#there are many criticisms to make about the adaptation but this just isn't one of them

[spirantization]

I'm surprised at the hate that Sokka's character arc from NATLA is receiving. To me, Sokka's development and characterization was one of the strongest adaptations the series made.

In the original ATLA, Sokka's character arc revolves around him unlearning his own misogyny. He makes pointedly sexist comments throughout the early episodes like "Leave it to a girl to screw things up!", "There's no way a bunch of girls took us down!", etc.

Sokka's comments have a strong narrative purpose: they give a platform for women in the show (Katara & Suki mostly) to refute his attitude. Katara emphasizes traditional "women's work" (cleaning, cooking, sewing, etc), which forces Sokka to confront its inherent value. Suki is able to prove to him that women can fight too and he learns to respect female warriors. It's a great character arc and it's well-executed.

It's also characterization that is in direct response to the culture and feminism of the 90s and early 00s. The representation of women in the media at that time was...oof. It was not great. One-dimensional love interests whose only purpose is being saved by the male protagonist, mostly. Female protagonists were not as common, and certainly not ones who were depicted as being able to fight, and certainly not in cartoons. Female protagonists in animation were almost exclusively princesses.

ATLA was progressive in this regard. Katara was a complex female character in a time when there were not a lot of them, in media in general but especially in animation and kid's shows. (I grew up in the 90s; there were no characters like Katara in animation on screen for me.) ATLA incorporated the zeitgeist directly into the story, which is why we have Sokka learning to overcome his sexism in his interactions with Strong Female Characters.

If you go back and watch the original cartoon now, Sokka's sexism feels a bit dated. It's a very 90s, Girl Power, "girls can fight too" style of social commentary. It doesn't match with the media landscape of today. We've got 20 years of media with female superheroes behind us. If your message is "girls can fight too!" the response for the most part is going to be "yes, we know that. And?"

So imagine you're adapting the original ATLA for a live-action remake. You want to keep Sokka's character arc intact, but you want to update it for the 2020s. So what do you do? You look at the conversations that are happening today.

The 90s were about "girls can do everything boys can do", but the 20s are over that. The conversation is more about gender: gender expression, gender roles, gender dynamics. What does is mean to be a woman? What does it mean to be a man?

Sokka's character arc in NATLA is focused on this question: What does it mean to be a man? At the beginning of the series, it's his identity as a warrior that defines him. He needs to be the warrior, the protector, the leader. He's constantly trying to reaffirm this part of his identity, and it's completely tied up in his perception of his value as a man. Instead of his interactions with Suki being about "how could girls possibly be warriors", it shifts to Sokka saying "I'm ALSO a warrior" and trying to justify that to Suki (and mostly himself).

His arc over the series is about him accepting other aspects of himself and relearning how to define his masculinity. He can still have value as man without being the greatest warrior. He can still have value as a man by using his skills as an engineer. He can still have value as a man by offering compassion and kindness to others, like the little girl with the doll & Yue in her final moments. Instead of rigidly defining himself by a specific set of gender roles & expectations, he learns how to define himself through his own strengths and qualities.

I know there are a lot of people who are upset at this change to Sokka's characterization, and the most common thing I see is that it results in changes to Katara's character and her anger in response to Sokka's comments. I think there are valid criticisms to be made about how the show handled the adaptation of Katara's character, but I won't go there with this. In terms of Sokka and his characterization, it was well-done and thematically consistent with the original. It's not an exact port, and it never needed to be. It's still a feminist arc that centres on unlearning harmful misogynistic worldviews, but the focus has shifted from external (roles of women) to internal (his role as a man). And his journey is one that people would benefit from seeing represented.

[army-of-bee-assassins]

i feel like this season of h/dm has gotten considerably worse but also i'm not 100% sure i'm remembering the previous seasons correctly. i remember mostly liking them and just finding some things weird. but maybe it was just as bad as this season and the amount of time that's passed since i watched them has simply made me forget how much stuff i didn't like

[markrosewater]

Hi Mark. With a lot of talk recently in the online space about the unreasonable outrage and horrendous death threats towards the Commander Rules Committee and Commander Advisory Group, I want to thank you for being the proverbial "shield" for some of the most heinous and grotesque backlash towards WOTC as the unofficial public representative for MTG. I know it can be absolutely draining for your mental health to receive harassment in this position, so I just want to say I am grateful and empathize that you are in this position. With that being said, as one of the most prominent faces of Magic, is it possible if you could say a word or two about the aforementioned harassment towards the RC and CAG to deter these harassers and possibly share your own experiences regarding unconstructive hate to help the victims of such depravity (if you're comfortable sharing)?

There are advantages and disadvantages of being one of the faces for Magic. When people like something we're doing, even when I had nothing to do with it, I get lots of praise. Most players only know a handful of Wizards employees, so they tend to assume that the people they know are responsible for the things that are happening.

There is, of course, a downside to that. When things happen people dislike, I'm also the light rod for complaint. Whether or not I had anything to do with the issue in question, I get the blame. I am Head Designer. Many times, I did have a hand or a say in what happened. And when I'm responsible, or partly responsible, for something, I try to own up to it.

Players are not a unified front though. When we do thing X, some of you will like it while others will not. I often will get complimented for the same thing I'm being yelled at for.

From time to time, we do something a majority are unhappy with. At times, we do things a majority are *very* unhappy with. That's when things can get a bit ugly. There are a lot of civilities built into daily life. There are just things you don't do or say to another human being. Most of that goes out the window online.

For some reason, the anonymity combined with just how social media has evolved has emboldened people to do and say things they never would in person (and I should also acknowledge society has changed in ways that even what's acceptable in person has changed).

What this means is I get a lot of negativity, some of it very personal. I'm not just talking about people criticizing the in-game choices I've made (or often didn't even make), but comments on me as a person, about who I am and what they think of me. People tell me that want bad things to happen to me. Not just getting fired (although that's a popular one), people vocalize, sometimes quite graphically, about things they want to happen to me.

The first few times this happened, I took it pretty hard. Having lots of people attack you online, saying horrible things about you, is tough. Humans look to other humans for approval. It's just built into our DNA to want others to like us. Having people attack you hurts. You have trouble sleeping, eating, it just weighs on you emotionally.

I was bullied as a kid. This really isn't much different except its much higher in volume and very public.

With time, I learned to adapt to it. It's not that I enjoy people saying nasty things about me. It still sucks, but I've found ways to process it. I came to realize that someone being nasty is more a commentary on them than me. And I adopted a philosophy of looking past the words to the message behind it. Most people complaining didn't like a choice we made about the game. I could focus on the feedback and less on the delivery method. But that took years, and it has a lot to do with who I am as a person. I enjoy the things I get to do with a public profile, so I accept what comes with it.

I've made the conscious choice to build a thick skin and weather social media, so I can continue doing what I love. It saddens me that I have to.

I say all this because I don't know if people really process the harm they're doing when they get negative online, especially towards another person. Most people do not have the years of processing angry messages like I do.

Words have an impact and that doesn't matter whether you're speaking them directly to someone's face or typing them in the privacy of your home.

Bullying is not okay. Cruelty is not okay. Making a conscious choice to belittle another human being, especially because they made a choice you disagree with about a game, is not okay.

When you use ugly words, you are doing harm to another human being (sometimes many human beings). Imagine if someone attacked you like that, or a loved one, or a friend. Don't do something to another human being that would cause pain if it was done to you.

That doesn't mean you can't communicate unhappiness. It doesn't mean you can't vocalize that you disagree with a decision made. I would stress two things. One, make it about the decision and not the person who made the decision. Explain why and how the decision impacts you, not what you think of the person because they made the decision.

Two, watch your language. As I said above, words have power. They can be used to build or to destroy. Is the language you're using designed to hurt? If so, don't use it. Use other language. If you need to take time to calm down, do so.

Community is what we as individuals choose for it to be. One of the things I love about the Magic community is how kind it can be, how accepting it can be, how uplifting it can be. But that's because we each individually choose to do that. The Magic community can get ugly, but only if we allow it to become so.

So please, the next time you're making a message designed to do something destructive rather than constructive, take a moment to reflect. Why are you doing this? What is your goal? Is it your intent to hurt someone? Because that's what negative language does.

I ask the Magic community to be better. I know we have the potential. I've seen it.

Be part of the solution, not the problem.

Thanks.

[sparrowlucero]

Even if a creator is a bad person it's still okay to like their work. People need to mind their own business.

Honestly it's not really that sort of situation. I'll actively defend Steven Moffat here.

There was a huge hate movement for him back in the early 2010s - which, in retrospect, formed largely because he was running 2 of the superwholock shows at once, one of which went through extremely long hiatuses* and the other of which was functionally an adaptation of an already well regarded show**, making him subject to a sort of double ire in the eyes of a lot of fandom people. Notably, his co-showrunner, Mark Gatiss, is rarely mentioned and much of his work is still attributed to Moffat (and yes, this includes that Hbomberguy video. Several of "Steven Moffat's bad writing choices" were not actually written by him, they were Gatiss.)

