#or worse you come up with something that completely contradicts the contexts clues

[jonathanbyersphd]

This whole "I didn't see the heavily implied thing on my screen so it didn't happen" trend in fandom spaces rn has gotten so irritating

[bettyminicoop]

We're at AU since 504, and I'll prove it to you.

So, Riverdale is a comic.

No not like this.

RIVERDALE is a COMIC.

This is how this article began a day ago, when I tried to develop a theory about season 5 and try to explain the absurdity of everything that we have seen on the show lately. But Riverdale is really a comic, in which anything can happen, including events that take us to an alternate universe.

So, the main secret of the season 5 is not mixing ships, it's not about TBK, not about Moth Men, not about TRAUMA™. The main secret of the season 5 is: "What the hell is going on here?"

Does RAS like predictions? Jughead in 417 literally says, "In what future are we not together?" Thus, launching this universe, in which we find ourselves since 504. And there is an explanation for all this, oddly enough.

Honestly, I think that the absurdity of 518 helped me a lot. I realized that all the ship's nonsense of the season is a red herring. I calmed down, exhaled, moved a little further and looked at the whole picture.

For convenience in the future, I will call the events of the first four seasons as RD01, and season 5 since 504 as RD AU. So, everything that happened in RD01 also happened in RD AU, but in a different way. And something may not have happened at all. This is where all the inconsistencies with the plot of the first four seasons come from.

1. The writers are not lazy, they don't forget what happened 5 episodes ago. RAS simply deceived everyone by taking a very risky step. All of the plots that take place in Season 5 have a backstory that we don't know anything about. Except for certain plots that are taken out of the context of the first four seasons. But the difference is that all these plots that happened in RD01 went completely differently here in RD AU.

2. The episode of Citizen Lodge has the most direct evidence for the existence of RD AU. Because if this episode hadn't happened, it would have been hard to guess RD AU. It would be impossible to connect the dots. Citizen Lodge is the key to unlocking the mystery of Season 5 of Riverdale.

The Midnight Club takes place in 1992, but Citizen Lodge takes place in 1988. Although these are the same characters, in the same age range. But at Citizen Lodge we were shown newborn Veronica, because Hermosa never existed here. In RD01, the Lodges have a family rum business, RD AU Lodges are shoe shiners not originally living in Riverdale. The events of both episodes contradict each other, because they took place in different universes. This is not a fault of the writers, this is a deliberate hint. This whole new RD AU universe exists several years earlier than RD 01.

Small addition. In 516 it is indicated that Hermosa exists in the RD AU. But maybe she is younger than Veronica.

3. The last time a clear timeline is set is 503, when Jughead sits in Pop's a year after graduation. And when he walks out the door, he says that the next time he saw his friends was six years later. But we haven't seen that yet. Because that's where RD01 ends.

When 504 starts, nowhere is it stated how many years have passed. The first timeline is set by Veronica Lodge. "It's 2021". And this is the very first clue that we are in the middle of RD AU.

4. When Season 5 was announced, RAS said it would be a 5 year time jump. But by the start of the season, it turned into 7 years. And there is still no error. In RD01, after Bughead says goodbye on the porch, their next meeting actually happens in seven years. But we haven't seen it yet.

RD AU probably takes place five years after core four graduated from high school. And this is confirmed by Bughead's conversation in the bunker when Betty asks Jughead why he's bringing up a conflict five years ago. Which by the way does not negate the fact that voicemail happened only two years ago. Because it is the aftermath of a terrible five-year conflict that ended Bughead's relationship in RD AU. Do you seriously agree that kissing was a terrible thing to do? Probably something worse happened at RD AU.

5. On the chest of Archie RD AU there is no scar after his meeting with the bear, so this did not happen in this universe. We've been shown Archie's breasts so many times this season but we never really noticed!

6. Tom Keller and Sierra McCoy do not appear to be married in RD AU, although they literally fought the Gargoyle King for their relationship.

7. I believe that the RD AU timeline is shifted 4-5 years back relative to RD01. As confirmed by Bughead's bunker conversation and the events at Citizen Lodge. And this explains why RD AU is now in 2021, and not 2027, as it should be in RD01.

8. I watched season 5 very casually and hardly saw more than 1/3. So I need you to help me collect more evidence for the existence of RD AU. For every plot, event and conversation, you need to apply an AU theory filter. And I can promise you, every piece will find its place in the puzzle.

By the way, differences can be not only in plots and dialogues, but also physical in the appearance of characters and interiors.

I'm sure that Veronica's question to Archie, where he sees himself in five years, was also not accidental. But I no longer have the strength to develop this and build it in the context of RD AU. Especially because I don't know much about their relationship history. I trust you to figure it out.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised if Season 5 of Riverdale is still Jughead's book from RD 01, called Rivervale.

Will we get the RD AU backstory in Season 6? To be honest, I'm not sure if we need it.

Is Polly still alive in RD01?

Could Alice's hallucination at 518 be AU on AU? That is, literally being RD01 inside RD AU. Because these scenes were, it seems, the most "normal" in the whole episode. Follow up on this idea. Or we can just wait for season 6 special.

