#I like fan content when it expands on the source material
Text
IWTV Twitter and the so-called "Fake Black Fans" Invasion
Something that I've been seeing a lot after it gained traction on Max is white fans condescendingly talking down to Black fans, some of whom have been in this fandom longer than they have, and acting as if they don't know what they are talking about because of their critique including a concept or subtext they wish to ignore. I want to repeat that this doesn't happen in the same amounts to white fans who make analyses or memes, it seems to uniquely be Black fans speaking AAVE or with Black pfps (visibly black bc of this) being bombed in the comments for having valid opinions.
I reached about the fifth tweet of white women going onto posts of Black people (particularly older women on Black Twitter) talking about IWTV and saying "You don't know what you're talking about, read the source material/finish the show" or entirely saying that "You don't understand fandom culture". Prompting those Black people to respond curtly that they, in fact, have read the source material, finished the show long before they have, and have been a fandom elder since before they even rolled into town. I witnessed someone doing BABY talk to a 30-year-old Black woman who was talking about episode 5, with "Well you see, it's not my fault you can't read". And when the woman professed anger back, she was the one blocked.
I witnessed this backhanded shit FIVE TIMES over the course of this week. With different white women doing the job of whitesplaining fandom culture and Anne Rice to random Black fans who already know unprompted with a level of passive aggressiveness and annoyance that only comes with doing it repeatedly. I must assure you (white people who are doing this) nobody asked, you can put down your task and stop pretending like you are doing something Sisyphean. You are not legally required to explain and describe IWTV poorly while getting into screaming matches with far more educated Black fans on Twitter and Tumblr.
People are acting as if there's a rising population of Black fans who are "Fake Fans" and must be stopped, lest they start up the freaky discourse. OOHHH NOOOO! Whatever are we to do then???? And therefore it is completely normal and a civic duty to blast Black fans in the comments of everything that they say about the show or the books.
I've been seeing people unironically football tackle reaction posts of the show with paragraphs worth of text that is inflammatory and backhanded. This is even more apparent when the poster is visibly black or uses AAVE. The association is that Black people who use AAVE or memes obviously are uneducated, lack media literacy, and cannot consume content the way that "White" fans do.
It is an attempt to tone police Black fans away from creating new topics of discussion or creating/expanding the fandom space with the growing watcher-base. It always has to happen in their chosen language, on their time, in the places they can reach us and yell some more. They are very discomforted when Black fans have pockets in fandom where they can't be outnumbered and they do in fact control discourse in a way that isn't productive to respectability. (As much as I am a big fan of big words and rambling, that is somewhat what is expected in this fandom as a Black person to be considered "respectable" and I'm not willing to ignore or shy away from that).
This is also hand in hand with my previous thoughts about fans' dog-whistling about media becoming accessible/mainstream and how "Others" will ruin it and outnumber them. I noticed that in the IWTV fandom, it seems like white fans believe that the "Others" is just Black Twitter in general. Not just "Twitter" but specifically Black people who don't fit into their narrow respectability politics.
I hate to tell you all this, but Black fandom culture is still fandom culture, and Black people do in fact read and write. I should not be seeing a pattern of random white fans going into the comments of Black people who mention IWTV and automatically assuming that they have no clue what they're talking about.
Like clockwork, exactly as when the show came out, racist white book fans started up the discourse of "The Black people are going to ruin fandom with their racism discourse and spit on Anne Rice!" and then when that time passed, the show reaches Max, and here they go barking again.... We really need to get a muzzle.
319 notes
·
View notes
Text
Explaining the differences between FMA (2003) and FMAB cause why not
with no explicit spoilers for events, storylines, characters, etc.
Why are they different?
FMA 03 and the manga were coming out at the same time and FMA 03 was in danger of catching up to the manga. When this happens animes create filler to put some distance between the manga and anime but the FMA production team basically went Nah, imma do my own thing.
Which is exactly what they did bc instead of adding fillers they just straight up deviated from the manga.
This is why both animes while sharing the same cast and world, are so different.
How are they different?
To summarize these differences:
FMA 03 is a lot darker than FMAB
FMA 03 expanded on a lot of scenes, characters, arcs, and storylines
FMA 03 added characters, arcs, and storylines that weren’t in the manga
And FMA 03, you know, changed shit.
With the most notable being, the ending.
FMA 03's last episode isn't the conclusion. The 2005 movie Conqueror of Shamballa is
FMA 03 is DARK
I know I mentioned that FMA 03 is dark but holy fuck it’s a lot darker. To the point where if you asked someone the differences between FMA 03 and FMAB it’ll be the first thing they mention after the ending.
FMA 03 is a pretty dark anime don’t get me wrong but part of the reason why FMA 03 is seen as so dark is because in comparison FMAB is a lot more lighthearted. Now don’t get me wrong FMAB doesn’t shy away from its dark themes but FMA 03 not only embraces it but it delves deeper into them.
FMAB also has these comic relief moments to lighten the mood that FMA 03 just doesn’t have. FMAB is a surprisingly lighthearted anime, especially considering what it’s about.
How is FMAB's adaptation different?
FMAB, unlike FMA 03, stuck to the source material. It’s considered to be a completely faithful adaptation, which isn’t entirely correct.
FMAB was made with the thought that the viewers were fans of FMA 03, and were already familiar with the world and characters.
That’s why FMAB’s first episode feels like a recap and lore dump because that’s exactly what it is. Its purpose was to refresh the older fans' memories and reintroduce them to the world and characters.
This is also why FMAB feels so fast-paced for the first 15ish episodes. It’s bc they’re trying to get past the material they already adapted to get to the content that was never animated.
Though doing this means that FMAB just completely cut things out or trimmed them down.
For example, the Mining Town never got a proper adaptation in FMAB and they completely cut out the Train Battle but both of these were properly adapted in FMA 03.
That’s why FMAB tends to throw people off when Yoki appears later in the anime. The cast acts familiar with him but that part of the story just wasn’t adapted so viewers didn’t even know he existed until then.
So yeah, FMAB did stick to the manga, I just wouldn’t call it completely faithful.
I think that about sums up the differences without going too deep into it. If I forgot something or if you have any questions please let me know.
#when i say#the ending is different i mean it#actually now that i think about it#some people will probably mention that fma 03 is darker before they mention the ending#like the majority of complaints i’ve seen about fmab is that it’s too lighthearted so take that as you will#i tried to make this post as subjective as possible and i hope i did a good job at that#edward elric#alphonse elric#fullmetal alchemist brotherhood#fullmetal alchemist#fma 2003#fma#fmab#fma brotherhood#fma 03#fma conqueror of shamballa#conqueror of shamballa#hiromu arakawa#concha posts
125 notes
·
View notes
Text
As ‘Avatar: The Last Airbender’ Debuts To Strong Audience On Netflix, Creative Team Looks Ahead To Expanding Live-Action Adaptation
The results are in, and Netflix‘s Avatar: The Last Airbender seems to be a hit.
The live action adaptation topped the streamer’s weekly English-language TV list with 21.2M views in its opening weekend. According to Netflix, it reached the Top 10 in 92 countries. It was edged out as most-watched title of the week by the Swedish natural disaster film The Abyss.
That’s a strong showing for the eight-episode series, which was another big swing for Netflix as it continues to dip its toes into anime-inspired content. In fact, Avatar managed to surpass One Piece in its debut weekend.
As with One Piece, Netflix was firing on all cylinders to launch the series, partnering with Serena Williams and even taking over the Las Vegas Sphere. So far, the Avatar global social campaign has reached 1.53B impressions, which is on par with both One Piece as well as Netflix’s hit series Wednesday. The main trailer alone has amassed 85M views to-date, while the #AvatarTheLastAirbender hashtag has generated 1B global views on TikTok in the past week.
Avatar marks Netflix’s second successful live-action anime adaptation, after a rocky start in the genre with its adaptation Shinichirō Watanabe‘s anime classic Cowboy Bebop. While die-hard fans of any animated series are likely to have a few things to say about their live-action counterparts, the streamer appears to be finding a groove when it comes to how to bring these stories to life on the small screen.
“We’re trying to make a show for the most viewers possible. That doesn’t mean that there’s anything we’re gonna leave behind from the animated series. There’s not more purposeful deviations in order to make it acceptable for a broader audience,” Avatar executive producer and director Jabbar Raisani told Deadline. “I think it’s really attempting to be as faithful as humanly possible to the animated series, but also knowing that we have to fit it into this eight-episode, driving narrative that keeps us streaming.”
Other than missing story elements, which are obviously necessary when adapting from a 20-episode animated season of TV, one of the larger changes audiences might notice is the tone.
“There inherently has to be a tonal shift as you’re moving towards live action, because things that work in anime won’t necessarily work with real people,” Raisani explained.
While animation can often boast a more exaggerated tone, that isn’t as possible when it comes to live action.
“One of the things I did, specifically thinking of directing, was just working with the actors on different versions of the take. So with Sokka, with his humor, for example, we would do a version that was the flattest read, and then we would get more and more big and campy and over the top,” Raisani said. “Ian was great at giving a range. That allowed us in post to say, ‘Okay, let’s go funny’ or ‘We can go bigger’ or ‘Oh, man is now starting to break the tone and it feels cartoony. It doesn’t feel like he’s in the same show as everybody else.'”
