#but despite that... he was a likeable villain

[queenoftsage]

Hwayi: A Monster Boy

'HEY, can you draw me!?' ... the dreaded question artists are always asked. He handled it well... XD

[part 1 of 2]

Part 2

[accirax]

Look at this: https://x.com/chuckecheesez/status/1852077124057759864

Best DC crossover in the history of the internet! (2nd half here)

Also this is the best part for me

😆😆😆

OOOOH it's a crossover between the first generation characters (is that what i should be calling them now? yeesh) and the DC4 cast! that's so fun! i really like the limited motion of this video, it really sells that old timey/kinda hokey feeling. plus Thriller is always a banger.

i agree that that part was probably my favorite part in the video. the detail of Drew holding up the paper that says "BRAINS" is so funny to me. my guy, nobody else in this video is talking. you could've gotten away with it. but the artist paid attention to the details. that's quality craftsmanship right there.

more tweet asks below the cut!

I am about to cry... BABY DREW!!! 😭💛

aww, this is so cute! and very in-keeping with the style of the show, too. i love his little star hat, it makes him look like the protagonist of a bedtime story adventure :)

also, this art inspired me to look up whether people with selective mutism would make any sound when they cry or not. apparently the answer for many of them is no! i know that the noise isn't the only reason why people give babies pacifiers-- obviously you want them to not be upset as well, and i think there might be something beneficial about the sucking action-- but it's still an interesting difference to consider, imo.

Just found this Dan appreciation/analysis/rant post when I opened up Twitter, in case you or any of the "Dan Stans" might be interested. The thread does open some interesting perspectives in terms of the show's favoritism and the creators' writing abilities/choices. So you can check it out if you want.

speaking of interesting differences to consider, thank you for sharing this! i always enjoy hearing other people's perspectives on media, even if i don't agree with them, as long as they're 1) generally informed and 2) not overly hostile, which i don't think this person was. they were definitely angry, but it came from a place of passion, and they at least didn't insult anything personal about who Jared and Robert are... for the most part.

anyways, a good analysis! i know you said you have no interest in Danganronpa, but as a fellow elimination game, i can definitely draw parallels between that franchise and this. specifically, in behaviors i've noticed in fans.

these are probably over-generalizations, but i feel like you could roughly break down DC/DR fans into three broad categories. first, there are the people who like heroic characters that last for a long time-- in DC's case, your Miriams, your Aidens, or your Connors. they seem to pick their favorite characters based on who they think would be the coolest to hang out with irl, or who they would aspire to be like.

opposite them, there are the people who like the villainous characters that last for a long time, more like Alec, Fiore, or Riya. they seem to pick their favorite characters based on who they think provided the most intrigue for the story, whether in terms of driving the central conflict or promoting the story's themes.

those groups have obvious tension between each other, with the hero enjoyers often not understanding how their compatriots could "condone" such vile actions by stanning villains and the villain enjoyers often seeing any character without a penchant for mischief as "lacking depth."

and then, in their own little corner, there's the third group, who enjoys the characters who left the game early-- i would imagine, because they find it fun to fill in the gaps that canon left with their projections and headcanons.

as someone whose favorites are typically long-lasting villains (with long-lasting heroes as a close second), it's really interesting for me to hear the thought process of someone of the third category! to me, if i like a work of fiction, it seems natural to me to have a general preference for the characters that last longer, because they make up a greater percentage of that thing that i like. but i really like this analysis of Dan's character as it shows how much importance he had even as a relatively early, non-returnee boot, and how he had layers without the tragic backstory typical of DC characters.

however, i also understand where Jared and Robert were coming from in not bringing him back. in theory, if you like Disventure Camp, it's because you like all of the over-the-top drama and plot twists the show throws your way. i (mildly) disagree with the OP's point that bringing Dan back would have been good as a way of differentiating their plot lines, because while that may have been true, it also sort of goes against the fundamentals of what DC has become. if that's not the kind of story that Jared and Robert wanted to tell, then they shouldn't be forced to write it.

not to mention, i could see why they would pass up on Dan for All Stars if they considered DC Season 1, as opposed to Adventure Camp, their second shot at Dan already. it's not a perfect solution, given that plenty of major characters from Adventure Camp continued to be major characters in DC1 and/or DCAS. however, if what this person wanted was "Dan transforms from a minor character into a more important role," that did already happen for him. he could have then become even more important in DCAS, but that loops back into "let Jared and Robert write the story they want to tell." flawed as it may be, at least they're (presumably) having fun if they're writing what they want as opposed to what the fans want.

and, on that note, i also personally perceived the "who's Dan?" comments and the idea of bringing him back to boot him first as more of a meme than anything else. but, i haven't read many of Jared's tweets nor am i in the DC discord, so i could be missing important context there. plus, i'm sure it'd sting to hear that about your favorite underrepresented character, even if it wasn't meant as a joke.

ramble over! at the very least, we can all agree that Genesis did a fantastic job voicing Dan :D i hope he gets cast in more roles in the future, whether in DC or otherwise.

[astranauticus]

damn nothing gives motivation to draw like becoming really unwell about a guy huh. if i dont draw liu xiao's band au fit in the next 36 hours im gonna start chewing through walls

[liulith]

We as a fandom need to open our hearts to the insane comedic potential of Sir Pentious being included as a background character in stories taking place in the "old days" before Vox and Alastor's falling out. AND the comedic potential of one-sided Sir Pentious -> Vox.

Why?

Canon!Sir Pentious is attached to his era's aesthetics but he also wants to be "hip and cool" (see pilot episode; Sir Pentious as the how do you do fellow kids meme) and join the "Almighty Vees". When did he start wanting that? He's not a media demon trying to keep up with his audience and be a likeable public figure. He's a mechanic trying to conquer Hell by force thanks to his machines and obviously relishes in acting like a villain (fear me! I'm so evil! I'm the architect of destruction! etc. etc).

