#media analysis? idk

[highkeyhyuse]

im in the middle of the 3rd book of asc and seeing nightheart doubt his place in either clans so much makes me think of how ravenpaw left the clans and became a rogue . i know its basically the most dishonorable thing in warrior cats but i think itd be kind of cool if we like saw that more often or pondered as a possibility . like clan life seems so suffocating some times itd be neat if more cats just decided it wasnt enough for them and they left

[bixels]

I watched Starship Troopers tonight.

[catwouthats]

Cause the flowers and and life and love and romance and ueueueueuueueuee and they don’t understand how they could love such an idiot, n he pushes them away, but they love him anyways and ueueueuuee

[lastoneout]

Honestly, I don't say it often bcs I know how this site is but I really do think for a lot of survivors of abuse, especially abuse that went on for years and years, sometimes the message "it's not your fault, you didn't do anything wrong/to deserve this" while ABSOLUTELY TRUE* isn't actually super helpful. For a lot of us there's a LOT of guilt tied into it, and even if things were truly out of our hands we will not be able to accept that we are truly blameless, at least not at first, and maybe for some of us not ever. So being told "no dw you didn't do anything wrong <3 <3 you're innocent" feels...idk like some toxic positivity style lies. It doesn't make me feel better, because I still do feel like there were things that happened that were my fault, that were in my control, even an ethicist or god or whoever could look me dead in the eyes, weigh all the facts, and assure me of my complete innocence, and I still wouldn't believe it. (Tbh, you have to be ready to forgive yourself and trying to force it early does more harm than good.)

And I occasionally see movies and shows and stuff get roasted all to hell for having the audacity to go with a different message, to offer abused characters not a platitude about how they are innocent and should forgive themselves asap, but instead say "so what if it was your fault? so what if you fucked up? you're still alive, you still have time, your mistakes(or perceived mistakes) don't make you irredeemable scum who deserves to suffer, it's okay that you fucked up, what matters is what you do next, and even if the horrible thing was your fault in one way or another or you did actually hurt people, you still did NOT deserve to be hurt in turn" because people think that is like, admitting that the person in question is at fault when they almost always aren't....but as an actual survior, I'm sorry, you can tell me I'm innocent till the cows come home and I won't believe it. What I need to hear is that even if it was my fault I didn't deserve to be treated that way. I still deserve help. I deserve to keep going. I am not forever stained by my mistakes. I deserve a future free from this pain.

I think before we look at things in this like...grand moral way where we try to make sure we're sending the most Correct and Healthy Message Possible, sometimes it's worth asking if that message is actually the one the people it's about need to hear. I'm sure for some people it is very freeing to be told it's not their fault, but that kind of message does not resonate with me. And I, as well as people like me, deserve to expirience stories about us that are cathartic, that resonate, that make us feel seen, and to not have to see everyone and their mom throw a fit because what helps us is "problematic".

Anyway this has been mulling around in my head for a while and I def have a lot more to say about the way guilt manifests in trauma born of abuse, but yeah I just feel like this is something that should be talked about when we bring up abuse narratives and how well written they are and if they send the Correct Message, because the "Correct Message" is never going to be the same for everyone. And that's true of ANY demographic you could choose to represent!

Like some disabled people might enjoy the "magically healed" trope while others find it offensive. Some trans people like stories where transitioning is easy as drinking a potion or getting a fancy futuristic surgery and some find that that trivializes their struggles. Some queer people want stories where there's just no homophobia at all, others find that a world without it feels fake and patronizing. Some women do want to read stories about how keeping hearth and home is noble and empowering and others want read about women who have other jobs and never have kids or get married. For some of us "you're beautiful no matter what" is lovely and some of us just want to be told being fat and hairy and having acne and scars and shit is normal and fine. Or, like the last post I reblogged says, sometimes "you're not a burden" doesn't hit as well as "being a burden isn't a bad thing". No one type of representation is ever going to work for everyone, and that doesn't mean one type of rep is objectively wrong and the other is objectively right.

So yeah, the next time you find yourself angry because you think a story is sending the wrong message about a marginalized or harmed group, maybe stop for a second to ask yourself if it's actually harmful...or if you're not the person who the story is speaking to, and if there's someone it is talking to who desperately needs to hear what it has to say.

(*Getting ahead of this now: Do not put words in my mouth. I am not saying that any abused person in any way deserved their abuse or was at fault for it happening, that is not up for debate. The fault is always in the hands of the person who chose to hurt them. I'm just saying it's nuanced and complicated and guilt is a huge fucking issue that survivors have to deal with all the time and it's not wrong to acknowledge that some of us are always going to feel like we did something wrong and not be eased by being told otherwise even if the person saying it is 100% correct and/or means well. I do not have time for people who are going to willfully misinterpret me. You will be blocked.)

