#like a caricature that keeps it simple and reveals the true heart of the story

[fictionadventurer]

Listening to a podcast interview with the directors of Treasure Planet, and one of the most fascinating things is when they talk about how the '90s Disney animation climate was all about making these prestige animated films with stories that could have been done in live action (Hunchback, Pocahontas), and these guys fought to make films that could only be done (or at least be best done) with animation. Because it's kind of the inverse of their current philosophy of making everything live action even if it's a story that's better in animation. So anyway if the live-action Treasure Planet thing is really happening, it's like spitting in the face of this movie's intent.

[jennycalendar]

ok you know what i think it’s actually really vital that i talk a little bit about tea time. buckle up kiddos.

first off, a brief and relatively spoiler-free summary: the premise of the issue is very simple. the kiddos (aged up, if willow’s mention of being engaged is any indication) are hanging out in the library to help giles with research, swapping stories about what it would be like were giles a vampire. each of them, save giles, gets a chance to tell a detailed story -- xander tells two! -- and each story plays out in a way that says a lot about the scooby that’s telling it AND the way they view giles.

obviously this is a VERY character-driven issue, and it’s a really really interesting look at giles and how he is perceived as well! shit like that is my bread and butter, so this has honestly become one of my favorite things that boom has put out -- possibly my ACTUAL top favorite issue if we’re being real here. 

below the cut is a spoilery dissection of every story told -- a literal summary of Every Single Thing that happens in this issue, as well as what it has to say about the scoobies and their perception of giles, so definitely keep that in mind.

as can be seen in the preview, xander’s first story is about giles rising from the grave as an ineffectual british caricature, who is easily defeated by smoldering, sexy xander harris (and xander in turn walks off with buffy and willow draped all over him, cooing about how amazing he is). it’s more of an intro to the premise than anything, but it still sets the tone pretty clearly wrt how xander handles this situation: there’s some laughter and levity, and he’s center stage. obviously a lot can be said about xander’s self-esteem issues and how he overcompensates by casting himself as the main protagonist both in canon and here. however, i wanna save my more in-depth xander analysis for his second, longer, story, so i’ll stop myself there.

willow immediately responds with skepticism: she’s of the mind that giles would be an incredibly serious big-bad level threat. the tale she spins involves giles as a dangerous vampire cleric with access to a cryptic altar, killing xander almost immediately and slaughtering buffy as a sacrifice to create eternal night. her view of giles is more clinical than anything -- and, i would argue, the most perceptive and realistic from a threat standpoint. the guy knows a fuckton of magic and he is incredibly well-read and powerful. he’d have some kind of terrifying master plan. where xander goes for comedy, willow goes straight for logistics, already looking at the battle like it’s a battle rather than laughs aplenty. 

xander and buffy have a bone to pick with willow’s story (xander is indignant that he’s immediately and brutally killed, buffy is of the mind that she would easily defeat giles in hand-to-hand combat even if he IS a vampire), so (after one more teasing story where buffy lives and xander dies) willow gracefully alters her narrative to reflect her friends’ objections: after a dramatic tussle, xander helps willow and buffy unceremoniously stakes giles in the heart. still pretty straightforward and plausible. willow sees vamp giles primarily as a threat -- one not easily neutralized. one who could easily wipe them out.

buffy, about to tell her story, is interrupted by xander, who “had an even better idea!” the web he weaves is this time purported as realistic and entertaining: while partying at the bronze, buffy and co. are interrupted by a bunch of balding, greying vampires in curlers and bathrobes, led, of course, by giles -- who is wearing a hair bonnet and disapprovingly informing the bouncers how late it is at eight PM. a knockdown brawl breaks out at the bronze -- old people feeding on and decimating the young -- and culminates in giles and the geezers taking over the band to sing “some terrible song” that’s “probably something really old and bad!” the rest of the story descends into b-movie chaos, with buffy throwing a broken guitar neck up at the stage lights to send the whole thing crashing down onto vampire giles and his vampire old person band. it’s categorically absurd.

the thing that really sticks with me about this story is how dumb it is. xander’s take on giles is not even slightly serious and wholly underestimates him. fandom at large talks a lot about how giles dropped the ball with xander, but i think tea time explores an easily overlooked factor: xander constantly, consistently underestimates giles. in canon, xander’s view of giles is not often challenged: to him, giles is a bumbling, british librarian who regularly gets his ass handed to him by vamps and demons and the like. certainly part of his story’s intent is about laughingly entertaining his gal pals, but there’s a very real and consistent thread involving giles being hilariously nonthreatening. 

giles, taking umbrage at this particular tale, calls out both xander and willow: xander’s story, in giles’s opinion, emasculates vamp giles and turns him into a ridiculous caricature -- and willow’s story, though much more flattering, lacks the kind of imagination that vamp giles would clearly have. he then offers a suggestion of his own. it’s worth mentioning here that both xander’s and willow’s stories get gorgeous multiple-page spreads depicting the vampy action, but giles’s is a simple and chilling little thing: this is his vampire story. this meeting, called to ostensibly “research” a vampire altar, is really an excuse to get the scoobies to do his dirty work and find the thing for him. they’re tired and silly because the tea and donuts he’s given them are drugged, and their library location is to keep them out of daylight. he laughs it off when he sees they’re bothered, and the meeting is then adjourned when willow finally finds what they’re all looking for. 

