#but I feel like the mustache is only there for a narrative reason

[makorragal-312]

Everybody is laughing and fawning over Eddie's mustache now.

But once the season airs and it turns out that mustache serves as a way for Eddie to have some semblance of control over his life since he wasn't able to stop Chris from leaving with his parents and an overall defense mechanism to take his mind off of Chris' absence and everything else going on and it only sticks around until he realizes he's gay, we're gonna be singing a completely different tune.

Bonus points if he doesn't think about shaving it until Buck tells him that he dumped Tommy.

[hero-israel]

This is a way I know a lot of these people have no stake in this. They're not afraid, or even really angry, they're self righteous. They revel in getting to say "Wow the Jews are the new Nazis," because it makes a compelling narrative to them. It's ironic, and makes them feel intelligent and astute, and like they've contributed at all to helping Palestinians. It also gives a lot of people permission to more openly hate Jews because "they brought this on themselves," or "they clearly can't hold onto that victim card anymore," and that's what they were waiting for oh so impatiently.

And it's why they were so mad that Israel was actually getting sympathy from a majority of people for once. They enjoy watching Israel slowly erode its goodwill so they can spread their message and recruit more haters. Because this narrative is for some fucking reason so interesting to them. The Jews are "falling from grace," because they think suffering = righteousness and now the Palestinians are suffering because of Jews so clearly antisemitism is over and Israel has taken up the mantel of the Nazis because there is always 1 singular bad genocidal regime and it always looks and acts the same and has the same mustache twirling motivation and explanation but goes by different names and no more nuance or understanding of history/politics is required... and if the Jews suffer too no they didn't and also the bitch deserved it.

And if your major emotional reaction to an event is vindicated self righteousness are you actually the victim in any way? Is that how victims behave? Maybe, maybe not, but damn are these people annoying and not productive toward anything!

They can only recognize Jews as symbols of meaningful death. Fighting to stay alive, and maybe even killing the other guy, deprives them of a moral reading and they feel cheated by it. Highly educated experts and political leaders will admit in public this is how they see Jews, and they see nothing mean-spirited about it at all.

The fury over any sign of sympathy for Israel - there's something to that too, something of the voice that Richard Landes wrote: "The Jews have been asking for it, and at last we can tell them what we really think." All those marchers on OCTOBER 8, all those pro-paraglider chuds and rape apologists, the BLM group coming out and admitting that they always knew Rasmea Odeh had been guilty and they liked her precisely for that... They were out and shouting and chanting right after the earliest news of the massacre, before Israel had even done anything. They were voting for death and atrocities - and trying to shout down anyone who could say that maybe it was bad.

[numericalbridge]

i like how Raine didn't even try to smile in front of the Emperor (or cover their mouth like some other CHs):

and tbh i think this scene is meant to be taken more 'symbolically' as a hint to the audience that there is something different with the Bard Coven Head's reaction, rather than what was exactly happening in-universe. But if they were indeed just facing the Emperor frowning i feel like it would be something Belos would notice - and it could have been something to add to the developing conflict (in the narrative sense, not, like, a direct fight) between them if only there was ever an actual interaction between the two.

And it would definitely explain why Darius would consider them a bad actor if they did not even try to hide their lack of enthusiasm - although i do think their bickering over Raine's acting ability is taken way too seriously by the fandom when they were just bantering. And i can kinda see a possibility where Raine's acting in s2b had improved after they got some pointers from Darius. (Darius also worded it like he was the reason Raine wasn't locked up even though at the end Kikimora was the one who had captured them - and i wonder whether this was just an insignificant phrasing or Raine was meant to be locked down after the ER, and Darius suggested the plan with the memory loss spell, knowing Raine would be able to counter the spell). Edit: I also like to headcanon that both Darius' and Raine's acting was lacking in different directions - Darius' villainous role was limiting what he could do and who would trust him, while Raine was just way too obvious. So they needed to combine their braincells together and give each other some tips.

Conclusion: what Raine really needed was to grow/to put on a fake mustache or beard to hide the lower part of their face /j

[sarucane]

OFMD Spiral Narrative Analysis 50: Beards and Unconditional Love

Intro: What I love most about how season 2 builds on season 1 of OFMD is the spiral narrative structure. Ground is repeatedly and explicitly re-trod from season 1 to season 2, but in season 2 everything goes deeper than season 1. Meanings are shuffled, emotions are stronger and truer, and transformation is showcased above everything. The first season plucks certain notes, then the second season plucks the same ones--but louder, and then it weaves them together to create a symphony.

---

In season 1, Ed's beard is a visible determinant of his identity--he's literally named Blackbeard after all. But as soon as we see even part of Ed's face, the show also immediately signals that Ed's identity as Blackbeard doesn't line up with his identity as a whole: his beard isn't black.

Only the mustache is black. Ed's literally outgrown being Blackbeard, and his internal tensions around his sense of self are literally right there on his face.

The beard does the same thing the identity does: it shields Ed, protects him behind a persona just like the beard keeps his face warm. It hides his emotions, dampens his facial expressions so he's harder to read. And the beard is also a trap, something he's stuck with at all times, just like his Blackbeard persona.

And then it's just gone.

And Ed is so disconnected from that loss, just like he's been increasingly disconnected from the Blackbeard persona, that he doesn't even register why Stede is surprised to see his normal face.

And the shift in vulnerability is immediate, and striking. And Ed welcomes it, because as he says "that was over years ago." He's past that persona, past the part of his life when he wanted to project power and hide his face. At least, he is right now.

For Stede, this is a startling and not entirely welcome development for two reasons:

It unexpectedly shifts and intensifies his relationship with Ed. Ed and Stede don't actually talk about their feelings until the beard is off. This is a big deal emotionally, and Stede's already drowning in emotional turmoil.

Because he thinks it's bad. He thinks Ed has lost something important, no matter what Ed actually says to him.

Later on, when Chauncy is accusing him of being a monster, Stede thinks back to the moment he saw Ed beardless.

To Stede, Ed's beard disappearing is an exposure. To Ed, it's a liberation--and one he doesn't actually connect to Stede. He stays vulnerable when he returns to the Revenge. His thinking on the hilltop wasn't just about Stede, it was about himself, too.

And he doesn't want to change backwards, even if Stede's left him.

And it's worth mentioning at this stage that a beard is a time-honored euphemism for faked heterosexuality, and when Ed comes back to the Revenge he's both beardless and wandering around in a pink flowery nightdress left over from his boyfriend. Not to mention his physicality here--it's just noticeably more queer-coded than at any time before.

Ed is developing an identity that doesn't require his beard...except that he's also not shaving. He's got the stubble there from the beginning. The foreshadowing of his impending regression is right there on his face.

So when Izzy pushes, Ed falls.

But the thing about growing backwards is, you can't. Just like Ed can't will a beard onto his face when he decides to embrace the Blackbeard identity.

So, he draws a beard on. An actual black beard, a symbol of how he's trying to be more truly Blackbeard than ever before, trying to force himself into a monstrous and therefore unhurtable (and unlovable) persona.

And the "trying too hard"+"this is unhealthy" notes of this new beard are immediately obvious. He doesn't just draw a beard on, he goes and paints his whole face, like he's trying to make the "beard" consume him.

But he can't go back. This is just a surface layer, easily removed whether Ed wants it to be or not. He can't escape himself, or his pain. All it takes to remove this beard is a bit of water.

In the second season, he's still using the makeup to darken his face and beard.

But the layered meanings are deeper here, again, because he isn't shaving under the makeup to keep a perfect, fake black beard. He's growing a real beard that's mixing with the fake beard: this phase of his life--as he tries to be Blackbeard and over-corrects, hurting everyone around him--is going to stay with him.

In the first season, Ed couldn't just go back to being Blackbeard; in the second, he can't go back to just being Edward. That moment has passed, if it ever was that simple in the first place: his relationships to others and to himself are permanently different in season 2. He doesn't shave this season, and keeps a short beard the entire time.

But after all the fuss in S1E9 about Ed's beard being gone, there's one more episode where that transition is brought up again.

Mary doesn't much like Ed's loss of his beard--which makes sense, considering she's about to go back to pirating herself, and Ed losing the beard was a symbolic separation from piracy.

Ed's response, meanwhile, illuminates very clearly just how badly Stede hurt him. Ed shaved that beard off because of Stede, become vulnerable because of Stede. And he's lying about immediately regretting the decision, and Stede knows it. Ed's telling Stede that his current opinion on their relationship matches Stede's fears back when he bailed out (that he brought history's greatest pirate to ruin). That to him, the whole thing was a mistake.

Stede doesn't believe him, but it does hurt, and it does highlight the consequences of his carelessness back in season 1. Stede made Ed regret being vulnerable with Stede; he hurt Ed so badly that Ed gave up on himself.

And Stede owns this. And he deals with it, and weathers it, because he wants to make this work with Ed.

And you can't go backwards--but sometimes you can circle back. Ed's hurt over dinner sends him back emotionally to where he was right after Stede left--almost literally.

As Ed and Stede talk through it, Stede connects Ed's beard directly to the intensity of their relationship in that moment and how it made him panic.

