#some may not like the shows portrayal or not agree with my points & that's okay bc this is a sensitive issue that is different to everyone

[sukibenders]

After returning from my trip I was able to finish Queen Charlotte and, while I have a few thoughts on it still, one of the things that warmed my heart was how they treated George's mental illness. By that I specifically mean from Charlotte removing the doctor and his access to Geroge, so that he won't be able to hurt him like did ever again, to Brimsley, even when he didn't understand it fully, telling Reynolds that he would make accommodations for George so that he not only can remain comfortable but have his privacy in a way if he ever runs off into the gardens at night again to Charlotte's adamant defense of George and his mental health towards anyone who tries to deny him the rights of a human being, to even George himself. It was so beautiful to see how much care the characters in the show had for George and his mental state, as well as the show not vilifying him either (it's sad to say that I've seen too many shows take the opposite approach, so Queen Charlotte was really refreshing to see--especially as someone who has had to witness mental illness impact those close to them and, possibly even, themselves).

I also liked how the show preferences that, even love can't make everything better or cure everything. A lot of media tries to portray mental illness as something that can be cured by love or being in love with someone, and that is not correct (while some have kind intentions in comparison to others, they still fall flat at times). And the show displays this with Charlotte who, with her fierce protection and adamant defense of George and those she loves, under the belief that her presence there will make everything better for him, misses the signs and has to have other characters tell her that how she's going about it isn't working. The show doesn't paint Charlotte, or her relationship with George, in a bad way for this slip-up, rather depicting the nuance of what it is like to love someone with a mental illness, but also shows the audience how Charlotte goes about correcting her approach. In the end, the show tells us that even with Charlotte trying to adhere to every precaution she could with assisting George or adhering to his needs, it doesn't erase his mental illness. And that it was okay. They still treat George with decency and, to anyone who doesn't do the same (such as Lady Whistledown), they are framed as wrong by the narrative.

I'm not an expert in mental illness whatsoever, and while I'm sure others have different opinions on the matter (which, feel free to share, respectfully though) this was just something that stuck out to me. It was mainly a rant over my love for the show, so some wording might not be the best, but my point still stands.

[eelfuneral]

I know that I’ve touched on the harassment that people are getting for posting theories about Tech being alive, but there is another element that I believe we should discuss: the fact that the harassment is being disproportionately lobbed at autistic fans. Now, I’m not trying to imply that all of the people leaving these nasty comments are sitting around thinking about how much they hate autistic people, but whether they realize it or not, the types of posts that they tend to leave nasty comments on tend to be posts made by people displaying what might be autistic traits. In fact, a lot of posts that have these harassing comments are made by people who make it no secret that they are autistic and sometimes even mention it in their bio.

So what do I mean when I say that a lot of these posts may hint at OP being autistic? For starters, autistic brains tend to latch onto things with a great deal of intensity, and sometimes our brains latch onto specific fictional characters. We know logically that these characters are not real and that there are objectively more important things to worry about, but our brains simply do not care. Focused autistic interests are a source of a lot of comfort and stability for us in a world that is often overwhelming, and they are important to us as a result. A lot of the people dogging the Tech posts seem to take issue with how “obsessed” people are with the character and his survival, which in some cases, is due to OP simply being autistic and having a focused interest.

Another trait that can manifest in autistic people is difficulty with emotional regulation, meaning that even “small” things can make us more upset than our peers. The people leaving harassing replies seem to have picked up on the fact that people are “too emotional” over a fictional character and sometimes even make their replies extra graphic (ie. “he’s rotting at the bottom of the chasm”, “he’s flesh paste”) in order to get a rise out of the OP. Obviously, not everyone who makes posts like these or has these challenges is autistic, but I believe that my point still stands that going after people with these traits will cause autistic people to be disproportionately targeted, which is an ableist pattern.

Sometimes, however, the harassment feels more intentionally targeted at autistic fans. A lot of Tech fans really value Tech as autistic representation and feel like killing him off in our current popular culture environment where a fair chunk of autistic portrayals are negative is in poor taste. The “Tech is dead, get over it” harassers blatantly ignore or ridicule these statements, showing zero empathy to the people who feel seen because of this character. I have seen people bulldoze into posts where autistic fans talk about how much they hope he survives because they see themselves in him with comments like “he’s dead, get over it.” In one instance, I saw an allistic fan tell an autistic fan that Tech was “forced diversity” and that if Disney was going to attempt autistic representation, then the character shouldn’t be “boring” like Tech. I don’t think I really need to explain why this is inappropriate.

It’s fine to disagree with a popular fan theory or debate about it in good faith with someone who is up to it, but what I am seeing goes well beyond that. Harassment is never, ever okay, and you should know better than to leave replies like the ones in these screenshots below when you see a fan theory that you don’t agree with.

[syrena-del-mar]

Boston, the Machiavellian Prince?

Okay, okay, this is definitely too early into the show to establish anything definite, but I wanted to write my thoughts of the first two episodes down to see if I still agree with my initial assumptions at the end. Boston, so far, has been as messy as I wanted him to be when I first saw the initial trailer all those months ago. What makes him interesting and so unlike the others, is that he's incredibly calculative, to the point that the show explicitly refers to him as 'The Hunter'. Personally, when I think of an individual being designated as 'The Hunter', I tend to correlate it with Machiavelli, so it's no surprise here that Boston reminded me of the his renown work, 'The Prince'.

If you know anything about Machiavelli, specifically in ‘The Prince’, he establishes that it's important for a Prince to hunt so that way he is actively learning more about his kingdom, in turn that knowledge maintains his power. Now a Machiavellian Personality is one of what is coined the "Dark Triad", which refers to the three personalities: Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Essentially, while they are all distinct, they all fall under the callous-manipulative personality type. As @trilliastra pointed out, that deep red coloring with the soundtrack on Boston really mimics the type of portrayal that is typically seen in psychological horror films. Now bear with me, I don't necessarily think that if someone falls under this personality type it's an instant signifier of "evil" or such notions, but I do think that it takes a larger effort to be agreeable and overcome their more malevolent tendencies, but some don't. So it'll be interesting to see how Boston navigates this side of him that has been consistently show to us.

Now before really diving into the deep end, I'm first going to give a little more information regarding Machiavelli's The Prince and how this works itself into psychology, then I'll be breaking up my analysis into the typical Machiavellian Personality Traits with the correlating quotes from 'The Prince'.

What is a Machiavellian Prince?

If you're not familiar with Machiavelli's ‘The Prince’, let me give you a brief rundown. Essentially, ‘The Prince’ is a political treatise that was utilized to provide advice to rulers on how to gain and maintain power effectively, essentially throwing out morality altogether in order to reach their goals. The central theme really revolved around the idea that to be an efficient leader, one needs to ensure that they are both cunning and adaptable to allow their kingdom to survive in the struggles of power. Similarly, these concepts directly relate to the idea of personality psychology, specifically the Machiavellian personality.

A Machiavellian individual, or personality type, refers to one that exhibits traits that are outlined in ‘The Prince’, specifically the use of manipulation and the belief that the ends justify the means. When it comes to interpersonal relationships, a Machiavellian individual tends to their own interests, manipulates situations and exploits others to achieve their goals. They place an emphasis in having a strategic focus solely on their own self-interest, so as long as they reach their desired end-goal, they're satisfied (even if it means burning bridges).

Manipulation through Vulnerabilities to Establish Control

"At this point one may note that men must be either pampered or annihilated. They avenge light offenses; they cannot avenge severe ones; hence, the harm one does to a man must be such as to obviate any fear of revenge." -Chapter 3, The Prince

In this case, we see this blatantly in one specific scene with Nick and Boston, where Boston uses the knowledge that he acquires almost as a knife. Nick had come clean about his own insecurities and Boston is quick to use that as a 'pet name', completely disregarding that Nick didn't like to be called 'Kinky head'. He's using the one moment that Nick had become vulnerable with him in the guise of a friendly jab, but also an incredibly threat that he is more than aware of where to aim where it hurts for Nick if he crosses any line that Boston has already established.

Boston's camera is another way he exerts his control, which can specifically be seen in how he uses it to take pictures of Nick after his night, positioning him, controlling the development of said picture. Pictures capture moments in time, Boston posed and captured an intimate, exposed, moment for Nick. Boston controls the image while Nick is left vulnerable. That image is fully in Boston's control; to do and develop as how he sees fit.

Now I'm not applying the idea of 'fear' in the sense of physical injury or corporal punishment, but the punishment that Boston seems to hang over Nick is leaving him. Boston is more than aware of Nick's growing feelings for him and he uses that in his interest, because Nick is so willing and eager to let Boston to have his way with him. Now this hasn't even been touched upon in the show, but there is also an almost societal-instilled fear that photos can bring, specifically intimate ones. It doesn't have to be blatantly stated by Boston the amount of damage intimate photos may cause emotionally (even if it's not spread), so when things turn sour, that photo and any personal information that he shared with Boston may very well hang over Nick's head.

Calculating Approach and Exploitation of Emotions

"A prince being thus obliged to know well how to act as a beast must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves." -Chapter 18, The Prince

Now, @respectthepetty really did a great job at breaking down why Boston is referred to as the Hunter, specifically in the way that he consistently corners people to get what he wants, so for this part I'm going to jump off their meta. He consistently puts all his 'conquests' in a position where they are unable to leave, he puts them in tight spaces, he pins them on walls, he wraps his hand around their neck (one of the most vulnerable parts to a human due to the lack of natural protection and easy accessibility). They're all calculated positions that he puts his hook-ups in to establish that only he can give them the out, he's the one that establishes boundaries. We see this literally when he corners Top in the shower, who is the first that we hear to dare tell him 'no, he's not interested.' Boston doesn't let that sway him, because that's not a boundary respects because he wasn't the one to set it.

He's called 'the Hunter' because he knows how to play the game, he excels at it. He can be both the fox, when he plays the interested fling to Nick and Mew's best friend, and the lion when he shows who he truly is with Top. When he tells Mew to be wary, since Top never has a relationship that lasts longer than 3 months and his interest is likely to see if he can sleep with Mew, this doesn't seem to be a touching moment where he cares for his friend but rather an attempt to get Mew to push Top away, because we have no idea if that's really what Top intends. His calculative nature is shown again when Boston tells Nick, "You should be glad that you're my favorite." Man the phrasing of that, at least in the translation, is so incredibly manipulative, it really sets the tone that their relationship is fully transactional, lacking any deeper emotions that are typically found between lovers. It's not a factual admittance that Boston is enjoying the sex with Nick, but rather blatant acknowledgement that Nick should be grateful that Boston even comes back to him for the sex. Not to mention that he rewards Nick every time he acquiesces with a kiss or peck on the cheek.

In Spanish, there's a saying/insult that goes 'te va poner los cuernos', which literally translates to 'They're going to put the horns on you', but really signifies that they're going to cheat on you. That's why I couldn't help but find the irony when when Boston backed Nick into the horn/antler frame on the wall. And while here, Boston and Nick are in no set closed-relationship and they're both aware of that, Boston purposefully strings Nick along, dropping little personal information about his own life that will entice Nick and keep him present in their situationship.

Boston is willing to gamble with his intimate relationships and friendships, because he believes that he has the eagle eye's view on this playing field. He is willing to sacrifice anyone and everyone if it means that he is the one in control, he is the one people worship and claw their way to. To him it's only natural, because he has that sex appeal and he has never met anyone he couldn't triumph. Every one he sleeps with is a conquest. In his viewpoint, he is the kingpin, even in his group of friends, because he believes that he's the one that controls how his friends move since he knows how Mew is developing feelings for Top and is aware of Ray's feelings for Mew. This is a game to him and he believes that he's smart enough to come out the winner.

Power Struggles

“And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”

-Chapter 27, The Prince

In this case, for Boston what P'Jojo tweeted rings in my head. While he stated it in a more literary way, essentially Boston has an ego. He likes having first pickings and this shows with how he's reacting to the fact that Top is willing to chase Mew, but doesn't necessarily want to have a second round with him. His hubris is his achilleas heel.

