#but she was a great villain and character

[princess-of-purple-prose]

[ID: Text post memes of Shen Qingqiu and Luo Binghe from Scum Villain using official art.

Luo Binghe kissing Shen Qingqiu in the dreamscape + "first base is martyrdom. second base is raising the other from the dead. third base is eye contact"

Shen Qingqiu stabbing a heartbroken Luo Binghe at the edge of the Endless Abyss + "this trauma is going to give you such interesting character development I promise"

Luo Binghe smirking while forcefeeding a terrified Shen Qingqiu his blood + "I immediately stopped stalking the woman I’ve had a crush on for the past six months. When I discovered dozens of pictures of me sleeping, hanging in her closet."

Shen Qingqiu and Luo Binghe flying on a sword together + "a They Deserve Each Other shipping scale where on one end of the axis you have the “no one else is good enough for them” ships, and on the other end you have the ships that need to be together monogamously forever as a quarantine measure. whatever the fuck is wrong with both of them must be contained for the greater good."

Shen Qingqiu kissing Luo Binghe in the Deep Dream extra + "Having ethically debatable sex with my morally ambiguous wife"

Shen Qingqiu giving Luo Binghe his guanyin pendant in Maigu Ridge + "love when a dynamic is like. this would be deeply toxic for anyone else but considering the people involved this is actually far and away the healthiest option"

Luo Binghe laying his head in Shen Qingqiu's lap + "hey, can we talk for a second? it’s about your girlfriend. yeah, she’s great. no, yeah, I agree. It’s just that… she seems really devoted to you? Like really devoted. Almost as if you were the sole, fragile line mooring her to the shores of humanity. No, that’s not romant—ugh. Listen. Me and the girls, we’re worried you might be the last good thing to happen to her and that were some tragedy to inevitably befall you, she would tear the gods from their thrones and dye the infinite western seas wine-dark with their ichor. Do you think you could introduce her to a new hobby or something? we don’t want to have to argue over what color “wine-dark” is supposed to be". End ID]

no one is doing it like bingqiu (svsss tpmeme 3/?)

[jayktoralldaylong]

One of my favourite things about Arcane is that all the couples can be read as toxic, which is GREAT.

I'm tired of people bringing morality debates into dark media. Let dark media be fucking dark. You guys wouldn't survive a day in the TMA fandom, needing everyone to be as good as gold. How are they going to make for enjoyable complex characters if they're not morally grey. In fact, I wish there'd been more expansion on just how morally black they can become!

"CaitVi is so toxic" According to lesbian statistics, that sounds just about accurate. 💀 Heck, I wish Caitlyn had done more (Not really, but it would have been nice to further explore the darkness in her heart). Isn't it adorable how she immediately folded as soon as Vi called her cupcake? Caitlyn's like one of those villains that will consistently do the most....until it comes to someone else hurting her girlfriend. The only one allowed to hurt her girlfriend is her. 💀

Then let's talk about Vi. Someone pointed out how Vi never cared about Zaun's independence in the first place and many people yelled that they were wrong. But actually, they were right. Vi never wanted Zaun. Zaun was Silco's dream, and Jinx inherited that dream cause Silco would never shut up about it. Vi wanted Piltover to take responsibility for all the shit they allowed to happen in the Undercity. That's a part of the reason she joined up with Caitlyn in the first place. Let's not forget she wasn't dissuaded when she dragged Jayce down to fight with her and he killed a child. Children been dying, it's been her whole life. Someone needed to do something about it, and Zaun would have just isolated the people from all the privileges that Piltover SHOULD have been providing for them. Some people just can't accept that Independence cannot in fact solve every problem, and sometimes independence is colonisers running away from the responsibility of fixing the mess that they started in the first place.

Besides, we all know Vi joined up with the Enforcers because "I feel like I am worthless if I can't be of service." She'd already run out of family members to serve, Caitlyn was the next best thing. She's just like Jayce.

And speaking of Jayce, let's talk about his violent levels of codependency with anyone who'll give him attention. People LOOOOVE to talk about Mel, but it's there with Viktor too. When bro wasn't basing his worth on his inventions, he was centering it around Viktor.

Viktor who decided at some point in his life that he would not LIVE without Jayce. He was fine dying without him, but living without him was unacceptable. Oh how healthy. 🙄😂 Viktor be the kind of toxic ex to threaten divorce 500 times over, then burn the world when you actually leave him. Jayce is no better cause he's the kind of guy to keep going back to his toxic Ex.

Yes, Mel is manipulative. That's what I love about her. How are you guys failing to give this woman the praise of being an outsider in Piltover, but running their entire council. 💀 Girl raises her hand once and the whole government starts spinning. She was the best sugar mummy Jayce and Viktor could ever ask for. She kept the whole city running. Literally the entire of Piltover dancing on her palm. And yes she manipulated Jayce but let's not forget she thought that was a love language. 💀 You wanna be mad at someone, be mad at Ambessa for raising her that way.

I also don't think it's fair to blame her for the Undercity situation, she's not native. Monkey see, monkey do, and not a single one of those Council members actually cared about the situation down there, it was deplorable. 💀 Jayce did way more in his two weeks as Councillor than any of those drug pushing, money laundering, Piltovian heads of government.

And that just covers MelJayVik, we don't even need to get fully into TimeBomb, cause we know what's wrong there. 💀 Surely we have not forgotten the many teammates Jinx has killed, but making sure to never kill Ekko cause that's her man. Ekko has a lot to unpack, like how his consistent and unwavering love for Jinx is an indication of a lot of doors he might not be ready to open. I know they dynamics go crazy and I love to see it.

Ambessa and Sevika are a crack ship but I'm sure we all know bedroom dynamics go crazy with Mrs. Warlord and Miss Liberation. I love it when characters clash in a toxic heap. It's insane and should be explored.

Quit saintifying my toxic ships with your woke morality debates. If you want everyone to be sunshine and rainbows then you should be watching literally anything else. 💀 "It's not healthy." GOOD, I like it that way. 💀 Angst, spice and trauma are the recipe for a plethora of explorative fanfiction. Any of their dynamics can be taken in any toxic direction and I want that EXPLORED.

[ririabeam]

𝗕𝗶𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻

⫘⫘⫘⫘⫘⫘⫘⫘⫘⫘⫘⫘

—

I drew this to cope with my birthday depression.

Took 5 months. I also wanted to beat my old manhwa from 5 years ago.

-- Long post ahead! It's my WIPS and thought process. --

Junko is my comfort character as she's the only character I know who hates her birthday.

(Screenshot from Ultimate Talent Development Plan)

I know she’s a villain who has done a lot of bad things, but finding comfort and liking her doesn’t mean I excuse her actions.

A lot of painful feelings went into this, even in Mukuro's perspective so please respect it 🙏🏻

—

- WIPS & Thought Process -

—

Story Script Writing:

A lot of thoughts and feelings went into my script.

-I removed sentences like “For giving me cake!” as I wanted to do more showing than telling.

-“Why do you seem so happy Mukuro?” is changed to “Why are you smiling like that, Mukuro?” as I wanted the sentence to focus more on the thing Ryoko noticed. Mukuro would definitely be happy celebrating Ryoko’s birthday, and the new sentence would help to understand how Ryoko interpreted that Mukuro was more happy than usual.

-“good day” is changed to “great day” for greater emphasis of Ryoko’s happiness.

-A pun is done on “live”, I wanted this sentence to convey the complicated feelings of Junko. She doesn’t want to “live” a “fabricated happy lie” as it goes against her honesty moral. But there’s also a part of her that doesn’t want to kill Ryoko, as she doesn’t want to “leave” this “fabricated happy lie”. She wants to be happy as Ryoko, even if it’s a lie.

This part is a big reference and a reply to Danganronpa Zero.

The background texts are quotes from Danganronpa Zero.

Junko saying “What the hell? Hope?” is a reference to Danganronpa Zero’s ending:

Reading Danganronpa Zero feels like it’s saying something to me: “We are trapped in a loop of despair and hope.” and I’m replying with this part as a “Yes, I agree.”

Junko being confined in her mind is another thing I like about her too. 

I feel the moment we are born, we are trapped, that’s why I ended this comic with “I wish I wasn’t born.”

The moment I’m born, I’m unwanted and worthless, a monster.

I’m trapped in my mind, in other people’s judgements and expectations, and there’s no way out.

I can’t just turn invisible and there’s always something for people to judge and hate. And that hurts when it’s something important to you or you can’t change about yourself.

But even with all the pain, I think of hope to carry on and it’s a loop to fight to live.

