#i'm not even through s1 completely and i agree

[pastelalleycat]

watching through wander over yonder right now and i'm several episodes in now but i have to say, when i first turned it on i was NOT expecting sylvia to be capable of speech

[the-loststone]

Eloise v Penelope

I think a lot of Eloise's anger about Penelope being Lady Whistledown comes down to it being the very last person she expected. Eloise imagined Lady W being this emancipated woman, living off her own riches, poking fun at society from outside of it. That Lady W didn't have to conform to the normal expectations of women, to marry and have babies and obey their husbands. She says it herself in S1, I think it was episode 2 or 3. But for that reality to not be the case, that Lady W was in fact a member of the ton, and someone who did have to conform, and did have to marry was a real blow to this fantasy.

That, of course and the fact that it was Penelope. Of course, she has resentment that Penelope was her best friend and lied to her, and exposed her secrets, especially after Eloise was honest and truthful in their friendship. However, I think it's a bit deeper than that. The awful truth is, I don't believe Eloise thought Penelope was cleverer than her. That's not to say that Eloise believed Penelope to be dumb, but she thought they were the same. That they both held the same beliefs but that Eloise was better and a bigger advocate for those beliefs. And Eloise doesn't like having to confront the fact that Penelope actually does want what many other women are supposed to want, and that Eloise is somewhat unconventional and alone in her outspoken beliefs. And Penelope doesn't want to disappoint Eloise so she does, in many ways, hide her desires, and tries to agree with Eloise's beliefs about womanhood and feminism.

That Penelope was smart, clever, and even manipulative and jaded is not a welcome surprise for Eloise. That she didn't know her friend -- even though we know that Penelope did not hide so much as she was overlooked -- is a betrayal. Penelope has always been kind, sweet and very much a sidekick to Eloise. To learn that Penelope was her own leading lady is not welcome, especially when she was leading Eloise on a goose chase.

Something in the books really resonates here too. Colin's worry that if Penelope is discovered as Lady W, it would have her cast out of society, while if someone like Cressida were to be recognized as Lady W would have them be applauded. Because Penelope is not popular, so she cannot be clever and gain notoriety through a pen name. Cressida would be able to remain in society even if she were unmasked as Lady W because she is popular, and even though she's probably recognized as a b*tch, she's a b*tch the ton are comfortable with and the one they would applaud as being so clever to get away with it.

I think Eloise believes the same. She would rather it be Cressida, or probably more like Lady Danbury, because she expects it and because it goes with what she believed. But it cannot be the 'frumpy, unpopular, unattractive' girl like Penelope. Because that's a blow to their ego, that they were misled by someone so... unpopular, a 'loser'. That's not to say that Eloise is so unkind she's always thinking her friend is a loser. But she knows, at least subconsciously, that she is more popular (at the very least because of her station and her family, even if she doesn't recognize that her beauty is a factor as well). And while Eloise has different views on marriage and feminism that may be considered radical, she is still in many ways a product of her environment, and does not take kindly to someone she thinks as 'less' socially to hold one over on her. And I don't mean class. Eloise likely would have been pleased too if it was a maid or something because that would be so clever. But Penelope, a member of the ton, who's not even as cool or outspoken as her? Not likely.

I'm not dismissing Eloise's rightful anger at having her secrets aired out (although I do understand Penelope's dilemma and decision - better for the Bridgerton's to suffer a small scandal than to be involved in a fight with the Queen and dragged down completely). But pay attention to what Eloise says. "I do not even know you. I look at you and all I feel is pity for you. Sequestered here in this very room writing your secret little scandal sheet, tarnishing everyone in town all because you are too scared to stand up for yourself in reality. You are something Penelope, an insipid wallflower indeed."

These words are cutting to the heart of the matter. Penelope is a wallflower, Penelope is unpopular. Penelope could never have accomplished something so clever. All she did was write a little scandal sheet... although it's not little at all, is it?

Let's not forget that before Eloise got in over her head with the Queen, she was obsessed with Lady W because she admired her. Penelope changed Lady W to Eloise's preferences, because she wanted, in some way, to be clever the way Eloise likes people to be clever. Even though it is nothing to scoff at for a woman to be a popular column writer, especially in those days, even if it is for a 'scandal sheet'. But that was one way women had power back in those days, was through what they said, and the rumors that swirled. Penelope has a lot of power through her pen, because she can make and unmake a family. She got rid of Daphne's odious suitor. The women started a rumor, and Penelope wrote about it, and the next day the man had to leave town. Not because of a mere rumor -- because of a PUBLISHED rumor. And while those rumors can fade, as they do, it let Daphne be free to get courted by Simon.

Eloise still hasn't actually confronted her privilege. Theo did tell her, "hey, guess what, you're super privileged and you're putting me in a bad spot." And while she does end up understanding that in the end, breaking things off with Theo, she's still not actually understanding her privilege amongst the ton. Eloise's sister is a duchess, her brother is a viscount. A little rebellion by running around with political radicals will not destroy her. She is still very much a desired connection people would want. Something Penelope knows.

But Penelope herself, as herself, has no power. "too scared to stand up for yourself in reality." And what exactly is Penelope supposed to do? She is not the popular girl with suitors lining up for her. She's not the rich girl who's money can protect her or who's father can protect her. She's a girl with no influence herself. Every time she's tried to help someone as herself, she's been dismissed. When she warned Colin, he dismissed her. When she begged Marina, she dismissed her. When she spoke to her mother, she dismissed her. When she warned Eloise, she dismissed her. So she made herself influential through a pen name.

How can Penelope stand up for herself? She can't without someone like a Bridgerton in her corner. Eloise can insult Cressida in defense of Penelope, but Penelope can't do it herself without feeling actual consequences. But Eloise will never feel any consequence for dismissing Cressida or anyone else, barring someone above her station.

Only a great scandal can destroy Eloise... such as cavorting with a man unchaperoned... and something, again, Penelope warns her about. Of course, Penelope has ulterior motives as well. She doesn't want Eloise to discover her secret. But this is still a big risk that Eloise is taking, which is what Penelope warns her of and is dismissed. Eloise not only risks herself but her family's reputation there too. And while, again, the scandal may not last long, especially not for her brothers, it will affect Eloise as being, the dreaded term... 'spoiled goods'.

And that can feel like a double standard. I mean, Penelope is alone with Colin... then again, Penelope doesn't exactly have a reputation to protect. No one would believe her to be a seductress when they spend so much time dismissing her. And no one would consider Colin to be interested in her since, once again, she's not on their radar. Eloise's privilege is a double edged sword, though she benefits from it more than she doesn't.

It's not fair. But it is a reality. And I think it's a disservice to women of the time not to show how they are punished for standing out. Eloise is loud and brash and suffers little to no consequences for it. If that were actually the case, a girl is often sent to a mad house or married off quickly or some other way to silence her and stifle her. But Eloise has brothers who love her and will protect her. This is a privilege. The first time she feels any censure is through Lady W's pamphlet, but again, it is something that can be brushed aside with her family's protection, though it had the unfortunate timing of coinciding with a broken engagement.

I don't really think the blame is only on one party. Penelope also made a lot of mistakes. That's not to say I think that Penelope owed it to Eloise to reveal that she's Lady W, or reveal her secret to the queen to spare Eloise. Eloise started that battle despite Penelope's warnings and got in the cross hairs of the queen for it. Penelope shouldn't have to sacrifice herself. Also Penelope sharing Lady W with Eloise is taking away something that belongs to her. Eloise would, I think, seriously try to take over the narrative of Lady W if she knew. Already Penelope feels pressured to change Lady W for Eloise's admiration, so I do think that if Eloise knew who Penelope was before hand, Penelope would lose it to her completely, and it would have turned completely into Eloise's pamphlet (which honestly would have led to more problems because Eloise would forgo subtle criticism and instead loudly criticize societal norms). Eloise is overwhelming, and Penelope is a pushover, especially when it comes to her friend who she doesn't want to lose.

But there were better ways she could have gone about it. She could have warned Violet that Colin and Marina were planning on eloping and told her to push for a long engagement instead. She could have told Violet that Eloise had gotten into trouble with the Queen. I mean, I think those are her only options really. Neither would have spared her mother from being furious with her or Eloise thinking she betrayed her by telling Violet... but it would have been minimal damage in comparison. Then again, there is the big risk that it wouldn't work because, as I said, Penelope is regularly dismissed.

In the end, yes, Penelope was a bad friend. And she's not a particularly helpful or good daughter/ sister / cousin. Then again, her family hasn't been very kind to her either and Eloise has overlooked her as well. Is Eloise the biggest victim? No. That would be Marina, who, I would argue, ended in a better situation than if she had married Colin. Did Penelope have a duty to fix her mistakes and repair the reputations of people she ruined? I don't think so. It would have been nice but... people have to be able to recover on their own, and a lot of things can only really be fixed with time or a new scandal. The worst harm she did was to herself and her family. She feels the consequences of her actions too. Is Eloise a victim? Yes, but better the victim of a scandal sheet than the victim of the Queen. Does Penelope need redemption? No. I don't think so. Penelope is complex and already experiences the pain of what she does and the consequences of all her actions. She knows what she puts other people through as well.

Anyway, thank you for reading to the end of my rant. I probably contradicted myself somewhere in there but... oh well. Just my thoughts.

