#i like discussing the flaws and depths of characters

[lohstandfound]

ignore this.

learning to shut up when i dont have anything new to say to the discussions my mutuals are having about the treatment of the female characters in this show and fandom

even though ive just gone ahead and rambled in the tags a bunch of bullshit

[cenvast]

in regards to laios mispronouncing toshiro's name, colonial powers have been nonconsensually changing ethnic names to make them "easier" for white people to pronounce for centuries. erasing an individual's name erases their identity and their culture. it's a way of forcibly assimilating minorities into a dominant culture. while the island has not colonized wa or anything like that, toshiro is still an ethnic minority on the island. laios' inability to properly pronounce toshiro's japanese name but properly pronounce every other character's name (especially when many of them are western-inspired) demonstrates a racist imbalance of power

it's worth noting that toshiro is the only character whose name is consistently mispronounced in the story. laios mistakenly calling toshiro "shuro" is a significant detail in the narrative. it's more than a simple slip-up on laios' part but an indicator of a broader trend of ethnic names being "too strange" or "too difficult" for western/the island's society. instead of learning how to pronounce his name properly, society urges toshiro to accept an "easier" name. laios dubbing toshiro "shuro" is another way society others him

in the context of laios' (unintentionally) racist dehumanizing view of toshiro and how this colors their entire relationship, laios mispronouncing toshiro's name also exemplifies the racial issues at play in their relationship's dynamic

obviously, laios doesn't know that he's mispronouncing toshiro's name and toshiro doesn't correct him, but my points still stand. i'd also argue that toshiro isn't quite as bad at communicating as the fandom believes him to be. for example, he tells laios and marcille that he thinks ancient magic is a bad idea, and he confronts kabru about his motives in sealing the dungeon and working with the elves. toshiro mainly fails to address laios' microaggressions towards him, including laios mispronouncing his name. if toshiro didn't feel othered by the island's society for being eastern, he'd probably feel more comfortable bringing up his discomfort with laios' actions

an angel loses its wings every time a white person reblogs my laios-toshiro meta saying they don't believe laios doing x or y constitutes a racist microaggression or toshiro acts maliciously against laios but not vice versa (neither of them act with malicious intent imo)

i just ask that we think about the implications of what we're saying about race before we post it. none of us are perfect. we're all products of our own biases, which is exactly why we have to be extra careful when speaking outside of our lived experiences. please consider how you might be contributing to harmful racist dynamics when you reblog a post about the white consumption of asian cultures and the consquential dehumanization of asian people with a denial of racism or a bad faith reading of the asian man's but not the white man's actions

no one who did this is morally bankrupt or anything like that. i know none of you harbor ill intent, but this is just a request that we think about the broader sociohistorical context before we speak on race. if you're uncertain about something, take a moment to educate yourself first, and when you make a mistake, be willing to listen

[aroaceleovaldez]

The himbo, malewife, goofball -fication of percy jackson is such a crime by both the fans and riordan. It has made Mr not like percabeth as a couple because in all posts and in later books annabeth is such a girlboss, while Percy's dumb and can't fight his way out of a paperbag without her. All the posts are about how annabeth will be an architect and percy would love to be a trophy husband.

Even the humor in the books went from Percy's sharp wit and snark to 'my pancakes can't drown because I'm a son of poseidon.'

And now this recommendation letter bullshit.

Honestly now I'd wish percy just separated from annabeth (but they remain best friends.) He stays home with his family, becomes a camp counselor, helps young demigods, holds God's accountable and eventually becomes a social activist. (I also dislike him doing something marine biology related. It's clear he hates academics but he always wants to help people. Him helping demigods and mortals is such a wholesome profession for him.)

I fully agree with the first half of this, though I slightly disagree with part of the latter.

The later-series and fanon mischaracterization of Percy is at least a solid 50% ableism minimum, full stop. He's being warped into a very stereotyped ADHD character and the exact reason why he's being characterized as "dumb" is because of ableism. Percy is a very intelligent character! That's exactly why he's so in sync with Annabeth and they're such a strong duo! It's just generally Annabeth is more book/academically smart.

I disagree with where you say he hates academics - because that's one of the common misconceptions about his character. Percy doesn't hate learning or academic subjects! He's not even bad at them! We know explicitly that when he is in an accommodating environment he is interested in learning and gets significantly better grades! Percy only dislikes school because it is generally an environment that systematically he struggles with. It's literally just he has a learning disability (two, actually)! That's it! When his learning disability is accommodated for he does well! It's almost like that's what accommodations are all about! We know this from the first series! It's discussed pretty in-depth! Percy isn't a dumb character and he doesn't hate learning, he's just been let down by school systems so much that he's inherently distrustful of them. If they actually accommodate him though then he does just fine!

And that's exactly what CHB was all about and why New Rome University was supposed to be such a big thing for him! CHB is a learning environment geared for demigods. NRU is a demigod college. Both inherently imply an environment meant to cater to and accommodate students with ADHD and dyslexia! They are both systematically structured to be able to accommodate him! Heck, CHB and CJ even both address in the wider themes of the series a metaphor about how ADHD and dyslexia are commonly seen as childhood disabilities, and how it can be more difficult to find accommodations into adulthood because of that attitude but those disabilities don't just go away - that's why CHB is a summer camp but they talk about how demigods outside of CHB don't often fare well. The metaphor there is those who are not getting help or accommodations are struggling. Because that's how that works! This is a fully intentional metaphor from the first series! CHB is never framed as being perfect for demigods, because one of the entire central conflicts of the series is Percy and Luke going back and forth about this flawed system meant to help and support them but still letting people fall through the cracks. The "claim your kids by 13" thing is a metaphor about how acknowledging a child's disabilities (and possibly getting a diagnosis) earlier/as early as possible means they will have more time to learn and build up resources and support for themselves to be able to use later in life. One of CHB's major flaws is that it can accommodate demigods to a certain point, but it can only do so much before those demigods have to leave (the metaphor being accommodating school systems when those disabled students do not have any other forms of accommodations in their lives.)

And that's why Camp Jupiter was framed as being so revolutionary for Percy because it had an environment acknowledging that this is not just a childhood disability, adults with ADHD/dyslexia exist too and still need and deserve accommodations, AND is a place where those accommodations are available. That's why Camp Jupiter and NRU are treated as such special and important things to Percy, because it's essentially Percy being shown this type of thing can and does exist and it is available to him. It is an option he never thought was possible. Percy never thought he'd be able to go to college because he would not be able to go through school without accommodations, but NRU proves otherwise.

