Usually in the poorly written version of this trope the guy doesn't undergo any character development other than showing more emotion and kindess to his partner because they melted his ice I guess so it really makes his whole character feel like its revolves around the sake of romance and fanservice.

Malleus doesn't fall into this trap in my opinion because his situation despite how fantastical it is, the way he was written makes it believable as to why everything is the way it is with him, and it also challenges the viewer if they would be able to say they wouldn't fear him too in that situation.

"We're gonna give you this character who everyone sees as a monster and show you deep down he just wants the same love as everyone else, making you contemplate changing judgement on him. He wants to prove this, but his way of going about it always inadvertently harms others."

"You know where hes coming from and if he had that social connection to give him a better understanding of others this wouldn't be happening, but its also equally understandable that the people hes trying to connect with don't deserve this and fear him even more after this, trapping him in a cycle of isolation."

"Given his track record, do you go about giving him a chance or just considering the repeatedly proven danger he brings. With the valid reasons of both parties, can you really say he isn't a monster and demand that 'if only people be near him'?"

There's just such a tragic and thought-provoking dilemma to his character that adds so many layers that makes him so good.

As omniscient viewers we have the benefit of seeing what he's going through form his POV so we can sympathize with him and understand that he thinks what he's doing is the best course of action and he's just trying to create a "win for everyone" situation.

But also everything he does ironically reaffirms everyone's fear and distrust of someone like him. No one can deny he has a tendency to cause further destruction when he tries to do something "good", examples including: past Briar Valley lantern lighting fire, the Halloween 2 ghost world party, and now his Sleeping Curse stunt in Book 7 Part 2 (they really emphasize this by making the spoken name of his UM basically mean "Malicious Fairy" but have its written name used to convey what its meant to mean be "Blessing").

↑ Given this, it honestly makes sense others, especially those who don't know him all that well, would just expect the worst when he's around already, and you wouldn't be able to blame them for that given the track record. It doesn't help that this impression is worsened since he tends to cause misunderstandings due to his lack of familiarity with human social cues.

Alongside the bias and preconceived notions from his status and reputation, they also make a point on how his personality flaws are still also a huge factor in pushing people away, such as not being able to see things through the perspective of others.

He also holds a subconcious belief due to what has been ingrained in him since childhood as a Draconia and the next in line that because he's superior to others at certain things, he has the right and responsibility to decide on what will protect and help them, disregarding the individual values/priorities of human beings and leading him to take reckless and destructive action with good intentions.

His upbringing, character strengths and character flaws are all realistically connected to each other and the way they are subtly shown to be ever-present in defining his decisions, goals and thoughts throughout the whole story. So we don't really need to have a character go out of their way to exposition this to us this word for word just so we can understand and believe it.

Moving onto something slightly more lighthearted, I really also like how dorky Malleus surprisingly was. Other similar characters in the archetype I usually see don't really have any hobbies, interests, or quirks outside of being a broody authority figure, which might've been appealing to some at first but it really just gets stale and boring after a while.

This should be the bare minimum in making a fleshed out and interesting character so maybe i sound like im giving them too much credit for pointing it out😭 But yeah compared to the other examples it's good that Malleus has his Tamagotchi and Gargoyle interests it makes him feel like a believable person who has his own life going on too (with the bonus that these interests are also metaphors for aspects of his character). The gap moe adds an endearing side to him, and makes the gap between his intent and impact of his actions even more tragic. It wouldn't hit the same without this side.

(^ Forgot how the exact quote goes, but it basically said dark stories are more effective when there are moments of genuine happiness and good in them, compared to if it was always just grim and edgy. The former increases the stakes and tragedy because you have something you to care about losing, while for the latter there is nothing for you to care about so nothing the story does really matters. Same logic applies to Malleus)

Overall, it's just like an unfortunate incompatibility of goals and circumstances, which is what TWST is all about. Another thing I want to say is out of all the characters, I feel like Malleus is the one who is the ultimate embodiment of TWST's main themes:

-> How it's not about "hero" vs "villain" just differing circumstances crossing paths and clashing because of how people on either side have their own complex perspective and dreams they want to realize

-> And how connection and finding community is important to find people who will help you make up for what you lack in reaching your goals and to better understand all the factors that caused the situation in the first place.

As if seeing yourself reflected in a mirror, the more you get to know the people around you, you realize in many ways you are actually quite alike, and through understanding others you could also possibly better understand certain aspects of yourself. It's sort of encouraging you to do the opposite of dehumanizing others and yourself, which is something Malleus has most evidently internalized.

So yeah this was so long😭 I had a lot I wanted to say since Malleus is my favorite TWST character. Idk if I missed anything or if i managed to express my thoughts in a cohesive way but yeah. I kinda go into a rage whenever I see the worst takes ever be put out about his character but tbh sometimes I can't completely blame others since fandom trends and the convenience of simplifying things into tropes can warp your perception of a character and what you associate with them.

Also sometimes twst doesn't do a good job with utilizing his character like Book 5 where he got turned into a deus ex machina and Halloween 2 where they killed any hype and intrigue for the plot we had at the beginning through the ending reveal and gave the worst justification ever for Malleus and Lilia's actions ever.

Regardless, I hope more people manage to move past this and appreciate his character for what it really is soon though. He's an amazingly tragic character; a lot of thought was put into how his experiences, strengths and weaknesses would convincingly connect, and he represents something relevant in the story's plot and themes.

The fact that I've seen some people unironically believe that Malleus may just be faking his cluelessness of social cues to hide his "true evil" is evidence to how convincing his character's situation is, that even some in the audience who know more about him than the characters would still end up in the same place of doubt and distrust of Malleus because of what he's capable of.

Aight thank you for reading👍

[semiweirdshipper]

My favorite slashers.

I know it probably doesn't mean anything to anyone, but I've always wanted to make a list of my top favorite slashers and why I love them. I feel like some of the ones I listed won't surprise you, lol. In fact, none of them will. I'm very predictable. Now if I made a list of killers I actually dislike writing- that might actually surprise you.

1). Jason Voorhees

Baby boy!

I love Jason because of his character development. I've literally only written him in like three stories, but the amount of growth that he undergoes is incredibly fun to write. I'm also a sucker for physical flaws, so I think his appearance is really beautiful and cute. His backstory is heartbreaking- I probably sympathize with him the most out of any of the killers. Even without altering his personality, he just seems so much like the kind of person to want to grow and make changes (If he had the right person in his life), and I just really think he's a sweet character.

