#no nuance just an antagonist for no reason

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Psycho Analysis: Jumba (2025)

(WARNING! This analysis contains SPOILERS!)

So. Lilo & Stitch 2025. The live action remake of the beloved animated classic. It’s… honestly not completely awful.

Now, don’t get me wrong here, it’s not amazing or anything, but aside from the terrible ending that misses the whole goddamn point of the story it’s a so-so family film that has a genuinely great cast who is giving it their all. Chris Sanders is as good as ever as Stitch (aside from the times where they awkwardly reuse audio from the original), but it’s honestly the rest of the cast that make this work. Courtney B. Vance (Cobra Bubbles), Sydney Agudong (Nani), Amy Hill (Tutu), Tia Carrere (Mrs. Kekoa), Kaipo Dudoit (David), Hannah Waddingham (Grand Councilwoman), and Billy Magnussen (Pleakley) all turn in fantastic performances, but most important of all is Maia Kealoha as Lilo. She is genunely amazing, one of the best child performances I’ve ever seen; she feels more like a real kid than the animated Lilo did a lot of the time, and while she is forced to regurgitate a few classic lines she makes the character her own while still staying true to the original to the point I'd say she carries this film . Whatever faults the film has—and it has a lot—the cast mostly manages to make it work in spite of them.

Of course, you may have noticed that one member of the cast and thus one major character are completely absent from my praise above: Zach Galifianakis as Jumba. But I promise you, I kept him separate for a very, very good reason: He is so fucking awful he brings down the entire film whenever he’s onscreen.

Motivation/Goals: Jumba’s motivations are largely the same from the original. He’s a mad scientist who wants his experiment back, and barters for freedom in exchange for recapturing Stitch. Of course, this initial characterization isn’t what makes Jumba such a beloved character, it’s how he develops beyond that and becomes a quirky gay alien uncle who does wacky “evil” science experiments. How does this work in the remake? Well… It doesn’t! Because Gantu just straight up doesn’t exist, Jumba takes on his role as an antagonistic force in the climax and is wholly without a sympathetic trait. In fact, he wants to mutate Stitch into 627 (the very same one from the animated show, judging from the silhouette on his computer).

To say this is a downgrade is an understatement. The whole entire point of the character is that there is more to him than simply what was on the surface, that he had nuance. By stripping all that away to make him a generic mad scientist, they’ve honestly made him more flat and cartoonish than the literal cartoon.

Performance: As soon as Jumba opens his mouth and the completely unaltered voice of Galifianakis comes out, it is clear that you’re in for a fucking trainwreck. Look, I don’t hate the guy or anything, but he does not have the vocal range to play a character like this who needs an imposing and preferably Russian-accented voice. You need someone like Keith David or Clancy Brown, someone who can be both goofy and imposing; you can’t have this hulking, ugly alien have a goofy little guy voice. I think what’s even worse is that with the changes to Jumba’s character, he has no camaraderie with Pleakley, no affection at all, so we don’t get to see Galifianakis ramp up the homoeroticism like he did with Lego Joker. Literally the one saving grace his performance could have had, the one thing that might’ve saved this take on the character, and they just throw it away.

Final Fate: He falls out of the plane and is embarrassingly and unceremoniously arrested. Woo hoo.

Evilness: Let’s be real here: This ain’t Jumba, this is Dr. Hamsterwheel.

“It’s Hämster-viel! VIEL! NOT WHEEL!”

Right, sorry. Anyway, seeing as he has no redeeming qualities and just wants to recapture Stitch and turn him into a weapon of mass destruction, he has far more in common with the rascally rodent from the TV series than the character he ostensibly is. And that would at least score him a 3, but then there’s the scene where he goes off on humans having attachments and memories as he obliterates Lilo’s house, callously destroying all the photos of her family that she has and generally wrecking the place. That alone scores him a 4/5. What a prick.

Final Thoughts & Score: Alan Moore and Garth Ennis are cheering and pumping their fists in the air right now, because their villains have been completely and totally dethroned: Remake Jumba is the absolute worst villain I have ever seen in my entire life.

Maybe in a vacuum this Jumba isn’t a bad villain, but does it look like I live in a fucking vacuum? No, I live in the real world, and in that world I already have a Jumba who is a silly old queer who likes to create his own Pokemon and go out with his crossdressing boyfriend. What this movie gave me is an ugly CGI potato with an unfitting, dorky voice committing bland acts of evil and trying to tell me it’s the same guy. I already thought this remake was a bad idea and wholly unnecessary, and while plenty of it managed to win me over, I’ve gotta say how genuinely awful Jumba is almost completely tanked the whole film for me.

I think it stands out even more because Pleakley is actually great. Pleakley is as flamboyant and queer as ever, despite Disney’s best efforts to squash that (no crossdressing, boo). Was this the compromise? Was Pleakley only allowed to be campy if all the chemistry with Jumba was excised? It’s so fucking dumb. It’s just so goddamn fucking dumb.

And really, the fact Jumba is so bland and one-note leaves me little to really say about him. He’s a cardboard cutout, which normally wouldn’t attract so much ire for me or even warrant a Psycho Analysis at all, but this is a take on one of Disney’s very best characters voiced by one of their late, great reoccurring voice actors. And not only is he bad compared to Pleakley, he’s bad compared to everyone! All the other recast characters are at worst okay and at best blow their voice actors out of the water! Jumba is genuinely the only fucking one I hated! Hell, I don’t hate the awful ending where Nani loses custody as much as Jumba, because at least there they throw in a bunch of bullshit so they can have their gritty, realistic, Zack Snyder’s Lilo & Stitch ending while still not really separating the sisters! Jumba is just irrevocably ruined to the point where even if they do make a sequel—and they probably will—I can’t see how they can even begin to rerail or save him. And it’s not even because he goes beyond the pale, it’s because he’’s just a big sucky nothing now! They fucked it all up!

I’m giving this Jumba a -/10. What does that mean, exactly? It means there isn’t a number small enough in existence to accurately describe how utterly shit this butchering of a beloved character is. I’ll take stupid powerscaling zombie wank or Harry Potter dick lightning over this shit any day of the week.

[lilianade-comics]

My brain gaslit me into believing that Valerie got her outfit upgrade in D-Stabilized because she was the only remotely acceptable thing about that episode, so imagine my surprise upon watching Flirting With Disaster again and Technus, Lord of Drip and Shipping Gray Ghost, shoots her with the drip-upgrade beam and she (and everyone else standing around her) doesn't even question it.

[lokh]

it's tough that a lot of little but important things to dungeon meshi characterisations are all over the place and not the most easily accessible

[alltimefail-sims]

I found your blog from 1 of your look books and ended up reading every ask for your story tag ... I was so impressed by each character but I got to know more about Maggie! Pls don't take it the wrong way when I say I some how hate her & also am obsessed with her (I know people get mad when you dislike a character but I think it's a compliment bc it means the writer made them complex)

First and foremost: thank you, friend!! That means a lot to me that you took the time to binge through my content and that you ended up enjoying it so much that you would stop by to tell me!!!

Second, I truly don't take it the wrong way lol. I get it, not every character is going to be liked or perceived well. You have a right to feel about them however you feel.**

**Little footnote here: I think it goes without saying but so long as your reason for disliking them isn't rooted in some kind of irrational hate like racism, transphobia/homophobia, etc., you're fine in my book!

Honestly I'm just interested in knowing what it is you dislike about her! It's a little funny because this isn't actually the first message I've received of this nature and I feel like I've shared so little about her. I know as time goes on and people learn more about her that she is more than likely going to be a controversial and polarizing figure (and far from the only one in this story). I personally have a lot of love and empathy for her as the writer and do see her more as a victim to things out of her control, but I can also admit that she went out of her way to make it hard for others to love her at times.

I will totally take it as a compliment, as you intended! I'm happy to create characters that challenge people; my only hope is that despite personal preferences, readers will still be able to understand that at the end of the day we all are imperfect and nuanced creates. Even if you don't like her, I hope you will see her (and the other controversial characters) in more than one light and extend grace (or at the very least, understanding) when it's all said and done!

[astudyinimagination]

Being sympathetic and understandable often — not always, but often, and YMMV — go hand-in-hand. And those two things almost always have absolutely nothing on earth to do with reasonable or objectively the best solution... and it's wild that they all get treated the same way.

One thing i've run up against when dealing with fandom and characters making less than ideal choices is that people seem to treat a character's decision being sympathetic, the decision being understandable, the decision being reasonable, and it being objectively the best solution for the situation, as synonymous. When those are 4 very different things.

[luna-azzurra]

The Villain Checklist!

Creating a villain is a delicate art, much like crafting a masterpiece. To ensure your antagonist leaps off the page with depth, consider these essential elements for your villain checklist:

Motivation: Every great villain is driven by a potent motivation, one that fuels their actions and sets them on their dark path. Explore their backstory and unearth the core reason behind their villainy. Are they seeking power, revenge, redemption, or something more sinister?