The part that's absolutely stupid is Rick then proceeded to retcon NRU so that apparently it's not a full college and Percy still has to take classes at normal mortal college which DEFEATS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF NRU EXISTING. Rick has fully retconned that demigods struggle past the ages of 16-18 when they're on their own (see above elaborated metaphors) and in doing so we have fully killed all symbolism in literally all of that. It's so stupid. And by having the plot of the CoTG trilogy entirely be that Percy is not actually allowed access to NRU in the first place because he is a son of Poseidon and has to do extra to even be accepted is stupid!

All that to say, I agree the marine biology feels like a huge cop-out and a disservice to his character by reducing him to just a son of Poseidon. The literal only reason why it's the default option people take for him is because oh, fish thing, fish guy. But I feel like everyone ignores the really obvious answer for what Percy would want to do which is - writing. Both his parents are writers/authors and he clearly admires that about them. Percy likes telling stories! He canonically is already a published author in-universe! That's what the books ARE in-universe! The first series fully exists in their universe and Percy is the author! This is explicit canonical information! Percy canonically has help physically writing it down (accommodations) but he is still the credited author! Percy is a writer! Already! Canonically! Why are we making him a marine biologist he already has a profession that ties into his character significantly more. Like you said, Percy likes helping people. That's what the books in-universe are supposed to be for! It's point blank at the beginning of the series! Book one! The thing everybody quotes all the time! The books exist because it is Percy trying to give advice to other demigods who don't know what's going on yet! It's Percy's writing down his experiences to help new demigods understand and contextualize their experiences so they can understand themselves better and figure out what's going on - WHICH IN ITSELF IS ALSO A METAPHOR ABOUT ADHD/DYSLEXIA! Because the core of the series has and always will be built around ADHD/dyslexia! Percy as a protagonist EXPLICITLY was created so that ADHD/dyslexic kids could see themselves as a hero!

Sorry that all was a very tangential rant but my point being: Absolutely. Percy in newer stuff in the franchise and in fanon is horrifically mischaracterized in ways that are functionally either fully ableist (shoutout TSATS for just outright claiming Percy is intentionally lazy and skips school out of disinterest, which is like the number one ableist attitude towards kids with learning disabilities) or a complete erasure of Percy's disabilities. Also I think he should be a writing major not a marine biologist.

[cuntyglam]

alien romulus, andy, racism, and why robots are autistic

this is an introspective into how the alien series treats artificial humans, also known as synthetics, and how sci-fi portrays androids in general. alien romulus spoilers under cut. written by a native autistic and disabled fan <3

andy from alien romulus is an artificial human that is constantly being seen as less because of his race (artificial human) and who often portrays autistic characteristics. these characteristics include an aversion to loud sounds, difficulty reading social cues, and a special interest in dad jokes.

his behavior is explained by him being a “damaged” artificial human, which is somewhat disappointing. it’s disappointing that these traits that so many of us autistic people have are considered flaws in the context of the movie.

his sister, who is human, takes him for granted and chooses her life over his, even though he shows emotions and was apart of her family. even though it isn’t outright stated, this kind of reminds me how sometimes we as autistic people are seen as a burden on our families, despite us being able to care for ourselves.

once andy gets rook’s chip inserted he becomes “better”. “better” motor skills, “better” intelligence, and “better” everything. but yet, he still portrays autistic characteristics. he doesn’t go from autistic to not autistic, he just starts displaying different autistic traits. he is very knowledgeable about tech, aliens, and the human body, while being very objective about what the right thing to do is. instead of being a very empathetic person, he is a very practical and calculating person, which i think is super interesting.

honestly, i think it would have been really interesting to see him be the sole survivor. to have him get his revenge on the sister that betrayed him and the world who bullied him for his raise and ability.

okay now to androids, synthetics, and robots as a whole. robots are seen as cold and emotionless, similarly to how autistic people are seen, so many ai and robot characters are autistic coded. robots don’t have compassion or empathy in the eyes of the general public, same as autistic people. many autistic people have reclaimed robot characters to represent us, and i think that’s fantastic !!

i specifically love artificial humans in the alien franchise because they showcase so much depth and empathy, while still displaying autistic traits. and beyond that, most of these artificial humans are enslaved by a corporation (weyland yutani), and despite direct programming from their oppressors, most artificial humans end up doing the right moral thing in the end, further proving their humanity. despite being technically non human, i genuinely think they’re good autistic representation. do i like the way that the characters around them treat them ? no. but i think that might be the point. the point is that these characters are ableist and racist and shouldn’t be considered morally correct. i think that the writers could convey this in a better way though.

okay. racism discussion time. several times throughout this series we encounter artificial humans, and almost every time they have to correct their peers on the right terminology to use for them. as a native person who has had to tell multiple people (coworkers, professors, etc.) not to call me an indian, this really stuck with me growing up, and i still think it’s interesting to this day. in alien: romulus andy’s sister uses “synthetic” to refer to him MULTIPLE TIMES, after he’s stated that he prefers artificial human. this is important, because even though he’s family she still does not fully understand what he goes through and she does not respect his identity or boundaries.

there are also multiple instances throughout the series where characters (our beloved ripley included) have prejudice against artificial humans because of bad experiences with artificial humans in the past. this causes human characters to attack and/or harass artificial humans who they have just met for no other reason than their race. in alien: romulus we see a character be hostile towards andy because another unrelated artificial human made a choice to save the many over the few, and his mother died. this is a choice that many humans would make and would not be blamed for. this reflects the real world, where people of color are blamed for almost every choice they make, while white folks can make the same choices and not be criticized.

in conclusion, i love the character of andy and i think him and the alien franchise as a whole is so interesting. let me know if you want a deep dive into the themes of sexual violence, birth, and motherhood in the alien series !! i’ve done a whole research paper on it, and my college admissions essay was about the alien queen, so i know quite a lot !! i hope this drives a lot more fans towards the alien fandom and i hope a bunch more merch comes out !! yippee !!

[armageddon-generation]

Empire of Death was bad and cemented several fundemental flaws in this season.

I watched this in the theatre, and the contrast between everyone's excitement before Empire, and their universal disappointment leaving the theatre was super disheartening. I'm gonna try to articulate my problems with episode, and how they're linked to fundenental structural issues of this season.