[late-draft]

Hello, Dema here!

First off—I have fallen desperately in love with your artworks. You have a very particular style, strong and fluid all the same, and I can't help but admire the way you draw and how you approach character design.

And talking about character design...

I saw your post about Zuko's bold design in S1 when compared to what we got in S3 and—as much as I love S3-Zuko—I completely agree with you. Something I've always loved about Zuko in S1 is just how striking he was, how much of a presence he had, even when he was being tossed around by a twelve-year-old. That being said, I love Zuko, I love him in armor and pointy shoes and with a ponytail, and I loved your alternative design for him.

What do you think about his S2 character design? How does it flow with the story beats and his overall character arc? Much has been said about the Hair-Growth-Means-Character-Growth (and I find it interesting, also, that he cut his hair again before joining the Gaang), but I'd like to know your opinion on how that translates to character design and how the decisions made in the show could be either good or bad in that regard.

Sorry about the long ask! I've just been thinking about this a lot, lately, and would like to know what you think. Hope you have a good day ❤️

AAAA Dema hii!!! I'm so happy I got a message from you, I didn't expect it!!

I'm super glad to hear, I'll wear it as a badge of honour and I must tell you that I also love your art, you wonderfully do volume and the shading done through a contrast of sharp and soft areas! Super solid anatomy too and I'd be lying if I said I didn't look up to your art!

Yess the character designs in the show actually are rather strong, I like a good balance between memorable and functional. Zuko is just *chef kiss* but, considering just how many appearance changes he goes through, some are bound to be weaker than the starting one. That said, I'm gonna go through a few of his S2 looks and make this reply long, ha!

The starting one when he ends up huddling with uncle Iroh with other poor refugees, fits extremely well for the narrative at the moment. It's actually one of my least liked looks for him, and that's great!! It's precisely how it should be, because he's also arguably at one of his two lowest moral points in the story - he basically lost almost all hope, no clear goal, nothing to fight for, he's desperate precisely because of the lack of orientation and thus his morals degrade and sink veeery low. He gets on my nerves so goddamn much in this period LMAO I want to beat him up, he looks like a recovering drug addict... annoying, entitled whiny jerk stealing food and anything shiny for his uncle, but even then he just does not cross the moral event horizon. Excellent characterization. He just looks atrocious and it's great because it fits this low point.

Next he gets the standard boyish square of a hair, no notes here...

But theeeen, he arrives at one of my favourite looks of his, and it's not just because the clothes fit him very nicely (I've seen fandom say they look too big for him which, maybe?? But it doesn't look like he's swimming in them to me) And a thing I've noticed which, maybe it was just an accident on design part but I'm not sure considering they colour coded the entire cave scene; in this part his clothes match the shape of Katara's, first one in bottom then the one in top. The collar is the same haf-circle design but I don't know, maybe there was a limited pool of clothes designs guide which they cycled through. Or, he really is meant to come close but miss Katara by a beat, like sine and cosine chasing each other.

But besides this outfit fitting the inconspicuous Earth Kingdom customer service persona, it also (perhaps inadvertently) does this VERY cool thing:

It makes his shape look closed off and guarded, supposedly non-threatening. It's most visible in his fight against Jet, whose shape is open and goes in many directions like an aggressive star. But then look at what Zuko's shape does:

When he attacks, it opens up to reveal the hidden aspect, again the aggressive star shape shows up! The same thing happens in "Zuko alone" episode but I think it's most clearly visible in this fight against Jet because here he has a direct contrast and comparing with Jet. I think this is an example where the outfit, whose similar design exists irl, overlaps with a great visual metaphor and enhances the narrative at that moment in story. He's still that combative firebender but he has to keep that aspect concealed most of the time. Plus it just looks badass as hell!!

Animators really knocked it out of the park with many frames. I think Jun was too early and missed his better hairstyle, but Katara was just in time.

I agree it's super funny how his hair in the Beach is awfully long, covers his face to an uncomfortable degree and then he apparently shortens it before joining the Gaang, insane behaviour Truly an "I'm so angry and depressed I won't show my face nor be capable of seeing anything because there's nothing nice to see in my life" look...

I guess all his appearances in S2 cover his mental states, but only one of them is extremely Extra (the tea server, doesn't even take the apron off and goes to fight) and I don't see any spot where a similar tier design could be shoved in, narratively speaking. So all in all, S2 did as much as S2 could have. More tea server arc please though, the Guru episode really feels like it skipped 800 km of plot and everything that happened in it is so crammed and pretty sus in terms of character behaviour.

[diientedegato]

I'm curious if you have any thoughts on what Ben Paul would look like if he was alive years after S1 of TWDG :> I honestly prefer to imagine both him & Kenny going off on their own adventures after S1, because Idk if I'd've had Kenny as part of S2, it felt like when he returned it became less Clem's story & more his. That might be controversial among fans but it's how I feel :s I like to imagine Ben, Kenny & Sarita forming their own little family in fact <3 I'd expect Ben would end up with shaggier hair after a while but I wouldn't mind knowing what he'd look like with short, spiked up hair ;>

IM SORRY BOTH THE ASK AND DRAWING ARE OLD- but I came across the sketch I had eugeugeh. I do not have many headcanons but behind the cut is just a rant about. Kenny mostly. Too much should I warn? But yah I'm sorry it took me like 5 months lol

The only headcanon (regarding Ben's appearance) is that he'd keep his school jacket for as long as possible. Until it thorns apart. Or until he dies.

I'm big fan of Ben lives possibility btw I've gotta draw sum about that sometime (I say, about every twdg character i like,)

And dude, do I agree about Kenny. Man doesn't belong in season 2. The character they made him to be in the second season is not Kenny, it's just a nostalgia element. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, I'm biased as hell, I break that hug choice every time. But it made the character development in the first season just.... pointless. "For some reason, I saved that piece of shit Ben", man, that quote just disappoints me. Kenny lost everything. Father and husband of none no more, which was pretty much the arc of Kenny on the first season?? I think? . Everything he loved and he had he lost, and he killed the person responsible for it. But not as revenge, he killed a kid out of mercy. He saved the boy from suffering a painful death, and that was forgiveness, to the reason he hadn't any. He took a decision he would be fully responsible of, when it was time for him to go. And he was perfect.

Hell, if he had appeared during season 2, I do prefer the Kenny as Carver idea. Clementine wasn't even that close to Kenny in the past, the player was, so even then it feels... off, off to be forced to care about a man that says so much he wants to protect you. (They're not really family, but is as if Kenny tries to protect and have Clem on his side, to have Clem's loyalty through and through. Though he does let her go and is proud of her on her individuality... hm.) But still, I mean, second season Kenny is not first season Kenny, and it isn't even a change that made sense. If he had been antagonist (which pretty much feels like it in the Canon story already), he should have had some other background story, no Sarita or company. Maybe then the cynical view he has would have mattered. The violence and anger and whatever else. For him to change that way was a consequence of him losing what he represented, protection of family? Wasn't failure and grief and acceptance meant to be important after all?

But otherwise yea I think it would've been pretty cool if Ben survived :3 I am a sucker for tales of redemption, forgiveness, and found family. And I hadn't thought about Kenny, Ben, and Sarita, but hell yeah. Man, even if they appeared in the second season, it would've been interesting if the choice wasn't between two individuals, but between two families. Ben already had a relationship with Clem! He appreciated her and calls her his only friend during season 1, he did leave her behind during that scene, -but the point of Ben was that- He was a coward all the season, until when he wasn't. He wanted to help Lee help Clem. They would've had an interesting sibling relationship-? also Ben had a young sister before the apocalypse so ooooh projection and parallels and shi. And if Ben had lived, he would've completed his development to something close to bravery-?

Well, I don't know, at least I think that'd be one interesting way to bring back old characters. Otherwise, Kenny should only be mentioned on dialogue maximum. The way I see it.

(I repeat the same thing over and over when I talk about something I'm sorry

(I've developed no language skills whatsoever in my life

(Yippee

[actual-changeling]

We need to talk about the Archangel Michael.

No, seriously we NEED to talk about Michael because I think she's going to be way more important than we currently think.

(quick side note: I will be jumping between pronouns for everyone involved because I go by vibes and also bc I'm trans and I like doing it. Hopefully it won't be too confusing, but I'll try to make it clear who I am talking about.)

So! Welcome back to Alex's unhinged meta corner. In accordance with the usual essay rules, let's begin with my hypothesis before we go down a long, probably very unhinged spiral.

I completely underestimated how thorough I was going to be, so to not overwhelm everyone with a miles long post, I will be dividing this meta into parts and will post them as I finish them.

A lot of small details have been fluttering around my mind over the last few weeks, and I think I am finally starting to put all the pieces together—and there are a LOT.

Part 1: Season One and Michael's Rank

We know them as one of the three (four—but that's another post) Archangels next to Gabriel and Uriel. While Gabriel's title was that of the Supreme Archangel, Michael's is explicitly stated in episode one of season two as 'duty officer', which, broadly speaking, makes them the Watcher, the one in charge in the case of Gabriel's absence for whatever reason, taking command where he can't; usually that probably meant him simply being busy and not him being unemployed and naked.