It does not matter at all which ships the RD AU will end with. It does not matter. Because season 5 and season 6 special is not about ships.

Maybe season 6 special is when RD01 and RD AU mix. Well, let's see, it's not long to wait.

Is there a chance RD AU will end on episode 100? Perhaps.

Please give this season and finale a chance. I am currently re-watching individual episodes to find confirmation of my AU theory, and now season 5 makes sense! Check it out for yourself. I'm sure there will be a TBK mystery in the final episode next week that will make my whole AU theory obvious. But I will write about this separately right after this post.

Looking back now, I think the flurry of spoilers ahead of 518 is literally when RAS went crazy. Because we're incredibly dumb and didn't want to see obvious clues in the narrative.

I will never pull this stone out alone. So, my young archaeologists, arm yourself with hammers and brooms, and help me bring this treasure to the surface completely.

I want to say THANK YOU to Bughead fandom. Because you are amazing. Because you are building theories, you are guessing, you are thinking. Because you spin every situation, you question every plot that happened on the show. And I am overwhelmed with complacency, because the uncovering of the main secret of Season 5 came from the Bughead community. After all, who else besides Bughead can uncover Riverdale's secrets?

And thanks to those who first brought up AU in Riverdale. Because only thanks to this theory, I was able to pull the thread and untangle the whole ball.

It's so liberating. It’s like someone has suddenly turned on the lights in the dark room we’ve been in since the beginning of Season 5.

[natsumiheart]

I look at a lot of stuff on Pinterest and one of people's reasons on why Oumasai is toxic is because Kokichi made Shuichi want to kill himself? Something tells me this is wrong but I'm not sure what proves it wrong. (I mean they also point out that Kokichi mocks Shuichi for mourning Kaede-) I'm asking about this because its been eating at me and trying to prove that it isn't toxic.

Hooo boy this is gonna be long so buckle up! I’m sorry I couldn’t make this shorter I just really go all ace attorney mode when it comes to this type of stuff.

Sorry if there are any mistakes or some parts are too confusing my internet might go soon so I can’t proofread and edit anymore!

I think what they’re referring to is how Shuichi got really depressed after discovering that the world had ended, but how can it be Kokichi’s fault? He literally wasn’t the mastermind, he didn’t make all that stuff up. Heck, he was the first one to even see that motive and on his own it was way worse to deal with. His behaviour was so out of line that Kaito got fed up with him and punched him for the nonsense he was saying.

The motive was supposed to make everyone fall to despair, it’s purpose was legit what happened to Miu where she NEEDED to go out to help out the world before everyone was gone. The motive was MEANT to be seen to make the game “More interesting” but Kokichi didn’t let the others see it until he finally convinced them that he’s the mastermind. If he didn’t the Mastermind would find a way to show it to them in a different way and there’s no knowing what could happen, and if he showed it to them himself they’re bound to believe what he’s saying considering the fact it’s obvious he already knew about this. He took that motive to basically make everyone give up on trying escape by killing each other, since as the mastermind he said “The game’s over now! There’s no point.” to prevent another murder from happening. AND IT WORKED, for a long while no murder took place but of course the actual mastermind couldn’t just sit idly and let the game be “boring” (Which was Kokichi’s goal) So they made a flashback light that Maki ended up seeing and calling the others to see, and the flashback light made everyone including Maki believe that Kokichi was a remnant of despair. They wanted to get rid of Kokichi for messing with the game and taking over their position, and this was their way to do it.

So, after all that, if others see that KOKICHI was the reason Shuichi wanted to give up for a second there. Then I really don’t know what to say. Shuichi has went through so much already because of the killing game and Kokichi’s attempt to stop the killing game is not the reason he wanted to give up. It was because he lost a lot his friends and because the world was most probably all gone. At that point he had nowhere to go back to and everything he has worked so hard for was for nothing because there’s nothing left. Kokichi didn’t do anything to Shuichi for him to be the sole reason he suddenly wanted to die. His depression got the best of him after being all alone with his thoughts for a couple of days, not eating or moving just sleeping the entire time. If anyone is at fault it’s the mastermind for making up such a cruel lie that even made Gonta commit murder to “save” the others.

And for the mocking him about Kaede’s death part (Which is literally one line after Shuichi removed his hat) Kokichi at that point had witnessed that the killing game was real and it was going to get him eventually. He wasn’t alright either and he had already started to make everyone hate him, acting more hostile and annoying so they all stay away (since anyone who groups up everyone or brings them hope will end up like Kaede did) He didn’t want to be the next Kaede or Rantaro. It started with that line but in the end he cut off all ties he had (if he had any) in chapter 4 so that they have no doubt that he is only full of malice and that he is indeed the mastermind.

“But how do you know that he has been devising that plan since back then?” Remember the “horse a” message? the first letters were added to it right before the next morning after the first trial where Shuichi entered the dining room without his hat. If you don’t believe me, here’s a paragraph from well written wiki!

