#there's no coherent compelling plot to ANY of them and their characters are not deep enough for me to take interest. anyone who thinks

[etchedstars]

kinda WOULD LOVE to know which ships you referred to in the tags 👀👀🥺🥺

hellooooo anon unfortunately i have wonderful cherished mutuals who enjoy all three of those ships but ill give you some hints !

they're all queer (mlm specifically)

take place in the Real World

"black cat x golden retriever" dynamics

internal issues that could be solved with One Conversation

have all been called the pinnacle of queer media

Fucking Boring

i complain abt two of these regularly

[vilevampz]

Character Development: Inspirations & Techniques (Part 2)

Where to gain inspiration from

Movies/TV shows 

Visual storytelling in movies/TV shows provides a rich source of character inspiration

Character interactions and evolution spark ideas for unique and dynamic personalities.

Detailed portrayal of emotions, dialogue, and body language aids in conveying complex traits and relationships.

Setting and costume design inspire character backgrounds and aesthetics.

Plots and subplots offer examples of character arcs and growth.

Analyzing favorite characters helps identify compelling traits to apply to your creations.

Reimagining characters in different contexts or blending traits from multiple characters results in fresh, original personalities.

2. Dreams

Unique Scenarios: Dreams often present bizarre and imaginative scenarios that can be the basis for intriguing storylines or settings.

Emotional Depth: The intense emotions experienced in dreams can provide insight into character motivations and relationships.

Subconscious Creativity: Dreams tap into the subconscious mind, revealing unexpected ideas and creative solutions that might not emerge during waking hours.

Symbolism and Themes: The symbolic nature of dreams can inspire themes, motifs, and symbolic imagery within stories.

Character Development: Dream figures can inspire new characters or offer fresh perspectives on existing ones, enriching their depth and complexity.

Exploration of Fears: Nightmares and anxieties manifest in dreams can be explored and transformed into compelling narratives.

Surreal Elements: Dreams' surreal and fantastical elements can add a unique and captivating dimension to writing.

Creating Character Profiles

1. Importance 

Consistency: They help maintain consistent character traits, behaviors, and backstories throughout the story.

Depth: Profiles provide a detailed understanding of characters, making them more three-dimensional and relatable.

Development: They aid in tracking character growth and development throughout the narrative.

Motivation: Profiles clarify characters' motivations, goals, and conflicts, enhancing plot coherence.

Interaction: Understanding each character’s personality helps writers depict authentic interactions and relationships.

Creativity: They inspire creativity by encouraging writers to explore various aspects of a character’s life, including past experiences and future aspirations.

Efficiency: Profiles save time during the writing process by providing quick reference points for character details.

Backstory: Detailed profiles provide a comprehensive backstory for characters, enriching the narrative.

Facades: They showcase different facets and layers of a character, revealing their complexity and making them more realistic.

2. What to include 

Hair color, eye color, or anything that describes what the character looks like

Traits to offer a glimpse of their personality and/or quirks

Their family tree and history, education, and any other relevant background info

Their motivations and goals, What drives them? What do they want to achieve? 

Relationships with friends, family, or partner 

Example Character Sheet: 

Character Name: 

Age: 

Sexuality: 

Gender:

Education: 

Eye color: 

Hair color: 

Traits:

Fears:

Strengths: 

Weakness: 

*This is how I do it but you can make it more complex or visually appealing, whatever works best for you. 

Using Programs to envision characters 

Programs like the Sims can help greatly when envisioning characters as you can create exactly what they look like (mods and CC will make that a reality) I use this all the time to create what my character looks like and what their voice sounds like. I know their voices are in similish but I can get an understanding of how high or deep or what tone I am going for in my head. I can also see what they would dress like casually, formally, etc. so if a scene needs my characters to dress a certain way, this helps figure that out. Visualing your characters through a program like this helps but if you can draw your characters that is awesome. There is a good chunk of writers or poets who can’t draw so this helps us be able to see our characters.

[boyandhisbird]

So I watched the new Crow and it's not good. I'm gonna attempt a review, so......

SPOILERS AHEAD

The Crow (2024) kicks off with an immediate establishment of a supernatural enemy who has made a deal with the devil, but this attempt to up the stakes feels misguided and detracts from the core essence of the original comic and film. The original *Crow* was never so blatant with its supernatural elements; it wove them subtly into the fabric of a gritty revenge story grounded in raw emotion. This new approach feels overly contrived and lacks the restraint that made the original so compelling.

Right from the start, the film feels like a misstep. The portrayal of Shelly, played by FKA Twigs, is one-note and uninspired. She wears the same sleepy expression in nearly every scene, making it nearly impossible to feel any connection or sympathy for her character. Her relationship with Eric, played by Bill Skarsgård, is another weak link. The film reimagines Eric as a recovering drug addict who blindly follows the first pretty girl he sees, stripping away the purity and emotional depth of the original story. Instead of being an ordinary man brought back from the dead by the power of love, Eric is reduced to a gullible degenerate whose motivations are shallow and difficult to sympathize with.

Shelly, meanwhile, comes across less as the love of Eric’s life and more as someone manipulating him. Her introduction as a character who gives Eric drugs after his time in rehab feels forced and tasteless, adding to the sense that their relationship lacks authenticity. There’s no chemistry between them, and FKA Twigs' lack of dynamic acting ability further diminishes any sense of genuine connection. This interpretation makes Eric seem foolish rather than driven by a deep, undying love, a major departure from the character’s original arc.

Visually, the film does offer some moments worth noting. The wound-healing effects are impressive and the opera scene has a haunting quality, culminating in a decent fight sequence. However, these flashes of potential are overshadowed by numerous missed opportunities and strange creative choices. The Skull Cowboy, a character fans have long wanted to see fully realized, is portrayed as little more than a random guy in purgatory, rather than the grim, mysterious figure they envisioned, making his appearance feel pointless and uninspired. Additionally, the film’s attempts at homage to the original — like a poorly executed reference to T-Bird and an awkward car chase scene that feels more like the chaotic, over-the-top highway action from the first *Deadpool* movie — fall flat and out of place.

The villains, unlike in the original, have no depth or development. They are mere caricatures with zero backstory, making them forgettable and uninteresting. Even the film’s nod to Brandon Lee’s famous head tilt feels like a forced gesture rather than a heartfelt tribute. The introduction of a plot point that Eric cannot die as long as his love remains pure might have been intriguing if handled with nuance, but here it is presented with a lack of subtlety that detracts from the film's emotional core.

By the time the movie reaches its bewildering climax — in which Shelly inexplicably survives — any semblance of coherence is lost. This ending is jarring, undermining the very premise that makes *The Crow* a story of tragic love and revenge. It feels more like a cynical twist than a meaningful resolution, leaving viewers scratching their heads, wondering, “What the hell just happened?”

Ultimately, *The Crow (2024)* is a disappointing reboot that misses the mark on nearly every level. It feels more like a series of loosely connected scenes than a cohesive story. The film’s over-reliance on supernatural elements, lack of compelling characters, and failure to understand the core of what made the original so powerful render it a pale shadow of its predecessor. Despite a few visually interesting moments, the movie ultimately fails to capture the essence of its source material, leaving audiences longing for the emotional depth and authenticity of the original.

[montyterrible]

Born to Hench, Forced to “Boss!!”

I’m not a Minion hater exactly—no more so than I am, ambiently-like, of anything “mainstream” or “popular.” At the same time, I also don’t tend to engage with any media in a “lol so wacky I’m going INSANE from exposing myself to this!” sort of way either. When I really think about it, you could see the Minions as particularly cynical, like the Disney animal sidekick thing on steroids. They have a simple, pleasant design (emphasizing the body/head, deemphasizing the limbs and fine detail) with room for a smidgeon of individuality/visual flexibility using a satisfyingly limited number of features or elements like eyes, and which makes them more or less Engineered for Marketability as a toy or just plastered on one thing or another. There’s an enormous Minion (I think) sticker around here somewhere that a friend of mine gave me once when I was visiting him that he (I think) got from a cereal box as a “prize.” It’s my understanding that Minion memes were somewhat ubiquitous on Facebook at one point, though I can also easily imagine adults (namely parents) harboring a deep-seated hatred of these things.

Upon initially firing up Minions (2015) and hearing those eminently recognizable chattering voices “singing” the Universal Pictures theme, I thought my fears were going to be confirmed—that this was going to be a very annoying movie for me. I imagined being a parent in one room hearing that tell-tale sound for the umpteenth time coming from a TV in another, and what that might feel like. I didn’t end up following this “lol so wacky I’m going etc.” thread any further, though, because I actually found the Minions (and their movie) pretty easy to like!

On the one hand, yes, they are adorable: visually, but also in terms of personality and thanks to the ambiguity of their emotional and intellectual maturity. The Bob character, in particular, is very child-esque, but all of the Minions are vaguely characterized in this same way, and so it’s easy to feel drawn to them in their extremes of feeling, to want to nurture or at least pet them. “Part child, part dog” may be another intentional element of their design, meant to reach children and parents and childless adults all in some primal way. Ironically, the chattering wasn’t an annoyance, and I think it may actually have made the predictably goofy and usually physical humor I expected from the movie more palatable. Rather than an endless slog of “That was SO awesome!” or other “That just happened!”-adjacent running commentary on every precious goof, you instead get these intervals (sometimes surprisingly long for such a movie) where no coherent sentence is uttered. The Minions speak a winning mix of total gibberish and real language (English, Spanish, etc.), and I’ll be damned if there isn’t a certain… confidence to having that be the medium of communication, visuals aside, of bits and pieces of this movie.

On another hand, I find the very concept of a “Minion” kind of fascinating. The movie starts with an initially wordless sequence showing off Minion evolution—how from their most primitive, water-bound state they’ve always latched onto the largest and most dangerous other creatures without conflict, which is a compulsion that takes them onto the land and forward through history until they gravitate toward humans and then “supervillains” specifically. The Minions are apparently immortal(?) and so, critically, out-live their beloved masters, sometimes apparently killing them by accident. I know I’m late to the Minions party in this regard, but that’s just such a weird and compelling baseline concept. Minions being so “Assigned Henchman at Birth” while also potentially, actually being the superior animal just makes for an interesting hook.

While Minions has a recognizable-enough dramatic plot, I found it kind of oddly… “empowering” to watch. You don’t so much feel tension or stress about the scraps and scrapes the Minions get into, so much as you eagerly wait to see how they’ll easily overcome the inconvenience and defeat their enemies. I’m not joking when I say that the Minions have more in common with Alucard from the manga/anime Hellsing than they do with other protagonists in similar movies. They’re essentially “over-powered.” There are some great, fun bits of action or imagery here, though a favorite might be when the Minions’ boss-turned-enemy, Scarlet Overkill, tries to have them tortured, and this includes a bit where the Minions are gleefully slipping through and playing around with a noose. It’s fleetingly dark, perhaps surprisingly daring.

(Of course, the “3 edgy 5 you” take that I’ve even heard out in the real world about the Minions is “lol Did they work for Hitler? lol” And this movie makes clear that, no, they did not. After serving Napoleon, the Minions were in exile in an icy cave until 1968, thus avoiding the Harry Potter problem of mixing magical beings and the Holocaust.)

