#i just think it's interesting...... visual storytelling etc...... anyway

[beets]

Is this why they call you Firehose? Nope.

+bonus:

[stoplookingup]

Umbrella Academy S4 reaction (spoilers)

I'm a little surprised how negative the reaction to S4 has been. It's flawed and a bit too loose, sure, but I think there's a thematic arc, to do with the painful but redemptive potential of selfless love, that a lot of people didn't recognize, or didn't like, possibly because it's too sentimental, or too tragic, or both.

In particular, I have a really different take on That Relationship. You know the one I mean.

But before I get to that, I just want to address the issue of unexplained plot points, of which there are certainly many.

Short version: Just let it go.

Long version: Comic-book storytelling is all about the impossible premise, the unlikely twist, the overblown threat, the arbitrary race against the clock, the catastrophic non-ending. A big part of TUA's appeal is that it takes that formula to an absurd extreme, unwinding a plot so convoluted and horrifying as to be comedic, then offering a resolution that raises more questions than it answers, and that seems final -- but is it ever? There could always be more. Even now. Because reasons.

But scratch the surface, and it's really all about the over-the-top super(anti)heroes who are surprisingly endearing, nuanced and tragic, whom the audience roots for despite a million reasons not to. Would S4 have benefitted from a few more episodes? No doubt, mostly to give each character their due (Klaus, my Klaus, you deserve more!), and to let the story breathe a bit. The plot probably wouldn't have made any more sense anyway. But c'mon, did it ever, really? So, why a subway? Why a squid? Why a diner? Does it really matter?

On to That Relationship, the much-criticized story of Lila/Five (aka Live -- can I copyright this?). This comically trope-laden ship (forbidden love, montage love, love triangle, enemies-to-lovers, pocket universe, happily-ever-after, etc) fits right into TUA sensibility. Despite being a bit underbaked, it's moving. The actors play it well, and in dropping their characters' armor, you realize how much armor they're usually wearing, how hard they're always working to cover their feelings. Out of all the characters, seeing these two having real emotions is most devastating, especially with each other. It's because this pairing is wildly unlikely that it hits.

Lila and Five have similar histories as traumatized, sensitive souls turned cold, cruel killing machines. They're smarter, more cynical, and stronger-willed than everyone around them. And they are clearly starved of love and desperate for connection. (Everyone on this show pays a price, but I find Five's terrible loneliness the most heartbreaking of all.) So then fate throws them together in a way that makes it inevitable they'll form an attachment, only to then demand of them the ultimate sacrifice. Their surprisingly quiet, life-affirming, Guinevere-and-Lancelot love is redemptive, in contrast with the meddling, selfish, and/or destructive love of others: Reginald and Abigail, Ben and Jennifer, Gene and Jean. Live aren't an unnecessary digression, they're central to the thematic development of the story. Sacrifice saves the world, but without love, there is no sacrifice.

And yes, I absolutely think Lila loves Five to the end. And while I appreciate that some might find the age difference between the actors off-putting, I don't think there was anything inappropriate on a Doylist level, and it all makes perfect sense on a Watsonian level.

Also:

Aidan Gallagher and Ritu Arya are extraordinary;

the use of Baby Shark is genius;

Diego, Luther and Allison have been the least interesting characters from the start, and S4 does nothing to change that;

Viktor needs a sense of humor;

I love that alternate universes are all the rage these days (so many great tropes started with Trek), but tbh Loki does it better;

as visual representations of the space between realities, I love both the Loki automat and the UA subway, but at some point, using recent-past retro design to signal liminal space is going to get old, which, come to think of it, will be deliciously ironic.

[starfleetshrimps]

i love star trek bc it's actually a high school theater production most of the time. We focus a lot on the over-acting, theatricality of the actors and the directors, and that's all well and amazing, but /I/ want to focus on the /TECH/ bc ASHAijnjsdnbhgaARREghghhuuagjkshdmhbAHJBSSHJHIEJBnkjsdjhbsdhjBmahbsjshsbHkjnswkjshsn yea.

FIRST THE SETS?!? they're so silly and stupid? i know they get a lot of shit but the amount of work (not to mention styrofoam) that went into building individual sets for each planet they went to? like sure about 50% of the away missions take place in the california desert (the arena, *cough cough*, etc) but the rest of them have individually made sets that look PRETTY GOOD MAN. they get the point across, they're FUN, and innovative, and they really don't reuse planet sets all that often as well.

PLUS they used traditionally /theatrical/ cycloramas with painted backgrounds and classical cyc lighting (reminiscent of mariano fortuny's domed cyc! i WILL talk more about lighting) which look really cool and once again get shit for being unrealistic.

it's not supposed to look realistic it's supposed to look cool as shit. and it does. shut up. <3

if you view the sets as being modern TV sets then yeah, they're weird, and they look sorta bad, but THEYRE NOT modern TV sets: they're THEATRICAL SETS FROM THE 60-70S. AND I LOVE THEM.

SECONDLY, THE

lighting

while it's true that some shows in the 60s were developing new lighting styles specifically for TV, remember that in the year 1950 less that 10 percent of US homes had a television. this shit was new. COLOR tv was ESPECIALLY new. nobody knew how to light these things! and actually why would you need a new lighting style, we already KNEW how to light dramatic productions, why would we ever need to reinvent the wheel Stanley Mccandles, Mariano Fortuny, and Gene Rosenthall already invented says Gene Roddenberry and Jerry Finnerman (the head lighting designer). and oh my god i am so ridiculously glad. because the lighting. is so good.

i HAVE seen others talking about how good it is in the super early episodes (Charlie X and the conscious of the King, etc.) and i do agree! but i disagree that the quality goes down. i think it just got a tad bit more subtle as the show went on and it gets less in your face, harder to notice. but i noticed. because I'M the WORST (and also a lighting tech)

the impossibility of listing every example of amazing theater lighting choice they made is absolutely horrific and nasty so i'll just lost some my my favorites:

the cyc! i mentioned before but the cyc they used on away missions was only painted when they needed a specific scene in the background, otherwise? that bitch was LIT. and i LOVE IT.

any of the scenes where they light spock's face have green and half pink? or even just washing the walls behind him? i eat that shit UP. the METAPHOR. the CONFLICT. i will acquiesce that green and pink are (and were) pretty goddamn industry standard gels (color-films) to add to lights, for subtle contrast, but this is not subtle. it is LOUD. was it purposefully done from a storytelling perspective? no idea. is it cool as shit and interpret-able as hell? absolutely. also sometimes they do it with just green when they want to emphasize his vulcan-ness and other him a bit. like they do it a lot when he's in his room in amok time. anyway.

whenever they shutter a light so they can emphasize a character's (kirk, we're talking abt kirk here. and *sometimes* spock, and also Charlie in Charlie X but yeah mostly kirk) eyes when they say something #Deep, or just pre-commercial break closure worthy line. it's so SHJSDJBFEJNKN. to add onto this, they'll do a striking half-wash over half of their face sometimes in conjunction and it looks So Good

The GOBOS. sometimes, they'll just throw light through a gobo, or wall screen, or something, for /visual interest/ and it looks so silly i love it sm. does it make sense from a realism pov? nO. but star trek is a theater production actually and they lit everything using mainly naturalistic techniques! amazing!

honorable mentions: the glowing time donut, and the entirely random colors in the hallway.

there are so many other examples but this post is long enough lmao. notice the lights next time you watch tos!!,! please!!! <3

[ananke-xiii]

Form and Void... Hands and Hearts.

