#like... this certainly isn't my first attempt at something more narrative (?) but. it really feels like my big break.

[moe-broey]

Welcome back to the NEXT EXCITING INSTALLMENT OOOOOF!!! Milo Confuses His Lefts and Rights So Bad He Fucking Dies.

I'm gonna try and give like. Bare minimum context. Bc I don't wanna show my whole hand. Stay with me I don't have words or explanations sorry

I'm trying to follow The Rule. The 180 Rule I think it's called. The Avoid Spontaneously Teleporting Your Characters And Making Them Inexplicably Switch Places Rule. These are just key panels, again, bare minimum to see what angles/movements I'm making here

Here's where I fuck up. Fuck my entire life. Ect

Okay. You see the Issue. I will show you some more

This is part of my first roughs for this panel/page. Let's unpick this.

1) Seemingly Correct Placement. Yippee!

2) Ran into the same issue written above, where the bodies are blocking MOST of the Most Significant THINGS. I CANNOT stress this enough. There's SYMBOLISM here, that is a Key Component to what you're supposed to fucking infer.

3) Scabbard is on the right side here and should be on the left. Which led me to make that scribbly Alfonse ref I posted earlier.

So I revise it. I was SO FUCKING PROUD OF THIS. Let's unpick it.

1) Eyes are drawn to The Focal Points. Alfonse, hand on his hip, resting on his sword (sheathed). It's a relaxed/at ease pose, so it doesn't Have to mind handedness too much.* Meanwhile, you see more of Moe's pose, staff slung over the shoulder. It's been holding the staff like this the whole time I imagine, just mostly out of frame during page 1.

2) The poses are MUCH clearer due to the placement. However. You are seeing the problem here.

3) THEY FUCKING TELEPORTED (OR MAYBE I'M STILL CONFUSED???? IT IS POSSIBLE.)

*I guess one thought that's occurring to me is maybe the same "don't mind the handedness at rest" approach could apply here??? Edit for Moe here to clarify

This isn't even factoring in whatever the fuck is happening on page 3, but I do think it's fucked. Like, just from my brief overview/take my word for it, I think they are on the Correct sides on page 3. Which may make the Switch/Teleporting more egregious.

So like. Where do I even go from here. Please for the love of god help me.

[zcinderone]

An ironically conspicuous yet never exploited(except by me as far as I can see) dot that connects everything which could be the ultimate layer of secret to unravel the true identity of Arei's murderer...

It's Levi and this is where the final piece of puzzle comes to make sense of itself: the Monotv recruiting Teruko do CAULKING scene!!!

This is such a detailed and prominant plot that so far made 0 sense as to its connection to the case. Monotv must have enlisted a helper to clean up the mess left in the gym. Since he can't even do caulking, it is 100% valid for the narrative that there are something in this mess he can't handle. This helper would have abundance of time to figure out the mechanism and took the tape. (whereas both Ace and Eden only had cursory glances at the scene also in a rather shocking and intense scenario to figure out how Nico's mystrious setup worked)

(Monotv specifically mentioning he needs help to do certain chores)

Apart from the 4 involved in Ace's case, the only one awake/available late at night was Levi(and we never know for what purpose the story writer specifically left only him awake and readily came out to check the commotion either). This connects everything.

Think about it rationally. It makes absolutely no sense for those involved in the previous case to make an imitation of their own. On paper, only 4 people knew what happened, and Nico ran off leaving the only necessary tool(tape) to replicate this. Should any of the 3 try to imitate a crime only they knew and able to replicate, they are basically yelling they're the only targets from the get-go (and isn't this what's happening right now?)which is beyond absurd. However, if a third party does exist, it changes everything, they would have everything to gain from pulling an imitation since the premise would exclude their possibility permanently.

Based on the aforementioned points, I will make a tentative prediction about one event we are likely gonna see in ep 15（or 16 depending on pacing）: A scrum debate will happen soon, concerning whether or not Ace&Eden really is the only option scope for imitation crime, for they will most certainly discuss the very reason why they imitate and promptly realized the absurdity thereof. The narrative would seem really off if they don't dabble on why, accepting imitation for the sake of imitation. Some will take the stance that such attempt would be illogical for a rational conspirator in the first place, others will insist on the lack of direct evidence of a third party.

(I just realized the dev could've intentionally let Ace kick the tape out of sight because they have much greater incentive to do so but it's very close to premiere so I won't elaborate since either way my theory itself is the same)I am basing this theory on the assumption that the tape went missing under the dialogue box cg is dev's mistake, because the tape on the ground scene always includes Ace on the ground and the moment he stood it changed which feels too abrupt and dev might just forgot to add that, and there is not a single scene that showed the tape missing without such blockade.

More importantly, there were some clues to back my assumption in the "i'm not fxxing dead!" scene. The tape is placed rather near in front of Ace, a little to our right. Yet, when he stood up he knocked Eden out to our left. It would seem shaky if we take this alone by face value as it could just be a dramatic effect, but what happened afterward is the camera itself clearly turned left to film Eden gradually standing, and turned right to focus on Ace and then turned further right to focus on Teruko, which clearly suggested the actual positioning is: Eden Ace (tape?) Teruko (tape ?) . Problem is, the tape still exitsted right before, and went missing right after Ace stood up under the Teruko "yeah i figured" dialogue box, few secs before Eden stood up, therefore her positioning would exclude her possibility of getting it. And Ace couldn't get it either since four eyes were, and the camera was mostly on him, even depicting him reaching his wound with two hands.

I think If the dev did had such meticulous intent for this hidden scene to be the key to locking the culprit, they would most likely be equally meticulous about either the tape's positioning or Ace's act to make unequivocal sense that one of them would have a clear window to obtain it, which in turn suggests they probably never had such intention to begin with.

Also, we got to consider factoring in complementary details like the starched clothes ball(Levi was the only one who mentioned being in the laundry room some time at night in ep10),Eden mentioning "someone's been following her" (I'm 100% sure this is what the dev planted to make sense of why a 3rd party could overhear Eden&Arturo&Arei event), Arei's missing glove(both Eden and Ace wears glove, Levi doesn't), enough strength to throw the rope near the ceiling(they emphasized early in one scene how high the ceiling is and eden is the smallest girl) Whit trying to make an argument about another motive Levi could have for killing Arei yet got cut off, and trying to redirect the crew's attention back to Levi's secret itself for some reason and got cut off again in ep13 11:22 12:44 (this i think is super super important and it seems only I was mentioning this). These solid details are all adding to the likelihood of Levi, and I really can't find as many other details to back Eden or Ace.

I also had a secondary theory back when ep13 dropped might worth mentioning: could the fish simply be symbolic? Sleep with the fish(godfather thingy)? Levi's background story suggests he is very likely involved in mafia conficts. J even asked him if he was "in" the mafia to which he prompt answered No. But very interestingly the dev specifically gives him a pondering "..." scene immediately after his respond to show he seemed to be thinking about the definition of his involement, then J pushed him to elaborate and he digressed.(starting from ep13 1:28) And Levi did have Italian surname.

I don't have that much confidence in this intepretation alone to begin with as I thought it is a bit old school. But since my major theory makes sense, this one doesn't seem so far-fetched anymore.

[lemotmo]

Question and answer. Their fight is clinging to life right now.

Q. I just don't understand how you could have liked Tommy so much after episode 4 and still refuse to admit that the reason you don't like him now is because you don't like Lou. Tommy changed after episode 4 because their relationship changed. It got more serious as the season went on and we saw Buck change and grow as that relationship grew. He even took back his name as a result of his relationship with Tommy. The show has shown Tommy to be supportive, encouraging, protective and funny. Just because we didn't see specific scenes showing all of those things doesn't mean that the show isn't implying they don't exist. Oliver and Lou don't have the same comfort level of Oliver and Ryan no one cares. Who cares if Oliver doesn't like him? I don't. It's his job to show up and act professional.

A. Okay I'm going to answer your question, but I'm going to get very real with you very quickly. I am not the place for any of your reclaiming his name bullshit. That is not what he did. That is not at all what the Evan thing is about. You know that, and I'm not going to humor your ridiculous attempt to claim otherwise. As for the rest of your ask, where exactly was it shown that their relationship was serious? What episode was that? And did you really say just because the show didn't show us specific scenes of Tommy being the perfect boyfriend doesn't mean they're not implying those qualities are there? What scenes implied those qualities? I'm going to go through this in a very simple way because you seem to be struggling with everything.

My opinion of Tommy changed because the show wanted it to change. We now basically have confirmation that episodes 7 through 10 were rewrites, and the scripts were rewritten, hastily, during the winter break. Tim has all but confirmed that at this point. Their filming schedule also confirms this. They were filming the next episode the week the current episode was airing. Which means the new scripts were written AFTER episodes 4 and 5 aired. Meaning Tim and the writers knew you all liked Tommy. They had that knowledge going into the rewrites. They didn't give him a scene where Buck talks to him about his feelings regarding the name Evan, the audience knows how Buck feels about that name. The show would have absolutely given the audience that scene. The show didn't give him a scene where he comforts Buck during the whole Bobby ordeal. Tommy had one scene in the finale it could have easily been at the hospital. In fact it would have been easier if it had been at the hospital. Instead they went out of their way to work in a deliberately awkward scene. The show didn't write anything for him that was comforting, encouraging, protective or funny. What the show wrote for him was:

"They had Henley's in the 80's"

"Enjoy it while it lasts"

" I certainly hope so" (when Buck asked him if he thought he had daddy issues) and even Tim has long since stopped trying to pass this off as flirty.

I didn't invent that dialogue. It didn't come from a cameo video or a headcanon. The show gave him that dialogue. That dialogue is his canon character. Nothing about any of that is charming as Buck's boyfriend. I have said repeatedly that they're not writing him as a BAD guy. They're writing him as a bad FIT for Buck. And that's okay! You can still like him! You can headcanon the relationship as something else entirely, that's your prerogative, but the show's writing is very clear. I'm following the writing. As for Lou, I am an adult. This would not be the first show I've watched where I didn't like a particular actor/actress. I find Lou gross. I don't deny or pretend otherwise. But I can separate Tommy from him for the sake of the show. That's called compartmentalizing. That's what adults can do. None of this is difficult for me because I'm following the show's lead. You all are the ones killing yourselves trying to force a narrative that doesn't exist. I will also take this time to point out something that was a first this season. This was the first season in the history of the series where Buck had no storyline. Buck had one episode of plot the entire season and it was episode 4. The entire rest of the season for Buck was spent in Eddie's storyline. Not scenes with Tommy. Not scenes building up that serious relationship you speak of. His entire character purpose this season was spent in the Eddie storyline. You cannot build up an outside relationship when you're doubling down on the Buddie aspect. And the show spent the entire season doubling down on that pairing. For better or worse, whether you like it or not, every single partner Buck or Eddie have will be compared to their relationship with each other. And the show puts zero effort into any of their other relationships. Anna was clearly supposed to be Eddie's realization relationship but when Kristen scrapped that she ended up just being awkward as hell. Marisol didn't even have a last name. The only thing we were ever told about Natalia was her fascination with death. Tommy has been no different. The show gave the bare minimum required to indicate that he doesn't fit Buck. His entire dialogue , minimal as it was, this season was dedicated to highlighting that. And that has always been the problem. The show isn't interested in building any relationship for Buck or Eddie outside of each other. And if they were going to do it this was the season to do it. Brand new network, new expectations and a fresh start. And instead they doubled down on them. And in fact made more effort to highlight and showcase their connection. I didn't get that from a cameo or headcanon either. The actual canon scenes told us that. They didn't give Buck a storyline this season so his scenes could be used entirely for Eddie. He wasn't used off screen with Tommy he was used on screen with Eddie. It was a deliberate choice.

As for Oliver, you all are the ones who keep bringing up that Oliver and Lou don't appear to be close. If you didn't care you wouldn't keep bringing it up. They're not required to be close. And we have no actual proof that they outright dislike one another. What we know is they're clearly not comfortable with one another. And there could be many reasons for that. I doubt, given what we know of Oliver, and what we learned about Lou this year, that they have much of anything in common. It's hard to bond when you have nothing in common to bond over. There is also no way anyone involved with the show, outside of Lou, didn't have a problem with what the cameo videos created. They were a completely avoidable mess. A mess that Lou openly encouraged until he could no longer financially benefit from interacting with those people. And Oliver is a professional. He has never shown anything other than completely respectable, professional behavior. But please don't interpret that as him not having a say because he very much does. But I doubt he spends any amount of time worrying about what your opinion of him is. Unlike some he doesn't have to pay for validation.

