#like the horrors he commits to find a cure at least have a purpose

[warlenys]

house is this insanely intelligent universally respected doctor he’s also dark and miserable and mean he commits ungodly medical malpractice crimes and yet he has a Best Friend. that he regularly calls his Best Friend. my Best Friend wilson. imagine you’re dying in a hospital bed after this awful doctor has repeatedly fucked you over forced you into surgery given you drugs that have nearly killed you and then he goes hang on a second i can’t save your life right now my Best Friend is mad at me. i have to go make puppy dog eyes at him to get him back. that’s what’s really important here

[possessionisamyth]

How would you rate resident evil storytelling and it's characters, esp remakes?

Di you think that's their main selling point and whatnot?

Well RE storytelling isn't good so jot that down-

Okay, but seriously, before I get into this let me tell you I have never really been into the zombie narrative as a horror connoisseur the same way I'm not into "white guy kills everyone" horror movies. The white guy kills everyone story is just as easily found when I turn on the news, but zombies?

With zombies the ending is the same. Find the cure or everyone dies eventually. It's the sub genre that relies the most on jump scares with mascot horror recently sliding in alongside it. I couldn't pinpoint the exact decade where the zombie narrative switched to being more character focused in order to keep the genre fresh for people who enjoy it, but we are currently in the aftermath of that decision.

That said, RE storytelling isn't good. It can be fun! I put fun and good on two different graphs when I judge the writing in the piece of media I partake in. For example? The Venom movies are so much fun! They have nothing to do with spiderman which is the symbiote's literal origin story for finding eddie brock later. This is a facet many comic fans find blasphemous, but if you have half a brain or aren't a dick about canon requirements, you'll still get so much enjoyment out of the movies themselves. They stand on their own without spiderman, which I think is a feat well done. Very fun and entertaining.

So yeah, RE storytelling and the characters can be fun. There is a potential for it to be good, but in order for that potential to be reached Capcom has to do something they forever avoid in their writing.

Commit to the characters' in-game relationships.

:)

Put your shipping hopes down. I don't mean romantic. I mean commit to Leon and Claire being friends who shared a horribly traumatic event together. Commit to Ada's mixed feelings about Leon and her job. Commit to Leon's mixed feelings about Ada and LYING about never seeing her to Hunnigan, a woman and co-worker he can actually trust. Commit to showing Jill's unhealthy reliance on Chris just as much as we see Chris' unhealthy reliance on Jill. Show Barry as a family man who's made mistakes with his wife and kids and tries to work things out. WHERE IS HIS WIFE CAPCOM? Show Rebecca reminiscing on her time from RE0, and IDK place a letter she sent out to someone from a strange address who's speech style looks vaguely familiar. Show Sherry's trauma from her constantly healing body and make her have a weird relationship with doctors. Show that Sherry got to interact with Claire at the very least?????? REDFIELD SIBLINGS?!?!?! REDFIELD SIBLINGS SURE DON'T FUCKING ACT LIKE SIBLINGS. WHAT THE FUCK WAS DEATH ISLAND? IM GONNA-(cane drags me off stage)

"Oh, but people will take those things as shipping purpose and we don't want to imply that."

Idk, it's apparently already in the damn trenches in spaces I never go to (tiktok, twitter, insta, etc), and I don't think the people making MLP aus give a shit regardless. Plus, this game series is so old they're making money strictly off the brand name like every other AAA game series.

I genuinely mean that. Capcom could do the exact same shit with RE4 that Bethesda did with Skyrim, and they'd make bank every fucking time. Oh wait, they did with constantly have to port it to new systems!

Let me see Leon and Hunnigan laughing and sharing coffee in the break room. Let me see text message chats from Claire and Chris ribbing each other. Let me see Jill shopping for clothes with Chris being forced to hold all the bags. Let me see old photos of Barry with his wife and daughters at an amusement park before "the incident". Let me see Rebecca and Jill trauma bonding while spending the night together. Let me see Chris and Leon awkwardly make eye contact on a job neither of them expected to be on at the same time. Let me see Ada sneaking into TerraSave, and let Claire send a selfie of them to Leon only to have Leon freak the fuck out. Claire and Rebecca going to cafes? Jill helping Chris fix up his car? HELLO CAPCOM?! COMMIT! COMMIT! COMMIT! COMMIT! COMMIT! FOR FUCKS SAKE-

These don't even have to be big moments! Just 20-30 seconds of animation? Painted illustrations? An option to read a report in game stating these things happened? Anything! Anything! Is anyone in here?! IT'S SO DARK!