I was also just surprised at how twisty the plot of Minions is. I did not expect Bob to pull the mythical Sword from the Stone, or for the spurned, exploded Scarlet to return for one last attempt at the Queen of England’s crown when it felt like the movie was already over. I had a harder time thinking of really distinct swerves than I expected writing this up, but it’s all just kind of inherently Interesting. The way that this world pivots around professional villainy (even if only in secret circles) reminded me a little bit of The Venture Bros. This still isn’t evil evil—It’s easy enough to see the Minions as conventionally likeable if not exactly heroic and Scarlet Overkill as conventionally threatening and villainous, but it’s a fun enough, kid-friendly flirtation that at least sort of eschews predictable plotting.

There are some character designs that rely a bit on fatphobic imagery for their visual identity/comedy potential, but I think the most offensive thing about the movie is its treatment of The Queen, who cutesily throws down with the Minions when they attempt to steal her crown for Scarlet and who is hanging out at a pub arm wrestling after she’s dethroned. Her toothiness might qualify as gentle caricature, but I would have (cruel Leftist that I am) preferred a much meaner treatment. I mean, really, the Minions should be latching onto her, right? What with the whole legacy of colonialism and so forth? Her being a sort of apex thief and whatnot?

I jest—Obviously, that’s far too subversive and cerebral for such a Childish property! The Minions are instead drawn to the biggest cartoon of villainy, which means Scarlet at first but then ultimately a young Gru. Minions almost tells a standalone story using the critters but then has to wrap back around to Despicable Me, which means there’s a heavy Gru emphasis at the very end and during the little credits sequences. I would have preferred that it not do this (and also that Scarlet be an anthropomorphized wolf-woman for the entire movie and not just the “bedtime porry” scene), but I know this isn’t really For me, in the end, and have just accepted that with as good as a shrug. Which is how I’ve felt about the Minions as a property and/or marketing gimmick for years now.

[deadendtracks]

definitely don't feel obligated to answer this, but i've been following your updates to Not for quite some time and one thing that's stood out to me is how solid and thoroughly engaging each installment is but how cohesive the larger arc is. and it fits so seamlessly together that i have to at least ask--how do the ideas for each installment come to you, or did you map out the entire arc of Not before you started writing?

It is very encouraging to hear that the series feels cohesive as a larger arc!

I guess you could call my approach to this series "what if Peaky Blinders, as close to canon as possible, except it's an omegaverse AU" and it all stems from there. My intention is to keep everything connected to the canon events and canon characters, as closely as I can. The interesting bits to me are where those things sort of collide. How the characters may differ due to the AU, but how they could be as nearly the same, as well. How canon events might have taken place in this AU. Etc.

It wasn't planned out so there are bound to be places where if I look back, I'd say 'oh if I'd really been deeply planning an omegaverse AU I could have done this or that differently and explored some issue better' but that's the drawback of being a seat of your pants writer rather than a planner. Mostly I just write to find out what's going to happen, because I don't always know.

So probably the coherence of the story arc owes something to my sticking to the canon plot arc, finding gaps in it that make sense to explore in this AU. Other elements, like trying to answer some questions (how did Tommy get those letters he blackmailed the king with, really?) also play a role. The third major aspect is filling in some time gaps, like the time between season 3 and season 4, which is one of my favorite time gaps in the series.

After things got rolling, the stories themselves start to generate the next story in the series. So what are the consequences, emotionally or physically or plot wise, and then how might *those* things interact with canon events. Really trying to keep those things in mind while writing the next installment helps, I think, though I don't tend to consciously draw them out before I start writing. I just try to stay in the moment.

I think that's probably what gives it any cohesiveness. So a fic is not just an excuse for Tommy/Tatiana/Alfie (though it is that) but how does all of this tie in to Tommy's family being under threat of death (a canon event). How would that impact him?

And most centrally, how does Grace's death impact all of this. Sure, an omegaverse AU gives you lots of opportunities for sex scenes, but I personally don't find that interesting unless it illuminates the characters in some way. And I know it's not common in Tommy/Alfie fic, but I can't get away from canon. I have to have Grace's death impact that relationship, I have to have Alfie's canon betrayals impact that relationship. This is what makes it compelling to me. So my Tommy/Alfie are a bit more prickly and standoffish with each other than other versions.

So I didn't really map out anything when I started the series; in fact the very first fic really was just supposed to be a PWP that immediately grew a plot and a whole universe. And then at some point early on (maybe after the first fic, I can't remember) I knew what the deep backstory was. So that probably also contributes to the cohesiveness; there's a certain core story being told over the course of the series through characterization rather than overt plot.

I don't know if that story will ever be explicitly revealed; it may just be there in the background for the reader to pick up on or not. It's like when an actor makes up a backstory for their character; they don't often come out and tell you what it is but you may be able to glean it from the way they play the character.

At some point I started having ideas for possible future fics, which I jot down, but I have no idea if those will see the light of day. And sometimes other fics start happening first. I had Not a ruse in mind before I started writing Not a vacant wilderness but apparently the latter had to happen first, because that's how things came out. I'm not sure you can really call that planning per se.

I have no idea if that is a satisfying response to your kind ask!

[impostoradult]

I finally figured out why it feels like Supernatural murdered a unicorn (AKA why you need to STOP telling me to watch Black Sails)

I’ll start by saying, everything everyone else has been saying CERTAINLY bothers me: 

- the queer-baiting - the bury your queers - the undermining of Dean’s character arc  - the wasted opportunity for a certain kind of overall narrative closure - the flat out disrespect to Misha Collins and Jensen Ackles

 All of that bothers me tremendously. 

But there has been something else rather ineffable about this that has left a horrible taste in my mouth that I couldn’t quite pin down until last night. Bear with me, if you will, because this will require some set-up. 

*** This is not the first show to ever disappoint me in a spectacular fashion, nor will it be the last, I suspect. And one of the ways I’ve always coped with that disappointment was to remind myself that there will be other stories, other characters, other chances to get it right. (”It” being any number of things from just pure narrative emotional coherence to not burying your queers to not stringing along your queer audience and then yelling fuck you to them on the way out) 

But somehow that assurance -- that there will be other stories, other characters, other chances to get it right -- has rung particularly hollow in this instance, and I couldn’t quite put my finger on why until yesterday. 

I kept asking myself, why do I still have this feeling, deep in the pit of my stomach, like something was lost here that can never be recovered? 

Because something was lost here that I am doubtful can ever be recovered, and I don’t think I’ve seen anyone else talking about this aspect of it at all. 

***

A few months ago, TV critic Maureen Ryan did a great interview piece with Mike Schur (of Parks & Rec/The Good Place) discussing the death of long-form TV in the streaming era. They explore how the longer seasons and longer runs of traditional broadcast/cable TV provided an opportunity to tell particular kinds of stories that you simply can’t when seasons are 8-10 episodes and series typically run 2-4 seasons (thanks Netflix).

One key thing we’ve all lost in this new era of highly condensed TV storytelling (and of prestige TV narrative styles)? The traditional (several season’s long) slow-burn/will-they-won’t-they romance. Not only is there simply no longer the time or space to write such romances, it has also come to be seen as hacky, manipulative, cheap, artistically impoverished, low-brow, a embarrassing vestige of the era before TV became art™. 

Everybody is trying to be Fleabag now. No one wants to be Frasier. (”It’s really more like a 10 hour movie” they all like to brag)

Obviously TV still has romances, even ‘drawn out’ romances. But ‘drawn out’ in 2020 is like 2-3 seasons, maybe. More commonly it’s like half a season. Take Schitt’s Creek. The number of episodes between when David and Patrick first meet and when they first kiss? Seven. Seven episodes. Half a season. If you watched it live, it took less than 2 months for them to move from introducing that dynamic to consummating it. And I’m not bagging on Schitt’s Creek; I think the David/Patrick’s story is very lovely and well-written. 

But Niles & Daphne (Fraiser) had to wait 7 years and over 150 episodes before they finally got there. Josh & Donna (The West Wing) had to wait 6+ years, and 145 episodes. Mulder & Scully (The X-Files) had to wait 7 seasons and 143 episodes. Booth & Bones had to wait...you see where I am going with this. 

And my point is (and I can’t believe I never realized this explicitly until now): there has NEVER been a queer slow-burn/will-they-won’t-they romance of that type on TV ever. EVER. 

I’m going to say that again, because I think it bares repeating:

There has never been a queer, slow-burn/will-they-won’t-they romance that fits the 100-150 episode paradigm of delayed gratification on TV. 

Not ever.  

I can’t think of ONE example  Not a single, solitary one. And I know queer TV pretty well. Arguably the closest we’ve ever come is Legend of Korra, and that ran 50 episodes, a THIRD of the length of old school will-they-won’t-theys like Booth & Bones or Josh & Donna. 

Queer people have had a fair number of canonical romances on TV by now, even fairly long running ones. But we never got a primary/front-and-center romance that you had to root for for 100+ episodes before you got any kind of canonical consummation.

That is a particular kind of TV experience that queer people and queer characters were just 100% shut out of until it was too late. And because of how the TV landscape has changed in the last 10 years, I don’t know that that opportunity will ever come back around in our lifetimes. 

***

Dean and Castiel are/were a legacy of an earlier era of TV, an era that still contained the possibility for a will-they-won’t-they of that particular mold. There were other shows that could have also filled this gap at one time - Rizzoli & Isles, OUAT, House MD, etc. But one by one all of them were killed off, their queer romances unrequited, until Supernatural was the only one of its’ generation left standing. 

And they should have acknowledged that they were a species about to become extinct. 

There are plenty of other valid and compelling reasons Supernatural should have gone full Destiel, don’t get me wrong.

A) It would have been the most emotionally satisfying ending to the series and to those characters (and that would have been reason enough). 

B) It would have stopped the manipulative queer-baiting of the (disproportionately queer) fanbase (and that would have been reason enough). 

C) It would have been queer representation of middle-aged men, of bi men, of queers who came to their queerness later in life (and any/all of those would have been reason enough). 

D) It could have been a glorious subversion of the bury your queers trope, considering how often they’ve died and been resurrected (and that would have been reason enough). 

But point E) on this list is the reason this one hurts in a singular way that no one even appears to be acknowledging. 

Almost all of the other wrongs and missed opportunities contained in this Supernatural debacle have the possibility of being rectified (at least to a degree) elsewhere. I can and I likely will get more bi male characters from TV as time goes on. I can and likely will get more middle-aged queer characters. I can and likely will get more queer characters coming to their queerness later in life, and starting queer romances later in life. I can and likely will get more queer characters who aren’t killed cheaply and prematurely. I can and likely will get more genre TV shows with sprawling myth arc plots that are resolved in a coherent, satisfying way. I can and likely will get Misha Collins and Jensen Ackles involved in other projects that value their work and their talents. 

All of those other things are at the very least POSSIBLE, and many are even likely. 

But a queer 100-150 episode slow-burn romance a la Mulder & Scully or Niles & Daphne or Booth & Bones? That is the one baton Supernatural dropped spectacularly that no one else even has the possibility of picking up again for the foreseeable future. (They don’t even write those types of romances for heterosexuals anymore!) 

Seriously. It was a TV unicorn. And rather than letting it run wild and free, they stabbed it with a rusty nail. 

***

Given the monumental shifts in the TV landscape that have occurred in the last decade, I don’t know that TV will ever go back to the slow-burn/will-they-won’t-they romance spanning 100-150 episodes. Today it is a miracle if you can get ANY show to last longer than 50 episodes in the first place. 

And that is the piece of this that makes it feel (to me) like they murdered a unicorn.  

Because queer people have gotten a lot of things from TV, and they will get a lot more as time goes on. But that one? That one could very well be a totally extinct species.