People caricatured the dude into a sort of malicious, arrogant figure who hated women and was deliberately mismanaging these shows to spite fans, to the point where people who never watched them believe this via cultural osmosis. It became very common to take quotes from him out of context to make them look bad***, to cite him as an example of a showrunner who hated his fans, someone who sabotaged his own work just to get at said fans, someone who was too arrogant to take criticism, despite all of this being basically a collective "headcanon" about the guy formed on tumblr. Some if it got especially terrible, like lying about sexual assault (I don't mean people accused him of sexual assault and I think they're making it up, I mean people would say things like "many of his actresses have accused him of sexual assault on set" when no such accusations exist in the first place. This gets passed around en masse and is, in my opinion, absolutely rancid.)

On top of that a ton of the criticism directed at the shows themselves is, personally, just terrible media criticism. So much of it came from assuming a very hostile intent from the writer and just refusing to engage with the text at all past that.

Like some really common threads you see with critique of this writer's work, especially in regards to Doctor Who since that's the one I'm most familiar with:

A general belief that his lead characters were meant to be ever perfect self inserts, and so therefore when they act shitty or arrogant or flawed in any way, that's both reflective of the author and something the show wants you to view as positive or aspirational.

An overarching thesis that his characters are "too important" in the narrative due to the writer's arrogance and self obsession (even though this is a very deliberate theme that's stated several times)

A lot of focus on the writer personally "attacking" the fans or making choices primarily out of spite.

A tendency to treat the show being different to what it's adapting as inherently bad and hostile towards the original.

Just generally very little consideration and engagement with the themes, intent, etc. of the shows

This one's a little more nebulous and doesn't apply to all critique but a lot of it, especially recently, is clearly by people who haven't seen the show in like 10 years and their opinion is largely formed secondhand through like, "discourse nostalgia". Which. you know. bad.

I think these are just weird and nonsensical ways to engage with a work of fiction. I also think it's really sad to see the show boiled down to this because that era of who is, in my opinion, very thematically rich and unique among similar shows, and I'm disappointed that it's often dismissed in such a paltry way.

This isn't to say people aren't allowed to critique Steven Moffat or anything, but the context in which he basically became The Devil™ to a large portion of fandom and is still remembered in a poor light is very tied to this perfect storm of fan culture and I just don't agree with a ton of it.

* I'm sure most people have seen the way long running shows and hiatuses will cause people to fall out with a show, with some former fans turning around and joining a sort of "anti fandom" for it while it's still airing. That happened with both these shows. ** Doctor Who will change it's entire writing staff, crew, and cast every few years, and with that comes a change in style, tone, theme - the old show basically ends and is replaced by a new show under the same title. As Steven Moffat's era was the first of these handovers for the majority of audiences, you can imagine this wasn't a well loved move for many fans. *** I know for a fact most people have not sought out the sources for a lot of these quotes to check that they read the same in context because 1) most of them were deleted years ago and are very difficult to find now and 2) many of them do actually make sense in the context of their respective interviews

[not-so-plus-ultra]

Okay, maybe unpopular opinion time, but I started watching DanDaDan (ADORE it so far) and some of you are starting to become the meme of "that one friend who is too woke" about what happens in the first episode

TW for sexual assault + CW light DanDaDan spoilers if you haven't watched it yet. Its gonna be a bit ranty

First of all I wanna preface this with saying that, if Momo's scene with the aliens impacted you and / or you found it triggering, that's extremely valid. I am not claiming it isn't, specially for people who have any kind of sexual trauma. What I'm gonna say is not about that

What I mean is; I think we have gotten so used to a very big number of anime using sexual assault as a "funny" gag, having characters violate other characters' physical boundaries, or having a token perverted / incestuous / p*do character, all in the name of terrible "comedy" or fanservice, that we have started bracing up for any mention or showcase of sexual assault to be treated as a gag or as a "sexy" thing; specially when it comes to female characters, because sadly they're the victims of this 99% of the time. This, without going over the sexualization of characters in general, even when mundane things are happening

It's a sentiment I understand and share. I hate all of these tropes and "jokes" and it makes me really sad when a series I otherwise like has to include something like that. I actively criticize these kinds of things no matter how big a fan I am of a work in question

However, I think because of all this, we have forgotten that media can choose to use scenarios like that as an actual Bad thing to show. A bad and unfortunate thing that happens to a character that isn't used as comedy or as fanservice

I had heard about the sexual assault scene in DanDaDan prior to watching it, and I had decided I was gonna skip that scene, as I am someone who is both disgusted by these things and has trauma related to them. However while skipping quickly through the scene I thought it didn't look as bad as I was bracing for, so I decided it was something I could stomach. I was really surprised when I saw that the scene was strictly being handled as a bad thing happening to Momo, and that it also ultimately ended up with her escaping her assaulters before anything truly scarring happens

No jokes about the situation per se, no compromising shots other than the fact that she was in her underwear - and regarding that, the fact that she was built like a normal girl, her proportions and physical features weren't presented in any objectifying or exaggerated way, and through the whole scene she was fighting against it and being uncomfortable instead of submitting to the situation or being made to blush and get flustered about it like you can Disgracefully see in many other instances of other shows

DanDaDan is ultimately a horror / paranormal series. It's not as dark as others and it seems it doesn't pretend to be, but bad things are bound to happen. I think that, as long as you do it tastefully, almost any subject can be used for those bad things. Sexual stuff is sadly EXTREMELY misused in anime, and tbh in media in general, but I don't think it has to be a taboo thing to have your characters go through as long as youre not being weird about it

Furthermore, I think it's pretty clear that, at least the parts that have been adapted of this manga so far (I am not a manga reader btw, I have only seen the 5 anime episodes that are currently out, so if the manga later proves me defending it wrong, I'm sorry, and I'd like to hear it), are in part talking about bodily autonomy

Our mcs BOTH get assaulted, but nobody online ever pays attention to Okarun losing his genitals as him also having been assaulted simply because it's presented in a more unrealistic way. His initial motivation in the series is to retrieve his genitals, and even when he seems to have gotten them back the first time, something is still wrong (another part missing) and he can't just go about his life normally again as if nothing had happened, which I think is a clear metaphor of a victim's feelings after having been assaulted; and what is more, our first arc ends with the revelation that the ghost who did that to him seems to have done it to protect the place she's bound to, a tunnel, from men, for we get told that many girls have gotten sexually assaulted, killed and dismembered in it

About Okarun, I DO get that his situation is shown in a bit of a silly light because haha penis, but I am also afraid that people would have reacted a lot more if he was a girl losing his genitals instead even if it was painted in the same light. Both Momo and Okarun got out of the situation fighting, both of them were brave and as nonchalant as they could to their assaulters, but it's only Momo's situation which gets treated as the bad one. Both get terrible things done to them ! And both of them are being shown as bad things !

None of this means you personally can't be uncomfortable with any of the mentioned scene; after all, they're portraying something horrible that happens in real life. And again, I get that in Momo's case, although unrealistic elements are involved, the situation she's put in can look closer to a real life assault, and thus, it can be more triggering. But the fact is that the sexual assault of both characters is being used to showcase a terrible thing, it's not there just for a gag or for people to put their eyes on the characters' bodies, and I personally just think it's silly when I see people lump in the situations in DanDaDan with series like Undead Unluck, when the former is portraying assault as not only a genuinely bad situation but also as part of the many points I think the first act of the series makes about bodily autonomy, and the later uses it as a reocurring "funny" gag (I have seen people say it gets better later, but still, it's still used as a gag at some point)

This is brought to you by me seeing people on Twitter compare DanDaDan's assault scene to incestuous characters from other animes like Yuri from Spy x Family, Makoto from Saiki K., and Lance from Mashle. I am a big fan of two of those three series and let me tell you: those characters can fuck themselves, I don't find haha incest jokes funny or necessary in any piece of media

[bloomeng]

I feel like something a lot of people miss when discussing DC canon is context.

(Warning: Mentions of canon sexual assault scenes)

So today I saw a discussion about Alfred's fanon perception versus canon reality. I wouldn't say op was criticizing people for thinking of him as a sweet old man, merely just pointing out that he's canonly not so innocent and it goes unaddressed. He was the one who nudged Tim into the Robin mantle and he was the one who stripped it from him and gave it to Damian without asking. There's a whole plotline about how he had a daughter that he abandoned. He was the one who put up the "soldier" plaque memorial. All of these things are true, however, I don't think it was the writers' intentions to paint a lot (not all) of his actions as negative. In fact, the writing often goes out of its way to paint Alfred as a martyr. That doesn't make his actions right, nor does it mean that someone is wrong for being upset with him, but it also means that people aren't stupid or wrong for interpreting his character as this beacon of virtue. It's also notable that most people are probably more acquainted with his animated and film adaptations where he hasn't done any of the things I've listed.

Context is always important when analyzing media, but it is ESPECIALLY important when discussing DC because of the sheer volume of authors writing for a single character.

This is why there are so many arguements about whether or not Bruce is a bad father. When you have so many authors writing a character for close to a century, you're going to have inconsistencies and their takes on the character will contradict. We can go in circles bringing up issues that prove either side, but it's futile. Everyone is entitled to their feelings towards things that happen in canon, but I don't think it's fair to pass ultimate judgement based on something that was often written by one shitty writer.