Sometime between the end of the first trial and the morning of the next day, Kokichi would begin to devise of a plan to get everyone to think that he was the mastermind of this killing game, willing to be seen as evil for the sake of ending this madness. To begin this plan, he would leave a subtle message in the courtyard "Horse A", which he would later fill in with more letters as the killing game continued.

And here’s the source if you wanna check for yourself: Click here!

If it wasn’t already obvious, Kokichi is a LIAR. And his biggest lie of being the mastermind started after he saw the deaths of Rantaro and Kaede. That first chapter affected Kokichi a lot, he lied and lied to hide it but he was shaken up by the sudden death of Rantaro and was devastated by Kaede’s death. Though all he could say at her last moments is that she wasn’t boring. Because he knew, if he was truthful? Eyes would be on him immediately and he would be in danger.

Kokichi did his best to be the person he would hate the most, he lies so much yet says he hates liars, then says that’s a lie. Making everyone confused as to what the hell is right or wrong in what he’s saying. But he couldn’t keep up his facade forever especially when he was starting to get interested and even attached to Shuichi. In one completely optional scene in chapter 3 he legit says that he doesn’t want Rantaro to be the one who gets resurrected (Though he probably was more interested in him because he obviously knew more than he let on in chapter 1. Asking everyone about the Ultimate Hunt when no one else remembered it until they say the flashback lights, his fight with Hoshi, and how he was so sure that he WILL end the killing game. Kokichi even had his effigy in his room because he saw it as a clue or evidence that can help later, he needed to know what he was hiding and what his talent was.) and despite all that when Shuichi asks why he doesn’t want Rantaro to be the one, he says “Because you’d rather have Kaede back.” Of course he writes it off as a lie, but then right after that he SHOWS Shuichi his interest in Rantaro saying he might be working for the mastermind. The exact lines are:

Kokichi: “What if Rantaro was working for the mastermind? Bringing him to life might be a bad idea.” 

(Trying to make Shuichi believe that he really did lie there about his reason why he didn’t want Rantaro to come back by making him believe that THIS was the real reason. I don’t know exactly if he entertained the idea or not, but he most probably did not believe Rantaro to be the mastermind here. He might have even made up that killing game anime he was talking about. Its’ real for us but might not be for them.)

Shuichi: “N-no that’s idiotic! Rantaro couldn’t have been working for the mastermind...:

“But is it really impossible? We only knew Rantaro for a short time. He did seem as though he was kind of used to the killing game”

The “used to” in that sentence was highlighted. THIS was Kokichi’s intention, to make Shuichi realise that Rantaro knew more than he let on. Which reinforces Kokichi’s interest in him. But Shuichi fell for Kokichi’s trap earlier and didn’t notice at all that he slipped the fact Rantaro would give more information.

It’s confusing I know, Kokichi’s thing is mind games after all. But what I’m trying to say is that for Kokichi’s goal to figure out this killing game and how to end it Rantaro would be most ideal to bring back but he just wanted to tell Shuichi that he’d rather have Kaede instead just so he’s happy. The evidence for that is how even after he says its a lie he lowkey shows Shuichi he’s more interested in Rantaro instead. It reminds me of those scenes where he says “WAAAHH I THOUGHT YOUD KNOW I HATE COFFEE” then right after he’s like “I’m tired of all that crying can I have a cup of coffee please.” Or “I actually can’t taste anything!” then “anyway my faves are spice and sugar!”

Kokichi did say something insensitive when he said “Is it cause Kaede died or whatever?” but it didn’t bother Shuichi at all he just brushed it off since he saw how he acted in the trial earlier. It wasn’t a surprise to him. Kaede’s death affected Kokichi too, and that line doesn’t match up with what he said about bringing Kaede back.

You never know what’s the truth and what’s a lie with Kokichi, everything he says contradicts each other. So how is it that all these people who hate Kokichi and call him toxic take his worst lines or moments as the truth when the context of his entire character and motive says otherwise. When he had to crush Shuichi the most so he believes that he is full of malice without a single doubt. To make him believe he was really the mastermind immediately, so he doesn’t go all detective on him like he usually does.

Kokichi’s actions were terrible yes but they were LIES he did it for a purpose that’s what makes him a grey character when in a KILLING GAME. It’s shown in salmon team that under normal circumstances the two would get along and Shuichi would want to learn more about Kokichi and his true self.

TLDR; Leave these children be, they were in a killing game. No ship is toxic unless it’s shown that person was terrible / messed up from the start and would hurt whoever they’re with. Those users just obviously don’t like Kokichi and hate seeing him with anyone XD and it’s obvious with how they blame him over a motive Monokuma/ the Mastermind has created and straight up ignoring the intentions behind his actions.

Now without evidence and stuff, truly speaking from my heart from here with full on bias XD

I get hating a character or a ship but oh my god can you not spread misinformation for others to feel obligated to agree? Toxic is such a strong word and I hate how people keep associating it with every ship they dislike. Making others feel bad for what comforts them! If Saiouma was so toxic how come it makes so many people happy? How come it makes people literally calm down,  stop crying, and feel warm. Saiouma is one of the most adorable and realistic ships out there... Don’t ruin it for everyone else just because you don’t agree with how we feel. Just say you’re not a fan and move on!

