#you can disagree of course

[thegingerlikes]

Before I begin, @therese-lokidottir, @ripfic, I have read and understand your interpretations. I'd like to make clear I don't think Thor was a great brother: neither of them were, to be honest.

First, I will address ripfic's comment and clarify myself: “Thor has changed into the brother Loki has always wanted” I understand from the first and second movies that Loki wanted Thor to be more responsible, smarter, and more cunning (and more understanding of Loki). I believe Thor did change in these ways, making him a more appealing brother to Loki. This is the context of my statement. "Loki became more empathetic person” After the events of Avengers, Loki works with Thor to save his girlfriend. When he takes the throne of Asgard, he's not a dictator like he was on Earth, and during Ragnarok he comes to help when he could have escaped. He isn't fully redeemed by any means-- he's a trickster (antihero?) and we love him for it-- but he is arguably more empathetic than in Thor, when he literally tries to kill his brother and commit genocide.

Now, I'll try to reply to therese-lokidottir as concisely as I can.

"so what your saying is--" I could cut you off at the pass here and say "no, that's not what I'm saying" and leave it, but I'm going to approach your points in good faith.

"Thor didn't see Loki because it would have been hard and Thor didn't want to deal with that. Well, Loki went to see Thor knowing it would be hard and still offered to help." The problem here is the two scenes are taken out of context. Why was Loki in prison? Because he'd led an army to invade a world, resulting in the deaths of many people. Thor had an emotional connection to the reason why Loki was in prison, so he has a dilemma about visiting him. Why was Thor in prison? Because their sister had thrown them out of the Bifrost onto Sakar, and Thor had been forced into slavery while Loki hadn't. Loki has no emotional connection to Thor being in prison, so he has no dilemma about visiting him. Why is Thor mad at Loki while in the Sakari dungeon? Because he just found out Loki is alive (again), sort-of banished their father, and now Odin has died. Loki isn't outwardly sad about Odin's death (which is fine, he was a bad person), but Thor is mourning and has little patience for Loki.

"Loki went to see Thor in the hope that maybe he understand the pain of being lied to his whole. Life has proved to Loki that he is loved conditionally and yet in the end he'll always help Thor." I saw that as a bit of a sardonic line, but you make a good point. I agree that Loki has struggled with where he belongs and being loved, as many adoptees do. "In the end" indeed. I don't think that could be said about Avengers Loki, but I do think Loki has grown as a character, showing love for others and Thor even though they might not in return. That's a good character arc.

"Why does the odinfam get credit for "loving" Loki even though didn't provide the care he needed but Loki never gets anything even though he's proven time and again that he really does love his family."

I don't give them credit. The whole family is flawed, it's a Shakespearean tragedy. I would argue they do love him, but none of them show it well. I do want to point out, that Loki's tragic past does not justify his actions as a villain. And as a villain, he does need to be punished for the pathos of the story (including jail time). But I'm glad Loki got a redemption arc (which he did need) because he's such a compelling character.

"Loki is willing to put in the work Thor just wants Loki to do what he wants." I contest that both brothers have put in work. The whole point of the first film was Thor learning to be a better person. When Loki tries to kill him, Thor apologizes. Both brothers are trying, but not in the way the other wants them to, which causes conflict. What I've always liked about the Thor and Loki dynamic is I can always see where both of them are coming from.

"Thor suspects that someone else is behind Loki's actions," Citation needed. I rewatched that scene in Avengers: neither Loki nor Thor suggest a third party behind the scenes. Loki only says "it can't be stopped."

"but when Loki says he can't stop Thor doesn't even bother looking in to it," "But when Loki says he can't stop"-- Thor smiles and says they can do it, together. Then Loki stabs him.

"not even as a strategical move in case the person behind it might cause more problems." That is one of Thor's flaws: not planning ahead. You see him get better at it over the films, an improvement Loki likes, btw. But again, I don't think Thor had any idea Loki was working for someone in Avengers. Maybe he should have, but he didn't.

"Nope, just leave Loki on the floor to rot and never talks to him because it might be hard and so why bother."

"Never" is a bit strong. I think Loki is in jail maybe 2 weeks before Thor breaks him out. Is 2 weeks long enough to process a beloved family member coming back from the dead, committing war crimes, and trying to kill you, all of which they are outwardly unrepentant for? To be fair to Loki, I don't think he expected Thor to forgive him without a little persuasion.

