#i actually have no idea who the target audience of comic books is

[roseworth]

gonna be mean for a second and say i think it’s so weird when dc blogs i follow talk shit about people that watch children’s shows…. like girl we’re reading picture books about people putting on capes and fighting evil you have no room to talk

[taylor-titmouse]

hey i want to talk about how you should be promoting your work as an erotic author/illustrator

i'm writing this up because the marketing aspect of my work as an erotic author/illustrator is a science to me, and also because i'm the guy who gets unreasonably annoyed when i see other creators not properly advertising their work. you presumably want to make money off your work. this post will be written under the assumption you want to make money off your work but are doing a bad job at it. it will be very confrontational. if you read this and feel attacked you're right and i am attacking you.

this is geared toward selling erotic comics/writing/books/art as products. i will probably write more than one post about this subject so if i didn't touch on something you want to know more about, comment/send me an ask and i'll keep it in mind for the next one.

i will start with my first and least specific but most important point:

DON'T GET FUCKING CUTE

hi are you paying attention. i'm gripping you by the sides of your face. do not get fucking cute with what you are trying to sell. you are not a big enough property to get cute, nobody LIKES it when big properties get cute, and you are selling porn. you have to own this. you have to be up front about this. don't be tongue in cheek, don't be all teehee i wonder what this could be~, don't be secretive. you are selling a product. you have to fucking act like it. you are an adult selling pornography to other adults. i am GRIPPING your HEAD you NEED to understand this.

and to be clear when i say 'cute' i mean coy. i don't mean cutesy, as in the aesthetic. you can be as hello kitty pastel ten emojis a post uwu as you like when you're building your audience and generating hype. but when you start trying to sell, don't be vague, don't be sarcastic, don't mislabel your work as a joke and assume everyone is on it. because they're not.

you must always assume 75% of the people seeing the thing you are advertising have no fucking idea who you are. and that includes a huge chunk of the people who already follow you. they do not know who you are or what you've been working on for two months or why they should care about it. they just got here. somebody just reposted it. they are seeing it for the first time. most people are only looking at social media for a tiny chunk of their day. they are not keeping up with you. you cannot get cute about what you are trying to sell because nobody knows what it is until you tell them.

okay are you still with me. we are going to talk about clarity now.

YOU GOTTA TELL ME WHAT IT IS

good lord the amount of times i have gone to buy somebody's comic or book and had no idea what's actually in it or what it's about. who are the characters? why should i care about them? what do they do in it? what is the premise of this thing you want me to spend $5 on? why would you not tell me? i'm shaking you again. please i have to know what i'm buying i only have so much money to spend on porn.

porn, arguably more than any other genre, relies on knowing exactly what is in it. you do not want to surprise your readers with a kink they were unaware of! and on the flip side, you do not want to miss out on your target audience! if your book contains a hot spider babe laying eggs in an elf, you have to say so. not just so people who don't want to read about eggs know it isn't for them, but so the people who are egg crazy can see that and go "oh fuck YES i love EGGS here is my $5 and an extra $2 tip for catering to me specifically". a contents/features list is as much an advertisement as it is a warning!

as for re: who the characters are and why should i care, i'm sorry but you need to learn how to write sales copy. you have to write blurbs. you have to get good at the shit that goes on the back of a book. we all hate it but we have to do it. i want to know who the characters are and what the context is. i, personally, am not interested in contemporary stories as much as fantasy and historical. please tell me what genre this porn exists in so i know if it aesthetically appeals to me. pull some books off your shelves and see how they do it. hell man go look at mine.

while you're there, note that every single book of mine has a sample of what's in it. this feels like such a no-brainer to me but again! the amount of times i have gone to buy somebody's work and they don't show me what their work looks like! you gotta give me the first page or two! just enough that i know if i like the way your writing sounds, or the way you draw your comics! i don't know you! i am not going to trust that you're good at what you do just based on a cover. the cover is to get me to this step, it is not the only step. you have to show me that you're worth spending my money on!

to put it less cynically, you want to catch my interest. you want me to go 'oh i want to see more of this', you want me to go 'ahh i want to know where this goes!' you need to get me invested and craving more. earn my $5!!!

YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT EASY TO GIVE YOU MONEY

hey go look at your bio right now. go look at your pinned post. do you have a link to your patreon there? do you have a link to your itchio/gumroad/whatever? do i have to click more than once to get to the places you want me to go to give you money? why? why are you making me click twice? have we learned nothing from every website making you click an extra time when they make some stupid UI update and how much it pisses us off? i have already given up, i have forgotten you, i am not giving you my $5 today. put your links in the easiest places to get to them.

god literally as i was writing this post i went to go find somebody's itchio to see how they described their work and it was not anywhere on their profile. grabbing you and shaking you PUT THE LINK WHERE I CAN FIND IT. don't make it hard! make it easy! i am a dickhead sitting on the toilet scrolling, saw your post, and was interested enough to read further. but you made me go to your bio to find your linktree and oops i have already gone back to my timeline to look at the boobies in the next post. stop wasting precious bio space on DNIs and put your fuckin links there!!!

this is more for the twitter people, but: just put the link in the damn post. just say the word commission. just say it's for patreon. "wuh wuh the algorithm" it is not the damn algorithm it's that everybody hates advertising and nobody wants to retweet ads. putting slashes in the words doesn't do anything and you look like a fool. i have posted so much art that says it's 'a commission for ___" and it did exactly as good as any other art despite having the word commission in it. and by doing the slashes you just made it impossible for anybody to search your account for your commission information (which should be at the VERY LEAST in a post under your pinned tweet if you're not actively posting about them being open).

okay that went on a tangent i'm going to back to the point of putting the link in the tweet. put it in the first post. not in the first reply. don't tell them to go to your bio. put it in the post people are actually going to share. it's fine to put more information in the thread but people are only ever going to share the first post. so put the link there. you have to make it easy. putting links in tweets can hurt you algorithmically, even in the replies. so you're better off having it in the post that actually gets seen and shared. i don't want to open the tweet and scroll to get to your sales page where i ASSUME you will have put all the information anyway. put it in the tweet that just got retweeted by itself onto my dash!

also you have to share it a ton of times. i repost my shit every few hours when i'm trying to push a new product. as i said before people are not 24/7 looking at their timelines. they missed it the first time. they missed it the second time. they didn't get paid yet that week but they were after the eighth time and you reminded them again so they finally bought it. that i will still get sales every time i repost a book ad weeks after release says there are always people who missed it, or who only just showed up.

abandon your pride and shill. shills pay their bills. anyone who gets annoyed about it isn't giving you money in the first place. don't worry about looking like a sell out. don't apologize for plugging your own work. post about it often, post about it in different ways. post about it. post about it. you are not going to make money if people don't know you have something to sell them. if you want to make a career out of it, you need to act like it.

I DON'T HAVE A FOURTH POINT

kisses your forehead. i'm sorry for yelling at you. i've been making and publishing and selling adult art for the past two-three years and have got myself to the point where it pays my rent, and i got there by paying attention to what does and does not work.

please do your best to make money. i want you to make money.

as i said above i plan to write more posts on this subject, such as cover design, how to actually write sales copy, and best practices with running a patreon, but if there's things you would want to hear more about leave a comment or send an ask! i will probably be less aggressive on future topics. these are just things that have grinded my gears for a grip.

[shuttershocky]

Do you have a dislike for media universes that "rewards" people for watching/reading all of it in general?

Or do you think there is one that executes that idea well?

I'm answering this 5 months late, but I'm pretty sure I still remember this ask being prompted by a post making fun of the MCU.

Do I dislike story universes that reward people for reading all of it? Not at all. I mean, I'm a fan of both Middle Earth and Star Wars, I fucking love big, big universes with plenty of stories in them. When they intersect in some small way it's a delight to me, I love those little personal winks from the author for having read their other works or recognizing the most obscure names only a nerd would know.

However, there's a difference between a little reference in a story meant for people who can connect the dots, and making something almost required reading for your enjoyment. It's the difference between an acknowledgement from the creators that you liked the setting enough to come back for a new yet familiar ride, and a company realizing they've found their cash cow and can't wait to milk it for all its got until it's dead.

And dead the cash cow will be, eventually. It's been said before that the reason why the Big Two of western comics have ceded more and more ground to manga over the years is that Spider-Man has 10 different starting points while Naruto starts with Volume#1. That's not just a funny joke. Onboarding new readers has genuinely been Marvel and DC's problem for decades, which is why it was both incredibly predictable yet shocking all the same that this is what the MCU turned itself into.

Sure, early on you could ask the audience to watch a couple movies before the big Avengers crossover, but now they've got all these TV shows on top of the movies that you have to watch in order to "catch up", and it's not even about the cool characters anymore. More and more of their fanbase is going to stop caring once the barrier of entry gets too high, and it's ridiculous to me that Marvel went this road with their movies when they know this is what happened to their comics first.

I mean, are you serious, their next big bad is Kang? I am not watching several TV shows and an Ant-Man movie that's somehow worse than the second one all to see how the currently left Avengers meet goddamn Kang the Conqueror. He's in both the TV shows and the movies, which means they're somehow giving Kang more buildup screentime than Thanos. Why? Either I've been extremely out of touch with Marvel comics or the MCU picked a wild choice to headline their next billion dollar franchise when Doctor Doom is actually available to them now and barely needs an introduction.

Sorry, got lost for a bit. Back on topic, yeah I know I know, all art right now exists under capitalism which means every setting that becomes a wider story universe is an author trying to milk their existing fanbase. Whenever a creator makes a thing that I like, and then announces they have a new thing set in the same setting as their first thing but isn't a direct sequel so they can keep gaining a new audience while keeping their existing one, I know I'm being suckered in.

Just, don't make it so blatant. And don't make it so hard. I am the exact target audience for these shenanigans and even I'm starting to feel like it's homework because it's all fucking required now.

If I, a lifelong Star Wars fan, want to watch the newest Star Wars thing, I have to see a hundred hours of other Star Wars media first. If I want to watch The Mandalorian Season 3, I can't just have seen Season 1 and 2, oh no, I have to also see The Book of Boba Fett too, because halfway through that show became The Mandalorian Season 2.5. Well I did see Boba Fett, and the combination of my dislike for turning it into required homework AND the show itself just being kinda dogshit meant I never touched season 3 of the Mandalorian. That show used to be so great because it wasn't tied down to any existing story arcs or characters, so it stood on its own and made for an amazing watch no matter how much Star Wars you've actually seen. And then it succeeded and so had to become the new spine for the entirety of Disney Star Wars afterward. Fuck. Now if I want to watch their latest show Ahsoka, I have to have seen the Clone Wars animated series AND Rebels, because the Rebels cast are in it too! I mean I did see Clone Wars and Rebels, but that still sucks!

