#we love an accidental sympathetic villain

[ro-botany]

I never ended up finishing Shadows of Valentia (I know, I know, I’m getting to it), so it was... probably about a year or so after the game came out that I heard anything about the extra Grima backstory it introduced. At first I wasn’t sure how I felt about it. I didn’t know if the Big Bad Evil Guy in Awakening really needed that much backstory, given that at the time I felt their role in the story was as a force of nature more than an individual.

Now that it’s had time to stew though, and my interest in Awakening has been piqued again by that Risen King Chrom unit in FEH... I’ve been doing some thinking on that whole situation, and I might be changing my mind. It adds some interesting flavour to Grima and to Robin.

I’m a bit fuzzy on the timeline of Archanea’s history, but the important part for right now is, of course, Forneus. The man who created Grima. There’s a lot of Frankenstein DNA in Grima’s origins, enough that I feel like it HAS to be intentional.

We’ve got a scientist consumed by grief over the death of a loved one who starts experimenting with creating life, who manages to make a creature, only to near immediately find terrifying. The scientist eventually tries to kill their creation and dies in the process. Similar too is the stories’ insistence that the creations are inherently bad, were evil from the very start... in direct contradiction to the order of events begging you to sympathize with the creature.

A young Grima, barely a baby, smiled at their creator; and their creator thought that terrifying. They were only a few months old when their own father tried to kill them and they were forced to defend themself. They were sealed in a labyrinth for centuries, in total isolation save for the risen dead. When they finally lay eyes on another living human—Alm and Celica and allies, bearing weapons no less—of course they attack. The only contact they’ve had with living humans thus far is their dad who tried to kill them. Alm and Celica destroy Grima’s physical body, and... presumably, they find a way out after that, since the seal on the door is gone now.

(I know Forneus writes about the young Grima supposedly planting “violent thoughts” in his head. But that feels a bit like bullshit to me, honestly. One of Awakening’s themes is that you are not defined by your bloodline. Why would we backtrack on that and say this baby came out of the test tube already advocating for genocide? Hell, why are we trusting Forneus’ opinions on that to begin with? He’s a deeply unethical mad scientist who regularly murdered people for his experiments, I’m pretty sure he was having and acting on violent thoughts long before Grima grew a consciousness.)

Despite that fantastically rocky start to life, m!Grima’s 5* level 40 dialogue in Heroes suggests that Grima might have even tried to get along with humans for a time. I mean, just look at this.

[Humans] have no qualms asking for divine assistance when it meets their fickle needs... But how quick they are to shun their benefactors once they get what they desire. They become arrogant and make the same mistakes repeatedly, incapable of learning the folly of their ways. They claim their actions are for the good of others, but that's merely a show of self-indulgence. Humans are selfish.

That sounds like they’ve had time to observe humans. After they got out of the labyrinth they must’ve spent time just... around people. Either they witnessed what happened to other dragons-regarded-as-gods, or they themselves tried out being a god for a while (seems likely, given Plegia), and felt like their early experiences with humans were only getting proved on the large scale over and over again.

And if all of Forneus, Alm, Celica, and the allies of the latter two decided at a glance that Grima was evil and needed to be destroyed, how many more times did people try to destroy Grima after that? How many people took advantage of their powers, only to “shun their benefactor�� later? What does that do to a person’s worldview and their view of themselves when they’re already predisposed to fear and hatred due to their early experiences?

Grima’s insistence that one’s destiny is rigid and immutable, their self image as an incarnation of despair—it all makes a lot more sense with this context. Grima is Frankenstein’s monster writ large, born of a man’s grief, named an abomination from birth, given the powers of a god and a thousand years of reasons to wield them for destruction. “The ugliness of mankind has turned me repulsive. It's the world that wants me to be evil.”

Whatever else you think of them, there’s a tragedy in a monster that is only so because they were never given the chance to be anything else.

[weaselle]

i want to talk about real life villains

Not someone who mugs you, or kills someone while driving drunk, those are just criminals. I mean VILLAINS.

Not like trump or musk, who are... cartoonishly evil. And not sexy villains, not grandiose villains, not even satisfyingly two dimensional villains it is easy to hate unconditionally. The real villains.

I had a client who was a retired executive for one of the big oil companies, i think it was Shell or Chevron. Had a home just outside of San Francisco that was wall to wall floor to ceiling full of expensive art. Literally. I once accidentally knocked a painting off the wall because it was hanging at knee height at the corner of the stairs, and it had a little brass plaque on it, and i looked up the name of the artist and it was Monet's apprentice and son-in-law, who was apparently also a famous painter. He had an original Andy Warhol, which should have been a prize piece for anyone to showcase -- it was hanging in the bathroom. I swear to god this guy was using a Chihuly (famous glass sculptor) as a fruit bowl. And he was like, "idk my wife was the one who liked art"

I was intrigued by this guy, because in the circles i run this dude is The Enemy. right? Wealthy oil executive? But as my client, he was... like a sweet grandpa. A poor widower, a nice old man, anyone who knew him would have called him a sweetheart. He had a slightly bewildered air, a sort of gentle bumbling nature.

And the fact that he was both of these things, a Sweet Little Old Man and The Enemy, at the same time, seemed important and fascinating to me.

He reminded me of some antagonist from fiction, but i couldn't put my finger on who. And when i did it all made sense.

John Hammond.

probably one of the most realistic bad guys ever written.

If you've only ever seen the movie, this will need some explaining.

Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park in 1990, and i read it shortly thereafter. In the movie, the dinosaurs are the antagonists, which imo erases 50% of the point of the story.

book spoilers below.

In the book, John Hammond is the villain but it takes the reader like half the book to figure that out. Just like my client, John is a sweet old man who wants lovely things for people. He's a very sympathetic character. But as the book progresses, you start to see something about him.

He has an idea, and he's sure it's a good one. When someone else dies in pursuit of his dream, he doesn't think anything of it. When other people turn out to care about that, he brings in experts to evaluate the safety of his idea, and when they quickly tell him his idea is dangerous and needs to be put on hold, he ignores his own experts that he himself hired, because they are telling him that he is wrong, and he is sure he is right.

In his mind, he's a visionary, and nobody understands his vision. He is surrounded by naysayers. Several things have proven too difficult to do the best and safest way, so he has cut corners and taken shortcuts so he can keep moving forward with his plans, but he's sure it's fine. He refuses to hear any word of caution, because he believes he is being cautious enough, and he knows best, even though he has no background in any of the sciences or professions involved. He sends his own grandchildren out into a life-threatening situation because he is willfully ignorant of the danger he is creating.

THIS is like the real villains of the world. He doesn't want anyone to die. Far from it, he only wants good things for people! He's a sweet old man who loves his grandchildren. But he has money and power and refuses to hear that what he is doing is dangerous for everyone, even his own family.