buffy’s left her phone in the library, so she doubles back, and accidentally wakes up a dozing giles. just as she’s about to leave, he inquires, casually, “...you never did tell your version of the story.”

and good god here is where it gets interesting.

see, buffy’s take is simple: she’s fighting giles in a cemetery, she’s given the chance to kill him, and she is entirely unable to do it. they share a tearful embrace as she sobs about the unfairness of it all -- “you’re giles! and you’ll always be! ...how will i do this without you? without your guidance?” and as the sun is rising, giles turns her into a vampire, with no resistance whatsoever from buffy. the next handful of pages depict bloody, indulgent violence on the parts of giles and buffy, the two of them cuddled up together as they watch the world burn. 

buffy’s tale is the most emotive, the most loving, which makes me so damn soft! i love this girl so much! she is unable to even joke about giles as a foe to be taken down -- he is her watcher. he is her friend. she loves him endlessly and that does not change when he’s a vampire. vamp giles as she portrays him is gentle and understanding, holding her as she cries, because he knows that they’re connected. it’s easily my favorite part of this whole issue.

notably, there is a definite buffy/giles bend that the comic itself tries to contradict. the art is sensual in nature -- vamp buffy all dolled up in a way somewhat evocative of drusilla, giles tenderly caressing her face as he waits for her to wake up. “watcher and slayer connected forever” being the quote chosen to describe the situation. i think it’s kind of what naturally happens in a vamp giles sitch, especially if he turns buffy -- the childe/sire bond is incredibly sexual in nature, especially in canon, and a lot of frustrating human sentiment gets translated into something sexual as well. sex is a big BIG part of the relationships between vampires we see in canon; it would make a lot of sense for that to hold true for buffy and giles.

the comic is reticent about Going There, which i can understand -- though buffy is decisively aged up in this issue (willow mentions being engaged to a woman, later revealed to be tara), the buffy/giles bond is always seen through a father/daughter lens in canon. i do think it’s also important to always recognize how desperately giles wishes to escape the label of father in reference to buffy, pretty much entirely because there is no way to parent a child soldier who you’re also training, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish. point is, buffy very pointedly refers to vamp giles as her father not once, but twice -- once as a human, once as a vampire herself. it’s a very clear attempt, imo, to un-sexualize the vampy experience. the reason it doesn’t totally work, at least for me, is the fact that -- like i said -- the childe/sire bond is VERY sexual (spike and dru, angel and darla, angel and dru) and it seems just totally implausible that vamp buffy/vamp giles (two people who, as human were both VERY repressed) would chastely remain within the socially acceptable version of their relationship.

i can definitely understand why they did their best to blur that line, though. the idea of buffy and giles being romantically involved as vampires is 1) Kind Of A Lot and 2) not exactly the target demographic that i think this comic is going for. but the subtext is there, to the point where the issue itself has to actively obfuscate it, which i think is .... so interesting? especially as a counterpoint to the way i often see buffy/giles in fandom, wherein the father/daughter subtext in canon is at times actively obfuscated in fic in an attempt to push a preferred reading. 

the ending i particularly enjoyed: after buffy leaves, it is lightly and ambiguously implied that giles might really be a vampire. works GREAT as a standalone, imo, and the end is like the cherry on top. it’s a really REALLY interesting issue and i highly recommend it for any giles fan. 

[aruviwrote]

[MIRROR] Titillation and perversion: the cis lens of Super Deluxe

Posting a mirror of this: original at http://theworldofapu.com/super-deluxe-critical-analysis/

Super Deluxe (2019), directed by Thiagarajan Kumararaja, has been a polarizing film in my queer circle. To those convinced of its brilliance, it is nothing short of a cinematic revolution. However, to the rest of us, it is difficult even to describe how depraved the moral center of the movie is, surrounded as it is by an aura of big names lauding it as years ahead of its time. This becomes an especially difficult matter when the narrative of the film is praised for being trans-inclusive. Many see it as Tamil cinema’s big favour to transgender folks, which makes it that much harder to argue that the film is transphobic to its core.

Structured as a set of four seemingly disconnected storylines, which eventually converge in unexpected ways, Super Deluxe is a potpourri of things that sound like Really Cool Movie Ideas—shower thought after shower thought thrown at you, plot devices that may well have come from that one college friend obsessed with Quentin Tarantino. The cult success of Aaranya Kaandam (Kumararaja’s previous and first film) led to a breathless build-up around Super Deluxe, and that resulted in a movie so convinced of its own hype, that it never stopped to consider the fact that these Cool Movie Ideas may not fit coherently. The movie is always smugly convinced of its own brilliance, all the way from the titillating title sequence to the ending that featured a bizarre exposition (aliens give you cash! morality is relative!), revealing the film’s sheer contempt for the viewer’s intelligence. Leaving aside the gratuitous violence and the rampant transphobia, Super Deluxe is a drab movie at best.

