#80s aestheic | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

marine-indie-gal · 1 year

Text

Ok, so little Unpopular Opinion to say the least, but I actually do like The Super Mario Bros Movie with Bob Hoskins (even though most of the Movie's Plots were indeed Shitty and that some of the Character Designs look absolutely nothing like the Original Characters) but what I do like about it is how it takes up a little FairyTale Aestheic Realistic development but on how that despite most of the designs being inaccurate, I like other people's takes on Designs that are Quite Different for their own personal interpretations despite the New Mario Movie coming up which I am exicited to see. As far as I am indeed one of the Few Fans who actually liked the 90s Movie, I decided to put up a little spin around the SMG4 characters if they were in the 90s Movie Universe. Inspired by a Few Out there who have done their own personal takes on what Characters in a Different Media based on the Said Franchise would look like in a Different Style. Considering that the 90s Movie made its own versions on some of the Mario Characters different, I figure why not do the same with some of the SMG4 Characters if their own LA Movie Counterparts were to be different than the Originals.

Some Info About My Own Personal Takes:

Meggy - While not looking alike at all with the Cephalopod Humanoid Creatures that we are all familiar with, I wanted to make an attemption of Inklings and Octolings by making them more Merfolk-like with a little spit of some Alien features as if Merfolk Cephalopods look something like Water-themed Aliens that still resembles most Cephalopods in Marine Life (kinda like the Amphibian Man from "The Shape of Water" and other Sea Monsters). Granted, I wanted to make Meggy's Inkling form something like an Actual Cephalopod Mermaid with more Squid/Octo-Like features (she still has the ability to transform into a Squid whenever she can) and as for her Human form, I know it's not very Athlete-like, but just imagine that she's still the same Meggy who can kick ass like a total badass but can still go through her Mer-Squid form whenever she want too. Also, Yeah, the Inklings and Octolings in this AU (while being Merfolk instead of looking more Humanoid) have the ability to transform into Humans for disguises whenever they go on land (so techincally think of it as in AU where if Meggy never lost her Inkling form).

SMG4 and SMG3 - Eh, not much about these designs. Let's just say I sorta redesign the New Designs of them by making them look close to how Mario and Luigi are depicited in the '93 film but I used accepts of more of their Real-Life Counterparts considering those Guys are indeed their Main Avatars to their own Fictional Mario World. I also gave SMG3 a sockhead instead of a Plumber Hat.

Melony - Considering that the Zelda franchise has Fantasy aspects, I wanted to make Melony look more like those Elf/Fairy-types of Creatures considering that she was turned as a Human by the Fierce Deity Mask. Say that she's sorta of a Fairy type inspired by the Nymphs of Greco-Roman Mythology, I also wanted to add in some Pink Flowers in her Hair while making her Wear a Forest-Fairy themed dress like most Fairies in Folklore (minus the Wings). As for the Real Inspiration for the Ears and even the Eyes, I mainly went with one of the Cult 80s Classics, "The Dark Crystal" by making Melony be inspired by the Gelfling characters in that Franchise; https://darkcrystal.fandom.com/wiki/Gelfling Axol - As far as Artists go throughout the Years, I wanted to make Axol look like some 90s Artist who can still draw Characters and Comics. Despite being born in Inkopolis in SMG4 Canon, in the 90s Movieverse, I can imagine him being born from a Sailor Family who had a passion for Art and even moves to Japan just like how did in the Original Series (so needless to say I did kept the Japan part of his life but for his Birthplace since Inklings and Octolings are Merfolk in this AU, Axol would have to be born in a Family of his near the Ocean at his own Beachouse where Inklings and Octolings still roam around the Seas). I also gave him one piercing in one of his earrings and let's just say that the badges that he wears are Buttons of Classic Anime Icons (like Goku from Dragon Ball or Sailor Moon).