I think he's possibly one of the most important villains ever written in popular fiction.

In the book, he is killed by a pack of the smallest, cutest, "least dangerous" dinosaurs, because a big part of why we read fiction is to see the villains face thematic justice. But like a cigarette CEO dying of lung cancer, his death does not stop his creation from spreading out into the world to continue to endanger everyone else.

I think it is really important to see and understand this kind of villainy in fiction, so you can recognize it in real life.

Sweetheart of a grandfather. Wanted the best for everyone. Right up until what was best for everyone inconvenienced the pursuit of his own interests.

And my client was like that too. His wife had died, and his dog was now the love of his life, and she was this little old dog with silky hair in a hair cut that left long wispy bits on her lower legs. Certain plant materials were easily entangled in this hair and impossible to get out without pulling her hair which clearly hurt her. When i suggested he ask his groomer to trim her lower leg hair short to avoid this, he refused, saying he really liked her usual hair cut.

I emphasized that she was in pain after every walk due to the plant debris getting caught in her leg hair, and a simple trim could put an end to her daily painful removal of it, and he just frowned like i'd recommended he take a bath in pig shit and said "But she'll be ugly" and refused to talk about it anymore.

Sweet old man though. Everyone loved him.

[isagrimorie]

Watching YouTube reactions to the last Agatha All Along episode I'm struck by how many people seem to disregard Agatha's actual grief and regret over, IMO, accidentally draining Alice to death. (Question mark?)

The Nerdy Nightly channel's review on the episode had a more nuanced take recognizing not only Agatha's complexity but also the metaphor of addiction that applies not just to Agatha, but to almost everyone in the coven.

I'm glad more people are discussing this metaphor for Agatha. It makes Agatha so interesting.

Also, in light of this, I think we can't push past that Evanora's ghost meant for Agatha to drain someone in the coven so they would all turn against her.

It's almost like pushing an addict off the wagon, except pushing Agatha off the sobriety train means people die.

Jac Schaeffer was never interested in simplistic morality plays. She is committed to exploring characters in all their complexities, allowing them to be their fullest, often flawed, selves.

Schaeffer explained her character writing approach while writing WandaVision:

“It was important to us that it be all Wanda and that it would be her responsibility because we didn’t want—we weren’t doing Mephisto, Nightmare, the Grim Reaper, or any other people or entities,” Scheffer explained. “If we’re not going to take the cheap way out that there’s this other force, right, if we’re going to give the gift of storytelling to Wanda, I give the whole power, she also then has the culpability and has the accountability.”

(source: Gizmondo) (hat tip to: @ennn)

(Emphasis mine.)

And it seems Schaeffer's views on writing have changed with Agatha All Along. She doesn't want an easy answer for Agatha's character, and that's genuinely refreshing. For a Disney+ character to be allowed to have her flawed and authentic self?

It feels right. It feels real.

Schaeffer mentions this in a recent interview with Script Mag:

I think the fun of Tony Stark is that he wants to be bad, but he's a hero despite himself. But Agatha is not that. Agatha is not a hero, despite herself. Agatha is entirely selfish and self-serving. I don't know, I feel like it should have been harder. It should have been more like, 'Oh, gosh, how are we going to make this villain sympathetic?' But it wasn't that challenging because she's not. It's never her aim to hurt someone. She doesn't hurt anyone just for the fun of it. She's interested in two things: She’s interested in what serves her and she's interested in witchcraft, specifically, enormously powerful witchcraft.

Schaeffer goes on to say that all main characters in Agatha All Along function as anti-heroes. And the writers go on lengthy debates about the story beats and character choices.

Later on in the same interview with Script Mag, Schaeffer discusses Agatha's hidden motivations.

The way I defined Agatha—prior to the room, prior to anything—is that she's a liar, that it's just masks. This show is about pulling that mask all the way off. And what do we see? What is under the mask? It's hard to talk about at this point because there's so many spoilers inherent in that. 

But I think what you can get from the earliest episodes is that, yes, she wants power, right? That's her superficial goal. That's her super objective. But that can't be it, right? That's boring. What's underneath it? And it's fairly clear from the beginning that she reluctantly wants community, that this is a covenless witch who, deep down, wants a coven. And that's fascinating to me. What did Wanda want? She wanted to be safe and cozy with her family. That was a that was a very clear, true north. But there, the friction was the sort of logistical trappings were untenable. For Agatha, she's in the way of her own thing. And it's much more of a subtext and a fabric that we then exploit and explore deeper into the show.

I love that we haven't been reading Agatha wrong -- Agatha does want, deep down, to have a community but she's been wearing her mask for too long that Agatha's also her own worst enemy. Her reputation and defensive persona push people away.

When backed into a corner, Agatha slips on the mask of a villain because if she hurts them first, then no one can hurt her.

It's so fun and interesting to have a character like Agatha again! Especially within Disney+ Marvel's ecosystem of shows.

Netflix Marvel used to feature similarly complex characters but Disney+ Marvel shows have struggled to find that line.

[bibibbon]

Hi, I did a big mulling (lol) on the whole moral aspect of Dabi and his killings. Especially considering my own au.

Look let's not kid ourselves here. It would be impossible for Besties au or canon for dabi to be "pure" aka never kill anyone. Boy was on the streets after waking up from a coma in a creepy hospital.

"a good Samaritan in the villain side took him in" ok maybe but even this good Samaritan would still be a villain and Dabi wouldn't be save of killing. Even if is self defense.

The discourse I mentioned in my channel on....ironically called Discord was about how dabi killing bad peoples works better than killing innocent people. I get the fallacy of this logic. I get the appeal.

We see characters like Punisher and we root for him bc "he is killing bad people" which makes him good in comparison. I used to like that, who didn't? But consider this idea: One villain killed the anti-hero's wife. One, and the anti hero responds by going on a rampage.

"he is angry she is dead, it's grief" he still kills a lot of people and shows no remorse.

(nothing against Anti heroes characters per se. I do love Jason Todd even if I agree how DC mistreated him, I like Bucky. I can't like Punisher through)

The thing here is if Dabi only killed bad people how we would know if the people he killed were bad to warrant the death penalty?

"dabi only killed rapist and pedos" ok. How he would know if a person committed those crimes? Waiting for the person to shout to the world all the horrible things he did on this fine Tuesday?

(this all is making me think of a case of lynching in my country, a person was accused of committed a crime, a group of the small city wanted justice and ....went to make on their own hands....turns out the person was Innocent. They killed an innocent person)

Besides killing is killing. Even if Dabi has concrete proof the people he killed are EVIL. He still took a life, he is still unaffected about it (not saying if dabi kills a rapist he should weep, but you can't exactly be so blase about it)

(I even think if Dabi goes around killing only bad people, in this case, villains....wouldn't that make others villains wry of LoV for keeping dabi? If we have a hero killer. What if we have a villain killer?)