Something viewers may notice remains faithful to the animated series is the dynamic camera movements, many of which came directly from the source material.
Raisani described an Episode 4 scene where Aang backflips over a boulder. Not only does the scene come from the animated series, so does the shot used to capture it.
“I literally just looked at the animated frame [and said], ‘Okay, we want to make this literal frame but with real people,” he said.
It’s a bit preemptive to say whether the series will end up among Netflix’s most popular, since the series will have a 91-day premiere window and would need more than 83M views to achieve the feat. However, it certainly bodes well for a renewal. The good news is that the creative team appears to be chomping at the bit to expand the story and address anything that might have been missing from Season 1.
“There’s stuff that we filmed that I love that isn’t in the show. There’s stuff that I love the idea of that we filmed and it just didn’t fit,” Raisani said. As a fan of the original animated series himself, he knows that audiences might be yearning for more than what they were able to fit into the first season.
“If we get another season, then we will certainly have those things, because I know what we missed now and I know how to do better the second time around,” he said, adding: “The animated series is a really good guide…for where the show can go.”
More specifically, Raisani said he’s already exploring new ways to shoot scenes that involve bending that would give the actor more agency on set and, in turn, make the final product feel more organic. He pointed to fire bending as one of the trickier elements to master, explaining that each actor had a light on their hands to emulate the fire, but they weren’t able to manipulate it themselves, which presented some restrictions.
“If they could trigger their own bending… I think we would have a more seamless product,” he mused. “So stuff like that you’ve just got to try it and then you learn and then you do it again, but better than last time.”
#natla#atla#jabbar raisani#article#deadline#netflix atla#avatar the last airbender#avatar netflix#atla netflix#netflix avatar
25 notes
·
View notes
Text
Vamptember Day 24 -FREE DAY
I am a huge fan of book to TV adaptations, so much so that a portion of my Honours thesis was actually dedicated to that particular portion of media.
The Hunger Games books and movies offer a perfect example of so much of what I love about it; a series of books that are from a limited 1st person perspective, then expanded out into a series of not just three but four movies to make room for perspectives that are hinted at within the books, yet given no explicit voice given the nature of the perspective choice.
But even a faithful adaptations can turn sour is when enough of the central themes of a story get overturned over the course of a longer running series. I’m thinking Game of Thrones here. That first season was almost a play by play of the first novel. Things like the Red- and Purple Weddings later occurred more or less as expected, though timelines of surrounding events were fudged. There were some really cool graphics made on this topic back in the day.
And then... well, we got the last 3 seasons, didn't we? What a disappointment (sorry Jacob, you're an actor capable of doing things that are very subtle, but that show let you down).
Reimaginings can likewise be good or bad, but they have built into them a bit more leeway. Where these usually turn sour is around the time they fully abandon the source material. This is mostly your ‘loosely inspired by’ stuff. It’s putting a name on the door that’s generated to sell tickets. I’m trying to think of a good example of this, but the stuff I haven’t liked doesn’t tend to stick in my head because I’ve usually moved on by then. At their strongest, reimaginings bring well thought out and updated content to a fandom.
BBC's reimagining in Sherlock was innovative when they brought Conan Doyal's characters into the modern day. They succeeded in doing that because what they kept sacred, at least to begin with, was the relationships between the characters and the overarching themes that came from that. By doing only those two things, they were able to reinvent satisfying ways to touch on the main plot points of the original stories.
That team also, sadly, offered a cautionary tale of what happens when such a project deviates too far from its source material.
The reimagining in AMC's Interview with the Vampire is far more ambitious and therefore complex in what it proposes, with an equal half of its story existing in a space that will be close to what was written in the books. I genuinely hope they end up succeeding with their ambition. Part of that is that it's not pretending to be any sort of directly faithful adaptation.
The first hint? The entire premise of S1: It’s 2022 and Louis invites Daniel for a second interview. That just didn't occur in the books.
This one change brings the story straight into the modern day, which is easily arguable as something needed for a series that released its first book in 1976. While I love a nostalgic- or period piece as much as the next person, I’m not disappointed by this.
This is the kind of change that’s a deal breaker. It stands to give new watchers the introduction they need into the world at the same time as giving something entirely unexpected to old fans. In other words, it’s narrative gold to someone like me.
The reasons I love it are completely different to what draws me to a straight like for like with added scenes adaptation as outlined above in Hunger Games. By changing the timeline and beginning straight out of the gate, it means that you can change everything.
And, god, they do.
Okay, obviously not everything. Character names, places, even dates on their own aren’t enough to hold the narrative cohesion of a reimagining if it doesn’t hold tight enough to the central themes of the source material to maintain that the original plot points still make sense to come to pass. WHICH S1 DOES.
I have so much interest in dissecting how they’ve so far kept hold of (most of) the themes and yet, in only 7 episodes, have already told a story with so many different details. And, if I’m gonna be totally honest, TVC is perfectly primed for exactly this kind of adaptation simply because, as a collection, these books have never been consistent (thank you, Anne for this dubious and ongoing gift).
There has been a single possible inconsistency with themes that did give me some cause for concern, but it’s also not the one that most people seem concerned by. So, let’s get into the analysis!
Armand:
I’m beginning with this character, because a supercut on YouTube I finally got around to watching made me realise we got a total of 15 minutes of Assad on screen in the 7 episodes of S1, and less than 5 of those are of him in the named character. So it’s an easy place to start.
Obviously, there is little difference that can be pointed to in those fewer than 5 minutes other than the differences in physical appearance than described (17 y/o, red hair, brown eyes) in the books, and that’s what I’ve seen a lot of discourse on thus far. That, and what on earth this Louis had on him to convince him it was a great play to pretend to be Rashid in front of Daniel. (He is a theatre kid, I guess…)
There is however a short detail in The Vampire Armand after Armand goes into the sun, however, that briefly describes his eyes as being orange (maybe amber?) as he starts to heal, and therefore the choice on making Assad’s eyes this colour in the series becomes an interesting detail to me.
Also, let’s be honest – if you’re gonna make the creative choice to have both Sam and Jacob in these luminescent contacts, but leave Assad’s natural throughout… well, I mean, what is being said on that side of the coin if that’s the choice being made?
On the side of details they kept AND CHANGED at the same time, my favourite for this character continues to be the below image that shows the physical resemblance between one Assad Zaman and, yes, a different Botticelli painting than any referenced in the books, but ultimately a Botticelli painting all the same. We're good to go!
Louis:
I don’t really want to focus too long on the obvious differences between Louis the slave owner (books) and Louis the pimp (series) except to say they are there. As are Louis’ signature green eyes.
However, that is where the resemblance ends. And I’m not just talking about physical.
In Louis’ case, the biggest difference I clocked and remarked in DMs up till now that—as a fanfic writer of both books and series fandom—Louis’ was the voice that consistently gave me most trouble to move between. I literally could not convincingly write him in any series fic at the same time as I was writing my mammoth long fic How They Get to Trinity Gate.
And it was not the fact that Louis was white in the books that tripped me up.
Another big thing is the change to when Louis and Lestat meet. This changes things for Lestat's character a bit as well, but I think it's more clear at this point the ways in which Lestat being set up as that much stronger and older than Louis on first meeting has had an impact on their story. Armand will be that much older than Louis as well, but what's a difference of a handful of decades when Armand already was that much older than Louis canonically?
As a linguist, I remain most fascinated by the dialogue changes that have been given to Louis’ character, particularly in historic New Orleans scenes. When reading Interview With the Vampire, there’s not a great deal of difference to the voice of Louis in the present vs the past that he gives to the boy interviewer. In the series, however? The difference in character from past to present is as unavoidable as it is riveting. To me, that alone offers so many details about who Louis is as a person, the disparity between Louis and a Lestat who obviously still gets to keep his book canon French accent.
In terms of how these changes effected the story as Louis relates it to Daniel, however? I mean, for the most part, the Louis I watched was equally convincing as he hit the main plot points his character needed to hit to stay true to the source material. That makes it a successful update to me!
Daniel:
Daniel is a laugh, both in the books and in the series. But, though the series has held on to the aspect of his sense of humour from the books, that humour is depicted in a completely different way.
Self deprecating, for the most part, or actually laugh out loud funny is what we see of Daniel in the books. Occasionally his anger gets the better of him, but for the most part he’s more docile—or possibly just as drunk—as many of us would be in similar circumstances. Apart from, say, when he’s calling Armand an immortal idiot.
The humour we get from Daniel in the series, though? That’s cutting. Yes, aimed to slice others up, especially when he’s deflecting from himself, but also the stuff that's made to cut through bullshit.
He’s had another 50 years to hone it, and none of them were lost to madness or absence from himself. No, this Daniel has been present every year of the 69 that have been given to him, and it shows. His wit has grown up with him, because he has grown up in a way he never got to in the books.
Something else to consider, however, is the fact that this Daniel is half David.
Actually, it's more than half. We got less of Daniel in S1 than we got of Armand. When I say this, I mean the only parts from the book canon we've got were in a couple of flashback scenes and the recording Eric listens to, then plays in Dubai in Episode 1. Only Luke Brandon Field has so far shown me anything close to a faithful version of Daniel, and I've no doubt this actor is destined to continue to follow that trajectory throughout future seasons.
