#bad faith actors are the worst

[maythedreadwolftakeyou]

perhaps my most #cancelable videogame take i can post on this website is i think that the kind of people who say that anyone who picks the "morally wrong" or "mean" options in video game dialogue should, as a player, feel bad about their own choices/morals in real life. is that those people are just another flavor of the kind of dudes who play Disco Elysium and get mad for not being rewarded for picking the facist options. both of these groups are reducing games to "a thing I want to agree with me and everyone else who doesn't either suffers or does not have the option to play a character who behaves otherwise" rather than "a medium where you get to (or even Have to) explore different kinds of characters in order to experience the full depth of the story and characters in it."

When I want to pick options in a game that are mean, negative, arrogant, or ignorant, it's because I want to explore what would push a character into becoming that kind of person. Sometimes I want to see how the NPC characters who I-The-Player like/agree with react to someone who is fundamentally different from them. I think it's GOOD actually when the narrative allows you to push limits and especially when it has the option to then punish you for it in some way, such as losing options/routes later on, or companions straight up abandoning you for your choices. It DOES often make me deeply, viscerally uncomfortable to make choices in a game that are so counter to my own, but it means I get to experience that discomfort in an isolated environment and also think about what it means, what would push the character or even yes a real person into actually feeling those things. And I get to play with what ways the narrative could challenge them/make them grow over the course of the game--or on the other side, it can let me make a character who does start off more open/accepting but let the events of the narrative push them into being more reactively closed-minded instead.

I like that we have invented a medium where you can play a game multiple times and experience it differently depending on the character you play as. Books and TV and movies are all static--the greatest draw of games to me is the ones that are responsive, that can tell a slightly different story every time--when other characters in the game respond differently to you because of it, or some paths open up and others don't. And so yes it did disappointment me when a franchise that previously had these elements, Dragon Age, did not include them in the most recent installment. I don't think games should have options where you get to just hit a button to say something racist with no consequences or exploration into why a character would do that. but like, if i can only ever play a game as an upstanding person who is morally right all the time in basically the same flavor for every dialogue. I only get to truly play that game Once, you know? And I only get to see the way the companions react to someone they like and trust. And never really go deeper than that.

So like... I just sit and think about the scenes you can get in Inquisition. with Cassandra breaking down, because she fears she placed a would-be tyrant at the head of a powerful organization--that she searched and searched and chose wrong. Of Varric who is desperate to convince you not to become a monster, like the last person he feels betrayed him. Vivienne intentionally pissing you off because she wants to see how far you'll go when angered, how much she has to worry about your reactions. They say so much about the companions, what they fear most, and where they will draw the line. And especially in Inquisition, at these crisis points--you don't have to double down. Your character can have a come-to-Andraste moment where they go "woah... is that really how people see me? is this what i want?" and I think that kind of option can do way more for encouraging actual players to examine the choices they make in stories, more than locking the player into supportive, non-aggressive options does.

now. do i think all games execute these flavors well? no. writers and devs will have their own biases and blind spots, even if they are otherwise well-intentioned. and I don't think the ends of the scale need to extend from "absolute angel" to "horrible bigot", because the real complexity of course lies in the middle. I am not asking for games to let me be bigoted at every turn, what I want is games that let me make the protagonist deeply flawed in one or more ways--fearfully closed-minded to things outside their upbringing, or afraid of change to the status quo, or who want to advance their own aims regardless of consequences to others. I actually agree that the game was correct not to include any options for disrespecting Taash and their personal journey for example, but I do wish... idk maybe that we could have had a scene where if for instance the player character avoided outside-world missions relating to clearing away blight, they could confront us on how this might devastate the natural world and its creatures like dragons, and push us into trying to resolve it. Or in the other direction, if you spend the (currently meaningless) time giving money to background NPCs begging in the cities, Neve could could have a special cutscene thanking you for your attention to people otherwise beneath notice. You know?

And of course not every game can do this, I can write those sentences up there that represent hundreds of hours of dev time, of course they can't do it all. But the prior games usually did have at least a little of this, and that was enough to make me really fall in love. I KNOW the tumultuous development cycle, restarts from scratch, interference from higher-ups all contributed to why Veilguard was unable to hit those same marks this time. And we probably won't ever know how much of the loss of options/reactivity was intention vs a side effect of these things. But I wish people wouldn't frame players who miss these aspects as insane/morally corrupt. When for most of us it's because we genuinely enjoy challenging and exploring these aspects of reality in fiction in a way entirely unlike what we actually support in real life. i fully acknowledge not everyone desires to play this way. and that's fine!!! i am glad people can enjoy doing a "good" run each time that brings them joy. but for me it really limits the potential bounds of my enjoyment i guess. I like media that is complicated and messy and makes me think, and extra so when I get to see how playing that way impacts the greater story around it.

[livin4woso]

Drowning under pressure -(arsenal x reader)

Summary - What happens when one of Arsenal's rising stars is scrutinised so much by the media? It's hard not to begin to be engulfed by it.

TW- mentions of su*cide so if this is potentially triggering please do not read!!

There is a social construct in life that when your drowning its obvious,arms are flailing your shouting for help however its the complete opposite there is no signs until you notice them sinking in the water. You cant notice someone is drowning without a watchful eye or before its too late to help.

This is similar to life you dont notice someone is struggling until its too late to help. There is no warning signs....well there is but unless your watching close enough, you would never notice them.

Life is becoming hard, harder than it should be for a 20 year old. Your days are dragging each one is monotonous and feels like your an actor in your very own one man stage show however you can't control what happens on your stage and maybe you wished you could control it. You can only control one thing you can end it.

Arsenal's new stargirl what a name to live under. Maybe you should feel proud that a whole community have so much faith in your talent but you can't feel proud when its a direct spotlight following you every second and while you can relish the spotlight for a little while it soon starts to burn. The media is a cruel place one that your told to stay away from as a young athlete yet its so drawing you can't stay away from something that is like a drug yet the negative side effects can't leave a physical scar.

When you first arrived to the first team it was like the final piece of the puzzle had fit. You were playing the best football of your life, scoring goals, making assists, making a name for yourself. You had quickly been taken under the wing by beth mead and lia walti two forward players who were driven through kindness. The first few years at arsenal had been amazing for you and you had found to be used as a regular super sub and occasional starter when a forward player was injured.

You were always seen as a happy person the type who can make a joke out of the worst suitation that you are thrown in. The older girls had become keen of your presence it was one that radiated joy and had a warmth to it. All of a sudden it began to change your smile never reached the top of cheeks the type of smile that shows your dimples; dark circles began to appear on your face like it was etched on with a pen.

You don't remember when your body began to felt heavy or when your mind felt numb but you can remember knowing you were done with life.

You were having a bad start to the season you had missed an open goal and had been sent off for 2 yellow cards one for a bad tackle and the other for desent.

This is when the water started flooding in fatster than you can stop it. Every sports page was filled with negative comments about you and then it seeped into your comments and then your Dm's. Each comment is like another drop of water that begins to pile up. Then one catches your eye and it opens the flood gates.

"Your so shit why dont you do your own team a favour and kill yourself , it would be the only thing your good at"

Those words swirl around in your mind, and soon, you're set on it. You would be doing everyone a favour. The idea really floated around it, which would end it all completely, absolute peace.

You managed to find all the pills in your cupboards and filled a glass of water. However, in front of you lay a pile of letters each individually addressed to each person handwritten notes to know it wasn't them that led yourself to this but a thank you for all they had done for you. As you swallowed each pill, it was like a soft comforting darkness that surrounded your vision not one you were scared of it was what you wanted.

Days after you had passed the news had broke to the public and it was if the publics opinion could flip on a switch one minute they all wanted you gone and now each and every one of them wants you back. Players were asked to do interviews about you. However, how can they speak about mental health when they couldn't even realise their own teammate was struggling.

Something that had stuck with everyone that you had left in the letter was ' dont cry because its over smile because it happened' and thats what your teamates did when someone aksed about you they would speak about the time you fell over the chair in the canteen or the time you accidentally hit the coaching staff in the face with the ball.

Although you never made it far into your career you did leave one thing a legacy.

A/n- guys if you are feeling like this, please don't be afraid to reach out to someone even my dms are open if you need to talk to someone. I hope you are all okay and remember please check up on your loved ones as you never know what they are going through.

[an-excellent-choice]

A random thought but I am what you would consider as a new fan in dragon age. So, for me the common discourse/hate surrounding Cullen in the games is really shallow.

(I am referring to the character not the voice actor, I do not give a shit about that guy and about his bullshit)

I see a lot of hate on cullen and how either he is so fucking bland or evil because he is a equivalent to a cop in dragon age. which while I can see the comparison it just go and shows how people cant really handle an overarching flawed character story arc when they aren't this witty or sassy person.

Cullen is great example of how a traumatic experience can sway you to extremism (you know like Bolin in Korra) He wasn't inherently bad, hell he trained in a very lenient and peaceful circle without any issue or complaints on his side.

(reminder that the Cullen trained in was very chill and balanced if you think about it. Anders stayed in that circle while doing his multiple escape attempts and they never made him tranquil. Other examples include all the kissing allowed in the circle and the fact the you can save the circle in DAO if you save the first enchanter)

Then everything went to shit in that relaxed circle.

Cullen was tortured and was forced to watch everyone around him get killed by the very things that he was warned what mages was.

If you think about it he probably blamed majority of what happened to leniency of the circle to the mages which is why it isnt a surprise that he would be supportive of strictness of the circle in kirkwall.

A lot of people hate on Cullen because of da2 which i understand but this part of the story is kind of like anders in da2 act 3 or loghain in dao for him.

He is part of his life where he is as closest to monster he could be but you know why he isn't the worst is because he has a line that he didnt cross which was killing allies/ civilians. He later also acknowledges in DAI the pain and atrocities he caused in DA2.

He is aware of his biases and is trying to redeem himself by helping in the inquisition as an independent faction. He left the templars.

He hates how the templars has treated him and his faith to be weapons of abuse. While he was a perpetrator of the abuses of the templars, people forget he is also a victim.