[cryoalliums]

Something i never saw anyone talk about was how the trial in “Escape from reality” wasn’t only for Mabel, But also for Dipper.

People tend to brush the trial off as “Dipper reasoning with Mabel” but isn’t only that, it isn’t that all in my perspective.

The trial serves as a way to remind both twins of everything they’ve been through together. Reinforced by the fact that it shows bad moments from both of their lives.

Yes these were shown in Xyler and Craz’s speech to prove their argument that fantasy is better than reality, but it proves the exact opposite to Dipper.

I actually think this speech was constructed in a way that would allow Dipper to reach the opposite conclusion, probably influenced by Mabel’s subconscious — her subconscious desire to go back to reality weakly fighting against Bill’s hypnosis — as we know it affects the entirety of Mabel-Land

No matter if that’s true or not, it still helps Dipper build his own case, as we know he didn’t even have an argument ready previous to being put in trial, as it was completely unprompted, and even worse provided him no attorney ,leaving him to fend for himself.

We know for a fact that Dipper’s argument was constructed based on Xyler and Craz’s case as it shows him holding notes, ones that he probably took mid-speech.

Being faced with these memories reminds Dipper that whenever reality got rough they were always there for each other. I think that at the start of the trial Dipper still intended to take Ford’s apprenticeship, and this is the moment he decides otherwise.

This is the moment he realizes that he doesn’t want to be holed up in a lab, that he wants to grow up alongside Mabel.

After that he shows his conclusion to Mabel, which subsequently brings her back to her senses. This trial was meant for the both of them, to bring back both of the twins from their own respective fantasies by making them realize how much they actually suck.

Mabel realizes that staying in Mabel-land would mean never actually growing up, being trapped inside a dream-like state forever, leaving all her friends and family behind. It would mean never being able to see her brother again after he loses the trial since he would be banished.

Dipper realizes that taking Ford’s apprenticeship would mean growing up too fast, being trapped in his studies for his entire life, leaving his friends and family in favor of acquiring knowledge. It would mean losing his sister.

They both leave these fantasies behind in favor of each other, and yes they might be scared, terrified of what’s coming after since weirdmaggedon is still going on after all. But they know that they will always be there for each other, it’s the one thing they’ve always known.

They know it will be okay because they are together, since they will go home together, no matter what.

[tropicalcryptid]

My Favorite Detail in Farscape is [Spoilers!]

Ok for real spoilers for the entire show including Peacekeeper Wars, so I'll put a gif here and you all agree to scroll on past if you don't want spoilers for a show that ended in 2004.

Ok, so for everyone still here, my all-time favorite detail in Farscape is one that I didn't catch until my second watch-through, and I don't think it's common knowledge in the fandom. (Edit: apparently it's more commonly known about then I realized! Obviously this is because Farscape fans are keen-eyed and insightful and starved for content lol). It's certainly never mentioned or pointed out in the show itself. But it's just so perfect that I get giddy everytime I think about it.

So after Crichton gets twinned, in "Thanks for Sharing," Crichton A gets injured in the bar explosion on that planet that puts lobsters on your head. He is left with a cut above his left eyebrow, and the resulting scar can be used to tell the two Crichtons apart for the rest of season 3 (Crichton A is the one on Talyn with Aeryn).

Wound in "Thanks for Sharing"

Scar visible on Crichton A

No scar on Crichton B aboard Moya.

(Also frell me it's hard getting clear pics / gifs for this show somebody get on that)

Anyway, the scar/injury is never really addressed after that first episode, it's just a super-subtle costuming detail that shows the two Crichtons are now living separate lives. Crichton A then dies after finally achieving everything he ever wanted, Aeryn is heartbroken, drama ensues. The question is raised and discussed often, with much angst: which Crichton was the real one? Did Aeryn fall in love with the original or the copy?

Of course, Crichton B eventually accepts that they were both "him" and yet both individuals too, and Aeryn eventually says "There is no longer any difference in my mind." So it's resolved, mostly.

BUT.

2.5 seasons later, at the end of "The Peacekeeper Wars" Crichton B finally activates the wormhole weapon. After Einstein unlocks the knowledge for him, he returns to Moya bloody and hurt. And for the rest of the movie, he has a wound, and then a scar--a small cut above his left eyebrow.

It's never mentioned. It happens right near the end, when obviously a lot of other things are going on. It's really, super easy to miss. But I think it's amazing. They both really were the real Crichton. And even when they split and began leading separate lives--their destiny was still the same. The timelines reunited, kinda, or two separate possible outcomes synced up. It's such a beautiful, perfect bow to wrap up one of the most emotionally powerful arcs in the show. I just love it. Farscape really is in a league of its own.