That makes me worried now! Andor was also really fucking good and it stood on its own so hard you didn't even need to see Rogue One, the movie that introduced Cassian Andor in the first place. But now that season 1 was a success and everyone sang its praises, it certainly means season 2 is suddenly going to get real cramped with Ahsoka and Luke Skywalker and whatever guys are currently alive in its timeframe. Shit, they're probably gonna add Cal Kestis in season 2 of Andor. The Respawn Star Wars games are still doing their own thing which means it's time to connect to something else.

I hate what all this has become. It was fun to read the Silmarillion and see what kind of fuckery one family of elves got up to that eventually turned Sauron from minion to big evil eye parked next to evil mountain, but you didn't need to read all that before The Lord of the Rings. LOTR didn't assume you knew anything at all (and oh boy did Tolkien never miss an opportunity to explain shit).

Let me repeat. I am the target audience. I live for the ridiculously nerdy habit of reading things set in the same universe as other things and connecting all the dots. If /I/ feel like it's become homework, I can't imagine what the average person thinks of all this. Make it stop. Stop running everything I once loved into the ground in the name of endless profit. Star Wars was already doing this to itself before the Disney acquisition and yet it didn't feel this bad.

[cheetour]

The Void Within's dialogue is sloppy to the point of not being fully literate*.

It's been noticed that the rough sketches and the final artwork don't match up in quality, and seem to be declining as the plot goes on. The same is happening to the writing.

This is, I am sorry, a post about the latest major Neopets update. Not only that, it's about the GRAMMAR in the dialogue for that update. Riveting.

I SWEAR I AM NOT JUST A PEDANTIC ASSHOLE, I GENUINELY WANT USERS TO KNOW THERE'S AN ISSUE!

Most people who complain about "incorrect" grammar in games and comics are wrong. Homestuck, Night in the Woods, We Know the Devil, and Captain Underpants all have fine grammar, just stylized.

I really, really, really like The Void Within. I think it's a fantastic idea, and I am determined to enjoy it as much as possible.

I am a professional editor. Noticing this stuff is my job.

Now, PLEASE bear that in mind when I say:

tl;dr: Neopets is asking you to pay money to a product that does not meet the quality standards of a primary school English test for ages 10+.

*I don't mean to use "not literate" as a stand-in for "stupid and bad at writing." Literacy is very complicated, illiteracy is more common than you think, and there is no shame in being illiterate - you can be very intelligent and also have no written or digital literacy. I mean the literal "not able to use written language to its fullest extent".

It's clear whoever wrote the dialogue didn't have a perfect grasp of English punctuation. AND THAT'S FINE. Good writers don't always have good grammar, and you DON'T need fluent English to write good stories in English.

That's why writing, proofreading, and editing are all separate professions, and why a well-run creative project delegates those roles to separate people. They still matter.

People are more likely to notice grammar mistakes the more they read books. Correctly formatted English is how older, less online, and disabled people with visual or linguistic processing difficulties read. Text-to-speech doesn't work correctly on writing without correct punctuation. These are serious professional standards, and they exist for a reason. They're not worthless just because you don't understand them.

A good-quality publisher of books, comics, or video games wouldn't release dialogue like this to a paying audience. They would consider this standard unacceptable. They'd either use correct grammar, or stylized grammar. (Inconsistent grammar, with no logical or narrative rules, isn't a style. They're not choices if you don't know you're making them. They're mistakes.)

To an extent this is nitpicking, and most people wouldn't notice this stuff.

But Neopets is MAKING MONEY. They are SELLING PRODUCTS for this. They have MULTIPLE PHASES of NC Market sales for this plot.

As an educator, there is no way I could show this (perfectly kid-friendly) comic to a classroom of children - it would have no educational value. It's not written correctly or with any obvious care. If they paid attention to it too much, they'd get the wrong idea about the English language!

I think it's fair to say that if you're publishing an official Neopets story, and you want Neopets to be a kid-friendly, fan-driven, story-based brand with a target audience wider than "people who don't really care about whether stories are professionally written", the script should've been proofread.

To give you an idea of how many typos Chapter 3 has, here's one of the dialogue pages with the missing punctuation added; I also took 5 minutes to rewrite each line for coherency.

And THIS is a website showing you at what points in primary eduation we teach children to use commas correcty:

Art is hard. Programming is hard. Hell, good writing is hard. It's HARD coming up with dialogue and a plot that people actually want to experience.

Grammar is boring and sometimes pointless. It's not difficult. It requires only basic literacy. Children learn how to use commas at ages seven and up.

If you don't care about the story you're telling enough to check that it would get a good grade on a child's school test, how can you possibly expect anyone to pay for it? You need specialist skills to code a website or create a high-quality digital graphic, but the only thing you need to get this right is... one literate adult who cares enough to try.

So where are they?

**There is no shame in being illiterate, but there is CERTAINLY shame in selling illiterate writing.

tl;dr: Neopets is asking you to pay money to a product that does not meet the quality standards of a primary school English test for ages 10+.

Finally, here are some browser petsites/RPGs who have never prompted me to write an 800 word critique:

Fallen London

Pixel Cat's End

Lioden

[frozenangelcosplay]

The Case for Jimmywing

You can skip to “Let’s start at the beginning” for the actual content of what I’m analyzing.

So about a year and a half ago, I happened upon a trade paperback of “Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen: who killed Jimmy Olsen” at a comic book store we regularly drive an hour just to go to. I found the coat tail riding title self deprecating and hilarious and it instantly became a favorite of mine. And it fucking ruined my life.

For a split second I mistook Jimmy Olsen for being part of Nightwing’s “Ginger Harem” as they call it. I thought “he had to be, right? Like statistically?” He’s part of the young adult demographic, or ‘gen 2’ as I call them, he and Dick are both huge parts of Clark’s life to the extent where they gotta at least be friends, and no one would be shocked if he was one of the redhead’s Dick’s “collected” as they say. So why the hell was there nothing on the internet falling for this obvious set up?

(For context the human geography of fandom behavior is of high interest to me)

This was quite a bit of an anomaly, so I set out for some research. I brushed over results from the silver age initially and saw there was just one panel coming up with both of them in present art style (a twenty years in the future thing). It was more of a Jimmy Olsen cameo than anything where all I learned is they’re not familiar these days. I still liked the idea though and if I left my digging there I probably would’ve let it go a while ago. But then I looked INTO the silver age stuff and OH BOY IS THERE A LOT TO UNPACK HERE.

Long story short, they were written as close friends for years and I feel like DC is trying to gaslight me personally into pretending it didn’t happen. There’s a lot of potential to pick up where they left off with everything that’s happened in their stories since but there’s little to no sign of taking advantage of that anytime soon.

Let’s start at the beginning…

In 1940 both Batman and Superman separately acquired child sidekicks. A pair of eyes in the story the same age of the target audience’s to see themselves in and relate to. Robin would make his debut in the comics as Batman’s sidekick, would be Bruce Wayne’s legal ward, and also dawn combat training, gadgets, and a costumed vigilante identity. Jimmy Olsen would be a cub reporter at the daily planet where Clark Kent worked (a position specified beyond it’s dictionary definition as a teen internship position in “Superman Smashes the Klan”, which is set in the radio show cannon) and help at Superman’s side as himself.

Later, particularly with the classic comic run “World’s Finest”, in a world much less saturated with superheroes, let alone sidekicks, than we have today, the sidekicks of the stars of these comics easily became close friends. Most notable adventure by today’s standard would be World’s finest # 195, probably due to it’s shock and meme value cover of Batman and Superman making their sidekicks dig their own graves.

A personal favorite of mine would be World’s Finest #141 where the sidekicks run away to an island and fake their deaths, making it the first of at least twice they do that together (another being near the end of #195). Here they establish a secret hideout in the mountains in an abandoned observatory to keep souvenirs from their respective mentor’s adventures, and some of their own. (Notably two dummies of themselves Batman and Superman had just used to get back at them for pulling this stunt).

In Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen, Jimmy has also filled in for Robin twice. First time was to get Jimmy into the Mystery analysts (#111), second was to settle a bet after Robin beat him in a “Young Man of the Year” pageant (#130). In #111 this is where Robin trained Jimmy in combat, and some gadget use so he’s got that under his belt now enough to do it all again at least.

Also quick fun fact before I move on, Jimmy knew Robin and Batman’s secret identities LONG before he knew Superman’s. In World’s Finest #144, due to the fact that Jimmy was radiating kryptonite, he and Robin switched mentors and Batman pretty much immediately told him that he was Bruce Wayne, and Dick Grayson was Robin (told with Robin’s approval). A bit of an anomaly, but it carried forth in continuity.

Anyway, if you try to look up any shared adventure’s in recent comics, you’ll unceremoniously get nothing. I mentioned earlier Jimmy’s cameo in “Nightwing the New Order”, and there’s also like two crossed paths in the current World’s Finest run (a flashback continuity) and it just seemed like their dynamic then was just that Robin was relatively annoyed with Jimmy for being the one to debunk Mr. Mxyzptlk and Batmite’s disguises. (Rude?!)

I can’t find ANYTHING that explains this drift. My estimate would be that their dynamic died out some time between Dick joining the Titans and becoming Nightwing. But still remains a glaring connection.

Nightwing and Flamebird

So the first time that the Nightwing mantle debuted it was Superman as Nightwing with Jimmy as Flamebird. They went as these heroes into the bottle city of Kandor on multiple occasions. At the time they modeled these personas off of two kinds of birds found in Kandor, taking inspiration from Batman and Robin. The people of Kandor were convinced that Superman was actively refusing to grow the city again, and deemed him an enemy, which justified the disguises.

You still see this referenced every now and then, usually in museums and stuff, in fact, remember that observatory hideout? Statues and/or costumes of Superman’s and Jimmy’s Nightwing and Flamebird are on prominent display. In fact, Robin and Jimmy landed on naming the place itself “The Eyrie”, because as Robin said:

“In a way, we’re both birds. You’ve been Flamebird, and I’m Robin. So let’s call it the Eyrie!”

They revisit it now and then, but it seems to have been forgotten at this point.