That is the larger missed opportunity here that has left this feeling especially hollow and destructive. That is the thing that makes me balk when people tell me to go watch Black Sails or Pose or whatever other prestige TV show is doing this representation ‘better.’ Because that’s not really the loss I am mourning here. I KNOW there is ‘better’ representation elsewhere.  

But the will-they-won’t-they/slow-burn romance is a qualitatively unique thing that queer people literally just never got. Ever. There is no substitute, no alternate, no other show I can turn to with that kind of build-up and pay-off for a queer couple, and there probably won’t be in my lifetime. Not unless the TV industry undergoes another monumental evolution similar to the streaming revolution that shifts the incentives back to telling those types of stories again. 

All those shows you want me to displace Supernatural with? None of them can give me the one thing I uniquely wanted (and could have gotten) from Supernatural. THAT ALTERNATE SHOW DOESN’T EXIST. It doesn’t exist. And I have no reason to hope it will ever exist in my lifetime. 

So stop telling me to look somewhere else; you don’t understand what made this one a unicorn. 

***

Addendum: The only other possible show that could perhaps fill this gap is It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (re: Mac/Dennis). But I’m hesitant to say it exactly meets that criteria, for a number of reasons:

1 - It’s far less serialized relative to Supernatural and (except for a handful of stand-alone episodes) very little of the story is grounded specifically in Dennis/Mac’s romantic dynamic (unlike SPN, where it is absolutely central to much of the narrative)

2 - IASIP is fundamentally satirically in nature/tone which makes it much harder to have genuine romantic pathos (not impossible, but harder) 

3 - All the characters on IASIP are fundamentally crummy people who you aren’t exactly supposed to root for. Which doesn’t mean a romance between two of them can’t have its value/charm/worth but it’s not the same as when it is between characters who unequivocally deserve nice things/happy endings

[gch1995]

No one hates OUAT more than those of us in the fandom who actually watched it and/or followed it long enough to fully realize just how disappointingly awful, hopeless, and ridiculous the writing became in the piss poor excuse for canon the show devolved into the longer it went on, even though it was supposed to “be fun” and “give us hope.” At least all of its beautiful wasted potential became an outlet for far superior writing in our headcanons and fanfiction, though, no matter how shitty the actual show got.

I always feel so bad for newbies in the fandom who haven’t yet uncovered the horrific clusterfuck of bad writing this show ultimately devolved into. A part of me always feels like telling new fans to just spare themselves the pain, and to just quit watching after the Neverland arc. The majority of those of us in the OUAT fandom agree that the show’s writing ultimately devolved into a painfully biased, cheaply shocking, cheesy, wildly inconsistent, melodramatic, nonsensical, pandering, repetitive, and wildly ooc unsalvageable mess of bad writing that made us feel angry, betrayed, bored, and disgusted more often than not after that.

However, even after the show’s writing went completely off the rails beyond all salvaging, there were still those gold nuggets of wasted potential for characters, relationships, and storylines that could have and should have been amazing, if Kitsowitz and these writers actually had been able to be consistently competent and professional at their jobs. Particularly when looking back at the first two-and-a-half seasons of OUAT, I feel a great sense of disappointment at just how much beautiful and interesting potential they ultimately wasted in these characters and relationships in favor of blatantly biased, cheaply shocking, contrived, nonsensical, mutually toxic, wildly ooc, repetitive, and thus, character destroying magical soap opera melodrama.

There’s always this deep sense of disappointment in me over the amazing show that canon OUAT ultimately could have and should have been whenever I see all of those golden nuggets of tragically wasted potential Kitsowitz and these writers showed us in those moments when they were actually being competent show-runners and writers, particularly in S1-2A before they show got too distracted by the next big contrived magical thing to actually let the characters slow down, talk to each other, hang out with each other, and grow and react like in-character and relatable human beings. If only they were able to ultimately write and stick to a consistent, relatable, gradual, realistic, and organic course of character development that actually would have ultimately made these characters, happy endings, redemption arcs, and/or regression arcs actually feel well-earned and satisfying in the end.

Instead, they ended up erasing, minimizing, and/or outright romanticizing certain bad behaviors and choices of their characters at certain points and the negative consequences and/or effects they had in regards to those they hurt and/or victimized.

Instead, they ended up outright derailing most of their characters normally and/or consistently previously established complex, intelligent, and sympathetic characterizations and/or positive development at one point or another in order to rerail them over and over and over again more and more post S3 in increasingly abrupt, cheaply shocking, contrived, disappointing, flanderdized, horrifying, melodramatically toxic, and nonsensical ways that made them suddenly come across as uncharacteristically unsympathetic and stupid out of nowhere.

Instead, they created absurdities out of nowhere to inorganically force the characters to regress in ways that contradicted all previously established canon characterization, continuity, and previously established logic on the show.

Instead, they selectively bent, broke, and contradicted their own rules of magic with less and less fairness, rhyme, or reason as every season passed the first.

If only they had consistently and fairly stuck to their own rules and limitations of what magic could and couldn’t do. If only they treated their characters as complex and relatable human beings and equals with compelling, consistent, and realistic personalities, flaws, conflicts, regressions, redemptions, and resolutions that drove their stories consistently, gradually, organically, and realistically because of who they were and/or developed into as people, rather than because nonsensical asspulled twists and/or magical macguffins demanded that these characters suddenly become whatever they needed them to become a certain way to create cheap shock value, suspense, drama, and repetitive storytelling, regardless of all previously established characterization, continuity, development, and logic in their own canon.

Instead, they decided to cherry pick favorite characters and/or ships to frame as “redeemed” in the narrative, even though they may not have actually done anything to earn it and/or regressed without any negative consequences for doing so, just because Emma and the Charmings accepted them as “family.”

Instead, they ended up slapping increasingly biased, petty, meaningless, and shallow “hero” and “villain” labels on all of their characters, regardless of how objectively and needlessly harmful their choices, behaviors, and reactions may have been to others, in spite of being on the “right” side.

But we all ultimately sustained ourselves in the OUAT fandom by imagining just how amazing these characters, their relationships, and their storylines could have and should have been, trying to disregard the character assassinating bad writing in the piss poor excuse for canon that OUAT ultimately devolved into, taking Kitsowitz and these writers golden nuggets of tragically wasted potential for these characters, their relationships, and creating far superior works of art with those golden nuggests of wasted potential in canon with our headcanons and fan fiction.

OUAT isn’t a show that stuck with most of us because we were impressed by its writing in canon. In fact, most of us are fully aware that there were writing choices in the piss poor excuse of canon OUAT our favorite characters and relationships on the show that were inexcusably awful, biased, cheesy, cheaply shocking, gross, offensive, inconsistent, nonsensical, tone-deaf, wildly ooc, and/or repetitive at one point or another. Honestly, if the main character and/or relationship lasted past S3 in the main cast, then Kitsowitz and the writers destroyed your favorite character and/or ship with bad writing at one point or another.

After the writers unceremoniously killed off Bae/Neal, and resurrected Rumple from the show’s most consistently relatable, realistic, sympathetic, and well-earned two-and-a-half season redemption arc from S1-3A, it became clear thet they ran out of story to tell after wrapping up the Neverland arc, and had no idea where else they were supposed to go with Emma, Regina, Hook, Rumple, Belle, Snow, David, and even Henry’s individual characters or relationships anymore.

We know canon OUAT became a shitshow of inexcusably bad writing. We know it became horrifying and stupid. However, most of us didn’t actually remain in this fandom because we agreed with the writing on the show. We latched onto it so strongly because of its amazing main cast. We latched on to it so deeply because it showed us how to not completely fuck up amazing, relatable, and compelling individual characters, their relationships, and their storylines with biased, hypocritical, ableist, classist, homophobic, racist, sexist, petty, cheaply shocking, gross, wildly ooc, flanderdized, melodramatic, pandering, repetitive, and nonsensical lazy plot-driven writing. Granted, these problems were starting to show up in canon OUAT’s writing as early on as S1. However, after 3A, the show’s writing completely went off the rails for everyone in the remaining main cast that lasted past S3, and these characters and their relationships never fully recovered what made them at all coherent, compelling, magical, relatable, and enjoyable to watch and get invested in in canon from S1-S3, in spite of their obvious flaws.

Most of us have remained in the OUAT fandom because the show’s shitty writing choices and wasted potential inspired most of us to tell far better stories than Kitsowitz and their team of hacks ultimately did.

[constellaj]

16

Please talk more about your reboot!

16: If you could change anything in the show, what would you change?

okay so how i would re-do CANON is completely different from how i would talk abt a reboot so im gonna touch on a couple things in both contexts! the reason for the difference is canon rewrites imply i can go back in time and introduce dp fresh and new, before anyone knows what it is; but for a reboot, id be working with an audience that has a better understanding of the source material, so i dont need to spend as much time explaining, but i also need to keep everything recognizable

Valerie

REWRITE: i would def make it more danny's fault that her dad lost his job, like danny was intentionally being reckless and shattered some security stuff, and he has a whole mini lesson about learning to not just run in guns blazing. i would probably remove the dating stuff with her and danny (and tuckers crush) too, I think them wanting to be good friends is good enough for freshman year

REBOOT: the fandom already knows valerie exists, so i would actually skip the whole shades-of-gray introductory episode and have her be present as the huntress from day 1-- probably even before danny got his powers. cujo is also HER dog, and her backstory-- we'd find out in like, season 1, that a natural ghost portal (maybe one wulf opened) ripped open on her dog and killed him, and since then shes had a vendetta against ghosts cause of how reckless they are and their disregard for life-- of course, cujo isnt actually dead. cujo is a halfa. a puby halfa. anyway instead of a hoverboard she actually rides cujo around cause he can fly and its big and epic. valerie has BEEN amity parks ghost-eradicating superhero for at least a year (tho shes been in the shadows abt it) and her hatred towards danny actually just becomes really petty, like them flying next to each other chasing skulker just going "I got this. no I got this. no I got this" and they just get in each others' way and its a mutual grudge.

BOTH: i am NOT keeping in vlad giving her the suit to watch danny under any circumstances. it was only utilized half assedly in canon (when vlad couldve just had an invisible duplicate watching him instead) anyway, and I dont have any reason to keep it in a reboot either. instead i want her tech to be a combination of half-stolen and half-gerryrigged stuff and she slowly slowly learns how to build her own.

I also dont want anyone knowing her secret identity, except maybe her dad, and sam or tucker. i think it works better if danny isnt privy to this magic info

Freakshow

REWRITE: i would honestly just remove him. the episodes hes in arent particularly interesting, theyre just generic "we need a plot about x" filler and he's not compelling enough a character (at least in writing) to carry a better plot that another antagonist couldnt. i'm serious

REBOOT: unfortunately in a reboot he's gonna have to pop up somewhere or else ppl will be like "where IS HE" so I'm going to stick with running some kind of ghost circus, maybe a few occult things, but cut out a lot of the spooky magical knowledge and mcguffin stuff. maybe i could make him like, someone from vlad/jack/maddies college who always felt pushed around by them and so he has a vendetta? and theyd be the only reason he even learned abt ghosts in the first place. idk in either way I want to force him into being irredeemable but also include LYDIA (the tattoo girl ghost) way more-- I want to give her an arc that ends in her tossing freakshow aside and running off to be a ghost vigilante.

