#it makes me think of those movie remakes though

[loronoazoro]

Mixed feelings about the Two Piece tbh. On the one hand I love love love the opportunity to fix some of the atrocious pacing, and I want it to be condensed to something that seems more watchable in length (so I can convince my friends to watch it lol)

On the other hand, I love the og voice actors and hate change haha. I also honestly love the style of the early episodes. Like yeah they're not too advanced by today's standards, but they have such a charming look that some of the later (pre wano) episodes lack imo

[nikibogwater]

Actually while I'm thinking about it, I just wanna say that the more live-action remakes Disney shlups out like shoveled manure, the more amazed I am that Cinderella (2015) exists. It breaks literally every standard of Disney's LA remakes.

It's not a shot-for-shot remake of the original 1950 animated film, though it does include small references and homages to it, but only when such things can be incorporated organically into the story.

The creators understood and respected the cross-cultural significance of the Cinderella story. They didn't want to "fix" it, or add some wacky twist to it, they just wanted to make the best possible version of the Quintessential Cinderella that they could.

Everything that could be done practically was done practically. The carriage was a real, the horses pulling it were real, and all of the other animals (with the exception of the mice and lizards, since their performance was a lot more involved than the others') were real living animals, the lizard footman and goose carriage driver were wearing prosthetics instead of just having their animal features added in post, the Fairy Godmother's dress had little LED lights sewn into it so that it would actually glow for real, the ballroom set was built by hand and included real chandeliers with more than 2000 total candles that were all actually lit for the scene, and I could go on but you get the point.

There's a ton of attention paid to little details that make the world feel real and lived in. Ella's shoes are always a little scuffed and dirty. Her farm dress is faded and wrinkled. When she breaks down and runs away to the woods, she rides her horse bareback (which, once again, was a thing Lily James actually did, no stunt-double or editing in post), because not only is that something a country girl like her would know how to do, but it also makes sense that with as upset as she is, she wouldn't want to waste time with saddling the horse. When she's dancing with the prince, it's visually obvious that he is leading her and giving her cues because of course Ella wouldn't know the latest ballroom dances, and would need him to guide her through it.

Hey speaking of dancing, y'know what else this movie does that no other LA remake has been allowed to do (at least not to this extent)? ROMANCE. Land sakes alive, this is one of the most unabashedly and yet still tastefully romantic movies I've ever seen. Ella and Kit are just oozing romantic chemistry from the moment they lock eyes for the first time. It all comes down to the fact that these two characters both have the same core values of courage and kindness, which makes their admiration for each other feel grounded and believable. Richard Madden also really sells Kit's feelings for Ella with the way his eyes go all big and soft whenever he looks at her. And don't even get me started on Lily's performance as Ella. Her quiet awe that someone as powerful as the prince loves her. The timidity and fear that she's not really worthy of that. The selfless determination to protect him from her family's cruelty, even if it means she'll never see him again, I'm just-- *banging my fist against the table and screaming into a pillow*

Absolutely god-tier costume design. No notes, I think Sandy Powell's work speaks for itself. Btw, in case you were somehow still wondering, yes, Ella's ballgown is fully practical--those layers upon layers of dreamy silk skirts are real. CG was only used to brighten up the blue color to make her stand out from the crowd more.

Wicked stepmother was allowed to actually be wicked. The movie never tries to make you sympathize with Lady Tremaine, or shift the blame off to someone else. And her villainy is given an extra layer of depth with the reveal that she is a dark reflection of Ella. They've both lost people they loved, but where Ella refused to let her grief get in the way of kindness, Lady Tremaine became utterly consumed by it. She views the death of her first husband as a sort of twisted justification for pursuing all her worst impulses. She despises Ella for her ability to flourish even while enduring terrible suffering, for being everything Lady Tremaine was either unable or flat-out refused to be.

Also Cate Blanchet absolutely SLAYS in this role. Hands-down my favorite portrayal of the wicked stepmother character.

Anyways, TLDR: Cinderella (2015) is the only Disney live-action remake that can justify its own existence and that's because it actively defies everything the LA remakes are today.

[sammys-magical-au]

Night Furies & aging - a theory on the changes in Toothless’ design and behaviours

[I definitely didn’t accidentally delete this post the first time I tried making it and scream silently for five minutes]

Ok so strap in y’all, cuz this’ll probably be a long one, but I have some ideas as to why Toothless looks and acts so differently between the first and third films, since it’s something I’ve noticed a lot of people in the fandom talking about (especially recently with the announcement of the unnecessary live-action remake), and while a lot of the criticisms are totally valid (and this post is not meant to argue against those criticisms), I do have an alternate theory/headcanon about the changes we see in Toothless’ design and personality that I like a lot better than just thinking it’s the design team purposely fucking up a really good character to make him more appealing to children (even though that’s definitely what it is, again, I’m not saying that interpretation is wrong, this one is just more fun bc I get to ramble about biology and such 👌)

Y’all with me so far? Good. Let’s dive in, shall we?

Basically, my theory revolves around the fact that Toothless is a lot younger in the first movie than we may have thought. This is even kinda backed up in the second movie, because Valka points out that Hiccup and Toothless are the same age - so, that being considered, it’s likely that humans and dragons age similarly and have similar lifespans, and therefore in the first movie, considering how young Hiccup was, it’s not far out of the realm of possibility that Toothless was a juvenile dragon at this point in the timeline. He was practically a baby.

If that’s true, then that could be a very good explanation for the changes in both his physical appearance and his behaviours. His looks changed simply because he was still growing and developing at the time of the first movie, and his physical appearance changed along with Hiccup’s, meaning they quite literally grew up together between the first and third films. His habits and behaviours on the other hand would have changed due to social influences, and growing up surrounded by humans rather than his own kind.

I’ll expand more on both of these throughout the post, but I’m gonna start with comparisons of his design changes, specifically the ones I’ve seen pointed out the most often.

___

Physical design aspects:

1 - head shape

One of the biggest talking points when it comes to Toothless’ design changes, and also one of the most notable differences, is the shape of his face - specifically from the profile view.

The shape of his head differs a lot between the first and third movies, with his brow becoming much more prominent and the slope of his nose becoming steeper. When images of his profile from the first, second, and third movies are put side by side, however, it becomes a bit more clear how this progression could indicate aging and change in skull shape/structure

For a real-world example, here’s a comparison between a tiger cub and an adult tiger from the same angle:

As you can see, there are a lot of similarities here. An adult tiger’s brow also becomes more prominent, while the head becomes a bit bulkier and more square-shaped rather than thin and rectangular. The angles of the face are also much sharper.

When put side by side, the similarities are a bit more clear, and the changes in Toothless’ design start to look a lot more like the development of a big cat from cub to adult.

2 - scale pattern

Another change that gets brought up a lot is the fact that Toothless’ scale patterns disappear soon after the first movie.

In reality, if you look closely, the patterns are still there, but they’ve faded. You can see it better on his wings:

He definitely still has spots, but they’re much less visible.

This could possibly be a form of camouflage for young night furies - similarly to how a black jaguar’s spots become less visible as they grow

With the adult jaguar, the spots are still visible, but you have to look a little harder to see them - same with adult vs juvenile Toothless

Again, the similarities to big cats are pretty noticeable when compared side-by-side.

Additionally, although we sadly don’t get a really good look at the glowy effect the Hidden World has on Toothless’ scales in the movie, from what I can see, it definitely looks like the glow makes his scale patterns a lot more visible

3 - bulkiness

The third main difference I see pointed out is the fact that Toothless bulked up a lot between the first and third movies, and that one also has a simple possibile explanation - lots of young animals bulk up as they grow, because of muscle growth!

