#no analysis no nothing

[riddlertrophy]

saw nosferatu again still didn't like it

i'm so mad about it because it's like all the sex stuff is gonna make the most annoying people on the internet be the most annoying people on the internet so i feel like i have to be like noooo that's not why i hated i please i just thought the middle was boring as hell the pacing is crazy and bill skarsgard's performance was unforgivably dog ass please i'm not with them please

[abessive-art]

*Archives your Magnus*

[chloeapplepi]

as a victim it makes me really frustrated when people see yuri briar as incestuous. i'm not a fan of him and he makes me uncomfortable at times so i don't have all the information about him off the top of my head, but i just want to give a bit analysis in defense of him.

he is not in love with, nor attracted to, yor. he has not just childhood trauma but shared trauma with her. she is also his only family member, which is a fact that he is overly aware of and affects his mental state and actions deeply. he has unhealthy attachment and codependency towards her as she is the only family and also the only close connection he has, as well as because she took on a motherly role for him as the oldest sibling. he feels like he needs to work hard to protect her out of his own love and to feel worthy of having received her love.

i feel like people forget because of how he is towards loid that yuri genuinely wanted yor to have a boyfriend. he even offered to introduce her to someone. but even when you objectively want something, that doesn't mean you'll have only positive feelings when it comes to fruition. he wants for yor to be in a happy relationship but at the same time, he does not know loid. his very most important person is living with someone who is a total stranger to him, and didn't tell him about it for a whole year.

that alone would naturally make anyone somewhat suspicious. then you have to consider that seeing them married also hammers into yuri the fact that he cannot always be there with yor. he has to live with the fact that someone he cares about so dearly, his only person, is going to be alone a lot of the time with a man he doesn't know.

this would be difficult for anyone with childhood trauma and trust issues. and yuri isn't just anyone. he is SSS. he is trained to stay suspicious and untrusting, it is a requirement for his job. he spends hours and hours a week dealing with spies and is intimately aware of how well they can blend in and how they can have a completely unknowing family.

that's all, folks. and i don't want to hear any arguments, thanks. if u disagree just keep it to yourself or u will be blocked 🫶

[dukeofthomas]

I find the fact that the confrontation at the end of UTRH is often summarized as Jason asking Bruce to kill the Joker for him fascinating.

Because that's not what happened.

Jason holds a gun up to Joker's head, gives Bruce another, and tells him that if Bruce doesn't do something (shoot Jason), he will kill Joker.

Jason doesn't give the gun to Bruce so that he would shoot Joker. He isn't expecting Bruce to pull the trigger on the clown. He's asking Bruce to do nothing. To be inactive. Because that will still be a choice, and despite having done nothing, everybody clearly agrees that Bruce would still, at least in part, be responsible for Joker's death.

...And to me, this moment is a kind of- microcosm, of the rest of Jason's point. Because after being captured and carted off to Arkham, the villain will escape again, and will kill more people. The only way to truly prevent that from happening would be to kill them; Bruce refuses to do so, and I respect his right to choose such a thing for himself, but it is still a choice, and if we agree that Bruce's inaction during the confrontation would leave him at least partly responsible for the Joker's death, then we must also agree that his inaction in permanently preventing the Rogues from killing more people means he is also, partly, responsible for all of those deaths.

[maxanor]

i'm not saying this to be callous or rude, but i think what's hitting a lot of buckt*mmys hard is that they're truly just unable to admit that they aren't very good at media analysis. the term 'media literacy' has become so overused in fandom that i genuinely think people forget what it means- it's a learned skill, something you have to study, something you can educate yourself on by reading papers and books and watching all sorts of movies and tv. they're all so convinced that the breakup came out of nowhere when it could not have been written more clearly; tommy has consistently been shown as an outsider in buck's life.