Boopkins - Considering that most of the Mushroom Kingdom residents in the 90s version look nothing like their own actual counterparts from the Game, I had to make Boopkins a Human just like how the '93 Movie went. I know that Fishy Boopkins is based off of Spike (considering that he does appear in the Movie) but I actually wanted to make Boopkins look different from Spike like he's his own Actual Character. I went with the Blonde Hair and Green Eyes to resemble how he looks, I also gave him a Shirt that has a Fish on it considering that he's a Sea Creature but he's still the Guy who bonds with Sea Creatures and Anime. Bob - Like the Original, he is a Garo but I tend to take some inspirations off of the Garo Master from the Zelda Franchise. So like how that the Movie Goombas are, I wanted to make Bob's species look even more different by having them look something like the Skeksis from "The Dark Crystal" (hint by that Bird face which looks something like a Plague Mask and even the Reptellien-like tail), I also took one accept from his New Design by having him wear a Bandana around his Neck. I also gave Bob some pupils that would make it look extra Creepy.

Tari - I wanted to make her look something like a 90s Gamer by the tell of the Gloves and even that Outfit (which has the Rubber Duck on it), I also gave her Brown Hair and Blue Eyes with some little Blue diet on her Short Hair to still resemble on how she actually looked. In an addition, I also gave her a Heart necklace to resemble her own kindness. Saiko - Since she's a Bad Girl judging by her own name which translates to "Psycho Bitch", I wanted to make her look more Punk-like with a Few More Spikes to resemble her own Style and even have a Skull wearing a Bowtie on her own Top Shirt. I also gave her a Pink Eyeshadow since Pink is her Main Color but has for her Hair diets, I cut them off and made most of her Hair more Pink and even replace the Bowties for the Pigtails with a Headband that has a Bow on her head (I also gave her a piercing on her Nose). Imagine her living on the Streets like she's part of some Punk Gang who's got a Weapon of a Baseball Bat instead of a Giant Hammer.

Swag and Chris - Ok so much like how that the Mario Bros are depicited in the Film to resemble their Original Counterparts, I wanted to do the same for both Swagmaster and Chris, only instead, they work as Police Offiers working at a Police Department but are still are Security Guards like how they are in the Original Series. Swag almost looks like the same as his OG Self but for Chris, I added an Eyepatch on his own Scared Eye cause I thought it would be cool and I also gave him a little Tattoo that's meant to resemble Black Fire if you can at least spot the Other Addition that I added in. Shroomy - Easy as peasy, I made him wear a Different Scout Outfit to resemble his OG Self, though for the Hair color, he's still a Redhead like Meggy but I also gave him some Freckles as a relfection to some of his Spots from his own Mushroom head but even the Hair Bangs is mainly the real reflection behind his Actual Mushroom head.

SMG4 (c) Luke and Kevin Lerdwichagul Super Mario Bros. Movie 1993 Film (c) Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel Mario (c) Nintendo

#smg4 #supermarioglitchy4 #super mario bros movie #super mario bros 1993 #au #meggy #smg3 #melony #axol #boopkins #bob #tari #saiko #swagmaster #shroomy #chris gordman

10 notes · View notes

horizon-verizon · 7 months

Note

I think it could be correct to say the Radowski article can feel accurate for ASOIAF when the rest of the storyline would really turn out as this better written version of GoT some fans always seem so eager for. The illusion they fall victim to is we would have a 'good' story then, because it would be technically better written. But 95% of the writer's criticism would still stand, and we'd still end up with pointless, toxic, unsatisfying shlock overdoing the subverting expectations shtick.

Disclaimer: This post will undergo several edits even after publishing because I am that person.

Anon's talking about my Twitter thread HERE about a 2021 article writer's critique of GRRM and ASoIaF. And they are referring to the last post about it HERE. And their post kinda reminds me of the latest ozymalek/pheonixashes quote here:

However, I wouldn't say "95%" because:

more than once, Radowski's goes into parochial stances that turn out to be incorrect and relying on what others have said of the text rather than what is in the text--they often actually more reveal how we've been guided into looking to Dany as the readers' AND commonborn's/HUMANITY's hope both by narrative and our pro-feminist/class-conscious selves (ASoIaF being "anti-fantasy" or "having no fantasy/a-fantasy"when that is really just some stupid fans' interpretation)....and this really undermines their point about ASoIaF being even technically horrible

they/she used a particular literary element incorrectly in their critique of how GRRM writes his characters

I'd instead say "70-80". Or that several times, the writer makes their good points, and then sometimes messes it up.