It’s very reasonable to assume that Toothless got bulkier bc he was young in the first movie, and over time (especially considering the amount of flying and fighting he did) he developed more muscle.

Compared to a lot of large mammals, the similarities in development are once again pretty evident. And I hear what you’re saying - Toothless is a dragon, a reptile, not a mammal, but the truth of the matter is, Toothless’ design *was* heavily based on large mammals, specifically cats, so comparing him to large cats and other mammals isn’t that much of a stretch, especially when you bring into consideration that an animal of this size might develop a little differently than real-life, modern reptiles.

Now, the night lights do sort of put a wrench in this theory, specifically the scale pattern part, and especially Dart and Ruffrunner, since they have more resemblance to Toothless but don’t share his scale pattern from the first movie - and I’m willing to admit that. That being said, it would be interesting to see a night light design with similar looks to Toothless in the first movie, specifically with the scale patterns. I’ll definitely chuck that in the to-draw folder for now, bc it’s fun to explore dragon biology through my own personal takes.

___

Behavioural changes:

Now onto the second part of this already-too-long post, the changes in Toothless’ behaviour throughout the films.

In the first movie, Toothless tends to act very catlike, whereas in the second and third movies, he acts more like a dog or even a person at times. I think this could be because, if he was a juvenile when he and Hiccup met, he learned more human behaviours than the behaviours of his own kind, almost being hand-raised in a sense, since he was so young.

The light fury’s (or “Ivory”, as I tend to call her just for funsies) behaviours also showcase this, since she grew up in the wild and surrounded by her own kind (as we see at least three other light furies besides her in the Hidden World), and behaves a lot like Toothless did in the first movie, before being trained. If Toothless hadn’t had any human interaction, it’s very likely that he’d act similarly to Ivory and the way he did in the first movie.

Additionally, the reason behind his awkward behaviour around Ivory is because he doesn’t know how to act or what body language to use around another fury, as he didn’t learn. Everything he’s learned about social interactions came more from humans - which can often be seen with wild animals raised by people, their behaviour is often different from that of animals that grew up in their natural environments. This isn’t to say that I think Toothless being raised by humans is wrong - it was his only way of survival, and the relationship he has with humans is much closer to that of an animal with a wildlife conservationist rather than that of an exotic “pet” influencer on tik tok. However, having to grow up without other night furies definitely affected his social development with other furies, since he didn’t have the chance to interact with another dragon like him until he was a full-grown adult.

(This also connects to my headcanon that night/light furies live in familial groups similar to lion prides, and young dragons often stay with this group until they’re ready to find a mate and start a pride of their own. Toothless likely got separated from his pride too early, either by getting lost somehow or, since he’s said to be the last of his kind, they were all killed - either way, he wasn’t ready to leave them yet, which might also explain his heightened aggression at the beginning of the first movie, since he’s not only a wild animal but he’s also terrified and too young to be on his own.)

If you made it this far, congratulations! You’re more patient than me!! And thanks for letting me ramble about this!!!

TL:DR - Toothless was a juvenile/very young dragon in the first movie, and the changes in his appearance and behaviour stem from both his natural aging process and the fact that he was separated from his kind at a very young age and grew up with humans.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

The Current event makes me smile since it kind of confirms a headcanon I had that the Great Seven have animated movies based on them. Makes me wonder about the plot of the movies

Disney should get on the Twisted Wonderland AU Animated Remakes. What is Ursula was a good witch, what if Scar was right to take the throne and did he take it from Mufasa? (Or whoever is the stand in for him)

The Evil/Beautiful Queen...actually GOOD?

Yeah, it makes sense! Since the Great Seven are historical figures and the stuff of legends, surely there would be popular media made in their image. It’s like how the Disney fairy tales borrow from stories in the public domain or how there are historical retellings and reinventions (Hamilton, anyone?).

I believe TWST has mentioned films based on their own stories and history before too, but purely in the animated sense rather than live action. In book 3, Ace and one of the Atlantica Museum guards talk about an animated movie based on the tale of the mermaid princess and her prince; this movie is said to have come out ~30 years ago, which corresponds with Disney’s animated The Little Mermaid. Ace compliments the movie’s soundtrack too way to stroke your own ego, Disney/j.

Later on in Tapis Rouge, the characters discuss other films based on the Great Seven, including one Queen of Hearts movie. A Sea Witch movie is also mentioned; in it, she “goes gigantic” and also sings as she brews potions. The Octatrio quite enjoy this particular film.

(Side note: Another anon once suggested to me that people probably also write fanfics of Neige and Vil since they’re celebrities… Think like “My mom sold me to One Direction?!” Wattpad kinds of fics, but replace One Direction with Vil or something. You can read those post here!)

It’s… interesting this event specifically has Vil promoting a live action adaption of an in-universe animated film about the Beautiful Queen—an animated film which was the first full-color animated movie AND it originally released close to 90 years ago. They also reference the funding issues that Disney suffered while producing Snow White + inviting bank employees in to preview the movie to acquire more investments, stating that the studio that made the animated Beautiful Queen experienced the same. The in-game live action is even slated to come out “NEXT YEAR”. They’re not being subtle here with TWST’s references to their own version of the irl Disney Snow White (the live action is coming out in 2025, the OG is also almost 90 years old, etc.). I wonder if the EN server will actually get Tapis Rouge around the time of the irl release of Disney’s live action Snow White as part of a promotional campaign? 😂

UPDATE: There are even more not-so-subtle references to Disney animations in part 4 of the event, including discussion of cel animation, rotoscoping, adding blush to the characters, and how Disney brought in real animals/observed the “real thing” to help with animating similar scenes or subjects. They also cheekily say that most animation nowadays is CG 💀

I know some books under Disney publishing try to show alternate tellings or show the villains in a more sympathetic light, but I don’t know that they would ever commit to fully animating a film like that. It definitely would not happen in the style of traditional animation, Disney no longer seems well-equipped to handle that task 😔 I feel like it would also be pretty niche or might not get overwhelming positive reception with recent audience calls for “true bad guys” instead of twist or sympathetic villains (though I’m not sure what percentage of people watching Disney actually have this opinion).

I do wonder how those “AU” films would work though…? It wouldn’t be as simple as suddenly turning the G7 into “good guys”. The scenario and other characters would also have to drastically change. TWST doesn’t necessarily make the original “good guys” “bad” in a world where the villains are historical figures; we still hear plenty of positive or neutral stories about the achievements of the mermaid princess and other Disney heroes.

There are also times when the same story diverges into multiple separate stories that seemingly have no connection to one another. For example, there is a story where a princess marries a street rat (clearly referencing Aladdin) and they live happily ever after in spite of the difference in their social statuses. However, there simultaneously exists a story in which the Sorcerer of the Sands saves a princess from being deceived by a fake prince (also referencing Aladdin). The same goes for the mermaid princess (Ariel)—there is both a story referring to a “mermaid princess” who married a human prince and also a different story (clearly still pulled from the same film) about a mermaid who made a deal with the Sea Witch to find true love but broke her contract in the end.

Very cool idea, just not sure where it would lead or it it’s feasible or worth it monetarily for Disney.

[im-getting-help]

The way people reacted to Saltburn reminded me of a tiktok trend or "challenge" in which you had to watch the opening scene of Nocturnal Animals (2016).

(I'm not going to spoil the movie, go watch it is beautiful.)

