#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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[boilingheart]

Headcanon that Riptide and Blood in the Bayou exist in PD as a TV show and a movie respectively.

Riptide (TV) existed as a very long prolific pirate show, think some weird cross of Black Sails and Our Flag Means Death, but it got a Supernatural treatment. I’m talkin this shit started small, intending to be only 2 or 3 seasons long, but ended up with a long winded 16 seasons as the plots continued to develop further and further and escalate beyond imagination. By the time PD starts, the show has mercifully ended but the producers have been GUNNING for spinoffs (a Black Rose Pirates prequel has been rejected by the network three times; it may be for the best tbh)

Blood in the Bayou was originally an 80s horror movie, a classic, though relatively obscure. Hardcore movie goers have it, and collectors still have the original VHS copies (I have a separate personal headcanon that Mark likes to collect old stuff like old tech and classic physical media just for fun; he has the BitB VHS in the garage somewhere). Though it wasn’t really known by many, those who did know had a hardcore love for it. Enough so that eventually, BitB got picked up by some producers, and by modern day, Blood in the Bayou has had a full remake and is in theaters NOW

Some trivia about both medias: 

- The actor that played Chip in Riptide (TV) was cast to play Timothy Rand in the BitB reboot. Many are delighted that he’s now moving to movie work post-Riptide’s end, especially since he was an unknown young actor prior to the show. (He’s now 36 years old. He began the show at 19)

- The actor cast for Rolan Deep is actually related to William Wisp, in that he’s like, an uncle’s cousin somewhere further on the family tree. Not closely related, but...

- Kian Stone’s actor is painfully offline. He’s unfamiliar with fandom stuff to an incredible degree. He did a “reading your thirst tweets” for a video and didn’t understand half of what was being said about him. This makes his interactions with Rand’s actor, who is familiar with All Of It, even more entertaining.

- Riptide (TV) is effectively the SPN in the PD universe. Yes, you had a Riptide phase in high school. Come on now. Rumblr was all about it. Harlem had a Riptide phase.

“what about apotheosis!!” oh everything that happened in Apotheosis is Real, Actually. it’s just on another plane/world probably. 

(I haven’t watched Apotheosis idk anything about it but I like to imagine that everything there is very much real because that’s Funny to me)

[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)

[turningsoft]

Richie Tozier & Will Byers Werewolf Metaphor Post

@pinkeoni's old What's up with all the werewolves? post and its further discussion made me think of a lot. Seriously, it's lengthy.

I wanna preface this by saying I don't actually believe everything is connected or intentional, as it would be a huge reach. However, it's rather interesting to draw connections even where there were intended none. Proceed at your own peril.

As we all know, the Duffers originally wanted to write Stephen King's IT remake. Naturally, we also know they took some inspiration from King's various work, so for me it was a really small leap from werewolf references in Stranger Things to Richie's werewolf in IT.

Richie Tozier Was A Teenage Werewolf

In the book, Richie goes to see a horror double-feature, which includes movies I Was a Teenage Werewolf and I Was a Teenage Frankenstein (both 1957). Let's read the excerpt from the novel.

The Teenage Frankenstein was suitably gross. The Teenage Werewolf was somehow scarier, though… perhaps because he also seemed a little sad. What had happened wasn't his own fault. There was this hypnotist who had fucked him up, but the only reason he'd been able to was that the kid who turned into the werewolf was full of anger and bad feelings. Richie found himself wondering if there were many people in the world hiding bad feelings like that. Henry Bowers was just overflowing with bad feelings, but he sure didn't bother hiding them.

Now, this quote contains a lot of information to suggest that Richie at least empathizes with the character, but we don't actually see him relating to Tony until Richie comes face to face with Pennywise — for the first time, or so he thinks. During this encounter, It takes the form of the Teenage Werewolf and chases Bill and Richie out of the house on Neibolt Street. His appearance is described in great detail and mostly doesn't contradict the original movie, except for the werewolf's silk jacket.

It was black with orange piping — the Derry High School colors.

And a bit further on:

It was the other thing that made him feel as if he might faint, or just give up and let it kill him. A name was stitched on the jacket in gold thread, the kind of thing you could get done down at Machen's for a buck if you wanted it. Stitched on the bloody left breast of the Werewolf's jacket, stained but readable, were the words RICHIE TOZIER.

In the movie it's Tony's signature jacket that allows others to recognize him in his werewolf form, so it only makes sense to assume Richie's scared because he's forced to recognize himself in the monster. The implications affect him so deeply that he considers giving up his own life.