2). Freddy Krueger

Hey look! It's Jason's husband!

A Nightmare on Elm Street was the very first slasher movie I watched and it's pretty much the only slasher movie that I like. I love Freddy because his past abuse as a child is something I greatly relate to (abusive dads suck ass, bro). Of course I pretend like Freddy is not a pedophile or a rapist because that's just not fun. But altering his personality and writing him in my stories is something I've found to be an extreme joy. He's my favorite killer to write in the slasher dad drabbles. And he makes me happy.

3). Pinhead/Elliot Spencer

Pinny! My sweetest sweetheart of all sweethearts!

For Elliot, I kind of have little explanation. I think I fell in love with him because he has an obedient, submissive side to him, plus self control. The way he made the agreement with Kirsty in the movie without lying was attractive to me for some reason. His power is very interesting and unique and I've really, really enjoyed being able to mingle with it. Broadening his personality has been fun and I love using him to make other killers jealous and/or submissive. And he's adorable and sweet! Seeing Pinhead just naturally makes me feel giddy inside.

4). Herman Carter

Oh! There he is. Prince charming. The one we all expected to see sooner.

My version of Herman Carter is a character that I've grown to both love and be proud of. My altering of his personality is what brought my dbd stories to life. Every time I write him for the first time in my stories, I feel like I'm playing choir music in the background as if I'm introducing an epic character. And I love it. I enjoy it. Writing Herman is fun. His personality is so kind, charming, considerate and modest and just everything good. And that makes him one of the funnest characters for me to write. Plus I'll never forget how he was one of the first killers who I turned into an emotional supporter. When I wrote the first chapter of When a Survivor Bullies, it was such a wonderful moment because that's when something beautiful was born. Emotional support slashers.

5). Jeffrey Hawk/Kenneth Chase

The one everyones tired of me constantly hyping about!

Like Herman, I'm proud of how my version of Jeffrey turned out, and it makes me SO HAPPY when viewers admit to liking him. When I first got into dbd there was literally no positive fics with him. It seemed like everybody hated him, but not me! I'm the fuckin' king at making the biggest bitches likable! Jeffy wudn't even a challenge. Lol, but no seriously, Jeffrey is fun to write. I gave him a personality that's funny, teasing, irritating and caring while still staying true to his finger kinks. Also, I love his appearance. Hey, obese people are awesome and smexy!

6). Evan MacMillan

Sir papatron! The fictional dad of all dads!

As you can probably guess, I love Evan because I pretty much constantly write him as a overly stressed out dad. He's been both a good guy and an ass-hat in many of my stories. His personality is flexible and I find it rather simple and enjoyable to write. We have a lot in common when it comes to our fathers and broken jaws (again, abusive dads suck!) I just love writing him as the overwhelmed pops who just wants to do good but needs sleep and has way too much responsibility. Writing him in My Saddest Journey? Sooooooooo therapeutic <3 I love my papa.

[lyledebeast]

Showing, Telling, and Mel Gibson

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

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

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

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

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

Okay.

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

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

[helly-watermelonsmellinfellon]

Wanna know why SNS is so great?

Because no matter if it is NaruSasu or SasuNaru, you will rarely see a fic where Naruto and Sasuke are OOC, because we've gotten so much development on both of their sides to know that almost anything could be in-character and the fic won't feel cheap.

But you wanna know who is consistently OOC no matter where the canon-divergence starts in the fanfic? SH. When SH stans are out here writing a completely different character, even before she undergoes some kind of traumatic thing to make her want to become better or change, you know they're aware of just how shitty she is as a character and how much she needs to improve overall.

Most fics will be full-on OOC. No longer introverted as a kid or become obsessed with vanity. No bullying despite how it's literally what she's most known for, especially in the beginning. No fixation on weight or size. No obsession with Sasuke or grabbing him without consent. No turning Sasuke's trauma into an opportunity to whine about herself. No competition with Ino over Sasuke's heart. All of the most annoying traits of SH are completely left out. Not even kept in prior to the Big Change she undergoes.

SH stans, especially those who ship SH-centric ships, know very well she is terribly flawed, unlikable, and annoying af. That's why the SH in SH-centric fanfics is usually pretty cool and a heroine you'd want to read about. She's nothing like her canon self, even post-time skip, and that's why those fics can get so popular. SH's character arc went nowhere. We got a little bump that have potential and then she fell back into her old habits and still hasn't left them behind. Wanting to read an OOC SH is the norm.

Don't be coming into my Inbox whining how SNS 'makes no sense and is ooc of them' just cuz you saw a post of mine from 3+ years ago talking about them. Especially if you're a SH stan who writes SH fanfics where you refuse to give her any of her canon character traits.

[xiaoshengnu]

Love O2O final review

overview: episode no. -  30 episodes, genre - romance

released in 2016, Love O2O follows the romance between two star computer science students in beijing's qing university. bei weiwei is both an ace pupil and a star gamer, being the only woman gamer on her server to reach the top ten. however being perfect at everything (and a woman) doesn't come without it's troubles. after a series of unexpected events she meets computer science genius xiao nai, and the two fall in love.

l⃣e⃣ t⃣’ s⃣    b⃣e⃣g⃣i⃣n⃣

honestly, I won't deny it, the drama is a classic and it will forever hold a special place in my heart. bei weiwei and xiao nai were literally written to be the ideal couple- they have it all, they're smart, beautiful and sensible which I guess is such a breath of fresh air from all those dramas where the lead couple have you pulling your hair out in frustration due to the ridiculous misunderstandings that occur between them.

however, it definitely still has its merits and its flaws, but I don't hate it as much as I did when I watched it for the second time back when I was 15. seeing it for the third time I can definitely see why it's considered a classic- so. lets get into it!

o⃣u⃣t⃣     o⃣ f⃣     t⃣ e⃣ n⃣

𝖆𝖈𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖌 - 7/10

𝖕𝖑𝖔𝖙 - 6/10

𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖆𝖈𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖘 - 7/10

𝖕𝖗𝖔𝖉𝖚𝖈𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓 - 7/10

𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕒𝕝𝕝 𝕒𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕖 - 6.75/𝟙𝟘

o⃣u⃣t⃣    o⃣ f⃣    f⃣ i⃣v⃣ e⃣

𝖍𝖎𝖉𝖉𝖊𝖓 𝖌𝖊𝖒 𝖛𝖆𝖑𝖚𝖊 - 💎💎

[ even though in my mind it is a classic, I think the only really unique thing about it is how mature (lmao) the main characters are. the tropes and the arguments it presents are pretty standard. I'm also not the biggest fan of the drama's messages ] 