All right, I have another OP truth bomb for you guys. Thanks once again to the kind Nonny who sends these to me.

I won't add anything to this one, because I think all that needs to be said is explained so beautifully in this post.

So enjoy!

Heads up! For anyone who is giving me the shifty eyes for reposting these anon OP updates instead of reblogging. Don't get mad at me. There is a reason for it and it's all done with consent from the OP. You can find out more about that here.

Remember, no hate in comments or reblogs. Let's keep it civil and respectful. Thank you.

If you are interested in more of the anonymous OP’s posts, you can find all of their posts so far under the tag: anonymous blog I love.

[utilitycaster]

Threatened this once as a throwaway tag, so: let's talk about why "Justice for Adeen Tasithar" as an attempted criticism of Essek is absolutely wild as a choice.

Disclaimer: there are many deeply annoying fans of Essek who do not seem to understand that the narrative and the cast (and by extension, merch/official art/comics) will treat him differently for being an NPC, even if he is a very important NPC and a member of the Mighty Nein, and you are justified in being annoyed. There are also a number of equally annoying Essek haters, most of whom are bitter shippers who have (correctly) realized it's slightly more palatable to others in the fandom to openly hate on Essek than on a PC; or else they are the miserable souls who think that every minute spent on a character other than their personal favorite stolen and wasted time. I am a firm believer in this post; everyone is annoying and complaining on your own blog about it is your absolute right. Also, both in regards to the fans mentioned above and the characters mentioned below, it is possible for people on two opposite sides of a position to both suck.

The first issue is the phrase itself; it co-opts a statement usually used for victims of hate crimes or political prisoners in the real world, and makes it unironically about a pretend guy who had precisely one scene, which is certainly a choice. I'm not actually opposed to using "Justice for" jokingly in fandom, but it is weird to use it relatively seriously in fandom.

The second is that Adeen Tasithar is a member of one of the Dens of the Kryn Dynasty, and is a Taskhand, a term reserved for people with high-level military responsibilities, and is a member of the Bright Queen's Court. During wartime. Coupled with the fact that Essek, who, as described below, is never portrayed as particularly cruel nor petty despite his many flaws, thinks Adeen genuinely does suck, this means that at best, Adeen Tasithar is heavily involved in military operations at a very high level and is in some way personally unpleasant. At, frankly, not even worst, we're talking D&D Donald Rumsfeld. Now, we can debate whether Essek is a war criminal or merely traitorous (not on this post though, because I don't care and it's not relevant), but, while we know very little about Adeen Tasithar, it's not an overreach to say that this man has a pretty strong chance of being guilty of his own war crimes. In general, calling for justice is something I'd hesitate to use in an "the enemy of my enemy" manner, especially if it's well within reason to consider that you're talking about Ludinus Da'leth's Kryn counterpart.

The third is that while you're under no obligation to like Essek, he really is, in general, portrayed as a decent judge of character and a terrible judge of whether selfishly following his own ambition was appropriate and what the consequences might be. He detests the members of the Cerberus Assembly with whom he works; he likes the Mighty Nein despite them ultimately being his potential undoing. He has a few friends in the Dynasty and cares about his (unambiguously good) brother, and feels remorse about his father. Essek has done terrible things in the service of his goals; but directly throwing an innocent under the bus (vs. setting into motion things that will, as a side effect, lead to innocent collateral damage, which he obviously will do) isn't his style. Again, at the very least, Adeen Tasithar is someone whom Essek genuinely believes is a bad person (note that Essek, by this time, also considers himself to be a bad person, and Trent Ikithon to be a "fuck hole", which might help your understanding of scale here). This doesn't mean Tasithar deserves what he got, but frankly, in a campaign about people who got a lot of things they didn't deserve, it's a pretty blatant straw-grasp onto a side character with the briefest of appearances to decide he's your poster boy victim just so that you can go full spiked bat on a character you dislike.

The fourth is that there's never any connection to how Essek not being friends with the Mighty Nein (or entering a relationship with Caleb) would provide justice for Adeen Tasithar, who is in an Empire prison by the end following the exchange during peace talks. It's actually entirely possible that the Empire eventually figures things out re: Adeen, notably because memory modification as a criminal act is going to be really fresh in their minds following the Ikithon trial (and if they interrogate Trent, it's also possible the Empire finds out about Essek). Essek is already a fugitive from the Dynasty and cannot move freely through the Empire as a drow whom assembly members would recognize. The guy didn't get off scot free anyway, so really, he is going to suffer to some extent; you just want him to experience abject and total misery, rather than constant fear tempered with a small degree of happiness, like some kind of sicko, or megachurch member.

The final one is that "justice for Yeza Brenatto" or "I don't like that Essek worked with the Assembly even if he wasn't happy about it" would actually be far more reasonable statements to make. Yeza was, in fact, a simple alchemist who was forced to become a pawn in the game being played by, among other people, Essek, and suffered immensely for it. The Assembly does in fact suck. And yet, rather than admit Caleb also considered working with the Assembly for selfish reasons, or that Veth, you know, exists people jump to woobify some random NPC about whom we know basically nothing other than "Military guy, well-connected politically."

So anyway: feel however you want about Essek; but if you're on Adeen Tasithar's bandwagon, I don't think you actually are terribly bothered by hypothetical fictional war crimes. I think you just are too spineless and online to say "I dislike Essek" and needed to construct an elaborate poor reason why.

[watermelonsloth]

So... Sarada's Timeskip Design

First some positives:

The design works in both Haruno(choker, red) and Uchiha(earrings, black) elements. Even though they are few, I prefer it over the complete absence of both like we got in her last manga design

I like the somewhat unique choice in headband placement

The outfit is pretty fashionable and I can easily picture a teenager wearing it

Her earrings are a nice touch

Her haircut is really cute

Now the negatives(oh god are there negatives). I can't shorten this to simple bullet points so I hope you like the paragraph format. First, the obvious:

It Doesn't Look Practical In The Least

She's wearing big-ass heels, her leg warmers are loose enough to get caught under her feet, her shorts(the bottom half of her romper?) are short enough to give her a wedgie, she has pretty much no leg protection, the shuriken holster attached to her leg without bandages looks uncomfortable, the belt is completely useless, her jacket is baggy and unzipped and begging to fall off, her sleeves look like they'd get in the way during combat, her glasses feel noticeably fragile, and what woman in their right mind would wear a strapless bra into combat? (I can only let the last one slide because it's two men who're working on this manga) If not for the metal plate, shuriken holster, and open-toed shoes, I wouldn't even think she was a ninja(or from the Naruto franchise, for that matter). Lack of practicality doesn't tend to bother me since this is fantasy and every character wearing maximum practicality outfits would get boring, but Sarada looks like they didn't even make an attempt at making her look combat ready. Still, all of this would be fine if not for my next point.

This Doesn't Look Like Something Sarada Would Wear

If impracticality was in character or served a narrative purpose, it would be a point in the designs favor. Except, Sarada isn't the type of character to wear something so impractical. In the manga, she's the character that takes being a ninja the most seriously, she's one of the few with clear goals, and she's the resident team leader and smart one. What part of her design tells us any of that? Yes, manga Sarada is weirdly flirtatious. But that aspect of her personality already contradicts her otherwise disinterest in boys and romance, it doesn't mesh well with her portrayal in the anime(which is also supposed to be canon), it's already an inconsistent part of her personality, and there's already been so many complaints about it(even in Japan from what I can tell) that you'd think that Ikemoto wouldn't continue with it.

Why Does It Invoke So Much Akatsuki?

This might just be me, but I think the design has too many nods to the Akatsuki. The oversized jacket, the fabric around the bottom of her leg, and the black, red, and white/silver color scheme in similar ratios. I'm not saying you'll confuse her for an Akatsuki member by any means and there were certainly more things they could've done to make her resemble the Akatsuki if that was their goal. What I'm saying is that if I were trying to make nods towards the former villain organization in a character's design, I'd use similar design elements.

The worst part is that this was entirely avoidable. Even ignoring that they could've scrapped the more impractical aspects of her design to avoid this, her color palette didn't even have to be this way. Red isn't the only color that can invoke connections to Sakura; shades of pink, light green, and white are also colors of Sakura. Black isn't even the most common color that Uchiha's wear, shades of dark purple and blue are. Purples and blues would've also been a better nod to Sasuke. Maybe they wanted her to wear "Uchiha colors," but, once again, those aren't really Uchiha colors. Black is, but red has only appeared in Madara's armor, the sharingan, and the clan crest and white has also only appeared in the clan crest(I don't even remember an Uchiha that ever wore silver). If you wanna argue that Sarada's color is red, then I ask why wouldn't they just keep red as her primary color instead of making it an accent? Her last manga design had black and white as accents, I don't think keeping her color palette the same would've bothered anyone. I know that Kishimoto added black to Naruto's design to help make him look more mature, but Sarada's design doesn't invoke "mature" anyways and it certainly isn't a more mature version of her last design because, much like the majority of the two blue vortex designs, it looks nothing like her last design. It's even worse than when they started adding too much black to Naruto's design because now it reminds people(or at least me) of an organization that I doubt she's meant to be affiliated with. But who knows? Maybe like the metal plate of her headband being on an easily removeable jacket, this is all foreshadowing to something.

I don't blame anyone for thinking this is a nitpick, but it bothers me and I wanted to express it.

Conclusion

Sarada's design is the worst for the same reasons her last design was the worst plus it looking too much like she took inspiration from the Akatsuki's wardrobe. Forget needing a second draft, this design needs to be scrapped and replaced. Maybe the anime will find a way to fix it, maybe it won't. Only time will tell and it'll hopefully tell us good news.

(Side note: why is she constantly drawn with her feet pointed inwards? it makes her look insecure.)

[marbleboa]

what are your thoughts on flage's hero shrines? I think he got cheated out of a story :\

Oh boy I indeed Possess Thoughts, ill try to be coherent here haha.

First off, absolutely. Out of all of DD2 Flag's features in the sequel his shrines were the most disappointing to me. Once we got his dd2 reveal I kept thinking about what new things we might learn--even getting stupidly anxious that it'd be so far off from what I established in my own writing that I would become Cringe and Fail. I remember after DD2 dropped, I was literally SO fidgety lmao. Once i saw all the shrines, it was a weird mixture of relief and shock at how lackluster the whole thing was.

One could say that there's a pretty important revelation in his place within the Vestal's narrative, for sure. However, the way that no other heroes have interconnected backstories like this made it feel...odd, to me. It's an addition to his story, sure, but it isn't really his. Put together with the rest, it's a bunch of disjointed narrative beats that accumulate into a shallow progression of masochistic obsession that, while certainly fitting Damian's character, lacks a narrative punch.

I'd say the weakest shrine out of them all would be the third, leading up to his confrontation with death--it's lovely descriptive writing as always, but the gist of it is "he just kept getting injured until he almost died". I think it would've benefited substantially by use of a gameplay section to tell the story, a classic case of 'show, don't tell'.

Pulling this idea out of my ass as we speak but. Maybe instead of the church just casting him out on the street, liable to share secrets that might tarnish their holy facade to the common folk, they punish him for his indulgences. A spiteful attempt to break him, to put him through a level of brutalization that would shatter his resolve and "humble him before the Light"--and ends up bringing him face to face with Death. Emerging from that, he defies the word of the Light he once worshiped so ardently and finds his own ascension in his broken body(there's a notable lack of Light-talk in his DD2 barks, he's somehow even more self absorbed lmao)

I think too, it would've been cool to catch a glimpse of humanity in him before he went full zealot mode. Don't need a full sob story, just something to show that even though he's lost in the ecstasy-of-agony sauce, free of the consequences that others--even Death--could exact, something was lost. A tragedy that Damian himself can no longer comprehend

[kaelor0409]

So I've been watching @ohnoitstbskyen's play through of The Mageseeker, and been having a great time. The commentary is entertaining and insightful, as you'd probably expect if you're familiar with his content, and some of his comments got me thinking about a few things myself.