Now disregarding DC canon is something the fandom is selectively good at, but the curtesy is not extended evenly. Going back to Alfred for a moment. A legit criticism of the writing is that he abandoned his daughter and that isn't really addressed outside of the issue that introduced it. And I think the reality is that DC often recognizes their mistakes after the fact and isn't equipped to handle the conversations they start so they quietly retcon. Which isn't great, but I also think it's a silent mercy. See not addressing something is bad, but putting out offensive media is more detrimental IN MY OPINION.

This is even more evident when it comes to DC's history with depicting sexual assault. They constantly back themselves into corners. I really appreciated that Gail Simone's Batgirl run retconned the Joker's sexual assault against Barbara. SA is something that is important to talk about but it's also something that needs to be treated with care. What happened to Barbara was not a productive conversation. There were so many gross undertones of the Joker specifically sexually assaulting her. Same with Talia sexually assaulting Bruce. There are very real racist undertones. There is a time and place to discuss male victims and the way male rape victims are written off, but the story is not concerned with having that conversation. So now we’re not only not having that conversation but we’re also stereotyping and villainizing POC women which also has real world consequences.

Now this next part might get me boos from the audience but to me this also extends to Dick and Tarantula. I know a lot of people want DC to acknowledge what happened, but to that I'm like why? Devin Grayson is a notably bad writer when it comes to Dick. There are racist undertones to having Tarantula sexually assault Dick. Devin is literally known for making Dick Roma for fetish reasons. Before this Dick Grayson was a white character, who was already written to be flirty and sexual. These are all important things to consider about the context of the writing. I think it would actually be best if DC did what Gail Simone did with Batgirl. I think it’s unfair to not give these WOC characters the same treatment of understanding when their actions are shitty because of shit authors.

Real world context is vital for understanding these fictional stories. Batman can't kill because that would mean they would have had to be constantly introducing new villains and it would be less child friendly. Robin was introduced to the story because they were trying to market to children. Batman continuing to recruit children is about marketing to kids. The hyper-focus on Dick's romantic life was in part an effort to fight gay allegations. These are all important factors to consider if you're discussing DC critically.

Like realistically yeah it sucks so bad that Alfred and Bruce allowed children to fight crime. But it's also notable to mention that Dick forced Bruce's hand, Bruce was really trying to stop this kid from murdering a man. It was a compromise. Alfred and Dick may have pushed Tim to become Robin but he was already one foot out the door. Damian and Cass were trained by assassins. None of these kids are realistic depictions of children, even if they are relatable. When you read a superhero comic you are suspending a certain level of disbelief and I don't think it's the hot take people think it is to criticize Batman for allowing kids to fight.

Like cool, then we don't have a story. Nothing about superheroes are realistic. Why is this the line we draw in the sand?

I didn't know when to bring this up, so I'm going to awkwardly tack it on at the end. So the "Nothing Butt Nightwing" webcomic... Yeah it looks not good, but a lot of people are calling it out for sexualizing Dick, which once again to me fails to understand the outside context. There is a difference between sexualizing and sexualization of an ethnicity. As I mentioned, for most of Dick's run he was a white character who was written to be flirty. Devin was fetishizing him, but allowing Dick to remain a flirty character is not an act of fetish based sexualization. Personally I think it’s more harmful to get rid of core aspects of his character now that he is canonly Romani. Not to mention that if we address the SA with his character we are now back in this place of stereotyping and bad undertones. So until DC is ready to tell a legitimate story about male SA victims I'd rather the Dick Grayson thing be left silently in the past. I'm so hyper aware that I'm in the minority though. I agree it could be really powerful to have one of those stories be told but consider how harmful it would be to continue to imply these things about WOC.

[galactic-rhea]

The thing is,,,,abuse doesn't have anything to do with intelligence or lack of confidence, though yes, a person with low self-esteem is an easier target for abusers, however that's what not I'm talking about.

Like I'm someone who doesn't like to take part in The Discourse (tm) because this is fandom, I'm here to talk about my favorite dolls and create silly scenaries with them. And it might feel a bit egregious to talk about something as delicate and serious as abuse, grooming or domestic violence but also it's the perfect playground to explore such themes and you can learn a lot by psychologically analizing a character and do your own research on the matter so you can understand abuse better, and sometimes that way you can also have a more critical view on real life, and for some of us, also come to terms with our own lives.

That said, back to my original point, it has nothing to do with intelligence. A person that falls into a cycle of abuse doesn't make them stupid, the whole deal of predators and abusers is that they know how to play their game, they know how to manipulate. A victim's mind will always try to cope with the abuse in ways that can be hard to understand sometimes in ways that will make you say 'well, that's enabling their abuser', but is not a statement on their intelligence or lack of it, abuse dynamics are extremelly complex, and victims will go through several states such a guilt, or violent outbrusts, fear, appeasing, avoidance, sometimes all sometimes just a few. And it's because no one is the same and no one's experiences will be the same, even though there are patterns you can identify sometimes.

So when someone wants to argue against a character being too smart to fall for abuse or manipulation, it's a bit sad to me. Not necessarily malicious or dangerous, or anything, again this is fandom and fandom runs rampant with whatever takes that makes all of us grimace. But because that's not how it works, if a certain dynamic isn't abusive by your pov, then it has nothing to do with the character's intelligence. It's not about being strong, or confident; that downplays how abusive dynamics come to be.

Like for example y'know I don't think padmé and anakin were abusive, I've made several posts about it, but it's not because they are too intelligent for that.

Likewise, Anakin wasn't stupid for being groomed by Palpatine; the contrary, he was quite literally a gifted child and a genius at mechanics and was good at many things, including drawing and strategies, but he fell for Palpatine's grooming because:

a) Palpatine is an evil top tier manipulator and predator who knows how to play adults, he literally knew how to play the jedi council, what was a 9 y/o going to do about it.

And b) Anakin's trauma and unattended mental illnesses made him an easier victim for grooming; he was already used to be a thing and be a servant from the moment he learned to talk.

But even if we weren't talking about someone as deeply messed up as Anakin was already, abusers and predators always will take advantage and exploit of the weaknesses and flaws on an individual, they will adapt and change their tactic according to the victim needs, that's why anyone could become a victim, it doesn't matter if your IQ is up there on the moon.

It's not about being too "stupid" to not realize there was abuse, it's a deep, complicated and terrible ensemble of thoughts and insecurities tangling around the brain in such a way that there's no a way to blame the abuser without feeling at fault, or at the very least without feeling scared of retaliation or lost, it's a power dynamic that messes up the sense of self.

[carnalconcinnity]

I relate to and feel represented by Towa heavily in that he exhibits Schizoid Personality Disorder unlike any character I've seen before. It was in my head for a while but I couldn't get a hold of Slow Damage to find the evidence for it myself until now, I sort of just used to look at Towa, squint my eyes and mouth the words 'I'm onto you'.

This will be a long, indulgent post, I have not finished said game and will probably update when I do especially after Madarame and Fujieda's route. This is based on patterns I've seen so far in the game as well as some spoilers I came across. Read at your own... something or other.

SzPD's main characteristic is the lack of interest or ability to form relationships. Towa is on the side of a lack of interest rather than ability. One way I see SzPD in him is socially, he's indifferent and blunt or when he makes an attempt to spare feelings he's evasive, he maintains this distance with everyone around him. He doesn't chase after romance; sex and pain are stimuli that allow him to feel something beyond crippling apathy. It doesn't stop there though.

When he wants to, Towa knows how to adapt, negotiate and manipulate others. This can often come as second nature to many with SzPD, not out of malicious intent but through a way to protect themselves by setting the relationships they do make on their own terms. He interchanges between inarticulateness and eloquence according to Akhtar's Profile, selectively choosing what he gives away and what he keeps to himself.

Finally, Towa's art model in the moment, whoever it may be, can easily be considered his 'interest person'. Again referring to Akhtar's profile, those with SzPD can be capable of excitement with carefully selected people and likewise they tend to have a penchant towards typically darker and unconventional things as a form of coping. Combine those two and you have Towa's heightened interest in the selected few when he unravels their darkest desires.

A second way I see SzPD is through his feelings of unreality, schizoids tend to be seen as 'detached observers', there's a lack of motivation or drive beyond the few things they want to do. Towa doesn't hold any long-term ambitions and has no real sense of urgency over anything, he's often dragged outside by others around him or if he bar-hops and searches for hookups. He also holds a sense of grandiosity towards his indifferent observation, the line that stuck out to me the most was when he said to himself, 'All the more proof that life was easier when you didn't care about anything.' A view you will often see from Schizoids time and time again in response to other people's emotionally charged issues.

Towa sometimes dehumanizes himself, describing himself as a 'single minded robot' when painting, playing a role when granting his art model's wish like he did for Asakura or by referring to 'Human Beings' as though he isn't one of them. Obviously as a child Towa was horrifically abused and treated like a 'thing' instead of a person and a result of that he has a weak sense of self, he has a tendency to cave in around more dominant personalities. This can be another thing that goes hand in hand with SzPD, entering into a 'Master/Slave' type dynamic in social relationships (SchizoidVision has a post on this concept, here) As I've explored, Towa has the faculties to play the 'master' in these dynamics like with his art models but he takes a 'slave' role with the main leads that hold the potential to lead into even worse dehumanization in the bad endings.

