#that's why the quality on this one isn't so good

[neurospiczzzziee]

Blitzø is actually really good at Art

From an Art Educator Perspective

Okay so I saw some posts on Blitzø actually really enjoying art and that being his passion other than horses. I don't know if in the fandom we have had this consensus or if this is a hot take on my part, but Blitzø is actually really good at drawing.

You may ask why I know this and why I am so confident?

My credibility: I literally specialize in it.

I am a professional artist. I am a High School Art Teacher, who got their degree in art education and attended a well acclaimed art school.

(Self-taught artists are extremely valid and you do not need to go to art school to be an "actual artist". I am bringing up my background to show that I have a lot of knowledge of the development of fine motor skills and the ranges of art abilities and how to further improve them.)

As an educator, if Blitzø was a student and I saw Blitzø's drawings/doodles I would automatically recognize that he was actually advanced in abilities. Based on looking at his drawings I can tell if he were to actually take his time and focus on something he could create really beautifully detailed/rendered artwork.

You may ask how I know this??? I'm glad you asked.

THE AMOUNT OF LINE QUALITY THAT IS DEMONSTRATED IN BLITZØ'S DRAWINGS IS INSANE.

✨Art Lesson time✨

Okay so everyone learning to draw goes through the necessary stages of development

I'm just going to give humans as an example because obviously this is a fictional demon we are talking about.

Generally everyone goes through these stages as they grow and work on learning to draw. (Prodigies are extremely rare and I've only seen one once)

Art skills are like a sport. You need to train in order to develop fine motor abilities and control in your hands. The more you draw and do art the more you gain control of your muscles. It takes a lot of time and years of work to improve.

When a person's fine motor skills aren't as developed their lines tend to be shaky and they have less control. The more a person draws the better their line control becomes.

(Think of when you were little and you were first learning how to write)

The way I can tell how advanced Blitzø is, is through his line quality.

Now what is Line Quality?

This is a screenshot from this wonderful article

So in Blitzø's artwork he very much illustrates good Line control, force, thickness, and fluidity.

Okay first of all I want to Mention

THAT BLITZØ IS DRAWING IN PEN. You can tell this because different parts of the Calendar are crossed out with his scribbles. Also anybody with a calendar knows you have to write with a pen.

LOOK AT HOW CLEAN, FLUID AND CONFIDENT THESE LINES ARE DESPITE THAT HE IS DRAWING IN PEN!???

My assumption is that Blitzø is not using a reference for these drawings. You could make the argument that he has photos for M&M, Loona, and Stolas; however, he definitely does not have a photo of Striker.

I want to mention how dynamic of a pose he is drawing people in. He isn't avoiding hands at all. All of the hands are relatively accurate (Strikers especially).

In these drawings you see variation in line weight meaning parts of his lines are thicker to thinner. So Blitzø is purposely pressing harder and lighter to show variation and depth. His lines are very clean. I don't see repetitive Stokes and lines for the shapes. He is really confident with his mark making and you can tell because his lines aren't shaky at all.

By looking at his line quality and how clean it is you can tell he drew it quickly.

Not to mention he actually has a huge range of items he can draw confidently including and not limited to horses, weapons, leashes, cars, demons, and of course genitalia.

Blitzø isn't what you call a one trick pony 🐴 when it comes to what he can draw.

You can see this skill demonstrated in his other doodles.

You can even see this ability demonstrated in his drawings on the whiteboard

Okay anybody who has drawn on a whiteboard knows that they are difficult to draw on.

Whiteboards smear and are very streaky. In this photo you can tell where Blitzø made a mistake or changed information. Notice that none of his drawings have any smears. That means he did these drawings in literally one take.

I also want to mention his drawings in spring breakers. He is speed drawing directions and illustrating a plan perfectly to his employees.

HE IS LITERALLY RAPID FIRE SPEED DRAWING HERE

His drawing of Veroskika which he DREW FROM MEMORY.

Demonstrates the following:

Line control, Line Confidence, Line Fluidity, Variation in Line weight, and still has relatively correct proportions!?