BOTH: dear god the infinity gauntlet is stupid that needs to GO AWAY. especially for the reboot cause it would exist in a post-mcu world and way too many people would complain about it

Vlad

REWRITE: amp him up to a far more sinister and villainous character. the crushing on maddie isnt enough, I want to show him on-screen performing experiments on ghosts and himself, dismissing everyone else cause he thinks hes smarter than them. i want him to be actively sabotaging the fentons at every turn. i would also clarify that he doesnt actually want danny as a son, but as a trophy-- a line where danny says something along the lines of "you don't want a son. you want a slave". i want to make him a character who wants to destroy the entire planet and put it in the ghost zone so he can be the true ghost king and i want to make this all evident from day one. if i'm writing a series villain you can bet i'm going to write a GOOD one. less petty drama here and more actual stakes.

REBOOT: it seems silly but sense with reboot we have the benefit of hindsight and recognizing that vlad wasn't a big series villain, theres no way i'd actually go back and write him to be such. for starters, of course, theres the fact that anything he does would really be an exaggerated part of the original, and it would bore an audience to see the same story again-- theres also the fact that it doesnt seem right to take a character who was treated as a joke half the time and suddenly make them big and important. no, instead for my reboot i want to lean into the petty gay uncle vibe. he had a crush on jack and now just casually insults him. he moves mansions every now and again by just haunting the family who lives in the one he wants, and taking over-- i mean, who is gonna believe that an actual ghost haunted you. he dislikes danny not because he has some concept of 'evil' and 'good' but bc danny is just too damn active. of course he actually does care about danny and his safety deep down, it's just on the surface they have very conflicting motivations-- not to mention that danny has been raised on legends from his parents of the villainous Wisconsin Ghost, who has to be stopped at all costs.

BOTH: i want jack and maddie to KNOW he's a half ghost and to actively be hunting him down for it, maybe bc they think hes possessed, or been a ghost tricking them this whole time, or the victim of a tragic lab accident who needs to be put to rest, etc. whatever the case it will give vlad actual tangible reason to despise them and genuinely suspect they dont have dannys best interests at heart. i think it would be neat if vlad was cynical and every time danny hit him with the "I'll expose us both. at least theyll still love ME" vlad could be like in the back of his head "oh god theyre going to kill this child"

Dani

REWRITE: cut her out. we don't need her character at all. maybe replace her with a more ominous shadow duplicate / clone that actually looks like danny himself and doesnt really have a name? you could probably combine her and dark dans characters for their arcs

REBOOT: instead of a clone from vlad, she's a guys in white creation using some of dannys dna after he was captured (and vlad broke him out bc he was like "ugh i guess i have to save this child")

BOTH: vlad actually cares abt her (duh), shes nonbinary (double duh), she gets the funny dissolve into goo powers

i had more i thought i was gonna write but this post is already very long and also im running out of coherency for this LUL

[degenerate-perturbation]

for the ship game...vrizrezi hawke/anders and ummmm kaladin/moash 👽

Vrisrezi: Do not ship

I do not like Vrisrezi because interactions with Vriska make Terezi much more boring, and Vriska isn't particularly oriented towards Terezi either. The character I wanted to see Vriska grow and change alongside with was Tavros. They had narrative resonance and something sort of resembling a coherent parallel arc. Vriska and Terezi are more of an informed-attribute Ultimate Rivalry than a dynamic I really felt invested in. Somehow, these characters are less than the sum of their parts; they do not contribute meaningfully to one another's arcs in ways that are good rather than bad.

I could easily have liked this ship. I have nothing against it in principle. I just don't think what was presented in the story made a compelling case for them, and I didn't ever read any fanfiction.

I enjoy the concept of this ship more if it's in the context of a fucked up FLARP polycule with Aradia and Tavros also involved. That shit is great. I also do strongly prefer it to either Dave/Terezi or John/Vriska, and it's probably one of the best Vriska ships out there.

Hawke/Anders: Do not ship

This one I actually do actively hate and will not engage with fan content for.

Partly it's that I think that the DA2 story works better without any Hawke/Companion romance. Hawke is most interesting to me as an aggregator of baffling ruffians rather than someone who is actually One of the ruffians. Because Hawke is boring. They're a boring cookie cutter protagonist who I care for only as a plot device and narrative tool.

But I dislike Hawke/Anders especially because a romance arc would be a terrible decision for Anders' story. The whole Kirkwall period is things getting worse and worse for Anders and culminating with a suicidal act of mass violence. There is no way to jam a healthy relationship into that character arc, not even getting into the actual in-game details of their romantic interactions.

Now, an unhealthy relationship? Yes! Absolutely! I can read Hawke/Anders as abusive, mutually toxic, or otherwise some kind of ill-advised train wreck which ultimately is only a brief stop along a larger story about something else. But hardly anybody writes that. Everybody wants to project their protective poor little meow meow feelings onto Hawke and have them Take Care of poor widdle Anders who is so sad and so wet. And I don't truck with that. Hawke is entirely the wrong character for this formula and I cannot enjoy it.

What would have made me like it? Idk, if Anders' entire character arc was completely different.

What I'll say for it is that I do think it's fantastic as a toxic trainwreck nightmare story and I actually love shitty evil rivalmance Hawkes who make Anders' life worse.

Kalmoash: Literally have absolutely no idea if I ship or not. Like I fucking guess?

I think I only like the made up fandom version of this ship. But when I remember their actual canonical interactions I just feel sort of icky.

Moash is just so...look, I love Moash. He sucks, and I love that for him! Here is a character so absolutely, triumphantly responsible for his own suffering, so clearly being damned by his own basic character flaws, that it's fucking excruciating to watch. It's fantastic. What fertile ground for a redemption arc! Moash is a guy who hit rock bottom and picked up a shovel. He did this all to himself, and boy howdy does it compel me.

But wow, he sucks. And he's not being written with compassion by an author who ultimately likes him and his bullshit. He's being written by an author who has nothing nice to say about him at all. My enjoyment of this character is not supported by the text, because the text is frankly not that deep. The text is all there on the surface and it doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

So I enjoy pretending that they dated during WoR, but like their close friendship is moooostly an informed attribute. Which is a real shame, because it limits the emotional impact of the betrayal and the emotional impact of any possible future redemption arc.

Anyway yeah I guess I do ship it because if I see a picture of them kissing I'm hitting reblog.

[gayspock]

also naurr okay thoughts before i go into ep 9

- i think ok. the issue NOW is once u start thinking of it, omg, u just dont stop. like oh christ bc with CAITLYN... sigghhhQDOIPSJGDJ. i feel eye-rolly at myself now bc ik its not that deep but omg u kno when u get mildly annoyed for good reason but then it just snowballs bc ur a little petty pest?<3HELP I cant be so mean over this blue haired little girlie...

- but idk maybe i am not. like i think its just. im staring at her more and i think she just really feels... emblematic of the weaker points of the show, you know? which i feel, well, bad for. but like if you had to summarise what it is abt arcane that holds it BACK for me... caitlyn wouldnt be a far shout. and i mean thats not AS dramatic as it sounds: bc like ive said, i like the show! its funnn and theres lots of good stuff in here<3 but the parts that are really holding it back..

- like ive said. the way it plays itself so safely- you know? which again. not much else u can expect from a netflix league of legends show. but also like... nonetheless it is still trying to explore, like, the ideas of corruption and inequality and "class" (im putting THAT in quotation marks) but it goes about it in a very. honestly shallow way where its really not... deeply criticising any of it which again, idk what else to expect from this and i didnt expect more, but also like. when thats a core principle of ur show and ur going to be milktoast abt it yah.... the show itself is gonna be milktoast, yah?<3

- and caitlyn is like at the epicentre of a lot of that. like we have no actual proper criticisms of wealth when it comes to her- not really. and instead shes like... the savior voice of reason figure. like i said. that part before really bothered me where you have ekko and everyone in the firelights who've all been fighting and surviving down there for YEARS now and you walk her in and have her be the "did you guys know that. violence is... bad!" person like idc idc idc... its like i just dont care, girlie.

- and like in general you know. with the clean cut OH THE UNDERCITY IS ALL THE POOR PEOPLE AND THE OVERCITY IS THE RICH PEOPLE and. goodness you must forgive me- its obvious im a stem kid, with an unscrewed head, so im not so good at laying out all my thoughts coherently like this- but again its all a very superficial... well these are the rich people and those are the poor people without... going into very much depth at all, just these like monoliths for the oppressed and the not oppressed. a black and white this and that. but again without- without actually picking it apart!? its all these vague swathes of "theyre poor down there! and its violent down there! we are letting them down!" and its like uh. c-coool............................... and i think its bc you know. if you did actually HAVE to develop the underlying reasons behind tht you would have to get into the unsafe, riskier territory and well... characters like caitlyn would most surely be less and less compelling.

- bc like i said before when also criticisng caitlyn. like. they said it themselves. she abused her power as a cop and as a rich person to sorta just go off whilst on the job, undermine upper authority, and do whatever the fuck she want and she gets out of all of tht bc of who she is. and you can be like "oh! but she was doing it for GOOD!" as they said in the show- but its like noww... exactly, now lets discuss THAT for a second. bc its like no i agree she wasnt doing anything wrong-wrong, but still its like... again. a way in which caitlyn just sort of exists as this barely questioned icon privilege, but then the show also stakes so much onto her to deliver and push forwards plot as a person and im just... yawn. and surely the show wouldnt as, like i said, i dont expect that much of it but its again this very... sigh. you know. SAFE sort of thing. and its the sort of thing that always happens in these fantasy worlds, where they create a make believe the oppressed group and the not oppressed group and try to build up this big thing but its all just sort of smoke and mirrors and not. really much at all more than that

- AND ITS LIKE. it slike- again hey. im gonna reassert. its like... its fine. i guess? its just.. another overly safe attempt to do this whole song and dance. so much is- like jesus. its par for the course nowadays. a kinda emptiness which god thats sobering. but i guess its dressed up in a fun way. and whilst im not gonna come away obsessed with all of this, like ive been saying, i guess im having fun watching it and i'll prolly stick around for the next season and rb some gifsets about depending on the overall temperature of the thing bc lord knows i havent looked in those tags. and i hope im not coming off as too pretnetious lol omg- bc its like... literallyyy i get it if it just scratches a certain fun part for you, bc i have said man the design of this thing is wonderful and i guessif none of this rlly means much then hey. i can see why a lot of ppl would be obsessed with it but i guess its just not wholly clicking for me

- i will also say though. again i do think... not just with safeness. im doubling down on what i said before, actually. i think its well-paced in terms of hey! im not getting fuckin bored here, and you are giving even amount of time to everyone and i do think ur utilising ur time well for what you DO have but ehhhhh gosh idk. i still can sort of... TASTE... a much deeper well developed show, had they more time. you know what i mean? LIKE- i guess its good as it is but its like. man you could elevate so much of this if there was just more dedication to some things.

- like i think medarda is one prime example of like. shes JUST a little undercooked for who she is. like we've got a good idea of her! but my GOD if we could just get more of her- oh fuck, please... bc i just feel like we got some really good moments but i dont know i want more. i want more complexity in here- and more of this and that andt his an dt.. im not sure what exactly but it just feels like shes bigger than what she has been onscreen like gosh

- (which also on tht note is another thing i'd like to clarify with caitlyn like. bc the thing is i wouldnt care if she was a richgirl cop and hell i'd be into the push and pull with her and vi if they, again, just owned that right and weren't so piss cold with it all. like i think you can have these types of characters for fucking sure- just... frame them better narratively you know. yeesh. although granted theres a lot to unspool there wrt like whate- YOU KNOW I CANT EVEN FINISH THESE THOUGHTS MY HEADS MELTING ON THIS line of thinking lemme omggg.)