to claim that "everything was perfect" in 8x05 is so ridiculous i almost don't even know where to start. they had two scenes without eddie: in the first, tommy was incredibly condescending towards buck and and his interests (it's time to put away the screen, you already had your five minutes, lights out evan), and in the second scene buck literally says "my boyfriend won't even kiss me" and tommy responds with "that's not true" but they pointedly do NOT show them kissing. if the audience is meant to believe that buckt*mmy are endgame, it would have made perfect narrative sense to have them kiss right then to show (not just tell) us that tommy cares about buck, boils and all, and they did not do that.

moving onto 8x06, the only clue needed to show us they were going to break up was tommy buying buck lakers tickets. that's all it took. in 7x04 it's made so clear that buck does not like basketball. if tommy genuinely knew buck, he would not have bought him tickets to a sport the show dedicated an entire episode to telling us buck does not like! if their relationship was meant to last, tommy could have bought buck tickets to a fight in vegas like he did with eddie. this would have been a great callback, because it's supposedly the first moment buck got jealous of tommy and eddie hanging out. it would remind the audience that even though buck was jealous, he got tommy in the end and they're now doing the activities he wanted to do with tommy before.

once again, media analysis is a skill. no one is perfect at it, and ofc shows can throw away the book and make decisions that don't make sense. but to claim this came out of nowhere shows a severe lack of knowledge and understanding of how stories are written. the shippers were seeing what they wanted to see and they missed all the signs the show was sending them, and now they're claiming the rug was pulled out from under them.

[redmiti]

someone's prolly already said this but i keep thinking about how the title is not "mouthwash" but "mouthwashing".

i see some ppl think that the final events in the game are a result of some crazy butterfly effect, and not the result of curly (the one person who had authority over jimmy) allowing jimmy to act up til the crash, when he could've taken action in several occasions.

curly prioritizes the overall "peace" (lack for a better word) or "big picture" (pixel screen scene) of the ship and his friendship, over the victim, which in turn, dooms the victim, the rest of his crew and himself.

we also see how harmful the mouthwash is due to its ethanol content + that it's useless as a disinfectant due to the sugar content.

mouthwashing is a continuous action. it's continuously keeping a good taste in your mouth, while ignoring the harm, and not actually fixing anything.

[padmestrilogy]

x

[lenichque]

i miss erik's chic bangs from 'first class'.

he used to look so dapper, he had STYLE and a HAIRDO. and then he went through a divorce and prison and a whole bunch of other not good things and we never saw him slay again.

not sure if we can call it a sign of his further mental deterioration (or can we) since he was far from stable in 'first class' to begin with and there were some remnants of his taste in dofp but after it just got worse. charles kind of bounced back after dofp and looked all shiny and babygirl in 'apocalypse' but erik. erik just stopped caring.

[jackwhiteprophetic]

Something about how "are you hurt" broke Buck out of the chaos for a second. Like the shock of it. Because Buck had switched into saviour mode, his default, and Eddie broke him out of it. No one he's tried to save had asked him that before.

[jazforthesoul]

every time someone reduces CAPTAIN !!! elizabeth "lizzie" lafayette down to "a sad lesbian" a fairy dies bc i shoot it with my gun. like you're telling me you were spoon-fed a character that has one of the most realistic and RAW representations of grief and perseverance in the series and all you got from that was "she's sad" ????

is she a constantly happy character? Fuck no! that's acknowledged!! but to take EVERYTHING that she is, which has positive and negative aspects THAT ARE BOTH SHOWN, to take the fact that she is THE DRIVING FORCE OF THE MAIN BACKGROUND PLOT, and reduce her down to NOTHING but her relationships?? ?what the hell!!!

