#setting really unrealistic high expectations and then inevitably feeling incredibly hurt when it all comes crashing down around your ears

[borbealis]

lack of communication and miscommunication kill me bro. especially when there's care involved, especially mutual care. COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR PERSON GODDAMMIT

[blankd]

Thoughts on The Mitchells vs the Machines

I watched it a while ago and kept forgetting to post my thoughts on it, but some posts here on tumblr recently reminded me.

I disagree with the majority takeaways I see but is that not the spice of life?

As a standalone movie its inoffensive and the writing of it will likely exit my brain in a few months.  However I can appreciate that the visual style was different from the typical fare and the mixture of 2d elements for visual embellishments were mostly enjoyable and well-suited for Katie as the POV character.

It's a bit "hyper" for my liking, but that's fine, it's likely intended for an audience that's accustomed to the flood that is the current norm of the internet.  It was probably made with GIFable moments in mind and that is the most frequent content that is shared about it, so it certainly succeeded in that regard.

My more critical take is that jokes are delivered at the expense of what could be more authentic themes.  Quips are made that draw attention to character flaws or undercut questions the movie should try to answer, but inevitably they are ignored to move onto the next joke or story beat.

The rest would fall more into spoiler territory, so read more for that.

--"They Were Both In the Wrong"

I personally disagree heavily with the thrust of how "both sides" were wrong when the degrees are disproportionate.

I've seen claims that Katie was "as in the wrong" as her father, but she's incredibly patient to the man who does her material harm.

I've yet to have seen someone say specifically what Katie did *wrong* to her father that is at all on par with the *years* he at best hasn't been able to interact with her or worse, actively refused to engage with her interests.

I would generously venture that her flaw was that she was more willing to communicate her feelings to strangers, but she easily talks to her mother and brother- her brother even helps her with her movies and she happily engages him with his own interests, which pivots the point back to how her father is physically/emotionally unavailable and led to the erosion and distance between the two of them.

Due to this, MvM comes across more as Kaite having to do so much more to guide her father rather than a more mutual learning experience for the both of them.

--"Technology that [Dis]Connects"

It's probably beyond the scope and intent of the film, but I was surprised there was no examination about why technology can be more alluring than interacting with physically present people.

For better or worse, the internet can be used as a means of supplementing the validation and acceptance of family.  It can also lead to no longer connecting to people around them because of the validation high of appealing to a constantly 'awake' sea of strangers- the spotlight is warmer than the cold reality that they are not the internet image they have cultivated.

For example, the rival 'perfect' family was never revealed to be a carefully constructed highlight reel that Mrs. Mitchell envies, they really were actually that perfect- because that provides an easier punchline than an examination or acknowledgement of how the internet can create unhealthy expectations.

I also can't expect MvM to acknowledge the reality that LGBTA+ people who are rejected by their family resort to seeking a new one through the internet because it would be much harder to redeem/rehabilitate a man defined by being tethered to "old values" if he was homophobic instead of "overprotective" and apprehensive at his daughter's departure from home and her dubious art career.

But hey we got that quick line at the end that Katie likes a girl, so that's a diversity win or something.

(To be clear I'm not expecting a whole parade or even an A or B-plot dedicated to it, but I think it should be acknowledged that this kind of "surprise inclusion" is very easily erased with a change of audio and would be completely unsurprised if this were the case for countries that are homophobic.  People can be happy about it, but it is dishonest to pretend that this is a bolder statement than it is.)

In that sense, I do and don't hold MvM to taking a "safer" route about how family always has your back, but this still feels like an important omission considering the focus on technology and its dynamic with the Mitchells.

I will also say that it was also bizarre, to me at least, that the obvious route that her father sees the value of home videos didn't become an active point between him and Katie.  Or that Mr. Mitchell's carpentry never really amounts to anything despite having a sentimental wooden moose.

Lastly, I think it's an unintentional, but it's interesting that Katie going to college to pursue her passion is viewed as a Terrible Thing by her father even though if he had his way, he'd be ostensibly living in the woods away from everyone else except his wife.