Intro + the post before this you kinda need to read them all or it won't make a lot of sense lol

Dean and Crowley's relationship is not fun.

Full disclosure here: I have no problems in terms of shipping and having fun with the characters outside of what's canon but I personally don't see Dean's canon relationship with Crowley as "fun", it's not something that I particularly enjoy watching. Like, the actors are great etc. but the actual story makes me feel... uncomfortable. I actually find it sad that Dean's still attached to Crowley because, as much as I like him as a character, the King of Hell acts like a total predator towards Dean and this episode highlights this side of their relationship in uncomfortable ways. So be warned that things get a little ugly from here.

Let's see how food is treated in the episode: Crowley is presented as "Father Crowley" while he puts sugar in his tea and calls Dean "a rather scrumptious altar boy". The image I get from this is both that of the sugar daddy and, because of the religious references, of the scandals surrounding the Vatican and its priests (I'm trying to be as sensitive as I can but the show is really not and Crowley literally makes a reference to these events later on in the episode).

Father Crowley is a piece of shit.

He will later pull up in a van and kidnap young Amara with this line:

My, haven't you grown into a sweet young thing? Want some candy, little girl?

If we consider that Amara and Dean are connected (by the mark that's above Amara's heart and that was on Dean's right arm) Dean and Crowley's past relationship doesn't look so much fun anymore (well, it never was fun to begin with as I've written although the show did its best to make it look like it was fun with the karaoke, the cowboy hats and the sex. I mean, on paper it does look like fun if we can just forget that Dean was very much Crowley's guinea pig).

In case you were wondering, Dean and Amara are bound guys.

Crowley here is the preacher/hunter of "The Night of the Hunter". He dresses like a priest but he's hunting for demons (yeah, I know, it's a clear reference to "The Exorcist" too). He happens to find "the child that eats the souls" and proceed to kidnap her. I mean, brrrrr.

And how does Dean feel about it? He still loves him! Poor, poor, poor Dean.

While Sam went for the heart of Poor Guy with the electrocution device, the angels went for Cas' heart (and other parts too) with the angel blades, Dean goes for Crowley's heart with Ruby's knife. Unlike Sam and the angels, he doesn't finish what he had set up to do.

Dean's knife is pointed at Crowley's heart but I'm bad at taking screenshots so this is what you get.

Instead, he pins Crowley's to the wall by stabbing his left hand (the hand of love and receiving) with an angel blade. Visually, it's quite similar (not the same, similar) thing that happened to Cas at the end of S10. It couldn't be more sexual (angels blades are the dicks, also interesting choice of weapon to stab Crowley: Cas' ghost in their relationship is ever present) and more problematic: in a heartbeat Dean goes from prey to predator.

They re-used this very explicit image in S12.

Just like Dean is bound to Amara, he's still bound to his former abuser Crowley. And, I mean, from a storytelling pov it tracks because Amara is very much Crowley's and Dean's baby ("You're very maternal, Dean"). Yeah, I can hear your "ewwww" from here knowing where they went with Dean and Amara but I didn't write the show, they did and I'm picking up the things they've put down. Anyway, Dean and Crowley's relationship will be over only once Dean's not bound to Amara anymore. Or, at least, it should be but like any love triangle writers liked to milk it unti it was dry, i.e. one of the three permadied. This is why, I think, we had the echoes of the same trite trope in S12 too and if you enjoyed it good for you. For me it was torture.

Demons would be the perfect angels. Sam too.

A SPN-related theory of mine is that demons would make perfect angels. Both demons and angels are cursed with the "I get what I want" mentality. Abbadon said it, Crowley says it again in this episode. It's a very angel-like mentality, however demons are unironically more likely to put in the effort, follow the guidelines, work behind the curtains. They would be perfect angels for Chuck.

Ironically this time, angels and demons have hardly ever gotten what they wanted (hello Castiel!). They all tend to work in a certain direction only for the result to backfire in the end or leave them dead. Which reminds of a certain character named Sam Winchester.

"Form and Void" is an episode that explicity parallels Sam to the angels and to Crowley. Sam and Crowley's parallels are my everything. Up until s8 they were quite obvious while after that they're in the story's backbone rather than clearly on screen. If you care, this is one of the reasons why Crowley and Lucifer's power struggle could've been way more interesting if they had thrown in Sam in some capacity instead of doing whatever they did with Sam in s12. *breathes and calms down*

The End (of this rambling post).

"Form and Void" foreshadows how S11 would end: dark and light becoming One. It's something that US tv shows (tended to) do a lot when they deal with Christian themes: when they're going a little over the edge and very close to blasphemy they pull a "Eastern Mysticism" card to signal that they were just kidding! In SPN they did the same thing to Jack in s15. When they deal with God they use buddhist concepts as a cop-out to avoid doing things that may upset Christian believers (and no, canon bisexual God is less of a threat than canon God's older sister who's more powerful, female-presenting and holding a huuuuge grudge or than having a world with no God, no Hell and no Heaven).

Hands and hearts are a huge motifs and they signal what the characters will be doing and/or their true intention/identity. In order to see this, though, one must pay appention to the scene shown at the very beginning of the episode, a scene from the movie "The Night of the Hunter". This specific scene tells us that what we see is the opposite of what the writers mean and that the core theme of S11 is not so much God vs The Darkness but rather love. This love, however, lies in cages protected by keys and it's secret and forbidden but, as that scene tells us, love's a-winnin'. To save the day and let Love still win we've got a giant plot-twist in the form of maternal love and the resurrection of Mary Winchester. The heart's needs are met, its wants are still unknown. You can't always get what you want... SPN really did believe that.

[farfromdaylight]

OH I AM SORRY somehow i completely did not see that you had already answered some of these lmao. anyway have some more: 9, 16, 20, 21

NO NO i got a bunch at the same time and answered them together, you just happened to double up! not ur fault at all. THANK U FOR SENDING MORE, i shall tl;dr below!

9: worst part of canon

god i could answer this for so many series, i am always full of salt about Bad Canon.

can i say "most of zero time dilemma?" i know this isn't final fantasy but oh my god, what the fuck was uchikoshi smoking on this one. i thought it was okay but not great when i played through it the first time. when @shepherdtostars played through the series she streamed VLR and ZTD for me and man, ZTD does not fucking hold up lol. like all three games have their low points (especially in gameplay/mechanics/traversal but i'm solely speaking about story here). ZTD's conclusion to the series is fucking stupid at best.

to be slightly more on topic, i have not thought dirge of cerberus was good since i was a teenager with no taste and no understanding of Decent Storytelling and Characterization. (and even then i could recognize some shit was garbage, lmao.)

16: you can't understand why so many people like this thing (characterization, trope, headcanon, etc)

my gut answer for this is zenos, lmao. i think @anneapocalypse summed up a lot of it in her similar response (i'm on mobile rn or i'd link). i think zenos is fine in stormblood itself and his ultimate ending at the close of 4.0 is fantastically done, ties together the narrative themes, etc.

i don't feel that way about endwalker. i don't think it's earned. i struggle with it to the point that i am going to replay stormblood (i haven't replayed it since 2020) and really dig into how i feel about it for my wol's story, then extrapolate from there for an ending that makes sense for endwalker. like i'm genuinely stuck on my 80% complete endwalker fic due to The Zenos Problem.

here's the thing, i don't hate his character trope? ennui is fine for a villain motivation and it ties into the themes of uncaring imperalism that stormblood puts forward. by contrast, i really disliked how zenos carried forward after that in the story. fandaniel didn't work for me. EW zenos didn't work for me. i have no desire to replay endwalker but i've reread and rewatched the scenes enough that i don't think it'll ever really work for me.

which is fine. i know i'm supposed to be choosing violence in this meme but it's fine that This Specific Storyline didn't click. there's a lot else i like instead.

