#like I'm just not one to make people have huge bombastic personalities even when they canonically do. so i tone everything down a lot

[shippingdragons]

How 'Percy Jackson and the Olympians' pulled off Poseidon and Sally's emotional diner chat

Virginia Kull and Toby Stephens talk about shooting episode 7's pivotal scene.

By Belen Edwards on January 27, 2024

Percy Jackson and the Olympians is a rollicking fantasy adventure, complete with frightening monsters, high-stakes battles, and gods pulled straight from Greek mythology. So it may come as a surprise that one of the show's best — and most talked-about — scenes is a quiet discussion between two parents.

Of course, these aren't normal parents. One is the Greek god Poseidon (Toby Stephens). The other is mortal Sally Jackson (Virginia Kull), who has spent the last 12 years preparing her son Percy (Walker Scobell) for his heroic destiny — and protecting him from the world of the Olympians.

Like many stories from ancient legends, Sally and Poseidon's relationship is a tragic romance. Separated by circumstances of literally mythic proportion, unable to raise Percy together because Olympian law dictates that Poseidon shouldn't even have a child, their story has no clear solution. Sally carries the burden of the truth about Percy's parentage, while Poseidon is unable to help without endangering both his son and the woman he loves. It's a tough dynamic to understand solely through Percy's eyes, but in episode 7, "We Find Out the Truth, Sort Of," Percy Jackson and the Olympians offers us a bigger window into Sally and Poseidon's connection, in all its painful messiness and surprising beauty.

"We Find Out the Truth, Sort Of" marks our first introduction to Poseidon and what his relationship with Sally really looks like. Because of this, our first glimpse of Poseidon in the flesh is not some bombastic display of godly power, but of a man and a woman simply talking in a diner about the difficulties Sally faces in raising Percy alone.

"It was a really clever way to introduce their relationship and introduce Poseidon, because it makes them very human," Stephens said of the scene in a video call with Mashable. "It's a domestic scene between a mother and father, and at the heart of it there's this pain. It's a yearning between two people to be connected who can't be, but Poseidon is also yearning to be connected with his son but can't because he's protecting him."

The diner scene was the first scene Stephens shot for the series, yet the chemistry and history between Poseidon and Sally were already well within reach for the actors. "I really liked working with Virginia, and she's a really great actress," said Stephens. "We found that very quickly. The scene just had a very intimate feel."

Percy Jackson and the Olympians began creating that sense of intimacy between Sally and Poseidon right from the very first episode, with a scene that sees Sally sitting on her fire escape, taking in the rain.

Kull was incredibly excited to see the fire escape scene when she first read the script. "In television, you typically don't have time for things like quiet, ordinary moments. And this seems like a humdrum moment, but I think it tells such a huge story," Kull said. "It's not just Sally sitting in the rain on the fire escape — she's sitting in the rain communing with the great love of her life and the father of her kid, and this is the way that she feels close to him."

The diner sequence feels like a natural progression from that fire escape moment. Sally and Poseidon are connecting in both, but there's still a distance between them. On the fire escape, Poseidon isn't actually present. But even when he's next to Sally in the diner, there's a tragic divide between them. They're close, but still far apart.

Director Anders Engström achieved this paradoxical nearness by telling Kull and Stephens to play the whole scene without ever looking at each other. For Kull, that became a key to unlocking the power of the diner scene.

"What that did to us as actors was that all of the feelings of, 'I need to see how this is affecting the person that I'm speaking to, I want to know what he thinks about what I'm saying,' we couldn't act on," Kull explained. "Therefore, the desire to be heard, to be understood, and to connect was so heightened and so charged, it was electric. It meant that any bad impulse to 'perform' went away, and I was just desperately listening to and clinging to what he was saying. Even the silences were powerful."

In these silences, where Sally and Poseidon sit shoulder-to-shoulder yet never look at one another, Percy Jackson and the Olympians builds an entire world of a relationship that, up to this point, we haven't fully understood.

"Because Poseidon has been absent for the whole show, the audience is going, 'What a jerk, this guy is this absentee father.' And then when you meet him, you go, 'Right, I get it. It's much more complicated, and actually he really does care,'" Stephens said. "This scene is not in the book, but I think it's needed in the TV version, because it gives you much more context."

