#idk i want a bit of attention | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

problemswithbooks · 24 days ago

Text

On Stella (Helluva Boss)

The fandom fights a lot over Stella and how she's written. Fans who like the way she is presented say it's fine that she's a one-dimensional 'evil queen' trope. It's not bad writing that she's so shallow and one note--some villains are better that way.

That isn't an inherently wrong statement. Some of the most fun villains are shallow, evil, for evil's sake types. Unfortunately, I don't think Stella works as this type of villain for a multitude of reasons.

Reason 1: Stella's 'evil' trait is at odds with the themes of the show.

Stella's primary evil trait is that she's cruel to Stolas simply because she likes being cruel to him. She's abusive and hates him. That, by itself isn't the problem. The problem is that the story isn't about Stolas being in an abusive relationship--it's primarily about two people from two different classes, and how they have to become better people and change in order to have the loving relationship they both want.

Yes, Stolas being in a past abusive relationship could be a hurtle to his growth as a character and him being in a relationship with Blitz, but the show never goes there even when it could. Stolas is not shown as being triggered by Blitz's yelling at him. In Apology Tour he has no issues fighting back and telling Blitz off, ordering him to leave. Blitz's yelling and more aggressive attitude isn't what leads to their misunderstandings, where Blitz accidentally hurts Stolas by reminding him of Stella's abuse.

Instead, Stella's abuse isn't even touched on in any major way, and does nothing to move the plot forward or cause connected drama between the two leads. Yes, she hires Striker to kill Stolas and that does at times cause problems, but she didn't need to be abusive inorder to explain why she'd want Stolas dead. In a world where assassins and murder is around every corner, it'd make just as much sense for Stella to hire Striker because Stolas cheated, and it made her a laughingstock among her high class friends.

I'd even argue her abuse makes the story make less sense. We know, from Stolas's own admission, that once his daughter was born, their marriage wasn't necessary. He claims he stayed to give Octavia a normal life, but if Stella is as volatile as she's shown, why would he think Via being around her was a good idea? If Stella had been less outwardly antagonistic and instead more cold and standoffish, with the both of them having mostly separate lives, intersected by polite, if strained family interactions when around Via, then him staying would make sense.

One of the reasons I think more people wanted Stella to be a caring mother to Octavia was because it explains why her and Stolas were still married despite her constant abuse towards him. If Stella cared about Via, and they were close, Stolas would be not only reluctant to leave but to let their false pretense of 'happy couple' slip in front of Via, since both would hurt her. It also would make Octavia's choice to stay with Stella and her anger at Stolas hold more weight, and give Via more complicated emotions. She'd really love her mom, but be confronted with the fact she hurt her father, who she also loves. As it is, it's pretty clear to see that as soon as Octavia finds out Stella is pure evil, she'll easily go back to Stolas with very little if any internal conflict.

Reason 2: Vivziepop claims she's not a one-dimensional character.

A really huge issue with Stella being presented as a one note bitch, is because the creator herself claims she's not. In an interview, Vivzie says Stella is like Beatrice Horseman from BoJack Horseman, saying that at some point we will see things from her perspective.

The problem with this is that Stella has already been portrayed too negatively and flat for this to work. Beatrice worked because, while yes she was awful to Bojkack, she also had Alzheimer's which gained her some sympathy points, as did the way Hollyhock cared for her. She also wasn't always over the top horrible to Bojack, being more passive-aggressive and neglectful.

On top of that, despite her abuse toward BoJack, particularly when he was growing up, she wasn't framed as the reason for all of BoJack's issues. He was still responsible for his own shitty actions as an adult, and when he retaliated toward her, like tossing the baby doll off the balcony, it was framed as shitty behavior. More than anything, their interactions said more about BoJack than Beatrice. Him trying to hurt her, by throwing away her baby doll or putting her in the shittiest nursing home he could find was to show how BoJack wishes he could retaliate against his mother for all the things she did to him, but it leaves him feeling hollow because he knows that due to her disease she's not aware of who he is. It's meaningless, doesn't help him get any closure.

Stella is not presented as anything other than over the top abusive in every scene she's in. Nothing in the show suggests she's anything besides violent, even going so far as having her choking dogs in a childhood picture. Nor is Stolas's treatment of her supposed to reflect on him or characterize him. The only time it might is when he ignores Via because he's too caught up fighting with on the phone, but again, it's not given much focus and he doesn't reflect on it. The same goes for the cheating--yes, Stella was abusive and he doesn't necessarily owe her anything, but Stolas refuses to acknowledge that what he did clearly upset Stella, both times he talks about it asserting that he knows he didn't hurt her. No, they weren't in love, but cheating is still degrading, and Stella is obviously upset. Frankly, I think it would have made more sense for Stolas to rub that fact in her face--he has no issue insulting her, as we see later in that conversation. Instead, his continued assurance that he didn't hurt her or do anything wrong feels like the writers talking through the character, afraid watchers will judge Stolas to harshly otherwise.