Templars are required to intake lyrium to be part of the order. This system literally uses these drugs to make them addicts and gain control on them. I dont know about you but that shit isnt really comparable to being cops.

He is literally a recovering drug addict in DAI and the reason why he is doing this is to show that templars can do it. They can leave the order.

Extra: I love cullen because he is so complicated and he is trying his best. Does this mean I want to see him in DATV? Fuck no. If him being brought back into story requires for the voice actor to be hired for it. no fucking thanks. His story is done and I'm happy with that

P.S also extra note about people saying he is creepy because he had a crush on the warden in DAO while he was a templar is a stupid point.

I dont care if the author originally wanted it to seem creepy, they completely failed on that mood and they forgot characters can also write themselves a story if you are not careful.

Cullen was incredibly shy and knew how inappropriate his crush was. He literally ran away from any flirting attempts. It is not bad to have a crush with someone you shouldn't have on, AS LONG AS YOU KNOW THE BOUNDARIES AND DONT LET ANYONE CROSS THOSE BOUNDARIES. which he didn't.

[rei-ismyname]

Emma and Cyclops try to break up

*Record scratch* Lovely to see these crazy kids kissing passionately (though I wish Scott was the one dipping) but how did they get here? No more secrets.

The Dark Reign of Norman Osborn has ended and Utopia is saved! It took a lot out of everyone to get that W, and Emma and Scott are feeling it. In part due to playing the role of villain and double agent, she leaves a breakup note on their bedside table and packs her bags. Scott reads enough to realise she's leaving out of shame and runs to find her. She couldn't do it. He's pretty fucked up too, carrying a lot of guilt. They both have a lot to confess. Seeecrets.

I think Scott has an idea of what she's going to say. My read is that he wants to lay his sins bare first in an act of total honesty and to establish the challenging situation they're in - together. Fixing up the power imbalance like a see-saw so they're having the conversation as equals. They enter a psychic space inside Scott's head, and there's always been one locked off section nobody else can enter. The man has seriously strong psychic defences, helped by both Jean and Emma. It does reflexively annoy me that he talks over her and makes it about him (Logan Behavior) but you can be the judge of whether he's justified.

Emma shares what the last few months have been like for her - a supervillain convention with some of the worst people around plus Namor and Loki. I think she's being a little hard on herself, but honestly, Scott doesn't care.

She's ashamed and sorry but Scott skips forgiveness and goes straight to 'I love you.' He doesn't even care that she banged Tony Stark and Namor. Emma thinks she's ruined everything and Scott disagrees. Not sure how much of a factor his own guilt plays, but he stuck by Jean when she did a casual genocide. When Scott loves, he loves hard.

Emma thinks that he keeps Jean feelings in the black box, but it's not that. It's his deepest secrets and shames, partitioned away so he can function. Needing to tell someone and wanting to be transparent with Emma, he opens it up. Seeecrets.

X-Force is in there - the permanent solution to threats against mutant safety. It's an idea that goes against everything Xavier ever dreamed, but this isn't a time for dreamers. Worse, by his estimation, he didn't do any of it himself. He kept his hands clean by delegating to the killers.

Scott still values the dream, interestingly, but not as a way to live. It's a symbol and the hope that things can be better, it binds mutants together. Others value it uncritically, and Scott thinks that's a good thing. Let them dream while he shreds his morals to keep them safe. He's ashamed but he isn't sorry. Emma is right that he is responsible for the lives of everyone on the island, who would have died several times over without him.

Personally, I think the X-Men genre conventions justify proactivity. Otherwise they're just sitting around waiting to be attacked by the same bad faith actors each time. How many buses do they have to blow up before you go after them? Especially when the state considers you second class citizens and won't protect you, if they're not the ones doing the killing themselves. Hell yeah there's going to be guilt and shame running a secret kill squad, but when so many entities are constantly trying to kill you what can you do?

Emma's turn, and she's going deep. Dredging up all her sins and failures. She's ashamed of how she treated Laura, and it wasn't nice at all. I give her some leeway for it being a fraught situation with duty of care, but even then there were better ways to handle it. It was a very human response, but it was a mistake.

I can see why Emma would feel guilty about Wither, but I don't think she fucked up there. She got him psychiatric help and worked hard to support him. If anything, she respected his autonomy. It was impossible to know his therapist was a r*pist supervillain with a kid at the school. I guess that's the point - Emma is in a shame spiral taking on every bit of blame she can think of. Her sister certainly didn't give her a choice, not a real one anyway. She's taking herself at her worst and ignoring all the hard work she's done.

Okay here's some shit she should actually feel bad about - her supervillain phase. Capturing and torturing the X-Men, traumatizing Jean into Dark Phoenix, stealing Ororo's body (totally rape) and funding Sentinels. She certainly suffered for these choices and I don't know how the other X-Men feel about it, but Scott at least forgives her and loves her.

IDK how true it is that everyone thinks Emma is manipulating Scott. Sure, raving misogynist Tony Stark does - and doesn't respect Scott because of it - but fuck him. I think it says more about Tony than anyone else. Again, she comes clean about having sex with Tony and Namor, but Scott DGAF. Not a big deal, they're losers. Well, Tony is. Namor has his moments and ends up a close ally despite all this. I feel like there's major internalised misogyny here, which Emma has an interesting relationship with. It's unusual for men in fiction to be untroubled by these kinds of revelations, but Scott is not an especially jealous person. The gender roles are all over the place even in public. I love me some genderfuckery and these two do it well.

With all their secrets laid bare, they decide to not break up, actually. They're ride or die for many years and both grew a lot in this power couple. Secrets would come back to haunt them both, but at least they can confide and trust in each other. Not only is their partnership solidified but it's a fascinating look into both their psyches (and a gross one into Stark's.)

[capricornsicle]

I've kind of been getting back into teen wolf recently and I've been noticing more than I used to just how anti Scott a bunch of people are. like, why?! what did he ever do to you?! people will include every other character including fucking Peter and they'll still exclude Scott or hate on him for no reason. idk it's just crazy to me

what did he ever do to you?!

Main character, own show, not white.

Long answer:

I've also taken a break from Teen Wolf fandom (and Tumblr) for a while, and it's really cemented in my mind just how much of Scott hate and Scott dislike and how much of the obsession with other characters instead by way of stripping them of their canon personalities and actions and confidently stating that they are actually the Scott McCall of the story in every way is just repackaged racism.

Honeslty, I got into Teen Wolf after reading some Sterek fic I was recommended. For someone with no knowledge of the show past maybe a couple episodes I'd seen years ago, I thought it was pretty good. Then I started watching the show and started being active on Tumblr, and despite being brown myself and being fairly used to fandom racism already, I saw so much about how Scott was naïve and dumb that I started believing it. The vast majority of the fandom space being dominated by Sterek content which already often relies on dropping Scott from main character to at best a supporting character and at worst an antagonist to a romance and by content that did include Scott painting him as an idiot, coupled with not having finished the show yet and not getting to see just how much Scott grows up and some of his best moments where you realize how smart and strong he is, had me putting some embarrassingly wrong takes out there on the internet.

I have since changed my tune. 2 consecutive years of anonymous (purely on a technicality, because we all know who it is) hate mail specifically orchestrated to alienate me from fans who do like Scott (primarily by outright lying about users like @princeescaluswords, @liliaeth, and @spikeface, if you remember that series of asks I apologize for my lack of critical reasoning skills at the time) and to brute force argue in the worst faith possible until I accepted their outlandish statements as logical bases for a debate will do that to a person. Also, I finished the show. I'm curious how many people active in fandom have never actually seen past season 3b or season 4, since so much of Scott hate is centered around the events of season 5 and so many people say egregiously wrong things about those events as fact to prove that Scott is a bad friend or a bad leader or what have you.

This fandom is an interesting place. The entire environment is so steeped in anti-Scott sentiment that was created by, like, 5 specific people who are for some reason treated as logical and reasonable actors and respected in fandom, and in deeply delusional fanon that has become a fandom unto itself in the years it's had to brew. Sterek remains popular because it's an easy story to like for a lot of people who spend a lot of time online and in fandom spaces: a (white) guy who's kind of a loser, feels physically and socially powerless, but is creative and snarky and uses the powers of sarcasm and quirkiness to draw the attention of a more powerful, more experienced, more confident, rock-hard-abs (white) man who's hopelessly enamored despite being entirely unattainable in real life. So the Sterek fandom remains active, and inhabits the husk of the thing that used to be the Teen Wolf fandom before the Teen Wolf fans got tired of being pushed out of their own space and went on to other fandoms that are better house-trained. Or a few of us still linger and stubbornly remain in the fandom of things we like, even though a lot of great TV shows and movies and books and games have godawful and deeply toxic and racist fandom spaces.

Racism in the Teen Wolf fandom is like learning what the Wilhelm Scream is. Once you can recognize it you suddenly realize it's everywhere. The fandom relies on passing around the same deeply racist interpretations of events and is fueled by the same hate to keep itself alive. Sterek becomes less interesting when you're not fighting fans of the actual show to prove it exists, or fighting the main character who's in the way of the interpretation of Stiles as the mother of the ensemble cast because he's obviously so much smarter and wiser than them and Derek as the primary love interest and the authoritarian but loving father. Realistically Scott would probably be surprised if Stiles and Derek started dating, but he'd be supportive of his friends. He wasn't happy with Allison dating Isaac, but he was supportive of their relationship because it was making people he cared about happy. There's no version of events where he wouldn't be completely supportive of his best friend being in a relationship with someone who he's come to see as part of his family. Especially when that someone is a person who he's helped to become a better one and right the wrongs he's done, even against Scott himself.

Scott is a bastion of kindness and forgiveness and a prime example of how treating people like they're people, even when they're bad people, is the distinction between a person and a monster. But that's not as inspiring for people who see themselves as Stiles and find Derek attractive as seeing him as an obstacle, especially when the fandom is an echo chamber of Scott's apparent wrongdoings against them and their relationship that are all just words to cover up a vicious jealousy that Scott is the main character because the path to being the better person isn't proving you're better than everyone else, it's by knowing that you are just as human as everyone else and recognizing that treating people like they are capable of being good is a wildly successful method of bettering them. But that's hard, and nihilism and snark are easy.