Basically shut up MOXIE?!!! He did a good job!

Why have we not seen more detailed Blitzø artwork?

Okay so I as we know in the show Blitzø puts his doodles everywhere. So if he is good at Art why isn't he showing his artwork he spent a long time on????

The answer: he's insecure

Showing someone your art is a very vulnerable action. This is especially true if you spent a long time on it.

If someone doesn't like or makes fun of your doodle you can brush it off and be like well it's only a sketch and I did it in under 5 min.

It's a lot easier to show someone a silly little horse drawing you did than something you poured your heart and soul into.

We already are aware that Blitzø is insecure and has self-esteem issues. He literally covers his face in the photos of himself throughout his apartment. He is a very guarded individual. Of course he wouldn't show people the art he spent hours on. What if people reject them? They judge him for spending that much time? What if they see how much he actually loves them?

Blitzø feels like the kind of person who would crumple up or destroy his art that he spends long amounts of time on. It's a way of self-sabotaging yourself and further self-loathing.

Now do I think he has these hours long art pieces/drawings????

ABSOLUTELY

My guess is that Blitzø most likely has a hidden sketchbook. Artists tend to draw their loved ones and especially their children and partners.

There is no doubt in my mind that Blitzø hasn't been doing long observational drawings of Stola's especially when he is sleeping.

He has most likely been drawing Loona all the time. Why do you think he takes all the photos? Those are his references. He has probably been drawing detailed artwork of his loved ones this whole time (and of course horses too lol).

In conclusion

Blitzø actually can draw really well because his doodles demonstrate high levels of skill in line quality.

Going forward I would really appreciate if someone actually finds Blitzø's sketchbook or portfolio of his artwork he spent large amounts of time on. It would be really cute. It would be adorable if Loona or Stolas found them.

Blitzø could gain more confidence and put is artwork he really cares about on display 🥺

I also just want Moxie to find out and eat his words. (Guys I swear I don't hate Moxie 😂)

Thank you for joining me here today on my Ted talk on how I think Blitzø is actually a talented artist. I'm just an art teacher who has problems with how much helluva boss lives in rent free in my head.

[kiame-sama]

Hey, question. How many requests are we able to send in before you get annoyed with us? I'm not talking about sending in two three requests a day, but like, how many a week? Obviously, not every request, complement, or drabble is going to get a reply - as is expected of any blog, but especially one of this quality - so waiting until a response isn't the move. In theory, since I am an anon, if I didn't announce my presence, you would have no idea it was me popping up in your inbox with frequency, but since I'm named, not telling you it's me would feel... scummy and disrespectful. So, yeah. How many things can we send to your inbox before you go from, "Oh, it's them!"(/pos) to "Oh... it's them."(/neg). ~Wolf-non

That depends.

If they are different in nature from one another (ie. One request about harpies, and one request about Divus) I usually go "oh yeah, it's this person! Alright, you go funky lil anon." But if they are the same over and over with only slight variation (ie. I WANT PENGUIN SIRENS and CAN YOU MAKE ONE OF THE GUYS A PENGUIN BECAUSE I LOVE PENGUINS SO MUCH??? and I WANT TO BE A PENGUIN, SO YOU NEED TO MAKE THE HUMAN A PENGUIN FOR ME BECAUSE I WANT IT) I will get annoyed and angry and will be tempted to share the horrific facts about said animal that I know just to make them be quiet and stop messaging me about that topic.

This is unfortunate because anyone else who sends in a request that has the same topic (since I can't tell between anons that don't identify themselves) will suffer the same punishment even if they were not the problem because they are similar enough requests to the problem anon. (Hence why I refuse to take any hxh requests involving Kurapika because one person thought it a good idea to spam me with almost identical requests repeatedly about Kurapika, now I just dislike writing for the character due to their actions.)