Loki does go to visit Thor immediately on Sakar but, again, Loki isn't angry with Thor at the time.

Before I conclude, a short explanation of my understanding of Thanos and Loki. From the films (I'm not counting supplementary material or interviews), we know Loki ended up working for Thanos and Thanos is not nice to him. We don't know to what extent. We see in the Avengers he can cause pain from afar, not that he can control Loki's actions. From what I can remember, Loki took a lot of joy in attacking Earth, and expected to rule it. And I haven't seen all of the Loki show, but I don't think he ever tells his family that Thanos hurt him, and they didn't know to ask. Thor doesn't even know Thanos exists until Infinity War. So I can't say they neglected Loki in this way, because his adopted family literally had no idea it happened.

In conclusion, I love the Thor and Loki dynamic. I love them both separately, but they're at their best when they're together: and not with Thor ruling over Loki or vice versa, but as equals. I hope we get to see more of that in live action somehow. While Odin was a bad dad and Frigga was arguably passive, Thor's flaws are presented as flaws and he grows through them, as Loki does. Though he's not great at it, Thor tries to love and forgive and understand Loki. Loki also loves Thor, and though he doesn't always show it, when he does he does it with a grand gesture for all to see, which is cute.

TL;DR: Loki and Thor are flawed, fun characters. Loki has a tragic past and becomes a villain, then a hero. Thor is raised as a warrior, becomes a hero, then undergoes immense amounts of tragedy. I don't see the point of pitting them against each other, especially when the characters themselves don't want that.

Dark World: Thor presumably doesn’t visit Loki in solitary confinement for a year, until he absolutely has to. He blames him, cuts ties of bonding over lost mother, threatens him, and is just there to use Loki’s skills because there was literally no one else.

Ragnarok: Loki visits Thor in his populated jail cell on day 1 at risk to his own reputation, bonds over lost father, offers Thor help at the cost of his own safety…

[forgetful-nerd]

I’m absolutely fascinated how TMNT 2003, TMNT 2012, and ROTTMNT establish who is the initial “best fighter” among the turtles and it has been a different turtle for each series.

For 2003 TMNT, it’s Leonardo who is the only one to beat Master Splinter’s exercise.

For TMNT 2012, it’s Raph who wins a sparagainst all of his brothers

And for ROTTMNT, it’s Donnie who holds his own against Baron Draxum

It would be awesome if TOTTMNT continued this trend and established Mikey as their best fighter.

[theysies]

wishing all crowdkillers a very painful day. u must taste what u inflict.

for real, crowdkilling doesn't make you punk, it makes you a dangerous asshole who clearly doesn't care about the health and safety of those in your community. quite literally the opposite of punk.

last night after getting badly injured by some cis dude during a song about, by, and for lesbians, someone told me it was my "fault for going to the show". no it's fucking not. attending a show is not an open invitation to be maimed.

punk should be accessible for disabled people. punk is largely FOR and BY disabled people. anybody that says "well if you're disabled then you shouldn't go" can fuck themselves into oblivion. it was OUR show. an event put on and performed by disabled queers. FOR DISABLED QUEERS. ALWAYS.

disabled people have just as much right to attend events as you do. in fact I'd argue we have more of a right to be there bc we don't constantly put the general public at risk of bodily harm.

we should be able to attend our own shows without the risk of life changing injuries bc some dude is taking his anger out on a bunch of strangers.

don't get me wrong, I love moshing. mosh all u want, but have some fucking etiquette and remember that not everybody is healthy and able bodied. and they especially wont be if yall keep hurting everyone.

punk is about community. it's about caring for eachother and creating a safe place for people to express themselves. it is NOT about being violent or destructive, or seeing how many innocent people you can mow down. if you do that shit you're not punk, you're just an asshole.

[mamawasatesttube]

people who go into superhero comics (the "heroes don't kill" genre, where (admittedly, often very flawed) discussion of the morality of taking a life and themes of lawfulness, vigilanteism, and redemption are like the entire foundations of the genre) and then get pissy about how they want edgier protagonists who kill their enemies. bro just go watch Generic Action Blockbuster #74821384

[maythedreadwolftakeyou]

perhaps my most #cancelable videogame take i can post on this website is i think that the kind of people who say that anyone who picks the "morally wrong" or "mean" options in video game dialogue should, as a player, feel bad about their own choices/morals in real life. is that those people are just another flavor of the kind of dudes who play Disco Elysium and get mad for not being rewarded for picking the facist options. both of these groups are reducing games to "a thing I want to agree with me and everyone else who doesn't either suffers or does not have the option to play a character who behaves otherwise" rather than "a medium where you get to (or even Have to) explore different kinds of characters in order to experience the full depth of the story and characters in it."