Stella getting the Beatrice treatment will likely fail because there is nothing to soften the audience toward her even a little. She has been presented as Stolas's tormentor and nothing else. There are flashes of possible sympathy for her when she interacts with her brother, but for the most part they're framed as Andre being right and Stella being stupid, rather than Stella possibly being manipulated and used by her brother.

It also will fall flat because unless her background is another showcase of how even the upper class are hurt by the system, and this leads to something either story or character wise for the main cast, then there is no point to bring it up. The point of Beatrice's story was to show how generational trauma seeps down into the next generation. BoJack doesn't even have to know about it for it to reflect on his character and explain why he is the way he is. He and his mother parallel each other, where they start out as innocent children but through their parents mistakes, they grow up into cynical, bitter adults who both feel as if they've wasted their lives.

Reason 3: To many villains.

Stella has taken a backseat in her own villain story to her brother, who, just like Stella, is simply evil (he's even characterized as a catty bitch, just like she is, except less of a yeller). It's true Andre wants power, whereas Stella wants...well nothing really, just Stolas dead I guess, but for the most part they are nearly the same. Andre is just a better written version of Stella since he actually gets to make plans and have an end goal.

Once Andre gets introduced, Stella is redundant because she offers nothing different and in fact offers less to the story overall. If Stella was going to be a flat, evil for evil’s sake villain, she and Andre should have been combined. It would have made far more sense to have Stella be a bit smarter and be the one plotting to get Stolas's power. It also would have made the court scenes more impactful because Stella would be a character that was established far earlier, and who we know is a major threat to Stolas, since she's the one that hired Striker to torture and kill him.

If Andre was going to be the main big bad for Stolas, then Stella needed to offer something different. Generally the underling under the main villain is more sympathetic, and less evil, as a way to showcase how much worse the main bad guy is. Or they're more charismatic and show up far more than the main bad guy, like Azula and Ozai. As it is, Stella is neither. She shows up just as little as her brother, and does far less.

And, while Vivzie is a woman herself, I do find the handling of Stella to have mysoginistic undertones, mainly that since her brother has shown up, she is constantly shown as stupid, and that her only good quality is her looks--things her brother constantly brings up, but are not framed as shitty on his part. Them being essentually the same charater make this look all the worse, since Andre, as I've said, didn't need to be a charater at all, and Stella could have been the main villain instead. To pretty much sideline a female charater in order to introduce a male charater that fills the same roll is not the best. Just like racisuim, sexisuim doesn't have to be done purposfly, and I don't blame anyone who finds this choice to be sexist.

Then there's Striker.

Another reason I think Stella and Andre should have been combined. Striker worked really well as the side antagonist under the main villain. He's the one we see more of, he's more charismatic and has hints of a generally interesting backstory, one that we know would fit into the theme the show has of class issues. He's a mirror of what Blitz could have turned into, while Stella could be presented as Stolas's opposite. Even their work relationship could be a dark mirror of Blitz and Stolas's real love for one another.

As it is, Striker is under two other villains, one of which has become essentially unless to the story (Stella can't do anything Andre can't at this point, especially since her and Via aren't shown to have a close relationship). This reduces his threat level and reduced his screen time since he now has to share it with another character. We can see this in the newest episode, where we get a scene where Andre is talking to Stella and then Striker appears later at the trial with no explanation. If Andre and Stella were combined, that scene could have been Stella going over the plan with Striker instead. This would have helped Striker's character, since as it is, his appearance at the trial is confusing. Maybe he's just out for himself and his selfishness won out over his hate of Royals, maybe he was blackmailed, maybe he was so furious and his pride wounded so much by Blitz he'd do anything to bring him down, maybe it's a combination of all three. We don't know because we aren't given the set up. Is it cool that Striker was a suprise? Sure, but in this case it wasn't worth not showing the charater's reason for doing something that seems to go agasint his own charaterization.

Reson 4: Threat.

One of the main reasons to have a simply evil villain is so the can be incredibly menicing. The Aundence doesn't have to feel anything but fear for the protagonists and hate for the villain. They pose no deep moral question, and it feels great when they're beaten.