This is very different from the Vees' approach - maintaining a perfect public image, insidious manipulation tactics... Vox threatens Alastor in the show, but the Vees clearly haven't built their power through turf wars, which is and has always been Pentious' one and only strategy. All the machines we've seen him make are war weapons (+ the Egg Boyz who do his bidding, and help him operate those very weapons). Voxtek probably sells weaponry too but that is more Camilla's domain, so it would be more logical for Pentious to try and join her.

Pentious' and the Vees agenda and interests aren't aligned, so why is Pentious so desperate to join the Vees?

there are many reasons why Pentious could want to be part of the Vees besides the one I'm gonna talk about but you know what MY agenda is:

Vox is Pentious' idol. Pentious is an inventor, an innovator. He would have loved waking up in Hell with a mechanical body he can upgrade however he wants and finds the whole concept fascinating.

He's not against new technology, as his creations clearly go beyond what people could have had invented in his time despite their "steampunk" aesthetic (see: the effing death ray). So I think his current "limitations" are more a matter of him having to stick with what he knows best because it's hard to keep up with the constant stream of new tech. This is why he's more than impressed with Vox's extraordinary ability to adapt to change and master new technologies again and again. He's a fellow innovator! That's one reason for Pentious to be obsessed with the guy.

And if you think obsessed isn't the right word, think about this: Sir Pentious repeatedly challenges Alastor to fights even though he's clearly outmatched and it's an incredible risk to take considering what Alastor does. Pentious is OLDER than Alastor, he was there when he broadcast the most powerful Overlords' scream all over Hell. Plus, losing always leaves him in a very vulnerable position (without his best weapons). Is it madness? Hubris? An obsession for Alastor? No!

Sir Pentious to Alastor: Silence! Now Cower! For when I've slain you, the Almighty Vees will finally acknowledge me!

Sir Pentious thinks defeating Alastor is the only way the Vees will finally acknowledge him. No matter how dangerous it is, he has to try, for the Vees (Vox). Just like he took the risk of angering the Princess of Hell to get in Vox's good graces. This says a lot, for someone as paranoid as him, who doesn't trust anyone who is "too nice" to him.

If Hazbin had more episodes there should have been one about Pentious struggling with the fact he disappointed his idol and told to KHS 👀

(btw this is old news but we know that one of the Hazbin episodes that Viv originally pitched was about a science contest organized by Voxtek in which Pentious and Baxter competed against each other! Pentious could have done that after ep2!)

Anyway, back to the comedic potential of it all & Vox's arrival in Hell. Can you imagine his reaction as a newly fallen Sinner, when he's hanging out with Alastor (aka following him like a lost puppy?) and he meets Sir Pentious for the first time? Like sure, Hell is full of insane people but Alastor obviously has a Reputation and no one ever challenges him. And suddenly... Hm... Alastor?? There's an airship with a giant cannon pointed right as us?? Firing a DEATH RAY?!

It's also so funny to imagine Sir Pentious being obsessed with Alastor and considering him his archnemesis back in the day, only to slowly become obsessed with Vox instead and only caring about defeating Alastor because he thinks Vox will like it. It starts with Sir Pentious trying to "gather intel" on Alastor's new "ally", spying on them or sending his Egg Boyz to do so (and we already know great he is at spying so you can guess how that goes lol), and the rest is history.

Alastor loves attention so he probably let Pentious spy on him behind bushes from time to time if only because it's very entertaining to watch him try to be discrete and make his shadow tap on his shoulder. How hilarious would it be if Alastor noticed Sir Pentious' growing crush on Vox but not Vox's crush on him? Also, Vox misunderstanding Pentious and Alastor's relationship and thinking Pentious is a weird obsessive ex... The world is a stage and the stage is a world of entertainment!

[frogdisco2021]

I really hate to say it but they did Luke's betrayal and characterization better in the show. In the books he's just evil, he throws litter in a river to signify his badness (littering is bad, kids) and then tries to kill Percy in cold blood. In the show he seems genuinely confused and conflicted, like someone who's gone mad and doesn't realize it and doesn't get why the people around him are looking at him like that. He seems hurt that Percy gave the shoes to Grover and also doesn't seem to realize why Percy can't see that it wasn't meant as a betrayal. He seems to believe himself, that it wasn't meant as a betrayal and that he still considers Percy his friend. He only attacks when Percy mentions his father, and the look on his face the moment before is brilliant, this is a person who has snapped. This is a confused kid who has been groomed and recruited for war by something much more ancient, powerful, and evil than himself. It sets up his eventual final redemptive act much better. The Last Olympian will always be iconic but it is kind of strange how he's mustache-twirlingly evil for 5 books and then seppuku's himself in a single moment of clarity at the end and can be considered a hero for it despite all the death and destruction he caused leading up to it. It's setting him up to be much more tragic and likeable as a villain.

[leoleolovesdc]

It’s so weird that Heathers the musical toned down so many things from the story (Veronica’s gray morality, JD’s behavior as a whole, Kurt and Ram’s sa on the girls, etc.) but decided to make the Heathers way bigger assholes than they are in the movie.

McNamara doesn’t do anything in the movie, she just goes along with Chandler and kicks Veronica one time at the beginning but then in the musical she’s setting up a fcking date rape??? She goes along with the boys during Sword Fight in Her Mouth and is just a bitch to Veronica all of the time, but everyone in the fandom (and also Veronica somehow) kind of ignores it because she acts innocent.