When I want to pick options in a game that are mean, negative, arrogant, or ignorant, it's because I want to explore what would push a character into becoming that kind of person. Sometimes I want to see how the NPC characters who I-The-Player like/agree with react to someone who is fundamentally different from them. I think it's GOOD actually when the narrative allows you to push limits and especially when it has the option to then punish you for it in some way, such as losing options/routes later on, or companions straight up abandoning you for your choices. It DOES often make me deeply, viscerally uncomfortable to make choices in a game that are so counter to my own, but it means I get to experience that discomfort in an isolated environment and also think about what it means, what would push the character or even yes a real person into actually feeling those things. And I get to play with what ways the narrative could challenge them/make them grow over the course of the game--or on the other side, it can let me make a character who does start off more open/accepting but let the events of the narrative push them into being more reactively closed-minded instead.

I like that we have invented a medium where you can play a game multiple times and experience it differently depending on the character you play as. Books and TV and movies are all static--the greatest draw of games to me is the ones that are responsive, that can tell a slightly different story every time--when other characters in the game respond differently to you because of it, or some paths open up and others don't. And so yes it did disappointment me when a franchise that previously had these elements, Dragon Age, did not include them in the most recent installment. I don't think games should have options where you get to just hit a button to say something racist with no consequences or exploration into why a character would do that. but like, if i can only ever play a game as an upstanding person who is morally right all the time in basically the same flavor for every dialogue. I only get to truly play that game Once, you know? And I only get to see the way the companions react to someone they like and trust. And never really go deeper than that.

So like... I just sit and think about the scenes you can get in Inquisition. with Cassandra breaking down, because she fears she placed a would-be tyrant at the head of a powerful organization--that she searched and searched and chose wrong. Of Varric who is desperate to convince you not to become a monster, like the last person he feels betrayed him. Vivienne intentionally pissing you off because she wants to see how far you'll go when angered, how much she has to worry about your reactions. They say so much about the companions, what they fear most, and where they will draw the line. And especially in Inquisition, at these crisis points--you don't have to double down. Your character can have a come-to-Andraste moment where they go "woah... is that really how people see me? is this what i want?" and I think that kind of option can do way more for encouraging actual players to examine the choices they make in stories, more than locking the player into supportive, non-aggressive options does.

now. do i think all games execute these flavors well? no. writers and devs will have their own biases and blind spots, even if they are otherwise well-intentioned. and I don't think the ends of the scale need to extend from "absolute angel" to "horrible bigot", because the real complexity of course lies in the middle. I am not asking for games to let me be bigoted at every turn, what I want is games that let me make the protagonist deeply flawed in one or more ways--fearfully closed-minded to things outside their upbringing, or afraid of change to the status quo, or who want to advance their own aims regardless of consequences to others. I actually agree that the game was correct not to include any options for disrespecting Taash and their personal journey for example, but I do wish... idk maybe that we could have had a scene where if for instance the player character avoided outside-world missions relating to clearing away blight, they could confront us on how this might devastate the natural world and its creatures like dragons, and push us into trying to resolve it. Or in the other direction, if you spend the (currently meaningless) time giving money to background NPCs begging in the cities, Neve could could have a special cutscene thanking you for your attention to people otherwise beneath notice. You know?

And of course not every game can do this, I can write those sentences up there that represent hundreds of hours of dev time, of course they can't do it all. But the prior games usually did have at least a little of this, and that was enough to make me really fall in love. I KNOW the tumultuous development cycle, restarts from scratch, interference from higher-ups all contributed to why Veilguard was unable to hit those same marks this time. And we probably won't ever know how much of the loss of options/reactivity was intention vs a side effect of these things. But I wish people wouldn't frame players who miss these aspects as insane/morally corrupt. When for most of us it's because we genuinely enjoy challenging and exploring these aspects of reality in fiction in a way entirely unlike what we actually support in real life. i fully acknowledge not everyone desires to play this way. and that's fine!!! i am glad people can enjoy doing a "good" run each time that brings them joy. but for me it really limits the potential bounds of my enjoyment i guess. I like media that is complicated and messy and makes me think, and extra so when I get to see how playing that way impacts the greater story around it.