[tothelasthoursofmylife]

“Worthy”

Hell, how should this even work?

(Messy, rather nonsensical and silly discourse under the cut.)

We know that Grim Reapers collect souls, judge souls, can deem people “worthy” to keep on living, but how does it work? When exactly does it happen? The judging? And what happens if you are deemed to be “worthy”?

To become “worthy” you need to be a truly outstanding person who may shape the world.

Grim Reapers review the Cinematic Records of the deceased.

Sometimes, Reapers spend time with those who will die soon in order to be able to judge them better.

Let’s assume that a truly remarkable and visionary person comes into existence (People can’t be really born to be remarkable). This person could make a serious impact on the world in the future, however, they die before they have the chance.

The assigned Reaper spent some time with Remarkable Person and is ready to review their Record when they die.

Both the fieldwork and the Record SCREAM, more or less, that this person should keep on living because the world just NEEDS them.

Unfortunately, they have just died.

“No way,” Assigned Reaper says with shaky hands when they try to remember where the hell they have put their “Worthy” stamp. Then, they finally find it and take it out - their hands are still shaky because they still can’t believe that they were able to stal- accompany such an important person - and dust the stamp.

Assigned Reaper, tears in their eyes because they feel so honoured and are so expectant at the things Remarkable Person may do in the future, and stamp “Worthy” on Remarky’s file.

Suddenly, the world seems to breathe in - there is a feeling of peace and hope in the air. Birds sing more beautifully than ever before. For a second, everybody experiences pure happiness: people reconcile, sudden waves of hugs and kisses, a murderer momentarily stops to strangle their victim.

But what now?

Remarky’s still dead after all.

What or who will revive him now?

Is Remarky even still in possession of a soul? Is the action of accessing someone’s Cinematic Record inextricably linked with the collection of a soul? (So far, only the dead and Sebastian (who is a demon) were cut with a Death Scythe. After the collection of a soul, a Record can still be accessed. But what about the first time? Is the soul collected when you “activate” a Record for the first time?) And if Remarky’s soul and body are separated now - how will they be reconnected?

And what happens if Remarky died...

...so old that, even if they had a second chance at life, they wouldn’t have the time to accomplish anything because they would die next week again anyway?

...due to a chronic illness which (most likely) would not simply vanish after they are revived? A chronic illness which would make it nearly impossible for Remarky to do that wonderful groundbreaking thing they may be able to do?

...due to an illness which cannot be cured right now (or even nowadays), making it seem oddly suspicious if Remarky suddenly recovered from it? (And which might kill him right after being revived?)

...by poison which would not leave their body just due to a revival?

...and their death had been so horrible that they're lacking something now? Like a crucial organ or even their head?

Remarky might have died in ways which might not have necessarily killed him, but, at least, handicapped them? If they were revived, would they be left with this handicap? And what if this handicap prevented them to do their worldshaking whatever?

This would mean that those “worthy” would have to be both revived and fully healed.

But that would be (just as mentioned above) SO SUSPICIOUS. Family and friends will definitely know about Remarky’s chronic illnesses. Will know if they had caught an incurable illness. There might have been witnesses when Remarky was incapacitated, when Remarky fell down a roof and landed with their limbs at VERY odd angles/etc.

What should the relatives/friends think if Remarky suddenly opens their eyes again after they had cried over them for the few minutes Remarky’s heart didn’t beat? What should they think if Remarky’s suddenly the epitome of health even though they CLEARLY weren’t before?

What should the witnesses think if Remarky suddenly grows a new head? (Or if their old one attaches itself back to their neck? It’s SP7 all over again.)

Is that the reason behind the witch trials?

Hell, Remarky, 5 seconds after saying “hi” to the world to which they had said “bye, pal” 10 seconds ago, WOULD BE SCREAMED AT, TACKLED DOWN, EXORCIST ON THE SPOT, BURNED, STAKED, DROWNED IN HOLY WATER...

And Assigned Reaper would just stand there and stare at the scene in absolute horror and in dire need of a therapist.

So, how is this whole “judging someone to be ‘worthy’” process done?

Is it enough to follow Remarky for a few days to be sure of it? Does Remarky then receive a cryptic message not to dine with the Guy from Down the Street and Left because he will be a bit too excited about showing Remarky his new axe? Or does Assigned Reaper tap Remarky on the shoulder and tell them about it in person?

But would Remarky, who would (most likely) be a very rational person, even believe a cryptic message? Especially, if the Guy from Down the Street and Left wasn’t even talking about getting an axe and he’s notorious for never stopping to talk?

