#god forbid the sequels do anything original | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

icedjuiceboxes · 4 months ago

Note

For the ask game *hands you a Emily*

You know you think this would be easy considering she lives rent free in my mind but man what new is there to say when I said it all already.

How I feel about this character

Emily had a very big role to fill as the playable protagonist of dishonored 2.

From my perspective Female protagonists in sequels tend to be mocked and ridiculed, especially if they replacing the original male protagonist from the first game. Some examples include Athena from Ace attorney 5, and Abby from TLOU2 (though Abby is a special case separate from the argument). Female protagonists tend to get shit unless they fall under two categories. A) They're the protag of a new game (Aloy from Horizon) or B) The female protagonist started as an NPC before being Playable (Ellie from TLOU).

Emily falls under the second category, so the community was already familiar with her. Still didn't completely block her from criticism from all the gamer bros™️ who cannot stand playing as anything but as a cis white male bc God forbid they do otherwise.

I will literally defend any female protagonists with my life. Which is why she became my favourite character. Sure. I like mainstream shit. But I like the underrated shit even better.

I also think Optimistic protagonists tend to be less favored compared to their emo-ass counterparts and I don't know who hurt yall but can we please let a little hope into our lives-

In conclusion: I will defend Emily til I die and even once I get over my brainrot I promise you she is only reincarnated in a form of an oc. Hell I'll probably will name an oc directly after her. I did it once before and I'll do it again

All the people I ship romantically with character

Emily X Billie

TOXIC YURI / ENEMIES TO LOVERS LETS GO !!!

Emily X Alexi

Very nice. Very plausible. I think alexi should been Emily’s Canon romantic partner in game especially with how fast alexi was introduced and killed and there was have been more emotional connection to her. Wyman didn't need to exist and the brownie points of making them non-binary is pointless (and I'm saying that as non binary myself.)

Emily X Hypatia

I see the potential and I personally like to think that Emilt and Hypatia got along a little too well on the Wale and Billie was jealous the entire time and completely misresd the room between them. Because tell me why when Billie says "let's hope your friend (hypatia] doesn't burn the ship down" HAD SO MUCH JEALOUS UNDERTONE ??? toxic Yuri for the win

Alexi X Emily X Billie

Hear me out,,,, herding dog, sheep, and wolf situation. And no not a love triangle. Emily has two hands okay.

Emily x Mindy

They fucked once. Thats it.

Emily X Outsider

Once again there's potential here and i can see it. Idm seeing stuff but it doesn't excite me to personally create for it (though if I made it Yuri...)

My non romantic otp for this character

Outsider X emily

You can't tell me the outsider didn't have favorites (and that favourite was Emily.) The two are besties.

Emily X Alexi

Doomed one-sided crush and the oblivious best friend okay. (Alexi should have lived change my mind)

Emily X Hypatia

They're both nerds

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in Canon

Nothing because I respect the narrative as it present but also I am a comic creator with free will, delusion and pure spite and delusion and anything I want to see happen I've already thought about it. There's already an outline. it's in my wips folder. I am the change I want to see in my world

Just kidding I wanted a fucking voice line to discovering corvo's childhood home and daud confession. Where is it akrane. WHERE IS IT.

#ask ice #my rambles #if i had any skill to writing essays and deep dives id do one on emily but instead im forced to say “THATS MY BLORBO”#tragic.

5 notes · View notes

rise-my-angel · 2 years ago

Note

what did you think about the ending of tlou?? and are you excited for season 2?? would love to hear some of that wonderful Mimi insight!! ☺️☺️

Okay, so I consider this season a closed story much like the original game. A story designed to end where it ends and the actions in front of us exist in their own merit and not that of future set up or outside sources. Meaning I do not consider events included in tlou2 to be canon, and I also don't take whatever neil/craig/usually game voice actors say about the show as truth or canon either. Beacuse a lot of what they say is purposley trying to make you think these events will lead naturally to what will be season 2 which is the second game.

I disregard the second game because I think it is completely illfitting to this universe story that forced characters to change to make it fit. And so, I am only looking at this show soley on the same way I did the first game. As its own unique thing that does not need a sequel.

That being said, (under a read more cus God forbid i make a post about this show thats not 8 thousand words long)

I love how the hospital events were framed not as tense and brutal, but painful and emotional. When the game came out everyone talked about how crazy that sequence was, but here its so interesting that its flipped. In the game you play this out yourself so you end up putting your emotions onto the scene but here we're forced to endure that this Joel isn't fueled by anger but a gut wrenching desperation. And the new added context that Joel losing Sarah drove him to attempt suicide paints it in a new light as well as direct confirmation that Ellie was not told anything and was drugged against her will.

Joel isn't just saving himself. He told Ellie JUST before they got seperated that he was so sure he wanted and was ready to die, but by some miracle, he flinched and lived long enough to heal and find purpose through her. Joel sees Ellie's pain. And he realizes, that Ellie has been manipulated into thinking that she has to do this and her own trauma might be used against her. Its why he doesnt respond at Marlenes comment to ask what she would choose.

Joel knows that he healed and that Marlene has not only taken Ellie's ability to flinch awat, but that she is the reason Ellie thinks she is the worlds only hope. Joel knows Ellie can't choose for herself, because Marlene is metaphorically holding her in place. Ensuring she won't flinch.

So Joel knows, he has to flinch for her. And I refuse to say he was wrong in lying because he is clearly not proud of himself for it. But, I think he's waiting. Waiting for Ellie to be more ready, to see that light he fell in love with return to her eyes and then they can talk. Joel wants to heal that guilt in Ellie before they talk about what happened, so that when she finds out the wholw truth, she is ready to accept Joels perspective and not be stuck in this suicidal ideation that Marlene tried to create.

Also, Ellie not only had full plans for what she and Joel would do after (i.e moving to Jackson as a real home and starting to live like a real family with Joel) , but she herself had doubts. In episode 6 she asks with very distant emotion and clear doubt whether or not the vaccine works and she doesn't say any more about it beacuse they and up talking about Sam. Ellie not only didn't sign up to die, she wasn't sure it would work.

I personally think Ellie wanted to finish this at the end, partially to make Joel proud. The things they'd been through, and on multiple occasions she tries to pretend shes stronger then she is (crying after shooting that guy only to wipe her tears away and pretend shes cool about it when Joel comes in the room). She now knows what they have but she wants to make him proud that she didn't give up. She has been quiet and nervous since entering Salt Lake City to the point Joel asks her about it and then when he gently says she can change her mind shes caught. She wants the only father shes ever known to be proud that she saved the world and caught between Marlene telling her it all falls on her shoulders alone.