Anyway don’t worry your ship is very valid! You can continue supporting them without feeling any guilt and if anyone calls it toxic they can see me so I break their kneecaps.

[machi-kun]

Hi! I have a few questions that I’d love your thoughts on if you want to answer! In the Civil war film, you know after Lagos when vision comes into Wandas room and says something like ‘Captain asked me to tell him when Mr Stark comes back’, why do you think Steve wanted to know when tony was back? Do you think he was going to tell him about his parents or something? (I know it wasn’t relevant in the film why he wanted to know when tony was back, i was just curious what you think). Also-

My other question, in infinity war, do you think rhodey knows about what went down in sokovia? Just because I thought it was odd how friendly he was with Steve. The last question is about Steve’s ‘Earths best defender’ line in infinity war, was just wondering if you talked about it in your fic? Will tony ever find out Steve said that? What was Steve feeling when he said it? It’s totally ok if you don’t answer this, i just thought it was interesting. Thank you!!

Hello, anon! I’m very happy to share my thoughts on anything you’d like to ask, don’t worry! If you ever decide you want to talk about some detail in canon or in my story, feel free to drop by!

Now, CA:CW. From what I can tell from context clues, Steve wants to talk to Tony about the backlash the Avengers suffered after Lagos. I don’t think it has anything to do with Bucky, despite his conversation with Wanda. Actually, I believe it has to do with Wanda more than anything else. I see two possibilities: As Tony is no longer part of the combat duty roster, but is still active duty unlike than Clint, it’s possible that Steve was going to ask for Tony to come back to combat duty in specific missions. He’d be reluctant to do it, but he’d do it, if it was really necessary – and maybe he thought it could become necessary in case the backlash became so great Wanda would have to take a small break from missions, and the Avengers would be in need of someone to fill in her position. Possible, even if Steve would feel bad about it because Tony did leave active roster and it would be sort of unfair to call him back.

But I think if Steve did that with the additional intent of scoping out Tony’s opinion of Wanda and the media’s reaction, and see if he can get Tony to at least talk him through some ideas on how to deal with it, that would fit Steve’s character perfectly.

I’m not saying he has bad intentions, not at all. But as I’ve said before, Tony is the Avenger’s Tenth Man, he is Steve’s opposite and even if their relationship isn’t as amicable as it is in the comics, Steve does refer to Tony’s opinions and reactions very, very often. Every time they are in the same room together while something is being seriously discussed, Tony and Steve trade looks – that is not a coincidence. They constantly gauge each other’s reaction, and with Tony mostly gone from the Compound, Steve has no one that can refer to when he’s morally conflicted, because unlike Tony, Natasha and Sam, the ones Steve refers to the most after Tony, rarely outright challenge Steve’s opinion; they might poke fun at it, or express hesitance over its efficiency, but they never outright contradict him. 

It has nothing to do with Bucky, instead, it’s Steve trying to talk to Tony about what happened in Lagos and gauge his reaction, to see if he has any ideas on how to deal with it, and, maybe, ask if Tony would be amenable to helping them in case there was any need if Wanda’s situation got too out of control.

As for telling him about his parents, my opinion is that Steve wasn’t going to tell him at all. Not in that moment, not in any other moment – not before he had Bucky back, and totally stable. That is what I say when I say Steve has a shortsighted logic when it comes to Bucky’s mental state: Think of it as trying to deal with the issue in a controlled environment; Steve believes he’ll be able to bring Bucky back and have him safely reintegrated in society (and possibly inside the Avengers) before he tells Tony, because he wants to have something to show that Bucky is a good person and is fully healed, so Tony has no reason to fear nor try to extract revenge - and if he, for some reason still tried, Steve would have Bucky near to protect. But mainly because he wants something tangible and concrete as proof of Bucky’s innocence and worth, because if you’d recall, Steve has no proof that Bucky didn’t actually bomb the UN conference in Vienna or isn’t being controlled in any other way. Having Bucky being safe and sound is something that hopefully will damper Tony’s visceral reaction upon learning the truth.  

As for Rhodey, I’m assuming you mean Siberia, since everything that happened in Sokovia was public? Kjshkjfhkjdah

No, I don’t think Rhodey knows about Siberia. Actually, he might not even know Tony went there. This is how it works in my head: Tony is feeling extremely guilty for Rhodey’s injury, and he doesn’t want to talk about anything related to Steve and Bucky with him because he thinks it’s insensitive and useless – because it will not only make Rhodey feel worse, poking at the wound somehow, but it will also alert Rhodey that Tony still hasn’t given up on the idea of chasing Steve and Bucky if he finds them, and Rhodey will protest against it. The quickest way to ensure Rhodey won’t interfere is simply not to tell him.