I think I make progress with healing but then I’d think wth I’m made to work on this. Cause my life is already scripted from the moment I was born— I’m scripted to have this trauma, this story made my personality and character so in the end I’m still trapped.

So that’s another reason why I find Junko a comforting character and why I feel birthday depression.

I thought of the story first before I thought of the characters who would play it, so I had to make sure it’s in character. 

Things like if Mukuro would say “AU” or “Alternate Universe”. I felt since she spent a lot of time with Junko who knows a lot about these things, she would have heard of this and know the short form term for it. Especially since she had to be Junko at some point.

Since it’s a story about Birthday Depression, my thoughts instantly went to Junko then to Mukuro. It was the perfect story theme to write for them especially cause they are the despair sisters. 

Plus, they are two characters I can feel their struggles and feelings deeply for, so I can write and draw deeply for this story.

Birthdays tend to be happy, and I felt the only kinda right time I can talk about my birthday depression would be on their day.

I felt suffocated and lost myself over the past few years, as I felt I needed to be happy no matter what. When I opened up about sadness and my struggles, people would hate and invalidate me for it. I feel my art reflects that, I don’t like looking back at my old art. It lacked my true feelings, but I feel I’m finding myself again in my Mirai Nikki and Danganronpa art.

For the past few years I tried to celebrate my birthday to try to make myself happy about it but in the long run it didn’t work. I appreciate everyone who celebrated with me all these years still, but now I’m trying to overcome it in another way— facing despair instead of trying to cover it with hope.

I think I’ve learnt a lot about myself and understood myself better through this comic’s process.

Layout Plan:

You can see that things were changed in the final from my layout plan X’D haha

In page 2, Mukuro’s 1st panel is changed so composition is better.

In page 3, after seeing Ryoko as Junko, Mukuro is reaching out her hand instead of placing it on her chest. I wanted it to feel like Mukuro wants to reach out to Ryoko at that moment, like trying to get a wish she knows isn’t real.

In page 5, binary code is replaced with texts from Danganronpa Zero’s story so it reinforces the idea of “a life already fully planned out”.

Lining Process:

I struggled with this part the most as anatomy and poses is not my strong point.

I asked my friend, Setsuya, for help with my poses and redrew the same pose many times for this comic. I really wanted to convey the feelings for this comic right especially since it’s very personal to me. Big thanks to her for helping me so much, I feel I improved a lot from this! 🥺 <3

1st panel of 1st page is the hardest to draw, I’m laughing at my first try of Mukuro who looks like she’s forced to be there 😂:

With suggestions from my friend of how to improve, I tried to improve everyone’s poses:

^ 

Mukuro’s pose was changed to look more fondly at Ryoko, happy to be there and relaxed haha.

Ryoko’s pose was changed to look more delighted and happy about the cake (Which helps to convey the line I removed from my script, “For giving me cake!”)

Matsuda’s pose was changed to look a bit more annoyed about still cares for Ryoko (shown by him still looking at her from the corner of his eyes even though his head is turned away)

And haha I forgot Ryoko’s legs can be seen due to the table frills being transparent, so I had to go back and draw her legs X’D

For this panel, a lot of thoughts went into what things I should place, how they are placed, and what kind of items it should be e.g.

I wanted it to tell the story of what happened before all the characters gathered here, what their feelings are towards each other, and how they are like as individual characters :3

I was thinking Mukuro and Matsuda love Ryoko so much they spoil her by buying a giant cake haha X’D So that’s why there’s a plastic knife instead of a real knife— to show that the cake was bought.

I think they decided not to cook as they would fight about it… (idk if they know how to cook tbh)

I chose strawberry shortcake cause white = purity and red strawberries = blood X’D Kinda like Ryoko-

I was about to draw neatly cut and placed cakes but I think... Ryoko is bad at cutting… X’D so the cakes are lying flat with the cream a bit splattered on their plates.

The table cloth, spoons and plates are all elegant and neat cause Mukuro prepared it for Ryoko :3 I don’t think Matsuda would be able to do that since he seems to not be a tidy person X’D but I do think he probably decided these items and arrangement with Mukuro :3

Here’s a random joke Matsuda + My roughly drawn Promised Neverland manga cover before I squeezed it on to his book haha:

I was going to make Matsuda read Megaman at first like in canon, but I felt making him read “Promised Neverland” was fitting as it helped me bring some foreboding to my happy setting. Like the promise never landed cause I’m going to break my happy promise/premise X’D 

I felt it was fitting too as Matsuda wasn’t met with a good fate like the Promised Neverland children.

Plus I feel Matsuda would like a genre like that, or perhaps he wouldn’t mind anything as he is a laid back character.

This pose was changed so Ryoko would look more reserved and have less of a romantic vibe? Cause the intertwined fingers felt a bit more romantic and off to me, as it wasn’t the vibe I was going for.

Feat. The paper sketch is my friend helping me with anatomy X’)

While writing sentences and drawing for Mukuro’s scenes, I was thinking of experiences I’ve gone through before and the feelings I felt then. 

The way I wished things could be different. I kept having dreams of happy endings I wanted to happen but then I would wake up to the tragic reality and cry.

The way I was suffering on the inside but still held on to this thing I perceived as “Hope” even though it was killing me and could be seen as “Despair” in another POV/or I already knew it was bad for me but it was also my only hope.

Symbolisms for this panel:

Carrying a candle-> holding on to hope/a wish.

Candle not blown out -> Mukuro's wish didn't come true (blowing out a candle means bringing your wish on smoke to the good spirits above to grant your wish) , her hoping leading to despair.

My pose was changed here as it is more natural for the hands to be like that, plus the other hand holding on to the arm greater empathise how Mukuro is holding on strongly to this candle.

The candle is melting and the wax is getting on her hand, burning her. Still, she refuses to let go which empathises how much she needs to hold on to this. Even as she grabs her own hand causing more pain from bleeding, she still needs this “hope.” 

Some colour tests for this panel:

I was considering blue fire because blue fire is stronger than red.... but then if it is a wish of hope, I was considering yellow too... but maybe it would be too happy? 

Mukuro is feeling sad and wishful in this panel. 

I ended up going for blue fire which gives off yellow light for a purposeful contradictory colouring— to show that what is perceived as despair can also be perceived as hope.

^ Some exploration for the poses here so I can figure out which conveys what I wanted to convey the best. I like the poses where Mukuro is reserved happy, Ryoko is more playful(?), Matsuda is more relaxed.

^ Exploration for the Junko slash pose. Ended up just going back to the original pose I had planned for the layout.

I found this super hard to draw as I’m not good at anatomy, drew it quite a few times and deleted as I couldn’t draw it right. In the end, my friend drew that pose reference which helped me get it right in final!

Reasons why I chose the original layout pose in the end:

Strangle pose-> I don't want to strangle Ryoko, not because it’s too violent or graphic or that she's 🥺uwu and I can’t kill her-

I just feel Junko doesn’t completely hate Ryoko... a part of her wants to live a happy life after all

But she can’t, that's why the words "A fabricated happy lie, I don’t want to live this!"

It's a lie and it's against her value (honesty).

Sword slashing pose-> Junko is directly jumping towards and has no hesitation slashing Ryoko. This feels off cause it’s too violent which doesn’t convey the message I want.

Sword is also stronger than knife, which would hurt more.

When I see the knife and how the body is twisted a bit away in the original layout pose, it works better as I can see some control to the slash so it's not full on hatred and anger towards Ryoko.

Random full drawing of this Junko before I cut it off for composition.

I find it easier to get the anatomy right if I draw the full thing and draw through everything.

^ I’m super sad at my failure for this :,) I didn’t intend it to be like that 😭 

It’s too hard for me to draw, so my friend helped me again and I chose a pose and studied her pose and drew the whole pose again:

I chose the 1st pose because the angle of the faces there best shows both character’s facial expressions and the emotions are the most important for this scene.

Plus 3/4 angle is better than the flat side view one as it helps make this scene more dramatic!

My friend helped me with the position of Junko’s tie:

reached max images for this post so,

WIPS continued in another post

[maxdibert]

People always complain that Harry “forgave” Severus too easily, especially with the whole naming-his-son-after-him thing, and blah blah blah. First, let me make it clear that I think all of Harry’s kids’ names are an abomination. The fact that it seems Ginny had no say in them whatsoever is even more infuriating. I mean, I understand naming two of his kids after his dead parents, but I think it was completely unnecessary for Rowling to go as far as she did with everything else.