It reminded me because the movie is so interesting and enthralling but it was played for jokes. No one was watching the movie, they felt "disgusted and uncomfortable" even though they didn't even tried to watch it.

The commentary of Saltburn was so similar, it really upset me. It was like people were saying "yeah, we watched it this time, it's still too gross".

Nocturnal Animals explores the tense relationship between the protagonists in a very gruesome and violent way. Those choices are not made for shock value, they tell a story. The same way Saltburn showed desire and obsession and in my opinion the perfect representation of unchecked limerence with the bathtub and cemetery scenes.

I have no doubt that in a few years they will be a new tiktok (or new platform) challenge that dares you to record your reaction of the cemetary scene with no context. And it makes me so sad.

It makes me sad not only because of the unappreciation of such amazing movies, but because I feel we are teaching teenagers to not have media literacy. I honestly feel like we're allowing people to just watch movies like they're cocomelon. And I think is dangerous for cinema.

Martin Scorcese shared in a few interviews how he feel that the popular movies are not really cinema, that they fail to convey real emotion and they don't take risks. I think he's right, he makes a direct reference to the MCU but to me he's describing at least 70% of the movies that comes out in a year.

Everything is simple, easy to understand, overly explained. A cast full of well known actors and a beautiful score, or a passable one, and you have a movie. You don't need a new story to tell, not really, you can just reuse an old one. Make a retelling, a remake, a live-action adaptation, a secuel or a prequel with lots of CGI. You got a movie, congrats.

To me the new movies are always disappointing, they're a way to kill time but never a moment to appreciate art.

And this is why the criticism of Saltburn frustrates and saddens me so much. Cause is not a perfect movie (well, to me it is), but is so SO much more than what we're served on a daily basis. It's rich and complex and beautiful to watch. The score is fun and playful and at times heartbreaking and breathtaking. The actors are just incredibly talented and well directed. The clothing and makeup is just a wonder to watch, going from the cringe of 2006 teenage fashion to the opulent gowns and suits. So much of this movie is a pleasure to observe, to discover.

It breaks my heart to think that the future of cinema is... white noise, filler, the equivalent to eating a sandwich instead of cooking a meal cause you're too tired to do more. So much so that when you're presented with a home cooked meal you're unable to enjoy the taste, too accustomed to simplicity.

[artbyblastweave]

One of your posts had a rec list of zombie media, and one of them was Savageland. Watched it. Even knowing there were zombies involved it’s good. Even better, actually, because you the audience know that there’s something wrong but the characters don’t, or at least they don’t know what you know.

11/10. One of those movies that you have to go sit and think about for a while. I really liked the way it’s presented, the pseudo-documentary style. Also. So much going on. And it really hits because yeah, this feels terrifyingly plausible to happen. And even though it is a zombie story, it’s also got a lot more going on. Just. There’s so much to say about it. It’s a horror story. It’s political commentary. I don’t even know where to start.

Thanks for the rec! I feel like you’re the person for Good Zombie Media, and this is definitely one.

You're welcome! I've had this sense, and a longer post on the topic, that there's this loose trinity of themes from which zombie fiction can draw horror. There's the fear of societal inadequacy, the classic romero anxienty that our society simply isn't capable of rising to the challenge of something sufficiently disruptive, be that zombies or anything else. There's fear of sickness- the horror of being a zombie, of the indignity and helplessness of being reduced to something so base, so at odds with your current desires and morality, or alternatively something so inept- a creature that's basically less capable and competent than a human in every way despite going through the motions. And lastly there's the very straightforward fear of violence- what if there were a bunch of mindlessly-violent human-but-not-quite monsters running around killing the shit out of everything they see? What if all your neighbors all decided at once to try and kill you for no discernible reason? People don't normally do that! That'd be fucked up!

I think that these things can push and pull on each other, fighting for space. For a long time I thought that "fear of societal inadequacy" was fighting for space with "fear of violence," because the more effective a threat you make your zombies, the less meaningful it is when society can't react effectively to them. In the original Dawn of the Dead the fact that zombies are such an underwhelming threat if you've got your shit together is why the authority's dysfunctional response can provide meaningful criticism of our society. In the remake- they're hyperdurable beserkers with a short incubation period and they run at full speed! It doesn't say anything in particular if the army has trouble with that! So more of the horror ends up concentrated in the thing itself, the incongruous violence the zombies enact. Anyway, the long story short is that Savageland convinced me that actually, with proper framing, there's no contradiction whatsoever between a narrative about societal dysfunction in the face of crisis, and a narrative about scary-as-fuck implacable uncanny-valley killing machines.

Go watch this movie

[jasperandhenryslovechild]

bro i made a whole ass ramble and then it got posted on accident (FUCK TUMBLRS STUPID DRAFTS FEATURE BECAUSE IT ALWAYS POSTS NY FUCKING SHIT BRO WHAT) so now I'm remaking it but it's kinda the half assed version because im so tired and sleepy but

i have a theory. a film theory if you will! which is like probably kinda obvious because it intertwines with a lot of stuff you just know by looking at it or like by using your brain and connecting to past stuff but it's making me notice things that I just need to talk about so like..... anyways j digress

this also only makes sense if you've seen the ~40 second clip glee dango (missy martin) posted on her insta so if you haven't seen that go go go go and also won't make sense if you haven't watched the danger force episode (s1 ep8) return of the kid so if you haven't also go go go watch that because it's one of my favorite df episodes, not my all time favorite but definitely up there ANYWAY FILM THEORY THAT I WILL LOOK SO FUCKING STUPID FOR IF I'M WRONG BUT

i think the guy who pushed henry through that window is absolutely, 100% blackout

i come to this conclusion out of 3 different factors from the clip that are easily observable and serve to prove my point and these three factors are

SETTING

APPEARANCE

VOICE

in depth explanation under the cut

SETTING.

oh boy do i have quite a bit to say about where this clip takes place.

now what do these images show, what do these things say to you

at a first glance this says:

dark

creepy

run-down

dear god i would kill myself before living here

further than that, let's like break down what the fuck is in this place

starting from bottom to top, there's papers and chairs and like is that a lamp?? there's things thrown all over the place and it looks like either someone just crashed out severely in here or there was a fight that took place here not too long ago— judging by henrys relatively calm demeanor as he just walks up to this poster so casually and starts holding a small interaction with the person behind him, it doesn't look like he was the one who came in here and made this mess. probably not a fight!

the fact that henry falls from easily ten stories when he's pushed out, and the fact that in the window between the two distant henry posters there is a building with a light on (missy's house? mainly say that because of the light coming from it, but why would she live this close to blackout though so probs not) shows us that this is an area that people live in. this villian has a lair that is essentially hiding in plain sight. that makes the idea of this room being an abandoned or taken over office building makes more sense because it makes it harder for neglectful nickelodeon-class cops to find.

also, the fact that it's not very light-permitting in this place + it's night (or just an incredibly polluted area maybe both) gives way for the blackout theory because in return of the kid henry says that blackout strikes when all the lights are off!! so yippee!!!

the only thing i really have a bone to pick with about this frame is that fucking poster. because if my inferences are correct, that's probably a poster for a service he offers in dystopia or something along those lines. but those posters.

that says BIZWATCH.