Despite being a major villain we never see her threat felt by the protagonists. Take her abuse of Stolas. We see her go to hit him and he catches her hand easily and tells her off without issue. Stolas has no problem standing up to Stella ever. In The entire show Stolas is never portayed as afraid of Stella.

Contrast this with how Moxxie and Crimson interact. Yes, sometimes Moxxie does stand up to his father, but we are shown how terrified he is of Crimson multiple times during the one episonde they interact. In comparison Stella's actions never make Stolas even worried. The most we see is him doging things when she throws things at him, but he doesn't seem genuinly afraid, and it's forgoten as soon as she leaves.

He insults her over the phine, insults her to her face. When he learns she hired Striker we arent shown him suddenly relize he underestimated her and become afraid. He instead he's more conserned with his reletionship with Blitz and getting him a crystal. Stolas never tells Blitz about Stella, so we don't even know how Blitz feels about how she treated him.

It's hard for a pure eveil villain to work when only one charater even seems to know they exist and they aren't even worried about offending them. The only way this could work is if Stella pretended to be nice most of the time, but was secretly ploting, like Scar in the Lion King. Instead she's framed as this force of nature, pure bitch, who torments Stolas, yet Stolas doesn't even show anxiaty when having to meet with her, something we know he's prone too because he shuts himself in the refrigerator when contemplating his confession to Blitz ending badly.

If the writers want Stella to be evil--make her evil. Let her be powerful and scary. Have Stolas fintch at her voice, show flashbacks of her hitting him, let her win arguments and verbally tear Stolas down. Make her smart enough to plan things on her own.

I think when alot of people say Stella is a badly written charater it's not nessesarily because they wanted her to be good, or complex. I don't see alot of people angry at how Mother Gothel was written (besides her deisgn being anti-semetic) or Maleficent. It's possible to write evil, one-dimensional female villains. The issue is that even as an evil bitch, Stella falls short in a mutitupe of ways. Her charater is a complete waste, even more so now that her brother has been introduced. She has no reason to exist and serves no narritive purpose. Even as a raod block to the Stolas/Blitz ship she isn't nessesaey because their main issue is the class systum. Stella could have been dead before the show started, leaving Stolas with Via for drama, and Andre could be the evil uncle trying to get Stolas's power.

Stella is pretty much a sexy lamp, execpt the sexy lamp is also a bitch. She's less affective then the random bitch charaters introduced in romatic webtoon comics that are only there to be mean to the main charater and try to steal her man. Stella's not badly written because she's pure evil and simple, she's badly written because she doesn't serve a purpose in the story and could be replaced with a sexy, evil lamp.

#helluva boss #Stella Goetia #helluva boss stella #helluva boss critical #helluva boss striker #idk #Stella is an interesting character because she really feels like a remnate of a first draft #like i feel like her and her bro would be combined asap if helluva was made a live action show or something #and if she had to stay change her from simply wanting to be mean because lolz #and more because she loathes stolas for cheating with an imp #i mean fans say thats one of her reasons #but it's not actually touched on past a few insults #like playing up her classism would really help make her fit with themes of the show more #i also think her being abusive sort of makes Stolas's half of the show a bit lopsided #like i wish she was more like Verosika because then Stolas could learn something from his past relationship like Blitz did #as it is all of Stella's critisizuims of Stolas are presented as her being a petty abusive bitch #which makes it harder for Stolas to get good advice on how to be a better partner #because none of the toxic stuff from his only relationship was his fault #even when I think there are some things that could have been used #like his habit of just not listening to other people #he does this with Via #and he does it to Stella #aka he doesn't even notice shes ordering a hit on him at the table #its played for laughs but Stolas's lack of paying attention to people #is shown alot #even with Blitz #like when he doesn't notice how much Blitz hates his nicknames #even though he's really vocal about it #idk i think it would have been nice if Stella could have told him that #in the same way Verosika was able to tell Blitz how he fucked up during their relationship

51 notes · View notes

icewindandboringhorror · 7 days ago

Text

I've referenced before how I have a big google document to keep track of every media I've ever seen in my entire life (just for reference because I like to track everything possible lol… I am the Data Collector), but recently as I was updating it, I thought of actually evaluating them to find out random percentages (like for example, out of Total Shows Watched, what percentage did I finish vs. stop watching, what percentage did I like or dislike, etc.)...