20: part of canon you found tedious or boring

FF14 is too easy an answer for this. I love the game but it has some dead boring story and gameplay structure for MSQ. i have nothing against the character (i thought she was fine) but "speak with wuk lamat" illustrates the problem perfectly no matter how you feel about her. you need variance in the actual gameplay of telling your story, or it becomes too obvious to the player.

it works fine in visual novels and in many ways FF14 is very similar to that medium, but... it's not. it's a RPG. FF14 can't really do much of interest with this kind of thing due to the nature of its setup. i don't expect the kind of genuine exploration and discovery you get in other RPGs from it because it's linear by design. but please hide the bones of the structure so i can focus on enjoying the game.

21: part of canon you think is overhyped

final fantasy vii rebirth dev. square enix

lmao.

i really wish i'd liked it. in so many ways i should have liked it. it clearly, CLEARLY worked for many people. but it didn't work for me. remake was solidly middle of the road, but rebirth? good god, what is nojima smoking these days. why is aerith singing. why is zack here. what the fuck is that ending.

sigh.

[cosmos-dot-semicolon]

🌟 (I found a cool star for u)

(⭐fanfic writers’ commentary)

Yay! Free space! Let's see…

Since you're the most writerly of the three people that sent in asks, and the person who shares the most interests with me, I'm going to freestyle some of my thoughts on fanfiction in general.

I make fanworks to respond to what stuck with me through a series. It's a form of analysis in itself for me, where you try and replicate a style by trying to make it work in your own context instead of pointing out why it works in an essay. This is something I've taken from my time studying visual art, where you're encouraged to do studies of works as well as just annotating them.

You don't have to follow them completely. You can focus on just the lines, or the palette, or the composition, but the main goal is to learn how to recreate something you like about the piece by your own hands.

I take that attitude with me into writing. It's why my favourite bits of fanfiction and fanart tend to be 'what-if' situations just left of canon. Characterisation is usually my main focus, with tone and message as my secondary aims. But even when it comes to other things like the setting or lore, I only extrapolate if I think it benefits the things above.

(or for representation. lol)

I like the challenge of those limitations. It forces you to be more creative as a writer, knowing that you have to start from some sort of formula, but you also need to make a different, compelling story and get your own interests to align with that. The small spins you can put on that are way more compelling than any massive upheavals that you tend to find in more standard AUs and such. Kinda like plot twists, actually.

wait I just realised that's what I said about why liked Ninjago season 1 and 4 so much. don't want to think about that. moving on

As a result, I approach fanfiction for different franchises differently. I love learning how different writers approach storytelling! I don't care for how there's clear 'templates' that dominate in fandom circles, because it throws away a lot of the subgenre's appeal to me in the first place. Specific AUs based off aesthetics, certain dragged out romance tropes, etc. (also the way some people do shipping but that's a whole 'nother can of worms)

I don't have much against them, I just find that they're usually less interesting than something with a specific premise and goal in mind.

Honestly I think the way I like to write fanfiction is more like. How sometimes you get spin-off books and comics of TV shows and games. Except targeted towards my favourite media and personal tastes and actually good.

I was going to complain a bit about fanon as well, but I think you already know how that is. People get very specific takes stuck in their head, usually of neutral quality at best, and it's frustrating to see if you have opposing views, or just prefer the actual. source material.

Also I don't write fanfiction for everything. I think the old adage of 'works that are above a baseline level of compelling and below a certain level of completeness are how fandoms form' is a part of that. I find it easiest to write/draw for works that have gaps in them, regardless of quality. See Dicey versus something like Inscryption (if I ever feel like editing and betaing that script, anyway…)

But I think another factor for it is also the focus of the original work. I love Disco Elysium and I'd argue it's both good and not really complete. But it's also a game deeply entwined with politics and the creator's personal experiences: I feel deeply unequipped to handle that as a storyteller who mostly focuses on characters and plot. If I did have anything to say on it, I'd probably be doing in as an essay instead.

Fandom 'meta' (stupid name) - analytical essays - are a good thing, and I think we should be encouraging it more alongside fictional fanworks.

I'm only occasionally a fanfiction reader. I used to be really into it as a kid, when I was into a bunch of series that weren't finished yet, and when I really wanted to experience games I couldn't buy. But even then I was pretty picky and ended up blocking tons of tags and had to keep compiling lists of stuff that was actually worth reading.

I don't do that much nowadays - I've learned that it's valuable to try a lot of different things in media, and I'm now way more aware of how it fuels my maladaptive daydreaming. My mindset on it now tends to be 'if you want to read that specific thing you want to see, you're going to have to be the one to write it.'

I haven't written much original stuff recently. Fanworks have always been easier for me to do for enjoyment, and I'm in the midst of a pretty exhausting degree. I do have a bunch of original ideas on the brain, though. Maybe I will touch on those at some point.

[sometimeslapine]

It's not about quantity, it's about quality. Even if they arent the same scale, I'm sure I'm not alone in saying they would be appreciated.

And I'll be honest, engaging in a dialog about kink that is just ping ponging ideas back and forth sounds fun. Sometimes you don't need one massive work to lay out like a blanket to cover all the reasons and facets and quirks you like about a certain kink. Sometimes you don't even need a patch work quilt that you build upon. Sometimes you've earned the Worlds Worst Bonus from your job at the Cotton Ball Factory and you're just throwing little ball after ball at the topic, not caring where they land or if you've hit the same aspects again and again, and then you look back and see you've done a pretty good job covering the topic anyway.

Even if you aren't writing a novel, with your art you do a great job of making kink... I hesitate to say Feel Real but you make it Make Sense in a Real Way. Like of course if you lived in a world with Boob Growth Lotion, you can't just rub it in with your hands or else you'll get Boob Hands and that's Fun because Of Course that would happen. And I just kinda wanna see what you can cook up if you didn't have to find a way to visualize and show and make it look good.

bit of a delayed response to this one while turning over possible replies in my head... struggling to explain a few more conceptual blocks. writing's always been a weird subject matter for me, in one way or another. pls bear with me

so like. comparatively, inflation kink fics span back a good two decades, at least. there's an established pool of tropes, visual metaphors, ideal pacing or story beats to hit, tones or themes that set the mood, key phrases that really get at the brain, and points of finality that overall mesh really well for a good story. not to say there's no originalities to be had in this space anymore, but there's a lotta prior work to draw from, were i to need assistance filling a void in a sentence or two.

but the thing is, with the more nonsensical stuff like That Comic Thing You're Referring To, there isn't a lot of pre-existing stuff i can reference! i often find that i completely lack the language framework needed to put those weirder scenarios into words. i'm just making it up as i go, after all! and so drawing it out in some loose manner becomes infinitely easier than trying to capture all the nuances of it in a paragraph or two, because i get to lean a bit heavily on the storytelling mechanic of "Show, Don't Tell" as support.