BIZWATCH

on the first image in this section, the big poster he lolz at has, on the bottom, "we handle your bizness".

dear GOD there's a reason charlottes not in the movie and it's because if she was, bizwatch would have never been a name option on the table and there would be no movie JESSUUUSSSS SOMEBODY CALL UP MY GIRL, THE THINGS MEN DO WHEN YOU LEAVE THEM BEHIND OUGUGHHHH

im moving on with my life because my opinions on the name bizwatch could be its own post ngl

APPEARANCE

this one and the next are gonna be tinier sections but like, when blackout shows up like right before, he's this big puff of smoke or like shadow that can fly kinda?? and the first thing that my mind goes to are dementors & death eaters from harry potter like

eating people's souls is very similar to sucking their happiness in my mind and like the correlation although nothing to do with whatever blackout may or may not be able to do in canon just like strikes a cord with me like oh!! blackout!! flying as a puff of smoke and sucking people's souls!! i wonder what that reminds me of!!

also, additionally, the exact moment he kicks henry out that window he sorta like turns back into his normal form aka not just a black cloud and that's all we ever see of him. that little snapshot in that like 2 frames is all we get of whoever this villain might be, and MAY I ALLOW YOU TO JUST LIKE MAKE THE CONNECTIONS FOR YOURSELF BECAUSE

LIKE THAT LOOKS SIMILAR. YOU CAN'T TELL ME IT DOESN'T LOOK KINDA SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER AND I KNOW THE RELEASED CLIP VERSION IS LIKE SUPER DARK BUT LIKE ALSO THAT'S THE POINT OF BLACKOUTS COSTUME, IT'S DESIGNED LIKE THAT TO HELP HIM DISGUISE HIMSELF BETTER UNDER THE COVER OF DARKNESS AND UGH UGH UGHHHFHHDH!! ¢[¢[[¢

guys i love blackout 🤭🤭

im tweaking

VOICE

this one is. quite self explanatory but

i wish i could like add the other video of his voice in the new clip but they have a one video per post limit thing UGHHH😭😭 but like. SAME SHIT BRO SAME SHIT SAME SHIT AUUHGDHDHD

WHY I'M TWEAKING SO HARD ABOUT THIS

BECAUSE IT'S BLACKOUT! #! $! $?

blackout was the first and only villain we got to see EVER that showed us how bad dystopia actually was. henry had to flee from across the world to escape this guy, cut off all contacts from dystopia so that they wouldn't find him, and bribed the danger force to come and help him only when he literally had no other choice. blackout is one of the many things dystopia!henry is working so hard to keep under wraps because blackout is one of the worst of the worst things there is to behold in dystopia— at least, as we know of

expanding on his character not only will show us more about his and henrys relationship, but will also show us more about the world as a whole here! expanding on blackout is going to help build up dystopia as a world and environment— why is blackout, a bounty hunter, hunting for our protag in the first place? what did henry do (or rather, what did henry not do)? is this usual behavior for dystopia? is there no legal forces beyond bizwatch trying to stop this guy?? IS BLACKOUT WORKING ALONE?????

jesus christ this raises so many questions and can help expand on everything so much and if blackout is the main villain in the movie i will literally be so satisfied omg i love this bitch (watch him get two seconds of screen time/j)

if you made it this far thank you for coming to my ted talk🙏🙏

[animentality]

I get that the original "speak no evil" film is about deferential politeness and how the desire to not offend people can really bite you in the ass when those people are awful.

But I have a hard time liking it, because the parents in that movie make no attempt to stop their daughter from getting her tongue cut out. They also make no attempt to save themselves at the end.

Even though, come on, you're fucking European.

You don't have guns! I'm not sure what you're afraid of. If you're going to be stoned to death, you might as well try and wrestle a pair of scissors out of some bitch's hand, like.

You're dead either way. Might as well get stabbed over stoned.

It severely breaks the realism for me, bringing the story almost into Grimms fairy tale territory, which works for some people, but not for me.

But anyway, the American remake is kinda funny, because it's not so much horror as an action thriller.

And it's hilarious because I think an American watched the original film, was annoyed at their lack of fight, and decided let's re do that, shall we?

And honestly... it kind of works.

You can't apply Danish social commentary to Americans, or at least, not this kind of commentary.

I don't think Americans tend to be deferential when it comes to strangers. The only unrealistic thing is the idea that Americans wouldn't immediately kill someone who slept naked with their child.

The director even said something about the remake, I don't have the exact words, but it was basically, yeah no, I get why the American director changed the film, because it wouldn't resonate with Americans as much.

They're both good films, just in their own special ways.

I was really surprised they even remade a movie like that, and so soon after the original released, but, the director had a vision, man.

I like that they changed the story a lot. why even bother with a remake if you don't change it a bit, you know?

James McAvoy is also such a freak in that movie ... it's great.

A shame he was also a pedophile, which was not in the original movie. but it was actually kinda appropriate.

Made the story darker, in a way that made sense.

[downtroddendeity]

@turnkeyassurance saw your tags and figured I'd take the opportunity to pause my descent into madness to give my more sober opinions on the Ni no Kuni franchise, lol. (Warning: I am a humongous JRPG nerd)

The NNK games are really odd ducks, quality-wise. You can call either one a good game or a bad game and call either one better than the other, and any combination of those opinions can be something I think is entirely justified. Both of them have things they do remarkably well and also serious, profound, deal-breaking flaws, and the really weird thing is that there's almost no overlap between those two lists for the two games. What clicks and doesn't about both of them is going to be deeply individual.

What Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch does, with resounding success, is Vibes. It sets out at every single step with the goal of being a playable Ghibli movie, and it sticks to that principle. It's all about beautiful, cel-shaded whimsy. It's a game for people who want to feel like they're wandering through the meadows in the movie version of Howl's Moving Castle. There are lots of puns, and you can befriend all the random encounter monsters and feed them ice cream.

But that's also its Achilles' heel: because it's dedicated entirely to imitation, it has trouble bringing things to the table that are really its own. It has the visual and narrative aesthetics of Hayao Miyazaki's films, but it doesn't have the raw emotion at the heart of them. And as a game, its mechanics combine the clunkiest features of menu-based combat and action RPGs, and while everything about the Pokemon-esque mechanics seems designed to encourage players to collect and experiment with them, the balancing turns attempting to do that into a miserable grindy nightmare.

The other problem is that it... isn't actually the first Ni no Kuni game. Wrath of the White Witch is, in fact, a remake of the Nintendo DS game Ni no Kuni: Dominion of the Dark Djinn, which was never released outside Japan. The reason for this is pretty easy to explain, because DDD had another gimmick besides its aesthetics: it came with a real-life physical copy of the wizard spellbook, and the player had to look things up in it and draw sigils on the DS touchscreen to cast spells. So, we've got a high-effort remake that had to completely cut the central mechanic... and which also expanded the plot so that the original main villain was no longer the primary antagonist. This results in a game with what is very clearly a final dungeon and very clearly a final boss and very clearly a resolution to the story, which suddenly has a completely different plot dropped on it like a fucking anvil that it expects you to be just as invested in even though it hasn't had anything like the same level of buildup.

And ironically, this is almost the exact opposite of the biggest problem with Ni no Kuni 2: Revenant Kingdom, a.k.a. the one with my new blorbo, the President of the United Union of Eagleland. 2 is an effort to try to cement an identity for the series that can be its own, rather than requiring them to depend indefinitely on borrowed Miyazaki nostalgia. It just has the teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy problem that at some point in development it had a budget shortfall so bad that you can finish the game without ever realizing that there is a continent-sized crashed interdimensional spaceship on the world map.