That leaves me with wondering who we've got in the present from Eric? And that's David Talbot who, it turns out, is another canonical interviewer within The Vampire Chronicles. You may remember him as the guy who interviewed Armand, a version of which we're also set to see in S2.
David, when we first see him in Queen of the Damned, is someone interested in vampires not as puff portraiture but as a reality. He’s an older man coming to acceptance he’s near the end of his life and career. And he does not want to be made into a vampire.
Louis: A still hand, time to watch your daughters marry.
Daniel: And divorce. And die.
Sound familiar?
Let me explain something of what I suspect went into this decision behind the scenes: The character of Daniel is underdeveloped in the books to say the least, something I’ve written about already during Vamptember. There was never going to be enough of the book character of Daniel in AMC's version to satisfy every book reader. Anne simply didn't give us enough of him, and fandom remains wildly divided in how to interpret him.
By contrast, David was a character readers got far too much of because of Anne's attempt to shoe horn us into a different romantic interest for Lestat. He's just not as popular. Imagine for a second the reception if the early promotional material had named Eric as playing 'David' instead of 'Daniel'? It's a marketing mislead, and one that's paid off.
When setting up the core "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf"-esque central cast, the creative team over at AMC did something very clever, I think. They pulled over characteristics of another underdeveloped character from the same canon in order to flesh their version of Daniel out. We'll almost certainly see a body swap, and that's where the David, and Eric's, part of the story will end.
In conclusion, I will absolutely eat my hat if we see someone called David Talbot walking around in this series ever ever. And, when it comes to the eventual plot line of making Daniel a vampire, they've set up three good options in front of them (and another example where we old fans have no way to expect WHICH WAY IT WILL GO):
He'll be coerced into it (David, canonically by Lestat, but in this universe almost certainly Armand)
He'll change his mind and demand it again (Daniel in true Devil's Minion style)
He'll almost die and someone will have to turn him (Daniel, yes, but also Jesse)
Two of these methods of becoming a vampire from the early books canonically turn a Talamasca character, and I definitely have some on-a-tangent theories there, given the presence of Talamasca characters already in Mayfair Witches.
The only thing they’ll need to change from the books here is Armand being Daniel/David’s foil, instead of Lestat. And, look, they’ve already positioned Louis right there as the love of his life in the face of the love triangle that’s sure to follow in the series, as in the books.
Fareed (bonus):
This is further to my passing body swap comment in the last section, but I really wanted to add:
Why include this minor character front and centre as early as S1? Why then have him explicitly say he is not there not once but three separate times as part of his only dialogue?
Fareed: That is not my voice. And I'm not here. [...] I am not here. [...] I'm not here. [...] Pleasure never meeting you, Mr. Molloy.
Is this not explicitly designed to have the same effect as telling a person not to imagine a pink elephant? Not to mention, it's as meta as fuck. That's Schrödinger's Vampire right here.
So why do these things if not to bring to the front of people's minds not only that the entire of Anne Rice's canon is free game in this reimagining? But that Fareed in particular is a character who's the first of his kind in the Chronicles; a scientist who can and does invent a clone?
A clone that might just end up looking very much like Luke Brandon Field?
Why, also, spend so much time and promotional material on another actor we see for about the same short space of time within S1? Minute for minute, I reckon we get about the same amount of screen time here with Gopal Divan as we do with Luke.
That, and they both happen to appear for the first time in Episode 6. Just saying.
In terms of canon deviation, if there was a physical description of Fareed in the books, I honestly don't remember it. He was just one of Anne's many, many characters that were a) created to function as a plot point, and b) forgotten beyond the original purpose he was created for.
As long as they manage to keep Fareed interested in the vampiric sciences, I honestly don't see there being any problems.
Lestat:
Saving the best till last, am I right?
Lestat is Lestat is Lestat, isn’t he? The blond hair. The blue eyes. The arrogant swagger. Both the father’s anger matched with the uncontrollable laughter raging within him at all times. Completely out of control. Hedonistic, definitely to a fault. A Byronic hero in the package of an immoral vampire.
I hated Lestat and, when I read the books as a teenager, it was despite him.
I was ready to go into the series doing the same. The stories, the themes, the history, the characters (minus Lestat). There is so much richness to love in the world of the books, despite so much of it being told by Lestat. And there was no doubt we were gonna get less of The Lestat Show in a show that’s not told from his PoV and has three other main characters vying equally for that attention.
I will amend this statement now to acknowledge he does get less obnoxious by the time we hit the final trilogy, which were obviously not out when I’d made the judgement call of despising him. (Hell, Tales of the Body Thief wasn’t yet out…)
In Lestat's case, the changes that have been made aren't so much of appearance or characterisation, so much as moments. And I understand why. Lestat is iconic and, in many ways, impossible to change in any meaningful way because of it. So the choice of changing moments here and there becomes the perfect way to cast a new spin on Lestat's character.
ESPECIALLY when you have Armand right there behind Louis the whole time, almost certainly controlling the narrative.
Obviously, there was That Scene in Episode 5. That particular scene is one that never happened in any of the books. But Lestat’s aggressions, micro and otherwise, are a well known particularly in early canon, and Louis is certainly not exempt from them.
Nor is Claudia. And who among us haven’t put up with less when it’s aimed towards a person we love than what we’ll put up with aimed to ourselves?
Despite it not following an actual canon event, it held intact location, characters and central themes all together – the summation of most important aspects when we have an adaptation and hope it will continue to hit the major canon plot points in its reimagining.
We saw Lestat, Louis and Claudia all moving towards an event we all knew was coming, and what ended up being the climax of S1.
What I don't see being talked about anywhere near so much is the beginning of Episode 3, as Louis begins to commit himself to becoming a nuisance to the feline life of New Orleans.
Lestat: Say we come upon a murderer planting a flowerbed, thinking only of flowers. How long do we wait before his bloody deeds reveal themselves?
Louis: As long as it takes.
Lestat: You haven’t thought this through, Louis.
The charitable view, of course, is that Lestat is just not wanting, in this moment, to encourage anything Louis wants to say. If so, it would hardly be the only time Lestat shuts Louis down. Louis says he doesn’t want to feed on humans anymore so Lestat’s immediate response is to push as hard in the opposite direction. I would be satisfied with that.
Equally, I would be satisfied if, come S3, Lestat is revealed to remember this conversation completely differently. It would make sense. Of COURSE Lestat wants to feed on the evil doer and only the evil doer. What else are monsters like them supposed do? This would speak perfectly to their being many things in The Vampire Lestat that are different once Lestat takes the reigns of the books and supposed pen name.
The more I think about it, the more I won't be terribly surprised if they decide on one of these—or even a secret third option (Armand, I'm looking at you)—being the way this moment washes out later. The repercussions of deviating from Lestat only feeding from the evil doer are far too detrimental to the canon they seem intent to create.
Basically, their Lestat holding fast to this opinion for any longer than this scene would leave them struggling to hit more than one major plot point in future seasons.
Anyone who's read the books knows Lestat has already come across Marius before he meets Louis. He's heard Marius’ treatise on only eating the evil doer, and understands why his mentor holds to that tenant. Likewise, Lestat has prior to that come across Armand—something that has all but been confirmed for the series, again in the S2 trailer—and, after meeting both fledgling and maker, Lestat is able to pull together for himself an ethical stance he will take into the rest of his immortal life.
Lestat doesn't have to figure out what his code is gonna be, or whether he's gonna have one, like he way that's depicted for Louis in Episodes 2-3. This ethical stance informs him and carries through from there to the time in the future where Lestat’s made Prince of all vampires.
We'd have a very different looking future seasons ahead of us if Lestat were to abandon that code. It would make Episode 5 look tame.
But Sam knows those books. Rolin knows those books.
I love these monsters. As unreliable as Anne was with her famous lack of editing, this was something even she never flipped back and forth on. And a bunch of monsters with a code is still what we are seeing in S1 just from the fact that Daniel has survived this far into the interview in 2022.
They were and continue to be monsters, her characters, but they aren't that monstrous. There's a line for these serial murders. Honour among the thieves of mortal life.
That’s what makes them so enduringly interesting in all the variations we see for them.
@vamptember
#vc shitpost#should i have split this up into multiple posts?#my metas are starting to get a little out of hand#armand#daniel molloy#lestat de lioncourt#louis de pointe du lac#david talbot#fareed bhansali#anne rice#interview with the vampire#the vampire lestat#queen of the damned#tales of the body thief#prince lestat#mayfair witches#who's afraid of virginia woolf?#bbc sherlock#the hunger games#game of thrones#rolin jones#vamptember#vamptember 2023#vc meta#gopal divan#assad zaman#jacob anderson#sam reid#luke brandon field#amc iwtv
18 notes
·
View notes
Text
So while working on a drawing WIP of mine, I was watching a video from Drew Gooden on the Avatar Netflix adaption (note: I have never seen Avatar: the Last Airbender, and I don’t particularly plan to, either; I am just a fan of Drew Gooden’s videos and I like to learn about various series I will probably never and honestly have no desire to directly, personally interact with), and I think that he perfectly summed up in very short terms what I mean when I say that the Fifteen anime and manga are both poor adaptions of the original story.
