#of the narrative structure of the show

[cosmicredcadet]

Soulmates are inherently amatonormative and it's so wild how many people refuse to acknowledge that and instead go around trying to "make it more inclusive" which mostly just leads to then forcing aspec characters into a amatonormative narrative.

[raayllum]

I get that in general a lot of kids shows do utilize the protagonists ('good guys') in ways where they're supposed to be role models, particularly because some do have a "lesson of the week" where the character does bad things, then clearly learns and explains what they should've done instead by the end of the episode.

That has just... never been how TDP has operated, and I don't get how and why people think we're supposed to take what anyone does in the show as being unilaterally good or evil. Particularly in arc 2; any moral simplicity that was hanging on by a thread in arc 1 has been taken out back and shot numerous times by now.

TDP very rarely calls anything Evil or Good, and when it does, it's always filtered through the characters' biases, and rarely does more then 2-3 characters ever have the same opinion on something for the same reasons. Soren and Rayla, who have inverted character arcs, are some of the only characters to ever use the term villain / good guys or bad guys, and are two of the most staunchly black-and-white thinking characters, heavily to their detriment, I might add, in terms of coping with the increasing complexity of their lives. They have cognitive biases. They're not always right, and are frequently wrong. This is true for everyone in the show.

The show refuses to condemn murder, indirectly and directly condemns the expulsion of humans from Xadia routinely (Evrkynd being a city for everyone, Ezran arguing with Karim, who is the most wrong about the most things), and shows a variety of viewpoints on all things.

The show understands that the choices people make—whether the same character trait is a flaw or a strength—as well as 'moral' choices are all circumstantial.

Are you wrong to burn people alive? Mostly yes (2x07, 6x08) but also no (3x09). Are you wrong to kill people? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes whether it's 'wrong' or 'right' doesn't even factor in. Are you wrong to use dark magic, or use the dangerous Staff of Ziard, or coin someone and condemn them to a 'fate worse than death'? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Is lying or hiding the truth to protect someone wrong? Sometimes yes (1x06, 2x03, 3x03, 5x01, 7x04, 7x06) sometimes no (1x02, 2x03, 6x06, 5x08, 7x08).

Are you doing the right thing?

Do you have no choice? Is that true, or is that just what you think, or how you rationalize it yourself?

When is it right or cowardly to leave (Viren, Lissa, Rayla, Callum, Ezran, the Cosmic Council, the offer made to Karim's troops)? When should you stay? When do you decide to share resources (2x05) to your potential detriment or withhold them in the name of protecting yourself and your own people (Xadia and magic)? At what point(s) do you prioritize your own pain and grief, or someone else's (i.e. the Keeper vs Callum vs Ezran)? At what point is someone too dangerous or 'too far gone' to keep alive (Runaan about Harrow, Ezran about Aaravos)? At what point do you decide someone cannot change? When do you refuse to change (Karim, Terry) who you are no matter what happens, and when do you decide that you must (Ezran, Soren)? When is it wrong to use illusions to trick someone (3x09 and 7x06) and when is it more reasonable (2x03)? When should you be willing to sacrifice others (Rayla with her family, Runaan and Rayla with Callum, Soren with Viren) and when should you refuse? When should you sacrifice yourself, and when it is wrong to? Did you betray them, or did they betray you, or both (usually both)? When should you betray or stay loyal to your family? What is the right thing to do?

The show, tbh, doesn't know, at least 90% of the time. It's not interested in knowing. It's interested in exploring. That's the whole point. At most, it says you should work towards harm reduction, but what constitutes harm, and what peace looks like, is also something that greatly differs for all the characters.

Rayla is willing to sacrifice the love of her life, Ezran is willing to create weapons of mass destruction and wield one, and Callum used a torture spell on someone when he absolutely did not have to. The idea that any of the protagonists are meant to be paragons of unblemished virtue who are always 100% right, or that any of the antagonists do not canonically have a good point of contention with anything that's happened and are always 100% wrong, is reductive to everything the show is and explores, because it is Quite Literally not what the show does, ever tbh.