To begin with, Super Deluxe is not kind to its cis women. It opens with Samantha playing an archetype of a modern woman that has plagued Kollywood since time immemorial. Her character, Vaembu, speaks about sex in a way that is reminiscent of a schoolboy’s fantasy, calling herself an ‘item’ by way of introduction. We see a neat correlation being drawn, between the sexual openness of the character and the trouble she is in. Later on in the movie, a weak attempt is made to subvert this portrayal, along the predictable lines of the How Many Partners Have You Had conversation. By that point, the plot seems to have lost any semblance of life. The less said about Leela, the better—Ramya Krishnan makes a brave attempt to authentically portray one of the most ham-fisted stereotypes of Sex Worker with a Heart of Gold I have seen yet from Mysskin (one of four writers credited on this movie).

However, the violence that registers most is the one that comes disguised as empowerment. The character of Shilpa, a trans woman, is played by actor and cis man Vijay Sethupathi. Shilpa’s story is the detailed recounting of every single way in which trans women can be humiliated. My favourite critical review of the filmmaking on display here comes from the blog The Seventh Art, where Srikanth Srinivasan notes that the camera and the soundtrack share the point of view of the aggressor time and again. We rarely see Shilpa’s plot from her own perspective; it is always the perspective of a condescending observer or a crying wife. One such instance of this voyeuristic framing and subsequent othering is the scene where Shilpa is shown draping a saree. She dresses herself in front of a mirror while her wife stands and watches, sobbing. The soundtrack is giggling out Maasi Maasam Aalana Ponnu, a song from the 1991 film Dharmadurai, mockingly dissonant from the context. The camera zooms into Shilpa smoothening her wig, and she has the slightest moment of genuine euphoria that she looks good for her walk. The camera, of course, makes fun of this vulnerability all along—titillating noises from the sex song still running, it switches over to the sobbing wife who says, “I don’t know what’s harder, having lived so long without a husband or having to live with a husband like this.” This is the point of view the camera wants you, the viewer, to have. It wants you to watch while ‘something like this’ gets humiliated. This is supposed to be the progressive portrayal of a trans woman in this movie, obsessed with her appearance, indifferent to her wife’s pain; a balding sex trafficker who dresses up while her wife watches.

Srikanth goes on to observe: “In the scene at the police station, the only point of view the audience is allowed to recognize is the sleazy cop’s. The cop, of course, is a caricature and the audience is made to feel morally superior to him, while not having anything to do with Shilpa beyond dispensing sympathy for her subhuman status. By making Shilpa the passive object of contempt, the film forestalls even the possibility of the audience’s identification with Shilpa that the casting of Vijay Sethupathi might have offered. There’s a special violence in the fact that the transference of identity that the film demands from its trans viewers for its other characters is not matched with a demand from its cis viewers towards Shilpa.”

It deserves to be said that it is profoundly unethical and transphobic to cast cisgender men to play trans women. Jen Richards put it across wonderfully in the Netflix documentary Disclosure (2020):

“Having cis men play trans women, in my mind, is a direct link to the violence against trans women. And in my mind, part of the reason that men end up killing trans women out of fear that other men will think that they’re gay for having been with trans women, is that the friends, the men whose judgement they fear of, only know trans women from media. And the people who are playing trans women are the men that they know. This doesn’t happen when a trans woman plays a trans woman.”

All the subplots share one thing in common: the setup is fantastically contrived with no aspersions to realism or believability, with the exception of sexual violence, which is gratuitous, uncomfortably real, and never-ending. Don’t get me wrong—I think there can be artistic value in making a viewer squirm in their seat, discomfited by sexual violence, especially if you’ve been a victim of it. However, to do so with no narrative significance and to follow it up by saying “Everything is Meaningless” is the kind of depravity that I could not stomach, in a movie that everyone seems to love. Ostensibly, there seems to be an uplifting and empowering message that is arrived at, but not through any meaningful transformation, or moral discourse, or even the triumph of good over evil. This is the thematic methodology of the movie: it first completely reinforces harmful stereotypes for the entirety of the plot, in excruciating detail, and then says, “I was just joking, a flyaway TV knocks out the sexual predator, isn’t life funny?”

The most egregious of these, to me, is the resolution of Shilpa’s narrative, when she comes back and speaks to her wife and son. “I didn’t think of you or your pain. I didn’t know that I would have a son who loved me and ask me why I left him,” she says.

Raasukutty and Jothi berate and gaslight this sobbing survivor of sexual assault, accusing her of being stone-hearted and plotting to leave her family. And then Raasukutty says reproachfully that although everyone else mocked her, he and his mother accepted Shilpa the way she was. “Did I or mother say a single word to you?” he asks. This is not true; Shilpa was thoroughly humiliated when she returned home, including by Jothi, who responds to her transition by alternating between shock, unveiled disgust, and mourning at lost masculinity. But coming from the mouth of precocious child Raasukutty, it is merely a reflection of cis-fragility that doesn’t even register they drove Shilpa away.

Shilpa sobs a little more. Raasukutty says, “I don’t care, be a man, be a woman, be whatever you want. Never leave us again.” The scene fades into black.