Thirdly, a way I see Schizoid in him is through his emotions plain and simple, he hardly expresses strong emotions or reactions to anything and everyone sees him similarly, that he's aloof or uncaring. It shows even more in how he doesn't care for social validation, praise or criticism does virtually nothing. He sometimes feels accomplishment for finding his inspiration to paint but Rei ends up being the one posting it on Roost's blog. He isn't dependent on other people's opinions whatsoever. A huge part of SzPD traits.

Finally, the use of his internal fantasy and how it obsessively consumes his time. When he begins painting he becomes utterly immersed to the point he neglects food or sleep, you can't snap him out of it forget any sort of practical responsibilities. This reflects in SzPD in how daydreams tend to consume a lot of schizoid's lives, often preferring it over reality. It can interfere heavily with day to day tasks, I can say there's multiple times I haven't left my room, eaten or slept over a period of time when I get an urge to create something or lose myself in my own head.

Overall, there's so many boxes he ticks so far it's as if he's become the box himself. I connect with him a lot for these reasons and he can easily be considered a major comfort character and face for my page, plus somehow I find the time and dedication to write this essay when I have my abandoned assignments just begging me to make a start on them. (I won't until I feel like it.)

[danwhobrowses]

I'm not sure how much good this vent will do, I'm not even sure I want to post this vent after my last one, but I'm writing it just so it's out of my head and into words because it seems once again fandom has chosen to send vitriol Ashton Greymoore's way.

What for? They talked to a 'specter' of the primordial titan within them, through their connection to the earth, the natural flow of creation and destruction. They ask what will happen to the world, it responds that it'll endure, they ask what of the people, it responds that the strong will survive and the weak will be remade into something stronger, to which Ashton replies they think they understand. To fandom this means that Ashton is becoming a fascist, that they have a 'Make Exandria Great Again' attitude for wanting the Primordials back, that they need to be beaten up or 'get what's coming to them' in order to change their mind, and I can only sit here and stew and wonder if this hate is really well-founded? Ashton is among my favourite characters in C3, I get frustrated by them at times too but if I think about it a big percentage of my frustrations is more towards people disliking them than me disliking things they do, or Matt setting up scenarios that doesn't do them any favours towards the fandom that hates them. Some of these are knee-jerk reactions of course, but for others it does feel like they have it out for Ashton, and I don't wanna engage with that, which makes it quite lonely when most of the fandom hones in on it.

For the most part I can understand how the whole 'the weak will be remade' bit can be taken badly; it's definitely iffy, but every other plan we have is also very iffy. The Release Predathos option literally involves unleashing an entity that wants to genocide the gods, the Maintain Status Quo option ('option' the status quo imo is impossible, in my mind the Gods can stay but the dynamic will still have to change) maintains a relationship where the gods pick and choose who they feel deserves help, using their power to covet more power, strongarm and demand loyalty, and overall choose fellow gods over mortals when the chips are down and not owning up to it. We should also remember that entities can speak in riddles, 'remade into something stronger' doesn't necessarily mean death; it could mean to adapt and grow, to become strong enough to bear and overcome it as many of the PCs of Critical Role have done with their hardships and trauma. It's worth reminding that the sad truth is that people will die whatever outcome happens - the aim is always to lessen the amount but if the Gods leave it's a power vacuum, if we linger too long it's a Calamity, and if the Gods stay it's a holy war on a more wild and less organized scale - and that Ashton isn't saying they approve of such death, merely that they think they understand. The commune doesn't tell Ashton which way to go; it only tells them that the world will endure, there will be change and it will change people, trees will still grow, the wind will still blow, the waves will still flow along the coasts of the sea, and people will survive. I know the interpretation can differ from people thanks to Matt's patented vague or riddle-mounted choices in phrase, but I also think if it was the Wildmother who told Orym or some other follower that 'nature is a cycle, everything must adapt to change or else it'll die - this world will change, but it will also survive' nobody would be calling Orym a fascist, people would accept it because the Wildmother's domain is nature, and nature is not always kind.

While we're mentioning Orym - and because this is gonna come off as critical I must preface that I like and enjoy All of the Hells, that's not changed - I also gotta call it out here because it does very much feel like the people who hate Ashton hate them for the reasons they love Orym. Both are stubborn, they're diligent in their personal code, they care deeply for their friends and would give their whole being just to keep them safe, they believe in the Hells' power and greatness more than each member does and more than they believe in their own, but Ashton gets the hate mainly because these fans agree more with Orym on the god stuff. What confuses me though is how these same haters can despise Ashton for being consistent but love Braius, the literal Devil Worshipper who secretly is on board with the Chase Away plan only so he can help the Devil rule the world, the compulsive liar. Where's Braius' scrutiny? A world under Asmodeus will be a far worse 'survival of the fittest' scenario, why does Braius get a pass in all this stuff huh? Because he's funny? Seems people ignore the whole morality talk when they're discussing Braius' dedication to Exandrian Satan.

I find it irksome too that even the group seem to criticize Ashton reaching out to Primordials too - as if that wasn't what we wanted them and Fearne to do anyway. They don't dislike the gods simply because they're a 'great entity', it's because they're a great entity that holds power and doesn't use it equally or fairly; they pick and choose who to help, a lot of the time in Ashton's experience for their own self-service, but they won't prioritize mortals over another god no matter who cruel or heinous the god is being, and the following of these gods are so intertwined with politics that most religious motivation also ends up being political. Ashton has no connection to the gods, they reached out and got nothing, an Angel looked at them and made them feel like nothing, but they do have a connection to the Primordials; from the Earth Golem to the Titan Empress they're literally a vessel of, they experienced something significant in their connection to the Earth, so I don't like how that they're almost mocked for having it. In addition, Ashton's behaviour during this commune differs because of that connection, but also because the titans are a natural flow; they don't demand or test or politic or prejudice, and despite being a Great Entity in its own right it never made sure Ashton felt small for their own satisfaction, they asked a question and got an answer, it's the same reason Ashton has disdain for most political leaders but likes and respects Keyleth, Allura, Kima, Pike, and (eventually) Percy despite also being people in power. To call on Orym and the Wildmother as an example again; Orym's an Air Ashari, the Ashari are guardians of the Elemental Planes - made from the Primordials - not tied to a god, but nobody criticizes his connection to the Wildmother despite both not being a follower and his culture being more tethered to Primordials and their descendants. I'm not saying it's all correct for Ashton to want things to go back to how Primordials ruled, but we must remind ourselves also that we only know a story written by victors when it comes to the Schism - a story which could very easily have been altered and edited to make it feel more justified for the Primes and mortals to actively genocide all the Primordials, the native species and creators of this world, and desecrate their remains to make weapons, soul anchors, and cities - the specter didn't say 'fuck em, all mortals should die' after all, if they believe mortals would survive then they must be at the least tolerant of mortal existence. Why is it okay for god followers to say they wanna keep the world with the gods they have a connection to (and I'm not saying they aren't) but Ashton is out of line for wanting to have a world which has something active that they also have a connection to? It seems rather unfair to allow one side to have and the other to have not, picking and choosing because our audience's bias has spent more time with the gods, Ashton wanting something they can connect to doesn't feel all wrong either, the Eidolons still exist with faint worship hiding away so they're not smited by the gods, why can't faith exist so they're not in hiding? I sincerely doubt the Punk Rock that is Ashton is asking for the Primordials to fill the Gods' roles the same way the Gods have been running things either, they want to break the throne remember? There needs to be a balance in ideals and practice of course, and in an ideal world there could even be a more fluid and all-inclusive Exandria where gods and Eidolons live harmoniously with mortals without hierarchy and class systems, I think Ashton could happily live with something like that, they did say the world needs 'a little chaos' to call back to Matt hinting that the current world doesn't have enough.

Which leads us to those wishing violence upon Ashton - and I really don't like that. People who say 'hitting them over the head is the only language they understand' seem to misinterpret Ashton as if everyone around them have been on their hands and knees begging Ashton to reconsider and them ignoring valid points and pulling a Leroy Jenkins. In reality, nobody is actually talking to Ashton about it, a lot of the frustration with Bells Hells right now is that they aren't talking to each other, even about the end goal! Ashton has valid reasons for their thinking, so being violent isn't gonna change their mind; undermining, dehumanizing and trying to effectively bully anyone let alone someone with chronic pain and low self worth will never truly convince them to your way of thinking. All people understand the language of violence, but that language is not used justly, those who truly wish violence upon Ashton don't want it in hopes it'll force Ashton to change their mind, they want it for their own satisfaction of seeing them in pain; so they can further push them away from the rest of the group and go 'that guy's not one of us', make it so the people Ashton calls family after a lifetime of loneliness, confusion and abandonment - the people they promised they won't abandon, and have kept true on that promise even at their lowest - make them feel small and worthless, and force them into box where they can't be themselves, and I hate that people would want to treat them that way. Ashton IS capable of listening; they've stepped back and trusted the other Hells to do their own thing even when it's ridiculous like staging a play where they pretend to be Ludinus to trick Unseelie emissaries into thinking that he attacked them, they listened to the gods even when they didn't have to like they promised they would and despite it being very personal they held themselves back for the benefit of the group, and if the group talked to them calmly where they were all allowed to healthily discuss the pros and cons, the ideals and compromises, and the risk and reward of all plans that have been proposed then they would listen, and they would try - you don't need to slice bread with a broadsword.