[autumnwyvern]

idk why but I'm gonna soapbox for a moment. its MY blog and I get to decide when I post a rambly rant!

People need to get it absorbed into their minds that a translation error and a deliberate localization change are not the same thing. A translation error is when two similar sounding/looking words get mixed up, or (in the case of JP-ENG which is what I'm about to really get into here) really inconsistent romanizations for proper nouns, or characters getting misgendered/having the wrong pronouns. There are tons of things. Read Legends of Localization. Read anything with the title of "This Be Bad Translation" because they are extremely funny, and then read the more informative articles. Buy the books even. For even further FURTHER reading Capcom has a really good track record with their localizers just talking about their games and the decisions they made in articles/blog posts. Actually let me reference one now to make a point:

Maya Fey in the original script loves a big hearty bowl of ramen. Adores it. And girl... I understand. However if you've played the english Ace Attorney games you may recall in those she really loves a big juicy burger. Is this a mistranslation? Did the localizers somehow goof up and say burger instead of ramen? No. The global release of the first game came out in 2005 and at that point in time most Americans who knew was a real bowl of ramen was were either Japanese-American, been to Japan, or a huge stinkin anime nerd. Everyone else if you told them to imagine ramen they'd picture a cup noodle. So if you want to go for mass appeal you think to yourself. Okay. What would be the American equivalent in this situation. A hearty cultural food that one may want to get to celebrate a job well done. And they landed on burgers. It was a deliberate, thought-through choice. And while you, personally, may feel that it was a mistake. It fundamentally isnt. There is no 100% right way to localize something. Theres a lot of factors to consider! And sometimes a change in how these factors are approached leads to my next point.

A character having slightly different mannerisms or way of speech between games is also, not inherently a mistranslation. If you are my age consider for a moment the anime localizations of our youth. Digimon Adventure. Early seasons of Pokemon. Sailor Moon. They were really allowed to go "off-script" and ham it up and make a bunch of jokes that weren't in the original, but I look back on them fondly and I know others do too! Being more loose and going for the overall vibes and doing so in a way that (hopefully) appeals to your audience is a perfectly fine way to do things. But now anime (and manga) localization has changed a lot. There is a lot more emphasis on "accuracy" and having a "true" translation. Which like isn't a thing that exists. In fact, often times being too 1:1 literal makes a localization worse and clunky and weird. But the point is in more modern "accurate" translations those characters often act a little differently. Neither of those versions are wrong its just a different approach. But it is in Splatoon where I think you can really see it in stark contrast, because in the first game the North American localization were allowed to freestyle it a bit more. In general they gave characters more bombastic personalities and weird little quirks that like werent in the european english version at All. So Splatoon becomes a hit, it is like The Game that ppl are buying a Wii U for, so the sequels roll around and the leash gets tightened a bit. You will sometimes see people say things like the translations got Better or crack jokes about how nintendo must have fired the old guys or whatever. But what happened is. They are going for brand consistency. Now all the English scripts are mostly the same (sorry not sorry for infecting the european english version with briish Spyke). Which is to say they are trying to avoid different versions from having really different interpretations of characters but they are still in some ways allowed to put their own little spin on things. Which brings me to the actual. true reason for all this meandering.

No. Craig saying "I don't see species" is not a mistranslation. Its a localization choice. Here we have a situation where we are trying to convey an older man who isnt Hip with it anymore but kind off thinks he is. Just a real out of touch guy. He means well but still has some internalized prejudices. Americans are really familiar with people saying "I don't see race." Like. He is A Grandpa. That is an extremely grandpa thing to say when someone challenges them on if they are going to be chill that there is someone of a different race over for dinner. It's fine. If you had a strong reaction to him saying that thats good, even. Like idk I wasn't in the room when they made that specific choice but I imagine they wanted to licit that "oogh uh oh no you cant say that grandpa yiikes 😬" reaction. Like idk I think that was their intent and it worked. And thats why we are still talking about it years later. (also, as more of an aside. I don't think him being Nicer to marina/eight in the JP script means he isn't still kinda racist towards octolings? Like the first thing he does in splatoon 3's story mode is announce the octarians are back and Totally behind whats going on and need to be stopped. He says this even if you are an octoling. dude got divorced so hard he became racist, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this. Marie is also kind of racist too. Sorry! that doesn't make them Bad Characters and that you are Bad for enjoying them btw. It just means they have character flaws. which is good and normal and cool.)