My point on this long ass thread is how in besties au dabi has killed, ofc he did, even if is for survival...and that sticks with him. He doesn't like killing. It weights on him.

"and Endy?" Yes. He wants to kill Dabi. He wants to destroy Endy and in besties he is doing a good job. He is proactive (unlike Mr. Possum)

But the killing weights on him.

Smth I don't think it does on the heroes who kill in canon. They are sure the villains they kill are evil (I mean, I get why) and no need to think twice, right hawks?

But it's odd seeing villain stans defending dabi killing any villain without remorse and try to justify "they are evil"

Well.....

If that was the case...all the LoV deserved their fates as they are terrorists who killed lots of people, wage a war and more.

Hi @mikeellee 👋

Agreed! There is no way within Canon that dabi has never killed anyone at all. Actually, we only see dabi physically kill people after he joins the league of villains, whether that be with failed lov recruits or heroes dabi has killed.

However, in chapter 290, dabi states that he has cannonically killed over 30 innocent people. Now, I have talked about this in the @sapphic-agent post, but the framing of that panel seems to be there to humanise enji while dehumanising dabi.

How does dabi know these people are innocent?

Why did he mention the fact that they were innocent? Why didn't he just say he killed thirty people?

All of this makes me think that dabi thinks that he accidentally killed the people in the hospital.

Ultimately, dabi would have realistically had to kill in self-defense. Imagine a young teenage boy obviously covered in major scaring, roaming the streets for scraps or anything to survive. That would be an easy target for people to use, rob, or do whatever they think of doing to him. Dabi would have had to quickly learn self-defense and how to survive on the street, and it shows that he did learn by his appearance.

The first time we see dabi in chapter 68, we see just how scrawny and skinny he is. He ends up gaining weight and muscle after joining the league, yet his first appearance definitely depicts him as malnourished and the increased burn scars definitely mean that he has been using his quirks ever since he was on the street for various reasons.

Dabi killing bad people or who he views as a bad person makes sense and is actually very in character for him. A dominant characteristic of dabi that fanon seems to undermine is that he is a huge Stain fanboy/follower. His first introduction, he announces that he plans to make the hero killers will a reality.

However, we do fall into the problem of dabi pushing his own moral views (which let's be real dabi has some very concerning views) that would be a problem. Or how does he know that this specific individual he is killing is a bad person? There's so much this is the same character who was shown to have some very misogynistic and victim blaming views, so that would be a rocky hill for him to go down on.

All of this could definitely be a great idea to explore and could easily dive deep into dabi's mentality and how that might change over the course of the series.

It is absolutely a great idea to make dabi killing weigh on him whether they're innocent or evil. Those are still people. They are still lives, they breathe, weep, form complex thoughts, bleed red etc they are people, they could be dabi and his body or the body of his loved ones could be next.

While Canon doesn't truly focus on it, it does highlight the fact that dabi does feel regret to a certain extent. Dabi is upset, and he knows, realises, and accepts that he is a bad person. It is exactly why he believes that he belongs in gell with his father. It is why all of his conversations with enji mention BOTH of them suffering and being in hell together for their sins.

There is an anime only scene with a hero cornering dabi asking him if he regrets killing and dabi doesn't respond directly, but we are shown a scene of a bloody tear falling from his face.

There is also a manga page where dabi remembers snatch and directly says that killing him drove him crazy thinking about it with a tear coming from his eye.

[oshinohoshi]

Oshi no Ko Chapter 165 thoughts

At this point we're just suffering.

I cannot get on board with Hikaru as a villainous mastermind. The fuck were we doing for the entire movie arc where he was shown in a sympathetic light? Why in ch 155 did he supposedly have a change of heart only for a plot twist to wreck everything?

It's not that Hikaru would have been absolved of responsibility for Yura's murder because he was abused. It's just that before the stupid Nino twist he wasn't an undeniable monster

Akasaka created someone more interesting, human, and who was flawed in a way that wasn't over the top, and then yanked it away

You're telling me that sad boy Hikaru who blamed himself for Ai leaving him began to manipulate Ryosuke and Nino mere months after the breakup? Please

Anyway... grief is terrible. This chapter was miserable to read

Some people are using this as an opportunity to shit on Kana which is ridiculous. Is slapping a corpse in front of his family not great? Yeah. Does she have every damn reason to? I'd say so

Heartbreak is not just a phrase. It actually hurts. It can cause chest pain, headaches, shortness of breath. There's something called broken heart syndrome which can be caused by grief or stress. It affects the heart's ability to pump blood effectively

Point being that grief is physically and emotionally painful and a breakdown is totally normal

I agree with Gotanda's reasoning about releasing 15 YRL, however the film is now inextricably tied to Aqua's death

Where is Ai in all this? Why isn't she on this poster??? I thought this was a film about her life

Her name may very well never be mentioned again despite being the backbone of this story

This is why cult leader Hikaru is the best character. He's the only person who has remembered her since ch 155

Judging by her white stars, Ruby is probably going to pull through. While I don't want a nihilistic end, we have ONE chapter left. Can this really be earned?

And can it be done in a way that doesn't accidentally portray Aqua's murder-suicide in a positive light in the sense that Ruby living on and achieving her dreams reinforces what Aqua died for?

Next chapter: So here we are, very nearly at the end of all things. I am glad you are here with me, OnK fan community. It's been a journey.

Send your good vibes to marillust, a super talented fanartist, who is really sad about losing Aqua. They're cycling between depression and denial and I really get that.

I feel like I have to defend my dislike of this ending by talking about previously established themes, bad twists, etc. in order to not be shouted down by the "what did you expect? This was always a tragedy" crowd, but I'm just gonna say it.

I wanted Aqua to move on and be happy! I wanted Ai's wish for her kids to grow up healthy to be fulfilled. I wanted Aqua to call both his mothers "mom." I wanted him to value his life and see that the people around him loved him and needed him.

I didn't want Ai's death to be meaningless. I didn't want Ruby to lose her most important person. I didn't want Miyako to lose her son, Kana to never get to say "I love you," and Akane to never rebuild her relationship with Aqua.

I wish we'd gotten this and this and a spinoff manga about this.

All right, it's fine. Deep breaths. Time to stare at Ai art until I feel better. Here's a sketch Mengo did of her riding a dragon. Isn't that cute?

[burningdreambanana]

An analysis on how the show turned Alicent into an accidental villain (part 2)

The portrayal of Alicent in season 2 is bizarre to say the least. On one hand, it seems like the writers are trying to keep her as a "good" character. On the other hand, it seems like they are trying really hard to humiliate her.