𝖗𝖊𝖜𝖆𝖙𝖈𝖍 𝖛𝖆𝖑𝖚𝖊 - ✨✨ ✨✨ 

[ it's very easy to rewatch- so simple and a good length but I think if I rewatched it too many times it would get kind of boring for me ]

‘keep reading’ for detailed review

𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖆𝖈𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖘 - 7/10

the characters in this drama were all pretty good. I liked them all quite a bit. rewatching the drama for the third time, and with a much better understanding of mandarin in comparison to when I was 12 and 15 really made me appreciate how witty the writing was for some of these characters? I really liked the humour they had, even though sometimes it was a little stylised in true cdrama style. I loved the banter between bei weiwei and xiao nai and also the dynamics of their respective friend groups- I actually found myself laughing along.

however, the drama definitely careened a little bit too much into wish fulfilment which limited how well written their characters could be. most of the characters were pretty one-note, ESPECIALLY the two main leads. neither bei weiwei or xiao nai change much over the course of the drama and neither undergo any character development to speak of. it was also rather unrealistic and hard to believe how much the drama seemed to orbit around the two main leads unconditionally, in particular xiao nai. despite the female lead being presented as similarly intelligent and capable, her skills and abilities were kind of thrown aside to favour xiao nai's story. although it wasn't badly written and it did make sense for the direction the narrative was moving, it still kind of sucks and does feel pretty gendered in my opinion.

𝖕𝖑𝖔𝖙 - 6/10

moving on to plot, I feel like this situation is rather recurrent in the drama- this situation where things work out almost too ideally for the main characters that it feels almost unrealistic, but within the set up of the drama it makes sense. which makes it a fairly well written wish fulfilment kind of drama- and I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it, because I did T-T. but the plot was pretty solid.

however, the drama's narrative never really sat well with me even as a 15 year old, mainly because how traditionalist it was. sure, the plot did shed light on the treatment of women in corporate culture, women in gaming and in stem, as well as the struggles of being a conventionally attractive woman and also homosexuality; it doesn't really challenge the traditionalist mindset that produced this problems in the first place- even encouraging them. like when bei weiwei is consistently slandered throughout the drama for being sexually promiscuous, the drama resolves this with her beating these allegations by proving her sexual purity and demonising the sexually promiscuous xiao yu qingqing. I also really despised the lack of voice weiwei had during her more intimate moments with xiao nai. every kiss throughout the drama and every move towards something more was always initiated by xiao nai, with weiwei being the passive, slightly wary yet pleased receiver.

nevertheless tho, it's not a bad drama. it makes sense, it's just some things it- sigh. lets leave it here. if I open up the homophobia box as well I will never stop. Love O2O and I... it's a love-hate relationship y'all.

𝖆𝖈𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖌 - 7/10

overall, the acting was pretty decent and believable. I really liked the chemistry between the friend groups in the drama in particular, it all felt rather natural and easy. however some scenes were pretty stylised and over the top, in true romance-idol-cdrama style, which I can watch, just not the biggest fan of. in terms the the lead couples, yang yang and zheng shuang are literally the prettiest two people you can put on screen together- I'll give them that lol- though I kind of got this feeling that both of them were very very very aware of the camera that was watching them. their expressions and actions often didn't really feel like real people but felt very calculated to look good on camera. yang yang also wasn't the most expressive, though I suppose that might of just been xiao nai's character.

𝖕𝖗𝖔𝖉𝖚𝖈𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓 - 7/10

the production on the whole was fairly decent, and I appreciate the work done used to create the gamescape. for an idol drama the sets were fairly okay, and just about believable though it definitely doesn't have a lived-in feel in comparison to some better quality productions and sometimes the luxuriousness of the places like xiao nai's office and bei weiwei's university dormitory felt slightly ridiculous. the ost on the other hand tho, slaps.

.

.

𝖇𝖔𝖓𝖚𝖘!!

.

favourite characters

hao mei (resident gay)

𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖈𝖗𝖊𝖜 (source mydramalist)

lead actors : zheng shuang, yang yang, mao xiaotong, bai yu

directors : lin yufen, guo hu

screenwriters : gu man, scarlett ouyang, shen fei xuan

[kurooharuniji]

Hello! Since you said that you have Mors for nearly ten years I am curious how he came to be and how much he (maybe) changed in all those years. (Really amazing character btw <3)

Thank you for your compliment and question! Very interesting question and the answer will be... big. And full of my old cringey drawings, enjoy. :D

So, it was far 2014, in my rat era (at that time I was obsessed with rats, but I still love them). Searching for rat art I came across a bunch of rat-dragon hybrids and it inspired me to make my own design. So I made the first sketch (December 2 as I can track) and as I decided to make it not just general species design but a distinct character I drew this colored ref.

So basically it was just a rat-dragon, neutral but pretty aggressive.

Mors was one of my characters, who developed through text rp. And for one rp plot my friend suggested to make Mors demon and insert him as an antagonist. It was about half a year after his creation and since then he is an evil demon.

But at that time Mors had pretty plane, one-dimensional personality and his motivations usually came from his hedonism, greed, possessiveness, sadism and ill curiosity. He still got that features now, but I've added some more dimensions.

Coming up with his humanization (so it doesn't piss me off) was a long path.

I believe, this sketch was the first, where I decided to give Mors this... ehh... side bang (but here it isn't as long as now).

And as general design wasn't changing so much, his personality was constantly undergoing some modifications. Mostly related to empathy and romance (and some of his powers, but it all has blended in my head, so I won't go into details). So it shifted from "his inability to love is a punishment and he is unsympathetic bastard" to "demons can't love so they don't get vulnerable" then to "he can't love due to his psychopath and narcissist nature". Even that has changed a little — Mors can love, but it can be almost as dangerous and traumatizing as his hate, since he doesn't know how to make healthy relationship.

In 2019 I made redesign and these colors are still actual now. As I remember, his personality was pretty similar to what he has now, only shifting a little.

