#which feels like lazy storytelling to me

[raphexim]

Melian reference!!! AND Morgoth!

Tropey fake kiss to hide the escape tool! (Phew!)

The dwarves showing they aren't mindless followers but a people of shrewd wisdom!

Adar grieving lost uruk! Uruk asking questions and treated as a people and not mindless slaves.

I was sad af about the horse; they really could have just glossed past it and not focused so much on making it so visual. But one thing I do really appreciate about this show is that it does the animals honor. (It even does the orcs honor. No one is simple fodder for death.) Elrond grieved his mount and took time to bid it farewell. In the first season, Adar's horse fell -- and they made a point of showing it getting back up.

Arondir's story came too far to wind up where it wound, so I hope there is something yet to be said for him.

And Sauron's showing that he's just as slimy in a 'fair form' as he was with no form at all.

I wish the archer had had some character development. That was an epic scene, but we had no emotional attachment to her.

[majeoeje]

Start over

Megumi x reader (male implied reader)

I wished we were two other people more times than everytime you had forgotten about me

"You have really pretty lashes"

Megumi has heard you uttered these words countless of times before, at first he didn't harbor a lot of opinion on this, but now it serves as a painful reminder that he had to start over with you once again. But even now he can't comprehend how to respond other than a simple thank you

"You're Fushiguro right?"

"That's correct"

here we go again, he thought

"It's nice to meet you, i hope we can get along" you gave a lazy smile before entering your shared dorm room, all beat up from your previous fight as if it was just another day.. well you pretend that it was everytime because what else can you do? You once had told him

"Yeah...it's nice to meet you too" he told you. As if he was in a same play for who knows how many times

Megumi had lost count on how many times you had introduced yourself to him, he knew everything about you. Yet you're here asking about his name once again. Your cursed technique is the one to blame for this strange dynamic

That being said, your curse technique transfers memories into curse energy and a technique which grant their wielder the power to imbue a weapon of their choice with curse energy and a guarantee that it would cut anything as if it wasn't there

A cheap cost to pay for power, some would say. But he always watches the fear in your eyes everytime it has to come down to it, afraid you might use it too much to the point you'll forget how to breath.

Afraid...yes you were always afraid. Afraid that your life would succumb to nothing but blank pages of nothing. To the point you'd write every last detail of your day until late at night so that at least your days could amount to something. Even if it were as simple as you went outside and train like how you usually do.

"I'm kind of hungry, you got anything to eat?" You said perking up your head from the non-fiction book you curiously skimmed up from Megumi's bookshelve trying to gather information from the stranger in front of you

"Gojo-sensei dropped some apples earlier, suit yourself" he said pointing to a basket from the corner of his desk remembering how the unusual white haired man hasn't change over the years

"Well don't mind me" you say, picking one up before looking for a something on your side of the room

You didn't have to go through a lot before Megumi tapped you on the shoulder making you face him

"Looking for this?" He pointed to a small knife on his hand

"Oh thanks a lo-"

you didn't even finished your sentence before he took the apple from your hand

"Your hand's fractured, Miss shoko said you shouldn't try to move it a lot in the mean time"

He said, pulling a nearby chair before he started to peel the apple for you. Just how you liked it.. a prefrence that has never changed no matter how many times you've erased your memories

"Aye you did it in one peel, impressive" you commented "How'd you know that i like my apples peeled?"

"You made me do it for you for months when you broke 7 bones on your body" he said handing you the peeled fresh fruit

"Eh, really? Tell me about it" you rested your hand on your desk as you sat comfortably on your chair as if you were getting ready to catch up to an old friend after not meeting them for years. And despite how bad he think his storytelling abilities was, Megumi couldn't disappoint that glimmer in your eyes, never.

"That day you saved me from a first grade curse" he started, as you bit into your freshly peeled apple

"you used up your curse technique to the point you forgot how to wield your weapon"

Megumi was not one to run his mouth, he preferred to listen most of the times. But in times like this, he feels the need to encapture every detail about that period of time as much as possible. And in turn, you'd listen to his voice, tuning in his gentle tone. Perhaps you got distracted at some point but that is surely not your fault

"We must've been pretty close" you grinned, hearing him finished his story

"We were"

You were practically attached to the hip from middle school, so it'd be a lie to say you weren't. But on the darkest pit of his heart he still wished you two was so much more even after knowing you like the back of his hand. How you'd swing your weapon in such way as if you were a dancer, how you'd give a lame excuse on how you peeled too much orange or apples just to get him to eat , how you purposely talk to him to keep him out just to watch a horror movie program in the middle of the night, how you'd play your music loud enough to cause hearing problems when he's not at the dorm, how he knew that you were just assigned a roomate to exploit your Curse technique, how disconnected you truly are from the world, how you'd laugh, how you'd cry, how your skin would make him shiver everytime it touches his

There was never enough of you for him really. Yet he'd wished for the impossible everytime

"So..what's your curse technique?" You asked and he would always answer

Just what was one more start?

[alexanderwales]

I finished the rest of Save the Cat almost in a single sitting, not because it was particularly riveting, but because I had time to kill, so this pseudo-liveblog is at an end.

Chapter 6 and 7 are basically the same, collections of small tricks and tips. Neither of them are terribly helpful, and all the tricks have terrible shorthand names like "Pope in a Pool". There's very little in the way of any thematic cohesion to these bits of advice, and no grand theory of the Laws of Storytelling emerges, in spite of the laws being invoked a number of times.

The advice itself is, I think, generally good:

give the reader something to root for early on to kickstart investment

spice up exposition with something entertaining

only one kind of magic per plot

don't tell a story that requires too much setup

don't tell a story with too many moving parts

include a ticking clock

have character arcs

keep the scope limited to the characters we care about

make the hero proactive

show, don't tell

make the bad guy very bad

the plot should go faster the further in it goes

use the whole spectrum of emotion

make sure each character has a distinct voice

make sure desires are "primal"

give characters something that makes them stand out

I don't endorse this whole list, and I especially don't endorse the way that Blake Snyder talks about them or the examples that he gives. And if I endorsed the list, then I would include a lot of caveats, and some general principles of storytelling that should be followed, rather than these specific pieces of advice, which are all conditional. Like ... okay, here's an example:

Exposition is a broccoli that the audience doesn't want to eat. There are very different ways of dealing with this, but we can start with "minimize exposition" as the first "law" of storytelling, and from there, we have different strategies:

Spruce up the exposition, making it into a mini-story, delivered in an entertaining way, so that people aren't bored.

Run something alongside the exposition so that people aren't bored, like sight gags in a comedy or an action scene in a thriller.

Have the exposition delivered through implication and clues, rather than stated outright, like having a character limp rather than explaining to the audience that they were wounded in the war. This is show, don't tell, and it's harder than it seems.

But while Snyder lays out some of this advice, it's all in different sections even though it's dealing with the same fundamental problem, and I'm not sure that he really understands that. If he does understand it, then he's not making that clear for the reader.

My thesis is that to understand storytelling, you want to understand root issues and classes of solutions. I have not written a book on writing, nor do I think there's a market for that, nor do I think I'm qualified, but it's the kind of thing that I would strive to deliver. There are a lot of writing problems that are parallel to each other, and there are a lot of structural elements that are mirrors of each other, so why not try to put it all together that way?

But Snyder makes basically no attempt to put even very related problems together, it's just little bits of advice to gnaw at the most common problems, and ... maybe that's fine, but it felt lazy to me.

Chapter 8 was the final chapter, and was mostly about trying to sell screenplays. This was irrelevant to me, but kind of interesting, and also made me feel like Blake Snyder is a better marketer and salesman than a screenwriter, and also maybe just got lucky to be working at a time when scripts were getting huge bidding wars for no good reason. The efficient market hypothesis gets clowned on again, I guess.

I'll probably write up some overall thoughts, a short review: I think I am unsuited to liveblogging because I go long. But the even shorter version is that I think I picked up a few things that were interesting to think about, and while Blake Snyder is a hack, he's an entertaining writer.

[thealexchen]

hi! i recently got back into lis2 again and that made me really curious - do you still agree with a majority of the critiques you made on lis2 in 2020? i know it's been 4 years since that post was made, but i actually do remember when you dropped this critique on a separate account and i'd thought it was an interesting one to keep in mind back then :)

i appreciated a lot of what you have to say, even if i respectfully disagree with almost all of it 😭 - i didn't want to drop a whole "why" i disagree discussion on here because it seems kind of rude to drop such a huge thing about it haha, but i would like to say that this critique actually did stick with me for a bit and i appreciate that you made it when you did! your account was a big lis2 acc that i remember back in the day, and i always loved seeing your posts!

Hi there and thanks for your ask! I think I may know who you are, but you did get me thinking about that critique again (has it been four years already?? Jesus). After rereading it again, I have to say my overall opinions haven’t changed… I’m just not as invested in them as I used to be.

Since DE came out, I’ve seen a drastic shift from favoring D9 to DN, but I really think the reception comes down to their creative choices (or lack thereof). When I gave my initial thoughts on DE in May, I said that D9’s games rely heavily on fanservice to be marketable, while LiS2 was divisive from the jump because it was so obviously rooted in DN’s prioritization of making a game out of passion and not what would sell well (a continuation of Max and Chloe’s story). People have mostly been complaining that DE feels written without much thought or care for the original game, with lazy offscreen narrative decisions. Unfortunately, I believe this output is really due to D9 being puppeteered by Square to “corporatize” this series to death, which I find really depressing.