This game has had a machete taken to it. Don't get me wrong, I genuinely respect the work they did to make what they could with what they had, but you can see the signs of massive scope cuts to literally every aspect of the game. The back half of the game has almost exclusively recycled enemy and environment assets; voice acting has been trimmed down to canned voice clips; the catboy protagonist's ears and tail are barely animated; one minigame was so inadequately playtested that a level 16 mission is massively harder than level 50 ones; and while whatever restructuring they had to do to the main plot still left the final version with a more solid and coherent central arc than WWW in my opinion, it also left a lot of truly gaping plot holes, like oh, I don't know, why the President of the United States got turned into a 19-year-old.

Literally, they just. Entirely forgot to explain that. Half the DLC is just the writers scrambling to fix stuff like that and add a bunch of character development that should have been in the base game.

However, despite all this, I personally enjoyed NNK2 more than NNK1 unironically, not just for Rolandposting reasons. Compared to the first one, it plays much more smoothly as a straight action RPG, and while it can't provide the same knock-your-socks-off aesthetic cohesion, to me it seemed a lot more heartfelt- that is, like a game that was made because people had a story they wanted to tell.

But, well, we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the non-unironic reasons, because the story they really, genuinely wanted to tell was about a magical catboy growing up and learning to become a leader, and somehow, miraculously, they really thought that was the story I was here for too when they opened the game with the President of the United States being isekaied by Nuke-kun.

Sorry, guys, I have a crippling addiction to dramatic irony and my day job is tech work in local politics, you could not have more laser-targeted this at making me specifically laugh my ass off if you tried.

[artist-issues]

I’ve enjoyed a lot of your thoughts on Disney movies and I was wondering what you thought of the movie Enchanted(assuming you have seen the movie xD)? I rewatched it recently and I really enjoyed it(I personally like that even though Giselle does evolve throughout the movie, her wish of finding true love stays the same) so I was curious to know your thoughts :)

I

LOVE

Enchanted.

Morgan is the kid that represents Disney’s audience. Robert is the well-meaning parent of that kid, who is missing the point of the Disney movies. Giselle is the Disney movie.

I love it. It’s so good. It ranks right up there with Mary Poppins, in my mind, as Disney getting itself right.

Disney has been accused of two things, prominently. On one side, you have people being like “oh Disney doesn’t have any courage to do new things, they’re just bowing to whatever the culture says, they’re remaking everything, etc.” That’s nowadays.

But in the early 2000s, when Enchanted was released, it was much more punk rock and edgy and popular to criticize Disney for not being “feminist” enough, for having characters who are stupid or silly—“what, they fall in love in just one day? What, they sing about their feelings? Look at all the dippy magic in their movies! Ha! Corny! Cheesy! Kiddie! Gag me!”

But then Disney whips out Enchanted.

Enchanted is Disney saying “Yeah our princesses have undying faith in love, and to them, magic is normal, and that’s a good thing, and our world needs more of it.”

furthermore

like this video so perfectly captures:

Giselle is this character who is (at first glance) the typical Disney Princess: that is, she’s all about faith. Having a dream of the special someone you’re destined to be with is one thing, but believing he’s out there in real life and you’ll find each other? You kind of have to believe in a higher power (fate, destiny, a horse, a wishing star, God) making that happen to get there. And then, what comes with faith, is this positive, joyful, innocent happiness that she carries everywhere.

When she meets somebody new? She trusts them to help her. When she calls to vermin? They answer her and befriend her. When she gets lost? She trusts her friends or her Prince will come find her. No need to be suspicious, to pretend to be something she’s not, or to despair; everything will work out, because life is full of wonderful things happening, and she knows that love exists and that love is often directed toward her—so why worry?

That’s so Disney. (The REAL Disney.) “Maybe something wonderful will happen.”

Enchanted celebrates that ideology by having her teach it to a guy who is from our world—and he’s basically the opposite of Giselle in every way.

He’s been hurt by someone he thought loved him (his ex wife.) He works with people who used to trust each other and spends all day helping them legally dismantle their once-loving relationships. He has his own girlfriend, but he is way too uptight and controlling to take the next step with her—because he’s afraid. Afraid, afraid, fear, fear, the opposite of faith.

Giselle has that belief in the good, the beautiful, the true, in the world. Robert has zero belief. He thinks that kind of faith is just going to get everyone hurt by the cold hard ‘real’ world. But she teaches him that the most real things in the world are the good, the beautiful, the true…

She really does love him truly, there really is magic, and those two facts really do have power. That he’s the one who hasn’t been seeing things 100% “how they are,” because he leaves love and faith out of the picture.

…and we have to talk about what he teaches her. Which is that there’s something worth getting angry about and protective of—before him, none of her beliefs were challenged. I really think by getting angry with him specifically because he refuses to take that leap of faith and believe in anything (which is exactly what his current girlfriend is angry with him about), she realizes that she can be angry with him, that she can disagree with him—and like him anyway. That it’s a choice, to love someone—which is what everyone thinks fairy tale princesses don’t have, and they couldn’t be more wrong.

Meeting a man and finding out enough about him on your first day to love him isn’t “boy meets girl, therefore they must end up together.” It’s her, knowing what is good, being insightful enough enough to see it in him even in a brief interaction, and then what ladies and gentlemen? Choosing to love him. So there’s Giselle, proving us all wrong about fairy tale princesses again.

I think it’s so good, because while he does help her to think more deeply and realize things about herself, he doesn’t change that joyful, faithful part of her. He just deepens it. It’s like a real life object lessons why “compare and contrast” is such an effective way to exercise your belief in something. Giselle believes in true love. Robert doesn’t. But she’s never met someone who doesn’t. By interacting with someone who’s trying his best, but is getting it wrong, she has a better appreciation for what she already knew was right.

I mean you could say “no she just realized that she has a right to be angry, women don’t have to be positive all the time” but that’s totally out of context. What’s she angry about? She’s angry that he keeps refusing to have faith, when she knows it would be good for him. It’s anger, for something worth being angry about.

And the songs are so good.

“That’s How You Know” is such a good song to refute critics of Disney Princesses and explain faith. Faith is believing what you know to be true and acting on it regardless of how you feel in the moment. In ‘That’s How You Know,’ Giselle is proving that princesses do actually need that truth component to have faith. It’s not blind faith.

It’s Ariel saying “I know humans are good because Truth 1: they make beautiful things, Truth 2: I saw one risk his life to save an animal, so I’m going to choose to love him.”

It’s Belle saying, “I know the Beast looks vicious, but Truth 1: he’s kind, he gave me a library and my freedom, Truth 2: he’s saved my life, and even though I’ve seen him break furniture and fight wolves, I’ve also seen him try to eat with a spoon and dance with me gently, so I’m choosing to love him.”

It’s Jasmine saying “I know this Prince Ali lied to me once already, but Truth 1: he saved my life and shared that he knows how I feel, and Truth 2: he keeps showing me the new things I want to experience without letting me get hurt in the process, so I’m going to trust him.”

It’s Snow White saying “I know I’m homeless in the woods and my only caretaker is trying to murder me, but Truth 1: I’m engaged to a Prince who promised to give his heart to me, so I’m not going to act despairing and fearful.”

Before the song starts, Robert is assuring Giselle that his girlfriend Nancy knows he loves her. But he doesn’t tell her all the time. He doesn’t do anything to show her. Because that would be vulnerable, and he’s a self-protective guy. Self-protection is the opposite of selflessness, and selfless action is love. So Giselle is telling him, “you have to do something, love is an action, and that action shows Nancy a truth she can base her faith, faith in your love for her, on.”

Not to…over-analyze a really catchy song.

But they’re all like that. This is the whole movie. The whole movie is Giselle being the Disney movie, walking and talking, proving the people who don’t get Disney movies wrong.

It is that deep!

