#speaking of which i remember a disney that was criticized because

[icharchivist]

weird thing to complain about but funny how one of the (very,very, very few) replies defending it that i got on my “hey the Hercules live action remakes seems to be a bad idea” viral post was someone defending the remake over the ground of “well at least it will mean we’ll get a version where Hades isn’t voiced by a bastard”, like, on my post, mine. I’ve never watched Hercules in english in my life this argument is completely meaningless to me, try again.

[thewickedmerman]

My Top 10 Favorite Disney Heroines

Okay, so I've recently been having some issues with making videos and until I can sort it out, I can't really get any new clips for videos. So that makes it harder for me to be able to talk about certain topics I want to discuss on YouTube. However, I really want to talk about this so I decided to make a post here on Tumblr and when I have my technical issues sorted out, I'll post a YouTube version. However, since I'm not playing a character on Tumblr, that means that this won't include my signature merfolk language like "mermazing", "What the Tartarus", or "Dear sweet Poseidon." But you can expect that in my video when I sort out my technical issues.

Anyway, I’ve been criticizing Disney quite a bit lately and while that’s been both fun and therapeutic, I’m still a MASSIVE fan of Disney and would like to talk about something great from them. Since one of my more recent videos where I fixed Disney’s adorkable problem has gotten popular, I figured I would talk about my top 10 favorite Disney heroines. Now lets establish the guidelines. I will only be talking about Disney’s animated heroines, I will only be including characters from their animated movies so that means no TV show heroines like Kim Possible will be included, and I won’t be including characters from properties that Disney has bought. So that means that characters like Anastasia/Anya from Anastasia won’t be included, otherwise she would be in my top 3. Why? Because apart from putting them on DisneyPlus, Disney hasn’t done anything to promote or profit off of these movies so it’s hard to consider them to be actual Disney movies. It’s why I still don’t consider movies like Anastasia to be Disney movies.

But other than that, I will have free range in what heroines make my list. So that means Pixar and Disney sequel heroines will be included. Keep in mind that this will be heavily bias, since this is obviously my opinion. So your favorites aren’t necessarily my favorites and vise versa. Feel free to share your favorites and your thoughts on my list. Just don’t be an asshole about it! Now without any further delay, lets dive right on it.

10. Lilo (Lilo and Stitch Franchise)

This is definitely one of the BEST child characters EVER and I don’t just mean from Disney. She’s weird, eccentric, emotional, she gets into fights, she’s sweet, charming, hilarious, clever, adventurous, sassy, and is just the most entertaining part of her movie. And considering the cast of characters in this franchise, that’s saying A LOT. I love how she is into unconventional things that a girl her age typically isn’t into. It’s great rep for those of us who were the weird kid growing up. I mean, while I wasn’t into the things she was into, being a boy who was, and still is, into traditionally feminine things made me a bit of an outcast growing up. Speaking of great rep, many have said that Lilo is autistic-coded, and while this hasn’t been confirmed by either the original creators or Disney, I definitely can get behind it. Speaking as someone who is autistic, I definitely remember having similar behaviors to Lilo at that age. Not entirely because everyone with autism is different. Me and my wife (@keeloves) are both autistic but we have different sensory issues from each other and behaved differently from each other as kids but still saw ourselves in Lilo. My wife particularly sees herself in Lilo, due to being a brown autistic woman, which you don’t get a lot of rep with in media.

But anyway, even if I didn’t connect to Lilo because of my autism, I would still adore her, especially since I didn’t learn I was autistic until I was a senior in high school and I still grew up loving Lilo. She has a creative way of doing things and it helps her stand out from a lot of heroines. Even heroines that are allegedly supposed to be more unique and break the mold like Mirabel from Encanto, can’t hold a candle to Lilo’s uniqueness. She has a style that’s all her own and that’s what makes her the perfect friend for Stitch, along with her immense generosity. Many have said Lilo means lost in Hawaiian but it can also mean generous one, which perfectly describes Lilo, due to her not only being lonely, but also her generous heart that managed to break through to Stitch. However, she has her limits and when pushed too far will come at you hard. I also relate to her loneliness as someone who has a hard time both making friends and maintaining friendships. She also has some of the best lines in the movie. Her personality continues to shine in the other forms of media she appears in and you can’t have a Lilo and Stitch product without her because she’s the heart of the franchise. Yes, I’m aware of those stupid shows that don’t have Lilo and I don’t plan on watching them. They don’t exist!

9. Jane (Return to Neverland) and Raya (Raya and the Last Dragon)

Hey, I never said that I wouldn’t have ties on my list. Don’t worry, this will be the only tie on this list. But to keep it organized, I will be talking about each of these characters individually before I talk about why I can’t decide who I love more.

Starting with Jane, she’s a character who isn’t like most Disney heroines that are adventurous and dream of something more. Instead, she’s a young girl who is living during wartime and is just trying to survive and do what she can to take care of her family. She’s the daughter of Wendy from the original Peter Pan but the two couldn’t be more different. Whereas Wendy is a soft-spoken optimist who is full of childlike wonder, Jane is a practical pessimist with a sharp tongue that has become jaded due to her situation. This gives her more of an arc with her story compared to her mother, who is by no means a bad character. This helps her stand out among all the Disney sequel children who tend to share their parents personality traits. I love how they don’t have Jane just be a stick in the mud for no reason. She has an understandable reason for why she is the way that she is and I think people tend to overlook that because she’s so different from the heroines that we’re used to seeing from Disney. She had to grow up fast due to her experiences and she longs for her childhood days when she could believe in things like Peter Pan, Neverland, and pixie dust. However, she knows she has to be strong but she also needs to learn to regain some of her childhood wonder to help get her through the hard times. I honestly love her relationship with Peter Pan. Not only do they have amazing chemistry, but I love how unlike the female characters in the previous movies, who tend to fawn all over him and boost his ego, Jane deflates his ego, helps him mature a bit, and calls out his behavior. I love that even if she’s not as snarky as characters like Megara that Jane is still snarky. But she also has a loving side and can be taken in by the beauty of Neverland when she’s being shown Neverland. I honestly see a lot of myself in Jane and I loved seeing her growth as a character. She’s such a complex character and she’s just a child. She’s the best thing to come out of the Peter Pan franchise. Yes, even better than Tinkerbell and I love how she calls out Tinkerbell as well.

Now we move on to Raya. For those of you who have seen my video about fixing Disney’s adorkable problem, I mentioned that Raya is one of the few heroines of the revival era that doesn’t have an adorkable personality, making her one of the more unique characters of the era. Unlike the bubbly, optimistic, quirky, and over-the-top heroines of the era, Raya is mature, snarky, pessimistic, cheeky, serious, and jaded. This is a character type that is not only unique for this era of Disney but is also a rare type of character from Disney in general. I love that she’s not so optimistic and bubbly but can still be sweet and caring towards the ones she loves. Also, speaking as someone who has trust issues, I do relate to Raya and her journey with her distrust of people. She’s been hurt and when she trusted someone, the world ended up broken because of it. So her trying to save the world isn’t about trying to help the world but to help her kingdom and bring her father back. On the one hand it’s selfless for her to do this for her people but on the other hand, she’s selfish for not caring about the rest of the world but it makes sense because of her experiences and trust issues. I also love how she’s a bit xenophobic but she slowly starts to let down her walls and trust others from different clans. I love characters that are relatable but also have a lesson they have to learn that helps them grow as people and Raya definitely fits the bill. I also love how unlike other heroines, who are great with kids and babies, she was very awkward when interacting with Noi at first. It shows that not everyone is great with kids and it’s something that can be learned. It also shows her growth with how she’s able to let herself have connections with others. But she’s also a badass of a fighter! The woman has moves! But I love that there’s more to her than just her physical strength. I love her snarky and jaded personality and her journey. Plus, it's unique how she's a Disney Princess who wasn't wanting more out of life but rather wanted to the life she used to have back. Not to mention how she was the closed-minded one while her father was the open-minded one. I also love how became one of the few Disney protagonists that are willing to kill. Granted, she didn’t do it but she was willing to kill Namaari during the climax of the movie. But she’s ultimately a good person who comes to the realization that it wasn’t right. She’s a phenomenal and underrated character from a phenomenal and underrated movie. Give us more characters like her and unique personalities, Disney.

As for why I can’t decide between the two, it’s honestly because both of them are pretty similar. Both are snarky, jaded, practical, responsible, and act as the straight man in their respective movies amongst the more chaotic characters they come across. Not to mention, both long for the simpler days when their lives were actually happy but can’t because of how their worlds have shaped them. They have great character growth and their way of thinking is technically wrong but you also understand why they are the way they are. So with how similar they are, I can’t really decide who I love more so I decided not to. The two of them are truly amazing characters and actually break the mold of the heroines we tend to see from Disney and I adore them for that.

8. Tiana (The Princess and the Frog)

Just like Raya, she’s one of the few heroines from the revival era that actually has a unique personality and in my opinion is the best heroine from this era. I love how she’s practical and serious like Jane and Raya but it’s not because she’s jaded. It’s just because she’s determined, ambitious, and a workaholic. But even without her being jaded, there’s also an explanation for why she is the way she is. She has a dream that people say will be impossible for her to achieve due to her being a black woman of low status and a dream her father spent his whole life to achieve but never managed to see happen. She’s worked two jobs her entire life and has to work so much harder than everyone else just to prove herself. But I love that she’s also a bit playful, caring, friendly, does want to have fun but just can’t let herself, and is still creative. Almost There shows off the massive extent of her incredible imagination. I love how passionate she is about her dream and cooking. I adore how she never loses her passion and fire no matter what. I wish I had her drive in life to help make my dreams come true. She inspires me and it kills me that both she and her movie are so underrated when really they deserve to be getting the attention that Frozen got. I honestly can’t wait to see what they do in the new Tiana series and I just pray that they don’t disappoint me. Tiana is truly a great character and it’s a shame more people don’t realize it. Even in her frog form, her personality shines through with her hard-working and witty personality. Not to mention, she has great growth as a character. There’s nothing wrong with pursuing a dream but you shouldn’t let that keep you from also living your life. She’s confident in certain areas but she’s also insecure as well. It helps make her a layered character and one of the most three-dimensional heroines from the revival era. Truly one of Disney’s best leading ladies.

7. Pocahontas (Pocahontas)

First of all, yes, I know that the movie is problematic with its misrepresentation of the real Pocahontas’ life, showing both sides being in the wrong when in real life it was the white settlers who were the only ones in the wrong, and portraying Pocahontas in a romantic relationship with John Smith when she was a child when they met and the fact that he intended to colonize her people. However, I still ADORE the movie! Yes, it has its issues but it also has gorgeous animation, incredible songs, an amazing musical score, an engaging romance, likable and iconic characters, a great message that’s definitely relevant today, and most importantly one of the best protagonists to ever come out of Disney.