I've been on the fence about Mageseeker, since the whole point of the game seems to be to neatly wrap up the Mage Revolution plot that has been Demacia's ongoing arc for literally years now. I was on the fence about the Mage Revolution plot anyway, since it feels very much like the writers asked "how can we make our Generic Good Guy Fantasy Kingdom more nuanced and edgy", and the answer they came up with is "make them White Mana from Magic: The Gathering".

Still, TBSkyen's analysis in the videos below convinced me that there were interesting stories to tell with that premise, even if some of the writers weren't really handling it with the care it deserved.

Not having played the game, the concept of The Mageseeker felt like a hasty attempt by Riot to sweep a poorly thought out plotline under the rug so they could move on to other things. Who would have guessed that a "good" faction herding innocent people (including children) into concentration camps would be controversial?

Having watched a good chunk of the playthrough (and skipped to the end to get the final analysis), I can say that my fears were...somewhat unfounded? The game does mostly wrap up the plots around the Mageseekers and mostly puts a lid on the Mage Rebellion, but admits this is not a "clean" resolution and that the struggle will continue.

The real reason I've come around on The Mageseeker, however, is because I think it moves Demacia into a more narratively interesting place. "Outwardly good faction is secretly xenophobia, dogmatic, and committing a genocide" has honestly been done to death these days. What hasn't been done is "good faction realized 'whoops, we "accidentally" did a genocide', now what?". This is honestly pretty relatable, because if you live in Europe or anywhere Europe colonized, your national history probably includes some genocide.

So let's talk about Javan and Garen.

Jarvan ordered a genocide by knowingly signing an execution order for hundreds, potentially thousands of helpless mages (including children). It doesn't matter that he was "reluctant", it doesn't matter that he had to be talked into it, he willingly gave the order to exterminate an entire ethnic group ("magic" is technically not an ethnicity, but let's not split hairs here). Also his "preferred" alternative to executing them was to keep them locked up forever (which, yes, is still technically genocide), so even if you entirely blame the Mageseekers for the execution order he's still at fault.

Garen remained a loyal soldier even after Jarvan gave the order to commit genocide. He did initially object, but his objections were that his sister and friend might also get executed, not that the order itself was morally wrong. Even afterward, he only went outside of his role as Demacia's dutiful soldier to try and save his sister Lux. Only Lux, not any of the helpless mages she was sheltering, and when she asks him to join her in defending these defenseless people, Garen refuses. You could argue that Garen never actually harmed any mages himself (any mages that weren't trying to kill him first, anyway), but he certainly helped and when given the chance to flip to the oppressed side, he turned it down. At the end of the day, Garen was "just following orders", and we all know how much water that excuse holds.

So you have two "good" characters who very clearly did something monstrous. You also can't have them stop being "good" characters, because Riot sure as hell isn't going to go through all the effort to rebrand them at this point. So what do you do?

To be continued...

[rookie-critic]

Rookie-Critic's Film Review Weekend Wrap-Up - Week of 2/27-3/5/2023

-The Sea Beast (2022, dir. Chris Williams) This was beyond fun. I'll admit my bias towards pirate-y/sailor-y stuff up front, but even aside from that this was just an amazingly crafted, beautifully animated film with a well-told story. The characters are well voice-acted and vibrantly full of character and life. Jared Harris' Captain Crow in particular was fantastic. This really gave me the vibes of the best animated adventure films from the 90s; it had that sense of wonder and heart that the film's from my childhood did and it struck a chord, for sure. Plus, any film that points out how history books might not be completely trustworthy if the ones holding the power are the ones that wrote the books is a win from me. The only reasons this isn't getting a full 10/10 is because of a few small plot devices that aren't explored fully and the fact that the story isn't anything super new or groundbreaking. Anyone who sees that this is nominated for an Oscar and thinks "why the hell is this here?" clearly hasn't seen it and I recommend that you do so immediately. Score: 9/10 Currently streaming on Netflix.

-Rocky (1976, dir. John G. Avildsen) [REWATCH] I've started a Rocky-thon of sorts in order to prepare to go see Creed III, so naturally, first up would be the original 1976 Best Picture winner. The story of street-kid Rocky Balboa's one-in-a-million chance at becoming a professional boxer almost mirrors writer/lead actor Sylvester Stallone's own journey in getting this very film made, and there is a ton to like about Rocky, even outside of the amazing final scene where he fights Apollo Creed for the first (but most certainly not the last, as we've all come to find out) time. The cinematic brilliance of that final fight and subsequent shouting of "ADRIAN!!" cannot be underplayed. No spoilers, of course (although if you're over the age of 20 and have never seen Rocky before, what are you even doing?). I think my biggest issue with the film is it feels very meandering in its first 90 minutes, even by character study standards, which this most definitely is. You get a feel for who Rocky is as a person pretty early on, then the rest is just watching him mumble-through awkward encounters with Talia Shire's Adrian until, miraculously, that blossoms into a relationship. I just had a hard time connecting with Rocky from a personality level, not to even mention the machismo that will continue to plague the franchise well into its lifespan. Also, and I'll get more into this in my other Rocky reviews, but I really, really don't like Paulie. He served a purpose in this film, but man, I've spent four films wishing someone would just deck him. I'm never gonna knock someone for liking Rocky and thinking it's amazing, because a lot of it is, but I found too much lacking in it to give it higher than the score I gave it. Score: 7/10 Currently streaming on Netflix.

-Rocky II (1979, dir. Sylvester Stallone) [REWATCH] Onto the second installment in this all-time classic franchise, and this time there's a rematch. Personally, the story in Rocky II, that is to say the first 90 minutes of film prior to the big fight, interested me way more than the original. Seeing Rocky struggle with the aftermath of success, and the aftermath of short-lived wealth was so compelling. The dichotomy of wanting to live a quiet, peaceful life with your partner and build something away from the quite dangerous world of boxing with the pull of this thing that has been your world for so long, this thing that is your true calling, made for a much more interesting film than the first. Combining that with an increased presence of Burgess Meredith, who was, without question, the best part of the entire film, had me more invested in the narrative through line of Rocky II more so than I ever was in Stallone's first outing. However, where Rocky II falters is in its attempts to recapture the magical moments of the original film. The training montage in this one is, frankly, just silly, and running up all those steps doesn't seem quite as impressive when a thousand children have also just followed you up there and don't look any worse for wear than you do. The fight at the end of the film, while still not bad, isn't nearly what the first film's was. I've heard fans of the franchise say that the fight in this one is one of the best parts of the film, but I just couldn't get hyped up like I was during Rocky's first match with Apollo Creed. Also, Paulie, who I already hated, has lost his purpose for existing in this world outside of to just be an annoyance and something to be tolerated and worked around, and he continues to be this in an ever-worsening way in the future installments. Overall, a better story, but worse in all of the places that made the first film iconic. Score: 7/10 Currently streaming on Netflix.

-Cocaine Bear (2023, dir. Elizabeth Banks) I won't dwell on this too long, as I posted a full review earlier on in the week. This movie is exactly what it advertises itself as, which is a fun, schlocky romp through B-movie horror-comedy territory. Plenty of vibe-conforming bad CGI and gory bits to please any and everyone who saw the trailer and thought "Well, I gotta see that!" Ray Liotta, Alden Ehrenreich, and O'Shea Jackson Jr. are all great, but Christian Convery is the true Cocaine Bear MVP. My complaints with it are more with the editing and the technical end of things, as well as not being the biggest fan of the film's surprisingly half-boring first act. This one is a fun, wacky, and harmless distraction of a film and I had a blast in the theater watching it. Score: 7/10 Only in theaters. Read my full review here.

-A House Made of Splinters (2022, dir. Simon Lereng Wilmont) This documentary about a temporary children's shelter located just a handful of kilometers away from the Ukraine/Russia war's front lines is heartbreaking and, at times, an incredibly tough watch. It shows a consequence of any war that doesn't necessarily always get a light shined on it, which makes this something truly unique. The Ukraine conflict almost exists only as a backdrop. It is clearly the reason for the sheer number of children being housed in this facility, but it is barely mentioned, nor is that particular war really the focus or the point of the documentary; that is placed squarely on the children. The resilience of these kids is truly wondrous, ranging from younger children who maintain their childlike playful nature, even in these extreme circumstances, to slightly older (but still very much young) children who have clearly had to grow up faster than any child should. As a small look into this tiny-but-not-so-tiny, unexplored corner of the war, A House Made of Splinters was a very eye-opening experience. Score: 8/10 Currently available to rent/purchase on digital (iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, etc.).

-Rocky III (1982, dir. Sylvester Stallone) [REWATCH] This is my favorite Rocky of the classic run, bar none, hands down, no contest. It is easily the most fun, easily the most purely entertaining, and has what, to me, is easily the best fight of those first four films. Mr. T is brilliant as Clubber Lang, and Burgess Meredith and Carl Weathers continue to be scene-stealing masters as Mickey and Apollo Creed. I've read that many, many people (both fans and critics alike) think this is the most rewatchable film in the Rocky franchise and I could not agree more. It's still not just a blazing masterpiece or anything; it falls prey to trying to recapture those iconic moments of the first one just like Rocky II did, although to a lesser degree, and Paulie continues to be a giant bag of useless crap that adds nothing to this franchise whatsoever, Stallone even sees fit to add "racist" to Paulie's seemingly never-ending list of (excuse my language) dogshit qualities, for good measure. All of that aside, I had an absolute blast with Rocky III. It's so close to being an 8/10 it can almost taste it, but there are too many things still dragging it down to earn that extra point. Score: 7/10 Currently streaming on Netflix.

-Magic Mike's Last Dance (2023, dir. Steven Soderbergh) How do you strip the magic out of Magic Mike (puns absolutely intended)? You reduce the supporting cast that made the first two entries, especially the second one, so much fun to mere cameos, and then you take Channing Tatum's Mike Lane to London and place him in a position where he only gets to fully dance twice in the entire film. You also throw in a really contrived and unnecessary voiceover and make the big set piece at the film's end, which has been sold to us as something that's supposed to be truly spectacular, a pretty fun strip show, but not one that's any better than the stuff we got at the end of the previous film. I was also surprised by an uncharacteristically sub-par turn from Salma Hayek Pinault, who is normally a great actress. I'm not entirely sure if it was that her character was poorly written, or if her acting was really not good even for the material she was given, but it shocked me to see a veteran actress like Hayek Pinault give something far below her usual. All was not completely lost, though, as the choreography was great, as usual, and the film has still got a trace of the humor that made XXL so fun. I didn't have the worst time with Magic Mike's Last Dance, but I was disappointed. Soderbergh can do better, and I kind of hope this is, indeed, Magic Mike's last dance. Score: 5/10 Only in theaters.

-Rocky IV (1985, dir. Sylvester Stallone) [REWATCH] I'm sorry, I know Rocky fans the world over consider this one of the good ones, but it's bad. It's pretty bad. The runtime is extremely padded with completely unnecessary montages, a couple of which are just music videos for songs on the film's soundtrack. The fight at the end is not worthy of the really good setup that Ivan Drago gets in the film's first half; it's not a bad fight, per se, but the buildup was so big (like I said, there are so many training montages) for a fight that was largely no more intense than the fight from the original film. Not to mention Paulie's robot, which he manages to insert his sexism into (and the film plays it all for laughs), the fact that both Rocky and Adrian abandon their child ON CHRISTMAS to go fight the big-bad Russian man, leaving little Rocky Jr. in the care of the freaking robot! There's also the unavoidable subject of this being a cold-war propaganda film, which might be the most disappointing part of the whole thing. The franchise seems to be a complete bastardization of itself at this point in its lifespan, and it's getting the points I am giving it for Carl Weathers and the great setup of Drago as a menacing villain alone, even if the payoff for that setup was lackluster. I understand Stallone released a director's cut of the film a couple years ago that re-contextualizes a lot of the film into more of a character study befitting the tone of the first few entries. I'd be very interested to watch that and see if that's true. Score: 4/10 Currently streaming on Netflix.