Duke, even though she isn’t made that much worse from her movie version, (except for the date rape thing with McNamara) is also way more agressive and obnoxious. In the movie, even after Duke turns into a Chandler carbon copy she’s still a funny and likeable character. In the musical she is an asshole even before Chandler dies and her and Veronica keep antogonizing each other from beginning to end when in the 1989 version they were pretty much friends until the last minute.

I think one could make an argument that Duke’s bullying of McNamara is also worse in the musical, but I’m a bit lazy to adress that, so just have in mind that in the musical she’s also more agressive, screaming at Mac at live TV instead of just writing “poor little Heather” on the board.

Chandler in the musical is more of a cartoon character than a person. She screams at everything and everyone for no reason whatsoever, she isn’t necessarily a worse person, just very flanderized and, I’m sorry, but I can’t believe that somone who acts that way could even have a chance of climbing so high on the social hierarchy of a school. Heather in the movie was a bitch, but she knew how to keep up appearances. She acted nice, she played people, she never had to scream to get things to go her way, that was how she managed to be so powerful.

The movie is a parody of teenage narratives, the musical takes that parody and plays it straight. That’s how you get an absurd story where the three mean girls of the school are annoying bitchy monsters and the literal murderer is a sympathetic villain.

I think the Heathers 1989 is interesting because of how literally everyone is a bad person, but at the same time not everyone is the same kind of bad.

You have bad Chandler, an fatphobic asshole who doesn’t care about anything unless it affects her. You have bad Kurt and Ram, homophobic, sexist guys who have raped multiple girls. You have bad McNamara, only follows other people’s leads which makes her act like an asshole. You have bad Duke, is not evil when controlled but when given the opportunity she will become an asshole. You have bad Veronica, an uncaring and murderous person who in the end makes the right choice. And you have bad JD, the kind of guy who he thinks he’s justified in blowing up a whole school just because everyone there kind-of-really-fucking-sucks.

All of these people are assholes and some of them should be in jail, but that doesn’t make the psycho who’s killing them some kind of martyr, he’s still just as bad, maybe even worse, than all ofthe others. The musical makes JD look justifiable.

He was good person, he was just traumatized!

If only he had gotten help!

No. Just no. JD was psycho. He was trying to blow up a school. That’s not justified, doesn’t matter what sort of heroic reason he may have he had. Which, by the way, he didn’t. He wasn’t killing people because they were assholes, he was killing people because he was an asshole.

Anyway, thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. Yes, I still love all of thsoe characters despite how much shit I talked about all of them, sorry this got long, one thing lead to another, and now I have spent like two hours writing this and my arms hurt from holding an ipad. Bye.

[bluecrocss]

Somethings I'm looking forward to in PJO Season 2 that I don't see people talk about as much

Villain!Luke: Most of TLT/Season 1 is Luke playing as an ally/friend/older brother to our protagonists. We see him in a mostly positive light as the show tries to hide his true intentions until the reveal.

SOM is the first time we get to see Luke in pure villain mode, and I'm so excited. Despite my issues with the movies (Especially the second one), I can always appreciate how much fun Jake Abel was obviously having hamming it up in the second movie. Literally, all he needed was a mustache to twirl lol

Anyway, Charlie did such a good job of making Luke sympathetic and likeable, I'm so excited for when we first see him on the Princess Andromeda in all his Villain glory. I can't wait to see how he plays it.

Clarisse redemption: Look, I will always defend the right of viewers to dislike a bully, no matter how sad their backstory is. However, in my opinion, SOM and TLO is probably where we get the most character development for Clarisse (the show can even add more depth to that if they play it right).

Hints at her abusive relationship with Ares, the first inklings of her friendship with Percy, there's so much more we're going to get out of that character, and I really hope they SHOW (not tell) it right.

Tyson/Annabeth beef: I am going to be on the front-lines as a Leahbeth defender this season. Like with the growing fandom dislike towards Annabeth of late, and the general way audiences treat black female characters whenever they show any negative traits, Annabeth's interactions with Tyson in SOM (and her later interactions with Rachel Dare in BOTL) are not going to be some of her best moments; but also are great character moments for her because those two books more than any are about showing Annabeth's flaws. She's a 13 year old girl with PTSD people!

Tyson's a sweetheart, obvs, but watching 5"2 Leah Jeffries consistently intimidate 6"5 Daniel Diemer is gonna be kind of hilarious. And Tyson's constant attempts to win her over are so endearing (Especially when he does succeed towards the end).

I do hope they make some changes to the backstory of why Annabeth doesn't like Cyclopes though. Because even in the books, I thought that seemed a bit forced in.

Annabeth's Circe island makeover: Yes, Walker as a guinea pig, hilarious. Yes, the siren scene, heartbreaking. The childhood Percabeth shipper in me, can't wait to see what makeover Annabeth gets in the show!

Say what you will, but one of the best parts of Annabeth now being portrayed by a black actress is (in my personal opinion), I think there is no group of women on earth with more variation in hair styling than black women.

As such, there's an infinite number of styles and looks that I could see them giving Leah for this. Braids with gold accessories, Afro puffs, a Grecian take on Bantu knots, etc. etc. I mean, the fan artists have been eating with that already.

What have I missed? What other less talked about moments is everyone excited to see brought to life?

[lazy-sixteen]

I was thinking about the themes of One Piece, and what differentiated out characters we see as good versus bad, especially in a work that takes a really accepting view of different moral standpoints and values (Coby and SWORDS's justice is very different from Sabo and the RA's justice but they are both presented as good guys we'd want to root for).

So like, why do we root for Luffy following his dream to be Pirate King, but not Teach?

What about hating Crocodile who wanted to create an ideal society free of the WG but not the RA who want something similar for whole the world?