Despite the issues Native Americans rightfully have with her movie, one thing, at least from my understanding, that they universally agree on is that in terms of personality, Pocahontas is spot on. So it’s really no wonder that Pocahontas herself is the best thing about the movie. I adore how she’s curious, adventurous, mischievous, fun-loving, playful, and daring. However, she’s also smart and mature. She’s undeniably a remarkable character that deserves nothing but praise. I love how she has a journey of finding her path but isn’t sure what her path is. And I don’t mean like she has to decide between two things but rather she has no idea what her second option is. It’s something a lot of people can relate to who can’t decide what they want to do with their life. So it’s interesting and unique to have a character who doesn’t have a clear idea of what they want but still know they want more than the life that has been planned for them. When you think about it, Pocahontas is a pretty complex character in that sense and it’s one of the reasons I adore her along with her just being a fun and exciting character. One of my favorite scenes is just her going down the water rapids and instead of her just going down the safe path that she goes with the more exciting and fun path because it’s just who she is. I mean, when she’s supposed to just come down to the river and get into the canoe with Nakoma, she could just run down there but instead, she chooses the more daring option of diving off. I wish I had the amount of guts she has. She’s such an exciting character and there’s nothing dull about her. But she also stands up for what is right and will lay her own life down in order to do what needs to be done. She’s such an underrated character that it’s painful to think about. I adore Pocahontas and consider her to be one of the best characters Disney has ever created.

6. Anastasia Tremaine (Cinderella Sequels)

Originally starting off as a minor villain in the original Cinderella, Anastasia has since become one of the most complex and interesting characters to ever come out of Disney. Even people who hate the Disney sequels tend to agree that she’s one of the best things to come out of these cash grabs. She’s so great that even the show Once Upon a Time in Wonderland continued the trend of making her a sympathetic character, with her being played flawlessly by Emma Rigby. But anyway, I adore how she still has some traits from her original appearance with her lacking elegance and grace, being a clutz, being a bit ditzy (But not dumb), and having a bit of a temper to her. It shows that just because someone becomes good, they don’t lose all of their negative traits or become 100% different because that’s not realistic. However, she’s incredibly sympathetic with how she’s a victim of her mother and sister’s abuse but they don’t erase the fact that she was abusive to Cinderella. As they say, hurt people hurt people. People are complex and it’s amazing to see someone who was abusive can also be the abuse victim without erasing past mistakes. But they don’t have Cinderella judge her on the person she used to be but rather the person she is now. In A Twist in Time, we do see her show guilt towards Cinderella. She’s just someone who wanted to be loved and for someone to love her for who she is and not what her mother wanted her to be. Honestly, I wish Disney would explore more characters like Anastasia who aren’t conventionally attractive and can also be complex and interesting. She kind of reminds me of Helga from Hey Arnold. And honestly, while Cinderella herself is still a great an admirable character, I prefer her step-sister. In fact, I might have a video analyzing what a great and complex character Anastasia is in the future (Or even post it here on Tumblr), so keep an eye out for that.

5. Megara (Hercules)

But her friends call her Meg, at least they would if she had any friends. Yeah, you know I had to quote that. Much like Anastasia, Meg didn’t start off as a heroine but rather as a minion to the villain. I honestly went back and forth on whether or not I preferred Anastasia or Megara but I ultimately went with Megara because of her amazing snark. Being someone who is incredibly sarcastic, sassy, and snarky, I relate to characters who are like that as well. She’s honestly the sassiest Disney character ever. Literally no one can match her. Yes, there have been sassy and snarky characters from Disney, a good number of them are even on this list, but none meet the same level of sarcasm as her. She’s one of the most unique Disney heroines with her starting off as a bit of an antagonist, being way more snarky and jaded than Disney’s heroines, and actually having a romantic history instead of just only being in a relationship with one person in your life and that’s the one you end up marrying. A lot of people can relate to Meg and the fact that she gave and gave all her love to someone she was in a relationship with but that person just didn’t love her as much and left her for someone else. She gave so much that she sold her soul to save her boyfriend’s life only for him to dump her for some random girl. No wonder she swore off love and became so jaded. But I love how she learns to love again and sees that it’s not bad to give yourself to someone so long as it’s the right person because just like how Megara gave up her life to save Hercules, he was willing to give his life to gets hers back. While Hercules is a great and engaging character, I find Meg’s journey more engaging. She’s a great character and it’s no wonder that she’s so beloved. Plus, she’s a snarky queen!

4. Angel (Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure)

Yeah, can you tell that I have a thing for characters that are snarky and jaded? She reminds me a lot of Megara, albeit, not as extreme due to being a kid and her movie having a different tone to Hercules. It’s no wonder that I love her, especially when her movie is also one of my top 10 favorite Disney movies of all-time. I love how she is very sly and confident but isn’t cocky or arrogant. However, despite her confidence, she also has her insecurities about her wanting a permanent family, since she’s had five families that have taken her in but when she starts to think that this one is for keeps, they move, have a new baby, or have an allergy. So despite her desire for a family, she’s jaded about the world and feels that she can only depend on herself and only sticks around the junkyard dogs because she has no other alternative. I love how even though she’s a major factor in Scamp’s development and is basically the glue that holds this movie together, Scamp helps with her development. He allows her to be brave enough to be vulnerable and to see that you don’t have to only look out for yourself because he looks out for her. The two of them help each other to grow just like a true couple should. Despite their age, their love is to the same level as any adult relationship because they were friends first and then fell in love. Overall, Angel is a phenomenal character that is smart, sassy, jaded, confident, insecure, layered, brave, brutal, sly, caring, kind, tomboyish but still feminine, and just so freaking adorable.

3. Mulan (Mulan)

Yeah, you know that you can’t have a top 10 best Disney heroines list without including her. I mean, what can I even say about her that hasn’t already been said. She’s a perfect character journey. She starts off trying to be the perfect bride and daughter but she just keeps messing it up, has no idea who she is or what she’s meant to be, breaks the rules and risks possible death for herself in order to save her father from certain death by taking his place in the army and disguising herself as a man, starts off terrible at training, gets better by embracing both sides of herself (The masculine and the feminine), and ultimately brings honor and saves the day by being herself. I love how, unlike the modern heroines we get nowadays, they take her journey seriously. Yes, there’s still some comedy with her but they don’t go over-the-top or make her clumsiness her most defining character trait. But her amazing actions aren’t the only great thing about her. I love her realistic clumsiness, awkwardness, wit, cleverness, kindness, caring nature, bravery, courage, creativity, and that she’s funny without having to be over-the-top. She’s far from perfect but that’s why she’s so great. She isn’t strong for just being masculine but also because she’s feminine. She’s flawed but she tries, she’s insecure but that doesn’t stop her, she wanted to save her father and bring honor but she also wanted to prove that she could do things right. And yet, they still made sure she was a likable character with a three-dimensional personality so that we actually care about her journey. I feel like modern Disney could learn a thing or two from Mulan. And the less said about that awful live-action remake or that horrendous direct-to-video sequel MulanII the better. Lets just focus on the original Disney Mulan and how she truly brought honor to us all.

2. Ariel (The Little Mermaid Franchise)

Yeah, you know that I had to include my favorite Disney Princess. Ever since I was a little boy, I’ve always absolutely ADORED Ariel. I relate to her rebellious nature, since I’ve always had a naturally rebellious side to me. She’s playful, mischievous, adventurous, curious, bubbly, determined, sweet, fiery, and a painfully accurate portrayal of adolescence. She’s reckless, naive, impulsive, stubborn, and headstrong. I love how flawed she is because it makes her feel more real and three-dimensional. I honestly love how relatable she is and even as someone in my late twenties, I still relate to Ariel even to this day. I know the feeling of wanting more out of life and wanting to explore beyond the confines of one's current existence. Ariel wants to learn more about the human world and wants to be a part of it because of her love of learning and her fascination with the human world. I adore just how curious and daring she is. When she sees something that interests her, she pursues it and is just so passionate about it. She’s just so engaging. I also love how on land when she’s can’t talk how adorable she is with her facial expressions and actions. She’s just such a delightful character. She sees what she wants and she goes for it and I love her for that. I honestly get so mad when people say she’s just boy-crazy and threw her life away for a man. Did people not watch the movie? She sang a whole mother-flipping song about how she wanted to be part of the human world long before she ever saw Eric. He was just what finally got things going. Besides, there’s nothing wrong with wanting romance because that’s not all she wants. She wants to explore the world and learn. The live-action remake actually made the character even better and considering how much I love the character, that’s saying something. And yeah, the live-action remake is amazing and the best of the live-action remakes (Which I have a video all about on YouTube). This little mermaid is the best Disney Princess and one of my favorite fictional characters of all-time.

Honorable mentions:

Now before I name my number 1 favorite, lets name some honorable mentions. Keep in mind that these aren’t in any particular order. Madellaine from The Hunchback of Notre Dame II, Esmeralda from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Alice from Alice in Wonderland, Judy Hopps from Zootopia, Elsa from the Frozen franchise, Jasmine from the Aladdin franchise, Belle from Beauty and the Beast, Jane from Tarzan, Violet from The Incredibles franchise, Jessie from the Toy Story franchise, Kiara from The Lion King 2: Simba’s Pride, Dory from the Finding Nemo franchise, Vanellope from Wreck-It Ralph, Miss Bianca The Rescuers franchise, and Rapunzel from Tangled.

Melody (The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea)

I mean, is anyone surprised? I’ve already mentioned that she’s tied with Jack Frost from Rise of the Guardians as my favorite fictional character of all-time. I absolutely ADORE her! Much like how her mother is an accurate depiction of teenage struggles, Melody is an accurate representation of preteen struggles. She’s awkward around her peers, she’s doesn’t know how to act around people, she’s shy around boys, she feels like a fish out of water (No pun intended), she’s unsure of herself, has a hard time communicating with her parents, and doesn’t make the best decisions. These are all part of growing up and they captured that flawlessly with her. She has the same traits as her mother but she also has her differences that make her feel like her own unique character. Unlike her mother, who is extroverted and confident, Melody is introverted and self-conscious, which makes her feel more relatable to me. I love how they can make her very awkward without having to make it her most defining character trait like with the Disney heroines of the Revival era. She only feels comfortable in her skin when she’s out swimming and she’s told that she can’t go out into the ocean. That’s something many of us can relate to with how we’re comfortable living a certain lifestyle, doing something we love, or being true to ourselves only to be told we can’t for whatever reason. Being a naturally rebellious person with interests that aren’t traditionally masculine, I definitely relate to that. Plus, being someone who always wanted to be a merman, I also have a massive love for the ocean and Melody’s explosive passion and undying love for the sea is just so engaging. But I also love how she also has a lesson to learn, which gives her more of an arc than her mother, though to be fair, Ariel didn’t really need to learn a lesson, King Triton did. But I still love how Melody had to learn her own self-worth and apologized for causing this mess. And instead of choosing between land or sea, she chooses both by breaking down the wall that divided them. She is the bridge that connects the two worlds together. She’s just such an engaging character. Every time I see her on screen, she's just so charming and entertaining. I love her passion, awkwardness, curiosity, mischievousness, playfulness, sweetness, cunning, and just everything about her. Maybe one of these days I’ll make a video all about how mermazing she is. She certainly is a remarkable character that is more than deserving of it.