Will Ashton 'get what's coming to them'? Maybe, but what is that exactly? We only assume to know the full vision of what Ashton wants to act on. All of Bells Hells are gonna face the consequences of the choice they make on Ruidus - when they finally make one that is - in and out of the world they live in, so won't that apply to everyone? So what for Ashton? do people want Fractures 2.0? Does everything Ashton wants in life have to blow up violently in their face? Family, Closure, their best friend's safety, why does 'what's coming to them' have to be something aggressive and harmful? People change through positive reinforcement and good experiences too! Caduceus Clay would remind you that it's love that makes people. Don't mistake this rant as me wanting Ashton to be exactly as they are now, I too want to see growth from Ashton and we ARE seeing it happen; I see it in small instances where they think twice about rash actions and try not to fly off the handle, when they sit just to listen or understand or to defuse tension, and that when they're going somewhere or doing something they let the group know in advance, those who think Ashton hasn't changed since ep. 1 aren't paying close attention, but that doesn't mean that they don't still have more ground to cover. I believe that Ashton grows the most through kindness; when they're treated like a person and not a blunt instrument or a nuisance, and I hope what's 'coming' for Ashton isn't rejection, bitterness, and isolation, but acceptance, empathy, and for someone - if you know me you'd know who I'd want it to be - to convince them that they are worthy of living, that they're special not because of their powers or blood or because they have died and been put back together again (honestly, it does irk me a little that both Keyleth and Imogen chose that for titles and to brag to the Matron, I know it isn't intended this way but sometimes it feels like saying 'your best defining quality is that you've died a lot') but because while they have every reason to hate everything they still chose to be kind to those who deserve kindness, they have a good heart and they mean well. Are they perfect? No! They're in their 20s very few people irl have their lives together at even twice that age, but I want them to have good things in their life; things that help them feel happy and safe and like they can still feel comfortable in their own skin without having to appear more 'palatable' for people who've already decided that they don't like them. I want them to know that they've always deserved to live and they still deserve it now, I want that not just for Ashton but for all the Hells, and hopefully they'll all live to have it.

And most of all I want the people who hate them to be wrong about Ashton Greymoore, and I want Taliesin to prove them wrong.

[absolutebl]

Because your opinion means a lot: Any chance you feel like sharing 5 upcoming BLs you're most excited about and why? And maybe as a bonus, something you think many BL watchers will love but that you will hate?

Ooooo, how exciting what a fun one. You sure you want this from me? I have very odd taste.

The 5 Upcoming BLs I'm Most Excited About

(this forced me to put together the 2024 Announced BLs list which is coming soon)

1 Spare Me Your Mercy

Increased rates of deaths in terminal patients has a police captain investigating the palliative care doctor with whom he's fallen in love. Their relationship deepens but the mystery persists, driven by mistrust.

Why? It's adapted from the novel Euthanasia by Sammon (Triage, Manner of Death) but more important, it stars some old guard BL actors: Tor Thanapob from Hormones as the doctor and (fuck me YES) Jaylerr from Great Men Academy and goddamn Grean Fictions as the captain!

2 Wandee Godday

GMMTV and AllThis Entertainment producing a very pulp offering with new pair, GreatInn doing high heat, boxer meets surgeon. It features a one night stand, fake relationship, and all the cheesiest of tropes. Also features Drake, Podd, and Thor+ pretty boy (be still my heart).

Why? This is totally my kind of BL even if it isn't GMMTV's style of BL, and it's GREAT, so I'm in.

3 The Next Prince (ZeeNew)

Domundi brings us more ZeeNew in a fantasy/historical set in a palace where Zee plays a knight and Nu a prince - YES PLEASE.

Why? I did not expect this pair to stick so I really hope this happens. Give us the Little Pink Riding Milk BL we deserve!

4 Lover Merman

Fantasy BL about a man who falls in love with a merman.

Why? I don't think it will be good but I LOVE merfolk.

5 Me and Who

Domundi for WeTV brings this adaptation of Wickedwish’s novel of the same name. It depicts a young man who dies and is reborn into the body of a billionaire heir. The heir happens to be engaged to a handsome man.

Why? I flipping LOVE this trope but I never expected to see it drive a BL.

10 I am cautious of but VERY intrigued

JAPAN'S Although I Love You and You AKA Sukiyanen Kedo Do Yaro ka

From YTV releasing 1/11 about Soga, who, after a divorce and relocation to Osaka, seeks solace in dining at 26-year-old Sakae's restaurant. Unbeknownst to Soga, Sakae sees him as more than just a regular customer.

TAIWAN's Love For Love's Sake

Based on the Manhwa Love Supremacy Zone by Hwacha, this will star actors Lee Tae Vin, Cha Jun Wan, Oh Min Su and Cha Woon Ki. The plot of the drama is based on Tae Myung Ha, a young man who is dropped into a game based off of a novel that he knows. His mission is to make another player, Cha Yeo Woon happy. Cha Yeo Woon is Myung-Has favourite character in the novel. But then the game starts going completely different from the novel.

City of Stars AKA Fueangnakorn

Star Hunter started filming this 12/23 about an actor falls in love with a programmer and the narrative intends to “explore the ramifications of being public figure in the social network era who must endure critics, bullying, and defamation.” Looks like another Lovely Writer, Call It What You Want sort of thing.

My Stand-In AKA My Stand In

Chinese IP ALERT! Adapted from the novel Professional Body Double (职业替身) by Shui Qiang Cheng (水千丞) stars Up (Lovely Writer) and Poom (Bake Me Please).

OMG Vampire AKA OMG! Vampire (LeeFrank)

Frank and Lee Long Shi are back only vampires now. So many vampires.

The Rebound (MeenPing)

VIU Basketball based romance staring Meen (a national basketball player, so yay for that).

We Are (PondPhuwin)

GMMTV's university friendship Bl featuring PondPhuwin, WinnySatang, AouBoom, MarcPawin - basically ALL in the good kind of messy friendship group (so more My Engineer and less Only Friends). Looks a bit like the Kiss series but everyone is gay. I'm IN! Trailer here.

Love Upon a Time (NetJames)

Domundi announced for 6/7/2023 then delayed to 2024. NetJames in a historical BL! Also feat Tonnam (Dr Sing from Triage).

Jack & Joker (YinWar)

DeHup brings us be gay, do crimes. Yin, War, Mark and a few other familiar faces doing Leverage but gayer. Yes, thank you, I will have that.

My Love Mix-Up Thai Remake (GemniForth)

GMMTV. Hum, well I do love this pair and I did like the original and maybe this time these characters will actually kiss? I'm actually fine with this pick-up. I kind of enjoy seeing different countries remake the same IP. Especially if it's IP I'm mostly unfazed by.

[bluecatwriter]

There's a long history of Dracula adaptations clearly made by people who have never read the book.

I think in this fine tradition you specifically should adapt the Beetle without reading it

You are SO right, anon. I am going to direct the movie version of The Beetle upon which all other adaptations will be based! It will full of iconic quotes that are not in the book and I will butcher all the themes and characters!

Initial thoughts:

-Robert Holt will be played by some no-name actor who is putting his entire heart, soul and mind into the performance. The Brick Guy is also played by this guy. The first part of the movie is filmed in a very straightforward period-drama style, with the exception of a Carpet Scene, which is filmed in soft focus like a "flashback to dead wife" scene.

-Robert will also of course be referred to as "Bobert" and wear jorts. Alas, he does not get a GAP sweatshirt or a slushie in this version because there are no Ordinary Solicitors to save him.

-The Beetle will be portrayed as just a beetle of varying sizes, and they will be CGI. Specifically the really low-budget bad CGI of the early 2000s. This is very important for my artistic vision.

-Paul Lessingham will also be CGI.

-The cat will be a real cat, and will be voiced by the guy who voiced Garfield from the 1990s Garfield and Friends cartoon.

-I am open to casting suggestions for Sydney Atherton, although again, I suspect that it would be best to forgo celebrities and cast a guy who has played the comic-relief guy in Oklahoma at community theater one too many times. I will change nothing about Sydney Atherton's atrocities, and will in fact probably add a few more, but all the other characters will say how manly and wonderful he is while he's like beating someone to death with a cricket bat in the background. The movie critics will read a lot into this directing choice.

-I will make Marjorie and Dora both girlbosses™ by giving each of them a sword and a multi-level marketing business. They will contribute nothing to the plot and I will be offended if people think they are bland characters.

-I don't really know the other characters, so they will be played by a gender-inclusive rotating cast, and everyone will keep mixing up their names. The goal is for it to be impossible to keep track of who's doing what at all times.

-The cat still dies but goes to Cat Heaven and there's a whole musical dream sequence (inspired by 1930s cartoons and musical numbers from Gene Kelly movies) about the cat having a really great time in Cat Heaven.

-During some mundane scene with this rotating cast of characters and CGI Paul Lessingham, Bobert will dramatically die of starvation in the background. Nobody notices.

-The train crash will be on-screen instead of off, and there will be a very long monologue from the train themself as they dramatically fall off a broken bridge (this will be a practical effect with a full-sized train). This monologue will be delivered by the same guy who plays the cat, and if the actor isn't crying real tears by the end, we will redo the take until we get it. There will be a lot of montaging and soft focus. We will give the train a tragic backstory, but the train is also kind of accepting of their fate, you know? The book of Ecclesiastes will probably be mentioned somewhere in here.