[crazy-pages]

Also, something which I don't think gets enough attention when talking about this stuff is how media spreads and finds an audience. Because here's the thing. Most media will never be seen or even known of by most people who would love it. And that's actually a good thing.

Media like that uses advertisement to get a foothold and find some interested people, then spreads through positive word of mouth among people with similar interests. But it's very unlikely that media will ever saturate its potential audience no matter what that audience is, so it's just not that useful to tweak a story to appeal to a broader audience. Sure it makes the initial advertising a somewhat surer bet and publishers will often worry about whether or not the audience for a book exists and is cohesive enough to effectively spread word of mouth (or have a moral dislike of an audience and refuse to publish for them).

But the point is that the most effective way for non-saturating media to reach the largest audience possible is to simply be good. Or more specifically, make a very specific subset of people absolutely feral over it. The piece of media which gets each fan to recommend it to three other potential fans gets a bigger audience before its time in the limelight faded than the one with two recs per fan, even if the second audience is hypothetically bigger. Art needs to have focus and specific appeal to grow.

(Though recently publishers have been trying to use genre and identity buzzwords to get this to happen in the preorder stage rather than based on audience confirmed quality, because that reduces the financial risk of publication. It's ... a thing.)

Now this isn't to say that some things don't get so big they saturate their target audience and then some and that big media companies haven't been chasing since big media companies existed. Sometimes a work is just so good at what it sets out to do that given enough time it will saturate its target audience and bring other people around to becoming part of its target audience. Sometimes a work will accidentally stumble into resonating with a deeper craving that's so unmet it will tear through popular culture and become a hit sensation and a household name, honestly almost regardless of quality. Lord of the Rings, Shakespeare's plays, Harry Potter, Twilight, Game of Thrones, the original Star Wars trilogy itself, all of these are examples of that (some more one than the other).

Hollywood has been practically defined by trying to make this happen for a century, the concept of big hit media is not new.

Which is why Hollywood and more recently AAA gaming spends absurd amounts of money advertising for their blockbusters. One way to shortcut the way to a pop culture sensation is to dump a ton of money into advertising so it hits a huge section of its target demographic all at once. Even if it's not that good and only half the target audience talks positively about it, that might still be enough for a lot of people to hear it being talked about by more than one person. You can get a pretty nice boost to the word of mouth effect with a big enough push.

But that only works if audience response is largely positive, or more specifically if people aren't talking badly of it. Which is why those genre films and games are often sanitized and made to cater to a specific everyman ideal. Or at least what execs think the everyman is (emphasis on man, typically). And yeah, this typically creates a ton of relatively bombastic but mediocre middle of the road media which only occasionally breaks through the noise to become remembered for more than a season.

That's not news, and I would actually argue (maybe controversially) not the worst thing. Like, I'm queer and don't get me wrong, I'm super unhappy about how this meant a lot of media ignored my existence for a long time. But it's not like it is the death of good art if companies regularly produce broadly resonant cultural touchstones designed to create a unified experience among people from a shared culture. I'd argue a lot of that stuff goes on to create the shared artistic language for much more interesting works aand it also produces a regular supply of shared touchstones for fanfiction, which I rather enjoy.

What's new is megacorps having the advertising budget and monopoly power to make a movie be the only damn thing from its genre that people hear about. Or even the only damn movie you hear about at all. The next time you see a blockbuster movie or AAA video game with a budget that seems utterly insane, check the advertising budget (and also maybe how much the studio execs got paid). The budget is often more than 50% advertisement (and the execs a good chunk after that). If you can reach literally everyone with your advertising and ensure there's nothing else with similar reach getting to them, you can get a good fraction of everyone to fill movie theater seats or buy streaming subscriptions. And that not only makes good money, it makes much more reliable money than trying to be the next big hit. Money earned from a linear fraction of a target population engaging is much less volatile than from a logistic curve (exponential explosion and then plateau) of interest.