[quadrantadvisor]

Batfam Secret Garden au?

Tim as Mary, the neglected orphaned child of rich socialite parents who moves into a large and forboding manor owned by a man they've never met

Damian as Colin, the lord of the house's hidden sickly son with an imperious manner

Dick as Martha, the kind natured house servant who first starts to break though our protagonist's walls

Jason as Dickon, Martha's younger sibling, who has such a way with the world around him that he seems to be magic

And of course Bruce as Mr. Craven, a man so preoccupied by his grief that he can't see what's right in front of him

Book quote examples under the cut:

[...] her mother had been a great beauty who cared only to go to parties and amuse herself with gay people. She had not wanted a little girl at all, and when Mary was born she handed her over to the care of an Ayah, who was made to understand that if she wished to please the Mem Sahib she must keep the child out of sight as much as possible.

"Oh!" cried Mary, "is he [Mr. Craven] going away to-morrow? I am so glad!"

"He's goin' for a long time. He mayn't come back till autumn or winter. He's goin' to travel in foreign places. He's always doin' it."

"Oh! I'm so glad—so glad!" said Mary thankfully.

Mistress Mary went a step nearer to the robin and looked at him very hard.

"I'm lonely," she said.

She had not known before that this was one of the things which made her feel sour and cross. She seemed to find it out when the robin looked at her and she looked at the robin.

"I like Dickon," added Mary. "And I've never seen him."

"Well," said Martha stoutly, "I've told thee that th' very birds likes him an' th' rabbits an' wild sheep an' ponies, an' th' foxes themselves. I wonder," staring at her reflectively, "what Dickon would think of thee?"

"He wouldn't like me," said Mary in her stiff, cold little way. "No one does."

Martha looked reflective again.

"How does tha' like thysel'?" she inquired, really quite as if she were curious to know.

Mary hesitated a moment and thought it over. "Not at all—really," she answered. "But I never thought of that before."

Secretly [Mary] quite believed that Dickon worked Magic, of course good Magic, on everything near him and that was why people liked him so much and wild creatures knew he was their friend.

At first the robin watched Mary and Colin with sharp anxiety. For some mysterious reason he knew he need not watch Dickon. The first moment he set his dew-bright black eye on Dickon he knew he was not a stranger but a sort of robin without beak or feathers.

Even Mary had found out that one of Colin's chief peculiarities was that he did not know in the least what a rude little brute he was with his way of ordering people about. He had lived on a sort of desert island all his life and as he had been the king of it he had made his own manners and had had no one to compare himself with.

[Mr. Craven] had not meant to be a bad father, but he had not felt like a father at all. He had supplied doctors and nurses and luxuries, but he had shrunk from the mere thought of the boy and had buried himself in his own misery.

Colin put out his hand and laid it on his father's arm.

"Aren't you glad, Father?" he ended.

"Aren't you glad? I'm going to live forever and ever and ever!"

Mr. Craven put his hands on both the boy's shoulders and held him still. He knew he dared not even try to speak for a moment.

"Take me into the garden, my boy," he said at last. "And tell me all about it."

[bigskydreaming]

One of the most fascinating things about Dick Grayson to me, in universe, is how among those who know him well, he has probably the most famous origin story, while simultaneously he's the one who most famously has people fail to factor in how his origin story defines him.

What I mean by that is "everyone knows" the story of how Dick Grayson came to live with Bruce Wayne, and among the cape community who know their identities, this translates to how Dick Grayson came to be Robin.....

But over and over in his character dynamics and interactions, we see evidence of how thoroughly distanced he is from that origin, in peoples' eyes, compared to how Bruce and even Clark and countless other heroes are "summed up" by their origin stories and how they relate to and inform their drive as heroes.

Its in how people talk about how he's moved on from his initial tragedy in ways Bruce never has and likely never will, how seamlessly he fits in wherever he goes, how he's regarded as one of the world's most talented acrobats but how often that goes hand in hand with all the acrobatics he does as Robin and then Nightwing rather than because he was already that long before he ever put on a cape, etc.

People in universe, even while being AWARE of Dick Grayson's origin story in a way that they're rarely aware of the origin stories of more than five others of their close personal friends, rarely factor his origin story in to why or how he does various things, both as a hero and as just a person. Because there's this implicit perception among so many that he's the golden standard of Moving On, becoming more than his initial tragedy, etc.