Now we haven't seen much of the conflict that is going to arise between Mew, Boston and Top, but we are seeing much of Boston's reactions to what is going on between the two. Boston uses that using Mew's virginity is a weapon, he's the one that is the first to throw it in Mew's face. Boston sees virginity as a detriment, as a stain, a symbol of not being wanted, because he finds his power behind being lusted for. @athousandbyeol, prior to the show even airing, brought up the point that Nick became his favorite because of his availability, Boston objectifies Nick. Nick serves a purpose, an outlet to get rid of the frustration that Boston finds himself accumulating with this pseudo power struggle that he has with both Mew and Top.

He has no consistent leverage over Mew or Top, because Mew doesn't care about his virginity (not in the way that Boston does) and Top does not actively chose nor chase after him, instead Boston is the one that has to be one that corners Top. It's why it drives him a tad nuts that Top is seemingly taking the idea of a relationship with Mew seriously, because it was never part of his plan for Top to actually get interested. That's an ego blow, but there is one person that he consistently has power of: Nick. Even though Boston is aware that he's seeking more, what's to define their relationship, he only gives him two options: Fuck Buddy or Friends with Benefit. And though neither are what Nick truly wants, he still chooses one, because that keeps Boston around and Boston knows this, he counts on this power he holds over Nick. For every damage he takes to his ego with MewTop, it gets soothed and stroked by Nick, literally.

Final Thoughts

“A man who is used to acting in one way never changes; he must come to ruin when the times, in changing, no longer are in harmony with his ways.” - Chapter 25, The Prince

Now, the labeling of Boston as a potential Machiavellian Prince (personality), does not dictate that he is inherently evil and that he will always be, or is, the villain. It's true that he manipulates and is merely interested in pursuits that are personally beneficial, which in turn may hurt others. Yet, the concepts of "evil" and "good" are incredibly binary. So far, we have no idea as to why he behaves as he does or whether he had past-experiences or personal insecurities that shaped him. It doesn’t mean that the pain he inflicts on others will be okay as long as there is a reason or sob story, but it will give us more insight into why he is the way he is.

Machiavellianism is typically easily written off as an evil form of being but arguably, it's just another behavioral guide on how to respond to challenging circumstances. There's a lot of labels that we can so far apply to Boston, narcissist is one that I see floating around a lot as well. Yet, narcissists typically lack self-confidence and overcompensate, Machiavellians typically believe that they are the best and as such do whatever they can to achieve their personal goals that they believe that they deserve. Personally, with what I've seen so far, Boston falls under the latter rather than the former.

I think simply writing Boston off as the "villain" or "evil" is simply disregarding the potential nuance that his character may bring. This show does a great job at showing how messy Boston is and even the different types of messy that they all are. It's important to keep in mind the broader context in which Boston is acting in to fully be able to understand who he is an individual and the consequences that his action may bring. It'll be interesting to see if he comes out of this a changed man or more set in his ways.

[damnfandomproblems]

Agreed with most of #6472 until the race, mental disability and height thing.

1. As a POC woman, just do your research if you're making a POC character. I'm not personally offended, but I don't speak for everyone.

2. As someone with autism and anxiety; DO YOUR RESEARCH. PLEASE. Like as long as the portrayal is accurate and research was done, I think a lot of disabled people would appreciate representation but idk. I dont speak for everyone.

3. SHORT PEOPLE EXIST. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS SHORT, IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE A MINOR OR "MINOR CODED" HEIGHT DIFFERENCES SHOULD NOT BE AN ICK.

I think the last three could be rage bait, but idk. Just my opinion.

Posting as a response to a previous problem.

Going to include a few more responses to the same problem below:

Anon:

...is this a parody?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anon:

"If your ocs looks young, they are a child." I am 25, last week someone asked me if I was in high school. Some of us just look young idk what to tell you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anon:

Bait used to be believable

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@theofficialkai517:

I'm not a regular OC maker, but I feel like there will be some mixed-bag responses. But in most cases that I've seen "actual [way older than teenager] looks to be way younger than they are" has been a canon thing, not an OC thing. Aang from Avatar and Elena from Elena of Avalor instantly come to mind. It's not just teenage-appearing characters, either, there are several adult characters that don't appear to age past their 30s despite being millenia old, or can change their age and appearance almost as they please. The gods from Percy Jackson (though some of them may not be the best examples to prove a point against you, LOL), many dragons from fantasy & sci-fi novels, vampires, so many different archetypes... I am not standing for or against this-- though the specific ones that I mentioned were trapped at their ages and don't remember much of anything during their times of not aging, and I do ship them both with teenagers they are friends with in their shows; and the archetypes/character designs I listed... Is a mixed bag, to be fair-- but it's not just about OCs, and you can't fault OC designers for following a pattern that has been their for a long long time, whether or not that character has a romantic bond with another character, or has friends who are all the age that the character appears to be.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anon:

what the hell does that mean, anyone 5'7 or under is minor-coded and shouldn't be shipped?! lots of adults, females especially (and including myself) aren't anywhere close to that height in real life. and it's okay to ship minors with other minors; there are millions of high-school love stories out there. besides, are we supposed to know a character's height right off the top of our fucking head or something? even if it's an oc. like, most of my ocs if i ever were to create more would probably be closer to my height because that's what i find "normal," or i just want somebody to dump all of my struggles on. it's literally not pedophilia to ship fix-it felix and calhoun together (first ship to come to mind, sorry), despite him being very very short. not much of this shit even happens with ocs, i've seen most of what you're bringing up in the media that's actually put in front of us.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anon:

re 6472, specifically this line: "Anyone under 5'7" is minor coded and shouldn't be shipped." What the metric fuck are you smoking? I swear I'm gonna short-circuit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anon:

Okay, so many things. And I am sure others have probably brought this up too, but hey.

The "1000 year old dragon/immortal being with the body of a child trope" isn't just used by fans and makers of OCs. It is often a "trope" used by creators themselves; if it makes you look like a creep/has inherently pedophilic tones/only creeps are okay with this kind of thing, then call me a fucking creep. So many wonderful medias have characters who are older than they look, even going to J.M. Barrie with Peter Pan. Not many people seem to mind that they don't know how chronologically old Peter is, they just find whimsy in the fact that he will never grow up. The same goes for Avatar: the Last Airbender's titular character, Aang, who is chronologically 112 but has the appearance and mannerisms of a 12-year-old. It is meant to portray his redemption and his friends' hope, not to be creepy or pedophilic.

I can't quite help you there. There are some executions of that trope that work, and some that don't. But please know that most of this was perpetuated by actual creators and authors than us fans and our OCs. If you want to raise a fuss, try and go to Stephanie Meyers first before pointing your finger in our faces.

"if your ocs looks young, they are a child [...] it is simpler that way. You do not need to overcomplicate your ocs." First off... Completely false. I cannot be the only person who still looks 14 but is actually far older than that... If it happens in real life, it can happen in fiction and with OCs. We are not children, those characters are not children. It is not "overcomplicating" an OC. Besides, some people don't want simple with their OCs, they are putting their hearts and souls into them and just having fun.

Nobody should have to ask "approval" to write a character that is a different race than them. Yes, it can end disastrously... But it also couldn't. If people had to ask approval to write a character who is Latino or black or East Asian when the writer is white, or any other variation of one race creating a character of another, there would never be any diversity in anything ever.

There was need for you to elaborate on that. Some of the best ADHD/autism representation I have seen in characters has come from neurotypicals. I have a loved one who has never had anxiety or depression before but can spot-on name most of the signs and symptoms just from watching me live through it. As long as you're not adding harmful traits to one mental disability or another, I have no reason to be offended. Maybe just try and do your research, but even then, nobody is allowed to police you. Again, nobody should have to ask approval or be worried that they're not writing a character good. Also, it's easy for signs of one mental disability or other to slip through in a character without it being openly stated. Sometimes things happen unintentionally, it was never meant as a slight towards someone who has the mental disability strongly hinted at.

"Short characters are basically minors"... Ex-fucking-scuse me? What the fuck? "Anyone under 5'7" is minor coded and shouldn't be shipped"... Just stop. Stop it right here. 5'7" is a major ask, especially in a fictional world where heights often aren't known to viewers/readers, and your OC can be whatever height you wish on them. It's a major ask even in the real world. Because why the fuck are only tall people allowed to be shipped? When hobbits exist, dwarves exist, elves (like, Christmas elves) exist... Some fictional species aren't designed to grow taller than, like, 4'10", let alone 8 inches taller than that. Half of the females I went to school with didn't make it past that height; it is unreasonable to tell people that they cannot create characters to be shorter than a certain height if they want to be able to ship them.

Sorry for the long rambles, but most of that was BS and needed to be called. Yes, there is room for a lot of moral ambiguity when it comes to characters who are coded one way or another... Especially when it comes to age/immortality/disguising oneself as another age/etc. But if someone is doing any of these things and it drives you nuts, either block/mute/ignore them or, in the cases of 4 and 5, maybe gently message them with "hey... I wanted to let you know that I have/am [insert mental disability or race here] and that [character] doesn't quite match up to what they're supposed to be. Can I offer you some guidance in writing them?" and if they say no... Just leave it be. This is fandom, not politics.

[funhouse-mirror-barbie]

Okay. So I talked briefly about it here but I just want to say this as well.

I think people are missing the point of a lot of discussion and criticisms surrounding the depiction of sexual assault in Hazbin.

And. Well. Based on multiple multi-day internet arguments between Hazbin’s creator and survivors of sexual assault, it seems like the creator may have missed the point as well…

Regardless of how the episode is widely received, the episode coming out isn’t going to magically “validate” or prove that the portrayal of sexual assault was well done.

It won’t prove that it was completely poorly done either.

It is something that is entirely subjective and whether or not it’s “done well” is also subjective.

I personally have a feeling on where I’ll stand when the episode comes out, but that is entirely my own opinion. It won’t take away from anyone else’s opinion. People may disagree with me or agree with me, but my opinion doesn’t somehow bolster or diminish their’s.

And based on the reaction of some of the Hazbin fans, and even the creator and team members, it’s really seeming like they believe they can prove the episode to be objectively “respectful” of survivors once it comes out.

That’s not something anyone gets to decide once and for all.

There will ALWAYS be heated discussions and disagreements on how sensitive topics should be depicted and handled in media and art. That is part of being an artist and making art about difficult subjects.

And it’s genuinely VERY frustrating to see people paint this as completely black and white. When you do so, you’ll end up speaking over survivors no matter what your intention is.

People are weird and messy and grey and contain multitudes upon multitudes. There are going to be survivors who deal with their trauma in all sorts of ways, and NO MATTER WHAT their opinion is on this particular portrayal, whether they think it’s handled well or not, they don’t need randos weighing in and telling them their feelings are wrong or invalid.

And, to be honest, I think it’s really gross to try and use someone’s personal trauma to try and justify your own opinions on whether a show is “good” or “bad”.