Evaluating these things is made easier by the fact that I already place everything on each subsection of the list into 6 broad ranking categories, so I don't have to go back and guess to figure out how I feel about them or anything. The categories are: Ranking 5 - overall best* (despite some criticisms of course because I'm too much of an Analyzer to ever find anything Perfect lol) Ranking 4 - more positive than neutral, but not good enough to be 5 Ranking 3 - either the good + bad negate each other, OR it's just not memorable/interesting in any way enough to be ranked higher or lower (this is the Default category ALL things are placed in if no other rank applies) Ranking 2 - maybe a few redeemable elements but largely more negatives than positives Ranking 1 - So bad that it circles around to being fascinating to observe in some way (not necessarily Funny, or Good, but just interesting somehow) Ranking 0 - Bad in a genuinely frustrating or obnoxious manner

*("best" primarily defined here as most interesting, rather than most good in a technical sense, or some other measure. I tend to value more highly whether there's something novel or thoughtful about the worldbuilding, tone, writing, base premise, etc - than about whether it's actually executed perfectly.)

And here's the amount of shows that have so far been placed into each category -

TV shows ~ Rank 5 (highest) - 20 shows ~ Rank 4 (mid-high) - 28 shows ~ Rank 3 (neutral/default/meh) - 114 shows ~ Rank 2 (mid low) -33 shows ~ Rank 1 (low low but intriguingly so) - 14 shows ~ Rank 0 (iredeemably low) - 2 shows

This would make for a total of 211 TV shows overall. However, there are 57 shows within these list marked as "didn't finish" (typically meaning I quit on the very first or second episode - but log them still to keep a record that I at least had a brief view of them).

So my total of genuinely fully watched shows would be more 154. 211 Total, but a More Accurate Total of 154.

Counting them all and using the Total Number Of The List (211) -- that means roughly 9.5% of all total shows I have ever watched (or at least attempted to watch) have been Mostly Good, 13% have been Moderately Okay, 54% have been either entirely Forgettable or some mix of good + bad that lands them right in the Neutral Middle, 15.6% have been Mostly Bad, 6.6% have been Bad (but in an interesting way), and 0.9% have been Terribly Bad.

Additionally, I didn't even get past the first two episodes of about 27% of the total.

Sooo, discounting ones I didn't finish, my total TV shows ever watched in my life would be about 154 (maybe give or take a few, assuming I might have forgotten some from very long ago).

But instead of entire life, let's just say this is the total for 'About 20 Years' (so, not counting very early childhood when I likely wouldn't remember things I saw/have no detailed recollection of them (like for example, I'm sure at some point when I was like 4yrs old I must have seen an episode of Spongebob or something, but I have zero distinct memories of it, can't quote anything of it, and barely recall the premise - so I don't count it on the list, etc.)).

In that case, 154 divided by 20 would be roughly 7.7 shows a year.

Which is actually surprisingly low considering that I often have stuff on in the background for hours whilst I make sculptures and do costumes and stuff (maybe I should have also marked some distinction between 'things I fully paid attention to' and 'things I kind of half listened to whilst sculpting', but that would further split the categories too much probably lol), but I guess a lot of that is youtube videos or random documentaries, so .. eh.. maybe I get it being lower.

Now, doing the same thing for movies-

Movies ~ Rank 5 (highest) - 4 movies (3.4% of total) ~ Rank 4 (mid-high) - 12 movies (10.3% of total) ~ Rank 3 (neutral/default/meh) - 91 movies (78.4% of total) ~ Rank 2 (mid low) - 8 movies (6.8% of total) ~ Rank 1 (low but interesting) - 1 movie (0.8% of total) ~ Rank 0 (irredeemably low) - none in this category (0%)

That makes 116 for a Total (Actually Remembered) Movies Watched In Lifetime (Or At Least In 20 Years).

116 divided by 20 is roughly 5 or 6 movies a year (I feel this has probably been skewed though by adding everything since like elementary school onwards, as I remember a lot more movies from child/teen years.. Whereas, the past 3 years I feel like I've barely seen maybe even 5 movies?? lol). I also have "Didn't Finish" marked on 18 of them. Which means I quit halfway through about 15% of the total movies.

So, a for broader summary stuff..

I seem to be less forgiving to movies than tv shows, by far. Which makes sense to me, I guess, because I love elaboration and details, so "short form" things that only last an hour or two are often lost on me a bit. My biggest complaint with movies is indeed usually walking away just wishing there had been more exposition, more scenes where characters are doing nothing, more "mindless bantering" conversations, more Quiet Downtime and Lore Elaboration and so on lol, so... of course most 1-2hr films end up feeling a bit Not Enough To Draw My Interest/Nothingy to me.

