#i know that his character is much more nuanced than that

[lemotmo]

I have never sent you one of these before so I hope I did it correctly. I found this very helpful because I also don't always understand the nuance or subtlety of a scene. Glad to know it's not just me.

Q. I'm not sure if you can even do this but I have autism and I struggle immensely with understanding subtext, framing, sarcasm and anything else really that I'm supposed to be able to pick up on in media. The direct dialogue or action in a scene tends to be what I take as fact. I understand that's not the case and things are always there that aren't being spoken or directly stated. Can you try to explain the Buddie stuff that points to them going canon? I want it but I don't know how to spot those clues. Does this even make sense? Please feel free to ignore this if it's not something that's explainable.

A. Hi, anon. Your question makes perfect sense and I am more than willing to try and see if I can explain or offer some context into some of the scenes. I have a friend who has Asperger's and he struggles with all these things as well so we try to explain things to him as often as he needs. For the sake of length, and not wanting to make this thread too long to keep up with, I will relegate my examples to a few things from seasons 7 and 8 only. Otherwise we would be here all day. I will start with episode 7x4 because that's the episode that is most widely misinterpreted.

As everyone now knows the episode ended with Tommy kissing Buck, keep in mind that we had spent the entirety of the episode up to that point watching Buck apparently being jealous because Eddie was spending time with another guy. The direct dialogue of the scene leading up to the kiss, when Buck tells Tommy that trying to get his attention had been exhausting, is the argument people use to show that the episode was really about Tommy. But Tommy himself doesn't believe that. The audience sees Tommy surprised by that statement, because he was also aware Buck was bothered by Eddie spending time with him, but he clearly thought Buck was bothered for the same reason the audience thought Buck was bothered, because he wasn't the one Eddie was spending time with. That's why Tommy responds with a confused/surprised "Me"? The episode played very much like Buck was jealous of Tommy NOT Eddie. The most obvious example of this was the scene in the firehouse when Eddie is on the phone in the locker room and Buck is trying to get his attention while working out. The show never tells us who Eddie is actually talking too. We don't know who's on the other end of the conversation, neither does Buck. The only thing Buck sees is Eddie laughing and having a good time while ignoring him. Tommy wasn't at the firehouse so he was never going to see Buck trying to show off around the weight room and Amazon priming a basketball to himself so he could pretend he was interested in something he knew Eddie was interested in. The other interesting thing about that episode was the way Eddie was framed, in other words shot and filmed, throughout. He was consistently lit in golden/sunlight, colors associated with warmth and happiness/joy. Tim made a point of telling everyone that the episode was from Buck's perspective which means that's how Buck sees Eddie. Buck associates Eddie with happiness and warmth and joy. The joy theme is important to remember because it comes back into play during season 8. I'm not in any way suggesting that once Buck became aware of his male attraction that he didn't find Tommy attractive, he clearly did in some capacity. But it is not out of character for Buck to over correct himself in the wrong direction. Both times he asked his partners to move in with him were direct results of his belief that he needed to make up for some wrong he had done to them. He asked Taylor to move in with him after he kissed Lucy and he asked Tommy to move in with him after his reaction to the Abby news, and Josh's speech about what they owed the older queer community. Josh said many things in that speech, a speech I did not love, but he said many things and it was telling that the only part of that speech that seemed to register with Buck where Tommy was concerned was the part about what they owed to the community that came before them. It was wrong to ask on both occasions. Taylor said yes. Tommy said no. We will get back to the Tommy one shortly but those are perfect examples of Buck over correcting himself in the wrong direction in order to avoid dealing with the actual issues.