People seem to mostly agree that Ellie at the end knows Joel is lying, but doesn't push it. But where I disagree is when they say her trust is broken. Its not. I think shes quiet on the way to Jackson because shes upset Joel is lying and she's also trying desperately to figure out what could have happened in the hospital that Joel lies about the entire thing. And I think her saying okay at the end isn't really to Joel.

Its that she decides, it's okay that he lied. It's okay because she trusts that Joel did what he did to protect her beacuse he has always done that from day one. Its why when Joel loses it in episode 1 Ellie has a torn look about her. The only person whose ever defended her like that is Riley but that was in a far more kid vs kid protecting the girl she likes manner. Joel was different then that and even from other adults.

She doesnt know why he did it much like she doesnt know why Joel is lying to her. But it's okay. Beacuse now she knows for sure its not angry or malicious. This time she knows its from a place of love and I think Ellie starts to heal from this point on.

Joel was right to do what he did, he was right to lie to a traumatized child to not add to what he knows is already survivors guilt and I think Ellies trust never wavers.

Ellie knows Joel better in the show then the game because they open up to each other much earlier and theres much more new added context to it. Theres no distrust here.

The lie isn't a set up for future problems. The lie is Joel wants to keep the worst from her until he's sure she isn't still trauma ridden and Ellie not only decides she still trusts Joel. But I think she understands why Joel lied and it only serves to strengthen it.

Shared traumatic experiences do not tear apart. It bonds peoe together.

Last thoughts: I think the flashback with Anna is legitimate but I think Marlenes flashback is purposley scued memory to justify her actions in present day. I don't think the umbilical cord conversation happened at all. I think Marlene is inventing things to eellivate the guilt of her own monstrous actions. Also I apply real world science here because its fun, and I can say for sure no amount of experiments or tests on Ellie could produce a vaccine. Its impossible and fungal infections do not act the way viruses or bacterial infections do. I think Marlene is just desperate to win a losing war and by doing this I think she is not evil but has genuinly deluded herself into thinking that she can do the impossible. And I think she purposley found the only doctor who agrees to do this, because absolutely no doctor or scientist worth their salt would think Ellies immunity had anything to do with making a cure and his moral corruption to kill a child is far more monstrous then anything Joel did all season. So the vaccine in my opinion is bogus, I think its just the delusional actions of a group of failed rebels clinging to any power even if its just having power of a childs life. Its all bogus. The first two episodes started clearly that by the time the outbreak happened, not only was there absolutely no evidence of a cure or vaccine possible, but on outbreak day they didn't even know that the cordyceps jumped the species barrier. There is no cure.

But society is already healing. Jackson is proof that its not power or control that heals. It's love. Love and respect. Funny enough the only other place that works is Boston, which tells me that its not FEDRA itself thats the problem, its the individuals in charge. We see it in Kong in episode 7, FEDRA sees thenselves exactly like the fireflies do. But they are both wrong. Beacuse its not with violence and command does Jackson work, its community and freedom. Hell even the indigenous couple proves that. There wasnt even any animosity for Joel pointing a gun at them beacuse they all understood that the way normal peolle survive is through supporting eachother. The man immediately apologizes about being dismissive of his brother because support is what holds life together.

Summary cus I talk too much: I don't consider any future games, existing sequels, or future seasons to be canon. The Last of Us was never intended to have a future. It was a closed story of healing through love and I think the show showed this between Joel and Ellie better then the game did and thats where I'd prefer the story stay.

(.......ignore that my longest series is literally me continuing the story....i didnt base my story off the cycle of horrifc theme of hate and vengeful violence based on the Isreal/Palestine contlict I continued the theme of healing through love so im allowed to write more of this story beacuse i didnt decide that the story about love triumphing hate and violence ends with love causing hate and violence.....)

#tlou spoilers #the last of us spoilers

5 notes · View notes

princesssarisa · 2 years ago

Text

A Limited Defense of "Le Nozze di Figaro's" Leading Men

An old mini essay of mine.

@madmozarteanfelinefantasy

The opera world’s relationship with feminism is complicated. On the one hand, it constantly performs and celebrates works written by men in past centuries, which of course contain some distinctly outdated gender roles and values. On the other hand, as in the world of Shakespeare, today’s opera productions and scholarship can examine the beloved works from a feminist standpoint, sometimes critically, but at the same time celebrating proto-feminist themes, which are often surprisingly strong. Nowhere is this more evident than in modern stagings and commentary on the Mozart-Da Ponte operas, especially Le Nozze di Figaro. To many operagoers and opera scholars, Figaro’s proto-feminism is even more engaging and relevant than the themes of class conflict that made it radical in its day.

But just as some feminist Shakespeare scholars do, feminist opera scholars sometimes take a reductive view of the characters, especially the males. Repeatedly I’ve found critics and commentators so eager to celebrate Susanna and (to a lesser extent) the Countess that they seem to see nothing but flaws in the male characters. In their writing, the Count becomes a one-note villain with no complexity, and Figaro, the character whose subversive popularity once had Europe’s aristocracy feeling their necks, becomes just an accessory for Susanna who can’t do anything worthwhile himself. But not only does this misrepresent the opera, in my humble opinion it’s less feminist than an honest view of the piece would be.

Unquestionably, this opera does portray all its women as both smarter than and morally superior to all its men. I’m not arguing against it. But that very fact is both a blessing and a curse from my feminist viewpoint. It shouldn’t be a woman’s job to always be the smarter, morally superior one; nor should it be her job to love a man with no redeeming qualities. The fact that Figaro and, yes, even the Count, do have redeeming qualities is important. So I’d like to offer a limited defense of both of Le Nozze di Figaro’s two leading men.

Figaro

The commentary I’ve read surrounding Mozart’s Figaro is different both from that surrounding Rossini’s Figaro and from that surrounding the Figaro of Beaumarchais’s original plays. This is no real surprise, since the character does take on different nuances in each interpreter’s hands. But more than any of the others, Mozart and Da Ponte’s Figaro seems to be viewed as a different character, and of all the Figaros he seems to be the least respected. Not in terms of Mozart’s music or Da Ponte’s writing, God forbid, but as a person. Beaumarchais’s Figaro is celebrated as the archetypal commedia dell’arte-style cunning servant made grander and fully human, a witty jack-of-all-trades who can think his way out of all adversity, a rebel against unjust authority, in fact an icon of satire and proto-revolutionary zeal, and superior in every way to his master the Count. Rossini’s Figaro, while a bit more one-dimensional and less of a social rebel, is similarly admired. But Mozart’s Figaro, while still liked and still praised for his humor and rebellious spirit, tends to be viewed as essentially a clueless, bumbling oaf. One who thinks he’s more cunning than he really is, but who would be lost without his much smarter and more competent bride Susanna.