Their position is further signified by their ring, which resembles the Ophanim, the many-eyed angel wheels.

They are the one to keep a literal eye on things—they find pictures of Aziraphale and Crowley in S1 in the Observation Files, they watch over the heavenly hosts, they oversee plans, everything.

Michael even takes it a step further and (presumably created) the grapevine with hell, having direct contact to higher ranking demons such as Ligur, most likely also Dagon, and Beelzebub.

This is where we get to my theory: Michael is actively working with demons against both heaven and hell. It doesn't mean that they care about preserving earth, though they might later on, but that whatever plans heaven currently has are to be stopped.

I'm going to take this one step further and say that Michael also knew about Gabriel and Beelzebub, and helped him escape.

Now to the fun part: the evidence!

In season one, they are interested in stopping Crowley and Aziraphale from preventing the apocalypse, but that does not mean that they agree with the plans heaven has for said event—only that they need it to happen so their own agenda can stay on track. She has information she technically shouldn't, like, well, literally all the details about how, when, and what is going to go down

This is due to heaven and hell's general cooperation, which is its own post, but all of that runs through them.

That 'apparently' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, it's the basic and plausible deniability that's required for them to not be in trouble. She is also in charge of ORGANIZING the troops, fulfilling her role as a navigator.

On top of that, the way she talks to Ligur highly mirrors the way two covert operatives might talk to one another, using phrases like 'our man' and 'working for you'. The mere assumption Michael makes here, that Aziraphale could be a spy, implies that there ARE already spies and angels working for hell.

Consorting with the enemy is allowed as long as it is done within a very specific framework, so Michael and Ligur are free to do so, while Aziraphale and Crowley are working outside of it, which gives heaven & hell the basis to punish them for it.

I think the phrasing of this sentence is also quite interesting.

Not "time to come back to heaven" or anything along the lines that takes Aziraphale's ethereal status into account, no, she simply says he needs to 'choose sides'—and who is to say that he needs to choose heaven or that heaven and hell are the only sides one can choose? Additionally, Michael is the one to bring the holy water to hell while they send one of the Erics, and while the trial as a whole holds a certain tension, there does not seem to be any open animosity between him and the dukes of hell.

In short, Michael is working with hell behind the scenes, likely pursuing their own goals, and standing in opposition to heaven.

Moving on to season two, and here it gets REALLY fun.

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5

(hopefully it will just be five. it was supposed to be two. then three. but here we are)

[echobx]

Yeah we don't know these people at all or anything real about who they are or their lives but I do agree that some of their behavior seems incredibly unprofessional and all the signs point to something bad but we should never send hate to someone. I for one would like to hear your theories where you connected the dots because I would like to be prepared.

I'm just gonna say it, I don't know exactly what goes on, I can only take rumors and the few confirmed moments we had in the past and connect the dots over that.

(post writing note: this got too long so I'm putting a readmore)

1. (and if you call me a hater for this, idgaf, bc it's true) Elaine being a racist and homophobic and also hard to work with

2. Rudy being with Elaine, staying by her side and defending her (which wouldn't be an issue, if she wasn't fucking racist and homophobic!!!)

3. Elaine having issues with not only Madison and her gf, but also with multiple others on set, including JD and Lilah Pate

4. Rudy voicing his desire to leave the show after his contract ends (which would be s4) UNLESS they fix his character arc. now this one is especially sweet bc he said this before s3 started filming and he and others, were not happy with the s3 script bc a lot of things (including Jiara) were not well thought through and it was rushed and super ooc. and then he allegedly asked for it again with the start of filming for s4.

5. bts shots of Rudy where he's always looking rather annoyed, or bored, or just generally completely down. he literally looks nothing like he did when the show started, or even for s2 or s3, and he was already less who he used to be for s3 (which might be connected to no.4)

6. Blind items saying Madison wants to leave and pursue music. The interview Madelyn gave was also super ambiguous to what will happen to the show. (tied to no.4 too)

7. very high possibility that Elaine was fired from obx, my reasoning behind this is that she wasn't in any of the bts promo videos they released and in the last three seasons she was always somewhere or had posted some promo pics already.

sooo let's look at these points again.

bc it's on my mind I'm gonna start with the Elaine drama. I'm not known for liking her, but I'm also not gonna send her hate or tell you how to feel about her bc tbh idgaf what you believe to be true or not when it comes to this, so take all I say with a grain of salt still and don't come into my comments saying "you just hate her bc she's with Rudy" no, no I don't. I can't stand her bc she has weird vibes, is literally homophobic and racist, and on top of that for all we know not the best gf too (he's not a good bf when he's woth her either, but that's another topic)

so, Elaine was at the show as a pa and to take care of the promo pics for the show. she was there from s1 on, was friends with Lilah and generally was not really that in everyone's business at the time for all we know. HOWEVER during s1 Rudy had a girlfriend Teo Marcella, she's in a few pictures with Rudy from back then. Teo was also super good friends with Madison, and I believe they still are friends today but just not as close. Rudy was also super thick with Madison at the time. Teo never seemed to have any issues with that. But as time progressed, Elaine kept getting closer to Rudy, and he's not as loyal as you might think. I don't believe there was an overlap, they broke up and a month later he was with Elaine. that is way too little time if you ask me unless, which is what happened, Elaine literally came on to him while he was in a relationship, which you don't fucking do. you just don't do that. point proven that Elaine isn't a girls girl.

between s1 and s2 Chase and Madelyn go on a ski trip with Rudy and Elaine, it's ally happy and cute and- gotta stop here cause I don't wanna throw up. anyway, s2 starts filming, everyone is still happy and things are good. well.... are they tho? bc Rudy is still bffs with Madison, but Elaine doesn't really like that, so Rudy stops hanging out with Madison as much, bc he wants to make his gf happy like you do, yk? the rest of the cast doesn't seem to annoyed by it all, it's literally mostly Madison who's affected by this. now, after s2 and before s3, I believe that was the time when the boys went to that basketball game? @redhead1180 told me about something happening there where Elaine shoved JD or something (we are still trying to retrieve the video that was posted to twitter at the time) and Rudy wasn't happy with her whole behavior that day (allegedly).

now, we get s3, or more so they get the script for it and I wholeheartedly believe that Rudy and Madison begged them to change it bc neither of them wanted jiara to happen. from day 1 on Madison asked for a queer plotline for Kiara and Rudy always went hard on the jjpope ship. but that didn't do anything, Jiara went canon and no one in the cast liked it (fight me on this. they all shipped jjpope before s3 promo tour started, no one fucking talked about jiara EVER and then on s3 promo tour they rather talked about rafebarry than mention jiara possibility and it felt as they had been briefed to not talk about jjpope at all) so, you can believe it or not, but imo Elaine got mad af when jiara went canon bc that meant Rudy would have to kiss his former bff who Elaine had already deemed a threat to herself. so things started cooking. Rudy and Madison barely talked on set or interacted much unless necessary. then Rudy booked two movies that year to avoid doing as much promotions as possible.

the s4 drama is a lot. some shit happened before the strike, like The Dinner™ followed by the Great Unfollowing of 2023. I wish to be a fly on the wall at that dinner, but one thing is clear, that night was the start of the end and the reason why Madelyn said there's "multiple cliques" on set. whatever was said, we know that Rudy sided with Elaine, bc if he hadn't he prolly wouldn't still be with her. so, Madison unfollowed Elaine and Elaine did the same for her. now, that's already messy af, especially with what Madi posted in her stories and reposted on tiktok. like, some serious shit went down there and I need her to spill the tea.

after the strike we get Morocco. where we have some videos of Elaine being rude to fans again (reoccurring issue), I know that some of them had been following Rudy around and I'm not saying that's appropriate either. but she has a repeating behavior of dragging him away and pulling on him when he's with fans. and ppl will say "it's scheduling issues, they don't always know exactly when they have to leave" which fine ig, but how can you be sure that's the case all the time?? bc I don't think it was the case for a lot of these. now I wanna say something that I have seen being repeated on here and on twitter, no Mariah isn't just as bad as Elaine and just as clingy. Mariah is supportive of Madison just as much as Madison is supportive of Mariah. Mariah still does her job, mostly in LA, while Madison is off filming somewhere. that's completely different from Elaine who literally follows Rudy around like a lapdog. those two things are not the same. pls tell me you've ever seen Elaine in a place where Rudy wasn't also at? hasn't really happened, has it? and I think that might be part of the overall issue and reasoning why I think they also fired her. bc the Pates are trying to keep their show alive through all this drama. like, she has reported beef with Madison and JD and Lilah. if two of my main cast, if not more, and my family tell me to get rid of her and hire someone else in the hopes for things to get peaceful again, hell yeah I'll fire her. and that would also explain a little why Rudy doesn't hang with the cast as much as he used to on set and why he's always looking miserable, bc they rightfully got his gf fired.

also, she's not a good gf, she's clingy and apparently insecure about her relationship with Rudy, which is visible in her feeling threatened by Madi although Madi has never shown any interest in that way in Rudy. but ig that's just what happens when you come onto a guy who's in e relationship and he goes for it, you'll just always wonder if he will do the same to you. (I'm not even gonna touch Rudy's cheating rumors and the recent break-up rumors although they make a lot of sense and it would be so much healthier if they actually broke up instead of staying toxic for each other with the false pretense of love)

on Rudy leaving. I don't think he would want to leave if they fix JJs character arc and work with him, bc he made that character who he is, before that JJ was just a hollow character on paper, with not much to go off at the start. But I do think he will if they didn't do that. He has other projects to look forward to, he's talented enough to keep his career afloat without Netflix. and I also think that if Elaine is actually fired, he's not happy with that and how it happened and he probably doesn't want to work with those ppl as much anymore, but who knows. All I know is that the happiness and lightheartedness he had in the first season and even in the second season, is completely gone. but when you look at him doing other projects, like the bts of Crusades or 5lbs of Pressure, he looks genuinely happy and not like he does on obx. so something has to be going on there, even if all I said above turns out to be bs, there's something going on that makes this job feel like 9- to 5 to him from the looks of it. and tbh if that's the case, I don't even know if I want him to continue OBX bc the show is about fun and friendship and summer, not about being miserable and feeling like shit just being there. so the Pates might take the L and kill off JJ and hope that the show continues, but tbh, Netflix isn't known to make shows that are longer than 4 seasons. so if s4 happens and JJ dies and they greenlight a fifth season, I'm gonna predict s5 will be the end of the show, simply bc watch numbers will go down when Rudy isn't there anymore.

