#my tags were worthy???

[thatrandomblogsays]

Annabeth: I, a child, had to earn Thalia’s love, that’s how the world works! I have to earn my moms love. Love is transactional, you gotta be worthy of it first silly :)

Percy, listening to this on the train

[hersweetrevenge]

[murderous-wolf-daddy]

So uhhh awards to Bradley Cooper for that scream please. Yeah, THAT one. That's the kind of despair and fear and rage I want to see when characters lose someone they love. The anguish and helplessness of not being able to do anything in a moment like that was shown so well. That was honestly one of the best portrayals of grief I've seen in a long time.

[canonically47]

nobody will ever get how hilariously important it is to me that in this gayass scene you can see the romanian flag behind. like fuck yes finally my kind of representation

[agentnatesewell]

Describe your OC as memes! Four or however many - and I picked ten!

Thank you for the tag @lalizah my beloved, and taking darling @gauntlings open tag!

For Surina

Tagging (no pressure!): @nat-seal-well @wayhavenots @carriehobbs @thelionheartedo3 @kibellah @nsewell @detective-odell @itsmistyeyedbi @itsren-again @serenpedac @anticupid16 @codename-mango @grapecaseschoices and YOU! Please tag me if you do this

[river-fisher]

The Real Bobby Fulbright and Morality

Hey hey! I am back with yet another analysis post, this time focusing on Fulbright's morality! I often see fanon interpretations of him - that are super fun! - but I also feel like they focus on the positive aspects of his personality and avoid the darker ones, so I will be rambling about that under the cut! Enjoy B)

Before we get into specific examples, it is worth pointing out that this analysis is based off of:

The theory that Dual Destinies didn't originally have the phantom as the main villain.

That the phantom was included later in the story after several chapters were already finished.

The theory that Dual Destinies was going to deal with darker themes before it got altered.

Now, although I have more detailed arguments on why I believe in these points, this post is not about that (Though if anyone wants to hear my thoughts about it, I'd love to yap about that in another post ^^). In a nutshell, Fulbright's behaviour changes in between cases, in a way that suggests that his character was revamped. I believe that Fulbright was originally written without the phantom in mind.

Thus! While his character might've had his purpose shifted, if my belief is correct, then The Monstrous Turnabout - the first case with Fulbright - is the most accurate glimpse into what the real Bobby Fulbright was like. Yes, we are meta analysing it up in this house!

Via the assumption that The Monstrous Turnabout has the original idea for the real Fulbright, we can make some interpretations of what he's like, despite the canon saying it was the phantom impersonating him! ^^

So, onto actual examples (lovingly chosen from my transcript) and analysis!

Starting off strong, we first meet Fulbright with him wanting to arrest Apollo and Athena. Yes, there is the potential reasoning of "disturbing a crime scene", but the lawyers had only just gotten there. They had done nothing wrong. That is unlawful arrest! Them coming to the crime scene had several explanations, and yet Fulbright won't even hear them out:

[???] “Hey, who are you and what are you doing here? This is a crime scene!”

[AJ] “And who are YOU? Are you with the police?”

[???] “I asked first! Who are YOU and what are you doing here?! On second thought... I’m placing you under arrest for disturbing a crime scene!”

He prioritizes lunch over actual, genuine justice here, not even bothering to hear them out. He only changes his tune after finding out that they're lawyers. Even then, he doesn't allow them to investigate. Though that is what all Ace Attorney detectives do, I think the subtle threat that comes afterwards is important.

[AJ] “Ack! Under arrest?! B-B-But...”

[???] “Save it for the boys back at HQ! Now, come quietly or else! I don’t want to be late for lunch!”

Yes, he never pulls out a gun in the series (besides attempting to do so in Turnabout for Tomorrow as the phantom), but I believe that the inherent threat and power that Fulbright holds in this situation is worth mentioning. Apollo's assumption that Fulbright could pull out a gun is also quite telling in my opinion. Fulbright is a cop at the end of the day.