This isn't a problem, people are a collection of contradictions, but It's fascinating to see what the *narrative* treats as a difficult sacrifice while simultaneously pulling at heartstrings when PAL cites how children ignore their mothers.  There's an unexamined comedy that Mr. Mitchell's losing out on his 'passion' to live in the woods away from people is treated as tragic despite the movie's insistence on staying connected with your blood family.

--"The Inconsistent Personhood of AI"

PAL is rightfully angry at being discarded for something new; it's provided as a glimpse of what Katie will do when she finds 'her people' at college.

This in of itself is a good hook, because there is no one universal answer to when a flawed relationship should be mended with compromise or if it's better off being broken for the wellbeing of the ones involved.  Family and relationships are not programming, it's a choice and a gamble for whatever it brings but is nonetheless something that must be mutually worked upon.

Initially I thought that PAL was being set up as an exaggerated parallel to Mr. Mitchell.  PAL and Mr. Mitchell did their best to provide for their family.  PAL and Mr. Mitchell are in different stages of being 'discarded' by their family.  PAL and Mr. Mitchell both retaliate at their lack of power in the scenario by using the power granted by their roles to infringe on the autonomy of others for selfish reasons.

PAL even gives a 'chance' for her plan to be halted with, I had assumed this was being set up as the thesis of the movie, about humanity and the value of family, relationships, etc. being used to help someone who is already hurting.

But despite Katie looking at the camera and explaining herself, it is never actually directly resolved or challenged because a punchline was deemed more desirable for this narrative climax.

This begs the question of why PAL bothered with the pretense that she could be reasoned with, especially since this is not some question leveled at all of humanity, just two people.

I'm curious how the writers came to the conclusion that this was the best execution of the scene or if Katie's speech was considered immune to any challenge from PAL.  Would anyone have accepted this outcome if PAL were not an AI but instead a person?

It's not necessarily bad writing they went this route, but I doubt anyone would consider this good writing either.

By the end of the movie, PAL is no longer a 'person' who was betrayed and is lashing out, she is an object to be destroyed because the movie has to wrap up.  No compassion or chances are spared to this AI that did literally everything asked of her except take being discarded quietly.

Did PAL deserve a redemption arc? For this length of movie, probably not.  But it could have concluded with a commitment to doing no further harm.  Instead it is an accidental glimpse at how easily the pretense of compassion can be quickly discarded and mostly unexamined with the right framing.

A likely unintentional example is the conditional humanity given to Eric and Deborahbot who are adopted as "family" while the rest of the robots are mowed down without another thought.  Some are even beaten and broken while begging for mercy, because again, it is a funnier punchline.

Far be it for me to advocate that the murderbots needed 'a second chance uvu' but for a movie whose conceit rests on 'sticking by family' and 'giving chances', the writers certainly made a choice in deciding which AI get honorary humanity and spared violent death- perhaps PAL had a point about humanity's callousness after all.  Bad robots are discarded, good robots get to live.

Even the CEO who realizes he enabled this mess (easily the most unrealistic part of the movie, honestly) is given another chance and he manages to take away a completely wrong lesson.

Speaking of-

--"Maybe I Shouldn’t Have Used Tech Like This"

There's a particular image/gif set posted about MvM with the CEO apologizing for the machine uprising, attributing it to unchecked technology and monopolies.  I've always seen it accompanied by people congratulating the scene as if any of this is at all relevant to the movie.

Charitably, these are people who haven't watched the movie and don't know that PAL is a phone AI single-handedly doing this, but most take the stance that this scene is proof the movie is not saying technology is bad, only corporations are.

The speech isn't technically wrong but it is so utterly divorced from what happens in the movie that it's surreal to see people congratulate it as anything but a moment of soapboxing.

None of the datagrabbing was used at all as part of the takeover.  It's all magical kid-friendly terminators with no relevance to what anyone's browsing history is.  If the company was one that produced robot assistants instead of a being a super tech monopoly, there would be no narrative difference.

The closest to a predatory tactic that is used in MvM is the offer of free wifi which is used to lure most people into their cells which they happily comply with. Curiously this... commentary of people’s mindless addiction to technology is not acknowledged by the Tumblr Court with the same intensity as the CEO’s speech.