But it also means that what's being advertised to is no longer a specific demographic of people who are anticipated to like and want to recommend an artistic creation. It's not even advertising a piece of media designed to be broadly inoffensive to a specific demographic. There is no specific demographic. There is everyone. Which means these megacorps have to create something where, when people complain about it, those criticisms are either lukewarm or directed at the institution more than the media itself.

And that's what we're seeing from Disney. The only meaningful artistic expression which breaks through does so mostly in opposition to the institutional framework (The Owl House, Andor). And that tends to get quashed even if it's a hit success because of fear of jeopardizing the reliable everyone media (The Owl House), or maybe reluctantly permitted with no institutional change if it's a true classic with staying power (we'll see if Disney neuters Andor season 2).

I'm not just saying that Disney is a bad company or saying capitalism is evil. I'm saying that even if you believe Disney can be a good company and you literally worship capitalism, there is no framework where a company with Disney's degree of monopoly power doesn't end up making crap media. It's just not as financially secure for them as make undifferentiated crap.

i think the key difference between george lucas’s star wars and disney’s star wars is that lucas is a man with an ideology. someone with a point of view, and all that entails. which comes with ideas of revolution, anti-imperialism, challenging the status quo, cultural appropriation and racist stereotypes. complex and contradictory ideas because that’s how artists are: complex and complicated people. disney is not. disney is a corporation. a corporation can’t have ideology, because ideology defeats the purpose of profit. and when the only thing you do is to turn on the movie manufacturing machine before you sit down and plan what ideas are you trying to convey to the audience, then your results are going to be washed out corporate garbage. and because when you’re a giant corporation who only cares about selling to the widest audience possible, you can’t take sides. you can’t decide on an idea. because you want to sell your product to people who are on the entire political spectrum. which results in movies without ideology, without purpose, without soul.

[allthemusic]

Week ending: 16 April 1953

Another week, another set of songs. Will there be anything as deliciously weird as Little Red Monkey?

Somebody Stole My Gal - Johnnie Ray (peaked at No. 6)

I didn't know this song, but I do quite like it. It's not rock and roll, but there's at least something a bit more lively about it, a certain ragtime / swing vibe that keeps you on your toes. Turns out this was originally a 1918 popular song, which is pretty wild.

Johnnie's singing about how brokenhearted he is, but honestly, he sounds pretty chipper throughout, and that's without the classic Cockney piano opening (seriously, it just needs an "oi" after the piano run leading into the start of the song). Quite a lighthearted offering.

The "didn't wanna lose her" section is particularly bubbly, with the piano in the background jazzing it up. I just can't buy that Johnnie is actually "pretty broken up" (perhaps because he's just not that into gals, generally?)

We do get our first instance of "gee", "lonesome" and "buddy", all of which make this feel very American to me, in a charming, mid-century sort of way. I do like a song where people are "lonesome".

I also like Johnnie Ray's voice in this, he's got the range and the charm for the song, and it does work very well for him. He can do big and sweeping, without it sounding overdone.

I Believe - Frankie Laine (peaked at No. 1)

Is it possible to not know this song? This is the first proper, massive song on the list, a song that you can't help but kind of know, somewhere in the back of your mind. And what a strange song - I can't think of many other songs like it that have the same epic, hymn-like quality.

As you might expect, it's got a backstory; written after the outbreak of the Korean War, it was deliberately written as a way of restoring hope to listeners, and pointing out what's good about the world. Which is a very expansive brief for a song to have, and kind of justifies the big bombastic approach that I've otherwise been scathing about. With a love song, the "listen to me belt the final note" approach is too much, but for a song with such huge subject matter as this, anything else would be insulting.

Aside from the vocal delivery, the music is hymnlike and steady, building to a big crescendo while a guitar strums steadingly in the background, backing singers give off a vaguely ghostly "ooh" and some brass comes in underneath it all.