About inspirations and influences. I suppose, maybe Mors' palette and this goatee were influenced by Jafar from Aladdin. Or maybe goatee came from basic image of Devil/Mefistopheles as is his whole archetype. Also he took his exquisite manners, calm demeanor and tailcoat with gloves from Sebastian from Black Butler. Hannibal from series defined his cruel and manipulative side and Lucifer, also from series, gave him that "Oh no, I'm a monster 😭" drama queen thing. Actually I once started to make his kin list but forgot about it mid-process. I will make it, I promise.

So, Mors came the long path from quite plane character, both in design and personality, to a complex person with his virtues, flaws and inner conflicts. He is still a bad guy though, but it doesn't mean he can't get better *wink*.

Thanks for reading! I hope it was interesting.

[tyrannuspitch]

Okay. Trying to put my Mary thoughts into words.

I don't hate Mary. I am not saying any of this because I didn't enjoy her presence on screen. I do, however, think that Mary embodies a fair amount of why post-hiatus Sherlock is no longer the same show, which, as we already know, is not a change I personally enjoy.

Mary comes with an unacknowledged genre shift. Pre-hiatus, Sherlock was a murder mystery drama with comedic moments. Post-hiatus, the comedy becomes a primary ingredient (mostly centred on married life), the interpersonal drama is significantly toned down, and the murder mysteries become more like action/adventure plots (including Mary's spy backstory). In some ways, the stakes are raised, but in others, they're reduced to almost nothing. For the most part, characters' main problems now come from external circumstances, often physical danger, rather than their own unresolved emotional problems.

Through John and Mary's relationship, we lose the sense that the show is fundamentally about dysfunctional, lonely people who don't fit in. Despite having lost his closest friend fairly recently, John is no longer the difficult, traumatised, mildly misanthropic character we originally met. Most of his rough edges have been sanded off in the timeskip, and his relationship with Mary is very nearly perfect - their only problems are spy problems or sitcom antics. They're not the kind of couple - or individual characters - to feature in a *drama*.

Mary's presence muddies the Holmes/Watson dynamic. I understand the intention here, but I just don't think it's well-written. This dynamic is a classic for a reason, and it's a two-person dynamic. Both roles are taken. There isn't a natural place for a new character to fit.

If you want your Sherlock Holmes story not to sideline women, then you should give them frequent, complex and interesting supporting roles (villain, witness, police, etc). If you want it to fundamentally centre women, then you have to make Holmes and/or Watson a woman. The original ones. You can't just retrofit an extra Watson and expect it to work.

Mary feels superfluous because she IS. The fundamental structure of the story STILL excludes her. Don't write a story with two male leads and then wonder why it feels male-dominated.

Yes, of course, in principle, if John Watson has a wife then she *should* be at least as important to him as Sherlock Holmes... But just because there's a narrative injustice in the original stories doesn't mean that applying a solution in the adaptation will feel earned or natural. Pre-hiatus John had a string of failed relationships because he kept putting Sherlock first, and that's not actually Sherlock's fault - that says something about John. Something that two years of grieving and meeting The Right Person are not likely to resolve. He either isn't ready for or doesn't truly want a long-term relationship with a woman. He had to undergo a lot of instantaneous character development to make this work... and then it still didn't work.

Mary feels out of place because she IS. Her very presence in the narrative is dependent on John's character development, and no effort has been made to organically develop John to a place where this makes sense. He's just being dragged along by the story, ticking off all the boxes of married life: a proposal, a wedding, a baby, arguments, separations, cheating (for some reason), and finally grief.

Mary's character is, in every way, dependent on John. She isn't introduced independently, and we don't get to see them fall in love - she just comes into being as John's fiancée. And she doesn't die as a culmination of her own story, but as one more crisis in John's. (And, worse, in Sherlock's.)

So basically: Mary is fundamentally tied to some major changes to the show (tone, genre) and to John's characterisation, and I can't like her as a piece of writing when I don't like those changes.

But her writing was also flawed because it was misogynistic, and she was essentially a prop in John's story. I still don't know that I would like the best version of her, but she could (and should) have been written much better than she was.

[thenewnio]

Fantasy OC: Bibi

The magical Renlei Fountain transforms any living creature it touches into a human, regardless of species. The Dragon demonstrates the fountain's power by capturing a honeybee that got separated from its swarm and pouring Renlei water on it, turning it into a human girl and leaving the poor thing utterly confused and mortified. Initially uncomfortable in her newly human body, Bibi joins the good guys in hopes of returning to both her bee form and her hive, only to end up learning that being human is not that bad.

Character Tropes

Adorkable: As both a bee and a human.

Badass Adorable: Slowly but surely Takes a Level in Badass.

Bag of Kidnapping: The Kamen Brothers use this method to kidnap her, planning to take her to Dolph. However it doesn't go as well as planned when the others intervine.

Bemoaning the New Body: After being transformed, Bibi, horrified by her altered appearance, starts freaking out until Keith steps in.

Berserk Button: Destroying flowers or harming bees will cause her to lose her temper.

Damsel in Distress: Sometimes gets herself into dangerous situations.

Emergent Human: Thanks in most part to Keith, Bibi learns almost everything she needs to know about humanity.

Fatal Flaw: Impatience. Her tirelessly waiting around for one of her older sisters is what drove her to leave her swarm cluster, ultimately leading to her abduction and transfiguration into a human. She also often makes rash decisions in an attempt to speed things up that — more often than not — lead to trouble.

Freakiness Shame: Bibi is distraught upon becoming human, but Keith not only doesn't care, he knows she's actually cute in her new form.

Hot in Human Form: Is just as adorable as a human than she is as a bee.

Humanity Ensues: Bibi is transformed by Thiago into a human girl against her will via Renlei Fountain water. The other heroes promise to have her restored somehow.

I Am Not Pretty: Bibi initially thinks of her human self as ugly, due to believing that all humans are hideous, inscrutable entities, but Keith knows otherwise, and make sure she becomes aware of that.

It's All About Me: Tends to be somewhat self-centered sometimes.

Leeroy Jenkins: She's extremely stubborn and impatient, and as a result often runs headlong into a situation without really considering the consequences. This is toned down as she undergoes Character Development.

Morphic Resonance: When she turns into a girl, she keeps the golden tawny hair and large eyes that she had as a honeybee. Due to Magic Pants, the transformation also gives her clothes which match the colors of her bee form.

Mukokuseki: Bibi has very wide and round Moe eyes as a human, which invoke the similar shape of her eyes in her bee form.

Nice Girl: She's a kind individual and a loyal friend overall, though she can be a little cocky and self-absorbed at times.