- but yeah also viktor sighhh. i havent talked of viktor. im just SAD you know bc also with the whole- again... i think its just starting to feel worse and again im able-bodied so taking my perspective with a grain of salt, yah, like... it just isnt sitting right with me how much theyre connecting disability with monstrosity. and i guess its just the tired old, bloody trope of fuckin- hghhrhgh cyberpunk is when YOU LOSE PARTS OF YOUR SOUL WITH BODY MODIFICATIONS! but recoloured and its like again. i think if they did properly have the time to explore this whole thing better you could right that more than what theyre doing now but its like godddd bc literally every single disabled character is either viktor OR theyre a violent undercity person and theyre all succumbing to the shimmer and idk man idk sniff nsiff...........

- speaking of. idk if anyone cares. m besties are vi, ekko and viktor i think. my little guys. :3 i love ekko a lot actually.......... i want more of him. less of, like, whatever the hell caitlyns weird savior bs is and more of ekko fighting for his god damn LIFE please<3 BBYYYYY. god the former espec cially- that shit ROCKED so badly.

- speaking of. idk if anyone cares. m besties are vi, ekko and viktor i think. my little guys. :3 i love ekko a lot actually.......... i want more of him. less of, like, whatever the hell caitlyns weird savior bs is and more of ekko fighting for his god damn LIFE please<3 and ofc i do laso love jinx oh teehee.. i like them. fun guys.

- i do find jayce interesting too. him and merdara. ive said wht i said abt merdara- GOD, i'd fucking love her way more if they did just push her a bit and you know. i like jayce a whole fuckn lot too i think the others are just a bit above them both rn LOL.

- anyways last ep soon i might hmmm i might give it a bit first let myself chill omg i should get hot choccy....

[randomfandomimagine]

Games With Trish: The Last of Us Part II

Granted, I didn’t actually play this myself but watched my brother play it instead. Still, I’m kind of glad he had the controller because the game looks so difficult and scary. Overall, I absolutely adored the game and it has so many good things. For that reason, I’ll say the bad things first since there are very few.

I know this game was very controversial, but this is my personal opinion and thoughts, not facts. Let me know your opinion if you want (as long as you’re kind and polite, please!). 

Long rant and spoilers under the cut!

Bad things

I have two main things to complain about in the game: the violence and its heavy emotional charge. Now, I don’t necessarily hate them because not only does it make sense that it’s a violent game taking place in a post-apocalyptic world where it’s kill or be killed, but it also goes along with the message of hate and revenge the game wants to tell. 

Still, the game gave me a lot of anxiety and I didn’t enjoy it as much as I could have for this reason. I averted my gaze a few times (when they break Yara’s arm being one of them) because it’s so brutal. I’m also a very sensitive person, so each time we played it was so tense and sad that I ended up exhausted. Every time a character died it was so harrowing... Abby’s Day 3 was so intense that I was a little overwhelmed, and Yara’s death was like the final straw and we had to take a break from the game. Characters also die so quickly, which is realistic, but it didn’t give you enough time to react before you were thrown into another scene or shootout. Between how frantic some scenes are and how brutal or tragic, I had to ask my brother to pause it a few times. The game really doesn’t give you a moment to breathe. That’s it, that’s my only complaint about the game. Now on to the good things.

Characters

First of all, and always my favorite thing about any story: the characters. Ellie is my all time favorite character, and even if I don’t agree with her choices and actions in this game, I can still empathize with her and love how complex and deep she is. She’s just human, and she is traumatized, so she does some questionable things.

Obviously, Troy Baker’s and Ashley Johnson’s performances are flawless, but Druckmann’s dialogues and writing is so... human. The characters interact like real people, they are spontaneous and natural, they have intimate moments of love, anger and a wide range of emotions. These characters fidget, frown, smile and have a myriad of human gestures (also improved with the amazing, mindblowing Naughty Dog graphics) that make them feel real. You can feel the emotion pour out of every gesture, every look, every expression.

I know Abby is also a controversial character but... I adore her. Of course we are meant to hate her at first, but the more time we spend with her, the more I grew fond of her even if I missed playing with Ellie. I couldn’t help but to admire Abby’s brute strength and bravery, even when she faces her fear of heights. When she tells her story, you understand her motivations as much as her actions hurt. Joel (like every character in this game and every person in that world) was not a good person, no matter how much we love him. Besides, at the end of the game it’s hard not to feel for Abby. She loses everyone as a direct result of her own revenge that she very much ends up regretting. When Ellie finds her at the end, it was hard to even tell that was Abby, I literally didn’t recognize her. So it was nice knowing that she found redemption and got her happy ending with Lev, her new family.

The side characters are all amazing. I was especially fond of Lev and Yara (Lev is an adorable little boy that must be protected, I just wanted to hug him) from Abby’s part and Dina and Jesse from Ellie’s part. I also loved Owen, Nora, Manny, Alice... everyone. Even Mel, who seems a bit more bland in comparison, has a defined personality. 

The plot

It is so well written, it makes so much sense, coherently and thematically, that I don’t understand some complaints. It’s also so compelling! People complain that Joel’s death made no sense and was just for shock value? It was a direct consequence of his actions at the end of the first game when he killed lots of people and literally doomed humanity out of selfishness. I still love Joel and I’m glad he saved Ellie, but this can’t be denied. Besides, the game deals a lot with the consequences of the characters’s actions, so it makes perfect sense to me.

Everything that happens in the plot and the story has a point. You kill lots of people as Ellie to avenge Joel, but then you get Abby’s point of view and grief the loss of those same characters. The game tries to make you feel for every person, which is why they all have names and their friends call out to them when they are shot. The main goal of the game was to get you to feel empathy for the ‘bad guys’. The point was that there are no good or bad guys in this story, only people with personal perspectives. Ellie and Abby are just two women who felt they were in the right. And in a way, they both were.

I just think the plot was coherent, with lots of interesting things, twists and surprises. Overall, it was realistic. There were no deus ex machinas, no crazy expectation subversions (because the twists were well established) and to me it felt like everything that happened had a meaning, as heart-crushing as it could be.

The themes

Now, this is one of my favorite things about the game. I read that Druckmann said that Ellie and Abby would have been friends in another life, and I agree. They are two sides of the same coin, or two different moments in the process of recovery from trauma and grief. 

Abby got her revenge and is dealing with the consequences of it, with the guilt and the rejection of those that don’t approve of her hate and resentment. When she got her revenge, she didn’t feel better (in fact she felt worse) so she does something good to change that. She literally returns to Yara and Lev to make amends for killing Joel, and in it she finds a new family. In the end, Abby actively choses not to do bad things anymore (even to the point of refusing to fight Ellie) and let go of that hatred.

Ellie is in the first stages of grief, needing to look for Abby until she kills her for what she did to Joel. There are some hardcore visceral moments that show the dark side of revenge, like when she finds Nora or attacks Mel and Owen. Even when Abby lets her go she still can’t forget about Joel’s death. It was a nice respite in the farm with Dina and JJ, but her guilt and PTSD don’t leave her and she has to go again. She is literally going through what Abby already lived, hence why she tells Ellie ‘I’m not doing this’ when they meet at the end of the game.

Ellie and Abby were on the same path even if they started on different places. Abby had done terrible things for Isaac as a Wolf but finds redemption when protecting Lev. Ellie mostly wanted to live a happy life until her father figure was taken from her. They meet common ground at some point and then go on their own paths again, which is why the game didn’t end on the theatre.

The first Last of Us was about love, but Part II is about hate. It speaks about how hatred and revenge never end, an eye for an eye and everyone will end up blind. The characters have to make conscious choices to avoid it ruining their lives even further and that’s why the ending is so good. More on that later.

Little things

The setting is incredible, it feels lived in and sometimes it’s absolutely gorgeous. Every place has a history and some of them are just so cool. The musem with the flashback of Joel and Ellie was one of my favorite places, as well as the aquarium. Also, the part of the game where you go to Ground Zero? Terrifying! I was freaking out only watching my brother play, and I’m impressed that they managed to make it feel so dark and ominous. It’s brilliant that they thought of putting something like that in the game, as scary as it was.

The game has so much attention to detail, from how you always find alcohol and scissors in places like kitchens or bathrooms to how accurate the animations are. I was blown away when I saw the trailer with how you crawl under cars and cock the guns and everything, and the game has so many details like those.

Even the AI was insane, NPCs have dialogues if you let them speak and they are so smart. They turn around in the middle of their walking, like real people would, and make it extra challenging. I was so impressed with the AI.

The music was phenomenal as usual. The score just pulls the correct emotions out of you, whether it is making you feel the adrenaline with the drums or feel nostalgic or just make you sad with the guitar.

The ending

Finally, the ending. I think many people didn’t like it, but to me it was perfect. I was so convinced that either Ellie or Abby were going to die, or both! I was relieved that they both lived, and in a way that made so much sense. To me it was a satisfying end to everything that had been set up, a coherent end to all the themes and the message that the game sent. Revenge is bad, let go of that hatred or it will consume you.

Ellie can’t kill Abby. She spent so long thinking about Joel in his last moments, about how she was helpless and couldn’t save him, and that fueled her anger and hatred. Her survivor’s guilt from the first game only got worst when it meant seeing her father figure die. Still, when she is about to kill Abby she thinks about him in a different way. She sees him fondly, with his jacket and coffee and playing guitar. She doesn’t see him bloody and dying as he was that dreadful day. That’s why she doesn’t kill Abby. 

Abby and Lev find Santa Catalina after everything they went through. IT’s Abby’s ‘reward’ for not going after Ellie again after what happened with Owen, Mel and everyone. They get their happy ending together as a family: Lev can be himself and feel safe even with everything that he loss, Abby can start forgiving herself for her guilt and honor both her father and Owen by returning to the Fireflies. She was lost in the darkness but found the light. It’s also symbolic that she isn’t as buff or has her long hair because she’s letting go of the reason why she had them.

Ellie lost everything. She couldn’t let go of her hatred and in doing so she was left completely alone, which was her worst fear. She risked everything and the only thing she had left, which was Dina (the representation of a happy life) is gone. It was also heartbreaking that she couldn’t even play guitar (as a guitar player myself and music lover, that hurt me profoundly) because she lost her fingers as a consequence of her attempt at revenge. 

I saw theories that Dina was actually waiting for her somewhere else because Ellie was wearing her bracelet, and I hope so too. It seems strange that Dina would abandon her dream of living in a farm if she was staying with Ellie, but I still want to hold on to that hope. I shipped those two so hard, and I really want Ellie to have a somewhat happy ending.

The last few minutes were beautifully tragic. Bittersweet. Ellie is alive, but leaves everything behind, all of her belongings (including Joel’s guitar) in order to move on. It was the only way she had to let go of her grief from Joel’s death and start a new life instead of repeating the vicious cycle of revenge. Just... powerful and moving.

Amazing lines and scenes

My brother knows me well and he said that my favorite scene would be the one in the museum with Ellie and Joel, and it probably is. It feels like a continuation of the first game and it’s a sweet father-daugther (parent-child and found family tropes are my weakness) moment in which Joel tries to make Ellie happy with the nerdy things he knows she loves. 