And those are my top 10 favorite Disney heroines. Are any of my favorites your favorites? Who are your favorites? Let me know. Please like, comment, reblog, and follow me if you haven't already.

[iheartgod175]

Some Thoughts...

While I've still got some Zula Patrol brain rot, I've been rediscovering some old shows from Playhouse Disney (the fact that I called it that versus Disney Junior should tell you how old I am, haha XD). Special Agent Oso was one of them, and I remember watching an episode because Phil Lewis was in the series. But I didn't care for it, even though the theme song is a total bop. Then I started rewatching the episodes. And then I stumbled upon that lore video by Athena P. And then I realized I'm in too deep XD

Watching the show, I understand why folks initially disliked Oso. On one hand, his incompetence is not something a secret agent should have. On the other hand, he's a cinnamon roll. He just needs a little extra help, that's all. Not to mention that during season 2, he gets a lot more independent and competent, with his overconfidence being one of his main flaws. He's a himbo, plain and simple. That's probably why I like him.

I read that the show's creator, Ford Riley, has a son with autism and that his son's autism therapy was the main reason he implemented the "three special steps" into the show. As an autistic woman myself, I just wanted to say kudos to this guy for creating a show geared to teaching autistic children, and sorry for my initial criticism.

I also discovered that there were ships for this show: Wolfie/Dottie and Oso/Dottie. After confirming their ages (because for some reason, the Disney Junior wiki's got Dottie as an eleven-year-old while Oso and Wolfie are in their twenties--which is, uh...SUPER WEIRD O.O), my general consensus is this: Oso/Dottie is a solid "nah" for me. To me, they're more like siblings rather than a couple. Wolfie/Dottie, though...I see the vision. You've got me, folks. (I totally didn't come up with that after seeing the "One Unique Pair" video xD) If you enjoy Oso/Dottie, that's cool! I won't bite your head off for it, lol XD

If I had to pick a character I liked aside from Oso, I'd say that Wolfie is my favorite. And not just because Phil Lewis plays him. He's just too darn cool. Oh, and he has the patience of a saint.

Those dark theories are something else, though. And of course, I now want to write a story with my own spin on those dark theories. Yesterday, I spent about two hours writing up page after page of a proposed fan fic where Oso uncovers the true purpose of U.N.I.Q.U.E. and, uh...doesn't take it well. And he messes up everything for everybody so badly that outside forces (aka the Super Readers) have to get involved. To put it simply, he becomes this fic's Origami Tobiichi. (@0range-flames, this is why I had that Super Why: Infinity War joke XD)

I decided that in this story, Jack is gonna be heavily involved. Playing Revue Starlight gave me an idea of how Jack could be a fighter, heavily inspired by Fumi's Orpheus card.

Speaking of Disney Junior, I'm thinking of writing more Callie/Peck. As of last night, my Wattpad story, Time After Time, is now the number one Sheriff Callie story. That filled me with such indescribable happiness, that I felt inspired to work on a Callie/Peck one-shot for the first time in forever.

That being said, while I haven't forgotten the Disney fandom or the fans who've read this story, I'm writing this purely for free. Badgering me about updating this story (or my Wattpad story collection) will not make me write it faster. Please show some consideration for your fellow authors!

The response to the Bula/Firestorm WIP has been really heartwarming. 12 notes already?! You guys are awesome!

[merp-blerp]

So I haven't seen Disney's Wish myself (I'm waiting for it to assumedly go to Disney+, theaters are a lot of money to spend too often), so I can't speak on the film from my own point of view yet, but I have seen the reaction to it so far and I wanted to share my thoughts on why I think some of these reactions are happening, based on my own experience of watching and listening to the Disney fandom's critiques over the many years I've done so. These are just my observations based on my experiences and it's okay to disagree, just be cordial.

Opinions below the cut ↓

I feel like a part of why Wish is the way it allegedly is has to do with something that has been plaguing Disney for a while: trying to prove bad-faith criticisms wrong instead of knowing their strengths.

I'm sure they still happen, but especially in the early and mid-2010s Disney had a lot of half-baked criticisms directed at their stories and characters. Wish might be another one of many attempts to quell these critiques. For example, I remember a common piece of writing advice would be to make villains complex all the time, with villains who are evil for evil's sake being seen as less well done (this was towards media in general, but it applied to Disney too), so Disney began the surprise villain and/or the sympathetic villain trend in their films. Now people have seen that shtick so much they want traditional villains back (me too). It's now overdone and no longer shocking or subversive in their movies anymore. [And as a little add-on, I understand why people want King Magnifico's design to be more "traditionally villainous" but I'm actually happy he isn't, as it's really hard to design a villain like that without perpetuating some kind of bigoted stereotype that a lot of traditional villains have. Even Mother Gothel, one of the last, if not the last of the classic villains Disney has attempted, had a lot of antisemitism baked into not only her design but also her actions. Disney's done that a lot, which is likely accidental, but still bad. I'd much prefer him to look and act like some guy over an awful Jewish stereotype or something similar.] People also called princesses with the temperaments of, say, Aurora, Belle, or Cinderella "boring", or hell, "sexist" in their characterization, so the heroines were made more relatably quirky, as that type of humor towards/by girls and women were very popular in the 2010s. Asha is allegedly somehow both socially inept and socially competent, which arguably isn't a flaw at all, just contradictory. (My neuro-spicy brain wants to somewhat lean towards neurodivergence when I hear that, but I haven't seen the film, so what do I know?) Now people are souring to that too, understandably, as that humor's kind of dated and overdone with Disney's heroines. These traits aren't bad on girls automatically, especially if they make sense for the environment they grew up in like Anna or Rapunzel, but they've just been done to death with Disney. Ironically, now when I see people suggest alternative traits for Asha they propose a more "sophisticated", "mature", or "self-assured" type of personality, aka, what the "sexist" traditional heroines had a lot of the time.

The newer tropes Disney tried to do in place of their old ones don't have as much staying power as the old. Once they're done so much they get stale. If they're based on trends in media rather than being actually captivating in writing, they become timely. People can digest characters like Cinderella, who are interesting and aren't overly worried about upholding trends in their characterization, for centuries whether they realize it or not. But characters like what Asha is allegedly like are based on trendy, shallow politics that aren't as deep as they sound, maybe sometimes even circling right back into the bigotry it was trying to combat (like the girl-boss stuff), and become overdone and/or dated if they aren't done well or in a new way. I feel like because of the poorly made assessments that people used to make towards Disney, Disney is almost embarrassed by their past films when they really shouldn't be. This is why the recent remakes tend to over-correct the originals. In the original Beauty and the Beast, it was not a flaw that Adam was eleven when he was made to look like a beast in my opinion, it just made it more interesting, but some reviews saw it as a bad thing, so they changed the line in "Be Our Guest" that implied his age. It was seen as a flaw that the original Cinderella didn't have a clear reason to stay with her abusive family, even though that's how familial abuse works often and it's really rude to victims to ask "Why don't you just leave?" or something like that; so Disney gave Ella the explanation that she stays because it was her father's home in the 2015 remake, which only added more flaws when you remember that she does leave the house in the end anyway. What was the point in saying that? People wanted strong female characters, so Mulan in her remake is a flawless, emotionless girl-boss. It was seen as sexist when female characters wanted romantic love because "girls don't need a man, so romance is sexist", so Disney stopped telling love stories and focused more on issues of the self, which isn't bad, but now people want Disney to tell love stories again and are disappointed that Asha didn't have a romance with the mostly cut "Star-Boy" character in Wish (again, me too, I love Disney's love stories). All of these are overcorrections to things that were never flaws to begin with, just nit-picks from bad observations of their films. There are too many examples. It's like Disney is insecure.

If Disney understood that these things weren't bad in essence, Wish would be more liked by its critics; if Disney wasn't afraid to let their female characters have actual flaws, not see romantic love as something dated, not continue to listen to these types of shitty judgments, or just take more risks again because that's what shaped the company—taking risks against the odds, Wish would be better (I assume all of the former based on what I've heard, again I haven't seen Wish myself). The pseudo-feminism and CinemaSins type of critiquing from the 2010s has mostly died out. The culture's changed. The tropes people once condemned are now being begged to be brought back. What goes around comes back around. It showcases what was truly timeless and what was just a trend in media.

In my opinion, old bad-faith "fan" responses are partially to blame for these themes in recent films, but of course, Disney is ultimately at fault because they make their own choices. There could also be plenty of other reasons why Wish feels half-done to some, like the alleged poor treatment of employees behind the scenes.

By the way, if you were a Disney fan who had these types of opinions in the past, you shouldn't be hard on yourself about it, especially if you were just a kid listening to and trying to appeal to the adults that were around you or influenced you. The latter is the boat I was in once, and now I've grown up past that. Needlessly cynical film takes and pseudo-feminism were all the rage for a while and many have had that phase of being really into those mindsets. You're not bad if you've been in it at any time in the past as long as you are learning and growing.

I'm choosing to be optimistic about Disney. Somehow I still am. They have been in a creative rut for what seems like a while now. Disney-creative doesn't seem to be allowed to tell the stories they want to tell, instead being made to cater to the wrong people. The people who like to insult Disney more than they like watching their films. They should make movies for the fans of all ages who love them. But I believe Disney can bounce back from this. Disney has been through rough patches before, but these rough patches in the past have led to eras like the Disney Renaissance. I'm hoping the backlash from Wish will lead to Disney making changes once more. They've done that repeatedly in their complex 100 years of establishment. Gone are the times when the Disney remakes were panned by fans but still made tons of money that justified their continued production. And long gone are the days when fans were actually excited about the prospects of Disney recreating their movies (because yes people felt that way once upon a time). Now the remakes aren't making as much as Disney wants and sometimes even flopping. Gone are the days when their animated films were their critical lifeline, Wish proves that they are not immune to being received poorly. It's time for something new. Or old done new. Just something different. It would be one thing if this were just another bad movie, but this was their 100th-year celebration, you think they'd be more careful to not muck it up. But apparently, all it did was reflect all the flaws that have been in Disney's storytelling as of late. That's why the backlash is so great. It feels like the last straw. Once time goes on past the 100th-anniversary era, I think the hate for Wish will die down, but that wouldn't make it less potentially flawed. When I first caught wind of this film, way before we had a trailer even, I was very excited that it seemed like a return to form for Disney, but apparently, it might not be, and that's got a lot of people disappointed, especially since this movie was meant to be a celebration. I've loved Disney for as long as I can remember and I know a lot of people are the same way. People wouldn't be so disappointed in the state of the company if they didn't care deeply about Disney and believed that they could do better. I still think Disney could be great. I still believe in them. They just need to believe in themselves again.

If you made it this far, thank you so much for reading! ♥

[dotthings]

I guess the long term general takeaway from this Star Wars fandom mess is if you ever hesitated to watch a Star Wars show because either the fandom menace or the bitter crab bucket element of the "good" side of the fandom said it sucked, maybe reconsider!!!