That said, I don’t think Harry forgave Severus. I think Harry simply understood Severus in the end. He understood why Snape was the way he was, what had led him to where he ended up, and why he had that awful personality. Harry is a character who shows an immense ability to understand the root of evil and empathize with other people’s motivations when there’s a good explanation behind them.

Harry decides not to testify against the Malfoys because he understands that, despite being a bunch of jerks, they did what they did because they had no other choice. He comes to this realization through Narcissa betraying Voldemort to save Draco and through Severus’s memories, where Snape and Dumbledore explain that Voldemort had given Draco no way out. Harry understands that Dudley spent his whole life being a jerk and a bully, heavily influenced by his parents, and that once Dudley became aware of how awful his behavior was, he regretted it and apologized.

It’s not that Harry forgets what people did to him; it’s that he understands that people have motivations beyond simply being good or bad. When Harry understands those motivations and sees that, in the end, they choose the right path (even if it’s not in the most orthodox way), he just decides to let things be.

I think the same happened with Severus, with an added layer of gratitude for realizing that, despite being a jerk, the guy ultimately worked to make sure neither Harry nor his friends ended up dead. Even though Snape couldn’t stand to look Harry in the eye, he still honored his commitment to protect him and followed through with Dumbledore’s plans. And I think that’s quite coherent on Harry’s part because, as kids, we tend to see things in black and white. But for those of us who’ve had to live with highly dysfunctional adults whose behavior we couldn’t stand, we often realize as adults that the problem came from not understanding the root of those behaviors. Understanding them doesn’t make those actions any better, nor does it make us forget what they did, but it does bring a certain peace because we can finally rationalize a motive. That makes it easier to close those chapters of our lives.

Harry understood why Severus did what he did. He understood that, despite everything, Snape risked and ultimately lost his life for a good cause, that he was willing to bear the role of the villain and endure loneliness for most of his life to maintain his cover. Snape sacrificed everything—his youth, his reputation, his personal ambitions, and his own life—to repay a debt. He always did what needed to be done, especially the things no one else wanted to do. Severus did the dirty work, and Harry recognized and valued that, which is why he considered him an incredibly brave man.

Dumbledore himself said that it takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends. Severus stood up to both—friends and enemies. He constantly navigated between two worlds to which he never fully belonged or was truly accepted, much like the dichotomy between his magical and Muggle heritage. But he faced it all and kept going. That’s what Harry recognized, that’s what Harry valued, and that’s why he decided to clear Snape’s name and ensure he was acknowledged.

The fact that Harry could understand this while so many people continue to reduce Severus to a creepy, obsessive, and bitter man says a lot about some people’s lack of reading comprehension and others’ lack of empathy.

[baphometsss]

The only way I can accept the bullshit they pulled with her in this game is if she's manipulating Solas into maintaining the Veil for now because she has something else up her sleeve and the Veil needs to stay up for that to happen. It would be more in keeping with her character since she has basically been using Solas like a tool since the moment she met him as a spirit in the Fade. She has a propensity for using men, as you pointed out, and he also stole her power and tried to destroy a part of her (as well as rebelling against her and pissing her off in a number of ways we probably don't even know about). Tinfoil hat time here but what if Solas was someone she wanted revenge on too? Sending him to the Fade to fix their mistakes would be one way of going about it.

I know it's a long shot and with the way things are going, DA5 will probably titled Dragon Age: Gotham Knights or something and feature Neve battling some Joker knock-off in an even more watered-down Thedas. We won't get to see how Thedas has changed since the Blight, but just the end products of it. No more slavery, the Crows are good guys now, Ferelden somehow rebuilt itself, Mages are happy, the Dales belong to the Elves once more, etc. It'll just be done in a blank period.

But!! If they get their shit together and actually deliver a decent game that isn't horribly derivative of Marvel/DC, I can see Mythal being either a Big Bad or the Big Deus Ex Machina saviour like she has been in the last couple of games. I'm kind of torn if I want that though, because I think they've overused both her and Morrigan somewhat. There can, in fact, be several great women in Thedas's story, but it seems like they're dead set on there being one single woman at the root of all of them. (This is kinda why I hate the Mythal is Andraste theory. Sorry, but no. It can't all be Mythal.)

I think the bottom line is that they were planning on having Mythal be much more of a villain in this game, but it ultimately became Solas-centric instead. She becomes a figurehead for all his motivations, even though, in the end, it boils down to him being unable to accept the weight of his own failures. However, she and Solas were plotting separately for thousands of years, too. She wouldn't have waited around for him to do it for her. Him bringing down the Veil might have disrupted the plans she was making too.

Tbh though I'm being too generous to this studio and they probably just watered her down bc Woman Good Man Bad and don't want to follow through on the story they built up about a morally complex woman. Still, it doesn't hurt to theorise.

Sorry, but I just don’t buy the whole “actually Mythal decided after centuries of wandering Thedas as Flemeth that modern people deserve a chance” thing. Because the fragment of Mythal we’re talking about is the jaded old swamp witch who

-Inhabited the body of a woman betrayed by her lover(s) because they found common ground in their suffering and the injustices done to them. (“Once I was but a woman, crying out in the lonely darkness for justice.” - DAI)

-Resents that betrayal to the point she views men as disposable playthings that she can lure back to her hut, have her way with, and then… murder? I think? (Based on Morrigan’s own account in DAO)

-Abused her daughter under the guise of tough love in an attempt to prepare her for a cruel uncaring world. (Again, Morrigan’s account, DAO)

-Says during her appearance in Inquisition that she will have her reckoning.

-Spent centuries consolidating her power as well as cycling through different human women’s bodies via questionable means for the sake of bringing about said reckoning. (“I have carried Mythal through the ages ever since, seeking the justice denied to her.” and about the Inquisitor: “A Herald indeed. Shouting to the heavens, harbinger of a new age.” - DAI)

-During her scene with Solas at the end of Inquisition does NOT say ANYTHING about disagreeing with Solas’s plans, just that she considers him and old friend and is sorry things are going the way they are. (Seriously, is the dialogue in that regret scene in Veilguard supposed to be from a mental connection they had? Because that dialogue just isn’t in the Inquisition scene.)

And I’m supposed to believe that in her last moments, Flemythal backed off and went “actually I think we need to maintain the status quo”????

None of this paints a picture of someone who has gone soft over time. At least not to the degree that is presented in that regret scene in Veilguard. Sure Flemeth wasn’t all bad, she had some tenderness to her. She shows some genuine care for Morrigan and Kieran (if present) and seems hurt when Morrigan implies she was trying not to be the kind of mother Flemeth was to her.

At the end of Inquisition, we can’t tell for certain to what degree she approves of Solas’s methods. But it seems like a step in said methods was to absorb her power and doom her, an embodiment of Justice, to take a passive role once more. And we know what happens when a spirit is denied its purpose. Justice denied its purpose could turn to Vengeance. Which, to me, feels like it would better echo the themes of Solas’s pride/wisdom duality, inquisition’s themes around what it means to become a god-like force of nature, DA2’s question of whether violence is necessary for revolution (which literally has the Justice/Vengeance duality in it with Anders), and DAO’s theme of sacrifice for the greater good.

[nitrateglow]

Favorite films discovered in 2024

This year, I focused more on rewatching films I hadn't seen in a long time rather than racking up new titles. However, I still encountered plenty of new faves, many of them movies that have been on my watchlist for years. Here are the top twenty.

But first, some interesting patterns in this year's list...

Most represented decade: 1960s

Earliest film represented: 1932

Newest film represented: 1999

Creatives who show up more than once: Robert Mulligan, Walter Matthau, Boris Karloff

The Window (dir. Ted Tetzlaff, 1949)

A young boy (Bobby Driscoll) living in a squalid NYC apartment building witnesses his neighbors (Paul Stewart and Ruth Roman) committing a murder. Unfortunately, the kid's penchant for tall tales prevent anyone from believing him-- except for the killers, eager to alleviate themselves of an inconvenient witness.

Precious few thrillers earn the moniker “Hitchcockian” as well as this intense little gem from RKO. The Hitchcock vibes make sense when you consider Hitchcock’s cinematographer from Notorious was in the director’s chair and the source material was written by Cornell Woolrich, also responsible for the short story behind Rear Window. Augmented by on-location photography of New York City and a grimy, desolate sense of urban decay, The Window is both a great suspense yarn and classic film noir. Despite having a kid for a lead character, the film pulls no punches: both its small-time crook villains and the city setting feel palpably dangerous.

My Neighbors the Yamadas (dir. Isao Takahata, 1999)

The Yamadas, an average middle-class Japanese family, navigate the perils of sharing a television set, a kid going missing during a shopping trip, awkward wedding speeches, and other misadventures.