First of all, this desire to “humble” Alicent seems very strange considering they’ve went out of their way to portray Alicent as possible by making her crown Aegon based on a misunderstanding, she wasn’t aware of the plan to crown him, she refused to have Rhaenyra killed. 

Second of all their attempt to make Alicent sympathetic or a victim also fail spectacularly.

Alicent's behavior this season is utterly self-centered, delusional and stupid. To the point that it's comical at times

In this season she :

sleeps with Cole while leaving the door unlocked

barely gives a shit when her grandson is brutally murdered. Seriously, Alicent's lack of care for her grandchildren is disturbing, does she even know their names?

recognizes that Aegon is eager to please, proceeds to do nothing about it despite her "intelligence" and later insults him while he's already down and causes him to put himself in danger

feels very shallow guilt for that

doesn't take time to help her children with their grief, even though it's not even like she feels any grief herself that would overwhelm her

never proposes any plan of action at the council, yet expects not only to be taken seriously but to made regent, even though making Aemond regent makes perfect sense since he's the heir and the Green's biggest advantage

has the enemy near her, unprotected, and lets her go because of sentimentality

after not being made regent, instead of trying trying to leverage her influence in other ways, she just abandons, and then soon after betrays her entire family and faction

SHE CONDEMNS HER FAMILY TO DEATH. Seriously, Aegon, Aemond, Daeron and Otto are all dead if Rhaenyra becomes queen.

She doesn't even have the decency to share their fate (since she's admitting her mistakes), she is ready to just go live her best life in peace (where and how exactly, we don't know)

In the show, she is largely responsible for the beginning of the Dance, since apparently Rhaenyra would not have done anything to her siblings if Aegon was never crowned and the King's word is the only claim considered valid, yet she acts all season like she has no responsibility for it and condemns violence (like what did you think would happen when you dragged Aegon to the throne????). Which also feels very shallow because as a youtuber pointed out in their video about s2 of HOTD, just because we believe war is bad, doesn't mean we will automatically buy that medieval characters would believe that. They needed to establish in s1 that Alicent and Rhaenyra care about the innocents, not just be like we'll they are woman of course they care ! That's lazy

Plus all the random things Alicent does while her family is tearing itself apart like getting eaten out before a council, taking baths, lighting candles, swimming fully clothed, which many find boring but I just find very funny in how absurd it is.

In conclusion of both parts of this analysis, Alicent is a crazy, petty, bitter, jealous, self-centered, dumb, incompetent, delusional, hypocritical, judgmental, treacherous abusive mother with no self-awareness who doesn't love any of her children except Helaena (and that's debatable considering she was willing to let Daemon get away with what he did to her, she's more of a prop to her than a daughter), doesn't care about her grandchildren, doesn't care about her father, brother and lover, who refuses to take responsibilities for her action and is ready to sacrifice tons of people for her "freedom".

Which is fine, but then go all in, make her a soap opera villain and make us love to hate her. They could do that by stressing the comedic elements of a character like that, example: Joffrey is horrible but he is often very funny to watch, Lucille Bluth is another good example of a horrible but incredibly entertaining character.

[brightgoat]

How is Pucci both the most human of the main villains and a top tier personification of the crushing weight of inevitable destiny that binds us all? Is he hacking?

He's just peak jjba villain, that's all-

no but fr, what's not human about fearing fate, destiny and the future? His backstory is the most sympathetic and arguably most tragic, he's shown the most genuine humanity and hurt out of all the villains (to me anyway), and even though on the outside his goal and rise to heaven is insane, the core idea of 'wouldnt we be happier if we knew what bad things would happen to us' is quite relatable.

To me anyway, i hate uncertainty and unpredictability, so I get the core idea.

Not only that but also his goal stems from his fear of free will. He's afraid of making things go wrong or making mistakes like he once did so he's subscribed to the idea that everything is predestined and we can't change anything and its out of our control therefore not our fault. He's blinded himself with inevitable destiny while thinking he's actually the one seeing the truth of the world. And its crushing because 1) YEAH the future is crushing, the idea of fate is scary, religion is often about fearing a higher power for a reason and 2) in the universe of JJBA, he's fucking RIGHT- fate DOES exist, everyone follows a script, everyone falls in place, until he himself fucks it up accidentally, makes a mistake, and fucks himself over and destroys his own theory.

He really WAS hacking the story but he accidentally hacked against himself-

I veered way off script myself here but thats what happens when I start talking about the man the myth the legend Enrico Pucci god i love that bastard

[awesome-normal-heroes]

Why Dipper is so loved, while Mabel is a broken base...

I'm not the biggest Mabel fan, but even I believe that all the hate that Mabel sometimes gets is too much...

Why do almost half of the fans get angry at a little girl, while praising a little boy?

Well, we're gonna find out!

*You see during the beginning of Gravity Falls, we get the idea that Mabel is supposed to be the optimistic heart of the duo, while Dipper is the cynical brain of the team.

*And for a while it was like that, but then came the episode of Mabel teaming up with Grunkle Stan to laugh at Dipper's lack of manliness.

*Which was the first of a bunch of episodes where Mabel (sometimes with Stan) treating Dipper somewhat unfairly.

*Teaming up with Stan to make fun of Dipper for being slightly shorter than her, not trying to help Dipper create a plan that will allow her to keep Waddles and prevent Dipper from accidentally giving Wendy a black eye, taking a picture of Dipper giving reverse CPR to Mabel's mermaid boyfriend to use for blackmail later, laughing at Bill shooting a hole through her brother (I know it's a dream, but still...), getting angry at Dipper for refusing to help Stan (cause Dipper believed that Stan hates him; Mabel could've at least been more sympathetic before going to help Stan)... almost giving away Dipper's journal to Bill (to impress a guy with her play), choosing to trust Stan over her brother (even though the portal could destroy the universe), then afterwards refuses to play his board game and even makes fun of it with Stan (which results in Dipper spending time with Ford), getting jealous that Dipper is spending more time with Ford then with her (which she caused), proceeds to make fun of Dipper again when he calmly calls her out on her teasing, she feels guilty but doesn't give a proper apology (something that even Stan does), gets upset at Dipper for wanting to become Ford's apprentice and stay at Gravity Falls, willingly gives Bill the device that almost ends the world and nobody finds out about it (I know she was tricked but still), refuses to leave her giant bubble until Dipper finally agrees to come home with her and creates a radical brother that would have a 'more supportive attitude'.

*I personally think that Mabel did the right thing by trusting Stan in the end, so Ford could be rescued... the portal still could've destroyed the universe, if Stan had miscalculated something.