This is understandable. Unlike inThe Barber of Seville, where Figaro’s schemes are effective, only foiled by the young aristocratic lovers’ mistakes, and where his quick thinking ultimately saves the day, the sequel’s Figaro makes constant mistakes and wrong assumptions, and is constantly outshone in cleverness not only by Susanna, but the Countess too, in the classic trope of “women are wiser.” From his early failure to realize the Count’s designs on Susanna, to his contract with Marcellina that nearly costs him his marriage, to the collapse of his plan to fool the Count in Act II, to his belief that Susanna is unfaithful in Act IV, the sequel definitely deflates his ego. The opera probably does him even less favor than the play, since Da Ponte was forced to “defang” him politically to please the censors. Hence when he thinks the Count has seduced Susanna, instead of the insightful and scathing rant the play gives him about the aristocracy’s unfair privileges, he sings the wrongheaded, comically sexist aria “Aprite un po’ quegli occhi” about women’s deceit… making the audience want to slap him at the very moment when they would have cheered for him if his original speech were left intact.

Still, it’s reductive to label the Mozart/Da Ponte Figaro a clueless oaf. Commentators, especially feminists eager to highlight Susanna’s wonderfulness, seem to forget that her fiancé does anything competent at all.

So often people misremember the plot as “Figaro makes a hopelessly flawed plan to humiliate the Count, but after it inevitably fails, Susanna and the Countess make a better plan that works.” But this is only half-true. Figaro’s plan is never actually abandoned. The Countess and Susanna modify it, but the basic outline is still Figaro’s: Susanna pretends to accept the Count’s advances and invites him to meet her in the garden that night, but an imposter meets him in her place, and then the Countess “catches” him in the act of cheating. It’s a perfectly sound plan, it works, and it creates the opera’s happy ending. Figaro’s only mistakes are (a) to try to distract the Count from their intrigue by making him think the Countess is cheating, not predicting that the Count will confront her at the worst possible time, and (b) involving Cherubino, when the Count has reason to suspect that Cherubino is his wife’s “lover.” But neither of those mistakes is obvious. Even Susanna overlooks them at first; only the Countess has any early misgivings.

Susanna is one of the best-loved characters in all of opera and understandably so, but some operagoers become so infatuated with her that they give her the credit for other characters’ achievements. More than once I’ve seen Figaro’s entire plan attributed to her, or at least seen her credited with its modified version that has her switch clothes with the Countess. But the latter idea is really the Countess’s, who even dictates the letter Susanna sends to the Count, and is the one who encourages the nervous Susanna as they put the plan into action. Too many commentators not only reduce Figaro to “Susanna’s bumbling dolt of a fiancé” and Susanna herself to “the infallibly smart, feisty heroine,” they reduce the Countess to “the sweet, sad figure of the wronged wife,” ignoring her own intelligence and courage and their importance to the plot.

Susanna might be more practical and down-to-earth than Figaro, but she’s not portrayed as a schemer. Her brilliance lies in observation, wit, and improvising moment by moment, while Figaro and the Countess are the “idea people.” Figaro lays out the plan, the Countess fine-tunes the details and Susanna makes it all work in practice. To make a theatre analogy, Figaro is the playwright (fitting, since Beaumarchais’s Figaro is an ex-playwright in his backstory and has plenty of traits in common with Beaumarchais himself), the Countess is the director, and Susanna is the starring actress with a knack for invaluable ad-libs. Each of these three characters is smart in a different way; Figaro’s mistakes don’t stem from stupidity, but mostly from the fact that his schemes are so perfect in his mind that he overlooks potential real-world pitfalls. Hence the “women are wiser” trope comes into play and he relies on Susanna and the Countess. But feminist operagoers tend to forget that however “wiser” they might be, the ladies rely on him too. All three characters deserve credit for their victory in the end.

Count Almaviva

When thinking of the two skirt-chasing aristocratic baritones in the Mozart/DaPonte operas, I’ve repeatedly asked myself a question: Why is Count Almaviva forgiven, while Don Giovanni is condemned to hell?

Of course there are several possible answers. Some people might say “Because Beaumarchais’s play has the Count forgiven, while the legend of Don Juan condemns the Don to hell. Mozart and Da Ponte just took the stories they were given, without aiming for philosophical consistency.” Others insist that we the audience are supposed to forgive the Don and view his punishment as unfair. Still others argue that we’re supposed to be dissatisfied with Figaro’s ending and view the Count as unworthy of his wife’s forgiveness. Goodness knows, feminism and the #MeToo movement make it tempting to write off both men as pieces of scum. If anything, most operagoers seem to despise the Count more than they do the Don. This is probably because Figaro, Susanna, the Countess and Cherubino are more likable than the Don’s morally grayer victims, because the Count lacks the Don’s sheer courage and audacity while the Don lacks the Count’s hypocritical jealous rages toward his wife, and because the Don has a mythic stature that makes the Count seem small and petty by comparison.

But if we take both operas’ finales at face value, assume we’re meant to approve of both outcomes, assume that Mozart and Da Ponte meant for both characters to criticize the aristocracy’s womanizing and power-abuse, and assume philosophical consistency between the two operas, then why is the Count forgiven while the Don goes to hell? Even though the Count is more of a hypocrite, more of a petty bully, and has more likable victims than the Don? Why the difference?

I’d like to offer some possible answers.

First of all, the Count doesn’t kill anyone. Some people might argue that this is the most important difference: the Don’s crime that leads directly to his doom is killing the Commendatore. Granted, he only does it reluctantly, in self-defense, and in a fair fight; and granted, the Count draws his sword intending to kill Cherubino when he thinks he’s slept with the Countess and is hiding in her dressing room. For those reasons, I don’t rank this difference as important as others I’ll discuss. Still, only the Don has blood on his hands in the end, and the fact that the fatal duel takes place because he tried to rape Donna Anna makes it worse.

This leads us to the next key difference: the Count never tries to rape anyone. While commentators sometimes accuse him of wanting to “rape” Susanna by legally forcing her to accept the droit du segneur, his seduction and bribery efforts seem to imply that he wants her to be willing; he uses the droit more as an excuse to seduce her than as a method of force. True, his threat to make Figaro marry Marcellina if she refuses muddies the waters, but it’s still not the same as a literal, physical rape attempt. And while Don Giovanni’s real-world admirers often deny that their hero ever attempts rape (i.e. insisting that the Donna Anna incident was consensual, ignoring that even Leporello calls it force, and that the Zerlina incident is just “rejected wooing”), those claims are always doubtful.