Bad feelings

It provides a bit of insight into Richie's head and makes us question what exactly he considers “bad feelings” within himself, if not anger (he doesn't seem to be an angry person). Some speculate it has to do with growing up and becoming an unstable, hormonal teenager in the future. Others link it to his possible undiagnosed ADHD, self-hatred and the ever-present fear of being ostracized for his differences, both visible and not. Being a queer person in the 50's would also fit the narrative pretty well. For those who are interested, I strongly recommend reading expanded analysis on the matter here (werewolf as a symbol in IT), here (bisexuality viewed as “monstrous”) and here (Richie's fears explained).

Not his fault

Obviously, none of the aforementioned reasons justify putting such strong labels (monster, werewolf) on a literal child. Richie seems to understand he's not at fault for whatever makes him a target, but he also believes in a strong possibility someone can inflict this inhuman identity upon him. Despite already being bullied, he fears his situation can take a turn for the worse. And despite having a wonderful support system, he somehow knows it's not enough. If someone or something decides to “fuck him up” and exploit his vulnerable state, they will, so he cuts down on the amount of vulnerability. Heavily. I can't believe I'm still not talking about Will Byers.

Hiding stuff

As ironic as it sounds, Richie Tozier is canonically good at hiding. Other people find it difficult to make up their minds about his personality and actions — the most famous instance being, perhaps, this quote.

He had known Richie Tozier for four years, and he still didn't really understand what Richie was about.

Richie uses his Voices and “numbers” both as a shield and a weapon. He shows raw emotions only when he considers it absolutely safe. He takes “refuge in absurdity”. To reiterate @/jasperathrifteddoll's werewolf symbolism post, Richie 1) is confusing; 2) tells half-truths; 3) puts up facades; 4) “through his concealment of his inner thoughts to the reader, seems almost aware of his status as a book's narrator”.

All of Richie's fears are connected to or based on public perception. “But he knew well enough” has earned a meta post in and of itself.

Will Byers Has Werewolves In His Closet

So what's the meaning behind this werewolf costume in the Trick or Treat, Freak episode? Maybe it's a manifestation of one of Will's fears, or maybe there's no hidden message. After all, even if Stranger Things and IT are connected, I Was A Teenage Werewolf has nothing to do with ST… Unless we consider it left a huge legacy and inspired The Cramps to write a song of the same name — the one that introduced Eddie Munson to the audience in S04E01. Frankly speaking, I don't think this was an easter egg the writers were actively trying to include, but it doesn't take away from the parallel. It's still fun to compare Will and Richie, especially because on a surface level they're so unlike.

To execute Stephen King's werewolf metaphor, one would need:

a character with enough emotional baggage,

who is afraid of being perceived as a monster,

especially as a result of trusting an authority figure,

who breaks his trust and exploits his vulnerable state,

potentially making him dangerous in the process.

Let's see if Will ticks all the boxes.

Bad feelings

Will's otherness is easy to pick up on. It's either “being a sensitive artistic kid who grew up to be gay in the 80's” or “being a child who was abducted to a horrific dimension and is now attached to it”. Arguably, we don't even have to choose: these two plots are closely related and can become one through the AIDS metaphore. Not to mention the whole “growing up poor with an abusive and neglectful father” thing. Simply put, Will Byers has plenty reason to experience “bad feelings”. On a rare occasion, we can hear about his struggles firsthand.

Bad feelings = self-hatred

So far, Will has internalized a variety of epithets:

“Zombie Boy”

“Freak”

“Stupid”

“Mistake”

We can see each of them affect him to some extent.

In season 2, during multiple heart-to-hearts with Jonathan, Will expresses his desire for everyone to stop treating him different, like there's something wrong with him. Meaning, he himself doesn't think there's something wrong. He stubbornly insists: “Yeah, I am. I am [a freak],” but he's quick to be offended when Jonathan agrees. It reads as a defense tactic, not his own opinion. After all, when you pointedly address yourself in a hurtful fashion, shouldn't those words stop holding power over you?

When drawing the Zombie Boy, Will essentially tries to reclaim this identity in a way that's true to him — by using art. He doesn't want to passively accept the label, he wants to strip it of its negative connotations. But then again, when a kid deemed as dead comes back to life, it's a pretty dumb reason to bully him. Will probably knows it's dumb, so he fights back. His homosexuality, though, is a harder pill to swallow.