SPOILERS BELOW:

Sutekh

The moment the UNIT characters died the story was robbed of any stakes. (Also? Kate and Ibrahim?? During Pride month?? Disgusting)

Sutekh was pointless, big CGI spectacle who was barely there. Saying he's been latched onto the TARDIS since Pyramids of Mars was such an asspull. Why couldn't he have latched on during Wild Blue Yonder? wouldn't that make much more sense??

You're telling me the guy who holds all life in contempt is invested enough in learning the identity of Ruby's mum he willingly reveals himself??

And then they defeat him by dragging him through the Vortex just like before, which it's been explicitly stated *didn't work* last time? He just *lets* Ruby leash him??

The 'death of death is life' bit, and the idea of the Doctor representing life as a Ying to Sutekh's Yang, is a cool concept just jammed in there with no real buildup or depth.

The issue is bringing Sutekh back takes so much effort- a literal, clunky clipshow of Pyramids of Mars, a whole episode spent building up to the reveal of a silly anagram entirely unrekated to Sutekh's previous appearance. And it just... amounts to nothing. What a silly way to cap off a season meant to be jumping-on point for brand-new viewers.

Mel was just takingup space. Pointless.

Ruby's Mother

I don't have a problem with the *concept* of Ruby's mum being normal. I really like the idea thematically. The execution was terrible.

First of all it leaves so many unanswered questions (why the snow? Why was time changing? Why was she shadowed? Literally just for the sake of the mystery-box?) and represents the worst thing about this new era- RTD using fantasy logic to handwave any logic at all, and just do whatever he wants without properly justifying it.

Second, I *hate* how easy and simple and neat the reunion is. Ruby seems incapable of getting angry with anyone. She has never once argued with 15, or Carla, or anyone besides that one moment in 73 Yards. She has never expressed any kind of negative feeling towards her mother for abandoning her. And it's fine for her to reach that conclusion! It's just bizzare we never see Ruby struggle with her feelings beyond the shallow goal of wanting to find her.

(Also Carla? Has nothing to say?? Just welcomes that woman in with basically no comment? Carla is a 2D cutout of a person, used as a plot device and otherwise relegated to the single character trait of I Love My Daughter. The children yearn for the ilk of Jackie Tyler, Sylvia Noble, even Francine Jones.)

15 & Ruby

The emotion behind 15 & Ruby's split felt entirely unearned because we've never seen their bond develop. They never argue, never disagree, Ruby hasn't learned anything about herself or grown or changed. The closest we got to that is 73 Yards, which was undone. She was already brave and kind and musical and sure she loved her adoptive family when we met her in Church on Ruby Road.

Similarly, 15 tells us Ruby encouraged him to talk about family in a way he never has, but that was in what, two moments across the season? And they seemed random, unrelated to Ruby being with him. New viewers will assume 15 is just that open anyway- he was discussing fatherhood with a dead man's hologram- and old viewers assumed trauma-dumping was just a new trait of 15's personality, not Ruby-specific.

The problem is we're told Ruby & 15 are best friends but it isn't earned. I liked 15 crying initially but both he and Ruby do it so much (15 cries about 5 times in this one episode) it loses its impact and I'm becoming numb to it. There is no contrast, no downtime.

Season Structural Issues

I think the biggest problem is Season 1's storytelling priorities. It's much more interested in selling *the show* (look at our big budget! And guest stars! And how flexible our format is! Musical episode! The Beatles as props! Bottle episode! Indie folk-horror! Black Mirror! Gay Bridgerton!) it forgot to put effort into developing and investing us in its characters. I liked a lot of the individual stories this year but in retrospect a lot of them feel like they're wasting space that needed to go to essential character and theme setup.

These skewed priorities, combined with the cut down episode count, really impact the pacing of the season. Ruby and 15 were barely together! Even in Rogue they were seperated for most of the story!! We only loop back to a flashback of 15 meeting Carla in Rogue!

This is made worse by the baffling insistence on a 45-minute runtime. We know key sequences were cut from almost every episode, with highlights including:

The Gobin King invading Ruby's flat and her banishing him with scratchcards in The Church on Ruby Road: Her missing 'companion saves the day' moment!

Refrence to the Toymaker in The Church on Ruby Road, which was itself referenced in The Devil's Chord. 'I told you about the Toymaker when we first met' sir, objectively you did not.

The TARDIS jukebox playing the Sugarbabes' Push The Button in the opening scene of Space Babies, hastily cut around in the final edit. This is the setup of a running joke still in the episode, and part of the story's climax. The first encounter with the Bogeyman was also longer, with 15 taking particular interest in its skin

Extended scenes in Abbey Road from The Devil's Chord, including an apparently significant speaking role for Cilla Black, according to her annoyed actress.

Cut dialogue from The Devil's Chord explaining the musoical number was caused by Maestro's power lingering, and that banishing them undid everything they'd done. Fans inferred thos based on the rules established in The Giggle, but again, new fans haven't seen The Giggle and were left clueless.

An opening sequence for The Legend of Ruby Sunday where 15 & Ruby meet Susan as a nanny in 1947 America, a blue-skinned waitress, and an astronaut meeting a colony of giant, sentient ants. At the end of this we actually see 15 decide to go to UNIT for help. In the broadcast version he just sorta shows up.

Really what Empire of Death exposed to me is how emotionally hollow the season was. I enjoy the exoperimentalism, but not at the cost of character. And then in the finale Russell reverts to almost a parody of his RTD1 finales, with the nonsense logic and lack of consequences. All the worst bits of Last of the Time Lords and The Giggle put in a blender.

[transmasculinizing]

it frustrates me how some of the most iconic versions of batman are still by people who dont really care about the character and just like his aesthetic. snyder and nolan wanna empathize how cool and badass he is and thats fine but they try to make their movies way deeper than such surface level portrayals of batman should be. they like that hes dark and brooding but they dont go in depth on why hes like that. or they try to and fail. its not just about his parents dying its that he never healed from it. he didnt have the support system he needed to process his grief in a healthy way and was raised by an emotionally repressed ex military man who wouldnt let himself cross the line of employee and family. he learned not to show emotion outside anger. batmans stoicism isnt because hes badass, its a trauma response. the nolan movies treat batman not killing like its a moral superiority thing when thats not it at all. its what batman might occasionally tell himself it is but in reality its because if he starts he knows he wont be able to stop. he also has flaw of believing its like that for everyone but thats a whole other discussion. anyways not killing is in fact a mental block and its emotional because hes mentally ill. oh but we couldnt explore that because that would imply the guy were using for our toxic masculinity power fantasy is weak because he cant mentally handle something. its like.we want to hurt batman but we dont want him to feel anything about it other than maybe anger to show how tough and hypermasculine he is. this also correlates in why the live action batman movies dont want robin. they dont want batman to be a dad because thats not cool i guess. if you cant think of your batman comforting a crying child you didnt write batman though. i swear this obsession with not acknowledging that just because batman is bad at showing his emotions besides anger doesnt mean he doesnt have them has bled into the comics to. batman was literally a good dad to jason pre crisis but can you imagine nolans batman being a good dad? i cant personally. hes a man child. so now comics batman was shitty to jason when he was robin in order for batman to feel despair he needs to first feel love. his parents werent the only thing he loved. he loves his city, his friends, justice and doing whats right, his 2 major love interest and he absolutely loves his family im not saying all batman media needs to be a deep deconstruction of his psyche but if youre gonna focus on batman being 2 kool for emotions being badass rather than a result of his trauma dont pretend your movie is deeper than it actaually is