And guess what? Robert, the guy who doesn’t get Disney movies? He falls in love with Giselle, the walking talking Disney movie. So there.

We haven’t even talked about the villains or Pip or Edward or Nancy, but they’re all amazing, they’re all perfect for this movie, but I’ll save it for another post.

I love Enchanted.

[sciderman]

i’ve been eating up the DP/W brain rot like slop, but your critiques are making me think too much about it and now i realize it’s. it’s not that good 😭 i feel like a toddler being spoon fed by marvel and disney. i’m still gonna like and reblog the homo fanart and such, but damn.

do you think there’s any way for marvel comics to be made into movies well?? i feel like everything is just run by the same people

i feel a little bit like those stories where like, everyone gets like a mind spell on them or like, a love potion or such, and i'm here (immune) to that love potion so it's up to me to shake everyone out of the spell. thank you @makehimwhimper... i love the url, by the way.

marvel comics have been made into movies well! i mean, they won't be anymore, if disney continues to swallow everything up, but - once upon a time, they could be done well! i do think logan is just - straight up a good movie. okay, it's not fun. but it's a good movie. and i think the first deadpool movie - though not perfect, and not any sort of milestone of cinema - has all kinds of charm and a respect for the source material.

i think the best we'll be getting in the way of marvel adaptations is probably whatever sony's doing with spider-verse - but i think a big thing about what makes those work for me is all the new things they did with it - fact is, i think audiences actually DO want to see something new. and i don't know if faithful 1:1 adaptations of comics is necessarily going to work. but just - there's a curse in marvel that i can just smell right now, it reeks - it's the smell of the people working at marvel just not respecting their audience at all. and i think it's a disney problem, really. where disney is in this stage where they'll avoid creating anything new or innovative and depend solely on you recognising IP (but ideally, only recognising it at face-value, so you're not critical when they inevitably get it wrong) - because recognition is just what is selling right now. and it works on 100 different levels - because even if you hate the new deadpool and wolverine movie, you're nostalgic for the better x-men movies. now streaming on disney+. disney has your wallet regardless of if their new movie is good or not. you didn't like the new star wars stuff? you're in luck. the original star wars. now streaming on disney+. they're remaking lilo and stitch. you think it's a stupid idea. the original is so perfect. come to think of it i should rewatch lilo and stitch on disney+. i'll buy some merchandise. so even if you're upset with disney, you're running back to disney's open arms. there's no escape.

it's kind of disney's business model now - that actually works in their favour - to give you a bad movie that reminds you of better movies. because they still own the better movies. they still own the merchandising rights. you don't like the new spider-man? here. the better, older spider-men are here to save the day. but we still own the merchandising rights. anything with that guy's face on it. that's money in our wallet.

disney's found an infinite money loophole. why would they expend effort making a good movie or take risks when a bad movie that references better movies generates so much more income?

[dailycharacteroption]

Oozemorph (Pathfinder Second Edition Archetype)

(art by SothGrim on DeviantArt)

When you think of slimes, of oozes, of puddings or flans or any other food-related word that has been used to describe formless goo monsters in rpgs and beyond, you probably already know that, inspired by the movie The Blob and it’s remake, D&D was the first to turn such formless giant amoeba and other goo critters into staples, with plenty of jRPGs and beyond further helping to cement them as an icon of the genre.

It may shock you then to learn that the concept of humanoid slimes, of slimes that not only have intelligence but choose to adopt humanoid forms is not as recent as you think, evolving out of things like parodies of Dragon Quest and other jRPGs coming out in the 80’s… you know, the same decade that D&D itself became a thing, and that is *wild* to me.

Of course, one can’t mention humanoid slimes without pointing out the elephant in the room which is that slimegirls are featured in a lot of eroge works, and with that acknowledgement let me be very clear that we love and support folks that enjoy all sorts of age ratings and subjects here. There is no kinkshaming here.

In any case, today’s archetype is all about characters that, through accident or design, are a little more oozelike than most. Canny fans will remember that there is an archetype in First Edition by the same name, though while the shifter version is all about those shifters whose power of polymorphing is derived from emulating those giant protoplasms, the Second Edition version is more available to every class and is more flavored around magical curses, accidents, and the like. Things that you were quietly encouraged to reflavor the 1E version into if it suited you anyway.

Now, you may ask, “Ooh, does this archetype give you the ability to shift fully into a protoplasm for all the benefits and hinderances associated with it, or shapeshift your limbs into weapons, or the whole polymorphing into animal forms plus your pseudopods for extra offense?” To which I must sadly be the one to disappoint you, since the archetype does fall prey to the limitations that 2e sometimes puts on their character options, but I won’t say it’s impossible to play such a character, more on that later.

In any case, your character is or perhaps later became a partially goo-ified person. Maybe your character was a human that was afflicted by the ooze plague from The Slithering stand-along adventure that this archetype comes from, or some other ancestry that was experimented on, or someone of any ancestry that otherwise developed such a connection/affliction? Either way, we’ll see exactly what they have to offer.

The base dedication of this archetype represents the start of the transformation and how the starting shifts of the hero’s biology gives them insight into how oozes function, particularly with how to avoid their engulfing attacks, but also in the study they do into oozes and the occult as they come to understand what is happening to them. However, it comes at the cost of their changing anatomy being disturbing to many other creatures, hampering social interaction.

The more they transform, the more their anatomy fails to resemble their original ancestry. Thankfully, this makes it harder for foes to target their vitals, and they can seal off blood loss much faster and easier.

Some learn to distort their throats to create a resonating chamber, allowing their vocalizations to be heard from much farther away, though even the most musical of such vocalizations are likely a little unnerving.

Sometimes having no eyes is an advantage, especially given the number of monsters with deadly gaze attacks and spells that afflict those that view them. As such, some oozemorphs learn to just get rid of their eyes reflexively for a bit, becoming blinded for a few seconds in order to turn failure into success against such visual effects.

As their transformation progresses, oozemorphs become receptive to, and are able to replicate the primitive pheromonal communication of many oozes. While they can hardly tell oozes what to do, they can at least attempt to befriend them and convince them that they are not food or threats.

Eventually, many of them develop thicker skin akin to the thick membranes of many oozes, and their bones further break down, making them not only resistant to bludgeoning attacks, but also to the effects of especially grievous blows.

Many oozes can suction to walls and ceilings to move along them, and some oozemorphs can emulate that, their limbs spreading out to get as much grip on the surface as possible.

Finally, their internal fluids become more like cytoplasm than blood, making them resistant to disease and poison, as well as making them even more resilient overall.

This archetype offers a lot of durability options as well as some utility, but it is a far cry from going full sentient slime, even if the art for the archetype is very nice and seems to lean in that direction. However, by looking into the actual classes we can use as the base, we can find some options and answers that are suitable. Both kineticist and monk have ways to make your strikes deal many different types of damage, which could be flavored as reshaping gooey limbs or channeling power through them, while alchemist has some concoctions that can also help out with that. Furthermore, arcane and occult casters of any class gain the potential to learn the Ooze Form spell, which is much nicer than the 1e equivalent since it actually lets you take traits of specific types of oozes (from an admittedly limited list but that’s just 2e polymorph for you) rather than just a generic battle form.

However, even if you don’t go that route, the oozemorph can offer some fun abilities to make being a goo person a part of your character, especially if they plan to be up front absorbing a lot of hits.