I want to mock the lyrics for being cliché or trite, but honestly, I do quite like them, they paint an image of hope in dark times: "I believe for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows / I believe that somewhere in the darkest night a candle glows". There's rain, and darkness, but there's hope in that - the rain has a purpose, the dark has a light. There's hope, even when the world seems difficult and confusing.

Throughout, it's suggested heavily that the hope is God, but it's never stated outright, which is canny. It lets just about anyone project meaning onto the song. It's spiritual, but not quite religious: "I believe for everyone who goes astray / Someone will come to show the way" "I believe that someone in the great somewhere hears every word".

And ultimately, the belief that the person has is grounded in little, beautiful, relatable things: "Every time I hear a newborn baby cry or touch a leaf or see the sky / Then I know why I believe." It's a nice idea, the sort that I really don't think you could get off nowadays, and I genuinely think music is possibly worse for it? I don't know, I just like how earnestly sentimental this song is, and also how confident it is in its own scope.

Though, a cynical part of me wants to point out that "look at the pretty babies and leaves" is not a sufficient response to somebody saying "I'm bummed out by my country getting into more pointless imperialist wars after World War II barely ended". Sure, it's a pretty song with some pretty ideas, and it did get to Number One, but I don't know how much actual comfort this song was for people, or how it would have landed - I'd love to be able to travel back in time and ask!

Either way, at the end of the day, I do actually quite like this song. I think it's still powerful, and it's a message we all can engage with and have thoughts about, even if we don't necessarily agree with it. It's hopeful, and well-intentioned, and the scale of it actually feels earned, unlike with some big songs of this era.

And there we have it. A forgotten Johnnie Ray track and a Frankie Laine classic that I didn't expect to enjoy quite as much as I did.

Favourite song of the bunch: I Believe

[mildcicada]

It's time to come out of hiding

[not-poignant]

pia I just finished the ice plague how are you so good at writing satisfying endings???????????????

I'm so glad you enjoyed the ending! :D :D

Re: Satisfying endings, I don't really know. But I know for myself, I just think:

As someone who loves fandom and fandom fix-its, I like to write the kind of endings where someone doesn't think at the end 'shit I have to fix this in fanfiction.' I mean I don't mind if people do that, but I mostly want people to feel happy or very very hopeful. I guess I like to write 'fanfiction style' happy endings, which are more transparently happy, and more.../thinks/ I guess overt? There's been some exceptions which I'd say are more hopeful (like Stuck on the Puzzle), but I think I still write more obviously happy endings than many actually published fantasy stories etc. of similar length.

I write long happy endings. It's either a few increasingly happy chapters in a row (Into Shadows We Fall, Falling Falling Stars) or one really long chapter (The Ice Plague). No skimping on the happiness! I strongly feel that if I put people through that much pain and angst and whump, why should I skimp on the fluff and cheese and happiness? So I really try not to do that.

I try and leave the characters in psychologically healthier places than where we found them, which I think (ideally) gives most readers the sense that even when problems come up in the future, characters will be able to solve what's happening far more healthily than they did in the past. Which I think feels more satisfying than if a couple is arguing right up to the last chapter and we have no real belief that they can healthily get through any situation at all. Romance stories that do this feel really weird to me. I've read romances where like, a couple is toxic, toxic, toxic and then in the last chapter they get married and I'm like oh no babes, you're getting a divorce in five seconds dsalkfjsa - so even though my characters often still have Stuff (TM) to deal with, ideally, readers feel like these characters have got more support, and learned more communication tools to deal with their issues. :)

And I think that's how I manage it!

I love the word satisfying, that's really what I'm going for. And it makes me so so happy that this came across in The Ice Plague, especially because chapter 39 is absolutely horrendous in what it does to all of the characters. I think that's the biggest risk I've ever taken right at the end of a story - to put some of the worst things in right at the end. Normally I have a slower wind-down, because I'd prefer an anticlimatic denouement that feels gentle and satisfying, than something like huge and bombastic where you doubt everyone's doing okay after that trauma lol.

But I think it worked with The Ice Plague because I could skip so much time in the epilogue and because I could make that such a long chapter that people could really settle into it like they might a novella.