Scott hate is just racism. I've been wrong before, in fact most things I've learned have come from being wrong about them first, and I'd be delighted to be wrong about this, but it's been a long wait to find the Teen Wolf fan who hates Scott for a reason that is true and unrelated to him not being white. Fortunately being racist isn't an incurable disease. It's something that can be unlearned and something that people can practice recognizing and walking away from. Maybe part of me coming back to this blog and this fandom after a relaxing hiatus is my continued belief, especially in the face of recent world events, that people can change. In my years of being in this fandom, I've seen a lot of bullshit, a lot of racism, a lot of racist bullshit, and some of the most purposefully bigoted people I've ever encountered. They know who they are. But I've also seen enough people change their minds about Scott and breathe fresh life into the very small Teen Wolf part of the Teen Wolf fandom that sometimes it's a pretty fun place to be in. Racism can be unlearned. On a fandom level and on a much larger scale.

And I really like Scott. I think deliberately choosing kindness when you're surrounded by violence and compliance is admirable, and I think popular culture could use more role models like that. The fact that he looks like me when still in 2025 so few of the heroes do is an added bonus.

[kebriones]

Hey just letting you know that @/margaretkart is a racist and apparently some kind of modern greek supremacist. She plays the victim and acts as if Greek people are an oppressed minority in the world and refuses to acknowledge that race is a post colonial construct. Race as we know it did not exist during ancient times. She for some reason also is convinced that the worst thing in the world is having a person of color play a fictional Greek mythological character. God forbid the “purity” of Ancient Greek mythology becomes sullied by—gasp!—a Percy Jackson show. The Ancient Greek gods were the gods of all the people on earth like come on. That includes people of color.

1. What is the point of this ask. To inform me? It could've been done privately or out of anon. If you have issues with someone, block them or talk to them about it. Do not do this. Also why mention this person when there are many greek people on tumblr who hold very similar opinions? If you wanted to talk about the issue in general it would've been better to not mention one specific person. I haven't even seen this person mentioning this topic, but I have seen it before by other greek people here.

2. I've argued about this topic with fellow greek people publicly online here, in private talks and in real life. I am a firm believer that actors who play in movies as well as theater do not have to match anything from age to gender to appearance to origins of the character they're playing. Have I still complained that helen in the movie troy looks way too german? Yes. So do I understand where this sensitivity stems from? Yes. The systematic approach of ancient greek culture being a free for all for western countries while ignoring modern greek identity and how, for better or for worse, tied it is to the ancient culture, is an issue. I still think it's up to us to put ourselves in this narrative rather than complain that foreigners aren't catering to us.

3. I feel like describing someone as a racist and a "supremacist" over this is a little bit in bad faith. I have not had talks about this topic with this person, I don't care to have extensive talks about this topic in fucking general anymore because it's stupid and I know other people who feel that way and I'm not some morality police to go out of my way to go call them out. When the discussion reaches me, and when I'm talking for myself, I will say what I think. The way the discussion of race is online is so weird to me anyway. It's all way too saturated by current convoluted US ideas and I am not equipped to help detangle the mess for others.

4. Do I think that it's way more realistic for a movie about, say, classical era greece to have a character that looks to be of african origin than a character that looks Scandinavian? Absolutely. Did the actor that played Achilles in Troy:Fall of a city bother me? No, it's an actor playing a role, of an imaginary character no less. What bothered me was that he didn't have long hair, because hair was a very significant cultural element at the time, and his hair is used in the story. The same exact issue that I had with the actor that played hector in that series, who also didnt really look like a person from that area realistically, but who was otherwise very good at his role.

5. As for playing the victim and oppressed minorities: while i would not go so far as to use "oppressed minority" for the greeks of the diaspora, it's very real that modern greeks have been looked down at by westerners, historically. Do I think this justifies or has anything to do with being bothered about what actors who play ancient greek mythology characters look like or come from, in a foreign piece of art no less? No. But it's still a thing.

6. I am extremely stressed out and busy today but I still took time to answer this because i need to say again, please don't do this. If you want to help people to see things differently and maybe move away from biases, talk to Them. Just because I'm following someone or interacting with them online, it doesn't mean I'm endorsing or agreeing with or even KNOW everything they think and say and believe. I avoid reading posts from fellow greeks that are complaining about these things because i think it's an overreaction and I think we need to tackle deep and actual cultural problems that WE have ourselves and not care too much about what some Hollywood movie is doing. Whatever. Tired discussion.

7. Percy Jackson sucks and I do hate that it's based on anc greek mythology but I just don't interact with it. The fact that it is a generation's first taste of anc. gr mythology and thus has had an impact on their perception of it is true and important though. The same way it bothers me when all people know of the odyssey is epic the musical. But still, whatever. Some greek people might be more bothered by it all and need to talk about it online and I think that's perfectly okay and valid. I do my petty complaining now and then too.

8. "The ancient greek gods were the gods of all people one earth" you can say that of other mythologies that have an origin of the entire human race as part of their myths, that's how religions usually go. These gods were worshipped in specific areas in a specific time and the mythology was created by specific cultures of specific areas. This is a major complaint that greek people have, which I mentioned before, that this specific ancient culture's mythology is treated as a thing detached from the actual culture, the ancient one, and from its inheritors which happen to be the people that live here and/or have this specific cultural identity. I don't think this cultural identity has anything to do with the appearance of people, and we all know the greek identity has absolutely nothing to do with race and that's a very fundamental part of it.

9. I would try to make myself even clearer but I don't have time and I didn't want to leave this unanswered even though I also kinda wanted to because this type of anon ask does nothing good for anyone and I encourage you to engage with others in a way that is understanding and comes from a place of wanting everything to be better and kinder. And there's so so much you will disagree with, on fundamental levels, with other people online, if only because we all come from very different cultures with different values and upbringings, despite how it looks like we're all in a US-based melting pot. You have to make peace with that, and it can be difficult. I've had American friends that I deeply disagree with on important stuff, and I had to face the discomfort and take time to let myself understand that our cultures are different.

Anyways. I apologize in advance if anything i said makes no sense or is insensitive or condescending. I admit i was upset when I started my reply but if you want to discuss this further we can absolutely do that. I cannot reply privately to anon asks otherwise i would have. I hate call-out style stuff like this because they do nothing good.

[axvoter]

Fusion delusion and HTV confusion

This week, the Fusion Party—whom I reviewed at considerable length and not because I think they are a good option—posted how-to-vote cards (HTVs). Today, they retracted some of them and deleted posts from social media platforms. So, it's going well!

It seems there was very little vetting, with candidates not just free to allocate their own preferences but also with no review or questions asked before the HTVs were posted publicly. It speaks poorly of party processes that evidently nobody said "uhh hey what's going on here?"

Luckily, I saved a couple of the worst HTVs for individual seats, and the Victorian Senate HTV is still up. Shall we have a look? Let's begin with that Senate HTV:

I will get the obvious dunk out of the way: this is an atrocious design, busy and unpleasant on the eye. The emojis are completely unserious. But, look, HTVs are rarely artistic masterpieces. They should communicate a party's agenda concisely—which this one does not do, there's way too much text—and set out some preference recommendations to aid their supporters.

And hoo boy look at those Fusion preferences: Libertarians in 5th above Labor in 9th and the Greens in 10th. The Libertarians are one of Australia's most loathsome minor parties and they stand against what Fusion claims to be their core values, such as a denial of the reality of climate change that is at odds with the "Planet Rescue" part of Fusion's current registered name. How would you feel if you were a member of Fusion constituent party Vote Planet? I'd assume not great, although I also understand Kammy Cordner Hunt, the Victorian lead Senate candidate above, is from that wing. A penny for her thoughts!

Fusion have been taking some serious flak for this on social media. If you have a Facebook account, here is the announcement of the Senate HTV, with reactions and defensive replies by the official Fusion account and some candidates. People are not happy about that Libertarian preference, and the second candidate on the Vic ticket, Simon Gnieslaw, has been responding at length (hi Simon, I'm sure you're reading; yes I remember you getting upset in my DMs in 2022 because I called your centrism "waffle" and your website "amateurish"). I've screenshotted three choice replies below.

This is quite silly rhetoric and it seems that some Fusion organisers have been taken in by smooth talk from one of Australia's most distasteful parties. The Libertarians' lead candidate in Victoria is a literal con artist and the party are bad-faith actors. It is little wonder that in private they can make soothing noises of "good will" and massage the ego of Fusion delegates in preference discussions. Gnieslaw's comments (particularly that third screenshot) also evince a naive belief in "compromise" above everything else. Forever seeking compromise rather than sticking to principles is just a way to allow bad-faith actors to drag the Overton window towards themselves. This is delusional stuff.

As for the Greens, they have little incentive to deal with electoral lightweights such as Fusion. The Greens' preferences are certain to be distributed after Fusion is already out of the count, if distributed at all. Unlike the Libertarians, who as a fellow micro-party need all the favourable HTV treatment they can get and will say whatever it takes to get a good placement in the hope it pays off in the contest for the last Senate quota, Fusion are the ones who need to get the Greens to want to work with them, not the other way around. It seems Fusion can't play with the big kids who have built a seat-winning constituency in every state—possibly because Gnieslaw has a personal grievance against them over the Israel–Palestine conflict, as articulated on his candidate page. The HTV above claims Fusion is "the only party with a Tangible Peace Plan for the war in Israel and Palestine" (oh yeah sure you've solved a century-long conflict) and even more ridiculously suggests that Fusion is "already working in the background to deliver this plan" (solving the problems of the world over beers at the pub is not "working in the background"). You can read this Tangible Peace Plan for yourself; perhaps you'll agree with me that would be better summarised as intangible principles.