When we arrive at season 8 we get the scene of Buck hearing all the different noise and static in his head when he's trying to calm himself down while Gerard is yelling. The only voice that is clear and audible for the audience is Eddie's voice. Eddie's voice is the one used to calm and recenter Buck. It was an intentional choice to make it Eddie's voice. not his boyfriends voice but Eddie's voice. Episode 8x6 was the biggie though. The episode is titled Confessions. It was the only episode of the season so far where Buck and Eddie didn't say a single word to one another, but I'll come back to that. Eddie was the focus of that episode, it is important to note that episodes 7x4 and 8x6 were directed by the same man. It was intentional on the show's part for these two episodes to sync in some capacity. They have kept the Buck storyline and the Eddie storyline linked since the beginning of season 7. Their storylines are connected. We see Eddie at the juice bar pick up a bottle of juice and hand it to the cashier. He changes his mind though and swaps it out for a bottle of water (a good note to have here is that in the first episode when the crew is running the stairs Buck is holding a bottle of juice, not water, once they make it to the roof). Father Brian watches this interaction and decides he wants to talk to Eddie. We then see Eddie sitting outside at a table, with plenty of empty tables around him, but Father Brian asked if he could join him anyway. Father Brian attempts small talk, and Eddie, unprompted, tells him, 'sorry, I'm straight'. This is not something television has straight characters do. It's not necessary to declare your heterosexuality. In fact it is far more common for television to use dialogue like that to foreshadow a sexuality realization for that character. It is a very common beginning to a sexuality arc. Father Brian then wants to know why Eddie swapped his juice for the water. Eddie tells him he felt like water instead and Father Brian then equates Eddie denying himself the juice as a way of denying himself joy. He tells Eddie that he's punishing himself. Then they talk about why Eddie has the mustache. Eddie tells him he wanted a full beard but the LAFD doesn't allow full beards. A very interesting conversation indeed for a character who has just explicitly stated that he's straight. We all know the term 'beard' and its history within the queer community. Father Brian then tells Eddie to do one thing that brings him joy. That entire scene was written like foreshadowing. I will skip ahead now to Buck and Tommy's break up. Tommy explains to Buck that at some point he is going to figure out what it is that he really wants and even though he won't mean to, he will hurt Tommy once he figures that out. Tommy has known since 7x4 that something is there for Buck where Eddie is concerned. But he also knows Buck is not ready for that realization yet. He makes a point of telling Buck that he's his first not his last. They also made a point of having Buck say sometimes those can be the same, meaning your first can be your last. Tommy says sometimes that can be true but not most of the time. Meaning there is an exception to that rule. The right person can be your first and your last. Tommy was not the right person. Fast forward to Eddie shaving off his mustache and doing his risky business dance.

Buck goes to Eddie following the breakup. Eddie answers the door in his underwear and he and Buck do not speak. Buck holds up a beer bottle and walks in. They don't talk. They sit on the couch in silence drinking their beers. That is the final shot of the episode. An episode entitled Confessions, and the only episode of the season where Buck and Eddie don't say a single word to one another. Again the framing of that scene is also important because of what surrounds them in the scene. Buck and Eddie are on the couch. It's right it's where they belong but the timing is not right. The blurry picture of Christopher between them on the table behind them is intentional. Christopher is missing from their little unit. Then there's the picture of Texas on the wall behind Eddie. Texas, and everything it represents for Eddie, looms over them. Those are the obstacles that have to be dealt with first. They existed in that shot because Buck, and especially Eddie, cannot escape them. They have to be dealt with and fixed first. They didn't talk because they have things they need to do first.

The last shot of the mid season finale being Buck sitting alone on the Diaz couch was also foreshadowing. Eddie is going to Texas. Yes, that scene also indicated that Buck is finally at a place where he won't be able to ignore or misinterpret his feelings for Eddie any longer. Eddie isn't there yet. Texas has to be dealt with first. Therefore Eddie couldn't be physically on the couch with him in that scene because Eddie has to leave first. Eddie has to be the one person who leaves Buck and chooses to come back to Buck.

I hope this made sense, anon. It was still longer than I anticipated. Please feel free to ask me anything at any time. I am more than happy to try and explain something as best as I can, if I can. I have no idea if this was helpful but I hope you were able to get something out of it. 🩷

Thank you Nonny! This is lovely!

