#whereas all the sequels didn't even bother

[leresq]

The Jurassic Park novel is very obviously existential horror and capitalism killed it like it does all things by turning it into a billion dollar cash cow survival adventure thriller franchise of death.

[taffywabbit]

oops i accidentally wrote a review for zelda II: the adventure of link

(originally posted to Cohost on Feb 22, 2024. you can ignore this if you want, i just wanted it archived somewhere before that site disappears)

Finally beat Zelda II for the first time last night (I forced myself to finish it before starting Splatoon 3's Side Order DLC, because I knew if I didn't push through to the end of the Great Palace THIS time then it'd be years before I tried beating it again. This is probably my 4th or 5th attempt at this point). Not that this is a particularly hot take by most people's standards, but I don't think it's all that good, at least from a gameplay standpoint.

I don't regret playing it though, because I think I'm finally able to put my finger on the stuff I actually disliked about it vs the stuff that was honestly fine, or even (very rarely) actually good? I'm kinda fascinated by it, honestly. Sequels where they immediately screw around with the first game's formula (to mixed results) are neat! FE Gaiden is another example that comes to mind (hey they should give Zelda II the Shadows of Valentia treatment, that could be really cool actually).

Obviously Zelda II has a reputation for being kind of a rough experience. It's an NES game, and NES games are often susceptible to being frustrating, buggy, hard to control, or overly punishing. Sometimes, all of the above! And for what it's worth, the original Legend of Zelda was a tough and sometimes very cryptic experience as well. But I feel like the two games are challenging in drastically different ways, and I think TLoZ ended up being the formula that was retained in the long term primarily because its method of challenging the player overall did a better job of inspiring curiosity and exploration. Despite narratively being a direct sequel (with a really badass story premise that is unfortunately not really conveyed at all in-game) Zelda II took a different approach to nearly every element of the original's gameplay, which is a pretty bold move I suppose. Whether or not it succeeds at anything is fairly subjective, but it's undeniably had a lasting impact on the series, as well as the people who grew up with it (and then they went on to make some really excellent mid-2000's flash games inspired by it that I frankly enjoyed a lot more than this... and also a weirdly solid licensed Adventure Time game on the 3DS? I should go back and play that sometime, it's really fun).

Where to start with this...? Uhhh, the EXP-based leveling system where you choose what stats to put your points into is interesting! It creates a risk-and-reward system for fighting enemies instead of avoiding them, whereas in most other Zelda games besides BotW/TotK, the only reward for killing monsters is "they are no longer bothering you while you solve puzzles, and also sometimes they drop rupees/hearts/ammo". It also introduces a bit more player choice in what areas you'd like to get stronger in first, which is cool! I just wish it actually mattered in a way that let you feel powerful for even a moment. Instead, leveling Life (which is functionally just defense) is never enough to actually make you feel like you can afford to take a hit - the expectation seems to be that leveling Attack, Life, and Magic is something you do purely to keep up with how badly every single thing in this game wants to stomp you into the ground and soak up a million hits and waste all your magic. You CAN skip out on leveling one stat to prioritize another, or even try to evade tough combat situations entirely, but if you aren't leveled enough and in the exact things the game expects you to be WHEN it expects you to be, you'll immediately bump into some new asshole who jumps out of nowhere and can cut you down in 2-3 hits. Leveling doesn't make you tangibly stronger, it merely keeps the game barely playable.

This actually ends up being the core problem I have with Zelda II's design, far more than just the combat being clunky and overly punishing or the levels being visually samey and super hard to navigate. In most Zelda games (and also in a lot of other RPGs!), you get a better sword or a new power or item, and it opens up exciting new options for both exploration and combat. In Zelda II, you level up or earn a new item/spell, it's useful for maybe 20-30 minutes, and then it's immediately nullified. Wow, you got the Fire spell! Now you can finally deal with Tektites and Basilisks (which are immune to all other attacks) on the way to the next area! Well, I hope you had fun with that, because Fire doesn't work on most things you run into afterwards.

Easily the biggest game-changer is when you unlock the Downward Thrust sword technique, and finally have another option for combat besides just crouch-hopping and poking monsters with a dull butter knife. It's satisfying to use, it looks cool (by this game's standards), and it even has some utility for crossing hazards or defending yourself against swooping enemies! Cool! Unfortunately, they don't let you play around with that for long either, before nearly every enemy you see starts rolling up with helmets or shells that make them immune to attacks from above, and you never really get anything like that again (the Upward Thrust exists later, but it's far more situational and frankly not very fun or intuitive to use). Rather than feeling like you're being given tools to overcome challenges and stay above the difficulty curve, it feels like you're constantly just slightly underequipped for everything (even if you grind to earn extra stat levels) and any edge you're given is swiftly taken away from you. (Except the Reflect spell, which is ALWAYS a banger after you get it because it makes your shield Actually Do Its Damn Job after nearly every enemy starts shooting projectiles you can't block. Good work, Reflect spell.)

I feel like I grew up hearing plenty of people talk about the overall difficulty of Zelda II, though most of the complaints about its puzzles were surface-level jabs about the short cryptic NPC text, and none of that prepared me for just how ridiculously obtuse its mandatory puzzles/secrets can be. I genuinely have no idea how anyone would EVER find the Life spell - pretty much your ONLY source of healing outside of towns, since there are no hearts to pick up in this game - without some kind of guide. I was FURIOUS when I finally looked up where to find that lady's mirror and discovered that you have to walk into one of the houses, go over to the table that looks EXACTLY like every other table in every other house in the entirety of Hyrule, crouch, and press B, and you'll just pull the mirror out of nowhere. This type of interaction does not exist ANYWHERE else in the game and there's no in-game hint to indicate that you should try this. Absolutely maddening.