And Ed voices the insecurities he's been building up ever since that conversation with Izzy: that his vulnerability without the beard was somehow wrong, that Stede's leaving was a rejection of that exposed self, and proved how unlovable and worthless he really is.

And Stede overrides all of that. When Stede first saw Ed without his beard, he was horrified over what it meant. He was an idiot being controlled by his own insecurities. He's grown since then, and he knows how he feels, and who he's talking to.

Stede and Ed deal with a lot of shit in this season, and find that their love requires serious work. But this here? This is a statement of unconditionality. Ed, Edward, Blackbeard, the kraken; Ed embracing one identity or balancing between several; Ed with a big bushy beard, no beard, or a short beard: Stede loves it all.

Ed doesn't really believe this when he hears it. When he leaves Stede later, he says "fishermen and pirates are nothing alike." It'll take him a while to trust what to Stede is a simple truth--after all, he doesn't love everything about himself, how could Stede? But Stede knows now that a beard is just a beard.

[avelera]

OK, let's do this one more time....

NEW THEORIES for the "Beyond the Spider-Verse" after seeing "Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse" a second time...

1 ) We're setting up a whooooole thing where Prowlers are the dark mirrors of Spider-People

2 ) Miguel's got claws, as Miles points out with surprise, because he's not a "Spider-Man" originally, he was a Prowler who saw that Spider-Man had died in another universe and took over his life and his identity. The fact that Miguel began as a villain has compounded his sense of guilt over that universe getting destroyed and his adoptive daughter being unmade: he was never supposed to be there in the first place. But he has since developed a strong sense of right and wrong based in that trauma and is sincerely trying to be a better person / save the universe.

3 ) This is going to be important because Miles G., the Miles Morales from Universe 42 who is now Prowler, is going to pull the same stunt. That's why he asks if Jefferson, Miles' dad, is still alive in the other universe. Miles G. comes from a shit universe and he feels robbed (or he will) when he learns that original Miles has all the happiness he deserved. He's going to lock up original Miles in his universe and go to take his place, just like Miguel did. This puts Miles in the further awkward position of needing to parrot what Miguel said about how disruptive Miles G. going to his universe and disrupting his life would be.

4 ) There are numerous clues pointing towards this "You become Spider-Man or you live long enough to see yourself become the Prowler" dichotomy where there's more than one Spider-Man who was once Prowler. Hobie Brown is canonically a Prowler, originally, who impersonated Spider-Man. So hidden in Spider-Punk's name is this set up for the dark and the light side of Spider-Man being Prowler. But also hidden Hobie Brown's character is the fact that you don't have to stay Prowler. With a little dose of anarchy and bucking the system, the original thesis of Spider-Verse is reasserted: anyone can wear the mask. Even Prowler. Even a villain.

5 ) Miguel is not actually entirely wrong. We are going to tragically learn that for all his villainy at the end of ATSV, he's still an antagonist, not a villain. On the re-watch it really stuck out to me how much he's not a mustache-twirling villain. He's not being a jerk for the sake of it. He's traumatized and he is, genuinely, trying to help others and save other universes.

Most interestingly of all the narrative has not proved him wrong yet. For all Miles' optimism about altering the canon, he's not been proven right yet that disaster can be prevented. We didn't see Pavitr Prabhakar's Mumbattan get rescued! We don't know if Miles was right yet! Gwen's dad might be saved because he resigned the badge, but just rescuing them might not be enough. Miguel might still be proven right or, more likely, something more complex needs to happen to alter the canon without risking disaster.

6 ) Part of the lesson Miguel is going to learn is just because he was once Prowler, doesn't mean he was damned by the narrative for taking Spider-Man's place. He can still wear the mask. Anyone can wear the mask. IMO, he will be redeemed along these lines but we are going to learn about his guilt and sense of being a Prowler who doesn't belong among Spider-People and how he's overcompensating to overcome that.

One reason being that if he's some other villain, like Venom, and his intentions were to destroy the Spider-People of the multiverse, which I originally suspected, it means every single Spider-Person got duped, which is hard to believe when they're all heroes. IMO, the only way to trick them all from a narrative morality standpoint, is if Miguel is sincere and really is a Spider-Man trying to make the world a better place. Then the other Spider-People's weakness isn't being stupid, it's that they gave in to the sense of being doomed by the narrative, of despair, that they couldn't try to save the lives and lessen the tragedy of their multi-verse counterparts.

TL;DR - Next film we're getting Miles G. trying to steal Miles's life, while Miles is also trying to save his dad's life and stop the Spot. We're going to learn all about how over and over, it's Prowler vs. Spider-Man/Person, how Spider-Man can become Prowler, how Prowler can become Spider-Man, how you're not doomed to be a hero or a villain, that anyone can be Spider-Man, and indeed, we're gonna get some redemptions. Miles G. is almost certainly going to become Spider-Man in his universe by the end. Miguel is going to possibly get his family back and learn he can be Spider-Man without guilt. We're gonna learn how to save the world, save Uncle Ben, and not disrupt the canon. We're going to learn that the Spider-People are stronger together and that the only way to be doomed by the narrative is to give in to despair.

Ok, I think that's all I got for now!

Edit: OH, PS!

I'm not convinced that Miles G. is actually a bad guy. A lot of his scoffing at Miles and a lot of Uncle Aaron's scoffing at Miles is very ominous but it could also be them laughing because Miles is telling them they don't have to be bad guys.

But for all we know, Prowler and Uncle Aaron might be the only ones protecting New York from the bad guys! They might be angry at Miles for insinuating that they're bad guys when in truth they're busting their asses trying to save the world.

That still doesn't mean that Miles G. is going to like Miles. He might be pissed off at him, actually, for robbing him of the super powers he was supposed to have that would make his life easier. He might still want to steal Miles's life! But on the re-watch I a much, much less convinced that Miles G is actually a bad guy and not that we're supposed to think he is because we're seeing the scene from Miles's point of view, and he's scared and alone and seeing enemies everywhere. Miles G. might actually be a hero in his universe and it's a bait-and-switch.

[docholligay]

House in Fata Morgana: Door 6.75

I have never reviewed a visual novel before, but iscahwynn made me a very generous offer and a long line of patience, knowing that we are trying something very new. To that end: Please don’t spoil me for the game at all! If you are reading this, I have only gotten through the part written above, and I don’t want to be corrected, even if I’m wrong, even if I’ve missed something, i don’t want to have anything confirmed or denied, and I don’t need any trigger warnings or extraneous explanation. Iscah would like my pure, naive experience of the game. Thank you!

Okay so I absolutely did not make it to the next door, which is frustrating for me from a scheduling standpoint, but makes sense narratively, I should have trusted that the door situation was streamlined and that’s on me. 

So, let’s first get aside all of the notes about Morgana’s life. It much the way it frustrated me with Giselle, it frustrates me that none of Morgana’s problems can be a result of her own actions, or feelings, or whatever. I feel really fucking bad for her, but in the sort of way you do a kicked dog, not a human being you feel empathy with. She acts like a fucking saint, it is very difficult to think of that sort of person as being a fully realized human. BUT, I do love that we meet with Mell and Yukimasa and Jacopo, though of course owing to the shortness of the story but, they’re all very mustache-twirling and not nearly as interesting and layered as I found their stories within their own doors. But I think that’s fair. 

Couple standout things here for me: I am not so sure that she doesn’t have some sort of power, but I also think the argument she doesn’t is completely legitimate, and I love that! I love not really knowing, certainly not every person who ever had a torturous life and horrible death gerts to wreak fucking havoc, i’m just saying. But I love that it could just be sheer faith, in both love and hate. 

The way that she cuts herself, and people love her and praise her for it, and so she comes to cherish her hurts and cuts. Loved this as an example of the ways that, in how we online socially reward sadness and brokenness with attention, contribute to this idea of cherishing our hurts. This isn’t me saying that we should never share anything that sucks online, but I think all of us are pretty aware of how responses to a creative, or happy post can be versus a post about something bad can be, and I think that can be reinforcing, and you start to see those as immutable parts of you. Anyway, send hatemail, it’s fine. 

BUT WHAT WE’RE REALLY HERE FOR. Okay so I called Michel being Michelle but I have to confess, “Michel is a trans man” (Kinda????????? I guess???????? I don’t fucking know, he says his body is male now and that was not strictly speaking possible in 1099, so unless there was magic involved or he’s being metaphorical or something here, I have no idea what’s going on) is NOT where I expected the game to go and I am sucking my TEETH with nervousness about how they’ll handle this. All of my reticence for Michel and Michelle being the same person comes out of my fear that they will handle the gender thing so so so badly, and I still absolutely feel that way. 

I am pleased, I guess, in a narrative sense, that they have Giselle respond in a reasonable and common way for a woman of her time, and honestly, all the times she’s lived in. I expected full on “Bodies don’t matter to me <3” which does annoy me in “historical” fiction. Of course it happened, but it was not all that commonplace, and it’s just something that grates me. So even if she comes around, and I suspect she will, I’m glad we got to avoid magical cool girl from 1099 Giselle. She had a reaction that feels bad and is historically plausible as shit. We love that! Gives her room to move and makes everything feel less fake. 