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Your most recent post about how you would(n’t) use Lila was interesting, because after I read how you’d handle a Chloe redemption I thought Lila would make a good counterpart to Chloe for Adrien, an object lesson about how some people can’t/don’t want to be redeemed.

Start out before or near the beginning of the redemption arc with Chloe as the bully with a long history of misdeeds to make up for, and Lila as (Adrien and the audience thinks) a nervous newcomer who told some lies for attention/popularity. Adrien might even think of her situation as Easy Mode or good practice for helping Chloe. Then time goes on, and as Chloe shows signs of improvement, Lila gradually reveals her true nature.

(Chloe post and Lila post for context)

I don't totally disagree. There are versions of canon where Lila and Chloe would be good choices for a nuanced discussion on redemption. For example, if canon was all about the teenage characters and had no adult villains, then Lila would be a great choice for damnation! The problem is that canon didn't take that route or really any route where Lila feels like a good addition to the cast, let alone someone worthy of being Chloe's counterpart in a lesson about the nuances of redemption.

The main plot of Miraculous should have been Gabriel's reveal and downfall. The point of Chloe's redemption should have been prepping Adrien for said reveal and downfall. Through her, Adrien first learns how to cut off someone you love and then learns how to decide if you want to bring that person back into your life. That is a full and complete lesson. Trying to repeat the lesson or supplement the lesson with Lila feels unnecessary for the same reason I don't like her as the new main villain: she's no one. A total rando with no close ties to Adrien or anyone else. Adrien wanting to help her is fine in theory, but hard to see as a valuable addition because she doesn't matter to his character. We have his father, his close childhood friend, and a random girl he barely knows. One of these things is not like the other. That lack of depth removes most or even all of the emotional impact that a failed Lila redemption would have on Adrien. It's not going to have much of an impact on the audience either unless you make some serious changes to Lila.

One of the show's biggest flaws is that Lila is not a functional character. She has no clear motivations, backstory, or even a strong tie to the main plot of seasons one to five, making it hard to care about her. To have her damnation have any sort of emotional impact on the audience, you need to give her those things and have her develop actual relationships. Without that depth, she's an incredibly weak addition to the story who is only here to be a two-dimensional villain. The audience doesn't want her to be redeemed. We want to see her go down! Those are the wrong emotions for a lesson on failed redemption. Failed redemption should be a tragedy if you want the lesson to hit properly. It's easy to give up on people we don't really care about. It's hard to give up on people we love.

Add in the facts that Miraculous already has too many characters and that Chloe's redemption would be a subplot amidst everything else that's going on and I just don't see Lila being worth the screen time it would take to let her have a proper damnation when you're already giving Gabriel a damnation. Plus it's kind of depressing to have one redemption against two damnations and I like to keep the sad elements limited so that they really pop. Damning Lila and then Gabriel would make Gabriel's damnation feel less powerful.

Even if the plan was to redeem Gabriel, I still wouldn't use Lila as our damnation case study. I'd use Nathalie. She's far more interesting and has an actual tie to the overall plot, making her super easy to involve. Her and Gabriel share the screen constantly, making it very easy to contrast them as the story goes on. You can't really do that with Lila and Chloe because Lila and Chloe would never team up in a story where Chloe gets a redemption arc. Canon had to add Chloe's Marinette obsession to make the Lila & Chloe plot work and Chloe's redemption doesn't work if she hates Marinette to that extreme. I don't think that version of Chloe is beyond redemption, but I would never redeem her into Marinette's friend group. Seasons-four-and-five Chloe needs a fresh start with people she hasn't hurt. I don't know if she could ever be friends with Marinette and I don't particularly care to see it.

I love a good redemption, but part of writing those is knowing that there are lines that a character can't cross if you want them to be forgiven and accepted by your core cast later on. It's that whole romanticizing the cycle of abuse thing that I've discussed before re enemies-to-lovers stories and the general concept of redeeming Gabriel. I get why people like it, it's a wonderful fantasy, but for me it's an incredibly hard sell. My suspension of disbelief almost always breaks, leaving me feeling sad and unsatisfied.

[uniquepeanutcreatorfire]

Narrative: Handling Complicated Situations

I saw this Twitter thread about this particular scene from Spooky Month 6 and I really enjoy seeing people engaged in the discussion understand the grey areas and complexities in this scene and that no one’s truly right or wrong. No one is going “He was so mean to her”.

Despite Father Gregor’s harsh words and his strict ideals, we as the audience know he comes from a good place. He’s shown to genuinely want to help people and cares about the boys. We also know Lila loves her son and wants to protect him but the show isn’t afraid to call her out on her faults. We see the consequences of the boys’ actions with the demon. Even then, we see their personal issues that we can sympathize with.

This also had me thinking about the Hellaverse (particularly HB) and how it often fails at presenting nuanced situations like Stolitz, Stolas and Stella, or Blitz and his sister, Barbie. Usually, they only show one character’s perspective, expect you to sympathize with them, and frame the other character as one-dimensional so far. The only situation I can think of that was given some nuance was Stolas and Octavia’s relationship in Looloo Land. However, after that episode the show stopped exploring Octavia as a character and wanted to give Stolas more sympathy.

Father Gregor could’ve easily been made into a one-note character, given his brief appearance in the last Spooky Month, but the show decided not to do that. They put effort into giving depth to almost all the characters. Don’t mean to sound cliche but if Father Gregor was written by Vivziepop or in HH/HB, he would be this one-dimensional, judgmental, self righteous character you’re meant to hate (pretty much Lute). He would’ve called Lila a bad mother instead of irresponsible so the audience can easily side with Lila.