When LiS1 first debuted in 2015, the gaming industry was still recovering from Gamergate (which proved how misogynistic it still was) and LGBT+ issues were finally achieving mainstream attention, both positive and negative. The media storm surrounding LiS1 all focused on how different it was. It was truly radical at the time to turn what would be a typical Sundance indie film plot into an interactive AA game and make it mainstream. I think both the positive attention from gamers starved for a story like this and the negative attention calling it “Life is Tumblr” contributed to its massive popularity and attention that hasn’t been matched since.

I have always, always believed (like since 2018) in LiS being an anthology series and letting Max and Chloe’s story end. “Farewell” was supposed to be that, and I was really excited to see what DN was making next and hopeful I could fall in love with LiS2 like I did the first game. Even if I found LiS2’s narrative choices really frustrating, I still respect DN for sticking to their vision. Honestly, Michel Koch deserves his flowers so much for staying active on Twitter through years of fan hate and complaining and posting consistently respectful replies, even as his own characters have likely become unrecognizable to him.

But while DN stuck to their vision about LiS2, I think the main contextual issue with the game (and where my critiques came from) is there was too much pressure to follow up an accidental hit. DN wanted to follow up LiS1 with an even bigger, more serious, more ambitious, maybe more “artistic” and “daring” game that was boldly political… but I just don’t think they achieved that. The game still looks beautiful, with a strong soundtrack, art direction, moments of calm, and great environmental storytelling like the first game. But while LiS1 lured you into a false sense of security with its cozy vibes and high school setting, only to blindside gamers with heartbreaking and shocking plot twists late in the game, LiS2 is just a misery fest from start to end in an attempt to be as serious and memorable as the first game. There isn’t enough joy and nostalgia (DN is SO good at nostalgia) to contrast the sorrow, and the game wasn’t as memorable or fun to play for me.

My main critique in 2020 was the game relies too much on a violent trauma narrative without proper research and content warnings. Looking back on it now, I think DN internalized the praise too strongly that LiS1 was daring and different. They tried to be even more topical and bold without regard to how actual players of color might react to the racial violence onscreen. In addition, I critiqued LiS2 for not showcasing the positive aspects of Sean and Daniel’s Mexican heritage to contrast all the racism, and I thought True Colors did a better job at including meaningful and positive cultural details for Alex and Gabe’s family. They likely didn’t think to research more carefully how to depict POC (and how the standards for sensitive representation might be different in the U.S. compared to France). American politics are also wayyyy more complex than what’s on the news, and have a massive historical, social, and economic background, and nowadays, I’ll cut DN some slack and say I think that’s too much to tackle for any game. Yes, DN could’ve done better, but I wouldn’t critique them as harshly today, and I know they had good intentions.

If the pressure to follow up LiS1 wasn’t there, maybe LiS2 could’ve been different. Maybe DN wouldn’t have bit off more they could chew, or maybe this game could’ve been made independently of the LiS series and judged on its own merit. A game like Tell Me Why shows how DN is at their best when they tell smaller, nostalgic stories and are able to do the right research and collaborate with the right consultants and actors. I hope Lost Records can be the same, since DN is pitching it from the jump as an anthology and likely their do-over of LiS as their own independent studio.

Thank you again for asking! It was nice to revisit my critique. If you’d still like to talk about it, I am down for a friendly debate!

[artist-issues]

this my sound silly, but do you have any advice on how you come up with something to say for a story?

I think you're right that good art has something to say and communicates it well. That's certainly true of every story I've ever loved.

But while I love inventing fantasy worlds, you've made me realize I've never actually planned to say anything with them.

I've got lots of opinions, lots of beliefs, lots of stuff to say, but now that I realize I need to, it's been hard to pick one of those to be the core point of a story.

the trouble is, the dominant writing advice I saw online was the opposite. that stories made for the purpose of communicating a message or promoting something just turn into preachy propaganda, so the best way to make a good story (that, dare I invoke the curse, appealed to a wider audience) was to muddy it so you could take away as many interpretations from it as possible. thus most of the material I've given myself to work with has been slightly poisoned.

I really like how you said all of that! I agree with your assessment of the advice most people give.

Here's how I do it:

A loose concept, like a disgraced knight falling in love with the King's head of staff who's come to live in the village he's hiding in, will pop into my brain. I'll like the concept. I'll imagine one or two interactions between them that I just like.

But when it comes time to write anything down, even just for my own notes—then it's time to find a message. And usually that's not hard, or at least, that's not disingenuous, because:

what I believe, my worldview, was already subliminally shaping the things that I liked.

So then as I go to write down the names, the histories, the plot points, of my fun little knight love story idea, I find that something kind of...readily fits them.

But now here's the catch; it really helps to know what you believe, and to feel strongly about it, for all of that to come as naturally as possible.

About Propaganda "versus" Stories:

It's a lie to say that something which is created to say something is always propaganda, and something which is created with no careful point thought out is always art. Silly thing to believe. It's like saying "all words are propaganda." No, all words are communication. It's not our fault they don't like that we know what we want to say, and we want them to understand it clearly.

I mean. All art is propaganda, if by "propaganda" or "preachy" you mean, "I tried to take what was going on in my head & heart and put it in your head & heart." All art, all storytelling, is that. Otherwise you'd just keep what you think and feel bouncing around in your own brain, instead of doing anything outward (writing, drawing, painting, singing, speaking, reacting with your body language) with it.

I think what people are getting at when they say "avoid being preachy" or "that's not art, it's propaganda" is "you weren't being genuine." And that can be true. Sometimes people can tack a meaning onto a movie or a story where it doesn't fit because they either a) don't believe that strongly in the thing themselves, but everyone around them was clamoring for it or b) they were lazy and didn't do the work to make the story fit, genuinely, with the message, in a way that enhances and makes the message winsome.

But as bad as those two mistakes are, neither of them prove that intending to say something with your story, very carefully and genuinely, that you don't want misinterpreted, is somehow a bad thing.

Look at the fairy tales that the Brothers' Grimm collected. Look at any stories from the time before commercialism: Our oldest stories combined genuine enjoyment with the virtues and meanings that made enjoyment possible/worthwhile.

Anyway. I have a feeling you agree with me already about this so I'll hop down off that soap box.

What Comes First: Having Fun Making What You Like, or Choosing Something to Say?

I don't think it is wrong to tell a story that...you didn't have an intended thesis written down for. I think people like J.R.R. Tolkien and Walter Elias Disney prove that. But the thing is, what they believed got infused into their storytelling, because of course it did. It can't help it. When you want the audience to like your lead character, you make her likeable—but the traits you think are likeable are informed by something.

Snow White is innocent and pure because Walt Disney naturally considered those things beautiful and good and worth liking. He probably didn't even think to write it down and revolve everything around it: it just came out that way.

Frodo is a little scholar, and willing to soldier on with what little he can do, despite his lack of experience, because those are character traits Tolkien felt were good and likeable. Why? Because deep down, in his worldview, he believes being book-smart and doing what you can with what you have is valuable. And that just...comes out, much like his valuing of history, in the thing he creates.

Now, if they didn't know what they believed--or if they were insecure people "blown about by every wind of false doctrine" that comes their way--or if they were focused more on satisfying what the largest number of people liked--they wouldn't have been able to infuse the story with any genuine meaning, planned-out or natural.

That's what I think.

I think it's all a matter of loving what's good and true. Training your affections, so that you care most about things that are worth caring about—the things you feel most strongly about in characters will be the things you feel most strongly about in life. I love Stitch because I love redemption. Not primarily because I love sci-fi characters, the color blue, or the blend of ugly-and-cute—even though I do like those things on a more minor scale. See?

But if you've trained your affections for junk food—you feel most strongly appreciative of characters that are hot, or spout off funny one-liners, or come onscreen to cool music—then that's what will naturally come up in your own storytelling.

There's also nothing wrong with doing it the other way; saying you want to teach a certain lesson, and then coming up with characters and settings to fit that lesson. Coming at it from that direction is just as valid—as long as you put in the work, and care more about that lesson you genuinely believe in than you do what other people think.

Anyway,

To Write Your Own Main Point/Thesis/Armature/Theme

When it’s time to start writing anything down, it’s time to figure out the main point, and that’s when I...typically think about what I'd want to teach the kids I'm around, to be honest.

With my disgraced-knight love story, I go "what is it he loves about the girl, in all those vague vibe-y scenes I’ve been picturing?" And I make the connection between her virtuous character traits to what I want him, the main character, to learn.

So for example, she used to live in the palace, working for the King, but she was humble enough to give all that up and live in a no-name town to take care of her stepfather. He's disgraced and doesn't want anyone to know who he is—well, that's a pride issue, totally the opposite of how humble his love interest is. And why’s she humble? Because she’s not focused on herself. She doesn’t care about her own reputation or status. So then I just reverse engineer that: the point of the story is "Live in the King's name, not your own." Now one of the two main characters embodies that—the other has to learn it, and the story is the obstacle course he’s pushed through to get there.

I wasn't consciously thinking about making her the king's former head of staff, or him disgraced, when I first came up with the vague concept of the story, see? I just liked the "vibe" of a hopeless dude suddenly seeing a ray of light in the "vibe" of a girl from poor circumstances who seems happy regardless of them. I liked that "vibe." Then I traced what I liked about the vibe back to something that is true and worth teaching or appreciating in real life.

I’m in a job I don’t love right now, and it could make me miserable, but if I just remember “in everything you do, whether in word or in deed, do for the glory of the Lord,” then my focus isn’t on myself and I have joy and hope. And that hope can be used to point others, around me, to hope, too. So I’m not “preaching” something disingenuous; I’m living it, because this is what I believe, so no wonder it’s also leaking it’s way into my story. I just happen to be creating a pipe so that the leak flows more smoothly, which can only help, in the long run.