-The Wicker Man (2006, dir. Neal LaBute) The classic. The infamous. The "not the bees!" one. This was the latest film my college friend group watched as a part of our "Nicolas Cage Fridays" movie night. It is everything that people have built it up to be, although maybe not quite as absolute trash as I've heard. It isn't good by any means, but Cage's acting outside of those few beautiful moments where we get full-Cage isn't really that bad. It's not great, but it's pretty standard stuff. It's an interesting enough story, but none of it ever really comes together in a way that isn't unintentionally hilarious. Also, this has no bearing on my score, but I was not aware that there are two different cuts of this film, a theatrical and an unrated. We watched the theatrical version, apparently, so imagine my surprise when the end of the film comes along and that truly iconic line and scene is just completely skipped over. I was livid. Thankfully, that appears to be the only big difference between the two versions, so it was nothing a quick YouTube pull-up couldn't fix. I had a fun time with The Wicker Man, but I attribute most of that to watching it in a group setting and not to the film itself. I really want to watch the original Christopher Lee film from 1973 that this is a remake of, because I hear that is much better. Score: 4/10 Currently available to rent/purchase on digital (iTunes, Amazon, etc.) and on DVD and Blu-ray through Warner Bros.

-Children of the Corn (2023, dir. Kurt Wimmer) An unfortunate fun fact about me is that I have, regrettably, seen all 10 (now 11) entries in this godforsaken franchise. It's one of the unfortunate side-effects of being dedicated to watching all Stephen King-related media. I'm not proud of it, but it is a sunk cost fallacy that I cannot separate myself from. That being said, in the realm of horrible Children of the Corn films (which is basically all of them), this one at least had a decent production value and acting that wasn't laughably atrocious. I think more than anything, this entry suffers the most from being just kind of uninteresting. It comes from the angle of showing just how the town became children-of-the-corn'd, which is interesting, in a way, but once the proverbial shit hits the fan it's just more of the same that we've already seen a handful of times (or, if you're a normal person, maybe only seen once). I think the thing that I hate the most is that I know that, inevitably, there will be another one, and I will go see it, because I've made this bed of corn husks for myself, so I might as well lie in it. Score: 3/10 Only in theaters.

I saw Return to Seoul this morning, but don't feel like I've formed my opinion enough to even give a mini-review yet. That will most likely be a full-length one that I will type up tomorrow. I'm also currently in the middle of Argentina, 1985, so look out for that on next week's wrap-up.

[romilly-jay]

Redshirts: A Voyage Past the Fourth Wall

**spoilers**

Redshirts is my third John Scalzi novel (although the first which initially described itself as A Novel With Three Codas) and pleased to report I've no plans to stop reading my way through his extensive oeuvre anytime soon.

This is what a 'proper' review said about it at the time (alongside what to my 2024 eyes comes across as a startlingly youthful author pic):

*Obviously* I was lured in by the Star Trek joke-ref right from the novel's title - and simultaneously reassured that the treatment would be worth my attention, having read The Kaiju Preservation Society and knowing it secured the Hugo Best Novel award 2013 (and, having checked Wikipedia - where else - the Locus SF award, too).

My actual experience was: Come for the in-joke about the tropes of storytelling in 1960s SF TV, stay for the layers of meta-narrative.

I enjoyed the faux-starship setting, the gathering of the gang, the unfeasibly frequent and bizarre deaths... but really started LOVING the experience at the point it punched through the fourth wall and sent the characters off to interact with the actors playing them.

What I *particularly* liked - this is, I think, speaking to my own present writerly insecurities - is that I don't think the mechanism for sending them there or bringing them back made... sense... AND there was no very serious attempt to MAKE it - and... it didn't matter.

Totally different set of choices from Mary Robinette Kowal's Lady Astronaut of Mars series. That's set in a science-realistic universe that happens not to be our own only because events worked out differently. The laws of physics absolutely apply. It's a universe with the minimum possible Hand Wavium. I feel frankly defeated by the bar it sets and delighted to observe, here, a viable alternative...

Not sure what it says about me that I particularly enjoyed the three additional mini stories at the end (the codas, as Scalzi calls them):

I don't mean that I enjoyed them MORE than the main story but certainly my enjoyment of that story was enhanced by having these additional story glimpses. [Intrigued that he doesn't mention that they are, respectively, first, second and third person POV - once I got round to reading them, this was something I especially, nerdily, enjoyed but I guess it must be writer-technical and not of much interest to anyone else, by which I mean, "normal people"...]

Also - not sure that I agree these stories couldn't have been incorporated within the overall novel (I typed 'simply' then deleted it because I don't think it would have been simple to achieve, in fact) BUT certainly respect JS's position that he liked the original novel as it was and didn't WANT to rework it to bring these extra pieces into the main narrative. I certainly see the problem arising from the fact that they're all set AFTER the events of the main storyline. There's no obvious way to incorporate them without anticipating or undermining the wrapping up of that main storyline. I still feel, though, as if there might have been a way to bring them all together - it would have been a more complex narrative world which I guess I'm always in favour of attempting and I guess JS sensibly - isn't...

Certainly by having them stand as altogether separate, I think Scalzi successfully navigates around the problem of Two Many Endings - which Tolkien, famously, does NOT achieve. Still, I feel sort of sad for these little mini-tales, stranded outside the mantle of main-narrative respectability - not even granted the step-kid status of Appendices.

PS in visiting John Scalzi's blog, I came across his reflections the day after the US election and, well, quite. More on this in my next blog.

[spook-study]

The radio. What is it about the radio? Even as technology has advanced, becoming something almost unrecognizable from the golden age of radio. The original radio play of War of the Worlds was aired in 1938. Let that sink in. The Buggles may have said it best in their 1979 bop: video, did indeed, kill the radio star, but that hasn’t stopped them from appearing in video.

There are so many great movies us radio as a foundation for the plot. Nightmare Radio (2019), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986), and The Vast of Night ( also 2019), a movie I should really get around to doing a write up on because I loved it, all feature deejays as main characters, and they are far from the only ones to do so. On top of that, arguably every ghost-hunting movie ever made can wiggle its way in there, most feature some kind of antennaed communication device, and often use radio as a ghost/demon conduit. For whatever reason, we all decided and agreed that the dead can speak through the radio.

Pontypool (2008) certainly isn't John Carpenter's The Fog (1980), but nothing ever will be.

Despite the lamentable death of the radio drama, horror has never let the radio die. Those little boxes litter the genre. They remain steadfast, still showing up in movies even as Spotify takes over the music streaming scene and narrative podcasts attempt to fill the void left in the wake of live radio plays. There’s just something about it. Something alive. The fact that when you listen to radio, you’re listening to someone speaking to you in real time; someone is turning tables and transitioning between songs or segments in real time. Even live television can’t compare because it’s performative. Radio is alive, which means it can be dead- have dead air. If a person stops talking or spinning tables, you won’t be hearing anything until the emergency tape eventually kicks in. There’s just an activeness to that. And an aside to say rest in peace to television dead air; in my heart, no “6 Hours Soothing Sleep Static Sounds” video on YouTube will ever do you justice.

Radio is more personal than all that. Someone is speaking to you, that’s simply the way radio works. "If you’re just tuning in, listeners," that’s you. It feels personal, contained, call the number and talk to that disc jockey to win tickets, to offer your opinion, to be on the radio right then and there. It's a slice of fame: everyone listening is hearing you, learns your name, is reacting to what you're saying. I’m sure it’s thrilling. I've always been too nervous to even try to call in.

Now I'm a sucker for a bottle movie, so I'm sure you can imagine my delighted realization when it became clear that Pontypool is one! Talk about radio being personal, save for the first couple of minutes where disgraced shock jock Grant Mazzy is driving to his new job in the middle of nowhere Canada, we never leave radio station. One big room? Seems pretty personal to me.

For those of you who might be unaware, a bottle film, from ‘ship in a bottle’ figures, is a movie or episode of television that remains in the same location for most, if not all the duration. While characters may come and go, we, the viewer, remain. Hitchcock’s Rope (1948) and Rear Window (1954) both qualify, as well as the more recent Circle (2015), and Hush (2016). Horror certainly doesn't have a shortage of them, either. While there are bottle films which take place in locations with more than one room, like Funny Games (1997 or 2007, both great) or Clue (1985), I’m preferential to the smaller locations as exemplified in Pontypool. I like the claustrophobia, the containment, the way these movies can make both viewer and characters feel like the walls are closing in. I like the visual representation of being being stuck, the endings often culminating in the escape from containment. Give me a movie in a single room and I'm practically in love. There’s just something about it- breathing the same air as it gets stagnant, seeing the same sights, stuck with the same people. It’s The Yellow Wallpaper effect. The movie operates on a simple premise but leaves a lot to unpack if you're in the mood for contemplation.

Pontypool is a pandemic movie a 'zombie' movie, colloquially speaking. If people never die they aren't zombies, but let's not get into that right now. The movie leaves whether people actually die over the course of the illness taking hold unclear. While no one is rising up from their grave, they still become mindless killing machines who eat people. One way or another, the infected remain up and about when a human would definitely be dead.

Still, Pontypool does manages to set itself apart from the crowd: the infection is spread through words. Specifically English words. The idea itself is interesting enough to cover the convoluted explanation the movie gives, but that might just be due to the fact that it's almost impossible to wrap your head around. A disease transmitted through words? How the hell does that work? Just thinking about it gets my mind whirring.

The film follows the early morning workers of the Pontypool radio station. Grant Mazzy, who has found himself with a dreg of a job after his untoward personality and “take no prisoners” approach to hosting got him fired and basically blackballed. Tech assistant Laurel-Ann, who is a veteran for seemingly no reason, is amused by his antics. Station manager Sydney, a middle-aged woman who is tragically and typically devoid of a personality, is decidedly less so. In addition to the on-screen roles there’s another impactful character who is only heard through call-in, “eye-in-the-sky” helicopter reporter Ken Loney, whose helicopter is actually his beat-up car on top of the tallest hill in town.

A bit into the movie we get the irreputable town doctor Mendez, who miraculously made his way to the station despite his office being the first location we hear about being overrun. Running, violent hordes that are shown to chase people and the greying Dr. Mendez makes it out and across town, no explanation offered. We're talking breaking down the doors and piling on top of one another like a small town World War Z (2013), or at least that's how the situation is described. If you aren't contemplating the workings of the movie's universe, like my aforementioned fascination with how the infection works, "how" questions can be killer. For Mendez's entire appearance I just kept thinking, "how the hell did he get out of there?" It's easy to get caught up in things like that and my suspension of disbelief is no more. This is a reoccurring problem for the movie, which I'll get into more later.

Since the program is a morning news show, the group starts off by reporting what is only considered news in itty-bitty towns like Pontypool, Ontario, Canada. Mazzy clearly hates his job, drinking at the crack of dawn and making fun of the townspeople as news comes in. He tells nothing stories because there's nothing to report on. In a previous broadcast which serves as the opening narration to the movie he reported on a woman's lost cat. It's hard-hitting journalism, folks. The first report of the day of the film regards an altercation with the police with an ice fishing shed.

After taking one too many mild crack shots, Sydney chastises Mazzy. He jokes about alcohol being involved in the situation, which ended as soon as it began. But he finds out through Sydney that one of the men is indeed an alcoholic. She implies everyone knows it, but things like that remain spoken of only behind closed doors. It's later revealed eye-in-the-sky Ken is a pedophile. Well, not exactly, the people in town just all keep there kids away from him. The dirty laundry is to stay in the basket. So, whether he likes it or not, the people of Pontypool need their simple news- school closures, weather, traffic. Particularly during blizzards, like the one everyone is caught in for the movie. Power is likely to get knocked out, which means no television news. The first iPhone came out in 2007, only a year before the movie’s release, so smart phones are still a rarity. What you have is your landline, and not much else. It’s radio news, or it’s no news.