Now, as sexy and cute as we tend to think of slime people in a lot of modern fiction, within a lot of more serious fantasy games, I can see a lot of oozemorphs struggling with how others view their altered nature. Even without considering how uncanny and disturbing their powers would appear, oozes are typically seen as mindless monsters, a danger to be avoided and repelled, so there’s a lot to explore there, though it need not be the case in your own setting if that isn’t something you want to explore.

Those that survive in the Blighted Lands are renowned for their toughness, but that doesn’t mean they are unscathed or unchanged by it. Such is the case with Sekani the Burning Rain, who suffers from an affliction that makes her body soft, translucent, and pliable in places. However, the young strix has learned to channel this ooze transformation, and earned her epitaph by channeling her magic through it to pelt foes from above with acidic spells.

Most who were afflicted by the Darkeye Plague rose again as zombies, hungry for flesh and instinctively spreading the necromantic virulence. However, those who survived it sometimes gained a strange symbiosis with the black fluid that had spread throughout their bodies. That did not, however, prevent them from becoming something more than mortal, though not necessarily monsters.

Most who become oozmorphs become soft and malleable, but Beras of Millentown was an exception, their body taking on the qualities of carnivorous crystal. This transformation has lent itself to them developing geokineticism, channeling their transformation into deadly blades of jagged crystal.

[atamascolily]

One thing that I've never seen anyone adequately explain (and rarely if ever comes up in fanfiction) are Walpurgisnacht's trees. What's up with those things, anyway?

They don't seem to fit with either the cogs or the circus motif or anything, they're just kind of... there. So why the arboreal theme? Kinda random, right?

They also seem to persist after Walpurgisnacht herself has vanished.

Seriously, what is this tree doing here??? Why would Walpurgisnacht make these in the first place? They certainly don't show up in Homura's big showdown later on. And okay, fine, maybe Homura intercepted Walpurgisnacht before she could start causing botanical mayhem, but still... their presence in these scenes perplexes me.

It took me a ridiculously long time to figure out the connection, but I think the trees represent branching timelines radiating out from a single point--just like a model of parallel universes. And of course, the fact that its branches are bare and seemingly dead implies that none of these timelines will bear fruit. No life can arise out of the wreckage, just as there is no future for Homura in any of these timelines.

The only other time in PMMM we see this same tree imagery is with Homura. In a scene added for the Blu-Ray (not sure if this is the original series or recap movie), Homura walks through a grove of similar trees immediately after confronting Kyubey about Kyouko's death.

A similar mist appears right before Walpurgisnacht arrives in episode 11, but I don't know if that was meant to be an intentional reference. Regardless, the monochromatic palette in all of these scenes is evocative of depression and despair as the world is literally drained of life, vibrancy, and hope. This is Homura's existence now, trapped in an endless series of loops she cannot break and unable to do anything but keep on fighting.

In keeping with my theory that trees = branching timelines, the next shot immediately afterwards begins to flicker like a piece of film (another recurring visual motif in this series, especially with Homura), eventually resolving into multiple silhouettes of Homura.

After that, we cut to a series of film leaders (the numbered countdown signs), which are yet another visual parallel between Homura and Walpurgisnacht, and one not included in the original TV broadcast.

Similar trees also appear in Rebellion. The first one is in the glass dome where Homura meets with Kyouko, its branches full of bells. Notably, it's by the river, which is likely where the trees from the original series were located (at least the second and third examples above).

The second one is... in Homulilly's skull:

And this is where it gets interesting, because this is immediately after Homura has burst free from her purple-goop-form at Madoka's touch. The tree is either the result of their combined magics, or triggered by it, because it immediately bursts into bloom--the first time we've ever seen one do so over the course of this series.

It's a cherry tree, of course, with all the symbolism that comes with it--full of pink ephemeral flowers (just like Madoka) that bloom on otherwise bare branches. Beauty has emerged from ugliness as the result of Homura's love for Madoka, just as she herself has emerged from her grief thanks to that same emotion--which she will later describe to Kyubey as "more passionate than hope, far deeper than despair".

Thus, it's not surprising that when Homura remakes the world, the first thing we see are blooming cherry trees--even though they were always green and leafy in earlier versions of this scene. The flowers are a symbol for her love even if no one else recognizes it.

So here's the question I wonder about: what would it take for Walpurgisnacht's trees to finally bloom? Or is such a thing even possible in the first place?

[masquayla-the-splendid]

Things I noticed about the music-realm of the fnaf fandom as of recently.

[From the person who did Paranormal Powerhouse]

My brain just fired an interesting set of neurons. I was thinking about how JT Music "remastered" some of his older fnaf songs, like Join us for a Bite, and Five Long Nights. Usually, JT Music never misses with his songs. Except for when he redoes them. Normally, I would describe the remakes of feeling too processed and the OGs more organic, but that's too vague for my point to get across.

I got a Reel on my feed the other day about the new Beetlejuice movie that showed images of behind the scenes pictures from the original movie, and the new one. One of the comments said that although the new movie was good, Beetlejuice's outfit from the original felt more authentic, and the new one felt too much like it was a costume. (I can see it in the hair most, imo.)

That's how I would describe this situation with JT Music. Heck, even just current Fnaf Fan songs in general.

I haven't heard any new fnaf songs that stuck out to me in a while. To me, the new ones just sound like someone just picked a cool synth and played 4 chords and went "OOG THE BEAR IS APPROACHING~" lmao.

Idk they just sound less...from the heart. Compare the "You might look at me-" "-you're not alone, Baby" part of the original Join us For a Bite, and the remake. They got rid of the huge chords the vocals did on "crazy," and the delivery doesn't sound like she's about to lose it. She just sings it and the autotune does the rest.

A number of other songwriters that made pretty good songs back then have fallen off too, I noticed.

Idk if it's because this is how these artists are making a living, so they gotta pump out content all the time. Tryhardninja has been uploading multiple music videos for songs from like, 2016. (They're good animations though.) It's all in the matter of taste though, I guess.

But it's a shame, because all the older songs that were fire, the writers ended being creeps, or have just been absent from the internet or the fandom for a while. Mandopony's songs felt like they came straight out of a musical. They made great use of harmonization, and painting a scene in your head. [I've never come across a song made by a brony that was mid.] That kind of style has yet to be replicated, because I don't want him returning anytime soon.

Idk what happened to Groundbreaking, other than he stopped making fnaf music specifically, but he was really good at writing character, and catchy instrumental breaks. The sounds he chose for each character song fit them very well. His style was very electronic and industrial.

Similar notes for Griffinilla, with the added bonus of the scenes in Stay Calm. Then he turned into Fandroid. His Freddy song is pretty good too. The lyrics are pretty generic, but I like the wacky instruments used. Not a fan of the Ballora song. I did recently hear about him being a groomer though. Can't have nothin in Hurricane.

Shameless plugin, that's why when I wrote Paranormal Powerhouse, (and Bolts4Brains) I was taking those aspects into account. I never hear vocals harmonize anymore, or singing in character, or silly voices in general. Those add texture, imo. The instruments I chose were very specific. I wanted it to sound mechanical and haunting, while keeping the overall lighthearted campy nature these games have, thus, the title of the song. (Totally has nothing to do with the level "Lava Powerhouse" from Sonic Spinball.) Even the drums are meant sound like clunky robotic movement.

The Genesis is capable of very harsh and edgy sounds, which would be perfect for the industrial side. It's capable of atmospheric sounds as well, ex. Ecco the Dolphin. It also shares a soundchip with arcade cabinets from at least mid 80s, so I tried to replicate instruments from certain arcade games, because FFP has an arcade. The Snes plugin was used for softer sounds the Genesis couldn't achieve the way I wanted, like the wonky piano.