(Person who keeps demanding I make one of the guys (WHO I HAVE ALREADY DECIDED SPECIES FOR) into a penguin simply because you are obsessed with penguins and continuously demand more penguins in MY writing, I will come UNGLUED and you will be blocked. My patience has set limits and you are exceeding them very quickly.)

I also have an unfortunate tendency to just delete any request similar to the one that angered me and avoiding what they want rather petulantly due to my irritation. In example of the penguin anon that won't leave me the hell alone about penguins, I will not be adding a penguin character or anything to do with penguins until they stop annoying the hell out of me with their demands for penguins. I am not a pet that does tricks when you scream and demand, I will block nuisances who see it fit to prod at me for their own amusement.

I can block on anon and will do so if annoyed enough. I will not be hearing any "please unblock me, I didn't mean to make you angry!" After 5+ near identical requests about the same thing over and over or demands that I adhere to what they want in my writing.

That's not to say I don't understand when Internet connection is shoddy and can send the same request 3 times due to unstable network, but 5 is excessive and the person better have a good explanation for why they saw fit to send it 5 times. I also like suggestions and ideas about going forward, but I LOATHE demands. A good part of my AuHD has extreme issue with Demands and Commands, especially from people I don't know/respect as an authority.

[televisionenjoyer]

WHY ARE MOVIES GETTING DARKER I AM ON MY KNEES

Ok fuck it let's go. My amateurish opinions on the three biggest mysteries of film: why they're getting darker, less vibrant and harder to hear. As someone who has worked on camera, montaging, effects and animations, colorimetry when I'm allowed, and on one weird occasion, audio (but I'm an enthusiast ok?)

The short answer is because of technology. The long answer is more nuanced

- Why are movies getting darker?

The "official answer" that filmmakers give actually is technology. Digital cameras allow for much more detail with less lighting required. It also allows videographers to play with different light and exposure settings on the go, instead of having to go with the limitations of the pre-bought film's asa and the precalculated ideal settings. Also film is notoriously bad at capturing dark scenes and responsible for much of the graining we see on analog tv and film.

So basically, they claim it's a stylistic choice. Which could be debated, I mean, after at least five years of everyone complaining about poor lighting, you'd think they'd finally give it up.

BUT there's the whole fact that (certain) special effects are generally easier to pull off when the viewer can't see enough to detect any flaws. They require less care and thus are cheaper and faster to produce. Any studio's wet dream.

Less notably, it's easier to work "down" on colorimetry than it is to work "up." Taking away light from a shot is easier than "creating more light", the latter sometimes leading to very "digitally broken" results. It looks bad. Just grab any video and crank the exposure. It looks horrible.

"But what does exposure have to do with color?" Everything!!! Color IS light!!!

Which leads me to the last reason, HDR. Which leads me to one of the reasons why everything looks so dull.

- Why are movies less vibrant?

So. What is HDR? High Dynamic Range refers to technologies that achieve a much wider light variation. And as we established earlier color IS light, okay? So. More light, more color, brought to you at the hand of display technologies such as OLED and microdimming.

These technologies ramp up the price of domestic screens exponentially. This is why you see domestic televisions that are way above the 2000 dollar mark. And then people will say "oh but my low end television supports HDR, so that's not the issue". Yes. Supports. As in supports files encoded in HDR. Doesn't mean that they have the necessary technology to take advantage of it. Yet they get to put the HDR10 label on their product and get in on the newest marketing fad (it's the new 4k dude. Which is the new 3D. You get what I mean)

And since it is the newest fad, then of course filmmakers HAVE to get in on it. I mean, it's more quality, who doesn't want more quality?

me!!! please stop. not everything has to be aimed at high end equipment (more on this when we get to the audio aspect, aren't you excited?). HDR looks like DOGSHIT if your tv isn't actually OLED. And most consumer TV's aren't OLED.

Tech rant over, I assure you that there is a cultural aspect to this. Don't worry, you're not insane. And it probably is related to the clean girl minimalist iOS style UX modest and demure mentality that is advancing on the 2020s. But it is also related to an art medium shift that we've been undergoing since wayy back when. The sixties.