*I'm also angrier at Stan for the mocking Dipper times, cause Mabel was a child and children don't know better sometimes, but Stan is an adult and he knows what it's like to be made fun of and yet he still does it to Dipper... no wonder Dipper briefly believed that Stan hated him... and no wonder Ford quickly became Dipper's Favorite Grunkle.

*As for accidentally almost starting the apocalypse, I don't completely blame Mabel for what happened, but the other characters deserved to know the truth and I'm surprised that Bill didn't tell them to cause drama.

*When all these things are stacked together, it's not a pretty picture.

While in comparison to Dipper, the brother is actually already quite supportive:

*Saves Mabel from gnomes despite Mabel yelling at him, he was willing to break up with Gideon for Mabel, he gave up his chance to be with Wendy twice to make Mabel happy, he doesn't make fun of Mabel's flaws, he comforts Mabel when she's sad, he helps Mabel whenever she asks for it (even when he doesn't like the thing that they're doing), he's always forgiving with Mabel, he's viciously protective of Mabel and gave up being Ford's apprentice to make Mabel happy.

*So, yeah the twins do have a bit of an all take, no give relationship... the writers could've handled it a little bit better.

*It doesn't help that Mabel technically does get called out on how she treats Dipper in Season 2, but the people that call her out are the Main Villain and a jerky unicorn, who are seen as in the wrong (but even the villains can make decent points sometimes)... Mabel had a chance to get proper character development and become a better sister after saving Dipper from Bill's possession... but Mabel doesn't really grow much as a person, not even during the finale... she's almost the same as she was during Season 1.

*Meanwhile with Dipper, he slowly becomes less cynical and socially awkward as well as braver and more kind-hearted over the course of the show... he even handled the fact that Wendy wants to simply remain friends beautifully... he still has a crush, but he respects her wishes.

*In contrast to Mabel, who keeps falling in love with guys and trying to force a romance, instead of letting it happen naturally or realizing that she doesn't need a boy to be happy... she also uses a love potion on Robbie and another girl to basically force them to get together and this is later seen as an okay thing (when Robbie hypnotizing Wendy with romantic music was seen as wrong).

*Even Stan and Ford go through a bit more character development then Mabel does.

*I think that's what truly bothers the fans... Dipper goes through character development, learns some lessons and slowly becomes a better person... while Mabel remains the same.

*Mabel isn't a horrible person... she's a fun, creative and energetic girl... but she wouldn't exactly be winning any 'Sister of the Year' Awards either.

*It's disappointing, because Mabel's character had so much potential... and the writers make her repeat the same mistakes... if they did handle Mabel's character better, she'd probably be almost as loved as Dipper.

[drakaripykiros130ac]

Green stans complaining that the show is pro-Black never ceases to amuse me, considering how the writers are doing their best to make the Greens somewhat sympathetic. If anything, the Greens are the ones being “whitewashed” and it’s pretty evident.

In the book, the Greens are portrayed as cartoonishly evil. Alicent is literally the “evil stepmother” who purposely seduced Viserys so she would be Queen (speculated she was sleeping with him even before Aemma died). She is the ring leader of the Greens, knows exactly what she is doing and purposely let her husband’s body to rot while she made plans to stage a coup and crown her own son. Otto has no ulterior motive for doing what he does: he is a pure opportunist who schemes just like a villain from the time Jaehaerys I is King. Aegon is implied to be a r*pist. He is constantly sexually harassing servant girls and is just a despicable human being. As for Aemond…he is pure evil. He has no redeeming qualities. Period.

What the writers of the show try to portray: Alicent constantly acting the victim and preaching the Faith when she does despicable things (plotting, lying, stalking, gossiping), Aegon is a sad little boy who r*pes servant girls because he doesn’t get any attention/love from Mommy and Daddy, Aemond “accidentally” killed Lucerys, Crispin “accidentally” killed Lord Beesbury. I wouldn’t be surprised if everything the greens do starting season 2 will also be “accidents”. Oh, and they decided to make Helaena a “dreamer” just to give her character some purpose since she is completely useless in the book. And even her being a “dreamer” is pointless. She is repeating things that nobody in the show listens to and as most viewers have read the book, we already know what she says. It’s not some great mystery.

I mean, this is just ridiculous.

The show is pro-Black according to them although the writers did a lot of things that weren’t in the book which make the Blacks look bad: Viserys ripping Aemma open for the baby, Daemon killing Rhea Royce, Rhaenys clearly showing some resentment towards Rhaenyra because she is jealous that she never got to be the Queen and Rhaenyra is (I have to say that I really dislike how they are portraying Rhaenys in the show, compared to how she is in the book) and Rhaenyra’s first three sons being confirmed bastards (although it was left ambiguous in the book) not only through hair color but skin color as well.

If anything, I should be angry that the writers of the show are cutting the greens A LOT of slack.

GRRM is literally Team Black and very anti-green. If the Blacks still look better in the show despite everything, it’s because they are supposed to be the ones in the right. The anti-heroes. I mean, GRRM didn’t write the book to portray the “badness” of both sides in an equal manner (despite what many Green stans like to believe). You’re going to argue with the writer of the actual book?

[very-straight-blog]

"the second half of the season will show the dark regency of Aemond" I don't remember this line, who said it? Technically it's true, we saw the dark regency of Aemond, they definitely turned him into a dark villain, they just failed to mention that we'll see Aemond for only 5 minutes and from the other characters' povs because Aemond is so evil, he doesn't deserve to have a pov. Even Larys who killed his family last season is made quite sympathetic and I believe they shot the scenes in a way where the audience is supposed to be on Larys' side in their beef (there was even a moment where Aemond mocks Larys' disability). Everyone was humanized at Aemond's expense, isn't it great? What would Condal even do without Aemond.

Unfortunately, I don't remember which particular interview this quote is from - there were too many promo materials and they all got mixed up in my head.

In fact, Aemond's storyline still practically makes me cry. I was one of those people who wanted and waited for his dark side - I really love his character in the book, so when he accidentally killed Luke, I was very angry. However, what we got in the end… Like, first of all, Ewan had very little screen time. Secondly, his transition to the dark side happened too quickly and too caricatured. And there are a lot of logical errors in his plot. Does he mourn the death of Luke, who cut out his eye and didn't regret it, and then burns Aegon for a couple of jokes? Seriously? It just doesn't work, it's ridiculous and I can't believe it. His storyline this season is a complete disappointment.

[beevean]

"NFCV's portrayal of Dracula is a masterpiece, it finally gave depth to the character! His sorrow is sympathetic, he's not just an evil guy for evil guy's sake! He's deep, nuanced!"

Is he? Is he, though?

The more I think about Dracula (the games one obv), the more it angers me how the show treated him. In its best seasons, to boot.