[twistedtummies2]

Top 5 WORST Dracula Portrayals

Anyone who knows me well by now should also know that one of my favorite stories of all time is Bram Stoker’s Dracula. I love the book, and I love seeing how the story and its titular character are reimagined throughout the breadth of pop culture. And there are PLENTY of reimaginings and adaptations to go around: Count Dracula, alongside Sherlock Holmes, is one of the most frequently reinterpreted characters in the history of fiction. Of course, with so many interpretations, there are plenty of great Draculas out there: Christopher Lee, Bela Lugosi, Max Schreck, Gary Oldman, and more. But with the good must also come the bad: there are a LOT of really terrible Dracula movies and portrayals out there, just as there are a lot of really fun ones… …And I actually haven’t seen many of them. Well…actually, I suppose I have, but it depends on what you’re really looking at. For example, I love John Carradine’s PORTRAYAL of Dracula, but the movies he was actually in were often sub-par. Grandpa from “The Munsters” and the version from “Hotel Transylvania” are comical, incompetent buffoons, but they’re meant to be parody characters and I like them for the humor and campy silliness they provide. There are even a couple of Draculas that a lot of people seem to dislike that I actually think are okay. I have no big problem with Rudolf Martin from “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” (admittedly, this may partially be because I have only watched all of two episodes of that show), nor with Richard Roxburgh from “Van Helsing,” yet in researching this list, I found out that a LOT of people REALLY dislike those interpretations, as an example. Finally, it’s worth pointing out that I have, in fact, DELIBERATELY AVOIDED watching several bad Draculas because…well…they’re bad. And I KNOW they’re bad. Why in the world would I want to watch something that is notoriously terrible, aside from just…ascertaining that it IS, in fact, terrible. So, for instance, I haven’t seen “Dracula in Istanbul,” “Blacula,” “Dracula’s Dog,” and/or many, many other horrendously dreadful renditions that have gained some notoriety.

With all that said, this doesn’t mean that I’ve liked every single version of Dracula - as a character or as a story - that I’ve seen. Even I know a few Draculas that I frankly just don’t like. And it’s worth knowing the mistakes that have been made when handling this character, as much as it is worth praising the achievements. So, today, in honor of World Dracula Day, we’re gonna take a look at some of the worst of the worst from Transylvania. These are, in my personal, humble, and EXTREMELY biased opinion, the Top 5 Worst Portrayals of Count Dracula.

5. Carlos Villarias, from “Spanish Dracula.”

What is “Spanish Dracula,” some of you may be wondering? Well, here’s the basics: in 1931, Universal wanted to release their screen adaptation of Dracula in both English AND in Spanish. This was still in the early days of sound, and as a result, dubbing was a concept that really hadn’t been fully figured out. Typically, the way American studios handled making foreign-language movies, as a result, was just doing a second version of the film with different actors, all speaking the language intended. Very, very few of these alternate language films exist, and I think many would agree that the Spanish version of Dracula is one of the most famous to survive. In English, of course, Dracula was played by the immortal Bela Lugosi…and for the Spanish cast? They got this guy: Carlos Villarias. Many critics feel the Spanish Dracula is actually better, on a technical level, than the Lugosi outing. Having seen both films, I can’t say I agree: SOME things ARE better in it, but other things…ehhhh, the English version has them beat by a mile. It’s biggest problem is the cast, and ESPECIALLY Villarias as Dracula. I know nothing about this actor beyond this movie; maybe he’s great in other things, maybe he was just miscast…I don’t know. All I DO know is that, even if you take Lugosi’s iconic interpretation out of the equation, this is an AWFUL Dracula. How bad is he? Imagine if “Dracula: Dead & Loving It” was actually trying to take itself seriously. THAT is the best way I can describe this performance. Villarias comes off as more comical than creepy, his exaggerated and often bizarre expressions seeming like a parody of something that hasn’t even gained the legacy it needs to BE parodied yet. We all love to mock Lugosi occasionally, but Villarias feels like self-mockery already in the works, and - through both his performance and some differences in the writing/direction - comes across as a clownish idiot rather than a superior monster or an elegant aristocrat. The Spanish Dracula has its ups and downs, but Villarias certainly proves that one bad element can bring down an otherwise decent product.

4. Peter Karrie, from Nosferatu the Vampire: The Musical.

I am aware of at least four musical theatre interpretations of Dracula. The most famous one is a stage show by Frank Wildhorn, which isn’t great, but does have some good songs and has been done quite a few times with great actors. Another was a concept album by the musical trio of Evans, Orton, and Lynn; that one featured Michael McCarthy as the Count, and was never actually staged. Like the Wildhorn show, it’s not really that great, but it has a few good songs and performers. There’s also a musical comedy version, which I haven’t actually looked at, but I’ve heard is pretty good…and then there’s this show. Ostensibly, “Nosferatu the Vampire: The Musical” is a musical adaptation of the classic silent film “Nosferatu,” which is widely considered the first true Dracula movie ever made, and is certainly the oldest surviving adaptation. HOWEVER, that’s not really the case: the show is really sort of a blend of Nosferatu, the Bram Stoker novel, and some original material, all rolled into one…and it is ABYSMAL. I was SHOCKED to learn that this show has been staged more than once, and that the original cast recording actually featured some pretty big names in musical theatre. The most notable is poor Peter Karrie, one of the greatest performers of another Gothic legend, the Phantom of the Opera. I’ll give Karrie credit, his voice is beautiful (he’s played the Angel of Music, it kind of has to be), but not even his golden pipes can save this train wreck. The plot is terrible, the characters are bland, the morals are confusing, and there’s WAY too much focus on the sexual angles of the story in this for my comfort. (The sensuality of the vampire IS a topic that is present in the book, mind you, and far from something new...but you have to be VERY careful how you touch it. Trust me.) Worst of all, the music - very frankly - just isn’t that good. The lyrics are vapid and rambling, the orchestration and rhythms feel very “samey” throughout…it’s just DULL. With the other musicals, I can at least give them credit for a few catchy numbers, but this one? I can’t really remember much of anything these characters say or sing, I just remember the boredom and nonsense of the whole clumsy heap. As a result, Karrie’s shot at playing the Count is essentially the opposite of our previous pick: sometimes not even having a great performer can save terrible material, and this is a good example of that.

3. The Version from “Dracula: Sovereign of the Damned.”

I’ll confess that I hesitated to include this Dracula on the list - as well as another one later on - because he’s actually based on Marvel’s Dracula, specifically. Marvel’s Dracula - in other things - has been good. However, after some minor debate, I felt that both of the aforementioned versions simply HAD to be addressed, since - ties to Marvel or not - they are abominable interpretations. Released in some countries under the title “The Tomb of Dracula” (taken from the comic series it is purportedly based on), “Sovereign of the Damned” was an anime movie made by Toei, released in the early 80s. In the original Japanese version, the Count is voiced by Kenji Utsumi; in English, he’s dubbed - VERY badly - by Tom Wyner. If you’re wondering if the dubbing is in any way a contributing factor to this film’s terribleness…don’t worry: this movie is ATROCIOUS no matter what language the characters speak. (Believe me, I know.) The film unwisely attempts to adapt an entire many-issue comic series into a single hour-and-a-half-long story, which works about as well as you’d expect. The plot is like the Grinch’s soul: “an appalling dump heap, overflowing with the most disgraceful assortment of deplorable rubbish imaginable, mangled up in tangled up knots.” Character development goes entirely out the window, and Dracula himself arguably suffers the worst for this. The Count comes across as a total klutz in the film: the movie attempts to make him a sympathetic anti-hero, but the story is such a shambles you never really get to know him well enough to root for him, and he spends most of the movie either running away from danger or being foiled at every turn, with little indication of how truly powerful he really is. He comes across as an idiot much of the time, and isn’t even present for a big chunk of the film to begin with! With a title like “Sovereign of the Damned,” I can safely say I expected more.

2. All of the Actors from Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires.

This is probably one of the weirdest Dracula movies I’ve ever seen, as well as one of the worst. “Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires” was an out-of-continuity entry in the popular Hammer Dracula series, which famously starred Christopher Lee as the Count. At the time “Seven Golden Vampires” came out, however, Lee had left the role, feeling deeply disappointed by the previous and “official” final film in the series, “The Satanic Rites of Dracula.” Hammer studios, meanwhile, was teetering on the brink of collapse, and was really struggling for creative ideas. The result of these combined problems led to this colossal, mad junkyard of a movie: a bizarre blend of Kung Fu action adventure and Gothic chiller. Now, this combination, on its own terms, I actually don’t think is a totally bad idea: if you look far enough, you’ll find good examples of how you can blend the styles of martial-arts-focused action and Gothic horror together. This, however, is not one of them, and part of the problem stems from how poorly Dracula, himself, is managed. Without Lee to handle the reins, Hammer called instead upon contract player John Forbes-Robertson to play the Count. However, Forbes-Robertson doesn’t even GET to play Dracula for most of the film: he only appears at the beginning and in the climactic final battle between himself and Van Helsing. For most of the movie, Dracula’s spirit has possessed the body of a Chinese criminal known as Kah, played by Chan Shen. Instead of getting Forbes-Robertson to do the voice, Kah’s “Dracula Voice” is provided instead by dubbing actor David de Keyser. All three of these actors…are terrible. Forbes-Robertson is a stiff and somewhat silly Dracula when he is onscreen, and is defeated in a highly anticlimactic way in the end. Chan Shen as Kah comes across as a caricature more than a true "character," and his bodily performance feels like a strange blend of kabuki and English pantomime. Meanwhile, Keyser’s very badly-dubbed performance is wooden and stilted. When it takes three men to replace just one, and NONE of them do the job even remotely well? It feels like a true disgrace not only to the character, but also to the one who played him before. I’ll give all three of them this, they at least help to show what made Lee’s Dracula so singlehandedly spectacular.

1. Dominic Purcell, from Blade: Trinity.

This is the other Marvel Dracula on the list I mentioned a while ago. All of my entries up till now have been very long-winded, I know…but my reasons for naming poor Dominic Purcell from the abominable shambles that is “Blade: Trinity” as my pick for the absolute worst Dracula I’ve ever seen is much easier to explain. That reason can be summed up in the following phrase: this is not Dracula. This simply isn’t. I get what the movie was attempting to do - trying to focus on Dracula as this ancient, demonic warrior figure rather than “the Count,” so to speak. However, as various other versions have shown, there are ways you can focus on the “aggressive” aspects of Dracula AND STILL MAKE HIM FEEL LIKE DRACULA. Purcell is simply miscast and misdirected: he doesn’t look like a duck, he doesn’t quack like a duck, he doesn’t waddle like a duck, and therefore it’s fair to say he ain’t Duckula. I’m sure he’s trying his best, but - and it's a shame to say these words - his best just isn’t good enough. For that reason, above all else, he takes the number one spot on this list. There is literally no worse sin I can think of than looking at someone playing such a character and having nothing else to say but, “you, sir, are no Dracula.” 

(DIS)HONORABLE MENTIONS INCLUDE…

Leslie Nielsen, from Dracula: Dead and Loving It.

I know lots of people actually like this movie, but I personally do not. I just don’t think it’s very funny, for the most part, and even as far as spoofs go, I feel Leslie Nielsen is a weird choice for the character. It isn’t completely terrible, however - there’s a few jokes that make me laugh strewn throughout, and I like Peter MacNicol as Renfield - so it gets a pass from the top five.

Lon Chaney, Jr. from Son of Dracula.

It’s left somewhat ambiguous if the character in this film, “Count Alucard,” is indeed the Son of Dracula, or Dracula himself. This, for the record, is why things like “Hellsing” and “Castlevania” have used the name Alucard for both purposes: this is the movie that came up with that alias. While the invention of the name is noteworthy, the film itself is flawed. Chaney - God bless him - is woefully miscast. Whether he’s Dracula OR his Son, I think he did much better in his other Universal Monster roles.

Udo Kier, from Andy Warhol’s Dracula AND Langley Kirkwood, from Dracula 3000.

In both of these cases, I haven't even FINISHED these movies because they're just so freaking terrible. I've only seen parts of them, never the full thing through. I didn't feel it was fair to give them actual placement on the ranks as a result, but they're definitely worth noting for their own dreadfulness levels. In Udo Kier's case, I'd much rather watch him riding on the back of a T. Rex...bravo, if you got that reference.

[kerubimcrepin]

Episodes 27-29 - Ecaflip City (part 1)

I am forever fascinated by the portrayals of ecaflip spirituality we get in this show. Like, home shrines, milk altar offerings...

Kerubim's body language and inflections are very interesting here: he's a bit unsure of himself, but so enthusiastic about telling Joris.

You can just tell that this story means a lot to him.