[BF] “Cease and desist at once, or you’ll have to deal with my little friend here!” { Hand goes to his holster }

[AJ] “Ack!” (Yikes! Is he reaching for his...?!)

[BF] “In justice we trust!” { Shows badge }

[AJ] “...!” (Phew, it’s just his badge.)

[BF] “This door simply will not open! We’ve tried and tried, but it won’t budge! It’s an essential part of the culture found in this manor, so we can’t blow it up either!”

The next concerning aspect I've found, is the seemingly normalized use of excessive force. The only reason they're not blowing up the door is because of its cultural significance. That is insane! It can be argued that it's not Fulbright's decision, however, the lack of reaction from everyone involved signifies to me that this is the norm.

With this moment, I wish to point out Fulbright's black & white thinking. I acknowledge that this is consistent for all detectives in the series, but it is a piece of characterization that is very important - Fulbright is very quick to call Tenma a villain, evil, a fiend. Thinking that someone is guilty and thinking that someone is evil are quite different imo.

[AJ] “So you still think Mayor Tenma is responsible?”

[BF] “That’s right! Damian Tenma is an evil fiend who must be banished from this world! Now, take my hand and together we will defeat this evil!”

[BF] “I won’t fall for that, you shameless rascal! I only help good little boys and girls!”

In general, Fulbright tends to think in an us vs them mentality - the people he likes are good, while the ones he dislikes are bad. He helps good people and puts away bad people. In a sense, yes, that's what a cop is supposed to do.

[BF] “Ha ha! My investigations are as thorough as they are foolproof, or my name isn’t Fulbright! I vow to resign immediately if I ever make a false arrest!”

However, this line paints a grim picture. Fulbright implies that he has never made a false arrest. That is statistically impossible, and implies that he has not only made false arrests before, he has also managed to get them convicted! The fact that the first time we meet him, he tries to arrest us only amplifies this point!

[BF] “What?! Are you questioning my sense of justice?!”

When he is confronted with an argument against his beliefs, he hides behind justice. In a way, he hides behind his badge, the very item that allows him to make the decisions on who is being painted as guilty, and who is not. In fact, he doesn't even question his beliefs.

[BF] “Prosecutor Blackquill! We’ve had enough of your hijinks! The foundation of justice is fair play, and you are in serious violation of that!”

And finally, the so-called 'jolts of justice'. I've seen arguments in the past claiming that the real Bobby Fulbright would never use electrical shocks on Blackquill. I politely disagree. Considering all the previous examples, I think it aligns with his behavioural patterns and is the epitome of his morality.

And thus, I would like to briefly propose my personally crafted theory about Dual Destinies: The game was originally going to delve into darker themes, and Fulbright's corruption was at the center of that.

Yes, Fulbright believes in justice, in good and bad. He has good intentions. But at the end of the day, he is a cop that holds power over others and justifies his wrongdoings with... well, justice. So long as he believes that he is doing the right thing, he is willing to reach for extremes.

I think this is often missed due to Fulbright's comical mess ups and overall cheery and charming demeanour. The characters don't really react to his more... extreme decisions either.

Consider a world where the phantom was not the main twist of the series, but some aspects remained. Such as... The tampering with evidence... Abusing police position to cover up a crime... Framing innocent suspects... It fits into the previously showcased negative traits of his.

Ergo, the real Bobby Fulbright might not be as justice-driven as many may believe. There are many details that tend to get overlooked when it comes to him, especially in fanon. Which is fine and good! It is comforting to think of a policeman that does his job properly. However, I also find this darker side absolutely fascinating and worthy of discussion.