Because yes, they certainly put a lot of focus on his grief, and took care to humanize him. And that's the issue.

The idea, on paper, is wonderful. Dracula is a monster moved by human emotions. He's a danger to the entirety of mankind, God's direct enemy, but at his core, he's a man bereft for the loss of his wives.

The very first episode nailed it! He makes an utterly terrifying entrance in Targoviste, as a pillar of fire threatening the people to move out in a year lest they face his wrath. They don't believe him. He keeps his word. He does not hold back.

And he caps it off with this chilling, yet tragic speech:

Kill everything you see. Kill them all. And once Targoviste has been made into a graveyard for my love, go forth into the country. Go now. Go to all the cities of Wallachia: Arges! Severin! Gresit! Chilia! Enisara! Go now and kill. Kill for my love! Kill for the only true love I ever knew. Kill for the endless lifetime of hate before me.

This is Dracula. This is the Devil himself who is absolutely destroyed by the loss of his love, knows that he will never be able to move on, and by all the forces of Hell, he will make everyone feel his misery.

Season 2, by all means, should have capitalized on this. Imagine the great contrast it would be: one scene shows Dracula, in his firey form, sending his forces, the Night Creatures that he forced Hector and Isaac to make all night, to raze an entire village to ashes... and the next, he retreats to his quarters to slump in his chair, speaking in a soft and broken voice, and suddenly, he is a man again. It would show his duality so well.

But the show simply forgot the first part.

The entirety of the plot in S2 is that Dracula has stopped being a villain. This is the crux of the conflict! Dracula spends his entire time moping in his chair, and he's so Depressed™ that he literally loses control of his forces... which allows Carmilla to more or less replace him.

There you have it: Dracula's entire arc in S2.

Dracula gets nothing but "humanizing" moments. He speaks civilly to Carmilla after she makes a fool out of him. He commiserates to Isaac about how no one is his friend anymore, taking care to sit by his side like they're buddies. He doesn't care about anything anymore, thus allowing Carmilla to run amok and play Hector and Isaac like recorders (I would say "like a fiddle" but that would imply talent). His plan gets described, multiple times, including by his own son, as nothing more than a suicide mission that will accidentally take down everyone with him. Most importantly, Dracula is painted as being simply a shortsighted fool, who lied to Hector to hire him and then he's surprised that he's distancing himself, who never thought ahead when it cames to blood perserves, who really, why didn't he just turn Lisa into a vampire, is he stupid?

(he's literally doing a :( face. i cannot make this shit up)

Once again: his death scene, which is at its core him being taken down by his own emotions, is brilliant in a vacuum. But in context, it breaks down spectacularly: Dracula has done nothing but feel sorry for himself for 7 episodes now. Where is the guy who made guts and man-eating demons fall from the sky? This is such a blatant attempt to defang (hehe) an iconic antagonist for the sake of 1) propping up an OC, and 2) because we are such good writers and we will fix the shallow games by giving Humanity to our antagonists, to the point where they're not even So Bad After All! (also 3) because woobiefying the dilf will make our horny fans happy)

But like. You can show Dracula's humanity without painting him as such a sad meow meow.

It is said that there was a deplorable incident. Those who did it, those who saw it, those who didn't stop it, the one who created the world, all are equally guilty.

The pain of loss  Distorted overflowing resentment Unquenchable sorrow  The claws of a trembling fist pierce the palm  Becoming a bloody hammer of violence

Gaining what was lost A power as big as sadness A person who rebels against the creator of an existence that will never be lost

One page has the narration describing Dracula's "unquenchable sorrow" that turns his fist into a "bloody hammer of violence"...

"Please, I beg of you, I’m human too!"

"My nourishment is human life and mistakes. I will disappear when humans perish…"

And the next one will have Dracula severely punish his General for daring to question him in his cruel plan for revenge.

And he'll still show some vulnerability to Isaac, but apparently he was okay with him killing Hector and bringing his head back.

And then there's the ending of SoTN, where Dracula finally asks Lisa forgiveness, but not after nearly killing his son and even swearing to wipe away his "vulgar blood" in Japanese. And then there are the implications, most obvious in Grimoire of Souls, that even Dracula has grown tired of being forced to come back over and over, but shows no sign of remorse.

[...]

It may not be shown in depth as NFCV does, but even if more is left to imagination, the games do a much better job at walking the line between "Dracula is the Devil incarnate, a spiteful monster who only desires death and destruction" and "Dracula is the former shell of a man who was broken by grief and cannot let go of his pain".

So yeah. I'm not impressed by the show trying too hard to make me cry for its ineffective, pathetic, pitiful version of Dracula.

[questdrag0n]

Thoughts on Dark Might

Spoilers for You're Next below

So I just went back and watched the movie for the second time yesterday and I noticed some things.

Wanna preface by saying I loved the villain for this Movie. Dark Might was absolutely hysterical and flamboyant in a way that not a lot of serious villains are in this show, closest being Gentle Criminal who was meant to be a sympathetic villain who barely even qualified as a villain. Dark Might was a lot of fun to watch and a breath of fresh air, creepy scenes with Anna aside.

That said, there's something I noticed about him: The man has no original ideas. His entire villain plan was to try and recreate All Might's legacy, but in his own way. His fortress is plastered in All Might statues. While he did technically created his own villain name, he didn't do so until All Might said something that accidentally inspired it. His monsters? Clearly inspired by Nomu. Even his home base probably wasn't his own design, likely based on the Scervino home if his comment to Anna was anything to go by ("Do you like it? It was inspired by you" or something like that). Even that conversation with the erasure villain where he promises to "remember that for next time" is him taking something someone else said and planning to use it for the future to boost his own image. The only time where he appears to design something of his own was that horrendously bad outfit with the purple face paint, and then he gets mocked for it and never wears it again. Not even his face is his.

But this isn't bad writing or bad character design; rather it's actually genius. Here is a character who's quirk is the ability to create borderline anything (we don't really know the limits of his quirk without Anna), and yet he is unable to create something new; he instead plagiarizes from the world around him. It's deeply ironic, and is part of what makes the final face reveal so good. Once you strip him down to his own limits and his own ideas, all you have is a sad, pathetic man, with no original ideas who's power and money was handed to him on a silver platter. It's not just part of his character, it's the entire point of his character.

Tldr: Dark Might, while delightful to watch, has no original ideas and copies everything from those around him and it's genius writing for reasons I struggle to articulate

[marley-manson]

due South for the fandom ask meme, if you haven't been asked already <3

Thank you 💖

my favorite female character

I honestly can't decide between Victoria and Frannie. I loooove Victoria, I think she's a fantastic villain, very sympathetic imo, and extremely effective at highlighting Fraser's tragic flaws. And I love that she got away in the end.