Because you may have been misled, although it's valid if Star Wars just doesn't seem to be for you and you tried and give most of it a pass. That's valid. Most people don't go on to ragebait about it, tho.

And while there are problems in modern Star Wars, there were problem with Lucas era Star Wars too. If people are excessively lionizing and adulating Lucas era Star Wars while trashing everything Disney/LFL era, that's a red flag. And most of the time when people do this, they reveal their ignorance on themes and topics Lucas actually covered, which modern Star Wars is also addressing.

I've seen that fandom story before, hating on absolutely *everything* of the modern era of an IP, and invalidating everyone who likes the modern era of an IP. The anti-diversity hacks do it, but I've seen it from the embittered pro-inclusion side too and maybe people are just upset they don't have the same exact magical enchanted powerful feelings they had when they first got into the thing and they can't forgive it for not feeling like that ever again. So they are closed off to things that are good.

The bigger picture applies for media in general:

Don't buy into internet negativity as reliable narrators or the final word on whether something works or not or whether you might like it or not or whether to try it or not.

Positive word of mouth is more valuable and more reliable than ragebaiting.

If people try something due to positive word of mouth and then dislike it, at least they gave it a fair shot, decided it wasn't for them, and moved on. Again, most people don't then go on to endlessly ragebait about it.

The hate machinery of online fandoms are eating more and more territory in more and more fandoms--and it's choking the life out of sincere good faith criticism

People who talk in good faith to critique media they mostly like but have some issues with should be able to speak in peace. Genuine criticism, and good faith expression of people hurt by media, is a lot different than ragebait culture

But that doesn't mean give ragebait culture a free pass in the name of protecting "criticism"

Hatedom and ragebait culture will lie to you.

Hatedom and ragebait or bitterness culture loves to scream how everything is the destruction of this or that IP, over and over. Or how nothing is good any more. They kinda want you to be miserable and not enjoy the thing yourself. Everything's ruined now. If only [IP] was good again. If you like this you have no standards or you must be [insert straw man here]. [IP] hasn't been good since [insert subjective one true favorite thing]. (My god why are they still at it then, if they're tired, move on from it!! Find something new fcol).

Something has grown chronically, fundamentally even more broken about online discourse and online fandom and I think it would help offset it if people remembered to think for themselves instead of making decisions on what to watch based on loud mouths on the internet saying it sucked.

[darlin-djarin]

You’re very strange. Sid isn’t a poc, her voice actress is a white woman, and Saw has been portrayed as a negative character before TBB came out, yet y’all sit on this app and use TBB as a scapegoat for deeply rooted racism within Disney that’s been there for 50+ years. If you don’t like TBB bc of all the reasons you say, stop watching Disney shows as a whole. Mind you, one of the main characters of the show you fav so much (Mandalorian) had a GENUINE racist woman on there for two seasons, or let’s speak on Ahsoka which has a transphobic actress playing her. Let’s also remember how John Boyega and Moses Ingram were treated as well. TBB has its own problems, but it’s funny how y’all ignore real world racism with real people.

are you. fucking serious.

first of all, sid does count as a “poc” (the term poc barely exists outside of america and white dominated countries, but what i’m saying is that sid is not the equivalent to a white woman). no alien is white. just because someone’s actor is white doesn’t mean the character, especially since it’s an alien, is white. (not to mention that sid’s characterization is an antisemetic stereotype). hell, pedro pascal considers himself a white latino and din djarin is still a poc character. and yeah saw has been portrayed in a negative view but that’s because everyone else is seen as an angel and all pure and morally correct, while making saw a bad guy for doing things to the extreme, which is absolutely necessary when it’s for the greater good for the rebellion. just because i don’t like tbb doesn’t mean suddenly i can’t enjoy other shows. you sound so fucking stupid right now.

and hey, using the mandalorian against me isn’t gonna work 💀💀 i’ve made my fair share about how racist the show is as well, bringing up bo-katan and her racism (and extremism, but she gets to be celebrated and adored for it, while saw gerrera just gets more racism for it) and how the show uses and discards polynesian culture, which is what mandalorians are based on, to the directors liking. i’ve spoken up a MILLION times about the problems in a million different shows, even my favorites, because just bc i like something doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be criticized when something about it may be harmful to real life audiences getting represented (or not represented) that way.

i don’t know anything about ahsoka or her actress so i can’t speak on that, but if you look through my ahsoka posts, i haven’t been exactly praising the show either 💀 i’ve been giving it criticism as well, especially for it’s visuals and it’s choice in actors that were hired.

i don’t “ignore” real world racism, i obviously fucking care about it, since it affects me and so many other people in the world, but this is a star wars blog. i talk about star wars and it’s media and criticize it when i see something wrong with it and i state my opinions. fiction reflects reality, and vice versa, so even if the problems in this fictional show, tbb, aren’t “technically” real, it can still harm real people who watch that and see themselves represented in a bad way or in an inappropriate manner. being represented on screen is something so special and seeing all the racism that goes on in that show is truly fucking awful.

this is why i hate fucking talking about this show. because y’all bad batch supporters are SO quick to defend your show, y’all come into my inbox and talk shit. no one said you can’t enjoy some aspects. but you need to know how this show can harm people irl with the things that happen in it, reflecting upon reality.

[adarkrainbow]

I have been sharing things about French fairytale movies. We have been talking about Cinderella. As such I want to speak about a movie I actually can't really speak about because I have not seen it... But I need to just talk about it because... Well, you'll get it. It is the 2017's Les Nouvelles Aventures de Cendrillon (The New Adventures of Cinderella).

Now to understand WHERE this movie comes from, we need to return to 2015 and the release of another movie "The New Adventures of Aladin".

This movie is a comedy, an humoristic retelling/parody of the Aladin tale - France has quite a history of One Thousand and One Nights-cinema, and already humoristic takes on similar stories had been done (Gérard Jugnot had notably played in an humoristic Ali Baba movie I saw when I was young, for example). Here the main star and the actor playing Aladin is Kev Addams, which was then a young humorist that had been on the rise for quite a few years and was an "idol of the youngs", so to speak. The gist of the movie is: two thieves are disguising themselves as Santa Clauses in modern-day Paris to steal at the Galeries Lafayette. But they are stuck with a group of children who asks them for a story - and so to get rid of them, they decide to tell them an improvised version of the story of Aladdin, which in turn parallels the real-life events surrounding the thieves.

[Note the writing of "Aladin" with one "d", to carefully avoid any Disney lawsuit.]

This movie was very, very popular in theaters. It was popular enough to actually get a sequel called "Alad'2" (a pun on how "in" sounds like "un", "one"), which also was one of the leads of the box-office in France, and brought in another French humorist, this time of the "previous generation" before Adams - Jamel Debbouze:

But there was one problem... Both movies were absolutely torn to shreds by the critics. In newspapers, on websites, everybody agreed that these movies were actually bad, and not at all good movies nor great comedies. In fact, the reviews of the movies and the sales corresponding to it clashed so much it caused an online scandal when it came to the website AlloCiné (one of the French websites of reference when it comes to cinema), who was openly accused of faking reviews and inventing profiles to boost this movie's note - because it seemed impossible, with all the negative critics and the backlash, that the movie could obtain a mid-rating (3/5).

All of that to say, these movies were very polarizing - seen as embodying the typical bad comedies and a certain "downfall" of French cinema everybody has been talking about in the 2010s, and yet being massively mediatized and very popular among young audiences especially, and bringing in a lot of cash...

Now we reach our movie. Welcome "The New Adventures of Cinderella"! Which technically seems like a spin-off of the Aladin movies, and yet by its chronological placement seems to be a sequel "by the principle", not directly following it while still reusing its principle and referencing the previous movie (this movie was released BEFORE Alad'2)

This movie basically does what "Les Nouvelles Aventures d'Aladin" did - it is an humoristic retelling/open parody of Cinderella, framed as an adult being forced to tell a story to children. In this case it is Julie, a young girl who finds herself alone on the day of her birthday, without anybody remembering it... Until Marco, the man she secretely loves (and the son of her boss) calls to tell her he is coming over. Filled with hope she awaits... only to discover Marco brings her his son because he needed a last-minute babysitter. Stuck with this particularly bratty child, Julie is forced to tell him a story, and fed up with everybody treating her like a servant, she decides to tell a version of Cinderella where she plays the main role - and Marco is the prince she tries to win. Other characters from her life are recast: her boss is the king, her bitchy colleagues are the wicked stepsisters, her annoying neighbor if the evil stepmother... And Snow-White with her seven dwarves pop up at some point - because just like with the "Aladin", Disney references are quite present...

The main actress (Cinderella/Julie) s Marilou Berry, who truly was noticed and became quite famous thanks to playing in "Vilaine", and after passing by a series of movies (including "Les reines du ring"), she had another focus thanks to the success of the "Joséphine" movie. The cast also gathers other actors quite used to the world of comedy, ranging from older generations of the "classics" (Josiane Balasko as the wicked stepmother, Didier Bourdon as the king) to more recent ones (Arnaud Ducret as the prince Marco, Vincent Desagnat as the prince's older brother).

Now, I have not seen the movie, so I can't confirm or infirm this... But when it was released, this piece got bashed. Really, really hard. Harder than the Aladin movie, from people simply calling it "unfunny" and "cringe" to other actively pointing it out as being offensive and sexist, if not misogynistic. Aladin's note online roughly went around a 3/5. This one hesitated between 2/5 and 1,5/5. Now, again, I can't say I agree or disagree with these reviews because I have not seen the movie - and we all know a mass-opinion can be wrong. It seems more recently kinder reviews have been opping around the Internet - pointing out that all the backlash ths movie received was exaggerated and the piece was better than what everybody descibed.

Now, if you want my two pences of thought, I do believe that maybe this has to do with the audience that went to see these movies. As I said, Kev Adams was quite the "idol of the youth" when he did the Aladin movie (I don't know if he still is), but he had a BIG fanbase among teenage girls for example, as well as a certain scope to a young audience. And precisely who kept talking about these Aladin movies and who was more interested in those Aladin movies? Children. Meanwhile this Cinderella movie lacks any star or face that a young audience could recognize - no real Kev Adams. Yes, Marilou Berry is here, but her audience is not known to be young children - and as such, I do believe that the Aladin movies were favored by having a natural "fanbase" and already formed young audience ready to dig in. Meanwhile here two of the prominent stars are actors who symbolize the humor of the 20th century and are now quite aged - Balasko and Bourdon - who will speak to adults, but probably not to children... Anyway I am really speaking out of anything here, especially since I haven't seen the movie, but I do believe that this played a part in how this movie was received in a lesser way than the Aladin ones. (Plus the Aladin movies were clearly aimed at a male audience, which coupled with Kev Adams' natural teenage girl fanbase and the big success of Disney's Aladdin among girls, made sure both genders could go see it without shame - meanwhile this movie is clearly a "girl movie" meaning the audience is already restricted a bit more... And as such much more offended - as I said the movie was accused of being a piece of misogynistic jokes (doesn't help that there are only men who wrote and directed this movie).