There's no denying he feels guilty for his attraction to Mike (well, boys, but Mike specifically). Guilty and other things as well, a mixture of shameful, jealous, hurt, confused and angry. In seasons 3 and 4 he learns that even the tiniest portions of his affection and his sincerest attempts at salvaging a friendship can be neglected or misconstrued. It cuts deeply.

Then there's, of course, the van scene. Will says he feels like a mistake sometimes. Not all the time, he clears up. Mike makes him feel better for being different, and yet Will cries after the speech, knowing full well his differences don't make his life any happier or simplier, or better.

Bad feelings = past trauma

Still, all of it pales in comparison to plain old trauma and its prolonged effects. This anon ask and @/heroesbyler's answer have summarized it better than I ever could. Here's a quote that I can't not mention:

His trauma is one of the most if not the most multifaceted in the entire story, and also he literally is the main character foil to the big villain. Saying that Will hates himself for being gay is such a gross oversimplification of what we see. It's haunting to know that people want to project a stereotypical situation to his nuanced one.

Additionally, there were theories that Will is a victim of CSA, and I'm not only referring to the ones about Vecna/MF/UD allegories (these I very much agree with) but those about full-on CSA by Lonnie. While I'm still on the fence about it, I acknowledge this is also a possibility.

To sum up, our boy Will has been through a lot. Emotional baggage? Check. Susceptibility to “monstrous” labels? Check.

Not his fault

Up until this point I was being ambiguous about whether my theory is applicable to S2 only or other seasons as well. I have to admit, right now the werewolf costume guy is no more than a little foreshadowing of the S2 plot. However, given the fact that S5 is promised to take inspiration from S2, some of its key elements or plot points may be reused, albeit probably in a different fashion. Additionally, new information might be revealed, meaning that the metaphore has potential to grow into something bigger in the future.

For now I'll focus on the S2 events mainly and compare them to I Was A Teenage Werewolf.

___

Movie: Tony Rivers embodies a typical delinquent from the 50's. He's a troubled rebellious teenager with anger issues. He exhibits such violent behavior that he's advised to seek psychological help.

IT: Richie doesn't fixate on the anger part and instead uses “bad feelings” wording to convey broader (or perhaps, entirely different) meaning. Ultimately, we're led to believe that it doesn't matter what character traits Tony possessed. What's more important is 1) he had psychological issues; 2) he was advised to seek out professional help.

ST: Will has a lot of unresolved trauma from his experience in the UD, which manifests in “bad feelings”, so-called flashbacks and coughing up demonic slugs. He's advised to undergo medical supervision/scientific surveillance at Hawkins Lab.

___

Movie: Dr. Alfred Brandon embodies the classic mad scientist archetype. He conducts experiments on people by using hypnosis and medication in unconventional ways and claims it's for a greater cause. He draws out Tony's traumatic childhood memories during their sessions. Brandon has an assistant, Dr. Hugo Wagner, who comes across as compassionate and humanistic.

ST: Dr. Martin Brenner is affiliated with multiple scientific projects that conduct experiments on people by using sensory deprivation, psychedelic drugs and various abuse/manipulation tactics. He, too, claims it's for a greater cause. Also works with traumatic childhood memories, e. g. the whole NINA project. If twelvegate is proven true in S5, these parallels will become positively unhinged. Brenner repeatedly works with Dr. Owens, who on the outside seems more sympathetic towards main heroes.

___

Movie: Tony finally accepts Dr. Brandon's help after a Halloween party gone wrong. He decides to trust everyone's opinion, goes through the procedure and ends up becoming “possessed by wolves” (= made into a werewolf).

ST: Will accepts the fact that he's spiraling and needs help on Halloween night. He decides to trust Dr. Owens, Joyce and Bob that his visions are just PTSD-related episodes. He follows Bob's advice and ends up possessed.

Ultimately, this is the moment when Will's trust is broken. Although it's definitely not Bob's or Joyce's fault, a collective authority figure represented by Hawkins Lab fails Will. It fucks him up big. And one can argue, Owens' incapacity to protect him wasn't a simple negligence but an extension of Brenner's politics. @/runninguplenorahills suggests the following:

If Owens knew about Brenner being alive and deliberately kept that information to himself (which he did), and if Owens knew about Henry and everything that happened (which seems to be the case too)……. Well….. doesn't that make Owens' inability to help and protect Will in s2 a deliberate choice?

Regardless, it isn't Will's own doing that turns him into someone dangerous — it's the Lab's fault.