Between the original Studio Ghibli directorial duo of Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata, Miyazaki will always be the more popular filmmaker, but I think Takahata’s films are more intellectually and emotionally rewarding. This is not meant as a hit on Miyazaki’s undeniable greatness, but Takahata’s movies are far more challenging. That being said, My Neighbors the Yamadas is a lighter entry in his filmography, a slice of life comedy about the eponymous family and their shenanigans in modern Japan. However, beneath the whimsical humor runs an undercurrent of melancholy, an awareness of the transience of life in both its lovely and absurd moments. To date, it gets my vote for the most underrated Ghibli film.

A New Leaf (dir. Elaine May, 1971)

After squandering his ample inheritance, a middle-aged New York layabout (Walter Matthau) decides to marry an eccentric botanist (Elaine May) for her money then murder her ASAP.

Elaine May only directed a few films, but the two I’ve seen—this and the long-maligned Ishtar—were a lot of fun. A New Leaf is the better film though, far more focused and consistently funny. I don't usually belly laugh when watching a movie at home alone, but I did several times here. Even just thinking about some of the things that happen in this film can make me start laughing again. I understand the existing version was not May’s preferred cut and she felt it was butchered by the studio. Even so, this is a great movie regardless of that and one I really want to rewatch soon.

Cash on Demand (dir. Quentin Lawrence, 1961)

Uptight, unpleasant bank manager Harry Fordyce (Peter Cushing) is the boss from hell to his employees, but to criminal extraordinaire Gore Hepburn (Andre Morrel), he's the key to a successful heist. Posing as an insurance representative to get access to Fordyce's office, Hepburn tells the manager he's holding his wife and child, whose lives will be forfeit if he doesn't help him relieve the bank of ninety thousand pounds.

Ho, ho, ho, guess who's got a new Christmas classic to enjoy every year? Cash on Demand is not only a strangely enervating riff on A Christmas Carol's basic set-up (a miserable man is spiritually redeemed through an encounter with ghosts-- or in this case, bank robbers), but it's one of the best, tightest one-location thrillers I have ever seen. I genuinely had no idea where the story was going and found myself in absolute agony as the noose grew tighter around our protagonist's neck. It's a testament to both the writing and Peter Cushing's detailed, very human performance that this film is the emotionally powerful piece of work that it is, and not just a fun, clockwork heist yarn.

Letter from an Unknown Woman (dir. Max Ophuls, 1948)

While trying to evade a duel, an aging playboy (Louis Jordan) receives a letter from a dying woman (Joan Fontaine) who claims he was the love of her life. The letter recounts the details of their love affair, which was the centerpiece of this woman's life and only a mere erotic interlude in his.

The best way to describe this movie is lush romantic melodrama married to a bitter, emotionally brutal tale of a life wasted. The movie is heartbreaking but beautifully shot and performed. I’m not always the biggest fan of Fontaine, but she is fantastic here. Also, I need to watch more Max Ophuls.

Sudden Fear (dir. David Miller, 1952)

A middle-aged playwright (Joan Crawford) thinks she’s found love with a would-be matinee idol (Jack Palance)—instead she realizes she’s being targeted by her new hubby, who only wants her wealth. But he mistakes her emotional vulnerability for a lack of discernment—and a lack of desire to get even.

I like my women-in-peril thrillers when they feature clever heroines driven to survive whatever nightmare their antagonists throw at them and Sudden Fear is amazing in this regard. I know everyone loves Joan Crawford best in Mildred Pierce, but I was floored by her performance here, especially in the dialogue-free scenes. There are campy moments (which I adore), but the story is emotionally compelling and I not only wanted Joan's character to survive, but to thrive post-shitty marriage.

Thieves Like Us (dir. Robert Altman, 1974)

Young lovers Bowie (Keith Carradine) and Keechie (Shelley Duvall) yearn for a white picket fence, a quiet porch, and a case of Cokes (probably because that's all they drink in this film). Too bad Bowie is an escaped convict tied up with bank robbers. Too bad it's the Great Depression. At least there's plenty Coke. Want a Coke?

Most films set in the past do not as painstakingly recreate bygone worlds as strongly as Thieves Like Us. Set in Depression era Mississippi, this film captures the harsh, bleak reality and romantic, consumerist fantasies of its star-cross’d leads, played with sensuous naivete by Keith Carradine and the late, great Shelley Duvall. This is more than just yet another Bonnie and Clyde riff—it’s a tragedy about the elusive American Dream, with snippets of radio music, programs, and ads acting as a Greek chorus in a truly inspired touch. Robert Altman can be an acquired taste, but this is easily my favorite of his films to date.

Targets (dir. Peter Bogdanovich, 1968)

The paths of an aging horror star (Boris Karloff) and a psychotic mass shooter (Tim O'Kelly) cross at a drive-in theater.

Targets was not what I expected: it's a threeway character study between the disheartened horror star, the psychotic shooter, and 1960s America itself. To be honest, you could remake this movie now with a former ‘80s slasher star making the same musings and it would still seem credible—but then of course, you wouldn’t have Karloff in one of the best performances of his career. Targets is rendered even more chilling by its docudrama style. The violence shown isn’t sensationalistic, but presented in clinical detail, making it feel more authentic. Gorier films haven’t frightened me as much as this slow-burn character study.

Losing Ground (dir. Kathleen Collins, 1982)

Despite finding pleasure in research and theory, philosophy professor Sara Rogers (Seret Scott) envies the escatic nature of her painter husband, Victor (Bill Gunn). Their difference in temperaments and Victor's adulterous straying also strain the marriage. However, once Sara takes a job performing a sensuous, emotional role in a student film to get in touch with her own artistic side, Victor grows suspicious and jealous in turn.

Losing Ground was sold to me as a film about a crumbling marriage, but it's more than that. It might be more accurate to call it a portrait of self-discovery, a woman extending beyond her comfort zone to live more fully. I found myself strongly relating to Sara-- like her, I have a creative side I've often been timid to share, being more comfortable with the mind than the body. Being an independent film, it eschews the Hollywood histrionics and melodrama that would normally accompany this subject matter and it's paced perfectly at 90 minutes. Though filmed in the early '80s, the film only played the film festival circuit and never enjoyed a proper theatrical release. Only in 2015 was it rediscovered and then released on home video. The director Kathleen Collins died young, but this film stands a testament to her passion and talent.

Cactus Flower (dir. Gene Saks, 1969)

A middle-aged dentist (Walter Matthau) who poses as a married man to fend off romantic commitment decides to buckle down and wed his much younger girlfriend (Goldie Hawn, looking like a mod Tinker Bell). However, when she insists on speaking with his made-up wife, he recruits his no-nonsense nurse (Ingrid Bergman) into the charade.

Cactus Flower is what I often call a transitional film: released in the late ‘60s, it has one foot in the classical style of Old Hollywood and another in the more liberated counterculture that was shooting out hits like Easy Rider and The Graduate. Directed with unexciting competence by Gene Saks, Cactus Flower’s success largely comes from Ingrid Bergman, Goldie Hawn, and Jack Weston. Bergman I could watch in anything, so I’m biased perhaps, but she walks the fine line between funny and touching as the lonely woman who finds emotional liberation through her roleplaying. The scene where she gets groovy on the dance floor is a highlight of her entire screen career and no, I AM NOT KIDDING.

The Black Room (dir. Roy William Neill, 1935)

Two aristocratic brothers (both Boris Karloff) are at odds over the love of a young woman (Marian Marsh) and an ancient prophecy forecasting the end of their bloodline.

Boris Karloff dives into a double role in this deliciously gothic melodrama. Columbia pulled out all the stops for this one: it drips with sumptuous set design and expressionistic lighting. I was particularly taken by this film’s slightly tongue-in-cheek approach to a more 18th century mode of gothic terror. It goes for full-blooded melodrama with its innocent maidens, secret dungeons, lecherous villain, and ancient curses. It’s as close to a 1930s Castle of Otranto adaptation as we’ve got and by God, I'm grateful for its existence.

Freud: The Secret Passion (dir. John Huston, 1962)

In the late 1880s, young psychiatrist Sigmund Freud (Montgomery Clift) probes into the inner lives of his "hysterical" patients to discover the roots of their mental illnesses. However, these journeys into the subconscious worlds of others bring him into uncomfortable contact with his own demons.