though these scenarios being physically sketched-out-on-paper may end up leaving them a bit more concise than intended in their delivery, i'd like to think the concept i'm exploring's still getting conveyed effectively (even if i can't put the scenario to art in the way I'm /fully/ hoping to, whether due to the limits of my artistic skill, or just other general constraints of anatomy & form in a physical space) because ironically, despite a "concise" delivery, a drawing still remains open-ended enough to have its blanks filled in by the viewer's own preferences/themes/biases in enjoyment (in the same weird way the sketch of a piece can sometimes look more visually interesting & carry more emotion than that piece's finished lineart would) with the open-ended nature guiding one's thoughts to what potential fun lies outside the final panel. as you experience art, art experiences you, etc. etc. etc.

as for making it feel "real", honestly sometimes it's less about realism and more about exploring the fun and wild "consequences of over-indulgency" (said with as much love and appreciation as possible, just so we're clear!!); it's acknowledging the dangers of going wild with a Topical That Changes You without hesitation, it's of not thinking it through before leaping directly into in the path of that TF raygun beam, it's of playing with dangerous and ancient magicks because the spellbook had funny drawings that poked at the kinky parts of your psyche, it's of getting too lost in the sauce to have an escape plan.

consequences, for lack of any better word, can help ground fantasies into something more tangible! makes it feel more Real, despite very much being weird fantasy nonsense at its heart

anyway. run-on-sentences and streams of consciousness aside, i appreciate that my weird brand of nonsense is enjoyed all the same

[mihai-florescu]

Do you agree with me that we should get rid of "death of the author" and that we should introduce "death of the audience" instead?

"Oooh but how will other people interpret this-" I don't know! I don't care! I wanna know what goes on inside the brain of the person who actually put their time and effort and soul into this. Not five million other people who Did Not Create the Thing.

(Sorry if this is weird but you feel like the most qualified person i know to have an opinion on this)

Disclaimer, im big on believing 2 things coexist at the same time about everything. My mood swings put me in black and white thinking often, but when i can think clearly from both perspectives im still a contrarian and have counter points for my counter points. Im gonna word vomit an answer, im not good at ordering my thoughts but i hope its fine still.

Oh brother i used to go on rants about this (authorial intent, media consumption, fandom culture etc) all of last semester and it's what ultimately led to me giving up on my degree and serious art altogether... i'll attach a few i found in my archive i think are relevant if youre curious beep meep meow. I was writing these posts at the same time as my thesis paper which was more hopeful and aiming to reframe what we consider escapism, but in the end by the finale (last assessment) the hatred won in my heart and i couldnt make a visual project with an audience in mind. I made something, but it was more like a rant with visuals and absolutely failed the "whats the future of this project?" question. Must it have a future for an audience? Its job was to be a confession and a respite, for my own expression. I dont want an audience, im too much of a misanthropic hater and possessive mother to let others see or interpret my ideas. I know it's selfish and counterproductive but i cant help it. You sending this ask made me laugh since it was so relevant to my struggles this year. Id love to break out of this cycle and mindset but i always go back here to these beliefs.

Anyway... i do think the sensible truth is somewhere in the middle. Reader's interpretation is essential for works to gain life in the world and to outlive their authors, and i revere stories for the ability to touch people's hearts and make them learn things about themselves as well as other's way of thinking (reading is a process of interpretation and contemplation afterall isnt it? Well, active reading at least. Citation to my written thesis). But im not a fan of fandom lens interpretations that so often flatten stories.

I think for our shared stories of interest authorial intent is particularly fun to think about. Commercial works made to sell gacha games but which do have heart and profound messages theyre trying to convey. But also made with an audience in mind. I havent been able to formulate any particularly riveting conclusions, but i would love to know if anyone has focused on such topics. Everything deserves analysis and attempts at understanding... and i find authorial intent an invaluable insight that can never be cast aside. Works gain lives of their own after theyre set free into the world, but they dont spawn fully formed from thin air ready for "consumption"...

Uuu im trying to decide if i should link to you a story about storytelling i wrote and illustrated in a day, and a video about humanity and the power of imagination as salvation and damnation... if i say "i'll share them, but only if you erase from your mind that i wrote them" it'd be hypocritical after everything i just spilled out. But too much knowledge about the author is scary too... not for the audience as much as the author himself. It's the audience who has the final laugh of judgement and interpretation... but it's scary to let others into your mind, to see things you spent time and energy on? I wish i could channel my death of the audience defiance into proudly sharing works without caring who sees them rather than deciding nothing is worth making anymore since im so mistrustful. Alas! Maybe one day i'll stop being a self absorbed, self sabotaging prey animal

[tamelee]

What are your thought about modern art? I know a lot of artists on the Internet absolutely hate modern art, and talk about it like it was the thing that was killing art in general.

Personally I don’t agree at all, I think contemporain art can bring very interesting concepts and experiments.

And usually the people I’ve seen criticizing contemporain art were the one who make an obsession about realism. Tbh I think realism is kinda overrated…

But I’m curious to hear about your opinion :D

Well, I don't think contemporary art equals a certain style anyway as it is made by people today. You see realism and abstract now as well as in our history (not photo-realism ofc.). The father of my mother (so my grandfather, but it feels weird to call him that as I never knew him) was a well-known painter here in the Netherlands and his art was very abstract with lots of colors and shapes. So what some refer to when they say 'modern' often in such discussions is mostly the more 'simple' styles where they criticize it and say "a child can make this" where the comeback is "but you didn't".. At times they refuse to call it art as it requires little to no skill. Where the actual skill doesn't really get the recognition anymore. That's when these concepts becomes experimental and it makes people talk. I guess AI in a way is part of that as well though still in a much lesser form, but a bigger issue.

If I put up a simple photo of a child depicted in a wooden box and said: "Look, isn't that great?!" You'd probably think I was out of my mind but if I told you that it was Chris Hadfield as a 9 y/o pretending the box was a space rocket because he had an ambition to become an astronaut and actually realized his dreams later- only then it becomes interesting. A picture itself doesn't always tell a story (it can) and in 'modern' art a lot of the time the same thing applies. Yes, like the taped up banana which earned the title; a piece of art.

Authenticity (as vague as that is) as told by Pine & Gilmore can actually be measured by something (a story or art etc-) being faithful to itself and/or whether it says what it is. (At least that's what we in general do when it comes to communication in business.) The banana obviously is just a banana and the creator of this absurdity said they were making fun of the person (multiple) spending 120k on a rotting banana and said they deserved to be scammed. Which fair, I don't necessarily agree with it, but in that sense, they're being true to the message. This is how you can measure most media and businesses because it almost always works. (It is a bit more complicated than this, but you get the idea.)

But here's the kicker, people, in this case 'artists' or people who call themselves one, idk, can give their creation whatever message they want despite the visuals. Though spending 120k on a rotting banana is most likely money laundering and the artist must know that as well.. so, to then say it's just 'funny critique' regarding art and capitalism and "believing" the buyer got scammed, changes the message a bit. Yes? How valuable is it then really?

Not all art has to have some deep value-driven meaning at all, but most 'modern' "art" pieces that require no skill need other ways to gain attention and do so by provoking the audience. Marcel Duchamp was called an artistic genius because he turned a urinal upside down.. a damn toilet.