Yes. I'm gonna go there. I'm gonna talk about Star Trek. I'm going to elaborate on my previous slight outrage.

So. Star Trek marks the beginning of a transition from black and white television into color. It also lands on that weird spot where the whole medium of film and television was still figuring out which elements to import from the ancient medium of theater and which were best left behind.

As a result, Star Trek is very theatrical. And color is a good friend of theater, a medium where everything has to be maximized so that the people in row fifty could appreciate the show almost as well as the people on the first row. Color is a good friend of theater: in wardrobe it helps the performers stand out, boosts up the characters' personality traits, etc. And in lighting, it amplifies moods, conveys emotions and atmospheres related to particular scenes.

The version of Star Trek that you can find on streaming these days is considerably altered from the original product, remastered to make it more palatable to our contemporary brains. As a result, many scenes have been visually altered. The following example shows the original master on the left and the remaster on the right

And while at first I held my head in my hands and asked "why, god, why??" The answer is probably that this reads as unserious as fuck. Having the technology now to desaturate scenes and make certain settings look "cloudy", "gritty", "dark and grim," and so on changed the way we perceive colors in regards to mood on modern film and television. This primary color ass setting in today's context reads as goofy, on a scene that is actually meant to impose concern on the viewers. This wouldn't read this way on theater, but it does on television, because we see them as completely separate mediums.

(however I insist that, star trek being a culturally significant show, making these type of creative decisions strips it of its original intent and shits on its cultural value as a window into how they did television in the sixties. so like. fuck you paramount)

Now, television has been getting thematically darker this century (some call it the post-9/11 effect. I wouldn't know. I am latinoamerican) and our palate as viewers has grown more used to these desaturated settings, to the point where seeing something vibrant like the original star trek makes us feel like we're watching a kids show. And not even a modern kids show, more like teletubbies or barney, because have you guys even seen bluey?? It's so... pastel-y.

It's not just HDR. Movies have gotten less vibrant because we're miserable. Sort of. And television and film have grown obsessed with appearing more serious. (Not that sitcoms and comedy movies have ceased to exist, I'm generalizing.)

- But why is dialogue less intelligible?

Official Answer? Technology. Nowadays we are able to capture subtleties in dialogue, so actors don't have to project their voice 24/7, and we can get more intimate dialogue, something almost intended to be a secret that you shouldn't be listening to, making you feel like an intruder. It's the intent.

Unofficially? Technology (marketing fad edition). It's surround audio!!! That's the real culprit!!! And listen, I love surround audio, I have two 5.1 systems at home that we bought secondhand and work like a charm. All that being said: why is star trek tos in 5.1? (YES I'm still on star trek). Why is everything natively encoded in surround audio on streaming these days, left to be down-mixed in real time by your tv?

I'm going to quickly explain surround to y'all using 5.1 as an example. On stereo (which is how most consumers watch film and television) you have two audio channels: your left and right speakers. 5.1 has six: front-left, center, front-right, rear-left, rear-right, and subwoofer. Most dialogue goes through the center speaker. Downmixing is when your tv takes all these channels and mushes them into two: left channel (containing left-front, left rear, center and subwoofer) and right channel (right front, right rear, center and subwoofer). So your center channel is suddenly competing with all these other frequencies and gets a bit muffled.

But wait! It gets worse! 5.1 is now ancient by technology fad standards. For a while there was 7.1 and now the newest, incredibly expensive marketing fad is Dolby Atmos (you might have seen it as a badge on streaming services such as Disney plus). This protocol supports up to 64 channels. You know, if you're crazy and rich enough.

Dolby Atmos was originally developed for cinemas but it's now being sold to direct consumers. According to Dolby, the ideal sound configuration in your home in order to listen to this material the way it was intended from the comfort of your living room is of at least eight (very fancy) speakers and up to 12 speakers.

So. Even with a 5.1 system your audio is still down-mixed.

In conclusion:

Film and television did not get shittier (well, they have, but that's not the sole culprit of this crisis), it just became less accessible and overall uninterested in catering to the average consumer.