Now since then there have been multiple pairs of Nightwings and Flamebirds. Obviously we know Dick Grayson is THE Nightwing and has been for a long time. The most consistent Flamebird however would be Bette Kane, and here’s where this gets interesting.

So there’s a full Krytonian legend surrounding Nightwing and Flamebird, from what I can tell, different versions, from heroes to gods etc. The most complete version I can only find on the wiki, so if you know where it’s from please let me know!

Here’s the link: https://superman.fandom.com/wiki/Nightwing_and_Flamebird

Here’s the quote:

“The true Flamebird is a massive, flaming dragon-like creature from deep in Krypton's past. The bird's partner is Nightwing, who is also its mate and opposite.

Among the early Kryptonian Gods, Flamebird was charged by almighty Rao with constantly refreshing the world by burning down the new creations of her brother, Vohc-The-Builder. She did so, but there was no hostility between the two; Vohc was grateful that Flamebird constantly pushed him to reimagine his works.

However, to help his friend, Nightwing, Vohc made it possible for him to meet flamebird. As such those two fell in love. Vohc's next creation was a monument representing all of his love for Flamebird. While Flamebird truly admired and appreciated the work, she fulfilled her duty to Rao by burning it down. This time Vohc actually begged for this work to be saved, but Flamebird ignored him. This destroyed much of Vohc and changed him into Vohc-The-Breaker. (Comic Series: Action Comics)

In each cycle, the Nightwing and the Flamebird are reborn, and must find each other. Also in each cycle, they are betrayed by a friend and killed.”

It cites action comics but I can’t narrow it down. My guess is that it came up when Thara Ak-Var and Chris Kent held the mantles.

So Bette Kane initially took up the Flamebird mantle to get Dick’s attention (while he was still Robin). He rejected her and it didn’t really work out which in the grand scheme of all things considered, makes sense thematically in a “pushing fate” kind of way. She was Flamebird for a while after that, even seen fighting beside Dick Grayson’s Nightwing every now and then, but hasn’t been Flamebird since before rebirth so currently no one seems to hold the mantle at present (technically).

So where does that leave Flamebird now?

Well this year, two interesting things have come up. One, in the new cartoon “My Adventures with Superman”, Jimmy is Flamebird again in the form of a username for his conspiracy blog. As of now, he just seemed to come up with it cause it sounds cool, so unless they pull out a “what a coincidence” or back story of how he found the name, that’s probably the extent of Flamebird’s roll there.

The second is in Action Comics #1058 where Kara reveals that Nightwing and Flamebird is actually the fable of the House of El. Each Krytonian house had a fable and this one is spesific to Superman and his family.

Now from here on out this is all just my thinking. “Theory” would even be a strong word implying that I legitimately think this is what is going on. Call this “if I were in charge of this story this is how this would go”

So what now?

Dick as a fated Nightwing makes so much sense for him. Pretty much all of his best qualities as a person can be seen in Superman and in it’s been said time and time again that he got the title from him. There’s that connection. That has my thinking that Nightwing and Flamebird would have a strong connection to the House of El, i.e., Superman. We know Nightwing is Dick, we know Dick looks up to Superman like, frankly most of the time, a better dad than Bruce. Low bar, but still.

And with this connection in mind, and all the history stated earlier with not just Jimmy’s long history with not just Dick, but Superman as well, he seems like the obvious choice to me. They state over and over again how Jimmy proves his loyalty, he’ll charge into danger like it’s nothing (a trait I personally think he picked up from Lois) and he is always such a fun narrator when handed the mic. He’s earned it.

As far as the ship goes, aside from it potentially being a huge payoff for a sixty year old saga of legends of love, heroism, and fate, the dynamics of their modern personalities would be unparalleled.

Over all its fricken WEIRD that their dynamic was just randomly forgotten like that, especially with everything built around them that you’d think would have them at least cross paths. I don’t hold not having a romantic relationship between them against DC, nor do I ever expect them to ever take that route any times soon, but come on man why aren’t they at least friends anymore?

[oliveroctavius]

To reply to this without cluttering up someone else's reblogs:

I DEFINITELY have my issues with Alan Moore, but that quote has been taken widely out of context to fuel the anger machine. In context, this is commentary on the modern mass-media superhero movie, specifically how far it is from its working-class Jewish roots:

Today’s franchised übermenschen, aimed at a supposedly adult audience, seem to be serving some kind of different function, and fulfilling different needs. [...] The superheroes themselves – largely written and drawn by creators who have never stood up for their own rights against the companies that employ them, much less the rights of a Jack Kirby or Jerry Siegel or Joe Schuster – would seem to be largely employed as cowardice compensators, perhaps a bit like the handgun on the nightstand. I would also remark that save for a smattering of non-white characters (and non-white creators) these books and these iconic characters are still very much white supremacist dreams of the master race.

This is a legitimate criticism of popular superheroes, even early on. An example relevant to this quote: Alan Moore grew up with Marvelman, Britain's homegrown 1950s stand-in for Captain Marvel. Some pretty visible choices were made about who could be superhuman in their version of this story.

Not obvious from this image: Freddy Freeman (left image, in blue) was the one Marvel Family member with a Jewish co-creator (Mac Raboy). He was a disabled boy with a very personal vendetta against the Nazis who had targeted him and his grandfather. All this was left out of his (fully abled) Marvelman counterpart. But even Captain Marvel was a version of Superman made marketable by filing down the anti-establishment edges! (Unlike early Supes, Cap would never talk back to a cop.) All three publishers used racial caricatures in their stories.

All this buries the lede: Mick Anglo, creator of the Marvelman Family, was also Jewish. I don't know why he made the choices he did.

The initial image in the post you commented on is from "Superman is Jewish? How comic book superheroes came to serve truth, justice, and the Jewish-American way" by Harry Brod. It's available on archive.org and while it's ultimately a celebration of Jewish contributions to comics, it touches on a lot of these points: the popular re-capture of the underdog's dreams of righteous violence, the "de-Jewification" of superheroes in the modern movie imagination, and the idea that not all art created by [identity] people will actually express that identity, especially when writing into a different dominant culture.

Alan Moore can be dismissive of the Jewish histories to superheroism, but I don't want to throw out his argument--white supremacy has sunk its hooks deep into the genre's imagery since Siegel and Shuster put pen to paper.

[understandingbimbos]

If you are specifically only interested in bimbofication as transformation AND bimbos as a cultural figure, I feel like that’s a difficult perspective to reconcile. Because there are hardly any bimbofication-transformations in mass media. Popular bimbo (or bimbo-ish) figures are almost always just “like that,” the bimboism is essential to their personality and always has been. Hot girl makeover narratives are a popular genre but they usually go to pains to make it clear that the subject’s personality/sense of self is mostly unchanged.

Anyways I think your writing is really interesting and articulate and hope you keep going. Do you have a sense of your target audience? I feel like your work probably doesn’t appeal to most people in the fetish because it’s nuanced and critical, which is a good thing, but hard if you want more people to read/engage with your stuff. Good luck!

I want the book to be open to and palatable to outsiders as a source of information, but I don't have specific or concrete audience besides that. I would like my approach to the subject matter to be somewhere between Dworkin and Scott McCloud.

And... yes, you do not see bimbofication in the mainstream. The closest I've seen any film come to it is Nightmare Sisters from 1988 and Repligator from 1998, and calling either of those mainstream is being very generous. I think there's also a bit part in Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama. And the comic adaptation of Dragon's Lair has Daphne getting dumber while she's trapped in her bubble, there's no growth but she already has a sexy/curvaceous body.

Then there's those two episodes of Sabrina, the one where she gets stuck looking like a walking pinup, and one where her evil doppelganger curses her to become stupid and boy crazy. There's that infamous scene from Leprechaun 3 with Stretch. One sort of indirect one that sticks with me, and I think I've mentioned this before, is what happens to Lorraine in Back to the Future 2. When Marty goes back to the bad present that Biff fucked up and his mom now an alcoholic trophy wife in a glitzy dress and big fake implants, but I don't know if that stuck with anyone else.

Lastly, I've seen others cite the animated explanation sequence in The Stepford Wives (2004) and Foxy Loxy's transformation in Chicken Little (2005). I don't think I've posted anything from any of these movies, and I really probably should.

I'm also not sure if this is something I've actually posted or just thought about but it struck me quite recently that bimbofication is really just an inverse of the Galatea myth, as in Pygmalion, as in My Fair Lady, as in Born Yesterday, Pretty Woman. Where you have in these narratives low-class women and sometimes straight up actual bimbos being reformed and becoming proper ladies, bimbofication is the exact opposite. You don't see it because it is a narrative tragedy, nearly horror, nowhere near romantic, a proper lady becoming a common whore...

(Which reminds me, I forgot the best "mainstream" "bimbofication" sequence, Halle Berry in Movie 43, remind me to post this later)

Anyway, like I was saying, a nightmare. But when we consider it in the context of Pygmalion, ancient myth, the very idea of bimbofication becomes a lot less insane. Pyggie took to crafting Galatea because he saw women practicing prostitution and begin to detest "the faults beyond measure which nature has given to women". It only stands to reason that there have been at least some people throughout human history, way before any of us were around, before bimbos, before bimbofication, that felt the exact opposite -- people who detested not whores but the stuffy or virtuous woman. People who's ideal Galatea would be no pure and innocent but wanton and shameless. And when George Bernard Shaw adapted and modernized this story in 1913, I'm sure that idea wormed its way into the head of even more people, even though we may never know. Someone had to read or watch the story of Eliza Doolittle and Henry Higgins and dream of the opposite, respectable lady to stupid bitch.

(Which reminds me... I forgot The Twilight Zone Episode, Number 12 Looks Just Like You. I have a post drafted on my other blog referencing that you might see soon. Maybe. Maybe not.)

I guess that's all to say, you are absolutely correct that there is no real basis for bimbofication in popular media. The seeds have existed here and there for a long time but that doesn't mean any of it was a direct or intentional influence. I think I made a forum post asking bimbofication authors about it and their frame of reference seemed to be entirely underground science-fiction and other erotica writers.

And who's to say who inspired by the bimbofication BDSM people, or how far back that goes? Or the artists who draw transformation sequences? Who drew the first bimbo TF sequence? Did the idea just come to them? That's kind of the thing.

Respectable lady to stupid bitch slut, no matter how niche this fetish is, is NOT a novel concept by any means. For those of who are into bimbofication as a revenge fantasy, its pretty much basic misogyny, no different than Pygmalion's, just in a different direction.