[rainbow-sunshine-unicorn]

It means that love isn’t about being afraid that it will all be snatched away. It’s about looking in the eyes of your wife and knowing all the way to you bones, that she’s simply the best person you’ve ever known ~ Excerpt from The Viscount Who Loved Me

Anthony always carefully cradling the back of Kate’s head, gently cupping over the spot where she was wounded from being bucked off her horse, is so gut-wrenching

Him getting to be stupidly and deliriously happy with Kate is extremely well-deserved to balance out all the heavy weight of the burdens he’s been shouldering

[dansemacabre]

i’ve been thinking about “sixer, it would eat you alive” since i read it and. man. every layer you peel back makes it worse. im not a bill apologist but. shit

if you (1) take it at face value, it paints bill as an apologetic murderer in his single (and maybe sole) open moment of regret. he doesn’t let his walls down often- only with ford do we even get to see the remnant of his galaxy, see the “actual remorse” ford describes, get just a hint of his origins. but he does it, because he thinks ford should know.

if you (2) take it from ford’s point of view, as something he committed to journal three, like. wow. imagine being so committed to a being that you’d hunt down and kill the monster that destroyed his home, only to (assumably) figure out later that that being was the monster. the small moments of trust, the “good times”, are so key to manipulation. how long did ford hold onto that one shred of vulnerability? no wonder ford stayed for as long as he did. in his eyes, bill was a survivor. ford wanted to survive too.

(slight tw below for unreality- any time i mention our reality, i mean “our reality” as a narrative device used in the book of bill as a proxy for the idea of bill being in our reality, since he can’t actually be in our reality. all of this is a fictional theory about a show/book with fictional contents!)

but if you (3) remember that “even his lies are lies” and absolutely Nothing bill says should be trusted. Whoo boy. if i read tbob right the book itself is being created in the theraprism (even tho it shows up with the ciphertologists at some point? idk that’s a whole other post). it’s meant to show what the reader wants to see; it manifests in our reality as what the collective fandom wants to see. so if we want to see truth, if we want to see where bill ended up and who he actually is, there’s a non-zero chance that the whole interaction was a complete fabrication.

imagine bill, stuck in the actively harmful, probably earth-illegal theraprism, once again being forced to be “fixed” and molded into something more palatable, being forced to conform no matter how much it hurts. (i know natural uncontrollable mutation ≠ just so much murder and destruction and chaos, but. you can’t ignore the similarities. bill has obviously been thinking about those silly straws.)

he looks back on everything that went wrong, back on his relationship with ford, back through every dimension where he wins. would that one moment, that one truth amid centuries of lies, have saved him from purgatory? if he had just been open? shown his damage? maybe he did think of his parents, or his henchmaniacs (especially the oracle). people who he might have once opened up to. maybe he just wanted to open up to someone again.

so in his own weird way, stuck in a cell, he reshaped reality again. in this reality, for this fleeting moment, he had been someone worth believing. and ford had listened, hell, ford had wanted to help. looking back, knowing how he treated ford, knowing how ford ended up because of it, maybe bill would have said the most honest thing he’d ever told ford: i am the monster, i am not worth your time or belief, and i will eat you alive.

[bitchface24-7]

I love the dichotomy between Sam and Dean where they see each other in opposite lights. (lowkey a character analysis below)

We’ve seen how Dean views himself. He thinks he’s worthless, weak, stupid, and unloveable. He “hates what he sees in the mirror.”

Sam thinks Dean is amazing. He’s a phenomenal hunter and an even better brother. He stepped up to take care of him when dad fucked off. Dean took care of Sammy in ways most people would never understand. Dean is strong, kind, funny, witty, and undeniably gorgeous. Sam loves Dean with all his heart. No one will ever replace him. No one. Sam cannot live without Dean. If Dean leaves him, he’ll just be surviving.

Sam on the other hand thinks he’s a weirdo, a freak, an abomination. Something to put out of its misery since how could something so disgusting be alive in this world?

Dean thinks Sammy is brilliant. A keen eye and a knack for researching into unknown lore the brothers didn’t even know existed. He’s snarky, snooty, sarcastic, and sweet. Sammy knows the power of both his bitch stare and puppy-dog eyes. Sammy must know he has Dean wrapped around his pinky finger? There isn’t a goddamn thing in this world that tops Sam in Dean’s eyes. Sam is perfect. He’s both beautiful on the inside and out. Sammy is Dean’s priority, his main focus, his baby brother. Eventually it just switches to “mine. mine. mine.” in Deans head. Dean cannot live without Sammy, he’ll k*ll himself before he lives in a world without his baby brother.