My blood boils.

How could this be the resolution? The movie features a trans woman being mocked in ways that feel like the camera is laughing at her, a trans woman being sexually assaulted, a trans woman who is told that expecting society to accept her is too much to ask, a trans woman who gets driven out of every place she wants to exist in, only for her to be told, “I don’t care who you are.”

“I don’t care who you are” is not acceptance. I might have forgiven it all if Raasukutty had instead said “Why did you leave me, mother?” But what we get instead is a return to square one: Shilpa being berated for not being a father, a father she never wanted to be.

Shilpa is never offered simple acknowledgement of her womanhood, or her personhood even. She is always treated as a thing, never a woman. She is seen as an aberration, something grotesque, and the progressive message seems to be that these grotesque things must be accepted for whatever they are. I keep going back to that scene of Shilpa draping a saree, and the awful cognitive dissonance of it. In the end Shilpa says, “As a woman, I understand what you’re going through.” The irony sends shivers down my spine. If the filmmaker had actually believed that, he would have made a very different movie.

There is a profound cis male perversion in the way Shilpa’s story is told. It takes a cis man to devise a plot where a trans woman takes her young child to a public bathroom and zips him up, in a pose that looks like she is fellating her own son. It takes a cis man to write a plot where a trans woman is a child trafficker who upon losing her child in the market, screams that she’s a sinner who transferred her sin to her son when she touched him. It takes a cis man to gaze so long and unblinkingly at the debasement of trans life, and intercut to jokes about porn. This isn’t progressive thought.

One of the most enduring and harmful transphobic stereotypes in existence is the idea that transgender (and other) alms-seekers are running begging and child trafficking rings. This is a popular idea with very little evidence: Sabina Yasmin Rahman calls it the mafia of middle-class convenience. Having noted that police have run multiple investigations in Delhi which failed to establish the existence of a begging mafia, she concludes that this idea of a begging mafia is perpetrated by popular culture and widely-held beliefs, but in reality is hugely exaggerated. Most beggars just live in debilitating poverty. This harmful myth is reinforced in this movie. And really, the more I recall this movie, the more shocked I am that anybody thinks this is progressive. This is what cis people think trans folks do.

In his article on trans characters in Indian cinema, film critic Baradwaj Rangan (who happens to be cis male) had said, “Had Super Deluxe not been a “mainstream” movie, had it played only in festivals to sympathetic and (dare I say) “evolved” audiences, there might have not been the fear that Shilpa is showing the transgender community in a bad light.” For what it’s worth, I’d like to make it clear that sex trafficking is not a realistic character flaw, and rape is not a humanizing portrayal. I leave it to the reader to ponder how utterly offensive this idea is, that a mainstream portrayal of transgender people should shy away from such esoteric things like human dignity.

Even within the Indian trans community, there are divergences in what is considered problematic within the movie. Some of the criticism leveled at it, such as that of transgender activist Grace Banu’s (in an interview to Vikatan; article in Tamil), has been regressive and homophobic, calling into question the logic of Shilpa transitioning as an adult or being attracted to her wife.

Transgender people of all gender identities have the right to choose when to undergo surgical changes, if at all they want to undergo them, and have the express right to fall in love with or have children with or live with people of any gender. One of the common effects of Hormone Replacement Therapy is infertility—there are plenty of folks within the trans community who live their lives precisely in the way that Grace dismisses as illogical. For a trans woman who wants to father children, the two options are to freeze her sperm before starting HRT (expensive and inaccessible) or have a child before starting HRT (which is what Shilpa has done). Grace’s unnecessary and bigoted detour into Shilpa’s bedroom provides no teeth to her critique, which is otherwise spot-on in terms of the movie bringing back the many indignities that the trans community has finally moved past.

Super Deluxe will have to bear the cross for perpetuating the violent lie that women like Shilpa are men like Vijay Sethupathi in makeup and a dress.

[ardenttheories]

So do you hate the epilogue or love it? Also I feel like the exposition provided on Hope was interesting in Candy. Besides that I’m curious as to what your full thoughts are

So, I’m still kind of torn on this. I’ve tried to think it over a few times, to really chew on my thoughts while I was reading the two Epilogues into a singular coherent idea, but all I’ve really come up with is a sort of mushy, oversweet mess that’s pretty indistinguishable from roiling confusion.

I still stand by my mentality that the Epilogues are really well written. There’s something about them that, although it sometimes doesn’t read like Homestuck used to, still really comes across as enticing and interesting. Even when the characters are at their worst - and even though a lot of them have had weird character developments or evolutions - the actual characterisation within the foundation of what’s been set in the Epilogues is believable. I can believe that a Dirk who acts like Meat!Dirk does would think and feel that way; that a Roxy who’s under the sort of narrative pressures of Candy!Roxy would end up as demure as she does. It’s believable, in the same way a well written fanfic is believable - which is, ultimately, the point. 

But do I like it? As an English Literature university student, yes. Oh, yes, I love the Epilogues. There’s so much to think over, to sink your teeth into, to really and thoroughly enjoy on a literary level. 