Also, did Michel seriously think he was never going to have to confront this KID, COME ON. For someone who has built up a shield of never trusting anyone around yourself you sure are trusting that Giselle is going to this thing that she could not reasonably have seen coming REAL FUCKIN WELL. It’s such a part of the contradiction of Michel. He’s closed off, he’s vulnerable. He’s cruel, he’s tender. He’s intelligent, he’s A FUCKING MORON. I love him! I am going to punch him in the fucking face! 

ONTO DOOR 7 FOR REAL I GUESS

[nyaagolor]

I just finished Adastra and I am about to make that everyone's problem

Tldr: it slams and (if you are over 18) you should play it

Disclaimer: Adastra is an 18+ VN. There will be no nsfw content in this post but like. If ur a minor get outta here

This isn't a liveblog, since I already finished the game, but it's a pretty similarly scattered collection of my thoughts while playing so there's no real narrative cohesion to this post. If u were looking for a detailed review just watch the video by Boringkeith

I think the biggest thing about the game to me is how insane the plot gets at Act 2. Act 1, while admittedly kind of dull, does a great job at setting up characterization and tension over time, introducing motivations and worldbuilding in a really natural way. The way the author handles the delivery of information is just. Fucking fantastic if I'm being honest, and the conversations-- ESPECIALLY arguments-- just feel so natural. There's a great tension and release that the game has, and it's a really gripping story. I think writers like this shine in this medium because God. GOD. the dialogue is good. Then Act 2 happens and shit hits the fan and does not STOP hitting the fan until the poor thing is bowled over and unplugged from the wall. Genuinely unhinged, the pacing is breakneck and it is GOOD

The protagonist actually being their own person was also fantastic, and honestly one of the only ways I can see this story going. Despite inevitably being a romance VN with intertwined political drama, I never really felt myself occupying the protagonist (Marco)'s role too much, and this is for the better. Ultimately, Amicus (the love interest) is perfect for Marco, but not for me. Neferu is hotter anyway. But Marco? Amicus??? Those two dumbasses are made for each other. Plus, the actual codified personality of the protagonist allowed for a great deal of information to be presented and withheld in ways that wouldn't be allowed by a blank slate protagonist. The dynamics wouldn't have worked as well either, and I think the story is all the more engaging for it. I, personally, would have been more lenient on Alexios but Marco? He wants that twink OBLITERATED

Cassius is the funniest character in this game I think. He just reeks of like. Loser redpilled 17 year old projecting all his insecurities into the incel takes imaginable. I'm going to wring him out like a wet paper towel. Yes he's a borderline space fascist but I can fix him I swear. When he hotboxes and trips so hard he sees God, only to have God call him a cringefail loser and he starts crying about it? Yeah that's babygirl material. Pathetic beast

It is very funny to me that the game has to spend 80% of its runtime trying to convince you that Amicus would make a good emperor and explicitly has rules in place to say that females can't rule because you KNOW within 15 seconds of her opening her mouth that Virginia is the un-debatable best choice. The fact that Amicus doesn't immediately give up his throne for her is his biggest flaw

Cato is kinda one note but he is supposed to represent heternormativity and the pitfalls of bigotry in this giant scifi queer allegory so he gets a pass. I'll admit I found him to be a lil too mustache twirling snarky towards the climax, but eh. Also I'm dead convinced that the parents meddled with him. He started freaking out when his visor got taken off and acted more erratically now that he lost his parental tech (hm) and also him crashing the parents' ship was totally out of line with his motives even as mentioned by other characters. The parents def manipulated him I can feel it

The Parents are sus as fuck I will stand by this. The game really makes you want to choose the option of trusting them (and I did bc I just want Marco and Amicus to be happy) but like. Fuck man. They mad shifty I don't trust like that they got some other shit going on. BoringKeith says more than I ever could about it just watch his video

For personal reasons I am furious about them not showing the ram civilization. We know about four of the civilizations (greek cats, roman wolves, egyptian jackals, and indian tigers) but like. What about the rest? Based on the little we've gotten it looks like the bears are norse and there are rams but I don't even remember the other two. What are they I want to see them

My only mark against this game is that both of the disabled characters are evil. I don't think there are any non-villainous disabled people which kinda blows. I heard Echo is better about it which is good? but even still it left a sour taste in my mouth

The art? is really good??????? I love the expressions and the way the CGs look especially. Fucking fantastic

The themes of homophobia in this game are ROUGH and really really raw. Again not gonna talk about it much here watch the boringkeith video but Woof. This game is so good I highly recommend

Go play Adastra

[stillness-in-green]

Stillness is wildly impressionable when she sees memes, news at 11.

Read @robotlesbianjavert's post she wrote in reply to me asking her about her favorite Gay Little Henchmen and immediately had to do my own. Added some runners-up also. Sorry for the nonsense, all.

#5: Lieutenant, The Legend of Korra—

Surely in my ranks of "characters I like most wildly out of proportion to their importance in the show," but that's what a good mustache and an emotive delivery on a last line will do for you.  It probably doesn't hurt that, despite the Lieutenant never even getting a proper name, that one last scene gives him more chemistry with Amon than Korra had with Mako the entire season.

Anyway, I liked him in the show and definitely went out hunting for fic/art for the pairing based just on that, but I do have to give a shout-out to @scumtrout for her fic The City Will Follow You for keeping the fire burning for this poor sad asshole.  Give it a read if you want, among other things, the Lieutenant being sad and fucked up and incredibly dangerous as he processes how Amon used him and the rest of the Equalists.

#4: Shirato Jin, Persona 3—

The littlest of the little henchmen on this list for reasons of being a teenager and a computer nerd (but still a dangerous criminal because I know what I'm about).  Jin is like if Skeptic were a decade younger, staving off a terminal disease with illegal drugs, and was a little less goth and a little more rave.  Also, packing a lot more grenades.

He's got a good balance with his cult leader of choice wherein Takaya is the one prone to big, dramatic actions to emphasize his rhetorical points, while Jin has to be like, "Hey, I agree with all your rhetorical points, but I also want us both to survive long enough to savor you being right about everything, so let's exercise the better part of valor here."  In that way, they're on the more equitable end of the power dynamic spectrum pairs like these run.

Strega in general got handed an incredibly raw deal, both in-universe and in terms of the broader narrative, and boy oh boy are they ever a good predictor for how hard I fell for the League of Villains.

#3: Tadashi Kikuchi, Sk8 the Infinity—

Soft-spoken manservant designed to look like a background character compared to the rest of the cast, but efficient and skilled in the wildly different spheres of Illegal Underground Skateboarding Park Management and Upstart Japanese Politician Personal Assistance.  Tadashi is kind of terrifying when you really stop to think about him, not just for how scary competent he is, but for being, in his own way, just as unhinged as his boss, but ten times more oblivious to that fact.

He's a henchman willing to act out for what he thinks are his boss's best interests, and it is extremely hilarious how much of Sk8's overarching plot is caused directly or indirectly by Snake and Adam's relationship drama. Incidentally, Tadashi is a rare case of a Gay Little Henchman whose feelings are requited!  That mostly serves to make things more complicated, however, because the feelings in question are, "I could never, ever leave him, but I think he's really fucking me up."

#2: Nemoto Shin, My Hero Academia—

Of all the candidates BNHA offers for this—not a small number—I have to give it to Nemoto for scoring the best across all categories.  Transparently only there because he fell for Overhaul like a wing snapped off an airplane.  Absolutely zero other motivations.  Knows about Overhaul's evil plans and horrendous crimes, and 100% does not care.  Not only is he a henchman, he denigrates other henchmen.  You just know that if he could do all the things his boss needs done on his own, he'd run the rest of the underlings out ASAP.  Absolute top tier The #1 Henchman Here Will Be Me energy.

#1: Tomo, Fushigi Yuugi—

Tadashi is nearly a match for him in terms of, "Yes, it's canon," goes further in terms of not being a predatory stereotype, and is doing better in the reciprocal affections category, too.  Still, all that said, Tomo remains my 90s shoujo problematic fave.

He's got a theatrical flair that he gets by virtue of a theatrical background; he's striking in his costume and, for my tastes, the most beautiful man in the series out of it.  While the visual quality of the anime runs towards the dubious during his stretch of episodes, he has a purring, silken voice that made Tobita Nobuo my favorite voice actor for years afterward.  Then there's the ruthless pragmatism that echoes Nakago's while also going further, because being the boss means you get to set your own hard limits, whereas being in love with the boss means you can go as far as you want while telling yourself it's all for him.

Tomo, like Ashitare and Miboshi, deserved a better and more nuanced portrayal—no shade to Watase Yuu, who was a lot younger when they wrote the series, but FY was the series I learned to love characters out of spite—but I will go on liking them anyhow, because authorial write-offs make me ornery like that.

Runners-Up in no particular order—

Spinner, My Hero Academia: Every bit as homoerotically obsessed with his boss as Nemoto (or any of the other fantastic candidates the series has on offer), but the League/Spinaraki's more equitable relationship means Nemoto's "henchman" vibes are stronger.