Like??? HELLO?!?! I love them so much it isn’t even funny

[srslylini]

season 2 has a structure problem and that makes act 1 flow naturally enough and it sets up the next acts perfectly well, but they wanted to do so much more than what they were

1. setting up

2. capable of doing in 9 episodes

had they just cut a few plot lines everything would've moved far easier. For example

1. cut the Smeech thing entirely. Sevika and Jinx don't need this to find themselves together and start a found family. That scene In Silcos office was so moving and everything I always loved about Arcane, stuff like this is what's needed. In fact move the prison break to act 1 and have them handle that together, Jinx can still make Sevika her arm, and everything could've still moved the same. It would've fit so much better and there also would've been so much more time to develop anything else with the magic system and act 2 wouldn't feel like it was overflowing with anything and everything. Isha is a character that as of in the show can be cut so easily and that's so sad because she'd be so interesting. Everything about her would've worked and SHOULD HAVE worked but she also just felt like Plot and a thing to make Jinx sad over again. Either don't do that or make Isha not a character like this???? I liked her scenes with Jinx so much and the scene with Jinx freaking out after finding out that Isha was taken to prison was genuinely so good, I'm still holding on to the hope that they didn't actually kill her

2. either cut that shit with the tree because let's be so honest that basically only happened so that Heimerdinger, Ekko and Jayce could meet, since we do NOT even really talk about the tree in act 2? that was so weird. Like either actually make it a thing or find different ways to let characters meet naturally. I dont know, the show was so good with that in season 1. And if they truly wanted the tree scene at least make it make sense and don't randomly drop it Idk.

3. I LOVE Mel she is like my favorite character but the plot with the black rose takes so much necessary time away from what we actually need to focus on. I heard they want to make different shows so they are setting this up but it just doesn't work. Mel could've so easily been integrated into the main plot line and it would've also made so much more sense at that. Though I'll just wait on act 3 before I judge too hard. (if they actually DARE to make her pregnant Istg)

4. Making Jinx that hero character for only like, what, a few seconds was so strange. I hope act 3 gets that better but that, first of all, happened mostly out of no where and a few touches to her shoulder after the prison scene was also not??? helping??? either set that up from the very start or don't do it at all. She isn't a hero, she is a tragedy and someone who needs help and room to breathe. The scenes where they tried to make that funny, in my opinion didn't land at all. She doesn't need a hero complex she needs calmness and stable relationships. Let Isha live I swear to GOD.

in fact that leads me into the next point

5. Have Vi realize she doesn't want to be an enforcerer sooner? I actually do like how rushed that part felt don't get me wrong, but if they wanted a reunion between Jinx and Vi don't randomly put it into act 2 with barely any build up. Let Jinx and Vi realize it during the fight, they kinda did do that but??? just didn't move that anywhere. it's so strange. If they had cut the Smeech stuff they could've easily used the third episode to make Jinx and Vi slowly reconcile. Which also means I think Vi would've been such a better "symbol" than Jinx. Vi and Jinx, for me, show what Zaun is made of, and Jinx is quite literally the valid pain, distrust and anger of Zaun, and she as well as Zaun desperately need healing. Like that would've been SO COOL. that's just my opinion though, so there is that.

6. If they had made Vi the symbol the conflict between Caitlyn and Vi would've felt a lot more natural as well. Like??? Also Caitlyn should've had so much more time if they wanted that switch up in the end to work. Cut the black rose stuff and that would've worked perfectly fine.