The Count himself would also probably point out that he never abandons anyone, and that unlike Leporello, his servants are “well treated.” Cheating on his wife isn’t the same as leaving a wife after three days and then treating her as just another ex-conquest. Trying to seduce his female servants and cuckold Figaro, yet still feeding, clothing and paying them well and only raging at them when he genuinely feels betrayed, isn’t the same as the Don’s dragging Leporello through dangerous misadventures, keeping him underfed and short of sleep, raging and threatening him over minor disagreements and sometimes scaring him out of his wits just for laughs. More enlightened viewpoints and the #MeToo movement would debate whether any of those differences give the Count moral high ground or not, but the Count himself would definitely cite those differences in his defense.

The Count also has a conscience that the Don lacks. In passing moments, both to others and to himself in private, he admits that what he does is wrong and expresses remorse. Of course “he briefly regrets his sins, but then goes on committing them anyway” is hardly admirable, but it still sets him apart from the remorseless Don, who never admits that his life is less than morally upstanding. The moment in Figaro’s finale when the Countess forgives her husband is preceded by the Count kneeling before her, in front of his servants and social inferiors, and begging her forgiveness. Of course it’s questionable how long that repentance will last, but it’s also safe to say that the Don would never debase himself that way. Not unless he were feigning it to manipulate someone.

Last but not least, and expanding on the above, the Count has an emotional sincerity and vulnerability that the Don never even approaches. We know from The Barber of Seville that he truly loved Rosina when they married, or at least believed he did, and he still shows her sporadic affection. His infatuation with Susanna feels genuine too. Whether it’s real love or just lust is debatable, but regardless, he sings of “sighing” for her and is genuinely distressed that she doesn’t return his feelings, not just annoyed. Compare this to the Don, who treats women only as playthings and responds to each thwarted conquest by cold-bloodedly moving on to the next. And while the Count’s temper is uglier than the Don’s, it only flairs when he feels genuinely wronged, whereas the Don uses his temper as a tool to get his way. Commentators always highlight what an arrogant, vengeful and frightening aria “Vedro, mentr’io sospiro” is, and of course they’re right, but it’s also a very human and raw expression of frustrated longing. Don Giovanni, fascinating figure though he is, has no such moment of emotional complexity.

Does any of the above excuse the Count’s behavior? Absolutely not! But all these different nuances beneath his superficially Don Giovanni-like veneer just might explain why he’s forgiven in the end. Not only why the Countess forgives him, but why Mozart, Da Ponte and Beaumarchais seem to endorse it. For all his skirt-chasing and petty bullying, he never commits real crimes, isn’t an outright abuser (not by his era’s standards, at least), and has the capacity for real remorse, pain and, just maybe, love: a capacity Don Giovanni never shows. Whether or not those qualities make him worthy of forgiveness, they’re worth noticing.

Neither Figaro’s intelligence nor the Count’s complexity diminishes Susanna or the Countess whatsoever. Arguably, just the opposite is true. Would it really be feminist for Susanna to marry a man unworthy of her respect, or for the Countess to unconditionally love and forgive a one-note villain of a husband? If anything, it serves the ladies better to highlight the positive traits in their men than to highlight their flaws alone.

#opera #le nozze di figaro #the marriage of figaro #fictional characters #figaro #count almaviva #character analysis #tw: rape #tw: murder

14 notes · View notes

qishylia-adelia · 2 years ago

Text

Ok I know this seems so random but I managed to copy the full article of "Writers:leave our children classic alone" without logging in.

I'm posting this article here just in case anyone's curious about it.

You can read the full article below readmore.DM me if you wanna know how I managed to copy this

Writers: leave our favourite children's classics alone

Kat Brown

20 August 2015 • 1:17pm

Susan Coolidge's What Katy Did, with Nick Sharratt's new illustration, and Jacqueline Wilson's Katy

When food writer Ella Risbridger tweeted the cover of Jacqueline Wilson’s new book, Katy, an adaption of Susan Coolidge’s much-loved 1872 novel What Katy Did, it sparked a discussion on children’s literature that went far beyond the illustration.

Katy is a reimagining of Coolidge’s book, in which a young tomboy – who longs to be good but can never quite manage it – has a life-altering accident and becomes a beacon of grace over the course of her four-year recovery.

There was a very real dismay among readers who grew up with the original who believe that Wilson’s readers are being spoon-fed and denied the chance to discover both a wonderful book, and a different type of writing. As Risbridger succinctly put it, “What the f--- is this?”

“We have six-year-old kids that can operate iPads, but God forbid they encounter a new idea or word,” says Sarah Perry, author of After Me Comes The Flood. “If kids can cope with invented languages in Harry Potter they can cope with, I dunno, a 'carriage'.”

Wilson’s book comes during a plum period of classic novels being reinvented, updated or given sequels. Big name authors are reinterpreting Shakespeare for the 400th anniversary of his death next year, the James Bond and Agatha Christie estates keep rolling out new books, and there’s barely a genre author left to “adapt” Jane Austen: the day after my wedding, I received a congratulatory copy of Pride and Prejudice and Kitties.

And why not be weaned on to a terrific story? Films, TV, and abridged literary classics for children have been doing the rounds for decades.

“I think it's at least in part out of a desire to make them more accessible, but I can't help but suspect it's mercenary as well – that tacking on an already well-loved story to your book will help it sell, which it will,” says Janina Matthewson, author of Of Things Gone Astray. “And the thing is, I don't think the original books themselves are all that inaccessible. There's an elitism about older books, which serves as a barrier, I think, and that needs to be addressed, but I don't think rewriting them is the answer.”

The What Katy Did books have been interpreted in many different ways, from screen to print

In the case of Katy, Wilson has said that she didn’t just want to overhaul the book, but its message. Classic children’s literature such as Heidi and The Secret Garden has long fed us the ridiculous myth that you can be healed from anything as long as you are good, kind and hang out in gardens.

"As a child I thought, ‘oh this is wonderful and inspiring’,” Wilson said at the Hay Festival in May. “As an adult I felt more uncomfortable. Because mostly, if you're unlucky enough to have a spinal injury and you can't walk, you are not going to be able to walk again.

"And I thought how irritating for a child if this happened to them. They know full well that if they're very good or very patient or breathe in lots of fresh air, they are still not going to be able to walk again."