My new headcanon is that he stopped living in Bonta with her (like he probably had in episodes 50 and 26) because the house is hers, and that made him feel inadequate.

I joked about Kerubim cheating on her while searching for Ecaflip city to propose to her, during past episodes where he is depicted as searching for the city, but it could be that finding it has always been his goal, and wanting to marry her is a whole new quest that ties into this?

But also — she was already his fiancée in the last episode, and it didn't exactly stop him from making questionable decisions.

This moment allows some new insight into Kerubim's thoughts on himself: while he may act cool, he really does feel undeserving of love. Probably a mix of Lou's being very mean (but I really doubt that she would be mean enough to say this) and his shitty self-esteem.

He really does have just... 30-50 different complexes, ranging from "my nasty personality makes everyone leave anyway" to "I'm poor and don't have a home" to "I'm not manly enough".

I want to like... Put him in a blender and mix in some anxiety medication, maybe. Perhaps that would help.

This question will be asked later by the show itself, but, is he really doing this for Lou, or is he doing this for himself?

I don't mean this in a "he's selfish" way, I mean this in a "he doesn't think he's good enough as he is... that's very sad" way.

Instead of gambling, he should have been a shopkeep from the get-go.

He's like a redditor that got into stock trading: a tragedy in the making.

If Kerubim isn't lying, — and I had sworn to take everything in this show at face value unless suggested otherwise by the narration — this moment may show us that it is true, that his other attempts at finding Ecaflip city were before he decided to marry her, and really committed to it.

You see, in episode 50, which, as we established, happens before Ecaflip City, he says that they stopped lying to each other after that story — which wouldn't entirely fit with him still flirting with girls and betraying her trust, while searching for the city.

But if those searches happened before, and he decided to continue them due to wanting to marry Lou? That would mean that he's changed for the better. At least a little bit.

She likes his dirty jokes. I don't have much to say, other than that this moment makes me sad. They were so cute together...

The menu seems to say "URM", but it's very stylized, so I am not sure.

Besides Kerubim being so addicted to gambling that it's ruining his personality and speech patterns, and also him probably being blasted with Ecaflip's luck buffs to the point of having prophetic fucking visions, — I think also points to Kerubim being lethally addicted to making people he likes happy, to the point of not seeing when it makes them uncomfortable.

He'll agree to do things with his loved ones — only to change plans later, when he realizes he's actually busy.

He'll go on a random, useless quest, to do something insane for love, and it'll just make things worse.

He'll be reassuring people that everything is going to be okay, when the thing they actually need is an acknowledgement of how bad things are. Et cetera, et cetera.

He has serious issues with understanding other people's emotions, and gets blind-sided when people he loves get mad at him for what he thought was the best course of action. (Totally not me foreshadowing what happens between him and Joris in the movie. Haha.)

I feel bad for him.

[gestures vaguely at all the times we've seen him shitfaced drunk in the series, and the horrid decisions this has led him to] [gestures vaguely to him constantly gambling and losing stuff, like, y'know, in the previous episode]

uhhh. All I can offer as commentary to this moment is this funnypost I made a while back on my main blog.

Keke you are so fucked, but you've been fucked for like, decades before this, so you are now mega-fucked. It's just over.

I'm,. so normal and sane and not sad about this.

Again, for all her faults, she really loved him, the way he is (even if sometimes he annoyed her, even if sometimes she used his weak spots to make him do things). I'm so fucking sad it didn't work out.

I just keep mentioning the fact that they both suck because I want to be fair to the two of them. What happened in Ecaflip city, despite her flaws, was Kerubim's personal failing.

...God. They're so special to me.

Guys, um... I don't think God Ecaflip likes to see Kerubim being happy and on good terms with people who aren't him.

Man. That evil fucking cat...

This here, folks, is why my deepest conspiracy theory is that Ecaflip is the reason Kerubim and Atcham lost their family.

He's evil enough to ruin a marriage in this episode, and Wheel of Destiny #8 does imply that Ecaflip was manipulating Kerubim to dislike Atcham (with his, y'know, threats of being able to make him "just as disliked and ugly" as Atcham. Normal father/god behaviour. Totally not the reason Kerubim is so scared of people disliking him. Haha.)

So what stops him from y'know, maybe, perhaps, killing their family a little bit?

Krosmoz is already inspired by Greek mythology. Evil god behaviour is just par for the course, y'know?

One may say: "Well, Ecaflip does these things to Kerubim to test him and his moral compass."

And I answer: I think it's very cruel to test the moral compass of a person, after knowingly breaking said person's moral compass with decades of mind games.

[ectonurites]

My unpopular opinion is arguing over comic book characterizations is stupid when their personalities change all the time

strongly agree | agree | neutral | disagree | strongly disagree

BOOOO TOMATOES TOMATOES

like listen—yes things change, and considering comics are an ongoing medium they are going to continue to change and evolve over time. But if you just are okay with and passive about the idea of characters literally ending up as names & designs that have nothing else consistent about them... what's the point in being invested? that's just blank slates? like I suppose I understand it more if you are ONLY ever engaging with fan content—because that can be a situation where blank slates mean you can explore a lot of different things in that fan content.

But if you're someone who actually reads & follows along with the comics???? that just does not work in my brain in the slightest. for me at least, a big part of the appeal of comics (DC specifically because that's what I read) is the way that there's this huge universe with stories told over time with many of the same characters and you can see the way things connect and intertwine and yeah there are some things that don't line up but when you look at the whole big mess of things they do usually fit together in their own janky way (and i LOVE approaching that—trying to piece things together)!

being able to talk about/discuss/argue over characterization when taking in these stories is just... part of that fun—being able to look at a comic and say 'oh he would NOT fucking say that' and pull up examples to explain your line of thinking... that's FUN for me!!! Things may be inconsistent at times and sure there are always going to be extreme examples of 'jesus christ this is a drastic change' but genuinely I do think people (on here in particular) way over exaggerate how bad it is a lot of the time (like, in large part probably as jokes initially which then get taken at face value by people who aren't as deep into the comics, and so it just keeps perpetuating. comics fandom becomes SUCH an internet game of telephone).

Also on a more serious note, plenty of times the way characterization & personality is changed can be part of bigger issues that are worth discussing—the portrayals of characters of color, female characters, lgbt characters, etc when changed drastically in ways that maybe show something bad about the author's biases... discussions and arguments around that, and pushing back against it when it happens, is very much so not stupid.

[theprivatearchives]

 13th April 2022

Supernatural Season 2 Episode 16.

Just finished watching it and I'm impressed. A few things I wanted to specifically note...

It's sort of a new talking-point in the show, but Sam's 'faith' and Dean's hesitant acceptance of it. I think trust and faith are such important traits in SPN between characters and especially the two brothers, but this is different and I love the fact that Sam has a belief of some sort or at least wishful thinking and that Dean accepts that fact, whether he agrees with it or not because he cares for Sam. Coming from a religious background where such beliefs are fundamental and such a large part of life, having this portrayed in an esentially atheistic, anti-heaven show is lovely. I've talked myself out of sticking to those beliefs so much that when non-christians are actually okay with them I'm always shocked and a little bit awed.

Another thing of note in the episode, which is also along the spiritual line, was the moment Sam told the Ghost she had to 'let go.' The way my mind was ticking over things and doubting the writing and everything, and then I had this deep feeling or memory of the concept of peace. What it is to let go. To forgive or be forgiven. Cleansed. And have that unshakeable peace in your very heart and soul, for however brief it may last. That scene shook that thought into my mind and I remembered peace can exist and it is beautiful.

Moving away from the deeper, spiritual things, I was rather impressed by the way I was completely drawn into the episode and never realised what was going on until the rug was pulled out from underneath and everything was explained to clueless, shocked me. >.< That was very well done, and I'm sure wouldn't have been a walk in the park to put together!

I enjoyed seeing the boys conversing with a 'ghost' and convincing it to let it's spirit move on. It wasn't just a few lines of frantic shouting and desperate convincing either. It was a human-to-human conversation and that is one portrayal of 'ghosts' that I enjoy. <3

Oh, and I forgot, but the way the episode started with the classic 'lost in the dark woods' horror-style camera angles and everything... It was an enjoyable callback to some of the earlier episodes and the modus-operandi of such a show. That's not to say it's not still a current thing they do in the show, but I feel like it's being weaned out for different styles somewhat.

Great episode, all round.

[sagurus]

Regarding a Common Misconception of Hakuba Saguru

Lately I've been doing some reflecting on Saguru & the various ways I've seen him portrayed, as well as the ways I've portrayed him in the past. And then I was rereading some MK manga, and had some realizations. I've been feeling like rambling about them! So here I go, rambling.

[Disclaimer: I'm not personally taking issue with anyone's interpretation or impression of Saguru - just sharing my own impressions! This is just for fun <3 ]

Misconception: Saguru is constantly accusing Kaito of being KID

It’s a generally accepted fact in a lot of fics I’ve read (and honestly, maybe some fics I’ve written -- I used to hold this belief too!) that Saguru just unendingly insinuates that Kaito is KID--alone, in front of other people, always.

I won’t cite any here, but I’ve seen nods in fanwork to Aoko feeling a little stressed/frustrated about the fact that Saguru thinks Kaito is KID and makes it known. I’ve also seen fanwork where Saguru explicitly calls Kaito KID, presses Kaito for information, or otherwise makes his beliefs clear, even when others are around.

There are only five scenes in the Magic Kaito manga where Saguru makes direct indication toward his knowledge of KID’s identity.

First, of course, we’ve got chapter 17 - the first chapter where Saguru puts together that Kaito is KID.

For a long time, when I’d consumed more fic than MK canon, I recall an image born in my head of Saguru singling Kaito out in class and making the claim that Kaito is KID in front of everybody. I don’t know if I ever read any such allusion in a fic, or if it’s just an assumption I drew based on portrayals I read, but imagine my surprise when he does nothing of the sort.

Now, to be fair, Saguru is A LOT in this chapter. MK is still heavily in gag manga territory, so his behavior is extra extra played up. But if we take away the visuals, the dialogue between Saguru and Kaito can be summed up thusly:

[First scene where Saguru makes direct indications as to KID’s identity]

Kaito: You look so tired. Haven’t gotten enough sleep after chasing KID for three nights In a row, huh?

Saguru: Hmph. Aren’t you tired as well?

And then, a few beats later in the conversation:

Saguru: I’d like to invite you to the Ochima Art Museum tonight, where KID’s declared his next target. Kaito: Eh? Saguru: Then, you’ll understand why I’m so tired. Or, do you have other plans tonight? Kaito: Okay, I accept your invitation. It’ll be great to see your work in action!

And that’s it, that’s the big class confrontation. Aoko is present for it, but she’s more interested in joining in on the fun, and while I do think Aoko pieces together that Kaito is KID, she prefers to live in willful ignorance of it until it becomes impossible for her to ignore. She’s bright enough to pick up what Saguru’s implying, but because he never brings it past implication, there’s no reason for her to look at it too hard. Anyway, I digress. That’s conjecture and headcanon talking. My point is that Saguru never makes any explicit claims, just invites Kaito along to the heist.

Another neat thing about this scene is that--while certainly not motivated by mercy in this case, Saguru does give Kaito an out: “Or, do you have an excuse not to go tonight?” Of course, if Kaito took it, it would be rather damning, but I do think it would have been enough confirmation for Saguru. I don’t think there would have been any arm-twisting to get Kaito to agree.

But Kaito and Saguru are competitive bastards, so here we are.

Let’s move on to the heist!

Once again, the manga certainly plays up the whole ordeal. Saguru is intense and waiting for his moment, and Kaito’s being, well, Kaito.

At the heist, there are a few points where Saguru has opportunities to make allusions to Kaito being KID in a way others would pick up on, or otherwise make his suspicions known, but he doesn’t.