The inter-connectivity between the texts is fantastic. You can get an idea from both on their own, but only when they’re put together does the full picture come out. Knowing that Alternate!Calliope has influence over the narrative in Meat gives you a good chance to realise that she’s bringing canonicity back into Candy well before she even confirms it herself.

For instance, the reason Roxy’s so wildly offbeat that even John notices it is that they’ve departed so far from canon that her canonical developments and foundations have become worthless. She doesn’t bother going through her identity stuff because there’s ultimately no point in focusing on it; character development doesn’t matter anymore, and without anyone to help her focus on it, there’s just no reason for her to think about it. It’s only with the presence of Alternate!Calliope that things slowly start to get better. It’s why, when Alternate!Calliope is at her most present, Roxy starts to become herself again - why during her conversation with John she’s able to stand up for herself and admit that something has been wrong the whole time. Alternate!Calliope brings them back towards a faux sense of canonicity, and as a result, Roxy’s development suddenly becomes relevant again (even if it isn’t allowed to flourish fully, because that goes against what Calliope is trying to do). 

The sort of narrative theory it brings up is incredibly interesting, too. Having to read both sides of the same story isn’t exactly new, but this sort of interconnectivity is incredibly rare. The way that Meat and Candy work as concepts are also beautifully interesting; as I’ve said before, Dirk’s logic on Meat is that without a plot, there’s no relevance or importance in anything that they do, but the inhabitants of Candy frequently remind John that even if what they’re doing is inconsequential to the plot, it still matters to them. Maybe Jane being a fascist in Candy isn’t going to have a rippling effect on Paradox Space, but it matters to every single inhabitant of Candy’s Earth C. Calliope sees the importance of these moments; Dirk doesn’t. It brings about a firm point that if you try and make a story too plot-focused, you’ll ultimately make a story that’s too much of a slog to read, too depressing, to heavy - but if you try to make the story too fluff-based, then nothing of relevance will happen, you’ll have characters that never grow or develop down a natural path, events will happen in ways they were never meant to or don’t happen at all, and might be interesting but won’t be enough.

Plus, just reading through how A!Calliope explains the narrative voice and how it can be used is phenomenal, and I think a lot of literature should start to question that. Even in a text without a specific narrator, is the text completely without a narrative speaker? She basically explains what Dirk does in the sense of the boiling frog; he allows the narrative to seem like it’s speakerless so that everyone he’s whispering in the minds of don’t recognise that something is wrong until it’s too late, and he’s fully in control. He puts everyone in the cool waters of nonbiased narrative and slowly turns up the heat of his own opinions and inflections until he’s boiling their self identity and independence and free will alive with biased narrative. 

In that sense, I love the Epilogues. 

For thoughts on the actual story, though… I kinda love it. 

For what it is, it’s incredibly interesting. The dichotomy of Dirk controlling Meat while Alternate!Calliope controls Candy, being the respective narrators, is oh-so incredible. A!Calliope even says, in her dialogue to Aradia on page 40 of Candy, that sometimes narrative voices don’t bring themselves forward; sometimes the narrative is speakerless, sure, as we think Candy is - but that sometimes the speaker of the narrative simply doesn’t want to show herself. As much as Dirk overtly influences the events of Meat, I think A!Calliope influences the events in Candy - she just hides her narrative voice, and lets us figure out if it’s actually her doing the talking, or if there’s no narrative voice at all. 

It’s clear that in Meat, Dirk is the only reason there’s any sort of canonicity. He’s forcing events to happen to keep everyone relevant in the way they’re not in Candy - and Candy is what he actively fears, because Candy is A!Calliope’s answer to Meat. Dirk needs plot and relevance to exist; A!Calliope specifically needs that void of plot and importance for her plans to work - and both directly influence the other. Dirk is literally so scared by the concept of Candy that he over-controls in Meat because the idea of irrelevance just doesn’t work in his mind. There has to be some bigger picture, something to work towards - but for Alternate!Calliope, the simple concept of existing and allowing things to play out naturally, without interference, is the better way, even if there’s no bigger picture to strive towards, and irrelevance is left in her wake. Both Epilogues happen side by side to allow both narrative players their chance to reach their full potential, to present what they think is the best form of narrative. Meat is Dirk’s answer to Candy; Candy is A!Calliope’s answer to Meat.

To borrow from the previous ask, “In his suicide, Dirk destroys the last piece of narrative importance in the Candy Epilogue. He is the narrative importance in Meat after all; with him gone, there is no narrative entity to keep it going.” Without Dirk, the characters slip so far away from canon that everything becomes meaningless. All those foundations the characters are based on disappear, and they become horrific caricatures of themselves. A!Calliope brings stability back to this unstable, noncanon world. This is why Roxy’s gender reveal ends up being less “I’m able to decide who I am, and I am more comfortable using he/him pronouns and presenting as masculine” and more “I’m not feminine, and I don’t need to cling to the feminine gender; my body is a machine of flesh, and nothing more”. She still comes to the same sort of conclusion, but it’s only half way there - because A!Calliope isn’t bringing a full plot back to that timeline. Just enough to stop it from self destructing. 