I start to question what do critics mean when they say "well-written"? Morally vs technically, and when "technically" just means aestheically vs moral criticism; is the line blurred there, or do people blur it themselves? "Technically", to my understanding, refers to paragraph formatting, pacing, spelling, punctuation, grammar and vocabulary (i.e., diction); all those things that writers and speakers use to convey meaning almost poetically, that itself could develop a certain style or rhythm either familiar or more on the original side. All are meant to convey the psyche of the character, and the stakes of the events/scenes, and ultimately contribute to the moral spirit of the story. One person says: "I-the-reader am a brain parasite. the characters think thoughts they would never tell me. I see their worst impulses, their immediate instincts, their intrusive thoughts. a lot of it is unsavory, but it's done in such a way that it all feels deeply real and true to life." Does this not mean that the story is written better than what Radowski thinks it is? I'd say "yes".

There is this:

AND

It's weird and self-sabotaging to assume that because (some) fans interpreted the Starks pre-Ned-death as the moral standard of the story that is what the text offers.

The Boltons have been the Starks' ancient enemies--not quite to the level of the brackens and Blackwoods' enmity bc: the Starks always managed to come out on top; there was had lasting "peace" intervals of cohabitation; and the fighting itself reasoned/characterized not by the Blackwood-Bracken Romeon-Juliet family feuding so much as the Boltons being eternally ambitious and ruthless. I think that because they take on their flayed skin and ruthless ambition as their house identity, the feudal system itself creates the Boltons and we have an interesting enough tension of what makes identity/the villain in such a fantasy story. It's philosophical. But hey, I haven't heard or seen criticism of this beyond OP's oversimplification of the Boltons' presence.

Yes, of course, we all can see the Bolton's final end coming from the Starks and yes they are obviously evil. The question is not whether their conflict is complicated so much as the questions about identity present in such a conflict married to the feudal/Westerosi militant preference for male "strength" that makes the Boltons develop pride in such violence that I definitely think produced the crazy, off-the-wall Ramsay Bolton. Another character we can attribute such a social phenomenon to is the ironborn revving/raping society's effect on how men like Euron Greyjoy become who they are.

Oh well, a missed opportunity.

Even me just pointing out how Ned's death launches his family to become many different people is a testament to the deaths/violence/bursts of emotion creating the plot points the OP critic claims do not exist at all.

Like I said in that Twitter thread, the writer makes very true & good points about sexual violence against women, and I personally don't much care for Brienne's story in the way it's almost written for Jaime's not-morally-redemptive-but-self-redemptive arc (as presented by fans as morally redemptive bc it's supposedly getting Jaime away from the "true" abuser/source of evil in his life, Cersei), and I have taken the "soft" goal of identifying where and when GRRM makes his repackaged/reversed subverted tropes because this wasn't a part I pondered as often as I should have.

However, it is actually incorrect for this person to say that it's "never" explained why Brienne wants to be a knight or imply that her "idealization of knighthood" doesn't itself come from her experience with gender.

I don’t understand why Brienne couldn’t stay at Evenfall Hall and be her father’s Castellan or Captain of the Guard. She’s the only surviving child (and heir) of Lord Tarth, so I’m confused why her father would let her roam Westeros as a hedge knight. It’s also never explained why Brienne wanted to be a knight in the first place.

So just because Brienne is her father's only surviving child, she must, morally, become the lady instead of following her dreams and being a knight (what the original writer leaves us to believe)? The first actual female knight to be customarily trained or to become the better/needed version of the knighthood that real knights (all men) have abandoned in their responsibility and cynicism?