I did add a sort of autotune to my vocals, but a real quality autotune plugin costs money, so I used Reaper's built in manual pitch correction. On top of that, I added a light chorus effect for the main melody, and a bit crush at that part where Phone Guy starts to break it down, and the animatronics provide a counter melody, leading up to Chica's solo.

Idk maybe I'm just not in the loop with the current music scape, and when I am, I just get really unlucky. It's hard to tell, because I hardly ever come across a fnaf fan that's also a music nerd. Like I'm just finding videos talking about the Watch Your 6 motif. Did we all like subconsciously know this and just decide to talk about it, or did the right people just start noticing it at the right time?

[thenightling]

Willy Wonka misconceptions

As Charlie and the Chocolate Factory / Willy Wonka has become weirdly popular lately because of the successful prequel film and most recently that really botched / rip-off Wonka event in Glasgow Scotland, it felt like a good time for this post.

Here are a list of popular misconceptions about the book and films.

1. Much of the Internet thinks of Wonka as a "Serial killer of children." I pointed out that at the end of the 2006 film and novel you see the children alive, though altered. And in the 1971 film that version of Wonka says that they will all be fine, but a little wiser. Someone tried to argue with me that he was just trying to placate Charlie. Really!? Since when did that Wonka ever lie to make people feel better?

Based on his previous behavior we have no reason to believe Wonka would lie just to make Charlie feel better. It's just a dark, edgy, annoying headcanon to pretend Wonka killed those other kids when every version tells you they survived.

____________________________

2. Grandpa Joe was not "Faking it" or "being lazy." It seems ironic to me that so many rant and even get genuinely angry about the character Grandpa Joe. It is especially odd to me when the rage is in regard to the depiction in the 1971 film, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory.

The reason it is odd to me is because in the 1971 film Grandpa Joe very clearly was suffering through severe depression, possibly a long bipolar depression phase.

The depression is clear in his "I've got a golden Ticket" song.

"I never thought my life could be Anything but catastrophe"

"I never had a chance to shine Never a happy song to sing"

It seems weird to me that today people shame characters like Cinderella for not being assertive and empowered when she's a live-long abuse victim. And then you have the people against Disney's The Little Mermaid who say she gave up who and what she is for a man but ignore that she had a song number from before she ever saw Eric, where she expressed body dysphoria and made clear she wanted to be human even then.

And you have a large part of the Internet shaming Grampa Joe for being "lazy" and "faking being sick' while he's literally telling us that he he's been in a severe depression.

It's almost like watching a generation that supposedly respects mental illness and understands depression in ways previous generations didn't... suddenly having a justification to shame someone for having all the symptoms of clinical depression.

Hell, even the song "I've got a Golden Ticket" kind of indicates Grandpa Joe is entering a manic phase. If Grandpa Joe's illness is psychological why do we treat it as not-real? I get so annoyed at how many people mock the character or act like he's a con artist exploiting Charlie.

________________________

3. The Oompa Loompas were not slaves.

It's true that the earliest depictions of the Oompa Loompas were little African people (before the novel was revised) but in all versions he tells the kids that he pays them in coca-beans. That might sound like he pays them in fallen acorns he found in his garden but it's made clear that to Oompa Loompas, in their society, coca-beans are worth more than gold.

Try to imagine you got a job working for aliens who offer to pay you in large bars of gold if you just help him make some gold jewelry. But because gold isn't worth THAT much to these aliens they think you're a pathetic slave, even though Lofty (the Oompa Loompa from the new Wonka movie) probably now has a palace on Loompa Land that he uses as a summer house.

Interesting bit of trivia: Charlie was originally going to be black.

___________________________

4. Wonka (2023) is NOT a remake. A lot of people mistakenly think this is yet another remake. No. It's a musical prequel to the Gene Wilder Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory movie from 1971. ________________________

5. Lots of fans have "figured out" that the shoe shine boy Wonka sees early in Wonka is Charlie. One small problem with that. This is twenty-something Willy Wonka. Wonka was supposed to be pushing fifty or sixty when he went looking for an heir. The timeline wouldn't work. The director has confirmed that for this reason the shoe shine boy is NOT Charlie Bucket.

And there you go. A list of popular Wonka misconceptions debunked.

[crazylittlejester]

Hi I saw in you pinned post that you like resident evil. My question is who in the chain do you think would play resident evil

IVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS FOR MONTHS AND YOU HAVE ENABLED ME TO YAP ABOUT THIS THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE ANSWER IS ALL OF THEM SORT OF:

- Time I think would dabble in it a bit, maybe he’s played some of the og games, definitely none of the remakes because he has no time to game anymore, but I think he’d listen to the others yap about it any nod along because he doesn’t know everything but he knows it’s important to them and has enough knowledge of the characters he understands what they’re saying

- Wars and Twi play together, not because they can’t handle it alone, but because they freak each other out more than the game and for them that’s fun. Like Wars will put his hand on the back of Twi’s neck when he’s creeping around in game and give him a heart attack, and Twilight will randomly scream and point at NOTHING to freak Wars out. Them playing re5 together was a disaster and there was a lot of screaming and there were fucking TEARS during the Wesker fight. Time came in thinking someone was dying but no, they were just playing re5 of all games. They did NOT make it through Biohazard without one of them having a legit breakdown (it was Wars). If you ask either of them what their favorite re game they’ll say re5 because they genuinely had so much fun playing it together, but Twilight will go crazy for re4r and Wars LOVES Village

- Sky wouldn’t touch the games with a ten foot pole, he watched those Village streams and got so stressed out watching streamers make bad decisions that he just can’t do it. He likes the lore though and knows enough about Village to hold a conversation. He’s seen all the movies and he likes Death Island a lot, his favorite character is Claire

- Legend is the kind of streamer that would send Sky into a coma because it’s not that he’s BAD at the games, he just will randomly Go For Things ignoring the fact that he’s making incredibly stupid decisions, and it’s a damn miracle he doesn’t die more in game because it comes SO close. His favorite game is Biohazard, and Wars actually hates him for it

- Hyrule gets forced to watch Wild or Legend play and leaves with tears in his eyes every time. He was one time handed the controller for the re4r el gigante fight and he did it in one shot somehow, but he did cry

- Wild will scream every time something grabs him and each time he does Hyrule loses one year off his life. Wild’s similar to Legend because he will just Go For Things but he doesn’t always narrowly escape like Legend does. His favorite is re2r, he’s a big Ada fan

- Four is the best re player out of all of them, he’s so serious about it too and his accuracy is INSANE. He played re5 on his own because he did the first section with Wild and Wild used up all his ammo and Four couldn’t handle such a huge waste of resources so he finished the game with the ai lmao. He did make Wild play re6 with him though because the re6 game play annoyed him So Much he almost had a stroke, and turning on friendly fire and kicking Wild was the only way he stayed sane through the game. He will short circuit if you ask him what his favorite re game is because he genuinely loves them all, but re1 is his comfort game so he’d probably say that. Four is on his hands and knees begging capcom for a Code Veronica remake

- Wind goes in screaming his head off and is not the best at playing but his enthusiasm makes up for it and he gets through the games eventually. He does better in the multiplayer games where he can follow someone around because he gets distracted and forgets where to go (he does NOT check the maps), but he got so stressed about the re4 waterway he had actual nightmares about it and woke up crying because it was absolutely impossible to beat for him, he spent hours on it. He ended up making Four do it for him. He does not fuck with Biohazard or Village, they stress him out too much, so he watched streams for those (he will NEVER let the others know this though)