Tbh it goes against some of the writing techniques I was taught in university to write this way. To like, never give readers exactly what they want (and I definitely can't give everyone what they want), and to kind of...always be subtle or hint at things or give glimpses into happiness or whatever. This idea that happiness is sparse and angst is huge but not overwrought etc. idk... I don't really vibe with a lot of that kind of literature. Learning that I could write like...'literature' made me realise that personally I prefer enjoying fanfiction and tropes and big emotions, and that I enjoy writing them too.

So while my writing isn't very 'university level' - I like to think it's a bit more emotionally satisfying, even if it doesn't make you think or philosophise as much, lol. <3333

[cerberus253]

If Drago had a love language, what do you think it would be?

According to the Internet, there are at least five types of love languages:

Words of Affirmation- Compliments or words of encouragement

Quality Time- Their partner's undivided attention

Receiving Gifts- Symbols of love, like flowers or chocolates

Acts of Service- Setting the table, walking the dog, or doing other small jobs

Physical Touch- Having sex, holding hands, kissing

I believe Drago would have all five in varying degrees.

For Words of Affirmation, it would be pretty much just like the list says, but he would be kind of aggressive about it. I've said it before, and he would be like, "You're FINE, stop worrying!" with a raised voice. What makes it special is that he says it a lot more often than just "encouraging the troops." There would be times where he can be calm about it, but he'd also be quick and straight forward about it. Example, "Hey, you alright?" "Yeah, I'm good." *S/O gives a thumbs up, Drago just nods* You would want to pay attention to what he says and how often rather than how he says it because he would have difficulty expressing kindness and concern.

Quality Time would be just that, just wanting to be around them. Drago would probably want to be around them even when he's angry, but he'd be aware of how aggressive he gets, and if the S/O has anxiety or depression or something, he'd keep that in mind. It would just make him indecisive on what to do: He feels awful, so he wants to feel better, which would be around the S/O, but if he does stay by them, he could hurt/upset them and that would make him worse. So, he'd be quite frustrated around the S/O a lot when he's upset but wants to feel better.

Depending on how he feels, Drago would either be all-in with the gift giving, or embarrassed and just send it to them and be absent. So, like, he could be all bombastic and loud about giving the many gifts or affection, or the, "Yeah sure fine yes whatever *grumble grumble*..." *blushes*. Again, he isn't the best with showing affection, so if he feels normal or worse, he's going to be embarrassed, but if he feels good or better, he's not going to care and be loud about it. What items would he give? Uh, probably the normal stuff, like flowers and chocolates, and if you're like me and have a limited yet simple likes, then he'd get those. "I, uh, 'appreciate' you and stuff, and I know you like Pokemon cards, so here." Just don't make a huge deal about it like, "Awwwwww, you DO care!" Just play it cool, smile, and give him a hug and kiss.

Acts of Service is warped. Like, Drago doesn't want to serve people and will be verbal about it, and he would not want to do little services to even the S/O. HOWEVER, although he doesn't WANT to do the things, and yes he will complain, deep down he doesn't actually mind. How one can tell this is if he doesn't put up much of a fight when you ask him to take out the garbage or something. Like, probably the worst it get would be: "Hey Drago, can you take out the trash real quick?" "UGH, do I HAVE to??" "Yes please!" "FINE" *gets up mumbling to himself*. If he really didn't like doing the thing, he would do his best to get out of it and put his foot down.

Lastly, Physical Touch, we've been through this already: If he does not like the person or is neutral, he avoid physical touch unless it was a beating punishment. If he does like the person, he'd be okay with High Fives, shoulder bumps, and being close in space. If he has deep feelings for the person, he'd be nervous, jumpy, and flustered around the individual. He WANTS to be so physical with them, but this is a stupid, weak, human thing, so he shouldn't act upon these feelings. So, when he does get over the culture barrier, you KNOW he REALLY likes them. So, it's like, 'No touching, but if I have to' to 'Yeah I'm okay with this stuff' to 'I want it so bad, but I shouldn't and couldn't, but I WANT it, but--'. He's a conflicted boy-o.

Now, would there be a unique thing that Drago would do? I think we can agree from these previous Five that him going against his social norms/culture stuff and going with his "human urges" is his Love Sign. So, the fact that he is willing to go against his demon culture to satisfy his suppressed wants is his Love Language I think.