But again, it might also have to do with the movie just being bad, you know. After all the man behind this movie (Lionel Steketee) is not the one that made the first Aladin movie (Arthur Benzaquen) but rather the one that did its lesser-appreciated sequel... Though the same script-writer was used for both (Daive Cohen).

Now, my only question, from what I have seen (extracts and trailers and previews) is actually... What is the target audience? Maybe it will clear up when I get to see the movie but this is all framed and sold as a kid-friendly entertainment, it even being an "all-public" movie to which families are supposed to be able to bring their kids but... a lot of the jokes I have seen are typical of adult things. I mean there's a lot of sex jokes for example, which made me think originally this was an adult movie, but then it also kind of is framed and written as a kid-level comedy and... Yeah this leaves me a bit confused. Just take the movie's poster, at the top of the post... You can't tell me there isn't a big sexual innuendo in the way the prince "rides" Cinderella! And yet it is sold as a movie kids can go watch and that isn't for a more mature audience? Anyway, I do not have a lot to say, since I haven't seen the movie, but I wanted to make a "preparation" post for when I will get to see it.

(I will just add that while some of the jokes I have seen do seem really bad - like a certain joke about a character's throat which was used already in Les Visiteurs 3 and seems really out of place in a kid movie, clearly taken from the Men in Black - some actually made me laugh. Most notably there is a great slapstick moment you can glimpse in the trailer where the Lady Tremaine-like stepmother just... headbutts Cinderella for speaking to her. I did quite like this joke as it subverts the pose and subtle threat of the Disney-wickedstepmother, while also clearly dedramatizing the violence into a goofy, cartoonish way. But that's just me.)

[piglet26]

Rey...A Mary Sue?

When it comes to the Star Wars fanbase.....Disney is the maker of many of their own problems. Disney has blown things out of proportion. They've attacked their own fanbase and then hidden behind that very slander to avoid criticism. They haven't honored the very audience they seek to make a lot of money from, not to mention the franchise. They've bounced around between visions trying to please everyone and then pleased no one.

However, the Star Wars fanbase is also to blame for many of their quarrels, grips and dissatisfactions with the franchise. Oh, you don't like the corporatized Disney sequels? Well I remember you didn't like the prequels which George Lucas actually did them. Disney sequels are too comedic? The movies would've been better if there was less humor? Well the prequels were too whiny, political and serious.

It's not enough that Disney films are more diverse, have a female lead and have more females on the production side..... unless those characters are saying, doing and being portrayed exactly how the fanbase would like.......then Disney is still misogynistic and racist.

Carrie Fisher, The Princess, faced sexism, ageism and body shaming from both Disney and the Star Wars fandom prior to returning for The Force Awakens. Since he passing obviously many people would like to forget about this or flat out bury it.

Carrie Fisher tells British Good Housekeeping that she was pressured to lose more than 35 pounds to reprise Princess Leia in The Force Awakens: “They don’t want to hire all of me — only about three-quarters! Nothing changes, it’s an appearance-driven thing. I’m in a business where the only thing that matters is weight and appearance."

She first donned that golden slave bikini when she was 27. Thirty years later, Carrie Fisher’s back as Leia in “Star Wars,” but apparently some viewers thought she’d look exactly the same. The 59-year-old actor was the unfortunate recipient of a barrage of hateful tweets from critics who felt the need to tell her she’s aged badly in the past three decades. She Tweeted, "Men don't age better than women, they're just allowed to age." Meanwhile, Harrison Ford looked old and Mark Hamill looked liked a drunk.

All of this is to say the question of whether or nor Rey is a Mary Sue isn't a simple one. While Disney LucasFilm didn't develop the character as well as they could have.... the audience largely had double standards. Rey, as a woman, had more work to do to win over an audience already suspicious of the feminization of Star Wars.

Let's address the criticism

Why does Rey seem so skilled?

Rey works for Unkar Plott scavenging. It would make sense she understands engineering and mechanics. She has to understand how things work, which parts are valuable and understand that about multiple forms of machinery. How does she fly? Just fly, not even combat fly. If in her introduction she was shown to be flying commercially maybe people would've let it go, I'm not sure. Luke and Anakin by contrast turn out to be expert pilots who fight in combat..... no one questioned a thing and one of them is a child. When she initially flies the Falcon she does an alright job and in the three sequels films we never see her fly in combat. Finn never learned how to fly!!!! He famously needed a pilot, yet, got a crash course in The Last Jedi enough to fly at the end against the First Order. She speaks droid, but all our protagonist in Star Wars do. Someone has to be able to understand them.

Rey has no flaws and she's so perfect.

No, actually she's not. Rey is extremely vulnerable, lonely and requires validation. She fears she's gonna be an old woman cleaning gear on Jakku, but she doesn't leave. The only character she really relates and connects to.... is the villain. Yes, she's likable and she's suppose to be because she's our protagonist. Who the hell finds fault with either the character or the production team for trying to make their main character likeable?! Other characters are attracted to her. It's important to note that most force users come off as charismatic, magical and attractive.

Does Rey have a personality?

Yes. Many people get held up on the fact that Rey seems to be bubbly and happy despite growing up in isolation in a tough environment. Initially, with Finn, she comes off pretty hostile and untrusting. It was only when she assumed he was resistance (something safe) and he went along with the assumption that she relaxed a bit. She responded with anger at him just grabbing her hand, but when he showed concern for her then she reciprocated. Neither Finn nor Rey have proper social development which explains why they latch onto one another. Not to mention both are outsiders thrown into pivotal roles without much concept on how to deal with those roles.

Rey is also very childlike. It's something Kylo Ren tries to push her out of. She waits around for her family for years. She licks plates and plays with the resistance helmet. She latches onto people. She latches onto Finn once she trust him. She latches onto Han perceiving him as an ideal father figure. When she forms a connection to Kylo Ren she latches onto him. She's loyal to the people and things she cares about. There were things that could have helped Rey become a fuller developed character. Rey can fight but we never learned WHY she learned how to fight. Has she been stolen from a lot? Has she been attacked? Was she trained? Rey was taken at a young age, what schooling did she receive? Did she just learn trade work? In the novels, her character is obviously developed more, but Lord! People really act like any oversight of character development was a feminist statement about perfection. In reality, it was a film trying to balance multiple characters in a 2.5 hour film.

Rey doesn't have any training and yet is so magical with the Force.

Rey is assisted by The Force. Force users can use the force with very little understanding of it or training. Anakin as a 9 year old is just winging it. So there's that. Now the first time she encounters Kylo Ren, she's terrified and running/shooting for her life. When he force freezes her she's helpless. When he puts her to sleep with the force, she has to be rescued by men.

Now this is the most important. Her bond with Kylo Ren is one of the reasons she's able to access more of and learn about the force. "A Force dyad, also known as a dyad in the Force, was when two Force-sensitive beings had a unique Force-bond—that was unbreakable—that made them one in the Force. The power of a dyad was as strong as life itself, with the individuals forming the dyad sharing a connection that spanned across time and space."

They don't play this up enough in the movies. In the novels it's clear that their minds bridge. She's able to access Kylo's mind from understanding how he accessed her mind. Their bond boost both of their strengths in the force. It's important to note that Rey's abilities actually terrify her.

Rey knows more about the Falcon than Han Solo.

She explained that Unkar Plott installed a compressor which Rey was aware of and both Han and Rey agreed put stress on the hyperdrive. After her assistance bypassing the compressor Han is firming in control of The Falcon.

She beat Kylo Ren at the end of the Force Awakens despite never holding a light saber.

Well, I agree with this one. Kylo Ren wasn't trying to kill her. He was sparring with him and testing her talents. If he wanted to kill her, there was a convenient cliff he could've pushed her over. He wants to train her and he wants her.

Daisy Ridley is a talented and charismatic actress.... she just isn't recognized for it. The fandom looks for flaws, weaknesses and reasons to complain. I don't want to take away anything from the males in Star Wars. I want them to be great. Honestly A Song of Fire and Ice is how I'd like to see more men and women written. Some are good, some are bad, some are great, some are horrific and all are flawed.

[bestanimatedmovie]

And round 2 is officially over!

It was very intense! Some of you wanted to (lovingly) hit me with something, but jokes on you because that only makes me stronger 😈

We had some real sweeps. Not whatever you call when your fav is losing, but actual bona fide sweeps. Congratulations to Howl's moving castle, A Goofy Movie, The Breadwinner and Wolf Children for obliterating their opponent. But specially to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, biggest sweep and most votes! *insert the evil has been defeated.jpeg*

We also had not one, but two ties! Kung Fu Panda vs Treasure Planet and The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie vs Turning Red! All get to advance to next round, wohooo! And we had so many almost ties! I feel specially bad for the Lego movie which was slightly ahead when I checked an hour before closing time, but the fervor of mutant turtles fans is nothing to be scoffed at. Encanto, Tangled, Birdboy, Meet the Robinsons, Isle of Dogs and ParaNorman were also so close to making it! My biggest condolences to their fans 🙏

The Captain Underpants fandom, who managed to defeat another dog movie, entertained me a lot again, so I decided to bump the movie in my watch list and put it on top, see what all that love is about.

Speaking of watch lists, last time I promised I'd watch some movies, and I did! Here's some quick impressions of each:

The Congress: It was interesting. A bit too long for my tastes, specially at the beginning. Some things were a little too vague, I think. Can't help thinking not even animators would be needed with "AI". Reminded me of a sci fi story I read many many years ago and spent an hour looking for it. It was The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect, very similar concepts, go read it.

Waltz with Bashir: Another Ari Folman. The animation felt a bit too video game-esque to me at first, but you get used to it easily. This one is a documentary about the director's experiences in the Lebanon War, trying to find out his role in the 1982 Beirut Massacre. It's an exploration of memory and guilt and trauma. It's not easy to watch and it contains real graphic footage at the end. But if you can stomach that, go watch it.

The Fabulous Baron Munchausen: Available in the Internet Archive, which is lucky because I couldn't find it anywhere else. I guess it's not bad it lost because I'm not sure I could qualify this as animated.* I couldn't really get into the story, but the way it was filmed makes it a beautiful feast for the eyes.

Finally, you guys asked for a sideways map tree, also known as bracket, so now that we're down to 64(ish) movies I'll keep my promise and make it. That said, I expect to take a couple of days to organize everything and set up the polls, so we'll have a brief intermission. In the meantime, go watch some amazing animation shorts over at @best-animated-short-tourney

Keep sending those asks, it makes my day every time I receive one :D I love discussing the good, the bad, what you liked, what you didn't, all criticism welcome, but remember do not attack people over what they like!

*which does bring to question about what is or isn't an animated movie. We agreed Roger Rabbit could qualify, and of course CGI is a form of animation.... could it then be argued movies like Avatar (the blue ones) that rely heavily on CGI are animated? The film literally only has two shots with no CGI! Or the Disney "live action" remakes that are basically just CGI? Food for thought I guess.

[pinktwingirl]

Have you watched the one piece live action? There the show runners were brave enough to show the 1-2 episodes to the fans first and the whole season to the critics. Although the marketing tactics of Netflix is questionable, the show was made with love and care.