7. Now do NOT get me wrong, Ambessa's character is so interesting and I feel like exploring her is so cool but she and her plot just doesn't fit into the Piltover/Zaun thing. It makes it too big for what the show is. In fact I (and now this is just my opinion, anyone can have their own just saying lmao) would've either cut out Ambessa's character/plotline or subtly continued Ambessas drama with Mel, which would give Mel, who didn't get taken by the black rose in my version, a lot more to do and way more interesting stuff too. Again this is very much my opinion and doesn't mean anyone needs to share it, but I feel like they could've easily made Heimerdinger be the one who gets Caitlyn to where she was/is with Ambessa. It would've expanded Heimerdingers character and it would've stayed in the setting they already perfectly build up, Piltover and Zaun. Also, Heimerdinger wouldn't just feel like a random joke character anymore.

8. The Pit fight stuff could have been SO interesting and I feel had we not stayed with Viktor Christ so much which was also so weird at times, we could've gotten so much necessary insight on Vi. If we follow my idea it could've been Vi forced to be a symbol because of the person she is. The embodiment of Zauns loyalty, strength and resilience. And then the fights that will come out of that forcing Vi to face so much stuff she shouldn't etc etc (I haven't fleshed that one out yet don't come for me) and that could've ended in her pit fighting era, which should've taken at LEAST an episode and not a random montage that just gets forgotten??? for no reason at all. Really hope act 3 talks about that cause??? I feel with Vi as the leader the healing of Zaun would make so much sense, because Jinx realistically can't do that. The idea of Jinx being in that position IS interesting I just feel it wasn't established/developed enough.

9. I really really liked how from the very beginning Viktor's safe haven did not in fact feel safe. There was always a very uneasy feeling and that's what I love about the show. I was always waiting for the shoe to drop and it happened, that was amazing. Though I would've either established a lot of this way earlier on in the show or made it not so, and now walk with me here Ik its magic, unrealistic. That does sound strange but having Viktor suddenly float in space with white silver flowing hair and his dead assistent next to him was... very very out of no where. It was like a lazy show trying to get away with "yeah well it's magic so of course this works" and I hate that because even magic needs explanation and build up. So yeah. Either cut that shit out or have it established sooner. And while seeing the one person who helped Jayce as a kid did kind of help, it still wasn't enough for THIS, though again MY OPINION. Also we spent way too much time there, it was getting ridiculous. So much time could've easily been lent to stuff that actually needed it. I actually laughed out loud when Viktor started the healing process with Vander because come ON now, and I do not think they wanted me to laugh.

10. The stuff with Vander, Silco and Felicia (while cute) was unnecessary and weird. What I liked the most about Vander taking in Vi and Powder was the feeling that he didn't do it because he necessarily knew them very well but because he knew their mom was dead (that did show he and their mother did kind of know each other but so do like all the people in the lanes that is kind of established) and wanted to PROTECT. This new context sadly makes it feel like "well of course he stopped everything and took them with them and cared for them he knew them since birth, duh" when I always wanted to feel "well Vander is in his heart a good man who saw what terrible stuff this war and fighting did and then took in orphaned children because of course he would do that" if that makes sense? I feel this new thing took away so much from Vander, but again that's maybe just me.

11. So many jokes and scenes didn't land with me. The scene with Jinx trying to show Sevika her middle finger was SO GOOD and so Arcane that seeing the scene were they try to make it funny with Jinx's trousers and that enforcerer felt so out of place? Like what. That scene could have EASILY been cut and nothing would have changed at all. And that's what is the worst because there isn't one scene in season 1 that I feel could've been cut and there are so many of them in season 2.

12. Introducing Maddie in act 1 made me believe she'd be a bigger, even more of a threat to Zaun, character than she was and that's so sad. What I loved about season 1 is that every single character mattered. Even those we saw maybe once. This time around I hardly cared at all for any new character because they didn't feel like a Person anymore, they just felt like Plot. In season 1 episode 1 there is this scene, the first scene Vander gets to speak in. The only reason Huck meets the woman and the man to trait was basically so we get to know how the undercity works and establish Vander as basically its leader and protecter; The one people are loyal to etc. But it doesn't feel that way. It's something that naturally happens and every character in that scene, even the man and the woman we never see again, mattered and felt real.

yeah so those were really just my thoughts. I could very much go on but I also don't want to.