One more comment on the Senate HTV before I move on to some of the House HTVs: if you looked closely, you would have noticed that among the unnecessary emojis are three other symbols. One, a circle with 3 Rs, indicates support for the Climate Rescue Accord, which Fusion developed through negotiations with the Animal Justice Party, Australian Progressives (contesting this election as part of Fusion), and Reason (now de-registered, with Fiona Patten standing for Legalise Cannabis). It has reasonable enough objectives mixed with the sort of futurism about R&D into technologies that some would dub optimistic and others fanciful. The second is a Khamsa symbol, which indicates parties who have given in-principle support for Fusion's "Tangible Peace Plan". And the third is a symbol indicating support for a Universal Basic Income.

The thing about these symbols is that they mean nothing to the average voter, and although they are explained on the Senate HTV, Fusion has used them on HTVs for seats in the House of Representatives with no explanation. They're simply mysterious icons beside their name and that of some other parties. If you are even mildly inclined to conspiratorial thinking, you might wonder what they are meant to communicate and to whom.

So, let's turn to HTVs for specific seats. Remember, Fusion has recently incorporated the Australian Progressives (who, despite their name, now claim to be in the "sensible centre") and Democracy First (a fringe right-wing org of serial candidate Vern Hughes). It seems candidates had freedom to distribute their preferences however they wanted, and some went... off message.

First, the Fusion candidate in Melbourne, Helen Huang:

Yes, she is sending her second preference to independent Tim Smith and her third to the Liberals. Smith is not the disgraced ex-Victorian Liberal politician of that name, but a contestant from Married at First Sight who says that "I don’t like politicians" and promotes the "strategic" use of social media outlets like Instagram and Tik Tok to gauge public opinion instead of holding referendums (wait until this guy finds out about constitutional law!). As for why on earth the Liberals are third, above Labor or the Greens, the HTV itself says this is because of Steph Hunt's "credentials in peacebuilding to end wars and bring people together". Yes, Liberal credentials in peacebuilding. Ponder that one!

But the real humdinger is the HTV for McEwen candidate Erin McGrath. See if you can spot the issue among the preferences:

That's right: Family First is preferenced fourth, above any of the major parties. Yes, the Family First, the party of vile anti-LGBTIQ campaigner and professional eater-of-shit Lyle Shelton. They could scarcely be more at odds with core Fusion values.

But it gets better because people pressed Fusion about this on Twitter and they simply couldn't pick a lane. The original post has now been deleted—it just had some HTVs including McGrath's for McEwen—but if you have a log-in you can view a surviving comment chain here. One reply flagged some of the bizarre decisions, and the official account began by saying that they were made based on personal interactions:

So, at first, Fusion are fine with preferencing "one guy" from Family First for being "vaguely reasonable". Then, as the negative response grew, they deleted and offered this explanation:

Yup, apparently this was simply a production mistake. If that is true, it speaks very poorly for the party's internal oversight, because multiple people clearly did not think to say anything when making, approving, or posting the HTV. And when pressed on this, Fusion replied with an absolute gem:

Things had changed?? It's Family First. WHAT CHANGED.

The party says it is a mistake, but these contortions are worthy of professional gymnasts. It seems the reality is more straightforward. The party's own list of candidates includes a small logo showing which constituent of Fusion the candidate is aligned with. Some, such as Huang in Melbourne, appear to be unaligned, but Erin McGrath in McEwen is aligned with—you guessed it!—Democracy First. She's part of Vern's right-wing rabble. I am far more prepared to believe she genuinely sympathises with the Family First candidate than that "things had changed". The only thing that changed is people noticed this laughable preference at odds with Fusion's own stated values.

We will see what an updated McEwen HTV looks like and if any others are amended. In any case, this further affirms for me that Fusion is not—or at least is no longer—a decent choice, least of all for left-wing voters who might have positive memories of some parties that are now part of Fusion.

[batboyblog]

https://www.tumblr.com/batboyblog/763351086798127104/httpswwwtumblrcombatboyblog76323465039942451

I frankly think it's a combination of the whole ordeal being so traumatizing that they've just downplayed or outright chosen to forget in order to preserve their own sanity, mixed with shifting all of the blame to "the liberals" to avoid acknowledging their own complicity in how bad things started to get in the first place, and a copious amount of accelerationist thinking that making things worse will somehow make people realize "that their way is the only way" (as if that isn't a horribly abusive mindset that has either never worked, or blew up in their faces since people don't like being manipulated into doing someone else's dirty work).

Like I said, I think its in part many people were literally too young, some one who's in their 20s today was a teen when Trump took office, how much attention were they paying? I mean I'm a weirdo so I have very clear memories of Bush V Gore and listening to NPR about it (and being outraged) at 10 years old, but I realize a lot of people at 14, 15, 16 even 17 and 18 aren't paying any attention to politics

and how much more when your own parents are Republicans so what impressions you do get are filtered through them.

Then I have to wonder, we live in an instant gratification universe, with the internet, our phones, are we living in a constant state of "now" where our brains are being trained in such a way its harder and harder to hold onto the feel, the vibe of the past what it was like 4-5 years ago? I mean I've noticed a lot of people complaining about "what do you mean that was X years ago? it feels like yesterday!" is all this new information tech messing with our minds and shortening our attention spans and our sense of the passage of time? idk maybe humans were always bad at holding onto what a past time felt like

and finally as I said there are LOTS of bad faith actors with a vested interest in warping how people remember and feel about the Trump Presidency and the Biden Presidency. Republicans need Trump's time in office to have been normal to have any hope of ever getting back into power, you see it with the downplaying of January 6th the worst moment of that whole shit show. You have left wing grifters who made more money when Trump was President because there were lots of scared upset Democrats looking for something to make them feel better. Those grifters are trying to hold onto their viewers by making them feel bad about the Biden Presidency so they keep toning in, and of course there's the foreign agents all over the internet who's goal is to break up American society.

[artist-issues]

I mean the worst part is that people are going ape over Shrek’s redesign but they’re saying “actually looks like Disney nailed it” about Lilo & Stitch.

Yes, Shrek shouldn’t look like every animated movie, he’s supposed to look almost-photo-realistic because the story was a swipe at Disney’s idealization. But that’s not why most of yall are griping about Shrek. You’re griping because “what did they do to my boyyyy” he doesn’t match the way he did when you were a kid, or when you were making funny memes with his face.

That’s my point. It’s not good to complain about something bad for the wrong reasons because it’s not as true and therefore not as useful a complaint. Just like it’s not good to praise something that is not praiseworthy just because you really wanna like it. You have to have good reasons.

People don’t understand what made Lilo & Stitch so good if they think the trailers for this remake are serving up the same goodness.

I think that’s what’s so insidious about these Live Action Remakes. It’s almost better to make something that’s genuinely un-likable than something that people will like for the wrong reasons.

You’re just losing your ability to like things that are excellent and growing your complacency for stuff that’s crap. When you were brought up on the real thing, why are you so excited to settle for less? And if we really wanna get dramatic about it, less for your kids?! My kids don’t get to have The Lion King or How to Train Your Dragon. They have to have the crappy remake.

What I mean is, if you like the Lilo & Stitch trailer, I believe you. I believe that you liked the return to the music, I believe that you liked hearing Stitch’s voice and seeing him cacklingly spray water before his opponent even gets to the count of two, I believe that you liked the little girl actor conveying real emotion and speaking in lisped mispronounced words.

I believe you.

But that stuff wasn’t the whole trailer. And none of it was even the point of the whole trailer. It was just icing. Just like Stitch’s naughtiness and Lilo’s age and the music was just icing in the original movie. If that had been all it was? If the icing had been the whole cake? If the quirky characterizations, good acting, and music were all the original Lilo & Stitch had going for it, you would not have liked it as much.

I mean geez, Home had those things, and it’s nowhere near the juggernaut of nostalgia and good storytelling and culture-shift that Lilo & Stitch was.

Those things aren’t what made it good.

Stitch’s naughtiness, Lilo’s little-girl-ness, the Elvis/Hawaiian chorus music—those things were all pillars that were there to support the main thing: the story.

The story is what breathed life and meaning into Stitch and Lilo as characters and made the music impactful. Not the other way around.

Stitch is naughty because it’s a story about someone who’s so bad, so selfish, that they’re hard to love. So he had to be naughty.

Lilo is a little girl because it’s a story about someone who can hold on to the idea of family love, love that hangs in there even when you’re bad and selfish, with a childlike faith and simplicity. She’s a little girl because that story needed someone who was vulnerable, as well as full of powerful, untainted, uncomplicated love.

The music is a blend of Hawaiian chorus and Elvis because Lilo only cares about her own little world, and her own little world is Hawaii, and Elvis visited Hawaii. Lilo only cares about her own little world because the story needed a girl who had the opportunity to lose faith in family love—and she was given that opportunity by losing some of her family—and so now she hangs on tightly to what’s close to her, and that means she hangs on tightly to her home town, and that’s Hawaii, and that’s where Elvis visited. She doesn’t want pop songs or new music, she wants classic Elvis and the sounds she’s grown up with, and Stitch is an alien who gets trapped-then-welcomed into that small town world.

THAT is why those things matter. Not because oh haha Stitch funny like minions funny. Not because awww cute little girl yay Disney actually cast a child in a child role. Not because they literally just PLAYED THE SAME SONGS YOU LVOED FROM THE ORIGINAL to sucker you into associating hot trash with a classic.

STOP rewarding them for the low-hanging fruit, I mean do you want to go to movies and thoroughly enjoy them and talk about them and show them to your kids years from now?? You know you’re not doing that with the Live Action Mulan. You know you won’t do it with this. Because it won’t be as timelessly good.

They’re just tricking you into lowering your standards so they can make money off of your nostalgia and sacrifice nothing to force-feed you their own vomit.

Not to put it too strongly

[edenfenixblogs]

Blog PSA

“Don’t reblog them. They have Bad Views™️” has been weaponized so thoroughly against Jews over the past couple of years that I am no longer seeing these warnings about ANYONE as a friendly warning sign. If I have reblogged from a shitty person, PLEASE DO let me know and I will remove the reblog or/and block the person in question.