Big Mom who wants to create a place where all sentient are equal and get along versus Koala and/or Otohime who dream of that same thing for humans and fishmen?

I mean the obvious answer is that protagonists and their allies tend to be likeable - they are usually drawn prettier, have less kick the dog moments, and we get more time with them as an audience. They have to be on some level, or no one would read the manga.

But from an in-story perspective, I think its a an under looked facet of Luffy's character, for him chasing his dream is more important than obtaining it. It's why he turns down Rayleigh straight up offering to tell him where Laugh Tale is, and what is on it. What is important to Luffy isn't so much becoming Pirate King, it is being free, having fun, sailing with his friends on the journey to be Pirate King.

It's why he helps Vivi in Alabasta, Cricket in Skypiea, Shirahoshi in Fishmen Island, and the Wano crew in uhh Wano (the journey wouldn't be fun if he'd abandoned his friends to do it)

It's why he takes dangerous detours to places like Little Garden or Sky Island or Punk Hazard(the journey wouldn't be fun if he didn't get to explore)

It's why he risks his life against Arlong for Nami and declares the entire world his enemy for Robin and literally threatens to starve to death to get Sanji back ( the journey wouldn't be fun if he can't do it with his crew by his side)

All of this is why, Luffy isn't afraid of dying either. He can die at any point on his journey to being Pirate King, and feel no regret because the journey itself was the important part.

Compare this to two other D.'s Law and Blackbeard.

Law's also relentlessly pursuing his dream when we meet him (stop Doflamingo to avenge Cora), and he is miserable.

Law in trying to achieve his dream whatever the cost keeps putting himself in situations he hates.

He leaves his beloved crew behind because the mission is basically a suicide run. He cozies up to the Government he hates and hands his heart over to a morally bankrupt mad scientist he's obviously disgusted by. He plans to get Doflamingo in trouble with Kaido, which mean 1) he likely won't get to punch out Mingo himself, 2) there is a high probability of civilians getting caught in the crossfire/dying horribly.

This journey sucks. If Law had died during any point of this he would have been the world's most pissed off ghost.

It's Luffy and the Strawhats busting in and transforming that journey that puts Law on the path to success with his dream and with not being so goddamn miserable.

Like screw Caesar, let;s have Luffy kick his ass and then you fix the children he was experimenting on. Screw playing nice with the government, do what you want and call us your allies instead. Screw Doflamingo, you and Luffy go beat him up and the rest of us will pull his government/crime family down around his ears.

And it works! Law's grumpy and annoyed and cursing Luffy out, but he tells Mingo he believes Luffy can pull out a miracle and looks more at peace watching Doflamingo and Luffy brawl - knowing that he'll die or succeed with his ally/friend - than he ever did with his fool-proof plan.

The journey before destination thing is also why Blackbeard feels like a special type of evil in OP despite there being technically worse/more evil villains, because Blackbeard always prioritizes his dream over how he gets it.

He'll stay in the shadows for 20 years to increase his chances of success (wouldn't it have been more fun to be a captain like he obviously wants?)

He'll kill his crewmate, turn his commander in for a reward, then kill his captain (wouldn't it have been more fun to stay friends, he never indicates he hates/dislikes them?)

He invites strong people - and strong seems to be the only criteria - to join his crew, though tbh their personalities often suck. I don't recall any panel of his crew just hanging out or joking around which even Baroque Works, Buggy's crew, and Kaido's Beast Pirates get (wouldn't it have been more fun to recruit people he can befriend, not just people he can use)

Like obviously Blackbeard feels like the antithesis of Luffy - even though they are both all about chasing their dreams. Luffy's all about the chasing, and Blackbeard only cares about the results.

[starker-sorbet]

Bleeding heavily and panicking at being betrayed by people he thought he could trust Peter didn't know where to go. He thought the Avengers were his friends and yet they easily handed him over to SHIELD to become a lab rat for their experimentations. It was only because they underestimated his strength that he got away, but not unscathed. As he swings through the city streets he finally sees somewhere that might be safe. Stark tower. The home of Tony Stark otherwise known as the villain Superior Iron man. Everyone knew who he was but he had enough power and money to stay free. Peter had fought the older man on occasion and despite being on opposite sides found him charming and potentially likeable. And if how Stark flirts with him is any indication maybe he might like Peter too.

He just hopes that Stark's flirtatious offer of joining him was serious. Because Peter had nowhere else to go.

Nowhere else to go for @starkerfestivals Whumptober

[mellosdrawings]

I mean Vil's group could have won if it haven't been for the overblot. I mean based on votes, it would have been a tie have it not for Rook. If there is no overblot incident, I can picture they would been more votes than Neige but some chose Neige because of how exhausted they are making them loose some votes.

No hate and no justification on Neige winning and no Vil-shaming. I just think if Vil just ignored the comments from others, he wouldn't have try to murder him leading him to winning since that way the group wouldn't be exhausting.

MORE BOOK 5 SPOILERS

Yup. But that's the fun of tragedies: it happens this way because those are these characters.

If Vil had more confidence in himself and his work, none of that would have happened. But it's Vil. He's been "groomed" his whole life into seeing himself as a villain who could never win against Neige's natural likeable-ness. He never could have not had a breakdown because he's always obsessed over it and suddenly lost all confidence as soon as he ended up face to face with the one person he always wished to surpass.

Had it not been Vil, there wouldn't have been an Overblot that caused their loss.

But had it not been Vil, the group wouldn't have had an original song and dance, and they wouldn't have worked even half as hard to get a win. They also wouldn't have the cookie points of Vil's fame weighing in the audience's final decision.

Whether Vil was there or not, they were doomed to lose.

That's tragedy. And I love it.