Additionally, the fact that the black hole wasn’t so much of a black hole as a wormhole from canon into non canon. That brings up so much interest. Does Dirk even realise that’s what happened? I don’t think so. He seems to think that Davepeta really did complete a suicide mission, but if the same thing happens to them as happened to the troll ghosts then all that’ll happen is they’ll come out the other side, still clinging to Lord English, into the Candy timeline. Does Dirk realise that he’s been played? He essentially set into motion what needed to happen for A!Calliope’s plan in Candy to work. But maybe that’s the beauty of the duality? They’re opposing each other, but they also rely on each other for their own parts of the Epilogues to work. 

I’m interested in seeing where this goes. At this point, I’ve read enough to be invested. I’ve gone on about some of the Meat aspects in depth, so I won’t really go over that much more, but I love Candy’s portrayal of relevance. How fatalistic John becomes when he realises that everyone’s just completely fake - fake to themselves, fake to who they were, fake to what they could become - and how (Vriska) goes on to talk about John’s overall importance - that he’s probably one of the most powerful beings going because he has the ability to decide the entire fate of canon without even realising he’s doing it (as we’ve seen in Meat and Candy; both are a direct consequence of actions he taken without realising the dire effects it will have on the timeline).

But do I love it as a fan? 

I definitely enjoyed the exposition on Hope. It essentially confirmed a theory I had on this blog ages back; that Hope’s Belief was sort of the other side of the coin for Light’s Truth, and that the Belief of something to a strong enough degree is ultimately what makes it True. Maybe that’s why everyone was acting so fake? John believed with his whole heart that everything was wrong, and fake, and impossible, and he let that overwhelm him. Of course, the fact of the matter is that these things really were taking place, but I’m at least 87% sure that it was worsened by John’s own morbid attitude towards his fate and the lives of everyone around him. 

There are some parts I definitely liked. Confirmation about Jade’s weird gender situation in Candy, confirmation that Callie is they/them and Roxy is he/him in Meat (and that, regardless of the timeline, he’d always recognise that he has some sort of issues regarding his gender and figure out some way of understanding himself and his identity), the canonisation of DaveKat in Meat (although I firmly believe it could have ended up as DaveJadeKat if she’d still been in the picture, but a much healthier version than we see in Candy), the relationship between John and Terezi, the exposition we get on Candy!(Vriska) (finally realising a lot of the things fans have said about her for a while, especially in regards to (Vriska) in the comic), and now that I’m coming to terms with it, the plot’s pretty okay, too. For what it is, and the route they went down, I’m getting through the stages of grief to reach acceptance. 

But no, I don’t really like the Epilogues. 

Fundamentally, I hate the route they chose. I hate that after three years, rather than just be told “you can decide whatever you want, because even the noncanon things have validity and we’re well aware that we can’t please everyone, so making your own ending to suit your needs not only works best but also fits the theme of Homestuck well”, they went to all this effort of making a plot and characterisation that ruined so many of these characters we love. 

I have a lot of issues with Dirk. It’s bad narrative crafting to set a character so far back in his development. I can understand how the development works in the way that they’ve done it, but I’m also very aware of the fact that this, in no way, had to be canon. For all that Bro is a splinter of Dirk, and that emotionally stunted Dirks must also exist across Paradox Space, there are also plenty of other splinters and versions of Dirk that must have gone through beneficial emotional development. Out of every outcome that Hussie and the team could have chosen, I’m disappointed and upset that this is the route they took - after three years of waiting. 

This was an outcome that could happen, yes, but it didn’t have to be the official outcome. Regardless of how much anyone prattles on about canon and non-canon, people are always going to regard something that’s official as The Most Canon. If the point of these Epilogues is “you can make your own, valid ending”, then it’s overshadowed by the notion that this ending, these endings that we’re being given, are the ones that Hussie himself devised, and sees as most plausible. You can’t scrub the Official ™ mark from the Epilogues. You can’t get rid of the connotations of canonicity that comes from that. 

It’s a bad ending to Homestuck. No matter how you look at it, viewing just Meat or just Candy or both together, it still sucks as a fan to try and reconcile with the idea that this is how Homestuck’s officially going to finish. I’ve got no doubts that there’s more to come - cliffhangers like these are just begging to be finished, and if Hussie’s going to this much effort to make an interconnected story then it’d be weird to leave it hanging - but I’m still slightly bitter about the fact that this is what we get. Two relatively unhappy, upsetting, triggering endings that really give across a good statement, but not as much of a good conclusion to the people who have been following this story along for ten years. They’re hard to read - emotionally and physically - they’re unpleasant to try and get through, and although I’ve read both and am glad I did… I’m well aware of the fact that I could have not read the Epilogues and probably been better off. 

I actually go more into this aspect of it in a few other posts. I’ll link them below, so please give them a read, because they’re more eloquent and definitely explain what I mean a bit more. But that gives the overall gist of how I feel. I’ll also be including a few posts that explain how I feel a bit more, not written by me, because hell yes I want to share that good shit. 

So, yeah. I’m accepting of the Epilogues at the moment; I love them in a literary sense; I hate them as a fan. 