How does that compare to an actual drawing where someone put their heart and soul into the making of it through perhaps even years of experience, where you can see the person has skill? Or the making of a sculpture? Even things like graphic/interior design? Have we realized what happened to photographers? If you want to talk about the toilet as 'a piece of art' or even a simplistic circle because to you ~somehow~ the meaning behind it changes the world, then bring it along to your TED-talk and actually talk about it. Become that storyteller. It is proven that through the PSE (picture superiority effect) visual elements leave a lot more impact on your audience compared to just text or speech and that you remember it better by 65%. But to replace masterpieces in art galleries and auction them off for thousands/millions worth that we know goes also into money laundering regardless and call it art? And there must be some sort of meaning.... I guess? Nah. I have no clue what 'killed art' specifically because I'm not too knowledgable on that topic, but if this is art, then why aren't we calling your average Tiktokker professional movie directors/actors etc? Why isn't your YT-short or Tiktok clip an actual short film instead? How about calling this "thought-provoking art" just a concept as you say? Or the jpg that I forgot to include in my powerpoint? Comedic relief? An idea? And yes ideas can be art, but not every idea is art. AI images are generated prompts, but certainly not art and their makers are prompters and definitely not artists. So I agree with you that it can be experimental or perhaps provoke interesting concepts, but depending on the... 'art' and its intention... we should call it as it is. That's what I think. Perhaps 'modern art' in that sense as a term is too broad to judge.

So when you say realism, do you mean hyper/photo-realism specifically? Or just realism in general? Because as an artist my own opinion is that I wouldn't want to draw photorealistically as it takes too much time and if people can't tell whether I actually used up all my time to draw it or took the photo, even used photo-bash.. then for me, I don't really see the point in putting in all the effort. But, it is an amazing way to learn how to draw though, that's how I started. Looking at photo's and replicating it. In my earlier art I tried to render it to the best of my abilities as I had no idea how to draw so I had to look at pictures and see how light falls, how colors blend, what skin does and how it reflects.. On Instagram I often got comments that it looked so real, like a photo. I didn't know what to think of that, because even though it is a compliment, it wasn't a photo, I actually drew it and so it almost feels like an insult somehow. Does that make sense? I now want to almost erase parts of what I've learned when it comes to things feeling 'real' and stylize my art better. That's not something you learn in photo's but by finding out a tiny thing you like and then doing that over and over again until the next tiny thing. And lemme tell you... that is hard. So, I don't think realism is overrated, I think stylized art, often recognizable from an artist is severely underrated.

[teaandcrowns]

Live Action: Thoughts and Etc. Episode 1

Whenever some new AtLA surge happens, whether animation renaissance or new series, I rise again from the grave and this time is no different.

This isn't anything formal, but I wanted to collect my thoughts as I go through rewatching episodes. I'm still not done with an initial watching of the new live action, but I've started rewatching the first couple of episodes anyway to note down what I liked about what the new series is doing and also where I think the narrative could have been stronger.

I don't mean this as a critique of the show on any other level other than on a narrative level—I'm not a film or visual studies person; my forte is in storytelling.

I also didn't want my reactions to just be seeming criticism, because there is a lot that I really like about the show (especially as I get deeper in episodes), so just consider this an initial reaction & thoughts on what could have been improved upon. So far, the first two episodes have been the weakest to me, which is really unfortunate because I worry a lot of people won't get beyond them. I know my opinion and thoughts don't matter because a) I'm not part of any kind of decision-making group that could actively affect this and b) it's already done with and out and it's not going to be changed, but we all love meta and thoughts around here, right? Right.

The format of these I'm imagining as follows: I'll go over what I liked or loved first, because there's more and more as episodes go on, and you should always, always start with what you appreciate and enjoyed about a work first before going into what might be improved upon. Next, I'll go into where I felt the narrative could have been improved upon, just from what I know with my Literature™ and in-progress MFA™ eyeballs. Finally, if applicable, what I personally didn't care for that doesn't actually impact the narrative one way or another. This final section will be potentially be under a cut if the post is too long. Everything will be noted as I do my second watch of the series, and will be in chronological order. I don't know that I'll have time to do proper paragraphs, so I hope a list format will be acceptable to anyone who's made it this far and remains interested in my thoughts.

Of course, this will contain spoilers for each episode, and all posts will be tagged "atla la ep#" and "atla la ep# spoilers" (where the # in each tag will be the corresponding episode number) so folks can blacklist as needed.

Now, on to the main event—

What I liked:

-The settings are lush and gorgeous! Holy moly! -The costumes are phenomenal so far. Absolutely fantastic. -Even if some of the actors are a little stiff, I am loving all of them. -Loved the airbenders fighting back. No notes. -The dialogue between Iroh and Aang in the brig is actually perfectly nuanced. I really like it. -REALLY love Aang pilfering Zuko's Avatar journal -Also love Katara being the one to extinguish Zuko's final fire blast with her waterbending. Setting up that good rivalry between them in s1. -I like the expansion of the SWT village and Katara being in the old FN ship in lieu of the otter penguin sledding scene -Love Zuko being an artist. I like to think it's a nice, early nod to learning under Piandao

What Could be Improved Narratively:

-Stop the Sozin scene right after he burns the earthbender -When Gyatso has Aang in the room with Yangchen's statue, the exchange should have stopped with: "You have always been special." "I never asked to be special." "But you are," and the writing should have allowed Aang to put together that he is the Avatar without explicitly saying "Aang, you are the Avatar." If they took that line out and let the silence hang and then taken out all explicit statements of "You are the Avatar," so they would have been talking around actually saying it, it would have improved the scene. -Remove Aang's little monologue with Appa before the fly off except for maybe hugging Appa and saying, "I'm scared" -Show Aang and Appa getting caught in the storm. There's a very small missing piece of that scene. -Could pare down the exposition in Zuko & Iroh's argument about following the light to not explicitly say "and take my rightful place as heir," as Iroh saying "it may be time to consider the throne isn't everything," and Zuko replying, "Maybe it wasn't to you" does that work. BUT I actually don't think this is as clunky as other dialogue-exposition parts. -Either excise Aang's flashbacks to saving himself with the Avatar state before he wakes or remove it from earlier in the episode; we don't need it twice. -the WT kids running outside of the village to play is awkward. Why wouldn't they play inside the walls? If it's so Appa wouldn't land inside the village, this is easily solved by having Aang airbend over the walls when searching for Appa. -I know Kanna's monologue about the FN attacking is an homage to the original, but it feels hamhanded. I would excise it. Remove everything she says in this scene in the tribe meeting except, "The last time a comet was seen was 100 years ago." -Honestly, excise most of Kanna's dialogue. It's all hamhanded exposition; we're seeing the "hand of the author(s)" here. When Zuko's ship arrives all she has to say is, "They're looking for him." Let the reveal be Katara saying it to Sokka when he's going to give Aang up. -Replace the repeated scenes with Gyatso when Aang discovers his skeleton with other memories. We don't need a rehash of something in the same episode.

What I Personally Did Not Care For:

-I want bigger fire from the firebenders. It's a comet that powers them up ffs. -Katara needs to express a great desire to learn waterbending in this episode somewhere -Sokka and Katara being caught in a current should have been from Katara's angry paddling to echo her angry waterbending from the original -I also wouldn't reveal Kya's death in flashback flashes so early -When Zuko sees Aang for the first time it's a perfectly missed opportunity for "You're just a kid!" "Yeah, well you're just a teenager!" -Unsure why Katara said, "The thing about losing everything is that's when you find out how strong you are" instead of something like, "I can't imagine how this must feel. But you don't have to be alone. We're here with you."