I also adore Frannie and while she's less of a perfectly written character, she's in more episodes and she's so endearing and loveable. If we had to have a Fraser het ship teased in season 2 I wish it had been Fraser/Frannie rather than Fraser/Thatcher, both because I like Frannie more and would've loved to see more of her before season 3, and because I think it would've been more interesting thematically. In the episode Heaven and Earth she functionally represents Earth and Fraser's capacity to be more human and less "divine" or untouchable, and I love that.

my favorite male character

Ray Vecchio! I love him, I love the way he talks and complains and feels like everything is unfair to him and always steps up and puts his own comfort second anyway; I love his relationship with his family, from the good heartwarming stuff, to the bitchy sibling stuff, to the darker abusive father who still literally haunts him stuff; I love his fashion sense; I love his sheer loyalty to Fraser; I love that in the Pilot he sought Fraser out specifically to apologize for accidentally being insensitive about his father and invite him to dinner; I love his ridiculous love for his car and that he sacrificed it twice for Fraser... nothing I don't love tbh.

my favorite book/season/etc

Season 1, hands down. Extremely solid television right there.

my favorite episode (if its a tv show)

SO hard to choose between The Deal and Victoria's Secret, but I think Ray's episode gets the edge so let's go with The Deal.

my favorite cast member

I don't really know anything about the cast so idk.

my favorite ship

Fraser/RayV. Ship of my heart. I can read basically any ship featuring Ray, including het even, but Ray loves Fraser best therefore Ray/Fraser is the best ship.

a character I’d die defending

Ray. Thankfully the Ray Wars are over so I don't have to, but I'm ngl I can understand why the fandom was so batshit back then. I see someone casually say they can't ship F/V because they see him as too straight and Kill Bill sirens go off in my head and I have to take a deep breath lol. I would not have survived the 90s.

Also Victoria though. Fraser dug his own grave when he didn't let her go the first time, acab, obviously spending 10 years in prison would make her both a better criminal and angry that's what you fucking get for loving the system so much Fraser, and I'm on her side during the whole finale lol.

a character I just can’t sympathize with

One of Due South's biggest strengths is making just about every character sympathetic in some way. Ray's dad was a good answer to this though, got no sympathy there.

Ooh, also: Bob Fraser. The show did want me to sympathize with him at times lol, but I don't. He sucks, he's emblematic of every flaw Fraser has, he's a terrible father and a pretty shitty person, and the fact that the show wanted me to like him and often brushes all that aside makes me dislike him more than I otherwise might. He's still often entertaining and funny, but I do not have any sympathy for him. Hope Caroline divorces him in the afterlife.

a character I grew to love

Idk, most of my character opinions have been static since I first watched the show in high school...

Okay, Ian lol. The most annoying man in the world, but still somehow loveable. It did take me at least one rewatch to start to like him.

my anti otp

Sorry to the fandom lol but it is Fraser/Ray K. I got into the show specifically for them, because I wanted to read all the good fic everyone recced everywhere, and I did everything I could to try to like them including watching season 3 concurrently with season 2 so missing Ray V wouldn't colour my opinions, but it just didn't happen. They are not for me, they don't have the kind of chemistry I enjoy, I don't like the show after season 2 much in general, and my irrational love for Ray V makes me mad on his behalf to see Fraser getting together with his replacement lol.

I'm not usually that emotion driven when it comes to my fandom interests but due south is always kind of an exception there. I am at least self aware enough to find my irrational resentment funny rather than taking it seriously though. Like, I have 0 beef with F/K shippers, I respect your interests and I can definitely see why it was a fandom juggernaut back in its day. I'll just never read it.

ask meme

[blindmagdalena]

I hope you are taking care good care of yourself! I was just thinking about taking care of a sick Homelander, maybe another supe that can make other supers fall ill accidentally used their powers on Homelander, the supe gave him the equivalent of the flu, but Homelander being Homelander is needy and dramatic as fuck, forcing you to take care of him.

It's been two days since Homelander had a nasty run-in with a supe terrorist—sorry, super villain—who calls themselves Contagion. As the name implies, their power is the spread of disease through contact. At the time, Homelander had been dismissive of it, certain he would be immune. As it turns out, he absolutely is not. Luckily, it isn't lethal for him in the way it would be for just about anyone else. However, it has left him suffering side-effects the likes of which he has never experienced. On the bright side, it isn't contagious beyond initial infection, and you've been allowed to care for him while the malady wears off. In fact, he insisted upon it. He thoroughly refused to stay in Vought's medical ward.

"Babe," Homelander groans weakly. He's sprawled out on the couch, too stubborn to be resting by himself in the bedroom while you cook dinner, but too sick to be self-sufficient. You know it's serious because he's wearing pajamas. "My ice pack melted." Never have you heard him sound so full of self-pity. He's been relentlessly mopey through this experience. While you can't blame him, the flu is wretched, the theatrics are a little funny. You give a quiet laugh under your breath. Not quiet enough. "You're laughing," Homelander says flatly, still holding up that melted little ice pack. "I'm dying a slow, miserable death, and you're laughing." "You're not dying," you assure him, biting back a smile. You turn off the heat, cover the pot of soup, and retrieve a new ice pack from the freezer. You walk it to him, taking the lukewarm one from his extended hand. "The doctor said your system is fighting it exceptionally well. You're going to be alright." Homelander is quiet. He's pouting at you, you realize. His lips are pursed, brows deeply furrowed. His fever has improved, but his cheeks still have a pronounced flush to them.

He doesn't want facts. He wants comfort. "...But I know that it feels like you're dying," you continue, softening your tone. "Here, up," you say, gesturing for him to lift his head. He does so without hesitation, giving you just enough space to sit before he's crowding back down against you, nuzzling grumpily into your stomach. He slips his arm under your legs, wrapping it around to grip your thighs like a pillow. You press the cold gel pack to his forehead with one hand, and stroke through his hair with the other. He makes a soft, sad little noise, but it fades off into a sigh of relief. "There we go. I've got you, darling," you coo, brushing your thumb over his temple in soothing circles. He glances up sidelong at you, ill and with a deeply wounded ego. You smile sympathetically. "This will pass. I promise." "Don't laugh at me," he says, quiet and morose. "Okay," you relent, sincere. "I didn't mean it. Honest." Satisfied, he closes his eyes, turning his head into your touch. After a few moments, he opens his eyes, staring up at you, though his gaze seems distant. "I used to have dreams like this. Of being sick. Being taken care of. Eating chicken noodle soup. Just like in the movies." You hum, caressing his cheek with your knuckles. It makes your heart ache to think of him yearning for something like this. Dreaming of a taste of the normalcy he saw in fiction. "How does the reality compare?" "Awful," he says, pitch dropping. "But there's one part of it that's better." "Oh?" You prompt, intrigued. "What's that?" "You." It makes your heart skip a beat. Warmly, you smile down at him. "I love you." He smiles back weakly, but earnest nonetheless. "Love you, too." It makes all the more sense now why he was so adamant about being home with you, and not tended to by a dozen faceless professionals in a sterile hospital. For as miserable as this is, a small part of you is glad that he's been allowed this one deeply human experience, and that you have been the one to see him through it.