“Thoughts On The Upd8; Honestly Strikes Me As A Cop-out” - Kienansidhe

“The Dirk Thing And Why It’s Bad Storytelling” - Stormsbourne

“A Common Defence Of The Epilogues” - Unionhack

My thoughts on Candy

Why I hate the Epilogues (3 year drop) 

My thoughts on Meat

[salmankhanholics]

★ Salman Khan reveals when he used to improve bad scripts and why no Khan has 10 per cent of Rajesh Khanna’s stardom !

Salman Khan bares all about his choice of films and why he doesn't understand film promotional strategies today. He thinks his upcoming Kabir Khan directorial Tubelight has a much higher emotional quotient, and signing Tiger Zinda Hai and Remo D'Souza's dance film was a foolish decision.

Priyanka Sharma | June 4, 2017

Salman Khan is not the most articulate man around. In fact, during a conversation with him, until he goes off track, takes bizarre turns and draws anecdotes, amusing but unrelated to what you are talking about, you know it’s not him. So, on Saturday evening, as Salman spoke to a group of journalists ahead of the release of Tubelight, while he retained his typical meandering way of talking, he did surprise them with a lesser-seen seriousness and full-fledged responses, a departure from the ambiguity he usually shows.

Here are the excerpts from a half-an-hour interview with the star, where he spoke about the maths of box-office collections which he doesn’t understand, the change in his film choices over the years and why he doesn’t believe that he, Shah Rukh Khan and Aamir Khan are as big as people think them to be.

Q. The trailer of Tubelight and the film’s two songs have generated great response, so, half the battle is already won?

Salman: You never know till the film releases. The overseas collection, the box-office collection decide the fate of the film. Your hardcore fans will go to watch your films on the opening weekend so, your collections would be amazing. But then, usually the film drops on Monday-Tuesday. So, the eventual lifetime business of a film you only get to know on a Monday or a Tuesday. Then you also have to see that the country’s got to be peaceful, should be in celebratory mood. Some controversy shouldn’t happen. There are thousands of things that the film depends on. Protests shouldn’t happen, people should not get scared of going to the theatres. The atmosphere should be peaceful and happy. That eventually will destine the lifetime business of the film.

In fact, I don’t understand how people say that this film will earn this much on first day and second day. I just don’t get that maths at all because if there’s some tragedy with someone, he or she wouldn’t come for the film. There can be many reasons that people wouldn’t turn up for the movie. So, how do you decide the collections in advance. So, when they tell me that opening weekend it will cross Rs 100 crore, I don’t buy it.

When we did Jai Ho, we cut down the prices of the ticket. But we didn’t tell about it to anyone. Even we forgot that. So, the next day when we went for interviews, Sohail and I were shocked, we were like what is happening, we were so sad that we haven’t done the business that we actually do. People called it disaster, a flop. We later recalled that we had slashed the prices. Our thinking was that if you have to beat, beat at the price rate of Rs 250, not at Rs 600-900. Families go for movies, then all that popcorn, Pepsi, then kids would want you to buy them something from the mall. So, it’s a huge expense. So, just for our own ego and satisfaction, increasing the price of tickets is not cool. But having said that, this is also true that when people get something at a cheap rate, they feel the right to run you down, to criticise. But when you watch something for Rs 950, even if the film is bad you will find something to like. That’s how we think.

You watch something on TV, for free, and you love it. I have got calls from people saying that we watched this movie on TV and wonder why it didn’t do well. I tell them because you didn’t go to the theatre to watch it. There are options today, people choose one over the other on the basis of the promos. And you can’t afford two movies.

Q: So, do you think that pulling audience to theatres is quite difficult today?

Salman: It’s very difficult. The only thing that I feel can draw audience to the theatres are the film’s posters in the theatres, the trailers in the theatres, promos played on television and information about the release date in papers. The people, who go to theatres are the same number who keep going to theatres all the time. Even today, when I go to a theatre, the first thing that I notice are the posters and I go 15-20 minutes before to see the trailers. So, I know what film is coming when.

I believe that is the best and the cheapest form of publicity ever. We never promoted films earlier. There was one All India Radio channel. So, during Maine Pyar Kiya I did one interview but after that, for the longest time I didn’t do anything. Producers used to put trailers, posters. There was no television at that point of time. People (still) used to go to theatres. Now, there are so many TV channels and radio channels. There were none then. And the films used to run for 100 days. Today, the lifetime business is four-six weeks.

Q: For the longest time, Tubelight was reported as an Indo-Chinese love story and now, during the promotions, all we see is you and Sohail.

Salman: The plot of the film is about brothers, it is about them. How one goes to war and what happens with him, and how the other is left here. Then there’s a love story also, his struggles too, then there’s a kid too. So it’s not just one thin line. Because the plot is about brothers, we are promoting it like that. Now, you will say get that kid too, who by the way is the most amazing kid I have ever met in my entire life. He is on some other level. I was wondering why aren’t they getting him for publicity. I would want to do all my interviews with him. I hope he comes. He is playing a Chinese boy in the film but in real life he is an Indian. So, they (makers) said, ‘We will keep it a surprise,’ and now, I have disclosed it to you guys. So, I don’t understand these things (promotional strategy).