Such a great breakdown of the overarching Buddie storyline for Buck and Eddie. Such a great resource for people who have trouble recognising subtext and nuance in a storyline.

I am going to add my own breakdown of the entire last Buddie scene of episode 8x08. Right after it aired someone with autism contacted me with the question if I could break that specific scene down for them.

You can find it here: breakdown of 8x08 final Buddie scene

If anyone ever needs more help in this department, feel free to send an ask. Just like Ali, I'd be happy to try and explain what the viewer is meant to take away from a scene.

Heads up! For anyone who is giving me the shifty eyes for reposting Ali's updates instead of reblogging. Read this.

Remember, no hate in comments, reblogs or inboxes. Let's keep it civil and respectful. Thank you.

If you are interested in more of Ali’s posts, you can find all of her posts so far under the tag: anonymous blog I love.

[ittybittyremy]

I really hate the use of the word "hypocrite" in the CR fandom because it doesn't let people appreciate the nuances of the characters/situations. This is not to say that the characters don't have their hypocritical moments. I just think there are people who slap the word on a character and call it a day, not even bothering to try to understand it.

I have more to say but TLDR: Hypocrisy is a fact but it feels like an insult because it implies that there is no reason that the contrast of ideas exists.

You won't like to hear this but everybody (including you) is/will be a hypocrite at some point. There are many cases of this, some more severe than others.

As a small example, I hate the sound of other people clicking their pens repeatedly but I click my pen repeatedly all the time. Is that hypocritical? Yes! You could slap that label call it that and call it a day and it wouldn't be technically wrong. However, you could also figure out why these contrasts exist. In my case, my thing with noises has to do with control. I don't mind my pen clicking because I can choose the tempo and decide when to stop it. But others make that exact same noise, I can't control it and I don't know when it'll stop.

Hypocrisy is a fact but it feels like an insult because it implies that there is no reason that the contrast of ideas exists.

This is not meant to say that all hypocrisy makes sense or has reason. Reasonless hypocrisy is one of the foundations of prejudice/discrimination but that's a whole other conversation.

There will also be reasons of hypocrisies existing that you disagree with. However, just because you disagree with the reason doesn't mean that the reason does not exist.

Back to Critical Role

I made this post because of people's reactions to Ashton regarding their views on the gods versus the primordials. During the CR Cooldown, the cast calls Asthon out for their hypocrisy of their views on the gods versus the titans. This is what Taliesin says about it:

"It's the difference between the feeling of being small in front of someone rather than being small in front of everything. Is really what happened, which is instead of having the smallness and raging at the big person, it was 'I'm in the middle of this.' [Asthon] didn't feel separated from it... It was more feeling the place in the cosmos, rather than actual people going 'oh it's you' and you're like 'fuck'."

Of course, you can understand Ashton’s hypocrisy and disagree with the reasoning. That's fine, as long as you see their reasons and acknowledge that they exist. It may not make sense to you but it makes sense to the character.

[dykedvonte]

One of my mutuals opinions is the "bro code" thing, that Curly is one of those guys who wouldn't care about the victim because the perpetrator is his friend and I'm really banging my head on the wall like that other anon. I've only played through the game once but Curly's behaviour/reactions etc read completely different from the "bro code" thing and I have to wonder if my mutual and I even played the same game.. like the constant digs at him from Jimmy, his body language in his face reveal and so on like you mentioned in your post. While this game is a little different obviously, it kind of reminded of a point in Alice Madness Returns that makes it very clear that Alice's pain blinded her to the abuse of the other children and her failure to act earlier because of it. Curly is guilty of a similar inaction but it doesn't change the fact he was a victim of Jimmy too. I don't think I can look at it any other way because both of these games have really stuck with me.