Complexity: Gone are the days of one-dimensional villains twirling mustaches and cackling maniacally. Infuse your antagonist with layers of complexity and nuance. Perhaps they possess redeeming qualities or wrestle with inner conflicts that humanize their actions.

Flaws and Vulnerabilities: Despite their nefarious intentions, villains should be flawed beings with vulnerabilities. These weaknesses not only add depth to their character but also create opportunities for conflict and growth throughout your story.

Backstory: Delve into your villain's past to uncover formative experiences that shaped their present disposition. Trauma, betrayal, or societal pressures can all contribute to their descent into villainy, providing rich narrative fodder for exploration.

Goals and Ambitions: Just as heroes strive for noble objectives, villains pursue their own twisted goals with fervor and determination. Define what your antagonist hopes to achieve and the lengths they're willing to go to attain it, even if it means sacrificing everything in their path.

Antagonistic Traits: From cunning intellect to ruthless brutality, equip your villain with traits that make them a formidable adversary for your protagonist. Consider how their strengths and weaknesses complement each other, creating dynamic conflicts that propel your story forward.

Relationships and Alliances: Villains don't operate in isolation; they forge alliances, manipulate allies, and cultivate relationships to further their agendas. Develop the connections your antagonist shares with other characters, be they loyal minions or reluctant collaborators, to add depth to their character dynamics.

Moral Justification (from their perspective): While their actions may be abhorrent to society, villains often believe they're justified in their pursuits. Explore your antagonist's moral code and the twisted logic that rationalizes their behavior, offering readers insight into their twisted worldview.

Arc of Transformation: Just as protagonists undergo arcs of growth and change, villains should experience their own journey of transformation. Whether it's redemption, downfall, or something altogether unexpected, chart the evolution of your antagonist throughout the narrative.

Memorable Traits: Give your villain distinctive traits or quirks that leave a lasting impression on readers. Whether it's a chilling catchphrase, a distinctive appearance, or a haunting backstory, give your antagonist elements that linger in the minds of your audience long after they've closed the book.

[gyrovagi]

i dont remember the post i saw or who made it so this doesnt count as a vague but 'actually it's good bioware retconned the agents of fen'harel because it would've been Bad Representation to have an antagonistic faction made up of the in-universe oppressed minority' well no it was straight up cowardice and the refusal to grapple with the reasons why marginalized peoples might come to believe their best recourse for a world that wants them dead top to bottom is fundamentally changing the nature of the world in a way that, yes, may read as apocalyptic to those currently in power, but the alternative is for the forgotten to continue slowly bleeding out to sustain their comfort

Not that bioware could have landed that but don't pretend it's More Nuanced not to even try. and it's literally just narratively stupid as hell

[sammakesart]

Castles in the Fade, or What Was the Point of the Veil Anyway

Something that will now haunt me until the end of time is why was the concept of the Veil ever introduced into this series.

We’ve been hearing about it since the very first game. There’s a codex entry about tears in the Veil in Origins. Tamlen mentions a thin spot in the Veil if you play a Dalish elf. Sandal has a prophecy in Dragon Age 2: “One day the magic will come back—all of it. Everyone will be just like they were. The shadows will part and the skies will open wide. When he rises, everyone will see.” Admittedly, this is just one line said by a character who often says odd things, but it hinted to the fact they were planning to do something with the Veil from the very beginning. The state of the Veil is repeatedly brought up. It all had to mean something! Or so I thought. 

When I saw “The Dread Wolf Rises” quest in Veilguard, I said, “Oh, here we go!” The Veil is coming down, magic is coming back, and it’s going to set up such an interesting story for the next game. 

Alas, no. 

I hadn’t really enjoyed my time playing Veilguard up until this point. It felt like the game was ducking and dodging every bit of world building and lore that could possibly bring nuance or complexity to the story. Every returning character or faction was a cardboard cutout of themself. They shoved Solas is a time-out box and gave him nothing to do. They refused to let him have any impact or influence on the story when he had been set up to be our main antagonist back in Trespasser. This game used to be called Dreadwolf! And while we learn about his past… we never talk to him about it. In the present, he’s in stasis.

Elgar’nan and Ghilan’nain are our villains. And they are your typical evil for evil’s sake villains. They are mad, bad, and only as dangerous as the narrative will allow as to not give Rook and co too much trouble. They are surprisingly patient while Rook fixes all their companions’ problems… until Elgar’nan moves the moon to cause an eclipse. A vital component in making his own lyrium dagger. For some reason. This guy can move a satellite!? And he just let Rook walk away in previous encounters… twice. Ok. Sure.

The Evil Duo need their own dagger ostensibly to tear down the Veil, because they want to unleash the full force of the Blight onto the world. Because they are evil. And they were thwarted last time they tried to Blight the entire world. Why do they think Blighting the world is a good idea? What’s the point of ruling a world if everyone is dead? I guess they haven’t thought that through, because of the madness and the evilness.

Ok, I thought. Perhaps the gods will be the one to tear down the Veil. Or maybe we’ll have a choice to let Solas do it his way before they can, which will be less chaotic and less full of Blight. Because the Veil has to be coming down one way or another? Why introduce the concept of the Veil, especially a Veil that has been thinning and failing since the series began, if it’s just going to… stay.

There is a principle in storytelling called Chekov’s gun. If something is mentioned in a story, it must have a purpose. If you keeping mentioning that gun hanging on the wall over the fireplace, it’s because at some point in the story, someone is going to take it down and use it. The Veil felt like Chekov’s gun to me. Chekov’s Veil, if you will. It’s been here from the beginning of our tale, the spectre hanging over our protagonists’ heads for multiple games.

The Veil has been a character unto itself. It was the central focus of the third game, and its dissolution was set up to be the core conflict of the fourth game. We learn everything we thought we knew about the Veil was a lie. It was not created by the Maker to separate the Fade from this world because of jealous spirits, it was created by a guy named Solas to trap the elven gods and the Blight from destroying the world. Also, the elven gods were never gods, and they are also evil.

This reveal will surely throw the Andrastian religion into chaos! This puts the very existence of the Maker into question! The Evanuris are a lie; it’s only fair Catholicism—oh, I mean—the Chantry is a lie too. We briefly touch on that in Veilguard… then it is quietly discarded. Religious crisis averted.

But I digress.

When the title of the fourth game was changed from Dreadwolf to Veilguard, I started to see the writing on the wall. Still, I held out hope the Veil would have some greater purpose in the story. That its introduction as a concept was for a reason. That something in this world would change.

Instead, from the get-go, the question of the Veil is no question at all. We only get Solas and Varric making oblique or catastrophizing statements about it. Solas says little beyond he has a plan. If I ever wanted to hear a villain monologue about their plan, it was now! Varric, on the other hand, decries Solas’s plan. He warns that should the Veil fall, it will destroy the world and drown it in demons. And that’s that.

We never really learn why Solas wants to tear the Veil down, or why he thinks it will help anyone. “The Veil is a wound inflicted upon this world. It must be healed,” he says. And that’s basically all he says about it in Veilguard. In Inquisition and Trespasser, we learn it took the immortality from the elves. It cut most of magic off from the world. Spirits are trapped and are being corrupted into demons, and most of what we know about spirits and demons is wrong. There are ancient elves possibly asleep? That part is left vague, but ancient elves are still about. We meet some in Mythal’s temple. There seems to have been some merit in bringing it down, because elves were flocking to Solas’s cause at the end of Trespasser. He had agents working for him already. What do they know that we don’t know?

Apparently nothing, because by the time Veilguard rolls around, there are no mention of agents. He is working alone. His only motivation now seems to be he’s too deep in his sunk-cost fallacy. The Veil is unnatural, so it must be removed—consequences be damned. We are never given any reason to think Solas has a leg to stand on in his pursuit of tearing down the Veil. We never hear any kind of counter argument from anyone, not even Solas, as to why the Veil should come down. We are only told it will destroy the world. It will drown the world in demons. This is all Solas’s fault.

There is no nuance. No complexity. No moral quandary to mull over. The game gives us vague warnings with no explanation as to what exactly is so world-annihilating about the Veil coming down. We must take Varric’s word at face value. We’re the heroes; Solas is the villain. Stop him.

It makes me wonder why Solas was ever a companion in Inquisition, let alone a romance option. Solas was presented to us as a complicated character in Inquisition. We had the potential throughout the game to make him see the value of this world, to help him realize he was wrong about it. “We aren’t even people to you,” the Inquisitor says in Trespasser. Solas replies, “Not at first. You showed me that I was wrong...again.” He began the third game viewing the world as tranquil, seeing the people in it as nothing more than figments in a nightmare, just as we saw our companions in the In Hushed Whispers quest. He ends the game having made friends, having recognized he was mistaken. He might have even fallen in love. (Or he may still seen no merit in this world if the Inquisitor antagonized him the entirety of their time together.) But something makes him continue with his plan to tear down the Veil, despite recognizing this world is real. He must know something we don’t. Something we’ll learn about in the next game.