[pop-punklouis]

-

[shannonsketches]

[theluckiestlb]

[mangosaurus]

currently thinking about how chaos theory turns the traditional love triangle on its head and i'm actually half tempted to write a post about it but i just know that if i do it's gonna turn into an entire essay and frankly i'm not about that life right now

[ambrosykim]

i find it an interesting detail that this is where the thumbnail comes from, specifically the frame where he says "demonized" (from the titular song)

now i've only watched npmd once so idk if there's any like. subtext as to if max was a typical bully in how if he bullied others due to his own background or insecurities or if he was just genuinely just a terrible person, but it seems interesting that starkid chose this specific frame to go on the thumbnail (i get it he does look frightening and cool at once and it conveys the vibe of the musical)

i mean it's obvious that he's a completely deranged person (i think especially after coming back from the dead) but yeah, what i thought was interesting, was that by starkid choosing this specific frame, they're also immediately demonizing him to anyone that stumbles upon the musical, even before starting it so!!!

[spaceprinceencie]

I think about Nagito’s death at the end of SDR2 a lot. There’s so much symbolism and meaning in it. His death reflects a lot of the other deaths from the first game, which is a cool easter egg, but the meaning of that also kind of blows my mind. 

The symbolism of how he’s embodying so much of the despair from the first game, compiled into a single death. How he’s depending on his luck to burn out every last ounce of despair from this death game, while also embodying every ounce from the last one at the same time. He - intentionally/consciously or not - is embodying as much despair as he can so he can burn it all away and bring hope. 

But most recently I’ve also been thinking a lot about the spear. 

Because there’s two major ways you can interpret Nagito’s luck cycle: either luck is a real supernatural force that exists in the DR universe, or Nagito is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Personally, I do think it’s hard to argue that everything that happens to Nagito throughout the series is totally unrelated to some greater supernatural force. But I also think it’s so tragic to think of his luck cycle as just a bunch of psychological tricks. So a little bit of this is a “what if”: even if it’s not the most likely explanation, there is a way of arguing for it and I think that’s interesting. He believes with all his heart that he’s cursed by this luck cycle. That good and bad will happen to him in extremes, in waves. Confirmation bias tells us he’ll pick out that pattern easily, searching for evidence that supports his understanding of the world, and then presenting what is essentially cherry-picked evidence to other characters. Which is often what we see of his luck cycle: the narrative he has constructed. Then, throw in how he’d subconsciously make decisions and put himself in situations that further supports his view of himself and the world. He might purposefully put himself in precarious positions when he thinks there’s bad luck due. He might do something like hang a spear above his own head. That act, metaphorical or literal, is then, also sort of his essence, isn’t it? Nagito hangs spears above him, poised to kill him, and waits for his luck - real or not - to use them. And when the spear falls, because if you keep hanging spears above your head eventually they’ll fall, he calls it intentional and purposeful. He calls it part of his luck cycle. But how much of it is really luck, and how much of it is that he’s just hanging spears and waiting? How much of it is that he really believes he deserves bad luck or pain or hurt? Honestly, we don’t know exactly if the poison killed him before the spear did. We can certainly assume it did, since Monokuma rules Nanami the killer, and because the spear was supposedly released upon Nagito’s death (and the nature of the poison). However, I think there’s enough doubt in there to argue that, even if its unlikely, the spear did kill him. Monokuma could’ve lied, there was no one and no way to prove him wrong after all. The poison could’ve weakened Nagito just enough that he wasn’t dead until the spear impaled him. 

Just, think of the potential symbolism of the fact that we can only assume- based on incomplete and biased observations - that the poison killed him. That Nagito’s luck killed him. From that biased assumption, we are led to believe his luck is cyclic and intentional. Just like everything Nagito does and says could be seen as a biased presentation of evidence that leads us to the same conclusions. But realistically we can also assume that Nagito just killed himself by hanging a spear over himself and waiting. We can also assume Nagito's luck isn't as drastic as he claims. What if, in reality, he just keeps hanging spears above him and waiting, maybe even hoping, they fall?

[qweenofurheart]

idk if this makes sense but i feel like good media starts with making the youngest character in the story in their late 20s-early thirties, and everyone else be older.

you can have different opinions about this obviously but i love when media has all of the characters be fully-formed as people but still have the unsureness that everyone carries through life.

its so hopeful seeing stories with people in their 60s and up, still capable of change.

especially we now live in an age where 26 is considered old by tiktok… your teenage years are not even CLOSE to the ‘peak’ of your life (even though every ya novel and show seems to be adamant on this!) you can still change up until the moment of your death!