I also adore all the moments between Ellie and Dina. They are adorable and they just feel like a real couple, caring about each other and joking and flirting. 

All of the flashbacks were emotional and amazing, but my favorite is probably the last one. When Ellie tells Joel that she wants to forgive him? When he says ‘if I had another chance I would do it all over again?’ I’m getting choked up just thinking about it. I think that’s actually my favorite scene in the game.

Another one of my favorite lines was ‘hey, you’re my people’ from Abby to Lev. It’s so important and such a turning point for Abby, because if it weren’t for Lev she might have killed Ellie and Dina in the theater. She cares so much about him that she keeps going. And that line is the first moment we really see how much that kid meant to her.

Final thoughts

This was probably the longest rant I’ve written here, but The Last of Us was already my favorite game and Part II only topped it for me. The few bad things are greatly overpowered by the countless good things. The game just left a mark on me and I will never forget how it made me smile, laugh, gasp, cry, cringe in fear and overall... just feel in a way nothing had ever made me feel before.

[path-of-my-childhood]

Taylor Swift’s “Beautiful Ghosts” might be the best part of the Cats movie

Vox // By Aja Romano // November 20th 2019

“Beautiful Ghosts,” the song that Taylor Swift put words to for Tom Hooper’s upcoming Cats movie, has arrived - and guess what? Swift might be Cats creator and famed Broadway composer Andrew Lloyd Webber’s ideal lyricist.

Lloyd Webber is the man who brought the world Phantom of the Opera, Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, and one of the most recorded songs in theatre history, “Memory” from Cats. He is notorious for writing musicals with beautiful music and weak lyrics. But “Beautiful Ghosts” makes a compelling argument that what every ALW musical needs is a shrewd lyricist who was once a teenage girl - and who, consequently, is not embarrassed to embrace the gushy romantic heart of his music. Here are five reasons “Beautiful Ghosts” is worth a second listen, or several.

1) It adds to our understanding of Victoria, the White Cat. “Beautiful Ghosts” isn’t a showy end-credits pop song; it’s a new song inserted into the plot of the show. It will follow “Memory” in the upcoming film. The cat who sings it, Victoria has a bigger role: Now, the entire story is framed through her point of view, and Victoria is a younger mirror of Grizabella.

In “Beautiful Ghosts,” Victoria echoes “Memory” and reflects on Grizabella’s tragic life, as well as her own. “Memory” keeps calling for “new life,” while through “Beautiful Ghosts,” Victoria transitions from “Memory’s” sadness to a joy that’s all her own - through the realization that she loves the life she has. Where “Memory” is fuzzy, with vague hints of former happiness, “Beautiful Ghosts” weaves a mini-narrative of Victoria’s life: cast onto the streets, apparently by cruel former owners, she distrusts other cats, but eventually befriends them and comes to love her life. With this one song, she goes from being opaque and silent to having depth, complexity, and a backstory that doesn’t involve her being a sex object.

2) It helps us understand “Memory.” Even though “Beautiful Ghosts” is sung by Victoria to Grizabella, it also gives us crucial insight into Grizabella’s life. When Victoria sings lines like, “Should I take chances when no one took chances on me?” she’s simultaneously referencing her own life and Grizabella’s: Grizabella at least knew a time when she was loved and admired, and had human companionship to look back on. Victoria has only known rejection.

Taylor Swift has clearly asked herself, “How can I bring more coherence to “Memory,” a weird-ass song about a cat who is also a sex worker who is also dying and friendless and stuck with her memories of having once been very hot?” The solution, which she provides in “Beautiful Ghosts,” is to give Grizabella slightly more of a past.

In a recent radio interview, Swift described her approach to creating the song - which involved contrasting Victoria’s life with Grizabella’s: ‘Memory’ is Grizabella singing about how she had all these beautiful, incredible moments in her past. She had these glittering occasions and she felt beautiful and she felt wanted and now she doesn’t feel that way anymore.’ This is fanfic on Swift’s part. While this glittering history can be implied, it’s not literally in the lyrics to “Memory,“ or anywhere else in Cats - the most concrete detail “Memory” offers is that Grizabella once enjoyed “days in the sun.” It’s a huge bonus to see Grizabella given a more concrete backstory that has nothing to do with her, uh, hanging out in brothels.

“Beautiful Ghosts” explains that Grizabella was “born into nothing” but now has memories of “dazzling rooms” and a time she was not just beautiful, but loved. In essence, Swift has not only crafted a satisfying character song for Victoria - she’s deepened Grizabella and “Memory” too.

3) It’s clearly a song that could be sung by a cat. This is hard! “Memory” couldn’t manage it and from the first line of “Beautiful Ghosts,” the song feels like one that could be sung by a cat - one who has wandered the streets, hearing the voices of its fellow cats in the dark. Victoria sings of the “wild ones” who “tame the fear” within her as she longs to “get let into” the rooms inhabited by the humans she once knew and yearned for love from. These are bittersweet lyrics, but more importantly, they’re lyrics that pretty clearly describe the life of a cat.

The extent to which Swift has thought about how cats feel becomes increasingly apparent when you realize that “Beautiful Ghosts” is a hymn to found family and the alley cat existence, the freedom of a life lived on the streets, and the beauty of, well, a gang of stray cats. (This may also sound like a metaphor for marginalized communities finding strength in each other after being turned out of their homes.)

4) It hints at what a new Andrew Lloyd Webber musical could be like with a smart lyricist who embraces his romanticism. The typical trade-off with Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals is that his lush, lofty melodic lines take priority over lyrics. The general wisdom among musical theater fans is that ALW was only truly great when he was composing with his earliest collaborator, the brilliant lyricist Tim Rice. The ALW/Rice shows (Jesus Christ Superstar, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, Evita) are fantastic - witty, satirical, and incisive, ranging from complex political themes to rollicking whimsy and charming pastiche.

ALW’s later shows’ scores were often gorgeous, full of beautiful melodies. But the plots were often too soapy, and he bounced around between lyricists who frequently paired his music with asinine words. When ALW was working with someone equally as or more talented than he was, he managed to create popular, lasting shows, including Cats and Phantom of the Opera. But ALW didn’t always work with equals who could rein him in. And so he only kept getting more extravagant in his desire to combine deeply emotional musical motifs with schmoopy, overblown storylines. In other words, post-Rice, ALW has always been hampered by his own self-indulgence and the lack of a lyricist as good at writing lyrics as ALW is at writing music.

That’s why a Taylor Swift-ALW collaboration is genuinely exciting. In the annals of ALW collaborators, Swift may be the first lyricist with the range, experience, and stature to stand alongside Rice. But more importantly, she clearly loves Cats, loves the music, and loves actual cats. In that interview quoted above, for example, she discussed Victoria’s cat psychology at length. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which Tim Rice would say, as Swift did in that interview, “I got you. I know what that cat would say.”

And that may be what so many previous ALW musicals have lacked: the enthusiasm of a smart, savvy songwriter who’s also not afraid to unironically love and embrace her subject matter. Taylor Swift isn’t just a brilliant songwriter who credits the lyrics of Fall Out Boy’s Pete Wentz for teaching her to write music with sharp edges and blatant emotive power. She’s also a fangirl. And fangirls know how to deliver deep, smart character studies while amplifying the emotional core of the stories they love. That combination of shrewd songwriting and passion is what propels the final verse of “Beautiful Ghosts” into something truly great.

5) “Beautiful Ghosts” has a surprise twist ending. Taylor Swift learned a lot from brilliant country songwriters, and one of the common country song traits she likes to carry forward is the “twist.” That’s when the final stanza upends the original meaning of the song and shifts the refrain into something new, surprising, and even richer. Throughout “Beautiful Ghosts,” Victoria has emphasized the fact that Grizabella still has her memories: “at least you have beautiful ghosts,” she sings, and the ghosts are the memories of Grizabella’s life of being beautiful and adored.

By contrast, Victoria herself has always lived on the streets, eventually taken in by the stray cats she eventually began to see as family. Initially, she describes the strays as voices she can only hear in the dark, while she wanders the streets, “alone and haunted.” Later, they become “phantoms of night,” as they lure her into her new exciting life. Finally, when Victoria has her epiphany that she’s happy with her friends, and she loves her alleycat life, she shifts from singing enviously to Grizabella about the “beautiful ghosts” of her memories. Instead, she sings, “So I’ll dance with these beautiful ghosts.”

The ghosts at the end of the song are the cats! Victoria’s ghosts are flesh and blood, and also have you ever met a cat, cats are clearly ghosts, with their silent paws and their eerie glow-eyes, and their ability to vanish into thin air. (Holy shit, the ghosts are the cats!) Only Taylor Swift could turn a metaphor about lost memories into a literal description of cats that is also a metaphor for found families and friendship. Don’t argue with me, this is perfect.

[allthefilmsiveseenforfree]

Magnolia

I don’t know much about Magnolia or Paul Thomas Anderson, but I do know that it takes someone paying me to get me to watch a 3-hr+ drama that doesn’t star Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, and a really big boat. This is one of my mom’s favorite movies which is why she requested it for me to review. It’s packed with a balls-to-the-wall star-studded cast (Tom Cruise! Julianne Moore! Phillip Seymour Hoffman! John C. Reilly! William H. Macy! Felicity Huffman!) and I’m genuinely excited to see how they all fit together. Cause they have to all fit together in some coherent way, right? Well...

Do you remember in Sorry to Bother You when the Equisapiens came out and things just took like...a real turn? That’s kind of what this was like. Whereas StBY pushed a thought to its most extreme, but logical, conclusion, what Paul Thomas Anderson has done here feels like a magician doing a lot of impressive illusions - sawing a lady in half, making a motorcycle disappear, pulling smaller things out of bigger things - and then for his final trick, walking onstage amidst a grand plume of smoke, dropping his pants, taking a gigantic shit, and then saying, “You’ve been a great audience, thanks a lot and goodnight!” It’s not like you can say the experience was BAD. Everything up to the finale was a really great time! But when you’re left on a note that is that bafflingly odd, it kinda colors the way you’ll remember the whole thing.

Magnolia is the story of one long day in the life of 12 people living in Los Angeles who are all connected via an extensive web from acquaintances to married couples to parents and children to paid caregivers and beyond. It’s a day that has the same kind of ups and downs as any other day until it, well, turns into something else entirely. I’m not sure how else to explain it, but if you want to know more, spoilers will be spoiled below.

Some thoughts:

Patton Oswalt cameo! I am a massive fan and thought I knew his whole filmography and OMG how did I not know that he was in this!!

Ok, in spite of my skepticism this entire opening sequence about coincidence had me hooked IMMEDIATELY. Like, this is some damn good storytelling, if this were a novel, I would not be able to put it down - that pull, that’s what it feels like.

Am I the only person whose encyclopedic memory of character actors/roles gets distracted when they see someone from something that is wildly disparate compared to the role you’re currently watching? For example, I had to pause the movie and confirm via IMDB that I did just see Professor Sprout from HP scream “Shut the fuck up!” at her husband while brandishing a shotgun.

Would people really recognize a grown ass man from being a successful child game show contestant? I’ll tell you the answer, no they wouldn’t, because no one realizes that Peter Billingsley (aka Ralphie from A Christmas Story) is the head of the elf production line in Elf.

I knew this was a stacked cast, but holy SHIT this is a stacked cast. If I had $1 for every fantastic character actor I recognize in this, I would have at least $37, and these are people in the film who have maybe 2-3 lines each. It’s a deep bench is what I’m saying.