The question raised by some Coolidge fans has been, well, why not just write about that? And having read the book last night, I may well ask the same thing. The passages that are most similar to What Katy Did feel frustrating and constrained – Dr Carr is still the most unpleasantly passive-aggressive father in storytelling – but when Wilson breaks away into original story, it jumps into something quite extraordinary. A chapter detailing the immediate aftermath of Katy’s accident is sickeningly graphic. There are brilliant passages about the knock-on effect that life-changing injuries have on families and friends, and some keenly-written information about schools’ legal requirements when working with disabled students.

“Personally, I would love a book about a girl who's in an accident and reads What Katy Did and it helps her get through it, you know?” says Matthewson. “One that points to a classic, and deals directly with the weird miraculous recovery thing.”

There are exceptions, she acknowledges, such as Bridget Jones’s Diary and Clueless: both brilliant, and both reimaginings of Austen. “I think there's a line to be drawn between inspiration and mimicry, and to be honest, I'm not sure where that is.”

With Katy, it’s not clear who is piggybacking on to whose success. Coolidge’s book has been released with new cover art by Wilson’s long-time collaborator Nick Sharratt. Making the link clear between the books is a generous move, and Katy is packed with references to Dickens, Blyton and other authors that Wilson’s readers might not otherwise encounter, and who they will now hopefully be encouraged to try.

Before reading Katy I was very much in favour of reimagining the story for readers who might otherwise never hear of Coolidge. Afterwards, not so much. If you don’t start reading outside your comfort zone when you’re young and adaptable, when will you?

As Perry says, “This is how you end up with a generation of people that can only read books with 'characters they can totally relate to'.”

Some of Wilson’s Katy readers have written that they have gone on to try What Katy Did, but gave up because it was too hard – or perhaps just too different. This narrowing of a cultural field is not only depressing but it can mean you miss out on some great books. I put off reading Hanya Yanagihara’s Booker Prize long-listed novel A Little Life for a month because nearly every review I read described it as relentlessly harrowing, and why would I want to do that to myself? I read it expecting a misery memoir, and yes, some passages were difficult. But it was also enchanting, brilliantly characterised and frequently hilarious, and I left that world feeling changed, in the way that a really great story does.

“The point of reading, especially fiction, is not to have confirmed what you already think or feel, but to make you think anew about what you already think or feel,” Yanagihara said in a recent interview.

Should we let go of our favourites so a new generation can enjoy them in their own way? Yes and no. Let’s encourage children to reach into the past and discover those delights for themselves.

#qishylia types #jacqueline wilson

4 notes · View notes

kariachi · 1 year ago

Text

I know I had a post somewhere on this matter but gods forbid tumblr lets me find it apparently so I'm just adding onto this old thing.

As stated in the original post, we can make the logical assumption that chimerizing is not Kevin's 'natural' response to absorbing from the Omnitrix. His body's original response was uncontrollable shapeshifting between the species he acquired by doing so, which makes sense given we had already been shown that his natural response to absorbing dna is to take on traits of the species absorbed from- or at least gain the ability to do so, Aggregor's powers and Kevin's own lack of experience at the time make things a bit wibbly but the natural shapeshifting is there either way. But we also know that he can get control of his shapeshifting, and in fact learn this even before the sequel series with the reveal of 11k and his own shapeshifting and chimeric form.

So, going on from there. The fact Kevin is never again seen losing control of his shapeshifting after absorbing from the Omnitrix, but is seen taking on chimeric forms immediately instead. That in and of itself I think counts as a solid piece of evidence that he's doing this on purpose, but let us continue.

We already know that Kevin's chimeric forms are more dangerous- one could argue more powerful but that's not what we're here for- and I think that alongside other factors plays a large part in what we see from him.

His first Rooters chimera, the first time he's pulled from the Omnitrix since the first run. When this occurs Kevin is on a killing mission, and very much not doing well mentally anyway- Argit does note that he'd seen Kevin lose it before this point, so clearly he was already on the edge. This is a situation where him deciding to be as dangerous as possible makes total sense. He even specifically cites going for and enjoying the power of the shape he uses and the species that make it up.

His Ultimate form, the first time since the first that he remembers. In this case Kevin is very very openly going for as much power as he can so as to face Aggregor on something closer to an even field. Gwen can't do anything to the guy, he's besting Ben at every turn, but Kevin knows how he can match him.

His second Rooters chimera, the fourth time he's pulled from the Omnitrix. Also, I think, the second best evidence of my theory. In this situation Kevin is playing a role- he's playing the turncoat siding with the bad guys, playing at having lost it again, with the end goal of stopping the villain and freeing the other Amalgams from his brainwashing. And so, having 'lost it again', he pulls from the Omnitrix, and just so happens to not only get a a good amount and display of Conductoid dna, but also to get exactly what he needs from it to use Servantis's powers to free the rest of the Amalgams. He then proceeds to showcase his own control over his shapeshifting (we're so proud) by shifting back to human form as soon as he no longer needs that shape.

Kevin 11k, the last of the OG!Kevin chimeric forms we're shown, chronologically. Also, I feel, the best evidence for my theory available. Kevin in this, first off, proves that he doesn't need to absorb from the Omnitrix to shapeshift. Meaning that prior cases of his doing so were doubly deliberate, as he'd still have had earlier shapes to work with. Boy was upgrading his repertoire. It also proves that he chimerizes deliberately. 11k isn't a shape we see before, though it uses base species we've seen before. And yes, you could make the argument that it's the result of him pulling from the Omnitrix again, were it not for the inclusion of Null Guardian in the shape. They're non-sapient, they wouldn't be in the Omnitrix, meaning that this is DNA he either somehow got from the Nemetrix or grabbed on his own using his baseline powers. Either way, the fact it's in a chimeric shape with sapient species means he can build his own chimeric shapes and is fully willing to do so.

With this, I feel like we can agree that there's enough evidence that Kevin can build his own chimeric shapes using DNA he absorbs, and that the majority of times he chimerizes are a result of him doing this purposefully, to call this theory plausible if nothing else.

Now whether he, if he chose not to chimerize when pulling from the Omnitrix, would fall back into the same inability to control his shifting or if that was a matter of childhood lack of experience mixing with Omnitrix bullshit and now that he's older he could control the shifting fine, that is a question for the ages.

Thought of the Day: We see in Framed that after absorbing from the Omnitrix in Kevin 11 Kevin gained the ability to shapeshift between the different unlocked species. This is the first, and likely primary, result of the action. He doesn’t go full-on chimera until later in the episode, when he loses control and shifts into that amalgamized form. So, chimerism doesn’t actually appear to be the ‘natural’ result of his absorbing from the Omnitrix.

So today’s question: Has Kevin, post-OS, not been absorbing from the Omnitrix despite knowing what would happen, as we’ve all assumed, but in fact purposefully choosing to chimerize?