-I will be diverging from canon by having Sydney Atherton die in the train crash. Not from the train, though, he chokes on a shrimp cocktail moments before the train hits the ground.

-Credits roll

-Epilogue scene: Sydney Atherton ends up in Cat Heaven and all the cats jump on him like the hyenas at the end of Lion King and there's just a giant wriggling ball of cats. Bobert is there too, drinking a slushie in the background. Hard cut to black.

[hinasho]

I'll tell you what people's problem with The Crow 2024 is — I'm a longtime fan by the way, I own the comics, I watched all the movies, so on.

The Crow 1994 managed to get the soul of the source material (comics). The Crow is a story about overcoming grief and acceptance of death — the author wrote Eric's story during his darkest periods of grief after his girlfriend was killed. So the story of Eric and Shelley have meaning, they are meaningful characters to a lot of people. Brandon's movie, while with some differences from the original story, still carried the same themes beautifully and the tragedy that happened during the filming made people (me included) turn protective over the memory of The Crow and it’s meaning.

There were three other movies after The Crow 1994 but they never dared to touch on Eric's character, instead they created new ones like Ashe Corven, Jimmy Cuervo and Alex Corvis. And those movies suck, don’t get me wrong, but people don’t have a problem with them because they didn't touch on Brandon's Lee legacy and di their best to stay on theme — grief and acceptance. They are their own thing, and that's that.

So did the comics. Eric story is the first main one, but no one took him and tried to continue it, he's pretty much untouchable, he has his beginning and his end. Instead, they created new Crows for their stories: Joshua, Iris Shaw, Mark Leung...There's a long list of existing Crows with their own stories.

The problem with 2024 The Crow is mostly that they called it a remake and took Eric's names to a character that doesn’t even resembles the original Eric — and I'm not saying in physical appearance, I'm saying his essence because the original Eric is a killer of bad guys, but he's also pretty charismatic; he loved life, he was gentle with the little girl Sarah he was friends with, he was kind, he was thoughtful, he even jokes around! Which, to many people, Bill's Eric does not resembles even a little bit of Eric's other than his name and neither does his story matches the themes and soul behind The Crow franchise.

The main gripe The Crow community has with the 2024 version is them taking Eric's and Shelley story, then changing it so much and losing it's soul when the easiest thing to avoid all this controversy and review bombing would've been just be like "Hey, we're making a new Crow movie, but we have created our own original protagonists for it!" just like people have been doing for years, because that's what 2024 Shelley and Eric feel like to people — original characters who just happen to share the names of the OG's.

Anyway, I watched the 2024 version and while Bill did a phenomenal job as always with what he was given and he looks so damn good, the story just...Didn't get me at all. There's not one bit of The Crow essence in there for me.

Hello, thank you for sharing your thoughts! 💞 I finally watched The Crow 1994 and City of Angels today (still need to watch Salvation & Wicked Prayer) so fortunately I now have a bit more context.

The problem with 2024 The Crow is mostly that they called it a remake

So to begin my breakdown: The 2024 isn't a remake of the 1994 movie. This seems to be a widespread misconception. But in all of the clips and trailers Lionsgate has released, they clarify that it's a "modern re-imagining of the original graphic novel". The movie never claims to be a remake of the 1994 film.

Now a fair debate could be how closely tied (or not) the '24 movie is to the graphic novel, which the two are remarkably different, but based on the reviews and comments I've seen, fans seem more inclined to keep comparing it to the 1994 adaptation despite Lionsgate never claiming they were trying to remake that specific film.

So basically, comparisons between '94 Eric and '24 Eric don't really hold up as valid criticisms in my opinion, because the director had no intention of adapting the '24 film from the '94 movie in the first place.

the original Eric is a killer of bad guys, but he's also pretty charismatic; he loved life, he was gentle with the little girl Sarah he was friends with, he was kind, he was thoughtful, he even jokes around! Which, to many people, Bill's Eric does not resembles even a little bit

'24 Eric is still a killer of killers. He only kills those that attack him first or had something to do with his and Shelly's deaths. He never kills needlessly.

In regards to him loving life, 2024 Eric does in droves! He actively hates having to kill so many people and takes no enjoyment out of it. The opera scene, while fantastic, wasn't a fun moment for him. Since her death, you can tangibly feel that all he wants to do is get back to his simple life with Shelly. He loves her and he loves the life they had.

As for him being charismatic, I can see your point there. In the graphic novels (from summaries I've read), GN Eric does have a morbid sense of humor and at times played around with his kills before finishing the job. His relationship with Sherri was brief but sweet and he gets a cute cat!! He continues to form relationships even after Shelly's death because of his charisma and kindness.

From a writing perspective, I believe all of these moments are intended to humanize Eric given the GN begins with him as The Crow pretty much immediately. We are introduced to him already in the throes of his grief and seeking vengeance.

In contrast, the '24 film paces the transition MUCH slower with the first act being about how Shelly and Eric meet, and the growth of their romance. I believe Director Rupert Sanders used those scenes to humanize the characters instead, which he accomplishes as both Eric and Shelly feel like they're just normal people dealt a shitty hand who only want to live their lives together. You can see the love they shared and how pure it was.

Basically, the core of the characters remain the same, just told in different ways throughout the story. In the graphic novel, James O'Barr humanizes Eric & adds levity in the midst of the carnage, while Rupert Sanders adds it before the carnage. Despite the timeline differences, both succeed in showing that Eric isn't a mindless murdering machine, and is just a regular guy who's been driven to the point of madness.

(It still would've been a nice touch for '24 Eric to adopt a cat for Shelly in the movie though.)

Bill's Eric does not resembles even a little bit of Eric's other than his name and neither does his story matches the themes and soul behind The Crow franchise.

From my understanding, the main themes behind the franchise are grief, the difficulty to move past it, and divine justice.

All three Erics suffer from visions of Shelly, who's memory plays on a feedback loop as they go about their spree. Something both the '94 and '24 films don't do, however, is touch on GN Eric's self harm tendencies. Which isn't a criticism! I'm merely discussing the different ways they show Eric's state of mourning.

The inability to move on is also still prevalent in the '24 movie. It's an active choice Eric makes when Kronos gives him the option to get his life back, and instead Eric submerges deeper and signs away his soul. He steps into it with his eyes wide open knowing he's damning himself forever.

Meanwhile in the graphic novel, Eric is already submerged. He is already a walking corpse, the embodiment of a heart so broken the only way to put himself back together is to weaponize the shards of his loss. I believe this is who '24 Eric develops into after the second act when he signs away his soul.

In the first act, he is human. In the second act, he is transitioning, and in the third act, he has truly become The Crow. Too deep in grief to escape it. The main difference between the '24 version and the GN version is that we see '24 Eric's journey to reach that final stage. It's the difference between character-focused narratives vs parable-like storytelling. Neither is inherently better than the other, just different.

And when it comes to divine justice, hmmm.....

In the GN, Eric and Shelly are killed and brutalized due to a completely random act of evil. The gang that killed them and assaulted Shelly had zero connections to the couple and were just some cruel, awful randos off the street. Based on what I've read, Eric nearly kills all of them without difficulty. Most of his hardship comes from his own bouts of depression and misery.

(By the way, by having the villains all be mediocre average goons, and majority of Eric's troubles be psychological, the GN focuses more on the danger of all-consuming grief, highly likely because of the trauma James O'Barr was experiencing when he wrote it. Meanwhile both the '94 and '24 films have Eric struggle a lot more during his fight scenes, elevating the danger of his physical opponents. But this is a tangent, back to what I was talking about!)

By all of them being average goons, the story gets across that: yes normal everyday people can and are capable of atrocious acts of evil, and yes they deserve to face the brunt of their crimes and divine punishment.

However in both the '94 and '24 movies, Eric and Shelly's deaths are not random and are planned crimes to silence Shelly. And both come up with a "big bad" for Eric to face off against. In the '94 movie, it was Top Dollar, a criminal kingpin, and in the '24 movie it's Vincent Roeg, a rich executive who's also a crimelord.

BUT what the '24 film does differently is that Roeg is also a supernatural being himself, who's made a pact with the devil to trade innocent souls for immortality.

This is probably the only area in which I agree with OG fans on that a central theme was changed. Because by making the main antagonist "unnatural", it's no longer about everyday, normal people committing horrible evils. It's about a supernatural entity on par with The Crow.

I think Rupert Sanders wanted to focus more on the supernatural aspect of The Crow universe. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing and definitely made for a fun movie, but I do agree with OG fans that the "grounded" nature of casual human cruelty was lost in that regard.

By implementing this change, the weight of Eric's vengeance is also changed. Because now it's no longer just personal. As the character of Kronos says in the movie, they need Eric to kill Roeg because he and all the deaths he's caused are unnatural and they essentially need Eric to tip the scales back into balance. While Eric's primary motive is still about doing right by Shelly, there's now an element of saving the world from an unnaturally superpowered tyrant, rather than the everyday cruelties of man.

So in this aspect, I do agree that a core theme was changed between the graphic novel and the 2024 movie. This still doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad story, just that Rupert Sanders had different intentions.