Ken Loney reports on what is first deemed a riot which is of course slowly revealed to be a pandemic that turns people into violent cannibals that creepily parrot words and phrases. A bit into the growing situation, a transmission in French intercepts their air time which urges everyone to stay inside, not speak, to particularly avoid pet names such like ‘honey’ and ‘baby,’ ending with warning not to translate the message. Oops, too late, it’s been translated and Mazzy relayed it on air. So much for that warning. Also, lest we Americans forget, Canada has two official languages, one of which is French. It's reasonable, then, for the movie to have characters that know at least a bit of French, rusty though it may be. Since it's only English that is infected, other languages remain safe. That is, if they need to speak at all. Pen and paper are pretty good workarounds too, but still they chatter away even after Dr. Mendez's entrance. His first bits of dialogue include him openly stating he believes the illness is transferred through sound, and English. We can extrapolate through the characters broken French from later in the movie that Pontypool is predominately English-Speaking, thus explaining why the earlier warning was related in French. Anyway let's keep talking.

As more of Ken’s scattered reports come in, he relates his escape from the oncoming hoard, subsequent hiding in a barn, and the sight of a boy he knows crying out with the voice of a child while missing an arm and despite the fact that he should be dead. The employees of the station become a bit more frantic as well, unable to get much information coming from the outside. As an additional strain the Station has no windows, so they are unable even to see what is happening.

This limitation seeds disbelief, leading them to open the front door and incidentally inviting the infected inside. Sound is what draws the infected, so they play a recording to the loudspeaker outside: Sydney Briar is alive. This draws the group back out. Laurel-Ann becomes infected, and Mazzy, Mendez, and Sydney take shelter in the sound-proof radio booth. Mendez hypothesizes that only certain words are infected, and that one must ‘understand’ the word in order for the infection to take hold. What in the world that means is sort of explained, but really it's anyone's guess.

Time passes to the sound of Laurel-Ann relentlessly banging her head against the plexiglass window to the booth. After her continued self mutilation, what’s left of their young station tech dies. Eventually, and I do mean eventually, the remaining group decides it might be best to stop talking after Dr. Mendez comes to the realization that it is only certain words of the English language which transmit the disease, the first indication of which being the host’s repetition of an infected word. They begin passing notes to communicate. But when Dr. Mendez exhibits the beginning signs of infection, Mazzy and Sydney leave him alone to the booth. This is the beginning of the end, which I’ll leave to you to watch on your own.

So what is Pontypool saying? A movie set in a radio station of which the very foundation is the power of sound, where radio itself is practically ground zero. Who knows what words may set the infection off. Did Mazzy, who as far as we can tell isn’t infected, start this whole thing with his half-truth reports? What this movie hedges its bets on is the power of language and of sound. Horror is nothing without sound, and we don’t need a movie about deejays or radio to know that. For tone setting, for jump scares, for themes, audio can make or break a horror movie. Who could forget the the crazy and wildly listenable soundtrack to Suspiria (1977), the sharp iconic sting in Psycho (1960), or the looming staccato of the themes from Jaws (1975) and Halloween (1978)?

For those of us whose hearing remains intact, sound has power- whether you’re conscious of it or not. It effects everything you do, and everything you experience. Mazzy’s show is a news program on top of everything. English as the infected language, which doesn't feel like a coincidence. Casual half-truths with little to no foundation. While the movie takes place in Canada, Americans should be able to relate much of the premise to their own experiences. When did the news become a thing of opinion? Why has fact become so convoluted? How did it come to this? Where is the impartiality that begets news in its purest form, as a way to conduct information? The dissemination of not only ideas, but ideals, is perpetuated in part by news media. How many of us have tried to wean an unsavory relative off of Fox? I’ll do you one better: how many have made fun of and decried shock jock radio host Joe Rogan?

Information is passed through language, and the bias of those reporting it then infects the listener.

Pontypool doesn’t reflect on this enough in its runtime, and most of these musings are my own. derived from but not included in the movie itself. While it may touch on the fear of misinformation and the doubt that can come from being unable to witness things for yourself, I feel it could have been a bit more keyed-on, a bit more contemplative. Maybe even a bit more heated. There was very little passion. It runs around itself, in a way. Most of the movie is just the characters repeating the sentiment of not believing the things that are being related to them are happening, and then, once they’ve confirmed it, they can’t believe it.

Pontypool spent a good portion of its runtime with the characters asking if the situation was real. That can get tired very quickly, and it did. We know it’s happening because we’re watching a movie. Stringing a viewer along with character disbelief loses its efficacy pretty quickly. While character reaction may be understandable in a semi-realistic way, we aren’t watching the movie for realism. It’s performance. The characters need to move a bit faster, the actions need to be a bit bigger, the body has to react a bit stronger. It’s a horror movie. Pontypool just spent too long on disbelief, which caused a disconnect. It stated to feel winded, despite only being 6 minutes longer than my ideal horror movie runtime of 90 minutes.

I think they relied on all the weight to be carried by the concept, which I thought was so interesting. Unfortunately my interest ended up being only on the premise. Almost as if presented as a piece of news itself, Pontypool didn’t have much of a point of view. The script just didn't live up to the idea, and that drives me crazy. Mazzy’s a shock jock, but whether he was an asshole or a martyr is never really answered. What exactly was he fired for saying? We never find out. Why wasn’t there a brief comedy relief moment where he just devolves into speaking only in swear words? Of course, he doesn’t swear much because of the FTC but when they stop broadcasting? Or when he starts to lose his cool?

Sydney knows everyone in town and all their dirty laundry, is she maybe a little meaner than we had initially thought? Or actually, is there anything interesting about her? Because besides being the “mother” figure who admonishes Mazzy and scolds Laurel-Ann, there wasn’t a lot going on. Embarrassingly, her only defining trait is that she cares. That's just bad writing.

Laurel-Ann is a veteran, but why didn’t she have anything else to show for that other than the one line, “We have enemy combatants.” This last one really grinds my gears. The fact that she was a veteran went nowhere. No badass moment, no kicking zombie ass, no bodying them in defense. It’s a pandemic movie; there’s always an excuse to have your army brat character do some stunts. She was young too! She looked like she was in her 20s. Why was she dismissed at such a young age, or was she a reserve? Obviously she worked in army radio, but she looks fit enough. And if she did work in radio, why did they give her that army brat line and have her move like she was infantry? Or, if she didn’t have a reason to know hand-to-hand combat, why wasn’t there a little joke about that?

And Doctor Mendez. Why was he allowed to still be practicing despite writing phony prescriptions, a crime which could potentially prosecuted as a felony? Why does he still have a license? Sydney knew about it, but did no one tell the police? There's keeping personal matters private, but I don't think this one counts. And why, when they realize it’s the English language, do they not immediately switch to French? Why don’t they start to write notes sooner? For the number of times someone said they should stop talking, they sure kept on doing it.

I’m getting frustrated again just thinking about it! Questions like these are easy to answer with standard movie dialogue. Plot holes, failed potential, trip ups, whatever you want to call it, this movie had a ton of them. It’s also a high-stress environment. So why isn’t anyone having a real argument, whispered or otherwise? You’re telling me stuck for hours in the same room with the same people wouldn’t beget a real argument? Why is no one scared to the point of anger? Anger, confusion, fear, it just was so pale. And here I go again! I can feel my muscles tensing the more I mull it over.

Pontypool took itself so seriously the fun was just sucked right out of it. The devil is in the details and nothing is more irritating to me than tiny unanswered questions. You can leave your overarching explanations vague, have a weird ending, make it whatever you want in my opinion. But you better answer how the hell Dr. Mendez escaped his office when Ken Loney’s first report included a crowd gathering outside the building. I mean as far as the viewer is concerned, it was the first place. And the infected people are strong! The person who ended up getting Ken busted through a barn door! A movie shouldn't bring up questions like these unless it intends to answer. Where's the payoff? I want to grab this movie by the neck and shake it. I don’t even have the words. Like come on. Ugh! I’m getting heated, girl. (Or guy…or other…you get it.)

Honestly this whole review probably feels incredibly disconnected, but that’s the split for me about Pontypool. I adored the premise, spent time thinking after it ended about the world it created, the rules, how one might go about counter-acting it, what does the virus actually do to someone. But the movie itself? Completely wanting. Of anything. It’s just such a bummer because the idea, at least to me, is so cool.

Not particularly funny, scary, or contemplative, I have to go on what the movie presented, not just the concepts. I could see the good movie in there, but I didn't see it on screen. Look, I'm still thinking about it much after watching it which is only a good thing in terms of staying power. But we also remember bad movies and tend to think on those just as much as the good ones. Still, Pontypool is quite the popular movie and continues to be well received to this day. I'm definitely in the minority when it comes to my dislike, so don't shy away from giving it a watch. As of now (December 20) it's streaming on Shudder. As for me? Well...maybe the book is better. It usually is.

Split down the middle in a case of execution not living up to the concept, Pontypool (2008) slips by with a 2/5.

[katherineholmes]

I was not attempting to be rude I had seen post about the three women protagonists of Vampire Diaries and metta about children, particular how Caroline’s had twins because to write in the actresses real life children.

I am sorry, that something might have got lost in my translations, I am hopeful there are happy endings for Elena and her young family in both stories.

please don’t think I was implicating anything but you do good mettas is all and I thought I could see your opinion, I will be cautious to not write in offensive way any more.

First off, I'm really sorry if I was rude in my answer to the first question. I wanted to make sure I was firm, because I wasn't sure if it was asked in good faith or not, but it can be easy to overcompensate at times, and it certainly wasn't my intention to upset you, or make you feel like you can't ask me questions.

The thing is however, your ask said that it seemed like Elena didn't love the baby in my fics, and I understand why such a thing can happen. Elena is still adjusting to all the circumstances around her, which is why she is more focused on them. Not to mention, she's in her early pregnancy, it takes time for some people to bond with the child they're carrying, in a way, and that's exactly what's happening here, though she is slowly bonding. But, Elena has made conscious choices in both fics about what she wants for herself, without external influence.

In the meta I wrote about TVD and in particular about Caroline's situation, I was talking about the fact that the show, as in the narrative, lacks in giving Caroline autonomy. if I recall correctly, Caroline is saddled with children that aren't her own, without anyone asking her, and she feels a certain sense of having to carry those twins to terms, because Alaric doesn't have anyone. It's not just a surprise pregnancy, it's a surprise surrogacy - and then the show itself doesn't treat it with much sensitivity, which is what my complaint was.

On the contrary, Elena in my fics, has a surprise pregnancy. It isn't expected, but she spends a lot of time thinking about her decision. In both fics, she has the agency to get an abortion if she wants, but she chooses not to. That's the reason I got offended, because it felt like you were saying that I wasn't giving agency to my female character, when I do my absolute to make that Elena has her agency, and if she doesn't, then she fights for it, and takes it for herself.

My metas are my opinions, yes, and if I understand correctly, you thought I was planning to write about forced pregnancy and how Elena would get away from it? That wasn't what I meant darling. I was merely analysing a piece of fiction and drawing my conclusions from it. It wasn't really about pregnancy, not in its entirety, at least. It was about the fact that TVD frequently did not allow female characters to make choices.

And I'd like to think that I do give space to my female characters to make their own choices. If, within the fic, they aren't able to do because of another character, then that's because there is an arc in which they will gain their agency.

As for writing about forced pregnancy, I'm afraid it's an extremely complex subject with many social factors playing into it. Such a theme would require extreme nuance, a level that I don't think I possess quite yet, and I don't want to make a mess writing about something as important as this.

Once again, I'm really sorry about the way I said some things in the last post and if that hurt you in anyway. I misunderstood what you were saying, and as you said, things can sometimes get lost in translation. However, I should've handled that situation a lot better than I did, and that's on me. You needn't worry about making sure not to offend me - I'll make sure to communicate in a manner that is conductive for the discussion in the future.

Thank you for apologising, and for sending this post in, it does clarify a lot of that previous misunderstanding.

[ablooglie-wooglie-woo]

Greta's Barbie

I watched the movie yesterday with my sister, and after letting it stew in my mind for a bit, here my general thoughts about it:

First things first, this movie is an accomplishment of production design: from the outfits to the sets, the whole thing is such an authentic recreation of several Barbie's products that it genuinely boggles the mind. I don't know which Oscar category is responsible for these, but if this movie doesn't win at least one, I'm calling bullshit.

I didn't really care for the soundtrack, I can barely remember any of the songs and most of those are there more for the joke than to fill a Amazon Music playlist, anyway.