I think his actions in the show (purposefully absorbing from the Ultimatrix for added power, his final chimeric form with the Rooters being just what he needs to fulfill his plan-) support the theory

17 notes · View notes

meridaism · 2 years ago

Text

People hate lesbian headcanons so much that once a character is confirmed to be a lesbian or is heavily lesbian-coded, the first thing people will ask for is proof. Like it's an accusation or something. God forbid said lesbian character has smiled at exactly ONE man for like a millisecond, then all of a sudden it's “UMM ACTUALLY THEY R CANONICALLY ATTRACTED TO MEN SO….”

You have no idea how many “has Disney said anything about this?” and “If Disney hasn't outright said anything then I can't take this as the truth” responses I've gotten towards my posts (especially my pinned) when there's so much canon proof of Merida being a lesbian in all of the properties and pieces of media that Disney themselves owns that they don't have to say anything.

Not to mention y'all use her comphet as a means to say she's straight in Bravely when her love interest is literally canonically non-binary???

Us: Merida is a canon lesbian

Them: “But you failed to consider where there is a brief mentioning of Merida’s childhood in Bravely where she was attracted to a BOY. 🤓”

Meanwhile, what Merida actually said and meant: “For a short period of time during my childhood I was attracted to the body and build of a boy but the more he spoke the more I realized I wasn't really attracted to HIM at all. Ever since then, I haven't gone out of my way to find the right man for myself someday because I knew they'd all anger me, bore me, and fail to give me what I really want. It is for this exact reason why I do not care for Feradach’s male appearances whatsoever, and I really only care for who he is internally: a genderless, bodiless being made of air whom is kind, curious, and loving. That is who I love, no matter what physical form he takes. I love Feradach internally, not externally. His physical forms don't matter to me, only his truest and happiest form made of air because that is his true self. Which is exactly why I am aiming to free him from his curse of having to wear the human faces and bodies of those he unwillingly brings ruin to. I am aiming to restore him back to his original, happiest form: a feeling, an internal bliss made of air, the one I love.”

Brave has always been about internal vs external change, and Bravely is the perfect sequel to that. Don't dismiss the message of Merida’s story and her growth as a person just because you want to have a nonexistent gotcha moment out of a pathetic desperation to erase her canon lesbianism and take a beloved character away from the lesbian community and erase the representation she gives us.

67 notes · View notes

likehandlingroses · 3 years ago

Text

I think a lot of people are speaking of the first film as now being meaningless or Fellowes ignored how happy people were, etc…and I just think people are taking a very narrow view of what happened in the production of these two films, and so the real progression between the two is not Registering as significant when it actually is.

When the first film came out, there was no promise there would ever be a second one. And Fellowes Originally was going to have two equally upsetting things happen to Thomas in quick succession: two dazzling men (Chris Webster, Richard Ellis), two events of community and closeness, two painful separations.

Fun movie! So he scrapped the second fall because god forbid that’s the last time we see Thomas! And most of us—I think fairly at the time—assumed that meant he had scrapped the idea from his mind, that Richard Ellis was now free from the entire concept.

And he wasn’t! He isn’t. And to a certain degree, disappointment or not…that’s not necessarily unfair or unthinkable. Fellowes wrote Richard Ellis, and one of the defining features of this character when Fellowes thought him up is that he was Going to be married. Perhaps that was too difficult for him to shake from what he’d written and what was kept in, and it didn’t feel truthful for him to pluck that character back into the world and hand him to Thomas without addressing that central concept. We as the fandom have made much of Richard and that��s wonderful, but In reality as a character in a Fellowes’s mind I do understand why he would say, “this is not really workable with this person I envisioned.”

But what about the fact that people LIKED the first film so much. That it earned applause and nominations and a general sense of joy from people? How could he ignore that, and then just do the same thing he always does???

I would argue that he didn’t, but he addressed it in a way that people weren’t anticipating. It’s a sequel, it should be a continuation of the same! Right? But the peculiarities of the story of the first film, like I said above, made that impossible. Richard Ellis didn’t work for Fellowes any more—and maybe he should have gotten over it or maybe it was totally fair and maybe you prefer him or maybe you’re relieved! What matters is that appears to be what he felt to be true, and so the sequel was not going to feature Richard Ellis as Thomas’s love interest, whatever fans had taken from the first film.

And Fellowes could have made a weak effort to string it along longer. Without really believing it. Just one look at that fob, people said for months. Just one!! And I’ll be happy. Anything to keep the ship alive. But that’s not the only way to look at this. And it’s probably not the fairest to the writer or the overall audience, who want to see something HaPPEN to Thomas!

And so Fellowes did something really interesting. He went back to the drawing board and Did It On Purpose this time. The sequel features—on purpose—a man and a story that gives Thomas what he wants. From Go! When Thomas could have stood there and done Nothing, and another character could have a turn at a story! And it is appropriately soapy and infeasible and optimistic—on brand with what protagonists of DA are often given to enjoy!

The sequel is in a very real way a validation of what people liked about the first film—and I think here it is helpful to remember most people have not spent the past three years writing meta and fic and talking about Richard Ellis! But they probably think from time to time how nice it was to see Thomas happy, and this film is for them as much as it is for any of us. More, really, because their tickets cost just as much and there are more of them!

These general viewers are the ones who would have been just as likely to hate the first film ending with Richard’s wife as much as we did, BUT they are vastly more resistant to the negative reaction fans have at a seeming betrayal that she’s showed up now. And what they will see is Thomas getting what he says he wants without compromise or Waiting on his part, which is absolutely a progression of the promises of the first film. It just is not reliant on the same characters and storylines to do it, which I don’t think is required and also makes sense to me given what we know about the production of the first film.

And this is not to dismiss that people would rather have x or y, but it isn’t fair to take those feelings and project them onto the finished product and declare there’s no connection or progression of thought just because it isn’t what you wanted the connection between the two films to be.