We’ve been hearing about the Veil for three games now. We’ve set up our complex antivillain for the next installment, and he’s going to tear the Veil down. We swear to stop him or save him. But it has to be more complex than that. It can’t be so straightforward. Uncomplicated. Simple. Boring. Right? Right?

Nope. He really is just the villain, mustache-twirling and all. He apparently had no greater motivation, no as of yet unrevealed knowledge that would put this whole Veil thing into a new context. It was really as simple as the Veil falling will destroy the world, so Solas must be stopped. There is no new information that is revealed which makes us question what we are doing. Solas is never given any nuance or complexity to his actions. Nuance and complexity have actively been taken away. Both him and the Veil are looking like they are the worst things to be in a story: pointless. Why introduce the Veil if it’s just going to remain unchanged? Why introduce a character like Solas, bother humanizing him (for lack of a better term), giving us his backstory, setting him up as a cunning antagonist, only to make him look stupid, then put him on a shelf until the last ten minutes of your game?

Solas was the trickster archetype of this tale. He was our version of Loki from Norse mythology. What is the role of the trickster archetype? To challenge the status quo. To bring about events of extreme change, like say, the tearing down of a Veil that holds back all of magic. Loki is a huge contributing factor in Ragnarök. Through his manipulation, he causes the death of the beloved god, Baldr. This ushers in a long winter, which signifies the beginning of the end. Loki is imprisoned for this crime. When the final battle between gods and giants begins, the sun and moon are swallowed, plunging the earth into darkness. The earth shakes and Loki is freed to fight on the side of the giants. The world burns in raw chaos, falls beneath the sea, and is reborn. The world is remade, and a new realm of the gods and a new, better earth is formed.

It really felt like this was the setup they were going for. Solas causes the death of Mythal, and this is his catalyst for creating the Veil, which ushers in a world without magic. This could be seen as equivalent to the long winter. Solas falls asleep, trapped in dreams. He wakes and sets in motion bringing about the apocalypse. It’s not a perfect one to one, but it’s there if you squint. We have a war against the gods in Veilguard. I was expecting a few remaining Titans to wake and join the fight. But we don’t get any of that. There is a final battle, but it does not end in the end of the world. Or a better world. It just ends, and everything is the same.

It seems our trickster god caused his apocalypse thousands of years before our story started, when he created the Veil. His role in this tale was over before ours began, and he really is just some relic from a long-past age. He has no role, no purpose in this story. He is here to be thwarted. He is no Loki at all.

If you can’t tell, I wanted the Veil to come down. Did I think the Veil coming down would be painless? Have no negative consequences? No. Of course not. But keeping it up has negative consequences too. And it made for an interesting story. Or at least it could have. But we never explore that. The game presents no counter argument to having the Veil stay up, which, again, begs the question: what was the point of introducing the concept of the Veil at all?

Did I think the Veil coming down was actually the best solution to help Thedas become a better place? I don’t know, and I never will, because the game never argues for it one way or another. It just tells you to want it in place and to stop asking questions. In real life, a catastrophic event is not the best way to solve any of the world’s problems. But this is the realm of fiction. We have gods and monsters, magic and myth. We have introduced the status quo of Thedas, recognized it needs to change, then our trickster god appears ready to fulfill his role in the narrative. 

Instead, it all comes to nothing.

I got to the end of Veilguard… and everything was more or less the same as it was at the start of Origins. Veilguard actually tries its hardest to pretend any previously mentioned problems don’t exist, so of course the Veil coming down has no merit. There are no problems to solve in this world, apparently. Solas is just stuck in the past and can’t get with the times. Silly Solas.

The Veil isn’t even a permanent solution. It wasn’t to begin with. It was some duct tape wrapped around a broken pipe, and we’ve just slapped an extra piece of tape on it. It’s still leaking. It is still unnatural, and will fall eventually one way or another. Large amounts of bloodshed weaken it, so I guess Thedas better achieve world peace real quick to avoid any battles. There were seven super-powered mages holding it together… now there is just one. Ironically, the Veil was going to fall after two more Blights anyway. The Wardens were doing Solas’s work for him! It would also have released the full force of the Blight at that time… which Solas was trying to avoid, I presume.

It feels like keeping the Veil up just pushed a big problem onto Thedas’ future generations. We’ll keep slapping bandaids on it until it all falls apart. Someone else can deal with the fallout, but we’ll be dead by then, so who cares.

Primarily, I wanted the Veil to come down from a storytelling perspective. The Veil was an interesting concept and I wanted the story to do something interesting with it. Conflict is what makes stories stories and the Veil coming down could create so much compelling and complex conflict. And the Fade is weird, and I like weird. Stories are also about change, and I wanted to see Thedas change. Yet, Veilguard is over, and barely anything has changed. Instead of magic coming back being a conflict for the next game, they went with Fantasy Illuminati. Oh.

The Veil turned out to be a nothing-burger, and no problems in this world are even close to being solved. Slavery is still rampant in Tevinter. The elven people are still oppressed everywhere. Mages have no more rights in the South than they did in Origins. Spirits are still trapped and being corrupted. The Calling still exists, though might be different somehow now? They don’t really get into that. The Chantry’s validity is still not allowed to be questioned. The Blight still exists in some form, but again it’s vague. Oh, and we learn the dwarves have been gravely wronged, and the Titans are still tranquil. At least if you redeem Solas and a romanced Lavellan joins him, they can work together on healing the Blight and helping the Titans. Oh, good. One problem is being acknowledged and some action will be taken. Offscreen. Hurray? Solas doesn’t have a really great track record of fixing problems, so Lavellan is definitely going to need to be there to make sure he doesn’t fuck it up.

For some reason, this game seemed terrified of letting us think about anything for more than two seconds. It shied away from complexity or nuance at every turn. The game is called The Veilguard—ironically, that word is never uttered in the game—but we are given no real motive for guarding the Veil. We’re unquestionably the hero. The villains are uncomplicatedly evil. Save the world… never wonder what you are doing or why.

I wanted the game to make me question if the Veil staying up or coming down was the right choice. I needed to be given a real counter argument. Convince me the alternative would actually be better or worse, because as I mentioned… things suck quite a bit in Thedas already for a lot of people right now. Let the Veil’s fate be a difficult choice to make. If the conflict cannot be what to do about the Veil, it should be am I doing the right thing about the Veil. If the heart of your game is so thin on motive, everything else falls apart around it.

I hoped they were setting up a complex, Thedas-sized existential conflict for this game in Trespasser, but no. I wanted something to happen, but nothing did. 

I want to feel challenged and changed by a story, not left feeling empty. I’m tired of superficial entertainment. I want to sink my teeth into a narrative that doesn’t paint the world in broad strokes of black and white, good and evil, heroes and villains.

Ultimately, I think my issue is why even introduce a concept like The Veil if you’re not going to do anything interesting with it. Or anything at all. What I thought was Chekov’s Veil turned out to just be a MacGuffin. And that’s disappointing.

[skysiren41]

Having Jumba replace the role as the villain instead of Gantu and removing all the depth and nuance of his character is honestly one of the worst things ANY of these remakes have ever done (aside from completely ruining the whole message of the film)

Yes, Jumba was a mad scientist but he was anything BUT evil in original film. He was chaotic, egotistical, and at times completely insane yes but he also showed moments of humanity and genuine remorse like when Nani asked where Lilo was after she was captured. I'd even argue that him deciding to help Stitch in the climax so easily is actually pretty in character of him. He wasn't really an evil person, he was chaotic but had a good heart deep down

As the series went on he became more humble and even he and Pleakley became sort of father figures to both Stitch and Lilo. Hell in the second film, we see just how desperate he became when Stitch's begins malfunctioning to the point where his life is at risk. That moment in the end where they all think Stitch had died and Jumba takes him out of the chamber and he just hugs him is legit one of my favorite moments in the entire series. The whole second movie showed just how much Jumba truly cares for Stitch and considers him and the others as family. Also his and Pleakley's dynamic being one of the best parts of the original with how well they bounced off each other (we stan for the gay alien uncles here)

But in the remake it's genuinely uncomfortable and gross just how far it goes out of it's way to make Jumba as irredeemable as possible. I'm sorry but the Jumba we all know and love would NEVER intentionally burn the pictures of Lilo and Nani's parents, the only things they have left of their parents so happily, and he would NEVER treat Stitch so horribly to the point where he tries to stright up erase his empathy. Yes in the original film, he and Stitch's fight in Lilo's house caused it to blow up but that was completely by accident on BOTH of their parts, they weren't actively trying to blow it up on purpose. Even when he was trying to capture Stitch at no point did Jumba actively tried to hurt Lilo (aside from just gently pushing her away when she was hitting him with the broom during the fight) hell one of his most iconic lines "THIS IS LOW EVEN FOR YOU!" Is said when he realizes that Stitch is basically using Lilo as a shield