[jellicle-chants]

Finally doing this! Answers under the cut:

Mute vs. singing Misto: I like it when Misto sings the Invitation (probably mostly because of Jacob Brent in the proshot), but otherwise I prefer him not to sing.

Sillabub vs. Jemima: I personally prefer Jemima's design as a little mini-Demeter (I haven't seen enough footage of Sillabub in particular to really differentiate between their personalities). The Dinner Theatre production, where Sillabub is a silver tabby, though? Adorable.

Matinee dialogue?: The only two lines I really like are Munk's before P&P and Macavity's.

More or less props?: I don't really have an opinion on this. I liked Jerrie and Teazer's giant stereo from Tecklenburg, but other than that I can't think of any examples that I hate or don't (besides obvious stuff like the train).

Pigtail vs. standard wigs: I really don't like the pigtail look. They just don't suggest a cat's silhouette at all to me.

Munk vs. Misto singing: I like how they split it up in the '98 proshot (Misto sings the Invitation, Munk sings Gumbie Cat).

Goofy!Tugger vs. Rockstar!Tugger vs. Rap!Tugger: I really don't like Rap Tugger, I have no clue what ALW was thinking with that. I'm also not a huge fan of the goofier, younger Tuggers like Tyler or Zach (although he does it to a lesser extent), they just come off as more annoying than fun to me.

Pekes & Pollicles vs. Growltiger: P&P all the time, every time. I've never seen a version of Growltiger that was so good it made me wish it wasn't as racist as it is (although I might willing to be convinced).

Extra verse in Old Deuteronomy?: I don't know that I've ever watched a (English-language) production that included it, so I'm pretty meh on it.

Jazz!M&R vs. Upbeat!M&R: Upbeat, unless it's the OLC. I prefer characterizations of Jerrie and Teazer that emphasize their playful, bombastic nature. In this way, the music almost betrays them: they play like they're being sneaky master criminals, but they're really just goofing off and making a ruckus.

Plato vs. Admetus: To be honest, I didn't know there was a big difference between these two. I guess I like Admetus (as the cat who does the pas de deux with Victoria) better, but I prefer Plato's name.

Alonzo vs. Admetus/George vs. Plato as the Rumpus Cat: I guess I'd have to go with George, just because the Rumpus Cat messing with Munk isn't something that fits with my personal characterizations for Plato or Alonzo.

Plato vs. Pouncival vs. Tumblebrutus in the pas de deux: I like Plato, since he feels like the oldest of the three (although that can definitely change between productions). I just feel like he'd have nothing else important to do if he didn't do that 😅

"Rumpleteazer" in Macavity?: Honestly, I'm not even a huge fan of Jerrie's name still being part of the lyric just because I don't think he's actually as cruel/intentionally destructive as Macavity. I do have Thoughts™ about him being in there and her not, though.

Shadow dance/toms in Macavity?: I love the shadow dance (and the one version where Bomba does it is extra interesting), I think it gives Macavity that extra bit of intrigue without showing him too much. I don't think I've ever seen one with the toms dancing along at the end, but I think there's something to be said about it staying a queens-only piece.

Golden vs. Harlequin Alonzo: I know people have a soft spot for Golden!Alonzo, but I just love the black and white look too much and there are too many brown/yellow cats anyways.

Pouncival vs. Carbucketty: Pouncival is just the sweetest cat name for a rowdy young boy, and it matches really well with Tumblebrutus too! I don't know why the revival/tour gave him George's makeup, and it doesn't help that I really don't like that design -- something about the brown around his mouth just puts me off.

Munk and Alonzo vs. Misto singing "terrible bore"?: Misto, definitely. I think it should come off enough that Munk is "over" Tugger's antics without having to give him the line, and it gives Misto and Tugger a very interesting dynamic, especially as more productions are codifying Tuggoffelees, in one way or another.

Jenny vs. Jelly on the high C?: Jelly! She doesn't get near enough of a spotlight as it is.

Bill Bailey vs. Tumblebrutus: Like I said earlier, Tumble and Pounce's names matching up is too good of an opportunity to waste. (However, whichever production decided that "Bailey" was his last name and therefore created George Bailey and Etcetera Bailey gets kudos.)