Not Quite Back to Normal: She at first isn't able to speak the human language, but after being turned into a human and then being transformed back she retains the ability to speak to humans.

Over-the-Shoulder Carry: Once Bibi's been turned into a human, Brooks has to pull a Crisis Catch-and-Carry with this method after one of Mato's fireworks is accidentally set off. Bibi, understandably, isn't too happy about this.

Really Was Born Yesterday: She looks 13 in her human form, but she's really 21 days old at the time of her transformation, having just completed metamorphosis from a larva into a bee. Once transformed she struggles with walking on two legs as much as a toddler, and has to be carried to safety by Brooks.

Ridiculously Cute Critter: Even in her realistically-portrayed honeybee form, she still holds this element of adorableness.

Virtuous Bees: Bibi is an absolutely adorable honeybee who gets transformed into an equally adorable human girl.

Stumbling in the New Form: It takes some time for her to figure out how to walk in a human body. Before learning how to do so, she has to be carried.

Sweet Polly Oliver: After her rescue from the Kamen Brothers, the group has Bibi disguise herself as a regular human boy named Sirocco. It fools everyone but Lola.

Uniqueness Value: After returning to her honeybee form she becomes unique because she's the only worker bee who can both talk to humans and know about love.

What Is This Thing You Call "Love"?: Experiences romantic love for the first time with Keith as a human, since only queen and drone bees have this knowledge. By the end she's the only worker bee to know what love is.

[fearsmagazine]

INSANE LIKE ME? - Review

DISTRIBUTOR: DeskPop Entertainment

SYNOPSIS: After completing his tour of duty overseas, combat veteran Jake Morgan returns home to celebrate with his friends and girlfriend, Samantha. However, the celebration turns deadly when Samantha disappears and Jake becomes the prime suspect. Despite his claims of vampire involvement, he is wrongly convicted and incarcerated in a local mental asylum by Sheriff Davis, Samantha's father. Nine years later, Jake is released and returns home to settle his father's affairs. Still determined to find the truth and clear his name, Jake returns to the scene of the crime to settle the score with Samantha's younger sister, Crystal.

REVIEW: A captivating formula of veterans, vampires, weapons, muscle cars, and babes comes together in this interesting concept, enhanced by a captivating cast of characters, but does it gel?

The screenplay has a weak execution despite its foolproof concept. The dialogues are questionable and inconsistent, leading to moments of disbelief while listening to the character's interactions. The performances are not at fault, but the lines themselves seem poorly written, with some sounding improvised. The party takes place in an "old hotel" with a disturbing history of murders and missing persons, and it occurs on Halloween. There are plenty of victims at the party, but no halloween decorations or costumes. While I can comprehend Jake's motivations throughout the film, there are elements that contribute to the flawed logic of the narrative. There are irrelevant ghost hunters introduced at the beginning of the story, who serve no purpose in the evolving plot. Other plot points are predictable, making it easy for viewers to guess what will happen. A significant unresolved plot point involves Jake and Samantha. Moreover, while Jake and the primary female characters are well-developed, the rest lack intelligence and are portrayed as flawed vampire bait.

The film has visually appealing locations, including the vampire hotel. Despite its supposed abandonment, the hotel appears rather clean and well-maintained, lacking a creepy atmosphere. The costumes are functional, with many female actors sporting plunging necklines. The editing could have been improved to enhance the action sequences. The blood splatter effects seem computer-generated, and the stage blood looks off. The dialogue of the vampires undergoes an effect when transformed, which muddles the vocals and hampers comprehension. Edward Antonio's score is satisfactory but often overshadowed by the macho rockabilly numbers that accentuate Jake's character and party atmospheres

The cast members give impressive performances despite the limited material they have to work with. Britt Bankhead's acting is reminiscent of Frank Grillo's early film roles, and with the right project and director, his career could potentially soar. Samantha Reddy and Grace Patterson deliver memorable performances, bringing depth and emotion to their respective roles. At certain points, their facial expressions after delivering their lines hint at inner turmoil, perhaps related to their project choices. Veteran actor Eric Roberts attempts a Texan accent combined with his New York speech patterns, resulting in a hybrid that veers towards cliché and almost comical. The rest of the cast, both human and vampire, portray stereotypical, clichéd characters who seem to exist primarily as fodder for the body count.

INSANE LIKE ME?, directed by Chip Joslin and Britt Bankhead, has an intriguing premise that, unfortunately, is let down by weaknesses in the writing. These shortcomings impact the performances, and some of the production values fail to contribute meaningfully to the film's atmosphere or energy. While I acknowledge the talent involved and appreciate the solid premise, I found the film somewhat tedious to sit through. Despite being an above-average independent B-movie, the elements of blood, babes, and violence may not be sufficient to maintain audience interest throughout the film's runtime.

CAST: Britt Bankhead, Grace Patterson, Eric Roberts, Samantha Reddy, Jack Maxwell, Paul Kolker and Meg Hobgood. CREW: Director/Screenplay - Chip Joslin; Screenplay/Producer - Britt Bankhead; Cinematographer - Francois Frizat; Score - Edward Antonio;Editor - Jon Blaze; Special Effects Makeup Artist - Anne Martinez; Visual Effects - Jeff Hamm. OFFICIAL: www.instagram.com/bankheadproductions FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/100069995974325 TWITTER: N.A. TRAILER: https://youtu.be/HDoQIuXhIY0?si=pAOjGooYwOxj1cPO RELEASE DATE: Cable and Digital VOD June 4, 2024

**Until we can all head back into the theaters our “COVID Reel Value” will be similar to how you rate a film on digital platforms - 👍 (Like), 👌 (It’s just okay), or 👎 (Dislike)

Reviewed by Joseph B Mauceri

[bluedalahorse]

As someone who is currently in an MFA program learning to write for children and young adults, and who deeply adores classic literature (I majored in Classics and Les Mis is one of my forever fandoms) as much as I do modern literature, I would like to offer a few (gentle) thoughts.

First, I’ve been in a lot of writing classes over the years, and some have a little more of a commercial lean (here’s how to write something that will get published and sell) while others have a little more of a craft-focused lean (here are the techniques that make up a good story.) Most writing classes have a mixture of both commercial and craft advice. Both types of advice are useful up to a point. The modern advice cited above seems to lean primarily commercial, and commercial in the most simplified, least helpful way. Better writing teachers will give you language and tools for picking your story apart, examining it, and revising it to be better. They will insist on character arcs, but in a nuanced way. They also won’t all agree on what makes a good story. The best writing teachers will teach you that there are multiple ways to tell a good story, while still helping you to be conscious of both craft and marketing.