First of all, is this exchange:

Nakamori: Why are you guys here? Aoko: Hakuba-kun invited us! Nakamori: What’s the meaning of this, Hakuba-kun? Saguru: I thought she might like to see if KID is arrested tonight. Nakamori: You’ll fail if you’re too cocky! Saguru: We’re well-prepared. Besides, who knows… KID may already be here.

Saguru does imply KID could be present, but he makes no indication that he means Kaito. His next opportunity to hint at Kaito being KID or otherwise make accusations is when Nakamori asks him to consult as a magician.

Nakamori: Kaito, since you’re here, do you want to use your magic against KID? Kaito: [laughing sheepishly] Saguru: Oh, I want to see that fight, too. If you really can do it.

Needling, yes. Saguru knows what he’s saying and so does Kaito. Accusations, no. This is well within the realm of something Saguru would have said even if he didn’t suspect Kaito, considering their dynamic up until this point.

And then, the most explicit Saguru ever gets in terms of literally calling Kaito out as being KID, beginning when Kaito excuses himself to go to the bathroom right before the heist:

[Second scene where Saguru makes direct indications as to KID’s identity]

Saguru: [handcuffs himself to Kaito] Kaito: Huh? Saguru: I won’t let you do that, Kuroba. Kaito: What do you think you’re doing?! Saguru: I got the report back from the lab. The hair I got from KID indicated that he’s a high school student. After I compared KID’s data with other high school students’ data in the database… Kuroba Kaito came up in the final list. Kaito: That’s a coincidence. Saguru: Really? We’ll see soon enough. Let’s wait until the time KID is stated to come. [Some heist hubbub occurs as officers get into position even though KID hasn’t arrived at the heist time] Aoko: What? KID’s not coming? Saguru: Ha! It looks like I win! You’d better confess who you really are.

And from there, of course, ‘KID’ (Akako in disguise) swoops in and takes care of the heist. That more or less wraps up chapter 17, the first chapter where Saguru understands that Kaito is KID. And I would argue this is the most aggressive Saguru ever is. In fact, rather than persist in trying to accuse/capture/implicate Kaito as KID, he straight up vanishes from the narrative for several chapters.

Saguru doesn’t show up again until the Chat Noir heist, in chapter 25, when he calls from France.

It’s also important to note that at this point, Magic Kaito’s narrative has experienced a slight tonal shift. At the very least, while still often comedic, it reads less like a gag manga. Between the last time we saw Saguru and now, we’ve learned the apparent motivation behind Toichi’s murder, we’ve met Snake (an albeit rather incompetent villain) and Kaito has faced down gunfire and the danger posed by Snake and his men.

The way Saguru is portrayed has also shifted to reflect the shift too. Instead of a hulking antagonist-like character in a Holmes cosplay, he’s dressed primly and presents more as a cheeky but polite character. He’s also more effectively emulating the charm that the story tried to imply he had early on (“Hakuba Saguru, at your service!”, the girls in class fawning over him, the newspaper calling him out as a famous detective making a long-awaited return to Japan).

The interaction is entirely less antagonistic, too. For reference, I’ll paste the exchange (sans Saguru’s massive info dump) below.

[Third scene where Saguru makes direct indications as to KID’s identity]

[At the heist for the golden eye] Kaito: [Hiding in a bathroom stall while putting on a disguise] [His phone starts ringing] Hello…? Saguru: Hi, it’s been a while. Are you still alive? Kaito: [Thinking] This sugary yet obnoxious tone of voice is... Hakuba?! Saguru: You’ve made quite the stir in Paris. They’re all talking about how France’s Chat Noir is going to go up against you in Japan. Kaito: Idiot! It’s not me. It’s Kaitou KID! Saguru: Ha… it doesn’t really matter. I’ll share some information that I gathered over here. [Info dump cut from dialogue] Well! That’s about all I have to say. Do your best. I don’t want to see you lose to anyone until I capture you myself. Kaito: Like I’ve been saying, I’m not KID! Saguru: Oops, it’s almost time for the Paris Fashion Week. See you! Kaito: H-hey…

The only part of this conversation that I could consider to fall into the territory of antagonistic is when Saguru says “I don’t want to see you lose to anyone until I capture you myself.” And more than anything, I think this is less reflective of a real desire to capture Kaito, and more reflective of his competitive nature. Not to mention, within the context of the conversation, it feels much more like teasing than anything.

Saguru’s motivation for making the call is clear: He doesn’t want Kaito to lose, and he wants to help ensure Kaito’s success.

And most interestingly (although I’d like to see the raw manga to confirm this, or otherwise a more literal translation) he never explicitly calls Kaito KID either. Outside of alluding to KID’s actions, Saguru doesn’t explicitly say Kaito is KID or mention KID at all. It’s Kaito who does that.

When Kaito points out that he is not, in fact, KID, Saguru doesn’t argue. He simply brushes off the denial and shares the information he’s collected.

So, to summarize what we’ve covered so far: after Saguru failed to arrest Kaito during chapter 17, he stopped troubling Kaito so thoroughly that the next time he features in the story isn’t until he’s calling from overseas to try to lend Kaito some helpful information. He’s not even playing a part in trying to capture this thief he allegedly wants to catch.

And then, Saguru dips back out of the narrative, although for a shorter period this time. The next arc he appears in is a few chapters later--the Nightmare Heist which he arrives in the middle of. But, there’s not any interaction between him and Kaito, nor any allusions made by Saguru about KID’s identity, so we’ll move on.

The fourth time Saguru makes any indication that Kaito is KID is during the Corbeau arc, when KID is being challenged by a clad-in-black KID lookalike.

Before jumping into that specific scene, though, there’s another interaction I’d like to call attention to--between Saguru and Nakamori. Not because of something Saguru says, but because of what he doesn’t say.

Nakamori: Hahaha! Looks like you let your guard down because you thought I was at home with a cold! Saguru: Our plan succeeded, it seems. Nakamori: But I only told Aoko I had a cold, so how does KID know…? Saguru: Hm...

If Saguru were wanting to make some kind of accusation, even a non-explicit one, he would have made some remark. Instead, he doesn’t say anything at all, which continues to speak to the fact that he isn’t really interested in implicating Kaito.

Anyway, the next time Saguru makes any sort of implication that Kaito is KID he is, once again, trying to help. Last time it was over the phone, so the conversation was private. This time, the conversation is in a classroom, although based on the panels, it seems like Saguru and Kaito are alone at the beginning--or at least, no attention is being paid to them.

[Fourth scene where Saguru makes direct indications as to KID’s identity]

Kaito: [Talking to himself] It must be the case, there’s no other way. There must have been some trick with the case.

Saguru: [Eavesdropping, apparently alone in the room with him] The case didn’t contain any hidden mechanisms. Kaito: Eh? Saguru: No hidden doors or things like that, as are often used in magic tricks. Kaito: W-what on earth are you talking about? Saguru: A new notice from Corbeau arrived this morning. ‘I’ll come and take the real Midnight Crow tonight.’ My name is Hakuba--so I don’t want a ‘white’ person to lose to some ominous black crow. [From here, Akako and then Aoko jump into the conversation.]

Surely a classroom is a risky place to have a conversation about KID, but the nice thing is that Saguru--once again--doesn’t bring up KID at all beyond saying that he doesn’t want the ‘white[-clad] person’ to lose to the black crow. From the outside looking in, all he’s doing is sharing information about the case with Kaito. It may also seem unwarranted from that perspective, but not at all implicating.

Also, another thing I’d like to call attention to is that when Akako joins the conversation (and seemingly blindsides Saguru, as if he wasn’t expecting anyone else to join), Saguru stops talking. He continues to be quiet when Aoko chimes in, and he doesn’t have any relevant dialogue for the rest of the scene.

Once again, Saguru’s clearly motivated to share information in the interest of helping Kaito. He has to share with Kaito’s civilian identity, since he can’t exactly arrange a conversation with KID, and this is likely the easiest way for him to do it. He makes no accusations, and this time he doesn’t even imply he wants KID caught.

So--Saguru is a part of the narrative again, but since rejoining the narrative he seems less interested in actually catching KID and far more interested in helping Kaito. And no accusations or incriminating allusions have been made since chapter 17, before Saguru’s first hiatus from the story.

The final time Saguru nods to Kaito being KID is from the Sun Halo arc. This is probably the interaction that’s closest to what fanon tends to depict when it comes to Saguru making subtle accusations that Kaito is KID. And even then, I tend to take this arc with a grain of salt if only because it felt less like Gosho was trying to add to the story and more like he was just trying to make a Magic Kaito addition that hit various fan expectations while still being wildly disappointing, lmao.

[Fifth scene where Saguru makes direct indications as to KID’s identity]

Saguru: [approaching and commenting on Kaito’s motorcycle] I see, a Suzuki GSX 250R. Akako: Ah, Hakuba-kun… Saguru: You’ve shown me something interesting. Perhaps this might help the police tonight. And could it be that you’ve forgotten… that the only motorised bikes we’re allowed to ride to school are scooters? Kaito: Eh?! For real?!

Once again, Saguru doesn’t explicitly mention KID at all--and segues from his mention of the police to pointing out that Kaito is breaking the rules right now, actually, which helps blend this teasing comment into the conversation.

Yes, later in the chapter Saguru does show up with a team of motorcycle experts. But that also means there’s more disguise opportunities for KID and more factors to account for, thus complicating things for, well, everyone--not just KID.

Also, I tend to dismiss that as Gosho throwing in some comedy, and as less to do with Saguru’s character. Call it cherrypicking if you like :P

To recount--there are five times where Saguru implies Kaito is KID.

The first two are in chapter 17, when Saguru first puts it together, and it is during this chapter that he gets the most explicit about calling Kaito out as KID, as well as the most aggressively he behaves about it. And he backs off so hard after that doesn’t work, that we don’t see him for several chapters.

The next two times he implies Kaito is KID are both in order to help him. No aggression or accusations, just the sharing of information. Even when teasing or suggesting he’s interested in catching KID, he’s good-natured about it, and when he realizes there are potentially people witnessing the conversation, he stops participating.

The final time he implies Kaito is KID is a tiny comment about finding something Kaito has shown him ���interesting’ and ‘helpful for the police’ before smoothing into gently teasing Kaito for bringing an illegal vehicle to school.

In conclusion, Saguru may start off apparently aggressive in part thanks to early Magic Kaito’s overall tone, but rather than persevering in trying to catch Kaito after cornering him in chapter 17, he actually seems to back off. Once he’s playing a part in the narrative again, when he interacts with Kaito it’s almost exclusively to help him. Yes, he is on the task force and participating at heists, but where it matters, he’s less interested in catching the thief and far more interested in those the thief is opposing (excluding the police force).

[kingdomoftyto]

... I've been wanting to say for a while that I think a lot of criticism I've seen of the IwtV show's handling of changes to the plot and characters seems to focus unduly on the "trilogy only" version of the series that a certain subset of fans has adopted.

Like, hear me out--I'm going to read some more of the books out of morbid curiosity, but I fully expect to be one of those fans myself in the end, okay? I've had a taste of how awful things get with Tale of the Body Thief, and I agree wholeheartedly that the books, as they exist in my heart, more or less ended with Queen of the Damned.

...But unfortunately, in reality, outside of my and everyone else's safe headcanon zone, the series DID continue.

And the show is signalling pretty hard that it's going to be pulling from ALL of canon. (Hello, Dr. Fareed!)

Which means the showrunners aren't limiting the character arcs or personalities to those first three books. In fact, I think they're rewriting parts of the beginning to make it cohesive with where the characters are going to end up later. Some people are appalled that Lestat is acting so monstrous and abusive in the show... but then those same people will write meta about what a piece of shit he becomes in the later books.

Again, I haven't read past book 4 yet myself, but from what happens at the end of that one? Yeah, the spiral into the hypermasculine "oh-I'm-just-like-my-father-I-can't-control-my-temper-or-my-baser-instincts" piece of shit Lestat whom I've heard so much about was already underway.