[bonefall]

Splashtail and Atheism

Hello. I am an Atheist and I call Splashstar an Atheist because he is based on widespread bigoted depictions of godless people like myself. There have now been several posts about this written as if they're trying to "correct a misconception," and I am tired of vagueposts completely missing the point of the criticism to get caught up on arguing semantics.

The misanthropic, god-hating "Atheist" character in Christian propaganda, which I feel Splashstar has some alarming similarities with, does not come from the writer's correctable "misconception" of irreligious labels. It is born from a hatred of nonbelievers.

Specifically, my point that Splashtail is a mashup of two popular anti-secular tropes common in religious media;

The assertion that there's no such thing as a "real" nonbeliever, and that Atheists are just "rebelling" against God because we're mad at him, want to do bad things without guilt, or have "lost our way."

The belief that morality itself stems from faith in a higher moral being, asserting that the irreligious are "evil" in contrast to the faithful.

Even passing familiarity with the arguments of Christian apologia seen in Chick Tracts, Pureflix films, PragerU videos, and so on, will have put these tropes in front of you. They are false and harmful, and they target Atheists.

For more on this, TVTropes has an entire article dedicated to the Hollywood Atheist and its sub-tropes. Note how many of these Curlfeather and Splashtail fall into, regardless of if you're arguing that they are "real atheists" or not.

Those that hate us do not care about semantic labels. To them, we are without God, A-Theistic, and they do not actually care what is at the core of your beliefs if it contradicts their narrative.

But, even worse, the "Splashtail Can't Be An Atheist" crowd isn't even totally correct on the semantics they're trying to have a pedant battle about.

Most atheistic organizations and online atheists define Atheism as "one who does not believe in God" and attempt to push a sliding scale of "agnosticism" on how hard of a "maybe" you're feeling about your lack of faith. In the sliding agnostic scale, Agnostic Atheists are a "probably no god" and Gnostic Atheists are a "definitely no god." Others describe that scale as "hard" and "soft" Atheism-- but there is NOT universal agreement on that definition.

There other definitions of an "Atheist," and even those who reject the "agnostic scale" completely (I am one of them). "Atheism" was historically the catch-all term for what we might now call "Irreligious," and more.

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy explores its many meanings, and proposes that what defines an Atheist is an active choice to distance oneself from faith; "Someone who rejects the premise of gods either based on lack of belief, or meaninglessness of the question." Matt Dillahunty, a prominent educator and activist, intentionally refers to himself as an Atheist when others (including religious people!) have tried to pressure him into using the label Agnostic, for reasons he covers in great depth. Historically, "atheist" simply meant anyone who denied the gods or acted impiously, evolving into use as a broad label for irreligious practices around the 1500s, until attempts to narrow it to "nonbelievers in deities" in the 1800s.

By EoP's expanded definition alone, Splashstar qualifies as an Atheist. The rejection does not have to come from a belief that Theism is false, but that the question is meaningless. He doesn't have to "believe" in StarClan any more than you have to "believe" in a total stranger. He rejects faith in it and lives without their influence.

But even more than that, "atheist" is a broad, stigmatized term with a history you can't erase. Hundreds of combinations of philosophies, spiritual beliefs, and logical positions have been called "Atheism."

"Atheist" can refer to Agnostics (those who aren't sure if there is a god or not), Antitheists (opposition to the belief in and/or worship of gods), Igtheists (those that feel that "god" is such a nebulous term that the question of belief is meaningless), Apatheists (people who just don't care), practitioners of Non-Deistic religions (such as Humanistic Judaism and some sects of Buddhism), and even heretics who spoke against religion like Diagoras of Melos (gay guy who chopped up a statue of hercules and used it to bake beans. king.)

In a fantasy universe where gods are provably, visibly real, the term "Atheist" is going to look a lot more like those historic and expansive uses.