After Siberia, it becomes a bigger issue still. Hiding the events of Siberia stops being for a spiteful, half-hopeful, half-vengeful motivation of getting Steve back to become an ashamed, guilty, heavy sense of betrayal, Tony’s perception of Steve shifting completely from “someone he needs on his side” to “someone who used him”, and now, Tony isn’t scared that Rhodey will reprimand him anymore – he’s scared that Rhodey will realize how pathetic Tony feels over not only his (apparent) wrong idea of his own meaning to Steve, but also of how irrational and unfair his reaction to Bucky was. He’s ashamed and he’s hurting, so he hides it like he hid his palladium poisoning in IM2.

So as far as Rhodey knows, the last time Tony saw Steve was when Steve escaped in a jet with Bucky in Leipzig. If Tony told him anything about what happened after that, he surely didn’t tell him the whole truth – perhaps none of the truth. When Rhodey hugs Steve when he comes back to the Compound, the only thing that makes sense to me is that Rhodey doesn’t know. If he did, he wouldn’t have reacted that way.

And no, not yet! Steve hasn’t talked about calling Tony Earth’s Best Defender yet, but he will! It’s a very emotional scene, I’m very excited to get to it, but it’ll take some time! What Steve is feeling in that scene is very complicated, he’ll talk about it more when the time comes, but it’s very much related to one of the initial scenes in Suspension of Belief. I’m sorry I can’t say more about it, but it’ll be discussed in the fic, I promise :) 

Thank you for stopping by and asking some questions! I don’t mind them at all, and if you’d like, you can come back with more if you want to. I’m always excited to discuss some MCU meta.

[sol1056]

six anons: wtf were they thinking

Another round-up! I seem to have poked the hornet’s nest when it comes to the EPs --- though in some ways I was just building on the same clues that prompted such awesome meta from @janestrider​ and @ptw30​ --- and now I have a box filling up with asks, all over again.

Behind the cut: newbie writers, EP arrogance, earlier versions of S7, writerly randomness, EPs aren’t writers, and over-confidence. Welp. 

Let’s get this started.

Your words about being fascinated by this trainwreck is me 100%, I'm a newbie writer & I wouldn't dream of being this arrogant and think I can handle writing something like VLD by myself, like, premise and character arcs and characterization and consistency etc. are in my mind at all times and I still would have messed things up, but minor things like that don't even matter to the EPs apparently! VLD Is a giant What Not To Do list. How did they miss the 50 signs saying Danger: Cliff Up Ahead

and a second in the same vein:

Calling the EPs newbie writers is highly inaccurate methinks, newbie writers upon getting the reins ... sit down and write the rest of the story from scratch, trying to make it make sense and not completely ruin the premise and the character arcs. Regardless of success, they WRITE the rest, they don’t assemble random story points others wrote & copy paste things around. EPs aren’t writers.

Well, there’s newbie and there’s newbie-who-doesn’t-realize-it. 

Consider someone who’s ridden the train, every day, for the past ten or so years, always sitting in the first car near the conductor. They’ve been on the train when it’s broken down, when it’s late, when it’s early, when it has to plow through snow. Then someone offers them a supervisory position -- not as a driver, just a supervisor -- and they figure, hey, I’ve watched this enough, I can drive, too. Plus, the EPs had the power to force the real drivers to step aside, which just makes the entire situation even worse.  

In other words, they missed the signs because they didn’t even realize such signs exist. Those things you don’t learn (or even see) when you’re only watching from the outside. 

You, and everyone else replying, are classifying yourself more as the person who’s gotten a job on the train, and you kinda know trains, and you know they can break down, but driving it? Whole ‘nother ball of wax. 

Hold onto that humility. It’ll serve you well as a writer. Even once you reach the point you can confidently handle a complicated storyline, you still want to retain that humility, because it’s one-half of keeping empathy for your readers. 

The irony is, they were so arrogant in their belief they could do better than actual storytellers w/ years of experience (also presumably execs who checked up on them) that they not only loudly (and unprofessionally) complained about specific parts, but also broadcasted that they changed the story, and gave many clues as to where and above all why. 

You have no idea how many times in the past two years my jaw has dropped in complete shock when yet another EP quote has gone by on my dash. I cannot fathom making public that I disagreed with my bosses --- let alone using an interview to re-litigate a case I’d already lost. Well, I could, but only if I didn’t expect to have a job much longer. And that bit about doing “damage control” as a result of exec demands? Jeepers crow, dude. 

(there have been points where all I can say is, ‘wtf do these people have on their bosses to get away with this!?’ photograph negatives for blackmail? sleeping with an exec? I mean, srsly.)

On a more serious note, I’m constantly reminded of the old adage about innkeepers: you want to appear as a swan, gliding peaceful and serene, and never let the guests see that you’re paddling as fast as fuck under the surface. These EPs need a major come-to-jesus about that, because they’ve gone out of their way to splash loudly on a regular basis.

Then again, I don’t think either EP has much (if any) experience with interviews where they’re the main attraction. They seem ignorant of the fact that an interviewer is not your friend; there’s an agenda, and that agenda is to get clicks: something controversial, surprising, that’ll bring the eyeballs. The good interviewers can and will manipulate for their agenda. This is why PR people are usually present (if off-screen), because they’ll know the warning signs and call a halt, set certain questions (or answers) as off-limits. 