And yet Lestat and Louis end up happy together in the end, from my understanding. And even the "trilogy" people seem to like that aspect despite Lestat's later characterization, unless I'm mistaken.

I'm not defending the structure of the story itself (it sounds like shit, actually lmao), but I do think it's likely what the showrunners are building from, and therefore I think it's unreasonable for fans to be upset that they're not picking and choosing from the same limited set of books that the fans have decided are the "correct" canon.

We won't know until more of the show comes out, of course, but currently my money is on the showrunners attempting to tie the characterization from the later books into the early part of the story in a singular, cohesive way (as opposed to Rice's way, which was inconsistent and often backwards character development, as many fans point out!)--AND, call me foolish for thinking so, but I think that their recurring mentions of the abuse and the realistic portrayals of the dynamics involved means that they are AWARE of how utterly toxic and messed up the relationship is as it stands in the books, and that they plan to address it.

... I dunno, guys, it just rubs me the wrong way to see people upset at how bad the relationship/character/abuse is in the show and then in the very next breath discuss how irredeemably terrible Lestat is in all but the first 1/4 of the book series. It's... I get it, part of me kinda wishes they would just do books 1-3 and pretend the rest didn't exist, but if they're going to do the WHOLE kettle of fish, then imo they may as well try to pull it all into one consistent thread!

[commsroom]

Hey✨! (First will just say you by all means don’t have to answer this! Representation and interpretation of ai characters is something I’m really interested in so just wanna hear some of ur thoughts if your up for it!)

I’m curious as to whether you have though about how ‘human’ interpretations of Hera are and whether the want to represent her but the lack of understanding on how being an ai would feel (for obvious reasons of, we are not ai) effects how much people portray her as ‘human’ to try and understand how she works (drawing her with eyes that look at screens and hands that fiddle buttons to work the Hephaestus, making outcomes where she can get physical affection, something we consider staple to our relationships because humans need physical affection where an ai might actually not ect)

Also!! Just wanna disclaim I do not mean interpretative ai characters in more human ways is bad at all and all the interpretations are incredible, I’m just interested in how ones own humanity may affect that interpretation. Have a good day!

okay, this ask is so old by now; i’m sorry if you don’t even see my answer. but i wanted to make sure i could link you to some version of this post first, so... if you're mostly interested in my perspective on 'human' interpretations of hera and how i think that fits into her canon perspective/self-image/portrayal, then. your answer is (hopefully) in there.

i'm going to try to be brief and not rehash everything i said in that post, hence... why i'm linking the post... but i think the question of whether hera would express a desire for physical interaction or affection is kind of. already answered by the show itself, in that she canonically does experience physical loneliness in the way she perceives herself 'away' from the rest of the crew in memoria. like, if it's a question of AI Characters in General, then i absolutely agree that it's unfair to assume they would necessarily have the same desires or priorities, but... i don't know how much that particular discussion is really relevant to hera.

something else i didn't bring up directly in that post, but i think is worth considering: wolf 359 uses plenty of audio tricks to suggest inhuman or nonlinear perspectives at other points in the show, but it doesn't make much of an effort to ever apply those from hera's perspective. if anything, hera comes across as more human from her own perspective because of the added physicality in her self-perception and the lack of filters on her voice (and the addition of filters on everyone else's, further equalizing them and suggesting physical distance rather than a different state of being entirely.) that doesn't change that the reality of her situation is more complicated, but it's an intentional choice in what it communicates about hera as an individual, and in what it says re: how hera fits into the show's broader theme of asserting and recognizing humanity in people who have been dehumanized.

i think there's also just a question of practicality when it comes to fanart, like... hera can be an equal presence in an audio format in a way that she couldn't be in a visual one, so if you want to represent the feeling of a scene rather than Literally How It Would Look, you have to make some choices there. like with my personal design for hera, i ask people to draw her with that kind of blue hologram look, but i don't think that's either. literally how she looks, or how she sees herself. it's just a design choice that i feel will make her more recognizable.

i definitely don't expect everyone to come to all of the same conclusions that i do, but i think... based on the way all of this information is presented in canon, i think we can get a pretty good sense of how hera sees herself. i think it's important, at least, to acknowledge that she does have that internal self-image, that it matters to her, and that however she might feel things throughout the station due to the ways she's connected to it, the station itself doesn't represent a physical sense of self for her. again, she does express a desire for physicality and she experiences physical loneliness. so, while i can't definitively say why any individual artist might choose to, i do think that representing hera in a more 'human' way is a reasonable extension of her canon portrayal.

at the very least, i hope this answer + the linked post make it clear that this is something i've put a lot of thought into, and that i'm not making these claims lightly or out of an assumption of human physicality as the default. and i want to say, i totally get why a lot of people who feel not-quite or other-than human tend to get very attached to AI/robot/etc. characters, like. i am one of those people! and given the track record of a lot of sci-fi, i know how frustrating it is when it feels like Being Human is treated as something necessarily aspirational, or as if it's interchangeable with Being A Person. that's why it's important to me to be clear that i'm talking about hera's specific circumstances, her own self expression, and that i'm only talking about hera.

[captnjacksparrow]

hi, so i’ve wondered what you think about kishimoto and his take on women. do you think he doesn’t know how to write strong, independent women? and how do you think did the fact it’s a shounen influence him on writing women? are there any women in naruto who had potential but were ignored due to the very fact they’re women? and what female characters do you personally wish you saw more about? love your blog!!

Okay.... I think people who follow my blog almost consider me to be the 'Defender of Kishimoto'.... And that's why I am receiving Asks based on his Misogyny or Treatment of Women.

KISHIMOTO & HIS “SO-CALLED” MISOGYNY - MY TAKE

Can I simply say "Yes, Despite me being an Independent Tomboyish Girl who always picked fight with Misogynistic Boys on a Regular basis, I liked Kishimoto's work and I am completely satisfied with Naruto, the Series without any resentment" ???....

That’s because I never approach any media by wearing GENDER LENS OR SEXUALITY LENS..... I don’t desperately look for any female characters to get inspiration or motivation from.... If I like a Character... I will love them and get inspired from them.. I don’t care what’s between the ‘said’ Character’s legs. It’s Simple. I got motivated by few male characters in this series and they DEFINITELY CHANGED ME IN GOOD WAYS.

This doesn’t mean I am slandering everyone who looks for female representation in any media. It’s just that this Series never hinted at anytime that this was going to be about Girls kicking Ass or something. So, it’s pointless to expect something from nothing and criticizing the Author for it. 

But I just couldn’t understand one thing from SNS Fandom, especially. We all scream to other shippers that “Remove your Hetero Normative Lens to understand SNS”..... Yes, I whole-heartedly agree... Which means, we all acknowledge the fact that we are supporting a ship where 2 Boys Love each other and we want people to remove their Hetero Lens. Fine. Agreed. 

But why expect 50-50 representation for Women in a Gay Media??? I seriously don’t understand this logic. AT ALL.... Which Gay media had a strong women portrayal???? Why are we still wearing our Gender Lens and criticize something pointless???? Male Characters are also Humans, you know...

You may now ask “Why can’t a Gay media have strong and independent women Characters?”

Ummm... It’s very similar to asking a Gay Boy, “Why can’t you like a Girl?”

And this is not a Joke.... If you have some time, you can visit [this link]... It’s a list of Highly Rated Yaoi Novels from China with respective links to the Novels which is translated in English. Among the top 20 novels in that list, I’ve so far read 4.... All 4 of them were written by Women... And one of the Writer actually became insanely rich because her Novels were adapted into Anime, Live Action, Manga, Merchandise, International Broadcast and what not....

In all those 4 novels I’ve read so far, I’ve never found a single women Character to have made an impact to the story in a big way and to be honest I don’t even remember most of their names except for 1 or 2... And the joke is that they were all written by Women. So, Can we call all those Women writers to be misogynistic???

There is pattern for Women Characters in those BL novels.... A Girl who lust for the body of a Main Character... Her purpose is to show the readers how Handsome he is...

Handsome Main Character who rejects girls like some annoying pest because he only has eyes on the other Main Character...

A Girl who is there to create some stupid Love Triangle between 2 Main Characters... [[Usually Chinese women readers hates these girls... And begs the author to kill this Character because they don’t want anyone to come between their OTP]]...

Don’t you think all these patterns conform to Naruto Manga as well????

I wonder if only Naruto loved Hinata & Sasuke loved Sakura passionately.... Will this claim that “Kishimoto being Sexist” arise???? 

I don’t think so. 

My Point is, we, SNS fans know the nature of the relationship between the main characters and yet why are we expecting A Strong, Independent Women Characters from this piece of Media???? Have we ever found any importance for Sakura in those SNS fanfictions???? Fic Writers change her into somewhat pleasant girl with no Assholery and THAT’S ALL.... She won’t be playing any important role in any of those fictions... Because it’s all about how N and S love each other and their struggles.... No body gives 2 fucks about how Sakura kicks Ass in SNS Fictions. Kishimoto also employed the same logic. 

If Fanfic writers treats Sakura into a Marriage broker for SNS, then that’s fine... But if Kishimoto does the same in his Manga but in a despicable way, then it is called Misogyny, eh???? I find this claim to be Extremely hypocritical. 

Anyways, Let me tell you what attributes I want from a Woman Character to consider her as strong....

A Woman Who

Can make her own life choices without having to be subservient under any Man

Fight for the same respect as a Man....

Has her own dreams to pursue...

Has the Ability to be intelligent and diplomatic rather than acting foolish before Boys in order to attract them... (Eeeshh.... I just hate them)

Has the Ability to hold a Leadership position

Can be Kind and Empathetic or can be a vile bitch who could screw up other people by making clever plans..... I don’t care which side she falls into....  All I need is a personality with a strong Conviction...

Possess strong Emotional Strength

Has the Ability to endure severe harsh life circumstances because women are damn fucking strong enough to endure a lot......

Has weakness and how she overcomes it...

And there are many more which I possibly can’t list here... But all these attributes are applicable to Married, Unmarried, Housewives and Working women too....

If I find three or four of these attributes in any Women Characters.... Then I consider her as Strong.

Now just look at these basic Attributes, I repeat Basic.... A Complex woman Character has even more attributes to portray but I think this is enough considering Shonen... and see how many points Tsunade, Kushina, Konan checks as compared to Sakura & Hinata... [[Konoha is where the story revolves around and Tsunade is a fucking Hokage for God’s Sake!!!!]]

i’ve wondered what you think about kishimoto and his take on women. do you think he doesn’t know how to write strong, independent women?

Many girls in this fandom don’t even know What is mean by an Independent and Strong Women and start to write some stupid post that Kishimoto is a Misogynist....

Because Majority of Girls in this fandom believes.... Punching Stuffs and Bossing around subservient men is a measure of Strength... They don’t care about her emotional development and all they care about is her physical strength which is not needed at all, you know. What they want is a Mary Fucking Sue.... 

If Kishimoto can able to write Tsunade.... Can’t he give the same tropes for his ‘supposed’ Main Female Character????

He can.

But he simply chose not to.

And Here’s the thing.... If Someone is not a Feminist Icon..... It doesn’t mean they are sexist or misogynist... There is something called INBETWEEN...

I consider Kishimoto to be INBETWEEN..... or maybe by the end of this post.... You might be have a differing opinion.....

But before that let me answer your Questions....

What female characters do you personally wish you saw more about?

Konan and Tsunade. 

Konan had a wonderful fight with Obito... But her name was never mentioned again.... Naruto could’ve referenced her & Nagato in Chapter 700 and give a closure for Amegakure... But it was abandoned entirely.... 

Tsunade... I wish I could see her even more.... Can’t specifically say where... But I loved her. 

Are there any women in Naruto who had potential but were ignored due to the very fact they’re women?

For sure, I won’t be saying Sakura’s and Hinata’s name here..... He would never make them into anything other than some despicable dolls... That’s a given.

But Why nobody was talking about Choji, Neji, Kiba, Lee who had no development since forever???? 