I genuinely think it really is the idea that people want a simple easy to blame problem and the idea that the only relatable victims of abuse are those that "surpass" it or do a lot to help others. When it comes to victims, especially those that don't fit the typical demographics, who either accidently perpetuate it, enable it or aren't ideal in some way shape or form, people jump to ignore what they went through as it's easier than dealing with those conflicting sentiments.

The bro-code conversation in Mouthwashing stems from a concept I generally dislike that there had to be something about Curly that made him meet or keep being friends with someone like Jimmy. I think people genuinely underestimate how many like decent and good people just know an asshole or are friends with someone who is really bad outside of their view/established dynamics. The game makes it clear none of the inaction against Jimmy is because of a lack of care, it is a lack of understanding from the privaleged postions they have as men to not have to worry about what Anya does/went through and the type of extremes men like Jimmy will go through to cover it up. They are all too preoccupied in their own strifes.

Another thing I see being oversaturated the idea that you have to be a freak, misanthrope or have a disorder to do the thing Jimmy does. The game is an escalation, it's a spiral that I don't see people comment on that Jimmy was not likely having the mood swings and episodes of rage/frustration we were seeing in the game. This is after they all start experiencing the worst moments in their lives that he got THAT openly bad. Of course, this is just my interpretation but much like in real life, people that go to extremes like that usually live mundane lives. It's a pressure cooker affect to where the stress made them pop. It's self inflicted but still the case.

I really think people need to be more willing to acknowledge that not everything needs to be an extreme or in black and white or easy to understand. It doesn't need to be happy or have an answer or solution, especially in the cases where the abused sadly helps perpetuate what they experience. It's not he should've known better from experience or shouldn't he have known what could've happened because victims tend to not like to think in matters of the worst. Not to mention, especially in cases of abuse where it feels so personally directed that you don't expect to happen to someone else.

[mephoj]

taco and mephone have fascinating parallels more people could explore if taco haters weren't biased cowards

[mostlyvoid-partiallyflowers]

The most recent episode of Interview with a Vampire let's us see Lestat's side of the story and see how it compares to Louis' accounting of their relationship. As a result, it reaffirms just how unreliable of a narrator Louis is, but it also further illuminates elements of his character that the director and writers have been playing with since the beginning of the show.

There's this part in the episode where Lestat turns to Louis and apologizes and it's framed with Lestat turned to Louis on one side and Claudia on his other side. They're the angel and devil on Louis' shoulders, but who is the angel and who is the devil? And as my friend said, Armand and Daniel are placed into that same dynamic with Louis later on. We are being asked to decide who to trust, who's telling the truth, who's the good guy, but the fact of unreliability robs us of that decision.

This whole story is about Louis, he's the protagonist, though not the narrator, and he is constantly being pulled in two directions, no matter when or where he is in his story. He's a mind split in two, divided by nature and circumstance. He's vampire and human, owner and owned, father and child, angel and devil. He's both telling the story and being told the story. His history is a story he tells himself, and as we've seen, sometimes that story is not whole.

Louis is the angel who saved Claudia from the fire but he's also the devil who sentenced her to an life of endless torment, the adult trapped in the body of a child. He's the angel who rescued Lestat from his grief and also the devil who abandoned him, who couldn't love him, could only kill and leave him.

He's pulled in two directions, internally and externally at all times and so it's no wonder that he feels the need to confess, first to the priest, then Daniel, and then Daniel again.

He's desperate to be heard, a Black man with power in Jim Crow America who's controlled by his position as someone with a seat at the table but one who will never be considered equal. He doesn't belong to the Black community or the white community, he can't. He acts as a go-between, a bridge, one who is pushed and pulled until he can't take it anymore. He's a fledgling child to an undead father, he's a young queer man discovering his sexual identity with an infinitely experienced partner. He's confessing because he wants to be absolved, that human part of him that was raised Catholic, that child who believed, he wants to be saved. He wants to be seen.