They literally spelled it out this past season as a core theme; I don't think they needed to have a character directly point it out every time a main character did something that was Kinda Fucked Up or Complicated But Understandable to know that the show knows it was Canonically Fucked Up or Complicated But Understandable.

There is not a single character or action in TDP that is always right, and there is not a singular character or action in TDP that is always wrong. Hell, even narrowing it down to "this is 'right' or 'wrong'" feels counterintuitive because it's so subjective within the narrative.

Every choice the characters make is often well reasoned, aligns with their values and world views, and fits into how they work through problems. Every choice has benefits and consequences, for them or for others. That doesn't mean it's Right for everyone involved. That doesn't mean it's Wrong for everyone involved. That's what makes the show interesting. Everything has nuance. Everything has Complexity. I'm not interested in a simplified version of TDP. I'm interested in the show as is.

I hope you are, too.

[wyrnneva]

Wifies and Parrot had idealized versions of each other. Wifies saw Parrot as self-sacrificing, but he never really did anything to be considered that. He risked his life, and he joined fights for a greater good, but he never really did anything with the expectation that he would actually die for that good. He likes to fight for things, but he's never really tried to die for it. He's pretty self-serving a lot of the time, and his hero complex is part of that.

Likewise, Wifies was never as innocent as Parrot liked to think he was. Wifies could be kind of a dick sometimes. His comments to Dean during the trip to the Farlands could be rude and he never exactly went out of his way to help people unless it was Parrot. Wifies burning the compass was an attempt to control Parrot that didn't work. It was meant to be something you could look back at after the Director reveal to say "oh, he's actually always been like this."

I don't think Parrot should've left him to die. I would've liked to see more development for both of them about this. I also think what Wifies did as the Director was fucked up and cruel. I'm glad he did it and I hope he had fun doing it. Part of me also thinks he kind of deserved to die the way he did and I'm not really mad at Parrot for it.

[rafyki]

I think something that for me really sets aside Jack & Joker from other Thai dramas is its narrative structure. Thai dramas usually have a very simple narrative structure where things just keeps happening without a proper flow - I mean, something happens, it gets resolved, and then something new happen that keeps the story move; you know, all those little problems that aren't really all connected together (like, the main characters get together and then someone new appears that comes in between them; or it turns out that, idk, the family was homophobic all along, or that one of the characters actually had a complicated relationship with their family - things like these that are disconnected).

Maybe it's because Jack and Joker has a pretty solid and complicated plot, but something that I really love about it is the way everything that happens is connected, everything is a direct consequence of the characters' actions. It's like this since the first episode until the last one - the plot is brought forward by the characters' actions, everything they do has consequences on everything and everyone else. Like, Joke seeks Jack's forgiveness, so he wants to steal the ring for him, and he works with Tattoo and Hoy -> Tattoo steals the necklace which causes problems for everyone -> they need to steal the necklace back -> Jack meets Rose again, which causes everything else to happen, etc etc

Everything is connected. And I think it all comes back to one of the series' themes, which is that everything we do has consequence, that even if out intentions are good we can't predict what our actions will cause; that we live in a community and that we cannot think about ourselves only bc every time we do something that can end up influencing someone else's life. that we can't be selfish in a community.

[the-one-that-weeps]

I find it a little poetic that, usually, plays have 5 acts, but isat has 6. And the sixth one is responsible for breaking the cycle. Like telling the viewer that "hey, it's not over. Your life isn't theatre. So go out and live."

[ceaselessims]

the malevolent s5 q&a proving me right about my reservations regarding the writing and pacing of malevolent oh i feel like i've snorted cocaine

[aliusfrater]

the spnisms of walker r literally everywhere in that damn show. jensen (barely) had the winchesters and jared created a whole different show and used the same core themes

[xbomboi]

hello Ever After High tumblr community, i humbly request your attention briefly.

so basically, i have a lot of Ever After High ideas clogging my head, ranging from misc. concepts, to plans for entire storylines/arcs. (this includes world building regarding both what we’ve already seen and what we haven’t yet seen, character arcs and development, fairytales and fairytale characters we have yet to actually meet onscreen, etc.)