Also before someone says it yes, I'm well aware of the alternate deleted scene of Jumba attacking Lilo's house where he's a lot more violent and sociopathic. But 1. It was cut and re-edited so the original cut of the scene isn't really canon. And 2. The reason why it was removed was not only was it considered too violent, but it made both Stitch and ESPECIALLY Jumba too unlikeable and irredeemable. Jumba and Pleakley were always intended to help out in the climax, so having Jumba be redeemed despite how he was more than willing to straight-up shoot Lilo during the house attack didn't sit right. Jumba was NEVER intended to be as cruel as Gantu, but they decided to make him EVEN CRUELER than most modern Disney villains in this remake

Removing all of Jumba's nuances and making him a mustache-twirling bad guy so you can force him to take Gantu's place isn't just character assassination, it's complete character annihilation. It's easily up there as one of the worst examples of character assassination I've seen since Velma. Also I think it's REALLY suspicious that they removed an antagonist who was a bad cop and was fired for his repeated brutal methods and putting innocent people in danger, made the SCIENTIST the main villain to the point where they made him more of a monster then the cop

I'm sorry for the multiple posts on this film and if I come across as more angry then I usually do, but I'm just so appalled with how much they bastardised one of my favorite films of all time, as well as one of my favorite characters in said film. I'm at least glad that everyone seems to agree that this film is a pile of garbage

[dunmeshistash]

You know I am Milsiril number 1 fan and women apologist so there's this thing that has always bothered me about Milsiril depiction in fandom (actually most of her depiction in fandom bothers me but whatever) and that is how people depict Milsiril taking in Kabru after Utaya.

A lot of fanart I've seen at least tends to depict Milsiril forcefully taking Kabru away from grieving his mother or from grieving the loss of Utaya in general, something like this random elf just showing up and taking away a traumatized child against his will. Which I understand is heart wrenching and a great character moment for Kabru, Milsiril in those cases is mostly being used to sell the narrative of the violent loss of his past in an impactful way, and it works, but it reduces the complexity of her character and unfortunately trends in fandom end up overwriting the canon in people's mind, especially for a character like Milsiril who we mostly only know from extras you would have to seek out.

The relationship between Milsiril and Kabru is way more nuanced than what most of the fandom seems to be willing to engage with, it's pretty sad to see her reduced to "generic antagonistic force from character's past" (Reduced to being a bad mother I guess)

The reality of how Milsiril came to find Kabru is not at all how most people depict it.

"Kabru was buried under rubble during the monster attack, and was discovered by the (then) vice-captain of the Canaries, Milsiril, who then took him westward." Milsiril found the only survivor of the Utaya tragedy, a child, buried in rubble and decided to take him with her.

Since there has been several parts I found to be translated inaccurately or that were vague in the original I decided to check if there was something like that happening here. The original text is: "ガレキに埋もれていたところを当時カナリア隊の副長 だったミルシリルに発見され" translating it in the exact order is something like "under the rubble buried at the time, canary squad vice capitain(at that time) Milsiril discovered (him)". So I'm pretty confident that Milsiril really was the one who found him buried, since the mention of her is between Kabru being buried and being discovered.

I'm not saying she was in the right to take him in even in this situation (Although we know that what would happen if he was taken by the other elves instead is much worse) but I wish more people acknowledged that their encounter wasn't that random, that Milsiril probably didn't take him in "just because" and that there's a reason she's so overprotective of him.

I always say this but all the characters in Dungeon Meshi are nuanced, Kabru's adoptive mom isn't gonna be the single most evil guy in the story that makes you feel empathetic even for the demon who was trying to eat the whole world.

[mordredpendragon]

SIR MORDRED, The Traitor: A Masterpost

“Know that he will be born the first day of May in the kingdom of Logres.” ⸺ Post Vulgate

In celebration of Mordred's birthday, here's a compilation of all things Mordred!

Majority of these links are supplied by the @arthurianpreservationproject 💕 Would just like to shoutout @queer-ragnelle and @tboymordred for the help in making this! As well as many of my beloved friends and mutuals for their extended support. I put a whole lot of time and effort into this post, so to anyone reading this, I hope it will be of use to you in some way.

I would just like to preface that while I do try to be as thorough as possible, this is by no means an exhaustive list of every single Mordred appearance that exists. That would be impossible. Consider this moreso a curated list of based on what I have seen and what has been available to me thus far, so this will be updated as I go along.

There's a myriad of things I elected not to include for numerous reasons, so the media and literature I have chosen are ones that I think would be of interest for someone seeking out Mordred content specifically.

EDIT: After the scare I got for having my account terminated, I decided to make a Google Doc version of this masterpost in case anything happens again. The gdoc and this post will be updated at the same time whenever I have any new additions, which will be marked as ‼️

Last updated: 31/5/2025

Medieval Texts

Exhibit A

British History and The Welsh Annals by Nennius (Latin)

⭐The History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth (Latin)

⭐The History of Scotland by Hector Boece (Latin)

⭐Chronica Gentis Scotorum by John of Fordun (Latin)

The Dream of Rhonabwy (Welsh)

The Welsh Triads (Welsh)

⭐Lancelot-Grail Vulgate Cycle (French)

Post-Vulgate (French)

Merlin and the Grail by Robert de Boron (French)

⭐Roman de Brut by Wace (French)

⭐Layamon's Brut (Middle English)

Stanzaic Morte Arthure (Middle English)

⭐Alliterative Morte Arthure (Middle English)

Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory (Middle English)

Mort Artu (Middle English)

La Tavola Ritonda (Italian)

These are the texts translated into English that I'm aware of where Mordred is a central character or plays a significant role. Out of all of these, I personally recommend Alliterative Morte Arthure, Layamon's Brut, and Vulgate the most. In these texts Mordred is given a surprising amount of complexity and nuance, especially in Alliterative Morte Arthure. He even gets a sick title, Mordred the Malebranche/Evil-Arm. Below in the essays section there's plenty of literature analyzing and discussing it, which I suggest you go take a read if you're curious. His characterization in Vulgate is also one of my top favorites and is also incredibly in-depth, especially prior to his rebellion. He was described as having been "kind and compassionate" at the start of his career as a knight, only for him to spiral after finding out his true heritage.

The Scottish Chronicles (such as the accounts written by John of Fodrun and Hector Boece, although there are more of them not listed.) are also fascinating since they talks about how Arthur is actually illegitmate and Mordred is the rightful ruler all along. While Fodrun speaks well of Arthur as an admirable king, Boece is biased against him in favor of Mordred/Modredus.

Exhibit B

⭐Perceval + Continuations (French)

I put this text in an entirely separate section purely because Mordred is just a side character here, but I think it's worth looking into if you like Mordred. In the Perceval Continuations, particularly the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Continuations, he is primarily shown as an antagonist for Percival. They have an intense duel where Mordred loses and begs Percival for mercy, to which he then sends him off to Arthur's court as his prisoner. Admittedly, I am biased 🌈 but Mordred shows up more often than you'd expect. The tone is moreso lighthearted and humorous with his rebellion against Arthur seemingly absent in it.

Retellings

I'm working on this in a time crunch so not everything has commentary (might update it when I feel like it lol) All my favorites and ones I consider must-reads/watches are listed with a star⭐ That being said, enjoy!

Novels

part I (Main Character)

⭐The Wicked Day by Mary Stewart

⭐A Camelot Triptych by Norris J. Lacy

⭐Idylls of the Queen by Phyllis Ann Karr

Queen's Knight by Marvin Barowsky (cw: pedarasty)

The Book of Mordred + The Last Knight of Albion by Peter Hanratty

part II (Secondary Character)

Arthur The Bear of Britain by Edward Frankland

The Eagles Have Flown by Henry Treece

The Great Captains by Henry Treece

The Green Man by Henry Treece

Poetry

The Song of the Four Knights by Ernest Rhys

The Fight at Camlann by John Masefield

⭐Modred: A Fragment by Edwin Arlington Robinson

The Death of King Arthur by Your Loving Granny

King Arthur's Death by M.G Lewis

Plays

⭐Mordred: A Tragedy by Henry Newbolt

King Arthur by J. Comyns Carr

The Misfortunes of Arthur by Thomas Hughes

Guenevere: A Play in Five Acts by Stark Young

Short Stories

⭐Mordred and the Green Knight by Phyllis Ann Karr

Night Mare by Chelsea Quinn Yaribo

Told by the Moonlight by Darrel Schweitzer

Films and TV

Films

⭐Knights of the Round Table (1953) dir. by Richard Thorpe, played by Stanley Baker

Sword of Lancelot (1963) dir. by Cornel Wilde, played by Michael Meacham

Camelot (1967) dir. by Joshua Logan, played by David Hemmings

Unidentified Flying Oddball (1979) dir. by Russ Mayberry, played by Jim Dale

⭐Excalibur (1981) dir. by John Boorman, played by Robert Addie (adult) and Charley Boorman (child)

⭐Morte d'Arthur (1984) dir. by Gillian Lynne, played by Nickolas Grace

⭐Knightriders (1981) dir. by George A. Romero, played by Tom Savini (technically his name is Morgan here but he's basically just Mordred.)