But I’ve done it other ways, too. Once I watched kind of from afar as a friend’s family fell apart. I felt like, from the outside, I could see where one of my friends was hurting and what they needed to accept (from the Bible) to move forward, but I wasn’t in a position to say it to my friend directly. Then I figured, “if my one friend is going through this situation, others probably are too, and this lesson from the Bible is universal anyway” so I…made up an analogy for the way their family fell apart, then came up with an ending that taught the “family” in the analogy the lesson I got from the Bible. So for that, you can see how I first came up with the main point, then built up characters and a world and a story to fit around it.

Both ways work, the chicken or the egg first. But they only work if you are committed to working hard and serving others with your story, not committed to being popular or “only making what YOU like.”

Make sense? I hope so! Thank you for the question!

[dayscapism]

My Thoughts on the Percy Jackson TV Show (was not a fan):

Months have passed but, I guess I like to throw wood to embers to make fires again. Honestly, I would have abandoned it after episode 3 if it weren't one of my favourite book series ever and I wanted so bad to be hopeful and pleasantly surprised.

I don't think it's a terrible adaptation, but I think it's boring, badly edited, with character inconsistencies, has first-draft-level writing and just missed potential. I'm happy it's been working for so many others, but I've also seen a lot of people being so reluctant to negatively criticise anything about it. Which is weird, it makes me feel like we're watching two different shows and I'm the problem (am I the drama? perhaps. I don't care.)

It's not been an easy time to watch for me; it's a sustained, painful, physical effort to pay attention to this show, especially during dialogue scenes. Like how do you make a show about a bunch of ADHD kids and make it so NOT ADHD-friendly to watch?? (The writers and editors should watch EEAAO, that's how an ADHD brain approaches visual media). The pacing, the terrible exposition, it's the static and uninteresting camera work, the lack of a campy hyping music/soundtrack, the lack of stylization, the lazy editing, the actors stopping to chat in a static shot every other minute, no running during urgent situations, etc. Nothing is engaging! It's such a boring show! There's always exactly 1 thing happening on screen and nothing else around it, no hidden meanings, no mystery, nothing that could be layered storytelling, which is such an important thing in a TV show where you only have 8 episodes to tell your story! Spekaing of, ADHD and dyslexia don't seem to be shown or discussed again after it's mentioned that Percy has it in episodes 1-2. I was hoping for bolder representation with that. (Why didn't they include the little dialogue where neither Percy of Annabeth can figure out the sign at the emporium because of dyslexia, and Grover has to tell them? These little moments count so much for representation of this kind!)

The dialogue paired with the pacing/humour is not landing. It truly feels unpolished, like a first draft. Like technically it serves its purpose, but it's an ineffective, unengaging manner to write a tv script. They should have done more flashbacks too, to give context and exposition. But instead, everything is given to us like you would in a book. (And this is coming from someone who read the books years ago so I NEED this exposition because I don't remember a lot of details, but the exposition isn't even helpful and the writing doesn't keep me engaged enough for me to even pay attention to the exposition!) The actors are doing the best with the material they have, they're all really precious, but this writing and directing is hurting their acting so bad. The dialogue and scenes are so awkward, which hurts the chemistry between the characters too (I expand on my issues with the characters later).

A lot of the tone and pacing issues could just be a book-to-tv adaptation thing because we're no longer in Percy's head with his funny sarcastic remarks and long paragraphs that can give us context. But then why didn't they include narration? Why didn't they keep it up after the intro in episode 1?? Why did they even include that bit if they weren't going to keep it up?? We have 4th-wall narration in lots of things these days (from the top of my head, Fleabag and Deadpool), usually done for comedic and style effect. This would help so much with the pacing and tone! the lost potential is so frustrating. Many movies/shows don't need narration; this one could have benefitted so much from it.

The show is not funny whatsoever when the books are hilarious. At no point did I laugh out loud here. Such a crime. I hate to be one of THOSE but the movies at least got the unserious and funny beats right. Like why is the music in this show just an epic forgettable MCU-like soundtrack but with a serious tone? Why didn't they include modern or campy songs? They should have taken clues from the Umbrella Academy's first seasons. And they could have included Greek music in it too! How cool would that have been? It's not a bad soundtrack by any means, but if nothing else is used in a very strange manner in some scenes because it sometimes cuts the action or doesn't match the energy or vibe of the scenes. The visuals and settings are pretty good, I admit, but these are underserviced by the entire production's lack of style and music and tone are a big part of that.

Some people have said the action scenes are bad, but I feel the problem is there's no sense of urgency, of danger (no layered storytelling here either). The fights with the monsters are okay, great even, the problem is this lack of excitement. The problem is the setups to the action: the lack of tension and then rushed resolutions. For example, they dragged the scenes with Medusa and Equidna talking that it lost all suspense. Equidna literally says instead of just jumping to it, showing what she would do to them kids. (Ok the chimera is cool tho, looks really cool. I want it as a pet 😊 And the editing when Percy falls from the arch is pretty cool too, rare exception.)

But most feels so underwhelming. These kids should also be running everywhere, not calmy walking (bad directing!) This makes the monsters not feel as menacing, because they always have time for a calm exposition break long conversations in the middle of what are supposed to be life-or-death encounters with ancient Greek monsters. And mind you, these pauses for conversation aren't even layered, they're often shot with a static camera, with dull dialogue no 12 yo would speak. They could be having these conversations while running, while hiding, while doing something else! Mix dialogue and action! Layered storytelling, it's about themes and characters but also about how you present the scenes themselves.

An adjacent problem is also that the actualization of the myths for a modern audience is a bit surface-level (like with Medusa). They could have done so much more here.

Now, issues with characterization:

Characters can really make or break a story. Here we have a lot of character inconsistencies, or rather, a lack of definition of the characters. It's not about the show being exactly accurate to the book here, it's the show wasting perfectly good character and plot moments from the show, while not being true to tone and to the core of the characters. Change in adaptations can be good, to consolidate or make things clearer and work for the new medium, but they character work here was very ineffective and inefficient.

Percy is supposed to be cunning, smart but not knowledgeable about the Greek world. The show has this being reversed many times.

Grover is perceptive and has more life experience but he is reduced to nothing here. Like I'm wondering why is he even here?

And Annabeth... Oh. Annabeth is a hard character to portray and write, tbh, it's easy to make her unlikable and straightforward, can very easily come off as annoying, pedantic perhaps, though I am all for unlikeable female heroines. But this is such a baffling iteration of her character. She comes off as a stalker in the first episodes, then she's mean and bossy yet she doesn't seem to actually plan or have good strategies (all is deferred to Percy really), then she sort of uses "the power of friendship" to resolve things but never her growing wisdom. Yes, she could be weird and caring and smart but they didn't nail any of those traits either. They striped her of any complexity. But my biggest gripe is that they didn't make Annabeth nerdy enough! Annabeth sure recalls a lot of facts during the show to look smart I suppose, but she rarely gets to problem solve or truly nerd out neurodivergent kid style, which I think is a huge missed opportunity.

An example, which might be very niche but it shows my issue with her characterization and I have to talk about it cause I'm a physics nerd (literally, it's my major), the part in the ST Louis Arch in episode 4 where she tells Percy and Grover stuff about the construction is so... basic. Like she just read it out of a tourist pamphlet or something. She just says how tall and wide the arch is and that it's symmetrical. That's it. Right...

Why didn't she mention what type of arch it is?? (A catenary arch, more specifically one that follows a weighted catenary curve. It isn't just held by "symmetry" it's tension! It's cool math!) Maybe she even mentions that it's a hyperbolic function and Percy and Grover can be like omg what are you even talking about, and she keeps going on and on about calculus and architecture, like a neurodivergent kid would about their interests. I mean, sure she's like 12, but she's supposed to be like a gifted kid, daughter of Athena, right? She probably knows some of the science and engineering behind the arch. Missed opportunity. Or maybe it's just that I see so much of myself in Annabeth and it hits too close when they can't make her justice. Idk. Like having a true nerdy, brilliant, neurodivergent, bossy but caring, black Annabeth would have been amazing. I guess the world wasn't ready for that.

This was episode 4 and the episodes are NOT getting better...

Also, Annabeth and Percy get sincere with each other really quickly after like 1 day of knowing each other, no layered storytelling or emotional reactions to them baring their deepest fears and darkest backstories either. (Poor kids are doing their best with mediocre adaptation, though Walker is carrying the show at this point, tbh.)

Annabeth and Luke's relationship also suffers a lot from telling and no showing. Why don't we have flashbacks?? Such a missed opportunity for a show. As a rule, showing isn't superior to telling, but these two techniques need to be balanced in the writing, they can be combined too to serve the story during a specific scene or passage. In this case, telling was the wrong way.

For Luke, if they want his arc to have the emotional hit it has in the book, they really needed to build his character more and give him more screen time! Which could have been done with flashbacks. Because with Annabeth's stoic acting, too, we don't really get the emotional reactions appropriate to the events she recounts. So how are we going to feel with the betrayal since the relationship hasn't been built strongly so far? Nothing. We'll feel nothing.

Annabeth's actress is doing her best with what she's given she portrays her like she's in a Disney Channel kids sitcom from the 90s, deadpan but snarky, which is not a flavour of acting that helps this adaptation. This might be a larger directing issue, though, because Percy barely reacts when he sees his mother "die" in front of him.