This and its predecessor are both games that seemingly expect you to have the physical manual on hand to help you find secrets, but at least in the first game, the way the game was designed was consistent enough that you COULD feasibly find your way to the end of it without a guide. Bombable walls in dungeons always being located in the center, things like that. It had rules and it could generally be trusted to follow them. Zelda II, in comparison, has a final level (the Great Palace) in which there are numerous rooms that look IDENTICAL and if you make one wrong turn you can go through the entire [very difficult and dangerous] dungeon on a path parallel to the one you need to be on, only to hit a dead end and be able to see the spot you're supposed to be reaching on the other side of a wall. Except you would also never KNOW you need to get there, because it looks like another dead end full of monsters but there's actually a completely invisible hole somewhere in the floor over there that drops you into the hallway leading towards the final boss. Also there is no map. TLoZ had a map. I don't know why this game doesn't have a map. Possibly because if you try to look up maps online, most of the dungeons feature non-Euclidean spaces? Idk, even a Super Metroid-style grid map would've done wonders here.

The combat is... fine? I truly don't understand how anyone thinks it's GREAT though. Zelda II is kind of like a version of Castlevania where you don't have a whip and instead have to stab everything at extremely short range, and also sometimes enemies have shields so you have to crouch sometimes to stop them from blocking you. It feels tense and high-stakes but only because, as I mentioned earlier, you really cannot afford to take stray hits in this game. Most enemies chew through your health at an alarming rate, even with the Shield spell active, and there's almost no way to replenish it unless you use a Life spell (which costs a huge chunk of your magic, possibly softlocking you if you end up in a place that requires other spells to progress). I got better at the combat over the course of my playthrough, but I never felt like I got good at it - most of my victories against strong enemies felt like pure luck and there were rarely consistent strategies for success. All of this combined with the fact that Zelda II has limited lives (and I mean LIMITED - there are only six 1-UPs in the entire game, which can each only be collected once) and getting a Game Over anywhere outside of the final palace will send you all the way back to the starting area, and it makes for an incredibly stressful experience. Even making use of savestates to lighten the fear of death can only do so much to improve it.

Overall, I think that Zelda II is a game that has a lot of really promising ideas, but then just absolutely flops when it comes to the execution. I didn't have a better way of organizing these but here are a few examples of elements I DID particularly like, even if they didn't always stick the landing:

I like the idea of the RPG leveling system in theory, but wish it was more empowering in practice and actually let the player make meaningful choices instead of just being required to survive. Choosing to hold off on a Life upgrade and instead save up just a little longer to boost your Attack feels awesome, until you time one of your inputs wrong and get destroyed. In a game with better-tuned difficulty and combat, this system would be great!

I REALLY like that Zelda II introduced a magic system to the series! I think it's cool as hell to have Link learning and casting spells to protect himself, solve puzzles, and exploit enemy weaknesses, instead of relying purely on items. (It's honestly weird to think that a system I associate so strongly with classic Zelda gameplay has only actually showed up in 4 of the games?? I guess you could consider the runes/hand abilities in BotW/TotK to be kind of like modern spells, or the slowly-refilling energy gauge in ALBW to be the most recent iteration of a Magic Meter, but both are highly debatable. Anyways I just think they should let Link shapeshift into a fairy again, that was cool.) But most of the spells in this are fairly situational and your access to magic refills is so limited that you rarely have the freedom to experiment with the spells' secondary functions (hey did you know the Spell spell turns most enemy types into slimes? that's wild. I wish I'd known that sooner).

The overworld functioning like a traditional JRPG, with top-down exploration broken up by semi-random enemy encounters, was something I honestly didn't hate. It's a little weird for Zelda, sure, but I could see it working well to support other systems in a more polished game. Overworld encounters that switch you into a type of gameplay other than turn-based JRPG combat are something I've always been fascinated by!

Anyways, weird game! I'm glad I finally got closure so I could figure out how I personally feel about it, independent of whatever the random youtubers I watched as a teenager thought. And now I never have to play it again :)

[colinlegameboy]

Yammering About Tomb Raider 2013

You ever just keep bouncing off a game for some weird reason despite knowing you'll like it? That's what kept happening to me with this. I knew I would likely have fun with it, but the first 2 times I tried getting into it, I ended up putting the game down and doing something else. Admittedly one or both of those times might have been due to being nose deep in Destiny 2 at the time.

Either way, I have now finally worked my way through this game that a lot of people like. And I like it too! Despite not having actually played Uncharted, the influence is plain to see. It really is just those games, but with an interconnected map. Also the treasures feel more rewarding to get, as in Uncharted they kinda just unlock bonuses, whereas in Tomb Raider they give actual progression.

I definitely enjoyed the gameplay loop of killing, looting, and raiding to upgrade weapons. Honestly a lot of the later upgrades were completely useless to me, but I still wanted to get them to scratch that completionist itch, and the game makes it pretty easy to do so if you loot everything. Unfortunately there were points where I kinda went "There's no new upgrades right now, why bother looting", which made the later upgrades harder to get. I don't think I even fully upgraded everything, in the end.

As for the story? It's fine. Didn't leave too much of an impact on me, honestly, save for my empathic nature being triggered by the game's obsession with very visceral deaths. Really leaned into the Indiana Jones of it all with the body count on both ends of the conflict.

I will say, the progression of Lara's character was neat to see. Obviously no one starts out a badass, you gotta work your way there, or... Ya know, somehow survive through a situation where the odds are extremely stacked against you. She starts getting slightly more cocky near the end, but not OG Lara levels of cocky. At least, I assume- Never played those.

Still, the game ends with the caption "A Survivor Is Born", which... Yeah, she's not there yet. Still needs to process the shit she just went through, but she's definitely hardened enough to want to continue on this path. Hence why it didn't say "A Tomb Raider Is Born". Sequel's called "Rise of the Tomb Raider", though. Pretty sure there's a good reason for that. I'll get around to playing it eventually, hopefully without bouncing off it a bunch first, this time.

[emmi-kat]

I believe Ben and Riley have known eachother more than a few months.

Riley is shown to have several island themed souvenirs: the hula girl on his laptop in the snowcat and the Jamaican tree frog thermometer in his van. The hula girl should be from Hawaii, or other islands of Polynesia. Far off from where they found the Charlotte.