Isurugi Camice, Gundam Iron-Blooded Orphans: I love him for the hints of wounded stoicism, which are always catnip to me, but he hides his feelings too well and too long to be an ideal fit for the topic.

Ein Dalton, Gundam Iron-Blooded Orphans: Probably does a better impression of being homoerotically obsessed with  Lieutenant Crank than Gaelio, but definitely more Gaelio's henchman than Crank's, so he loses out for splitting focus.

Disqualified For Reasons But I Can't Not Mention Them—

Ivan, Giant Robo: Astounding henchman vibes, and I like him and Alberto quite a lot, but he's not anywhere near obsessed enough with Alberto to fit the bill.  Ivan's maladjustedness lies in other areas.

Listor, Hugtto PreCure: JESUS CHRIST, THIS HAMSTER.  The wounded stoicism fells me again, and I 100% believe that he and his boss have had sex at least once (LOOK, you don't set up all the repeating patterns Hugtto did with George Kurai and then lead an episode framing him and Listor through gauzy pink bedcurtains if you don't know good and well what you're implying).  Still, while I love that awful pairing to death, I don't think Listor is "homoerotically obsessed" so much as he is "unbelievably lonely and in no position to turn George down."  If this were my list of Top 5 Wounded Stoics, though, you'd better believe he'd be right at the top.

Uryuu Ryuunosuke, Fate/Zero:  His sexual preoccupations are less about his boss than the perverse body horror he and said boss enact on their victims.  Which is a shame, because he would rank higher than anyone on this list if "little henchman" were the only criteria.  That kid is thrilled—just ecstatic—to be living the life he's living.

Innouva, Magic Knight Rayearth:  Given the huge magic wolf form, his vibe is less "pining for his boss" and more "loyal hound will fuck you up."  Bitchy gay attitude is fully intact, however.

Lord El-Melloi II: I probably can't count him because I don't actually ship him with Rider, but the evidence of "forever single because he's dedicated his life to living up to his king's final order" speaks for itself.  An incredible retainer-who-outlived-his-lord character whose devotion makes me weepy every goddamn time.

[gothprentiss]

year in whodunits:

glass onion - good and fun, though i don't think it fully hits the mark in its more ambitious innovations on storytelling; but it's compelling throughout, and has a vibrant and stylized cast and tone, which meant narrative gripes weren't dealbreakers.

see how they run - definitely a misfire, fundamentally quite toothless in its attempt to critique and then rebut its critique of the genre. it severely underutilizes all of its central cast except saoirse ronan, who is the atlas upon whose back the whole of this movie's sky is carried. the choice to cast known and noted racist agatha christie's husband, a white archaeologist of the near east, as a black man (lucian msamati) is one which i think would merit some sort of serious critique in any movie with a more serious ethical and political spine; as it stands, it's just another example of the movie presenting itself as a riff and satire on the whodunit genre but failing to actually do more than pastiche (the adrien brody-heavy opening made the movie immediately feel like an attempt to channel wes anderson doing knives out, but without the wit or meaningfulness or explicit political angle). it wasn't terrible but it made me sad.

death on the nile - a pox upon kenneth branagh and all he holds dear. ptui! ptui! it is a fundamentally terrible movie, truly breathtaking in its capacity to be terrible: from the color grading to the adaptation choices to the graphics to the acting to the editing to the storyline to the scoring to the framing to the costuming, it is bad all the way down. the badness is enervating. there are scenes where a character's tan will, from shot to shot, vary from the ashy pallor of death to a ruddy, healthy, tan to something off the jersey shore. they give poirot trauma!! he's grimdark! that gay little frog! and a giant scar which is clearly absent from his face in all but two parts of the movie-- and also a thick scar which transects his upper lip, which should make it impossible for him to actually grow a mustache to cover it. yet he does. there's something quite grotesque about watching gal gadot struggle to deliver believable emotions (she delivers In Love the way [dated lacroix flavor joke]) in scenes with armie hammer, who is one of two actors (the other being sophie okonedo) who seems to realize that what a mystery like this calls for is elaborately stylized character choices, and hams it up accordingly. most of the shots of egypt look like they were taken from a video game. there are some very inconsistent attempts to shoot and frame scenes in artful ways. the scene where louise discovers the body shoots past neat and efficient storytelling, past suspense-building, past even playful riffing on suspense-building, and straight into miserable to watch due to the sheer number of pointless shots of the nile stuffed into it. they also make the most cowardly, imo, gay character choice, insofar as they default to a previously established dynamic external to the show (french & saunders), and spend zero time establishing any real emotional depth or connection. bette davis and maggie smith's versions of these characters from the 1978 version feel more meaningfully queer in their dynamics. my gay ass will not be pandered to in such a shallow and thoughtless way. its only positive is that it does not make rosalie otterborne forgive poirot; but it does not do this with any consistency or deftness, because it makes her, at a moment when she has lost it all and has the most reason to hate poirot, deliver nevertheless a thoughtful meditation on his nature as a detective. it's stupid. it's unfair to her. i AM rating this one: a blood feud with kenneth branagh / 10

[tanadrin]

utilitarian thought experiments in narrative have this problem in general, which is that clean and necessary tradeoffs don’t actually exist in our world or any world that’s sufficiently interesting to tell a story in, and people are always arguing that their reprehensible action is an unavoidable means that justifies a very good end, on much less than the 100% certainty some tradeoffs might demand. less “push a fat man in front of a trolley to stop it” than “our policy experts argue that if we continue to kill a couple hundred fat men a year, pedestrian deaths due to trolley mishaps may decrease by up to 15%, but a significant minority of experts disagree and claim our experts are just shills working for the trolley companies to explain why they don’t need to implement safety standards on their inexplicably deadly trolley cars.” even trivial thought experiments like this are hard to translate into convincing narrative, because it’s hard to tell a story about these tradeoffs that really make you feel like there’s no other option.

though at one remove this can be turned into stories are that aren’t directly about the tradeoffs, but about how and why people convince themselves they’re making the right tradeoffs, which is what “A Taste of Armageddon” does, funnily enough (though I think it should have explored this theme more, rather than just alluding to it a couple times). Usually ends-justify-the-means villains fall flat, bc the means and ends are both stupid and often only tenuously connected, but one reason “A Taste of Armageddon” works is that the villain is institutional inertia and a society conditioned to believe in the necessity of war, not a single mustache-twirling villain.

[bmblboop]

I gotta say, it feels like odalia’s defeat was more satisfying then Jacques, even tho Odalia did the thing I didn’t want Jacques to do in the beginning by working for the big destroy the world bad guy

Maybe because we got to see her entire family stand up,to her together? Maybe because we know amity 100% tried to punch her in the face? Or maybe it’s because they didn’t show a worker with a blight industries brand on the fuckin face

Then again maybe it’s just personal preference, I honestly can’t pin down a specific reason, hopefully we do get to see odalia actually get punched in the face lol

Your opinion is your own man, but don't think I don't see what you are doing.  Using TOH as a prop to complain about RWBY is still complaining about RWBY. I think the matter of ‘satisfactory’ comes down to the pacing of these two shows, which couldn’t be more night and day.

I, for one, really enjoyed the Ace-Attorney aspect to taking down Jacques - he's too crafty to get caught red handed, so we gotta collect evidence from a few too many coincidences to be reasonable, and find that one last piece from an unlikely source to turn it all around in the 11th hour. That kind of mystery wouldn't work in the Blight's case, since they were never hiding their allegiance to the emperor, so I don't think it's quite fair to compare them.

Odalia's defeat is satisfying because the show hammered in how little she cares about her children's desires and works to sabotage them, where Jacques is more cold and detached. Both have that love-to-hate energy but Odalia really earns her defeat in the episode she is brought down by breaking the Tamagatchi and insulting Amity’s girlfriend - really driving the hammer home how awful she is. The full extent of Jacques’ crimes are not on such a display in the same episode where he is defeated, which might be why it feels hollow to you. Of course his other crimes matter, but the crime that is most essential in that moment is the one they are going to focus on.*

TOH has the “benefit” of cramming this narrative beat into one episode (the resolution of Odalia’s abuse coming from Alador standing up for his kids) where RWBY stretched this similar arc over two episodes (Mama Schnee giving Weiss the conclusive evidence that Weiss presents at the start of the next episode).

There is also something to be said about how Odalia would be able to hold her own in a fight but Jacques wouldn't, so narratively, it makes more sense for an argument to escalate into a fight compared to Jacques who would just... die... if his daughter took a swing at him.

-

* - If RWBY wanted to hammer in Jacques’ dickishness in the same capacity - it would have his reaction to the heat being off in Mantle as uninterested or malicious. The way Odalia’s reaction to the draining spell was ‘I mean, I’M gonna benefit from it so why fight it?’ This, however, would make his character a little more cartoon-mustache-twirling evil and less IRL-millionaire-with-an-ego evil - and the tone for RWBY tends to lean toward the latter. The tone and pacing of the two shows, despite their similarities, are significant.