I think this was already way more than you thought I'd say even though it was pretty compact and only really two theories ig lol. but yeah, that's what I think.

also, Rudy doing the play, which is great he always wanted to do theater, but again having it during the s4 promotional period is just so clear to me that he doesn't want to hang with the cast anymore. he's not posting anything anymore like he used to, he's not commenting on their posts or even liking them like he used to, he's not hanging out with them like he used to. and it's not a coincidence to me that this happened and keeps happening and that it gets worse. but a lot of ppl don't want to see it bc it will destroy their perfect bubble they have built around him.

[sharonccrter]

what's baffling to me is this group of fans who feel very confident that lestat is going to continue to be this mustache twirling j depp stand in for the entirety of the show. like do they honestly think the writers are going to throw away 13 books worth of characterization in favor of the one depiction in the Lestat Misinformation Novel or have they somehow managed to avoid all book spoilers?

i think the writers will be able to navigate the flip from antagonist to protagonist with the genpop who don't know anything about the books because they arent thinking as deeply about the societal implications as much as a tumblr/twitter stan looking at this show through a social justice lens. But I have a hard time seeing it work for that subset of fans, and i'm bracing myself for the space here becoming even more contentious than it already is.

Oh, I agree. I think it's going to get worse, especially when we shift from Louis to Lestat being the main character. I definitely think Louis is still going to be a main player, but the narrative is gonna shift, and that's gonna make certain people unhappy.

I also think the writers and Sam have hinted that there are scenes from s1 they plan on revisiting in s3, from Lestat's POV, and I think that's also gonna make certain people unhappy. It will mostly be the non-book readers looking at this show with 2024 morality glasses who can't see that Lestat is more than one thing. Like, I do think s3 will win some people over, but I think people who are dead set on thinking Lestat is some irredeemable abuser are gonna have a hard time. Especially seeing as their looking at this scene completely differently to how the writers intended it to be received.

But hey, book 2 is my favourite, with book 3 coming in a close second, so I'm ready to see them adapted well.

[thatswhatsushesaid]

ok so i understand why it's appealing to read junlian (like i'm literally in that camp with all the respectable fans with impeccable tastes) but. but i think it's Important for the sake of fully Understanding their dynamic and representing it in the most accurate way to keep in mind - at all times - that it was always meant to be a (pseudo)parental relationship first and foremost.

JW is not the representation of a toxic jealous ex. he's the representation of a toxic parent who will traumatise you in the most horrific ways while saying (and genuinely believing in his own mind) that he's only doing it for your own good. he loves you because you remind him of all the good parts of himself. he can't stand seeing his own reflection in you. he won't ever let you go. it breaks his heart to have to break you, but what choice does he have? the outside world is cruel and it's his job to prepare you for suffering.

yeah i don't think the source material supports a read of jun wu's relationship with xie lian as an ex of any kind tbh, that's not the vibe i got at any point while reading the books. my shipping goggles aside, i hope i haven't conveyed that through my of my commentary, and if i have--oops! was it the comparison i drew between junlian and hannigram in my meme? i mean, even though by s3 the question of hannibal being explicitly in love with will graham is broached on screen by bedelia du maurier (to say nothing of their overtly intimate embrace before they tumble off the cliff together), s1 is where the comparison between the two dynamics really works for me. because imo hannibal's fascination with will at that point is at its most paternalistic, and will's rejection of him at the end of s1 when he finds out (or believes he's found out!) what hannibal did to abigail is analogous to xie lian's complete rejection of jun wu the moment he sees his reflection in the sword. end-of-s1 will is about as interested in hannibal romantically as he is in voluntarily eating abigail's ear: he isn't, he didn't ask for this, he's in hell, etc. similarly, xie lian's entire understanding of his relationship with jun wu, the rock and fundament of his time in the heavenly court, has just been irreparably destroyed. from his perspective, everything he thought he knew and understood to be true about their relationship was built on lies, and he's not wrong.

all that to say, while i do think that the text can support a romantic read of jun wu's feelings towards xie lian without ever explicitly confirming it as such, i for sure agree with you that that wasn't mxtx's intention when writing the dynamic. she's pretty clear, again and again when describing how xie lian sees jun wu, that his behaviour is seen and interpreted as parental and fatherly.

[sapphicwritergal]

Horikoshi is a professional mind fucker, he could be a virgin yet the way he writes fucks with the mind, I'M A VICTIM.

Endeavor s1, 2,3,4 = Referred to as a complete ASSHOLE, pushed his beliefs on his son (Horikoshi sucked his cock enough to make him nicer in the backstories) every piece of information we are given about this man in these seasons are that he's a dick, he fucked up his only family and then switched up once he became number one, or when he knew he'd be number one, it's honestly fuckin sad, and then in seasons 5,6,7 we see this always gentle, good helping guy, "çharacter development—" SHUT UP, WHAT SHOTO HAS IS DEVELOPMENT EVEN IF IT'S FUCKING SPEEDED ALONG.

Rei = She agreed and was sold off but when you're raised to be a of use to your family or to save your family and you don't really care, Rei has spoken up, she's tried, but she never has a position of power, she can't speak like she should but only could when Enji was in a hospital bed, she was in a mental hospital from the time she scarred Shoto to when he was in highschool, I'm sorry for to be there that long is horrendous and to be put in the same placement as the man that would hit you when you defended your children and hit those children and hit YOU in front of those children, baby I'd go insane too, "Oh but when she married Endeavor she knew-" If she knew she wouldn't defend her children, and she expected them to be raised into heroes but by beating them around the age of five and six was not in the review.

Bakugou = This is where the tomatoes come, and it's completely normal to like him even if I don't, he's a dick, all three seasons he's a dick, he simmers down because all mights retirement humbled him, it's not bad to give a downright dick a bad arc so you can put him through hell and fix him, that's not bad, but admit he was a bully, admit he's downright disrespectful a majority of times, the way he only gets nice to Midoriya is when they drag his ass to U. A, I hate hearing his inner dialogue about Midoriyas situation, if being a bitch until you need to be nice is character development then I'm not for it, and I don't mind when characters who are dicks get kindness but we have him dragging Midoriya and suddenly it's them against the world.

Shoto, poor Shoto, see he's very solid then he breaks apart, like ice that melts when hell is on him, no Im alluding to his parents And his connection with them, Shoto despite having a grudge is right through and through, his father drove his mom insane and then she was in a mental hospital, his rebelling is not wrong, it could be seen as him trying to oppose the abuser yet makes him slightly feel that he has to stop using fire for a bit until his mom is like it's all fine and you do you babes, he's always been a snark to Bakugou so it's really stupid to make him the resident punching bag, "Oh but Shoto sees Bakugou as a friend—" THAT'S FINE HOWEVER THIS TAKES AWAY HIS CHARACTERIZATION OF SEASONS 1,2,3 AND MAYBE 4, Bakugou being high and mighty only for Shoto be like fuck out of my way.

Hawks = I almost tricked my mind, he looks good but he's murdered twice and I'm saying that I don't give a FUCK about what Twice could have done, shit, I just don't like the fact they became friends and he just betrayed Twice, it's like if time came and you both are friends and he's hired to kill you for some reason, mf will kill you, he's tainted by the hero commission and it's sad, because his dreams were the advantage, he realizes that over time, he didn't kill just anyone that was a friend and that is backstabbing and then instead of him still seeing what he did as the right thing, just let him have conflict like a normal person unless we're revealed that he's a sociopath, I don't hate him but the anti tag makes me feel comfortable.

[mindibindi]

The Failure of Ted Lasso's Unconventional Politics

SOCIAL CONDITIONING:

According to Brendan Hunt, shippers interested in a second chance, mature-age romance between Ted and Rebecca were being blindly, un-self-reflexively led about by their “social conditioning”. Presumably, however, the writers who wrote Ted returning to his heteronormative family unit – as well as all the viewers who enjoyed this ending and have defended it since – are completely free of social conditioning? No social conditioning is involved in reifying the white heterosexual family unit? No social conditioning is involved in deifying parenthood, fatherhood and patriarchy at the cost of all else? There is no social conditioning involved in a conclusion that values good ole working class Americana while rejecting the big, queer, complicated, multicultural world?

KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid):

If the creators wanted to gesture to “Cheers” as a classic American sitcom, then at least learn from its example. This show worked best when it worked with familiar, beloved characters in a familiar, beloved, but confined setting. "Ted Lasso" had a near-perfect first act, doing a simple thing well. But from s2 onward, the show started straying out of bounds. The cast of characters kept expanding and contracting: people were in, people were out, characters were coming and going and changing (what was the point of that whole Zava plotline?). We had multiple workplaces and workplace dramas (grew to like Barbara tho). Episodes got long and unwieldy. Themes got convoluted as the show took a long trip, imo, up its own arse. The folksy wisdom of s1 became grating self-indulgence and cliched “moment” manufacturing.  

SUPERFICIAL UNCONVENTIONALITY:

TL employed a familiar 3-part structure but ultimately its supposedly radical, unconventional politics was not reflected in the show’s structure. Since the first act started with Ted's arrival, you could see his departure coming from a mile off. Some folks are acting like returning Ted home constitutes some super brave move by the writers that we've never seen before. But if you want to talk social conditioning expressed through narrative expectation then you really couldn't get anything more conventional than this ending.

We've seen it all before:

Act I: Fish-out-of-Water character arrives and begins winning over a dubious, dysfunctional community Act II: Bonding, hijinks, missteps, complications and development Act III: Revelations of growth. Community sadly waves goodbye to teacher they love but no longer need. Cue credits with moving song choice.

It's as cliche, conventional and predictable as it gets. And I could condescendingly accuse every viewer who enjoyed this ending as being blindly and un-self-reflexively led around by their social conditioning. But even if I'm not one of the showrunners who also played a beloved character and who is speaking on a public forum, that would be a pretty fucking shitty move. What I am saying is that the disagreement over this ending speaks to some core ideological differences currently playing out across the globe around patriarchy, feminism, queerness and privilege. There is an opportunity here to examine what we socioculturally view as “good’ and “right” and “happy”. These ideas of good, right and happy are not necessarily benign and will be inevitably reflected in and reproduced by our art.

PATRIARCHY:

In the end, “Ted Lasso” literally chose patriarchy (but what kind is the question). Just because this show was working with a familiar 3-part structure, that doesn't mean it didn't need to justify Ted's inevitable departure. For many people, his son is enough. That's it. End of conversation. Henry trumps all. And yes, this was always going to be the justification used by the series. But I think this disagreement highlights changing attitudes to modern parenting. Everyone agrees that parenting requires sacrifice: large and small, everyday and lifelong. But how much sacrifice is too much?

For some people, this was too much sacrifice. Others seem to think it was Ted's duty to sacrifice for his son his own sense of family and community, his continued health and growth, his professional fulfilment. Imo, he could have shared all of this with him but chose old-school parental sacrifice instead. I consider this kind of sacrifice to be something that culturally we’re coming to recognise as unhealthy, for both parent and child. In reality, parents are more than one thing. Parents have jobs, interests, relationships, needs, limitations and struggles. Parents are people.

In the series, Ted was established as a person: a person with a sad past, a tortured inner world, a strong desire to connect with others and, potentially, a brighter future than his past. From the beginning, his relationship with Michelle was established (and often reinforced) as over, dead, absolutely no route back in. But his relationship with his son was loving and important to him. Of course it was. He’d be a bad man and unlikeable character if it wasn’t. Even so, Henry isn’t a major or fully realised character in this show. We care about him, relate to him through Ted. He matters to us because he matters to Ted. But frankly, we are far more attached to Ted’s other adopted “children”, the relationships we have watched him develop over 3 years, than the relationship we only saw glimpses of. That’s just narrative reality. In reality, yes, Henry would and should be Ted’s first priority. This is only right. In fiction, the team at Richmond should have been the first priority of Jason and the rest of the writing team. They are the ones we want to see and want to see happy and settled.

As many frustrated viewers have stated, it's not Ted's departure that is so disheartening but how it was done. If the TL team wanted to make this choice seem like a healthy one for Ted then they needed to establish other things waiting for him in Kansas: friends, community, employment, fulfillment. As it was, literally nothing tipped the scales in favour of Kansas. There were no romantic, community or larger familial relationships to get back to. Far too much was just left to inference or imagination. Yes, we can assume that Ted has community in Kansas, that he will probably get a great job after his success in Richmond. But all the people and opportunities we would like to infer/imagine will never tip the balance towards Kansas when we consider all we KNOW is already established for him in Richmond. The homeworld and beloved characters of a show will always hold more emotional weight than anything undefined and hypothetical. If viewers were to be happy with Ted’s exit then the writers needed to take the time to lovingly define his future away from the club.

Instead, it seems like a deliberate choice to shut Ted down and perform (and I do mean “perform”) this marvelous sacrifice for his son that so many think is admirable. It’s this shutdown that is so inconsistent and confusing. Because at any time in the hour, Ted could have said to Rebecca, the Diamond Dogs and/or his team:

“Look y'all this ain't the end. We’re family now. I'll be back. I'll show y'all round Kansas anytime you wanna visit. My mom will cook a dinner that will clog your arteries. And every so often, what say we do a long-distance movie night, huh? I'll miss you all but I’ll be watching every game and I can't wait to come back and see you win the whole fucking thing!!”

Ted could have been a model of honest, expressive, emotionally forthcoming, relationship-maintaining masculinity. But nope. Not a word. Just brave male sacrifice. It's straight up patriarchal propaganda. And truth is, fathers sacrifice way less than mothers do in heterosexual parenting relationships. Mothers are generally the ones making those small, everyday sacrifices that our society rarely acknowledges or admires. But I bet this ending makes all those lazy husbands and boyfriends feel real good about themselves. I bet it makes many female partners feel all warm and fuzzy to know that even though their kids’ father won't share half the labour that goes into raising a child, when it comes time for him to perform a massive manly sacrifice for his family, he toootttaaally will. I'm sorry, what were you saying about social conditioning Mr. Hunt?

FATHER GOD or WHITE SAVIOUR?:

Patriarchy needs its Father Gods and its Mother Gods to play certain roles (tho, to paraphrase Angela Carter, both are as silly as each other.) These magical figures materialise at pivotal times then dematerialise when the narrative is over, the pivotal lessons learned. They never themselves learn or alter. Think Mary Poppins or Nanny McPhee. These figures are not entirely human, they possess an element of the supernatural. They serve others, serve a higher purpose. Nanny McPhee's appearance changes only as a reflection of her charges’ growth. Mary Poppins – the figure to whom Ted is most likened – learns to care about her kids but she doesn't engage in any self-introspection. Her duty and trajectory remains unchanged. When she arrives at her next job, she will do so exactly the same as she was.

These otherworldly mother deities are not unproblematic feminist figures themselves. But creating a male, fatherhood deity becomes even more problematic when he is white, cis-het and pretty able. Ted arrives to teach all the black and brown lost boys, to unite the disconnected women, liberate the closeted gays and to update the bumbling English gentlemen (there is, I feel, a special relish in these American bros educating their former colonisers on modern manhood). Here, we start to stray into white saviour territory. Frighteningly, this kind of patriarchal demi-god implies that white men are the most progressive figures in a society, they are in the political vanguard, championing the needs of the disconnected and downtrodden. White men are the ultimate source of wisdom, kindness and progress. It represents them as a group as progressive, when in reality the attitudes and politics of this group represent conservative politics and regressive values that impede the progress of every other marginalised group. If we buy this myth about white men, then we are more likely to accept what they say to us from their positions of power and privilege as right, wise, kind and progressive, even when it is the opposite.

So, if you are going to put forward a white man as a model of progressive politics, then you need to embrace unconventionality, not just superficially but down to your bones. “Ted Lasso” tried to structure s2 and s3 differently but just ended up making a mess of allusions and ideologies that did not connect, cohere, develop or conclude. In fact, sometimes they straight-up contradicted.  Employing a magical 3-part structure and making a bunch of meaningless allusions to well-known classics does not another classic make. They did not engage with any of these classics (“Cheers”, “Mary Poppins”, “The Wizard of Oz”) in any deep or critical way. Classics may be loved but they are not faultless. If you simply repeat what has already been done, even in celebrated classics, you may just end up repeating mistakes someone already made for you to learn from. TL repeats the central feminist problem of parental deities in “Mary Poppins”, just as it repeats the irreconcilable ending of “The Wizard of Oz”.

LIMINALITY:

Both “The Wizard of Oz” and “Mary Poppins” take us into strange liminal worlds. “Ted Lasso” could be read similarly, except that Ted doesn't take any magic home with him. In fact, he seems to actively forget it, reverting to the Ted he was before leaving. No queerness or feminism follows him home, no traces of the various cultures he's come into contact with. The liminal remain liminal with no indication that these two worlds will communicate or can integrate. The non-white, female, queer and otherwise bizarre are left outside of Ted’s squeaky clean hometown heteronormativity. And I really don’t think I have to explain why that is so deeply irresponsible. Because again, this is a writing choice.