[demivampirew]

My thoughts on The Witcher/ The Witcher: Blood Origins situation

Disclaimer: This is going to be a long post. I've been meaning to write this for a while. I might do a 2 parts post because it's going to be really long.

Let's start with that stupid, stupid rumour started by Deuxmoi. First, I think it's idiotic to pay attention to what a sh*tty gossip blog says about Henry, especially when they've talked badly about him in the past - they had shared negative blind items with any legitime source, on the style of "someone told me this alleged thing about him"

So let me post first the stupid rumour and then I'll comment point by point:

"I recently got this message and somebody was like, "do you want to know what really went down?" She doesn't say who the source is and if she verified that the rumour at least came from someone who could actually have access to what happened on set; for the way that the rumour is disclosed, it could've been a random person who hated Henry and Deuxmoi took it as legit.

(...)"A lot of unusual demands" which demands? If they're unusual, they should be specific so people can examine if they're actually unusual and he's behaving like a diva. "that made people feel like he wasn't really a team player" this person is talking about Henry in season 1, the same Henry that dehydrated himself to look ripped for shirtless scenes but, sure, he's not really a team player 🙄.

"But in seasons 2 and 3, something shifted" could it be that right after episode 1 of season 2 there was a global pandemic and he had months of solitude to think about his life goals; also he injured himself while filming (such a bad team player, I know) and he might have re-think if it's worth it to keep pushing himself for a show that doesn't respect the IP as he does and that put him on the background except when it's time to promote the show and they use his likeness to sell the final product he's not happy with? "it became really impossible for women to work with, which is always a big problem" even if this rumour is true, I don't see how this could be his fault; as we're going to see next, he's going to be accused of being "toxic" for being a gamer and use gamer language, well guess what? The Witcher became famous through video games, meaning, the targeted audience and the ones who made the IP well-known are gamers. If women feel uncomfortable working with gamers and people who want to stay loyal to the source material, maybe don't work in a show where the targeted audience is gamers and they tend to be opinionated about the adaptations of the lores they love. "But even worse, because the showrunner is a woman" again, how is this Henry's fault? Lauren is the one who agreed to be the person with most power in a show adaptation of a story who became famous worldwide thanks to video games, it's not like she didn't know they were the ones who would watch the show and the ones who she'd have to please. Also, she worked in comic book adaptations before so she can have an idea how passionate (and sometimes toxic) that kind of fanbase could be yet, she accepted the job and all that comes with it. "He would try to overrule her and try to get changes made last minute across the board without her knowledge" so far, I think the only change he made was the lines after Roach's death and, it was because he felt it was an insult to make a joke. Also, it wasn't completely without her knowledge because they had an argument about it before this and she told him to see if he could find something better to say, according to Lauren herself. "(...) The showrunner has to sign off on every minuscule detail down to the bottoms of a costume" this, this is where I want to put stress on. Lauren a few weeks ago tried to deviate the blame from Eskel's death to the writer, Beau de Mayo, because he was the one who wrote the episode -it's worth mentioning that she tried to throw him under the bus because he's the one who said there were writers who hated the IP. She's the showrunner; she's the maximum authority there; she has to greenlight everything for it to happen and, she could've easily said no if she didn't want Eskel to be killed. Also, yes, Beau was the one who wrote the episode but he might have been told to kill an important character in that episode; again, the showrunner is the one who has to supervise everything and if a writer does something that could hurt the story, like killing a character that survives in every other media, she has to say no or change the writer if this doesn't want to. There's no excuse here for her incompetence. This is on her.

"Female writers and directors were suddenly ignored on set, unable to do their jobs" sorry, what?! 🤣 Writers are never on set, their job has to be done before filming the season starts. The showrunner is the only one who's usually on set. As for the female directors, there are only two listed for S2 and one of them said and I quote "Had the pleasure of directing episodes 6 and 7" (source https://www.instagram.com/p/CW8z6KurW2f/?hl=en ) As for s3, the only director attached it's Stephen Surjik -who in the past said how polite Henry was on the set and that he could become a politician because he was so polite to anyone and took the time to greet everyone (https://youtu.be/kcUgoyQSQ1k?t=84 I marked it on the exact time he speaks about Henry)

"He started making comments. It wasn't a sexual thing: he wasn't grabbing anyone or being lewd, but it was disrespectful and toxic all the same." again being too vague and don't give specifics; how was he being toxic? What kind of comments would he make that would make people, especially women uncomfortable? Could those comments be about the script and how unhappy he's with it? He's a famous actor and his reputation is on the line so, yeah, he has the right to speak when he's not happy about it. His indie movies proved his range as an actor but, he prefers to do comic books and video game adaptations, that's his chosen career path so he wants to keep the reputation as someone who cares for the source material and he's going to be outspoken about it. If anyone behind the scenes cannot take a gamer critiquing the work of an adaptation of an IP they love, maybe those people should be looking for a different job.

Then they talk sh*t about him being an addict because he likes to play video games. "He was distracted, he was late, he was obsessive" funny because Stephen Surjik in the interview that I link above said how he was always on time, prepared and knew all his lines and stunts. Also make-up and hair takes him about 2h so maybe sometimes he could've been a bit late because of that. Also, in case this person forgot, he was injured while filming s2, so maybe he could've been late sometimes because he was in pain? I don't know, I assume it must hurt; I hurt my ankle years ago and I was in pain for months. And, again, this could also be a lie because Stephen said he was always ready. Then again with the bullsh*t about gamer language, what language, Karen, what language did he allegedly use that was so disrespectful?

Then back again with the re-writing scenes, I assume it's the Roach scene and only Freya was there and she had no lines at that moment, so it doesn't affect her.

"He decided he didn't want any romantic scenes at all. No kissing, no shirtless scenes, etc" oh Karen, I'm going to fight you so hard on this. I'm actually pissed. As for romantic scenes, he didn't say no romance, he said no romance with Triss; he felt the real love story was between Geralt and Yennefer and he felt Geralt would be loyal to Yen, the fact that there was no romance was a writers/Lauren issue because they went against what the IP says and made Yennefer a b*tch who tried to sacrifice Ciri for power so of course Geralt wouldn't ignore that and just be romantic with her despite what she did. As for kissing scenes, I call it bullsh*t because Henry himself said in interviews that he had no problem with kissing scenes even when covid was (and is) still a thing; he said he'd only be uncomfortable if there was a kissing scene involved and he saw Anya coughing and sneezing, meaning with clear symptoms of covid (https://youtu.be/JldJ9cDzZ1o?t=1081 source). As for shirtless scenes, is it a crime that he didn't want to have shirtless scenes? Correct me if I'm wrong but, Anya didn't have naked scenes this season either. Why is it a problem only if he doesn't want to do shirtless scenes unless they're necessary? Also, S2 was filmed in the middle of a pandemic; there was a hiatus of filming that lasted months where he couldn't go out to the gym and only had a few weeks to properly train in a gym before they resume filming, it's possible he didn't feel comfortable shirtless after a long period without training.

"He wanted complete control over storylines," I think he wanted Geralt to be more than a grumpy dude that says "hmm" and "fuck" all the time. If he's used as the lead actor for promotion, his character should have more screen time and focus on the show. The part about him not knowing about tv structure and budget is bullsh*t. The problem he had was with the script and characters motivations and stuff, things that didn't require the budget to fix; maybe if they didn't go for the stupid Voleith Meir thing they could have afforded other stuff, just saying.

About the "weird alliance" with the witcher writer who was allegedly fired, who I assume was Beau, the one who exposed them for not liking the source material. Could you, Karen, explain more? So far, the only connection I saw was a text message that Beau send Henry after Nightmare of the Wolf (the movie he wrote) was released to see if Henry saw it. That doesn't seem like two people with a weird alliance. Also, if Beau was so toxic, why was he allowed to write the animated movie?

Here's the receipt to the message; the photo was taken by a paparazzi and posted to DailyMail.

"Henry did anything he could to hold up production and cause problems" How? What did he do to hold up production and cause problems? Was it maybe that he challenged a few script points to better the end result? Maybe he pointed out how uncharacteristic was that Yennefer tried to kidnap Ciri and sacrifice her for her powers because Yennefer loves Ciri as if she was her own daughter. Or maybe he thought it was unrealistic that Vesemir would use Ciri to try to create more Witchers, including Ciri herself. There are lots of plot points that could've worried him that it wasn't going to work out and, guess what, it didn't work. Fans hated it.

Ok, assuming it was right about the HR complaints; then, why would Netflix allow him to be in Enola Holmes 2? That was filmed after S2 wrapped. Why would they allow a person who had lots of complaints to go to work on another movie and do a third season of the show he was an assh*le. If this is true, and the part about him sending an email to the entire writing staff (I doubt, even if this is true, that he'd send an email himself, given that even posting on his social media nowadays is a task of his team) if, and it's a very big if, he sent an email to writers, I assume must have been to apologize because he didn't realize he was being perceived as rude or hard to work with.

For me, this is just bullsh*t. Even if this person actually worked there, it's clearly someone, possibly a writer, that's pissed about the Witcher campaign to fire them and re-hire Henry. And, even if this is true, it's definitely an exaggeration as I proved. It wouldn't prove that Henry is toxic but, actually, if women and people there can't take gaming lingo and people are passionate about the IP they love, maybe they shouldn't seek to work in video game-related adaptations -I know The Witcher is supposed to be an adaptation to the books but it was the game who put the IP in the map, worldwide, so gamers and the targeted audience for this.

Ok, part 1 of my rant/thoughts ends here and continues on a new post (I'll edit the post with the link to the second part once I post it)

[pricemarshfield]

THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT MY FELLOW WRITERS & PEOPLE I’D LIKE TO KNOW BETTER

thank you @atrueneutral and @wretcheddthing for the tags!! under the cut because i can’t stop yapping to save my life :) edit: OOPS forgot to say i tag anyone who wants to do it!!

Last book I read: if we mean book-book, Culture and Resistance: Conversations with Edward W. Said, but if we’re accepting comics, Hellblazer: The Devil You Know!!

Greatest literary inspiration: hmmmm. shirley jackson, suzanne collins, and silvia moreno-garcia!!

Things in my current fandom I want to read but I don't want to write: i do feel like there’s something so compelling about raphael/another fiend’s warlock but unfortunately. i have no ideas or inspiration for it. it would be very cool though!!