Listening to a podcast episode on John Houston’s Key Largo led me to works of his I hadn’t heard of, such as Freud. I was initially skeptical it could be good. Biopics are my least favorite genre, but this film isn’t so much a biopic as a psychological drama in which Freud is the protagonist and some of his ideas are illustrated through his interactions with the other characters. Instead of wasting time being some melodrama ABOUT Freud the man (the route most biopics go regarding their subjects), it’s about his theories and philosophy, which is a far more interesting approach. The result is a probing, intellectual work. I’m not sure how close Montgomery Clift’s characterization is to the real Freud, but the real star of the show is Houston’s direction, a resurrection of German expressionist aesthetics blended with stark realism.

Paris is Burning (dir. Jennie Livingston, 1990)

This documentary covers 1980s NYC ball culture, where Black and Latino members of the LGBT+ community vogue and perform.

Documentaries are not usually my thing, but Paris is Burning was a longtime resident of my watchlist and I am glad I finally got around to seeing it. It has a time capsule quality, capturing a long-vanished 1980s New York City and the LGBT+ community living there at the time. Obviously, there is a lot of meditation on gender identity, sexuality, and the importance of community in a world hostile to your very existence, but I was also interested by the film's presentation of the materialism and consumption of the Reagan era.

Candyman (dir. Bernard Rose, 1992)

A graduate student (Virginia Madsen) studying urban myths unwittingly summons the Candyman (Tony Todd), the hook-handed ghost of a Black painter who was lynched decades ago.

I expected fun slasher nonsense and instead got a gorgeous, unsettling, modern gothic masterpiece that only occasionally dips its toes into schlock. Candyman is ethereal in all the right ways despite being suffused with despairing urban gloom. I was not surprised to find the script was adapted from a Clive Barker story—like Barker’s The Hellbound Heart (adapted into the Hellraiser films), Candyman is chilling yet eerily beautiful. The moment I finished watching it, I knew this was one I would be itching to revisit. There’s just so much going on regarding race, class, and memory in America. Also, Tony Todd’s voice is a damn treasure.

Merrily We Go to Hell (dir. Dorothy Arzner, 1932)

An alcoholic playwright (Frederic March) and his long-suffering wife (Sylvia Sidney) decide to have an open marriage. It doesn't work out well for either of them.

Merrily We Go to Hell is a sneaky piece of work. Reading the synopsis, one expects the usual salacious pre-code melodrama. The first scenes even resemble your usual romantic comedy, with our central couple having a meet-cute. The actual movie is much more complicated. It's about a married couple thinking love is enough to make their union work despite the husband's alcoholism. However, this idea proves erroneous and attempts to numb the pain through hedonism and extramarital vengeance just pour gasoline on the fire. The emotional honesty here is astonishing and even the "happy ending" isn't so uncomplicated when you think about it. So far, this is my favorite film of director Dorothy Arzner.

Up the Down Staircase (dir. Robert Mulligan, 1967)

An idealistic young teacher (Sandy Dennis) gets her first position at an inner-city high school. However, she finds her enthusiasm worn down by the school system's bureaucracy and the many psychological troubles of her students and fellow faculty.

Ever since I watched Four Seasons a few years ago, I’ve been intrigued by Sandy Dennis. No matter the role, I find her eccentric yet vulnerable screen presence compelling. Up the Down Staircase was Dennis’ first starring vehicle and an unsentimental look at the teaching profession. Having worked as a teacher and in similar jobs in the past, I related strongly to the main character’s compassion fatigue and her frustrated desire to help make her community a better place. While not a cheery film, it is ultimately an optimistic one, even if that optimism is cautious. And of course, Dennis is damn great as always, whetting my appetite for more of her work.

They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? (dir. Sydney Pollack, 1969)

In the thick of the Great Depression, a group of desperate contestants sign up for a grueling dance marathon with a hefty cash prize. Greed, sexual exploitation, health problems, and crushing despair eventually complicate the exhibition.

This movie is so bleak you’ll be just as exhausted as the characters by the tragic finish. I know that doesn’t sound like much of a recommendation, but this is powerful stuff. It does what a great tragedy should do: make you emphasize with the characters and go out into the world more empathetic toward the people around you and more critical of a society in which such awful conditions could be permitted. And like Targets, it’s depressing that this movie’s themes remain relevant to American culture.

Flash Gordon (dir. Frederick Stephani and Ray Taylor, 1936)

A himbo polo player (Buster Crabbe), a middle-aged scientist in hot pants (Frank Shannon), and an ingenue in a blonde wig (Jean Rogers) must save the Earth from a galactic emperor.

Yes, I’m counting a film serial as a single unit on this list. In this corny, breathless saga can be found the seeds of so many modern blockbuster spectacles. The old school space opera aesthetic is always a joy and I love seeing what George Lucas borrowed from the comic book plot and fantastic images for his Star Wars films. Also, the serial is surprisingly horny for a product released after the death knell of the pre-code era, so that’s fascinating too. I watched the episodes, one a night, usually before a feature film, to recreate at least in part the conditions in which old serials were viewed. I highly recommend that approach if you're interested in watching these kind of films-- NEVER binge them.

Silkwood (dir. Mike Nichols, 1983)

Karen Silkwood (Meryl Streep), a union activist and metallurgy worker at a plutonium processing plant, discovers both she and many of her co-workers have been contaminated with high levels of radiation due to blatant safety violations. Rather than remedy the problem, her employers are determined to keep her quiet, but Karen refuses to back down.

Meryl Streep's performance in Silkwood finally showed me what all the hype around her is about. What an astonishing, natural performance-- I forgot I was watching an actor every moment. As for the overall film, it's one of the stronger docudramas out there (as this film was based on a true story). It isn't just a preachy message piece and it allows Silkwood to be both a heroic figure and a flesh and blood human being with flaws like anyone. The domestic drama involving her lover (Kurt Russell) and lesbian roommate (Cher, who also gives an incredible performance) is almost as compelling as the main story. Though released in the early '80s, it feels like a late manifestation of the paranoia thriller genre of the decade before.

Love with the Proper Stranger (dir. Robert Mulligan, 1963)

When a one-night stand with a jazz musician (Steve McQueen) leaves her pregnant and at risk of upsetting her very Catholic family, an innocent sales clerk (Natalie Wood) tracks down her lover and demands he help her get an abortion.

Love with the Proper Stranger is such a unique piece of work that I can forgive the elements that dissatisfy me (like the ending). Wood and McQueen's romance starts out acidic and slowly becomes tender over the course of their bizarre misadventure, and the film itself shifts through several moods. Sometimes it feels like an urban drama, other times a romantic comedy. But it somehow holds together, perhaps because of the chemistry between the lead actors.

What were your favorite film discoveries in 2024?

[xyywrites]

Writing ✨Villains ✨

Villains aren’t just bad guys to be defeated—they’re individuals with desires, insecurities, and emotions that shape their actions. So how do you write a villain that draws empathy, admiration, or even love from your audience?

Let’s break it down.

1. Give Them a Relatable Motivation

Villains often have personal stakes in their actions, which makes their goals more understandable. Even if their methods are extreme, the why behind them should make sense. Take Magneto from Marvel—he’s fighting for mutant rights because of the trauma he endured in the Holocaust. His hatred of humanity isn’t just for the sake of being evil; it’s rooted in a deep fear of oppression. Readers don’t just see a villain—they see someone who has been hurt and is trying to prevent others from experiencing that same pain.

2. Give Them Depth and Complexity

One-dimensional villains are hard to relate to, so give them layers. Kylo Ren from Star Wars also falls into this category—he's torn between the dark side and the light, haunted by his family and the shadow of Darth Vader. His internal struggle makes him more sympathetic, and while his actions are dark, you can’t help but wonder if he’ll ever turn things around.

3. Make Them Charming or Charismatic

Loki from the Marvel universe is a prime example of this. He's witty, clever, and has a tragic backstory that makes him compelling, even when he’s causing chaos. The charm helps balance out his darker actions, and there are moments where the audience wonders if they should root for him.

In The Dark Knight, The Joker is a complete anarchist, but his unsettling charisma and unpredictable nature make him compelling to watch, even if you hate his methods. He challenges the status quo, which in turn makes readers consider if maybe some of his ideas have merit.

4. Let Them Be Vulnerable

Villains don’t exist in a vacuum. Show their weaknesses, fears, and internal struggles to make them more human. Scar from The Lion King may be an intimidating figure, but his jealousy and bitterness stem from being overshadowed by his brother Mufasa. His vulnerability in wanting to be noticed and loved gives readers a glimpse into why he acts the way he does.