i doubt anyone cares that much, but i have this vision for how the rest of the Ever After High story (in the tv continuity) would go. i have tentative plans to write this continuation using the 4 episode per story arc format that eah later switched to, while staying in line with the tone and writing style of the specials/webisodes so that it feels like it could naturally work as an official, canon continuation of the series, all while still telling a compelling narrative.

currently i have a rough outline for the first four-episode story arc that i’ve come up with (though i still have a few things i wanna workshop with it) written out. (side note: i typically write the finished draft of stuff in screenplay format, so the rough outline is written with eventually being transferred into that format in mind.)

i just wanted to post this to see if there’s any actual, palpable interest in this at all. and because my friends think i’m insane for keeping my work to myself & the select few people i’ve chosen to show it to as opposed to publicly sharing it because they at least think it’s good enough to be shown off.

so, yeah, just putting this out there incase there are people who wanna know more. i’d be willing to share the aforementioned rough outline i’ve written.

tldr; i want to write—and finish—the story of Ever After High.

[br1ghtestlight]

i saw someone on twitter saying "the ii finale is like the hfjone finale if it was actually well-written and good" which i think is sooo funny cuz for them well-written and good just means. Happy ending where all the characters r happy. and i loved both endings but they're such different shows trying to do SUCH different things and comparing them is so stupid. yes ii was angsty before they got to be happy again and yes there was no happy ending for hfjone characters cuz thats.... like literally the point of the show. Stated in bold text and everything. i cant believe people r still trashing the hfjone ending cuz they have no media literacy??

[widowshill]

the people aren't ready to hear this but angelique arbitrarily picking quentin to decide to be in love with out of nowhere, bewitching roger into marriage and then absolutely not wanting him to touch her, and constantly pursuing men's (chiefly barn's) attention only when it's clear he doesn't want her, is soooo comp het of her.

[candlelightreader]

On Bad Endings and 911 as a Prime Example (because the show is very dead to me but I want to process why)

I was watching this video (below) on bad ways to write endings last night and it was funny to see how many 911 fell into. I am likely not even gonna touch on Athena. I think I've said all I wanted to say on that. They really hate thay poor Black woman and it is quite simple, really. Not much there.

The essay makes pretty good cases overall. Somehow, Bobby's arc and the whole season manage to hit many bad endings that he lists:

The Rushed Ending

Just the episode itself where Bobby is killed does not provide any space for his death. While it could have been realism, they spent the bulk of the time on nonsense only for his death to just be a blip in the scheme of things. There was no respect for what the character had been through or who they are, nor time to give the audience time to absorb it. Being realistic about what being a firefighter is does not mean you can't tell a good story about how they are killed, if you decide to go there. So yes, it was a rushed ending that was then followed with a terrible aftermath where the remaining characters completely didn't give anything worth anyone's while.

None of the grief was believable to me. The funeral took only about 2 minutes? Fuck all that. Then the finale was useless, predictable, and made me feel only anger. I was not touched by any of it. I frankly don't even care for that baby. None of it hit any cord.

Outside Force Saves the Day

This is meant to refer to deus ex machina and it doesn't really apply here. Not explicitly. However, an argument can be made that they killed Bobby in such a really convoluted way, and the series of events leading to it are so nonsensical, that it led to so many of us thinking there is no way it just went down like that. You failed to stick the landing because you just brought in a ridiculous plot just to achieve that end.

Ending in the Middle

Just... How dare you kill a beloved, top of the bill character on a random Thursday, not even give them a big finale or big series opener if you had to do it? Just boom, dead, then it's keep going to a feel good finale like fucking nothing major happened? What seismic shifts? Incredible.

This also can apply to Tim Minear jumping in out of nowhere at all to kill Bobby just as a ploy to, what, make things more interesting for the rest of season? Just no substance or nuance, no subtlety. Just the finesse of a wrecking ball.

Changing Topics/Genres

This is the biggest one that I think applies here. People had bought into a little show where everyone lives and the worse things are in people's private lives. This was a show Peter Krause once described as a comic book. You just know they will fall, dust themselves off, and keep going. It's not worth less. We need this in these times. It was a drama comedy that worked as its own thing.