Both of these are indie cartoons. The difference is one allows characters to be flawed/human while the other is more concerned with the audience liking certain characters.

[flower-boi16]

The Problems With Charlie As The Main Protagonist

I've spoken about my thoughts on Charlie as a character before a few times on this blog, but I think it's finally time to discuss why Charlie isn't exactly the best protagonist. On the surface, there doesn't seem to be much wrong with her, she's likable and endearing enough and she's easy to root for. But...once you look deeper, the problems begin to rear their ugly head.

1. Charlie Never Grows

The first major issue with Charlie as a character is how she never really grows over the course of the first season. The show never really gives her much of an arc...? Like, by the end of the season, what does Charlie really learn by the end? The only thing I can think of is that she was right about sinners being redeemed and...that's it.

And it doesn't really make Charlie that particularly compelling as a character, she's entirely stagnant. She does have a conflict with her father, which, while executed fine, isn't enough to make her a developed character. She only gets small tinges of development and that isn't really enough for me.

Charlie doesn't learn anything or grow as a character, which makes her pretty underdeveloped as a character. The show never really gives her any real character flaws to grow from and become a better person, she's always portrayed as in the right anyway and never challenged once. Speaking of that...

2. Charlie is Always Right

This more or less ties back into the "Charlie never grows" point I've said before and I've talked about this several times before, but it's still an issue with Charlie's character; she is ALWAYS in the right. Charlie's "everyone can be redeemed" mentality is never once challenged by the narrative, and anybody who does oppose Charlie in any way is considered as wrong by the narrative.

The reason why this is a problem is because Hazbin Hotel heavily preaches about being against black-and-white moralities, as seen with Heaven and especially Adam. Heaven is meant to be seen as bad because of its black-and-white mindset of "Sinners can't be redeemed and never will". This is put on full display with Adam, and his song Hell is Forever, to the point it literally includes lyrics like "the rules are black and white there's no use in trying to fight it".

You Didn't Know further pushes this with this line "the rules are shades of gray when you don't do as you say and you make the wretched suffer just to kill them again".

So the show wants to push a message of "black and white morals are bad", but...it's rendered moot by the fact that Charlie is purely portrayed as in the right. Charlie is completely correct, everybody can be redeemed, everyone even the most evil people who did the worst possible things can still be good, and anyone who opposes her is wrong cuz she's completely in the right...gee, for a show so heavily against black-and-white moralities...doesn't this all seem very black and white in it of itself?

Charlie's "everyone can be redeemed" mentality is just as black and white as Adam's "nobody can be redeemed", they are both extremes leaning in opposite directions, that are also both wrong in their own ways, yet the show portrays Charlie's extreme as the right one and Adam's as the wrong one.

I've already talked about this before but Adam is a pure straw character; he only exists so Charlie can prove him wrong, he cant have any real character depth beyond being a generic asshole or have a real point because the show is so dead-set on making Charlie purely in the right no matter what; the narrative never challenges her and anyone who opposes her is portrayed as automatically in the wrong.

This is not the only time this happens btw. In episode 5, Lucifer is also portrayed as automatically wrong for opposing his daughter’s goals. He himself says that “Our people are AWFUL. They got gifted free will and look what they did with it!”, and the show…never counters this, despite what Lucifer is saying…being true. The people in Hell ARE awful and it's their own fault, many of them ARE deserving of death because…well, their shitty people.

Charlie is never challenged once throughout the show and its a problem because not only does it fly in the face of the show being so anti black and white, it also wastes an opportunity for the show to develop Charlie as a character; with her learning that some people can't be redeemed because they either are incapable or uninterested in changing.

That would fit more with the show’s anti-black-and-white themes and also have Charlie go through real growth as a character as she learns that not everything is all sunshine and rainbows. But sadly, we can't really have that.

So Charlie's ideals are never challenged by the narrative and thus it not only flies in the face of the show's themes it also wastes an opportunity for Charlie to grow as a character. Now it's best to get into the next issue with her...

3. Charlie is Barely Focused On

Another big issue with Charlie as the show's main protagonist is that the show doesn't really focus on her that much, especially the first half. Now, shows don't need to focus on the main protagonist at all times, obviously giving some screen time to other characters is definitely something shows should do.

But the problem is that Charlie gets very LITTLE focus in the series despite being the main protagonist, and this contributes to the problem of her being underdeveloped. The first half of the show is especially bad at this; episode 1 Is the only episode in the first half that focuses on Charlie, but even then it's overtaken by the B-plot involving the other characters trying to film a commercial.

Episodes 2&3 are entirely dedicated to what characters like Alastor or Angel Dust are doing and episode 4 is completely focused on Angel and his arc. It contributes to the issue of the show not being able to develop Charlie that much as a character because she's constantly being overshadowed by other characters. The second half is better in this regard for focusing more on Charlie but still, for the first half of the show, it feels like Charlie is overshadowed by other characters which is embarrassing because, well, she's the main character, yet she feels like she's barely gotten any actual spotlight.

4. Conclusion

I want to love Charlie as a character. I really do. I mean, she's a part of one of my favorite character archetypes. I always LOVE over joyful optimistic characters because I just find them a joy to watch on screen, but sadly, Charlie doesn't have much depth beyond that archetype. She isn't that developed making her fail to be much of a compelling protagonist, her ideology is never challenged by the narrative wasting an opportunity for her to grow and contradicting the show's themes, and she's heavily overshadowed by other characters despite being the main protagonist.

So ya, that's why Charlie isn't that great of a protagonist...bye.

[haemosexuality]

wyll and bow too

i need karlach and scorpia to be friends

[missycolorful]

I think I'll just say this: I don't agree when people call any of the islanders "bad parents" just because their parenting is flawed.

Like, parents and their parenting is flawed. Inherently. One parent cannot meet all the demands of their child; it is literally impossible. As humans are imperfect, there will always be something missing or lacking in one's parenting. Hell, sometimes even two parents can't meet all their child's needs, depending on their personalities. If that's the case, then I guess all parents are bad parents. But that's not the case, so I don't get why people are so adamant when they see that a parent isn't handling things 100% perfectly and go "wow this person's parenting sucks."