Most of the EPs’ interviews, there’s been no sign of PR. Hell, the EPs have admitted in interviews they couldn’t remember what had happened in the season they’re being interviewed about! (wtf srsly wtf) If we got more than we should’ve, that’s also on the EPs for not realizing they were getting played. 

And while I’m at it: an interview is not where you tell the story. Explain what did happen? Sure, though that’s a tacit acknowledgement that the story failed, if it requires your explanation after the fact. But to tell things that are vital to the story but don’t actually happen in the story? No. Just no. 

did we really get an interview where the EPs confirmed there was an original script with Shiro as the Black Paladin? If that's the case then HOLY CRAP. Talk about a missed opportunity.

Yep, I saw the quote but didn’t chase down the source. I think it was one of the interviews shortly after S7 aired. You’d need to ask someone who still reads all those interviews, since I don’t. I only see what goes past on my dash.

Well, missed opportunity but also... we all know (or should know) that the first idea is never what makes it to page or screen. And once the story’s done and the dust has settled, then you can do a track commentary about how the story changed between idea and execution. 

While the story’s in progress? Nope, nope, nope. You smile and say it’s all going according to plan, it’s an awesome season, you hope everyone enjoys it, everyone went the extra mile, etc. You say nothing about the disasters, the late-night sessions, the last-minute changes. If you can’t be a swan, be a cat: yep, we totally meant to do that.

To say what JDS did? I still cannot fathom why anyone would ever say that. There is no fandom on this planet that wouldn’t have some percentage enraged by news they’d been denied the story they’d expected. Hinting at discarded paths will always, always, disappoint someone --- and quite often, a lot more someones than you realize. 

Really, the only reason I can see is sheer contempt. For the audience, for the story, for anyone who’d worked on that previous version. It’s gloating. It’s saying, a lot of people worked on it, but we decided to throw away everything they’d done, and redo it as we wanted. 

Yes, I know that happens. It’s part of the process. But you don’t freaking boast about it, and you don’t plant in everyone’s head that there was something else out there. Especially when that something else was exactly what they’d been waiting for. 

It’s an asshole move, no two ways around it. 

@janestrider's post and yours about the VLD writers and EPs reminded me of a phrase JDS said in one interview after S6 about Cosmo ... "well, I wanted to give Keith a wolf, so I did". ... he doesn't seem to consider the consequences of his actions? That's also how he decided to write the Black Paladins episode ... "I wanted to make it a Winter Soldier type of thing, so I did". It feels like something a very unexperienced professional would do.

There’s no rule against throwing something into a story that you think is cool. I mean, easily 90% of any story out there revolves around something the author thinks is just freaking cool. Considering the hours we’re going to spend writing, revising, writing again, revising again, discussing, thinking, living, breathing, eating, dreaming about the story? It’d better be something we find cool. 

But that said... there’s a difference between making sure the story fires you up, and treating the story like a tossed salad. I’ve seen multiple pull-quotes from LM that affirm their approach was to chase the rule-of-cool. And... that’s not quite so okay, really. 

The Black Paladins episode is probably the best example, and ironic that it’s the only one JDS wrote, ‘cause it’s textbook failure. If you cannot hold the entire story in your head, then you will be blind as to how tossing in this idea or that -- no matter how cool -- may halt, muddy, or even undermine the story’s forward movement. When you can’t even pace a story properly, throwing in extra cool is just going to make the whole thing even more rickety. 

I did a long walk-through on that episode to outline how I’d translate it into a written story, and I’d planned to do a follow-up talking about the emotional aspect. The problem is... once I had a chance to think about the episodes after, there is no emotional context to that fight. Sure, it got a huge budget and attention, and it’s hyped like a big deal. 

But there’s no there, there. 

None of it matters. Keith went through all that for someone who wasn’t even his friend, someone who dies (or whatever) right after and is treated like an empty shell. And the one who rescued him wasn’t even the person he’d fought, but the person he’d thought he was fighting for and with -- who was dead, the whole time. The two episodes that follow basically gut the entire premise --- and all the emotion --- of that fight scene, and render it null. 

And that’s where the rule-of-cool smashes up against the need to hold the shape of the story in your head. You need to see the big picture of how each scene supports the story’s theme. JDS hasn’t the chops to see how what he’d created was promptly undone by what came next. 

Oh, I’m aware there are lots of fans who loved that episode and he sure basked in the accolades, but I can’t ignore that in the end, it means nothing. No one pointed out this will impact another thing downstream, or this later thing undermines what came before, or this breaks a continuous motif, or contradicts a theme. Anything. 

Or maybe someone did, and JDS told them that as the EP, he got the final say. Frankly, from the way he talks in interviews, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if that’s how it went down. 

@lysanatt commented on a post:

This to some degree even explains the over-confidence of EPs that avoiding the BYGs trope did not apply to them because, sure, they could do it better, landing them in the exact trap of doing a classic double BYG.