However, historically there was *A* Charlotte that transported convicts to Australia, so I can see them investigating that and maybe having a layover in Polynesia. Actually, I don't know that that Charlotte didn't have other stops in Polynesia at some point, so it could have been a lead for them.

Jamaica, of course, would have been a likely stop for a trading ship such as Charlotte, providing sugar for both England and the colonies.

What I'm saying is that I don't think the Arctic Circle was their first stop. Why Riley was present at these other times, I don't know. But these items appear to belong to him and while we don't have any background on him, I don't get the impression that he had island vacation money.

In fact, while we attribute the red van to Riley and it's really the only space in the film that is "his", I theorize that it was actually Ben's. It makes a lot of sense for an archaeologist to have a cargo van for all his supplies and findings. But I do HC that Ben sold it to Riley for cheap as a nice thing to do so Riley could have transportation and also maybe a place to crash when they weren't travelling. But these points don't have much evidence to support them.

As for their relationship after the Templar Treasure, Riley did write a book inspired by their adventures. While it appeared to be a little self-aggrandizing, I do believe that he'd have picked Ben's brain for more history and lore that he may have missed in the moment.

But, and I know we don't like to acknowledge the sequel much here, we also know that Ben didn't bother to open it or attend the signing and didn't have much faith in Riley's theory or research re: the President's Book, but Riley was willing to drop everything to help Ben again when asked. Also, Riley seemed to have the forethought to send seperate books for Ben and Abigail when Ben himself seemed unclear on why he'd been broken up with.

I think that Ben tends not to put a lot of effort into relationships and just expects to keep them, probably because of how neglected he was growing up that he was never taught to put effort into relationships. Whereas Riley puts effort into maintaining relationships and paying attention to his friends, even if he gets very little in return.

I think their relationship was always a little one-sided, with Riley performing for Ben, and I don't really think we have evidence that that changed much after they found the treasure.

Interpersonal Aftermath, Ben and Riley Edition

Ben and Patrick | Ben and Abigail

This continues our series looking at the aftermath of the Trinity Church adventure and finding the treasure.

To understand Ben and Riley’s relationship post-treasure hunt, we have to understand where it started. And that’s difficult given that although they share a lot of screen time and are working toward the same goals, we don’t actually learn much at all about their relationship. Oh, we learn plenty about their dynamic; the whole movie is built on their dynamic. What we don’t have a lot of are facts.

The basic decision we have to make here is, How long have Ben and Riley known each other?

And there are pretty much two paths: a long time or not a long time.

I’m of the opinion that Ben and Riley haven’t known each other for very long before the movie starts, and/or are not particularly close. I think this for several reasons.

It’s what the opening scenes of the film imply

Riley doesn’t seem to possess any “deep lore” information about Ben, or vice versa, and

I simply find it more interesting if that’s their dynamic

The opening scene

(By this I’m referring to the Arctic Circle, not young Ben finding the scrapbook in the prologue. Obviously.)

When we meet adult Ben with Riley and Ian in the snow cat, he specifically says:

BEN Riley, you're not missing that little windowless cubicle we found you in?

The “we” here suggests that it was Ben and Ian as a team who found Riley and approached him about joining the mission. Since we know that Ian only began to finance Ben’s search two years ago—

BEN Two years ago, if you hadn't shown up, hadn't believed the treasure was real, I don't know if I ever would have found Charlotte.

—Ben can’t have known Riley for longer than that. Of course that’s plenty of time to get to know someone, but I don’t think Riley has been working with Ben for most of that time.

The only hand we know Riley plays in the search is the tracking model, which is the last piece of the puzzle that they would need. While Riley ’s clearly closer to Ben than he is with Ian’s henchmen (as evidenced by “Or I’ll shoot your friend") Riley doesn’t seem to know the henchmen or even Ian that well.

All this being said, it’s my personal belief that Riley and Ben have only known each other for a few months before the treasure hunt.

Please note this is very different in the 2003 script, and is also the opposite of what is implied in Edge of History, which suggests that Riley gave Ben the idea that Charlotte was a ship and just…no. Sorry, no.

So. For our purposes at least, Ben and Riley have not known each other for all that long, but they have undergone a rather intense period of friendship building between Ian’s betrayal on the Charlotte to the finding of the treasure.

And that means the guys are in a bit of a weird spot. They were allies in a life-or-death situation. Riley willingly helped Ben steal the Declaration of Independence (after he couldn’t talk him out of it, of course), and Ben went into the National Archives with full trust in Riley’s skills as really the only think keeping him both safe and out of prison.

At the same time, there’s a lot about each other that they don’t know. The small things. How does each of them take their coffee? Favorite genres of music? Riley's family life and relationship with...literally anyone other than Ben?

Moving forward it’s about seeing what their relationship is like without the treasure hunt to bring them together. Unlike with Abigail, this isn’t just the acute treasure hunt after the Charlotte is found, but also the longer term search for the ship. Ben and Riley have never known each other outside of that project, and now it’s time to find out what the next chapter of their friendship is going to be like.

Also unlike Ben and Abigail, I don’t see this as a yes-or-no question. They are friends. There’s no going back on that. But the kinds of things they’re going to do to hang out and get to know each other aren’t going to be email correspondence about the tracking program, or the string of flights it took to get to the Arctic and back. The guys have lost their “third thing,” is what I’m saying. Outside of treasure-related experiences, which will be a flurry for a few months and then start to taper off, they need to decide how they’re going to make time for each other.

Is Ben going to start searching for other sunken ships because he just can’t live without that treasure hunting high? Riley’s right there with him using state-of-the-art tracking models to make the job easier. Conversely, I’ve always wanted to see Ben take more of an interest in Riley’s life. As I mentioned above, we know very little about Riley’s other pursuits, but I like to think that if there was a way Ben could help him out he would (even if it would take some convincing—Ben Gates really does seem to know he’s the protagonist). Or they could get into watching curling together, or playing ultimate frisbee. Whatever.