Things in my current fandoms I want to write but I think nobody would be interested in them but me: this dragon age au wyll fic is for a target audience of me myself and i. blood mage wyll and elf in the qunari lae’zel and tal-vashoth karlach and Totally Normal Not At All Culty priestess of andraste shadowheart…idc if no one would read it i’m writing it for ME. it may be shadowyll and karzel but i don’t Know. it’s these 4 in some capacity

You can recognize my writing by: so many parentheticals, and also so much introspection

My most controversial take (current fandom): i think even if you give raphael the crown he is not taking the hells. he is MAYBE taking avernus at best. the controversial part is that i love this about him and it’s SOOOO fun to me

Top three favourite tropes: fakeout makeout (it’s hard to make work but when it does ohhhh my god love it. i have a raphtav fic with this in the works actually ft them wanting each other so bad it makes them stupid), enemies to lovers, and identity porn my beloveds

What’s your current writing mood (10 – super motivated and churning out words like crazy, 0 – in a complete rut): 7.5 but like…in the way where i’ve been writing a Lot but across so many wips that nothing is getting done. i’ve written almost 30k this month but have i posted almost anything?? no

Share a random frustration: the last bit of this knife’s edge chapter has been fighting me for like. two months. i may just rewrite the entire chapter aughhh

-

Last Song I Listened to: industry baby by lil nas x!

Currently Watching: fantasy high junior year. they just entered the vulture dimension ???

Sweet/Savoury/Spicy?: sweet!!

Relationship Status: single. who want me

Current Obsession: baldur’s gate 3 has been going strong for half a year with no signs of stopping, especially tav khoury and raphtav! i’ve also been really into hellblazer and i read like 80 issues of an old swamp thing run this week :)

[penwrythe]

Giga ultra mega late night post

So, I been working on the Spoon Ballerina for five/six days and I'm learning a lot about the process. This model is a style test before the actual style test! Once I master the 2D/3D style, I'll be set for working on RFR pages (by 2025 maybe I don't know lol)

I know I definitely need a pipeline for character and environment asset design and creation prior to producing the pages for RFR. But to streamline this, here's what I'm thinking about:

After style test, create base shaders and rigs for eyes, mouth, and other surface anatomy for my object ocs. This will allow me to easily place and modify these assets without recreating them for each character. Since most object ocs range from similar forms to more complex forms, recycling models is going to be important. Same with human/god characters, too.

Also, for human/god character models, I look into making base models with a variety of body types so I have a ready-made asset to modify for a new character.

Sculpting is going to be important for the more complex character designs and background elements, so I need to learn how to sculpt and also recycle sculpted assets.

Maybe....a process test after the style test? Say for example, for a scene, I need three living swords and five living orbs and three cloaks, along with the characters from the style test (Eightenate, Inga, and Gwenny). Three of the orbs have injuries and two cloaks (rust rot, ichor loss, burns), the other two are uninjured. The swords are helping them, one of them is a leader speaking to Eightenate, clearly more decorated with regalia and etchings as signs of their rank. In the same scene (or panel whatever) shows Inga recovering (maybe escape from the swords) speaking to two other humans about what happened. All these characters will borrow elements from each of their base characters with modifications needed for their role and design in the scene.

How long will it take for me to do modifications to the style test characters to create the new ones in this example? What about background elements?

Because, I think it might be a week or two to create the original base characters and environment elements, then a day or a couple days to modify them into the new characters. Then another for setting up the scene, rendering, and adding final touches such as color grade and affects. Final render then publishing it.

Also for some background elements, I might be able to find ready made assets on 3D modeling stores. Just do the modifications needed for the style of the comic and just import them into the scenes needed.

Oof storage space is going to be something ahhh, I'll figure it out, might get a three terabyte drive, might last me a few years, and a cloud backup system for it too

And that means finding ways to fund the comic once I get it off the ground. For paying asset plugin creators, backup services, other artists and designers if I start hiring, and so on. I have no idea for merch... maybe art books, short story anthologies, commissions, or figurines and plushies, maybe an actual sword lol (that's going to be thousands to make lol).

I'm not hiring for right now, I don't have the income to pay artists, but when I do, I'm looking for artists and designers who work in Blender, Krita, and Photoshop. They need to be 18 years or older (WOR is New Adult Fantasy; target audience is 18-25 yrs), have some familiarity with fantasy elements and ancient and medieval cultures I take inspiration from for WOR's storytelling and design, and also object shows since that is WOR's main inspiration is from.

We'll see what comes from the style test first!

[jp-hunsecker]

The only thing worse than a modernized adaptation of a Shakespeare play that retains the original dialogue, is a parody of a Shakespeare play that preserves the original temporal/geographical setting but makes the characters say things like “it’s time to make this city great again,” and features a diegetic soundtrack with covers of Roxette, Celine Dion, and Eric Carmen.

Dr. Johnson considered puns to be the lowest form of humor (and he had Shakes in particular in mind), but intentional anachronisms are by far much lower. Also, memo to the filmmakers: the Trump administration ended almost two years ago, and Romeo and Juliet premiered in 1597, so maybe choose targets that are a little more timely next time?

To be fair, Romeo was indeed dumb enough to fall for not one but two Capulet women in the play as written by the Bard; how the makers of this movie, however, could know that defies explanation, since they clearly don’t know or don care about their source material.

In Romeo and Juliet, the character of Rosaline is never seen or heard — a wise choice, assuming she was anything like she’s portrayed in this film. Moreover, she didn’t feel for Romeo the same way he felt for her. Here, though, Romeo’s infatuation is the excuse for the sort of amorous quadrangle that we have already seen a million times before.

It’s like they were going for a Taming of the Shrew sort of thing (they even allude to it), but suddenly remembered that someone had already done that long before and a lot better in 10 Things I Hate About You (which had Heath Ledger in it, a stark contrast to the low-rent Heath Ledger lookalike who plays Romeo in Rosaline).

One of the reasons 10 Things is superior to this drivel is that it never intended to take an apple and turn it into an orange; that is to say, it adapted a comedy into a comedy. It’s not fucking rocket science. With Rosaline, on the other hand, it’s like they thought the original ending was too depressing and just went from there, dumbing the material down from the bottom up.

Again, if the filmmakers had more than a passing knowledge of Shakespeare, they would realize that there’s no need to ‘lighten’ his work. The man wrote 17 comedies, so it’s safe to say he had a healthy sense of humor; so healthy, indeed, that he found room for it even in his tragedies. You see, Shakespeare was no hack; he knew tension must be relieved, and therefore included comic characters even in his more serious stuff; for example, the gravedigger in Hamlet, the porter in Macbeth, and yes, Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet.

Now, I’m not saying they should have made Rosaline a comedy revolving around Mercutio instead (expanding a minor Shakespearean character is generally a bad idea; Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, anybody?); I am saying, though, that they should have never made a comedy at all — although, if you think about it, whatever this movie is, a comedy it’s not.

Consider this: Rosaline’s miseducation of Juliet includes having her read from an “erotic book.” Juliet claims “they don’t teach you that in finishing school” (we have no idea what she’s referring too because the film has zero imagination). Rosaline replies “wait till you get to page 74.” Page 74? What about page 69? It would still be crass, but at least it wouldn’t be random. You know you’re in deep shit when your movie makes the audience yearn for the comedic sensibility of Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

Rosaline movie review & film summary (2022) | Roger Ebert The comedy in "Rosaline" is largely due how it thrusts Shakespeare's dialogue into modernity. However, the absurdity of…www.rogerebert.com

“The comedy in “Rosaline” is largely due how it thrusts Shakespeare’s dialogue into modernity.”

What it really does is thrust modern dialogue into Shakespeare (well, as modern as lines like “make [blank] great again” can be two years into the Biden era).

“It gets old quickly when it’s the only laughable effort inserted into the script.”

Actually, the entire script is laughable, which doesn’t mean by any stretch of the imagination that it is funny.

“However, it cuts right through all the formalities of traditional Shakespeare that might not appeal to certain audiences, so it has that going for it.”

That is to say, it has been dumbed down to pander to the lowest common denominator.

Rosaline Review - IGN Intentionallyanachronistic approaches to period pieces are having a bit of a moment in 2022, what with Persuasion …www.ign.com

“The script is an inventive romp through Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet.”

What’s inventive about going back to the same well that has already been sucked dry a long time ago by countless filmmakers and movies before this one?

Rosaline review - Kaitlyn Dever shines in comedic spin on Romeo & Juliet imply by invoking the name Juliet, Hulu's Rosaline, a comic retelling of Shakespeare from the perspective of Juliet's…www.theguardian.com

“Rosaline … understands what makes a good adaptation: a sense of humor at least on par with if not exceeding the original …”

Sure, because Romeo and Juliet was such a laugh riot to begin with.

Rosaline movie review: Slight and overfamiliar Romeo and Juliet remix Kaitlyn Dever is Romeo's jilted ex GF in Rosaline, a sweet but slight new comedy. To Eliza Janssen, the contemporary…www.flicks.co.uk

“ … at this point, tales of rebellious, independent princesses are the standard, not its subversion. The anachronistic feminism of Rosaline doesn’t just ring false — it can barely be heard at this point, over the riot grrl din of past remixed Shakespeare heroines in 10 Things I Hate About You and She’s The Man.”

“ … Rosaline’s obvious love interest Dario (Oscar Isaac-lookalike Sean Teale) is your garden variety YA eye candy.”

Not to mention the Heath Ledger lookalike who plays Romeo.

Rosaline Review: Kaitlyn Dever Is A Winning Lead In Flawed Revisionist Tale Retellings of Shakespeare's plays are as classic as the famed playwright himself. Whether they be a faithful adaptation…screenrant.com

“Retellings of Shakespeare’s plays are as classic as the famed playwright himself … it feels there is virtually no shortage to what filmmakers can do with those iconic stories.”

Watching this movie, you’d swear they’ve officially run out of ideas.

“ … there is initially something jarring about Dever’s Rosaline …”

If by “initially” you mean “all the way until the closing credits,” then I agree 100%.

“While Dever and Teale have genuine sparks, their courtship is a storyline that isn’t entirely necessary.”

Then again, the whole movie is unnecessary.

Rosaline Review: A Hilarious Retelling of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet Spoiler Warning is a smart and refreshing modern twist on an iconic Shakespeare tale. The film is a unique and easily…movieweb.com

“Rosaline … makes the story of Romeo and Juliet so much more fun.”

That’s like saying a Passion Play could use more fart jokes.

“Rosaline is funny, dramatic, and relatable that uses 21st-century language and personalities while borrowing elements from the fictionalized story.”

That you personally need to be talked down to as if you were a small child or a Labrador doesn’t make the movie “relatable.”