Anyway, Flashbacks and narration could have saved this series alone, tbh. We don't even know how Thalia looks like! How are we gonna know it's her at the end of the book with the fleece reveal??

Ok, disclaimer, I didn't finish the show. I got distracted and bored and couldn't be bothered. I think I stopped after the Underworld episode (episode 7 I think.) I couldn't be bothered to watch the finale even with Toby Stephens in it. That's how enthusiastic I am about this.

Also a bit of a nitpick but why isn't it explained why are Percy and Sally are stuck with Gabe in the first place? About his scent? Why is the abuse so... sanitized too? Like yeah, we could have a more psychological and verbal form of abuse situation, of course, but we also didn't get that? Gabe was just unpleasant and a bit of a jerk, pathetic, but that was basically all. Also, no explanation for the blue food?? When it's such insight into Percy's relationship with his mom?? So much EXPOSITION in this series yet they missed many of the important parts!

Disney watered down Sally too. They really did. Her makeup is nice though.

So... yeah, they could be doing so much more with all the characters.

Concluding thoughts:

I don't hate the show (the visuals are great and Walker Scobell's acting is amazing, such a young talent!), but every time I finish watching an episode, I'm just bored and underwhelmed and wished I had done something else with my time.

I know it's frustrating that in previous decades usually had 20+ episodes, plus season 1 and 2 being shot side by side so we didn't even have to wait and fear of cancellation after so little; shows really don't have to be perfect from season 1, they need room to grow, but they have to have SOMETHING to pull the viewer in from the beginning, to make them stay. Anything! This show is giving me nothing to work with. I do hope the show gets better in season 2, and I understand that the 8-episode-season model is a constraint for writers, but I still think it could have done much better with the resources it did have.

For example, Black Sails had an infamous first season, but then it grew to be what imo is the best show ever put to TV. And yes, it took a while for it to find its perfect footing, but it was like a delicious cake that maybe has some bad frosting but the foundation is there, it just needs polishing and a few changes. But this PJO show doesn't live up to its potential and it's just so frustrating because I wanted to love this show so much but I'm finding it difficult to think of anything that I truly loved about it other than Walker Scobell's acting and course Toby Stephens (but I already love him from his previous work so it hardly counts).

Honestly, I'm a little bit tired of discourse going around saying that critiquing a show from season 1 is not acceptable because the show hasn't finished growing and we want a second season, we don't want the criticism to affect a season 2. But this is irrelevant and that's not how media criticism works. People can get very on board with good shoes from 1 season alone. That's no excuse. There are genuinely good book adaptations out there that make changes for the better and get a good foothold from the get-go! Look at Lockwood & Co, OPLA or Anne with an E. It can totally be done. The criticisms we have are precisely because we love the books, because we wanted this adaptation to succeed, because we wanted to love it, but it disappointed us. And we are allowed to voice that, as long as is done in good faith.

I'm happy this show got renewed because of the fans who enjoyed it, love the Percy Jackson series, it is truly dear to my heart, but would I be sad if the show was cancelled? Honestly, no. I couldn't care less what happens to this show at this point. Why should I? I was given no reason to care, aside from my already existing love for the books. I'm not intrigued about how they're going to adapt book 2, I didn't connect with the characters, I wasn't having fun. Nothing. And sure, I want young kids to be introduced to Percy Jackson, great if it's through this show, I want younger generations to love this series too, but I don't know any gen alpha who would enjoy such a show. (Hell, I really wanted my audience-age-appropriate niece to love it, but she couldn't care less about it and jeez, I wonder why...) Kids deserve better shows than this.

Will I watch season 2? Idk. Maybe? I can put it in the background while doing something else perhaps. I do hope they improve stuff but I don't have my hopes up. Will I watch episode 8? No. Life's too short. I already read the books so why bother (hehe)

[thestrangestthlng]

a story of the impact of groundbreaking representation in media

On April 30, 1997, I was eleven years old and at my godmothers' house for the night. I don't know how many remember but network tv during the week used to be a big deal. This is when families would sit down together and watch their favorite shows.

This evening I remember sitting on the couch and feeling something buzzing in the air. My godmothers' were so happy and excited about something, but I didn't really know what.

They put on Ellen and I remember brushing my Barbie dolls hair and an electric rush fill the silence of the room (outside of the tv of course).

"I mean, why can't I just say… I mean, what is wrong? Why, why do I have to be so ashamed? I mean, why can't I just… say the truth, I mean, be who I am... I'm 35 years old, I'm so afraid to tell people, I mean, I just… Susan, I'm gay."

And in that moment Ellen Degeneres made history. I was too young to understand the impact, but it was still strong enough for me to remember, 27 years later, the impact that had on the lives of two of the most important women in my life. Their clasped hands and tears of joy have made a marked impression in my life and I consider one of the most defining moments of my life.

We had this moment again. We had, on network tv, which is still extremely censored and conservative by the way, a ~33 year old man discover another part of what makes him so special. It was treated as such, like they understood the impact. This ~33 year old man was also masc and a firefighter--a career which is regressive in many areas and there are many, many firefighters in the closet--and his love interest was another masculine gay man who also happened to be a firefighter. We had wonderful friendship representation and development.

Then... all that was undone in 42 minutes by lazy, reductive storytelling. Writing that undid all that beauty in under three minutes. And that is the probably the biggest slap in the face.

They used harmful and reductive stereotypes in a breakup that wasn't even properly plotted for the story structure they use. So, yes, I am going to remain angry at the writers of 9-1-1 for a while.

I will always love Buck and I will always love the characters of 9-1-1. They also made me love Tommy. If the intention was to always just have him only be a chapter in his story, that's okay, but the chapter didn't need to be a dissertation, just to leave us with a cliff noted eight grade book report.

[mrstsung]

My unpopular mk opinions

These are my unpopular opinions,venting,and genuinely how i feel about mk lore and characters.

This is just my personal opinions and feels ok? If you do not agree nor like. Then this post IS NOT FOR YOU! so keep scrolling down. (I can't believe i have to remind people of common sense and how to use their brain functions.)

But yeah. Here they are. It's a long one.

Below cut

🔥🐲🔥🐲🔥🐲🔥🐲🔥🐲🔥🐲🔥🐲🔥🐲🔥

Ok like i said a but long. But bear with me.

• Im sorry but liu kang x kitana can not realistically happen. At least for long term. They both have too much going on. Kitana has a whole realm let alone her own goals too separate from liu. And no offense guys but liu kang said he wants out in several stories endings. So a peaceful,quiet,normal lady and/or spouce is what he needs. Away from kombat,away from mortal kombat especially. So yeah....sorry guys. But your little fantasy of liu kang being with some badass warrior chick is just that. A fantasy and a boring one at that. Liu kang just needs a simple honey by his side. (This goes for liu kang being paired up with any of the known established lady characters)

• Speaking of which,liu kang should've retired. Not become a god. What was nrs thinking?!

• Kung lao should've been champion and the new chosen one. But y'all allergic to good storytelling.

• I could say so much about the lady characters. But I'll keep it short. Unfortunately guys,sexism exists. And it's affecting men too so if they actually eant people to enjoy fighting games. Dont make your lady fighters like shit and only eye candy. Let alone make them broken because your too lazy to program good movesets for them that actually work.

• Ah raiden raiden raiden. Where do i begin? First,they screw you over AGAIN. they take away you're whole ass personality. Nrs  only pretends now to actually gaf about you. And most of that is lip service. Shall i continue? You should've been retired by now. And not to mention they defang you for plot and treat you like shit as well as your mains. That pretty much covers it.

• Shang tsung my baby sweetheart,look at what they do? Do people care about your character? No. They dont. They never did until you looked lioe a pretty boy band hack. And no offense....they brought back the irl goat shang tsung himself,for what? Only to mock us fans and tease us with the false promises of something actually good? Yeah. Sadly i feel this. Tho i appreciate all of shang tsung's incarnations and iterations. Cary hiroyuki tagawa IS shang tsung to me. And honestly the only one worth mentioning. Because he's honest to god skilled in his craft. Im not saying this out of fandom,to butter his toast nor nostalgia sake. I genuinely feel he does shang tsung like nobody else does. Look guys alan lee is ok. But i feel he NEEDS SOMEONE TO WRITE HIM SOMETHING BETTER. Honey plz let me write for you! I know what shang neeeeeeds!

• That being said. Im sick of people saying shang tsung is eViL. When? Also is he tho? Anymore than anyone else in that world. Dude you're killing. And even if that wasn't a factor,there are worse guys. Shang tsung is actually compared to the likes of quan chi,shinnok,shao kahn,ONAGA,THE FUCKING ONE BEING ITSELF!?! shang's a fairly honorable and reasonable man. He is psuedo-immortal but he was once an earthrealmer warrior(idc what nrs says thats what he is end of story. Because thats what he was truly and it makes for a more compelling story) so unlike the other "baddies" he's the only really "human" one. So he's more realistic and relatable. Which honestly makes for a more interesting antag. Or even neutral character. Seriously guys,it's right there. Why do people refuse to see it is beyond me.

• Bi-han....you dont deserve what you're given. Im sorry.

• Same with mileena.