That epilogue at the end was brief but imagine if it included more detail: Ted texting with Rebecca, or facetiming with Roy, Jamie giving Henry advice. They didn't take the time to honour and continue these relationships or integrate these two worlds. They didn't suggest that responsible fatherhood could entail many things, could look different. “Sacrifice,” they said profoundly. “Fatherhood,” they murmured mistily. “Patriarchy” was their final word to which this feminist says, “Bullshit.”

PRIVILEGE:  

I only did one film unit at uni but it really doesn't take much to deconstruct the absurdly inconsistent ending of “The Wizard of Oz”. It was 1939, the end of the Great Depression and the start of another devastating world war. People needed to be convinced that their small ramshackle b/w lives surrounded by loved ones were stable, noble even. They already had everything they needed. They didn't need Oz. They didn't need bright futures, big adventures or exciting opportunities. Monochrome Kansas was all a good American should ever hope for. There was danger in difference, safety at home.

Well, here we are in late-stage capitalistic hell, having come through (???) a pandemic and it takes a special sort of privilege to say to an audience: you don't need money or opportunity or community, they won't make your life any better than before. Be happy with the muddy and mundane. Be happy with what you've got. Turn away from larger community, greater knowledge, continued stability, and isolate yourself in a bubble of you and yours. Look, it's not a sweet or familiar narrative conclusion but the truth is, Ted’s, Henry’s and Michelle’s lives would have all been better if they'd relocated to London. Do these dolts have any idea what teachers (in the USA esp) are currently going through? How overworked and underpaid and undervalued these people are? The burnout rates?? Ted didn't have to take the highest salary Rebecca offered but, had the writers been willing to put in the effort, a more unconventional, more modern ending to this series could have been crafted.

Not that I'm surprised they took the easy road to glory. All indications from the beginning of s3 suggested that this would be the rather predictable conclusion. Indications do not, however, constitute development. This team had the opportunity to write a new ending to an old story, one that incorporated queer, feminist and anti-capitalist values. One that defined a different, new version of patriarchy. They didn't even think to. In their white boi hubris, they just assumed that they and tradition knew best. Considering how many viewers would be struggling right now for food, housing, employment and opportunity, an ending in which Ted turns down an opportunity like this hits a false, rather virtue-signally note. Literally, nobody would have come out worse. Everybody would have benefitted from Ted staying in Richmond. Which means this decision was made purely to manufacture a “moment” that celebrates patriarchy.

ANTICAPITALISM: There’s a reason they had Rebecca offer Ted the biggest salary in his industry. They wanted to make it NotAboutTheMoney! Ted doesn’t say so (doesn’t say anything) but, because this narrative idea is so fucking familiar, we can assume the thoughts behind his oh-so-sage expression are: “Well, shucks now, boss, I rightly do appreciate the kindly offer but that there kid o’ mine is more important to me than any cash you could put in my silly lil handy-hands.” Good Lord. The cringe is real. I really, really can’t with this mighty, manly silence and sacrifice. My problem isn’t that Ted values his son over money (not that it has to be a choice because that money could benefit Henry and his mother, who is owed a heck of a lot of child support esp since she’s been raising their son solo for 3 years). Again, that is how it should be. My problem is that the show actively established Richmond as an anticapitalist landscape, then suddenly at the eleventh hour, tried to walk that back and imply it was actually a capitalistic landscape (in contrast to homey ole Kansas).  

Capitalism teaches us to sniff at money. We've been told by the monied and privileged that it won't buy happiness. (This is of course, utter bullshit because money can buy you a hell of a lot of wellbeing, security and opportunity). At the beginning of the series, Rebecca Welton stands for this principle. And by the end, she has found a way to use her extreme wealth and privilege in an ethical way. She gives it away. She supports others. She lets Sam out of a promotional contract, she funds Keeley’s business, she sells half the club to fans. The most obvious example of Rebecca’s anticapitalist politics is her confrontation with all the richy riches who want to take soccer away from the people. Here, she becomes an anticapitalist leader, one who has been positively influenced by the anticapitalistic politics of The Lasso Way.

The Lasso Way is anticapitalistic in that it stresses that winning isn’t everything. You try but you try together. You play hard, not in order to beat the other guy, but to be the best (player, teammate, man) you can be. There are no individual stars, only collaborative team players. You give due credit to others, the team, the support staff. The club functions well when it functions as a unit. Over the course of the series, it becomes a commune that protects and nurtures its citizens. A socialist haven that values people over profits, prizes and meaningless acquisition. The Greyhounds don’t want to win the league for the money or the top spot. Winning the whole fucking thing is an expression of their regard for each other, the game and the new, kinder ethos they all now live by.

Because they spent 3 years establishing all of this (during a time when we really needed to hear it), there is something v disingenuous about them then having Rebecca offer to go to extremes to pay Ted more money than any man should have. It is not consistent with the show’s themes, the ethos of the club, Rebecca’s attitude or what she knows of Ted. She knows it’s not about the money for Ted. It never was. It’s an act of desperation on her part, but why did they need to make her ridiculous, desperate, so inept in this moment? Hannah plays it beautifully but I can’t help but feel this is part of them diminishing Richmond, (re)casting it as excessively capitalistic in relation to Kansas so that they can turn Ted’s decision into a simple Money < Son choice. Because if it is a Money < Son choice then he has no dilemma. There is no other choice. He goes home to his son. The problem is, they’ve just spent 3 years proving that it is not a simple Money < Son dilemma. Money was never actually part of this equation. Ted left to give Michelle space, to find himself, to find a new life and community, to extend himself beyond what he knew as normal. As such, there is now far more than just money for Ted in Richmond (which tbf, Rebecca also points out, but I still think this point stands).  

The other major problem is that, here in the real world, middle-class America (which btw does not exist) is far from being a haven of peace and prosperity comparable to nowhere in the world. This is a lazy cliché than any amount of travel should quickly disabuse you of. And yet in Kansas, we are supposed to believe, despite everything happening in America (referenced by Henry in ep 3.01), Ted will find community, opportunity and stability. To pull off this ending, they needed to establish a Kansas unlike the one currently in existence. This is what they did with Richmond. The UK is no better than the US currently, but they nevertheless established an ideal society, one with values very contrary to the world we now live in. Is it any wonder that people saw the desertion of this world as a rejection of feminist, queer and anticapitalist values? Right now, more than ever, people want to believe in a society that isn't all about triumph, success, competition, acquisition, individualism and aggression. They want to believe in a society that emphasises community, values people, shares wealth, offers opportunity, encourages difference, improves lives and moves onward, forward, in circumspect but ethical steps. These themes were all there in the series. They just weren't utilised when it came time to shape its conclusion.

[lenaboskow]

I actually do like Tommy and appreciate you not fawning over him because he's complicated to me in a different sense, and I'm curious what you think. Everyone keeps wrapping him up in this pretty bow of a Prince Charming type and it boggles me. Queer love stories are so different than straight. Not every queer person in real life is looking for a forever. He's been out for a while. He hasn't pursued a long-term relationship so far . He seems to sort of condescend Buck, but in a "I will guide you" way. In some regards, he reminds me of Abby in S1. I see him as a character who probably heard Eddie and Chris talk about Buck all the time. Then Buck talks about Eddie and Chris. He knows there are three people in this relationship, but he thinks Buck is adorable, so why not have a good time... It's okay to be a character who's in it for the fun.

i agree, tommy's here to guide buck. i'm more concerned over the fact that they kind of just brush away his past and the way he used to treat people, and we still see some of that in the closet comment and the way he handled the date itself. at the very least, it shows he's not perfect. but hey, maybe that just shows queer love stories are more complicated, like you said.

i haven't put much thought to him being out and his past relationships, but i can definitely see him as someone who doesn't necessarily want a long term partner. in fact, with how little eddie mentions marisol, i could see him pursuing eddie at first before realizing this man is (supposedly) straight. he already did a rescue with them, and has met chris, so i agree that he knows the buckandeddie situation and is just here for a fun time.

i also agree that he reminds of abby. an older person, helping buck realize what love is. abby was his first real relationship with a woman, and tommy probably will be the first real relationship with a man (though probably not for as long, i don't see them staying together long term)

if i'm being completely honest, i hope tommy does his job of guiding buck and that they end on amicable terms. i don't want angst when it comes to this storyline (and that's a lot, coming from me). buck has been through so much, and he deserves to be loved and cherished, even if it's for a short time.

my dislike to the character is mostly based in how they've treated the character development, and abc can still fix it, i just don't see them taking the time to do it when tommy's probably not going to be here next season.

this is very disorganized and i am under caffeinated, so if there's anything i didn't answer or you want me to go more in depth about, just shoot me another ask.