[Transcript: “Now, before I continue getting mad about every single aspect of this show, I do wanna answer a more general question of like, ‘what should we expect out of an adaption?’ — because it may sound like I’m trying to say that this should have been a one-to-one recreation of the original show, when that is not the case.”
“You can, and should, be able to change things; why even bother spending all this money to make something that looks worse, if it’s going to be exactly the same? But, those changes need to enhance the story; they can’t be at odds with the spirit of the show, or fundamentally change a character.” /end Transcript]
While I still need to finish my article on Fifteen and its anime adaption, and later better address the manga, this is the point I want to hammer home to people who refuse to get the position I am coming from:
I am not saying that either the manga or the anime would be bad in and of themselves if they were wholly original stories, or that there is anything inherently wrong with adding content that was not in the original source material.
I am saying that they are bad at being adaptions; they are bad at representing the pre-existing story they are supposed to be telling in a new medium. While they could be perfectly fine and serviceable — if, in my opinion, far less compelling — stories if they were original content with no previous source material to adapt from, they are not that, and that is what makes them bad. They are horrible representations of the story they are trying to tell, and for an adaption there can be no greater failing than this.
The biggest changes that were made to both the anime and the manga do not enhance the story.
They do not fit the spirit of the source material.
The anime fundamentally changes a major character and re-writes an entire scene and major plot points in order to allow them to have an excuse for a few seconds of cheap fanservice for a popular pairing/character — which could have still been had in an even better way without mutilation in a different scene they actively decided to remove in order to save time that they completely squandered anyway.
The manga in certain crucial chapters takes visual creative liberties that do not at all fit the spirit, tone, or descriptions within the source material in order to play up a horror aspect that very simply was not intended to exist in the first place, and in doing so fundamentally alters important characterization, along with unnecessary and tone-altering tweaks to a few choice lines of dialogue.
An adaption should be just that: an adaption, not a re-imagining, not a re-telling, not a re-make; its job is to tell the story and elevate it as much as possible using the unique perks of the specific medium it is being brought into. For both anime and manga, this should have been done through the use of visuals (and in the case of the anime, movement, music, and voice acting) to bring the scenes described within the original source material to life and fill in the blanks based on the rest of the picture painted there, as well as expand on certain points and add to them using the spirit of the original story.
Both the anime and the manga have times when they prove that they can do such things quite well and quite efficiently, but then utterly fail to do at some of the points where it matters the very most, and that is why it can’t and shouldn’t be forgiven.
It is not a matter of not being one-to-one with the original with every scene, it is a matter of completely ignoring the most fundamental and important aspects of some of the very most crucial ones of those scenes in favor of “doing its own thing”, even if it means completely ignoring the points the original source material — and the adaption most closely worked on by the original creator (the stage plays) — tried to make.
#linklethehistorian#my thoughts#thoughts#bungou stray dogs#bsd#bsd novels#fifteen#bsd anime#bsd stage play#fifteen manga#fifteen stage play#season 3#bsd arthur rimbaud#randou#I know I’m talking to a wall but seriously people need to realize that adaptions are supposed to be adaptions#and that the moment it fails to be that yes it is in fact a bad adaption no matter how much you enjoy it as its own thing#you can enjoy it as its own thing if you must and still understand and acknowledge that it is a bad adaption#an adaption that does not adapt a story to a new medium but rather changes it in unnecessary ways that do not elevate the original is#not an adaption#but a failure of one#as at that point it has become a complete reimagining#and reimaginings are not bad….but they are if that was not what they were supposed to be doing in the first place#and if they aren’t upfront about the fact that it is NOT the same story but only borrows parts of it
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
How to Find Great Manga to Read
We’re in an awesome time for manga reading in the West. Physical manga volumes are flying off the shelves in a time when digital reading is becoming more prevalent. TikTok videos featuring manga collections have become a thing. Anime’s now-uber mainstream popularity in geek culture has helped usher in this new golden age. Yet at the same time, a lot of mainstream manga attention is usually on shonen titles with hit anime adaptations - i.e. My Hero Academia, Demon Slayer, Chainsaw Man, Spy x Family, Jujutsu Kaisen, etc. There are outliners like Junji Ito material, but it can sometimes feel like the manga getting recognized by the Western media and comics critics are being highlighted a bit too much over titles full of wonderful stories that aren’t exactly “popular” in the public geek eye.
The manga world’s more than just action series that gets hearts pumping and horror gone viral. There’s many manga titles that not only provide escapism, but provide various perspectives that will make you feel you all kinds of emotions in ways that can make someone a better person. Plus, over time, your tastes and interests may expand and you might look for other manga titles that aren’t mainstream.
I recently read a guide on Psyche called “How to find great films to watch” and in the spirit of that guide (which was really good), I want to do something similar right here.
I will use the tips that the Psyche guide gives for finding great films and apply them for finding great manga. So here we go!
Tip #1 - Start with an open mind.
This sounds like the biggest deal-breaker because there are people who see manga and have many assumptions about it. Some will argue about reading it in a right-to-left format, some may argue about the sexual content that’s sometimes found in it and some will say that manga is only for teens (the biggest market in the West).
I will argue that manga is influenced from Western culture and comics and that some of the best comics in the entire world, past and present, are manga. Speaking of the past, there’s some older manga (titles like Banana Fish, Lone Wolf and Cub, Rose of Versailles, and Osamu Tezuka’s works come to mind) that hold up well today. The point is - don’t let preconceived notions get in the way of finding a manga that one day, might touch your heart in many ways.
Also, don’t be afraid of trying out other stuff that’s for teenagers (especially on the older teen side) because there are themes and topics that adults can relate to. Beastars is a great example of such a title as it explore societal hierarchies and divisions using anthropomorphic animals to represent human beings.
Tip #2 - Give manga a chance.
When you’re able to get a 1st volume of a manga, read it in a comfortable spot with good lighting. If it’s digital, definitely read on a tablet. Next, be sure to be patient with it. The first chapter of a series can be a bit rough. Hell, the 1st volume might suck and the story might turn out to be amazing a few volumes later. There will be cases where you will not be hooked right away. The best thing you can do is give a manga series maybe 2-3 volumes to see if this is the right thing for you to read. Every manga series of a decent length has some kind of introduction arc, so you can use this as a litmus test.
Tip #3 - Get some advice.
If you have friends who are bona-fide manga lovers, do not hesitate to talk to them. If you’re lucky to have a bookstore near you that sells manga, definitely ask them for advice on what to read. Manga librarians are also a great source of community on figuring out what manga to check out for those who want to check out libraries. The point is just be around manga connoisseurs as much as possible to get the most out of finding what’s great.
Also, manga publishers who show up at anime/comic book conventions are willing to help provide recommendations to fans who stop by their booths on what titles to check out. You will also get to meet other manga enthusiasts at conventions as well.
Tip #4 - Play to your strengths and interests.
If you have a favorite genre like shonen action manga, you can explore the history of shonen action manga titles out there. Viz’s Shonen Jump service has a wide category of older shonen action manga titles for fans who want to go beyond just the hit titles of today. If you’re interested in LGBTQ+ culture, you can explore titles like Boys Run the Riot, Our Dreams at Dusk: Shimanami Tasogare, and My Lesbian Experience with Loneliness that cover that perspective. Have a fascination with works from independent creators? Check out manga from publishers like Denpa Books, Star Fruit Books and Glacier Bay Books. Let’s say you’re into world history - titles like Vinland Saga and Golden Kamuy are right up your alley.
It is safe to say that whatever it is you’re into, there’s definitely a manga for it.
Tip #5 - Follow your likes.
Once you manage to find a particular favorite manga, you can decide to learn more about the title itself and the thought process of the mangaka. You can discover what influences drove the mangaka to create what they created. This may lead you to find out similar titles just like your favorite one. Here’s an example I can give - let’s say you’re a fan of Inio Asano’s works and notice that they’re influenced by societal problems regarding youth in Japanese culture. You can do no wrong by checking out works from the likes of authors such as Shuzo Oshimi and Kengo Hanazawa, who have written stories about Japanese youth trying to find themselves in modern society.
Tip #6 - Reflect on how manga is made.
When you read enough manga, you start to pick up on how things are done. There’s so many elements that come into the manga-making process as the manga Bakuman will tell you. There’s the draft process, the number of assistants helping out, the long hours spent drawing, the isolation, the editors checking in to make sure the mangaka doesn’t go wild, etc. You can also think about the story of the title you’re reading and its narrative structure. If there was a huge plot twist that happens, there’s sometimes foreshadowing hints found in earlier volumes. You can think about what the mangaka did in making sure their narrative went according to their liking and read up on fan discussions that point these details out.
The more you read manga, the more you start to appreciate the process of how it happens.
-------------------
I think that’s all I can say about how to find great manga for now. Unfortunately, what I covered here is only just a bit of the whole manga reading picture. If you want to expand your manga horizons further, here’s some books I recommend. These books are available on Amazon and wherever books are sold.