But when you let me know, PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO THE SHITTY THING YOU ARE ACCUSING THEM OF DOING. If it’s a pattern of behavior, please give multiple links.

I won’t be shamed into silencing voices because I’m afraid of my morality being tainted by the fact that I was unaware of their worst traits when I reblogged from them.

If I fuck up, I make amends.

“XYZ is a TERF”

“ABC is racist”

Ok! Thats terrible! But please send a link.

Because if you don’t I have no way of knowing whether or not YOU are actually the bad faith actor who does things like say:

“Hey, just a heads up [Jewish tumblr user who happens to want the hostages to come home and has never said anything against palestine] is a genocide supporter”

I’m sick of voices being silenced with no proof. If someone is so bad that reblogging from them is unforgivable or a moral failing of some kind, then you shouldn’t have trouble linking to an example of that behavior. A LINK. Not a doctored screenshot. Not a separate account of another horrid thing they did. An actual link so I can see the post they made that was bad.

If it’s triggering, give a trigger warning.

I don’t like lashon harah and I won’t be tricked and shamed into participating in it. The burden is not on me to have an extensive knowledge of every single person on a chain of things I reblog from. That’s not how the internet works.

“Trust me bro” is not a source.

Moral purity is a losing game. Try your best. I’ll try my best. And we can learn together and course correct along the way. But we can’t be so afraid of becoming morally impure that we stop being careful and responsible.

[rhysdarbinizedarby]

Couch surfer in his 30s. Oscar winner in his 40s. Why the whole world wants Taika

**Notes: This is very long post!**

Good Weekend

In his 30s, he was sleeping on couches. By his 40s, he’d directed a Kiwi classic, taken a Marvel movie to billion-dollar success, and won an Oscar. Meet Taika Waititi, king of the oddball – and one of New Zealand’s most original creative exports.

Taika Waititi: “Be a nice person and live a good life. And just don’t be an arsehole.”

The good news? Taika Waititi is still alive. I wasn’t sure. The screen we were speaking through jolted savagely a few minutes ago, with a cacophonous bang and a confused yelp, then radio silence. Now the Kiwi ­ filmmaker is back, grinning like a loon: “I just broke the f---ing table, bro!”

Come again? “I just smashed this f---ing table and glass flew everywhere. It’s one of those old annoying colonial tables. It goes like this – see that?” Waititi says, holding up a folding furniture leg. “I hit the mechanism and it wasn’t locked. Anyway …”

I’m glad he’s fine. The stuff he’s been saying from his London hotel room could incur biblical wrath. We’re talking about his latest project, Next Goal Wins, a movie about the American Samoa soccer team’s quest to score a solitary goal, 10 years after suffering the worst loss in the game’s international history – a 31-0 ­ignominy to Australia – but our chat strays into ­spirituality, then faith, then religion.

“I don’t personally believe in a big guy sitting on a cloud judging everyone, but that’s just me,” Waititi says, deadpan. “Because I’m a grown-up.”

This is the way his interview answers often unfold. Waititi addresses your topic – dogma turns good people bad, he says, yet belief itself is worth lauding – but bookends every response with a conspiratorial nudge, wink, joke or poke. “Regardless of whether it’s some guy living on a cloud, or some other deity that you’ve made up – and they’re all made up – the message across the board is the same, and it’s important: Be a nice person, and live a good life. And just don’t be an arsehole!”

Not being an arsehole seems to have served Waititi, 48, well. Once a national treasure and indie darling (through the quirky tenderness of his breakout New Zealand films Boy in 2010 and Hunt for the Wilderpeople in 2016), Waititi then became a star of both the global box office (through his 2017 entry into the Marvel Universe, Thor: Ragnarok, which grossed more than $1.3 billion worldwide) and then the Academy Awards (winning the 2020 best adapted screenplay Oscar for his subversive Holocaust dramedy JoJo Rabbit, in which he played an imaginary Hitler).

Waititi playing Adolf Hitler in the 2019 movie JoJo Rabbit. (Alamy)

A handsome devil with undeniable roguish charm, Waititi also slid seamlessly into style-icon status (attending this year’s Met Gala shirtless, in a floor-length gunmetal-grey Atelier Prabal Gurung wrap coat, with pendulous pearl necklaces), as well as becoming his own brand (releasing an eponymous line of canned ­coffee drinks) and bona fide Hollywood A-lister (he was introduced to his second wife, British singer Rita Ora, by actor Robert Pattinson at a barbecue).

Putting that platform to use, Waititi is an Indigenous pioneer and mentor, too, co-creating the critically acclaimed TV series Reservation Dogs, while co-founding the Piki Films production company, committed to promoting the next generation of storytellers – a mission that might sound all weighty and worthy, yet Waititi’s new wave of First Nations work is never earnest, always mixing hurt with heart and howling humour.

Waititi with wife Rita Ora at the 2023 Met Gala in May. (Getty Images)

Makes sense. Waititi is a byproduct of “the weirdest coupling ever” – his late Maori father from the Te Whanau-a-Apanui tribe was an artist, farmer and “Satan’s Slaves” bikie gang founder, while his Wellington schoolteacher mum descended from Russian Jews, although he’s not devout about her faith. (“No, I don’t practise,” he confirms. “I’m just good at everything, straight away.”)

He’s remained loyally tethered to his ­origin story, too – and to a cadre of creative Kiwi mates, including actors Jemaine Clement and Rhys Darby – never forgetting that not long before the actor/writer/producer/director was an industry maven, he was a penniless painter/photographer/ musician/comedian.

With no set title and no fixed address, he’s seemingly happy to be everything, everywhere (to everyone) all at once. “‘The universe’ is bandied around a lot these days, but I do believe in the kind of connective tissue of the universe, and the energy that – scientifically – we are made up of a bunch of atoms that are bouncing around off each other, and some of the atoms are just squished together a bit tighter than others,” he says, smiling. “We’re all made of the same stardust, and that’s pretty special.”

-----------------------------------------------

We’ve caught Waititi in a somewhat relaxed moment, right before the screen actors’ and media artists’ strike ends. He’s ­sensitive to the struggle but doesn’t deny enjoying the break. “I spent a lot of time thinking about writing, and not writing, and having a nice ­holiday,” he tells Good Weekend. “Honestly, it was a good chance just to recombobulate.”

Waititi, at right, with Hunt for the Wilderpeople actors, from left, Sam Neill, Rhys Darby and Julian Dennison. (Getty Images)

It’s mid-October, and he’s just headed to Paris to watch his beloved All Blacks in the Rugby World Cup. He’s deeply obsessed with the game, and sport in general. “Humans spend all of our time knowing what’s going to happen with our day. There’s no surprises ­any more. We’ve become quite stagnant. And I think that’s why people love sport, because of the air of unpredictability,” he says. “It’s the last great arena entertainment.”

The main filmic touchstone for Next Goal Wins (which premieres in Australian cinemas on New Year’s Day) would be Cool Runnings (1993), the unlikely true story of a Jamaican bobsled team, but Waititi also draws from genre classics such as Any Given Sunday and Rocky, sampling trusted tropes like the musical training montage. (His best one is set to Everybody Wants to Rule the World by Tears for Fears.)

Filming in Hawaii was an uplifting experience for the self-­described Polynesian Jew. “It wasn’t about death, or people being cruel to each other. Thematically, it was this simple idea, of getting a small win, and winning the game wasn’t even their goal – their goal was to get a goal,” he says. “It was a really sweet backbone.”

Waititi understands this because, growing up, he was as much an athlete as a nerd, fooling around with softball and soccer before discovering rugby league, then union. “There’s something about doing exercise when you don’t know you’re doing exercise,” he enthuses. “It’s all about the fun of throwing a ball around and trying to achieve something together.” (Whenever Waititi is in Auckland he joins his mates in a long-running weekend game of touch rugby. “And then throughout the week I work out every day. Obviously. I mean, look at me.”)

Auckland is where his kids live, too, so he spends as much time there as possible. Waititi met his first wife, producer Chelsea Winstanley, on the set of Boy in 2010, and they had two daughters, Matewa Kiritapu, 8, and his firstborn, Te Kainga O’Te Hinekahu, 11. (The latter is a derivative of his grandmother’s name, but he jokes with American friends that it means “Resurrection of Tupac” or “Mazda RX7″) Waititi and Winstanley split in about 2018, and he married the pop star Ora in 2022.

He offers a novel method for balancing work with parenthood … “Look, you just abandon them, and know that the experience will make them harder individuals later on in life. And it’s their problem,” he says. “I’m going to give them all of the things that they need, and I’m going to leave behind a decent bank ­account for their therapy, and they will be just like me, and the cycle will continue.”

Jokes aside – I think he’s joking – school holidays are always his, and he brings the girls onto the set of every movie he makes. “They know enough not to get in the way or touch anything that looks like it could kill you, and they know to be respectful and quiet when they need to. But they’re just very comfortable around filmmakers, which I’m really happy about, because eventually I hope they will get into the ­industry. One more year,” he laughs, “then they can leave school and come work for Dad.”

Theirs is certainly a different childhood than his. Growing up, he was a product of two worlds. His given names, for instance, were based on his appearance at birth: “Taika David” if he looked Maori (after his Maori grandfather) and “David Taika” if he looked Pakeha (after his white grandfather). His parents split when he was five, so he bounced between his dad’s place in Waihau Bay, where he went by the surname Waititi, and his mum, eight hours drive away in Wellington, where he went by Cohen (the last name on his birth ­certificate and passport).

Waititi was precocious, even charismatic. His mother Robin once told Radio New Zealand that people always wanted to know him, even as an infant: “I’d be on a bus with him, and he was that kind of baby who smiled at people, and next thing you know they’re saying, ‘Can I hold your baby?’ He’s always been a charmer to the public eye.”

He describes himself as a cool, sporty, good-looking nerd, raised on whatever pop culture screened on the two TV channels New Zealand offered in the early 1980s, from M*A*S*H and Taxi to Eddie Murphy and Michael Jackson. He was well-read, too. When punished by his mum, he would likely be forced to analyse a set of William Blake poems.