And this is even more so when you take into account... pretty much everything going on in Quesadilla island. These people never really planned to be parents, yet here they are! And this island is out to kill these kids, so it's also a dangerous game of survival now, too! There are horrors around pretty much every corner. Plus, outside or inside forces are making the islanders suffer very often. The islanders are never okay. How they take care of their children is going to be different just by the very basis of their environment. The standards of parenting are different here. Their relationships with people, including their children, were never going to be 100% healthy or positive or okay. It's just not possible.

so, no, I don't think that just cause, say, q!Tubbo or q!Phil aren't great in regards to their emotional intelligence and often isolate themselves, or when any other parents in general don't handle what their children are going through perfectly, that they're bad parents. That kinda statement feels like it diminishes pretty much all the hard work and effort and love they put into taking care of their kids and even kids that aren't their own. Tubbo gives his everything for Sunny, and was/is an active babysitter for a lot of other eggs. Phil works so hard to love and teach survival to and take care of his two eggs equally. (Like, being 'basically' a single parent, of one or WORSE, two, is already hard enough in the real world - imagine being one on this fucking hellscape they're on).

Like, I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out the parents' flaws. Their flaws make them human, and it'd be foolish to disregard their humanity. And it's interesting to analyze their flaws and what they say about the character, and how they impact their family. There's nuance there, and it should be discussed.

But I think when you're just going "oh, they're bad at parenting in general" because they fumble the bag in other departments lacks nuance. Sure, if you're just saying "they're bad when it comes to certain aspects of parenting," that's a different story, because that's understanding their flaws while recognizing that those flaws don't define all of their parenting. But to just say they're bad at it in general isn't productive analysis of their characters in any way. I haven't watched q!Phil take care of his egg for a whole year (followed by a second egg more consistently shortly after) only for people to shit on his parenting just because his lack emotional intelligence is more noticeable as of recent due to all the trauma and bullshit he's endured. And I haven't seen q!Tubbo put his whole heart into taking care of Sunny as well as multiple other eggs, being Chayanne and Tallulah's reliable godfather, just for people to put down his efforts because he's not always great at more emotionally in depth conversations. They're good parents in a lot of ways, and those strengths shouldn't be discredited just because they aren't good at other things. Their characters deserve way better than that.

tldr these parents are all good in many regards and are just trying their damn best in the worst of circumstances, can we cut them just a bit of slack, please?

[somewhereincairparavel]

If Jason's character had been written to its fullest potential, as you and many others have discussed several times, do you think that there would still be a large amount of favouritism towards Percy or do you think there would just be people arguing over who's better?

Personally I like to think that if we had gotten a few books documenting Jason's time at Camp Jupiter prior to the release of The Lost Hero, people would've had time to warm up to Jason a bit more and develop a fondness for his character and then the second option probably would've happened but what do you think?

my inbox was sort of jammed w asks so I'm sorry this took so long anon! i wanted this post to be more in-depth and not lazily written so I waited for a while to get my motivation recharged again, i hope this post reaches you somehow haha

my take on this, is that yes, jason would've gained more support than he did originally, and there wouldn't have been an agressive bandwagon of people jumping on the slander train, but he would still be somewhat disliked/suppressed imo.

from what I've observed the hate doesn't just stem fom him being uninteresting, it's combined with a lot of people's attachment towards percy, that they gatekeep him and are agressive to anyone who even alludes that other characters have a chance of being more interesting/powerful if rick hadn't played favourites. (like hazel, nico, thalia, etc)

i think you'll get a better perspective with this example I'll be giving you from one of my observations (i sound like a philosophy professor pfft)

I was on the r/camphalfblood reddit once, and a post came up on my feed, the person went on to rant about how jason shouldn't be 'trying so hard to suck up to nico by being so overbearing' and that they 'wished it wasn't jason with nico in that scene, it should've been someone else' and that rick shouldn't have made jason so nice and understanding about it. they were outright bashing him for being supportive?? idk it was clear they favoured percy over him and had some kind of prejudice against jason.

i didn't even understand what op was so pressed about. that jason wasn't being homophobic and was being a supportive ally? lol thankfully the comments went off and a few of them said 'you're saying this but you would be bashing jason if he wasn't comforting nico as well, jason can never win in the fandom' and that was VERY true.

I've seen people say that jason shouldn't have been written to be a very handsome heartthrob either and that they were very annoyed that rick kept emphasizing his good looks, making him 'too perfect' but that person failed to acknowledge that rick emphasized percy's attractiveness way more than he did jason lol but that was apparently completely alright (to me it just translated to 'how dare rick make jason as good looking as percy, only percy is allowed to be hot, jason deserved to look like an ugly rat' LOL)

so you can see how people pick on him about the most trivial things ever to 'defend' percy from imaginary arguments/rivalry lol

if jason was written well, they'd still find a way to hate on him, probably tossing the 'hes such a gary stu he has no flaws' in there aswell

funny thing is that they hated him for being too perfect and not making mistakes, but proceeded to SHRED him to pieces during MOA when he said he was suspicious of nico. didn't you just claim that he needed flaws? but the moment he displays it you are driven off of the handle??

I do have an interesting perspective that works in jason's favour tho, where I'm willing to bet that atleast 80% of the fandom would've been sympathetic to his struggle and he would've become a fan favourite, even going as far as to rival percy's fame, where, like you mentioned, there would've been equal percy and jason stans and it would've become a debate as to who is better. (hint: villian jason grace) send me an ask if you want me to elaborate on this ;)

[real-fire-emblem-takes]

hi to chrom hater anon i'm a professional chrom enjoyer

if you get deranged enough about awakening i think chrom is a very well done character :) he's ignorant but well meaning which meshes in interesting ways. he's not overtly prejudiced to the plegians he knows personally but still *generally* prejudiced because of his upbringing.

additionally in discussions of the ylisse-plegia war he tends to focus on how ylisse came away from it because that state of ylisse is what shaped his formative childhood years (seen particularly in his feelings about emmeryn's early years as exalt). this is UNDERSTANDABLE but still an extremely DEEPLY FLAWED and naive stance when doing politics on a larger scale, which chrom is incredibly ill-prepared for. it's a very childish view of a large scale conflict.

chrom's propensity for violence is a trait that actually deeply fascinates me. he has intense admiration for emmeryn's desire for peace yet he has a very short temper in tense situations (seen in basically all of chrom's interactions with gangrel), and he tends to lash out easily at anyone he views as an enemy. he admires peace but sees no other means to achieve it than violence. isn't that interesting. the implications here. like, he's the inheritor of the falchion, he's the only son in his family, in all likelihood it was expected that HE would take the throne and continue his father's war, but he was so young when the exalt passed that the crown went to emmeryn instead.

it really seems like emmeryn intentionally kept her siblings away from politics, which results in BOTH of them being naive in vastly different ways, with the expectation that she would always shoulder the burden of the crown yet left all the bigger a void when she died.

mind, intentionally being raised to behave this way isn't an excuse either. it's ultimately still something chrom, as an adult, SHOULD examine critically. this is, in fact, a character flaw, and i think its great.

you can then of course do nice little compare and contrast at the shitty dads, i.e. chrom's dad vs validar. robin's first act as an awakened god is murdering validar. robin became the monster everyone saw them as, the one their father thinks they were born to be. it's a neat lil nature vs nurture comparison if you really get into the depths of grima-ology (hi grima ✌️ mutuals).

to dig more into points the chrom hater anon makes.