⭐New Adventures of a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1988) dir. by Viktor Gres, played by Mark Gres

Camelot (1998)

King Arthur Excalibur Rising (2017) dir. Antony Smith, played by Gavin Swift

Arthur & Merlin Knights of Camelot (2020) dir. Giles Alderson, played by Joel Phillimore

Everything listed with a ⭐ are genuinely some of my top ever favorite portrayals of Mordred. Absolute must-watch. 80's Arthuriana is life changing.

TV

Adventures of Sir Galahad (1949) uncredited for whatever reason :/ if anyone knows who his actor is please let me know!

⭐BBC Legend of King Arthur (1979) played by Steve Hodson

⭐Merlin (1998) played by Jason Done

BBC Merlin (2008-2012) played by Alexander Vlahos (adult), Asa Butterfield (child)

Other

Music

⭐Mordred's Song by Blind Guardian

Mordred's Song by Grave Digger

Mordred's Lullaby by Heather Dale

Crashing Down by Heather Dale

War Between Brothers by Heather Dale

⭐Seven Deadly Virtues from Camelot (Musical)

Demon Down by Gary Hughes ft. Doogie White

The Hard Way by Gary Hughes ft. Doogie White

Peacemaker by The Mechanisms

Skin and Bone by The Mechanisms

TTRPG's

I, Mordred: The Fall & Rise of Camelot

Fair warning that I reccomend this with HUGE caveats as this contains violent misogyny, racism, and homophobia. If you like Gareth please look away because he sucks in this. That being said, Mordred is very much intended to be the hero you root for and he's so dreamy. He's described as pure of heart. He seems cold, but is warm to those he's close to. He has war dogs and they're all named after the 7 virtues. In a dark, bleak and gritty fantasy setting, Mordred is a shining beacon. It's adorable. I haven't played this myself, only read through the entire booklet but there's a lot of cool concepts and story beats that you can definitely expound upon yourself. Even the less savory elements, especially the misogyny and racism, can honestly just be ignored by the GM.

Video Games

King Arthur: Knight's Tale

I haven't played this so I can't tell you much about it, but it's a turn-based strategy game where Mordred is the main playable character and it's set in Post-Camlann.

Resources and Essays

Books

The New Arthurian Encyclopedia by Norris J. Lacy

The Arthurian Material in the Chronicles Especially Those of Great Britain and France by Robert Huntington Fletcher

The Arthurian Way of Death: The English Tradition edited by Karen Cherewatuk & K.S Whetter

Essays

⭐Mordred: Heroes and Anti-Heroes in Medieval Romance by Judith Weiss

⭐Arthur, Mordred, and Tragedy in the Alliterative "Morte Arthure" by Gillian Adler

Friendly Fire: The Disastrous Politics of Friendship in the Alliterative "Morte Arthure" by Christine Chism

Re-presenting Mordred: Three Plays of 1895 by Pamela Yee

⭐Mordred's Lost Childhood by Elizabeth Archibald

The Sword and the Scepter: Mordred, Arthur, and the Dual Roles of Kingship in the Alliterative "Morte Arthure" by Steven P.W Bruso

⭐Who Was King Arthur’s Sir Modred? by Andrew Breeze

[localfandomenjoyer]

It might be interesting for the Perse/Zeus thing if they only married to stop everyone from picking sides, instead of two factions they would all be under a single banner... It would also impact their marriage because I could totally see Zeus being loyal in every way but sexually, like, he can sleep around with whoever he wants but he would always pick her side (there could even be a myth about a lover talking shit about Perse and him cutting that shizz off so strongly that none of his future lover would ever say her name out loud) it would also show that Loyalty has many sides and one can be loyal in different ways *sorry for the long ask*

I'm not sure Perse/Zeus thing is very popular, for reasons that are understandable, though he would certainly try regardless. If you caught the oneshot I wrote, I'm going to try portraying Zeus with some more nuance. Truth is the Ancient Greeks considered him a wiser, fairer and more just king than Poseidon, so as much as he takes the role of antagonist in Percy Jackson, that isn't all Zeus is. Especially not if he has an older sister that he genuinely appreciates and even trusts to a certain extent.

Setting aside that, Zeus is very conscious of the fact that Perse is powerful, popular and Kronos' rightful heir. Even in a patriarchal society, that sort of thing carries weight, and anyone who marries Perse will have a very strong claim to his throne. Her being attractive in looks and personality is an added bonus, so I'd be more surprised if he doesn't propose at least once. There's no better way of neutralising a threat to your crown than marrying it.

As for the cheating... I'm not sure that's ever going to be something Perse is okay with. I disagree with the idea that she'd straight up die if it ever happened, since our girl is stronger than that, but it certainly isn't going to thrill her. That said, if Perse/Zeus does happen I'm sure they'll be moments for him to punish those who talk shit about her. My mind immediately goes to Ixion who bragged about sleeping with Hera and was tied to a flaming wheel as punishment.

[rosieyart]

okay, by popular demand (and by popular demand, i mean 3 people and my inability to keep my mouth shut) i am here with my saiou/ousai relationship + mini character analysis. this is an elaboration on this ask i got earlier !!

i should mention that i’ve only ever played through v3 once, so there is probably a lot i am missing, nuance wise and what not. i also haven’t edited this well, so it’s kinda just a word dump (sorry), so i’m not sure how understandable/coherent it’ll be. nor do i know how original my ideas are; there’s probably someone who’s dumped their opinions exactly like mine somewhere… in any case, here is my conclusion on why i think saiou is a rather intriguing ship and why i’m personally drawn to them, individually n otherwise ✌️

ouma kokichi. god what a complex character. some might argue otherwise, but i think his character and his arc throughout the game is not only hard to crack/understand, but integral to the v3 plot and overarching themes presented. well never truly know what he was thinking, and so many have already fought tooth and nail to defend or oppose him. in my humble opinion, however, the way i see it is this: ouma’s overall goal was to unite everyone against an active, obvious threat in the killing game. the mastermind was hidden amongst them, as they decided found out on, and by outing himself as the mastermind, making himself a clear and obvious target, it encouraged the remaining survivors to build trust within one another and fight together. kokichi realized very early on that no one was going to trust anyone as long as there was a hidden mastermind posing as a student within their group. he knew they weren’t going to get anywhere if they kept doubting each other — so in a very unorthodox way, he united them together. they didn’t need a friend, he realized, they needed an enemy. and by default, he sort of becomes shuichi’s nemesis as most antagonists in the games do.

i was on tiktok the other day and found this comment that i thought made a good point, regarding kokichi’s character and why people hate him.

though i am biased, i think it’s fair to say that in a world without the killing game, kokichi would want to be friends with shuichi. or at the very least, he’d be intrigued by him and push shuichi’s buttons to figure him out. i think it’s funny and such a nice detail to notice, but just as shuichi (and us, by default) are confused about kokichi and his actions, shuichi himself is actually a mystery to ouma as well. in the eng version, kokichi had shuichi labeled “trustworthy?” on his whiteboard meanwhile in the jp version, it’s “tricky/can’t figure him out.” in both versions regardless of translation, i think it’s fair to say that kokichi is intrigued and wants to understand shuichi better. one part of their dynamic i really love is the whole “i’m gonna annoy because it’s so fun and you react to said annoyances in ways i thoroughly enjoy.” and it’s fun, and silly, but i think it’s also kokichi’s way of figuring shuichi out. shuichi is… an anomaly. he’s an ultimate detective who’s supposed to search for the truth, yet he is ironically afraid of what he’ll find out. he has a knack for discovering and unearthing mysteries (he can’t help but connect two dots together) and yet he simultaneously is hesitant to discover more. he wants to find the truth, but is willing to tell lies in the classroom trials. this is a really fun juxtaposition with kokichi, who is notorious for telling lies and skirting around the truth like it’s the plague. and yet, they both want the same thing: to find out the truth and be done with this killing game. one is searching for the liars within their group, the other is finding out the truths.

this is one reason why i really enjoy saiou. one of the biggest themes for drv3 is the relationship between truths and lies. there’s the overarching “truth” of their world which is that it’s gone to hellfire and everyone but them are dead. the world ended. except, nope! that’s a lie! the *real* truth is that they’re in a killing game show. kokichi is known for telling lies, and so when he reveals the fire destroyed world outside and says that this is the truth out of the outside world, it’s ironic. kokichi knows there’s something else up, but he reveals the truth of the outside world to them (this, from what i understand/theorize, is ultimately to further everyone’s hatred towards ouma and help them form a close and trusting bond together, but the symbolism behind it is really interesting to me). “here is your truth,” he says, and they can’t dispute it as a lie because it’s right there in front of them. just like they couldn’t dispute gonta in the fourth trial.