Second, most classic literature has the same features, like character arcs and characters with flaws, that we see in stories today. These elements of craft may be expressed differently, but they’re still there. Achilles in the Iliad absolutely undergoes a change and has an arc; he is learning to confront his own mortality, and develops empathy for others in the process. Tragic protagonists are always grappling with their hamartia. Historic authors often considered these elements of storytelling as they put stories together, whether they used the vocabulary we use or not, and whether or not they were formally trained. Even for the writers who just wrote based on what they liked, or wrote stories similar to the ones they wanted to read, there was likely an element of reflection as they asked themselves how to make their stories better and more engaging.

Third, classic literature was composed in multiple different historical periods under a range of different technological and sociopolitical conditions. Many of our earliest epic poems derive from oral tradition, and are thus written with repeated phrases and in meters that allow for easy memorization and improvisation. Some novels were serialized. Sometimes censorship affected how a story got told—I can’t find the post right now, but if I remember correctly, the Waterloo tangent happened the way it did in Les Mis as a big way of getting around the censors. In the modern day, authors may not give you an extensive description of setting or the like because you can look something up on your smartphone. It used to be that writing had to cover a lot more bases than it does now, when we have access to information and fiction in multiple mediums. (TV, movies, YouTube, and so on.) Which is a loss, yes, when we think about how books have had to adapt themselves to compete. But we’ve also gained other things. Also, studying why classic lit is written the way it is, and looking at the specific time period in which a book was written and the technology available to disseminate that writing, is to me part of the joy of reading old books.

Fourth, if you are someone who loves classic literature, there are some really great modern novels out there that have a classic novel vibe. I’m going to recommend two of them below.

A Sitting in St. James by Rita Williams-Garcia covers the goings-on at an Louisana plantation when the matriarch of the family decides to have her portrait painted. It is a scathing indictment of the system of slavery, as well as the class and gender norms of the American South prior to the Civil War. It also asks the important question of whether a person’s queerness can save them from their whiteness.

Williams-Garcia’s novel does in many ways read like a 19th century novel. It is written in brilliant third-person omniscient prose, and covers multiple generations of family history. There are very evocative descriptions of setting and character. One way in which it is not like a 19th century novel is that it does not gloss over slavery or racism. And yet even with all the descriptions of hardship there are still moments of joy.

(I would recommend the novel, but I also recommend checking out a list of triggers before reading.)

Do you want the Great Yiddish Novel, but make it queer and disabled and a fantasy novel? Sacha Lamb’s When the Angels Left the Old Country is the story of an angel and a demon who immigrate from a small shtetl to America, and how their story intersects with a young woman named Rose Cohen.

Like St. James, this novel is written in brilliant third-person omniscient prose that feels old-timey. We get lovely authorial asides and tangents. And once again, Lamb doesn’t clean up or lie about the past (there’s a particularly brutal moment in the text calling out the ableism of Ellis Island) while still making moments for their characters to be happy.

I guess what I’m saying is, the world is full of great things to read, both from the past and from the present. It’s also full of great stories to be written in the future. Find the strong, actually decent writing advice that works for the stories you want to tell. Seek out a range of stories—from all time periods and genres, even the ones you don’t initially gravitate toward. Seek out stories from books and TV and plays and movies and songs and poems and your friend’s overly talkative aunt at a barbecue. Find the things that work for you about those stories—the things that you find engaging—and then incorporate them into your own work. There’s so many ways to approach stories and it never hurts to study craft in the work of others!

Every 21st century piece of writing advice: Make us CARE about the character from page 1! Make us empathize with them! Make them interesting and different but still relatable and likable!

Every piece of classic literature: Hi. It's me. The bland everyman whose only purpose is to tell you this story. I have no actual personality. Here's the story of the time I encountered the worst people I ever met in my life. But first, ten pages of description about the place in which I met them.

[tokiro07]

Martial Master Asumi ch.2 thoughts

[Fight or Flight]

I said I probably wouldn’t do this for MMA like I do for Undead Unluck and Cipher Academy, and it’s hard to say if I’ll have much to say or the time to say it going forward, but right now I have both, so here we go!

Much like how I spent the first several reviews of Cipher Academy drawing parallels to Medaka Box, I can’t well help but compare MMA to Hinomaru Zumou at this point

Asumi is a fascinating contrast to Hinomaru: Hinomaru had such a deep and genuine love for sumo that he was able to overcome all of the natural disadvantages that his genetics predisposed him to through sheer grit and perseverance; Asumi, on the other hand, actively wants to avoid violence and conflict, and only attained the skills of a martial artist by practicing with his grandfather out of guilt and obligation, but otherwise views himself as someone with no love for the sport and his potential involvement in it as disgraceful to those who do

Of course, his avoidance of martial arts is rooted in fear, not hatred, so naturally he’ll sooner or later come to find that love which will likely become the driving motivation going forward, but for now, he’s on the opposing path to Hinomaru. When Hinomaru was faced with his own weakness (his stunted size compared to everyone else), he forged ahead and made something great out of himself, whereas when Asumi was faced with his (the knowledge that even the strong can die sudden and meaningless deaths), he turned and ran, believing the pursuit of strength to be ultimately meaningless and hoping to find something more fulfilling

Neither of them is wrong for their choice, nor are their interpretations of the barriers they faced necessarily wrong either, but in the context of their characters, Hinomaru’s love of sumo was meant to be a flat character arc where he had the “right” approach that would show other people the flaws in their characters, while Asumi’s fear of martial arts is the beginning of a (hopefully) positive character arc where he comes to realize that the joy he felt when fighting those bullies to protect Yuya is what makes martial arts meaningful to someone like him, not the pursuit of strength for the sake of it

Fittingly, this is where their love interests come in: Reina hated sumo and Hinomaru, but from Hinomaru’s influence came to love both, making her the prime example of another character learning from Hinomaru’s flat arc; Okiba has a genuine love for MMA and sees not only Asumi’s potential, but his repressed feelings, and it is her influence that will allow Asumi to undergo his positive arc