It doesn't actually matter what they do together, they just need something that gives them a reason to hang out. A third thing.

[empyreanromantic]

Suuuper long rant about The Cleaning Lady and armony because I'm sorry, but I'm just really disappointed with the energy this season had. But hey, if you enjoyed season 2, then that's amazing! I'm genuinely happy for you and I hope you can continue to enjoy the show!! These are just my thoughts:

So I haven't watch episodes 2x10-12 because 1) I wanted to focus on finals, and 2) after 2x09 I just wasn't feeling it anymore. And after seeing the mixed reactions to the finale, I'm not sure I want to catch up on the show after all. I tried to enjoy this season, I really did. I normally hate love triangles with a passion but I thought hey, if the writers are having a fun back-and-forth seesaw motion with it as they put it, maybe I can have fun with it too.

The thing about season 1 that really got me hooked was that it was SO DIFFERENT. The story, the characters, the entire atmosphere and aesthetic was so unique compared to other shows I had seen. And most of all, it had SPICE to it. A mother who will risk it all for her son and a gangster who learns to open up his heart and falls hard for this woman. Incredible concept. Classic beauty and the beast story and enemies-to-lovers trope that I will never get tired of.

Thony and Arman's chemistry was unlike anything I'd ever seen before. There was a passion and fire there since the very beginning, and the fact that these two went through all those different stages of "please don't kill me" to "maybe you're not so bad" to "you're not the man I thought you were" to "how could you betray me" to "I trust you with my life" and finally "we're in this together" was just ugh. It was so good!!

I rewatched armony scenes from season 1 so many times, I listened to Thony singing "Someone to Watch Over Me" on repeat. I'm sure it was the same for a lot of viewers as well. I loved the soundtrack composed by Mark Isham.

I loved the progression of looks Arman gave Thony throughout the season. I loved their teamwork. I loved them finessing the FBI. I loved that Arman cried in 1x05 because he thought Thony betrayed him and in 1x06 when he cried FOR her. I loved that 1x07 opened with a freaking musical number. I never expected that from this kind of show and it surprised me in the best way! I loved the vulnerable and earnest dance scene in 1x08. I loved Arman tapping out the numbers in 1x10. The tension was palpable. This show had me hooked. It made me feel things and I was so happy to have found something new to obsess over. I LOVED season 1.

And went it comes to sequels, of course it's never going to be the exact same because the writers have had a lot more time to work on the first installment, to really polish it up and make it the best version it can be before it even gets pitched to a company who will invest in their idea. So I understand that for season 2, the showrunners didn't have as much time to develop it. That being said, it is no excuse for the mediocrity that was season 2.

Whereas season 1 was unique and fresh and spicy and heartfelt, season 2 was monotonous at best and downright stressful at worst. The fast-pacing was them trying something different. I get it. But I stopped enjoying it because it got real old real fast.

I've seen a lot of criticisms that the passion between Thony and Arman doesn't seem to be there anymore, and I agree to some extent. I wasn't expecting them to kiss and have sex or confess their love for each other, because there were still a lot of obstacles in their way and that's realistic! But the pacing of their relationship was so odd that at times I was wondering why they even tolerated each other's presence. There were moments where you could still sense the chemistry, but those moments were few and far in between. Where did all of that magic from season 1 go?

I liked that Thony and Arman didn't get together at the end of season 1, because even when you put the whole infidelity part aside (which never bothered me because come on this is fiction), despite the chemistry, attraction and tension between the two of them, there was still a power imbalance there. Arman was Thony's boss, and Thony was very much dependent on him, most obviously financially. Their conversations were mostly about money and Luca. I feel that 1x02 and 1x03 did the best job in exploring Arman's past and his relationship with Thony as a man rather than as her savior. And yes Arman came to rely on Thony and trust her as well, but I never got the sense that they were truly equals until the end of the season.

Season 2 came around, and Arman was at his lowest point, working for Kamdar who treated him like dirt, and he was more and more ashamed of who he was becoming. I thought, "ah I can see where they're going with this! Arman and Thony are now on the same level and they're going to build each other back up!" But no. They just end up running drugs and spend the entire season trying to pay off Kamdar. Maybe I was just interpreting it all wrong and was picking up on the wrong things, but hey, the viewers picked up on the concept back in season 1 that maybe Nadia and Arman never truly loved each other, which would have been really interesting to explore and we could see how their marriage starts to fall apart. But it turns out they do love each other and they have problems because... *squints at smudged writing on hand* Nadia's possessive ex suddenly wants her back??

And despite the showrunners insisting that Arman and Thony's relationship is never going to be a full on romance, I call bullshit. You cannot deny that people were watching the show for the romance, filled with all the angst and sexual tension. Whenever I see the showrunners talking about how armony is platonic or that their bond is deeper than love, I cannot help but think that they feel bitter that people are not watching their show for anything else besides armony. Like Jesus Christ it's okay that people started watching because of the romance. It means you were doing at least one thing right, you should take it as a compliment.

I'm getting way too heated about this lol, but if this show ends up getting greenlit for season 3, I'm not even worried about Thony and Arman getting together at this point. I don't think I even care anymore. Who knows if the writers are actually going for a slow burn, because they seem to have a different idea of their relationship than the viewers do.

What I'm worried about is the writers getting into their heads thinking that their storytelling is amazing and the choices they made in season 2 were justified, therefore they're on the right track for a third season. Because honestly that is the impression I'm getting from them. I have only read snippets from interviews that people have been posting online, because I personally don't care to read interviews. If the writers need to explain OUTSIDE THE SHOW the decisions they made, that's a big red flag to me. I've seen it before too many times from my favorite media. I really hoped The Cleaning Lady showrunners would be different.

And it just boggles my mind that they're patting themselves on the back and thinking they've delivered the most mind-blowing season with all their twists and turns and high stakes, because they haven't. Season 1 to me was mind-blowing. Season 2 turned into your average crime drama with drug trafficking and using the same plot elements over and over again. Every week I just ended up rolling my eyes thinking "oh boy, Luca is in trouble AGAIN. Thony is asking Arman for help AGAIN. Marriage problems AGAIN. Working with the FBI AGAIN."