But more constructively, I do feel it’s a missed opportunity that Katie who's supposed to be an extremely online person apparently never said any bad things about her family or made any petty vent films for PAL to weaponize.  Instead an in-media audio at one of the outskirt locations was used to accomplish its Traitor Revealed moment.

IN CONCLUSION

MvM is a movie that involves topics that ought to be touched on and explored properly in media and chickens out on all of it due to possible concerns with age-appropriate handling or because it was more committed to its comedy than whatever it has to say about family, change and how technology affects people.

It also reminded me that I hope media will finally graduate from the trope that if you spec into any ‘outdoorsy’ hobby you are incurably afraid of technology.

[ardenttheories]

I think one of the biggest letdowns about the Meat Epilogue for everyone seems to be how much it trashed the development of the characters up to the end of Homestuck. 

A lot of people have been pointing this out most fervently with Dirk. He went from someone who was well aware of his flaws, of his obsessions, of his tendency to take over and control, of his capability to hurt the people he cares for most, from someone who genuinely cares about every single person he’s met and tries his best to be a better person for them... to someone who was actively harming them without a fucking care in the world, under some misguided theory that he was doing the right thing. 

And yes, I recognise that this is because of the Ultimate Self bullshit. Dirk has become every little splinter of himself that exists across Paradox Space - all the good ones, all the bad ones, all the ones in between. All of that mingles and merges into what we get in the Epilogues, and it, to some degree, makes sense. 

But here’s two thoughts for you.

Why did he have to end up like that? If, by the end of Homestuck, he was getting better, and if the chances of there being just as many Emotionally Developed Dirks as Emotionally Stunted Dirks is incredibly high, why does he have to take all those bad qualities and bring them out to the fore of who he is in the Epilogue? Why does that have to be the route he goes down, when he was in such a good position when Earth C was created and when he’s merged with plenty of emotionally capable Dirks as part of becoming his Ultimate Self? 

When Homestuck ended, I considered Dirk a Realised Prince of Heart. A Prince of Heart who’d worked through all his shit, opened up to people, recognised that he needed to share his burdens and to let people in - to use his powers for good, not for the harm of the people around him. He was aware of what he could do, and actively choosing to use it in a productive way. 

In the Epilogue, he’s a True Prince of Heart. He’s destroying without truly recognising it as destruction. He’s become the epitome of what it means to be a Prince of Heart, without any growth of character or any attempt to use what he can do for the benefit of the people around him. He’s hurting them instead; shaping them into things he thinks they should be, completely disregarding their individuality because of his own thoughts on free will and how illusive it is. 

This is the Dirk we had at the beginning of Act 6, merged with the Bro we saw at the beginning of the comic. And sure, from the standpoint of the Ultimate Self, it can make sense - if you disregard the fact that he could as easily become a Good Dirk as a Bad Dirk. 

But what makes this suck so much as a fan is that, as people, we fucking hate seeing characters lose their development, and that’s what we see happening to Dirk. He’s regressed back to a point prior to all his development throughout Act 6. Everything that we saw him achieve has been lost, and it feels cheap because it fucking is cheap. It’s a literary constant. It’s one of those things that you don’t do. Destroying a story worth’s of development for no actual reason, or without showing why they’ve regressed, will never come across well. Especially in regards to an idea as abstract as the Ultimate Self - and, again, the very clear knowledge that Dirk, even as an Ultimate Self, didn’t have to end up like this when you consider his position at the end of Act 7. 

The development doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t flow. You don’t just go from “emotionally developed individual” straight back to “emotionally distant and morally perverse”, even with an idea like “he’s fused with every other instance of himself” - because logically, if he was in a good position, why wouldn’t he remain in that good position? What about the Ultimate Self ruined his development? Why does merging with every version of himself - the good and the bad - suddenly revert him all the way back to square one?

Which brings me on to thought two. I hope you’ll excuse me for the really dumb choice of fandom to explain this.