(I got a free three months after buying a new controller, don't judge me)

All the actors are great in their roles, but biggest kudos goes to Ryan Gosling as Ken, who is a fucking blast every single second he's onscreen, and Gosling is clearly having the time of his life playing the character, joyfully chewing the scenery like a starving dog.

People on Twitter are saying Best Supporting Actor will come down to him and Downey Jr. this year, and while I have yet watch Oppenheimer, I can certainly see the case for Gosling.

Part of it, I think, is because Ken himself gets the best part of the script, his journey from innocent teenager to dude bro to positive bro being great from start to finish.

I'm not saying Barbie herself doesn't get a good arc, mind you, she isn't the personality-less purity incarnate she was in the CGi movies (yes, I did watch those growing up), but it's also much more traditional: what Barbie gets is a coming of age story of a little girl growing out of the bubble of innocence of childhood and embracing all the joys and hardships of the real world.

And it works, it's very well-executed for what it is, but it's also noticeable the way the movie never gives her many significant flaws nor does the narrative ever makes her do anything that puts the audience against her. There's just less to chew on, is what I mean.

Which ties into a criticism I heard that the movie clearly holds back on criticizing the brand of Barbie and even her parent company: for all the movie points out that Mattel's ruled over entirely by men, the CEO is more of a likeable buffoon than someone with any real malice, the entire diatribe the teenage character (whose name I forgot, I think it was Sasha?) is more played more as a joke on how she's a very meanspirited and terminally online bully rather than the perfectly justifiable complaints they are, and so on.

Personally, though, I feel it is to Greta's credit that she knew exactly how far she could push it when it comes to this movie. I've seen way too many stories that attempt something daring only to crash into the wall that is the fact the genre/medium/franchise they're running on doesn't allow for those to be fully materialized, which only ends as the story being worse than something more traditional.

And besides, while the movie might be Feminism 101, it's important to remember that the internet is not the real world, and whichever is your favorite radical feminist author simply has far less reach than a blockbuster movie. It's good that a movie like this can tackle these topics and be this blunt about it, change gotta start out somewhere.

Having said that, while I found those funny, I do think the several self-aware jokes are likely to grate on at least some of you.

All that aside, as someone who watches a lot of movies being parodied in that scene, the Ken War segment made me feel personally attacked.

So that's Greta's Barbie: just a really great time all-around, very worth the price of admission.

PS: There is an inexcusable amount of horses in this movie, fucking overhyped, overrated domesticated pricks is what they are.

PSS: Michael Cera is in this movie. He plays, as usual, a Micheal Cera character. I don't get the hype over him, honestly.

[gamesception]

Metroid games traditionally have been more about gameplay and tone rather than about story and lore. Story has certainly been more relevant in the more recent games, which try to retroactively graft an overarching setting mythology and narrative onto a franchise that didn't really want or need one.

The Prime games have pretty much their own separate story and timeline, and should more or less be considered a separate continuity. I do recommend playing the prime games in order for anyone who wants to try them. Familiarity with rhe main aeries is optional there.

As for the main line games, you can start with any of them (except for Other M), and if there's a bunch of story stuff you don't understand about random bird people & alien dna just reassure yourself that it's not that important. That said, some jumping on points are a bit better than others.

I'd like to recommend the whole series in release order so you can see how much of the framework was there from the beginning and how that framework developed over time and evolved to fit different platforms.

If you have a high tolerance for retro 8 bit games then that's the way to go, but the nes and game boy games are very dated at this point, & the nes game in particular suffers from some critical design flaws (most notably not refilling your health & missles on death), so if you do start there absolutely feel free to abuse save states or employ rom hacks that sand off some of the rougher edges.

For most people I'd recommend starting with Super Metroid, then proceeding in release order from there, going back to try the nes & game boy installments later if you decide you're a fan of the franchise & want to see where it started.

Other M is a special note in that it's uniquely kind of bad. It's an important franchise artefact in so far as it effectively demonstrates why the series isn't and shouldn't be about surface level narrative & character stuff. But it can be safely skipped entirely, and certainly shouldn't be anyone's first metroid game.

Fusion is an interesting starting point. It's a good game. Some genre fans will criticize it for breaking up its interconnected worlds into much smaller zones that it only lets you explore one at a time, but it was originally released on a handheld and thus meant for shorter game sessions. The segregated areas are an attempt to give players a bite size taste of classic metroid exploration while limiting the available places to go to ensure you can make meaningful progress in short play sessions. Metroid 2 on the gameboy did something similar, as did zero mission and the 3ds game 'Samus Returns'. This 'bite-size' design make any of the handheld games a decent starting point, at least mechanically.

So Fusion could be considered a good introductory metroid game. But while I turn up my nose at the narratives in the franchise, the themes are another matter, and the themes of Fusion are better appreciated if you're already familiar with the games that came before it. It's sort of a deliberate subversion & even inversion of the prior games' themes.

It's still fine to start with fusion, but I encourage anyone who does to go back and re-play it again later, after they've played the earlier games, to see if it hits different.

currently playing fusion, should I play the Prime games before getting onto Dread? If so, what's the best way to play them?

Honestly you could do them in either order (Dread doesn't *textually* reference the Prime games) but I would personally recommend that you play through the Primes first, since then you can have a little "hey wait I recognize that" moment in Dread.

Best way rn is to grab the Prime Trilogy ISO from Vimm's Lair and play it using PrimeHack, which is a custom emulator fork that gives them all regular FPS controls and widescreen support.

The Prime remaster on Switch is extremely good though but I'd still recommend PrimeHack just for ease of access, until they at least remaster Prime 2.

[its-captain-sir]

One thing in particular that struck me about this episode was the way death was portrayed. Oftentimes I feel like in an attempt to emphasize the effect a death has on the characters and the narrative it becomes dramatized a bit, you know like slow motion moments and screaming each other's names and swelling music all in a way that's basically a flashing sign for the audience saying "be sad now!" And doing it that way isn't necessarily a bad thing, I can already think of a few examples off the top of my head where that sort of thing has been executed wonderfully, but the way Andor chose to go is very interesting to me and I think it fits with the show much better.

At this point we've spent three episodes getting attached to this group of characters. They're in the endgame now, we want them to win, we want them to all survive. A death now would certainly be something that could warrant a longer screentime focus, but instead it's the opposite here. The deaths of the crew are almost blink and you miss it. I actually had to tell my brother that Lieutenant Gorn was dead cause he did just happen to look away for a quick second the moment he was shot. There's no slow dramatic fall to the ground, they just crumple. There's no sorrowful music playing in the background when any of the crew members die, just sounds of continued fighting or dead silence. And everything happens so fast, it's not some long drawn out thing. They are just there one moment and gone the next.

It may not seem like the show gives any focus to their deaths, but that in itself is an emphasis I thought was really powerful. The show Wants you to have that "there and gone" feeling, wants you to feel shock instead of sorrow, at least in that moment, because that's what the remaining characters are feeling. In the span of a couple seconds, companions are suddenly gone, but they don't have the time to register anything but the initial shock of seeing them fall before they have to keep moving forward, and how the scenes are set up makes it so the audience feels that way too. Even the deaths that do have more build up like Skeen and Nemik keep to this sort of under-dramatized style. Things still happen fast. There's no musical tension, just quiet. Cassian and Val move to the next thing right way because there is no longer amount of time to stop and process how the others are gone.

And the fact that the first time the show chooses to portray death like this is with the characters we really had a chance to get attached to and root for is so interesting to me. I really do think it was a strong choice for the narrative at this point in time and definitely an impactful one. I felt it worked a lot better than any other way they could have gone and I'm really interested in seeing if this is going to be a recurring theme at all in the next six episodes

[a-master-procrastinator]

Long ass post about the Eternal family not being a copy-paste from ATLA (aka I like the memes but my god can you please stop)

Because some people truly think that Vaylin is off-brand Azula, Arcann is Zuko and so on.

It's. Called. A. Trope. (I mean how often do we come across abusive manipulative fathers in media? Mothers who couldn't much to change anything? Children, desperately looking for their parent's approval no matter what?)

Of course, you have to consider the fact that the writing of ATLA is simply better than of KotFE/ET, so this might have been one of the reasons why people say that.

Spoilers for Avatar: The Last Airbender, Knights of the Fallen Empire and Knights of the Eternal Throne expansions!

Okay, so here's my unprofessional, maybe biased, not super deep take.

(not going to mention that all of them are members of royal, ruling family, kinda obvious)

What roles do they play in their stories? Well, both Valkorion and Ozai are main antagonists, but their presence throughout the story is very different. Ozai is rarely shown in first two seasons, we don't even see his face until season 3. He doesn't have a direct connection to the protagonist, they only meet at the very end of the show, and Ozai's role is to pose a threat to the world, while Aang's is to save it. Valkorion, on the other hand, is constantly on the screen, interacting with the main character, challenging their viewpoint and influencing them directly. His end goal is similar to Ozai's (destroy everything and be the only ruler of the his nation), but with one major difference - he's trapped in Outlander's mind, so to achieve his goal Valkorion attempts to take control of the main character. Their interactions play important role in the story, and we spend a lot of time with Valkorion.

In addition to that, their relationship with children are also not exactly the same. It seems like Azula is Ozai's favorite and Zuko is a failure in his eyes until he meets his expectations, and the same goes with Vaylin, Arcann and Valkorion, right? Well, partially. Indeed, Valkorion and Ozai's treat their sons in similar ways (are disappointed in them until they meet their expectation by doing something that goes against their morals), but when it comes to Vaylin and Azula, it's not that easy. See, Valkorion claims that Vaylin was always his favorite creation (even though we know it's actually his empire), and he certainly seems to take pride in her potential in the Force. But her power is the very reason he's afraid of his own daughter, and in this fear Valkorion literally locks Vaylin away and allows to put her through physical and mental torture just to make sure she won't become a threat, won't overpower him. Maybe he thought of her better than of Arcann, but she wasn't his favored child for sure. I don't want to say that Azula hasn't experienced abuse from Ozai, but for the most part he clearly favored her over Zuko. He has never shown fear of Azula's power and abilities (or at least I haven't noticed), quite the opposite - allowed her to do a lot, as long as she brings results.

I could also mention their slightly different characterization (mostly that we get more characterization of Valkorion, get to learn his motivations, views, philosophy and all that, also he's portrayed as more nuanced, even if he not really is) and role in their respective governments (ozai is one of many Fire Lords and arguably not the greatest, while Valkorion is a god to citizens of Zakuul, their only Immortal Emperor), but those are details, and I think you get the point.

What's similar: role of the main antagonist, manipulative and abusive father, goal of destruction of everything that isn't their nation/empire, relationship with disgraced son.

What's different: presence in the overall narrative, relationship with the main character, relationship with daughter, role in their societies.

Senya and Ursa are even less similar. Yes, they both are mothers who love their children, but have to leave them, but these are probably the only things they have in common. Just as with Ozai and Valkorion's presence throughout the story, Ursa is only shown in flashbacks (for obvious reasons), and Senya is one of major characters in KotFE and (a bit less major) in KotET. Ursa leaves because she has to kill Azulon in order to save Zuko, and later isn't present in the story (I'm aware that her fate is told in comics, but we aren't talking about it). Senya leaves because when she tries to take children with her, they refuse, and she understands that she can't force them to, nor she can help them to break free from Valkorion's manipulations. For a long time she's absent from Arcann ad Vaylin's lives, but at the time of game events she attempts to save her children and stop the madness and destruction they've caused, and it isn't a small part of the story.

I also want to add that their relationship with Ozai and Valkorion are also different, but can't say much about Ursa. I heard that she didn't choose this marriage and suffered emotional (and maybe physical???) abuse from Ozai. I can say with confidence, though, that Senya genuinely loved Valkorion, and strangely enough, he seems to at very least respect her. But, of course, this wasn't the best marriage either.

Plus, we see more of Senya's relationship with Vaylin than Arcann or Thexan, but with Ursa we see her more with Zuko than Azula. Just a detail to remember.

(also Senya is simply a better character but that besides the point, moving on. in this house we stand Senya)

What's similar: role of loving and caring mother, abandoning their family at some point.