• Also mileena isn't some disease ridden floosy,isn't secretly shangs kid,she is a clone and an experiment and is a fucked up lil froot loop. She does get a heart of gold later and reconciles with kitana or should. But shang tsung hates mileena,sees her only a an object let alone just a pat on the back for a job well succeeded. Shes an experiment to him. Shao kahn sees her as a means to an end but an heir to be used. Sindel say milly as a daughter but the lesser one and only in high regards when kitana "disappoints" her. Sindel before and after the dark magic purge,was kind of selfish. She never hated her daughters,but she was arrogant. But that's just her personality. Anyways. Mileena is a clone/twin sister of kitana and deserves better and to be her own person and have her own agency. Sorry not sorry but i hate "fandom" mileena.

• Kung lao....my baby.....you deserve better. But you deserve to obliterate nrs for the mistreatment

• Sonya blade deserves to kill more. Let alone never be written by men ever again. NEVER AGAIN.

• We as fans deserve a good game. No gimmicks,not unnecessary dlc,full functional and FULLY MADE gameplay,no guest characters,no characters that was in the main storymode not on the roster let alone some pre order fucking only. No a fully good game. That has minigames to keep you busy. That has a fully open world krypt. A game WORTHY OF THE TITLE OF MORTAL KOMBAT!

I have so much more but....thats it for now.

[ceratedfish24]

Communication skills are not my best thing too, and I definitely get over the board sometimes. My biggest problem is bouncing from topic to topic and not having a clear segment to flow into another thought, so I hope you give me a spec of doubt, if something sounds out of nowhere.

The most important thing that I implied, but might have not worded, so you missed it. Is you maintagging: 1) anyone who is a more relaxed fan will think there is some drama, or just get a sour feeling over being called fake fans. They're the people I meant, when I said to create a safe space, not trolls. Most CC's are very welcoming of the people who aren't as crazy in the fandom, as you and I. But your actions constuct an idea of some toxic Scott or Joel fans. 2) You are bringing attention to hate. As in to create your a post about something hateful, you have to repeat all the unfavorable things said. It's like coming into CC's chat and saying "It's so horrible that everyone hates you and says these mean things about you". Even if you will add that you support them, the hateful comments that you repeat will stick to them, as before they might have not seen them. (This example is not exact, but Scott is on Tumblr and if you maintag, he could see it) 3) You just said that the person is convinced they're right, and that you're stubborn. The three people that will see this post are people who like, indifferent or hate Scott, and by your own words the post won't do anything. Internet fight are most often just talking to a wall. Even me saying all of this won't change anything about what you think, this is just an english workout for me, so thank you for humoring me.

I get that people are homophobic, you don't have to say this every single paragraph. I am queer, as many other people on Tumblr and in MCYT fandom in general. Gem got a lot of hate in Secret Life for being a bi woman. If I take a moment out of her stream and give that line to her character, if I analyze it on my own blog, see how her character interacts with other people. Will you say that I'm a biphobic misogynist? If I just simply didn't like her character arc or actions and critizied them in a manner of looking at life series as a story? You're trying to connect outright homophobic people to people who are invested in the fandom to the point of spending hours thinking and analyzing characters.

And why is analyzing CC's bad? The CC's know that they're playing characters and these characters aren't words in a book. Every individual CC approaches their character differently, they're all storytellers, and thinking about how the actions CC choose affect their character is extremely interesting. If we wanted to read a book, we would have, but Life Series and similar concepts are a completely unique thing, which is somewhat comparable to dnd.

To add. Being critical of CC's is okay. They are not a god. People thinking that them being mean to each other is real and not a roleplay is the same as trying to be a knight in shining armor for them, it's all parasocial. They have flaws and we're allowed to look into them, being a content creator comes with that as well as a certain power (By power I mean CCs can send mobs of people to bully one person, sometimes not even intentionally, and other things I'm too lazy to go into). We should not dismiss someone's behavior, if they are gay or a woman or neurogivergent, but it feels like you are unintentionally promoting this thinking that gay people can't be bad. And I think Scott is a good person, who made some mistakes as any person can do (I'm not implying or saying any particular things, mistakes are a thing that everyone does). But you don't actually know him or any CCs. With the most recent example in this community, it's impossible to know if someone is shitty. Being that fixated on protecting a person only to realize that they aren't the perfect human being is painful. I'm just advising for you to take a step back from investing yourself too much into a CCs life. (I'm saying this as a person who can be quite parasocial, which I am working on).

I do not wish any harm on you or others, I am not threatening or trying to make mean comments. I'm just putting my net zero into this conversation, as a common internet dweller.

Hi! Your ask was not destroyed at all. Tumblr delivered it just fine!

Addressing your first point, I understand that being called a fake fan can feel rough, but I genuinely cannot imagine criticizing someone who is close to someone you care about for being cruel to the person you care about if the person you're criticizing didn't do anything cruel, especially if you're taking a mutual moment of teasing between friends out of context and targeting one person for a harmless act that both people committed.

I am bringing attention to hate. I don't think anyone should do it all of the time, but I still think that it's important, especially if the hate was unintentionally awful, to address when people are being really awful to one person who hasn't done anything out of the ordinary. The post has been tagged with discourse. If someone does not want to see fandom critical posts, they can filter out the tag. If you disagree with my approach to dealing with hate, that's perfectly valid and I respect that.

Scott, unfortunately, already knows about the hate. He has replied to some of the posts himself, and he has acted on some posts himself.

My post has done something. Not necessarily done something life changing, but I did see that it brought comfort to some people. It's fine if I argue with a wall, but I looked at the points that the other person was making, decided what I agreed with, and made changes and apologies accordingly. When I was not met with similar respect and the other person instead moved the topic to be critical of me and refusing to respond when I inquired about what I felt they did wrong, that's when I became a wall too. When the points that I made were dismissed in favor of an argument that drifted from the problem and the reasoning that I felt was justified - and it's fine if other's disagree, but, again, that doesn't mean I'm changing anything - that's when I stopped taking the conversation too seriously.

Gem getting hate for being bi is different from Gem getting hate for a specific thing she did unless the thing is something that most if not all of the other players did. If someone picked Scott apart for something that was specific for Scott, I wouldn't be so disturbed by it. The problem is when people try to tear Scott apart for things that everyone else or at least many other people on the server have also done and have never received half as much backlash - if any- for. For example, if you were upset with Gem because she teases Jimmy, but you think it's fine or even hilarious when Grian, Martyn, Scott, Joel, fWhip, etc. do it, then it would come off as biphobia or misogyny because the other people, all men who aren't bi, aren't being treated with the same seriousness despite having done the same thing. If you were mad at Gem for teasing Jimmy, but you were equally upset with other people for teasing Jimmy, then that's a different situation where no one is being targeted. If you were mad at Gem for, I don't know, screaming at someone (This is a hypothetical. She did not seriously scream at anyone), then that would also be different because that would be unique to Gem. If you were to be misogynistic or biphobic in your criticism of her for something unique to her, then that would only be able to be observed in specific relevant points in your criticism as opposed to who you were critical of, seeing as there would be no one else to be critical of to compare your reaction to. However, the Scott situation is not at all unique to Scott; Scott is being scrutinized for things that many other people - all straight that I can think of, but please do correct me if I'm forgetting something - have also done and are not being nearly as disliked for. That's why it feels like the argument that Scott is awful tends to come from a place of homophobia.

As for deciding a line is for a character, if you respect that everyone else who did or said something similar for the same reasons and in the same context are equally guilty, then that's fine. If you are taking something that someone said and criticizing it, but you are not criticizing everyone else who did or said something similar in the same context, then saying that you were referring to the character isn't relevant to the discrimination between that CC/character and other CCs/characters who have done the same thing and are not being criticized.

The reason why I feel that homophobia is linked to a lot of Scott criticism that could be used against almost every other creator but often isn't is because a lot of people are specifically accusing Scott of being "manipulative" and "toxic", which are harmful queer stereotypes that Scott doesn't fit into the box of as far as we know. He may fit a lot of gay man stereotypes, but that doesn't mean that people should lump him in with harmful stereotypes that he doesn't actually fall under. We don't have a reason to believe that Scott has some evil ulterior motive to being friendly.

Analyzing a CC is... iffy. That's a real person. Most people are pretty uncomfortable being analyzed, especially if you are analyzing them for something they did while playing a character in a silly game with their friends (cough the Martyn situation cough). Of course, it's more than okay to recognize and appreciate the good things that someone does, but it's really none of the audience's business to scrutinize someone for something they said playfully to a friend who they have a long standing close relationship to and who hasn't shown signs of feeling hurt or disrespected. The main problem with the argument I was in was the inequality between how Joel was being treated and how Scott was being treated. I also think that it's important to be able to differentiate between when a CC is making a decision based on the rules of the game and the lore of their character and when a CC is just having a laugh with their friends. Not every CC cares so much about characters and lore. There's a big difference between when someone is playing an aggressive character and when someone is just being themselves in a competitive environment.

Being critical of CCs is okay. Accusing CCs of things they haven't done is not okay. You could ruin an innocent person's livelihood. I wouldn't defend Scott if I feel like he genuinely did something awful. It just kills me to see people accusing him of things or arguing that Scott is crueler than other Life Series players who have all done or said much of the same things that Scott is being scrutinized for and yet they are treated normally, as they all, including Scott, should be. If someone feels like Scott teasing his friends is a flaw, then they should also address when his friends tease each other in ways that are equally or even more (playfully) mean. I don't feel as if that is fair to the CCs, seeing as it is their relationships alone and their responsibility to handle when they are uncomfortable with something that their friend(s) said and they have proven that they will handle that discomfort with maturity and efficiency and therefore it's not our job to accuse them of being cruel to each other, but at least that way doesn't target just one person or just certain people.