So, there is only one way to live morally, and it is to act inauthentically, to ignore the pleasure one finds in the sword and self-defense, and to be another's more direct "guard"? A guard is an inferior "career" choice for a GNC woman?

The writer expresses that they can't fathom being a knight when there's the option of being a lord or the equivalent. Maybe they should read the book and accept different people, including women, have different perspectives and reactions to whatever empowers them, different developments of being? Not everyone wants to or should hold political positions of power that move & practically organize large groups of people/a community. Some people prefer to just be musicians or writers, poets or parents, doctors but not scientists or philosophers, etc.

blankwhiteshild says it way more eloquently than I in various posts, but the purpose of Brienne and Jaime is to highlight a constant thing GRRM does with his characters: making the marginalized the heroes of the story. The writer of the article winds up reinforcing some "toxic" and misogynist ideas in the process, which in turn puts into doubt their abilities to read or be totally or even well-entrusted to inform people about what's going on in the story and in the characters' minds.

The OP is under the impression that Brienne is trying her damndest to become like a man, transition or be a transgender man, or truly just to reject all modes of traditional femininity (that is really just socially-coded and enforced, constructed femininity) just because she loves to use a sword and does not conform to the Andal ideals of feminine looks. They should have been clued in about the falseness of this sort of thing with there being a politics of desirability and an insufficient binary enforced through femininity characterized as the "opposite" of masculinity--by how she's constantly described as "ugly" and "too much" of a "man". A commentator in that thread pointed out:

So the original critic seems not to have understood where Brienne was coming from, how young she is, or even familiar with her history...which is the entire impetus behind many characters' conflicts with the system GRRM is criticizing but choosing not to criticize through more characters other than Dany & Arya.

Not only that, Brienne "acts like a man" not because she hates women or thinks them inferior and hates herself as Ceresei does. She does not hate herself because she does not take her womanhood as the justified cause for her society subjecting her to abuses or reserving power away from her towards men--she did not develop that sense as Cersei has. She takes up the sword because her build allows and inspires her the confidence and opportunity to protect herself and others, which psychologically fulfills her. Plus she greatly admired and loved Catelyn Stark, who is not at all "mannish" in the social paradigm of Andal feminine beauty at all--Catelyn is rather known for her physical beauty as well as her sense and practice of responsibility. Catelyn also struggles with seeing her past labor of directing her Tully household and being a sort of new authority after her mother dies, having learned all her life that what she performed as a man's job. She constantly vacillates between marrying what women/girls acting out their obedient, subordinate roles versus herself using and wanting more political duties coded or suggestive of "male" from both necessity and necessity-self-generated desire. In all of this, Brienne admires Catelyn, wanted to be her sword shield forever at one point, and never said that Catelyn should be something that she wasn't. The text gives us that Brienne left her father's castle because she knew that she would never fulfill that lady-lord role despite her being able to fight (again, not everyone should be or can be or wants to be a leader in that way), so she left to follow her dreams.

To argue that the text says she is inherently mannish because of this ignores the text AND actually repackages Brienne's struggle with society's evaluation of her worth/her experiences with sexual assault as unreal and unworthy of discussion. It reinforces, ironically enough, that Sansa-stan bullshit of women tending naturally having to be as little as "masculine" as possible to be both considered real women and worthy of admiration. What happened to the love for gender-nonconforming women AND the truth of GNC also still being victims to misogyny and sexual violence--hello, the consequences of anti-trans bathrooms hurting Black/PoC, physically GNC white women and girls! You are attributing sword-wielding and martial activities to only men, just as how medieval men used to justify women being kept out of higher positions of power (Rhaenyra; written by mononijikayu). Again, just bc even I--the reader--am uninterested (at least as I am of Dany) or stupid, doesn't mean that this theme and logic isn't there for anyone to see and observe if they simply applied themselves.

I also find the Starks-as-a-unit uncompelling as hell, esp without their women. Their roles pre-NED-death as sort of societal "fixer-uppers-but-by-being-conservative-and-non-confrontartional-until-the-social-feudal-order" is ethically unsound and thus tiresome. Their individuals Arya, Jon, Bran Sansa (and in that order) are interesting and compelling...but the Starks before Ned dies? Eh.