I get the impression that this reversal of approach was actually what inspired the entire series in the first place. Being a male exclusive sport (female sumo being restricted to amateur settings and outright forbidden in professional or ritualistic settings), sumo made for a series with limited opportunities for female involvement, pretty much exclusively showing them as spectators or supporters. While Kawada executed this well, I always got the impression that he wanted to be able to show the women fighting as fiercely as the men with how he depicted their mental fortitude whenever possible. While MMA doesn’t have mixed gender matches to my knowledge, there is a female division, so Okiba will definitely have the opportunity to show her stuff in the ring while likely getting the chance to take on men outside of it too

Aside from the relationship between Asumi and Okiba, the thing I’m most excited about seeing is the development of the theme of safety vs. excitement. I don’t think that this series is going to be used as a way to say that being safe and comfortable is wrong, just that doing so inherently offers less excitement. Pursuing excitement, on the other hand, inherently carries risks; Okiba got hurt during some incident that almost definitely involved recklessness in her use or pursuit of MMA, which while it may have been worth it for her, should naturally go to show that there is value in living life in a way that’s safe. Pursuing strength won’t protect you from death, and in fact may hasten its coming, but to some people, a short exciting life holds more value than a long safe one. Asumi is pursuing a long safe life, but everyone else can clearly see that it isn’t what he actually wants and that it isn’t satisfying him. The objections he gets aren’t from people saying that the choice he’s making is wrong, they’re from people saying that it’s wrong for him specifically. The back and forth between being able to use MMA to protect people and make connections with them vs. the risk that MMA will take away those that Asumi cares about or take him away from them while also not guaranteeing safety from the outside world is sure to make for several interesting conflicts going forward, especially with how much nuance is available to the topic. I’m not going to detail all of the ways I think it could go here, doing that always seems to result in disappointment, but I think this theme can get a lot of mileage and could even branch off into many other themes that would be just as interesting

With such a strong pair of introductory chapters, I’m feeling confident that this series will make a connection with its audience and generate the kind of staying power needed to last in this industry. Here’s hoping that Kawada can keep up the momentum!

See y’all next week

[elvenwhovian]

Thoughts on the criticisms for The Rings of Power

The negativity around ROP has been so disheartening and I need to rant/have my say. Below are the most common criticisms I've seen and my responses to them. 

1. "They butchered/desecrated Tolkien's story! They changed the story too much so I won't watch/ will only hate-watch." 

Some of you are too young to remember, but I was there 3000 20 years ago when PJ's films came out. He changed A LOT. And I was surrounded by homeschooler book purists who had a lot to say, both good and bad. Here's my thing ... if you don't like ROP because they changed things, fine. You do you.  But don't tell me that PJ's films are perfection if you say you can't handle major changes to Tolkien’s works. 

Arwen didn't rescue Frodo. The elves never came to Helms Deep. Faramir didn't take Frodo and Sam captive. And Frodo never sent Sam away before Cirith Ungol, just to name a few. These were SIGNIFICANT changes that PJ made. But they didn't ruin the story ... dare I say, they made things more interesting. 

2. "The story moves too slowly." 

Bro ... have you read LOTR? Its a slow burn at the start. And then half of TTT is just Frodo and Sam simply walking into Mordor. Just like Tolkien, I feel like the show runners are laying a foundation and then in season 2 things will pick up. Also they have 5 seasons planned. Also its television. Its meant to be in installments to keep you coming back. Honestly, compared to some modern TV, it is refreshing to have a show that is taking its time and not beating you over the head with info dumping and action set pieces every single week. We are back in Middle-earth. Enjoy the ride, my dudes. 

3. "The Harfoots are annoying/cheesy/unnecessary." 

I'll admit that I was leery about them including proto-hobbits in the show, but I think they are delightful. They have their flaws, but Hobbits always have. They are quirky; the refreshing contrast to the darkness of war just beyond their borders. Yeah, Nori royally screws up A LOT. Reminds me of another hobbit who Gandalf used to berate for his stupidity. 

I also saw one comment complaining about "Wandering Day" and that the montage/song was too much like a Disney movie. First of all, how dare you? Do you even Tolkien, good sir? His books were full of songs. The hobbits had walking songs in the book. Tolkien loved songs and poetry. It is very VERY in character for Hobbits to have a song with their storyline. And honestly, that song is perfection. I've been singing it as a lullaby to my 6 month old son and he loves it. 

4. "Galadriel is too manly/angry/vengeful ... Also the men are weak." 

Perfect people are not interesting. Flaws make characters realistic, engaging, and worth watching. Galadriel is a flawed character in ROP and I LOVE IT. She is prideful, ambitious, and strong-willed ... all stuff Tolkien wrote about her. She is also very athletic/physically skilled. Tolkien also wrote this ... I have references. And yeah ... if you believed the evil who killed your brother was out there and no one believed you, you would be miffed too. 

And as I predicted, she is undergoing character development that is helping to temper her vengeance. She literally gives up her sword. 

The symbolism is spot on. 

Also, those saying she is too manly... bro, what the heck? Her costumes and armor are so beautiful and well done! My two favorite looks are the dress she wears in Numenor and her armor design.

I think they did a fantastic job making her a strong yet flawed female character. 

And the men are weak? Elrond and Durin have a rock breaking contest. Arondir fights for his girl ... doesn't get more manly than that. Also, Elendil is just fantastically done and oozes that stable yet compassionate masculine energy Tolkien's male characters are known for. 

5."I don’t like that they cast people of color." 

Don't be racist. Its 2022.

6. "The elves aren't done right/have short hair/ aren't like PJ's elves." 

Ok first of all, while many of the elves in the legendarium are described with long hair, its never defined as a standard for elvish culture. Second, if you are going to expect any and all Tolkien adaptations to conform to PJ's films, then I guess we can toss out all the cartoons that are beloved by so many people. Also, I don't see anyone beating up the legendary painter and Tolkien illustrator Ted Nasmith for his depictions of elves with shorter hair. 

Also, let's be real ... Elrond was described as "kind as summer" in The Hobbit. I love Hugo Weaving's portrayal, but he's never seemed particularly warm or kind to me. I adore Elrond's portrayal in ROP! I even like his floppy hair. He's a young whipper-snapper of an elf and he seems like the kind of person who would create a place like Rivendell. I mean ... look at this precious cinnamon roll:

Also Celebrimbor has that wise old British dude energy that reminds me of Bilbo or even the professor himself. Tolkien's elves were complex people with varying personalities and passions. They weren't the stoic, almost vulcan-ish, people PJ made them out to be. I love the PJ films, but if we are going to make them the standard, then I guess the room for creativity is gone(?) 