Because this still connects to the previous theme, the inability to move on and cope with death. Except now it's portrayed in the antagonist as well. His power is completely about his refusal to accept his own mortality. However, this does, like I said, detract from the normality of evil theme. So it's basically a gain and a loss 😅

(Plus, as I was writing this, I thought about how Eric's motivation is changed as well. In the '24 movie, Eric's goal is still to do right by Shelly, but it's to save her. Because if he succeeds, Shelly will be resurrected. This adds a noble spin to his killing spree, whereas the GN and the '94 film are solely about overwhelming rage at the loss of a loved one. There is no resurrecting Shelly. It's about enacting divine justice against their killers before traveling to the afterlife together. They're already dead and there's nothing GN Eric can do to change that, unlike 2024 Eric.

On the flip side, while this "nobler" take may feel like a negative change, I think it's countered by the fact that Eric succeeds in saving her, but is still dissatisfied because he's unable to actually be with her. GN and '94 Eric were able to find peace and reunite with their loves. '24 Eric only gets about 5 minutes before she's resurrected and he's stuck in purgatory forever.

At the end of the '24 film, both Eric and Shelly are dissatisfied as they can no longer be together. It's a bittersweet ending that feels more bitter than sweet. So while there is a "nobler" cause behind Eric's actions, the tone of the story is still very grim.

This is also why I believe the way the 2024 movie ended was with the intentions of a sequel where Eric does achieve his own peace. But that's a different conversation!)

...the easiest thing to avoid all this controversy and review bombing would've been just be like "Hey, we're making a new Crow movie, but we have created our own original protagonists for it!" just like people have been doing for years, because that's what 2024 Shelley and Eric feel like to people — original characters who just happen to share the names of the OG's.

Sure! I don't disagree. Well, I don't really think anything deserves to be review bombed unless it's content that's actively harmful. But I don't disagree with the original protagonists angle. Changing the names couldn't have hurt.

That said though, and I say this as gently as I can, Eric's character existed before '94 Eric and does not need to end with the '94 movie. I think it'd be one thing if the 1994 movie created the story of The Crow and that was the first iteration of Eric's character. But... it's not.

Multiple re-imaginings and adaptations of books / comics have been around since forever. The show Smallville and Man of Steel both adapt Superman in wildly different ways. Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew has had five different adaptations, and yet no one shits on 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) or Deliver Us From Eva (2003) for being modern re-imaginings. Awhile ago, me and my friend were discussing our favorite adaptations of the Little Women novel. Her favorite is the 1994 film while my favorite is the 2022 modern Kdrama!

I bring up all of these examples to say that there is REALLY nothing wrong with doing modern re-imaginings of older works, and tweaking characters and plotlines to reflect the changed style of the story and time period.

What's most important is that the heart of the story is kept. At the end of the day, The Crow is about an innocent man who enacts divine justice against he and his lover's murderers, while struggling to cope with her loss. Based on the graphic novel and what I've seen of the 1994 movie and the City of Angels sequel, the world of The Crow says that life can be fair and that no matter how high, or low, or cruel, or spineless, someone is, that karma is a bitch and it IS possible for them to reap what they sow.

I truly think the 2024 adaptation captured that feeling, even if it may look different than what people might be used to or expected.

Instead of being upset about how unexpected it is, try going in with an open mind and seeing the story Rupert, Bill, and FKA Twigs wanted to tell. I've read and seen a few interviews by now, and these three were genuinely passionate about the characters & story, and you can feel that in the movie.

And even if you still have no interest, the other parts of the franchise you do enjoy aren't going anywhere. The 2024 adaptation doesn't effect them in any capacity. The stories you love still exist and the new addition can't harm or take them away from you.

[hellspawnmotel]

It's a shame about Astro Boy Epsilon 2003's design to be steeped lowkey in this "Well he's the most feminine of those seven robots so why not turn him into a girl" because his design is genuinely cute there, but also because of his more pacifist manners + caring nature, really sends an odd implication when it comes to turning of any of the famous robots from Astro Boy into a girl imho. Your comic really shined a light on that which I really enjoyed and it reminded me how while I enjoyed Astro boy 2003 it has its grounds to cover by how it changes things around

yeah I had the exact same thoughts! it's odd too that in 2003, epsilon doesn't retain the main qualities that make him such an interesting character- those being that he's a caretaker of human children, and his brief relationship with pluto. the former especially seems like such a missed opportunity given how much of a theme robot-human relationships are in the anime. we see plenty of other robots taking care of human children and the conflict that causes, so I don't see why one of those instances couldn't have been epsilon. it wouldve been a really smart way to integrate them more heavily into the plot. my only idea is the writers thought like "well if we make our only recurring powerful female robot a literal mother figure that feels pretty reductive" but it's not like the show isn't already sexist in other ways? and the consequence is that epsilon loses the things that made the audience care about him and becomes a pretty flat character. every other version of epsilon dies protecting a child. 2003 epsilon is defeated because she's worried about some random dolphins. it's kind of an emotional downgrade.

I don't mean to be overly negative though- I actually just finished watching the show last week and it was amazing. it had a perfect ending, which isn't something I can say for many things. AND most of the episodes range from "great" to "mindblowingly awesome and heartwrenching". there's so many good things to say about it- which is exactly why I get so critical of its few flaws, especially when it comes to things that felt like a downgrade from the manga. they stick out like a sore thumb! I could make plenty of complaints about the manga too (and I have, to my friends) but that doesn't stick in my craw as much because the manga is much less consistent in terms of quality. astro boy 2003 is a fantastic show and a really really smart adaptation apart from like, two things. and to be fair they're only things that will really bother you if you read the manga first, which I did. so if anyone reading this is an astro boy fan (or just likes robots tbh) and hasnt watched it for some reason...... do that. it's incredible, seriously. don't let my complaining scare you away.

[thekingofwinterblog]

The Problem With Yasopp

So like many people I was genuinely surprised by Netflix One Piece, adaption, which turned out the exact opposite of pretty much every single travesty that america has made when adapting Manga and Anime.

It certainly was not without flaws, for one thing it needed to be at least 3-5 episodes longer in order to fix it's pacing issues if it wanted to get all of East Blue into one season, and the fight scenes while very well choreographed, didn't exactly sell me on the superhuman strength of most of these characters.

However, there was one thing that genuinely pissed me off, in large part because the american adapters changed something they didn't like, in order to fit "western sensibilites" and in doing so, completely missing the point, and frankly tragedy of the original context.

That of course, is the character of Usopp's relationship with his parents Yasopp and Banchina, and the rather sad tale of plans going completely arry due to twists of fate.

In the west, the character of Yasopp has been a rather contentious one, for several reasons, but also one that has been a bit altered by the changes from Japanese to English.

Yasopp is critiqued heavily by people who don't like him for abandoning his kid, and his wife to seek adventure on the high seas. Now this is not untrue, but there is a bit of context here that's a bit lost in translation.

And you can really tell that, because the way Netflix portrays Yasopp leaving is the surface level one you might get if you just read Syrup Village arc, and you don't pay any attention at all to the timeline given.

In the neflix series, it's explicitly said that Yasopp left Usopp and his mother while Usopp was still a baby. That is such a common reading, that it's actually what the One Piece Wiki claims happened(Another example of why you should always be critical of Wiki's).

The actual Manga tells a different story.

Yasopp left Syrup village right before Banchina unexpedetly got sick with the disease that ultimatly killed her.

When Usopp is so touchy against Kuro about him badmouting his father, it's not in the context of him idolizing some father he never met, because Usopp and Yasopp knew and loved each other dearly. Usopp's wish to see his dad again isn't some wish to meet the father he only knows through stories, but to reconnect with the dad he loved so much growing up and was sad when he left.

And then of course there is the glory of mistraslation. If you've read this part of the manga, you might rightly be wondering, what sort of woman would be proud of the man who abandoned her to take care of their kid while he sought adventure.

The answer, which the english translation does not give, is a woman who was the one to convince him to go out on that journey in the first place.

Because that is what happened in the orignal manga. It was Banchina, for reasons we don't fully understand or have the context for, eho convinced her husband to go out and seek his dreams.

That's the reason why she is so certain Yasopp will NOT be coming home, but why she is also not bitter about it. She was the one who encouraged Yasopp to go out to sea, while she stayed home and took care of their kid, until he grew old enough to care for himself, and seek the seas himself if he wished.

The story of Yasopp, Usopp and his wife is a genuine tragedy, but not because Yasopp abandoned Usopp before he ever got to know him, but because Usopp's parents made plans for the future, that while not perfect by any stretch, seemed workable enough... only for the entire thing to come crumbling down after Yasopp left due to something as mundane as a random disease.

One can certainly make an argument that this was NOT the best course of action for Yasopp and Banchina to take, but it's not the complete deadbeat dad who abandons his baby trope that the Netflix series portrays it as.

Further hammering in that this was a bit more complicated than that, Yasopp seems to have been one of the very first crew members Shanks tried to recruit, having sought him out not long after Roger died... And Yasopp seems to have flat out rejected him, as he stayed with Banchina for years and years afterwards.

It adds a lot of context to the idea that Banchina was the one who ultimately convinced Yasopp to go out and chase his dreams while she took care of the kid... Because it took years and years for it to ultimately conclude at this course of action. Yasopp would continue to reject Shanks offer to join him for years to instead to take care of his wife and kid, until about a year before Shanks met Luffy, when his wife told him to go.