Louis wants to attain a forever life that is morally pure, but he can't. He's been soiled by sin, by "the devil," as he calls Lestat, and he can never be clean again. Deep down, I think he knows this, but he can't stop trying to repent. He tries to self-flagellate by staying with Lestat and then tries to repent by killing him, but can't actually follow through. He follows Claudia to Europe to try and assuage his guilt. He sets himself on fire, attempts to burn himself at the stake, to purify his body, rid himself of the dark gift.

Louis is a man endlessly trying to account for the pain he has caused and he ultimately fails, over and over again, because he can't get rid of what he is. A monster. He's an endlessly hungry monster. He's hungry for love, for respect, for power, for forgiveness, for death. He's a hole that can never be filled. He can never truly acquire any of those things because he will always be punishing himself for wanting and needing them in the first place. He will never truly believe he deserves them and as a result, can't accept them if they are ever offered. He can never be absolved for he has damned himself by accepting the dark gift and thus has tainted himself past the point of saving.

[makotonaegiunderstander]

something I’ve been thinking abt is how many people think Makoto is immune to despair. I don’t think he is. I think becoming the ultimate Hope was BECAUSE he felt despair. He wouldn’t have fully reached that point without Junko. Makoto becoming such a beacon was his last attempt to avoid completely falling and it wasn’t because he didn’t feel despair, it was because he was too damn stubborn to allow everything to go to waste and he refused to sacrifice his beliefs for someone else’s. His inner monologue tells me he DID experience the same new low the other suvivors did in the final trial, but at the point where he had the choice to give up and die, he looked at the others and he looked at Junko and he couldn’t allow it to happen, not out of self preservation, but because the idea that Junko would have control over their lives made him FURIOUS. and that utter refusal to die kicked in, wether luck or otherwise, and he made the concious effort for one last push while something in him was breaking. He had to be broken in order for the Ultimate Hope to come through so aggressively, bc it could only exist in the face of the Ultimate Despair. He snapped the same way she did, but in the other direction. In what could have been his final moments he chose to embody everything Junko wasn’t, and every single optimistic and luck fueled ideal in him suddenly charged forward and pushed him. It was a combination of the final straw and a choice. Makoto isn’t immune to feeling despair, he’s just too stubborn to fall into it of his own volition. I think that’s why I like that scene in DR3 so much. People were SO SHOCKED Makoto actually fell for the tape, that he actually became despair for a moment. I saw people getting mad or disappointed, saying it was pathetic and Makoto seemed to fall from some sort of pedestal for them. Honestly part of me wonders if that sort of mentality, which clearly people had in universe, affected Makoto a bit. Like he started to see himself as less of a person, subconsciously. Prompting him to take more risks, less self preservation, act way more bold. It seems he has to be reminded a lot not to put himself in danger by his friends, to not do something too reckless. All over the place I would see in regards to that scene either this frivolous ‘oh this was just angst drama with no meaning behind it’ or ‘he can do better than that. he’s so weak’ or ‘come on, there’s no way he’d fall into despair, he’s the Ultimate Hope!’ This kind of mentality, which was kind of ironic considering Ryota was there the entire time saying the same thing and treating Makoto the same way. Like Makoto was superhuman. Like Makoto didn’t feel despair the same way ‘normal people’ did. In a way that was also how Munakata saw Makoto. Makoto stopped being a PERSON to the world when he became Ultimate Hope, he became a concept, a belief system, much the same way Junko ascended beyond herself. But the difference is that treating Makoto that way is the opposite of the reason Makoto became such a representative for hope. He wasn’t doing something no one else could. He was doing something everyone had the chance to, he just… was a little more optimistic, a little more stubborn, a little more ‘gung-ho’ about things. He just took the lead where no one else did, where no one else knew they even COULD in the face of Junko’s unstoppable force. She had overcome the biggest threats and obstacles in the world, what could one person do? And the answer Makoto found was, anything. Everything. It doesn’t all rest on Makoto, he’s just the one that was inspired to try to do what seemed like the impossible. But as evidenced by the change in his friends after that trial, it’s clearly not something only Makoto is capable of. The others pulled out of despair thanks to Makoto, but it was their choice to do so.