[alarrytale]

Hii good morning :) I hope this is okay to say but i think bands like that are more successful because they are being themselves with their images and not putting on an act. There are a lot of artists in history who started out trying to imitate the people they were a fan of and did not find success because they ended up just being a second rate version of those people. They made it once they started being themselves and finding their own voice because that is something new and interesting. maybe this is part of why H has found a large fanbase because although he has strong influences, his glitter and fruit and painted nails and quirky music videos added up to something totally unique. i mean he's Harry and everyone knows what that means. Whereas lou sometimes feels like he is putting on a front with his visuals to imitate others but it falls flat and does not even really match his music. those of us who already love lou know that he is pop with some edge and soft, heartfelt and emotional storytelling and lyricism and mischievous humor and rainbow lights etc. but you'd never know any of that from his album covers or music videos or tv performances.

Good morning to you, anon!

I totally agree with you, and of course it's okay to say! I think it's a fine line (heh) between finding inspiration in someone's music and looking up to someone, and ending up copying and emulating them. You need to make it your own and incorporate what makes you special or different. I wish Louis found a way to sell himself the way he is, rather than a put up image that doesn’t fit what we know and love. If he did i think he'd be looked at as more authentic and genuine. It must be hard though, when he can't be who he wants to be anyway.

[pumpkinnning]

leo you didn't know what you got yourself into, baby.

for the "know your ficwriter" thingy:

2; 4; 14; 15 & 16 (that's a lot i know, hehe, but i love to hear your thoughts)

ahah joke's on you i love ranting about my writing so thank you so much for humoring me <3

2 : Do you plan each chapter or do you write as you go ? I have an outline for at least a few chapters ahead, in general, with a scene list, but those often end up changing a lot as I actually write. I've never written a story without at least a little bit of an outline though, I don't like writing if I don't know where I am going, I need that flow of energy that the story gives me, if that makes sense

4 : Where do you find inspirations for new ideas ? I don't know, everywhere ? Writer is like one of the basic modes of my brain lmao so whenever any information or experience enters one of my first reactions is like, so how can I use this in a story ? And then it's constantly running scenarios and trying to fuse ideas into each other and I think that's when my stories come together - by making interesting mixes of stuff. Like a recipe or a potion lmao. There are a few big themes that come back constantly - like awe for big scary overwhelming forces of nature, loneliness, trauma, the sacred, the horrors and wonders of having a body, power, freedom, devotion, etc - and then I'm just looking for more specific lenses to explore them through. I honestly think if you're paying attention you can find ideas absolutely anywhere. That said when I'm blocked or my writing feels stale I love reading a good book or watching a cool movie because that regenerates my belief in the power of good storytelling. Or going somewhere I've never been to before.

14: how do you write emotional scenes ? Do you ever feel what the characters feel ? Do you draw from personal experiences ? Tbh for me all scenes are emotional, if there's no emotions it feels dead and there's no point in writing it. And yeah I'm very method with my writing, I need to feel it to be inspired - generally it's an enjoyable process, even for negative stuff it's cathartic. And yes, I draw a lot from personal experiences, not directly but transformed and amplified - writing is in general very therapeutic for me, even though I try to not go too far with that because it doesn't always make for the most interesting stuff to read haha.

15: How do you write smut scenes ? Do you get very visual or detailed ? How important is it to be realistic ? To me smut is a great way to get into the mindset and emotions of characters and peeling back some layers, so that's the most important thing to figure out - although sometimes it's just yeah that would be hot, does it fit the Theme lmfao. In real life it's silly to assign arbitrary meanings to particular acts but in a story it's very interesting to figure out what it symbolizes. I like writing kinky stuff as well because it makes that more explicit. In terms of details - no, not really, because honestly I think if a character's POV gets too fixated on details it means they're probably too in their heads and not really enjoying the experience so it can quickly feel artificial. I think the key is about picking the right details. But also it's just HARD to find words to describe that kind of stuff without sounding corny lmao. As for the realism, hm, as long as you can understand what everybody is doing and there's no weird impossible anatomy going on, I'm not THAT hung up on it, it's meant to be a fantasy anyway - but the best smut does tend to have some realistic moments at least because it's more human and interesting and sexy if it's not just acting out a perfect boring choreography.

16: how many fic ideas are you nurturing right now ? share one of them ? I have a shit ton of ideas but I am trying to be disciplined and not start anything until I have finished sanctuary. (except maybe a few short one shots like my solarpunk wizards AU). All sebchal for now. One I have been thinking about a lot is an absolutely insane multiverse thing with several seemingly unrelated stories that get framed in several different ways - one that happens in a decaying post apocalyptic seaside town ruled by the mob with haunted old hollywood vibes/romeo + juliet/also with illegal car racing and a bad ending ; one where Seb is a cult leader ; one where they're both women in a cyberpunk crap future where Seb is a bounty hunter and Charles is an escort and they end up teaming up against the kingpin that wants to make their lives miserable and then they leave town together ; anyway a few others i'm not sure if i'm ever going to get to it because it would be enormous but it's very fun to think about. also i really want to write a BDSM focused fic at some point. and maaaaaaybe a sanctuary sequel.

[kylesvariouslistsandstuff]

Whenever One Of Those Disney Remakes Comes Out...

This was originally a Twitter thread that I wrote the other day, and wanted to repost it here because I... Accidentally deleted the first tweet, haha...

Anyways... Regarding "shallow" Disney romances, plot elements of the animated films that supposedly don't add up, and how these remakes supposedly "improve" on them or "add depth"...

For all the talk about some Disney romances happening in such ostensibly short amounts of time or feeling kind of halfhearted... It becomes apparent when you step back and think about it, possibly... but there's a reason the stories hold up and work despite this perceived issue... That's animation and lyrical storytelling bypassing what's supposed to be realistic. That's one of the medium's very special abilities...

Like, most people watching those Disney animated classics back when they came out were so engrossed in the stories and even the romances, because animation like that is really on its own plane of existence, operating on a unique wavelength that really makes it all register so seamlessly. But there's also plenty of substance & depth in what's being told, as it's woven in there by the visual (and sometimes visceral) storytelling itself. That's a big thing for me with Disney's animated movies, that they can establish so much in such short bursts in an 80-90min runtime.

A lot of what's often said about certain animated films reminds me of "style over substance", which is a phrase I absolutely can't stand. The style *can* be the substance, actually... it's there if the one watching is on the film's wave. Otherwise, it's just pretty pictures and noise to them.

A lot of my favorite Disney animated movies play this game very well, going all the way back to Walt's output. That there can be so much feeling, emotion and ideas in mere drawings mixed w/ music, dialogue, editing choices, etc. It's often hard for me to explain, but I naturally feel it whenever I watch it.

And that's not even getting into the language of fairy tales and fantasy stories, often laden with symbolism and metaphors and such, which are also on their own wavelength entirely. I feel, when you try to take all of that so literally, to make it "realistic" and feasible in another medium, let alone apply these ideas completely to *real life* itself... you're breaking it apart and overdressing it. Hiding its unique essence, ripping it away even. The fantasy element is dialed down, which kind of takes away from the whole appeal?

As I get older and I really try to nail how I write fantasy stories myself, I find the connection between this kind of fantasy and reality fascinating, how they in different ways inform each other. Not in the sorta "cute" ways that you can put into a neat little box ("Disney movies once taught me-"), but much more complex than that.