7. "The writing sucks/ is fan fiction." 

I'll admit, the writing is rough in a few places. Galadriel jumping ship was kinda dumb. But its not Rise of Skywalker level dumb. And I'll fully admit that this is fan fiction. All television writing based on an IP is fan fiction. Its fiction written by fans/writers based on already established characters/worlds. 

And frankly, the term "its fan fiction" is not an insult to me, because I've read some darn good fan fiction.  Next argument please. 

8. "Its a cash grab from Amazon so we should hate it." 

It’s not. Read the article by The Hollywood Reporter. Also, let's remember that lots of passionate people worked on this series and it shows. Punishing them because Amazon's name is on it is unfair. I know, I know ... Amazon is not squeaky clean. But if we boycotted every company who had stains on their record, we would be living in cabins in the woods eating squirrels. 

7. “Galadriel couldn’t have survived the volcano/ she does dumb over the top stuff ... this show is not realistic.”

You guys do realize this is a fantasy series, right? Also the way she stood their was so bad@$$. 

And yeah, she did this:

You do know that horse acrobatics is a real thing right? 

Also, need I remind you this over the top elf:

He did dumber stuff and we loved it. It was cool. If we are going to take the time to pick apart the “unrealistic” story full of wizards, elves, and magic, then we are gonna be here awhile.

In conclusion, there is only one episode left and I can’t wait! Even if the finale is “just ok”, it’s been a blast to be back in Middle-earth and that means a lot to me. If you are not a fan of ROP, that’s fine. You don’t have to watch it. But some of us are really enjoying it and I can’t wait for the next 4 seasons. Be nice.

Rant over :P Thank you for listening.

[loren91]

This blog is kinda new and I haven’t done a post like this before, but as someone who works with film, I have a lot of thoughts, and I’d like to go on a little filmmaking rant regarding Young Royals, or more precisely, the critique of Wilhelm’s character.

The past few years there’s been a trend in films to have the main protagonist be strong, flawless and morally perfect from start to finish. I’ve never really understood this, because that way you are actively blocking any opportunity for good character development. If you want a character to be interesting or undergo some kind of journey of growth, they have to start out in a somewhat bad place. As a viewer, I honestly find it a bit insulting too, because a filmmaker who doesn’t dare to take risks or write nuanced characters are essentially saying “I don’t trust my audience”, and that’s how you end up with boring films.

Now in regards to Young Royals and Wilhelm, I keep seeing critiques popping up across platforms, like “Wilhelm is selfish”/“he’s a bad person”/“he’s toxic”, even to the point of saying that the whole show is toxic. And in a sense, yeah, Wilhelm is kind of a bad person, and you can give all kinds of explanations for it. He’s a teen and a product of the environment he was brought up in. Considering the fact that both Wilhelm and August have grown up in the same kind of toxic upper class-elite culture, I’d be more surprised if he wasn’t at least a little bit of a douchebag (There’s a reason why they gave him an anxiety disorder, to make him more relatable and worthy of our sympathy) There’s a lot of expectations on him, from his family and his peers. And he’s terrified of the consequences if he were to break those expectations, that’s why he’s so complicit. But most importantly, his flaws are there for narrative reasons. 

If you want to figure out if a piece of work is morally questionable or not, you have to look beyond just one character. The million dollar question here is, are the characters rewarded despite bad behaviour?

Let me set an example here with 1984’s Ghostbusters (an odd one I know, but hear me out!) The romantic subplot between Peter and Dana is incredibly poorly written. When Dana shows up at their office, asking for help, Peter doesn't take her seriously and only attempts to flirt. He also stalks her and tries to pressure her into dating him, and despite her saying no several times over, he doesn't back off. Then at the end, when Peter and his team have saved the city from the big evil ghost, he thinks he deserves Dana as a reward. He kisses her (without checking for consent) and the film tries to frame this as romantic. Peter is rewarded despite his bad behaviour. I don’t care about anyone's nostalgia for this film, it’s gross af.

Now, let’s compare this to YR. Wilhelm is constantly going back and forth on his relationship with Simon. He keeps pushing him away, only to pull him in moments later when he’s too weak to resist his feelings any longer. Simon has a lot of patience with Wilhelm because he understands that he’s in a complicated situation. Also, red flags are difficult to see when you’ve got those rose tinted glasses on..

However, all of this is there really only to build up for one scene, the break up behind Simon’s house in ep 6. Wilhelm has hurt Simon several times over at this point, and he’s exhausted. But Wilhelm tries to ask for his reward anyway. 

“I’m really sorry, this was the only way. But, this doesn’t have to change what we’ve got. We’re still us.”

But Simon calls him out for it.

“You expect everything to be on your terms. You need to figure out what you want… You need to do it on your own, I don’t want to be anyone’s secret.”

Effectively telling Wilhelm that his days of avoiding responsibility and taking people for granted are over. Simon won’t stand for it anymore. Wilhelm is being punished for his bad behaviour.

Wilhelm is the main protagonist of the story, meaning we see the story progress mainly from his perspective. It’s really important to remember though, that just because a character is the protagonist doesn’t mean that they’re the hero. Wilhelm is certainly not a hero, but it’s still his journey of growth and self discovery, that’s what makes the story interesting.

We get to see just how much these boys love each other and how happy they are together, but their situation is too complicated and they are terrified, which leads to Wilhelm making some questionable choices. The script however makes sure that the characters pay for their less than ideal actions, and not just with Wilhelm. 

-When Simon attacks August because he refuses to pay, Rosh makes sure to call him out. 

-When Sara finds out he’s been seeing their dad behind her back and lying to her about it for months, she calls him out for it. 

-When August kisses Sara in the stables, Felice breaks up with him.

-When Wilhelm finds out August recorded the video, he disowns him.

And so on.

All of this stuff is really crucial for their development as characters. Learning through their mistakes. That’s why the last hug and love confession outside the church is so damn important, it’s concrete evidence of Wilhelm’s character development. He’s far from done, but that’s why we’re getting season 2! It’s most likely gonna be a rather bumpy ride, but the boy just needs more time. Who knows, maybe he’ll end up being the hero of the story eventually.

YR is so well done and I could go on for hours about this kind of stuff, but that will have to do for now, bye 😅