He puts on a whimpering voice to describe their finances – “We didn’t have much monneeey” – explaining how his mum spent her days in the classroom but also worked in pubs, where he would sit sipping a raspberry lemonade, doodling drawings and writing stories. She took in ­ironing and cleaned houses; he would help out, learning valuable lessons he imparts to his kids. “And to random people who come to my house,” he says. “I’ll say, ‘Here’s a novel idea, wash this dish,’ but people don’t know how to do anything these days.”

“Every single character I’ve ever written has been based on someone I’ve known or met or a story I’ve stolen from someone.” - Taika Waititi

He loved entertaining others, clearly, but also himself, recording little improvised radio plays on a tape deck – his own offbeat versions of ET and Indiana Jones and Star Wars. “Great free stuff where you don’t have any idea what the story is as you’re doing it,” he says. “You’re just sort of making it up and enjoying the ­freedom of playing god in this world where you can make people and characters do whatever you want.”

His other sphere of influence lay in Raukokore, the tiny town where his father lived. Although Boy is not autobiographical, it’s deeply personal insofar as it’s filmed in the house where he grew up, and where he lived a life similar to that portrayed in the story, surrounded by his recurring archetypes: warm grandmothers and worldly kids; staunch, stoic mums; and silly, stunted men. “Every single character I’ve ever written has been based on someone I’ve known or met,” he says, “or a story I’ve stolen from someone.”

He grew to love drawing and painting, obsessed early on with reproducing the Sistine Chapel. During a 2011 TED Talk on creativity, Waititi describes his odd subject matter, from swastikas and fawns to a picture of an old lady going for a walk … upon a sword … with Robocop. “My father was an outsider artist, even though he wouldn’t know what that meant,” Waititi told the audience in Doha. “I love the naive. I love people who can see things through an innocent viewpoint. It’s inspiring.”

After winning Best Adapted Screenplay Academy Award for JoJo Rabbit in 2020. (Getty Images)

It was an interesting time in New Zealand, too – a coming-of-age decade in which the Maori were rediscovering their culture. His area was poor, “but only ­financially,” he says. “It’s very rich in terms of the ­people and the culture.” He learned kapa haka – the songs, dances and chants performed by competing tribes at cultural events, or to honour people at funerals and graduations – weddings, parties, ­anything. “Man, any excuse,” he explains. “A big part of doing them is to uplift your spirits.”

Photography was a passion, so I ask what he shot. “Just my penis. I sent them to people, but we didn’t have phones, so I would print them out, post them. One of the first dick pics,” he says. Actually, his lens was trained on regular people. He watches us still – in airports, ­restaurants. “Other times late at night, from a tree. Whatever it takes to get the story. You know that.”

He went to the Wellington state school Onslow College and did plays like Androcles and the Lion, A Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Crucible. His crew of arty students eventually ended up on stage at Bats Theatre in the city, where they would perform haphazard comedy shows for years.

“Taika was always rebellious and wild in his comedy, which I loved,” says his high school mate Jackie van Beek, who became a longtime collaborator, including working with Waititi on a Tourism New Zealand campaign this year. “I remember he went through a phase of turning up in bars around town wearing wigs, and you’d try and sit down and have a drink with him but he’d be doing some weird character that would invariably turn up in some show down the track.”

He met more like-minded peers at Victoria University, including Jemaine Clement (who’d later become co-creator of Flight of the Conchords). During a 2019 chat with actor Elijah Wood, Waititi ­describes he and Clement clocking one another from opposite sides of the library one day: a pair of Maoris experiencing hate at first sight, based on a mutual suspicion of cultural appropriation. (Clement was wearing a traditional tapa cloth Samoan shirt, and Waititi was like: “This motherf---er’s not Samoan.” Meanwhile, Waititi was wearing a Rastafarian beanie, and Clement was like, “This ­motherf---er’s not Jamaican.”)

With Jemaine Clement in 2014. (Getty Images)

But they eventually bonded over Blackadder and Fawlty Towers, and especially Kenny Everett, and did comedy shows together everywhere from Edinburgh to Melbourne. Waititi was almost itinerant, spending months at a time busking, or living in a commune in Berlin. He acted in a few small films, and then – while playing a stripper on a bad TV show – realised he wanted to try life behind the camera. “I became tired of being told what to do and ordered around,” he told Wellington’s Dominion Post in 2004. “I remember sitting around in the green room in my G-string ­thinking, ‘Why am I doing this? Just helping someone else to realise their dream.’ ”

He did two strong short films, then directed his first feature – Eagle vs Shark (2007) – when he was 32. He brought his mates along (Clement, starring with Waititi’s then-girlfriend Loren Horsley), setting something of a pattern in his career: hiring friends instead of constantly navigating new working relationships. “If you look at things I’m doing,” he tells me, “there’s ­always a few common denominators.”

Sam Neill says Waititi is the exemplar of a new New Zealand humour. “The basis of it is this: we’re just a little bit crap at things.”

This gang of collaborators shares a common Kiwi vibe, too, which his longtime friend, actor Rhys Darby, once coined “the comedy of the mundane”. Their new TV show, Our Flag Means Death, for example, leans heavily into the mundanity of pirate life – what happens on those long days at sea when the crew aren’t unsheathing swords from scabbards or burying treasure.

Waititi plays pirate captain Blackbeard, centre, in Our Flag Means Death, with Rhys Darby, left, and Rory Kinnear. (Google Images)

Sam Neill, who first met Waititi when starring in Hunt for the Wilderpeople, says Waititi is the exemplar of a new New Zealand humour. “And I think the basis of it is this,” says Neill. “We’re just a little bit crap at things, and that in itself is funny.” After all, Neill asks, what is What We Do in The Shadows (2014) if not a film (then later a TV show) about a bunch of vampires who are pretty crap at being vampires, ­living in a pretty crappy house, not quite getting busted by crappy local cops? “New Zealand often gets named as the least corrupt country in the world, and I think it’s just that we would be pretty crap at being corrupt,” Neill says. “We don’t have the capacity for it.”

Waititi’s whimsy also spurns the dominant on-screen oeuvre of his homeland – the so-called “cinema of ­unease” exemplified by the brutality of Once Were Warriors (1994) and the emotional peril of The Piano (1993). Waititi still explores pathos and pain, but through laughter and weirdness. “Taika feels to me like an ­antidote to that dark aspect, and a gift somehow,” Neill says. “And I’m grateful for that.”

-----------------------------------------------

Something happened to Taika Waititi when he was about 11 – something he doesn’t go into with Good Weekend, but which he considered a betrayal by the adults in his life. He ­mentioned it only recently – not the ­moment itself, but the lesson he learnt: “That you cannot and must not rely on grown-ups to help you – you’re basically in the world alone, and you’re gonna die alone, and you’ve just gotta make it all for yourself,” he told Irish podcast host James Brown. “I basically never forgave people in positions of responsibility.”

What does that mean in his work? First, his finest films tend to reflect the clarity of mind possessed by children, and the unseen worlds they create – fantasies conjured up as a way to understand or overcome. (His mum once summed up the main ­message of Boy: “The ­unconditional love you get from your children, and how many of us waste that, and don’t know what we’ve got.”)

Second, he’s suited to movie-making – “Russian roulette with art” – because he’s drawn to disruptive force and chaos. And that in turn produces creative defiance: allowing him to reinvigorate the Marvel Universe by making superheroes fallible, or tell a Holocaust story by making fun of Hitler. “Whenever I have to deal with someone who’s a boss, or in charge, I challenge them,” he told Brown, “and I really do take whatever they say with a pinch of salt.”

It’s no surprise then that Waititi was comfortable leaping from independent films to the vast complexity of Hollywood blockbusters. He loves the challenge of coordinating a thousand interlocking parts, requiring an army of experts in vocations as diverse as construction, sound, art, performance and logistics. “I delegate a lot,” he says, “and share the load with a lot of people.”

“This is a cool concept, being able to ­afford whatever I want, as opposed to sleeping on couches until I was 35.” - Taika Waititi

But the buck stops with him. Time magazine named Waititi one of its Most Influential 100 People of 2022. “You can tell that a film was made by Taika Waititi the same way you can tell a piece was painted by Picasso,” wrote Sacha Baron Cohen. Compassionate but comic. Satirical but watchable. Rockstar but auteur. “Actually, sorry, but this guy’s really starting to piss me off,” Cohen concluded. “Can someone else write this piece?”

Directing Chris Hemsworth in 2017 in Thor: Ragnarok, which grossed more than $1.3 billion at the box office. (Alamy)

I’m curious to know how he stays grounded amid such adulation. Coming into the game late, he says, helped immensely. After all, Waititi was 40 by the time he left New Zealand to do Thor: Ragnarok. “If you let things go to your head, then it means you’ve struggled to find out who you are,” he says. “But I’ve always felt very comfortable with who I am.” Hollywood access and acclaim – and the pay cheques – don’t erase memories of poverty, either. “It’s more like, ‘Oh, this is a cool concept, being able to ­afford whatever I want, as opposed to sleeping on couches until I was 35.’ ” Small towns and strong tribes keep him in check, too. “You know you can’t piss around and be a fool, because you’re going to embarrass your family,” he says. “Hasn’t stopped me, though.”

Sam Neill says there was never any doubt Waititi would be able to steer a major movie with energy and imagination. “It’s no accident that the whole world wants Taika,” he says. “But his seductiveness comes with its own dangers. You can spread yourself a bit thin. The temptation will be to do more, more, more. That’ll be interesting to watch.”

Indeed, I find myself vicariously stressed out over the list of potential projects in Waititi’s future. A Roald Dahl animated series for Netflix. An Apple TV show based on the 1981 film Time Bandits. A sequel to What We Do In The Shadows. A reboot of Flash Gordon. A gonzo horror comedy, The Auteur, starring Jude Law. Adapting a cult graphic novel, The Incal, as a feature. A streaming series based on the novel Interior Chinatown. A film based on a Kazuo Ishiguro bestseller. Plus bringing to life the wildly popular Akira comic books. Oh, and for good measure, a new instalment of Star Wars, which he’s already warned the world will be … different.