-

Onto your next ask to pair with your ‘hope Odalia gets punched lol’ comment:

“I wonder of [Odalia] will get incinerated like Jacques, I’m not sure this kids show’ll go there tho lol”

I think Odalia vanishing into the dust cloud is a fine enough conclusion, we know she has a Coven sigil so it’s possible she makes an appearance when the Draining Spell is conjured, but she has no more control over her family and the only foreseeable punishment in her future is some divorce papers.

The show has the capacity, but I think wishing for the brutal death of a parental figure, even an abusive one, is a step too far. You really seem to have a fixation on ‘getting what you deserve’ involving relentless violence.

[masterthespianduchovny]

I don’t know what Ted Lasso has planned for Ted/Rebecca and Rebecca/Sam, but I trust them.

Just like people predicted Sam/Rebecca (whatever that means at this point because all we know is that they’re anonymously talking online) because of the clues in season 1, clues are also being set up for Rebecca/Ted in season 2.

Ted Lasso is a show filled with smart and mindful writers. And their casting was very intentional as well.

And this has to be noted because of how this current Rebecca/Sam plot line is being handled. Whether or not the viewer is picking up romantic vibes from Ted and Rebecca, neither of them are consciously aware of their feelings if they have any.

When we first see Rebecca texting someone, the show immediately cuts to Ted who is typing and smiling something on his phone.

Many of us knew or highly suspected that this was a misdirect. It was too easy.

An episode or later, it was revealed that Sam was the guy she’d been texting.

But here’s the thing: 1. That cut wasn’t a lazy misdirect 2. Neither Ted or Rebecca are actively pining for each other 3. It wasn’t a nod to shippers.

That cut was about Rebecca’s subconscious feelings. Keep in mind that everything we see and hear including directing styles and choices are to contribute to the narrative.

Various themes, motifs, and shit have been introduced in the series that keeps popping back up. And they laid out their mission statement/thesis with rom-communism. This show constantly references or have, at least in this season, referenced rom coms outside of that particular episode. It’s not always obvious either. Sometimes they allude to it through actions or dialogue that is very similar to a famous rom com.

While texting Sam, Rebecca subconsciously hopes it’s Ted, which is a reference to you’ve got mail. That is the only way this cut makes sense.

Why would they want us to think it’s Ted or even set that up if they have no plans of doing anything with it?

And in 2x06, this happens:

(I’ll post the link in the comments for those who want to reblog the original post.)

Like, are you kidding me?!?!?

This man has a similar mustache as Ted, similar height, similar head shape, and similar hair style.

And Rebecca is fucking this man quite often. She may not realize that their is a similarity, but there is no way in hell this isn’t intentional. Why would the show cast Luca as someone who looks kinda like Ted if they didn’t want any confusion or for people to reach this conclusion?

(Edit: the mustache was photoshopped by a fan to prove a point. Lol. Which they very much proved!)

Rebecca isn’t just very aware of Ted (more so than beard who knows him the best), she actively worries over him and wants to comfort him. We see her go from not wanting to share feelings with him in season one to finding a reason to share her feelings with him to comfort him in season 2.

It would be easy to say, “well, she hasn’t told him the secret yet, so of course she doesn’t want to talk to him about her feelings.”

The show has all but said that Ted is the reason Rebecca has loosened up and feels comfortable being vulnerable and softer again. His kindness, ability to forgive, and non judgmental nature helped Rebecca rediscover her old self.

We consistently see Rebecca allow herself to be vulnerable around him in a way she isn’t around others. Sometimes freely and other times because his genuineness has her spilling her guts.

But not only that, she’s talks about him to her mom and invited him to have lunch with her mom as well. She didn’t need a buffer or anything, she just wanted him there. We constantly see her express concern over him. At lunch with her mom, during the game and her searching for him, when she calls Ted on the way home.

Rebecca is even comfortable having girl talk with Ted and painting his nails for fun.

The Christmas episode…like???

She went back to her roots of being charitable on Christmas and she shared it with Ted not just to her him out of his funk, but because he’s genuinely enjoy it as well like she did. Putting on a production and singing with Ted in the street?

Rebecca has never feel so loose, so comfortable, or so free as she does with Ted and it shows. She can be herself with her. She doesn’t have a dare in the world because Ted supports her and doesn’t judge her.

So that cut from the bantr message to Ted, and then Luca looking strikingly similar to Ted? Yeah…Rebecca wants Ted bad and doesn’t realize it AT ALL.

And not so coincidentally, we’re in the middle of not only the season, but the series as well. We’re in the dark forest. Ted is at rock bottom.

Ted/Rebecca is a slow 🔥.

But there is so much to unpack about them that I wouldn’t jump to conclusions about this recent revelation.

[geenawrites]

'Black Widow' and undermining Dramatic Intent (II)

[PART ONE]

The 'Civil War' Effect

4): Elements that could’ve made Black Widow Natasha's personal journey are reduced to quick conversational bites told to Natasha instead of experienced by Natasha and the audience first hand.

The film could've built the story around her family selling her off to the government (on some eugenics mess). It could've set the stage for the subplot regarding her mother’s search for her until she was murdered, and Natasha trying to learn about her past pre-assassin.

For all the moments where we simply see her on her own, a lot of that alone time isn't used to explore how she feels, what she's thinking, or a personal throughline. It's just a montage of her looking gloomy and wearing comfy sweatshirts.

The only time Natasha truly feels like she is the emotional center of the movie is the opening act of the film. There, she’s portrayed by Ever (Gabo) Anderson and not Scarlett Johansson.

And as a film touted-as a vehicle for Johansson, that is bad. But also underlines why Florence Pugh’s Yelena was considered the real protagonist of the movie.

Black Widow could've been about Natasha wanting to reclaim her past from the Red Room (her abductors) because she reunites with her sister and parents (her surrogate family), and needed to finally deal with the consequences of killing Antonia (her ghost).

Instead, Black Widow is really Yelena’s story and emotional journey. Yelena justifies the presence of Alexei and Melina more-so than anything in Natasha’s history. As centered as Natasha was in the prologue, it works more as a establishing point for Yelena versus something like Natasha’s lost family or working with Clint Barton in Budapest.

Yelena being tasked to save the Widows (by the elder Widow who created the mind control cure), killing Dreykov, and destroying the Red Room are immediate issues that directly impact her arc and development as a character. Natasha is largely along for the ride, bringing Yelena where she needs to be in each act.

Natasha isn't as centered in her own her film as she should be. Simply compare the structure of her story to the structure in the Captain America (x2), Ant Man (x2), Thor (x3), and Iron Man (x3) films, and how those narratives focus on Steve Rogers, Scott Lang, Thor Odinson, and Tony Stark. Those films are about their emotional journeys while maintaining a healthy supporting cast that don't overshadow them.

Black Widow in comparison feels more like Captain America: Civil War, which is more of an Avengers film than it is a Captain America story. The emotional center of Civil War is Tony Stark and Zemo. Steve and his cast are simply underpinning Stark and Zemo's arcs. It also tries to introduce a new character (Black Panther) with the exact same story beat (revenge) as Stark and Zemo, and a MCU-wide subplot (Sakovia Accords) that ultimately goes nowhere later on.

The consequences of Civil War "Avengering" a solo film are on display in Black Widow in a big way. It's introducing new characters, and trying to tackle a trilogy's worth of storylines (the Red Room, Budapest, the Widow family, Civil War-fallout).

She doesn't even get a decent postmortem send off. The post credits, wherein Yelena mourns Natasha, is turned into a comedic skit and a teaser for the Hawkeye series. It's not allowed to remain a moment of mourning between two sisters separated by literal death.

As an Executive Producer of the film, I know this was not lost on Johansson. She might be an awful person, but she doesn’t strike me as someone so unaware of her environment that she set the stage to be undermined by her co-star. No, I think, given the timing, Johansson knew this was always going to be about setting up her successor.

Wrong Time, Wrong Place

Choosing to set Black Widow after Civil War was just a poor choice on Marvel’s part. Natasha circa 2016 has more or less come-to-terms with her history as a state-sponsored assassin for both Russia and the United States. Her arc as seen throughout the Avengers and Captain America films has come full circle following the events of The Winter Soldier. Now all she has left going forward is the arc dealing with Thanos' genocide and resurrecting everyone.

There is nothing to mine in terms of personal character drama because, at this point, she has laid it all to rest. It's nothing that torments her akin to Bucky trying to square away with his past as an amnesiac assassin.

All of Natasha’s threads are focused on the break-up of the Avengers. At first, seemed like her arc was going to be about not falling back into bad habits (being mistrustful of everyone). That it was going to deal with how she felt let down by the team (after trying to be the reasonable party among everyone), but the film doesn't really commit.

After that one conversation in Budapest, "getting the Avengers back together" isn't even a focal point. We just get awkward callbacks that tell the audience that Natasha isn't on the same level as Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor.

Yelena forgiving her family is used to tack on the sudden parallel idea that Natasha has been convinced she can personally bring the Avengers together again as a surrogate family once things work with her Widow Family.