Call it what it is. It’s not over-confidence. It’s arrogance.

It’s complacency in over-estimating social capital as to what an audience might forgive or overlook. It’s an assumption that job titles or IMDB entries or the nice things people had said on twitter could be protection from being held accountable. It’s certainty that a rigid and uncreative vision of the story can and should override all other concerns, including the larger playing field in which this story is only one of millions. 

It’s a lack of concern for real-world damage. A lack of care for the craft. A lack of understanding that there even is a craft and it’s not learned overnight. A lack of willingness to stop and think about what the story is saying, what it means, what it’s trying to do. 

It’s an inflexible certainty, engendered and enabled by the near-constant attentive interviews and adoring reviews. It’s an inability to hold onto (or listen to) any reality-checks when it comes to hype. It’s falling so hard into enjoying the ego-strokes of constant interview and congratulatory reviewers and forgetting no one is doing anything out of altruistic reasons. Including them. 

In the end, it’s a complete failure of empathy. It’s near-constant trolling of execs and the audience at large, a broken record of obvious contempt. It’s an amoral and frankly callous disregard for the characters, the story, the messages, the themes. 

It’s never seeing the characters as people, and never seeing the audience as people, either. Stories matter because we, as human beings, care about other human beings, real or fictional --- a care the EPs have made clear they cannot, or will not, afford anyone but themselves. 

[samanthajanetaylor-illustration]

Video Game Storytelling

I read another book on narrative within games, and I think I now have a more etched out idea of how I want the narrative within my own game to work, having checked my own idea of story with the points discussed in the book.

Conflict

The fuel of any good fiction is conflict, if a story runs out of conflicts before the end, there’s a real problem as most of the character motivations will seem pointless. This is the same for any type of storytelling, especially games for that matter, as games at their core are about problem solving and overcoming obstacles -- even the most basic or most complex follow this rule. Usually, there will be one main conflict and often other, smaller ones which the main character must face along the way to solve the main. In a video game context, the smaller conflicts will often be in the form of levels or missions, the main being whatever was set up at the beginning of the game -- often ending with some sort of final boss (being the main conflict). Games may even be more compelling than most other forms of media in regards to conflict, as the player actually takes the role of the character whom must overcome and resolve the situation. Levels/missions in a game are physical expressions of conflict generated obsticles -- a fact which is very useful for my theme in particular, as the goal is to represent a journey of understanding between two people.

Example; in Portal, Chell (player character) wants to escape the Aperture science facility, but GLaDOS (an insane AI) is holding her captive and forcing her to solve bizarre and deadly puzzles.

In my own story, the player character (who takes the role of Gwen), wants to find and help her daughter as she mysteriously disappeared, but in order to find her she must enter a strange world of her daughter’s imagination, put herself in her shoes, and overcome multiple obstacles. The conflict here is more mental rather than physical, the “villain” being a lack of understanding.

When creating a main conflict, its important to think of the scale - what’s at stake for the characters/world/etc? Bigger stakes don’t equal more powerful stories, the conflict only needs to FEEL huge, in fact a lot of the time more personal stories feel more relatable to us. Stories feel more important if the main character, or another character we relate to, cares about what is at stake -- my narrative very much suits this particular category. Humans are better able to emotionally relate to a single person, than to a thousand. Gwen cares about her daughter's disappearance because she loves her and is worried about her.

3 Act Structure

Obviously, one of the most important structures in any story, and the most well-known, Beginning, Middle and End. Beginning is the setup of the characters, the stakes and the conflict. Middle is the confrontation, where most of the meat of the story resides and contains many other conflicts among the way, it sets up the End. End is the resolution, the tying up of all the narrative threads and resolving the main conflict (for better or worse).

My story goes something like this:

-Setup = we find out about the characters, a bit about their backstory, the daughter’s disappearance

-Confrontation = Gwen trying to figure out why her daughter left, where she went and attempting to rescue her

-Resolution = daughter and mother reunited, a new understanding between them reached.

Setup

This is important, as this is where you can see where the characters have come from, so that in the end you know how they have developed as characters by the end and how their journey has changed them. So this not only serves as the section for introducing people and foreshadowing, but also as a point of reference. In my story, this is where we find out that Gwen can not fathom her daughter’s behavior or feelings towards things, but in the end she begins to see her way of thinking and how certain things might affect her differently. This introduction stage is also about showing why the character would want to face the conflict at all. So, obviously in my narrative, Gwen’s daughter is very upset and runs away. She loves her so wants to find her, as she is worth fighting for. Without setup, the character wouldn't become aware of the conflict and therefore would never have an opportunity to resolve it (which is the entire point of the story’s existence!) So in short, setup = foundation.