Naveen Andrews and Eva De Dominici were both really charismatic and brought a lot of fun energy to the season, and I'm happy that Eva De Dominici got more screen time because Nadia is just a really fun and interesting character. No hate to Elodie Yung and Adan Canto in the slightest. But only a few episodes into the season and I ended up watching the show for Nadia and for Kamdar. How can that be? When in season 1 I was on the edge my seat, glued to the screen, watching the show solely for the two main leads? I'm sorry but I'm just not feeling it anymore.

Again, if you liked this season, I am super happy for you that you were able to get joy out of it! I sincerely hope you will continue to feel that joy if they announce season 3. Maybe my opinion will change over time, maybe the writers will get back on track. In the meantime, I'll probably just stick to rewatching season 1 and make up my own story of what happens after in my head.

[catofadifferentcolor]

Greek Roman God Thoughts: Neptune (2/?)

I know I’ve talked a lot about Poseidon, but I want to sidestep over to Neptune for a minute - specifically the PJO/HOO interpretation of him.

Because there isn't one. Which I think is odd because, after possibly Hermes, his Greek aspect is arguably the god we see the most of in PJO. With the exception of Jupiter and Vulcan, we see the Roman aspects of all the other godly parents of the Seven, so why not Neptune?

Personally, I'd argue that Rick put so much into Poseidon (and Hermes) in the original series that when it came time for the sequel, he couldn't think of an easy way to make Neptune (or Mercury) markedly different, and so he didn't bother. Or maybe he just wanted to focus on other gods in this series - it's hard to tell. But either way, that's not what interests me.

What does interest me is the prospect of what an in-universe Neptune might be like.

Now, as some of you know from my Kistos fic, I've a very, very specific mental image of Neptune and it is Victorian fisherman chic. (There are several reasons for this, possibly my fondness for Edwardian Farm, which has a few episodes on the Devon coast; possibly my bizarrely specific and inexplicable knowledge of how the medieval climate optimum effected cod trade in the North Atlantic and the rise of the Hanseatic League.)

Regardless of the origin, I can make a good argument for my mental image being valid. And it boils down to the fact that New Rome doesn't appreciate Neptune at all.

Granted, the Romans were hardly better. Their navy was mostly inconsequential, particularly in the Imperial period, when, "the Mediterranean became largely a peaceful 'Roman lake'" [x]. After all, why should anyone concentrate their military in the center of their empire when there are barbarian hordes on the inland fringes? That's not to say the Romans didn't have some spectacular feats of naval power in during the Punic Wars - but even then a common coda to most of their naval successes was, "but because the Romans were such terrible sailors, they were unable to read the signs of a storm coming and lost 90% of their ships on the way back. And so they had to build another navy."

Even then, Neptune only had one temple in Rome (not even listed on this site) whereas Jupiter had three. Apollo had two in the city itself and Cybele, a foreign goddess, had one as well. I can easily see Neptune being bitter and displeased by the Romans even at the best of times, if that's how they treat a god who is so primary to the Ancient Greek pantheon and the Ancient Greek way of life. And by HOO, things have hardly been the best of times for nearly 2000 years.

In short: Neptune is a bitter old man, and what sea-related trope better typifies a cantankerous, curmudgeonly cur than a Victorian fisherman? The cable knit sweater, meerschaum pipe, and chinstrap beard just complete the image.

But also: I figure because Poseidon is so well-loved amongst the Greeks and Neptune so disliked amongst the Romans, Poseidon spends all of his time in his Greek aspect and almost no time at all in his Roman one. And as anyone who has ever updated a computer before knows, if you get behind on your updates, it will take you a lifetime to get caught back up. (At my old job, I once encountered a computer which hadn't had any Windows updates run in 5 years. It took me 13 hours to run through them all.)

And as anyone familiar with version control knows, you have to pull (update locally) before you can push (send your changes to the repo), which is why I figure Poseidon probably has next to no idea what his Roman aspect has been getting up to for the last two millennia - he's not be getting the updates, because Neptune's not gotten to the point of being able to make them all. (Forgive my SE metaphors, but they make sense in my mind at least.)

Or, to make a long story very much shorter, I wish that we had seen Neptune in HOO, but since we didn't, look at my curmudgeonly Victorian fisherman take on the subject.

GGT: 0,1

[angorwhosebabyisthis]

Lorien Legacies Analysis Meter Masterpost

So Lorien Legacies is a Fucking Huge Series with a massive cast and a plot and setting that sprawls all over the place; if we count every three novellas as the length of one book, there are seventeen books spread over two series, and seven of those are a wide scattershot of different subplots and narrators. And recently, I've been on a read/reread of it to analyze and unpack things that bothered me the first time around, or that I didn't pay enough attention to, or that I just plain never got to read (see: most of the second series).

But! Due to attention issues, my general method of analysis, and easily getting overwhelmed, I've been doing a lot of skimming and reading things out of order, with focus on specific characters/plots first as I go through and fill things in one or two at a time. Thing is that I'd kind of like to, like, keep track of this stuff lmao, both publicly and for my own reference. So! In the interests of organization, I've decided to make a directory of posts dedicated to different characters, subplots, books, and so on, and the status of my progress with reading/rereading/analyzing them. I'll update each post via reblogs as I go, and update this one with reblogs when I add a new post for a different category to keep track of when I inevitably am reminded or become aware of their existence lmao

(I'm going to have separate directories for these things from the first versus the second series; this is for a number of reasons, but a big one is that I've read the first series in its entirety at least once, whereas my experience of the sequel series has been a lot more bits and pieces so far because I've never been able to read it through until now. As a result, there are several books' worth of completely new stuff to process when I haven't even dealt with everything from the first series yet, and a majority of it is so upsetting--and not in a good way--that I am just not ready for it yet.