Neji was in Kazekage retrieval Arc.... And.... That’s all... He died as a Love Broker...

Choji... He got his Butterfly wings when fighting with Edo Tensei Asuma... And that’s all.... I don’t remember him doing anything since Sasuke retrieval Arc...in Part 1...Same with Kiba and Lee....

So, Male characters also had potential but were ignored mercilessly... So... If Kishimoto was a Misogynist... Then those fake feminists are called Misandrist.... Because they don’t care about any male characters and they are okay with them being ignored.

how do you think did the fact it’s a shounen influence him on writing women?

I haven’t watched any other Shounen other than Naruto (Currently watching JJK)... So, I couldn’t comment on this. 

But I am sure about one thing.... 

Kishimoto wants his Heroine to be Strong. Even stronger than his Hero. I had this feeling when I was re-watching Naruto.... And I became 100% sure after reading his other One-Shot Manga named Mario.... [Link]

Let’s see....

This is a quote from Naruto’s Official Data Book named Meigenshu Kizuna ‘Bonds’ where Kishi explains about Sasuke.

“Since Naruto is to be considered the “hero”, from the beginning he’s receiving growing popularity as the protagonist, while Sasuke; who is usually being chased by numerous characters (in a romantic sense), even if he’s a guy, roughly speaking, Sasuke has the heroine status in this story.”

[[Am not bring this NaruSasu/SasuNaru thing in this post... Am just pointing what Kishi said about Sasuke]]

With all this being said....

KISHI LIKES HIS HEROINE WITH A SPECIFIC LOOK

I can’t find any difference other than the hair style.... Can you able to????

KISHI LIKES HIS HEROINE TO FIGHT HIS HERO BACK

Even today people are crying that, “Kishimoto is a Misogynist because he made Sakura into a Doormat for Sasuke.... He probably wants his woman to be like Sakura...”

But this comparison proves otherwise.... 

Saori is just someone who will shoot your Brains if you touch her... And here, Saori is not a Doormat to Mario.... She is just like Sasuke. I wonder, How come Kishimoto can be a Misogynist in one Manga whereas he becomes a Normal person in his other Manga???? Is this some split-personality disorder????

Well... Both pairs starts their ‘thing’ with Hate!!!!

KISHI LIKES HIS HEROINE TO BE STRONGER THAN HIS HERO

LOL.... No explanation need, eh???

KISHI LIKES HIS HEROINE TO SNEAK ATTACK WHILE HIS HERO ACTS AS THE DECOY

Naruto usually attacks his enemy with his Shadow Clones and Sasuke analyze the battle from behind using his Sharingan. If the enemy attacks Naruto, Sasuke always saves him. This is the dynamics that was established in Land of the Waves, Forest of the Death and even against the battle with Jigen. 

Similarly Mario acts as the decoy and if someone attacks him, Saori analyze it very carefully and blast them off from behind... Like she does in this panel.... Both Naruto and Mario looks back to see their Heroine...LOL 

(I promise you all, I never intended to make this into an SNS post.. I only wanted to talk about Saori. Like I was sort of joking when I started this section, but I’m convincing myself now... Saori is Sasuke and viceversa.)

KISHI LIKES HIS HEROINE’S LOVE TO BE UNCONDITIONAL & PURE....

Now... Just because I bring the word ‘Love’.... Don’t even imagine it’s something Romantic. It’s just not.  

Mario, the Hero is a Money minded A-Class Asshole and a sell out... (which he himself agrees...)

Here, They both come to meet this fat guy for some job... But that Old-Fatty wants to spend some ‘lonely’ times with Saori.... His assistant even offers Mario some money, for him to leave this girl alone with them.... 

As expected he leaves her alone... Poor Saori got horrified... But Saori is not very innocent... She escaped her way out somehow but it was implied that she killed that old-fart when in reality his Assistant killed him and put the blame on Saori.... She is not some damsel in distress, you know. 

And because Saori ‘seemingly’ killed those Old fart, She carries a bounty on her head worth of $500,000.... To which Mario, the Asshole, agrees half-heartedly and concocts a plan with his friend to finish her off.... 

As it happens.... Mario distracts her and his friend shot her from behind... Asshole!!!

Now, his friend turns the tables and pointing the Gun towards Mario’s head in order to steal all the money for himself....

But then,

SAORI’S BODY MOVED ON IT’S OWN.... To protect this worthless betraying jerk.... Even Mario himself was surprised... 

This is a clear parallel to this Land of the Waves scene

Naruto, unlike Mario, is not a jerk here... But he never did anything profound for Sasuke for him to give up his life easily.... At this point, they are not even acquainted with each other.... Sasuke just loved Naruto and did what he did without expecting anything back.... 

Similarly Saori also worked with Mario on many missions and ended up liking him because he never tried to flirt with her or make any ‘unusual’ advances on her unlike other men... (this is her childhood trauma which you will know if you read that manga)...  She liked him to the point of saving him even though he betrayed her 2 times for money. 

In both the cases, I really want to scream at Saori and Sasuke, “Why are you going so far for this betraying/useless jerk??”.

KISHI LIKES HIS HEROINE TO RESEMBLE HERO’S MOTHER 

Uhhh.... ??? 

I’ve made a post about how Sasuke resembles Kushina in many ways.... [Link]. And Mario openly confesses that Saori resembles his mother!!!! 

Anyways.... You can read the manga and understand Saori’s character even better. 

Kishimoto saying Sasuke holds the heroine status in Naruto Manga and giving Sasuke’s character attributes to Saori is not coincidental. It’s very clear that he want his heroine to be like Sasuke which explains that Accidental Kiss and that Femme Fatale scene in Orochimaru Lair. LOL. Mario is just a 52 page Manga and his characterization of Saori is very impressive. He drew her in a very dignified manner... Meaning, he didn’t sexualize her.

She is the definition of Independent, Strong, Vulnerable “Don’t mess with me, you MF!!”, “Touch me, I’ll Shoot you right **there**” kind of badass and Motherly woman.... She has every potential to be developed into a complex character and is very capable of having her own arcs, if this Manga was developed further.

There is no way an author can be an Asshole in one Manga and becomes a Saint in Another one... Not to mention that Mario manga was conceptualized in 1998, that is way before he started drawing Naruto in 1999... So, all these proves that Kishimoto can write wonderful woman Characters like Saori, Tsunade, Konan, Kushina. He simply didn’t want to give any scope for Sakura or Hinata.

He gave all the tropes he envisioned for Saori (in 1998) to Sasuke  in Naruto Manga.... by officially calling him as Heroine. 

To finish off,

I seriously don’t understand the logic behind the expectation of Independent, Strong Women characters in a media where the story is all about how 2 boys finds love in each other... But still, the author went on to give us Tsunade, Temari, Konan, Kushina, Granny Chiyo... 

People getting petty about female side characters getting ignored whereas Kishi ignored many male characters equally. But no one bothers about that. This blatantly shows their hypocrisy in consuming this media.

Female Characters getting knocked down by male characters using a Jutsu doesn’t qualify under Misogyny or Sexism. Writing despicable female characters also doesn’t come under Misogyny. I am saying this for the Umpteenth time, Sakura and Hinata were intentionally designed to be mocked and ridiculed. Don’t consider their portrayal as a sample for Kishimoto’s take on Women characters. Honestly, those kind of characters does exist in real world.

I have to appreciate the way Kishimoto characterize his Heroines in both the Manga (Sasuke & Saori). They both are really layered and complex... And definitely not some Mary fucking Sue at all.... If this is not the proof for his wonderful take on Women, then what is??? 

I think it’s about time we have to start removing our Gender Spectacles and see the characters as Human First rather than what’s between their legs. In that way, we can able to enjoy this series very much. This is applicable to any media. Or atleast for Gay media.

Kishimoto might not be the Flag Bearer for feminism. But he is definitely not a Misogynist or Sexist... That’s what I felt after watching Naruto and reading Mario.

[sketchy-the-changeling]

Dunno if you saw the new ep of of Helluva Boss, but what did you think of Stella's portrayal?

My post about Octavia a while ago kinda implied it, but then again that only confirms that I know the information rather than seeing the episode for myself, so yes, I did see it.

I was actually discussing Stella’s portrayal last night on Discord. One person mentioned that she was the most irredeemable character at this point, and I said that that was by design, and that she’s a means to an end for Stolas’s development (which would be an issue if EVERY female character was written like this, but Millie and Loona are right there, so…).

This led to another person disagreeing and saying that they want characters to be more complex than just pure evil, and that’s where the discussion got underway.

The gist of my argument was that it’s okay for some villains/antagonists to be straightforward in their antagonism. Not every character requires complexity.

Like, the person said that it would be more interesting if Stella cared about Stolas in some way, so I took that to task and asked “why,” and the response I got was “It’d be more realistic than her sticking around for 20 years out of spite”

But like… a lot of marriages have spouses that stay together out of spite, ESPECIALLY when money and status are involved. That’s not unrealistic at all. When I pointed this out, the person just doubled back to “well fantasy still needs complex and nuanced characters”.

And I agree to a certain extent, but it’s not like Helluva Boss is lacking in that department. I don’t think having one character who’s straightforward and doesn’t have much complexity to her isn’t going to harm the show. We just had a whole episode showing the complexity and nuance of Blitzo and Stolas that provided more context to their relationship and. Stella just being a straightforward abusive wife doesn’t cheapen any of that.

Demanding complexity and nuance from something straightforward out of sheer principle is, ironically, not very nuanced. Part of being a nuanced and complex thinker is recognizing when something is straightforward.

The last point they brought up was that Stella being as bad as she was took away from the fact that Stolas cheated on her, and cheating is morally wrong regardless of how bad your spouse is, so writing Stella in this way somehow justifies Stolas’s cheating.

And like… no? Two things can be true at once. Stella being a horrible spouse does not negate Stolas’s cheating being morally wrong, and vise versa. In another moment of irony, this person was talking about how there should be complexity and nuance, when a complex and nuanced situation was staring them right in the face. Here’s what I said in regards to that.

“Even if she's a horrible spouse, cheating was still not the way to go about resolving it. It may have been a key element in him realizing that he was not happy and could do better, but it wasn't the most moral way of going about it. It's cathartic, and led to him standing up for himself in the long term, but not morally upstanding in the short term.

I think that, in and of itself, is nuance and complexity in action.”

Ultimately the discussion was pretty civil and there were no hard feelings. It kinda ended on a “we’ll just have to see what happens” note.

Now of course, the season only just began, so there COULD be more about Stella that we don’t know about, but my overall point was that if this is all we get of her in terms of depth, that’s not a bad thing.

Apologies for the long answer, but I felt it was an interesting topic to discuss and since it was a discussion I already had previously, I figured I’d shared how that went.

[not-the-tie-youre-looking-for]

Something that's been bugging me for years since the Legends finale. If Zhan had been the writer for Rebels, do you think he would have had Thrawn bomb Lothal to bring Ezra out? On the one hand, from Legends Thrawn's portrayal I imagine he would without a second of hesitation. On the other, Canon Thrawn has been much more... restrained? And on a third point, there's the fact that Legends and Canon Thrawn seem like they really could be the same person just at different points of time. cnt in next

...I'm just curious if anyone else was curious if Zhan agreed with that direction taken. Which, on that note, did Zhan ever say anything about his thoughts on how Rebels handled Thrawn? Both from a writing standpoint as well as an acting and musical one (Thrawn's various leitmotifs)?

Oh man. Ohhhhhhhh maaaaan. My friend, you have asked exactly the right person this question, because not only have I wanted to talk about this multiple times before, but I also have ~receipts~. 👀

⚠️Spoiler warnings for Star Wars: Rebels, The Mandalorian, the canon Star Wars novels Thrawn, Thrawn: Alliances, Thrawn: Treason, Thrawn Ascendency: Chaos Rising, and Thrawn Ascendency: Greater Good, and the legends Star Wars novels Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, The Last Command, and Outbound Flight.⚠️

Oh man. Where to begin.