“But… this world is so huge, and we’re so small. What can we do…? No, we can probably do anything. Yeah! We can do anything!”

[butwhatifidothis]

Still baffled that Hopes so blatantly wrote Claude as the typical Evil Vaguely Middle Eastern Man set on destroying the Good White Nation for his Evil Vaguely Middle Eastern Nation that is often seen in fantasy settings - complete with him being seen as worse than a white woman who does many of the same evil deeds he does in-verse, even by his friends (should it be the bad ending route of SB) - and so many in the fandom were so eager to gobble that shit up. INSIST that "Clearly A Racist Stereotype" is LEAGUES better than "Subversion Of A Racist Stereotype" even. Like I don't think I'll ever get over how supremely fucked that is

[iguessitsjustme]

*takes you by the hand as gently as I can*

You can dislike Maya without turning her into a one dimensional villain that serves no purpose to the story.

You can dislike Maya without disparaging the story and message the show is trying to convey.

You can hate Maya without moralizing your hatred. You can just hate her. It’s okay.

[shaolin-spin-doctor]

not sure if this is a hot take but. imo. Fire God Liu Kang kinda sucks and it's the worst direction NRS could've taken his character in tbh

[seventh-district]

not even gonna tag this properly bc i don't wanna get Involved but i do have some Thoughts i need to get out into the void so here we go

(aaa quick edit: CW for mention/discussion of Boothill leaks)

[sskk-manifesto]

Ep 5!!!

[quietwingsinthesky]

Do you agree w/ the fandom interpretation that john was so homophobic he’d have beaten up and abandoned his sons for being gay? Cause sure, he grew up in the 60s as a mechanic and then later became a marine during the vietnam war, but i also don’t think homophobia would’ve necessarily been a priority for him? Like obviously he’s not gonna be the full on supportive and politically correct loving dad, but i think that the fandom’s general opinion on that is pretty warped by people’s relationships w/ their own fathers

I do think this is one place where people tend to project. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that; working out our issues through fiction is healthy and good! I don’t think there’s any canon proof of it beyond, as you said, him being a marine from the sixties who would probably not be super knowledgeable about being queer, maybe a little apprehensive about it from what he’s absorbed through the culture he grew up in. I think we’d be correct to point out that if Sam or Dean were queer, he might be uncomfortable about it, he might try to avoid the topic, which is in of itself hurtful.

The thing about me is: I fully disagree that John was ever physically abusive towards his kids. At most, I will bend this interpretation to say he was probably too harsh on them while teaching them to fight and that maybe he and Sam have traded blows before when arguments got too loud (by blows, I mean, probably shoving with the yelling, you know, assertion of physical space. It seems realistic to me that two people who have been using violence for a long time to protect themselves, and for John, his family, down to the hierarchal power he’s put in place of him -> Dean -> Sam, would resort to it when things got too heated.)

(I also think that sometimes fandom’s insistence that John had to be physically abusive can sometimes get a little insulting because it perpetuates the idea that emotional abuse does less harm and can be overlooked and for flattening out John’s character in a way the show very literally pointed to and said He Did Not Do That. This is the entire point of Max’s episode in s1, for the show to point out that their experiences of abuse were different. How well it was handled is arguable, but I take it as clear evidence that when we talk about John’s relationship with his sons, the focus should be on the emotional abuse, the codependency he developed with Dean from a very young age, his neglect of them both, his attempts to suppress Sam, etc. And I appreciate this about the show, because you can’t talk about any of those things without also talking about why they’re happening, why John thinks this is necessary, how he loves his sons and isolates them to protect them and ends up doing more and more damage that will never leave them through their entire lives.