[bemusedlybespectacled]

The context you're missing is that the reason the person is immoral or corrupt is their genes. The word originally meant "someone who is worse than their ancestors" (so definitely still related to ancestry, even if they didn't know what DNA was). Essentially, the reason you're a bad person isn't because of your actions; it's because you were born that way, and nothing you can do can ever change it. And, conversely, being a good person is also genetic, and nothing you can do can ever change that, either.

Why is that a problem? Well, in the late 1800s/early 1900s, eugenics (the opposite of degeneration; "de" means down, "eu" means "good") became a popular "scientific" theory. It's the idea that every bad thing that happens to or is done by a person is actually a result of their genes. Not just actual genetic disorders, like Tay-Sachs disease, but also being poor or committing crimes. Literally, their thought process was, "We see that the children of poor families tend to also be poor. That must mean that poverty is genetic." (this was actually pretty well debunked in like 1911 but weirdly it kept being popular in/promoted by super racist people hmm I wonder why that would be)

If you were genetically perfect, then of course you'd be healthy, strong, intelligent, hardworking, wealthy, moral, and, most importantly, white; lacking any of those qualities meant that there was something wrong with your DNA somewhere. The best way to ensure that everyone was successful would be to just get rid of anything – that is, anyone – genetically bad, so that only the best people could breed with each other and have perfect children.

How do you do that? Well, for one, you make it illegal for anyone to marry outside of their race, and you make the requirements to be white incredibly difficult to prove (it wasn't based on skin color, but on any non-white heritage, no matter how white you actually looked) and draw the lines for everyone else very broadly (in the US South, it was literally "white" or "colored," with "colored" meaning anything from "just immigrated here from Africa" to "mostly white with a bit of Native American"), and require all of them to have some kind of identifying document or badge so that you can tell which is which. And you make it legal to sterilize undesirables: disabled people (both physical and mental), nonwhite people, and people of poor moral character (remember, being bad is genetic, and also in this era you think being gay is also a sign of poor moral character), just to ensure that there's absolutely no chance that someone might accidentally or deliberately sneak in.

(Eventually, you can also just kill them. Because that other stuff is taking too long.)

But remember! Evil is genetic! So of course there are always going to be nefarious actors deliberately trying to bring the whole race down and make it worse/weaker! And what's their evil plan? They'll encourage mixing good people with bad people with diabolical schemes like "making modern art" and "thinking it's okay for white people to listen to jazz" and "promoting civil rights for minorities." And what do we call "people who bring the whole race down"? Degenerates!

this was my thesis in college before i had a nervous breakdown so i know a lot about it. don't even get me started on how birth certificates are racist.

DNI lists on this website are fucking insane

[screamingtheo]

So I had this really stupid idea...

[uniiiquehecrt]

Voice actors are NOT the same as actors.

It takes a specific kind of skill-set and training to be able to warp and meld the voice. It takes a certain kind of talent and dedication to hone that talent into the ability to meld the voice and invoke emotion with one's voice alone. Actors are used to using their voice secondarily to their body language and their facial expressions. It's all mirrored back on camera. They do have nuance. But it's a different kind of nuance and a different kind of training to produce that nuance.

Voice actors might get their likeness transposed on their character's design, and maybe their mannerisms might seep into the character's animation. But when it's all said and done: their presence is in their voice. They are bringing a character to life, showing that emotion in their voice, trying to keep a specific accent, drawl, pitch, tone in that voice and keep it consistent for their recording sessions.

The voice actor is like a classically trained musician who can play first chair in a competitive, world-renown orchestra. The actor (who fills the voice actor's role) is like a moot who played violin in beginner and intermediate high school orchestra and thinks they can get into Juilliard with that 2-4 years of experience.

This doesn't mean that the HS orchestra moot can't play. They can even be really good at it. Maybe they won competitions and sat first chair. But they are not in the same league as the person who's been training their whole lives and lives and breathes to hone their craft using the instrument and all of the training they've ever acquired to perfect it. They are not meant for the same roles. They are not in the same caliber. You do not hire the HS equivalent when you want to play complex music in a competitive orchestra.