I felt gaslight with all this raving for Loki here and there especially on tumblr and Reddit. The reviews are making it like a masterpiece, raving Tom’s performance like it deserves an Emmy. The fact they only showed 1-4 episodes and that too critics speaks volumes.

I’m worried for the awards, Loki will steal one piece’s thunder. The cast deserves the love since they were HUMBLE ENOUGH TO THANK THE FANS IN ADVANCE . Plus they are relatively unknown too.

God only if the Loki’s finale is more than atrocious the secret invasion.

I have not watched the live action One Piece yet but I’ve heard mostly good things about it. It just goes to show the lesson that Disney/Marvel consistently fails to learn: good adaptations are born out of love and respect for the original source material. Contrast that with the Loki series, in which the writers literally said they wanted to “strip Loki of everything that makes him Loki.” Like… wtf is wrong with you??? People loved this character for a reason; why would you think we wanted to see him turned into a hollow, boring shell of himself? Also, as much as it pains me to say this because I genuinely think Tom Hiddleston is a great actor and I know he’s capable of better work, his performance in the Loki series is most definitely NOT award-worthy imo. It’s a jumbled mess of cartoonish over-acting that’s honestly painful to sit through. Like I remember watching the scene where Alligator Loki bites President Loki’s hand off and just feeling embarrassed for Tom at how cringe the whole thing was. (I haven’t seen S2 nor do I have any plans to but I’d imagine his performance is more or less the same as S1.) To be fair, though, the dialogue is so poorly written that I think anyone would have a hard time making it sound natural. Also, we’ve seen him give truly great performances as Loki in his past movies so I don’t blame him for it; I blame the direction.

[gryficowa]

You know what's interesting? The people I saw writing "Hitler was right" are English-speaking, and looking at what country such texts come from, everyone fucking knows that they are Americans, because the truth is that they were not victims of colonization (They were colonizers) and looking at Disney animations with Donald Duck, these are the views of Americans, that "It didn't affect them because they live in the US and the US is free" (Tia… Free in terms of using your brain in the long run… And no, not every American is stupid, but many of them have big egos and it makes their brain uncritical), so what if Hitler, apart from Jews, also killed Poles and Roma, THIS DISGUSTING MAN WAS RIGHT

Yes, I hate Americans with conservative and liberal views, because they are willing to sacrifice SOMEONE'S LIFE TO HAVE THEIR SHIT RIGHTS, BECAUSE STATUS QUO IS THE FUCKING BEST, ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE DIED BY BOMBS, INCLUDING CHILDREN, AND HOW INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE EXECUTED FUCK MAN

AND NO, YOUR COUNTRY DOES NOT SUPPORT LGBT+ PEOPLE AND BLACK PEOPLE, YOU LYING BITCH

I'm fucking tired of pinkwashing, I'm fucking tired of seeing people saying "Vote Blue" in tags about Paletsyn! I'm fucking sick of the fact that every time you fucking criticize them, you're a fucking Russian troll!

Let Harris, Biden and fucking Trump have a fucking orgy with the people who want to vote for them! Because I'm fucking fed up!

AND NO, HITLER NO WAS FUCKING RIGHT, YOU FUCKING PEOPLE

As a person from Poland, I am fucking disgusted when I read this type of content. NOT ONLY DO YOU SUPPORT GENOCIDE, YOU ALSO SAY THAT THE PERSON WHO COLONIZED POLAND WAS RIGHT!

I don't give a damn if Americans like "Vote Blue" and other shit like that, but I don't give a fuck about the US killing an innocent man and supplying fucking weapons to Israel, which Lebanon recently fucking attacked

And yes, your police kill dogs, but it is not important, just like black people murdered by the police, and you use black people so that your fascists can win!

You think no one fucking remembers how you attacked the BLM movement?

It's fucked up that you have the nerve to comment on other countries, but no one can comment on yours because in your eyes he is a Russian troll!

I do not greet Americans who believe that Hitler was right, just as I do not greet those who masturbate to Harris, Biden and Trump

[marciabrady]

I had a realization recently that made me think of your blog! It’s unfortunately been a long time since i rewatched Snow White but the other day I was listening to the soundtrack and was really struck by one of Snow White’s lines. I was getting misty listening to “I’m Wishing” where she sings “and I’m dreaming of the nice things he’ll say.” Something about how Snow White could have imagined her love in any circumstance with any laundry list of traits but her one and truest wish was simply that he be nice to her and how it reflected how Snow Whole’s life had been so deprived of kindness. Only for the Prince to then appear and sing all her wildest dreams. It was so romantic and made me think of how annoying all the complaints around Snow White’s Prince can be (that’s he boring/ugly/barely talks to Snow White) bc when they did speak, he said everything she’d wanted to hear and when he appeared, he was exactly who Snow White had always wanted. I couldn’t help but think of a modern comparison (a bit unfair I know) of Anna singing about The One in “For the First Time in Forever” where she first describes him as “a beautiful stranger, tall and fair” and how simple and sweet and genuine Snow White’s wish felt in comparison to that. Nothing against Anna but I had a real moment of appreciation for Snow White I wanted to share with you. Thank you!

Okay, I completely agree with all of this on such a level! First off, the "and I'm dreaming of the nice things he'll say" was such an important lyric for me, too, to internalize while I was re-examining the character of Snow White a few years back and I have so many thoughts and feelings about it...I get really peeved when people only discuss Disney movies (well...Walt-era Disney movies) as if they were childhood memories or a babysitting companion to assist hyperactive kids or something that's akin to like a Care Bear or Dragon Tails type of moment or even when people discuss if the classic characters are good role models or not. They were not created to be educational material for children. Movies like Snow White were meant to be digested and observed and appreciated as pieces of art that reflected the broad spectrum and range of human emotion. They didn't have to appeal to logic or eight year olds are crazy parents who are convinced their children are going to pretend to be dead and wait for a prince to kiss them because they saw Snow White undergo a sleeping curse. That's for starters.

Second of all, Snow White is someone no one ever remembers was abused, just like Cinderella, and is an orphan. She is increasingly neglected throughout her young life. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, these films are meant to appeal to human emotion and the real part of our feelings that we all share. If we were neglected or abused and don't have anyone in this world, wouldn't we, too, long for love? For belonging, for companionship, for friendship- for someone to tell us something nice for a change? Remember, this is a character who is almost murdered by the only parental figure they have in the world seconds before they are thrown to the forest to fend for themselves, without any resources. And this is the Princess that everyone criticizes and vilifies! Also, it's literally a fact that humans are hardwired with a need for inclusion and engagement/connectivity is literally higher than food and water for human wellness for health pertaining to mind and body so...

I also think there's another component to Snow White that everyone overlooks. It's fine that some people are aromantic and don't see the value in romantic love, but Snow White does and that's her wish, which means she has autonomy over the storyline and this is something she's readily inviting into her life. It also goes to how powerful the women of this universe are. In the original story of Snow White, which is also canonical to the film as they released this information in every novelization that came out during that time period and publicity material, Snow White is literally a direct manifestation of her mother's wishes. When her mother sits, sewing against the windowsill, she wishes for a baby girl- which, again is interesting considering how common it was to devalue female children and only want a boy, ie heir. Snow White is then born, a direct result of her mother's wish. Snow White practices this same approach by wishing into the well for just what she wants, and that's exactly what appears. She's putting what she wants into the universe and, by being bold enough to voice her desires, it comes true. Also, the Prince is attracted to the voice he hears singing first- not her beauty.

Moving on to their relationship. I love the Prince so much and so many people misunderstand him and I have many thoughts about it! For starters, I like that him and Cinderella's Prince aren't in the film so much because it's the Princess's movie! When Tangled came out, they literally took Rapunzel's name out of the title and marketed it more toward boys with showing much more of Flynn in it than Rapunzel in trailers and I think an approach like that and even Beauty and the Beast, where it's almost more of the boy's story, kinda robs the female character. I like that Snow White and Cinderella's film put them at the helm. Also, I think people ignore some of the limitations the animators had at the time. Snow White's Prince was meant to have much more to do, which is still the case in the comic adaption, but it just didn't make it into the movie because of how limited they were with animating the male figure. Also, by no means, was he Snow White's life nor was she dependent on him! They meet by the Wishing Well, after it's her words that summon him I might add, and then we don't see him until the end of the film. Snow White never mentions him between when she runs away from the Castle until the Dwarfs ask her to tell them a love story. She doesn't cry out for him in the forest when she almost got murdered, she doesn't call upon him to help her find a sanctuary when she's homeless, and she doesn't ask him for help when the Dwarfs almost kick her out of their home, instead begging them to let her stay and telling them she'd work in exchange for food and shelter. In contrast, he's the one that spends all of his offscreen time searching for her (long enough for seasons to pass) in the forest...but she's the one that always gets the criticism...

Lastly, I'm discouraged by how Frozen is treating the Prince Charming archetype- because that's what it is, an archetype. The role of the romantic partners in Cinderella and Snow White is more-so meant to represent what Cinderella and Snow White want in love. Snow White's Prince doesn't sing of her beauty- he sings of their love as "constant and true" and as the "one love" that has possessed his heart and mind and soul. In a film like this, that again isn't meant to be taken as hyper-realistic (and Frozen is "you can't marry a man you just met" which is ridiculous because Elsa literally runs away from her kingdom and lives in a palace she's conjured of ice...and Snow White is ridiculous for falling in love with someone in a fairytale?), we are being told what their love is- again, constant and true. That's the type of love I want! Cinderella, too, is something that is so touching to me. Here's this girl who's also been abused, doesn't have anyone or anything in the world, and the first notes of "so this is love" is telling the audience that, after years of physical and emotional abuse she's finally being treated as an equal and with care and compassion and mutual admiration and it's the most thrilling thing in the world to her. "This is what makes life divine" and "the key to all heaven is mine" is so deep to me and not at all as superficial as people try to make it out to be. In this world where people are chasing increasingly capitalistic goals that are becoming more and more shallow, the desire for love- romantic or platonic- is something that speaks to the human condition of any age and is so evergreen. To me, it's the meaning of life and the deepest thing someone can ever achieve or wish to attain. It's something that we can both receive and give and I think that's what makes us special as humans. But again, all these complaints from mothers that think their children are too dense to receive this and instead believe Disney is telling them to wait out for these impossibly perfect men and instead want to kill the IDEA that true love exists to these children in the case of what happened to Hans is so disheartening. As I mentioned previously, Snow White and Cinderella weren't meant to be babysitters but Frozen was, in a way, and it was created to speak to children intentionally and the fact that this hardened ideology of "don't believe in love, it's too good to be true" in the form of what they did to the character of Hans really rubs me the wrong way because, here's the thing- Snow White and Cinderella's Prince aren't telling us SPECIFICALLY at all of who or what to look for in a partner or what they should appear to us as. Their lyrics focus more on how the pair makes one another feel- a "constant and true" love, "one love" that they're so devoted to they'll spend months and years looking for that person even if they seem lost, "so this is what makes life divine" instead of also chasing for the next thrill, and "the key to all heaven is mine" because you should be with someone that you love so much, it feels like your entire life has been renewed.