Lets start with who Thrawn is, because depending on who you ask, you're gonna get different answers—whether you're strictly a Legends fan, Dave Filoni, a guy who's only seen Thrawn in Star Wars: Rebels, Timothy Zahn, or just a writer/artist fan like me.

To Timothy Zahn, the man behind our favorite chiss, Thrawn is a character that is constant in both attitude and personality throughout all of his content. In multiple interviews, ranging from Thrawn's debut in Rebels to the latest about the writing of the Ascendancy Trilogy, Zahn states that Thrawn in canon and Thrawn in Legends are indistinguishable.

And so I present the receipts:

In a 2017 interview with The Verge on writing the first canon Thrawn book Thrawn, Zahn is asked the following question and responds as such:

How do you navigate bringing back a character who already has an extensive backstory and audience expectations, with telling a new story that fits in the new continuity?

Actually, I didn’t find that to be a problem. I’d never written Thrawn in this part of the Star Wars timeline, so it was simply a matter of bringing him into the Empire and chronicling his rise through the ranks. It’s still the same character as in the 1990s books, just a decade or two younger and in a very different military and political environment.

In another interview with The Verge in 2018 (a few months after the finale of Rebels aired) about writing Thrawn: Alliances, he repeats this sentiment twice:

Thrawn feels like if it had been written before the canonization purge a couple of years ago, or if you squinted a bit, it would serve as a perfect setup for Heir to the Empire.

Oh, I don’t think you need to squint at all. I wrote him in these two books to fit in with everything else I’d done. So if someone at Lucasfilm snapped their fingers, and suddenly all of my other books were canon, and there would be no real retrofitting that would have to go in. It would all fit together.

Thrawn: Alliances feels more at home in the new canon, especially because Thrawn has been fleshed out a bit more in Rebels. Was there any adjustments for that?

Not really. I’m getting to play with more canon characters like Vader and Padmé and Anakin, but the character himself, I still see him as the same person. He’s got goals, and he won’t necessarily share them with you, but he as long as you’re going the same direction, he’s happy to cooperate and assist along the way.

...and this is referenced again in a 2020 interview with Polygon about writing Thrawn Ascendancy: Chaos Rising:

Along with Thrawn’s appearance in Rebels, Zahn would pen a new novel, Thrawn, that chronicled the character’s early days as an Imperial officer. Zahn didn’t have to change anything with the character, telling me in 2017 that “he’s like an old friend who I understand completely.” While Heir to the Empire was no longer canon, a reader could easily read Thrawn as a precursor to that classic novel. Thrawn went on to become a major presence in Rebels, and Zahn continued to explore his origins in Thrawn: Alliances and Thrawn: Treason.

The next day, an interview with IGN was published on the same subject:

Thrawn is an especially unique case because Zahn has been able to effectively continue the work he started way back in 1991 with Heir to the Empire. That novel may not be a part of official Star Wars lore any longer, but as Zahn explained, Thrawn himself is basically the same character regardless of continuity.

[....] The closest comparison between Chaos Rising and Zahn's earlier EU work is probably 2006's Outbound Flight, which is set during the Clone Wars and details the first encounter between Thrawn and the Galactic Republic (while also retroactively laying the groundwork for elements of Heir to the Empire). That novel is no longer canon, but Zahn told us he prefers to operate as if it were. He's making a concerted effort not to retread the same ground as Outbound Flight and to avoid contradicting the events of that novel as much as possible.

So yeah. In Zahn's opinion, Legends Thrawn is Canon Thrawn is Book Thrawn, and there is no difference whatsoever between Thrawns in, say, Outbound Flight, Heir to The Empire, Alliances, and Chaos Rising. I wholeheartedly disagree, but lets move on.

Now that the books are out of the way, its time for Rebels.

In July of 2016, after the trailer announcing Thrawn's canon debut aired, Dave Filoni had the following to say about Thrawn's character in regards to Timothy Zahn:

“I was pretty adamant with a couple of people saying, ‘Listen, we need to have Tim sign off on this. This is kind of a waste of time [otherwise],'” says Filoni. “We, of course, can do what we want with a character that Lucasfilm owns, but without Tim’s okay, what does it mean? That’s not going to be good. Once we had some stuff, we wanted to do what we thought was right and make the character. Then we brought him in. We had the production fully prepared. I said, ‘Look, if there’s something that Tim says that I think is really valuable, even if it changes something dynamically, we need to be ready for that and see what we can do.’ I wanted to make sure we did this right by everybody. We brought him in and we didn’t really tell him why. We just flew him up to Lucasfilm and sat him down in a theater and said, ‘Hey, we’re bringing Thrawn into the show.’ He was like, ‘Wow.’ and I said, ‘Yeah, wow. And I’m going to show him to you right now and you let me know what you think.'”

(Before we continue, keep that first highlighted sentence in mind for future reference. I'm going to come back to that later.)

Fortunately, Timothy Zahn was delighted at the show’s approach to the Empire’s imposing blue-skinned Chiss.

“We showed him some of the scenes with him,” Dave Filoni recalls. “He looked like a kid in a candy store. I think it meant a lot to him not just because it was his character, but because you have to imagine what he went through when it was announced that everything is Legends now, not Expanded Universe. I get that and I’ve always appreciated the work that goes into the Expanded Universe… For Tim, I think it was us saying, ‘No, no, no. We really like your character. We want him to be part of the real thing. The canon universe.'”

So in 2016, before we even saw Thrawn in action beyond a trailer, we were told that Zahn gave the OK, and he was chill with the way Thrawn was created in the show. In 2017, he gave a little more of the background of this process in an interview with FANgirl Blog:

The events of Thrawn dovetail closely with Rebels and shed light on some of Thrawn’s more seemingly surprising actions on the show, like when he appears to lose his temper and yell at Lieutenant Lyste. What was it like to see Thrawn come alive onscreen? Is he how you’ve pictured him in your head?

I don’t see my characters in terms of voice or appearance, but rather as personality or attitude. That said, I very much enjoyed the way the Rebels team brought him to life, in his appearance, voice, and actions.

I also appreciated the freedom I had to tweak certain incidents, such as the one you mentioned, and give additional or alternate explanations for the viewers who may have thought those were somewhat out of character for him.

He doesn't really elaborate on this, but we can assume he had SOME creative input on Thrawn's character, and he was overall pretty happy with the choices made in the show.

But then, we have this from that earlier 2017 the Verge article:

When did you learn that Dave Filoni was intending to bring Thrawn to Rebels, and did you have any input into how the character would be handled?

[...] I didn’t have any real input into how Thrawn was going to be handled, mainly because the lead time of an animated series is so long that much of season 3 had already been finished. But I trusted Dave and the team to do the character right. After all, why bring him into Rebels if you were going to drastically change him? Having seen the entire season now, I think we can agree that my trust was completely justified.

So... he didn't have "any real input," but was satisfied with it in the end? I guess? I don't know. We're getting into some contradictions now.

The last thing I've got in regards to Rebels is an interview Zahn did with the YouTube channel Star Wars Explained after the finale aired, where he responds to the following:

“So, maybe let's jump over to Rebels for a little bit. Now that it has wrapped up, how do you feel Thrawn was represented in Star Wars: Rebels?”

“They did a really good job—they not only understood the character and how to write for him, but they also understood the meta around how you defeat him. The only way to defeat Thrawn is to throw something at him he can't control, or can't anticipate. Given perfect knowledge and control, Thrawn will always find a way to win. But they understood, this is how you defeat him, these are the things we can use against him... so his portrayal in general, is very good; he's smart, he's anticipating, he's a step ahead of everybody, he's looking at clues and picking up on them, so I was very pleased with how the Rebels team handled the character."

I think these quotes answer many of your questions, so to answer your initial question: If Zhan had been the writer for Rebels, do I think he would have had Thrawn bomb Lothal to bring Ezra out?

Yes—but ONLY because at that point, the only established™️ Thrawn content was found in Legends, where Thrawn was a ruthless and calculating warlord.

However!

I do believe that if given the chance to re-write the Star Wars: Rebels finale using his now-canon novels as a solid background TODAY, Zahn would choose to not let Thrawn bombard Lothal's Capital City.

I believe this because he made one single very interesting creative choice when writing Thrawn that completely overwrote Thrawn's pre-established Rebels character: Thrawn was not responsible for the civilian deaths on Batonn—Pryce was.

And that's that on that.

A few months ago I would have ended it there, but today, Thrawn's story is no longer just contained in the novels and Rebels, but also in that of The Mandalorian.

This is where I will proudly say I have no idea what the fuck is going on. Before The Jedi aired, I was 100% sure that the next time we saw Thrawn, it would be nowhere NEAR the Empire, because Zahn was pretty adamant in the novels that Thrawn was only in the Empire to help. His. People.

So now he's apparently doing fuck-knows-what in fuck-knows-where and is STILL associated with the Seventh Fleet and Imperial Warlords???

Huh??? Despite the fact that he held no true loyalty to the Empire or to the Emperor??? It's been months and I'm still confused as fuck. Add to the fact that Zahn also doesn't know what the fuck is going on to the equation and we get a big fat question mark with one pretty clear answer that Filoni said himself that we have to keep in mind:

"We, of course, can do what we want with a character that Lucasfilm owns."

So I don't think Zahn has much control over Thrawn as we would all like to think. We can hope he gives us the crazy Thrawn and Ezra Space Adventure™️ novel all we want, but ultimately, Thrawn's fate does not rest in his hands.

If you guys have more to add please let me know!!! This is, obviously, a topic I am very passionate about, so I'd love to hear your thoughts!

[myheartissetinmotion]

GUESS WHO SAW NWH AGAIN

and here’s the Thoughts Post™️

(spoilers obvi)

so. damn. good

what a ride, truly

I would gladly pay for a movie of just the three Peters improvising dialogue for like four hours

it was so incredibly *human*. I was never much into superhero stuff when I was little, but Spiderman is different; this is just a young person trying to balance parts of life and figure things out, forgive himself for mistakes and learn how to make things right, etc, and that’s why people have been so enamored with his story for decades.

the acting was absolutely phenomenal all around. truly. I wish I could rant about everything but some parts that hit me the most include May’s death (and Peter’s process of grief in those few moments, and Happy pulling up-god, that was what destroyed me) and the wordless exchange between Tom and Tobey on the shield

the seemingly contrasting yet coexisting messages of “you can’t and shouldn’t try to fix those who don’t want to be fixed” and “we all have a responsibility to show empathy to each other; that has the potential to change and save lives”

I wish we got more of Electro-he seemed to really rely on his power as a way of defining himself and I hope he ends up okay

there have been people who’ve criticized the portrayal of villains who are seen as “crazy” and can be “cured” when they’re “normal” as harmful to the neurodivergent community, which. yeah. I agree. I guess the way I can sleep at night enjoying this movie is the idea that, if there’s subtext here, it’s saying that empathy can help people get back to who they truly are (Otto, Norman, etc); there are criticisms to be made but overall I think the film’s intentions were good? but impact over intent, well-whatever, I’ll hopefully figure out how to word it sometime

anyway I am madly in love with Andrew Garfield but what else is new

Ned’s Lola is iconic

so much of what I love about all things Spidey is the sheer teenagery of it all. Peter, MJ, Ned-they feel so beautifully regular and so human and so relatable. those little moments between them are truly the best

there were vents going on and off in the theater, at one point they were on and when Doc Ock said “it’s…so quiet” they turned off, making the breath of relief that much more palpable. Poetic Cinema™️

WILLEM DAFOE IS SO DAMN GOOD

I’m gonna miss May so much

the first time I saw it was truly such a ride; there’s so much to feel and so much to wonder about, the implications, the possibilities, the NECKLACE

GIVE MY BOY PETER A BREAAAAAAAK

many more thoughts I can’t recall rn but anyway this movie is everything. please scooby-doo this shit. thank you and goodnight