“Rosaline places the most forgotten Shakespeare characters up front and center.”

Based on the evidence of this film, they should have stayed forgotten.

Rosaline offers an audacious alternative to Romeo And Juliet If the name Rosaline rings a bell, it's because she's the mentioned-but-never-seen girlfriend Romeo was dating right…www.avclub.com

“Adapting screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber have made shrewd, intelligent changes from Rebecca Serle’s book When You Were Mine, on which the film is based, changing the setting and time period from modern day Southern California to Renaissance era Italy. This shift not only provides the proper basis for many of the jokes and comedic hijinks, it smartly disposes of modern trappings, adding a timelessness to the picture and justifying stoner Steve the Courier’s (­­­Nico Hiraga) blessed existence.”

First of all, the only thing for which that shift provides a basis is lazy anachronistic gags, and second, were idiot potheads that common in Renaissance Italy? Because otherwise I don’t see how that character’s existence could ever be justified.

“Maine and her cadre of craftspeople gift her follow-up to Yes, God, Yes … ”

From the truly unique Yes, God, Yes to a movie based on a book based on a play. Talk about diminishing returns.

Rosaline Movie Review: A Fresh Take on a Classic Story Rosaline is a hilariously fun twist on a classic story. Things change where you least expect them to, making this an…mamasgeeky.com

“Everyone knows the story of Romeo of Juliet, but they don’t know this version of it.”

If only there was a way to unknow it.

“There was no need to propel this into modern times and we are thankful they did not go that route.”

Aren’t you forgetting a little something? If 95% of the dialogue can be said to be a little, that is. Oh, but you haven’t forgotten, have you?

“We are also very happy that we didn’t have to listen to the actors speak in Shakespearean for ninety minutes.”

I’ll bet you are.

Rosaline review: Kaitlyn Dever elevates new Hulu comedy | Digital Trends Director Karen Maine's new comedy, , works overtime to find a new perspective in one of the most well-known stories of…www.digitaltrends.com

“Anyone who’s ever caught themselves rolling their eyes at the film’s iconic pair of young lovers will, in particular, likely delight in the ways Rosaline both plays up and pokes holes at their short-lived love story. (That’s especially true of an unexpected homage to The Graduate that Maine, Neustadter, and Weber throw out at exactly the right moment.)”

About that. The movie imagines that Romeo and Juliet would be rather dull together if left to their own devices, but it’s the filmmakers who are giving them a quote-unquote happy ending that no one ever asked for, so whose story is really the one with holes in it?

'Rosaline' Review: Kaitlyn Dever Grounds Fanciful Spin on 'Romeo and Juliet' Before Romeo fell for Juliet, he lusted after her cousin, Rosaline. He exalted her beauty to his friends ("The…www.hollywoodreporter.com

“Directed by Karen Maine, Rosaline recasts the story of its eponymous character as a digestible coming-of-age narrative.”

If by “digestible” you mean that it’s destined to become a turd whose place is in the crapper, you’re absolutely right.

Rosaline Rosaline reimagines Romeo and Juliet's story, offering redemptive thoughts on love as well as problems families should…www.pluggedin.com

“God’s name is abused 13 times, and Christ’s name is abused once.”

That, however, is nothing compared to how Shakespeare’s good name is abused.

ROSALINE: 3 STARS. "a high school story of romance and empowerment in a corset." "Rosaline," a new romantic comedy based on "Romeo and Juliet," alters the dynamics of William Shakespeare's play by…richardcrouse.ca

““Rosaline” is no “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.” Tom Stoppard’s absurdist, existential tragicomic “Hamlet” riff examines the mystery of life.”

But it is absurd in the sense that its very existence is a mystery (in other words, why did they have to go and make this fucking piece of shit movie?).

REVIEW: Rosaline Turns a Shakespeare Classic Into a Forgettable Rom-Com The works of William Shakespeare have remained popular and relevant for more than 400 years, but it seems unlikely that…www.cbr.com

“ … the period setting amounts to little more than dress-up, especially given the modernized dialogue and references.”

“ … it undercuts the impact of the source material — and not in a fun or subversive way. Rosaline turns one of the great works of world literature into an unremarkable teen movie.”

'Rosaline' provides snarky, modern take on 'Romeo and Juliet' If you are looking for another remake of the Shakespeare classic "Romeo and Juliet" fully equipped with Early Modern…www.oswegonian.com

“ … a cast of characters that range in age, race and sexuality is increasingly demanded by audiences, rightfully so.”

Every time I read something like the above I’m reminded of Fran Leibowitz, who once claimed, and I’m paraphrasing here, that art isn’t, or at least it shouldn’t be, a democracy, but rather an intellectual aristocracy. And rightfully so.

Romeo and Juliet Riff Rosaline Has Star-Crossed Intentions and Execution Between 10 Things I Hate About You, the Twelfth Night-inspired She's the Man and 2013's quirky zombie comedy Warm…www.pastemagazine.com

“[Rosaline is] a misguided work that highlights the insincerities that have emerged in Hollywood’s recent charge towards “inclusion” and “diversity.””

[fatherramiro]

Actually, have a few scattered DC thoughts on the latest franchise news. Obligatory note that I didn’t grow up as a DC fan, I was a Marvel fan until I couldn’t make excuses any more, and my biggest comic book thing is I have very strong thoughts on the Batman universe due to imprinting on Jim Gordon at a very young age

I think the reason they’re giving for Batgirl’s shelving is bullshit and I do think that anyone who takes it at surface level is lying to themselves.

I’m also kind of frustrated at the Birds of Prey erasure because that film was my favorite superhero film in a while.

Don’t get me started on the Ezra stuff because Jesus fucking Christ

However, I think the general approach they are taking is both mind-numbingly basic (”put screenwriting first” yeah James that’s how most good movies are made??) but also tragically refreshing in an era of “we can’t give the whole cast the script or let everyone know everything.” Films are storytelling mediums - if you don’t have a story, you’re going to have garbage. Yes, cameos make the theater cheer, but if you don’t have a coherent story - or you’re not letting the writers working across the franchise in on the story’s direction - you’re gonna get fucked

I also like the idea of using the relaunch to start with less of the top tier stuff, because lets be honest the reason MCU movies worked in the beginning (aside from playing more with genre/tone and also not being factory made at an impossible speed and with no artistic form) is because they took four folks who weren’t the X-Men or Spidey and made us care about them! It’s a smart business decision

Ngl I’m excited for Waller, the Lanterns show, and Swamp Thing

Despite my endless frustration with Abrams, I am excited for his Superman movie, especially since he’s not writing it!

Overall, and this is my most controversial opinion, I’ve yet to meet a Gunn film I’ve really liked beyond The Suicide Squad and even then it isn’t like... my favorite? (I’m a known GotG hater since 2014!). I think he’s got a good visual eye, I think he’s been through a lot of shit, but I also think he’s not the best overall at thinking critically about certain things like race, gender, or sexuality. However, maybe I’m either not paying enough attention or I’m just not the target audience member! Open to criticism tbh. However, I do like the fact that he’s more focused on telling a coherent franchise narrative than he is about trying to generate an Avengers: Endgame level event without putting in the fucking work first, and as a writer I do like that he’s thinking about the screenwriters first. 

Also I kind of love that he has a writers room for the franchise. I think that’s smart! I think more big franchise should have story groups and I think they should have the ability to shoot down bad ideas. 

Always this is a long ass post to say I’m neutral overall, but in general I’m more interested in the concept of what could happen than I’ve felt about the DC film universe before today. I’m still suffering from franchise fatigue and I’m also very annoyed about certain things but at the same time... more interested in this than whatever Marvel’s doing right now tbh

[popblank]

Peter Pan at the Pantages Theatre:

(Unfortunately my picture of the cast board wasn't in focus. But it looked like the main cast was all in, with William Foon and Reed Epley in the roles of John and Michael respectively, with the other John/Michael actors playing Lost Boy roles.)

The show is probably the most clearly targeted to younger children of any that I've seen in the last year (including Mrs. Doubtfire and A Christmas Story). I haven't seen nor thought much about Peter Pan in literally decades, but as a kid I watched a recording of the old TV broadcast with Mary Martin multiple times. The parts I still remembered were most of the lyrics to "I'm Flying," the existence of Captain Hook's tarantella (it's how learned the word "tarantella"), and the scene where Peter Pan asks the audience to clap.

It is probably for the best that I forgot everything else, because after skimming through the video of the 1960 broadcast available online, every scene with Tiger Lily made my eyebrows rise straight up into my hairline. In this production there were changes to the book (made by playwright Larissa Fasthorse) to make those scenes less like blatant tired stereotypes as well as to modernize other parts of the setting and text; on occasion these changes seemed oddly grafted-on, but overall it is probably for the best. As an adult, watching this show was very much an exercise in wrestling nostalgia, with the weird result that during all of Act 1 my brain was telling me, "no, no, this boy who is played by a teenage boy should actually be a middle-aged woman with a pixie cut." There is no significant reason for this other than that's how I was used to seeing it, so if it's the first time a lot of kids are seeing this show, better that it's a version that doesn't have a really lazy, insulting portrayal of indigenous people.

Mildly spoiler-y notes below:

Highlight #1 of the show for me was Cody Garcia as Captain Hook; they were hammy and fun and well-calibrated as a comic villain, and it felt like the show came alive whenever they were in the scene. (I should add Kurt Perry as Smee into that as well.)

Highlight #2 was the main flying-to-Neverland scene, which was a simple but very effective use of background graphics/projections with stage flying effects.

Singing was generally good. Once I got used to the idea of Peter Pan being played by a male actor I thought Nolan Almeida did a pretty good job in the role. Acting overall was a mixed bag with highlights as noted above.

There was an extended Hamlet joke in Act 2 which seemed like it was throwing a bone to the adults in the audience (and frankly I was relieved to have it).

Audience: Not quite full but definitely contained lots of kids. The ones nearby were fairly chatty but I can excuse that for their age. The six-year-old behind me who responded "I love you" out loud after "Hook's Waltz" was 1000% a better audience member than the adult couple nearby who talked to each other and kept checking phones through the entirety of Act 1 (and thankfully left at intermission; I suspect they didn't know what kind of show they bought tickets for).

[pluckyredhead]

What did Tom King do to Kara?

you don't like woman of tomorrow? thats interesting, from what i can tell that seems to be one of king's least uncontroversial DC works and gets unanimous praise from the fandom + comic readers in general (not that i've read it myself, just from what i've seen)

Combining these two related asks!