___

Movie: Dr. Brandon and his assistant argue about the necessity of transforming Tony because it might be harmful or even fatal to him.

“But you're sacrificing a human life!” ”Do you cry over a guinea pig?”

ST: Dr. Owens argues with other scientists over attacking the UD vines/tunnels and potentially harming Will in the process.

“And if it kills the boy?” ”Then quite frankly, Sam, it kills him.”

___

Movie: In his werewolf state, Tony kills a bunch of his classmates, a random dog, Dr. Brandon and his assistant.

ST: While being possessed, Will leads the soldiers into a trap and gets them killed because they've upset the MF. Owens ends up injured, and Bob gets killed. We can view them all as Brenner's “assistants” to different extents.

All in all, I'd say the metaphor fits. But wait, there's more!

Hiding stuff

Once again referencing @/pinkeoni's posts, there's a long history of Will hiding his feelings. Fascinating how the conversation that basically establishes this trait of his, aka his exchange with Joyce, happens in S2 and specifically in relation to his not-actually-PTSD episodes. But the motive of hiding, be it in a literal or a figurative sense (as in hiding parts of himself), is integral to Will's character. It is continually present troughout seasons and is supported by in-show elements and costume design choices alike.

Billy Hargrove And Henry Bowers Are Overflowing

Parallels should be drawn between Henry and Billy, too. This section is small, but nonetheless I like it — it's a finishing touch to the story and a cherry to top it all off.

Richie completes his train of thought by contrasting Tony and Henry Bowers, accentuating how the latter “didn't bother hiding” his bad feelings, e. g. his anger, bigotry and violent outbursts. The same could be said about Billy. Both of them killed people under the influence (Flayed!Billy, Pennywise-inspired!Henry) and definitely were capable of assault regardless. For both of them a relationship with one's father seems to be an instigation of their descent into madness, although Billy hates Neil, whereas Henry appears to have a more complex, effectively love-hate attitude towards Oscar.

It's also noteable that Billy is a foil character to Will, who is mirroring him in many ways, while Henry and Patrick may be seen as foils to Richie and Eddie when it comes to handling “their same-sex attraction”. And by the way, if sexuaility and attraction is consired “bad feelings” within Will's mind, one particular part of this post becomes all the more relevant. To quote and paraphrase, “Billy wears his sexuality proud and openly”, yet Will's sexuality is suppressed — another case of hiding versus overflowing.

I'd love to TL;DR this post into something concise and coherent, but I fear I'd just end up repeating my points and wording. I'd rather say I have more thoughts on Richie and Will's similarities, so there's gonna be a short post about it sometime down the line. Thank you to anyone who decided that this was worth reading!

[24-guy]

I really want to hear the opinions you have on this! What horror movies do you think the main npmd characters like to watch? I don't know much about horror movies (yet) but I like to think Max is the kind of guy who is genuinely scared of the live action Scooby Doo movies

Yes absolutely! Enjoy below the cut!! (Cos it's long and I'm sorry about that-)

I'll start with Max since you mentioned him. He's absolutely scared of even the Scooby Doo cartoons. Because of the fear of skeletons and ghosts. So he stays right away from paranormal movies. I think Ghost face even is a hard no, too. However: I think he liked the purge movies. Because those are just guns, really. But like. That's probably the only horror he likes.

Stephanie I think is a bad movies and popular movies enjoyer. She likes the most popular movies (Halloween, Elm Street, Friday, Etc) but then will pull out the most random movie you've never heard of (Frogs) and it'll be a moment and a half. She collects the memorabilia and has the replica of the Reverse Bear Trap even though I don't think she loves Saw. She's seen all of them. But I don't think she'd intentionally go out of her way to rewatch them outside of watching with somebody else. Not to say she hates gore, though. I think she'd love Terrifier and it's sequel. She probably saw them at the cinema.

Peter mildly dislikes horror. He's probably more fond of horror comedies. Things like child's play and the more recent elm street movies. He probably likes the Jordan Peele horror movies, too. Other than that, I think he'd like making fun of shitty B movies with Steph because making fun of them is the best part. He also probably unironically enjoyed the original black and white Universal Monsters movies. He has those vibes.

Richie is a film geek who watches anime and because I'm those things he gets the "he's just like me" and he loves all sorts of horror but in a more pretentious way than me. He's a stickler for the classics, probably hates all the remakes/requels - he refuses to acknowledge their existence. He probably has a list of his top favourites which involves the original Psycho, Halloween, Alien, and basically any other movie that was "revolutionary" to the genre. He does have a guilty pleasure for so bad they're good movies though. Mainly killer klowns. Also his ass probably likes the unique/artsy films like Jordan Peele's Get Out and Skinamarink.