Again, even in her own film, Natasha is playing the sacrificial matriarch of a Boy’s Club (whose event films she features only as a supporting character. Something I think people are only just realizing). That says to me the MCU never valued her beyond her ties to the male Avenger cast.

”You’re such a mom!” becomes a lot less funny in that context.

If this film was immediately set after The Winter Soldier or even Age of Ultron, wherein all of her history and SHIELD’s was leaked for public record, then there might’ve been a chance for an emotionally resonant story arc.

How would a Natasha scrambling to create new covers, and new ways to protect herself, deal with the sudden public attention of the world knowing that she was a foreign assassin that bought her way into the United States and became a celebrity superhero? How would a post-Winter Soldier solo film deal with Natasha’s past in way that she didn't become overshadowed by her own supporting cast?

How would a post-Age of Ultron solo film handle her past as informed by her nightmare (which stuck closer to her history as a trained dancer in the comics) on top of the events of The Winter Soldier?

But even as a post-Civil War narrative, Black Widow should've really cared to explore how Natasha felt about having to revisit her history with the Red Room, on top of being betrayed by Alexei and Melina. Instead of giving all those emotional beats to Yelena, actually show us Natasha confronting them beyond “it wasn’t real!”

How would the story turn out if parent with the biggest hand in the facilitation of her abuse (Alexei) wasn't turned into a flat comic relief character? What if he actually got chance to really consider her grievances, show remorse for his actions, without being turned into a “ha, ha, he’s do dumb (and fat)!” punchline (after setting him up as the total opposite in the prologue)?

Melina could've been an interesting co-antagonist working with Dreykov, but the film skirts past how she is complicit in the harm that her daughters faced (Yelena especially) with a fake Heel Turn moment that only undermined Dreykov as a threat.

And that’s really the problem with Black Widow. The film, or rather Marvel Studios, doesn’t want to really tackle Natasha’s past or pain like they were willing to do with Steve Rogers in The First Avenger, and The Winter Soldier.

Maybe because that would mean approaching the story with the emotional maturity of The Bourne Identity, a PG-13 film that was plenty violent without being excessive. It was also emotionally resonate by dealing with the fact that Jason Bourne was, pre-amnesia, a US assassin that did awful shit.

Instead we get a plot about mind-control, and magic red dust that can break said mind control (that apparently requires invasive surgery of the brain).

Whedon seemed comfortable with getting close to the actual violence that was asked of Natasha (vs. done to) by the Russian government as a kid. The screenplay for Black Widow can talk past Natasha willingly doing awful things, but doesn’t want to confront that by having her or Yelena deal with an army of assassins who are walking down the same path Natasha did, fighting and killing for another government without any sort of mind control.

This is why Natasha's assassination of “Dreykov’s Daughter” (Antonia) as the thing that happened in Budapest also doesn't land. The movie doesn't want to deal with how Natasha learned to live with murdering a child to buy her freedom into America. They make it so that she didn’t kill her, actually, just gave her a bad case of pizza face. She’s not even the one that pulls the trigger, the film suggests that it was Hawkeye.

Her mustache-twirling villain of a father, who somehow survived the explosion and building collapse with zero burns or broken bones, is the one who does all the truly horrible things to his daughter (turning her into a mindless slave).

The Original Sin that Natasha is defined by is swept under the rug in the same way her history as a killer is blurred by the script. It’s akin to rewriting Xena’s history with Callisto as the killer of her family and village, and deciding, “No, Xena didn’t kill them. They all survived with minor burns! Callisto can now forgive Xena!”

Natasha's Antagonist

Dreykov is a weak antagonist/villain because the screenwriting seems determined to accredit the abuse of the Red Room entirely to him instead of making a systemic issue. What started off as a clandestine organization for the KGB throughout most of the MCU is rewritten in Black Widow as the personal playground of a thinly veiled Harvey Weinstein analogue who puppeteers his personal assassins to do bad things, thus rendering them all innocent of their wrongdoings. It makes them "perfect victims" in way.

(Johansson has gone on record saying that this film was influenced by the #MeToo Movement. Well, celebrification of it, anyway)

Dreykov doesn’t challenge Natasha, or her family. There’s never an immediate danger or stakes being driven by Dreykov. He’s not doing something they have to stop “before time runs out”, he doesn’t have anything on any of the characters that could push their actions.

He takes a backseat to the family hijinks, so the journey to finding and destroying the Red Room has no urgency (Natasha being dead already notwithstanding). As the supposed architect of their misery, he’s about as threatening as Mason (Natasha’s Black Best Friend who buys her things while in hiding).

Dreykov fails like the rest of the MCU’s villains (not named Erik Killmonger) because there's no depth to the character. There's no real loyalty to the character as a demonstration of his power or influence. Again, all his victims are blameless in their violent actions. No one with speaking lines or face time (that isn't a G.I Joe grunt) is working with him because they believe in his goals or ideology.

Complicating that matter is that the script never reveals what his goals or ideologies are besides, "I can create chaos with an army of assassins. I am so evil."

It’s wild to me that so many are rushing to defend the implementation of this sloppily written (and miscast) character because, “he works as a villain because he's a human trafficker” and “he mind controlled his own daughter.”

“He does terrible things”, or a character representing awful things that happen in the real world, isn't enough to make an effective villain. If that was all it took, then 90% the MCU’s villains wouldn’t be so forgetabble.

(He’s not real, I shouldn’t be reading posts like, “he doesn’t deserve screentime b/c he’s an awful human being! He earned his lazy death scene.” Girl, what???)

If you’re gonna tackle human/child trafficking as defined by one antagonist, then really make it part of the story. Make it something that Natasha and Yelena are actively trying to stop. Don’t montage it over a bad Nirvana cover and then shift gears into a G.I. Joe scenario in a floating fortress.

If you're gonna make Dreykov the abuser of so many women, then make it crucial to your protagonist's narrative. Don't add a silly Angry Beavers plot where his stinky musk can control a woman's bodily functions because as a weak analogue to "how men police women's bodies".

Because Natasha has no real conflict with Dreykov, confronting him in the climax goes nowhere. Dreykov is Yelena’s antagonist. It's why Yelena gets to kill him instead of Natasha, so it would've made more sense for her to confront him instead.

The film eventually establishes he's no real threat to Natasha because the writing pulled a Xanatos. The character feels like he exists only so Johansson can sass him, and make a callback to the Loki Interrogation scene (a scene that only worked because of the audience misdirection.)

Dreykov could've been an effective villain if he was anything like the Headmistress characters in the Samee-Waid Black Widow series from 2016.

The Headmistress and Anya (the new Headmistress later on) were characters with emotional connections to Natasha and the Widow children she was trying to save. They taught these girls to believe in the totalitarian philosophy of the ruling class. Natasha and the other Widows couldn't live without them until they were able to escape their influence.

The Headmistresses were women, which makes it plain that women are also perpetrators of abuse. It isn’t just something that men do, which is how this script has approached this subject entirely (Captain Marvel did the same thing as well). Abuse being exclusively a male theater of action.

Antonia's death could've been meaningful in regards to Natasha and Dreykov as characters if Dreykov cared that Antonia was murdered by a Red Room assassin. Natasha admitting that she killed his daughter and regretted it would've made a lot more impact than just having him shrug it off because he's so heartless and so evil.

Or, as other people have said, imagine if it was Antonia who was the antagonist gunning after Natasha because of what she did, not only to her, but her father as well.

It would not only render the mind-control plot pointless, it would re-center the focus on Natasha, and force the writers to do something else with Yelena, Alexei, and Melina (assuming they're even necessary in this scenario). Then, Natasha would have a genuinely threatening antagonist because the stakes are personal on both sides.

It would've been a hellva lot more meaningful than using Taskmasker as a plot-twist (after hyping the character up as the controller of the Red Room and Natasha's personal nemesis).

Callisto’s story as a villain resonates because she cared about what she lost, and Xena knew there was no real forgiveness for what she did to her. Imagine if they approached Natasha’s role in Antonia’s death like that.

(But that's probably asking for too much nuance from Disney and Marvel.)

Conclusions

In story that wants to be about the abused reconciling with their past and family, the film effectively robs the abused of their autonomy by going the extra of mile of making them zombies. In the same way the Star Wars sequel trilogy avoided Finn’s history as an indoctrinated and enslaved Stormtrooper, Black Widow doesn’t want to deal with the ramifications of indoctrination.

How people buy into and protect organizations that strip them of their humanity by making them complicit in violent systems. Oh, sure, they’ll nod and wink at it (as they do with Natasha and Melina’s past), but they won’t go any further than that.

Instead of dealing with how a forced hysterectomy effects Natasha physically and emotionally, we get a joke that isn’t any better than Natasha calling herself a monster, or the “time of the month” joke that got rebuked by the director and the cast.

Instead of reflecting on her time with SHIELD and the United States, the United States is portrayed as "the good-guys who gave her a real family” (ignoring even the half-hearted criticism of the US that The Winter Soldier made), while Russia is still out there doing nefarious Cold War Things and ruining people's families. All of which just feeds into uncritical Russian stereotypes and Red Scare that the film’s foundation is built on.