I'd say in terms of a recent live-action fantasy movie, one of the most interesting was David Lowery's THE GREEN KNIGHT, an adaptation of Arthurian legend, which really embraced a kind of lyricism and dream-like logic that you don't often see these days. Even in mainstream animated movies that favor talking heads scripting over this kind of thing. Naturally, it was "confusing" for some. I know I was kinda lost when I first saw it, but I couldn't stop thinking of the intricate texture of the piece after I left the theater. It's a feat when a movie of any kind can preserve that onscreen, not what was only in the text.

Of course, a classic animated movie isn't immune to criticism, but sometimes I think a lot of what I see written online is done out of misunderstanding of the animation medium (does that peer pressure from when they were 10 years old still linger in their heads?), and there's a lack of media literacy there as well. As if the CinemaSins crew are in charge here, nitpicking small things that don't matter while missing the much bigger picture. Animation and fantasy like this require a nuanced perspective to dig in, I feel.

Animation itself, when executed like this, is just really on a whole other field... And those who dig the films so much, I feel they naturally get it and don't knock the movies for these perceived "issues". Nor make rash generalizations about a whole body of work, which is also common with some folks who talk a good show about Disney animated movies. Even Disney themselves, which is always concerning, but this is nothing new. As far back as the late '80s/early '90s, various people who worked for them or on their movies echoed these kinds of weird reductionist sentiments, too... And I feel it really all boils down to... These movies are animated. Thus shallow, for children, lacking, without much substance...

If not that, then I feel it's a misunderstanding of how these outlandish stories work and what level they are on... Almost like it's being reduced to a "that was weird!" MCU-level joke, or- Again, fodder for CinemaSins or some garden variety Nostalgia Critic-style video.

[sylwanin-was-right]

Cant remember where I saw it but I remember reading that someone didnt care for the first Avatar movie that much because the last half of it was just an action movie. They really enjoyed the beginning because it was a lot of immersive worldbuilding and speculative biology that was very well fleshed out, believable, and visually stunning due to the cutting edge CGI. Their personal gripe about the action-centered theme toward the end was, of course, personal bias because I remember they mentioned action movies werent their thing anyway. But I havent stopped thinking about their critque because its very considerable.

I personally enjoyed most of Avatar, including parts of the action toward the end, but I can see where they were coming from. A fast-paced, thrill and action-centered plot can remove an audience from the world it takes place in, and that can be really dissatifying for a sci-fi story, let alone a story so depednent on ethical, spiritual, and social themes.

Sometimes when I'm watching action, it can feel as if the world around is oversimplified, and primarly used as obstacle. On one hand it makes sense because you cant expend too much runntime to just "slice of life" sequences, expounding upon every detail of lore introduced can be unnecessary (thats what merch and fandom are for), and making the choreograohy and interactions of characters too uncoordinated can seem really awkward and unintentional (your watching a film, not a series of home videos). The characters movements, interactions, and the way they navigate their world needs to be as visually satisfying and engaging as narratively pleasing for placement of storytelling devices.

But whats supposed to be an alien forest may become a blur of the same green bushes and trees in Earth that make you forget youre on another planet when a character spends too long running through them to escape or hide; a complex ship turms into long hallway or single room with random arrangements when characters need to battle or be put through obstacles. Continuity of time can be contradicted and details about the world can seem more artifically exploited than happenstance when worldbuilding is neglected for action sequences.

Although the runntime for the film is speculated over 3hrs, its only a little longer than the last. And alhough we got to see a large portion of worldbuilding and lore the first time, we also saw a lot of action centered scenes that were used to progress the story and take the characters where they needed to be for it rather than flesh out details about lore, like history of Toruk Makto or cultural practices of the Omatikaya (that werent just a short montage sequence lol). It sometimes led to signficiant, unanswered questions about the flora, fauna (why were the Ikranay so skittish against a few Na'vi on the mountain but then suddenly fearless against RDA ships and missles just bc "Eywa", etc), and even the Na'vi themselves that felt too convenient for the story and 2-dimentional for the characters (why was Neytiri so romantically interested in someone who was clearly affiliated w the same people who killed her sister, etc).

Basically what I'm saying is I'm a little worried AWOW might take a similar direction with the plot where we're not given enough intimacy with the Pandora and Na'vi cultures in priority of action and thrill. While the movie is supposed to be a sci-fi thriller, its still sci-fi, and we've only seen a fraction of Pandora and the Na'vi. People clearly care about Pandora and the Na'vi, so while this story will need to be character driven, they will embark on new biomes, meet new people, and have new conflicts that people will want to immerse themselves in as if real. But I still worry AWOW will rely too much on visual sensation and narratively convenient tropes because this movie is also a tech showcase in a way, since the novelty of water-mocap is a large part of the anticipation.

I want to see the Avatar sequels as character driven as they are Pandora-driven, if that makes sense, because the Avatar universe is what made the first movie so memorable despite its lackluster plot. So while action, imo, is an important story and film element, I, too hope it doesnt smother time for intimacy with Pandora and the Na'vi.

[icewindandboringhorror]

Other Misc. Rambling Thoughts on the topic:

(~ !!!!!!!!! if you're just reblogging this post for the Poll section, please reblog the original post without this addition* lol. ~)

(*not that there's anything super personal or weird about the addition, just that it's meant to be kind of casual Side Commentary, not really part of the Main Point Of The Poll, so it would feel kind of weird for it to be emphasized by being included in reblogs unless the reblogs were explicitly about the side commentary, etc..... if that makes sense.. ANYWAY!)

It's neat to read the written descriptions that people are mentioning in the tags, since it's almost like I can see or conceptualize the idea as well, but it's just.. I'm not SEEING it.

Like for example: I can imagine a vase, it's a muted mint green and slightly translucent, elaborate golden birds sprawled down the side in streaks of thin rough watery paint, the base material shimmers gently in the light, there's a small chip where it's cracked on the handle, etc, etc. .. But as I'm thinking about this I see literally nothing.

It seems like perhaps some people can visualize an object first, and THEN describe what they see. But I sort of work backwards. I am building the object in my mind, I can never see it, but it's a collection of concepts. Rather than visualizing all details as a whole at once, I am adding each detail one by one, building onto the IDEA of the thing.

The vase doesn't have a crack on the handle because I just automatically visualized a vase with a crack. It was more that I cognitively understand the concept of a vase, what they tend to be made out of, how they tend to look and feel, the properties they have. So based purely on that knowledge, I can imagine "a chip is something that a vase could have, it would look this way and behave this way" - more like... I'm constructing a bullet point Fact List about the object rather than seeing it.

So if you tell me to imagine an object, I can, in a way, imagine that object in great detail, but it's just.. I'm not SEEING those details, more just knowing it's qualities in a purely conceptual way. Sometimes in the tags when people are like "yeah I can see the skin of the apple, texture, little dots on the surface" it's like… I can imagine that too, I can know it's there, but just with no visual attached.

I guess rather than SEEING something and going ''ah. I know what this looks like because I have seen it''. I more just skip that visual step entirely and go ''I know what this looks like, I just randomly have a list of information about the concept in my mind.'' etc. Maybe similar to how sometimes in dreams, even though a house may look completely different and be in an entirely fake 'dreamlike' environment, you just somehow KNOW intuitively that it's meant to be your childhood home or something. Even when it looks nothing like it in reality. There's a built-in base knowledge of the properties or information of some things within a dreaming mind, etc.