Darth Vader in Star Wars is another example. His descent into darkness is rooted in love and loss—the desire to save his wife from death led him to make tragic choices. As the audience sees him struggle with these emotions, they can understand why he fell to the dark side, even if they don’t agree with his actions.

5. Make Their Actions Justifiable (From Their Point of View)

Thanos from the Marvel Cinematic Universe sees himself as a savior, even though his plans involve wiping out half of all life in the universe. To him, it's a necessary evil. While the audience may not agree, they can see how someone could come to this conclusion, and that complexity is what makes him so compelling.

6. Use Their Relationships to Humanize Them

Villains often have relationships with others that show a more tender side. Raven from Teen Titans has a complicated relationship with her father, Trigon. His manipulation and the psychological toll he puts on her create empathy for Raven, as we see her fight against the very darkness she is born from. Similarly, Hela from Thor: Ragnarok has a complicated relationship with Thor and Loki, adding layers to her villainy.

Azula from Avatar: The Last Airbender is another example. While she’s ruthlessly ambitious and terrifying, her relationship with her family—especially her father, Fire Lord Ozai—provides a glimpse into the motivations that drive her cruelty. Her vulnerability shows when she struggles with her identity, especially when she loses the one person who ever fully supported her.

7. Let Them Be 'The Antihero'

Sometimes villains are antiheroes, and their actions, though extreme, may align with the reader's personal values. Deadpool is a great example of a character who straddles the line between hero and villain. His sense of humor, emotional trauma, and self-preservation make him easy to root for, even if his methods are chaotic and unorthodox.

Harley Quinn : Her backstory with the Joker and her eventual break from him makes her a villain-turned-antihero. She’s a product of her abusive relationship, and as she seeks redemption, readers can’t help but want her to succeed—even if she’s still a bit off the rails.

8. Make Their Death (or Potential Redemption) Impactful

When a villain’s arc concludes—whether through death, redemption, or failure—it needs to feel earned. Severus Snape in Harry Potter is a perfect example of this. He’s a villain for most of the series, but by the end, readers learn the truth about his motivations and sacrifice. His redemption arc is poignant, and while he’s a morally grey character, his death is deeply impactful.

Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender also starts as a villain but grows into an antihero as his relationship with his father, his sister, and his country evolves. His redemption is gradual and earned, making his eventual turn toward good feel earned and satisfying.

TL;DR: Villains who make you almost root for them have depth, vulnerability, and charisma. They're not just "evil"—they’re complicated. And that's why we keep coming back for more.

[thedirtiwalkoniswet]

I've talked in great detail about Ahsoka, Obi Wan and Acolyte, and while I've pointed out many details in Andor I loved, I haven't made a similar lengthy post about it. So get ready.

The writing, the strongest part of the show. Star Wars is so notorious for having bad writing that Andor is in very stark contrast to this. Arguable the most well written show I have ever watched. No other show has captivated me this much with it's dialogues/ monologues as Andor. So many lines stuck with me. I already made a post about my favorite parts, so I will keep it at that. Something that could be criticized, is that it is sometimes very heavy with preachy monologues. On the other hand is it so well written that I don't mind it at all. If it was written worse, it very much could be something to criticize.

It also doesn't hold your hand, it doesn't explain everything right away and you learn organically what they are talking about. It allows it to have a much greater rewatch value.

Next up, the characters. Every single character is full of personality, even when they only have 5 minutes of screen time, in matter of seconds you already know who they are, what purpose they serve, what relationship they have to each other. It's the combination of the fantastic writing and incredible acting. We also see the motivation behind every big decisions a character makes, nothing comes out of nowhere.

Many of the live action star wars shows suffer from having antagonists that feel flat and one dimensional, whose motives are shallow or none existent. When Syril was introduced, we understood why he's doing what he's doing. When Dedra was introduced, you find yourself rooting for her. It was such a genius introduction, seeing her react to the only other woman in the room speak. She is a minority in this room. You watch her fail to someone who in this moment seems more 'evil' than her, so you want her to win. And then you do watch her win, by being smart and cunning (something a lot of star wars villains are not). But then you realize that her winning means others have to suffer, Paak and Bix first and foremost. You don't root for her anymore.

There aren't just the good guys and the bad guys in Andor, they all have layers. Syril obviously belongs to the bad guys, but he doesn't know that, he believes he is doing the right thing. Luthen is ready to sacrifice many lives to destroy the empire. Almost taking this Robespierre approach, where the violence of the rebellion is affecting the allies negatively as well. Making you question if the position of power he has build for himself is going to corrupt him in the future. Which he is aware of and even addresses, something that still differentiates him from the imperials or Saw Gerrera, who refuses to see any flaws in his believes.

Another thing Andor shows, which is missing in many other shows, is culture. It organically integrates parts of Chandrillan or Ferrix culture. The drinks, the way marriages work in Chandrillan culture, the fact that it is very heteronormative. The way people of Ferrix warn each other about imperials, the tradition of funerals, which is an incredible concept by the way. Also seeing how people live, their homes, something you see so rarely in Star wars since so much takes place on ships. Syrils, Mon's and Ma's homes, all widely different and adding so much to the world building, by doing such a small thing. Additionally do you see how the empire works on a more in depth level, without the focus on wars or the elimination of Jedi.

The empire is a real, suffocating threat. The rebels in this show have to go through great lengths just to communicate with each other, they need to slip through tiny cracks to get around the empire. And even then they sometimes fail, like Kreegyr or Bix did. Half of the rebels attacking the garrison died trying. It's not easy, it's messy, dirty, it took great sacrifices.

And that is the main theme of the show - sacrifice. Tying back to the fact that Cassian ends up sacrificing himself for the rebellion. Everyone sacrifices something to help the greater good, wether it's money, relationships, inner peace or lives.

On a more facile note, the costume design is amazing. We all already know that Mon's closet is incredible, but so is the one of her husband or Tay Kolma. The same goes for the people of Ferrix, who have a clear style that adds to the beauty of the planet and culture.

I also think it was a smart decisions not to have aliens among the main cast, since bad make up or cgi can ruin the vibe to a degree. But the ones we do see all look great. They can also save budget focusing on other things instead.

There is so much good in this show, so many details worth mentioning, I could go on forever. It's not going to be the last time I praise this show, that's for sure.

[siena-sevenwits]

Goodness of the Day:

Went to the big city for a second day in a row because while he was in the area, Brother Two wanted to go to the dear parish we used to drive out to every week before gas and the carbon tax made it unfeasible. My dad went here in town, but my mom and the guys and I all piled into the van again and had a stunning drive along the highway through the wintry fields. The hoarfrost is thick and glistening atop the snow, and honestly Pinterest could never.

I was sitting in the front pew, directly in front of the Advent Wreath, and of course all four candles were lit, including the one that has been burning at every Mass since December 1st. It had wasted away to practically nothing, and during the Gospel it got altogether too low and the wreath (artificial) caught fire - just a tiny bit. So I leaned forward and blew it out. It was not as subtle as I could have hoped, because the wreath and I were close-ish to the ambo, so everyone was looking that direction anyway, and also the amount of smoke that went up when I blew it out was way more than I expected. Partway through the homily an altar boy showed up to replace the candle with a longer one, so I didn't accidentally set us back one week of Advent. Thank you, altar boy. I am grateful you saved me from too bad of an interference with this time stream we're all in. the whole thing was funny to me.

Really wanted to confess before Christmas, thought I wouldn't have the chance, and unexpectedly did! Very glad.

Bullied my mom into letting me buy lunch for her and another lunch to bring back for my dad. She never wants to let me get away with treating them, so it was a win.

Christmas pudding work was accomplished. More tomorrow. It's a whole process. The fruit is soaking in French brandy overnight. Sounds fancy, but I went for the cheapest I could get that was still a high enough proof that I can also use it to flame the pudding when I serve it. It's not worth making if I don't get to feel like Mrs. Cratchit when I bring it out.

Listened to some short talks by Father Mike Schmitz.

We had the first session of the Saltmarsh Christmas Special! A giant boar attacked a caravan on the road in a snowy forest, and heroics happened. The great beast was dealt with and is being brought back to town for somebody's solstice celebration feast. The villain has quietly made her appearance, and I got way too indulgent about letting certain characters cameo as children (It takes place nine years before our current storyline.) My brothers allowed it. :-)

[ball-of-butter]

its giving evangeline and elane variant

[lgbtlunaverse]

Obsessed with characters who portray themselves as worse than they are. Who are lying to everyone including themselves about it. People generally assume if someone's lying about themselves they're trying to look better but sometimes they're trying to look worse. They attribute agency to where they had none, add intent to accidents, try to convince everyone that this is something they did instead of something that happened to them.