And why would Remarky even believe a complete stranger in odd clothes who appeared out of thin air? #alexandergrahambellthatassholebastardinventedthetelephonein1888andimgoingtouseitnowtocallthepoliceandtheclosestasylum

And wouldn’t that (revival and healing or warning) be too much interfering? Something Grim Reapers are not allowed to do?

Furthermore, following someone for a couple of days would definitely NOT suffice to find out if they are important enough to be deemed “worthy” or not. It’s about a “WORTHY” person. They have to double and triple check everything. After all, they have to be 100% certain that Remarky lives up to their name (and can continue to do so).

(And Assigned Reaper clearing their throat next to Remarky (or taking their shoulder) and saying “Sir/Lady, may I cut you with my futuristic gardening tool? It will suck out your soul, but I will be entertained for five minutes. And, don’t worry, if the film’s interesting enough, I will glue your soul back to your body, I promise! :)” is just plain stupid.)

Honestly, this whole “Worthy” thing was definitely made up by Grim Reaper Numero Uno/the Big Reaper/the First Soul Collector/the Soul King/the Sovereign of Life and Death/that Reaper Guy on the Top who cares just like their “Of course, I will forgive you if you do my job because owww my old ghostery bones :) :) :)” lie to the Reapers.

The Soul King needed more people because it’s impossible to collect so many souls alone. And what’s a king without a kingdom?

So, they decide to force everyone who committed suicide to become a fellow Reaper and help them with their work. But, of course, the newly-made Reapers are unhappy because their final wish was just to die ( :( The poor babies...). So, what does the Soul King do? Give them a prospect. Or, even better, a prospect and a ridiculously important task.

The King will forgive their sin of suicide if they collect souls for him for an indefinite period of time.

They have to review the Cinematic Records of every soul because a Golden Ticket might be somewhere out there.

The Reapers now have a direction, a purpose, a goal - and an eternity. And the Soul King can finally go on holidays.

But they lied (there’s no forgiveness at the end of the lane; and “worthy humans” nothing but the King’s favourite joke) - and at the end of Kuroshitsuji, they will be confronted. And the manga will end with an epic blackmail, resulting in Reapers getting their forgiveness and someone (OC?) being deemed worthy.

But what if there ARE actually “Worthy” people but demons get them before the Reapers do because are also in search of the “best” soul, and they might have been Reapers once, who knows?

Or, well, this whole “Worthy” thing is just “there” to show that humanity is not worthy of someone like that.

(Because they would kill/persecute/etc. a magically returned.)

He's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.

This whole “Worthy” thing just bothers me. It might also be that I am just too dumb and forgot/oversaw things.

[djgblogger-blog]

Why Harvey Weinstein can't redeem himself through charity alone

http://bit.ly/2zttRYw

Filmmaker Harvey Weinstein, shown attending a concert to raise money for the Robin Hood Foundation in 2013. Photo by Andy Kropa/Invision/AP

As allegations of sexual harassment, abuse and rape topple his career and wipe out his clout, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein is apparently trying to contain the blaze with generosity. So far, he isn’t finding takers for this contrition cash.

Fast-tracking a plan he claimed was in the works for a year, Weinstein said in his initial public statement about his monstrous behavior that he would donate US$5 million to the University of Southern California in scholarship money for women directors. The school declined that gift. He also pledged to leverage his wealth and – what he expected would continue to be – his power to advance gun control, swearing to “give the NRA my full attention.”

As a political philosopher who studies the ethics of philanthropy, I see the Weinstein scandal as embodying an important question: Can the rich and powerful redeem their reputations through acts of generosity?

‘Blood money’

Offering money as a form of atonement is easier for Weinstein than finding someone who will accept it now that the source is so tainted. As the Change.org petition started by a USC student put it, these donations are “blood money” intended to distract the public and purchase forgiveness.

There’s nothing new about rich and powerful men who try to strip the tarnish off their reputations through philanthropy. For centuries, the Catholic Church encouraged rich people to purchase “indulgences” as tickets to heaven. Martin Luther’s disgust with this practice helped spark the Protestant Reformation.

“Robber baron” philanthropists like steelmaker Andrew Carnegie and oilman John D. Rockefeller still raise hackles for how they gave away money amassed through ruthless business tactics.

John D. Rockefeller (left) and John D. Rockefeller Jr. gave a large share of their fortune, made in the oil business, to charity. American Press Association

More recently, the Sackler family, which made its fortune in pharmaceuticals, has come under fire. Until news of their role in creating the opioid crisis through aggressive marketing emerged, the Sacklers were best known for major gifts to universities and museums.