If you count 5 and 4 as "like" and rankings 2 to 0 as "dislike", then for TV shows I at least somewhat liked 48 of them, and at least somewhat disliked 47 of them.. So it's almost exactly the same lol. I'm just about equally as likely to find something bad as I am to find something redeeming about it. But overall, the largest chance is that I just won't really care much for it at all and it will be tossed into the 'neutral' pile, forgotten forever. Movies have a bit better of a balance, "liking" 16 of them, and "disliking" only 9 of them. So I'm slightly more likely to enjoy a movie than to find it annoying - though still VASTLY more likely to just not find it anything in particular, possibly not even finishing it.

ANYWAY.. this is vague and literally pointless, but like I said, I just really find information fun. Like my document where I've rated every apple flavor I've ever tried (like 40 of them now?), or reviewed every oreo flavor (32?), or ranking data from my entire 10 years of Trying To Make Friends process (out of 100 people, roughly 8% chance of a moderate compatibility, 3% chance of high), or etc. etc.. I love to have random pointless things to analyze I suppose lol.

I doubt anyone tracks things in their life in this same exact way, but I'd be interested in hearing any at least somewhat similar data !!! (like, how many TV shows you watch a year on average, and what percentage of those you like vs. dislike (if you keep track of that sort of thing), etc.)). I guess it might be easier with movies, since I think some people use those websites where you curate a list of movies you've seen and you can rate them or something, so maybe the numbers are already available on those places. :0

#maybe this is my version of spotify wrapped lol.. Lifetime Media Google Doc Wrapped.. kind of.. except I'm not going over specific titles.#I can't do this with music since I rarely EVER look for new music or add to my Youtube To MP3 folder library as I just don't really #listen to music that often. When I'm working (the majority of when I seek background noise) I need like.. people's talking voices #for some reason. Just instruments and singing are not distracting enough to me to work as background noise because theyre #almost TOO in the background if that makes sense? like if I put music on then I just tune it out and it's virtually no different #than if I were daydreaming stream of consciousness thoughts in an entirely quiet room lol. And I can't really do it with books since #essentially 100% of what I read is non-fiction. usually about some specific subject or academic topic OR stuff like #1800s magazines or cookbooks or historical people's diaries. Which is not really.. the type of thing I would #rank as easily I guess? like 'ooh yeah putting the sociology textbook in my top 5 hee hee right next to the 1920s radio recipes book' lol.#Then for games... I just sadly dont play enough of them. I've been banned from new games as I've told myself I cant play anyting #long form (no rpgs or etc) until I actually finish MY OWN game first - to keep me from wasting time. so on average #I play... 0 new games a year. ToT... I do play the sims sometimes but that's really all (which is not a new game at all since #I've been playing it on and off for years). Thus I guess movies/TV are really the only things that make sense #to collect this sort of information on. I could do youtube videos I guess also but that seems kind of strange like...#giving a rating to every single video I watch in a ranked list lol.. Especially since I would say a good 85% of the time #they are exclusively background noise whilst I'm working on something or cleaning the house or etc. and not things I pay serious attention #to. There are only a few specific topics/types/creators of videos I watch where I'm ACTUALLY sitting in front of a screen paying #direct attention to the content (usually when it's educational or political things). Everything else is too mindless to even rank.#ANYWAY... ever analyzing my little hermit Weird Relationship To Media (in the sense of seemingly not processing or getting the same #things out of it as many other seem to). I think that can contribute sometimes to the whole difficulty socializing and stuff #since our culture is very centered around media consumption generally speaking. People want to talk about The New Movie that came #out or The Big TV Show Of The Year. and for me it's like.. highly likely I just plain have NOT seen it. Or if i have. statistically #I most likely was entirely ambivalent if not slightly negative towards it lol. Which just kind of takes the steam out of a 'fun' 'casual'#conversation and you seem like a bit of a bummer if most of your only feedback is either 'idk what that is' or 'oh yea... i did #see that one.... i didnt like it all that much though... I think it'd be better with elves in it.. and 7 hours longer..'' lol..#Which I am not disliking things in a 'grr i hate it bc its popular'/just to be contrarian way. I actually dislike that mindset/find it #silly (by striving so hard to be counterculture you are thus still defining yourself by the whims of external culture - just in the #opposite direction. but are still just as preoccupied with the mainstream (going against it) as everyone else. etc. lol..)) In my #case I think it IS just having niche hyperspecific tastes.. for example- it peeves me when cell phones are in media bc I dont want to be #reminded at ALL of the real world. so.. cross off anything set in modern times. so on & etc. Judging all things by these weird criteria lol

9 notes · View notes