Ruth hates all horror and she only watches the horror musicals. Thus her favourite horror movie is Sweeney Todd. She will happily vacate the room or hide under a blanket, thank you very much.

Grace thinks horror is satanic and, as a joke, I think the nerds would show her The Nun. And she grows a minuscule obsession with horror movies with religious themes and backgrounds. Like the Exorcist, the other nun films, midsommar, and Carrie to name a few. She would refuse liking them, of course. But she gets away with watching them from describing only the religious meanings.

[artist-issues]

What are the best stories you've seen that have a theme of forgiveness? If not strictly about forgiveness, then any themes along the lines of retribution, redemption arcs, or even "seeing through another's eyes" (I may or may not have rewatched Brother Bear recently lol)

Well, we’ve got all my old standbys. Cinderella, of course, is a story that really has forgiveness in it, because Cinderella wholeheartedly forgives her stepfamily for mistreating her. (Actually, she might be “forbearance,” not forgiveness.) But they’re completely off her hook. I think there’s a really great moment of forgiveness between Nick and Judy in Zootopia that gets overlooked. Frozen, with Anna and Elsa. Brother Bear is a really great example, truly! I love that movie.

I think some of my other favorites include the original A Star is Born, or even the Judy Garland remake. (Those also might be more “forbearance.”) I think one of the best examples I ever saw of forgiveness was in Avatar: the Last Airbender, which everybody knows:

And of course, ‘Til We Have Faces and The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis have some of the best-distilled forgiveness moments in any stories, ever. There are sweet ones in The Princess and the Goblin by George MacDonald, too, though they’re not as dramatic. In Anne’s House of Dreams, by L.M. Montgomery, Anne’s repeated forgiveness of Leslie’s coldheartedness or rudeness is a really simple but awesome example of day-to-day forgiveness.

I don’t easily think of a lot of good examples of it in stories. Brother Bear definitely has it, because without it, the story doesn’t work—Sitka wouldn’t help Kenai to learn from his wrongs, Kenai would’ve been killed by Denahi, Koda would’ve been left alone—but I don’t think forgiveness is the main focus of the movie. I think it’s a load-bearing component, but not the focus.

You’re making me want to see a movie that really homes in on that!

The thing is, I guess, for forgiveness to be the focus of a movie, there has to be a character that 100% definitely does the complete wrong, inexcusable thing to another character. Something that he deserves to be on the hook for. Then he has to acknowledge that he did the wrong thing and want forgiveness. And then the other character, the one who was wronged, has to willingly acknowledge that wrong and then let the offender off the hook. It’s not just “we’ll pretend this didn’t happen.” It’s both parties acknowledging that wrong was done, and having an exchange that ends in reconciliation. It’s got grace and mercy wrapped up in it.

Not many movies have true moments like this. Usually, one character is super sorry and the other character just seems to brush off whatever they did with like, a callback to an inside joke or something. (I’m thinking if Treasure Planet, to be honest.) Or, the situation necessitates that they put their conflict aside and work together, and then after the day is saved they sort of “get over” all that and swagger off into the sunset together.

As far as “redemption” goes—gee, all the old standbys! All the ones I mentioned above, plus Star Wars, plus East of Eden (the movie, not the book) plus, of course, my all-time favorite movie, Lilo & Stitch.

In Lilo & Stitch, you have the ugly little creature who belongs absolutely nowhere, is by definition a blight on nature and an abomination of existence, who was actively created to ruin everything. And he does it, and he takes delight in it. But there’s this little girl who gets pushed down, gets her doll chewed on, gets rejected when she’s most in need of his companionship—and she just keeps on loving him anyway. Because she’s chosen to, not because he did anything to deserve it. And then that infects him. That idea of family—of someone choosing to love you, no matter how ugly you are inside and out, and by choosing to love you, they create a place where you belong. No matter what. And that changes him. A germ from outside of him changes him from a literal world-destroying, home-shattering selfish monster into something new, something adopted, something loved.

I’d call it a story about committed love and grace, not necessarily redemption—because the focus of the story isn’t really “Stitch does something wrong but then through a process of pain and transformative struggle, redeems that wrong.” That’s not the focus of the story. But it’s still “bad character becomes good.” And I can’t help but talk about Lilo & Stitch once you get me started on it, sorry!