Unless you want to argue that "atheism" by the narrow, popular definition of "believing in deities" can't exist in such a setting. So, arguing that Cloudtail stopped being an Atheist when he saw demons in OotS, in spite of this not affecting his spiritual practices. Or, dancing around using one uniting term, you could specifically say Curlfeather is a Misotheist, Splashstar is an Antitheist or Agnostic, Mothwing is Deist, etc.

You could have a discussion about how applicable these words even are in the setting. Or make up terms that satisfy yourself. You could do this forever. But I choose not to.

I think it's counterproductive to push people to learn a bunch of terms for hyperspecific branches of irreligious philosophy just to discuss clear anti-secular sentiment within the text of a book, actually. Or push people to abandon a useful word because fantasy isn't exactly the same as real life. Functionally, imo, all of those aforementioned cats are Atheists within this setting, living "without god" by rejecting belief-- and many of them invoke real world bigotry, with tropes much older than WC itself.

So the simple fact is; Calling Splashtail an "Evil Atheist" immediately communicates the narrative tropes I am criticizing.

Either by authorial accident or on purpose, Splashstar's lack of morality being tied to his rejection of StarClan invokes the demonized atheist trope, very much like the ones seen in PureFlix's God's Not Dead or Jack Chick's The Last Generation.

All the arbitrary wishing that the terms were more narrow and exclusive will not change the reality that those characters are intended by bigots as atheists. The terms of the discussion reflect that. Trying to tut-tut the fandom for calling a spade a spade is a smug way to phrase you completely missed the damn point.

[transrevolutions]

While overall I felt like the tbosas movie was well done, there's one part that really bothered me. When Sejanus gets involved with the rebels in the book, he's fully on board, stealing them ammo and weapons from the base, and planning to hold guards at gunpoint to free the prisoners. In the movie, however, he just wants to run away and then is surprised and upset by the fact that the rebels were planning an act of violence.

This doesn't seem like a major change, but from a political standpoint (as tbosas is a very political book), it's a big one and one I very much do not like.

In the text, Sejanus plays the role of the moral compass. Whereas both Coriolanus and Lucy Gray having complex and subjective motivations, Sejanus is always driven by wanting to do the right thing, even if it costs him. He acts as a baseline, keeping the readers from getting lost in endless loops of justification for atrocities just because Coriolanus's internal narration is rhetorically persuasive.

So when Sejanus (who up until this point has been relatively pacifist) joins up with the rebels in the book and agrees to participate in an act of revolutionary violence, the text is pointing out that that act of rebellion is morally permissible. That even violence against the oppressor class can be an altruistic action. Sejanus planning to fight the guards with the rebels is not a sign of his corruption, it's a sign of the fact that his society has become so corrupt that not doing it would be morally worse than doing it. After all, someone's going to die either way, so why not have it be the oppressors?

If movie!Sejanus is still occupying the role of the moral compass (which he seems to be), then his dismay at the possibility of the rebels using violence acts as a narrative condemnation of the violence, when the opposite is true in the book. The movie tries to make a distinction between the "good" dissenters (pacifist, nonviolent, morally superior) and the "bad" dissenters (violent radicals/terrorists). In the current political climate, this idea and narrative is extremely unsettling. And I'm disappointed they did this, but not surprised. Like the other Hunger Games movies, it was produced by a large media company, and they can't follow the satire of the book too closely lest people realize the fundamental irony of it. People in positions of power do not want to tell a story where violent activism is portrayed as moral--at least when it's against a society that obviously mirrors our own. (The brutalist architecture style is another complaint that I have, but that can be discussed in another post.)

Changing that seemingly small detail about Sejanus's involvement with the rebels doesn't do much to change the continuity of the storyline, but it does a lot to change the underlying message of his character and the story. This was almost certainly intentional, because the same sort of thing was done in the original trilogy movies as well. Companies are scared of subversive media because it makes them look like the 'bad guys' too, so they wrap rebellion in a lens of fantasy and moderatism.