Instead, after eight years of creating crazy scenarios where main characters just survived everything convincingly within the logic of the show, you went and made it a sad little show that picks and chooses when to be realistic? Such garbage.

Unearned Happy Endings

That whole shitty finale was unearned. None of it felt genuine. The characters are all over the place. It was mocking to audiences. And worst of all, it tried to gloss over the big thing it tried to tell us was such an shift. What fucking shift? (See last point below about predictability.)

It was All A Dream

This one also doesn't really apply because frankly I'm willing to believe that s7-8 was all a bad dream that Athena is having on the honeymoon. All of it has been very Alice in Wonderland levels of surreal.

Unsolved Mysteries

Tell us again how a suicidal man sacrificing himself for his team is good storytelling? And what was it again about him, a fire captain who has almost died so many times, doesn't have his wish for his last rites written already so that his widow will not have to agonize over it? And tell us again what the point was for Athena to be involved with him if he dies anyway? She was better off just living her life solo because as it stands he didn't even leave her anything, not even a house or a grave!

Predictable Endings

Naming that baby after Bobby? Really? So fucking transparent. The whole building collapse just for her and Chim to be locked into it for them to make up? And don't tell me everyone did not see Graham being more seriously injured than he said coming from miles away? It was another fuck you to Athena for good measure, as well as the audience. Because why dare to be different by giving us a happy and lived Black woman on a TV drama.

Now, it could also be, if Bobby is alive, that the Graham near death was a way to say that actually he was revived after they all thought he was dead. Then again it would be very predictable (coupled with the whole plot of the fake baby burial), but it woukd then count as Checkov's gun. But if so, I still don't see what taking everyone through this did. It would be very "all a dream" trope that was a waste of time to us all, including the characters. They knew they were a family already. Athena did not deserve that kind of grief. And there was nothing new forged other than deciding out of nowhere that Hen doesn't wanna be captain after all. That Karen and Athena scene was such ridiculousness, for instance.

[sapphicscholar]

The 5-act structure is for tumblr girlies what the hero’s journey was for early 90s academics and high school freshman English classes (derogatory)

[tinrange]

Thinking about this

[thatscarletflycatcher]

One of the biggest problems of writing that Frasier post is that the logic of 90s comedies is not real life logic. It's not just that you can just pick which exaggerated thing to believe more (and sometimes you need to outright pick between two mutually excluding canon facts), but also the degree to which you believe anything. Which is fun for theorizing but also terrible for theorizing because to argue one way or another you need to create the fiction that the coherent narrative you are pointing out has value of truth in a universe where the value of truth is the rule of funny.

[wonder-worker]

"The division between the two families [the Woodvilles and the Nevilles] and their allies can be seen in the royal charters that they witnessed. Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville of York, while serving as chancellor and afterwards, were fairly constant witnesses to royal charters and consequently often appeared together. This was not, however, the case for other family members and friends. From 1466 to 1469, if Scales or Woodville associates like Sir John Fogge, John Lord Audley or Humphrey Lord Stafford of Southwick witnessed royal charters, then members of the Neville group, such as John Neville, earl of Northumberland, or John Lord Wenlock would not, and vice versa. Discounting the ubiquitous Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville, of the twenty-four charters issued between February 1466 and June 1469, twelve were witnessed by men associated with the Woodvilles, eight by men associated with the Nevilles and two were witnessed by no member of either group beyond the two earls at their heads and the archbishop; only two charters, both from 1466, featured associates of both families.

Such striking segregation of witnesses suggests that something more than simple convenience or availability was at play. [...] The evidence of these witness lists does show the extent of the split between the two groups from early in Edward's reign and of the need for political society to work with that cleavage in the heart of the Yorkist regime."

— Theron Westervelt, "Royal charter witness lists and the politics of the reign of Edward IV"

*This is specifically applicable for Edward IV's first reign; in contrast, the charters in his second reign displayed a great deal of aristocratic and domestic unity and cohesion.

[crowlore]

i remember it used to be a bit of a fandom pet peeve of mine that some people would forget that the gung ho guns and eye of michael were two separate groups with some membership overlap but then stampede came along and made the eom into a project of conrad’s backed by knives. another example of how the reboot feels like bad fanfiction.