Supernatural is notorious for frequently setting its main characters - Sam and Dean - back to square one in terms of emotional development. Inevitably, something that was resolved in series 6 ends up being revisited in series 7 without explanation. Emotional issues that the brothers had resolved almost always become an issue again; relationships that they thought had healed always find a way to come back; issues with their past that they had come to terms with almost inevitably cause them to split up yet again, and become the main issue to be resolved throughout the new series. 

This, from what I can tell, is a big reason why a lot of people fell out of the fandom. It’s why I did. You can only watch characters grow, and regress, and grow, and regress again over the same thing so many times before it starts to get disheartening. Just when you think they’re better, that they’ve solved it, that everything’s okay, it’s brought up all over again to make them suffer over and over and over. There’s only so much of this you can take in a character before it becomes dull, or boring, or unrealistic. 

And that’s exactly the issue with Dirk’s development in the Epilogue. For a lot of people, it’s unrealistic. Even with the Ultimate Self taken into account, it still seems wrong - because we’re seeing him go through the same mistakes all over again, and when you’ve already seen it once, seen him get through it and grow and progress and and become better, seeing it again but worse does not leave you feeling satisfied. It’s disheartening. It’s narratively a cheap move to try and cause more tension. 

The fact of the matter is, whether that’s the point or not, it’s a sign of bad storytelling. There’s no reason for Dirk to have slipped during the Epilogue, other than “because Hussie said so”. Narratively it just didn’t need to happen. Narratively, it’s not what people were expecting, either. And dropping something this huge without providing any hints beforehand just doesn’t work. If you’ve set up a character to get better, to be in the best possible place he could be, or on the road to recovery, suddenly pulling out a regression of character doesn’t work. It won’t feel satisfying because you didn’t imply the possibility - you didn’t build suspense, you didn’t leave the seed for people to think about at the end of Act 7. You just dropped it, at random, and expected people to be prepared for it.  

This is like Hussie pulling out a gun and yelling “aha! Look at how wonderfully I have crafted this masterpiece!!” without ever having insinuated that he was going to pull out a gun to begin with. 

Compare this, for instance, to the reveal that it’s Adult John who ends up getting sucked into the Ultimate Treasure alongside Teen Jade, Dave, and Rose as part of the Epilogue. This is a good drop. This is a good reveal. We knew this was an event that happened; we knew that it was something an unreliable narrator had said; we knew this was something that never actually ended up happening in the main story of Homestuck. This isn’t a surprise because the foundation of the reveal was all there. We knew it was John, Dave, Rose, and Jade that would end up in there - we just didn’t know which John, Dave, Rose and Jade it would be, or why. Our expectations for that scene are shattered, but because of how it was set up it ends up being more shocking and more exciting because of it. All the pieces were put in place for Hussie to build on. 

That’s not what we get with Dirk. The pieces put in place for him were that he was meant to get better, that he was improving, that we’d see him as the best Dirk Strider there could possibly be - a foil to Bro, the abusive dickhead Dave had dealt with his entire young life, someone who would step up and take the shape of a healthy familial figure in Dave’s life. This subversion doesn’t work. Not in a satisfying, enjoyable, or natural way. It’s shocking, yes - but it’s a bitter shock, a shock that no-one saw coming, rather than a shock that suddenly blows your mind.

A Dirk who goes from “I wish I could love Roxy, because (s)he’s the best one out of the lot of us, and (s)he deserves that” to “I’m going to actively misgender my best friend because part of my Ultimate Self was merged with Lord English and I rely heavily of the dichotomy between male and female to understand myself” is interesting, yes, but not the way it’s done. It’s fucking horrific to read Dirk talk about someone he’s meant to love that way, and it’s not a good sort of horrific. 

Ultimate Self Dirk being the douchebag he is in Meat can make sense and work, sure. But not in the way Hussie framed the narrative of Act 6-Act 7. When you’ve framed your narrative to make the character grow, reverting everything in some shock twist at the end will never settle well with your fanbase. That’s why Dirk’s role feels weird, and out of place, and overall bad on an emotional level. The jump was too big, too unbelievable - and for the main plot point of your Epilogue, that’s not really what you want to end a series.