Bill Bailey or Chorus!Tugger? Asparagus or Peter? Victor or Chorus!Deuteronomy?: I don't really get why these very minor appearances needed to have their own names, it just makes things more confusing. That being said, in my head, Chorus!Tugger is always "cursed maneless Tugger."

Boisterous vs. Frail Gus: I'm not a huge fan of showboating Gus. I know that's what the character was originally supposed to be, but I like him more as almost a foil to Grizabella: clearly also near the end of his life and haunted by his past, but supported by the Jellicles instead of being shunned by them. While he has his ghosts, he can (mostly) make his peace with them thanks to the support of his family. He shouldn't be a contender for the Choice in the audience's eyes, though.

Old Deut in the ball?: I can't fathom why you would want to put him in amongst all the dancing. Deut's job is to watch over the other Jellicles and let them have all the young people fun.

Who sings what in Jellicle Songs?: I'd probably defer to the '98 proshot on this. Let Tanto and Cori have their own lines again!

Interacting during Skimbleshanks: To be honest, I'm not quite sure what moment you're talking about here, but I love when Teazer is the one to encourage other kittens to cause trouble on the "train" so Jerrie can point it out to their dad Skimble, it's adorable.

Gus vs. Munk singing Pekes and Pollicles: Munk, 100%. One of the problems that I have with moving P&P to act two instead of Growltiger is that you miss out on easy characterization for Munk! There's not really another big moment where you get to see his exasperation trying to get everything to go right.

Muted vs. colorful costumes: Absolutely more colorful! I think the Mexico productions have a great spread of colors. Dilute tabbies are great, but when I can't tell 3 or 4 ensemble members apart from the back, it might be a sign to expand the palette. (Maybe that's just me being blind? IDK.)

Candace Carell vs. Karen Dawson for makeup: I have to give this one to Karen Dawson, as she designed/supervised the makeup for two of my favorite runs: the film and the Moscow production. The pink noses on Candace Carell's earlier Broadway designs also read almost mouse-like to me.

Spiked vs. flipped-down vs. mullet for Munk's wig: Flipped-down, absolutely! It gives his face such a nice round shape that's distinguishable from the other cats (at least in the proshot), who have almost spade?-shaped wigs.

Puffy vs. spiked-up for Demeter's wig: Also puffy! Personally, I think the US Tour 6 wigs make poor Munk and Demeter look very ratty and unkempt, like they've been tearing their hair out. I don't understand who thought that would be appealing. Some spikes are fine, but they shouldn't control the overall silhouette of the wig.

What are your guys’ inconsequential preferences in CATS?

Like…you know how over the years things have not necessarily been uniform in different productions; different parts (big and small) were given to different characters depending on the production? Different lines were added and taken out? Different characterizations? That’s what I mean. Things that don’t necessarily change the show/meaning as a whole, but are noticeable differences regardless. So:

Do you prefer mute!Mistoffelees or Mistoffelees who sings (sections of his own song included)?

Sillabub or Jemima? 

Matinee!London dialogue kept or omitted?

Heavier use of props or limited?

Pigtail wigs or standardized wigs?

Munkustrap singing “The Invitation to the Jellicle Ball” and “The Old Gumbie Cat” or Mistoffelees?

Tongue-in-cheek goofy Rockstar!Tugger or played completely straight Rockstar!Tugger or Rap!Tugger?

“Pekes and the Pollicles” or “Growltiger’s Last Stand”?

Extra verse included in Old Deuteronomy or humming or neither?

Jazz!Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer or Upbeat arrangement?

Broadway!Plato or London!Admetus?

Alonzo or Admetus/George or Plato playing The Rumpus Cat?

Plato or Tumblebrutus or Pouncival or another doing the Pas de Deux with Victoria? 

The addition of “Rumpleteazer” between Mungojerrie and Griddlebone in “Macavity” or not?

Alonzo’s shadow dance during “Macavity” or not? (And in that thread, toms joining in on the “Macavity” number or just the queens?)

Other things I have omitted of course. Stuff like that.