(You can do the same thing with Rook. Had he been different or not there, the tragedy wouldn't have happened. But his presence counterbalances Vil. They both search for beauty but one has a very bad perception of himself and high standards of beauty while the other sees beauty absolutely everywhere. They are supposed to be mirrors who end up hurting each other despite being so close to each other. They lift each other up while bringing the other down.)

The point of my rant isn't that they shouldn't have lost. It was important for Vil. The point was that they shouldn't have started two/three very important character storylines for which losing negates all their development.

Jamil needed a win so that, for the first time in his life, his hard work could be rewarded (or hell, make him lose there and have a badass moment in Book 6, the point is that the story is unfairly cruel to him)

Epel needed to one-up Neige somehow to finish his character growth. To finally properly weaponize his cuteness and charming face. As far as I've read, that never happened.

Kalim and Deuce also had beginnings of character arcs that were never truly finished in this Book.

That's what's bothersome with this Book 5. It has a lot of good ideas and is very interesting, but it just... doesn't work. Not the only Book I have grievances with but it's the one that messes the most characters' arcs.

[mischivousvoid]

This might be a weird take, but I feel like people's recent hate of Ford and ignorance of Bills crimes in the GF fandom says less about the fandom and more about how well Ford and Bill are written.

It's a well-known fact that most people online can't comprehend complex characters. It's going to happen, like, everywhere. But why is there not as many people blaming or hating the complex character who actually is a villain of the story? The one objectively more in the wrong?(Y'know, Bill)

Because Ford feels real. Bill doesn't.

Bill is a supernatural entity that nobody expects to ever meet in real life, it's easy to disconnect from his flaws because he's a walking talking triangle. And most importantly, despite being openly evil, he's charismatic in terms of personality and stupidly entertaining to watch.

Not to mention that before the book of Bill, everyone was already blatantly aware of Bill being evil, what they discovered upon reading the book is the opposite - things that would make you sympathetic towards him, his hurt and inner thoughts, something people could relate to. So, of course people would focus on those more. And exadurate it. And frankly, it's exactly what Bill wants. He's manipulated everyone into liking him by showing this, because now he wants something from you, the reader. You're no longer the passive audience, Bill has reached to you directly and is trying to make a deal. He's performing for you specifically. "See, I ain't so bad:)". Obviously he kinda fails in his usual ways due to his misunderstanding of humans and emotional instability making him vulnerable. But ultimately, he still got what he wanted from some people...

Then what about Ford? Well, frankly I think the book of Bill pushed him more "in the front" and people have started to actually analyse his character rather than overlooking it on the surface level.

And discovered that, oh wow, Ford has flaws.

He's always had them, but they're hidden in his behaviour and the framing of the show that's seen through the eyes of Dipper and Mabel just doesn't paint him in negative light. And seeing as there isn't even that much of interactions between Mabel and Ford, it's more so through Dippers eyes, who deeply admires Ford. You need to dig to see the flaws and well people haven't collectively done so until now, focusing more on the characters with more screentime.

And now that they have it's like. "Oh wow, this guy is kinda... morally gray". And more importantly, they notices that he's self-centered(not selfish, self-centered, big difference!). Ford is stuck in his own head, he's distrustful and paranoid, he has unhealthy coping mechanisms. And it shows. He's not a blatantly terrible person, but he's made terrible choices and decisions and he's hurt people. And some of it is because he was manipulated and abused by Bill, but some is just because of his core flaw. The self-centeredness. It feels like Ford doesn't see past his nose, he deeply believes that everything revolves around him and the only truth is his truth. He needs to feel important, to matter. Desperately. It doesn't just mean that he sees himself as the hero, the saviour and the genius. It also means that in the low moments he sees himself as so much lesser than and that he's absolutely convinced everyone does. That he's convinced all his paranoia is at all times justified. He fundamentally cannot put himself in other people's shoes. And yes that hurts others, and it also hurts him because he jumps to the worst conclusions (such as about Stanley and his intentions) and he becomes convinced he has to be right.

Ford is also, and I'm sorry for saying this, questionably likeable. He's socially awkward and nerdy and many people like that, but it's just objectively not as charismatic. His attempts at being cool, are, well... dorky. And it's endearing in a way, but it's not raw charisma. It doesn't captivate and capture as many people as Bill's fun personality, it doesn't distract from who Ford is. And that's on purpose, because Ford's personality is real. And Bill is performing constantly as part of the act to conceal for bad he is.

If you've had the misfortune of meeting a master manipulator like Bill, oh boy am I sorry for you. But I bet for a very long time you were convinced that person is cool before you escaped them, the experience was almost surreal, right? You can swear they were so fun to hang out with, you didn't even notice when it's gotten so bad. Or maybe, you never even got close to them and on the surface they were just so fun and then you find out how horrible they are through the grape vine, and you ask yourself "wow, really, that guy?".

And truly, most people won't even meet a person like that.

But Ford? You've met a Ford.

In a way, at least.

You've definitely met someone who's so in their head they aren't always pleasant. And that guy doesn't care about appearances - he's not lying to you. Just doesn't see things in a different way. And they're open about it, they will tell you that they're right.

And I bet that, if you got close to a person like that, they unintentionally hurt you. They're not... all that, no. But they're dismissive. They don't understand. They hold grudges because they just can't believe your perspective, not even because they do not want to. They will fluctuate between never taking accountability and defending their actions to death and apologizing and agonising so much that you have to comfort them about their own mistakes because suddenly they're the worst person in the world and everything is their fault. And you know, it hurts. It hurts because you love them, because there's so many genuinely good things about them. But it's so mentally exhausting to keep up with their emotional issues that you slowly start resenting them anyway.