[godmademeinmspaint]

Going to say this now even though I barely post here::::: Adaptations are never meant to be a 1:1 recreation of the original source material. The goal is never to recreate the exact same experience in a different format, the whole point of remaking something in a different format is to make something new.

I don’t understand why people are out here acting like the new Netflix ATLA walked onscreen, shot the original with a 44 and declared itself the new ATLA. I’m not saying you can’t criticise anything about it or any other adaptation, I just think a lot of people need to remember that an adaptation that gives you the same experience and explores the exact same themes and doesn’t elaborate on or look at things in different angles would be utterly pointless.

[writeouswriter]

People out here like oooh I shouldn't be relating to this villainous character, this character who does bad things, this character who has questionable morals; yes, you should be! You should be looking at the warped funhouse mirror and analyzing what you see there! That is not an accident! The world is not black and white, good and bad, us and them; if you start thinking there's a clear dividing line, that you could never possibly relate or end up like them or they could never have ended up like you, that's how they get you!

You and the rest of humanity are a swirling pool of grey and these characters are, in many instances, a way to reflect on yourself... because recognizing the self through the other not only gives valuable insight into you and those around you in general, but also lets you see how you can avoid making the same mistakes or how you could, given differing and worse circumstances, see exactly where they're coming from and become just like them if the tables were turned, making you more mindful, more empathetic, more open to questioning or accepting your own flaws, and just... so much more.

That's inevitably worded fuzzily, and I've said it before, but the point is, it's not a bad thing to relate to these characters, it's an (often) *intended* and invariably human thing because humans are messy and complex and shaped by all kinds of simultaneously unique and yet universal shared experiences, and in the end, people are people are people, bound by the laws of chaos.

And yes, there may be some exceptions in how you may approach this, but not without nuance.

[coffeenonsense]

I usually try to stay in my lane most of the time (mostly bc I am far too old for fandom drama) but what the hell, it's friday, let's put that lit degree to use:

the way people are playing morality politics with fiction is really starting to genuinely irk me and I think some of the responses to ascended astarion are a perfect example of why this type of thinking is actually hugely detrimental to one's ability to meaningfully engage with fiction and also to the future of art.

astarion is one of the most well-written complex characters I've seen in recent years bar none (and I'm clearly not alone given the explosion of his personal fandom lol) and he has a truly compelling, emotionally resonant character arc whether you ascend him or not

If you keep him a spawn, you get a deeply touching, realistic character's journey to healing and personal growth where he learns who he is after the experience of his trauma and depending on the player's choice, explores his relationship to sex, romance and intimacy

If you ascend astarion, you get an equally emotional and well-rounded character arc where he chooses the power that allows him to have the desperate freedom and safety he's wanted, but in the process eschews any hope of real healing or personal development, and again, depending on the player's choices, restarts the cycle of abuse by taking cazador's place.

These options offer vastly different paths for the character and experiences for the player, but while yes, ascended astarion is the evil ending, and yes, ascending astarion is a tragedy, and a fucking incredible one (not only do you have astarion reigniting a circle of abuse but you have the narrative weight of KNOWING he could have actually overcome his trauma...hats off to the bg3 team tbh) but that does not mean ascending astarion MAKES YOU AS THE PLAYER EVIL

Ascend astarion because you love tragic story arcs, ascend him because you want to indulge in a master/slave vampire fantasy, don't ascend him because you want a healing character journey, don't ascend him because you want a sweet romance; all of these choices carry the same moral weight for the player, which is to say, none, because they are an exploration of fiction.

I know I'm saying this to the villain fucker website but it bears repeating; just because someone wants to engage with evil, fucked up characters or content does not mean they support evil acts in their real life, and furthermore, exploring dark, taboo or tragic concepts safely is part of what fiction is for. It enables us to look at those things from a distance, work through difficult feelings and develop greater understanding of what makes our fellow humans tick — and before you get it twisted there's also no moral issue with exploring fucked up media bc you're horny or just, because. You can take it as seriously (or as sexily) as you want.

It's starting to really concern me how many people not only do not get, but are violently opposed to this concept, because equating what someone likes in fiction with their real life moral code and actions is an incredibly dangerous and let's be honest, immature way of thinking that not only stunts your ability to engage with fiction but ironically, hampers your ability to deal with complicated issues and emotions in real life.

I don't know what's driving this trend (though purity culture is certainly playing a role) but it's definitely something that's not just impacting individuals but contributing to the commercialization of art, where we get games and stories and tv shows and books that regurgitate the same safe, mass marketable plotlines and character archetypes over and over and over again so corporations can squeeze out as much profit as possible.

Anyway, remember kids: There's no such thing as thought crime, reaching for morally pure unproblematic media is directly contributing to the death of art, and this is why funding the humanities is important.