#da 2 spoilers #thomas barrow

61 notes · View notes

worm-entity · 2 years ago

Text

The new interview with the vampire really pisses me off. This has been happening to a lot of media, where remakes, or film adaptions of games and books, are made. And they are genuinely, utterly shit. The source material is fine as it is, it’s all that it needs to be and people need to appreciate that. Sometimes things should be appreciated and embraced for what they are. But greedy corporations are too lazy to pay anyone to work on actually good films or shows. They want to buy the rights to something popular and make a billion reboots or sequels, without giving two shits about the source material. This is happening to lotr, interview with the vampire, princess bride, and so many other beloved books and movies. People will try to go “oh it’s because they want to bring it to a younger audience or reimagine it.” Then tell me, why aren’t any of the remakes, or film adaptions, any good? Why do they feel so heartless? Why don’t they do anything creative or new? These are made solely for the purpose of profit. Good artwork requires time, effort, and mostly, paying people. And god forbid any companies do that. So instead, they remake things, make them objectively worse, and then a whole bunch of tik tok kids start acting like they know everything about it. It becomes so utterly detached from its source material, and it’s heartbreaking. People then associate the new with the old, and ultimately people fail to realize how good the original was. So many films are recycled content, that lose all the heart and soul of the original. What once was a grand sculpture gets eroded away into a pebble, and then ash. Companies aren’t your friend, remember that. It’s okay to enjoy these reboots, but please keep these things in mind as you watch it. And pirate if possible.

#jesus christ i hate the film and show industry #do NOT go sucking bezos’ dick in the comments or reblogs so help me god #tik tok is an actual fucking blight to this earth #interview with the vampire #i could tag a LOT of shit in this #also stop idolizing actors #just bc one of the jonas brothers is in the new princess bride movie doesn’t mean it’ll be good #hes a celebrity he’s not gonna fuck you #im #angry abt this stuff #worm.rant #worm.text #tagging lotr to piss people off

9 notes · View notes

rubye402 · 3 years ago

Text

OK, so, I got to something in The Stanley Parable Ultra Deluxe. Don't worry I'll put it in a read more what it is particularly so y'all can go spoiler free.

Just know the spoiler free TL;DR is I wanna thank Crows Crows Crows for that something and for making TSP!

...

Y'all here got the thing in Ultra Deluxe?

Everyone here has the thing on their menu?

Good.

So about that Epilogue "Ending" that you click on in the menu

First off, DIDN'T know our text "pal" was a fucking villain. Thought they were trapped in the game by Narry or /someone/ served to amerce us in the game but... Nope! They're a crazy game milking bitch.

I did NOT go along with changing the title screen anymore than it already was, to say the least.

So we all kinda got the impression of what all of the epilogue served as right? It was Crows Crows Crows saying that they didn't want to make DLC or Sequels to TSP and just leave TSP UD as their final note of Stanley's, and thus Narrator's, story. As to not work themselves to meaningless milking of something that was already not broken, so why fix it? Leave the games legacy alone.

I can already hear people's comments of how it hardly had anything more to it than the OG and how it shouldn't be it's own thing... But that's ironically enough, kinda makes this game all the more hilariously necessary and meta, both in AND out of universe.

This extension of the OG Stanley Parable, not necessarily DLC, or god forbid a sequel. UD is a brilliant game that not only pokes fun at gaming and story telling as a whole like the original, but now it extends to development behind crafting things and making more of it.

Now, I do agree with the "villains" message of "Who cares what people think?" Not necessarily because not listening to your audience isn't important! It is! But I found that as long as YOU are happy with what YOU created, there's no reason to concern yourself with making something EVERYONE will enjoy. That's just not possible. Thus "who cares what people think?"

Now, with this, we gotta acknowledge this means TSP is 100% over and done in a canon game sense... But I'm fine with that. I think Crows Crows Crows talking TO us in this manner of helping us understand WHY they aren't making more is snarky but sweet of them. So I'm giving MAD props to them. And, of course, as I said in the TL;DR:

A biggol thank you to Crows Crows Crows. Y'all are awesome in every sense of the word, and made a brilliant game that truly needs nothing more than what it already has. You all have risen to the top charts of indie teams in my eyes, and I look forward to what the team does next.

#the stanley parable #the stanley parable ultra deluxe #tsp #tspud #tsp spoilers #tspud spoilers #seriously this is talking about the biggest spoilers of the game #tsp narrator #tsp stanley #ultra deluxe

36 notes · View notes

coquinespike · 4 years ago

Text

From a Self-Described Neutral

Someone posted in the tag a couple weeks ago basically calling out neutrals to...idk, defend themselves? In the spirit of answering a “direct” address, I started writing this post but kept deleting because I didn’t really believe anyone wanted to hear from me and god knew I didn’t really want to get into it with anyone (hence the being neutral).

But now, I do feel compelled to at least express my personal views. It’s gotten too difficult to ignore the drama happening in the inuyasha tag despite my best efforts.

When news of the sequel first came out, I found myself most annoyed by the so-called Antis, who it seemed to me had automatically jumped all down the throats of anyone who was even speculating that Rin might be the mother and throwing around buzzwords like “grooming” and “pedo apologists.” Which. I can’t articulate how fucked up I think it is to accuse people of those things over a goddamn anime ship. I couldn’t blame sessrinners from getting defensive, those are serious allegations. I saw antis post photos of real, actual human beings who were child brides and child porn victims, often children of color, to what end?? Making an outlandish comparison to a fictional ship?! Just...what the actual fuck.

But then!! As the sequel continued to air, it seemed that a subset of Sessrin shippers got way more vocal than I’d yet to experience. I’ve seen others imply that they were always like this, or had been this rabid before when the original series was still coming out. I found myself very alarmed by their behavior, and the kinds of posts “justifying” their ship that just... turned my stomach to say the least.

What I simply Do Not Understand is why sessrin shippers have this insatiable need for their ship to become canon. When you try to use examples of sesshomaru & Rin’s interactions during the run of the show/manga as “clues” or whatever that they’d later end up together romantically...then that WOULD be grooming, what the fuck is wrong with y’all??

If you wanted them to be a couple after she was an adult, why on earth would you bring up anything to do with when she was a child? You should be doing everything you can to separate her childhood growing up in kaede’s village from whatever potential future she might have with sesshomaru. And because we only ever saw her during her childhood, y’all had like the perfect blank slate to turn her into any kind of character you want for her adulthood. She could be some super-intellectual courtesan. She could be a healer, with or without spiritual powers. She could become a badass warrior. The possibilities are literally endless, any of which could include a woman who chooses to go with sesshomaru on her own terms, instead of focusing on ways he “pursued” or god forbid “seduced” her.

I dunno man. I still consider myself neutral. As stated above, I do believe there are ways to tell the story under which the sessrin ship could be a healthy and acceptable one. But the ways sessrin shippers seem to focused on? Ugh. Nah. Creep me tf out. And the decisions that Sunrise seem to be making, where if Rin is the mother of the twins she was clearly still way too young for me to be okay with it. I Do Not Approve. And I have now officially contributed a big block of ranty text to the inuyasha tag, I’m a big fucking hypocrite lmao.