It's not that I think that gay people can't be bad. I think that this one gay person didn't do what he's being accused of doing and that, if someone is going to accuse him, then they should at least acknowledge the equally guilty other parties, who were straight. It may have been complete coincidence, but it seems strange to me to accuse a gay person of being horrible while defending a straight person who is equally guilty, hence why it came off as homophobia to me. I would like to note that I have used the word "guilty" pretty often, but I do not feel like any actual guilt should be involved. The thing that everyone involved is "guilty" of is a lighthearted thing. I only mean that everyone did the same thing.

If Scott had seriously done something wrong, obviously I would not defend him. However, it does frustrate me when people accuse him of things that haven't happened or at least that we have no reason to believe has happened. For example, I wouldn't defend someone who burned down a house if someone accused them of burning down a house. I would defend someone who burned down a house if someone accused them of slashing someone's tires, which they did not do. If Scott did something terrible that was completely unrelated to the accusations that I've argued against, then I wouldn't really feel guilty. I would be very sad, of course, because I find him to be a great creator, and I would hold him accountable for whatever he did do, but that doesn't mean that he should be accused of things he didn't do, similar to how the Hermits did have to clear up some assumptions about what happened recently before more information was released. I don't think Scott's perfect. I do think he's being treated unfairly.

Thank you for being so thorough about your thoughts! That was very helpful in understanding how to appropriately answer you. Additionally, thank you for being understanding about the tardiness of this response. I was going through a life transition that wasn't going very smoothly, and this was a VERY long ask (which is not at all a burden! I invite long asks!) that I wanted to be very thoughtful in response to. I hope that I didn't miss anything and made some sense, and I hope that you're well!

[soleminisanction]

Thoughts on RedHood!Steph ?

Boring. Pointless. Kinda dumb.

Sorry to be blunt. I have a special disdain for the brand of fandom storytelling that boils down to "Steph should get to be every single legacy in the Batfamily, it would Be So Cool," and have ever since I first saw that fucking Nightwing panel from the end of BG09. It's just, so fucking superficial and lazy, the equivalent of playing superhero dress-up dolls instead of bothering to give the poor girl any actual depth or personality. It's aggravating.

With this one specifically -- if you ask me, there's a reason the "Reverse Robins" AUs file her with the Batgirls. Partially, it's because she's more notable as a Batgirl than she's even been as a Robin (and far more notable as Spoiler than either legacy). But mostly, I think, it's because doing it with the five-Robin count just isn't as interesting, because then there isn't as much change to the line-up.

Switching Dick and Damian is interesting because it upends their entire dynamic and relationship to the other characters, presenting both of them in an entirely different light and -- because Damian's the one setting the standard -- making the Robin legacy much more about Robin than Batman. Switching Jason and Tim is interesting because it reverses their fortunes, giving Tim the tragedy that was meant for Jason and vice-versa, and the good ones will examine how these two fundamentally different characters would respond differently to otherwise similar external stimulus.

But if you throw Steph in there, the only ones who actually switch are Dick and Damian. Tim's story fundamentally wouldn't change at all aside from needing a new origin to explain why he's fanboying Damian when there's no circus involved. Meanwhile, Jason and Steph's Robin eras are so similar -- short, defined by conflict with Bruce and ending in tragedy at the hands of a villain -- that I can't imagine her adding much more to Red Hood than exactly what she brought to Robin: her specific flavor of daddy issues and a miniskirt.

In other words, she'd feel even more like Huntress with a gun than Jason already does. There's no point to any of it.

Which is why when I do RR AUs, I tend to include Betty Kane in my Batgirl count and switch Steph with her, making Bette Spoiler and Steph Flamebird. If you ask me, that's an interesting character contrast.

[madam-whim]

The Gold Road Reveal and my thoughts on it

I’m gonna start this off by saying I love ESO. I have been playing since 2017 and I’m pretty much doing everything the game has to offer. Quests, dungeons, trials, antiquities, sometimes PvP. That being said, this post will include lots of criticism that I feel (or know) is shared by many other fans.

But first things first, let me start off by listing some of the things on yesterday’s stream that had me bouncing in my seat:

The new zone is absolutely stunning! There’s a lot of variety to it and it does look very pretty. Exploring it will undoubtedly be fun and a feast for my eyes.

Also, Fennorian will be there, so I know there will at least be one well-written character that my Vestige has an actual bond with.

The scribing system being more of a roleplay thing – I don’t know what some people were hoping for, but I’m glad it’s not some Big Damage For Those Who Are Good At Maths kind of system. It still allows for a more unique playstyle, and I suppose it’s going to turn out like always: Do whatever you want in open world spaces, but keep your bow backflip heal out of veteran content.

And maybe the biggest “Yes!” moment of the evening: Ed Stark being the zone lead for Gold Road. While I did not like High Isle as much (too predictable for my taste, but at least it had recurring characters), he was responsible for Greymoor and Murkmire as well. I thought Greymoor was fantastic (good quests, excellent new characters alongside very familiar recurring ones), and Murkmire… well, I think Murkmire suffers greatly from being “the DLC that came after the Daedric Triad” so to speak. It kind of fell into the void created by a storyline spanning a full year (or even more, if you count the setup for the whole thing, which really began with the Varen’s ghost and Darien’s letter in Wrothgar and the Gold Coast sweetroll killer quests). I think that’s why lots of people don’t seem to like Murkmire very much despite it having great storytelling. My point is this: I do have some hope that after the fiasco some recent DLCs were story-wise, Ed Stark will at least make sure Gold Road makes sense.

And now for the criticism.

Ithelia’s design (Whenever, wherever, I want to kill Hermaeus…)

… yeah, about that. As one of my friends put it, she looks like Shakira with wings.

They really could have done so much better. The way she is now, as @akaviri-dovah said, she really just looks like a Meridia clone who somehow stole Jyggalag’s crystals, which is funny on so many levels (more on that later). Suffice it to say that I personally think the design choices are kind of lazy, given that we already have an angelic-looking Daedric lady.

Also, what’s with this picture? This kinda makes it seem as if she originally looked. Um. A lil different from the way she is now. In any case, I’m just gonna call this a missed opportunity for something more unique. I do like the glass shard aesthetic, I just wish they’d taken it in a different direction.

Dragon Break Princess Ithelia, or something like that

Now I know Dragon Breaks have to work differently from what Ithelia does, but I am kind of wondering what the consequences of her fate-altering abilities are. How do you alter fate in a way that threatens reality (with reality consisting of past and present events, with all possible versions of the future being possibly-real until one actually happens) without altering the timeline? Just by removing a possible future? Then one could argue that any Daedra could do the same just by manipulating people. Granted, it’s possible that Ithelia sees all possible futures and can do whatever she likes with them, but even then, she’d only be influencing what can become reality, not what already is. So how can she be THAT dangerous?

Right now, it just seems to me that they needed an adversary for Hermaeus Mora, and since his big things are knowledge, secrets and fate, and they couldn’t very well make a Daedric Prince of Anti-Intellectualism or a Daedric Prince of Snitching, she had to be a fate-altering type of Daedra.

At this point I’m still wondering how she even works, because how does she not accidentally cause Dragon Breaks? And if she is that damn powerful, how on earth did Mora alone manage to pretty much remove any trace of her? Which kind of brings me to my next point.

Memory Issues

I know, I know, Ithelia is not the first “new” Daedric Prince. (Which makes her stolen Jyggalag crystal vibes rather funny if you ask me.) And I don’t mind her being crazy powerful either, because so was Jyggalag or else he wouldn’t have been cursed. But that, to my knowledge, required several other Princes, whereas Ithelia apparently got owned by Hermaeus Mora alone, who then erased all memory of her. Which is not only quite the feat given how powerful she has to be, but also a very weird thing for Hermaeus Mora to do. I kinda thought stealing memories was more Meridia’s style. This entire part does not quite make sense to me yet and seems a little out of character, but well. By the way, speaking of Meridia…

Meridia-baiting the players

At this point, ZOS have to know we’re getting tired of waiting for villain Meridia. Everyone I know who is even the least bit interested in ESO’s storyline wants to see it. And I’ve seen people get their hopes up in recent days (new Meridia/Dawnbreaker-themed music box, the Ayleid ruin hint on the fragments sent to streamers…). Even in the twitch chat, there were people hyped about what they thought was Meridia, and who were disappointed when they were told it was Ithelia. And yes, I am absolutely saying they did this and made her a Meridia lookalike on purpose. But I’m well aware that we haven’t gotten any new hints about either Meridia or a certain someone since Greymoor, and that chapter will be four years old soon. Even I am beginning to give up, as much as I hate to say it.

By the way, I really did NOT appreciate Matt Firor name-dropping Darien right at the beginning. If you’re not planning to do anything with him, just let it go. I know absolutely nobody who appreciates being fed very tiny hints for two years and then being left in the dark for four years straight. If you don’t want to pick that storyline up again, just stuff the man into the Old Life quest and be done with it.

Honestly, once again, I’m gonna say this is a MASSIVE missed opportunity right here. ESO’s 10 year anniversary is coming up, what could possibly be better than to go back to the roots now and reward all those loyal players with the story they are waiting for? I distinctly recall Molag Bal telling me to watch my step around Meridia, and the setup is all there. I’m honestly disappointed that there is no Meridia content at all. And this ties in with my final point, albeit vaguely.

“Recurring” characters

Ah, yes, we do love recurring characters. Sometimes. We do love it when a fan favorite comes back – a character who’s accompanied the Vestige over the course of an entire story arc or has made multiple appearances over the years and has become beloved by many players, and, most importantly, who is well-written, i.e. has a unique personality. And that’s why “recurring characters” is not always a recipe for success when it comes to getting people hooked on a story.