“It’s going to change things,” he told Good Morning America. “It’s going to change what you guys know and expect.”

Did I say I was stressed for Waititi? I meant physically sick.

“Well…” he qualifies, “some of those things I’m just producing, so I come up with an idea or someone comes to me with an idea, and I shape how ‘it’s this kind of show’ and ‘here’s how we can get it made.’ It’s easier for me to have a part in those things and feel like I’ve had a meaningful role in the creative process, but also not having to do what I’ve always done, which is trying to control everything.”

In the 2014 mockumentary horror film What We Do in the Shadows, which he co-directed with Jemaine Clement. (Alamy)

What about moving away from the niche New Zealand settings he represented so well in his early work? How does he stay connected to his roots? “I think you just need to know where you’re from,” he says, “and just don’t forget that.”

They certainly haven’t forgotten him.

Jasmin McSweeney sits in her office at the New Zealand Film Commission in Wellington, surrounded by promotional posters Waititi signed for her two decades ago, when she was tasked with promoting his nascent talent. Now the organisation’s marketing chief, she talks to me after visiting the heart of thriving “Wellywood”, overseeing the traditional karakia prayer on the set of a new movie starring Geoffrey Rush.

Waititi isn’t the first great Kiwi filmmaker – dual Oscar-winner Jane Campion and blockbuster king Peter Jackson come to mind – yet his particular ascendance, she says, has spurred unparalleled enthusiasm. “Taika gave everyone here confidence. He always says, ‘Don’t sit around waiting for people to say, you can do this.’ Just do it, because he just did it. That’s the Taika effect.”

-----------------------------------------------

Taika David Waititi is known for wearing everything from technicolour dreamcoats to pineapple print rompers, and today he’s wearing a roomy teal and white Isabel Marant jumper. The mohair garment has the same wispy frizz as his hair, which curls like a wave of grey steel wool, and connects with a shorn salty beard.

A stylish silver fox, it wouldn’t surprise anyone if he suddenly announced he was launching a fashion label. He’s definitely a commercial animal, to the point of directing television commercials for Coke and Amazon, along with a fabulous 2023 spot for Belvedere vodka starring Daniel Craig. He also joined forces with a beverage company in Finland (where “taika” means “magic”) to release his coffee drinks. Announcing the partnership on social media, he flagged that he would be doing more of this kind of stuff, too (“Soz not soz”).

Waititi has long been sick of reverent portrayals of Indigenous people talking to spirits.

There’s substance behind the swank. Fashion is a creative outlet but he’s also bought sewing machines in the past with the intention of designing and making clothes, and comes from a family of tailors. “I learnt how to sew a button on when I was very young,” he says. “I learnt how to fix holes or patches in your clothes, and darn things.”

And while he gallivants around the globe watching Wimbledon or modelling for Hermès at New York Fashion Week, all that glamour belies a depth of purpose, particularly when it comes to Indigenous representation.

There’s a moment in his new movie where a Samoan player realises that their Dutch coach, played by Michael Fassbender, is emotionally struggling, and he offers a lament for white people: “They need us.” I can’t help but think Waititi meant something more by that line – maybe that First Nations people have ­wisdom to offer if others will just listen?

“Weeelllll, a little bit …” he says – but from his intonation, and what he says next, I’m dead wrong. Waititi has long been sick of reverent ­portrayals of Indigenous people talking to kehua (spirits), or riding a ghost waka (phantom canoe), or playing a flute on a mountain. “Always the boring characters,” he says. “They’ve got no real contemporary relationship with the world, because they’re always living in the past in their spiritual ways.”

A scene from Next Goal Wins, filmed earlier this year. (Alamy)

He’s part of a vanguard consciously poking fun at those stereotypes. Another is the Navajo writer and director Billy Luther, who met Waititi at Sundance Film Festival back in 2003, along with Reservation Dogs co-creator Sterlin Harjo. “We were this group of outsiders trying to make films, when nobody was really biting,” says Luther. “It was a different time. The really cool thing about it now is we’re all working. We persevered. We didn’t give up. We slept on each other’s couches and hung out. It’s like family.”

Waititi has power now, and is known for using Indigenous interns wherever possible (“because there weren’t those opportunities when I was growing up”), making important introductions, offering feedback on scripts, and lending his name to projects through executive producer credits, too, which he did for Luther’s new feature film, Frybread Face and Me (2023).

He called Luther back from the set of Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) to offer advice on working with child actors – “Don’t box them into the characters you’ve ­created,” he said, “let them naturally figure it out on their own” – but it’s definitely harder to get Waititi on the phone these days. “He’s a little bitch,” Luther says, laughing. “Nah, there’s nothing like him. He’s a genius. You just knew he was going to be something. I just knew it. He’s my brother.“

I’ve been asked to explicitly avoid political questions in this interview, probably because Waititi tends to back so many causes, from child poverty and teenage suicide to a campaign protesting offshore gas and oil exploration near his tribal lands. But it’s hard to ignore his recent Instagram post, sharing a viral video about the Voice to Parliament referendum starring Indigenous Aussie rapper Adam Briggs. After all, we speak only two days after the proposal is defeated. “Yeah, sad to say but, Australia, you really shat the bed on that one,” Waititi says, pausing. “But go see my movie!”

About that movie – the early reviews aren’t great. IndieWire called it a misfire, too wrapped in its quirks to develop its arcs, with Waititi’s directorial voice drowning out his characters, while The Guardian called it “a shoddily made and strikingly unfunny attempt to tell an interesting story in an uninteresting way”. I want to know how he moves past that kind of criticism. “For a start, I never read reviews,” he says, concerned only with the opinion of people who paid for admission, never professional appraisals. “It’s not important to me. I know I’m good at what I do.”

Criticism that Indigenous concepts weren’t sufficiently explained in Next Goal Wins gets his back up a little, though. The film’s protagonist, Jaiyah Saelua, the first transgender football player in a FIFA World Cup qualifying match, is fa’afafine – an American Samoan identifier for someone with fluid genders – but there wasn’t much exposition of this concept in the film. “That’s not my job,” Waititi says. “It’s not a movie where I have to explain every facet of Samoan culture to an audience. Our job is to retain our culture, and present a story that’s inherently Polynesian, and if you don’t like it, you can go and watch any number of those other movies out there, 99 per cent of which are terrible.”

*notes: (there is video clip in the article)

Waititi sounds momentarily cranky, but he’s mostly unflappable and hilarious. He’s the kind of guy who prefers “Correctumundo bro!” to “Yes”. When our video connection is too laggy, he plays up to it by periodically pretending to be frozen, sitting perfectly still, mouth open, his big shifting eyeballs the only giveaway.

He’s at his best on set. Saelua sat next to him in Honolulu while filming the joyous soccer sequences. “He’s so chill. He just let the actors do their thing, giving them creative freedom, barely interjecting unless it was something important. His style matches the vibe of the Pacific people. We’re a very funny people. We like to laugh. He just fit perfectly.”

People do seem to love working alongside him, citing his ability to make productions fresh and unpredictable and funny. Chris Hemsworth once said that Waititi’s favourite gag is to “forget” that his microphone is switched on, so he can go on a pantomime rant for all to hear – usually about his disastrous Australian lead actor – only to “remember” that he’s wired and the whole crew is listening.

“I wouldn’t know about that, because I don’t listen to what other people say about anything – I’ve told you this,” Waititi says. “I just try to have fun when there’s time to have fun. And when you do that, and you bring people together, they’re more willing to go the extra mile for you, and they’re more willing to believe in the thing that you’re trying to do.”

Yes, he plays music between takes, and dances out of his director’s chair, but it’s really all about relaxing amid the immense pressure and intense privilege of making movies. “Do you know how hard it is just to get anything financed or green-lit, then getting a crew, ­getting producers to put all the pieces together, and then making it to set?” Waititi asks. “It’s a real gift, even to be working, and I feel like I have to remind ­people of that: enjoy this moment.”

Source: The Age

By: Konrad Marshall (December 1, 2023)

[bethanydelleman]

Best and worst adaptation of each Austen Novel (or ranking for those that only have one)?

All Austen novels have more than one adaptation; Lady Susan only has one (called Love and Friendship and it's great) but it's a novella. This will be based on what I've watched and I'm going with straight adaptations, not moderns or other variations like Pride & Prejudice & Zombies.

Pride & Prejudice: Best: 1967 BBC Miniseries (favourite interpretation of many characters) Worst: 2005 Hollywood movie (Darcy Shyboi and Elizabeth Tomboy Girlboss)

Sense & Sensibility: Best: 1995 movie (made smart changes while keeping the core of the story correct) Worst: 2008 BBC miniseries (added sex for shock value, Willoughby looks like a little weasel, Colonel Brandon was awful)

Mansfield Park: Best: 1983 BBC miniseries (only faithful adaptation) Worst: 1999 movie (destroyed Fanny, stupid fourth wall breaking, THE SEX SCENE IS BURNED INTO MY MEMORY IN A BAD WAY)

Northanger Abbey: Best: 2007 movie (perfect casting, just wish it was longer and they hadn't messed up the ending) Also best: 1987 movie, but only if you are as high as all the actors and producers clearly were when they made it.

Persuasion: Best: 1971 BBC miniseries (it is a full mini and gives the story enough room to breath, 1995 is also very good) Worst: 2022 Netflix diaster

Emma: Best: 2020 movie (understood the humour of Emma, beautiful costumes, Emma as a snob was very good, made smart updates) Worst: 1996 movie with Gwyneth Paltrow (I hated pouting Knightley and their Harriet and what they did with Mrs. Weston) Honourable mention: I do actually enjoy the 1972 adaptation, it has a perfect Harriet.

Those are my opinions, enjoy!