The Art of Osamu Tezuka: The God of Manga by Helen McCarthy
Manga: The Complete Guide by Jason Thompson
Manga in Theory and Practice: The Craft of Creating Manga by Hirohiko Araki
The Citi Exhibition: Manga by Nicole Coolidge Rousmaniere and Matsuba Ryoko
The History of Hentai Manga: An Expressionist Examination of EroManga by Kimi Rito
By Your Side: The First 100 Years of Yuri Anime and Manga by Erica Friedman
1000 Years of Manga by Bridgitte Koyama-Richard
Reframing Disability in Manga by Yoshiko Okuyama
Comics and the Origins of Manga: A Revisionist History by Eike Exner
The Shonen Jump Guide to Making Manga by the Weekly Shonen Jump Editorial Department
You can check out the "Other Sites to Check Out” link on the side for more manga-related websites (I will be updating this with more manga-related links). I hope you enjoyed this guide and happy reading!
#manga#manga reading#arts#guide to reading manga#manga literacy#manga collecting#reading#literacy#visual literacy
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
Which Witcher is which canon
I noticed something odd about The Witcher fandom.
As I am usually a book purist I understand the complaints about deviations from the novels such as a certain character being drastically changed in his personality and then unceremoniously killed off when he lived in the books.
And I understand the complaints about Yennefer's behavior in season 2 in her apparent willingness to sacrifice Ciri in order to gain her powers back. I understand how wrong this is since Yennefer is pretty much Ciri's adoptive mother, the way Geralt is her adoptive father.
But then I come across other complaints like "Why is Jaskier bisexual now? I wanted him to hook up with Priscilla from the games."
And this isn't unusual. There's a whole rather large faction of Witcher fans who want the video games to be used as a source material for the Netflix series.
It's true that the Netflix series deviates a bit from the books but it is an adaptation of the books. The video games were meant as a "sequel" the books.
When CD Projket Red made their deal with Andrzej Sapkowski (author of The Witcher) they got permission to create new characters for the game continuity as well as designing their own Witcher medallion and other details such as how Geralt's scars look.
The spiked version of the silver wolf medallion, Geralt's scars, and several characters who were never mentioned in the books were purely invented by the video games and yet there are people genuinely disappointed these things are not in the Netflix show and even act betrayed because these things are not in The Netflix Witcher show.
These things were purely invented for the video games. Netflix did not gain the rights to the video game content. Netflix only has the rights to the original Witcher books- the novels and short stories. Legally they cannot use content from the games.
It seems odd to me that people were perfectly fine with The Witcher Video games expanding on the lore and inventing whole new characters but react so badly when Netflix does it. (Granted I DO agree with the dislike of certain changes in Season 2 of The Witcher).
I guess it's easier to accept a whole new lore added when the thing is a sequel to a book series instead of an adaptation of the book series. It's how I accepted Lucifer (TV series) because it is so different from the Lucifer comics but still mostly works as a possible afterward of the events of The Sandman (even if Fox couldn't mention The Endless).
Though I do understand some of the complaints about season 2 of The Witcher it bothers me a little that people keep getting disappointed / complain about content from the video games not being in the show. It's unfair to expect that when Netflix isn't adapting the video games. They only have the rights to use content from the original polish fantasy novels.
Image of the original Polish books.
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
Something that got me into a fight about the musical is that the director kept the ending from the 2010 version, because IT IS the same director. Many critize the ending since it didn't humble Riliane when... the original plot from mothy's blog doesn't cover it in the slightest? She's meant to be regretful about Allen yes, but it doesn't elaborate about how she feels about the people she sent to their deaths. Why take offense over something not even the author himself thought about then? (cont.)
Riliane wasn't humbled until Shiro no Musume (which came AFTER the musical) and mothy himself wouldn't expand on his own story until the novels, which came MONTHS AFTER the musical. People forget the novels are an expanded version of the 2010 musical. If the director wants to keep an ending with a hardened Riliane so she can defend herself after the people who wants her dead, I'd say just let him. I don't see mothy bashing any version of the musical, so why should we?
For the record, I searched Japanese blogs from people who attended the 2010 version of the musical and I can assure you the ending is the exact same one. And when I think about it, if someone you've never met before traps you inside a church, sets it on fire, and then tries to stab you after escaping from said church… I would've acted the same as Riliane did in the musical.
At the risk of sounding a little contrarian, in defense of the detractors, this adaptation makes at least a pretense of novel accuracy. Many of the character designs are based on Ichika's work, all the named characters are directly from the novel, and it makes references to broader Evillious plot points that (presumably) were not in the original, such as the Seven Deadly Sins. So while I think it's entirely up to the director's discretion that he wants to keep many elements from the original, it's undeniable that he changed many others to line up with mothy's later story to draw in people who were fans of it, thus setting them up for disappointment when it became clear this was only partially followed through.
I also think people took issue with Clarith attacking Riliane at all, not just Riliane's reaction to it. Essentially the contention was that it resulted in them having static characters with no demonstrable growth at the end (I say this as someone who likes the novel's narrative better, but given that the musical is a one-shot there's not anything actually wrong with keeping the characters static, it is meant to be a tragedy after all).
Otherwise, yeah, agree. Riliane being humbled or not is just a different story decision, it's not necessarily better or worse as long as it works with what's being told, and given how often adaptations differ from the source material, change is not a bad thing in and of itself (especially in this case as it wasn’t a change so much as a decision not to change something).
#i mean i personally would have just run away i wouldn't brandish a knife at my attacker#but that's just me
10 notes
·
View notes
Note
i just wanted to say that i really love how you analyze bart character (and others too). i mean i like your thoughts about bart response to trauma, because sometimes for me fans are... too "dramatic" about this? like i just feel that they don't see this too realistic and logic, and when i imagine bart in this way like many fans do i feel like "nah i don't think this is in bart character", some kind of that
sorry i don't know how i should put this, but i hope you get at least a little bit what i mean 😅
oh thank you for your sweet words 🥺💛
and yes, i totally understand what u mean!
personally and i guess similarly to u, i really enjoy stories and theories that expand on what we know/can assume/build on to be true and are a little grounded, because it gives it that sense of realism where the story is expanding on something “in world” to the media. Also, this makes any personal headcanons or AUs of the author/artist/whoever feel like it takes a life of its own but is still rooted in the source media which is such a great feeling cause it’s like u found another version of that media u want to consume!
like u mentioned, among some bart fan content there’s a lot of material that follows dramatised and somewhat “traditional” trauma discourse that feels a little disingenuous to what is actually known of his characterisation and plot involvement/relation as well as the general setting of Young Justice itself. Also I think as YJ itself attempts to be somewhat grounded (well as grounded as a superhero show can be) in reality, it makes the need/want for that in fan media also kinda prevalent.
that being said, of course, character interpretations and explorations are inherently subjective and people will ultimately always have different takes and spins on them and i am always interested to hear others thoughts, be it similar to mine or quite different.
It’s nice when ur own interpretation resonates with others and ik that even if i might not agree with stuff, well if it resonates with others and they enjoy it, then that’s great! I like to hope and try to also achieve the same :D Thats also a reason why I started this blog and publishing some writing, because whilst i can believe I have an understanding of a character, i can only really develop it by sharing it and see what others think of it. The fact that there is the fandom space to do all this in the first place, with other passionate ppl, is also pretty cool.
8 notes
·
View notes
Note
who's your fave character to write for? 👀👀👀👀
my fave character to write for changes all the time i used to do a TON of swerve and have a lot of swerve ideas and im not really 'burnt out' on him per se but ive explored his character so much in terms of romance/smut that i feel im rehashing the same ideas and i think a fresh perspective would help
im a sucker for rodimus i have a soft side for arrogant people irl and crush hard on anyone who is just way too confident but i love how he is soft and really cares about people too bc i can relate to that i have so much love for rodimus even if he is a shallow bastard and makes poor decisions for his own ego, i feel like theres a lot of room for improvement there esp if he had someone as his opposite (cough rival cough) to push on him and force him to think outside his own worldview im a big dork for rivals to lovers tho its like enemies to lovers but enemies generally start off VERY antagonistic and rivals are generally antagonistic yes but have room for an underlying respect and admiration and wiggle room to how they could interact as friends
someone i never get requests for but love immensely with my whole heart is bumblebee all bumblebees (i even have a soft spot for bayverse but i will NEVER touch those movies i dont want them within the bi county area stay away from me) i have loved bee since i was a kid bc the first transformers i watched was tfa and i loved characters like jack spicer and bee and other such overconfident jerks with a soft side as ive explored other series that love for bee has only grown i love him when hes a bold leader who wants to earn respect but treats even his enemies with kindness and i love him when he's a scout who gets into trouble bc hes just too gentle and weak i have so many thoughts about bumblebee i love him lots i could go on and on about the different bees (and their relationships with starscream ill die on this hill) hes always such a gentle good guy and deserves the whole world i dont care if transformers is overrun with bumblebee content i want MORE
i also love to write cheetor but strictly beast wars and cyberverse cheetor i feel only terror with beast machines cheetor im a big sucker for anything that has a likeness to cats and the fact that his alt mode is a cheetah i think is so cool im a cat lady through and through i love cat mugs and posters and slippers so ofc one of my fave robots has to be the cat one which also brings up ravage whom i adore in a different way than cheetor they are complete opposites in many regards but they are both loyal which is a quality i treasure in any character or person i think the most interesting thing about ravages story (particularly idw here) is that he is essentially a man with a body that makes others see him as a creature rather than a person i like that the writers took the time to think about all the altmodes the decepticons have and how their original functions made them sympathetic to megatrons cause
i also like writing for rumble and frenzy (all the cassetticons really) although i have a hard time bc two of my friends are big cassette fans and i want to portray them in a way that they would when it comes to transformers or any fandom imma be honest and say,,,,,,,,, ive hardly looked at the source material i havent read much and i havent watched much i saw big sexy robots and i was hooked and i love the story but,,,,,,,,,,, theres no way my attention span would allow me to read a full range of comics man i dont have that in me
other than that i dont want to say that im clinical in how i approach characters but im technical and i know them in a general sense and expand upon them in a way i feel a real person with specific personality traits would act i want them to feel more in depth than just a one or two dimensional character i want to write them in various situations bc deep down we all are just,,,,,, love creatures we all love and we all love to be loved
16 notes
·
View notes
Text
This is mostly for personal use. Trying to be organized with this blog, so listing the rules for myself.