I know it's a romantic notion, but I do think we should be encouraged to believe that love can happen to us and that it will be the type of love that will change our lives for the better. I don't see the value in telling people that love doesn't exist, or that it exists but that it's so imperfect it'll be like a job to even stay together, or that you'll never find a connection like that because it just doesn't exist. Because, what type of situations are those children then going to get in and what treatment will they then accept? I think it encourages the "well, I guess this is as good as it's going to get" idea as opposed to realizing earlier on that a situation isn't for you because it doesn't feel right. And again, Snow White and Cinderella don't tell us to chase a specific type of love- ie a connection with a man that's richer than you or a man that looks a certain way, etc. You "constant and true" love can come in any shape, sexuality, gender, form, etc, but the focus should be on the love being constant and true! And I don't know about you all, but I hope the one I find one day would search for me for months in a forest if I'm lost to them lol I hope they'd love me so much, they'd tear their kingdom apart to find me even if they only have my shoe to go off of. I hope they would be bold enough to know they want me and approach me in public, when I'm not even focused on finding love, the way Charming pursued Cinderella at the ball. I hope, even if I run away initially like Snow White because I'm too shy or unsure, they'd be eloquent enough to reassure me and let me know why they love me or what they're looking for as beautifully as Snow White's Prince did in One Song.

[kylesvariouslistsandstuff]

ELEMENTAL Box Office Nonesuch

So... ELEMENTAL looks to make $28-33m over the weekend... The autopsies are already being done, the expensive Pixar original is already deemed a flop... Here's what I say...

Box office is absurd: I mean really, box office runs seem more and more absurd by the year in the post-COVID outbreak era... Having to make so much money, in a very competitive field and in a time where audiences can't see too many movies a year, in around 3-4 months? Like c'mon, it's literally the infancy of a movie's existence. It's not the '00s, or even the '10s anymore.

Longevity: Especially since animated movies from both Pixar and Disney Animation traditionally have had long, ever-fruitful second lives. Whether it was thru theatrical re-releases (1940s-1980s), home video (1980s-onward), or streaming... ELEMENTAL will likely be no different by the end of the year, probably will rack up a million streams on Disney+. This has a very good "A" CinemaScore grade, so it could have very good legs over the summer, even if it doesn't top that ridiculous budget.

$200m budget... Making around $500m at the worldwide box office is a lot of pressure to put on an original animated family movie, let alone most movies, especially in this day and age.

"Well, if they had made a good movie-" OK, now do every blockbuster smash hit that got mixed to negative critical reception. Heck, do this year's SUPER MARIO BROS. MOVIE. Critical reception/one's own opinion doesn't mean shit. If it did, CARS 2 - the go-to for "worst Pixar movie" - would've flopped hard back in 2011, regardless of any goodwill brought over from the first movie.

That William Goldman quote/marketing/blah blah: "Nobody knows anything... Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what's going to work. Every time out it's a guess and, if you're lucky, an educated one." Whatever was in that marketing... And there WAS marketing... LOTS of it... Just didn't motivate audiences to shell out lots of money for tickets and concessions to see this film in a theater where it's possibly disgusting, noisy, or... Both!

Pixar is not in a slump: This is also all subjective. And if I was a filmmaker, and I had a slump of movies that ranged from roughly 70-85% Rotten Tomatoes scores - not that RT aggregate scores mean anything anyways... That'd be quite alright! Anyways, the movies they're currently making just aren't to your liking. That's all it is... and they don't have to release a specific kind of movie. This, ideally, should be a studio where a director makes THEIR film. Not a collective. Like it used to be at one point... Speaking of which-

John Lasseter: I've seen so many people, from inside animation fan circles... to even pundits writing for major movie publications... Suggesting that Lasseter's ouster left a real hole in Pixar, and Disney Animation as well. Never mind implying that a misogynist pervert should be brought back to the studio, but this also suggests that every Pixar success is because of him... And him only. Like, all the filmmakers are just untalented hacks without him? Like he's the guy who waves a magic wand and suddenly, everyone on board made a good movie? Do you want animated movies made by FILMMAKERS? Or films determined by a small COMMITTEE? I'm also old enough to remember when Lasseter was THE problem with Pixar, that he was a dictator making every director bow to his every demand. (Which was true.)

I'm sorry, but I'm just exhausted from how people are talking about ELEMENTAL... Which I haven't even seen yet, but it feels like people are trying to write such nuanced industry-related things and outside factors off and use their personal opinions/biases to explain away these box office mishaps, wrapping it up in neat simplistic bows...

I'm just concerned about what will happen with the studio from here on out, especially after 75 people - including veterans like Galyn Susman, Angus MacLane, and Steve Purcell - were laid off.

"Make better movies, then!" Okay, how subjective, it's not like the studio's people are all sitting there not putting in effort and calling it a day. Okay? These movies take years and years to plan out, make, remake, and finish. Like Goldman said, it's all a guess each time out. A gamble. When these people are making these movies, they're making decisions that they think are the right decisions at the right time. ELEMENTAL, by all accounts, went into development around 2016-ish. Around the time director Peter Sohn had finished THE GOOD DINOSAUR... How would the crew, and the studio as a whole, had known what the world would like in 2023? What audiences' ever-changing tastes would be? What the zeitgeist would be?

And again... "Make better movies"? MARIO might've pulled in $1.3b worldwide and became one of the highest-grossing animated movies of all-time, but the critical reception for it wasn't great. Mostly mixed to negative, not as good as this movie. Or TURNING RED, LUCA, SOUL, ONWARD, even LIGHTYEAR! And even all the recent WDAS movies, including big box office flop STRANGE WORLD.

Again, it's as simple - and boring - as "They made a movie... People didn't show up."

So... What do I think happens next?

Pixar hasn't had a genuine financial success in theaters since TOY STORY 4 all the way back in 2019. ONWARD got cut off by the pandemic, SOUL, LUCA, and TURNING RED all went straight to Disney+ in most parts of the world. LIGHTYEAR lost money, this might, too... How much did ELIO cost? Why should that film be expected to make the amount of money usually reserved for a massive superhero movie? INSIDE OUT 2 is all but a lock for a huge gross... A sequel, no less.

I would hate to see Pete Docter get removed as CCO (and who the hell would they replace him with anyways? The rest of the "Brain Trust" is either no longer working there or off doing other things), but I fear that could be a very real possibility. I know most of the internet declares Docter's Pixar to be some kind of failure, but I for one like his Pixar. Even if I didn't like the films coming out now, the place is a lot more director-driven than before, and more experimental. John Lasseter would've probably fired Enrico Casarosa, Domee Shi, and Angus MacLane off of all of their films... Or would've blockaded them every step of the way whenever they tried to make something in their respective films interesting. So yeah, I don't feel Docter is the problem here... it's really all down to how Disney handled the release of many of the recent Pixar films, how much the studio spends on their films, and the marketing just not enticing audiences to go see the films.

That's beyond Docter's control, and he even partially touched upon this in a recent interview... And for what it's worth, again... Audiences... The ones who actually saw the movie already... seem to be liking ELEMENTAL. "A" CinemaScore is pretty good. SPIDER-VERSE Deux and MARIO had an "A" CinemaScore as well. If this movie has excellent legs, it'll show that people - not internet-dwelling weirdos who seem to be the authority on all things animation - actually DID like the film... It just cost too much to make. Like a modern-day CLEOPATRA or SLEEPING BEAUTY. A movie that quite a few audiences went to, but it wasn't enough to cover the gargantuan costs to make it...

Like, if ELEMENTAL cost around BAD GUYS/PUSS IN BOOTS 2/DC SUPER-PETS/SPIDER-VERSE numbers... You know, around $80-90m in budget and NOT $200m+... this thing wouldn't be written off as a flop.

I'd imagine more sequels will happen, which was always a given, but maybe more so than ever before. INSIDE OUT 2 and TOY STORY 5, they weren't going to stop there, that was a given... Docter did say in that same interview that the originals in Pixar's library are fair game for sequels. And no smart exec walks away from movies that make $1b at the box office... Unless they're something like, say, TITANIC.

Maybe there will be stricter mandates put on Pixar films to "make them more appealing to audiences"... That's very possible, as it sometimes happens at these studios. Micromanaging, ya know? Trying to create that next big hit the mechanical way, by overthinking it... Instead of just making something and seeing how it all goes. How it does at the box office is often beyond a filmmakers' control anyways... Again, what the world will look like 4 years after you've started your endeavor...

Or maybe nothing happens, Pixar has special privileges, and keeps making what they make...

To me, the smartest thing would be to either... Step back and realize how silly box office has become, that it's absurd to expect a smash hit out of something in a crowded marketplace in just 2-4 months, hinging an entire studio's future on that... Or lower the budgets of these movies...

Anyways, sorry to rant, but it's all just absurd to me... Yes, the movie may indeed lose money, but it's not clear-cut.

[walkonpooh]

House of Leaves - Mark Z. Danielewski Review

“This is not for you”

Okay.

Okay.

If you haven’t read it, House of Leaves is a post-modern book written by Mark Z. Danielewski in 2000 written in epistolary form. It’s a story within a story within a story within a story. What do I mean by that? Well at the heart of House of Leaves is The Navidson Record, a proposed documentary about a photographer, Will Navidson, who buys a house to reconnect with his family; his partner Karen Green and their children, Chad and Daisy.

Not missing any opportunity to work, Navidson sets up cameras around the house to capture little moments of their daily lives. Then one day, they notice that the inside of the house is a little bigger than the outside. Then a little bigger. And bigger. Then one day a doorway that wasn’t there before appears in the living room of the house. Opening the doorway they find a hallway. The bulk of The Navidson Record is the exploration of that hallway.

So I say bulk of The Navidson Record, isn’t this the book? Well, yes and no. Because taking a step back, we have Zampano. Zampano is a blind uh, I guess maybe former academic? Zampano is examining the truthfulness of The Navidson Record, touching on the filming style of it. Examining the lives of Navidson and Karen. Delving into critical discussions, photography, architecture, Biblical studies. Only House of Leaves doesn’t stop here.

Because Zampano recently died. So we’re introduced to Johnny Truant, who was introduced to the deceased Zampano through his friend Lude, who knows that Truant will love this guy’s apartment and the rabbit hole of The Navidson Record. So we’re also given through Truant’s footnotes of the story his life story; way more of his sexual encounters than I cared to know about, his lusting over a stripper who frequents the tattoo parlor he works for named Thumper, on account of her tattoo based on the Disney’s Bambi character.

Finally, we have the unnamed Editors of House of Leaves, who are adding footnotes to all of the above throughout the entirety of the story. Also keeping in mind is the author, Mark Z. Danielewski and the reader, all taking part in this story, published now twenty-three years ago.

So House of Leaves is a book I’ve *attempted* to read several times and failed to do so until this past week, when I devoured the book. As I sit here writing this, I’m sort of mixed on whether devouring House of Leaves is the proper way to read it, or if not reading it alongside another book, sort of ploddingly moving through it would not have been the better method.