It's a hell of a lot more nuanced and interesting than what Netflix did, that's for damn sure.

[mushroomcrepe]

It's time to make that one obvious critic about dr stone : the biology part of science wasn't exploited enough.

Disclaimer : i'm not a biologist

Firstly, plants are the exact same. I don't expect trees and the general look of plants to change, but would the domesticated for thousands of years whead stay perfectly the way it was and not need any adaptation once humans stopped harvesting it ?

It's also a shame that there were no discovery, like Senku discovering new mushrooms/plants and learning from Chrome which ones are poisonous, Senku trying to get a use from them and experimentating...

The author's choice was to use geology to display how the world changed in 3000 years (ex : Mount Fuji changing the ground aspect) and how mother nature doesn't have feelings and science can make us adapt to her dangers (the discovery and collect of sulfuric acid). I agree it fits Senku knowledge of minerals and with how important they are to the story.

However, i think it would have been an interesting way of showing the mother nature thing by using poisonous plants/mushrooms as meds or something therapeutic (Paracelsus my beloved lol). For the massive change 3000 years makes, simply showing plants that modern characters knows nothing about because they didn't exist before would be enough. It wouldn't be as grandiose as the volcano or sulfuric acid lake sure, but it would show the very daily life of the characters is altered. How they aren't adapted to their world anymore without science, they are stranger on these lands they used to walk on and consider known.

Yeah there is a big waterfall and big acid lake ok but watch out you have to eat and there's only berries and you have no idea if they will be good or your last meal because they didn't exist before.

On another note the Ishigami village people knowledge of their environment would be more important in the story and furthermore show their undeniable contribution to the Kingdom of science.

As for the animals, it's the exact same thing. New fishes, insects, mammals, and you don't know if they are dangerous, venenous, hosts of illnesses of parasites... Which is primordial to know, because in 3000 years difference, the immune system isn't adapted to the new environment anymore.

i think the adaptation aspect of nature was also put aside. Let's take as an exemple the tiny dog we see when their owner got petrificated while on a walk. It's typically the tiny white dog that have difficulty breathing and gets cold easily. It's shown his breed survived all this time, but it always baffled me. How could he hunt and survive for millenias ? Some of the species domesticated by humans would logically go extinct because unable to survive on the long run in the wild.

The reasons for the tiny dog breed would be the many predators bigger than them, rival species for hunt like cats (i guess they both would eat rodents considering their size), and their absolute lack of predisposition for a successful hunting despite their survival instinct (claws, jaw and teeth aren't fit for killing preys). It's logical, because this breed was bred by humans for their "cute" look. Not for security, hunt, defense, or anything like that.

And the most obvious weird biology thing of all : the astronauts descendants. It's a population starting with only 6 people that ends up after 3000+ years with the population of the ishigami village + treasure island people. I am not saying Kohaku, Suika and Chrome were born from millenias of very probable consanguinity, but i just think that with only three couples, it would be difficult for that to not happen. Especially knowing there is like 40 villagers in Ishigami village.

It shouldn't work as easily as the story made it look since consanguinity reduce the survival chances, pneumonia and other illness was also running, there were many deads from hunger... But they still could have enough descendants to survive 3000 years. I guess they would need to be very lucky to not have any problem with the genetic factor.

Anyway i understand the new biodiversity wasn't revelent for Senku's crazy ideas and that the plot needed to focus on the minerals and such. It's just that i find the "it's a whole stone age world since 3000 years passed" under exploited.

[likeabxrdinflight]

Naturally I have a lot of thoughts about Azula's role in the live action adaptation. I'd say about 95% of them are positive thoughts.

First of all, I love that she is this baby-faced, squishy-cheeked kid (I know her actress is a little older than the character but that's okay.) At Elizabeth Yu's age, I also easily passed for 14-15, she just has a young-looking face and clearly hasn't lost all her baby fat. And that is perfect, actually. I've criticized the sharpness and angularity of the animated Azula many times over, she has always looked far too old for her canonical age. I've said it before and I'll say it again- it's a problem that so many people watched the original cartoon and thought Azula was older than Zuko. I can't even blame them for it, she's drawn to look 20 or older. So it is wonderful to see a version of Azula who looks closer to her canonical age. I think it really drives home the point.

That said, this Azula is definitely different than her animated counterpart in other ways. The animated Azula was (almost) always perfectly in control. She could become angry and snap at people- but it was fairly rare, Azula always seemed the image of perfect calm, control, and precision. She was deadly precisely because she was so cool and collected and did not get easily rankled. This was also part of what made her breakdown so shocking.

The thing is, the breakdown is not especially foreshadowed prior to season three. There are a few moments that show the chinks in Azula's armor, but most of them don't come until "The Beach," and then after Mai and Ty Lee's betrayal. I've always believed that betrayal was the real inciting incident for her eventual psychotic break- I've argued before that it sent Azula into what's called a prodromal state, which is like a sort of "pre-psychosis."

More on the animated version's mental state here

Point being, there's really only one instance in season two that suggests any flaws to Azula's cool exterior, and it's one of her very first scenes. You know the one: "almost isn't good enough." It makes for a very subtle build-up to the breakdown and her eventual fall. But it comes at the cost of depicting her predominantly as a capital-V Villain prior to it. You're not really supposed to sympathize with Azula until "The Beach," arguably not until "Into the Inferno." For most of the animated show's run, you're supposed to find her scary and threatening.

And this is done effectively- almost too effectively. She's an obvious foil to Zuko, and serves as such a good primary antagonist that they had to neutralize her in the finale by giving her the breakdown. It's like they knew there was no way a healthy Azula was going to be beatable during Sozin's Comet. She appeared to be an effortlessly talented fire bender, a brilliant strategist, and a more dangerous opponent than even Ozai.

Live action Azula does not have this same feeling to her. There is still something "scary" about her- we see her watching people being burned alive with little to no reaction, and her face is quite blank at Zuko's Agni Kai. She's still cunning and still willing to manipulate things to her advantage- we see this in how she plays Zhao. So if this version gets a season two I have no doubt that this Azula will still serve as a dangerous antagonist to the Gaang and I don't doubt this is still an Azula capable of bringing down Ba Sing Se.

But she's not quite the calm, collected character she first seemed in the animated version. This Azula is a little less hinged. She has more moments of snapping and losing some of that perfect control. She's more frustrated and feels more at the mercy of her father. She reads far more like the Azula we saw in "The Phoenix King," the one who talked back and protested that her father couldn't treat her like Zuko. That Azula, however, was about one bad night's sleep away from a psychotic break. This Azula, presumably, isn't there yet.

I can agree that something of her original character gets lost when you essentially start foreshadowing the breakdown from the jump. It's not gonna be a surprise to any new audiences. She's not gonna be quite the same. But it does humanize her much sooner than the original show did, and it asks the audience to consider her circumstances from the jump- is this a sympathetic character or not? I obviously think she is in the original, and I do think in the end she was meant to be. But it's much more of a debate. The live action show unequivocally says "yes" and does not make it a debate at all.

I'd be tempted to say it's not trusting the audience to read between the lines, but given all the Azula discourse...they might be right to take this more direct approach.

Anyways. Live action Azula also feels more like a real teenager. She's petty, she's irritable, she's desperate to remain in her father's favor and beat her brother in the artificial competition her father has set up between them and will go to any lengths to do so- lengths she probably wouldn't have in the cartoon. She has a strong drive to prove herself and to protect the image she constructs about herself as the "perfect daughter." But that image also feels far more fragile than it did in the animated version.

This Azula doesn't say that "almost [perfect] isn't good enough." She says that "it [perfect] isn't good enough." It's a subtle but meaningful difference.

(Side note- I think the reason this Azula is fine shooting lightning in the direction of her father, seemingly in defiance of his orders, is a direct result of the change to the Agni Kai- she watched as Ozai berated and burned Zuko for not giving him his all, versus in the original where Zuko's sin was in not fighting back period. So here she's showing Ozai her "all", she's giving him everything she has to prove she's capable of doing more than Zuko running drills and smoking out resistance rings.)

I like this change. I like this more desperate, more grounded take on Azula. She feels like a real girl in a horrendous home environment. This Azula was raised in a family where it's expected you be cool with setting people on fire in the throne room and where there's a tangible symbol of Daddy's love sitting beneath him at all times. This Azula was forged in the fires of competition and manipulation that's more subtle than the animated Ozai ever seemed capable of. (More on Ozai later, but he's a much more subtle character than his animated counterpart despite still being...pretty blatantly Evil). So I think it makes sense that she's not quite as calm and controlled and perfect as the animated version.

I don't know yet which version I'll prefer when all is said and done- she was ultimately a minor role in this season. Animated Azula is iconic and always will be, but there's a lot I've always been critical of about how she was depicted in the original show. I think a lot of us that love and empathize with Azula do so despite the way she was written, not because of it. This version might change things a little.

But it also might make it seem infinitely more cruel if she isn't given some kind of redemptive ending (or at least one that implies some hope for her.) The bleak ending of the original show might feel really bad for this more sympathetic version of Azula. So if they stick with that...I dunno. It could hit or miss.

For now, I like what I'm seeing. And Elizabeth Yu understood the assignment.