I enjoyed the film, but the more I think about it, the more I realize Black Widow really does nothing except undermine Natasha's darker elements and self-imposed redemption arc (as written by Whedon).

On top of rewriting key elements about the Red Room (the movies being broken as the comics is a true irony), It minimizes Natasha's violent past to make her into a clean, and boring superhero whose solo film thinks lamp-shading sexism is the same as subverting it.

[catty-words]

you seem to have really good grasp on nhie so i wanna ask you about ben's character. i guess my question is,,, why do you like him ?? LOL i dont really know how else to say it akljsfdjf. but ive always had a hard time reconciling with his character bc while i understand he & devi are supposed to be set up as a (lowkey affectionate) rivalry, sometimes some of the stuff his character says seems way off base to me. Like, the whole UN thing in the first episode which made devi cry & some of the comments he makes about her looks. i don't hate his character and i dont want to hate his character, so i guess i just want your perspective on him. hopefully so it enhances my enjoyment of the show. (if you dont feel like it its totally okay)

this is the most polite question of this nature i've ever received, bless your heart.

right off the bat, i'd say that part of my affection for ben is simply about natural inclination. i have a predisposed fondness for asshole characters who make me laugh with their assholery, of which ben is just one example. devi herself is another. and regardless of whether or not that archetype does it for you, you shouldn't feel like you have to logic yourself into liking ben in part because you enjoy my takes on the show and wanna understand them better. don't get me wrong, i'm incredibly touched and honored that you've come to me looking for more perspective on ben, but sometimes there is no getting around a knee-jerk reaction to a character. and i'll have no less fun interacting with you if you never end up seeing ben with the same affection that i do. basically what i'm saying is, there's no one right way to appreciate the series, and if your appreciation excludes ben gross entirely, i'm not gonna hold it against you.

that being said, since you did ask - a lot of, if not most of, my initial fondness for ben was because he's a reflection of devi. their whole rivalry isn't lowkey affectionate, i'd argue - at least not from the start. their dynamic for the first half of the season is much more about recognizing the self in the other (derogatory).

i mentioned above that they fit the same character archetype of loveable asshole - i get feeling more uncomfortable with the shitty things ben says to devi because she's our protagonist and, therefore, who we're aligned with and rooting for (plus there's also a racial component to ben mocking devi about her looks that does not reflect well on him) but there can be no denying that devi does give as good as she gets. on top of that, they both value status and a sharp wit, and they share an image consciousness that shapes their relationships - the ben/shira relationship is the shadow version of devi's pursuit of paxton.

because they have so much in common and because they've been locked in scholastic competition with each other for so long - paying such close attention to everything the other does - they accidentally know each other intimately. so, seeing the other for all that they are, they recognize a shared desperation to rise above their loserhood and have turned that, too, into a competition. who can do it better? who can do it faster?

it's especially fitting, the way they've set themselves up in competition for popularity, because their insecurities are also a mirror of each other. ben shouts as often as he can and as loud as he can about his wealth because that's the one thing that affords him access to the appearance of popularity. it's also, ironically, the thing that keeps any of his classmates from truly knowing him or enjoying his company. meanwhile, devi's overarching goal for the season is rebranding. she, too, wants to appear popular so she has a reason to stop listening to the voice in her head that tells her she's an unattractive loser. and seeing as ben rises quickly to any and all bait devi dangles about his appearance (ex. "i'm not skinny. i'm jacked" and "my doctor says [i'll grow a mustache] any day now"), it's not a stretch to read that he's so obnoxious about what little ground he's gained with the popular kids because he has the same voice inside his head saying he's an unattractive loser.

so, right. the UN thing. i'm not saying i see it as acceptable, but i do see the pathology underlying it - it's a self attack as much as it's a way to undermine devi's attempts to beat ben in the race to the top.

more than even that, though, it's not about ben at all. the only reason the comment can make devi cry is because ben said something she already fears is true about herself. it's the way ben reflects devi back to herself while pulling no punches - that special antagonist/protagonist relationship where they're specifically designed to get under each other's skin my beloved - that's the important component of the storytelling, not some essential nastiness in ben's character.

of course, ben's pov episode does a lot to reinforce that read - that it's not mean-spiritedness motivating the character, rather an unmet need for unconditional parental support - another way ben parallels devi. though for devi it's a new development and manifests in her grief and erratic behavior in the wake of mohan's passing, ben's situation is implied to be more long-term. it's the underlying reason for his constant obnoxiousness, this desire to be paid attention.

if there's one thing ben can always count on in his life, it's how being obnoxious at devi immediately earns him attention. so he plays up his role, because being devi's rival is a consistent touchstone of identity for him, more so than being howard and vivian's child. which is not to say that he gets a free pass for saying mean things. just that, saying mean things for the sake of being mean isn't who ben is. he wants to matter to someone, even if it's in a negative way.

so yeah. i don't agree with ben's methods, but i do find his motivation sympathetic. and i find his relationship with devi narratively compelling, particularly for the way it drives devi's actions. on top of that, i find his quick wit amusing, and - on a more shallow note - his ridiculous wardrobe endlessly endearing. he's my wretched, social-climbing son, and i love him. 💙

[itsclydebitches]

Hi! I was just watching good omens and I came up with some questions, but I didn't know whom to ask, so I was digging around for go analysis blogs and found you. *takes a breath* So, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on why Heaven's camera angles are the way they are. I noticed that, in heaven, the camera tends to focus on the characters' heads specifically, so they fill most of the screen. Either it's a meta reason or a reference to something (like Newt with the Office) that I'm not getting. That's the main thing, but I've also wondered why exactly Aziraphale uses the verb "fraternize" in the 19th century. It seemed an odd pivot from caring about Crowley's safety to Heaven's rules. Thanks so much!

Hello! Omg yes, let's talk Good Omens cinematography.

First, the obligatory Analysis Disclaimer: I doubt there's a specific interpretation that you're just not getting, some singular, "correct" reading of the scene(s). Two years past release, I'm positive the fandom as a whole has come up with plenty of ideas (I mostly hang on the periphery. I'm far from up to date with GO meta), but any and all of it will, by nature, be subjective. Thus, all I can offer is my own, personal interpretation.

So for me? It's about intimacy.

Not intimacy in the sense of friendship, but rather the broad idea of closeness. Confidentiality. Emotion. Knowledge. Understanding by means of literally getting into the thick of these conversations. I love the camerawork in Heaven (and elsewhere) because the camera itself acts like a person — an additional party to these interactions. And, since we're the ones watching this show via the camera, it makes it feel as if we're peeking into scenes that are otherwise private. Obviously all cinematography does this to a certain extent, the camera is always watching someone or something without acknowledging that we're doing the watching (outside of documentary-esque filmmaking), but GO uses angles and closeups to mimic another person observing these scenes, someone other than the characters involved.

The easiest example I can give here is when Michael makes their call to Ligur. Here, the camera is positioned up on the next landing of the staircase, as if we're sneaking a look down at this otherwise secret call. There's even a moment when the camera pans to the right to look at them through the gap in the railing, briefly obscuring Michael from our view.

Here, a standard expectation of any scene — keep your character in focus — is done away with to instead mimic the movements of someone actually hiding in the stairwell, listening in on the conversation. It creates that feeling of intimacy, as if we're really there with Michael, not just watching Michael through a screen. The camerawork acts like a person overhearing an illicit conversation prior to falling back on mid/closeup shots. We're spying on them.

To give a non-Heaven example, the camera helps us connect with Aziraphale during Gabriel's jogging scene. It's hard to show through screenshots, but if you re-watch you'll see that the camera initially keeps them both in the frame with full body shots, allowing us to compare things like Gabriel's unadorned gray workout clothes with Aziraphale's more stylish outfit; one's good jogging form and the other's awkward shuffle. However, this distance also creates the sense that we're jogging with them, we're keeping pace.

That is, until Aziraphale begins to lag. Then the camera lags too, giving them both the chance to catch up, so to speak.

Until, finally, Aziraphale has to stop completely and the camera, of course, stops with him. We're emotionally attuned to Aziraphale, not Gabriel, and the camerawork reflects that. Even more-so when we cut to a low shot of Gabriel's annoyed huff at having to stop at all, making him appear larger and more imposing. Because to Aziraphale, he is.

This work carries over into Heaven's other scenes. The closeups are pretty much a given since, whether it's Gabriel realizing Aziraphale has been "fraternizing" with Crowley (more on that below!), or Aziraphale choosing to go back to Earth, the scenes in Heaven are incredibly important to the narrative. Closeups allow the viewer to get a good read on each character's emotional state — focusing on minute facial changes as opposed to overall body language — and that fly-on-the-wall feeling is increased as we literally get an up close and personal look at these pivotal moments.

Compare a shot like this one of Gabriel to the line of angels ready for battle. We don't get closeups on any of their faces because their emotions aren't important. Yes, that's in part because they're background characters, not main characters, but a lack of emotion — their willingness to enter this war without question — is also the point of their presence in this scene. So they remain a semi-identical, nearly faceless mass that runs off into infinity down that hallway, not any individual whose inner life we get a peek at via a closeup.