House of Leaves is fairly infamous at this point, unlike when I first heard about it. It’s funny because it’s origins are similar to The Blair Witch Project. I remember people claiming that no, this book was based on true events, which of course plays right into the post-modernity style Danielewski was going for. Critiquing literature and literature critics. One of the reasons it’s infamous for the style the book is written in. So I described the layers of the onion, so to speak, but I’ve read and watched quite a few opinions of the book at this point and I agree that the book in and of itself is the labyrinth of The Navidson Record.

That is you’re meant to get lost in it and like a labyrinth, there are dead ends. Unlike a labyrinth, I can’t say that at this point, twenty-three years into the story that I enjoyed “solving” the labyrinth. And that’s primarily for the Johnny Truant sections of the book. Johnny is fairly certain that The Navidson Record is a fabrication, which to me, along with the story of Johnny’s mother, Pelefina, her notes, is actually a fairly big clue that Johnny is falsified.

Post modernism was a huge thing in the early aughts, where I don’t feel like its influences today are as far reaching, but pretty cliché by this point in time. But there was The Blair Witch Project, like I said that had the is this real-is this not real and all of the commentary that came with that. In video gaming you have Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, a post-modern video game, which critiques the very people playing the game, playing off their expectations of what a sequel to Metal Gear Solid should be. There’s Mulholland Dr., which came out the same year as House of Leaves and is playing with *very* similar themes and to me, is superior.

So because of Johnny’s mothers letters, it seemed pretty clear to me that Johnny, the Johnny we’re reading about, is a fabrication of Pelefina. Her letter about creating a son who could live the life she never had is written nine months before Johnny’s birth. I think Pelefina actually choked Johnny to death and everything else that happens in House of Leaves is her way of coping with having done this, ala Diane in Mulholland Dr. and the events of that movie being a fever dream of Diane’s.

Anyway, so like this is all just interpretation and there’s probably no “answer”. That’s one aspect of post-modernity that I do like, the chin stroking that happens from it is just part of the cycle of this stuff. So do I like House of Leaves? A day after finishing it. Sitting here thinking about it, I like it more today than I did yesterday. I bounced off Truant’s footnotes pretty hard while reading it. As I write this though, I like the idea of that story quite a bit (the slight comparing it to Mulholland Dr. is no slight, that’s a Top 10 movie for me). The Navidson Record parts were pretty great, especially the earlier parts. Some of the later parts didn’t hit as hard for me, especially as they escape the house, but I also didn’t read this in optimal conditions. Oh, but I did *love* The NeverEnding Story aspect of House of Leaves being a book within House of Leaves. And I sort of wonder if like being frustrated by the Truant parts is akin to being frustrated by the labyrinth. I would have liked to learn more about Zampano, I think some of what we learned about him is interesting and I think I’d prefer that over Truant, but then that’s kind of the point of my interpretation.

Would I recommend House of Leaves? That’s a hard sell for me. Because how do you succinctly sell House of Leaves to someone in a way that doesn’t ruin the surprises or put them off the book? I feel like *most* people who want to read this story will seek it out and I think the reader knows pretty early on whether or not this story is for them.

4/5

[derekscorner]

KH Fandom Miscommunication

Come, sit, let’s have a serious look over this. Don’t you find it jarring that a series based in Disney magic only ever spawns talks of echoed opinions or fierce talks of hate?

We all have fell pray to it and I’d go as far as to say I’ve had a very bad stint in it in previous years. You can’t say you like something without a swarm of hate on why you’re wrong nor can you criticize it’s writing without being told you’re wrong.

And before someone takes time to screenshot an old post of me during my awful faze or one of my meme/jokey posts let’s just take a moment to sit and really think about this conundrum.

I criticize KH all the time yet I keep posting things because most of my longer posts are a critical talk about why I dislike something. I don’t generally expect responses but I still throw them into the void to get them off my mind. (like this one)

When I do this I rarely get responses and when I do it’s just short echoed replies or just simple replies about why I am wrong. Which some topics dont really leave room for longer responses but the point is I dont usually see people on any site give a genuine answer from critical thought.

For example, if I asked you why you liked KH Days or it’s leads I’ll usually get a response of some sort of head-canon. If I’m lucky, a short response like “I find them cute and/or tragic”.

To some extent that simple feeling is fine as an answer but if someone is going to debate with me (because subjective does not seem to exist in the fandom vocabulary) don’t tell me you think they’re expertly written because of what ideals you push onto that character.

The most recent example was someone trying to discuss with me what sexuality they put on Xion which baffled me. I wont name the person, they were just being nice, but this idea still baffled me. Why? Because:

1) Xion has the body of a 14 year old with the mental experience of one year.

Her initial body didn’t even have a true face. So it’s very hard for me to imagine she’d have any semblance of that aspect of life figured out. One day she might but I highly doubt she does at this moment in time.

She’s lucky she even got a body back to experience life beyond her initial year.

2) When I ask what you like about so and so from Kingdom Hearts I want to know what, within the written story, that this character experienced, made you think that way.

Head-canon, lord forbid fanon, is something we all have but what you saw online or added in your head isn’t from the actual story. It’s not a factor when giving critical thought to the writing.

Even I will reblog Xion fan art or manga panels despite hating the DS game Days because the manga and artists add something the games do not. It’s drawn/done well and I’ll reblog it but that won’t be a positive point I add to my view of the game itself.

3) And the final issue this causes is admission. You’re telling me that you only liked this thing after adding ideas you liked to that thing.

That’s an indirect admission on your part, to me, that your initial take on the story wasn’t as positive as you remember it. You’re having to support your opinion with added fluff not found in that story to begin with.

The best example of this is Terra. I’ll make jokes but at the end of the day Terra and the BBS cast is given writing that makes their intelligence questionable.

Yes, you can infer or speculate that Terra’s trusting nature is due to his sheltered life but Terra himself never hints this. The writing doesn’t have to tell me verbatim that he is too trusting. If anything show is better than telling but do keep in mind that the story lacking this nuance is what adds to the “terra is stupid” view.

His initial mistake with Maleficent is understandable. That’s the first mission. It’s entirely possible he’s naïve but I won’t get that impression when Terra rarely feels like he learns from his misadventures.

And this is me giving a realistic look at Terra. I can’t speak highly of his middle story but his initial mistake and the death of Eraqus are two aspects in his story that’s actually done decent and makes his actions shortly after believable.

The Issue

If you’re still reading then you likely think I’ve rambled into a tangent but no. I mentioned these things because that’s something I expect to see when I hear someone telling me why they love or hate something KH related.

You think I’m wrong about Terra? Okay then tell me why based on what you saw in BBS. I may not agree but I’ll respect critical thinking. 

You think I’m right about Xion? Fine, tell me why you agree. Don’t just respond with “lol Nomura sucks ass remove him from office”. I may not necessarily disagree with your sentiment but I will not accept that as a point about why you, or me, are right about Xion compared to someone who likes her character.

Saying “nomura sucks” doesn’t tell me why you disliked Xion. I can tell you why I didn’t in long or short form but it’ll be based on the Days game I experienced. I will also always end any Xion criticism (a serious one mind you) with the undertone that I liked the manga.

I genuinely love the personality and humor the Kh manga gives the cast because I feel the games and their writing do not add the same level of humanity to them. This does not make my issues with the game writing better but rather gives me an example of how good it could be.

And I expect this civil thought in turn. If you want to joke I’ll shoot the shit with you all day but if you’re wanting a serious talk you’ll find yourself muted or losing my participation the moment you drop some tribalism like “it sucks and you’re wrong because Nomura sucks” or “you’re wrong. you’re just a hater that should quit playing the game if you hate it”.

Such responses aren’t responses. What they are is childish anger because you feel personally slighted. Acting this way doesn’t fix anything and it’ll only pollute the area you hoped to discuss it with others in.

You can’t even say “Kingdom Hearts” on twitter or a forum without a flood of why Kh3 was written by God himself or why it was so bad it should cost an old Japanese man his job.

Worse, you risk the chance of running away everyone but the five who agree with every word you say which doesn’t help you grow as a person. That just builds a bucket that you’re shouting into and hearing your echo shout back.

It’s all sad to watch and it’s even sadder knowing I was no better for it ages back. I even risk it now because I genuinely get annoyed when any level of thought is brushed off by someone just saying I hate so and so and replying constantly hoping for a conflict.

We all fall victim to it and it is just so very sad....it also makes me wonder if our generation and later is losing the capacity for critical thought thanks to social media and the internet but that’s a topic all it’s own.

Bye now. 8D

[breithenua]

Speaking as a former fan of Bill Maher, I think what is most disappointing is how reluctant he is to grow as he ages, and in response to criticism he just doubles down instead of even *considering the possibility* that he's in the wrong.

Everything about his attitude and his seeming to go further right-wing as things go on just screams that this is a man so resistant to change that he'd rather petulantly alienate people that could otherwise be on his side than actually listen.

And it's a shame, because he actually has a sharp wit and some poignant points every once in a while, but it's just ruined by this spirit of meanness for anyone that tries to point out problematic language he uses or problematic ideas he's proposed.

Like as an example of that mean-spirited nature, remember when Stan Lee died and Bill proceeded to mock all the people that were mourning him because he thought all Stan did was write stupid comics? I have to wonder if he just completely missed the point of X-Men, being about not discriminating against people that are different from you. And furthermore, it showed a willingness to mock people that have done nothing to him while they're mourning one of their heroes. Even if his comic books were just for kids (which they certainly are not), does that just mean what he wrote and/or supervised has no value? Of course not. There's a reason that Disney is so popular even with adults. There's a reason that to this day Littlefoot's mom dying still makes tons of people cry.

And it's not like fiction for children (which again, Marvel is not just for kids) has nothing adults need to learn. Ferngully had a message about taking care about the environment, which I know Bill Maher cares about too.

The Secret of Nimh has a wonderful story about a mother risking her life on a journey to get treatment for her dangerously ill child, a good lesson on how much you should care about your children (if you have any).

The Lion King is a story about a boy becoming a man and taking on a responsibility he didn't want, for the good of people that he loves.

The Pagemaster is about the balance between reading, book smarts, preparation and caution, versus actually trying to live your life a little.

An American Tail is about a family immigrating to America to have a better life, and all the struggles that come with it, as well as a story about a child being separated from his family by circumstances and trying to find them again. It is rich in references to the time period of Ellis Island being used as a check-in station for immigrants, the building of The Statue Of Liberty and the ideals it represents, what life was like in those days, and the oppression and discrimination most immigrants faced at the time, regardless of their country of origin. God knows a few American Conservatives could've stood to learn from that movie about compassion for those from different lands *stares in Family Separations At The Border*.

But I got off topic there, I digress. This post was originally about Bill Maher and his reluctance to take in criticism or new ideas, especially sources he treats with derision. It's more than just fiction with him, obviously. More often than not lately, it's been his language regarding the trans community, and his reaction to being asked to use different terms or think about how he talks about us in general (I'm NB). He has the wits to be a great ally for us, he just doesn't do so. And it's disappointing.