The first series is a whole series that, sequel hooks or no, stands on its own and should stand on its own, and it's what there was to analyze at the time I was going AAAAAAAAAAAA about it. So yeah, different group of posts for Reborn when I'm ready to read it through properly.)

Anyway! If you want to see my process for the weird-ass and highly convoluted way I analyze a piece of media, read on.

[Under construction!]

I mean it is fsjdjdndjgk. Watch this space

---

Books

Subplots/Factions

Original Garde (plus Sam and Sarah)

Cêpans

Mogadorians

Misc. Loric

Misc. Humans

Earth Garde

Government/Shady Organization Folks

[aquaaquila]

She was grounded, not banned from a ball. And if Ella is willing to do anything for those she loves as she states in "get your hands dirty", she would go to the ball regardless of the ban for Bridget's sake. There is a set up and there is a pay-off, it's just not as satisfying and you're looking at this point at stereotype of subverting expectations, where's satisfaction in that? Nothing new is happening because we are in the past. The very thing that is new is prank not happening and Bridget and Ella meeting two girls that soon will look like their daughters.

We're not supposed to witness the prank, we're supposed to prevent it long before it happens. We didn't came here to dance. And Chloe explains perfectly: without the book, the very prank that traumatised Brudget won't happen, so no point in wasting their time in the past anymore.

My bad, missed that part, got distracted + I already seen too many "Ella did it", so a force of habit. And Ella did hurt Bridget but once again, it was not the prank that was an issue. Bridget said herself "stupid I would forgive". Like seriously, no prank that ELLA would pull be anything serious as Ella would not hurt her best friend, and even if it do south, Ella would apologize profusely and Bridget would forgive as mistakes happen, even Bridget said she once mate gingerbread people that bite. So no, narratively it doesn't make sense since Ella is too close to bother doing harm to Bridget. The only way she hurt is by "abandoning" her which really can tie back to "must be home before midnight". Making a character act OOC to make plot work does not serve narrative. And mind you, Ella is kind, but not necessarily nice. There's a difference between the two and while Ella acts kindly towards Chloe in the past, she also does give her attitude due to Chloe's privilege, which isn't exactly "nice". So Chloe already has a reality check that morality isn't simple.

Honestly about no. ASTV still has clear lose threads whereas D4 achieved its initial goal. The point of the movie was to change the past and change the heart of Bridget. Consequences of such actions were not part of the narrative. If QoH remained unchanged, there would be zero payoff. If the future is however too different then there's also no real payoff. The movie ended with its objective, QoH remained sweet and that's what mattered to the plot.

Or maybe you expected something else?

It isn't. We didn't saw how Maleficent grew into a villain in the first film while arguing with her mother in spite of being told as such in Evil Like Me. We were never told how Mal figured out Hades is her dad. The characters have their lives outside of the movie and we as the fan base should have a chance to imagine what happens outside of the focus of the camera. Like seriously, we literally have Audrey singing in D3 "there's nothing to lose when you're lonely and friendless" and it's not as if we saw how exactly Audrey became friendless but saud motivation did reasonate with people because being alone can hurt a lot and Bridget was alone and bitter for 40 years. And said dance number also included VKs dancing along, in musicals you dance with anyone regardless who they are. Said number is introduction to the world through Bridget's rose-tinted glasses.

The movie was still released and for all we know that's all we have. As life sometimes is unfair and Disney likes to cancel nice things if they don't do right by the executives. The movie can be said is more complete because sequel just may not be guaranteed, so good the story at least has some resolution that Red achieved her goal of this movie.

Descendants: The Rise of Red is kind of a bizarre movie to talk about critically because, imo, it almost doesn't make sense to talk about it in the usual terms of good vs bad or enjoyable vs not enjoyable when the way more obvious tension is finished vs unfinished.

Because, more than any other movie I've ever seen, it does *not* read as a full movie. And I don't mean in a "this movie has a cliffhanger" kind of way. The Empire Strikes Back and Across the Spiderverse fit that description. They end on big dramatic cliffhangers that point to a resolution in the third installment.

But Rise of Red just sets all this stuff up and then...ends without concluding anything. It doesn't feel like the first movie in a trilogy (or duology). It feels like the first act of a two-act musical. It very specifically reminds me of the end of the first act of Into the Woods where all the main characters sing the song Ever After about how they all fixed their problems with magic and nothing bad will ever happen to them again and then the narrator ominously says "To be continued" before the curtain drops. But in Into the Woods you know there's a second act and this movie wasn't sold as the first act of a bigger story. Like sure, it has the, "You didn't think this was the end" tag at the end like all the other movies, but those movies were complete, self-contained stories even though they had sequels. This was NOT a full story. It's half of one story.

Like, if we're supposed to take this as a full story, there are so many bizarre choices:

Why did they make sure to mention that Cinderella and Charming fell in love at the ball at the top if it wasn't meant to set up Back to the Future style, "Oh no, I accidentally got my mom banned from the ball so she's not gonna fall in love with Dad and I won't be born" shenanigans?

Why did Maddox very pointedly have that bit about "you could lose your mom completely" if that was never going to come into play? Red never did anything to endanger Bridget or endanger her own birth so it doesn't make sense as a warning in that way.

Why was there all this focus on this Carrie on prom night moment for Bridget if we LITERALLY NEVER SAW CASTLECOMING? Why dance around this moment and talk about it all cloak and dagger with no specificity if they weren't building up to some big reveal that it wasn't as straightforward as it seemed? And like, they leaned in HARD with making Bridget the nicest, sweetest, cotton candy princess as a teen so I need WAY more than, "She got pranked by known bullies she's been enduring with a smile very handily up to this point" to buy that she went from that to "murderous dictator". And even if she did become murderous, I find it insanely hard to believe that she'd include her best and only friend on the list of people she wants to suffer unless there was a betrayal. I find it INSANE that there wasn't a falling out scene at any point in this movie with how thickly they were laying on the admiration and camaraderie.

(Note: And adult Cinderella def has guilty vibes re: the Queen at orientation. Which I know I'm not imagining because it's literally spelled out in the Jr Novelization!)