#inuyasha #shipping discourse #sessrin #anti sessrin #yes I’m tagging it with both because it is kinda both

181 notes · View notes

tortschordsofsteel · 3 years ago

Text

hi im tort/tortilla i wanted an aa sideblog and here we are <3 apollo is my son

(hi for my sicktember aa fics collection check over here! mostly sequel trilogy but a few og trilogy ones are sprinkles there! oh and one (1) dgs one)

i wanna make nice tags eventually but for now I'll mostly spoiler stuff like

general spoiler tag - #aa spoilers (usually for any games that arent the original trilogy)

game specific spoiler tags - #aa1 spoilers / #aa2 spoilers / #aa3 spoilers / #aa4 spoilers / #aa5 spoilers / #aa6 spoilers / #dgs spoilers / #dgs2 spoilers / #tgaa spoilers / #tgaa2 spoilers etc (i havent played the investigations games so i wont post spoilers of those. i hope)

im slowly coming up with character tags and the alike and I'll even slower update this with them but here are the ones i have rn (beware spoilers) (currently in the process of going back to retag stuff lol)

general tags

game tags - #aa1 / #aa2 / #aa3 / #aa4 / #aa5 / #aa6 / #dgs / #dgs2

my screaming tag - #tortilla rambles

my posts - #tortilla posts

art tag - #tortilla arts

kin tag - #keys to my heart

(ORIGINAL TRILOGY)

main tag - #triforce of bluffing

phoenix tag - #how the turn abouts

edgeworth tag - #steel samurai fanboy

mia tag - #proud plant mother

maya tag - #mystic burger

pearl tag - #nice shot!

franziska tag - #FRANNY YOUR SWISS ROLLS

godot tag - #starbucks no 1 boycotter

larry tag - #HE KILT LAREY

gumshoe tag - #gummy worms

manfred tag - #The MANFRED The MYTHFRED The LEGEND (fred)

kurain tag - #school of girlboss gaslight gatekeep

(SEQUEL TRILOGY)

main tag - #sequel tag

apollo tag - #yelling every law ASMR

trucy tag - #magical truck girl

klavier tag - #piano man take me by the hand

athena tag - #l’enfants amongus! sacrebleu!

simon tag - #hawk friendly parks google search

nahyuta tag - #oh holy mother we're really in it now

rayfa tag - #this is so sad nayna play despacito

clay tag - #see ya space cowboy

ema tag - #what’s the shit! now it’s got Fingerprot

lamiroir tag - #borginia’s got talent

dhurke tag - #are you afraid of the dhurke

datz tag - #sewer lizard hunter

mikeko tag - #rejoice! mikeko be upon ye!

waa tag - #waking lie detectors

prosecutors tag - #updated autopsy record

gyaxa squad tag - #if a man died in space would that be fucked up or what

khura’in tag - #law(yer)less land

clay & pollo tag - #they’re FINE!

gramarye tag - #trouble in magicland

(DGS/TGAA DUOLOGY)

main tag - #dgs

ryuu tag - #the great mouse attorney

susato tag - #shovel talk? no. shovel action

kazuma tag - #partmewr

sherlock tag - #dance white boy dance

iris tag - #das baby

van zieks tag - #rich wine aunt

gina tag - #gina tag

mikotoba tag - #mikotoba tag

gregson tag - #fish and chips

wagahai tag - #waggy

soseki tag - #poor little meow meow

(SEQUEL TRILOGY SPOILER TAGS)

gramarye family tag - #perceiving you

sahdmadhi family tag - #blood of the dragon

jove tag - #[strums guitar] AAAA

(DGS SPOILER TAGS)

klimt tag - #klimt tag

genshin tag - #god forbid catmen do anything

fambly :) - #221B tea party

#just wanted a general intro post for now I'll. make it better sometime #spoilery ones are at the very bottom so watch out

5 notes · View notes

wack-ashimself · 3 years ago

Text

'The Batman' or as I call it...

'Is there a real difference between emo and goth? That will be a highly covered topic in this unneeded POS.'

Sure, Farrel as the penguin was nice, but being he has little real screen time, no real character development (like everyone in the movie) you just are watching the best version of a live penguin (that stays closer to the gangster element).

You ever watch a movie and go 'this is not bad, but in no form was it one of the better movies, I'll forget it in a year or two, and it cost HOW MUCH to make?!'

It met expectations, but then stopped as soon as it did.

It's just so fucking drawn out, and 2 of the biggest plot holes are right in your face. Spoilers.

1-the bat signal. IMMEDIATELY after knocking out gordan, they meet on the building with the GIANT BAT LAMP!? NO cops thought 'I wonder if batman is gonna be nearby the THING THAT CALLS BATMAN THAT WAS JUST TURNED ON?!'

2-the riddler's writing is extremely noticeable. Alfred's seen ALL the evidence of the riddler. ...still opens the package with his DISTINCT style of writing covering it because....? BECAUSE....?

Ugh. And do not even get me started on catwoman. Great acting, great fights...and carried all the scenes where robbie boy decides to take his twilight character and meet michael keaton's batman...but their forced 'love' connection felt nothing but filler. And like this movie: unneeded (her fight scenes were much cooler than batman's on average tho).

I'll give you it was probably the most REALISTIC batman, but who the fuck cares? It was boring most times. Outside of figuring out the ridder's clues/backstory, nothing in this movie evolves or matters.

5.9/10. Yeah, I'd rather rewatch the BAD batman movies. They at least were bright and colorful.

ps-best part? The chase scene with the penguin. It's way more bad ass than the trailer. But not much else was.

Side note : I think the main reason above all this movie was a disappointment story wise was because if you watched all the batman movies, video games (tell tale-this was basically STOLEN DIRECTLY from their batman game), shows, specials (real and animated) this was like a frankenstein's monster of like...3 of those combined, so you kinda saw most of it coming. Even if you weren't a comic book fan: you KNEW most of this story. 1-the waynes being dirty. 2-mob and wayne's ties. 3-mob controlling the cops. These were totally all done before on some level. So if anything it was just the real life version of a cartoon they already did. Kinda like spiderman no way home was a knockoff of their own animated movie's story (spiderverse)...god forbid originality comes to play. Then ending it with catwoman and batman doing a paul walker fast and furious drive off? That's it. Everything has been done before. We're just recycling everything forever. Amazing. Fuck hollywood.

pps-no sequel. I do not care. Rob was so bland, like the movie, and nothing felt meaningful. Know when you eat something and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth? Well, that was this, but with NO taste. I didn't even know I ate something. It was like water. An ice cube.

#'batman #the batman #riddler #movie #movies #collin farrell #spoiler #spoilers #spiderman

2 notes · View notes