[bixels]

vague-posting about this here cuz i don't feel comfortable yapping about my su takes on twitter, but after everything that's happened the most interesting thing about the su fandom to me is that so many are 100% there for applying the "everyone can change and deserves a second chance" message to everyone, even the diamonds. except for one ☝️ she doesn't count. cuz she's dead.

[actually-factually-anonymous]

I've spoken before about how Marinette has no actual reason to be Ladybug, at least compared to Peter Parker or other heroes have intrinsic motivations to be superheroes: or even pre-canon versions of Marinette who had personal connections to their versions of the main conflict.

She doesn't enjoy being a superhero, and until Miracle Queen she doesn't have a personal drive to be Ladybug beyond a vague sense of responsibility. After that you could assume her drive comes from s personal tragedy ala Peter and Uncle Ben thanks to her disastrous slip-up that cost Fu his memories...

But even then: that just means that she has an ostensible responsibility to be The Guardian of the Box that Fu was responsible for. Her being the Ladybug holder is never a requirement, and in S5 she even gives up the earrings over...

(Checks notes)

Being unlucky in romance.

Seriously, at least when Adrien gave up the ring/came close to it: he was either distraught due to having murdered someone, or it was on the tail of multiple episodes proving him to be superfluous.

(And yes, she gave up the earrings of her own volition. Unlike Adrien: Marinette is her Kwami's boss, and remained so for the entire season. At any point she could have told Tikki to cut it out or summarily fired Alya to reclaim the Ladybug position if she actually felt some inherent duty to wear them.)

If Marinette has some great drive to be a hero that eclipses Adrien's, I would very much like to see it. Because as far as I can see, her only motivation to be Ladybug is that vague sense of "for the greater good"- and Kwamis' Choice demonstrates that it's far from unlimited.

And to be fair: if she was anyone besides the protagonist this would be fine. If Marinette were a side character, her being an overwhelmed teenager who just wants to go back to her ordinary life and ordinary problems, and whose lack of interest in being a superhero lead her to give up her powers and responsibilities... well:

She'd be a simple and effective deconstruction of the "teen superhero".

She already does the bare minimum as Guardian and Team Leader to actually defeat The Butterfly Villain: all of her practical efforts go to managing Gabemoth's threat instead of trying to find him. She treats the whole thing as something akin to a daily chore to handle an irresolvable problem- but she had an entire box of magical tools that she could have trying to use to try and solve Shadmoth's identity that she just never used. She was the only human (after Fu passes) to know that the Grimoire, Butterfly and Peacock were lost together, but after Mayura appears she never even reconsiders reopening the case against Gabriel Agreste.

She had plenty of tools and resources to try and end Gabemoth's reign as Nooroo's slaver and Paris' tormentor. But she sticks purely to threat management so she can go back to being Marinette as often as possible. And with Lilamoth seemingly set up for a decade-long career (if Timetagger is any indication): I don't think that's going to change any time soon.

This is someone who is so lacking in drive to be a hero that by any objective measurement: she shouldn't be one.

Despite whatever Wunderkind she may be with the Miraculous: being Ladybug stresses her and seems to aggravate some apparent pre-existing anxiety to the point of leading her to multiple near-breakdowns. Marinette herself has no personal interest in being a hero, seemingly only does so out of a sense of obligation, and is so lacking in proactivity, so purely reactive that it's entirely plausible that the conflict with Gabemoth would have only ended when the man died of old age.

Going back to that side character analogy: a character like Marinette would work best if she were a predecessor to the main character- if she was some previous Ladybug who gave up. If she was the main feature of an episode or two to show how "power in the wrong hands" can be harmful to everyone involved even if the person isn't villainous and has "good intentions". If she was used as a contrast to some current Ladybug with more drive to highlight this Ladybug's heroic character virtues and why they should have the earrings as opposed to someone else.

Because Marinette, fundamentally, isn't a bad person. She's not even a bad hero- at least in terms of winrate.

But she's not a good one. Marinette, to be succinct, is what happens when a young, talented person gets nothing but praise, easy access to power without accountability, and is never pushed to grow and improve on her flaws in any substantial way.

And that makes sense: because to all evidence she doesn't want to be a hero. She wants to be "an ordinary girl with an ordinary life" (give or take a glamorous fashion career, an ultra-wealthy model boyfriend, a home in one of the most expensive neighborhoods of Europe, etc, etc).

And say what you wish about Adrien, Alya, or even most of the rest of the Miraculous team: for the most part they actually seem to want to be heroes.

I've seen people said Adrien doesn't have motivation to be a hero but Marinette does, which is weird because I feel like it's Marinette who doesn't have a motivation to be hero beyond "people listen to Ladybug". Her lack of motivation is what confused me because as a protagonist, she's inevitably become a role model for the young audience and I find nothing about her is likeable, even more so after she become a guardian. It's as if being a guardian inflate her ego and she forgot that everyone else is a human with feelings, not just a pawn or a doll for her to play and ordered around.

Recently I found out a website that contain the concept plot and it confused me more because I feel like concept Marinette is a more grounded character than she is in the show.

Marinette's goal isn't just to be Adrien/Felix's girlfriend but she also need to collect the kwamis that she accidentally releases and she become a guardian not because of luck or favoritism like how it is in the show, it's because her grandfather is the guardian. Adrien/Felix doesn't even become Chat Noir because he's chosen by the guardian, it's Plagg who chose him. It's actually much better than the whole "I choose you but also I'm not going to do anything with you" that Fu pulls in the show.

i don't understand why the higher up/the sponsor reject this plot because I think this much better than whatever we have now. If they have a problem with Chat Noir being an anti-hero, then why do they accept Marinette being written like one while also hailing her as a hero?

---

“Adrien isn't motivated to be a hero” he actually likes being a hero, unlike our role model protagonist, who’d rather do anything than be Ladybug even when she's being lauded for her heroic deeds. Is this based on Adrien trying to quit when Fu or Marinette is making his job needlessly more difficult to do? Because, like, that's the only thing that he seems to dislike about being a hero, which, like, makes Marinette an even worse hero. She’s so bad at her job, she makes otherwise eager heroes lose their motivation.

I’m gonna be very honest here; Marinette becoming Ladybug because she accidentally released a bunch of magical creatures and Adrien/Félix being more of an anti-hero rival than a full-on ally would have been copied straight from Cardcaptor Sakura’s starting setup. Like, I’m not surprised that even the rejected ideas for Miraculous are copied from other properties, but it just proves that regardless of any other variables, Astruc’s creation was always going to be highly derivative. Regardless, I do feel that Fu being her grandfather instead of a stranger would have gone a long way in justifying Marinette’s special treatment both in-universe and to the audience, but that’s probably why it was rejected.

Like, we can mock the fact that Marinette isn’t actually within spitting distance of being a “normal girl with a normal life” all we like, but that doesn’t change the fact that, from a purely on-paper angle, she is pretty average. She’s a middle-schooler with pretty average hobbies who deals with normal teen problems like bullies and a crush on a boy she doesn’t know how to deal with. There’s a reason it’s the opening line for the show’s opening. It's marketable. A special chosen one from the start wouldn’t have been as marketable in the same way. Especially when we take into account how hypersensitive Astruc is to Marinette being less liked than he’d want. He’d do whatever he can think of to make sure Marinette isn’t immediately judged a “Mary Sue”.

The thing with executives is that they don't watch the shows they fund. They read the pitch, synopses, and maybe the scripts if they can find the time. And even then, they might not want to put in the money to get a script revised even if they paid enough attention to tell it was dogshit. They wouldn't be interested as long as the different Miraculous bedsheets and shampoos keep selling and as long as the show isn’t too gay to sell to other countries. Like, the show bible that Gloob leaked? The one full of inaccuracies because it was outdated? That was what the executives were most likely given when the retool went into development. In addition, corporate oversight on the show has actually decreased the longer it’s gone on, because the show’s proven itself to be a success. I’m pretty sure the higher-ups were not asked: “hey, is it okay if we make Marinette an entitled jerk who gets validated at every turn while she starts treating people worse and worse?” I’m pretty sure no one okayed Marinette’s “villain arc”, it was just allowed to pass because it didn’t make the show less marketable.

That’s the thing with any property that becomes “too big to fail”. Less oversight means less quality control. It’s like one anonymous Gamefreak employee said about making Pokémon games: “It’ll sell anyway, so it doesn’t matter if it’s bad.”