Thank you for reading, and I hope you enjoyed this silly analysis post! Do feel free to argue or ask questions, I love a good debate and I love yapping <3

[ikana-graveyard]

He’s just like me fr

[volfoss]

i think honestly what irritates me about yoshidas work SO much is that people will tell you that banana fish is THE gay manga (ignoring the many things that came before it and were more groundbreaking, ie MW literally having on screen (or like. on panel but still.) gay sex in it and that came out like a decade before BF did) when there really isn't barely any gay rep outside of the pedophiles and the one time ash drops the f slur. like im sorry but somehow yasha, a work she wrote in 1996, has more gay rep in it but also has the same issues.

i truly do not get how people can enjoy banana fish with the rampant racism every 2 pages or the rampant sexual assault plotlines (on women and ash bc he is just... written like how yoshida writes women lmao) that are handled IMPOSSIBLY bad and sincerely i hoped yasha would be better because it had been like a decade or so between works. and then it proceeds to continue with the heres our blonde genius protagonist who everyone is weird as fuck to and will sexually harrass and everyone finds it a VERY funny joke to point out how feminine he is when theres barely any women in the work (if you exclude the ones that are being raped/killed/creepy to minors. which to be fair yasha has toned down the sa a LOT) and that its funny that hes kind of gay except not really!! and its just absurd to me how it just persists in all of her stuff because she is not an author that handles gay stuff well. like the scene in banana fish where ash is completely ok getting gang raped and did it solely to get into the hospital when its been SHOWN that he has a lot of trauma with that. and then right after his friend makes a joke at ash's expense about that. like sincerely and genuinely is this what we are hyping up as the old retro gay manga. go read some tezuka and stop reading shit that the most the main characters do is share a kiss in a nonromantic sense and is obsessed w making every gay person be evil!!

[itwoodbeprefect]

one thing i have to hand to people online who leave reviews on obviously low budget westerns is that at least they don't complain that it's an obviously low budget western. it seems that i can't say this for some of the people leaving reviews on obviously low budget queer movies

[itsmistyeyedbi]

And the kiss! (in addition to this)

○

○

○

I'm not tagging this because the tags are just me rambling about my thoughts on what a says here. I guess it could be t/w/c critical? But barely I think lol.

[paperlovesadness]

No, because I'm not over processing "Now & Then" and freaking out about what a perfect epilogue it is for the Beatles, but also what a perfect homage it is to John & Paul's friendship. And how much it feels like destiny.

The words "Now & Then" have so many strange ties to these boys. Because:

-> John's last words to Paul (during a meeting that no one could expect was their last) were: "think about me every now & then old friend".

-> John was murdered in December 1980. In February of 1981 a friend of Paul's - fellow musician Carl Perkins spent a week with him, participating in a recording of a song for his album. To thank him and Linda for their hospitality during the time, the night before he was meant to leave, Carl sat down and spontaneously wrote them a song titled "My Old Friend". He played it to them the next morning and Paul started crying and had to leave to gather himself. Linda McCartney then assured Carl it was okay and thanked him for helping Paul, because he had problems facing his emotions about the attack before that. And then she stopped and asked him "but how did you know?" and Carl had no idea what she meant. She explained that the only people who knew what John's last words to Paul were was her and Paul himself. And then she revealed what those words were. Carl had no idea, but he ended up accidentally including them in that song.

The chorus of that song went as follows:

My old friend, Thanks for inviting me in My old friend, May this goodbye never mean the end And if we never meet again this side of life In a little while, over yonder, Where it’s peace and quiet My old friend, Won’t you think about me every now and then

Paul then insisted on recording that song with Carl Perkins, which they did - and recalling that story later Carl said that Paul felt like that song was sent to him by John through Carl.

-> By now we all know the story of how this "new" Beatles song came to be - After John's death, Yoko found a demo tape of songs he never completed, that she then handed over to Paul so that him, George & Ringo could record the last new Beatles songs in 1995 as part of an anthology that was being released. (they wanted to record new material, but had promised never to do so without all the members included. So using these demos was the only way).