And if you have never gotten close to someone like that, perhaps if you didn't find a part of them charming immediately, you've still met them - you just found them mildly annoying. It's the "Um, actually" guy. The "correct your grammar and pronounciation" guy. Even if they're right it's just so. "God, they're a stuck-up asshole." Even if that's objectively not true because they volunteer to rescue kittens every weekend and have invented the cure for cancer.

And it's so much easier to dislike the real problem. You've never met a dimension destroying monster, nor someone who could control your body in a literal way, nor, you know, a "demon". (At least I fucking hope so?). You've met someone who didn't mean to hurt you but couldn't help it. You've met an annoying kinda stuck-up smart guy. And now you see that guy in Ford and you cannot unsee it and you're projecting your feelings.

[maxphilippa]

people not getting nickel at all is so funny to me.

dude. what part of "he was acting out of fear because he didn't want to get manipulated by balloon since he did have story with him back then in s1, and wanted to protect his friends/alliance, and EVEN IF HE MESSED UP A LOT WITH SUITCASE AND BALLOON, it wasn't out of malice, but out of misguided fear and lack of proper communication that turned into something worse due to Nickel's nature." you don't get. it's not about forgetting what he did or treating him as likeable or anything. he very much didn't forgive himself over what happened and let BALLOON HIMSELF KNOW that he DIDN'T have to forgive him. he is OKAY with accepting his faults and with balloon not wanting to be part of that change because HE RECOGNIZES THAT HE WAS AN ASSHOLE TO SUITCASE AND TO HIM. CLOVER'S THERAPY SESSION DID SOMETHING TO HIM. HE'S TAKING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS.

of course i can totally get not liking him on s2, he wasn't really one of my faves but hey! he grew and recognized that what he did was wrong! adam himself said that he did care about suitcase and bb, but his lack of EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE doomed their alliance. nickel isn't justifying himself with "oh but i was scared of balloon", he is accepting that his fear towards him changed into something else that he couldn't control.

also btw have you considered that they didn't know what to do with nickel on s2. if you deeply analyze him it makes sense as to why he changed so much on s3. "ohhhhh but he was a dick to Suitcase since the start" again. have you considered that nickel's writing has changed a lot over time. he's pure snark there but even then still cared mid-late s2. i could do a whole separate post analyzing his relationship with Suitcase from both of their perspectives but that's not the point. if that was the point of his thing with suitcase it wouldn't made sense for nickel to say "i just wanted to keep what we had".

AS WELL I WANT TO NOTE SOMETHING. His relationship with Balloon getting better WASN'T out of nowhere. On the comics, Balloon sent Nickel a letter when he wanted to fix things with others, and maybe that was also a factor that played for Nickel too. Remember that Nickel is a guy that acts first and thinks later. As well, Balloon references that Nickel and him used to trick Yinyang back at the Hotel. Nickel changed a lot in s3 and didn't have Baseball who was excusing his unhealthy behaviour either. Box helped these two to grow for the better.

tl;dr: nickel has one of those arcs that i need to study like a bug and everyone still treating him like a villain despite wanting to grow and understanding that his actions were terribly wrong is so funny to me. also balloon very much did end up liking the guy genuinely when they were friends as well. people can grow and change. people who had terrible relationships can heal and can get better.

[oldtvandcomics]

The Lucifer/Alastor rivalry is so fun, because, well, Hell's Greatest Dad sing-off, but also, while they have strikingly similar designs, Alastor is much, MUCH better at being satanic than Lucifer is.

First of all, they really look VERY similar. In a show where every character has such a unique design, I remember feeling disappointed the first time I saw a picture of what Lucifer would look like, because it was so similar to Alastor. Same general shape, same coat, they even both have a staff of some kind. Only of course, if you were to remove all the apple, snake and radio elements from their costumes and show this picture to someone who doesn't know Hazbin Hotel and ask which of the two is the Devil, they would definitely pick Alastor. He is taller, wears dark red instead of white, and his ears look like horns.

It goes even further. Among all demons, Alastor is by far the most demonic. When he transforms he really becomes absolutely monstrous. Lucifer meanwhile is angelic.

Within the story, Lucifer doesn't do much, especially not any Devil activities. He's just trying to dissociate from his depression by making rubber ducks. Meanwhile, Alastor is the one who is working hard on gaining power, he is the one manipulating people, killing those who get in his way and chaining souls to himself by making deals. He is the one who uses his political connections to get Charlie an army at the end, and despite not being able to kill Adam, he does a very good job holding his own against him.

Hell's Greatest Dad was not about being Charlie's father figure, it was about Alastor trying to take Lucifer's place. Quite literally. "Can you butt out of my song!" "Your song?! I started this!" "I'm singing it, I'll finish it!" Yeah, so this is at the same time about 1) the literal song they're singing, 2) Charlie's life, and 3) Alastor taking Lucifer's place by pushing him to the side.

I still don't know why Alastor decided that picking a fight with Lucifer upon sight was a good idea, but, like, we can all agree that he is aiming for his place, mostly by getting Charlie to depend on him. Which is also what his line in Ready For This was: "She's filled with potential that I could guide / Stick with her you'll be on the winning side!"

Many people theorize that Alastor is the final bad guy in the show. I don't think so, he is WAY too likeable. He is, however, firmly on his own side, and will go against Charlie if he thinks that he'd benefit from it. And then switch back the last moment, obviously. He panicked now about being too kind, next season, he's going to try and be more ruthless, try to stop caring about the people he clearly started to consider his friends. But he has to end up on the side of the heroes for the audience to be happy. Villains need to be destroyed, we do NOT want Alastor to be destroyed.

No, in my opinion, he is going to take Lucifer's place as the Devil.