I want to start out by saying that ALL of my problems are with the writing - Bilquis Evely's art is breathtaking and I wish it was being used to tell a story that deserves it.

I have two problems with Woman of Tomorrow:

King does the same thing to her that he has done with literally every other character, which is to cherrypick their history to tell the bleakest, most nihilistic, least heroic story possible. It's not super noticeable with Batman because Bruce is kind of always in that zone, but it's very obvious with characters like Wally West (Heroes in Crisis: Therapy Is Bad and Will Kill You), the JLI in Human Target, and Kara. His Kara is a depressed, foulmouthed, murderous drunk who spends the entire book suffering physical and mental torments. I am just so exhausted by the lack of creativity. Dude is a one trick pony and I don't understand why this isn't more widely recognized. (Oh wait, I do, it's because pessimism is so often mistaken for genius, and also he loves a nine panel grid which too many people think immediately makes a comic Deep (TM) instead of just copying Watchmen.)

THE STORY ISN'T EVEN ABOUT HER!!! The main character is Ruthye, the alien girl who hires Supergirl to avenge the death of her father. Ruthye narrates the book. Ruthye drives the plot. Ruthye has the emotional arc. Kara could be replaced by any Super or other strong alien - J'onn, Sodam Yat, fucking LOBO - and the story would be exactly the same. (Because it would be True Grit. It's literally just True Grit But Supergirl Is There.)

Now, there's a place for bleak and even completely pessimistic, nihilistic stories - but Supergirl ain't fucking it. Supergirl was created to give little girls a heroine to look up to who had all the powers of Superman. She is aspirational and inspirational. She is joy.

Woman of Tomorrow is aggressively Not For Little Girls. To me, it radiates a deep contempt for the idea of Supergirl as a happy, kid-friendly character. It drags her through the mud on purpose, and then looks at you like it's making a point, but the point is just "mud exists." Yeah, Tom, I know. WE ALL KNOW.

(In general, King seems to really hate the idea of "nice" girls - look at what he did to Tora in Human Target. There's an issue of WoT that flashes back to Kara's origin and the destruction of Krypton - except it goes all the way back to the Silver Age, which is a generally bright and happy era, and pulls directly from that version of events while also making it as bleak as possible. Like, at one point Kara finds a dead baby on the sidewalk. HE PUT A DEAD BABY IN THE SILVER AGE. HE IGNORED THE FACT THAT THIS ORIGIN IS FOUR REBOOTS OUT OF DATE IN ORDER TO PUT A DEAD BABY IN THE SILVER AGE.)

I wouldn't be nearly as angry about this book if it wasn't capping off 20 years of DC treating Kara like shit, but since she returned in 2003, they have had her try to murder Clark, had her sexually preyed on by Darkseid, implied an incestuous relationship with her father, had her be abused, made her a blood-vomit-spewing Red Lantern (an arc I actually liked because Guy Gardner as Kara's Space Dad has my whole heart, but it's part and parcel of Angry Violent Sexy Kara), had her infected by the fucking Batman Who Laughs, and more. And that's when they even bother to publish her! They refused to give her a 60th anniversary special in 2019 because "she has a TV show," even though Two-Face got a 75th anniversary special a couple years before. Fucking Two-Face!!! Kara didn't even have a regular comic for much of the run of her show, because why court an audience of millions when so many of them are icky women?

Grant Morrison said it recently and said it best (they were talking about "Superman as fascist," but I think it applies to this too):

"Why, I say, oh why, is it so hard to simply serve the concept and write the adventures of a smart, creative and kind-hearted teenage girl with superpowers?

[...]

"To undermine the fundamental appeal of superheroes like Superman and Supergirl by re-casting them as anti-heroes at best or outright monsters - dragging imaginary childhood paragons off their pedestals to reinforce a fairly facile point about the tendency of real world heroes to exhibit feet of clay, struck me and strikes me still as imaginatively lazy.

"Using kids’ adventure heroes to make hackneyed observations about typical human behaviour that does not in fact apply to made up comic book characters strikes me as – I don’t know - whimsical? Dilettantish? A squandering of energy and creativity?"

Supergirl isn't for the edgelords of the world. She isn't a tool for reiterating, yet again, that life is pointless and full of pain. She is intended to inspire little girls, and anyone who doesn't understand that has no business writing her.

[itsclydebitches]

I keep seeing people calling Good Omens queer bating and a I can't help but ask why? I read the Aziraphale/Crowley relationship threw an Ace lens and they are clearly as close to married as they are probably going to get without stepping on holy ground.... and they love each other... why is it considered queer bating?

Personally, I think it's mostly young queer fans turning legitimate grievances on the wrong target. A case of getting so fed up with queerbaiting in media as a whole that they're instinctually lashing out at anything that seems to resembles it on the surface, without taking the time to consider whether this is, in fact, the thing they're mad at. Good Omens is a scapegoat, if you will. The equivalent of snapping at your partner after a long day. Your friend was an asshole, your boss was an asshole, the guy in traffic was an asshole, and then you come home to your partner who says something teasing and you take it as another asshole comment because you've just been surrounded by assholeness all day, to the point where your brain is primed to see an attack. Your partner wasn't actually an asshole, but by this point you're (understandably) too on guard to realize that. Unless someone sits you down and kindly reminds you of the difference between playful teasing and a legitimate insult - the nuance, if you will - your hackles are just gonna stay up and you'll leave the room, off to phone a different friend to tell them all about how your partner was definitely an asshole to you.

Only in this case, that "friend" is a fan on social media doing think pieces on the supposed queerbaiting of Good Omens, spreading that idea to a) people who aren't familiar with the show themselves and b) those who, like that original fan, have come to expect queerbaiting and thus aren't inclined to question the latest story with that mark leveled against it. Because on the surface Good Omens can look a lot like queerbaiting. Here are two queer coded characters who clearly love each other, but don't say "I love you," don't kiss, don't "prove" that love in a particular way. So Gaiman is just leading everyone on, right?

Well... no. This is where the nuance comes in, the thing that many fans aren't interested in grappling with (because, like it or not, media is not made up of black and white categories; queerbaited and not-queerbaited. Supernatural's finale is proof enough of that...) I won't delve into the most detailed explanation here, but suffice to say:

Gaiman has straight up said it's a love story. He's just not giving them concrete labels like "gay" or "bi" or "asexual," etc. because they are literally not human. Gaiman has subscribed to an inclusive viewpoint in an era where fans are desperate for unambiguous rep that homophobes cannot possibly deny. The freedom to prioritize any interpretation - yes, including a "just friends" interpretation - now, in 2021, feels like a cop-out. However, in this case it's an act of world building (they are an angel and a demon, not bound by human understanding of identity) meeting a genuine desire to make these characters relatable to the entire queer community, not just particular subsets. Gaiman has said they can be whatever we want because the gender, sexuality, and romantic attraction of an angel and a demon is totally up for debate! However, some fans have interpreted that as a dismissal of canonical queerness; the idea that fans can pretend they're whatever they want... but it's definitely not canon. It is though. Them being queer is 100% canon, it's just up to us to decide what kind of queer they are. This isn't Gaiman stringing audiences along, it's him opening the relationship up to all queer possibilities.

We know he's not stringing us along (queerbaiting) because up until just a few days ago season two didn't exist. Queerbaiting is a deliberate strategy to maintain an audience. A miniseries does not need to maintain its audience. You binge it in one go and you're done, no coming back next year required. The announcement for season two doesn't erase that context for season one. No one knew there would be more content and thus the idea that they would implement a strategy designed to keep viewers hooked due to the hope for a queer relationship (with no intent to follow through) is... silly.

In addition, this interpretive, queer relationship between Crowley and Aziraphale existed in the book thirty years ago. Many fans are not considering the difference between creating a totally new story in 2019 and faithfully adapting a story from 1990 in 2019. Good Omens as representation meant something very different back then and that absolutely impacts how we see its adaptation onto the small screen. To put this into perspective, Rowling made HUGE waves when she revealed that she "thought of" Dumbledore as gay in an interview... in 2007. Compare that to the intense coding 17 years before. Gaiman was - and still is - pushing boundaries.

Which includes being an established ally, particularly in his comics. Queerbaiting isn't just the act of a single work, but the way an author approaches their work. Gaiman does not (to my knowledge) have that mark against him and even if he did, he's done enough other work to offset that.

Finally, we've got other, practical issues like: how do you represent asexuality on the screen? How do you show an absence of something? Yeah, one or both of them could claim that label in the show, outright saying, "I'm asexual," but again, Gaimain isn't looking to box his mythological figures into a single identity. So if we want that rep... we have to grapple with the fact that this is one option for what it looks like.

Even if he did want to narrow the representation down to just a few identities for the show, should Gaiman really be making those major changes when he's only one half of the author team? Pratchett has, sadly, passed on and thus obviously has no say in whether his characters undergo such revisions. Even if fans hate every other argument, they should understand that, out of respect, Good Omens is going to largely remain the same story it was 30 years ago.

And those 6,000 years are just the beginning! Again, this was meant to be a miniseries of a single novel, a novel that, crucially, covered only Crowley and Aziraphale's triumph in being able to love one another freely. That's a part of their personal journey. Yeah, they've been together in one sense for 6,000 years, but that was always with hell and heaven on their backs, to say nothing of the slow-burn approach towards acknowledging that love, for Aziraphale in particular. We end the story at the start of their new relationship, one that is more free and open than it ever was before. They can be anything to one another now! The fact that we don't see that isn't a deliberate attempt on the author's part to deny us that representation, but only a result of the story ending.

So yeah, there's a lot to consider and, frankly, I don't think those fans are considering it. Which on a purely emotional level I can understand. I'm pissed about queerbaiting too and the knee-jerk desire to reject anything that doesn't meet a specific standard is understandable. But understandable doesn't mean we don't have to work against that instinct because doing otherwise is harmful in the long run. We need to consider when stories were published and what representation meant back then. We need to consider how we adapt those stories for a modern audience. We need to acknowledge that if we want the inclusivity that "queer" provides us, that includes getting characters whose identity is not strictly defined by the author as well as characters with overtly canonical labels. We need both. We likewise need to be careful about when having higher standards ends up hurting the wrong authors - who are our imperfect allies vs. those straight up unwilling to embrace our community at all? And most importantly, we have to think about how we're using the terms we've developed to discuss these issues. Queerbaiting means something specific and applying it to Good Omens not only does Good Omens a disservice, but it undermines the intended meaning of "queerbaiting," making it harder to use correctly in the future. Good Omens is not queerbaiting and trying to claim it is only hurts the community those fans are speaking up for.