--

This also makes me wonder about like.. how storytelling and myth is so important to cultures all across time. Or how this could tie also into concepts of religion.. etc. etc. If so many people really can kind of conjure these vivid images in their mind, then maybe that's part of why certain things are so meaningful to them? Like a "religious experience" being something you can actually really SEE/feel/lingering with you in your head, rather than just abstract words on a page, detached purely theoretical ideas, etc... hmmm

.

Plus also just for average emotional stuff too, even outside of broader cultural conceptual attachments..

Like, I don't think there's a direct 1 to 1 link (obviously not all people with mental illnesses that significantly reduce their emotional or expressive capacity also MUST have aphantasia or vice versa), but it's interesting as someone who DOES also have a much more lessened emotional range/pretty flat affect/etc. etc. to think like.. Maybe I WOULD be more emotional, in a way, if I could have these vivid experiences..?

Perhaps memories would hold deeper significance if they could really stay with me vividly. Or storytelling would evoke more of a deep emotional reaction to me if I could really picture and feel the things that are going on. If things were more TANGIBLE in my brain, rather than always merely conceptual highly abstracted ideas.

Kind of like, it's probably easier to get over the death of a pet or something, if after not seeing them for an hour you already don't remember what they looked like (beyond just a vague fact list of traits), and you have no vivid memories or mental reminders of them (beyond just factual information stores). COGNTIVIELY you can appreciate the idea of their absence, of course, you still miss them, but there's just no remaining visceral sensory ties. A very "out of sight, out of mind" sort of thing in terms of attachments, memories, emotions, etc. Maybe certain things are easier to "get over", when you're not having constant mental sensory reminders that occasionally rekindle your feelings about the event or etc.??

(like for example, maybe someone could remain angry about an argument longer if they could vividly replay it in their head over and over again. VS just like.. 'Yes I can factually recall the fact I had an argument, and I do have knowledge stored about what precisely was said, but any sort of sensory data such as sights/smells/feelings, etc. from the actual moment of the event are long gone and can never be conjured again in my mind." etc.)

Which again, I think lessened emotional permanence and image permanence in the mind are NOT inherently linked, can all be caused by different things for different people. And, since I can't visualize anything in my head, maybe I'm misunderstanding how it happens and the effect it may have on stuff like remembering things you miss or replaying arguments, etc. etc. But it's still a little interesting to think about, if they could influence each other to some degree.... :0c --

Lastly, It's also weird because I'm actually pretty good at estimating distance and spaces? I can quickly assemble furniture without an instruction manual, pretty easily have a concept of how much space a chair may take up in a room, how two mechanical parts might fit together - BUT, I am literally not actually visualizing anything. I cannot see 3D objects in my mind at ALL. It's like.. just based on the pure List Of Facts About Things Which I Have Observed.. I can intuitively go "oh this works like this/this is this size" just because.. I know it's that size. I don't have to see anything to know..?

But then on the other hand, I'm terrible at directions without a map (I guess because a 3d outdoor environment has WAY more complexity than like.. "Will this square fit into another square?"etc. lol ).

BUT, I also draw/sculpt/etc. entirely without references, and seem to do mostly okay at that..? Like.. I can't even remember the last time I actually used a reference or looked at anything whilst drawing. It's all muscle memory, and me just adjusting as I go until something "looks right" on paper, I never have a set image in my head (or external reference) before hand.. Hrmm....

AND.. I used to say that I had a photographic memory when I was younger, which I know NOW is not true (I always thought it was just an expression, not that people could literally see things in a photographic way). But what I was describing is, I do often associate information with imagery, just... without imagery....

Like "Oh, I know that I took my medicine earlier today because I have a distinct memory, a snapshot of a moment in time, of me rattling the pill bottle in my hands as I looked up at a stop sign while in the back seat of a car". When I say this, I can't ACTUALLY see/feel/hear a pill bottle, or vividly picture a stop sign, but it's more just a factual recall, of. Even though I don't see these things, I know they happened, the information of them happening (me hearing a sound and also looking at a stop sign at the same time) has been stored in my brain as a memory, a collection of linked facts. --

As for other senses, I cannot taste or feel anything in my head AT ALL.. wild that some people mention that. I mean, again, I can have a purely factual recall as if reading a textbook, knowing the information of 'X item typically has X texture, therefore I can imagine what it may be like to feel it' or 'X usually has this taste' etc. - but I can never actually experience those senses in any capacity in my mind alone. I would say audio is my strongest mental sense (maybe a 2.5 or 3 (if it were translated onto the above scale where 1 is most vivid and 5 is nothing)), then visual (4.5 at most, usually 5), and then taste and smell and such are just complete 5, absolutely nothing, I didn't even know people could experience taste or feeling just in their mind alone.. lol...

I know this is just a silly bad quality random screencap of a screencap that I found on facebook lol, BUT it's a succinct enough image to easily describe the concept in a quick/accessible way hopefully :

-

(and of course, feel free to elaborate in tags, etc.! (especially elaborating about other senses as well.. can you "hear" in your mind just as well as you can "see"? taste? etc.) It's an interesting topic to me, as someone who's like a 4.5 at MOST lol. I'm curious what option will be the most common :0c )

[byleranalysis]

THIS! READ THE TWITTER THREAD BEFORE THE REST: credit to @anironnn for posting this thread first!

Out of all the evidence, the cinematography for Will and Mike is so intentional, you can’t ignore it. Because film is so unique in that it is a visual medium, what you see is more important than what is said. (Ex: There is a common phrase in film which says “show, don’t tell”).

Behind every shot are storyboards, mood boards, shot lists, scripts, etc, that go into every scene. Not only this, but meeting after meeting with directors, DPs, creative directors, costume designers, prop masters, that are held to finalize a shot/scene in order to convey the visual story. Because, like I said, in film, it’s the most important aspect + (it’s drilled into at film school’s like Chapman, to “show, don’t tell”. )

(+ it takes 2 years to make a new season, not because of filming, but because the planning process is such a big deal with tv) (also, CGI but like still).

Many of the points this Twitter user points out, are not theories that are rarely used or stretches. If you are not well-versed in film theory or whatever, the rule of thirds and golden ratio? Those are like, things you write about in an essay for freshmen year. Along with color theory. It’s such an inherent basic storytelling device in film that it’s generally used in film schools as an intro into the importance of the camera perspective/storytelling. This isn’t a stretch. It’s something that was most definitely delved into and talked about with in meetings with the Duffer Brothers.

Not to mention, the use of yellow and blue is not a coincidence either. Maybe, it is just to have a pretty color scheme. That’s completely understandable. However, it’s used in so much more than just a few scenes, I find it hard that it was just to be pretty when you have a massive team and budget working on ST.

Anyways, what I am trying to say is, the visual storytelling of a big budget Netflix show is extremely important. Plus, with directors who went to film school (not that that makes them better, but it’s an important difference) where visual storytelling and analyzing films is a daily exercise? It would be odd for them to not use that knowledge going forward.

Long story short, the visual components with Mike and Will are so inherently ingrained in this show, I definitely think the Duffer Brothers/the crew are trying to convey more than what you hear. Again, film schools no. 1 saying “show, don’t tell”. (Which like, that + madonna’s monologue is an interesting ironic take away if you view it as such)

- from a fellow film student