I originally intended this to be for my untamed obsession, but am expanding it into xianxia / danmei / etc.
Listing all fandoms, will use the following tagging system for all, just replacing "the untamed" with the name in brackets:
Scum Villain's Self Saving System (svss)
The husky and his white cat shizun (2ha)
Heaven official's blessing (tgcf)
Mistakenly saving the villain (tbd- trying to figure out if there is a shorthand for this)
Category Tags:
The untamed art
The untamed humor
The untamed commentary
The untamed screencaps
Character shorthand
It seems like fandom has decided on the following format when tagging characters which is:
First initial of the family name, first initial of the courtesy name, second initial of the courtesy name.
Example:
Wei WuXian is WWX
Jiang WanYin (more commonly called Jiang Cheng) is JWY
Lan WangJi is LWJ
So I will use the shirt hand when tagging characters
The untamed as I understand it ( a constantly evolving guide):
The Untamed (Chinese live action drama): This does not have an English dub, but the subs are quite good. A few times I've questioned the translation choices, and they tend to show only the full name, not the honorific or diminutives actually being used, but overall I did not have trouble following the story with these.
This one is my favorite piece of media of all the adaptations I've seen so far, and I would recommend using it as a starting point. My biggest complaint would be there is not much info given about the magic system, but it's still easy to follow.
When starting watching, I found this guide useful: https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1UDfxjqkGpsqvqMaBC77LLnuUE2ihjE-UWcwA0ZLjKwE/mobilebasic
Mo Dao Zu Shi (Donghua - Chinese animation): only recently started watching it, so I can't say much at this point, but I will say that due to the extensive cast and the animation style, I am finding it hard to keep track of who is who.
The Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation/ The Founder of Diabolism (light novel): this is the source material everything else is adapted from. It's technically called Mo Dao Zu Shi as well, but I chose to use the two most common translations to distinguish from the Donghua. I read this after watching the c-drama, and it did answer or elaborate on some questions I had from the show. I personally am not as much of a fan of this, mostly because it skirts the line of what I find to be acceptable consent - others experiences may differ. On the other hand, this does have an explicitly gay romance (explicit as in it is clearly a gay romance and it does have explicit content), so it does better at representation.
Other media: I believe there is also a radio drama and a mobile game, but I want list these until I have listened/played them
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Blog post 3 - Transmedia and intertextuality in Star Wars
Star Wars has a lot of content spread across multiple different forms of media featuring a vast array of stories and characters, and as an avid fan of the Star Wars franchise, I believe there are examples of both intertextuality and transmedia within the different pieces of media, particularly in recent years.
What is transmedia and intertextuality?
Transmedia is where a story is spread out over multiple properties within a fictional universe, a more complete definition would be this one from Henry Jenkins.
“Transmedia storytelling represents a process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience.” (Jenkins, 2007)
This form of storytelling has been on the rise in recent years with the most notable example being the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with another example being the DC Extended Universe.
When it comes to intertextuality, a good definition is: “Intertextuality is the relationship between texts”. (Heckmann, 2023) It’s basically when texts reference other texts, with texts meaning movies, TV shows, books, etc. There are different types, each referencing other texts in different ways which I will discuss later.
Intertextuality in Star Wars
There is more than one kind of intertextuality in relation to the Star Wars franchise, one of those is explicit intertextuality. This is associated with things like remakes, reboots, and sequels and prequels, the last two being heavily associated with Star Wars.
There are:
3 separate trilogies of films, the original trilogy, a prequel trilogy, and a sequel trilogy.
Two spin-off movies, one of which being a prequel that leads directly into the first movie.
5 live action shows
5 animated shows
4 canonical games, plus many more
Various other canon and non-canon shows ranging from kids shows to anime.
Countless comics and books, again a mix of canon and non-canon material
Many of these pieces of media are prequels or sequels to others. They can slot into a timeline before or after another piece of media, often directly referencing or leading into one another.
It is important to note that in Star Wars many pieces of media were “removed” from the cannon after Disney acquired it, so much of the material is now no longer canon and known as the expanded universe or legends. It gets more complicated when new material is made using the old material as a source or influence. So, taking this into consideration, the intertextuality aspect can become complicated as some non-canon pieces reference the canon ones, but this ultimately means nothing.
There is also implicit intertextuality, which is associated with parodies and satires, such as Spaceballs (1987) and special episodes of tv shows.
How Star Wars is transmedia
In recent years the material has become more cohesive in order to tell a much larger connected story instead of several separate stories in the same universe.
The various new shows have been telling a story with characters appearing in each other’s shows, sometimes for just one episode or to serve a larger role in that story. This is all building up to a larger conclusion similar to the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s Avengers Endgame (2019).
Does transmedia help the Star Wars franchise?
In recent years online streaming services have dominated the market, massively increasing the reach of their audience. This enables the studios to consistently put out new content with interconnecting stories that will get a guaranteed viewership.
The promise of an interconnected story has viewers rushing to watch the next piece of content released to not miss out on anything leading up to the culmination of said story. It is a formula that seems to work, the above-mentioned Marvel Cinematic Universe had a multiple year long story culminating in a grand conclusion in Avengers Endgame (2019). Which, as of writing, still sits at the number two spot of highest grossing movies of all time.
Star Wars has been creating an interconnected story with some of their newer shows on the Disney+ streaming service. There are some that are set around the same time period and have been slowly building to a movie which will likely feature many of the characters from these shows in a similar way to Avengers Endgame (2019).
This method of transmedia storytelling will definitely help the franchise as it has created a new interest and generated new excitement as to what’s coming next. Pair that with the consistent viewership provided by the streaming service its on and the franchise will profit overall. However, this method isn’t without its drawbacks.
Sometimes some shows, or specific seasons of them have been not well received for various reasons. Whether it be a lower quality of CGI due to budget or time constraints, or a character being handled wrong in the viewer base’s eyes, these issues may actually do more harm than good for the franchise as fans lose trust in the handling of future shows and characters. Also, there is potential for the franchise to go a similar way to the current state of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where the abundance of content has seen a decrease in quality as more content per year means a shorter time frame for production. Or the sheer amount of time required to watch all this new content has become too much for fans to dedicate their time to, causing burnout and a drop in viewership.
So, while I think that this method of transmedia storytelling does help the franchise overall, care must be taken going forward when making these movies and shows in order to keep this newly generated interest.
Bibliography
Avengers: Endgame. (2019) Film. Directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo. [DVD]. USA: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
Childress, E., 2023. THE 50 HIGHEST-GROSSING MOVIES OF ALL TIME: YOUR TOP BOX OFFICE EARNERS EVER WORLDWIDE. [Online]
Available at: https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/highest-grossing-movies-all-time/
[Accessed 19 October 2023].
Heckmann, C., 2023. What is Intertextuality — Definition and Examples. [Online]
Available at: https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-intertextuality-definition/
[Accessed 19 October 2023].
Jenkins, H., 2007. Transmedia Storytelling 101. [Online]
Available at: https://henryjenkins.org/blog/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html
[Accessed 19 October 2023].
Spaceballs. (1987) Film. Directed by Mel Brooks. [DVD]. USA: MGM/UA Communications Co.
0 notes
Text
Something I want to get off my chest
I like supplemental material. I like learning more about a world and characters, expanding my knowledge on elements that weren't covered by the story because they didn't need to be. It's fun and more content on something I like.
But elements that are important to the story - elements that should and need to be in the story, like a plot point, worldbuilding, the antagonist's motivation, an emotional arc, a character arc, or even the fucking ending?
When they're relegated to supplemental material?
When the only way the audience can get these necessary story beats is to seek out the supplemental material - buy the book, look on the official website, watch/read/play a different story; to look up a different, separate source?
No. That's horseshit.
That means that the audience (i.e. us) did not get the whole story - from the story.
Now, I don't think this is done on purpose... Every time (there are a couple of times I've seen when it was clearly a deliberate choice). Especially within industries like movies, TV, comics books, etc, there are going to be factors that can cause this to happen that are out of control of creators... Or the creators genuinly didn't notice because of other things.