[yrrtyrrtwhenihrrthrrt]

One thing I like about Nimona that I haven't seen brought up yet (and maybe I'm alone here) is that Nimona becomes more sympathetic to the audience at the same pace that she becomes more sympathetic to Ballister (kinda long analysis below sorrys)

Like, I know not everyone agrees, but on my first watch of the movie, I found her downright annoying for the first like, quarter of the film. I don't find her annoying upon rewatch at all, I absolutely adore her, but the first time I watched it I reacted with a similar distaste as Ballister-- not because she was a shapeshifter or queer, obviously, but because she appears completely tone-deaf to Ballister's situation when the man is experiencing probably the worst thing anyone could imagine, she jeopardizes his reputation even more by pretending to be him while menacing the public, constantly undermines his efforts to minimize harm and clear his name, and just does as she feels without regard to others.

Then you start to learn why she acted that way, just as Ballister does. You (and Ballister) start to see that his efforts are in vain, that trying to minimize harm or clear his name doesn't work in his favor and is impossible to achieve, and Nimona knew that all along so of course she didn't care! She's seen this film before enough times to stop taking it seriously. If the outcome is always the same, why not have a little fun with it?

Her whimsical mannerisms start to look less annoying and tone-deaf and more powerful and brave (that she could be so determined to be herself despite everything). She starts to look less carefree, and more jaded. You realize that she's only carefree because it hurts too much to care.

And Ballister's line "Let's break stuff" is the turning point where we see that she (or rather, the Institute) has taught him to embrace chaos and be himself, because they're not going to listen either way.

And the subsequent scene, where Ballister offers to take her away from the walls and she says "No, this isn't right, we have to take the Institute down" shows that Ballister taught her to care again because he proved that people can change. They both had an important lesson they needed to learn from the other, basically: "Don't expect the system to work in your favor but don't be a doomer about it either" lol

And it hurts when Bal turns on her because you can kinda see where he's coming from, it would make sense that a lonely, lonely creature would possibly sabotage someone else hated by society so that they could finally have a friend. It would explain why she acted so cavalier about his reputation, constantly threatened people and undermined him, made them both out to be far more villainous than they were. She was acting out of indifference, but it came across to him as malice, and while we the audience know that obviously the eponymous character isn't a twist villain, Ballister wouldn't, and further, how much easier would it be to believe that this one person double-crossed you, rather than to believe everything you ever knew was a lie? So he turned his back on her.

And he, and the audience see what a huge massive fuckup that was.

What I like is you don't even NEED her backstory to sympathize with her, and neither did Ballister. This isn't a case of "character was unbearable for the entire time but they have sad backstory so they're now likeable I guess Snape). She was already sympathetic and likeable. We already understood her. The backstory was just extra context, nothing more, and that is fucking excellent writing.

We slowly learn to love Nimona for herself at the same rate that Ballister does, rather than being irritated wishing she was something else. And I absolutely, absolutely love that. She doesn't "become" more likeable, you learn that she was likeable all along.

[valzhangism]

the downgrade of villains from pjo to hoo is so disappointing. luke castellan was such a good villain with an interesting backstory and motivations and it HURTS to see the villain that succeeds him. because gaea, to put it bluntly, kind of sucks. 

she has no emotional heart, no theme or message to send. she doesn't have a character you can sympathise with, she's not out-there enough to be hated strongly, she's not likeable enough to be one of those charming villains. the series flip-flops between trying to give her good qualities but never expanding on any of them, and trying to make her pure evil but never making her commit to it enough to be enjoyable.

she's just there. she's little more than a plot device, the Ultra Big Bad that we have to fight. and sometimes there's nothing wrong with that! but considering how hoo fails in every other aspect, the bland villain is just another disappointment. luke was what made the original pjo so good — the themes he carried, the tragedy of his life, the base of his character which served as the main core of the story, the balance between good intentions and the corruption of self.

as a result, gaea is just... fine. she’s not an absolutely terrible villain, but she looks second-rate compared to luke and kronos, despite being a lot more powerful, simply because they were much richer in themes and storytelling. even the decent villainous chemistry she has with leo and hazel isn’t enough to carry her to being interesting. 

but credit where it’s due, i’ll say toa did much better with villains. the portrayal of abuse with nero and meg, the romance between apollo and commodus, caligula's sadism and lust for power, all had way more personality than gaea ever did. (even if i AM still bitter about how a series with the roman emperors as villains wasn't centred around camp jupiter.)

[david-talks-sw]

Okay so I watched Inside Man on Netflix. It's interesting. More importantly, it's a masterclass in crafting likeable characters and how the POV we follow in a scene affects the way we see a character. Also, this somehow relates to the Star Wars Prequels, I promise! 😆

The moral of the series is that "everyone is a murderer, all it takes is a good reason and a bad day." The main characters are:

A vicar who - through a huge misunderstanding - has now locked his son's tutor in his basement and doesn't know how to get out of this situation, played by David Tennant.

A convicted murderer and ex-criminal psychology professor who solves crimes from his cell, as he waits for his execution, played by Stanley Tucci.

So a man who locked a woman in his cellar and a guy who murdered his wife. In any other movie, these guys are the villains. Yet, both of these characters are extremely likeable!

This is achieved through how relatably they behave in their relationships (kind, humble, humorous)...

... and through the emotion and/or charisma brought by the actors playing them (it's THE DOCTOR/CROWLEY and Stanley Friggin' Tucci)... but also through the amount of screen time they get.

We're with them for most of the show. There's other characters (the journalist, the trapped tutor and the vicar's wife) and subplots, of course, but they're our two anchors.

So when I'm watching David Tennant lock his son's tutor in his cellar and consider if he should free her - only to see him and his wife make things worse - I'm not thinking "you monster" like I do when I see Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs for example.