There's lots of places that claim the tape with the demos had "For Paul" written on it by John - but admittedly, I haven't actually seen a source quoted. Still - the fact that one of the songs on that last demo of new material they ever got from John was titled with some of the last words he ever said to his best friend? The lyrics of that song being what they are? Come on.

(It very much also just felt like a song for Paul to me. With how complex that relationship was - how intense all the emotions were - through love and diss tracks to still calling each other best friends while they weren't on good terms. Missing each other).

Then - destiny working the way it did, not allowing them to record that one track in 1995 because of the awful quality. Making it so that it was their actual last song in 2023. Because only now did the technology allow for seperating those vocals and fixing them up so that they can actually be used.

Like are you kidding me??? It was that one. The one that felt most special.

-> Bonus fact. The back of the record sleeve has a photo of a special art piece on it - from George Harrison's collection. One that provides another serendipitous moment in connection to these words:

Image source: [x]

And I'm just supposed to be alright with all of this?????????

[swordsonnet]

maybe i'm missing something here, but it always confuses me when i see things like "some autistic people are disabled by their autism and some aren't" or "not everyone sees their autism as a disability". because... autism very much is a disability?! if you're autistic, then your symptoms must be present in a way that is disabling to you in your everyday life. it's literally in the diagnostic criteria. of course the extent to and areas in which you're disabled can vary greatly depending on the individual, but disability is part of the basic definition of autism, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter.

don't get me wrong, it's still much better than "autism is only a disability because of capitalism" because at least it doesn't make sweeping generalisations that aren't even remotely accurate to the lived reality of most autistic people. but it still perpetuates incorrect assumptions under the guise of personal choice, and honestly feels like an attempt to distance autism from disability in general. being disabled is nothing to be ashamed of, and i wish people wouldn't twist the meaning of autism to remove disability from it.

(and yes, that goes for level 1/low support needs autistics as well. i would be considered level 1 (though i wasn't diagnosed that way) and i'm still disabled by my autism! not to the same extent as many other people, sure, but i'm still disabled. if i wasn't, i wouldn't be autistic.)

[thoughtpeek]

I'VE FINALLY FINISHED BROTHERSHIP IT WAS SOOOOO GOOD!!!!!!!

[gothsuguru]

you reblogged the kfc breakup gifs and now your tags have me thinking about the orpheus and eurydice of it all.. AOUUUUEUHGHHHHHIG SUGURU NOT LOOKING BACK... SATORU GETTING CAPTURED A DECADE LATER BECAUSE HE COULDNT HELP BUT LOOK BACK.... I NEED HADES TO TAKE ME TO HELL NOW I CANT DO THIS ANYMORE

fawn my beloved you couldn’t begin to imagine the Psychic Damage that you just gave me……….. I LOVE GREEK MYTHOLOGY SO MUCH SO YOU SAYING THAT SATOSUGU IS GIVING ORPHEUS & EURYDICE… RAHHHHHHHHH something about suguru not looking back and forging a path toward will always stick with me… knowing he’d be damned if he looked back + knowing it’s not even an OPTION anymore to go back to the way things were because of everything he did… yeah.

AND YOU’RE INSANE??? OMG I NEVER EVEN THOUGHT OF THAT… SATORU BEING CAPTURED AND IMMOBILIZED BECAUSE HE LOOKED BACK… because he heard the voice of someone who was beloved to him. i can’t imagine the shock awe joy & horror of it all… there must’ve been a split second where he truly in his heart of hearts believed his best friend came back but then realized that no… that’s not Him. that Thing is wearing the face/body of my beloved but no that’s not HIM. and suguru’s arm working on instinct like a dragonfly with its head cut off… satosugu ACTUALLY make me lose it

ALSO HADES!KENJAKU………. 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫 entrapping both satoru and suguru… kenny was so cunty & crazy omfg

[guinevereslancelot]

daily post-it doodles 💖

[blorboresidue]

as usual when rewriting a fic it has very quickly become obvious how correct a choice rewriting it was. however. I am in agony