Point is, 99% of the time, there's nothing sinister or lazy behind it. It's just an honest mistake that happened.
But that doesn't stop me from being so frustrated when it does happen (admittedly more often when it's a story I've grown to love/obsess over).
Because that means, I repeat: we didn't get the whole story from the story.
And the only way we (and new fans, once they're done going through the original) can get the whole story now...
Is to do homework.
I hate that. I hate it a lot.
(thankyouforcomingtomyTEDtalk)
#Not naming names#Not looking for a discussion#I just wanted to vent and yell into the void#If you get a meaningful discussion out of this#That's *your* problem#Gripe
1 note
·
View note
Text
Interview -- Alissa B.
NG: You’ve talked about how babygirl-ing masculine individuals is a way to flip the script on the
objectification of the feminine body, which is so interesting! Do you consider that the first step
towards a larger discussion of objectification in general, and if so, where would you expand
your references to?
AB: The unfortunate thing about starting a new body of work is that the meaning and reason for
doing things changes before you get to the perceived end. When I started this work, I was curious
about how feminine people on the internet objectify men because it only mirrors the way men
objectify women in the fact that a gender is being objectified. Men create a violent fantasy of
how women should act and then treat women that way. I’ve found that “babygirl-ification” is
also a kind of fantasy, but it’s one where men have less power and are less likely to commit
abuse or acts of violence. Or rather its both, where men have less of the power, physically and
socially, to be able to be violent and abusive.
However! I think my portrait collage series is shifting. I realized that I have a lot of shame when
it comes to attraction, especially towards men. Having celebrity crushes or fantasizing about
certain fictional characters makes me anxious because I worry about how I will be perceived.
This is very normal behavior by the way, and it’s common for younger people, specifically queer
and feminine people who have little to no romantic or sexual experience, to explore sexuality/
physicality/etc through the use of fiction. A lot of my shame comes from bullying in middle
school (doesn’t it all), and I realize now I don’t want to be ashamed to experience attraction of
any kind. This series is now becoming a way for me to connect with a younger version of myself,
and to give her a platform to express herself after I’ve tried to repress her for so long.
NG: We’ve talked before about why making larger-than-life-sized art is important to you, but why
is making your smaller work in the sizes you choose important to you and your practice?
AB: The size of my work has to do with content but also about practicality. I love making big, almost
mural-like paintings of complex scenes, but I am under a time constraint in a single semester. By
working small, I can explore more topics and materials, and it takes me a fraction of the time.
There is also something to be said about how my work about the digital, niche community on the
internet require a smaller frame. The internet exists in the size of a phone, tablet, or laptop
screen. While the internet and fan communities feel big, they physically are small. I would love
to play with size and distort it eventually, but now as I’m trying new things, I’d like to keep it
small for sanity’s sake.
NG: You’ve talked about how your engagement with media is a big source of reference for your
work! As your relationship to the media you pull from now naturally changes with time, how
do you see it changing the way you see this artwork down the line? Is it like a studio
scrapbook, or more of a linear story detailing what you were into at the time it was made?
AB: Yes! I think that’s a perfect way to describe it. When I look back on work I made in my
undergrad, I am able to see exactly where I was mentally and emotionally because I included so
many references to the things I love. It’s almost like that scene in Ratatouille, where I am
immediately transported back. It becomes a diary or scrapbook. I sometimes don’t remember the
day to day, but I always remember what shows or what music I was listening to. I get to create
these eras for myself, and that’s something I’m really interested in exploring.
0 notes
Text
Analysis of the video essay: "How to Build a Franchise Like Gene Roddenberry"
youtube
Here is a summary of the key points discussed in bullet points:
The document is an informative/educational video essay analyzing Gene Roddenberry's approach to franchises through Star Trek.
It makes a clear, well-evidenced central argument that Roddenberry knew how to build lasting franchises.
Perspectives are balanced, scholarly, and aim to constructively identify modern lessons rather than criticize.
Arguments are logical, evidence-based, acknowledge counterpositions, and reach sound conclusions.
Contents and evaluations align well with broader critical/fan consensus perspectives.
Ethical standards of fairness, accuracy, objectivity and respect for individuals are modeled.
Relevant stakeholders and their influences are identified and assessed comprehensively.
Psychological principles of fandom, creativity, thinking and motivation are reflected.
Ideas empower creative growth while challenging some rigid or nostalgia-focused approaches.
Logical reasoning avoids fallacious patterns and remains focused on empirical facts.
Overall evaluation is that the document is persuasive and effective in achieving its educational goals through strong argumentation and evaluation.
Here is a summary of the document in bullet points:
It discusses how media franchises are overwhelmingly dominant today but many have reached a "breaking point" with audiences.
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has struggled to maintain quality after Endgame, DC films have had flops, and Star Wars hasn't felt like a dominant pop culture force since the sequel trilogy.
Fans also express feelings of oversaturation for Star Wars and Star Trek streaming shows.
Gene Roddenberry knew how to build franchises that last through his approach with Star Trek.
Some of Roddenberry's proposed Star Trek spin-offs included a comedic mod show, sci-fi medical drama Hope Ship, and thriller starring Gary 7.
This showed Roddenberry was bold in expanding the franchise through different genres not directly tied to Star Trek.
Lesson: Spin-offs are not sequels and should not rely on previous material or share the same genre/format.
Roddenberry cared little for continuity in Star Trek and invented vague stardates to avoid concrete timelines.
Continuity errors in Star Trek are blown out of proportion by some fans contrary to Roddenberry's intent.
Roddenberry saw The Motion Picture as a reboot and wrote the novelization to freely alter canon as he saw fit.
Traditional mythos were expanded freely through various authors, not strictly adhering to canon like modern franchises.
Roddenberry kept the Star Trek setting open to change and viewed The Next Generation as another reboot at first.
Lessons are that spin-offs should stand alone, canon is not set in stone, and the mythos is bigger than one author.
Based on the content and style of the document, I would evaluate its genre as an informative/educational video essay. Some reasons for this assessment:
Tone and language: The document uses an explanatory, analytical tone when discussing topics like Gene Roddenberry's approach to Star Trek and lessons that can be learned.
Structure: It follows the structure of a traditional essay, beginning with an introduction to the context of modern media franchises, then exploring Roddenberry/Star Trek in more detail through multiple paragraphs/points.
Purpose: The clear purpose is to inform and educate the viewer on this particular aspect of franchise storytelling and Roddenberry's philosophies, rather than simply entertain.
Citations: It references direct quotes and details from Star Trek sources to support its analysis and arguments about continuity, canon, etc.
Visuals: As a video, it likely contains visual aids like clips, images and graphics to illustrate points - a common technique in video essays.
Target audience: The language and depth of analysis suggests an audience interested in learning more about this topic, rather than purely casual viewers.
So in summary, while it may contain some entertainment through its visual/clip elements, the overall style, structure and aims of the document place it firmly in the genre of informative/educational video essay about media franchises and Roddenberry's approach. The goal is analytical discussion and teaching viewers lessons.
Here is an evaluation of the arguments made in the document:
Main Argument: Roddenberry knew how to build franchises that last through his approach to spin-offs and canon flexibility. This is a reasonable argument supported by good evidence.
Evidence: Examples of Roddenberry's proposed spin-offs and his own comments on canon/continuity provide solid primary sources to back the claims. This helps strengthen the argument.
Logic of Reasoning: The document logically reasons that Roddenberry's approach emulated mythos-building traditions and allowed for freshness, which contribute to long-term success. The logic flows well.
Counterpoints: It acknowledges some valid criticisms of Roddenberry but argues he still offers lessons, adding nuance. Alternative views are recognized.
Connects to Thesis: Each piece of evidence and each point made coherently connects back to supporting the central argument regarding Roddenberry's approach.
Conclusions Follow: The conclusions drawn regarding lessons align with and follow from the argument and evidence presented.
Scope is Limited: The document focuses its argument specifically on Roddenberry/franchises, avoiding broader claims, so the argument remains reasonably scoped.
Overall, the arguments made are logically structured and reasoned, well supported by relevant and persuasive evidence, acknowledge other perspectives, and lead to sound conclusions that follow the argument made. The arguments are clear, coherent and compelling.
Here is an evaluation of some key statements in relation to broader scholarly/fan consensus:
Roddenberry's flexible approach to canon/continuity: This perspective aligns with most scholarly/critical assessments of Roddenberry's documented attitudes.
Viewing TNG as a soft reboot: Scholarly works tend to agree Roddenberry saw it this way initially before more direct connections emerged.
Fans overemphasizing continuity importance: Wide consensus that some fans get too immersed in continuity debates, contrary to creators' intent.
Spin-offs benefiting from independence: Aligns with most analyses that successful spin-offs differentiate rather than mimic the original.
Modern franchise fatigue: Critical consensus is franchises face challenges sustaining quality/appeal with excessive new content.
Marvel struggles post-Endgame: Reflective of box office/critical reception trends for recent MCU entries.
DC film faults: Agreements that recent DC films underperformed far more than their Marvel counterparts.
Star Wars saturation: Fans extensively document feelings of Disney Star Wars overuse online.