I think the best redemption stories are some of the ones I’ve listed above, plus East of Eden, Beauty & the Beast, and really, truly Sydney Carton from Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities.

And I think Kylo Ren was well on his way to being one of the best redemption stories of all time, if TROS hadn’t fumbled the ending so clumsily—but that’s another post for another time! I don’t know if this satisfactorily answered your question, but it was fun to ramble about and I’ll tag you if I make another post as more come to mind.

[ape-apocalypse]

Road To The Kingdom - Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes Film

I remember seeing the trailers for Rise of the Planet of the Apes, shaking my head at yet another remake of a long-ago franchise. In 2011, we were hearing rumors of a new Spider-Man coming to replace Tobey Maguire and now I was looking at Harry, son of the Green Goblin, becoming a scientist and creating a drug to make apes smarter. On the other hand, Andy Serkis was getting a main role, more screen time than Gollum in Lord of the Rings, where I adored him and was eager to see him again. I was going in with some hesitation but decided to just turn my brain off for a summer action movie. 

I was surprised with how much I enjoyed Rise. Many fans seem to put this as their least favorite of the reboot trilogy. I can understand why; it doesn't have nearly as much action as Dawn or War and runs at a slower pace. But what it did have was fantastic character building in Caesar, which is needed in this trilogy. I would not be as engaged with these movies if I didn't love Caesar. Seeing him start as a little baby with his human family living a carefree youth, and then grow into a mature ape questioning his place in the world really filled out his character. He could have easily just been a random lab chimp who got smarter but I think the slow-build really fleshes him out. You empathize with him when he protects James Franco's father to the point of biting a neighbor. The human world completely turns on him and Caesar is forced to realize his true nature as an ape. 

Andy Serkis is truly allowed to shine in this role. Gollum was fun and had the two different sides to play with but there is such a powerful subtlety to this performance. Though Caesar can sign, it's mostly not translated into subtitles; only in two conversations with Maurice does the audience get a translation. The majority of the film and Caesar's story is carried out entirely through his expressions, gestures, and body language. Look at the tall confident walk he has when directing Rocket to give cookies to the other apes. The heartbreak I felt as Caesar's expression falls when his human family says he can't go home. The wordless fury when Buck the gorilla sacrifices himself on the bridge to bring down the helicopter and save the escaping apes. Even when the story can get bogged down a bit in the constant science explanations, I immediately perk up when the focus switches back to Caesar and can soak in the incredible performance of Andy Serkis.

Rise is much less action filled than its sequel films because it has to cover a lot as set up for the apocalypse to come. That set up is good, but again the science is a lot and can be a bore. However I think the pay off works. The horror of a simple graphic of the Earth, where one line splits and becomes many more, spreading across the planet, was very effective for me. I've heard people who didn't like that the apocalypse that destroys the human race is done in the credits, that it feels more like an afterthought. But for me, I think it was a powerful hook. Halfway through watching the film for the first time, I'd forgotten that this was Rise of the PLANET of the Apes. So I was excited for Caesar and his apes to escape, just happy that they'd gotten their freedom. Then the sick pilot and the spreading sickness animation hit me like a ton of bricks like "Oh shit, I forgot the humans have to die for the ape world to happen!" This probably didn't happen for everyone, especially those familiar with the original movies, but I liked the ending, undercutting the triumph of the apes with the doom of humanity.

Other than Will and his father Charles, the rest of the human cast is mostly forgettable, servicing the story where needed. Tom Felton of Harry Potter fame is a bit fun in his over-the-top hatred of the apes. When he gets to say the iconic "get your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape", my movie theater laughed at how forced the line felt, which I'm sure was not the intention. The weirdness of the line was swallowed up by the excitement of Caesar speaking for the first time and leading the apes out of the shelter, but I still remember the laughter of the audience when rewatching this movie. 

Overall, I think it's a great start to the series. Not the most exciting of the films, definitely dragged down by a lot of science exposition and unremarkable human characters, but a good intro to the world, setting up the apocalypse and making you root for a bunch of apes over the humans. You probably could jump directly into Dawn and War if you wanted, just knowing that humanity was wiped out by an illness that made apes smarter and Caesar is the leader, but I think getting to know Caesar makes it worth a watch before the more exciting films.

(Note that this is the only movie in this trilogy that does not have a novelization, likely because it was the first film and they didn't know how well the trilogy would do. It's a shame because I would have loved to read the thoughts of Caesar finding his place among both humans and apes.)

Intro / Next