The things that he (Martin Rey Tangu) says, he is not that over smart kid at all. So, one day he tells Kabir and me, ‘You guys said it will be fun working in the film and I will enjoy. But here, you are making me the same thing again. You have made me wear this sweater in this hot weather, these shoes that I am wearing are hurting me. I don’t like this.’ Then we said, ‘Arey, but you will get to be an actor.’ He replied, ‘I don’t want to be an actor, I want to be a chef. You should try my cupcake.’ Just imagine! And he is just five or six-year-old.

Q: Was it tough shooting for Tubelight considering it’s a period film?

Salman: It’s difficult. But more than that what is difficult is to play a character like this because to get that innocence, that walk, speak the lines that one speaks… I might have had some shades of this character while growing up but that’s a long time ago. This is what happened in the narration, I could have easily said, ‘I want to do Dabangg type films. This is a beautiful script but it’s not for me.’ But there was something in my heart that liked this character, then I took it.

But when I took it, I realised that I might overdo this. These characters are very difficult to do because you might start looking like a fraud, a caricature. You might look like a joke. So, if it’s a funny film then it’s okay but if it’s an emotional film, then it’s the most difficult thing to do. Then you need to dig so deep down and so far back that it takes a toll on you. Then you go back to when you were growing up, how you were with your friends and since it’s a period film and the character is quite child-like, you have to look at things you did as a child which of course you don’t do now. And if someone does it on screen, you say how kiddish is that. But this character allowed me to do everything.”

Q: The purity of your character in the film reminds one of that in the Sooraj Barjatya films and Bajrangi Bhaijan from the recent times. Is it difficult to play these roles now?

Salman: Playing them is not difficult. What is difficult is after you play it, how you implement (the qualities of these characters) in your life. That’s the most difficult thing to do and that’s what I am trying to do. I am trying my level best to do that.

Q. Do you still feel pressured ahead of a Friday?

Salman: Yeah, but for different reasons. You do a film, you put in so much of hardwork. That’s okay, but the reason that you have signed the film is because you think it will be a sure-short hit. Now, the film releases and it is a flop, that means your thinking has gone all wrong. And this starts making you think about the other film that you have just signed. So, now if such things happen, not only you lose the money and you go down in your career, but you also take others with you. All the fans that have paid to watch your film come out being disappointed, that disappointment is the worst thing that can ever happen. And of course, collections are important. This is our profession, our career. If you start a business, you don’t want to make losses. It doesn’t work like that. So, this is our business.

Q. With Bajrangi Bhaijan, Sultan and now Tubelight, there is a perception that you have finally become serious about doing roles where you are required to act.

Salman: I have become very serious about choosing my films correctly so, that I don’t have to do that much… There are these phases of not doing much and the script, screenplay doing everything, the supporting cast doing everything (for you). For example, Bajrangi Bhaijan. I didn’t have to do anything. The screenplay was taking me. What did I have to do in the film? Nothing. Just carry the girl and walk. There’s nothing. Just look left, look right. Look simple, that’s it.

Tubelight is more difficult because emotional quotient is much higher. Emotionally, this film was difficult, But apart from that… after Sultan, there was some pain, ligaments torn, knee is still hurting. So, that was the only painful thing. Now, I have signed Tiger Zinda Hai like a fool. I am jumping off buildings. I am going mad, I feel my knee will come out of the socket. After that, I am doing a dancing film, which is even more foolish. I thought it would be a little extra but I didn’t realise dancing today is gymnastic. So, at 52… I am like I am in a fix now.

Q. But was there a phase when you took things for granted and have you changed in a sense that now, you think you need to give back to your audience much more than what you offered them earlier?

Salman: I never took anything for granted. What happened was the kind of films that I got, I just chose the best from them. Then, I used to see that this is an average script and there’s so much wrong with it, now what to do? I wasn’t getting good scripts. So, I used to call the director at home and all my energy used to go in improving the script. Thank God, I come from the family of writers so while improvising we took films to a (better) level.

And now, people come with written scripts which are fabulous and it is difficult to choose from them. It’s the phase right now. Whatever goes up, goes down as well. So, the thing is how long can one hold and stay at his position and go higher which is the most difficult thing that ever has been because you are going to go low. But all of us are going to make sure that the younger generation should earn their bread and butter.

Q. While there are many competent actors today, people believe there can’t be a star bigger than the three Khans.

Salman: It’s not true. Acting wise, I don’t think there’s anyone bigger than Dilip Kumar. After that, Mr Bachchan has had a great run. Till today, he is doing Kaun Banega Crorepati. He is still working, you put on the TV and he is everywhere. He is almost like the face of the country. Stardom wise, if you think we guys have the popularity and all, for six-seven years there was Rajesh Khanna. Nobody’s bigger than him. Second was Kumar Gaurav because I have seen both of them. I was 9-10, when I saw Rajesh Khanna’s stardom and when I was 16-17, I saw Kumar Gaurav’s. It was unbelievable. So, when they talk about us, I tell them I have seen stardom and ours is not even 10 per cent.

Indian Express