It is when it’s one of the five companions, or a Ravenwatch member, or your main alliance buddy (Raz, Naryu and – oh, wait, yeah, us Covenant babies don’t have one anymore). It also works when it’s a character we’ve run across several times already, like Alchemy, who I know tons of people love, or my favorite walking disaster Revus Demnevanni.

But it’s certainly not working when it’s a character we barely know anything about, and who isn’t a hit with the community. Like Eveli’s brother whom I had to google because I could not remember who he was. He’s from a prologue quest. Nothing more. That’s not a “beloved returning character”.

ZOS have several of those just lying around, and they’re just not using them. And even the base game had so many characters that were there over the course of several zones, that were well-written and at least memorable to the degree that people would recognize them with just a little reminder, like Indaenir or Holgunn and Walks-in-Ash or the Vanos siblings. Hell, we haven't seen good old Vanus Galerion in a while. They are ten years old now and deserve to be dragged to the surface again.

Okay, I’m done now!

This concludes my rant (because that’s what it is, I’m aware). I just want to say again that this is not be dragging ESO through the mud, this is just me pointing out that the devs (especially the writers) could do so much better if they listened to their lore nerds and story-interested players more.

[alexanderwales]

Hey, have you watched/heard of the anime Sonny Boy? I've read about 3 million words of your writing and I think Sonny Boy would appeal to your creative interests -- especially the latter half of its 12 episode run. It has some things in common with Thresholder, minus the Cool Guys With Big Swords, but beyond the resemblance I think it's a well told story with lots of nice concepts to chew on.

I'd love to hear your take on it, if you end up watching it and felt inclined to share, but no pressure obviously.

Sonny Boy is one of my favorite anime.

There are a lot of things that I really liked about it, but non-traditional storytelling is one of the big ones. There's one bit of storytelling advice that I feel like I repeat a lot, which is that rather than saying "2 + 2 = 4" you can get a stronger impact from "2 + 2 =" and letting the reader do the math. And then there are some creators who go further, removing more and more pieces, and so long as there's something to it (rather than a lazy writer not wanting to do the work), I usually enjoy it. In the case of Sonny Boy this is also done for thematic reasons, I would assume, heightening a feeling of alienation and emphasizing the passage of time and rootlessness of the characters.

Aside from that, it's possessed of a slow melancholy that speaks to me, and a lot of the themes are ones that tumble around in my head. It feels like it gives itself a lot of room to breathe, too, which is something that I think anime excels at. I watched it and felt some feelings I associate with depression, but in a positive way. And it's a philosophical show, one that concerns itself with larger questions, even if it sidles up to them more than confronting them head on (though it does that too).

I'm less keen on the first few episodes, which felt a little more boilerplate at times.

I should also say that it's one of those things I don't recommend often, because yeah, I assume it's a show that not everyone appreciates. There are some media like that, which feel like they're speaking to me in a way that isn't about universal human experience, it's about my experience (and worldview).

[soullessjack]

talk about that stupid lil hedgehog. go hog wild (punintended)

oh my god i keep Trying to answer this and it keeps getting deleted somehow ok. deep breaths. and spoilers for the 3rd movie also.

SO.

sonic 3 is, naturally, a very loose adaptation of Sonic Adventure 2. and just like the other two movies there were details from the games that were either changed or taken out to better suit the movies, bc as much as they are sonic movies, they aren’t just beat-for-beat remakes. they’re definitely aiming to be their own thing while also respecting and keeping close with the source material they pulled from (and personally, I didn’t grow up with the games; I’m a watcher over a player; I’ve always had more interest in the game’a story than actually playing it—so just from a creative standpoint, I immediately respect any adaptation that does the same).

the 3rd movie has a lot of major detail changes for the sake of running with their own plot and trying to keep its PG rating, and it works fantastically. I’ve watched it twice already and there is no doubt in my mind I’ll watch it again bc it’s genuinely So Fucking Good. but one of the most important detail changes for me is how they handled Maria’s character. in the original SA2 game, and I don’t mean this as an insult or anything, Maria is frankly a non-character. she falls into the archetype of a character who exists just to die for the plot and doesn’t have much personality as a result. it’s not inherently a bad thing; it’s just a narrative tool. but the issue comes from how it’s done, because when it’s done right, it’s done right. but when it’s done wrong, it becomes lazy fridging (we as supernatural victims know this well).

I don’t think game-Maria was necessarily fridged; it’s her clear purpose in the story and pretty much a canon event that she and Gerald will always die (thanks gens), but it also makes her a little less interesting to engage with as her own character bc she isn’t really her own character. she’s like, the idea of shadow’s goodness. she’s this perfect paragon of love and kindness and forgiveness that, at 9-12 years old, somehow has a fully formed opinion on the nature of humanity as inherently good and worth being saved [by shadow]. it’s not bad storytelling, but it’s just a tad heavy handed.

movie-Maria, on the other hand, is an actual person. she still dies in the end, of course (canon event), but through shadow’s memories of her we’re able to see how she connected with him and what made that connection so important to him that it ruined him severely to lose. movie-Maria is just a kid. she’s curious, a little mischievous and plainly innocent. she doesn’t really know what shadow is or what his purpose on the Ark is, and she doesn’t really care. she just knows that she likes him and cares about him and that’s good enough for any kid. it’s all, “let’s watch movies together,” “let’s use your air shoes to roller-skate really fast around the colony,” “let’s dance to this record,”etc etc.

the actual scene is such an adorable little montage but it also shows how simplistically Maria connected with shadow and made him feel like more of a person. instead of directly asking shadow to be a good person and save the world, she encourages him to be whoever he wants to be. instead of sending him off and making a final promise with him, she just dies. suddenly and without any last words. which means shadow has no promise to remember like he did in the game. he doesn’t come to his senses because he finally remembered Maria actually wanted him to do good.

and that’s my segue into the second major difference of the movie! hooray for segues!

so, one of shadow’s final memories with Maria is sitting with her under the Ark’s dome and looking up at all the stars in space. just like the montage it is an adorable, even beautiful scene of them together all by itself and I had to pause the movie during my second watch to sob into my hands but the one thing I’m picking on today is when shadow tells her, “I don’t know what I’d do without you.” again, very simple, but still very hard hitting because we’re seeing in real time what he’s doing without her. we’re seeing how much her loss has affected him because we finally saw exactly what it was like, what it meant for him to have her in the first place.

and, between the game and the movie, shadow’s end goal is still revenge for Maria. her…presence…(?) her memory, at least, is still with him at every step of his plan and fueling him to go even further. in a way, it’s almost like Maria becomes the face of her own loss, because each time he remembers something about her, it’s only ever painful and only ever makes him more determined to enact revenge. and then when he beats the shit out of Tom (sonic’s dad who’s also kinda boring) (sorry), and the flash between sonic kneeling over him to shadow kneeling over Maria, it starts a sort of…tipping point for shadow to doubt if this is what he really wants or has to do.

and the thing is, it’s not about right and wrong with shadow. he knows what he’s doing is wrong (i personally must disagree with revenge on the military for murdering a child being framed as wrong but this is a paramount produced kids movie so that’s how it goes). he knows it’s just pure, anger driven revenge for the sake of revenge and he doesn’t care. in his own words, it’s who he is internally, bc it’s all he’s had or known for the last 50 years. and then, when he and gerald are on the eclipse cannon together, shadow asks him, “is this really what Maria would’ve wanted?” again, it’s not about right or wrong for shadow (or even Gerald honestly). it’s just about Maria and avenging her and dying in the process bc nothing is worth living or saving anymore, including themselves. that is, until Gerald responds, “the question isn’t ‘is it what Maria would’ve wanted,’ the question is ‘what do they deserve?’ Remember what she meant to us; remember what they took from us.”

I genuinely think that was Shadow’s wakeup call (and I love how it was changed from Maria simply wanting Shadow to be good all along, to Shadow coming to that realization for himself). pretty soon after that exchange, the fight between him and sonic starts and the entire time it’s just shadow instigating and antagonizing sonic to do his worst and End It. Straight up kill him, bc he’s too far gone now and there isn’t even enough time left to begin processing any doubt or regret for it all, and the plan was always a revenge-suicide-genocide anyways (you know, for kids!)

let’s go back a few paragraphs to when I said that Maria had almost become the face of her own loss, her own absence, because shadow’s memory of her only fueled his pain and determination to destroy everything. just like her game iteration, she’s an idea now. she’s an embodiment of the past, for better or for worse, for both shadow and Gerald. and remember, in both the game and the movie, it’s Gerald’s need for revenge that sparks shadow’s. Gerald uses shadow’s grief and anger to encourage it and it does eventually become shadow’s own goal too, but Gerald always wanted it first. shadow was just a means to an end that he thought he wanted.

it’s Gerald who tells shadow to remember what Maria meant and remember how it was taken, while shadow focuses on her and how she would’ve felt. and I really think it’s that moment afterwards that pulled shadow out of it, just enough to try and instigate his own death since the cannon can’t be stopped and, again, even if he did regret his actions, it won’t matter after everything is done. he thinks he’s just as far gone as Gerald is with this need for revenge and anger and hatred. he thinks This is who he is, until sonic gives him the classic “it doesn’t have to be who you are. love is stronger than pain, and even if she’s gone the love you had for her is still there, so keep going on that instead of the pain.”

(paraphrasing like crazy but it is genuinely a very well written scene like all the others.. IT’S A CINEMATIC MASTERPIECE AND I AM DEAD SERIOUS ABOUT THAT).