This makes me miss Phillip Seymour Hoffman so, so very much.

Watching PSH care for and be so compassionate and gentle with his hospice patient, Earl (Jason Robards),makes my heart ache terribly. All of the people who have been unable to perform this kindness, this type of compassionate care for their closest loved ones as they lie dying in isolation of Covid...it’s overwhelming.

OMG I’m counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Very Good Dogs in the old man’s house!

I know Scientology is evil and he’s undeniably a complicated and morally grey person. I know all that. But goddamn I just love watching Tom Cruise COMMIT. Particularly when he commits to just absolute fucking sleazebag slimeballs. And boy oh boy is Frank Mackey an absolute fucking sleazebag slimeball.

Related - I know Frank looks like Tom Cruise, so he could get people to sleep with him no matter what, but I honestly feel like as a human being, this flesh suit is WAY more attractive balding and fat in Tropic Thunder than he is in this shiny brown shirt/leather vest/long hair combo.

I’m getting an uncomfortable vibe about these black characters being written by an artsy white dude, because I don’t know any young black kids who want to hang around with cops and offer up information about who committed a murder in their building. In fact, the way all of the black characters are treated in this film - as liars, criminals, the disingenuous “main stream media,” and thieves - feels rooted in some racist ass bullshit. We see a lot of nuance in our white characters, but even in a film that has, shockingly, more than one key black role, we don’t get that spectrum or nuance.

There is nothing I would love more than to learn that Frank Mackey is 1) gay 2) impotent or 3) both. He’s so disgustingly over-the-top misogynistic, it honestly feels like it should all be a complete act.

I confess I am on the edge of my seat trying to figure out how all these narrative threads tie together. It’s compelling as hell, even though half the time I don’t know why these people are having these long, meandering conversations. The pacing feels so deliberate, like a puzzle coming together. There’s real craftsmanship in how every scene is plotted to feel connected rather than manic or disjointed.

This pharmacist is being unprofessional as hell. Judgy McJudgerson, mind your fucking business, Julianne Moore’s father is dying! [ETA: ope, that’s embarrassing, Earl is actually her husband.]

NO THE DOG IS EATING THE PILLS OH NO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE DOG.

I think I knew this, but this soundtrack is fantastic. All Aimee Mann and Supertramp, and Jon Brion’s score is this thrumming, anxious thing full of strings that underscore all these nervous conversations, and then it shifts into these low, mournful horns when things start to take a turn and everyone is reaching their lowest points.

I love this interviewer (April Grace) who is taking Frank (Tom Cruise) to task. I think it’s particularly noteworthy that she is a black woman, because the kind of misogyny Frank peddles is rooted in white supremacy.

Stanley (Jeremy Blackman) is breaking my goddamn heart here. I think he and Phil (PSH) are my favorite characters.

Jim (John C Reilly) is the perfect example of how even a cop with the best intentions, with absolute kindness and love is in heart, is abusing his power and sexually harassing a woman he encountered in the line of duty, who is eager to appease him because she doesn’t want to be charged with a crime. This movie reads a LOT differently than it did in 1999.

I normally really love Julianne Moore, but she is a screeching mess in this. I can’t stop staring at her mouth and all the contortions it makes as she delivers every line in hysterics. She’s one of the few weak spots for me here.

Listening to Frank go on his whole diatribe about what society does to little boys to break them and victimize them HAS to be the source of where Keith Raniere got at least half of his NXIVM bullshit. Like, some of these points are word-for-word.

Also if Frank makes as much money as he seems to, there’s no way he would drive a shitty Saturn sedan.

It feels like the common thread of this movie is everyone is terrible and cheats on their spouses, and you should come clean when you get cancer so you can die peacefully. Weird moral, but ok.

If Jim is a cop, how does he not see that this woman he’s interested in (Melora Walters) is coked out of her mind?

Y’know for being a quiz kid, Donnie (William H. Macy) sure is kinda stupid.

I confess I’m not taking many notes throughout this because I’m just kind of sitting breathlessly still watching all these conversations unfold because I am on the edge of my fucking seat to find out how all this is gonna come together.

Secret MVP of this movie is the mom from A Christmas Story (Melinda Dillon) who is giving the performance of her goddamn life as Jimmy Gator’s wife.

Did I Cry? On the surface it appears ridiculous, but when Tom Cruise is having his breakdown at his dying father’s bedside, I admit, that really got me. If you’ve ever been faced with that kind of hysterical, I-can’t-believe-this-is-happening, it feels like the whole world is ending kind of shock and hurt and anger, that’s what the crying looks like.

Are those......frogs?? That landed on Jim’s car? It’s raining fucking frogs???? OK for those of you sensitive to frog harm, this movie is going to take a real hard left turn for you, because I swear that came out of NOWHERE.

Um.

What.

Pray tell.

The fuck.

The climax of this movie - is when literal frogs rain from the sky.

And we finally got resolution about the dog, and the dog DID die, and I’m pissed about it. It’s offscreen but still.

I'm sorry - I know I’m fixating. But how is it possible that I knew about all the characters performing a sing-along to Aimee Mann’s (excellent) song “Wise Up” but I did NOT know that the climax of the film involves literally thousands of frogs falling to their death from the sky? How is that something that escapes entry into the cultural zeitgeist? I’m with it, you guys. I have been Very Online for over a decade, and before that, I read a lot of Entertainment Weekly, and like it just seems that this is something that pop culture really should have told me.

I think the funniest moment of this movie might be the credits in which I discovered that not only is Luis Guzman playing a man named Luis, he’s actually playing himself. I don’t know why, but I can’t stop laughing about it. That was a 189-minute setup to one dumb punchline.

I think I loved this movie but I don’t quite know. The frog thing really threw me. What I’m taking away from it is that even when it doesn’t feel like it or seem like it, we are all connected to each other, always, in ways we can’t see or know. As Wife astutely pointed out, it’s reminiscent of the pandemic - we’re all in the same storm, but we each have our own boats and our own experiences within that storm. And it’s kind of nice to remember that right now, that connection still exists even when it feels so far away. Just not if you’re a frog I guess, cause they really got the short end of the stick here.

If you liked this review, please consider reblogging or subscribing to my Patreon! For as low as $1, you can access bonus content and movie reviews, or even request that I review any movie of your choice.

[kabutoraiger]

Consider the best/most popular/your favorite secondary Heisei rider. Now think about an alternate reality where everything is the same except this rider was a woman. In your opinion, would this change the series that came after? Or do you think that's something that only the main rider from a Showa series being a woman could change?

that’s... quite complex.

well, my favorite secondary is yuuto zeronos. his story is pretty complicated and difficult to comprehend as is, and making him a woman might complicate things even further, i feel. (like is older sakurai a woman now, too...? i’m going to assume she is bc otherwise that would raise a few too many questions among the audience, though I’D certainly find that compelling.)

looking at things from a sadly logical pov, lady sakurai and airi wouldn’t be allowed to be a canon couple, though they could probably still have some powerful subtext. hana might still have a connection to them but wouldn’t be their child. in place of that...? i’m not sure what the replacement plot concepts might be. considering everything with their family is the most narratively focused part of the show, it’s strange to think about it being different. den-o has like no coherent plot left without them.

i think in most cases with heisei, having the secondary be a woman would change some part of the story, as these are shows that are much more character & relationship centric. whereas irt your last question i actually think you could swap out just about any showa rider with a lady and almost nothing would change at all, other than maybe the villains occasionally being affronted that they were ~bested by a woman, since this is the 70s and all. i love showa riders but those dudes ain’t exactly deep. 

[killscreencinema]

Death Stranding (PS4)

The first week of quarantine, I lost my job.  It wasn’t COVID related, more like “I hated my job and my employers finally realized it” related.  So it was actually really good timing that I began this game while unemployed, as virtually delivering packages to people made me at least feel like I still had a job! 

Death Stranding, released by Hideo Kojima’s new independent studio in 2019, is set in a bleak, post-Apocalyptic future where the world of the living and the dead have converged in a catastrophic event called, well, the “death stranding”.  Dangerous phantoms, called “BTs”, roam the countryside, dragging anyone unlucky enough to encounter them into their world.  The only person who can stand up to them is a porter named Sam Bridges (Norman Reedus), who has a unique condition called DOOMS which allows him to sense a BTs presence (who are otherwise invisible to the naked eye).  Paired with a child bred to act as a link between the living and dead, called a  Bridge Baby, or BB, Sam can even see a BT, making him the only candidate who can possibly bring the world back together by traveling the wastelands of the former United States, delivering packages and connecting the surviving human cities via something called the “chiral network”.

So it’s basically a fucked up, but better, version of that Kevin Costner movie The Postman.

Also, if it seems like my story summary took longer than usual, welcome to the world of Hideo Kojima!  I tried my best to explain the story in a brief synopsis, but I still didn’t even scratch the surface of it.  For example, I didn’t even mention how Mads Mikkelson intermittently drags Sam to a battlefield-like purgatory so he can steal his BB; or how Sam’s mysterious connection to the BTs makes his bodily fluids deadly to them, so you will often use weaponry made from his piss, blood, and shit to fight them; or how his primary objective is to rescue an enigmatic woman named Amelie, who may or may not be the daughter of the recently deceased President of the United States, from terrorists who want to use Amelie to bring about the extinction of humanity.

This game is bananas, ya’ll... but in the best way.

I started this game with extremely low expectations, as it had been critically lambasted by most of the major gaming sites and YouTubers.  From the previews of the game I watched, it just seemed.... weird.  I didn’t understand what the hell I was looking at - Norman Reedus with a pod baby strapped to his chest, and a strange flappy doodad on his shoulder, while walking on a tar beach strewn about with dead whales?  What the fuck, Hideo?  Visually alone the game was such a stark (and I mean *stark*) departure from the Metal Gear games, so when I found out the gameplay was delivering packages, I became convinced that Hideo Kojima had done lost his goddamn mind. 

Turns out... and this should hardly come as a surprise... the man is a goddamn genius.

Truly brilliant art always offends and bewilders the senses at first because your mind doesn’t know how to cope with what its experiencing.  Watch any given David Lynch movie and you’ll see what I mean.  The human mind has trouble processing totally new information that has no frame of reference in memory or cultural awareness, which is why “weird” art initially repulses before it gains a following (and many great artists die in poverty before they are recognized for their genius).  Imagine introducing a peasant from the Middle Ages to a helicopter - they’d think it looks absolutely ridiculous, so when you tell them it can fly, just IMAGINE their incredulity. 

Anyway, I think that is why initial impressions of Death Stranding were so negative - it was a lot to take in for a lot of gamers used to being spoon fed repackaged versions of the same games but with different titles.  Even things that seem at first “original” have recognizable gaming mechanics that ease the player in.  I mean a game set in the apocalypse where the core gameplay is centralized on package delivery???   There’s nothing like this!  So your reaction is either going to be “This is brilliant” or, like the medieval peasant, “this is ridiculous”.

Mind you, I’m not saying if you don’t like this game, you’re as stupid as a medieval peasant.

I get why people would hate this game - it’s very different than a lot of games out there.  Death Stranding is bold and audacious in its storytelling and its gameplay.  It takes a lot of risks that most AAA publishers (like Konami for example) would balk at, which is why Kojima had to create his own company to make it.