[hikaaa-bi]

one thing that i love about infinity train is how REAL the characters are, despite being in a fantasy setting, and the narrative of how experiences shape individuals. the way they speak and act are so realistic, their choices are understandable and their arcs are so well-written. all of the characters have glaring flaws they need to work on, but it's also clear that these flaws are the results of some kind of trauma or the way they were treated.

tulip was disillusioned with the world, angry and distant. and this is a direct reaction to her parents' divorce and her inability to cope with it. which is sympathetic, of course, it's a hard thing to go through as a child. the show also reveals that tulip blames herself for her parents' divorce, which can hit close to home for many people.

lake was similarly angry and defiant, even outright hostile in certain situations. again, this comes as a response to the way she was treated in the train, the way she was never granted her freedom and individuality, and how she was trapped in a role she didn't want to play. it's no wonder that many queer people identify so much with lake, because the rules of the train mirrors real life.

jesse has people-pleasing tendencies that reach the point where it actually hurts people. we've all seen protagonists who are people pleasers or eager to appear likeable to people, but usually it only hurts themselves. jesse's case is the prime example of "a friend to all is a friend to none". you can't please everyone, there are people you should oppose or ignore. otherwise, you end up hurting people who actually matters in your life.

simon and grace are straight-up villains, or anti-villains at the very best. grace is manipulative and cunning, playing on people's feelings and insecurities to serve herself. simon is controlling and somewhat egotistic, refusing to change his mindset, regardless of what happens. again, both these characters are shown to have reasons for why they became what they are, even if it doesn't justify their actions. grace grew up in an environment where she was neglected and felt lonely, and found out that her only sure way of making any sort of connection is to manipulate people. simon is implied to have dealt with someone's death before he got on the train, since he seems to have an idea of what funerals are like. that, paired with samantha the cat accidentally leaving him behind in a crucial and dangerous situation, he develops some very intense abandonment issues. again, both these issues can be very relatable to a lot of people, even if we aren't as bad as either of these characters.

min-gi was shown to be insecure and uncertain, but at the same time, arrogant and condescending. the pressure he recieved from his parents has fueled his gifted child syndrome while simultaneously making him depressed and burned out. ryan is probably the closest we have to a "conventional main character", hyperactive and quirky. but he is also not exactly perfect in all other aspects, as he wants to push things forward and refuses to give min-gi some time to think and make a decision. as a child who grew up with lots of other siblings, ryan struggles to prove himself to his family, since they don't seem to pay him much attention. both these scenarios are especially relatable to asians, but of course, anyone who may have trouble pleasing their parents and living up to expectations.

i just gave a character analysis of each protagonist, but my point is that while other cartoon protagonists tend to lean more on the heroic side, the characters in this show doesn't. in most other animated shows i've watched, the flaws a protagonist is allowed to have are either "heroic" flaws such as being too forgiving or being self-sacrificing, or shallow flaws such as clumsiness or being kind of an idiot.

but not in infinity train. the protagonists in this show aren't heroes, they are normal people. they don't have a magical destiny, they don't have to fight for the good of the world, they aren't the "chosen ones". their ultimate goal is to get out of the train (or in simon and grace's case, to be superior to everyone else, to "win").

so it really feels good when one of the characters does choose to do something nice. when tulip chooses to empathize with and help amelia, when lake bonds with alan dracula and jesse. when grace chooses to change for the better and face the consequences of her actions. when ryan chooses to stay with min-go despite getting a door, and when min-gi does the same later on.

i watched this show about a year ago, and it's still one of the best animated shows i've watched. it's so uncomfortably real sometimes, you stop and go "am i like that?" when a character does something wrong, you know that the show addresses it and their actions have consequences. the show doesn't hand out redemption arcs to everyone or sweep things under the rug like some shows *cough* steven universe and she-ra *cough*

there's a reason why a lot of people seem to relate more to villains than heroes, because villains are allowed to be flawed while also being sympathetic. infinity train managed to create a cast of protagonists who are exactly like that. they are more than heroes, they are people.

[humanpurposes]

this!! especially the bit about character interaction, some of aemond’s scenes interacting with other people feel kinda flat (more one their end than his, but still)? like the reactions of those around him make him look a little like a “cartoonish”, cold, evil-evil villain (which works sometimes, cause i feel like that’s the image he wants to convey, he always tries to hide his vulnerability behind a dark and imposing figure in front of people), but i really like him being more vulnerable. that’s why i think s2e8 is where he really shines, we get those raw reactions, from helaena and alicent, and vulnerability from him and we get a closer hint at what is going on in his head.

not saying i don’t love him, i really do, i just feel like there are some instances in season 2 in which things that happened in between scenes (like the return from storm’s end or him finding out that jaehaerys died “because of him”) could have helped further develop him as a character (i mean, that’s what fanfic/fanart/fanwork is for, right, to fill in the gaps, but still is there a need for gaps this big?)

That's what I love about Aemond, the image he wants to project vs the inner vulnerability.

It doesn't seem consistent on the part of the writers that they made his younger version sympathetic, thew in the twist of Luke's death being accidental, only to make Aemond such a one-dimensional villain. I mean he kinda comes across that way in Fire and Blood, but the Aemond we got in season 1, while cold and calculating, I think has a lot to prove as a second son and as a child that was alienated, teased, and left physically disabled by his family members. You're exactly right, I think there are too many gaps in Aemond's narrative in season 2. I can appreciate that they tried to show a vulnerable side in the brothel scenes and you can do the mental gymnastics to justify why he attacked Aegon at Rook's Rest or why he burned Sharp Point, but at what point is it just underdeveloped storytelling? It's like the writers don't trust audiences with moral nuance (they absolutely shouldn't because Aemond is my baby boy and I forgive him for everything <3)

No but I'm dying that everything interesting about the Greens and their dynamic as a family is just... not important to the writers of HotD. In that final scene with Aemond and Helaena in episode 8, it's so compelling to see Aemond tear up when he realises he doesn't have the trust of his sister. Now IMAGINE if they had a scene in the aftermath of Jaehaerys' death, Aemond trying to explain himself, knowing Daemon wanted revenge for something he didn't intend to happen but was powerless to stop. It really sucks because Ewan and Phia are so immersed in their characters and have created this connection between them, and yet they're both so underutilised.