except… what *really* defines truth? kokichi must’ve known the outside world was a lie, or that there was something more to it, otherwise why did he go through with his suicide in chap 5? to beat a dead horse: he tells a lie about the “truth” that is the outside world. we circle back to this lie vs truth theme in chapter six when shuichi starts questioning his sense of self. what is really true if he used to be someone else? if his memories and experiences are fake, does that make himself a fake human? a fake person? ultimately we come to know that it doesn’t matter — *he* gets to choose his own truth, even if there are lies buried beneath them. his memories may be fake, but his emotions and feelings aren’t. you cant fake the beating of your own heart or the pain you feel at knowing it’s all unreal, that it’s all a *lie*.

one thing i just thought was so so clever and genuinely helped me understand kokichi more was his friendship reward. for every friendship star completion thingy you complete, you get their underwear (💀) and a special skill to use in the trials. kokichi’s friendship reward is “kind lie.” he has a multitude of lies under his belt — real ones, hurtful ones, white ones, and ofc kind ones. you could argue his plan to deceive everyone as the mastermind was both a hurtful lie and a kind lie — he was ultimately lying for the greater good (imo). shuichi, despite being afraid of the truth, has no problem lying for the greater good either. i was so confused about the whole “perjury” aspect added to this game. i thought it was just another lame addition that didn’t make sense as a means of attempting to change it up a little in comparison to the last two games. but now i understand it’s greater purpose. lying is ultimately not a bad thing. not always, anyway. lying, as we find out, can help us pursue the truth. and i think kokichi knows this to be true in some ways, which is why he’s always acting so oblivious and naive at some times — or outright lying when he knows the truth is the opposite of what he’s saying. without a doubt, kokichi seriously helped move debates along during the trials. pretty sure whether you hate him or love him, people could agree to that. even if he appeared to be spouting nonsense or derailing the conversation, shuichi being the detective he is was able to slowly but surely understand (if only somewhat minimally) kokichi’s methods and thinking process. which is why chap 5 was so wild because it quite literally was all up to shuichi. kokichi single handedly put his trust into kaito to follow through with the plan, and shuichi to figure it out; NO ONE ELSE would’ve been able to figure it out except shuichi (except maybe maki but she was too stubborn to see thru to the truth). and that is like. holy shit??? that’s crazy to me and i think it shows that despite not trusting anyone and not knowing how it was going to turn out, kokichi took that gamble anyway. and it worked! except yknow. it also didn’t, in a way. all in all, the lying aspect of the trail grounds ties into the bigger overarching theme of choosing your own truth to live, and choosing what lies to believe in — good or bad.

side note: i think it’s so funny how mad kokichi gets when shuichi lies about seeing him in the virtual world in chapter four. had shuichi not lied, we wouldn’t have figured out it was gonta (or more likely, kokichi would’ve spoon fed the answer to everyone a bit more). gonta wasn’t supposed to have memory loss, and i have to wonder if not lying about kokichi would’ve made the trial go along if gonta still had his memories from the virtual world. in any case, when shuichi pulled the “yeah i actually did see you walk up the stairs” — the fact he LIED (mr “i’m searching for the truth so we can live and find the culprit” detective) to notorious king of liars ouma kokichi was so funny to me. like girl. ofc kokichi’s gonna realize you lied. and he did and he got so fucking mad over it and kokichi being petty like that and just saying “yeah okay gonta’s the culprit” is so funny to me. bro was LIVID he decided to just up and say the truth to be petty 😭

moving on, i think the big three characters juxtaposed with shuichi is something to note. those three being kaede, kaito, and kokichi. mayyyybe i’m looking a bit too much into this but i want to mention their relationship with shuichi and their character designs because it feels very intentional to me. a while back i discovered shuichi and kokichi have inverted color palettes — black with light accents vs white with dark accents. grey-ish yellow vs purple eyes. but the eye color inversion also actually applies to kaito and kaede, who, just like kokichi, have purple eyes. here is my argument: purple is an important color to the story, as it overall conveys a symbolism for trust and truth. if you look at those three’s color palettes, purple is a notable color. for kaito, it’s dominating. kaede, she’s a bit more desaturated, and kokichi it’s like his accent color. barely there, but noticeable nonetheless.

kaede is our first culprit (except she isn’t since her plan failed). she is trusting and sweet and kind and encouraging. she is desperate, *desperate* to find the mastermind first thing because she is heavily determined to help everyone escape. her color palette is a mix of purple and pink, with pink being more prominent and her purple being a more lavender shade. she’s desaturated in color, especially in her eyes, and i want to say this is likely symbolic of her desire to find the truth, yet her willingness to deceive others simultaneously. she’s not a bad person, far from it, but when she “kills” rantarou, she doesn’t own up to it immediately. she owns up to it eventually, but she also doesn’t take advantage of the first blood perk as a means of further trying to find the mastermind. she is willing to lie about her plan to shuichi (even if it’s lie by deception/not telling) and willing to take a risk to find and kill the mastermind. this, i believe, is why her eyes are so desaturated in purple; she is telling the truth, but it’s watered down.

kaito is almost the complete opposite of kokichi, but also not exactly the same as kaede. out of the three, he has the brightest purple eyes and the most purple on his body. he is a living, breathing, walking example of trust and truth. he wants to find the truth so badly and would never even THINK to tell a lie. would never even consider murder, even if it was the mastermind. his hair is purple, his jacket is purple, and his eyes are purple as all hell. purple, in my opinion, is a huge color resembling truth and trust. he *trusts* maki just because he wants to. he *trusts* shuichi just because he wants to. he wants to believe in them because he wants to find the good in everyone. his trust in them help bolster shuichi into a better mindset, especially after kaede, and encourages him to keep going. kaito might not be the brightest, nor the most helpful in the trials, but emotionally he is vital to shuichi. because he *trusts* shuichi.

kokichi has the least amount of purple in his color palette, but i think his purple accents are the most important out of all of the purple trio. if purple is the color of truth and trust, then having that color reflected on kokichi almost seems ironic and misinforming. except it isn’t. ouma kokichi, the notorious king of lies, is actually quite good at leading everyone towards the truth. the only purple on him is in the dyed tips if his hair and his eyes— almost like the truth his bleeding out of him, or rather just barely visible that you can’t make it out unless you focus hard enough. after all, at first glance i imagine everyone would take in the checkered scarf and the fact black and white is so prominent on him. i think it’s symbolic to have purple as his eye color. it’s a nice character design aspect imo, but it also harkens back to that one saying “the eyes are the window to the soul” or something long that line. despite what kokichi might say or do, the truth is in his eyes (literally). it’s silent and unassuming, but it’s there. his eyes are actually a brighter and darker purple than kaede’s. not as bright as kaito’s, but still something to note.

with all this being said, shuichi gets a difference sense of truth and trust from each of them. kaede provides him an equal dose of truths and lies, kaito gives him absolute truth, and kokichi gives him almost all lies to find the truth.

and i really, *really* love the dynamic between shuichi and kokichi with this whole truth vs lie theme. kokichi, as we learn in his free time events, loves to play games. he’s a bit childish but still extremely mature. his way of having fun is messing with people (though not necessarily in a mean way. after all, he makes the stakes extremely high and concerning, like killing yourself if you lose — but he still purposefully rigs each game so they end in a tie, or with shuichi winning. hell, he STABS himself, hurts himself, in the knife game that is in the final FTE and holy shit if that isn’t foreshadowing for chapter five idk what is. he is willing to hurt himself to avoid others getting hurt. obviously this can get more complicated when it comes to chap. 4. you could argue he hurt miu and gonta terribly and he should’ve died if what i said was true, but i would counter argue by saying the killing game would’ve gone on and on, just like tsumugi wanted, without his intervention there… still a heart wrenching trial nonetheless and gonta and miu both deserved better imo. but what would danganronpa be without unfair trials and bullshit like that?).

it’s this push and this pull, this dance, if you will, between shuichi and kokichi. kokichi is a trickster pulling various stunts and never revealing his hand, and shuichi is a detective trying to uncover his secrets. i think kokichi gets thrilled at the prospect of being uncovered like that — he lies and he lies and he *wants* someone to catch him. after all, in the love suite hotel his entire thing is phantom thief being captured by detective shuichi…… the fact he still says “because i love you shuichi” is fucking insane, but that’s actually not the most important part here. during the love suite, he brings up playing games again, just like in the FTEs. “you weren’t bored playing with me, were you?” kokichi asks. and then “are you mad because i toyed with you? don’t worry. i’m always thinking about you!—“ (bombastic side eye 🤨🏳️‍🌈) “—you’re always trying your best to catch me. i really have to give it my all to win .” and then shuichi points out directly after that he seems to be enjoying himself, despite being a “cornered criminal.” and that’s when kokichi admits that he *wants* shuichi to catch him. ….. oh boy the connotations here are kinda crazy but…. it gets even crazier. i cant believe this part is voice acted but here i’ll just link the video so people can watch. (from 4:32 to 5:10) a lot of this, esp towards the end, is likely for the whole romantic love suite hotel roleplaying thing going on to appease the audience playing the v3, but even still it’s such a fun dynamic. again, the push and the pull. it almost feels like a game of tag, the thing going on between shuichi and kokichi. except it’s hard sometimes to figure out who’s running after who. overall, kokichi is a liar and it’s hard to tell what he says is true, and shuichi is a detective hungry for truths.