It's clear that they were meant to be the narrative's designated feudal honor keepers, which really isn't very "honorable" at all (the unraveling/unseating Stark supremacy "traditional values: honor, justice, responsibility, and family" that's really just maintaining the integrity of the oppressive feudal social order). I'd argue that the Starks' dissolution was both needed and necessary to the points GRRM strives to make about class and gender roles. It pushes things off to position the Big 5 as who they need to be for the Long Night, by putting them in positions where they must navigate around constrictions against their transitioned states/identities to prepare Westeros and become leaders in their own right.

There is something visceral and pleasant and morally satisfying to be said about being the socially ostracized/marginalized person, even though not their own intentions, becoming a crucial element to saving the world by redirecting the societies that seek to destroy or limit them. There is something like a grand poetic "compromise" (this is not the right word, but the right word escapes me) there that draws me in because it's often the case for marginalized people to be capable of living in this world ethically confidently and with as much sense in their own agency as possible...as much as they can anyway.

Yes, I would say the draw for GRRM's work and ASoIaF is that it puts us into these people's minds without relying on a stream-of-consciousness POV like that of Virginia Woolf.

Bran's becoming the 3-eyed crow and showing that disabled people are worthy and can "do" or be able at important tasks and roles while being still imperfect; Sansa coming into her own against Littlefinger coming from being a bully against her sister from said classism & sexism that favors her; Tyrion, like Bran, his own flops and struggles in living as a disabled man but still being an aristocratic man (Shae)...I'd say that yes, there is a lot of conflicts (not "internal") many characters of ASoIaF go through. Problem is that they are not as actively trying to upend or explore other options as Dany. Jon maybe is closest, but even he still uses slavery with not as much compunction about it as Dany locking up her own dragons to protect her Meerenese people, so...

About how to write violence in a way I do not think is the only effective way to write violence (regarding Oberyn's fight w/the Mountain vs. Chuck Palahniuk’s Invisible Monsters):

However, to say that Oberyn's death itself was unsymbolic and totally absent of anything higher in meaning, that the random stableboy's death did not itself refer to something other than a random stableboy getting smashed is incorrect:

"The luckless stableboy [sic] behind him was not so quick. As his arm rose to protect his face, Gregor’s sword took it off between elbow and shoulder. “Shut UP!” the Mountain howled at the stableboy’s scream, and this time he swung the blade sideways, sending the top half of the lad’s head across the yard in a spray of blood and brains […]".

I would argue that the stableboy getting hit and killed in the crossfire conveys his and other "peasants" protection from higher borns' military, violent activities. The randomness, as we know it now or should now, is meant to convey the randomness begotten from a privileged lack of compassion. That is not an absence of meaning by definition.

However, it becomes trying and consequential when there's very little to no real pushback from those little guys elsewhere in the narrative through collective actions or inside looks at how these people may protect themselves against these people. That perspective is missing and thus undermined. It then is GRRM is saying that there is no out nor even escape/relief. And then you are exhausting your reader more than you should--not to say that you should push your readers' mental and emotional capabilities, but you must be aware of what can bring them (a particular audience) to an unforgiving point of frustration and hopelessness. It may not be intentional, but for writers tasking themselves to be as critical of societies like this and failing to notice such a thing in their own writing is a serious failure that needs to be addressed.

American enslaved people not only physically rebelled through weapons and organized themselves in secret meetings or ran away. The ones who stayed or didn't fight poisoned their masters; held up work; destroyed tools; made as of they were too ill to work; made emotionally healing hymns that themselves were instructions or hidden messages; learned skills "from blacksmithing to dressmaking, to increase their indispensability to those who profited off their labor and to decrease their chances of being sold and separated from loved ones".

The consequence of not letting students know about various ways enslaved people resisted their conditions: "But because insurrections were so rare, when they are taught in isolation, students are left with the impression that the vast majority of enslaved people who did not rebel accepted their bondage. Some even interpret this to mean that African Americans were complicit in their own enslavement."