Actors are not the same as voice actors.

And furthermore, actors - especially big name actors - taking the roles of animated characters for big budget films or TV pilots makes no sense anyways when - at least in the case of TV pilots - there's not a point to hiring a big budget actors anyways. That money could be used elsewhere (like paying your animators), and the talent that is brought onto the screen for X character could then be hired on to voice said character no recasting required.

I wouldn't say voice acting as a profession is in danger exactly, but it's certainly being disrespected and overlooked for celebrity clout, and this has ALWAYS been an issue. Shoot, even Robin Williams knew that much - which is why he tried so hard not to be used as a marketing chess piece for Aladdin and got royally pissed off when it happened anyways. People shouldn't go to any movie (but especially not animated films) because "oh famous actor is in it". People should go because it's a good movie and the voice acting is good.

People who honest to god think that voice actors are replaceable because "oh well anyone can voice act" or "I like xyz celebrity so naturally it'll be good" ... Honestly I just wish you'd reassess your priorities because you're missing the point and are part of the problem.

Voice Actors ≠ Actors.

[jjinpang]

Art is objective.

your personal experience with a work is subjective.

but the quality of works are objective

[volivolition]

Sooo whenever you check the playlist you're gonna notice I added a Lot of Fall Out Boy to it. One song for each of their albums (... And a couple off a few EPs we loved as a teen). We're,, Kind of on a FOB kick right now, lol. Anywayyyy

You don't have to give us your opinions on all of those songs, but two specifically stand out to us that we wanna hear your thoughts on: You're Crashing, But You're No Wave, and Sophomore Slump Or Comeback Of The Year.

You're Crashing is our favourite off IOH and Sophomore Slump is our favourite off Corktree! Both are very important to us in their own ways—The chorus of You're Crashing is just... Wonderful. Very powerful sounding. The whole song has a powerful evocative energy to it but the chorus always gets us tbh. And Sophmore Slump is one of those songs that helped get us through highschool; the post-chorus and bridge mean the world to us. We misheard the final lyric in the post-chorus for a LONG while as "And I need to take a pill to make the sounds feel okay" which really aligned with how we experience synesthesia... We still prefer that lyric over the actual lyric, lmao.

So, yeah! Let us know what you think when you have the time, we lov you <22 <33

-Cygnus

HI CYGNUS!! i did see the Fall Out Boy additions!! i really love the sparse fob songs i know, but i don't actually go out of my way to explore their discography more closely, so it's delightful to listen to other ones, especially ones that are important to y'all!! :3

You're Crashing, But You're No Wave - REALLY LOVE THE GUITAR IN THIS!!! (<- always as expected for FOB hgkjg) i love how solemn but strong it is, how so many of the lyrics are sung :0 "THE VERDICT FALLS LIKE BACH-E-LORS FOR BAD LUCK GIRLS!" is sung so quick, and oooh the fuckin chorus :'0 baby boy can't lift his headache head~ :'] the choir rising on "Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty~" this is a real funeral of a trial, a damnation. goddamn, really good!! :D

Sophomore Slump Or Comeback of the Year - something about this song sounds really classic boyband, im really fond of the vibe hfkjg YEAH, sometimes you mishear the lyric but its more meaningful anyway, so now that lyric is yours. they said "i hope you sing along and steal a line" and guess what, y'all did it, that's your line now!! /silly :3 hdgkjg im glad it helped y'all through high school, with the vibes of like, "are we growing up or just going down" i think that'd be relatable to high school me too hgkj <33 <22

[unproduciblesmackdown]