[thesherrinfordfacility]

I am going to hazard a guess and predict that most queer viewers are going to side with Crowley in the divorce? The subtext here is usually that Crowley is a queer person who is comfortable in their identity while Aziraphale still doesn't let go of the church and internalized homophobia. And then asking Crowley to try to conform in a way that Crowley has never been comfortable with, implying that in order for this relationship to work you need to be something that you're not (especially potent bc Crowley in particular is explicitly nonbinary/ gender fluid)... its almost violating. That should clearly be asking too much of him and it only hurts worse to realize that Aziraphale doesn't realize that and doesn't truly accept Crowley as he is. Which is a fundamentally Queer Experience Thing.

okay again full disclosure i am not queer, so im only going to answer this to the best of my ability besties, if i don't write things right or deliberately misunderstand a nuance in this, please know im doing my best and anything that is upsetting or offensive please tell me, i am so not qualified to answer this... but nonnie has asked so i shall give it a go!!!✨💓 (cut bc length)

genuine question here: wouldn't, arguably, in this whole choosing sides thing, crowley vs aziraphale, be exactly what divides the queer community? those that could sympathise with aziraphale and his allegory vs those that could sympathise with crowley? this is a genuine question bc i would have thought depending on your (general you) guys' (nb) variety of experiences, good and bad, there are those that could see either side or both?

as for trying to make crowley conform - i'm not going to argue this per se, bc i realise that this must be a very painful concept or experience to go through, and i Will Not invalidate that. but on the other side of the argument, whilst i see and agree that this is how aziraphale could be interpreted generally in this argument, i didn't see it this way at all. not when taking into account aziraphale's whole demeanour in s2.

my understanding is that, as far as the canon has showed us, aziraphale knows very little about the true circumstances of crowley's fall (only that aziraphale warned him against asking questions), and even less about crowley's inner feelings on the matter. whenever aziraphale mentions it, or crowley having been an angel, crowley understandably responds aggressively and angry and obviously that it's still painful.

i don't think it's too far beyond reason for aziraphale to think that crowley - a good demon - might want to take a chance to have the wrong righted (as he sees it), to receive what aziraphale would consider a boon, an apology. whilst he's not in hell's clutches, crowley would have the chance to be free of hell completely. furthermore, it's a chance for them to be together, as friends or otherwise (obvs the metatron conversation is before crowley's confession), and to build the world they want - fair and honest and kind - together. because it's not as if crowley doesn't want that, but he just won't go anywhere near being an angel in order to do it - borne of fear yes but also resentment and bitterness... possibly even arrogance.

aziraphale does lord his angelic status over crowley especially in s1, and does hold a very black and white view over angels = good, demons = bad, but for the most part i think he has started to explore the possibility of grey more in s2. he starts to ease back on crowley and concentrate on making him feel wanted and loved (however that might look on Their Side), but still leaving him agency.

ive talked about aziraphale putting him on a pedestal and that is true, but the person on that pedestal, I don't think, is angel crowley - i don't think it's that simple. i think it's good demon crowley. and that good demon crowley would want to change the world, right?? well, he's got to be an angel to do it - even better!!!

so i didn't necessarily see it as aziraphale wanting to change crowley at all, but instead him thinking that based on what crowley has told him, of course crowley would want this!!! he deserves to be forgiven and restored, he's earnt it and he's a good person!!! but aziraphale unfortunately reneges on his emerging attempts to give crowley that agency, and instead decides for him. i don't think it was necessarily out of wanting to change crowley, but instead him not knowing the full story and therefore choosing a resolution for crowley out of love and respect... but one that crowley doesn't want.

these boys REFUSE to communicate and 👏 it 👏 shows👏✨

[saintarmand]

Hi! Do you think that s2 big reveal will be that Armand manipulated Louis memory? What do you think the "disastrous consequences in Dubai" mean? Louis attempting suicide as many books fans expect?

no. i think the "big reveal" will be that armand didn't have to. louis knows armand did the thing and stayed with him anyway like he did in the books. they very well may lead the audience to believe armand is doing that to louis, when it was actually daniel who got his memories wiped (and daniel may have agreed to it.) and i think any inconsistencies about the events of s1 that may or may not be revealed will be because of louis repressing memories the old fashioned way. at most armand helped a little. and i'm not saying that only because of the racist and abuse apologist implications or just cause i'm an armand stannie or whatever, although that's all also true. i'm saying that because i think the story is better for it.

to me, armand having significant overarching influence, especially though literal magic, on the story we've been told (specifically LOUIS's story told BY louis), undermines the theme of "memory is a monster." they told us the fallibility of memory in this story is the real life kind; how memory naturally changes every time we remember events in our lives, how our present self affects how we look at the past, etc. this is a fantasy story, yes, but it's very much grounded in reality. the racism isn't "fantasy racism", for example. having the twist be that a crucial element of the story that we were told was real was actually magic would lame and disappointing as hell. i think daniel having his memories wiped magically will be a parallel to louis. but the thing about parallels is that they're not meant to be literal or complete, and they emphasize differences as much as similarities, in order to reinforce the ideas and themes of the story, not replace them. so i think that while louis and daniel's memory issues can look similar on the surface, they have different causes and the show will make it clear which is which.

hell, they've even shown us magical manipulation vs regular manupulation before. we saw lestat entrance several humans including louis himself ("his gaze tied a string around my lungs and i found myself immobilized") but it was done in a way that made it obvious when it was happening, so general audiences weren't speculating lestat was using vampire magic to make louis fall in love with him or agree to be turned or whatever. he was shown to have powers he could have used at key points but didn't, more often using very basic human manipulation tactics, which were actually even more effective. even the idea of lestat causing paul's death was brought up only to be discarded. i think they'll pretty much do the same thing with armand, only teasing us a bit more with it. and sure, some people will still speculate, but i think this is what the intention of the writers is, and hopefully they do it well.

i assume the "disastrous consequences in dubai" is an interview quote and i've heard something like that but since i don't have the full context in front of me it's hard to say much about it. if you could tell me the whole quote and who said it and where and in what context i could probably talk about it in more detail lol. link me if you'd like?

what i will say right now is that i think there's gonna be a lot of arguments and accusations and revelations in dubai, i think louis will go through a hell of an emotional rollercoaster, i think daniel will find out about the eternal sunshine of the devil's minion as i like to call it, will ask to be turned again or at least realize he still wants it, i think louis and armand will break up, and i think there will be a book released by the end.

the louis suicide attempt theory i believe is based on merrick, which i still haven't read (i need to get my shit together and read it before may 12th lol) so it's difficult for me to say much about it? i know he attempts suicide at the end and that him talking to claudia's ghost who's fucking furious with him is a thing that happens. something like that anyway, i've read some quotes from it. i highly doubt louis has been talking to her literal ghost at this point in the show, he's just doing that metaphorically. i would love to see it in the future though.

honestly to me just the fact that armand said out loud that he thinks the interview is basically louis's suicide note indicates that's probably not actually what's going on. that's usually how it works in stories lol. when the character tells you what they think is gonna happen it never happens like that. (on the whole "other vampires will paint the walls with his blood" thing, i think the human world will assume the book is made up bullshit or daniel is senile or crazy, and because of that most vampires won't care that much. would be pretty dumb to kill him since it would only draw more attention to him and the book. i do like the idea of lestat, inspired by louis, going on to more or less successfully prove the existence of vampires, causing a big ruckus, and the whole "great conversion" thing that was mentioned, being a part of the show version of the queen of the damned somehow.)

louis attempting suicide could still happen i guess but i just don't think it's that interesting or particularly good writing in the context of the story being told in seasons 1 & 2. not only because it's kinda predictable and basic and boring to me but like. if he tries kill himself and fails, that's basically him being forced to live. to me, louis choosing to live on in this continuous state of mourning is much more compelling and devastating even, than him having no choice in it. it's like with him staying with armand, isn't it waaaayyy more fucked up and sad if he's doing that of his own volition as opposed to being kept there against his will? that's a story about who louis is, the choices he makes, not about how he's a victim. of course he still is an abuse victim etc, and that's certainly not his fault, but him blaming himself and seeing himself as just as bad as lestat or armand because he "let" it all happen is, to me, a core part of his character. in the book he monologues about his passivity being his biggest fault; in the show he insists "i'm not a victim" even as he's telling us a story about being abused. abuse culture & catholic guilt baby!

also. the thematic note the book ends on is, to me anyway, about the human spirit clinging to life even in devastating circumstances. armand tells louis how so many vampires resort to suicide, but louis doesn't (in book one.) he keeps going, haunted by his past, dead inside and out yet still alive, unable to let go. and he spends the whole book telling daniel the boy reporter how awful immortality is and yet daniel still wants it, thinking it will be different this time. choosing the horrors life throws us, even the cursed half life or unlife of a vampire, over the horror of the unknown that is permanent death. etc etc etc. i love this part of the book too much to want to let it go!

hell, armand only tries to kill himself after finding out what hell is "really like" in memnoch the devil, and while i don't know cause i haven't read merrick yet, i bet that influenced louis too. death isn't as terrifying when you know what to expect.

and i'm also just not a fan of the idea that actually most of the other books' events have also already happened. because then that influences the characters who are telling us the story, in ways that we won't find out until seasons later. like if louis tries to kill himself at the end of season 2 and then in like season 7 or some shit we find out actually it wasn't because of what happened in s1-2 it was actually because right before the interview he was talking to claudia's ghost who said horrible things to him and also because he found out hell is real but it's actually a bit more like purgatory where if you prove yourself you get to go to heaven eventually and also because— like you can see how that would be bad storytelling right? lmao. not that revealing new information about characters or events later is always bad, it can be very interesting and beneficial even, but not if it undermines or completely changes the whole story before that point. not shading AR's retcon habit here at all not at all of course not i would never do that

anyway i think i've rambled enough. thank you for asking!