And I think that's so fascinating to consider in light of the fact that I personally think this is the one area Dick himself will NEVER agree with anyone on. And its also why I think the Robin issue is such an unhealed wound for him, at least in any and all post-Crisis continuities that use a variation of him having been fired from Robin rather than willingly giving the mantle over to his younger brother Jason, as he moves on to a new stage of his life as Nightwing. (And there too, I think its unfortunate that so much examination/nostalgia for the original pre-Crisis Nightwing origin is focused on Dick's dynamic with BRUCE, as in 'originally Bruce did nothing wrong and Dick was ready to let go of Robin and made a choice to' vs focusing it on how the thing that was lost with the pre-Crisis origin of Nightwing is its probably the only time Dick actually DID demonstrate that he'd made a kind of peace with his parents' death and was ready to move forward from it on his own terms).

Because to Dick "I'm literally crafting my superhero persona in a way that screams You Can Drag The Boy Kicking and Screaming From The Circus But You Won't Drag The Circus From The Boy Until He's Damn Well Good and Ready" Grayson.....

Becoming Robin was his way of coping with his parents' murder and his initial tragedy, but no, he very much never DID get to part with the time capsule he'd made of that via the Robin Mantle in his own time and on his own terms (at least not in any post-Crisis continuity).

So every time someone takes it for granted that he's moved on or makes some reference to the idea that he's not defined or "held back" by his initial tragedy the way so many others are, especially in the Batfam, he just gets this wry smirk that doesn't touch his eyes, the most blatantly false mask a man known for his many masks has ever been seen wearing, and people just get very uncomfortable and hurry the conversation along, because there's an implicit hidden SOMETHING underscoring that interaction they just had with Dick, and like. They don't WANT to unpack it or examine it too closely because on an intuitive level there's this awareness that if they ever did, it would risk upheaving their entire understanding of who Dick Grayson is and what motivates him, and for so many members of his family and community who rely on him as a foundational support, a bedrock of the cape/Gotham community who they know and trust to be a certain way......that's not an uncertainty they want to contend with, an upheaval they want to make time for.

And if there's anything Dick truly resents his family and community for, I believe its that. The idea that all the information is there, to KNOW that there's a specific way in which Dick Grayson Is Not Okay and that he doesn't feel comfortable letting on about that because he keeps getting hit with signals from everyone he knows that They Need Him To Be Okay With This, and so this perception of him as the gold standard of Moving On With Your Life persists, all while he's like "I Very Much The Fuck Have NOT Moved On, and I Never Will So Long As Nobody Wants to Contend With the Fact That Its Explicitly BECAUSE I Was Never Granted The Opportunity To Do So In My Own Time and Way."

[evermorepeyton]

64 quotes and maaaany comments acting like this person actually murdered someone or something pls

[theokusgallery]

I was reminded of that again. Okay if you think having empathy is essential to being a good person I will kill you. With warm thanks from your local zero-empathy haver

[catboyhdb]

people who say sex scenes should be cut out of movies im sorry I can't take you seriously 🙏 get well soon

[carlyraejepsans]

for real WHERE does the idea that [utdr humans] are nongendered so that "you can project on them" come from. their literal character arcs are about NOT being a blank slate to be filled in by the audience

i think i understand the assumption on some level for undertale, because there is a very intentional effort to make you identify with the "player character" in order to make your choices feel like your own (the beating heart of undertale's metanarrative lies in giving you an alternative path to violence against its enemies after all, and whether you're still willing to persue it for your own selfish reasons. YOUR agency is crucial).

of course, the cardinal plot twist of the main ending sweeps the rug from under your feet on that in every way, and frisk's individuality becomes, in turn, a tool to further UT's OTHER main theme: completionism as a form of diegetic violence within the story. replaying the game would steal frisk's life and happy ending from them for our own perverse sentimentality, emotionally forcing our hand away from the reset button.

i think their neutrality absolutely aids in that immersion. but also, there's this weird attitude by (mostly) cis fans where it being functional within the story makes it... somehow "editable" and "up to the player" as well? which is gross and shows their ass on how they approach gender neutrality in general lol.

but also like. there's plenty of neutral, non PCharacters in undertale and deltarune. even when undertale was just an earthbound fangame and the player immersion metanarrative was completely absent, toby still described frisk as a "young, androgynous person". sometimes characters are just neutral by design. it's not that hard to understand lol.

anyone who makes this argument for kris deltarune is braindead. nothing else to say about it.