What's different: presence in the overall narrative, relationship with husband, characterization in general.

Boy, where do I even begin. Vaylin and Azula are similar in that they are both extremely powerful (one is firebending prodigy, the other is potentially stronger than Valkorion), both are cruel "craaaaazy" (i hate that cliché), both are younger sisters, have serious mother issues (seemingly more so than father issues), both go through betrayal of people they could always rely on, which eventually leads to their downfall. But when I took a look at their personal arcs, it became clear that they aren't the same (unfortunately, Vaylin's arc is very rushed and underdeveloped, but we'll have to go with what we have and my personal view, sorry).

There's a really good video about writing corruption and madness, and I'm going to base my thoughts on it. To summarise it: a good corruption arc should have 4 components:

- the character has a specific goal (or a goal and subgoals);

- in pursuit of said goal they become the cause of a significant event that brings serious consequences;

- as the result of these consequences, character abandons their morals, ideals or a code in pursuit of goal;

- character either will not achieve their goal or will succeed, but it won't be enough to satisfy them.

And then the author brings Azula's arc as one of the best examples of compelling story of corruption (so basically, she represents it perfectly). In short, Azula's main goals are perfection and control, and subgoals help achieve the main ones. In pursuit of these goals, Azula causes Mai and Ty Lee to betray her (by pushing them too far to do something they wouldn't do), which then causes her to become paranoid, which makes her to attempt controlling everything and everyone around her, *breathes* which makes her lose control over herself and ....

Now, I thought if Vaylin's arc could fit into a corruption one, and next part will be based a lot on my assumptions and personal view of her character (plus rushed writing doesn't help), but I think yes (or at least mostly). The difference is in goals, ideals and details.

While the story strongly makes us think that Vaylin's goal is freedom (or control over her life and everything around her) or power and destruction, I think it's actually self-determination (which was said by Tenebrae in 6.2) and feeling safe. Let me explain (and here I thought this would be a short comparison). Sure, when Valkorion caged Vaylin on Nathema, he took choices and control over her life from his daughter. But let's not forget whom Vaylin blames for this (even more than Valkorion): her own mother, and I think this details tell us that the most important thing that Vaylin lost on Nathema is feeling safe. Then, after Arcann brought her home, I assume Vaylin still didn't feel safe enough under Valkorion's rule, still too afraid that he'd simply send her back to that hellish place.

It's when Valkorion is struck down Vaylin finally has a feeling of personal safety, even if she isn't the one on the throne. Why? Because back on Nathema there were two people who haven't turned on her - Arcann and Thexan (yes, this is also a huge assumption, bc the game states that only Thexan visited her, but it doesn't make much sense).

I've always noticed (and I'm not alone in this) that her behavior in Fallen Empire is different from the way she acted in Eternal Throne. Most likely bc of rushed writing, but I see a character driven reason here. In first of these expansions, Vaylin is the second person in power on Zakuul, and with Arcann being in charge, person she can trust more than any other living being, she feels safe - she can test her power, and now Valkorion won't prevent it, she can do pretty much everything she wishes, and the most Arcann will do about this is mildly complain (without blaming her). Really would be nice if we got to see any normal hobbies of Vaylin (like wasn't there something about books or art?), but I digress. She might have some questions about Arcann's tactics, but they get along just fine. The important thing to note is Vaylin not seeking to hunt the Outlander personally, to rule or conquer the rest of the galaxy, or trying to achieve absolute freedom or power. She's kinda there.

This, however, changes when Arcann doesn't allow Vaylin to kill Senya. Their relationship was getting somewhat worse towards the end of KotFE, but this is a turning event Vaylin caused by attempting to strike her mother. By saving the person Vaylin blames for all the trauma from sending her to Nathema, Arcann threatened her feeling of safety. And now Vaylin starts to believing that to achieve safety she now needs to kill people who hurt her (that's why she's so determined to find Senya and Arcann), take the throne and hunt down Outlander (she was manipulated by SCORPIO to these subgoals).

(The following is the weakest, I'll admit, but I hope I can at least express what I see). So, in trying to achieve goals she didn't want before Vaylin loses in self-determination, being either driven by overwhelming anger or manipulated by others (SCORPIO or Commander on Odessen), desperately trying to accomplish anything, or even goes against her morals (like by erasing GEMINI's free will protocols, when earlier she agreed that freedom to choose is important; or breaking the deal on Odessen). All of these result in her downfall.

But even this isn't the end. The key difference between arcs of Azula Vaylin lies in it's resolution, or that Vaylin have a chance to overcome corruption in the main narrative (and Azula doesn't. again, not including comics here, sorry). After death, Vaylin is again controlled by Valkorion in Outlander's mind. First time physically (she can't resist it), second time mentally. This is where Vaylin has to choose - kill brother who betrayed her and Commander who killed her, or go against Valkorion, person responsible for almost all of her pain and trauma. She has t choose by herself, and I think it's a good start.

Now, before 6.2 we all thought Vaylin was dead for good, but that story update hinted at possibility of her coming back to life. What I like to think is that now that she dealt with people responsible for her trauma (helped defeat Valkorion and actually for once listened to Senya), Vaylin can now have a different life, finding herself with support of someone she doesn't hold a grudge against and who treats her well (Satele, I mean).

I'm so sorry for going into details, but I needed this long explanation to present the point (and I suck at explanations). As said before, this is my version of her arc, and most likely wrong interpretation, but even with personal freedom of choice, Vaylin character differs from Azula a lot.

Need I mention that Vaylin relationship with Arcann and Valkorion are drastically different from those between Azula, Zuko and Ozai?

(Also a little detail - with royal family of Fire Nation, Azula is the golden child, while with Tiralls it's actually Thexan, not Vaylin).

What's similar: role of extremely powerful, emotionally damaged daughter with little to no regard towards others, close people betraying them, resulting in their downfall.

What's different: characterization, role in the narrative, relationship with father and brother.

Arcann and Zuko is the most difficult part, but I still believe that calling Arcann just a cheap copy of Zuko is incorrect.

So, they fall into role of less successful son, always getting disapproval from father, being in shadow of more talented sibling, both obsessed with capturing the main character but ending up helping them end the war after going through a redemption arc with help of caring family member. Even both have scars on left side of face. Yeah, seems similar. I still think they are different characters.

Let's start with their relationships with family. In Valkorion section I said that his attitude towards Arcann is similar to that of Ozai towards Zuko, so not going to spend too much time here. However, there's slight difference - Zuko didn't kill his father even he had a perfect opportunity (bc it wasn't his goal), Arcann did (bc it was one of his goals), which says something about their characterizations.

Zuko and Ursa were shown to have a good mother-son relationship, and it played a role in Zuko's character. With Arcann and Senya, we don't really know (not much was shown in expansions). We know Arcann didn't hate his mother, but possibly didn't have warm memories of her either. The reason is most likely, like Senya said, her children wanted nothing to do with her (which is a bit untrue about Vaylin, but okay) and leaned more towards Valkorion. We need to remember that on Zakuul Valkorion isn't just one of many great leaders, he's the greatest, and seen as a god by most citizens, so safe to assume the same would apply to his children as well.

Zuko and Azula's siblingship (i'm out of words) is a bit similar to Arcann and Vaylin's in way of brother knowing that his sister isn't good, but still caring about them (even if not showing). At least it's what I saw. What's different is how Azula treats Zuko, compared to how Vaylin treats Arcann. I think Azula showed compassion or concern for Zuko maybe twice, but I'm not entirely convinced that it was 100% sincere. Vaylin, on the other hand, seems to trust and care about Arcann (with bits of sass and questioning his life choices), and switching to complete opposite after him saving Senya. Also, I don't she ever called Arcann a failure in their father's eyes.

Now I want to say that their roles in stories aren't the same either. Sure, both are introduced to us as antagonists, but in reality, Zuko was never a true antagonist (we get to learn this somewhere mid-season 1), when Arcann remains the main antagonist for whole of KotFE. Zuko didn't start a war and didn't participate in conquest of other nations too much, his main goal was to capture the Avatar so to restore his honor (and deserve his father's forgiveness). Honestly, I think it's safe to say the Zuko is one of two main protagonists of ATLA. Why does Arcann want to capture the Outlander? Solely because his father's spirit still lives inside this person's mind, and the best solution to keep Valkorion away from the galaxy is not letting the Outlander free (hence the carbonite freezing). And Arcann doesn't want or need Valkorion's forgiveness when he attempts to kill him (or kills him, depending on your choice. anyway, his action directly leads to Valkorion's "death"). And right after that he becomes a ruler of Zakuul and begins the conquest of Republic, Sith Empire and everything he can reach (the reasoning behind this is still unclear to me though; maybe because he was raised with ruling Zakuul in mind and he didn't anything else, idk). Point is, he's responsible for war and main's character imprisonment, which makes him the main antagonist of KotFE. They have it the opposite ways - Zuko starts as disgraced prince, supported by a little group of people, and in the end he's recognized and appreciated by his nation, and Arcann starts as respected by his empire, later becoming less and less loved, until some groups start rebelling his rule, and in the end he doesn't get to rule Zakuul again.

This leads me to their morals. See, Zuko didn't have the worst morals in Fire Nation, even more, he expressed care for loyals soldiers of his nation before getting punished by Ozai. During first season (and about a half of second one) his views on other nations are what he was taught before. However, these views are challenged by travelling in Earth Kingdom, witnessing people suffering from war Fire Nation started and hating its people (you already know all of this), and with this he comes through final stage of redemption when he's back home. Unfortunately, Arcann doesn't go through this, and he's shown to be more ruthless.

Alright, when it comes to their redemption arcs, well let's say they are different (both in quality and the way they go through it), I'm just a bit tired of long explanations at this point. Zuko's arc is one of the best ever put on television, and Arcann's... well, it definitely has potential, but is criminally underdeveloped (there are other people who will explain it better than I ever could).

What's similar: role of disgraced son, living in shadow of their sibling, serious injuries on the left side of face (though with different meanings), obsession with capturing the main character, having a redemption arc.

What's different: role in the narrative, role in their society, characterization, relationship with sister and mother, different end goals (before redemption), paths to redemption.

[lovelivingmydreams]

Paper Flowers: one step forwards two steps back

Progress isn't always linear. And the setbacks can feel devastating. But it might still be worth it to try and move forward again.

A cute puppy jumps around excitedly, clearly asking to play, in a grassy field, on a sunny day.

Dad lays his hands to his heart. "Aw so cute!"

The dark Lord has his arms crossed, face partially hidden in the shadow of his pulled up hood. "Pathetic," he scoffs, not even looking.

A cat delicately washes her face. Dad gasps. "Elegant!"

Nemesis rolls his eye. "Obnoxious"

A horse prances around a meadow, hair flowing freely in the wind.

Dad stared on in awe and whispered: "Majestic."

Nemesis pinched the bridge of his nose. "Disgraceful"

Suddenly Dad jumped on a bench and pointed frantically at the ground. "Aaah spider!" he screamed.

Nemesis cooed as he knelt down. "Hello there darling!" He gets up, gently petting a massive spider.

Dad screams in horror once more.

 "Well, that was fun," Patton smiled nervously. Virgil looked up at his paternal colleague with a raised brow. The man's body language didn't exactly radiate "I just had fun" energy.

"Plastic spider got you spooked huh?" He mused as he returned his attention to his phone. Thomas just got done filming their character's collab video. Princey's latest very transparent attempt at helping Virgil get along with the others.

"A little," Patton admitted. "But still. I get why Roman enjoys making videos with you so much!"

Virgil suppressed a scoff. There was no real need to point out that it was just Thomas playing caricature versions of them. If Patton wanted to pat himself on the back for this he wasn't going to burst his bubble. So he just shrugged. "I guess," he muttered not noticing how Patton lit up at this small victory.

“Wonderful work you two!” Roman beamed as he entered the commons. Okay, so apparently there was a point in pointing out the obvious.