The gameplay seems simplistic at first - deliver packages from point A to point B.  However, it’s a little more complicated than that.  For one, the key element of the game is item management and learning not to bite off more than you can chew.  Sam can only carry so many boxes, and the more you stack on top of him, the more difficult the journey will be, especially when crossing BT territory or bandits (called MULES) nipping at your heels.  You also have to take into account the rocky terrain, river crossings, and weather (oh, did I mention that rain in this game, referred to as “Time Fall”, can rapidly age items and people?).  The game is all about carefully choosing equipment you’ll think you will need, whether it be weapons, ladders (for climbing large cliff faces or crossing deep rivers or chasms), sprays for repairing damage to packages, or even a spare pair of boots in case the shoes you’re wearing wear out.  So to say that the game is “just delivering packages” greatly diminishes some of the nuance going on here.  Yes, there are lots of long stretches of just walking across a landscape to some of the most melancholy music ever assembled on a soundtrack, but I’d argue that having patience for those moments is part of the gameplay. 

The game can be frustrating, such as when Sam refuses to climb a ledge you KNOW is climbable, so he just trips and falls over instead.  The vehicles that you eventually unlock are some of the most goddamn frustrating vehicles in video game history.  At first, I figured it was because I would eventually unlock better modes of conveyance more adequately adapted to crossing rough terrain, but no - they all drive like shit.  Just getting the truck to drive up a hill without spinning out and rolling backwards can fray on one’s nerves.  It’s hard to discern how much of it is the vehicle and how much might be poor controls.

The story, as alluded to above, is ambitious at best and pretentiously bloated at worst.  However, if you’ve played any of the Metal Gear games, you know what you’re signing up for when it comes to high concept, over-indulgent story.  I would say that for the most part, Death Stranding’s story is coherent enough to enjoy, although there are long expository cut scenes that convolute the plot more than clear it up.  Fortunately, the characters are well developed enough, and are interesting enough, to keep you invested (a storytelling skill that is perhaps Kojima’s saving grace).  Also, the more dramatic beats of the story are impactful enough to still resonate, even if you’re not entirely sure what the fuck is going on.  It helps to have talent like Norman Reedus, Mads Mikkelson, and Lea Seydoux in the cast, whose performances bring the characters to life.  Sam in particular might have been an insufferable loner, were it not for Reedus’ gruff likeability that made him famous from Walking Dead. 

If you’ve avoided this game because, like me, you were convinced by bad reviews that it sucks, I would highly suggest that you reconsider.  It may not be as fun, or compelling, as a Metal Gear Solid game, but it’s an interesting departure and one worth experiencing.

[taww]

First Take Review: Audiovector SR 6 Avantgarde Arreté Speakers

As previously chronicled, a move to a new residence last year challenged my undying devotion to 2-way monitor speakers. Though I had two great ones at my disposal - the Silverline SR17 Supreme and Audiovector SR 1 Avantgarde Arreté - asking these relatively compact speakers to fill a large living space with the weight and scale of a symphony orchestra was unreasonable. I needed something that could move more air, but far too many big speakers I’ve heard sound slow, discombobulated or opaque vs. a quality 2-way. Enter the Audiovector SR 6 Avantgarde Arreté (USD $25,000), which confidently assured me of no such compromises during an audition at Audiovision SF. After a bit of listening to some alternatives and the requisite spousal approval, I traded in the SR 1’s and placed an order for a pair of SR 6 AA in piano black with the intention of keeping these as my long-term reference speakers. I’ve logged about 3 months with them and while they’re still taking their sweet time to break in, it’s time to gut check: are they turning out to be everything I had hoped they would be?

Related Reading

Quick Take: Audiovector R 3 Arreté & SR 6 Avantgarde Arreté

Breaking in a Big Speaker: Week 2 with the Audiovector SR 6

Acoustically Treating Side Reflections: Even Better and Not as Hard as You Think

Design & Setup

IMO this is a gorgeous speaker that looks impressive in a room without being dominating - sleek and elegant, with pleasing proportions and a beautiful finish. While our room is a good size, it is an all-purpose living space for my wife and me plus our two large-ish dogs, and there was no way audiophile speakers with a large footprint or funky aesthetics would ever set foot in our home. The Audiovector was a relatively easy sell to my wife and there have been zero groans or offhand remarks about its size or appearance, which makes it an unmitigated success. The magnetically-attached grills are wonderfully crafted, muting the technical look of the baffle during more casual listening, snapping on and off with precision and sticking together for easy storage. The sound isn't bad with them on either - fractionally less open and bright, which is actually kind of nice for background music.

Full-range speakers can be tricky to position to balance bass response with soundstaging, but in my room I’ve found the SR 6 AA to be very easygoing. Thanks to a combination of front-firing ports, bottom-firing compound woofer and careful bass alignment, they work remarkably well close to the wall. I currently have them with just 50cm (20”) of clearance behind them, and I have yet to pick up on any port noises. Yes, the soundstage would be even deeper if I pulled them out further, but it’s still quite satisfactory and the bass is nicely filled out without any boom whatsoever. As with the SR 1 Avantgarde Arretés, I find the sweet spot to be a bit narrow - sound is good off-axis, but you really need to be centered precisely for the image and soundstage to lock in. This is in contrast to traditional 2-way monitors from e.g. Silverline Audio or Role Audio that disappear in your room with little effort and are fairly forgiving of listening position.

Sensitivity is specified at 92.5dB/watt @ 8 ohms, quite good for a dynamic speaker. Sensitivity ratings can be deceiving (measurement methods are not rigorously standardized) but the SR 6 AA certainly puts out noticeably more sound per watt than the 90.5dB-rated Silverline SR17. I haven't seen an impedance plot or minimum impedance spec but it seems pretty easy to drive, with all of my amps sounding open and unstrained. With pop or orchestral material at moderately high volume levels I could get the bias meter on the Pass Labs XA30.5 to wiggle the tiniest bit, indicating the peaks were surpassing the 30-watt Class A bias range, but just barely. While the speakers can clearly take a lot more power (I would have loved to have the 300wpc Bryston 4B Cubed around), a quality amp of moderate power rating (e.g. 50 watts) but enough current to feed the 4 drivers should have no trouble. The Pass sounded great, I love the 55-watt Valvet A4 Mk.II monoblocks on them, and right now the 50-watt Gryphon Essence is singing away.

The Sound

Listening to the SR 6 AA strikes me as the audio equivalent of stepping into something like a big smooth Mercedes S-class, only to find it as lithe and responsive behind the wheel as a Lotus Elise. But step on the accelerator, and sure enough you will hear and feel the grunt of a big bi-turbo V-12. And most of all, it’s fun. Like a car that beckons you to drive it, there’s an aliveness and energy to the SR 6 that compels you to listen to as much music as possible. I could listen to record after record all day and night and never stop.

Coming back to less-fanciful analogies, I love how the SR 6 has all the coherence, focus and speed of the best 2-way monitors, then adds low-frequency power and dynamic ease without any sort of compromise that I can discern. At first I was a bit concerned with the 350Hz crossover point between midrange and woofer - right in the D to A string range of the violin - but I honestly can not hear it at all. The compound bass system also seamlessly integrates from 80Hz down, and all I hear is a very continuous presentation with consistent speed, articulation and tonality. This is extremely rare in my experience - many big, expensive and elaborate speakers have had some sort of discontinuity that bugged me. 

Coming back to the 2-way comparison, I am missing absolutely nothing about my previous monitor speakers. The SR 6 has even more midrange focus and resolving power than its excellent little sibling, the SR 1 Avantgarde Arreté, while sounding less dry and analytical. Much of this can be attributed to the fullness of the lower midrange which puts more meat on the bones of everything. It’s not overtly warm, but has just the slightest bit of extra juice to give pop tunes great bounce and string sections lovely lyricism. My wife noted that orchestral melodies sounded particularly mellifluous and alluring.

This brings me to another point: the SR 6 simultaneously strikes me as tremendously transparent, neutral and precise, but also possessing character. It's very hard for me to describe it any one way because the common sonic labels - warm, analytical, fast, full, forward, laid-back, smooth, sharp - just won't stick. Depending on the associated gear, setup and recording, any of those above descriptors could be applied to a very subtle degree, but switch up the source material and a different set of adjectives come to mind. Going to another abstract analogy, it reminds me of a delicious mineral water - so clean and crisp and pure, but not totally flavorless. The SR 6 is never bland to my ears; sure, a bad recording still won't sound great, but the presentation never falls flat. It has a fun and engaging take on music, perhaps due to just a hair of judicious boost somewhere in the midrange, that isn't dead-on neutral, but subtle and musically consonant. This is what I find most fascinating about Audiovector's tuning vs. other ultra high-end marques such as Magico or YG Acoustics, which can be breathtakingly transparent to the point of sounding flavorless, and incredibly demanding of source material. In those special moments with the right setup and recording they certainly could scale to greater heights of realism than the SR 6, but the Audiovector just sounds consistently natural and satisfying to me.

A few words on what this speaker is not. While it certainly qualifies as full-range, it does not have an overtly “big” sound. You won’t get the same sort of easy, larger-than-life presentation that a large-woofered speaker in a more classic mold (think a big old JBL with 15” woofers, or a top-end model from PBN or Legacy Audio) will give you. If you want Louis Armstrong to sound like he's sitting in your lap, or you’re trying to reproduce a club environment in your living room, there are better speakers for that. Bass extension is deep and powerful, but the quality of the bass that stands out is that it’s always focused - pitch, timing and weight are precise and balanced. It will convincingly represent a symphony orchestra, and the throbbing bass line of Billie Eilish’s Bad Guy will have you bouncing in your seat, but it’s not shake-your-walls, send-you-into-intestinal-distress kind of bass. It is easily the most detailed and revealing speaker I have had in my room, but it is never hyped-up, instead laying the music out for you to inspect at your discretion. The superb Audiovector AMT tweeter has a lot to do with this - it is free of the typical resonant modes of most dome tweeters and has resolving power well above the audible range, with none of the peakiness of metal domes that can go from vivid to fatiguing over time. There are designs with more natural warmth, that can make a female vocal sound more magically in-the-room and human - Silverline and GamuT are two superb marques that come to mind - but they might not be as neutral and versatile across many genres of music.

The Audiovector is much more precise and adaptable than speakers which blow you away with a particular aspect of their performance. It is the sort of sound that may not stand out as much in 3 minute sound bites at an audio show or dealer, but is more accurate and satisfying in the long term. And I appreciate how it effortlessly fills my open space with sound, but never overpowers it. This is a remarkably lifestyle-friendly speaker by high-end standards and I could see it working very well in a more modestly-sized room, though if you have a small room you are probably better off saving some money on the R 3 Arreté and putting the funds towards upstream gear.

The Take

As you can probably guess, I'm liking the Audiovector SR 6 Avantgarde Arreté a whole lot. A big speaker is always a risky proposition - you never know if it'll work in your room, reproducing a wider range of frequencies means more things to critique and potentially bug you, and of course there's the financial outlay. But so far, other than the need for extended break-in time, there have been zero frustrations and only delights in my experience.

As I write this, I'm listening to a lovely record of Bruckner 9 by the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra with Daniele Gatti (Qobuz 24/96, Tidal MQA) at moderate volume. And I honestly have nothing to observe or say about the speakers because it just sounds good and right and I'm enjoying the performance. It's a total system effort of course, with contributions from PS Audio, Furutech, Audience and the transcendental Gryphon Essence pre + power amp, but as a music lover first and foremost I can think of no higher compliment for the Audiovector SR 6 Avantgarde Arreté.