While common-born people are not slaves because they cannot be sold off and/or separated from families, they also were not completely considered important enough and in many cases "enough" of humans themselves. I mean, even in Essos, do we often hear of how the slaves (slaves by class and war, not race, but it is still the complete objectification of humans for the economic prosperity of a few) resist?

This is why Dany is also even more beloved--she is that "out" and possible rescue., as she--above all the other characters--is thinking about people across and under these class distinctions for their own sake. She embodies the goal that more ethically conscientious readers are looking for (esp those who are the more progressive...and morally correct, tbh).

And I must point out that I agreed with the paragraph formatting the article writer pointed out. If It were me, I would have separated & isolated much of the sentences to convey the quickness of the battle and to emphasize that stabelboys'd eath. If you're going to convey the randomness of his death, why not the isolation of this death by rewriting it to:

Spectators screamed and shoved at each other to get out of the way. One stumbled into Oberyn’s back. Ser Gregor hacked down with all his savage strength. The Red Viper threw himself sideways, rolling. The luckless stableboy [sic] behind him was not so quick. As his arm rose to protect his face, Gregor’s sword took it off between elbow and shoulder. “Shut UP!” the Mountain howled at the stableboy’s scream, and this time he swung the blade sideways, sending the top half of the lad’s head across the yard in a spray of blood and brains […]

Not only is this less drag on my eyes and brain, I have made sure to readers that this moment is emphasized and to be remembered. Of course, with a later hint of some malice or rebellion targeted towards the mountain from maybe a friend or family member of that poor stableboy.

Therefore, the OP comes off of being more like describing how they think fiction writers should write--conflating style with overall storytelling, not the grammar and formatting. And thus, it becomes a lot easier for anyone else to believe this person that they just do not like high-fantasy fiction as a genre, and thus cannot conceive of how speculative, self-subverting, and subtle the genre could and can be. It doesn't help that they used a nonhigh fantasy example for the technical writing for their analysis of violence-creation.

Quentyn Martell was a bit redundant. However, "irrelevant to the narrative" is simply false. With his death, we now anticipate how Dany is going to use or interact with the Martells if and when she ever lands on Westeros and searches for allies....the Martells being those who supported her brother in Robert's Rebellion and from whom Oberyn, the guy who tried and failed to exact revenge for Elia on the Mountain (another theme the OP ignores in their critique of GRRM presenting"bad writing"). It's almost as if the answer to Elia's justice is not going to come from male-on-male "honor" killing, even out of her brother's love so much as Dany having to reckon with her own family's decisions face to face. Apparently, this is not an exciting enough prospect.

It also goes into how the OP thinks how characters' deaths somehow, someway mean nothing in the plot or that GRRM uses expected unexpected death for no reason at all. Which, as I already showed, is untrue and an exaggeration.

So, ironically, by criticizing GRRM's use of character death, and his lack of blatant critique, the OP practices what I think is GRRM's real issue: a liberal lack of real critique on their own absolutes and exaggerations that undermine their credibility.

Let me reiterate: what makes ASoIaF problematic is the lack of perspective and paired over-exaggeration of some violence (most esp the sexual kind against women and girls) for the sake of emphasis that was already emphasized and to make a point that would have already been made without such "emphasis", thus normalizing such violence, even claiming it "necessary". The violence isn't "pointless" as much as it goes beyond the necessary and repeats itself with no relief or seeking hope w/o Dany's anticipatory and present critical role, thus it seems pointless.

Remember, this shit was written in the 80s-90s, published in the 90s, and is now being read and critiqued by people in 2023 who have gotten much more conscious of the need to critique the status quo...but also can themselves fall into reinforcing it when they do not choose to engage with the taboo text/moments with a more distanced lens. And GRRM is still a rich, liberal white man.

#asoiaf asks to me #asoiaf articles #accidental substantive editing #grrm critical #asoiaf writing #fandom discussion #fandom debate

5 notes · View notes