“Does everyone just forget that it is Thomas who plays these characters? Most we did was toss in a few suggestions. The vine is all you Roman, jeez!” Virgil complained, though he gave Roman the smallest hint of a smile. He wasn’t sure if Roman had started making an effort to give the others credit since they became friends, or if it was just a part of him Virgil only saw now because he spent some actual time around him without shouting insults at each other. Not to say they hadn’t had fights the past… Six months, man time flies. Anyway, their fights could get just as heated as ever. But now after they stormed off to their rooms to cool down, one or the other would eventually knock on the other’s back door with a movie or a snack and an apology. They’d talk things out and make up. It was much better like this. In the past when Virgil’s anger subsided he’d start panicking about… well, everything. Not talking about it afterwards, or even acknowledging that a fight had taken place… Yeah not great.

Roman just rolled his eyes. “Whatever you say Gloom Day. But what did you guys think?” he asked, smile back in place. Roman was already feeling good about today because Virgil had more or less openly complemented him.

“It was amazing Roman! I’m sure the fanders will love it too!” Patton gushed.

Roman gave a little bow. “Thanks padre. Your enthusiasm is appreciated as always.”

This time Virgil could not contain his snort.

“Something funny? Panic at the everywhere?” Roman asked, hands on his hips and a brow raised in challenge.

“Nice one,” Virgil allowed. “It’s just, why even bother asking him? You know he’s going to sing your praises. You can’t sneeze without getting a medal as far as Patton is concerned,” he pointed out.

“That’s not true,” Patton protested gently.

“Well, what did you think then? Oh, sinister one?” Roman asked expectantly, not commenting on the medal thing.

Virgil thought about that for a moment. “I guess it was sort of okay. It was rough on Thomas because Dad and Nemesis have very different energy, but he enjoyed it. The fanders probably didn’t expect the nemesis to interact with other characters,” he allowed, trying to sound reluctant. This time he did see that Patton was beaming. He was really getting too soft around the others.

“Evening everyone,” Logan greeted as he entered the commons. Making Patton get up to get dinner ready and Virgil contemplate whether he’d have dinner in his room or if he could handle a little more social interaction.

“Logan! How did you like today’s project? I am two for two and feeling pretty good, so no need to hold back your criticism,” Roman grinned. Logan cast his eyes to Virgil and then to Patton who nodded, clearly excited to confirm this.

“I see. Well while your intentions were rather transparent, it was a rather good experiment.”

Virgil sat up confused. Did… Did Logan figure them out?

“I don’t have any idea what you are talking about,” Roman grinned innocently.

Logan sighed and adjusted his glasses. “Fine. You ran a test to see how the fanders would respond to the characters loosely based on our personalities interacting. Anxiety and Patton are an interesting first choice. My character and Patton’s would have a more natural combined narrative, but it is effective none the less. I assume that if this gets positive reviews, you will propose other collaborations as well?”

Roman shrugged. “Maybe.”

Virgil felt kind of bad. Roman had promised to stop pushing the subject after things got to a blow with Patton after the whole ‘Marcus’ incident. He should have known that he wouldn’t intentionally push them together.

“Oh Roman! That’s a brilliant idea! That’ll definitely help Anxiety feel less nervous about the whole thing. Right Anxiety?” Patton asked kindly.

Virgil shrugged as he got up to set the table. Just to have something to do.

“You guys do whatever. I’m still not on board.” He didn’t expect them to get it. They represented what people liked about Thomas. His intelligence, creativity, humor, kindness, passion…

He was… as far as everyone was concerned, what hurt Thomas. And yes, he overdid it, a lot. He had tried to be better, honestly, but he couldn’t help who he was.

“We’ll see about that Doominator. I’ll win you over, just you wait. But what did you think Logan?” Roman insisted, pulling Virgil out of his thoughts.

“Well, until we have more data it is hard to say…” Logan started, but then he stopped to ponder. Roman was actively asking for feedback. He had even stated that he could handle it if it wasn’t entirely positive. Maybe he should reward that effort with some of his own.

“Though while I usually would stick with facts, if it is my personal opinion you are seeking…”

An eager nod from Roman confirmed this. Well here goes.

“You all know I am not most in tune with emotions and artistic endeavors. That being said, you did well. The classic broken pattern and the recurring theme of closing off a video including Anxiety and any other character with some form of screaming will almost certainly be well received by the fans.”

Roman was beaming. He had more or less expected someone to criticize the skit in some way, but they all really thought it was good. Maybe the Sanders Sides series could actually happen!

“Dinner’s ready! Thanks for helping out Anxiety,” Patton said pleasantly.

Virgil looked down at the table and found he’d finished setting for four. Guess he’ll be staying for dinner.

He sat across from Patton with Roman to his right and Logan to his left. Roman was brainstorming out loud while they ate dinner, occasionally encouraged by Patton or redirected by Logan when he veered of topic. Once or twice Virgil even muttered a teasing remark which had Roman pouting dramatically and the specs trying to hide their amusement.

It was nice, almost, normal.

He should’ve known then that something was heading his way.

“What do you say Florida Ghoul? Underrated Disney movie night?” Roman asked as they put away the dishes.

Virgil was honestly tempted. Almost all his favorites were in that category. Which Roman knew. They’d argued about the best movies often enough.

But if he started he might lose track of time…

“I have made you all suffer through enough of me I think. I’m going to head down, see what the others are up to.” Thomas was more or less dozing off in front of the tv, he should be fine going down. Maybe he could ask J for a movie night of their own.

“Night,” he waved as he made his way to the door to below. Suddenly he felt someone tug at his hoodie? He looked back, expecting Roman, but it was Patton, looking at him with big shocked eyes.

“Y-you’ll be back though right? We really don’t mind you staying. You don’t have to…”

Virgil raised his hands. “Wow, calm down. What made you think I was going to go back? Permanently I mean.”

Patton looked away, let go of his shirt and started fidgeting with his hands.

That told Virgil enough. He looked up to Roman and Logan. “What did Deceit do?”

Roman got ready to speak, but Logan beat him to it.

“About a week ago, after we first discussed Roman’s Sanders Sides idea, he made a brief appearance. He implied that he might take you back in if we didn’t do a better job of ‘handling you’. Roman and I already assured Patton that Janus has no such power without our aid, but he apparently has not been convinced.”

Virgil glanced to Roman who nodded to confirm that this was how things had played out.

He let out a tired sigh. “I can’t belief this guy. I’ll be right back.”

Before anyone could say anything he rushed down the stairs. His thoughts racing. Was this the first time Janus had tried to guilt the others into being his friends? Had Roman… No… No he couldn’t start down that path. Not yet anyway.

“Janus!” he called out as he entered the living room.

“Virgin!” Remus greeted excitedly. Virgil gave the chaotic gremlin he’d grown up with a quick wave.

“Leave us for a sec Remus,” he growled, not looking away from the yellow clad side.

Janus walked up to Remus, looking at Virgil with confusion.

“Why don’t you go hunt something for breakfast Remus,” Janus suggests. Remus didn’t need any more prompting than that. A second later they were alone.

"Virgil, what's the matter?"

Virgil worked a brow. "What do you think? Why could I possibly be mad at you?" He asked, wanting to give Janus a chance to fess up himself.

Janus took in his body language and expression. This was not the fury he'd expect if he'd somehow discovered Janus had been in his room when he wasn't there.

So that left... "Did the lights really tell on me?" He huffed trying to hide how worried that made him. He had no clue about the context. What did Virgil think happened?

"No. I said I was planning on hanging with you guys tonight with plenty of my usual self deprecating humor and Patton was worried I was planning on staying away. I figured you had something to do with that. Logan told me what happened because I asked," Virgil clarified.

"Now I want to hear your side. The truth J. Please." He really hoped the explanation wouldn't be as heartbreaking as the one in his head.

Janus took in a deep breath. "Okay, bit promise we'll stay on topic. No evading, no beating around the bush." Virgil nodded in agreement.

Janus studied his face for a moment until he was satisfied with what he saw. "Okay. Virgil you have been disappearing. I tried to check up on you a few times the past few months and you were just gone. I allowed you to go upstairs because I thought it would be better for you. But if they are erasing you... I needed them to at least try to keep you. I didn't know what else to do..."

Virgil groaned and pinched the bridge of his nose. "I'm going to skip over the fact that you obviously entered my room while I was our, for now." He took a deep breath. It wasn't a surprise really. Janus and Remus both always just appeared in his room when they wanted to speak with him. So of course Janus had occasionally popped in to find it empty.

"I was probably in the imagination," Virgil confessed.

"The... why? How?!" Janus asked shocked.

"Roman gave me a little meadow to relax. Like 5 months ago I think. Not too long after the prince vs nemesis video's started. I go there when I need a break."

Janus stammered for a few seconds before letting out a utterly perplexed: "Why?"

That hurt a little. Was it that hard to belief?

"He only said he felt like giving me something. Maybe it was because I gave him some constructive criticism earlier and he wanted to try out positive reinforcement. You know he always overdoes everything," Virgil explained. There wasn't a single lie in his statement, so Janus believed him.

"But... he's not supposed to know..." Janus collapsed a hand in front of his mouth, realizing he said that out loud.

"What is Roman not supposed to know?" Virgil growled.

Janus took a small step back. "I... before I sent you upstairs I told Patton and Logan what I was planning and why. I wanted to be sure they'd look after you."

Virgil nodded. That made sense. "Why was Roman not supposed to know that?"

Janus couldn't look at Virgil. "I... told them I was worried what it would do to Thomas if you didn't move to a less stressful environment. I wasn't sure if Roman would be helpful or even more wary of you. So I blocked even the thought of telling Roman about our conversation from their minds."

Virgil was silent for a few moments. Somehow he felt a lot better about everything now. It all made so much more sense.

"Unblock it then," he muttered as he turned around.

"Virgil..."

"Unblock it. I'll see you guys next week or something. Maybe..." J had meant well after all... right?

"Virgil!" Janus called after him, but he was already halfway the upper commons.

When he walked in Roman, Logan and Patton were standing there waiting for him.

"Janus lied. So you don't have to pretend anymore. And you should be able to tell Roman," he said. Hands in his pockets, leaning casually against the doorframe. His old walks back in place. It was better that way.

"Anxiety... kiddo no. You..."

"Just drop it!" Virgil hissed in his tempest tongue, the briefest glimpse of his feral form was enough to make Patton stagger backwards into Logan. Roman was reaching out though. He was still on Virgil's side.

"I was getting sick of all this sappy family stuff anyway," he scoffed before leaving for gos room.

 Roman stormed into the meadow ready to break down Virgil's door if he had to. Virgil hadn't knocked not even once. But he couldn't be left alone with his thoughts now!

He was barely two steps inside when he spotted Virgil sitting there, a crown of purple daisies in his hand.

"You came," the anxious man breathed in relief.

Roman sat down next to him careful to keep enough distance but also be within reach.

"Of course," he said gently. They both knew ge wanted to defend Patton and Logan. To assure Virgil that they never did what they did because they feared he would be pushed to the edge and hurt Thomas in the fallout.

Virgil had explained to him that his discomfort around Patton was due to feeling like the moral side saw him as a ticking timebomb.

The reason for that was painfully obvious now. But how to make Virgik see that Patton was more distant than he wanted to be instead of more welcoming?

"I knew it was all too good to be true. The bubble was bound to burst... I told myself not to get too attached, cause it would end up hurting... I didn't realize... not until earlier. My room is almost back where I started Roman. I litterally pushed them away. And I thought... I thought I'd pushed you away too." Roman could tell Virgil had been crying.

"Preposterous. I'm much too stuborn to get rid if that easily," he assured Virgil. The darker side cracked a smile at that.

"I'm glad I was wrong about that..."

Roman nodded. Virgil had told him how much he hated being right.

"Did I ruin movienight?" Virgil wondered tensely.

"Well I don't know about Logan and Patton. But you and I are going yo watch all those tragically underrated movies."

And with a wave of his hand Roman set out an out doors movie theatre complete with snacks. The sky darkened and Virgil was handed a movie menu.

He smirked as he looked it over. Roman really did have to overdo everything. Including distracting him.

It was appreciated though.

@moonlightshow00 @naturallyunstablegamer @alias290 @meowthefluffy @riverdoesbadart @vpow @apinkline2715 @frida43 @tired-yeetling @firegirl156

Later Virgil would discover that his room was moved just a few feet closer to the upper level again.

Next: adjusting