I particularly like Aziraphale's conversation with the angel... general? Idk what to call this guy. He's just gonna be Mustache Angel. But, getting back on track, his scene has a lot of over the shoulder shots which, admittedly, are pretty common. From a practical perspective they're used to help the audience situate both characters in the scene — you're here, you're there, this is how you're spaced during this conversation — but it can also help emphasize that closeness between them. Keeping both characters in the shot connects them and though Aziraphale and Mustache Angel definitely aren't on the same page here, those shots help cue us in to the unwanted intimacy of this moment. They're both angels... even though Aziraphale no longer aligns himself with them. They're both soldiers in a war... but Aziraphale will not fight. This angel has a list of Aziraphale's secrets, including that he once had a flaming sword and lost it... but Aziraphale doesn't want to admit those circumstances to him. This angel wouldn't understand, even if he did. Intimacy here, connection and closeness, is something discomforting because Aziraphale can no longer embrace those similarities. They put him (and us) out of sorts, so when we get them both in frame, that connection creates tension, not relief.

And many of those over the shoulder shots are given sharp angels, or the camera is placed too close to the "off screen" party. Compare a shot like Luke and Rey to Aziraphale and Mustache Angel. Here, Luke is a clean, solid line on the left side of the screen, just enough there to cue us in to where he is in relationship to Ray, In contrast, Mustache Angel's mustache is Too Close and proves rather distracting. Rey and Luke are connecting here over being Jedi with responsibilities to uphold (or at least, Luke will acknowledge that connection later lol); Mustache Angel is forcing a connection with Aziraphale that makes everyone uncomfortable.

We are too close to him here. He feels too close to Aziraphale too. This whole conversation is upsetting and discomforting, pushing Aziraphale to finally choose which side he's on (his own with Crowley). The shots aren't meant to subtly keep the audience from getting lost and then otherwise be unobtrusive, we're supposed to be Very Aware of this angel's body and how close he's getting to the character we've come to identify with — both literally (he's leaning in) and in terms of forcing Aziraphale to finally make his choice.

When Mustache Angel marches forward and gets all up in Aziraphale's face, the camera positions itself behind Aziraphale in a way that makes it feel like we're hiding behind him, with Aziraphale taking up far more of the screen than Luke does. Like the scene with Michael or running with Gabriel, the camera often likes to mimic a "realistic" response to these events. This angry, shouty angel is getting closer, best take a step back and stay out of sight behind Aziraphale, holding his ground.

These closeups also serve as a nice contrast to the wide and longshots we get of Heaven. It's an imposing place with skyscrapers in the distance, lots of steel, immaculate floors, and endless white. It's overwhelming and it's cold. But then we cut to those mid-shots of Gabriel and Michael, telling us that they're in control of it all.

Aziraphale? Aziraphale is not in control. Not now, anyway. When he appears in Heaven we get a longshot to show off this endless void and he's just another, tiny speck in it. If he weren't flailing around — an acting move that likewise helps sell how out of his depth he is — it's unlikely you'd even notice him. Aziraphale's clothing and hair blends in perfectly with the background. He's forgettable. Easily overlooked. Someone to underestimate. And when he moves, he has to come to the camera. We don't cut to Aziraphale to establish control like we do with Gabriel. He's left to awkwardly shuffle up to Mustache Angel until he's finally come into view.

Yet when Aziraphale makes his decision, he aligns himself with the brightest, most colorful, most interesting thing in the room: Earth. Earth, with all its messy individuality, is the antithesis to Heaven's controlled uniformity and a bright blue orb hanging in the midst of all this white helps remind us of that. Aziraphale rejects becoming one of the identical soldiers and instead literally reaches out for the one thing in Heaven that doesn't fit in.

When he leaves, we get an extreme closeup for the first time. Mustache Angel is pissed and as such we not only get a good look at his face in the aftermath of Aziraphale's choice, but that extreme closeup on his mouth as he's shouting too. It's like he's shouting directly at us, the viewer who is currently cheering on Aziraphale's decision. There's a war, dammit... but we don't care. Not in the way he cares, anyway.

So there's a lot! And I could probably go on, but apparently I'm only allowed to add 10 images per post now (tumblr what the actual fuck if anyone knows a way around this please share!) and I've already had to merge a bunch of images like an animal. So let's awkwardly finish up with the duck pond scene.

...without a GIF because they apparently count as images too 🙃

Simply put, I don't think Aziraphale bringing up fraternizing is a pivot from one to the other — from caring about Crowley to caring about Heaven's rules. I mean yes, Aziraphale is lagging behind Crowley in terms of rebellion and a part of him is, at this point, absolutely concerned with how he'll come across to the higherups, but that worry doesn't stem solely from a (now very shaky) desire to obey for the sake of obeying. The thing is, Aziraphale's disobedience is, by default, also Crowley's disobedience. If they're friends and they're ever found out, they'll both get in trouble. Which, we know from the end of Season One, basically means being wiped from existence. That's horrifying! And it's a horror that threatens them both. I don't think Aziraphale cares about rules for the sake of rules; after all, he started off by giving away his sword, lying to God, is currently meeting with Crowley anyway... this angel has always ignored/bent the rules — established and implied — that don't suit him. Rather, he cares about the rules if he thinks they have a chance of being enforced. If there will be consequences for breaking and bending them. This is still about caring for Crowley (as well as saving his own, angelic skin). If they're found out, Crowley dies. And, as we the viewer learn, Heaven was indeed observing them that whole time. There was always legitimate risk attached to this relationship. Aziraphale's fear, hesitance, and at times forceful pleas to stop this stem as much from Aziraphale worrying about Crowley's safety as they do a learned instinct to obey the rules without question. He pushes to end the relationship because the relationship threatens the only thing Aziraphale cares about more than that: Crowley himself.

As for the term "fraternizing," that's a loaded one! I won't go into a whole history lesson here, but suffice to say it has military roots: to sympathize as brothers with an opponent. That is literally what Crowley and Aziraphale are doing. They are an angel and a demon, supposedly innate enemies, supposedly poised for an inevitable war... yet they've formed an incredibly strong kinship. They've both learned to love their enemy, the thing every army fears because, well, then your army won't fight (just as Aziraphale won't). However, beyond the enemy implications, "to fraternize" eventually took on a sexual meaning: to not merely love as a brother, but to lay with the enemy too, usually women from enemy countries (because, you know, heteronormativity). Nowadays, "to fraternize" often implies a sexual component. I've been rewatching The Good Wife lately and in one subplot, the State's Attorney cracks down on fraternization in his office. He doesn't mean his employees are forming bonds with assumed enemies, he means his employees are having sex on his office couch. So Aziraphale's phrasing here carries a LOT of weight. He's both reminding Crowley of their stations in the world — you are a demon, I am an angel, us meeting like this can have formal, irrevocable consequences for us both — as well as, given the fact that this is a love story, drawing attention to the depth of this relationship. They love one another, as more than just friends. Though whether Crowley's scathing "Fraternizing?" is a response to Aziraphale falling back on the technicalities of their positions, or acknowledging a love he's yet to overtly admit and commit to — or both! — is definitely up for debate.

[maxbernini]

People getting mad or defensive cause others don't like clement amd are indifferent to him and saying "why do you hate precious boy🥺, he hasn't done anything, he's so interested my s10 main 😍" like exactly?? He's just another basic white boy with an ugly mustache, who has only showed up like two times like yes he seems nice but that's it and also people preferring him over redouane as the next main.... I mean not surprised but oh well

hmm i think some people's extreme hatred of him is a bit side-eye worthy just bc some of it seems to be based in like, biphobia, misogyny & unhealthy approaches to relationships: e.g.: the idea that lola isn’t allowed to have other friends or romantic partners, bc that'd be ~ruining~ her character or mayla, especially if it's with a man, etc. some people sound like maya in that café clip lmao. it was also annoying seeing people be so dramatic yesterday when she commented on his post like. they're clearly friends, she just said so in the last clip, relax. put that energy into when the writers actually fuck up. i have no comments on his moustache lol bc commenting on the younger casts' looks is weird to me as an adult.

but otherwise i 100% agree with you!!! i feel absolutely nothing for him and could've done without his character, and roll my eyes whenever i see people go so hard defending him. "he hasn't done anything wrong!!" okay? characters don't need to do anything wrong for me to not care lol, and a character can be canonically harmless whilst narratively annoying - i don’t dislike him bc of the aforementioned reasons, i dislike that he’s likely going to play an important role in s10 (as main or LI), when he is yet another cis white guy, and redouane and max are literally right there. i like the gay!clement theory but again...you could easily give that to redouane. they didn’t need to create clement, or hugo, and connect them to anais and make that trio important in s10 (which, according to those spoiler anons, is going to focus away from la mif), whilst relegating a trans man to LI status and his legal plot second to redeeming tiff via pregnancy, or advertising redouane as the co-main in the s8 synopsis only for jo to steal both his and bilal’s screentime, etc. people actively stanning clement are very transparent. like what’s there to stan or protect? nothing lol. he’s had exactly one line, and it was him saying his name. you don’t need to create a victim narrative around him. he’ll be fine.