side note 2.0: i think a lot of people hate saiou because it feels toxic and i can sorta see where they’re coming from: from a very bare bones glossing over their character dynamic, i could potentially see how they got to that conclusion, but i don’t think that conclusion did any real deep diving into their dynamic and characters. so no, saiou is not toxic. and also, it should be mentioned the moment shuichi shows signs of unease in the love suite hotel after kokichi shoved him over the bed, bro was up and out. kokichi respect boundaries and understands a no when he hears one 😁👍

tldr: truths vs. lies. games. purple = truths and trust. chasing after one another. saiousai cool ✌️👍

[edwardteachswombtattoo]

So when we talk about Ed being infantilized, in a lot of ways it's functionally the same discussion we've been having about Ed being referred to as an "aggressive violent angry monster". The key takeaway from both discussions is that Ed is a complex nuanced character whose personality can be broken down and examined piece by piece. The show, as I've said before, doesn't hide its premise and characterization under ten layers of metaphor. If the show wanted us to see Ed as an irredeemable violent monster (for some reason???) the show would have simply given us at least one scene where Ed does something irredeemably violent against a character we're supposed to care about.

"But what about Izzy--" you start to protest. Yeah, what about Izzy? I think people who are deep into the Izzy fandom forget that the average viewer has either a negative or neutral reaction to Izzy. People watching the show for the first time without interacting in fandom spaces usually dislike Izzy immediately, find him mildly interesting but are more invested in what Stede/Ed have going on, or think of him as a somewhat entertaining antagonist and a little sorry for him in Season 2. I think people in fandom forget that 99% of people who know nothing about the show or the fandom itself are not developing an extreme fanatical obsession with this one character. And even people who are critically analyzing certain aspects of this show while viewing for the first time are usually not on Izzy's side. Sometimes when you're deeply entrenched in fandom shit you forget that the average new viewer is not treating Izzy like he's the best character in the show who can do no wrong.

Okay, I'm putting the rest of this under a Read More. Because this got super fucking long. I won't apologize because anybody whose been following me for a while must have realized this by now. Give me a platform and I will yammer.

Ed does not physically harm anyone other than Izzy....after Izzy yells at and threatens him. If the writers wanted to at least imply Ed was physically harming other members of the crew off-screen, they could have done that in a billion different ways. But we only see him threatening them with a gun, then later forcing them to kill him...which are pretty bad, but he never actually hurts them physically. Yeah, he waves a gun at them but he also sticks the gun under his own chin, so...???

We also have several scenes where the crew could mention off-hand that Ed has been hurting them. Surely if that was happening, they would want to talk about it when Ed isn't around! Instead some of them express concern for Ed (Fang's comment about how he's never seen Ed like this before, implying that Ed's behavior, especially having zero reaction to Ivan's death, is out of the ordinary) and also concern for Ed and Izzy's "unhealthy relationship" (again, none of the crew are expressing concern for what Ed is doing to them, they're just complaining about having to go on so many raids and throw away treasure). We can draw the obvious conclusion: the show does not want us to think Ed is being violent towards other members of the crew, only that he's cut off more of Izzy's toes. And as I said before, the average viewer isn't centering Izzy as the most important best guy in the show and Ed as some kind of evil monster for harming him. In other words, Ed's behavior towards Izzy is clearly not meant to be taken as an indicator for what he's doing to the rest of the crew. It's only Izzy, the guy who directly antagonized him.

And, just as a reminder, Ed finds out they've been hiding Izzy, that Frenchie didn't kill Izzy like Ed ordered him to and Ed does absolutely jack shit?? They ignored a direct order from their captain and nothing happens?? Ed doesn't even kill Izzy himself! He doesn't punish anyone for directly ignoring his orders! Again, this would have been a perfect chance for the writers to imply Ed was physically harming the crew in some way...but they didn't, so we have to assume he's not. It's not even implied Ed did this before his breakup era! It's apparently unusual (unusual enough for Fang to remark on it) for Ed to not care about Ivan's death!

Ed very rarely hurts people unless they deserve it. He doesn't even defend himself when the fisherman guy pushes him to the ground and yells at him! And even when they deserve it, sometimes he doesn't! He decided not to kill Ned Low and, as stated before, he didn't even defend himself against the fisherman! If the show wanted us to think Ed was an angry irrational monster, they had so many fucking chances to show that. So I think it's pretty fair to assume we are not supposed to think Ed is an irrational angry monster. Most of his anger is very rational, actually. Even when he has a big outburst (smashing the chair) it's calculated and he immediately removes himself from the situation to calm down. And when Stede talks to him a moment after? Ed is just pouty and rightfully angry, he's not violent or threatening.

The infantilization of Edward Teach, rather than running counter to this, often incorporates some aspects of it. Fanon of this kind often depicts Ed as a violent adult-sized toddler with emotional regulation issues who needs to be "managed" (often by Izzy or Stede, sometimes both) and attacks/kills the people he cares about at the slightest provocation. And even when Ed isn't depicted as a violent toddler in this kind of fanon, he is instead depicted as someone who can't take care of himself/basic tasks without a white man's help.

And I just wanna say, it's not inherently racist to depict a POC as an abuser or as an evil horrible person. That's literally fucking fine.

Spoilers for The Locked Tomb book series

I absolutely love The Locked Tomb, a book series filled with lots of deeply nuanced and complex characters, most of which are POC. And one of the central and most important characters in the series is an indigenous Maori man called John Gaius who literally killed billions of innocent people and has a problematic relationship with almost every other character he interacts with, mostly because of the whole "killing everybody on Earth and becoming God" thing. He's a very nuanced complex fucked up person with trauma and mommy issues and there's no way around that in the narrative.

Okay no more spoilers for The Locked Tomb

I'm mostly pulling this out as an example of like, yeah you can write characters (including indigenous Maori men) as being fucked up people who do fucked up things. It's literally fine.

But...that's not what's happening with Edward Teach in OFMD. You know all that stuff I just said about (REDACTED) from The Locked Tomb? Yeah, those are all things he canonically did. If you're writing fanon about a POC (especially if you're treating it as canon) and it runs completely counter to how they are depicted in canon and it's heavily centralized on racist stereotypes usually aimed at indigenous men....yeah, that's not just "having fun with fanon". I don't need to tell you guys why Twilight and its depiction of werewolves was problematic about Native Americans, do I? I don't need to explain to you guys how depicting indigenous men as angry violent murderers needing to be "controlled" by civilized white men is deeply fucking racist, do I? I don't need to explain that it's racist even if you're doing it in a work of fiction, right? I don't need to explain that constructing an entire fanon based partially or entirely around the concept of an indigenous man being a violent adult-sized toddler who abuses his white boyfriend especially when he's not depicted like that in canon is extremely fucking racist, right? Right? RIGHT?

For the record, I'm not saying you can't write fic or make art about Stede taking care of Ed. Write about Stede braiding Ed's hair and painting his nails and soft domming him into oblivion, I don't fucking care. But you can write fic about Stede braiding Ed's hair without implying/stating that Ed can't take care of himself. You can write fic where Stede comforts Ed after a long day without implying/stating Ed can't take care of himself. You can write fic/make art about Ed being a beautiful pampered princess without implying/stating he needs to be "managed". Why does it need to be "Ed can't do this for himself, he needs Stede and/or Izzy to do it for him?" as opposed to "Ed can do these things himself, he's just choosing to let Stede do them because he trusts and loves Stede so so so much?"

And yeah, let's be real here. There are people (including POC) who need/want to be taken care of or helped with basic tasks. There are high support needs and low functioning autistic people, for example, who happen to be POC and need that kind of help. But we all know that's not what fic writers and fan artists who depict Ed as some kind of helpless toddler have in mind.

[wawawawawawawawawawawawawa]

forreal tho the whole Point of durarara as a work of art is thhat nobody is wholly good (obviously) OR wholly bad, people are complicated and their relationships with each other and the world are complicated as well

izaya as the closest thing to an antagonist the series has, ALSO serves as mikado's foil- he's the bad end to mikado's story, explicitly becoming that way because he had no true friends- shinra only cared about celty and his parents were never around and thats kind of all he had. he was a young boy with clear mental problems, to the point where his father instilled that people love into him in order to prevent a worse outcome and help him be more normal. the way this is framed, as a young boy exhibiting a concerning disconnect from other people to a point where it scares a usually neglectful father into acting- is very reminiscent of media depictions (and real life examples) of parents worrying that their child is a sociopath. this could very well have been intentional, and narita EXPLICITLY makes a POINT to state that izaya is the way that he is because he has a fragile heart- any sort of genuine effection and a betrayal of it could shatter him. i really dont think the takeaway here was "lolllll hes suchhh a loser" OR "omggg hes so scary hes iredeemable." it's another piece of the central theme that humans are nuanced and messy and conplicated and oftentimes in very unglamorous ways that make them unsympathetic to most people. durarara AS A SHOW is about shining a light onto these people and inviting the viewer to sympathize with them, and if someone doesnt get that and is just disgusted by most of the characters then durarara is not the show for them

also vis a vis izaya and mikado being foils- the reason mikado got a happy ending was because of his friends- because of the connections he has with other people. izaya did not have those connections, hence his own instability drove him farther and farther down into a death spiral that culminated in his CRIPPLING, a major loss of freedom from someone who valued it so much, and i'm saying that as a disabled person

anyway yeah

[heavensxrot]

The Justice of Villains: Were they wrong?