[rei-ismyname]

How do you think about the krakoan resurrections, narratively, I’ve been reading more of the Krakoan line and while I’ve enjoyed the worldbuilding and the plotting related to the resurrection process(like how big of a deal it was for the secret to get out), I do appreciate it’s gone.

I feel letting everyone have a get out of jail free card, with exceptions to people who don’t want to get brought back(even then that didn’t work, good one Erik), spoils the stakes a little, and also funny in a morbid sort of way that despite all their suicide missions and long odds, it’s only now that our major xmen are dropping off like flies for these multiple deaths.

Apologies if this was incoherent, just observations i have reading so far

Worry not, it coheres well enough! A great question :).

I love it! I thought it was an amazing achievement for the mutants to have and a luminous yet fraught foundation to build a country and culture around. Five mutants working in concert to resurrect people! What a concept, and the mutant circuit itself was taken to exciting places even when it was mundane. It was a compelling developing world building choice in the need for secrecy while still being quite fragile. There's not as much redundancy as they'd like, for instance - though fortunately they didn't all die at once.

Of course, the flipside of that is how the worst person on the island managed to subvert it and burn the universe. That was fun too. It's no small thing to have power over life and death, and even seeing the younger mutants become so cavalier about it felt new and interesting.

Comic book deaths rarely feel like anything more than a setback, and the convoluted or unexplained ways people return tend to feel rote and predictable. I can't get excited about a solicit saying 'next issue an X-Man dies!' or similar because I know it's a temporary inconvenience to goose sales. In most cases creators already know when or how they're coming back. I didn't really see it as a get out of jail free card - more a paradigm shift that challenged writers to introduce more interesting stakes.

Taking that arbitrary, low stakes genre convention and pushing it to its logical endpoint struck me as a clever way to move past that tiresome sensationalism. Death doesn't have to be the only stakes, especially when mutants have more to lose than ever. A nation, vulnerable to external threats. A society built on quicksand. Bad faith actors living next door. Geopolitics! Any mutant can return without preamble to this brave new world, for good or ill. It wasn't a perfect safety net either - Otherworld, Arakko, dying publicly, the secrecy, requiring proof of death, the clone issue, etc all altered the paradigm with new stakes.

In short, HoxPoX stopped pretending that death was final or even meaningful and found new stakes to explore. I don't think Krakoa would have been as powerful without it, narratively and thematically. The fact that warriors were prioritised and precogs secretly banned set up dominos to explode in everyone's face. Mainly Chuck and Mags. The power they exercised over Mystique, for example, was so fucked up. That was always going to ignite and it didn't disappoint. They solved for death but they didn't solve for life - and that's the tricky part. As powerful as resurrection is, it's just as powerful a thing to have weaponised against you.

I do wish we got a book about The Five as characters, exploring their family unit, the pressure and position, the religious awe surrounding them. They're all pretty interesting people who barely knew each other beforehand (except Egg and Tempus.) They appeared in books here and there, but X-Factor and IXM (and HoxPoX to a degree) were their most substantial appearances. COVID happened at a terrible time for X-Men comics and messed up publication but I'm still happy with what we got.

As for how I feel about resurrection protocols being off the table (except for Chuck, apparently. Nevermind that it doesn't work that way) - it was inevitable and I think I've mostly just accepted it. From The Ashes is very back to basics and it wouldn't really fit, so I'm happy it's not being used RN. Definitely think R-LDS is a cynical and shallow idea taking shots at something wonderful for little gain.

Thanks for the ask! I hope it makes sense.

[gffa]

This week’s Ahsoka episode unfortunately reignited those tiresome “Jedi child soldiers” accusations in the fandom and of course demonizes the Jedi. What are your thoughts?

Honestly, I thought it was fine. I get why a lot of us have had our nerves scraped raw by fandom constantly harassing us and trying to scream us into bad faith arguments on stuff like this, so I'm hardly going to wag my finger at anyone feeling further scraped raw by this, but genuinely didn't bother me because the show never blamed the Jedi for the position they were put in, hell, Anakin even basically defended it. I get it, it's Felony, we're used to often assuming the worst about him and who knows maybe it was meant as an indictment, but it genuinely didn't come across that way to me and, further, Filoni has proven himself to have drifted far enough from Lucas' core narratives on enough subjects that he now has to prove himself every time to me before I take his word of god commentary into consideration, so if he tries to say otherwise, no he didn't goodbye felony. And, yeah, fandom has been demonizing the Jedi with this, but there's nothing some people in the fandom won't use to demonize the Jedi with, so I'm not going to live my life anymore by what bad faith actors have to say, and instead focus on what's in the show. Where, in the show itself, Ahsoka is a child put into a war that the Jedi never wanted for her, but it was literally fight or die. Lucas even says that that's the quandary the Jedi are put into, that it goes against their morals to get into a war, but it was either compromise on that or everyone dies. When Ahsoka asks, "What if I wanna stop fighting?" the answer is, "Then you'll die." I saw that as a straight line from what Lucas said was the point of putting the Jedi into the war, that it's a shitty position for them to be in, it's against their principles, it's what led to their deaths, but it was that or everyone dies. What kind of choice is that? So, that's the context of Ahsoka being 14 here (as well as we have to remember that Star Wars is a story for children and having younger protagonists is to give their audience a character to latch onto, not everything is a "child soldier" just because a young kid is fighting, GENRE TROPES EXISTS OUTSIDE OF THE NARRATIVE), it's not "the Jedi didn't care about their children", it was "the Jedi were desperately trying to save lives and they weren't perfect about it because NOBODY CAN BE PERFECT and we shouldn't try to make people be perfect because that only leads to disaster, but it still hurt to watch". Ultimately, the point of the episode was that Ahsoka chose to keep fighting, chose to keep fighting to live, chose to accept Anakin's words about how death and destruction were part of her, but she was more than that, too. The show specifically says she's more than that through Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Qui-Gon. The show says that she's more than just a soldier through having everything of all those Jedi in her. For me, that's pretty Jedi-positive, to have Ahsoka come to her choice to live by having her Master say, yeah, Vader's part of us, but so are the rest of the Jedi, and that's what allows her to rise above everything she's been struggling with. Ahsoka was a soldier as a child, but her entire culture is part of her, and her entire culture was more than just soldiers, she was a Jedi, she had thousands of years of Jedi putting all of themselves into her, she has their philosophies, their art, their rites, their customs, their words, their history, their compassion, she literally has their thousand-year-old Padawan training droid with her. The whole point is that the Jedi were forced to be soldiers and that hurt like hell, it created a terrible scar that they'll always carry with them and their legacy, but that ultimately the Jedi Order is more than that one war. Anakin and Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon and Dooku and Yoda are more than that. And Ahsoka is more than that, too, because she is all of them and more, just as any Padawan she may take will be all of them and more, too.

And that's so Jedi, that's why teaching is so foundational to who they are (and I love that that's why Ahsoka gets so hurt by Anakin's joke about how teaching isn't all it's cracked up to be, it feels like a dig at her specifically, but it's also part of the theme of how over and over and over we see how much Jedi LOVE teaching as a fundamental of their entire culture), that you pass on what you've learned, that every Jedi who comes after you is everything you can give them and then more.

I love that so much!! And fandom acting in bad faith about it isn't going to take it away from me!! 😂

[drdemonprince]

The idea that predators would engage with that kind of post in good faith in the first place too. If you’re trying to prey on minors online you would want to get on a safe space list, and the person making the list just puts anyone who reblogs. Worst case is it would do the opposite of filtering out bad actors, like that comic of “is *anyone* here a sheep?”

I was active on mogai/ ace discourse tumblr back in the day god help me and that kind of post was very common especially among minors

good god it's so sad. i feel really bad for kids who grew up on thinking safety could be attained through this kind of shit. this is all the bias of nostalgia and familiarity but im glad i grew up in the era of not trusting anyone online, lying about your identity, and coming across videos of dead bodies on rotten dot com. there were no illusions about it, and human beings, being anything but ALL that they are, you know?

[genericpuff]

Not sure how much good this'll properly do, but turns out Stephanie K. Smith (the LO showrunner) did a Q&A with Girl Wonder Podcast in January. Curious what your thoughts on it given everything that's happened with the comic's conclusion :p

I honestly don't remember if I did touch on that here, but I do remember listening to it when it was first up on Girl Wonder's Patreon and man... they really have no new information to give, the whole thing was just a lot of chit-chat about personal experiences and, of course, more promises that the show is "definitely happening" despite having absolutely nothing to show for it.

Apparently (?) the Q&A that's happening tonight in the official LO Discord will come with new information about the show, but I'm really not holding my breath at this point. Again, at best, even if we're all wrong and assuming the worst that the show isn't happening, they're doing an AWFUL job at keeping people hyped for it. Like you're telling me that Rachel and the TV production team have had ALL these opportunities to talk about the show and give us new information - at NYCC, SDCC, the interview between the showrunner and Girl Wonder, the interview clips that have been released over the last week on IG, etc. - and haven't taken advantage of those opportunities... but a heavily-moderated Discord Q&A is gonna finally drop the details that people have been waiting for for five years?

I mean shit, speaking of assuming the worst, who wants to bet she's doing it in a Discord Q&A because she knows she either has bad news or she's NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT SHE'S GONNA SAY so she's doing it in the Discord to keep it more on the "down low"? Assuming she even talks about the show at all? People are definitely gonna be asking about it, even her own fans are losing hope in it at this point and that's not good.

That's my bad faith assumption. My good faith assumption is just that they're doing a really awful job at hyping people up. I don't understand why Rachel keeps saying she's "not allowed to say anything", that makes no sense from a PR standpoint. Even Marvel used the PR strat of using actors like Tom Holland to "accidentally" reveal hints and 'spoilers' for their upcoming films because it gets people talking. "I'm not allowed to say anything" this late in the game, to me, just reads as "We have nothing to show for the last 5 years but we don't want people to panic / leave."

But who knows, maybe the Discord Q&A will turn out to be some kind of actual productive reveal of the show? Again, not holding my breath, but at this point it would be a real game changer to have the show get revealed for real that would even make me shut the fuck up LOL