No, I'm thinking "goddammit vicar you're making things worse, it'll come back to haunt you, there's still a chance to turn back, please!" I'm rooting for him to make the right choice because I'm seeing him struggle and despair and hesitate throughout many scenes.

When I'm watching Stanley Tucci guiltily say he deserves death, after being so darn charming, humble and in clear possession of a moral compass, my instinct as a viewer isn't to go "he's right".

It's to go "aaaw, no it's fine, everyone makes mistakes."

And these characters remain likeable and/or relatable for a huge chunk of time... until, every once in a while, the show reminds you that, "remember, these guys are criminals."

"One of them's killed his wife then decapitated her, and the other one is contemplating murder, so they did/are doing evil stuff, they're the villains and you shouldn't grow fond of them."

Then it goes back to making you empathize with them again.

It's quite the emotional roller-coaster, very intriguing yet frustrating, which I have to guess is exactly what the show is going for.

But the point is: the amount of time we spend with these characters is partially what elicits this emotional reaction out of us.

If we consider the tutor's character:

For all intents and purposes, we should feel sorry for her, or full-on fucking love her. Objectively-speaking, she's:

smart but obviously scared,

we establish early on that she has a brave heart and stands up for oppressed women,

she thinks she's trapped by a pedophile or a man defending a pedophile, figures he'll inevitably try to murder her, yet manages to stay resourceful, determined and cool-headed despite it all.

She's an absolute superhero.

But that's not how the narrative frames her.

She's framed as an antagonistic force, in the vicar's subplot.

She may be the one tied up in a basement, but she's in control and the vicar is not. She's almost framed as being in a position of power (when she's really not), which leads the audience to view Tenant's vicar as an underdog.

When the vicar is trying to look for alternatives to end this situation so that he doesn't have to kill her, she's unhelpful,

and even starts pitting the vicar and his wife against each other.

Again, in-universe, she's scared shitless and in "fight-or-flight" mode. She's putting up a front because she's just trying to get outta this alive. She's the victim, here, not the vicar who captured her.

But as a viewer, you don't feel that, despite objectively knowing that. Why and how?

Because we barely see this character, compared to Tenant's vicar. So we have more time to grow to feel for him. There's "why".

Also 90% of what we do see of the tutor is her being aggressive, manipulative, sometimes downright merciless and we're seeing her from the POV of the vicar or the vicar's wife. There's "how".

Result: the viewer feels sorry for the captor and frustrated towards the captive.

This isn't a rational reaction, it's an emotional one (the goal of any visual artform being to get an emotional reaction out of the viewer).

Which means the series and Stephen Moffat effectively did their job.

How does this relate to the Prequels?

Well, a lot of people see the Jedi in a negative light in the Prequels, and Anakin in a more sympathetic one.

Even though the Prequels are about how a good man becomes bad, and even though the Jedi embody one of the major Star Wars themes (selflesness) as opposed to Anakin who clearly displays the anti-theme (selfish)... a majority of fans feels more for the latter than the former. Why?

Because the Prequels unintentionally do what Inside Man does purposefully. You react to Anakin like you react to the vicar. You react to the Jedi like you react to the tutor.

Simply put: Anakin has more screen time than the Jedi. And we don't just see him more, we see him struggle, we see him about what he knows to be morally right vs what he really wants, we see him be overtaken by his own fear...

... and just by contrast, that makes him more relatable than the Jedi, who have already overcome their character arcs and mostly all learned to keep their flaws in check.

The narrative doesn't intend to frame them as antagonistic. We do see them talk about how worried they are, we do see them emote.

And if you think about it, it's easy to see why:

their entire way of life is going to crap,

their values are being corrupted as they're forced to fight and die, alongside their clone brothers, in a war they wanted no part of,

they sense that the Force is close to the breaking point and that the galaxy's inhabitants are suffering on the daily.

But, for example, when Mace or Ki-Adi Mundi are shown expressing concern in the Prequels... as worried as they are, in-universe... out-of-universe, their measured reactions doesn't emotionally impact a viewer as much as Anakin's intense ones do.

So a big chunk of the audience will sympathize more with him than them. But like the tutor in Inside Man, the Jedi are objectively the victims and Anakin is objectively an unstable space-nazi who betrayed and destroyed them.

Just because we're not shown these characters be worried beyond just monotonously saying "I'm worried" doesn't mean they're not actually worried as Anakin is in Revenge of the Sith (if not more).

However we don't see it.

Because these three films aren't about the Jedi Order, they're about the Republic and about Anakin and about how each of these two beautiful things were corrupted (by Palpatine and by themselves) into becoming the very thing they stood against.

The Jedi aren't a factor in either of those two themes set up by George Lucas.

They became a factor when fans - who despite not liking the Prequels, still admirably chose to engage with the material - made the Jedi be more important to the narrative of the Prequels by re-framing these films as "The Failure of the Jedi".

Now, should Lucas have recognized that most fans wouldn't give two shits about why a Republic falls or the "matinee serial" format, and would've rather he focused on the Jedi, and developed them accordingly? Probably.

But good luck telling an indie filmmaker with a bunch of money how to tell the story he wants to tell.

Could Lucas have done more with the Prequels to highlight the fact that the Jedi are the underdogs of the story, not Anakin's oppressors? Yes.

But, firstly, he probably didn't think that was a point that needed explaining. And secondly, as he explained at Cannes, in 2002, feature films are a very limiting format to tell a story, especially one of the Prequels' scale. If it doesn't directly contribute to the story you're telling... it's gotta go.

A limited show would've been better to cover every aspect of the Prequels more in detail and avoid confusing the audience re: who they should be rooting for.

Which is why it's interesting, to me, that Stephen Moffat used his limited show to INTENTIONALLY confuse the audience! 😃