A series of lawsuits is starting to change that reputation.

And the UCLA law school accepted a $10 million donation from Lowell Milken, who nearly went to jail with his brother Michael for their role in the junk bond scandal, in 2011. That move prompted Lynn A. Stout, a business law scholar, to leave the school.

Real philanthropy

Despite those precedents, philanthropy is about benefiting society, not repentance. Done well, it requires a thoughtfully selected worthy cause and a wise strategy to advance it, coupled with respect for all the stakeholders involved and compliance with the law.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether other characteristics also matter, how to rank these criteria and what constitutes a good cause. What about motives?

Donors who make big donations to advance their business interests appear to betray philanthropy’s main purposes. Conflicts of interest, or even their appearance, can make philanthropy morally dubious and even illegal.

And Weinstein’s gifts to support feminist causes – at least in the aftermath of revelations of sexual misconduct – reflect one giant conflict of interest. (New York state Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman was already investigating corporate governance at amfAR, a New York-based charity that works to cure AIDS, over concerns raised by its support from Weinstein before this scandal unfolded.)

At least two institutions – Rutgers University and the Clinton Foundation – have vowed to keep their Weinstein donations, arguing that they can do more good by using the money to advance good causes than by returning it.

Meanwhile, many politicians, including former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, are either returning money he gave their campaigns or donating those sums to charity.

It seems clear that his attempt to cover the cost of women seeking a degree in filmmaking, announced as his scandal broke, was a desperate attempt to deflect blame and salvage his reputation.

The German example

“Guys, I’m not doing OK but I’m trying. I got to get help. You know what, we all make mistakes,” Weinstein said a few days later, as more women spoke out about how the now-disgraced producer had demanded sexual favors in exchange for movie roles for decades.

Are there conditions under which the court of public opinion owes wrongdoers the “second chance” he said he hoped might be in store?

I suggest that Germany provides an instructive example. In the aftermath of the Holocaust and the other horrors its Nazi government meted out, that country underwent a profound period of collective soul-searching.

In a nationwide attempt to atone for its crimes against humanity, West Germany honored the outcomes of the Nuremberg Trials, imposed by the Allies. But it also took numerous and considerable steps on its own accord to try to make amends.

West Germany held its own tribunals two decades after World War II, the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials, to punish Holocaust conspirators not tried at Nuremburg. It made Holocaust denial a serious crime – and Germany continues to do so today, long after reunification.

The country is dotted with memorials and Jewish museums. Its educational curriculum includes frank historical accounts of the nation’s tarnished past. And it has voluntarily paid more than $70 billion in reparations to Israel and individual Jewish survivors.

Though none of these acts can excuse the Third Reich’s despicable behavior, many people perceive them as authentic displays of atonement. What’s more, these efforts made it possible for Germany gradually to resume its place as a member of the international community in good standing.

The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe is located in the heart of Berlin. Jorge Royan, CC BY-SA

Applying the German model

Here is how I believe that disgraced rich and powerful people can learn from Germany’s example. Imagine that Weinstein had first issued an earnest apology, instead of rambling defensively after The New York Times first reported his protracted abuse.

Then imagine Weinstein welcoming and dutifully complying with the legal and professional investigations about his conduct that are in the works. And then picture him graciously accepting any verdicts and serving any sentences required of him for the crimes he has allegedly committed. Visualize, if you can, Weinstein keeping himself checked into rehabilitation clinics and enrolled in courses on gender inequality as long as he isn’t behind bars.

Now suppose that after all of this hypothetical behavior, Weinstein would then meet with victims of sexual abuse and experts in grantmaking. And that with their guidance, he would give away what’s left of his fortune – currently estimated to be in the neighborhood of $250 million – to advance gender justice and end workplace harassment and sexual abuse.

None of these efforts I have conjured up would excuse Weinstein’s behavior. But I contend that in such a case, it would make sense for charities and universities at least to consider taking his money.

Sensitive acts of this kind of compensatory philanthropy can be an acceptable part of a process of making amends for past crimes. To count as legitimate, however, acts of charity as penance cannot substitute for official punishment for civil and criminal misconduct and they must be closely related to the crimes.

No matter what, money can never replace genuine contrition and rehabilitation.

And such donors should cede control over how their money is spent. Germany, for instance, did not demand that recipients of reparations spend the money in specific ways. Rich and powerful wrongdoers should likewise not seek to micromanage or receive a seat on the board of organizations they fund.

It’s hard, in other words, to give large sums of money away as one of several steps toward atonement for heinous crimes. This is just as should it be.

Ted Lechterman ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son poste universitaire.