[wisebeth]

why does the pjo series have to unnecessarily villainize goddesses (hera & athena) or show them as silly ladies (aphrodite & demeter) BUT posiedon and apollo are somehow shown as the coolest/most likeable gods, even though arguably, they're right after zeus on terms of corruption?

ares shown as the worst god after zeus and hera amuses me. last time i checked, he was the patron god of amazons and literally killed a man for attempting to rape his daughter but guess who cursed women for rejection? apollo. guess who raped women when they said no (aside from zeus)? posiedon.

[bluejay0715]

I'm still extremely salty about it.

(Also if you see that typo, shhhhh no you didn't)

Meme template: https://allmemetemplates.wordpress.com/2020/03/01/left-exit-12-off-meme-template/

Edited in Picsart

[prolibytherium]

I never touched it but I feel like i only ever hear positive things said about song of achilles.. in (rough strokes at least) what makes it dogshit to you?

Okay it's been a while since I actually read it so some of this might not be spot on accurate. Sorry if at any point I say 'the book never does xyz' and it actually does once or twice but I think my underlying criticisms are accurate

-Patroclus is made into like this soft gentle tender quivering little yaoi boy. In the source text, he's shown as compassionate and moved by the suffering of his own men (and apparently having some medical skill, tending to the wounded in the camp), but very much invested n combat and very, very good at it (pages worth of descriptions of the guys he's killing left and right). In this, the arguably more complex character from this 8th century BC text is flattened into Being A Healer, he doesn't want to go to war he just wants to help people, he only goes because Achilles has to but he doesn't want to fight he's a HEALER he's a gentle lover NOT A FIGHTER who just wants to help he just wants to help everyone around him he HEALS while Achilles is a doomed warrior who is so good at fighting and KILLING its a DICHOTOMY GUYS!!!LIKE THE BEAUTIFUL SUN AND MOON DOOMED LOVERS SO SAD patocluse HEALER . (I Think he's specifically characterized as being BAD at fighting but might be misremembering)

-I don't remember much about Achilles' characterization I think it just makes him less of a jackass while not adding anything of interest and levels out into being mad boring.

-Not getting into the literal millenias old debate whether the mythological characters Achilles and Patroclus were being characterized as some type of lover by the original oral sources of the Iliad or its Homeric writers. We will never know. We don't even know what (if any) culturally accepted conventions of male homosexuality existed in bronze age Greece (we know much more about their descendants). But there are some interesting elements of their characterization in this direction, with how unconventional their relationship is WITHIN the text itself- Patroclus is described as cooking for Achilles and his guests (very specifically a woman/wife's job), Achilles chides Patroclus like a father, but there's also scene where Achilles' mourning of him directly echoes a passage of Hector's wife mourning her husband, Patroclus is explicitly stated to Achilles' elder, and is overall treated as his equal or near-equal, closest confidant and most beloved friend (to the point that pederastic classical Greeks would debate over who was erastes (older authority figure lover) and who was eromenos (adolescent 'beloved')- many took it as a given that this text depicted their present-day cultural norms of homosexual behavior but it existed so Outside of these norms that it had to be debated who was who). Their relationship is non-standard both within the text and to the descendants of the civilization that wrote them.

Basically what I'm saying is this book had opportunities to like, explore the unconventionality of the relationship (being presented here as explicitly lovers), explore the dynamics of why Patroclus wants to do 'women's work' (besides being a tenderhearted softboy), the weird dynamics where they take on paternal roles to each other but also roles of wives, how they feel about being this way, and just kind of Doesn't. Which I guess isn't an intrinsic fault (because it omits much of what I just talked about to begin with). it's just like.... Lame. This book takes jsut abandons everything interesting about the source text in favor of flattening it into bland Doomed Yaoi.

-The conflict that sets off the core story of the Iliad is Achilles and Agamemnon fighting over Briseis, an enslaved Trojan woman taken by Achilles as a war-trophy, Achilles spends most of the story moping because he was dishonored by his 'trophy' being taken. Achilles and Patroclus and everyone else are raping their captives, all the women in the story are either captured Trojans (or in the case of the free women within the walls of Troy, soon to be enslaved, and are slave owners themselves). Slavery as an institution and extreme patriarchal conventions are innate to the text and reflective of the context in which it was developed. You cannot avoid it.

But obviously you can't have your soft yaoi boys doing this, so the author has them capturing women to Protect Them from the other men. Their slaves are UNDER THEIR PROTECTION and VERY SAFE (and they might even Like And Befriend Them but I might be misremembering that. Briseis does though). Our heroes have apparently absorbed none of the ideals of the culture they exist in and the author seems to think "they're gay and aren't sexually attracted to their captives" would translate to them being outright benevolent (also as if wartime sexual violence is just about attraction and not part of a wider spectrum of violent acts to dehumanize and brutalize an accepted 'enemy')

In the source text, Briseis mourns Patroclus as being the kindest to her of her captors, who tried to get her a slightly better outcome by getting her married to Achilles (which probably would be the Least Bad of all possible outcomes for a woman in that situation, becoming a legal wife instead of a slave), and wonders what will happen to her now that he's gone. This is a really really sad, horrible, and compelling dynamic which could be fleshed out in very interesting ways but is instead is tossed entirely aside in favor of them being Besties. Like brother and sister.

All of the above pisses me off so much. If you don't want to engage in the icky parts of ancient/bronze age Greece then don't write a retelling of a story taking place in bronze age Greece. I'm not gonna get mad at children's adaptations of Greek myths or silly fun stories loosely based on them for omitting the rape and slavery but it is SO fundamental to the Iliad. If you're not willing to handle it, either fully omit it or better yet set your Iliad inspired yaoi in an invented swords-and-sandals setting where you can have all your heartbreaking tragic doomed lovers plot beats and not have to clumsily write around the women they're brutalizing.

-The author didn't seem to know what to do with Thetis and she made her just like, Achilles bitch mother who spends most of the story trying to separate our Yaoi Boys (iirc her disguising Achilles as a girl and hiding him on Scyros is made to be more about getting him away from Patroclus than trying to save her son from his prophesied doom in the Trojan War) until she sees how much they loooove each other and I think helps Patroclus' spirit get to the afterlife or something in the end?

-This is more of a personal taste gripe but it has that writing style I loathe where the prose feels less like a story and more like an attempt to string together Deep Beautiful Hard Hitting Poetic Lines that will look great as excerpts on booktok (might predate booktok but same vibe). It's all very Pretty and Haunting and Deep but feels devoid of real substance.

I really like The Iliad and The Odyssey in of themselves. They're fascinating historical texts that give a window into how 8th century BC Greeks told their stories, saw their world, interpreted their ancestors, etc. And genuinely I think these texts have 'good' characters, there's a lot of complexity and humanity to it.

WRT the Iliad- all of the main Achaeans are pretty fascinating, the one singular part where Briseis Gets To Talk and laments her situation is great, Achilles fantasizing that all of the Trojans AND the Achaeans die so he and Patroclus alone can have the glory of conquering Troy (wild), Achilles asking to embrace Patroclus' shade and reaching out for him but it's immaterial (and the shade being sucked back underground with a 'squeak' (the squeak kinda gets me it's disturbing and sad)), Hecuba talking about wanting to tear out Achilles' liver and eat it in a (taboo, exceptioally pointed) expression of rage and grief for his mutilation of her son's corpse, just one tiny line where the enslaved women performing ritual wailing for their dead captors are described as using it as an outlet to 'grieve for their own troubles' is heartrending, etc. A lot of grappling with anger and grief and the inevitability of death, a lot of groundwork laid for characters that could be very interesting when expanded upon in the framework of a conventional novel.

And Song Of Achilles really doesn't do much with all that. I know a lot of my gripes here are kind of just "It's different from the Iliad", I would have thought of it as mostly mediocre and forgettable rather than infuriating if it wasn't a retelling (and I DEFINITELY have strong biases here). But I think the ways in which it is different are less just a product of a retelling (of course there's going to be omissions and differences) and more a complete and utter disinterest in vast majority of its own subject matter, to the book's detriment. I think a retelling has a point when it EXPANDS on the source, or provides a NEW ANGLE to the source. This book doesn't Really do either, it just shaves off the complexity of its source material, renders the characters into a really boring archetype of a gay relationship, and gives very little else. Its content boils down to a middling tragic romance that has been inserted into the hollowed out defleshed skeleton of the Iliad.

Bottom line: I definitely would not be as mad about it if I wasn't familiar with the source material but I think it's fair to expect a retelling to Engage with/expand on its source, and I also think it's weak purely on its own merits. This book was set up to disappoint Me specifically.