I’m sure there’s depictions of John being physically abusive that handle it with the same amount of nuance that the show handles him being emotionally abusive in canon. I have not seen them, unfortunately. I’ve seen John being physically abusive 90% of the time just being used as shorthand for him being Bad and Evil and A Terrible Father. Which does not interest me. So I will remain here as a staunch defender of He Would Not Fucking Hit His Kids.)

Sorry, okay, we got off topic there this is about gay shit.

The point of All Of That was for me to be able to say, John’s not going to react to his sons being queer by beating them. He’s definitely not going to abandon them. Hello? John Winchester? Abandon his kids? John Winchester, the guy who has been keeping them in warded up motel rooms their whole lives and moving them across the country out of paranoia the demon who killed his wife could find them if they say anywhere too long? John Winchester who only trusted one or two people to ever look after his sons when he went on a hunting trip too long? We think that John would ditch his kid because they’re queer???

Like I said, I think the most realistic reaction for John, (if not just flat out him going ‘that’s fine, now load this gun while I time you because that’s more important for me to know that you can do’, because. He kind of has bigger priorities to worry about here. Like werewolves.) would be discomfort and pushing it out of his view, ignoring it. Which would still fucking hurt! And would have horrible effects on Sam and Dean both, would encourage Dean to repress it if he thinks his dad is ashamed of him, would push Sam away if he trusts John with this fact about himself and can’t be accepted easily.

I just think this is truer to John’s character.

Anyway. If nothing else here persuades anyone reading that John Would Not Fucking Do That, well. He thought his kid was demonspawn, remember? He thought Sam was corrupted and might not be able to be saved. I don’t think you can get more clear queercoding than that, and you know what John’s very telling response was to that information, to finding out something a thousand times more terrifying than Sam being gay ever could be? To refuse to look at it. To insist to himself that whatever Hell wanted with Sam, he wouldn’t let it happen. To tell Dean to take care of it, because even when John is certain that his son might literally become a demon, he could never bring himself to pull the trigger on him. Because he loves Sam.

So like. He literally would not do anything for the much smaller realization that Sam is gay. His son has demon blood that might turn him super evil, and John still wouldn’t hurt him.

I guess what I’m trying to say here is, I try to keep the fact that John loved his sons at the forefront of my mind when I’m writing stuff about him, because I think if you let that slide out of your head, you can very easily make him much worse, much more flat than he was in canon. The real picture of him is just an extremely flawed man in a terrible situation who fucks up his kids as much as he protects them.

And also he wouldn’t care about them being gay because JohnAzazel real and true and they fucked sloppy in that hospital basement-

[apocalypse-boogie]

I gotta be honest, I don’t engage with the Criminal Minds fandom (despite having watched all of the original show + Evolution and read up on as much of the spin-offs as I could) because I don’t like how prevalent the racism and sexism and infantilization is in the fandom. There’s just enough of all that shit upfront that I don’t want to dig any deeper than I already have. I’m good, I get enough of that shit in fandoms that I’ve been apart of for years I’m not gonna let this shit sully my love for this show anymore than it already has (especially considering the show’s writing itself is not devoid of these faults).

I’d rather just love the show and dissect it and write analysis and fanfic for it and shit on my own.

My fav characters (just cause & kind of in best to least order): Penelope Garcia (she’s literally me, I love her), Derek Morgan, Emily Prentiss, Jordan Todd, Matt Simmons, David Rossi.

[dangerous-advantage]

thinking about how raph, april, and mikey are less focused on by the fandom than donnie and leo, the only two main characters in rottmnt with white voice actors

[kneworder]

this is so embarrassing. crying over the death of a chocolate bunny. i will miss the deeply untapped potential for his character arc and for zac oyama to get to excel at doing something way more interesting than what anyone else is doing. mister lapin i saw your political intrigue!!!!!!!!!!

[mariocki]

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)

"Jane, did you ever stop to think that... if anything happened to me, I mean anything bad, there wouldn't be any money for you? I wouldn't be here to sign the checks. You wouldn't even have pocket money. Did you ever think of that?"

"Yeah, I've thought about that."