[your-brilliant-lady-m]

Part 4 - Basic Concepts of Miraculous Ladybug: Glamour

You can call it however you want: kid's show logic, superhero disguise logic, magical girl show logic, cartoon laws, suspension of disbelief, etc. But the fact that nobody recognises Marinette, Adrien and others when they are suited up IS NOT BAD WRITING. It's one of the main laws of this genre. That's not because characters are stupid, okay? So, being frustrated that everyone in the show acts stupid about this "wearing a mask that covers only eyes" trope is strange. This criticism is not valid or fair.

But, this trope has to make sense in-universe as a worldbuilding and narrative element.

Miraculous doesn't give us much direct information on how glamour works. And in this case, I think we need both SHOW and TELL. Because if you don't establish the glamour rules clearly, you are going to run into problems and create unfortunate implications with your storytelling choices.

Appearance

Miraculous obviously gives our heroes magical glamour. In "Lady WiFi" we find out that masks can't be taken off. It's magic. No other explanation is needed.

Miraculous can slightly change the appearance of users (eyes, face shape, height and hairstyles). People can identify and notice the hairstyles of heroes (numerous Ladybug wigs, statue in Copycat). Jagged Stone points out the change of hair when he mistakes Chloe for Ladybug ("Antibug"). But it's just a costume. There is no magic that prevents Jagged from understanding that Chloe isn't Ladybug. So, how does it work? But it's forgivable because it's cartoon logic. Suspension of disbelief works here, I suppose. I won't judge this too harshly.

Glamour also obviously prevents people from making a connection that Marinette and Ladybug have identical hairstyles. So people know that Ladybug wears her hair in pigtails, but magic does not allow them to notice similarities.

Another important question. Does glamour work on Kwamis? Can they see who is behind the mask?

New York Special makes it clear that magic does not affect robots and they can see through glamour. Does that mean that Markov, AI built by Max, knows the identities of Ladybug and Chat Noir? And it's never addressed.

Plagg in "Frightningale" says that holders can subconsciously choose their superhero appearance. This is actually pretty interesting and I like this idea a lot. Except the show is not consistent with this. The transformation of Master Fu looks identical to Nathalie's. And we have seen how different from each other Ladybug and Black Cat holders looked in the past. At the same time, Master Fu and Nino have different takes on Turtle superhero suit.

Age Glamour

Does age glamour exist? Do people see Ladybug, Chat Noir and other heroes as adults even when they look like teenagers to the audience (their height and build are smaller even when they are transformed)? Is that why no one ever questions the fact that children nearly die on a daily basis?

I mentioned unfortunate implications earlier. Well, this is where they come into play. Let's talk about "Copycat". A lot of people discussed it before me, so I won't bore you with details.

When I watched "Copycat" for the first time Theo's crush on Ladybug didn't bother me, because I thought that he sees Ladybug as his peer, a girl who is about 20-23 years old. Theo is an artist, his character design is that of an adult. He has his own studio, its appearance indicates that he did serious commissions in the past. The guy has no idea that Ladybug is like 13.

But then we get "Heroes' Day" and "Ladybug". And Hawkmoth calls them "kids", which means that there is no age glamour. Others see Ladybug and Chat Noir as teenagers. Perhaps, other Miraculous users aren't affected by age glamour. Therefore regular people see all heroes as adults but other heroes are able to guess their age more or less correctly. But you must spell this thing out because the audience can interpret "Copycat" differently. If there is no age glamour, then Theo is crushing on a teenage girl and he is fully aware of this fact. And this doesn't look good for your show.

The "No Age Glamour" theory is further confirmed in "Sapotis" where Alya just straight up analyses voice recordings and says that Ladybug is a girl their age. If glamour exists then it should also cover technology. Kwami can't be photographed. Face and voice recognition software shouldn't be able to analyse transformed superheroes and detect their identities in any way.

Besides, after "Sapotis" Alya should definitely be sure that Ladybug is not 5000 years old (also not an adult), especially after she wore Miraculous herself and was one door away from detransformed Ladybug.

SEASON 4 UPDATE! There's no age glamour after all.

In "Furious Fu" Su Han calls Chat Noir a child without knowing his identity. It means that everyone knows their superheroes are teenagers. "Copycat" can't be saved from that, uh, subtext anymore. No one questions the danger of their job or the balance of their lives outside of the mask. No one doubts their competence after "Origins" ever again. No one becomes annoyed after being bossed around by two teenagers in spandex. You had many opportunities to drop these details into the narrative. Someone could have been akumatized over this (I will not be ordered around by some magical kids!).

I don't know why writers decided not to use at least this idea and slightly adjust "Copycat" if they got rid of the age glamour completely. It can be explained as kid's show logic, but unfortunately, I'm reluctant to do it. If many characters sympathise with akuma victims on-screen, why not with the teenage superheroes who must fight them?

New York Special had this weird focus on collateral damage out of nowhere (the damage done by sentimonster Robostus) and yet it has 0 effect on the main story. No one in Paris is pissed that their 2 teenage protectors weren't there.

Ironically, "Furious Fu" and that one remark made by Su Han also created unfortunate implications for other moments in the show. Just hear me out. Apparently, Jagged Stone wrote a "thank you" song for Ladybug knowing that she is 13-15 year old child back in "Pixelator". Fandom is more than happy to roast Lila for lying about saving Jagged Stone's cat and him writing her a "thank you" song. Fandom claims that Lila's tale could harm Jagged's reputation, when he wrote a song for teenage Ladybug several weeks prior. Meanwhile, in-universe this lie is 100% believable.

If we put on "realism glasses", then both this whole song situation and Theo's crush in "Copycat" have uncomfortable implications. However, the show's canon can't be viewed and criticised through "realism glasses". I admit that bits and pieces of my criticisms are affected by these "glasses", but, ultimately, I'm trying to be fair and concentrate only on things that can't be justified by "cartoon logic and worldbuilding".

Could the existence of age glamour solve this problem of unfortunate implications and other concerns mentioned above? YES. Is it better for the narrative? YES. Is essential for the story? NOT QUITE. Could the absence of age glamour be called an irredeemable storytelling flaw? NO.

Disclaimer: On a side note, only older audience can notice these implications. Children, the target audience, most likely won't understand this subtext simply because they don't have enough experience. So, perhaps, this criticism is unfair, because these moments only look weird to me as an adult. It's like an adult joke in a cartoon that you don't get until you reach a certain age.

There's nothing technically wrong with adult writing a "thank you" song for a teenager. It's just an expression of gratitude. However, unfortunately, we live in a world, where adults normally wouldn't write songs for teens to express gratitude only. In real life similar actions would imply pedophilia and would be actively scorned by the public. No one would risk their reputation like that even if their intentions were genuinely pure and sincere. But this show can't be viewed through "realism glasses", because it's a cartoon and in certain cases we as the audience must use suspension of disbelief and pretend that certain things are possible for plot to happen.

Su Han also wants to give Ladybug and Black Cat to adults. Why didn't Master Fu do this then? Writers don't give us any explanation. Throughout the show we never question this up until the moment it's revealed that adults don't have time-limited powers. Then comes "Furious Fu". Story suddenly becomes self-aware here. Because apparently nothing prevented Fu from giving the most powerful Miraculous to adults who won't have time limit and will be more effective against Hawkmoth (see part 3 for more details).

I have a very good example of Age Glamour done right. It works in the story. There is no confusion or unfortunate implications. There is like one plothole connected to the glamour (it's been years and I still can't forgive them for Cornelia and Caleb) but otherwise, it's a pretty solid example of both show and tell. Clearly, writers wanted to avoid uncomfortable implications which are present in "Copycat". I am talking about W.I.T.C.H. comic books and animated series.

If you are not familiar with it, I'll give you a brief explanation. The story follows 5 girls, the Guardians of Kandrakar who are chosen to protect their world and parallel ones from evil. They receive magical powers from the amulet known as the Heart of Kandrakar. Their powers are based on elements: fire, water, earth, air and energy. Our main characters are about 13-15 years old. In the animated series they are younger and they attend middle school, making them 12-14 years old. But the transformation makes them look 18-20. They look like young women to each other and to other people. At the same time, people can recognise them, their looks and voice don't change. Most people don't know that they are really teenagers when they are not transformed and these people don't know that magic can make them look older. That's why everyone treats Guardians like adults when they are transformed. Comics establish this fact in the very beginning. In first issues characters state that they look older, we are also shown this multiple times.

In fact, one of the first side plots revolves around the fact that Irma uses her powers to sneak into the disco club to meet up with her crush. Irma is 13 at the beginning of the series, she is a high school freshman. Her crush, Andrew Hornby is a senior guy 17-18 years old. Irma has liked him for a long time and wants to impress him, so she decides to be clever about this. She transforms into her Guardian form of the 18-year-old girl, hides her wings, sneaks out to the club after her parents are asleep without any problem, and meets Andrew, who obviously doesn't recognise Irma in this girl who looks about his age. Smitten Andrew offers her a ride and 13-year-old Irma doesn't understand the implication of that offer, so she accepts. And, obviously, he decides that she is interested in more than just a ride home, since she agreed, and the comic implies that he fully intended for them to have sex in the backseat of his car. But Irma understands the implication only when Andrew tries to kiss her. She panics and turns him into a frog. And she actually pulls this "I need to look mature" trick more than once over the course of the series.

It's not the only situation where this age difference is handled well and makes sense. People who know the main characters in everyday life remark on their older appearance during transformation. Sometimes people flirt with Guardians when they are transformed. In one of the side-novels centred around Cornelia, she is worried that the prince of the realm they helped to save from famine would try to marry her. That never happens, but Cornelia actually brainstorms with her friends about how to tell the prince that she is really 15.

There are many other plot points where this happens, but I think that you got the idea. I really like how "Age Glamour" was handled in W.I.T.C.H.

How do we fix this? Create the situations where people offhandedly mention "Age Glamour" in the presence of Marinette or Adrien, use Kwami for this.

"Don't worry, dear. Chat Noir and Ladybug are adults, who know what they are doing. I am sure that they will handle this. "

Theo could say: "Oh, I wonder which university Ladybug goes to?"

"So, does that mean that other people see us as grown-ups, Tikki?"

A few words and boom, problem solved. Then allow the "show don't tell" rule do the rest.