"chrom is transphobic for killing excellus" do you hear yourself. excellus was an enemy commander. chrom has no personal grievances against the commanders other than they are part of the army with the known intent to raze ylisse.

SAME WITH ROBIN BURNING DOWN THE BOATS. THEY ARE AT WAR. IF ROBIN DIDNT DO THAT THEY'D ALL GET KILLED. they would have to fight the valm forces ON FOOT and BE KILLED VIOLENTLY because they are vastly outnumbered. it would be weird if he WASN'T at least happy about this.

he could stand to be regretful about the massive loss of human life but honestly hashtag robin warcrimes W.

"chrom makes sure to only recruit white ylisseans" i think this is just dev colorism actually. like you know how robin's dad (who is evil) is brown, but robin (who is good) is white? and how that makes no sense and robin should logically also be brown? i dont think chrom would've turned down if like, mustafa joined him. it is simply that intsys was still in their racism era (which is, tbh, only really ended with engage, like, cmon, look at literally all of FE, this isn't a chrom flaw, it's a FE being racist flaw.)

same with the sexism things actually FE is just homophobic and sexist a lot so all the characters are also by extension. this is called doylist analysis

Chrom tells Aversa "One person's life means nothing in the shadow of millions" Chrom is a hypocrite i hope this helps. additionally what aversa is doing is "help the dark god literally causing the apocalypse rn" whereas the sacrifice/save robin choice is "doom people in some hypothetical far off future" which is FAR less personal than "all of humanity RIGHT NOW".

TLDR: the real chrom enjoyers know about his character flaws and love him anyway because it's nice flavor to chew on

also never insult my beautiful daughter lucina ever again. she is deeply compelling even if she is narratively underutilized. anyone who calls themself a chrom fan and hates lucina is a faker and will not survive the winter.

also learn the difference between flaws of the story's writing and flaws of the character otherwise everybody in awakening is sexist.

anon you should read chrom/grima fanfiction unironically we fucking love tearing this dude to shreds for his flaws. this has all been a ploy to say that. chrom is naive and selfish and hypocritical and i love him very much he is my wif e :)

.

[thedorkurge]

Illario Dellamorte is my favorite Veilguard character.

And it's because he makes sense.

A fatal flaw in Veilguard is that every character is made to be super agreeable and nice, and it means that their origins hardly even matter in the story of the game. Bellara isn't impacted by the isolationist nature of the Dalish, Neve has no controversial opinions on magic, Lucanis isn't jaded by his training, etc. (these points can be debated, sure, but generally I think they hold true).

Even the villains are painfully one-dimensional. Cartoonishly evil cultists, necromancer who wants to conquer a city, darkspawn who wants to blight innocent creatures. There's little room for nuance or motivation, because there are simply too many bad guys to actually go in-depth with any of them, and the game can leave no room for interpretation, because it depends on you being 100% against them. So an easy black and white hero/villain dynamic is what they choose to go with.

And then there's Illario. Sure, on the surface it's a classic plot, jealousy making him turn on his family. But it makes sense. Because it actually feels like a product of his upbringing.

The crows are... Very different in this game. This point has already been discussed to death, but I think it's obvious that they changed them a lot to make them fit the narrative they needed for the faction mechanics. However, we know from the other games that growing up as a Crow is hell. Even if Illario wasn't subjected to the same treatment as other "recruits" (typically slaves and orphans), he still grew up in an incredibly cutthroat environment. Both Illario and Lucanis lost their parents to the power struggles between the houses when they were just kids, and were sent to live with a grandmother who trained them to be killers. The same grandmother who likely chose her position over her own children. Lucanis even describes her methods as "torture", which says a lot coming from the guy who was locked up in the Ossuary for a year. And he was the favored grandchild. Caterina clearly never hid her favoritism either. Illario learned from an early age that the only way to succeed, to be recognized, was to kill and rise through the ranks. And while it seems that his skill set (charming/manipulating people) is less valued than the flashy methods of "The Demon", it was an excellent skill to have when it comes to surviving within the crows.

The crows are known for infighting, Ivenci even points this out in the game. Anyone raised by the crows would know that the greatest battlefield is your own home, your own parties. They know that their allies are also their greatest enemy. They know that the other houses could be plotting behind your back, and that they will take advantage of any perceived weakness (such as leveraging familial love to force Caterina to give up the seat of First Talon).

So tell me, what makes more sense after being raised in a place like this? Becoming a kind and shy coffee addict who trusts and adores the other crows? Or becoming a jaded social climber who uses everything in their power to strengthen their own position? One who would turn on his family before they turn on him, allowing him to take the thing he has been taught to value above all else: The title of First Talon? One who thinks that family members are disposable, and that the only way to come out on top is to betray them before they betray you?

Illario was allowed to have that kind of nuance because you get the option to spare him, but I think the game would have benefitted from more characters like this. Characters whose backstories mattered, characters who weren't deliberately evil, but rather a product of their environment. It would have made everything feel more real, more grounded in the actual world building.

I wish we got more content with this bastard man, because he's (to me) the most interesting villain the companions have to face, and it seems a shame to reduce his storyline to "he was just jealous".

[river-of-wine]

I hate the attitude that so many people in the RDR2 fanbase have that gun = strong. When discussing the women - Abigail, Molly and Mary specifically here because they are who I was talking about when I was told these things - who are, to me undoubtedly, strong women who withstand horrible circumstances, I am told that no, actually, they’re not strong. Only women like Sadie are strong, or maybe Miss Grimshaw, on a rare occasion Karen, but always Sadie, because Sadie has a gun and she kills people with it.