Before the time travel element of the movie started, I thought they were going for something like they go to the past and realize that Bridget was bullied not by the VKs but by the spoiled royals, and Ella ends up joining in the bullying once she gets with Charming, betraying Bridget and justifying her whole "Love Ain't It" philosophy. Or Ella ditching her at the last minute to be with Charming meaning she has to deal with the monster prank alone and it was the being alone rather than the prank itself that hurt her (though that is NOT a good enough reason to go all off with their heads on your subjects). The fact that, as far as we know right now, it literally was just a relatively mild and reversible prank that caused all of this is just, such flat storytelling, you know?

But! All of this makes way more sense if this is meant to be the first act of a single contained story. And I don't wanna be all "Pepe Silvia, secret good 4th episode of Sherlock" about this but I did see this picture:

Which seems to indicate that this was written as a Part One. Which, if so, idk why they wouldn't advertise it that way but whatever. The point is, if that's the case then it means that we're potentially in bad pacing territory rather than straight up bad storytelling territory. Because this isn't a bad place to be halfway through your story:

The heroes, warned that time travel is dangerous, have gone back in time to change the heart of a brutal tyrant before she can stage a coup. They seemingly succeed in their mission and when they come home, everything is great! But then, the side effects of time travel start to catch up with them. Chloe realizes that, in breaking the vase, she prevented her mother from going to the ball and falling in love with her dad (who was conspicuously absent from the final scene btw) which means she's starting to be forgotten and erased from the timeline. And Red realizes that though this new version of her mom is as sweet and kind as the teen she once met, she's a complete stranger to her (fulfilling the Hatter's warning that she could lose her mom completely). So they have to go back in time once more to make sure the Ella and Charming fall in love again, perhaps at the cost of whatever bad thing that happened to Bridget happening again and bringing back the original version of her future self. But, now with more context of how her mom became that way, Red can now talk to her mother and persuade her to give people another chance.

Boom, that gives us time to go back and hit everything we haven't yet hit. We can pay off the time travel tropes that were set up but not explored. We can go to Castlecoming which feels so obviously set up to be the centerpiece of this story (like, come on, Back to the Future literally does the school dance thing. This is Time Travel Storytelling 101). We can actually get info about what the prank was and why it affected Bridget so completely.

(Note: This is a side thing but it really strikes me as so crazy that Bridget would so SUCH a big 180 here. Like, I know the Queen of Hearts is a silly, goofy, campy villain, but she straight up murders people and there's no way to get around that if we're taking her out of the surreal story she comes from and putting her in a (comparatively) grounded story. If I wasn't doing a betrayal plot, I would make the twist that the spell that turned Bridget into a "monster" didn't just have a physical effect, it had a mental effect and it magically twisted her personality to be the way it is now. So they broke the physical half of the curse, but neglected the other half and it's been festering the whole time, turning her as evil as she was sweet. Because like, a simple physical transformation isn't that big of a deal to have such heavy security--Bridget made cupcakes with a transformative effect and that was totally fine. I'm not saying that that's what's gonna be the case. I just think it would be an explanation that makes sense for why she changed so crazy much that makes more sense than a simple prank or even a betrayal. Her mom wasn't even evil! How did she go from zero to murder without even an evil mom to push her onto the path? But I'm super digressing right now.)

(Note #2: OK, one last thing. The trap on the book presumably would have hit the VK's and trapped them in Merlin's office regardless of what Chloe and Red did, right? That's like, net zero influence on the timeline. I genuinely can't tell if that's a straight up plot hole or set up to be like, "Oh no. Actually when she said that she was turned into a monster in front of everyone it was meant in a less literal way." Like she was just made to look bad and that was the real thing that pushed her over the edge. Like idk. It really feels like the only thing they really did that would change the timeline was get Ella banned from the dance and presumably out of the way where she couldn't hurt Bridget. OK NOW I'm done.)

Anyway, my point is that this is not how I would have structured my movie and I think this was a super weird way to go into the second era of Descendants movies, but they can still tell a complete story if that's their plan. I'm genuinely really curious to see if this pans out to be a fairly competently told story that just happens to be split over two movies or a complete fumbling of the narrative bag because it could really be either at this point and it's fascinating to me.

[mackerelphones]

Movies I watched the last few months

Blade Runner 2049 (2017): Majestic and epic and even offering a possibility of resistance to the dictatorship, so it is a large departure from the original in tone and style. 2049 is much more "artsy" and often more unmoored from reality. The original film's sets all feel like believable spaces, whereas 2049 tends to value visual splendor over verisimilitude, creating a dreamy and even surreal atmosphere. 2049 is also a gross, unpleasant film, in some scenes perhaps gratuitously so. I like (SPOILERS) the twist that the main character isn't really that important, instead of being the special chosen guy with super-special hero genes like in so many Hollywood movies (also I watched the movie to speak to someone about it bc I knew they liked it and then instead they ignored me 😭)

But I'm a Cheerleader (1999): Why didn't I realize Zuko (or Dante Basco) was in the gay conversion camp comedy? The satire feels a bit thin, but it's not supposed to be a heavy movie despite the grim subject. And they should have burned down Mary Brown's house at the end

Dr. Mabuse the Gambler (1922): This thing is like five hours long. I confess I didn't finish it because it is less interesting than the much weirder sequel The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, but I got the length of a normal movie into it first. Given what happened in German history a little over a decade later, and given that the movie was written by Thea von Harbou, a future Nazi, I cannot help but feel uneasy parallels between certain imaginary conspiracies the Nazis made up and this film's depiction of an evil psychologist and master of disguise (with psychic powers) manipulating Germany behind the scenes to weaken and financially exploit country. This is further complicated when the sequel instead suggests the evil Dr. Mabuse is a parallel to Hitler! Anyway, it's still better than the director's hysterical comedy Metropolis