[korrasamibottles]

Yeah Venom of the Red Lotus showed us how crazy powerful Korra is but The Last Stand had Korra transform the destructive power of a massive bomb blast into something regenerative in the culmination of one of the best character arcs I've ever seen. In my OPINION!!

[anghraine]

It's weird to describe any Tolkien thoughts as "coming out of nowhere" given who I am as a person, but I woke up thinking about Ghân-buri-ghân.

I wish the depiction of him were not deeply entrenched in noble savage tropes, because there's something kind of amazing in this idea of a people who have barely survived through the ages yet still persist; who saw the earliest warning signs and ditched Númenor before most people had the slightest idea of what was going to happen; who have gotten profoundly screwed over by basically everyone except (iirc) the Haladin; who have had their own powers since the First Age; who have always been implacable opponents of Morgoth's and Sauron's forces, even as these days they're hunted for sport by the Rohirrim; and at the same time who are facing down the threat of total obliteration by Sauron. And Ghân-buri-ghân manages to navigate all of this and get his people security and autonomy.

So like ... there's a seed of a really intriguing concept there, but I'm not sure Middle-earth has ever been in the right hands to actually do it right.

[smile-files]

randall really appreciates henry, as henry really appreciates him...

i imagine that randall is so keen on making hershel love archeology as much as he does because he's tired of people either finding his passion for it frivolous (his father, dalston) or dangerous (angela) - so far, henry's the only person who, by understanding archeology himself, can understand how much it means to randall.

all this talk of henry is interesting... given how strict and diligent he is, i'm getting the impression that randall's father sees servants as more valuable than sons, at least in terms of those he has. i wouldn't say that's made him treat henry the same as randall or better, as henry is a servant, but that's part of it: because henry's a servant, and a good one at that, he has no silly little hobbies or silly little emotions to get in the way of maintaining the household. mr ascot sees both of them in terms of their roles to that end, with randall as future head-of-household and henry as servant future butler, and he thinks henry better fits his role than randall fits his - he's in an inferior position, sure, but henry is more useful to the household name than randall is. ultimately, though, randall is treated as a son (even if he's treated badly), while henry isn't; you can imagine that, despite living under the same roof, they were not raised "together" in any real sense of the word. i don't suppose mr ascot really loves henry, per se, even if he's fond of him... i suppose i might find out later, but i'm unsure of how henry ended up in the ascot household to begin with. is he the child of some other staff at the house? was he orphaned, only to be taken in as a servant and not an adopted son? either way, he seems to have entered the picture surrounded by the knowledge that he wasn't truly part of the family, that he wasn't an ascot child... though i wondered how he entered the picture to begin with...

[potatobugz]

do you think the mess in oshiros hotel is meant to signify that hes been letting his problems pile up until its become too overwhelming to handle.

im thinking about the fact that he's definitely the one who's been making the mess but he doesn't even realize it. he ignores the clutter until it becomes too hard to ignore you know? like when it starts actively blocking the way to the presidential suite. he insists that he and his staff will handle it and that madeline shouldn't clean up his own mess, but he still doesn't do anything about it. does he know that the staff is gone? that it's just him there?

mr oshiro is so hell bent on impressing madeline so that she'll stay in his hotel. he's so in denial of everything. he doesn't even realize he's dead, he still thinks his hotel never got shut down. I think his insistence on her staying is bc he really wants to believe that the hotel is open, and a costumer would affirm that belief. it could also maybe be a mixture of loneliness too. (also, him treating her as a costumer even after she says no is absolutely him being in denial. that man is very unhealthily attached to this hotel,)

and even though it was nice of madeline to clean it up, there's still parts of the hotel she can't fix. the plumbing. the windows. the, hole in the ceiling (oops.) she's not qualified to help him, and that's why I think the chapter ends on a bit of a sour note. madeline is of course not a bad person for wanting to help, the point is that she can't. it is unfortunate but true

anyways mr oshiro is a very good character i like him a regular amount. im normal about that old man

[hadesknockedupintheunderworld]

Ngl it's weird finishing the Knuckles tv show and going to tumblr about it only for people (even who I consider bigger name fans) who also watched the entire show to claim that it "confirmed Knuckles Wachowski"

Like

I'm sorry

Did you somehow miss the part in the last episode where Knuckles had a whole montage of hanging with the Whipple family and Wade and saying "home" or something?