Don’t we all, at some point, feel how unjust the world we live in is? Do you ever find yourself sympathizing with antagonists? Do you wish they’d won in the end? Were they just misunderstood geniuses — or simply corrupt evil creatures? Maybe, like me, you sometimes admire the ‘villain’ more than the so-called hero.

Let’s talk about justice and characters that fought for it.

What is JUSTICE in the first place?

This has been one of society’s key questions for centuries. Justice has been a fundamental pillar in our existence since time immemorial. I would personally prefer to refer to Plato, the Greek philosopher, whose idea of justice seems the most unbiased and conventional.

Since the tradition of Greek Philosophy considered ethics to be important, they believed that the state comes into existence for the sake of life and continues for the sake of a good life. Plato believed in the same dictum and held that the state exists to fulfil the necessities of human life. To save oneself from any suffering and to prevent injustice, men enter into a contract to prevent injustice upon themselves or on others. That is also how laws came into existence to codify standard human conduct and bring a sense of Justice. (From “The Republic”)

Justice is when everyone (or every part of the soul) does their proper role in harmony, guided by reason and the good. The virtue that befits the state is JUSTICE which creates harmony in all the three social classes and is a necessary condition for human happiness.

Valid. Proven. Just.

Now, let’s talk about how Light Yagami(Death Note), William Moriarty(Moriarty the Patriot) and Makishima Shougo(Psycho-Pass) saw justice, with flaws and good sides of their ideals.

˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ ·

LIGHT YAGAMI. [Modern world]

“This world is rotten and those who are making it rot deserve to die. Someone has to do it, so why not me?”

Oh, the man he is — a simple student from Japan with the powerhouse of his brains and so much lost potential. Let’s be honest — the guy is admirable and his idea of justice seemed to be very justified. If we could make all evil perish, wouldn’t we do it immediately, right?

Here’s the thing, I LOVE masterminds, they can have me: mind and soul. But when it comes to Light and people who stand on the same hill as he did? Very HARD pass. I do judge you.

Light equates justice with death, allowing no space for rehabilitation, context, or nuance. But he forgets who the main enemy is — corrupt system, people’s ignorance and lack of accountability. He wants to erase the ‘flawed’, but aren’t we all? Is it fair to apply the same punishment for criminals with different range of guilt? Is the mother who stole napkins from the store for her newborn child supposed to die in the same way the rapist will?

Isn’t that why courts exist in the first place? To look through evidence, analyze the context and come to the most reasonable verdict ?

I understand his justice-driven behavior, but it doesn’t mean I agree with it or even respect it. To me , his ‘justice’ was flawed and doomed from the very beginning.

if we kill all criminals, does it mean that only the good ones remain? No — not even close. A society that avoids crime out of fear alone is no better than a herd led blindly, stripped of will. The guy values control through fear — people will behave well not out of goodness but out of terror. However, it has and never will work. Take the actual examples from history(USSR) and modern times(South Korea).

I am not going to defend our juridical system, it has to be reformed, that’s for sure. But it doesn’t mean we need some narcissistic with god-complex to decide people’s fates.

Verdict: Light’s justice is fascist, punitive and absolute. It lacks compassion, context and forgiveness. We are emotional beings that need freedom, not terror and dictatorship, where deviation = death.

˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ ·

WILLIAM JAMES MORIARTY. [Past times]

“People’s fancies do not get taken by that which is out of view.”

Once again — how do they keep making villains so beautiful? Tell me you guys also fell for his face and his dramatic literature-style of speech. Yet another intelligent and well-educated person that fights for equality and justice! Mastermind with the eyes that have seen the terrors of humans’ existence.

What is his idea of justice? William believes that the root of all suffering is inequality. The aristocracy(people with money and influence) abuse power with impunity, and the law protects them. True justice can only be achieved in one way — by resetting society, eliminating those who built their lives on exploitation. His justice is utilitarian, class-based, and revolutionary.

With all due love and respect that I harbor for my precious William, I must admit that I don’t entirely agree with his idea, although his methods don’t look as bad as, for instance, the ones belonged to Light Yagami. You may ask me — why? Let me explain.

I am a history buff from Eastern Europe, so I know stuff when I say that Utilitarianism is not a way to fix the world. The death of the few (corrupt) for the good of the many (oppressed) has been one of Lenin’s leading causes. We know how it ended. “We will build our new world. He who was nothing will become everything!” And no, it never worked.

William aims to destroy the elite class and redistribute justice by empowering the lower classes — often via crime. And here’s the thing, why to demolish the noble class if you can use their wealth and power for the good, while simultaneously helping the lower classes? Not all rich are bad, not all poor are good. His ideology reminds me of radical socialism, which again never worked. We cannot possibly live in a stateless world. Stateless does not equal freedom and equality. Nevertheless, we can choose liberalism to protect people’s rights and bring our society closer to desired equality.

Verdict: William’s key values are omitting the importance of law, legality, reform and individual power. Our world cannot be changed drastically with violence. We are humans, not animals. Most of us learns, we grows, and evolves. He could have used his own influence to guide, to make others become better people.

˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ · ˚‧⁺ ･ ˖ ·

MAKISHIMA SHOGO. [POSSIBLE FUTURE]

"I think the only time people really have value is when they act according to their own will."

Oh, the best antagonist I have ever seen in fiction. Well-written, magically beautiful, intelligent and slightly old-fashioned. A perfect blend for me, I would write poetry dedicated to this man. Frankly, I don’t really understand why people hated his ideas…? Among all the characters mentioned in this post, he actually makes sense, although his methods are devastating and horrifying.

Despite him being only in one season, I fell for hard for this man. “So, sir Makishima, what’s your idea of justice?” (I ask while writing my phone number to give it to him, lol)

The man believes that humanity has surrendered its soul to safety and order, Sybyl System that is. This said system dehumanizes people — punishing or sedating them based on potential , not actions. And this is where I am absolutely on his side. Is it fair to judge people, whose actions have not been illegal just based on some technology, which also includes criminals’ brains? Is labeling or even eliminating people gor what they have not done… just? Can we trust the ones who pull the strings and just forget about importance of human nature? Can’t a person be guided back — rather than destroyed?

The whole idea is admirable by me, but the way he implements his view, the way he manipulates people and cares so little about the most essential concept — human’s life? Unacceptable, sad, tragic.

I fear that our future might look the same. Think of the amount of propaganda we fall for, or about AI replacing employees, or about people’s ignorance of global issues we have caused ? Is it what the world needs? People held captive by trepidation? No, it’s definitely not what I personally stand for.

I am not justifying Makishima’s actions. They are too radical, too brutal, too… soulless. Leading people into the abyss through terror has never worked, and never will. I’ve said it before — utopia can’t be reached, no matter the method. That’s just who we are: flawed, and always will be.

Verdict: Makishima’s justice is anarchic, existential, and romantic. He wants people to live authentically, even if it means violence and collapse. He values freedom, human emotion, and genuineness over safety, stability and mechanical efficiency. However, he believes that suffering equals the truth, which reminds me of my biggest enemy — fyodor dostoevsky. Accepting our imperfections is good, but indulging in them — and acting purely on emotion — makes it hard to distinguish between the human and the beast.

‧ ˚₊ ✦ ˗ˏˋ  ˖˚⊹ ‧ ˚₊ ✦ ˗ˏˋ  ˖˚⊹ ‧ ˚₊ ✦ ˗ˏˋ  ˖˚⊹ ‧ ˚₊ ✦ ˗ˏˋ  ˖˚⊹ ‧ ˚₊ ✦ ˗ˏˋ  ˖˚⊹ ‧ ˚₊ ✦ ˗ˏˋ  ˖˚⊹ ‧ ˚₊ ✦ ˗ˏˋ  ˖˚⊹ ‧ ˚₊ ✦ ˗ˏˋ  ˖˚⊹ ‧ ˚₊ ✦ ˗ˏˋ  ˖˚⊹

Light, William, Makishima… great minds with so much lost potential. Proof that even the smartest can fall the hardest.

It’s okay to love these characters for their depth — but can we really believe they were right, when their actions scream otherwise?

We dream of utopia, peace, and equality... but the question remains: can such a world be reached through pain, suffering, and death?

Let’s stay humans — even when the world we exist in has lost its soul.