Taxi Driver (1976): This is a great, very gross movie about a weirdo named Travis. He is an incel chanboard guy, or would be if it happened fifty years later. He even writes edgy notes about how he doesn't trust women and such, while eating Doritos. Today Travis would have become a mass shooter instead of a vigilante, and just a few years later he could have been a gamer. The one teensy problem is that it seems the editor of Taxi Driver accidentally tacked on ten minutes of some other movie at the end that coincidentally features all the same actors, or maybe Paul Schrader went insane when on the last few pages of the screenplay

Sorry to Bother You (2018): This movie is highly metaphorical and allegorical. Rather less concrete than I was expecting. I liked the bit where they represent time passing in Cash's life by having new sets inflate around him and his very hot girlfriend, Detroit. Also uncommon to see a movie this uncompromisingly Marxy. However, the comedy is not funny. A plus is that when Cash exposes the evil plan on national television and the story goes viral, it does absolutely nothing and just makes the CEO richer. The only solution is a proletarian revolution against the bourgeois. This movie is also very gross

Treasure Island (1988): Big respect that the slapstick comedy version of Treasure Island still keeps Long John Silver scary. Though it is unfortunate that in his debut scene, he has a radically different voice than in every single other scene in the movie. The funniest bit is that Jim is an invincible superman because he is so honest and ethical, while the bad guys lose because they smoke so they are very unhealthy, which means the movie is wholesome propaganda that teaches morals to the Soviet kids and definitely not a bunch of silly random crap

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978): Why does every write-up of this movie open with an image of the tragic twist ending? Spoilers much

Battle in Heaven (2005): This is the worst movie I have watched in a long time. Strong "look how gross and edgy I am" energy. It is, I think, the first non-pornographic movie I have seen to have a lingering shot of a naked vulva or to have actual on-screen fellatio. It is sometimes funny, unintentionally, like when the main character, Marcos, stands in a hallway, stops, and just pisses his pants out of nowhere for seemingly no reason before very awkwardly stabbing Ana to death. But after Marcos dies, Ana sucks his cock in Heaven and says she loves him. See? He was redeemed for his completely senseless destruction of the life of this girl he knew since she was a child and fucked a number of times anyway. Roll credits. Blegh

Return to Oz (1985): The best Disney movie of all time? The only problem is it should be longer. There should be more adventures before they meet the Nome King and more time for Dorothy to form a bond with Jack Pumpkinhead so their relationship doesn't feel as forced. Okay, the only other problem is that it should also involve Ozma's gender transition

Wicked City (1987): A very gross, very rapey anime OVA. Demons just cannot stop raping Makie, but luckily she doesn't seem upset about it afterward. The demon on the left in the screenshot above btw has a glowing torso-length vulva that she tries to use to devour the hero. The plot twist at the end of Wicked City makes little sense, like the writers did not plan it ahead of time but made it up after writing the rest of the script and didn't bother changing any earlier details. However, visually, it looks cool, so still better than Battle in Heaven

Princess Arete (2001): Surprisingly, it also has a bit of a Marxy, materialist bent focused on the notion of people relating to each other through their labor. This movie is so sad I almost couldn't stand to watch it. The first film in a long time that made me cry a little. Even though things work out in the end, what leads to that point was enough to make me sick. In a good way! Probably the best movie in this post and probably the best one I have seen in 2022

The Shining (1980): Psycho is scarier. But Kubrick seems to have realized what Hitchcock didn't: that there is much more reason to be scared of a domestically abusive alcoholic (dangerous) than there is a crossdressing man (harmless, fun). It's weird not many people mention that the cook Hallorann is one of the main characters, maybe because the way his character is treated probably reflects some rather racist tropes (a Black character exists only to give exposition to and support the drama of the white characters and then dies horribly trying to help them). In conclusion, I must be a philistine because I think Stephen King is right that The Shining feels soulless. Exquisitely shot, carefully crafted, sure, sure, but there is no heart there because Kubrick lost his ability to feel emotions after Paths of Glory

[autumnrory]

I didn't want Clint or Natasha to die. But out of the two Clint should have died tbh. She had a more center role in the movies and not many know who tf Clint is. And he won't be back in New films. Whereas she could have been. I'm over marvel now. I'll check them out but not see them straight away

ya same like i’m a huge clint/nat fan so i didn’t want it to be either of them BUT in terms of what canon has given us, nat is definitely more important and like?? they’ve never known what to do with clint right like whatever. and obvs we don’t really know the level of awful things she did before becoming an avenger but i’d say she’s saved the world enough that she’s wiped the red from her ledger, whereas clint went on a killing spree after his family was dusted. like if anyone still needs to atone, it’s him.

i’d say they’ve both been subject to bad writing but. with her having such a significant role in catws her character had much more potential than his ever did bc the first two avengers movies basically sidelined nat, clint and bruce as they’re the ones who didn’t get trilogies, and clint wasn’t even in iw. so like. it shouldn’t have been her.

even if scarlett wants to leave (idk if there’s actually been any indication that’s the reason), they could have found another way to write her off (tho same with evans and rdj - but nat’s ending was the worst of the three)

and like. i’ve obvs been looking forward to a black widow movie, even as a prequel, but knowing how her story ends now? it just makes me mad ya know. if it took them this long to give it to us, why even bother doing it after her character is dead? if they were gonna be the focus, all of the original avengers should have had their own movies at the start of the mcu before they gave anyone a sequel or branched out into other shit. steve, tony and thor all got fleshed out stories and nat, clint and bruce (ik there is an incredible hulk movies and it’s actually p decent but everyone including marvel seems to forget that so) got the scraps like. it’s not even just the dumbness of endgame or aou or cacw or anything, the mcu did things wrong since the beginning

and yeah, i mean, i’ve only seen certain movies in theaters and the only ones i saw opening night were cacw, iw and endgame (tbf i’ve only been a fan since late 2015). i guess i’ll see what’s next but honestly i’ll go see new movies if someone asks me to, but i don’t think it’s likely i’ll be begging my friends to go see them immediately either. i’ll still keep up with everything, but i’m just so bitter about all my faves that it makes me a lot less excited about any of it