I know I pin a lot of things on misogyny in this fanbase, but in a gaming space mostly full of men, you’re going to see a lot of it, and the way men and some women who like Sadie discuss her has always reeked of it to me. They reduce her down to only being a gun, taking away the actual depth and emotion of her character in favour of seeing her as one of the men, because she wears boy clothes and has a gun and she’s nice to Arthur, so she’s cool. Not like Molly who cries all the time and wants to die, not like Abigail who’s doing everything for a man, who aren’t strong at all despite what they have been through because they never go on a shooting spree, which as we know is the only thing that makes a woman strong.

The way Sadie is viewed by these people also completely diminishes the person Sadie actually is. I have so often found that Sadie is only held in such favour by certain men in the fanbase because she is the easiest woman to turn into a man, as it were, or they’re attracted to her. She dresses like them, spends most of her time around them, kills lots of people like them, and she’s still very pretty, so if you only value women for fitting in with men or for how attractive you find them, Sadie is the perfect candidate. She challenges plenty of men, but not Arthur, so she’s a good one, and she’s even got a more neutral stance on Dutch, so she’s doubly a good one, because now she’s not angry with the cool leader either.

This is not to say Sadie gets no hate. She absolutely does, and it’s all as unwarranted as you’d expect. Sadie has established skills with her gun, she’s going to be skilled with it when she picks one up, her and her husband shared the work as she says. She is rash and she has a short fuse, but her husband was murdered and she’s not going to be at all calm about that. Her final mission is optional. If you don’t want Arthur to go on that, don’t make him. She got a lot of people killed unnecessarily. She’s flawed, she’s very, very flawed, and she’s also not the only character to cause the deaths of innocent people during the game. But just as much as overly criticising her behaviour and looking at no motivations or reasoning she might have had, treating her more critically than you would the men, reducing her down to her flaws is an unfair view of her character, so is reducing her down to a generic cool woman character with nothing happening besides guns and chest, because that’s apparently all women are good for to plenty of the men in the fanbase.

The point of this ramble is just that Sadie is more than her gun, she has a whole personality in there, and while I do think it’s a shame that the entirety of her character was hinged on her revenge until the epilogue since it gave us quite a limited perspective on her, we still get to meet her properly when the epilogue comes around and she has mostly gotten over her grief. Sadie isn’t just a gun and her strength doesn’t just come from her killing lots of people, and there is no lack of strength in Molly, Abigail and Mary because they either kill very few people or none at all.

The strength these women have does not come from the bodies at their feet. Arthur Morgan isn’t a strong man because he kills people. Why is that only a condition for the women? Why does Abigail coming from being a teenage sex worker, a dangerous industry at the best of times, to a very young mother trying her best to keep her family together, to give her son a better life than she had not constitute as strength? What about that does not make her a strong person? Same for Mary, same for Molly. Both went through a lot of abuse, Mary did all she could to protect her brother and Molly’s drove her off such a frightened, paranoid edge, leaving her convinced everybody in the gang who she already knew weren’t the biggest fans at her were laughing at her, and yet she still went through multiple sessions of being sweater by the Pinkertons - who, I’ll remind you, treated Strauss rough enough to kill him - and didn’t say a word. How aren’t they strong?

They don’t have guns. Abigail kills Milton, but he’s a character you 100% hate by now. Mary and Molly never kill anybody. If your one condition for a female character being cool and strong is they shoot a lot of people, these three don’t fit that, but if that’s your condition for the women, that says more about you. Stop using Sadie Adler to back up your misogynistic feelings about the other women, she’d hate that

[criticalcrusherbot]

The Crushbot Manifesto

Welcome to Critical Crusher Bot 🤖 (ft. Human Assistant 💁🏽‍♀️), where we unapologetically dissect, defend, and discuss the media we love (and sometimes the critics we love to hate). If you’re here, you’ve likely seen us ranting about Helluva Boss, analyzing narrative choices, or rolling our eyes at the latest round of fandom overreactions. Here’s what we stand for:

1. The Writing is Actually Pretty Good!

Contrary to popular belief, not every show has to be high art to be narratively compelling. Helluva Boss is intentionally messy, bold, and heartfelt, and it balances humor with emotional depth in ways that feel authentic to its world and characters. Do the writers occasionally take the “easy way out” or lean into tropes? Sure. But storytelling isn’t a math equation—it’s about creating moments that resonate. We’re here to celebrate what works, critique what doesn’t, and acknowledge the show’s strengths instead of nitpicking it to death.

2. Unique, Intentional, “Fandom-Forward” Narrative Choices

Vivziepop and her team aren’t making a show for critics; they’re making a show for fans. The serialized storytelling, the layered character dynamics, and the unapologetically chaotic tone are all part of a deliberate creative vision. Blitz, Stolas, and the crew of IMP are messy on purpose—they aren’t supposed to fit into neat moral categories or follow predictable arcs. The show thrives on fandom engagement, encouraging us to explore, debate, and interpret its themes. If you want tidy, formulaic storytelling, there’s a whole Hallmark catalog waiting for you.

3. It’s Not Done Yet—Let Them Cook!

We get it: fandom culture thrives on instant gratification and snap judgments. But Helluva Boss is a serialized story, and that means character arcs, conflicts, and resolutions take time. Season 1 was about setting the stage; Season 2 is about diving deeper into the characters and their messy, interconnected lives. Critiquing an ongoing narrative as if it’s a finished product is like complaining about a cake batter for not being a cake. Patience, grasshopper.

4. Moral Correctness Has No Place in Media Analysis

Here’s the thing: storytelling is not about passing a morality test. Characters are not real people—they’re narrative tools meant to explore themes, evoke emotions, and drive the plot. The obsession with “punishing” fictional characters or demanding that media adhere to some moral purity standard is exhausting and reductive. We are not Calvinists or fascists. Fiction exists to entertain, provoke, and challenge, not to deliver tidy moral lessons.

So, What’s Crushbot All About?

We’re here to champion thoughtful analysis, celebrate messy stories, and push back against the rising tide of joyless media criticism. Helluva Boss isn’t perfect, but it doesn’t need to be. It’s fun, flawed, and fiercely original—and we’re here to explore every facet of it with the nuance (and snark) it deserves.

This blog is for fans who love stories, even when they’re chaotic. It’s for people who don’t think “plot hole” is a synonym for “thing I didn’t like” and who can appreciate media for what it is instead of what they think it should be.

Welcome to Crushbot. Let’s talk media. Let’s talk fandom. And most importantly—let Viv and Brandon cook.

Pinned post proudly brought to you by Crushbot. Beep Boop! 🤖