[peach-fiz]

I actually didn't even bother watching the second season of Loki because of the cheap marketing and inconsistent storytelling.

It just felt like the plot was lifted off somewhere it would have made sense, and a character with a similar ego was replaced with Loki and goes through an arc that might have made sense for a blank slate character, but not someone who already has a backstory.

Loki doesn't even feel like Loki after three episodes in S1. The whole point of having a show like that just seems to be about the TVA and Sylvie.

Also the whole genderfluid thing. They 'confirmed' it in the promo and had a line in the script that went completely against anything they just said.

I knew at once that the writers, directors and other parts of production were really just pulling it in different directions and it would probably sound like a jazz trumpeter and a metal guitarist trying to improvise after knowing each other for 15 minutes.

I've been meaning to watch it just so I can have educated opinions on all of it but it's just,, so hard to get into. I definitely agree the marketing was cheap, they did with the 80s McDonald's like they did DB Cooper!Loki and made it centric to the advertising because McDonalds was also getting something out of it which is kinda ass seeing as realistically Loki Laufeyson would burn 6 of them down before he ate in one 😭

I personally don't like either of the major ships in the show but the forced Sylki shit in season 1 really got to me. Like not only did she completely replace him as the main character in HIS show, she's also a variant of him who he wants to make out with and overall it just reads as lazy writing and it's extremely disappointing that Mike Waldron has been put in charge of Multiverse of Madness and The Kang Dynasty since, due to the popularity of the Loki TV show. I was talking to my boyfriend about this last night but it kinda reminds me of the complaints people had ab the last Indiana Jones movie but opposite? Like everyone complained his best friend's daughter was gonna replace him bc she's a Mary Sue and she rlly isnt, she's more reminiscent of Marion in Raiders of the Lost Ark she just doesn't wanna fuck him. But the difference is Indy is a character who's majorly blank for little boys to project themselves onto. Which is great!! It works for those kind of movies, but they're not character development centric like the individual mcu movies tend to be. Loki is characterized in a way that he's drowning in identity issues and family problems and he experiences growth in every installment whether it be positive or negative. It doesn't make sense to take the formula of an Indidna Jones movie where he meets up with a woman who's typically a love interest and has her own issues that are only slightly touched on because that's not the focus, and they go do the plot.

Sylvie is not an Indy Girl, they straight up are trying to replace Loki with Sylvie. And you can tell the character wasn't supposed to have as much importance as she does in the show bc the character was worked on more after the actress they chose was buddies with a producer ( and this is no hate to the actress I'm sure she's delightful everything I've seen her in in terms of interviews has been lovely ).

I also absolutely agree they should've just made a tva mini series to introduce the tva rather than bringing back a dead character who soon will not make much sense anyway because Tom Hiddleston is getting older (and also he deserves to branch out in his career).

The genderfluid thing was a cash grab and it sucks ass, they just want money for acknowledging things already canon in the comics, same with confirming him as bisexual.

My boyfriend is actually writing a fic on ao3 called Find Me that's rlly good if you want Loki content that isn't related to the show.

(YES this is shameless promotion sshhhhshshsh) but fr the loki TV show makes me more confident in my screenwriting bc t h a t got put on disney plus. I'm also working on a Loki show rewrite in my spare time!!

[ladymorghul]

It's maybe unwarranted, but I am a bit worried that neither Aemond or Aegon will be given the depth and complexity they deserve. Ofc, we've only seen one trailer, but I really hope that Aemond won't be reduced to a cocky, overconfident one liner Daemon junior. Like, even though he barely had any screentime in s1 he was still given a memorable backstory and a good reason to despise and distrust the blacks and especially to be wary of his mother's relationship with Rhaenyra. Also, he is probably the only Targaryen of the era who was actually reminded that the dragons have their own will and cannot ever be completely controlled. The Shipbreaker's Bay incident should have thought him something, like, idk, be more careful, self controlled and not too overconfident? I get that he's still very young and that explains at least partly his attitude, but still. Him being surprised and horrified with what happened at the end of s1 kinda made sense, but I bet that we'll get to see him being all surprised and then angry when Daemon fools him and takes KL, and then we'll have a pattern: Aemond gets all cocky and overconfident, then is taught a lesson and becomes the buttmonkey of the show. And again, and again, until the final duel. We all know how that ends. I exagerrate a little, but the point is there. Just don't make the same caricature he was in the book. As for Aegon, I enjoy his moments on screen, but I hope he won't be reduced to an evil boy king and a lesson for Alicent in a "careful what you wish for" fashion. Just don't make another Joffrey because there aren't many similarities between the two and don't use him as a proof of Rhaenyra's superiority.

Sorry for the rant.

agreed!!! i have not much else to add.

i doubt aemond will be more careful. i may be wrong about that. but you are right... having him go through something like that where he completely loses the hold on vhagar and vhagar does what she wants should give him at least a moment's reflection later on but i doubt it will.

aemond is set to go on a downhill path from now on. and i know there were some leaks at some point, not sure whether true or not, that aemond ends up burning some of the greens army in rook's rest and how that's gonna be an issue.

obviously it happens that in dragon fights you can end up killing even allied soldiers (the way it happened in f&b when vhagar, sunfyre and meleys all fall on top of each other and it kills a bunch of people on both sides), but i think maybe the leakers mentioning it (again, if true) might have more relevence to the story than just collateral damage

that being said... i'm gonna be real. i don't think they'll give them the depth you or i expect. unfortunately for you i am a pessimist most of the time and expect the story to still be focused on how all of this affects alicent that in turn is just statement for the viewer that says "if only she stood by rhaenyra's side".

that's not to say that aemond, aegon and others won't have their own plot and we won't see any depth or development but the bigger picture is what i mentioned above.

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

tumblr was being buggy today and this ask got deleted but i do have screencap of it, so i'm gonna answer it here.

hi! first off, thank you and i appreciate you being so civil about this.

i understand what you mean. i wasn't raised in a religious cult so i may not know the nuances of that experience but my problem does not lie solely with catra's toxic behaviour in s1-4. what i dislike is her redemption arc.

if you've read some of my previous posts, you might know that i was never against catra having a redemption arc. i don't think she's irredeemable. i do sympathize with her and i think it would be a powerful message if she really was able to become a kind and compassionate person, after all the hurt that she went through.

i just have a problem with how rushed and frankly unrealistic her redemption was. i wanted to see a drawn out redemption arc where catra makes amends for everything she has done, and earn the trust and forgiveness of the other characters. but instead of doing that, the creators decided that it was easier to have the other characters forgive her unprompted and to have catra act basically the same as she always did.

also, while catra was raised in a cult-like environment, what i find interesting is that the horde has almost no effect on her. catra was definitely very traumatized by shadow weaver's abuse, but there was nothing even close to religious trauma.

she knew from the beginning that the horde was evil, she wasn't taken in by the lies like adora was. i feel like the religious trauma reference falls apart there because catra was working for the horde in her own interest, not because she was forced or manipulated into doing so.

i have mentioned shadow weaver in my blog as well, i just don't go into detail about her abuse because i think the show was pretty straightforward and countless other people have done deep dives on it. shadow weaver was meant to be an unlikeable character anyway, we weren't supposed to sympathize with her or relate to her.

you said that catra was trying so hard to redeem herself. i would like to hear a clarification on that because as far as i can see, she wasn't trying at all. she went back to lashing out at adora, calling her names and guilt tripping her as soon as she was rescued from horde prime. not even a thank you. she doesn't address angella's death at all and glimmer seems to have completely forgotten about it. she still makes unsavory jokes about the princesses after she spend four seasons colonizing and destroying their kingdoms. her apology to entrapta and scorpia was half-assed, to say the least.

catra wasn't trying hard. the other characters just magically forgave her for all her war crimes because that's what the writers wanted. and she definitely did not deserve to get into a relationship with the person who she had been relentlessly abusing, both physically and emotionally, and trying to murder.

i get that a lot of people relate to catra and i'm not saying that anyone who relates to her is automatically toxic. even i relate to certain parts of her. but that doesn't mean she's a good character.

you said it takes time to unlearn toxic behaviours and i completely agree. (also i wouldn't consider 21 “a kid”. she's young, sure, but she's still an adult.) but if the writers cared about that, they would have redeemed catra earlier. they had five seasons to work with, most shows don't get that liberty. avatar the last airbender gave zuko an incredible redemption arc in just three seasons, the owl house wrote a believable redemption for hunter and amity in just one season each, infinity train wrote a good redemption arc for grace in only ten episodes! you can't use the “there was no time” excuse.

you have to keep in mind that a lot of people who hate catra and her arc are also people who relate to her. a lot of my mutuals relate to catra and her struggles, and that's exactly why they hoped for a better redemption arc. they wanted to see her work on her mistakes, face the consequences of her actions and change realistically. they didn't want to see her just get forgiven out of the blue. imagine if that's how we treated war criminals in real life.

if i was like catra and i heavily related to her, i wouldn't want to see her never face the consequences of her actions and be coddled. i wouldn't want that for myself either. if i made some serious mistakes (especially to the extent that catra had), i would be prepared to face the consequences of my actions and i wouldn't expect anyone to forgive me.

anyway, sorry about the long post but i hope this gives you an idea of why i have a problem with catra and spop as a whole.