I’m not trying to say the original game’s story is any lesser or not impactful, and if I did that would just be a straight lie bc that’s one of Sega’s most renowned games in the franchise to this day, but I do think it hits a lot harder for shadow to have this arc away from Maria, if that makes sense. no final promise, no idea of what she wanted him to be. she’s not the embodiment of all that was good in him, but she was the support system he needed to (eventually) realize he could be good and be more than his purpose.

[cookieandbread]

SPOILER FOR TUA S4

because I'm French (a hater at heart) here's everything I disliked about tua s4

it felt like half a season. and yeah there was half as much episode as there is usually, but even in the storytelling it felt like half of the story was missing (notably the EXPLANATIONS on so many things)

Klaus being sidelined. AGAIN. just kill him at this point if you have no idea what to do with him (I mean they did kill him so....)

since we're on Klaus, every season I feel like I'm rewatching him doing the EXACT. SAME. THING. but in a different outfit + hair. there's a commentary that could be made about being stuck in the vicious circle of addiction, which, fair. but while s2 shows that vicious circle, s3 and s4 are just a repeat of s1 because the writers were lazy.

I HATED the Lila x Five thing. it's not so much about the ship (that I don't like anyway) but I feel like it's an insult to both characters (but particularly Five) to make it happen. Lila loves Diego, and even through the hard parts of their marriage she tried her best to make it work. and Five? Five "I waited 45 years in the apocalypse and became a time assassin just to get back to my family" Hargreeves? you're going to tell me that THAT Five would dare to do something that would shatter his brother's entire world? PLEASE.

the ending is lazy. I'm all for tragic endings that make people cry until they drown in their own tears, but only when they're WELL DONE. this just felt like "oh idk what to do anymore with them so let's kill everyone". and I saw it coming since the beginning of the season so...

is it me or was there more gore and swears than all the other seasons? like I get they finally had the right to swear and all that, but I feel like it was a little overdone? idk maybe that's just me

most characters felt like caricature of themselves, notably Luther. (tbh for Luther it has felt like that for a few seasons now, but the issue extended to other characters this season). either that or it felt like they had no reasons to be here, like Viktor.

why did Ben make everyone drink the marigold? he could've just took some himself and that's all. why did they even need to vote on that considering the fact that, even if one of them took marigold, not all of them would get their powers back?

s3 post-credit scene wasn't explained AT ALL???? all the season I was waiting for Umbrella!Ben to pop up in the tube station with Five & Lila but nope. nothing. did they even rewatch the previous seasons before making this one?

WHERE IS THE INCREDIBLE SOUNDTRACK???? THE ONLY THING I THOUGHT WOULDN'T FAIL ME FAILED ME?????

WHERE WAS THE DANCE SEQUENCE????

probably forgot some things but idc anymore at this point (which is probably more care than Steve Blackman put into this season)

[artist-issues]

Hey, it’s me again

I know this was a while back but I just remembered what you said about cultivating tastes

My unwillingness to do so cane from my experience from those who lectured me to do the same but they themselves did not practiced what they preached

"You need to curate your tastes if your tired of being disappointed with shows"

Fine *does so*

"Ugh, you're so close minded and immature, why don't you take risks, broaden your horizons, and cultivate your tastes?"

Okay, why don't you do that too?

"Well I prefer the broad and nitty gritty things tragically, which are broad and risky by default so I don't need to do that."

It just felt like people like me had to keep bending over backwards and follow all these rules and regulations while those who preferred things tragically could just do whatever and act however they want

They were kinda like Uncle Andrew from The Magician’s Nephew, they have these deeper knowledge of things and are not bound to the same rules as us ordinary people

Hey, I'll be honest, I can't find my answer to your original ask and I don't fully remember our conversation (I vaguely remember the context, though!)

I mean, Uncle Andrew was wrong and being ridiculous when he said that rules don't apply to people like himself. But I guess that's your point.

I don't understand. So people are telling you that you should like things that are "gritty and tragic?" And that that is where your deficiency in taste is? Thats silly. A story is not high-quality because it has "grit" or "tragedy" in it. It has high quality elements if the "grit" or "tragedy" support the main point of the story well. But tragedy or grit for the sake of shock-jock emotion-grabbing is a waste of time and energy.

Also, I'm not advocating for adjusting your tastes so that you like disappointing shows. I don't know who is doing that, but whoever they are, that's a silly goal. It's like telling someone who got sick because they ate a whole can of spray-cheese, "you know what, it's just because you're not used to it. Eat another can of spray-cheese and you'll gradually start liking it."

Okay, well, that's a terrible goal to have. I don't want to have a taste for something that is bad. I don't want to like spray cheese, which tastes awful and also has no nutritional value and is going to make me sick. There's no point in me liking it. It's a good thing that my body's (my tastes') natural response is to reject something that is bad. Why would I want to dull it? Disappointment in a show that is poorly made and has no value is a defense mechanism that you shouldn't disable.

All I'm saying is, why are you disappointed in the show? Is it because it's poorly made? Is it because the story has no point, or makes its point badly? <- Those are good reasons to be disappointed in the show.

Or is it just because the story doesn't have the kind of "flavors" you are used to liking? Maybe the tragedy serves the story (like Sydney Carton dying in a Tale of Two Cities) but you don't like to feel sad for any reason, (even though feeling sad in the case of A Tale of Two Cities can lead you to appreciating the lesson better) so you don't read/watch that story because it's not your "flavor." <- That's an example of a not-very-good reason for being disappointed in a story.

And ultimately, who cares what other people are doing or liking? Figure out what is good, true, beautiful—objectively, whether anyone believes it or not. Then measure everything by that, whether everyone else does or not. And shrug off people's badly-thought-out reasons for liking or disliking something.

I believe and have found it to be true that God invented storytelling by inventing this reality we're living in. And His story has a point. And everything He put in His story—the setting, the characters, the mood, the way it all works—points back to the point of the story, and it does so in a beautiful, engaging way, with no shortcuts or laziness in craft. Therefore, all human-made stories are echoes of that. Some of our echoes are really good, close resemblances to God's story, because they support the main point of their story in an engaging way. But some are not, because they don't. It's a simple metric to measure things by.

But some people's standard is just "does the story entertain me?" And that's a fine sub-standard. Stories can't be engaging if they're not, on some level, entertaining. But it's a terrible ULTIMATE standard—because your tastes in entertainment can be bad, or change, or be inconsistent. Other people's standards are "does the story make me feel something?" But that's another poor ultimate standard. Because an emotional bit of music can make you feel just about anything, for a moment, even if the story behind it makes no sense. Better to ask, "what is the story making me feel, about what?"

Anyway. Thats what I believe. So I don't give two shakes of a lamb's tail what other people think I should like or dislike. I mean, I'll consider it, if they have good reasons for me to like or dislike something. But the point is, I know what I believe about the world. So I know what I believe about storytelling. And I'm trying to train my tastes to match up with that—regardless of who agrees or disagrees with me.

[atla-confessions]

Jinko is cute, but extremely overated.

No, Jin is not Zukos one true love after one date. A date that mind you was dry and awkward till the fountain scene which I actually love but still ended terribly. We literally don't know anything about jin except that she's cute and flirty. So people love to push their own head cannons about her and project unto her to make arguments like "jin is a refugee" where did it say that??? "She wanted to save zuko" no she just found him cute which isn't a crime. "She's a dork like zuko" no she was very socially capable that much was obvious.

I didn't even know people took this ship seriously until I saw people on basically every social commenting on ANY other Zuko ships post: "he should have ended up with the ba sing se girl". It's fun to talk about the possibility of it, but taking this ship so seriously is baffling to me and flooding every other Ships comment sections is really grating. Honestly (some) of the fans surprisingly really toxic. I'm not really a Maiko shipper but they rag on Mai endlessly and claim that Jin would be able to handle zukos temper tantrums where Mai could not. 1. We don't know anything about Jin. 2. Why do Women always have to take the blame for not coddling men?

They also compare their personalities saying Jin is compassionate where Mai is not. Again context matters, Jin asked Zuko out on a date so she's trying to impress him, Mai and Zuko are already in a relationship so of course they won't be lovey dovey the entire time, Mai has her moments too don't forget "I love zuko more than I fear you" which of course they always argue that one grand act of love is not equal to a million mini acts of love, but Jin never GAVE a million mini acts of love, again with the headcanons.

They rag on soo many of the casts female characters especially Ty Lee because Jin is "the better version" or Katara cause she's too "serious" to counter Zutarians. I just don't like when people pin Women against each other for Men, especially when their ideal pick is a projection of what they want like that Jin is forward with Zuko which I would argue is what ruined the date (who kisses on the first date?? Why is zuko clowned on for not reciprocating ??) Or that Jin would fix him, and that she's more submissive and "lively" and gives him "bedroom eyes" it just feels icky.

Idk I just think it doesn't make sense for Zuko, the firelord, most eligible bachelor in the fire nation to go back to Ba sing se and try to find a girl he had one failed date with years ago instead of just finding someone new for himself. It would read off as really lazy storytelling and make zuko look like a loser. Jin like her fans say, is shown to be very flirty and forward, I would not be surprised if after the date she found another cute tea shop boy to ask out and be with.

This isn't an attack against Jinko shippers, a lot of them are very sweet and minding their own business. I just hate when Female characters are dragged through the mud just to make comparisons. Or when a ship is taken too seriously and the shippers start attack anyone who doesn't agree (this applies to every ship).

X