Confrontation

During this middle part of a story, the hero is committed to resolving the conflict. Time to see what kinds of obstacles the protagonist will confront and how to overcome them. It is the introduction of the source of the main conflict -- the villain. My story doesn't have one per se, though of course the problem is miscommunication and a lack of comprehension. People on the autistic spectrum (like myself, and the daughter in the story) are expected to act like everyone else, but this is often extremely difficult or impossible, as our brains are “wired” differently. Sometimes, the best way to overcome an issue is to communicate the problem, as then both sides can learn from it.The middle is of course the setup for the final act, and the pay off for what was set up at the start, and is the longest of the 3.

Resolution

The end, what everything in the story has been leading up to. The hero makes the final effort to resolve the conflict and either succeeds, or fails. Sad endings are less common however, because they break expectations and can make the audience feel angry or disappointed, in other words, its risky. A great example of this within modern games would be perhaps one of the most controversial video game endings of all time -- the ending of Mass Effect 3. Many hated it because it was actually sad no matter what choices you made, it being quite hard to actually survive the end (you had to have made all the right choices in previous games and this to even stand a chance). Happy endings have to feel earned too however, as if the audience is not really invested in characters or dislike them, they can feel that they didn’t really earn a happy ending. In my game, the ending will be somewhat left open to interpretation, as the game itself includes heavy symbolism, however is overall happy -- as Gwen will find her daughter.

Plot Points

There is no real separation of acts (or rather, doesn't feel like there is), but are sometimes separated by plot points. Point 1 is where the hero commits to the cause, and point 2 is where the hero realises what they have to do in order to solve the conflict. (my story, 1 is where Gwen enters the world  and sets out to find her daughter, 2 is when she realises she must use the knowledge she has gained by entering the scary, confusing world which represents an overload and using the information gained to find her here.) 

Dialogue, Level Design and Narrative Setup in Games

Video game devs often struggle with how to tackle the setup, as most gamers want to be able to start playing right away, or at most a minute or two after starting. This means act 1 of many games (even longer experiences) often have an introduction which lasts only a few seconds or is absent altogether, as developers know that the first few minutes of a game will determine whether or not the player will continue playing, so the beginning needs to grasp their interest. Some games have quite successful introductions however, some examples being Half-life, Fable and Mass Effect, as all these games allow the player to immediately take control of the player character and interact with the world (or very soon after starting up the game), but also use the introduction stage to teach the player important mechanics they will need to use later and foreshadow events. 

As researched previously, level design is an important story-telling vessle. A lot of games just rely on dialog to explain everything whithout having to show you, but games with good level design can leave a lot unsaid, whiles still being able to communicate what happened in an area. Dialog should only really be used for plot and character exposition and development. How a character speaks provides vital clues about who they are and what they’re feeling, which is a fact I was thinking to use for the various NPC characters I had planned to be in the game -- these are extensions of either the daughter’s personality, or represent a person in her life, therefore their dialog needs to feel different to eachothers. Gameplay is also an important narrative device in games, the goals can be used to communicate instructions, hints, foreshadow and other such key points.

Levels/Missions

Missions are generally composed of a series of tasks and challenges presented to the player, and the player is required to complete a certain task. These missions must make sense from a narrative standpoint, meaning they don’t contradict anything set up in the story and make sense for the forwarding of the plot. The narrative I’ve designed suits the levels I have thus far created and there is a reason for each area in terms of narrative, game play and flow. The placement of items and puzzles needs to make sense too, otherwise it can just seem out of place (like if someone wrote a note before they died and the note is really far away from them, that wouldn't really make sense).

When finalising the game, i need to think a bit more about the inhabitants of the world and their reason for being there, as mentioned before, currently I’m thinking they will represent people she knows or aspects of her personality -- but if they have a puzzle tied to them, the puzzle needs to make sense for that character. Their physical appearance in the world could be foreshadowed at the very start of the game, in the girl’s room, perhaps they take the form of a toy, figurine or simply a character she drew on a piece of paper. I’m going to be using foreshadowing heavily in the game, as many of the little puzzles you solve along the way will be information you need to hang onto for other puzzles or events later on.

An underpopulated area can create a greater sense of mystery, or at least with a small number of people for how big the world is. This is particularly true for urban areas with buildings, as the emptiness of such as place makes us wonder where all the people are, and this is effeminately something I need to consider, particularly with the village area. Audio is also extremely important when developing an atmosphere for a location or situation, as it can effect how a player feels just as much as visuals. I have plans to make the atmospheric sounds in each area sound organic and natural to the location, in the nice, calm area of the game it will be quite relaxing, whilst in the scary overload world the audio will be quite frightening and anxiety inducing -- reflecting how the girl feels.

Having read this I now have a much clearer understanding of how to develop my game further, particularly in terms of interactions and the narrative as a whole, now I just need to apply what I’ve learned to the game.

REF:

Video Game Storytelling, Evan Skolnick 2014, Waston-Guptill Publications, Berkeley

https://www.engadget.com/2011/04/20/portal-1-has-sold-four-million-excluding-steam-sales/

https://powersurge00.deviantart.com/art/4000-Degrees-Kelvin-90973380

http://www.elementsofcinema.com/screenwriting/three-act-structure/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5LfaU7S_NA

http://www.shacknews.com/game/gone-home/screenshots