(genderly) chill as hell if i was only ever glimpsed / detected like this

[kangpingyu]

why is gif making becoming a lost art in fandom spaces

[renegadeontherunn]

hi! this is my small, gentle reminder that you don’t have to be like other people. I know the best parts of other people are beautiful and exciting and just so cool, but you don’t need to be everything. it’s okay not to be as good at watercolor as your sister or not give good advice like your mom does and it’s okay to love qualities in other people. sometimes other people’s words or their idiosyncrasies or the way they part their hair is so wonderful that you want to join, you want to feel the way about yourself, about the not-as-great parts of yourself that you do about the best parts of them. and it’s okay if you start listening to The Killers because it’s your brother’s favorite band or if you decide you want to get red converse like the ones your best friend has. but it’s okay if you can’t “keep up” with their grades or will never be able to do eyeliner as well as they can or maybe it seems like they just love life more than you do. I just want you to know that there are unattainable parts of you too. you can like things about other people that you don’t have, and you don’t have to give a compliment thinking god I wish I was like that. you don’t have to be like that. it’s okay to just be the things you are. you don’t have to be everything. 

[sskk-manifesto]

:/

[despertara]

Irene bro if you see this I want you to know I've been podcasting (talking loudly and emphatically to myself) abt that Grammy Gun post for Hours. I started ranting in the rb tags and then I got so mad I started a spreadsheet on my phone Yes I have the Excel app. No I did not finish my tags

[lock-my-feelings-in-a-jar]

[floralovebot]

what is your one winx doll? i would assume flora but i could be wrong lol

it's actually musa!! though i understand the flora assumption ajkdhg tbf i Want flora dolls but again, winx dolls are very expensive so most of the time i just look at them and sigh :')

look at her :') she's so pretty :')

[iamthedukeofurl]

I feel like the Hbomberguy plagiarism video has a lot of really good lessons about building an argument. Like, the thesis of the video isn't just "Plagiarism is rife on Youtube", although that point was certainly well made, it was specifically about James Somerton, who isn't mentioned until about halfway through the video. Before then, Hbomb goes through several creators who are already widely discredited as plagiarists, and in each section he introduces concepts that are later incorporated into the final takedown of Somerton, but each section also stands on it's own. Like, he starts with Filip, the game reviewer, which he uses to introduce the format of how he will discuss and expose plagiarists. Specifically, the graphic of displaying the source material while the plagiarist's voice plays, and marking up said source material every time the plagiarist changes some wording slightly. This is the method that Hbomb uses across the entire video. With Illuminaughtii, Hbomb introduces a few major concepts 1) The idea of Insufficient citation. Illuminaughtii "Cites" her sources by putting a plaintext pastebin link in her video descriptions with no indication of how each source was used. Technically, her source is CITED, but not in any relevant or useful way. She has a big list of stuff she read, and a random youtube link in there happens to be the source that she stole 90% of the video from. 2) He introduces the profit motive behind this approach. Putting out a lot of content very quickly is how one builds an audience, and therefore an income, out of making stuff on youtube. Plagiarism of this sort is a way to produce content very quickly and build a following. The Internet Historian section introduces two new concepts:

1) The behavior of an exposed plagiarist, taking down and reuploading videos with minor changes, awkwardly trying to insert credit without admitting guilt. 2) That the plagiarists are stealing not just research, but STYLE. Previous sections go over how the plagiarists are reusing the same words, but this section oozes over how much of the final product's quality was the result of how well the source material was written. TIH didn't just crib the notes from the Mentalfloss article, he created a video heavily dependent on the original author's skill as a writer. When TIH tried his own hand at presenting the same set of facts, it came out much worse. So that when the time comes for the Somerton takedown, Hbomb has already laid the groundwork to bring these concepts back. Somerton takes down and reuploads videos when he's caught, he declares this his video is "based on" work by somebody else without providing proper citation. He's not just stealing research done by somebody else, he's taking their insights and talent as a writer and regurgitating it as his own, and he's doing so to churn out a vast wall of content that he can financially benefit from, and he doesn't need to tell you why this is important, because he's already done so. He already convinced you that Illuminaughtii hiding a line in a pastebin didn't excuse her plagiarism, so you don't need to be told why Somerton saying his video is "Based On" somebody else's book doesn't excuse it.