So in general, the perspectives and assessments presented correlate very strongly with the broader critical and fan consensus perspectives on these issues. The document is assessing the topics in line with established mainstream understandings.
Here is an evaluation of the ethics presented in the document:
Accuracy: The claims are supported by facts and direct evidence from trustworthy sources, enhancing accuracy.
Fairness: Multiple perspectives are acknowledged and counterarguments recognized. Franchises are assessed even-handedly.
Objectivity: The analysis strives for an unbiased scholarly evaluation of ideas rather than promoting subjective agendas.
Honesty: There appears to be no deception, half-truths or intentional omissions of relevant information.
Plagiarism: All direct citations and references are properly attributed to original authors.
Respect: Roddenberry and other individuals/works are discussed respectfully despite critiques of certain aspects.
Impartiality: The document evaluates the issues from a neutral stance rather than one favoring particular individuals or factions.
Beneficence: The aim is to educate and inform the audience constructively rather than deliberately mislead or harm comprehension.
Overall, the document models strong ethical standards of accuracy, fairness, objectivity, honesty, attribution of sources, respect for individuals, impartial analysis, and beneficence in seeking to enlighten rather than mislead its audience. No apparent ethical lapses were identified.
The key stakeholders mentioned in the document include:
Gene Roddenberry - As the creator of Star Trek, how he envisioned the franchise has major implications. His approach is a primary subject of analysis.
Star Trek fans - Specifically referenced are those obsessed with continuity debates or embracing new visions. Their perspectives and fatigue shape the franchise.
Star Trek writers - Others like those on TNG who had to convince Roddenberry to reference past elements, showing his influence.
Franchise creators - Broadly referenced are those building modern franchises who could learn from Roddenberry's approach.
Audiences - How well franchises sustain audience interest and quality over time is a major issue discussed. Audiences experience fatigue.
Studios - Blockbuster franchises are major commercial properties, so studios have influence and stake in their directions.
The document considers the perspectives and impacts of these key stakeholders in a franchise ecosystem in a fairly balanced manner. It acknowledges the different aims and viewpoints between creators, fans and general audiences in how franchises develop. The stakeholders analyzed seem to cover the major involved parties comprehensively.
The perspective taken in this document can be characterized as:
Admiring yet balanced perspective on Roddenberry: While revering Roddenberry's influence, it acknowledges his inconsistencies and that others contributed greatly to Star Trek as well.
Scholarly/analytical perspective: The tone is that of an analyst seeking to objectively examine Roddenberry's approach and draw evidence-based conclusions, rather than a subjective fan perspective.
Appreciative of new visions: It advocates embracing new interpretations of the Star Trek mythos rather than clinging too rigidly to Roddenberry's original vision.
Forward-looking perspective: The aim is to identify useful lessons for modern franchises rather than criticizing past iterations through nostalgia or loyalty to canon.
Even-handed treatment of franchises: Both positive and negative aspects of franchises like Star Wars and Marvel are acknowledged in discussing modern fatigue issues.
Intertextual perspective: It considers Roddenberry's work in relation to concepts like mythos-building traditions, not in isolation from other storytelling influences.
So in summary, the perspective can be characterized as scholarly, appreciative of new interpretations, forward-looking in its aims, even-handed in its franchise analysis, and seeking to place Roddenberry in an intertextual context rather than a strictly insular fan lens. The perspective aims for balance and drawing constructive lessons.
There are a few aspects of psychology reflected in the document:
Fan psychology: It acknowledges that some fans become overly wedded to continuity and obsessed with Canon, losing perspective. This correlates with research on parasocial relationships in fandom.
Audience fatigue: The concept of franchises potentially reaching a "breaking point" with audiences reflects principles of habituation and novelty-seeking in psychology.
Creative evolution: Roddenberry's flexible approach to canon mirrors modern perspectives in creativity research about myths/stories organically shaping over time rather than being static.
Franchise building: Roddenberry saw spin-offs as an opportunity for new genres/styles, intuitively understanding diversity maintains interest per psychological models of novelty.
Critical thinking: The document advocates an analytical, evidence-based perspective over subjective fandom, aligning with psychological models of rational vs. emotional thinking.
Constructive lessons: Focusing on identifying helpful strategies rather than criticism correlates with psychological theories of growth mindsets versus fixed mindsets.
So while not explicitly a work of media psychology, the understandings reflected correlate quite strongly with key established principles in areas like fandom, creativity, learning/thinking, and motivation/mindsets from a psychological lens. This adds authenticity.
Potential beneficiaries of the ideas presented in the document include:
Franchise creators - Could apply lessons to sustain quality/appeal over the long run through innovative spin-offs vs clones.
Studios - Successful franchises translate to large profits, so lessons may help minimize fatigue/failure risks.
Audiences - Would continue enjoying well-told stories in new forms that feel fresh rather than recycled.
Artists/writers - A philosophy valuing flexible mythos-building may empower more creative control and expression.
Those who may not directly benefit or could be challenged include:
Rigid continuity "purists" - Their hyper-focus on continuity may be reframed by the perspective.
Those resistant to change - Embracing new visions departing from origins risks upsetting traditionalists.
"Nostalgia-mines" - Adaptations mostly focused on fan service over original storytelling.
Certain fan factions - Some obsessive factions may lose sense of sole ownership over a mythos/franchise.
So the ideas primarily empower those seeking to enrich a creative franchise for new generations, while potentially challenging some with inflexible or opportunistic approaches more focused on stasis or nostalgia over artistic evolution. Overall it aims to benefit the health of franchises and storytelling rather than specific parochial interests.
I did not detect any logical fallacies in the arguments presented in the document. The reasoning appeared logically sound. Some potential fallacies it avoided include:
No strawman arguments - It did not misrepresent or exaggerate opposing views to make them easier to refute.
No ad hominem attacks - No attempts to invalidate arguments by attacking individuals rather than evidence.
No post hoc fallacies - Reasoning about causality did not assume correlation implies causation.
No false dichotomies - Issues were not reduced to binary without valid middle grounds.
No red herrings - Reasoning stayed focused on topic without diverting to unrelated issues.
No slippery slopes - Did not assert unreasonable extreme conclusions from more modest premises.
No hasty generalizations - Individual examples were reasonably extrapolated as representative lessons.
No anecdotal evidence - Direct quotes/examples were used evidentially rather than anecdotally.
No composition/division errors - Logical reasoning did not fallaciously apply qualities of parts to a whole or vice versa.
Overall, the arguments presented evidence, acknowledged counterpositions, and drew sound conclusions based on empirical facts rather than faulty logical assumptions or problematic reasoning patterns. No logical fallacies seemed to undermine the persuasiveness of its case.
Here are some common evaluation criteria for an informative/educational video essay genre and my evaluation of the document based on each criteria:
Thesis/central argument: The thesis that Roddenberry knew how to build lasting franchises through his approach to spin-offs and canon is clear and well presented. Effectiveness: Strong.
Organization: The document is well organized in a logical flow from context to Roddenberry/Star Trek details to conclusions. Effectiveness: Strong.
Coherence: All details and examples coherently support the central argument and flow logically. Effectiveness: Strong.
Analytic depth: It offers insightful analysis beyond surface facts through direct examples and Roddenberry's own comments. Effectiveness: Strong.
Persuasiveness of argument: The argument is persuasive due to concrete evidence, logical reasoning and compelling presentation. Effectiveness: Strong.
Citation of references: Relevant direct references and quotes are cited to strengthen analyses. Effectiveness: Strong.
Clarity of presentation: Concepts are broken down and explained clearly for audience understanding. Effectiveness: Strong.
Engaging style: While text-heavy, the semi-dialogue style keeps it engaging for the genre. Effectiveness: Moderate.
Achieving educational goals: Viewers would gain understanding of Roddenberry/franchises as intended. Effectiveness: Strong.
Overall, the document is highly effective in achieving the goals of the informative/educational video essay genre through strong organization, argumentation, analysis, citations and clarity despite some room for more engaging visual/audio techniques.
Gqv0NVDH59mZTBIPnTR0
#GeneRoddenberry#StarTrek#StarTrekFranchise#StarTrekContinuity#StarTrekCanon#FranchiseFatigue#MarvelFatigue#DCFilms#StarWarsFatigue#FranchiseLessons#SpinOffs#MediaFranchises#MediaMythos#FanCulture#FanTheories#FandomDebates#CreativeProcess#Storytelling#MediaCriticism#FilmAnalysis#MediaPsychology#MediaBusiness#AudienceEngagement#EntertainmentIndustry#IPManagement#Copyright#TransmediaStorytelling#Youtube
0 notes
Text
The amount of Pokémon fan work that Nintendo insists on taking down makes me incredibly sad. Not even going over the heavy amount of effort and time that probably went into these projects, many of them were exploring interesting concepts and ideas that the official Pokémon series had never gone over before. Not to “fix” or push aside the source material exactly, but to expand on it and put different interpretations of it out into the world.
Every Pokémon fan project was/is clearly a labor of love. I can’t imagine seeing that- never mind seeing it in abundance, and thinking that you have to take it down at all costs. Nintendo and so many other companies have a huge problem with viewing fan projects that take years of work as some sort of threat to their business- when in reality they work as the opposite of that. They spread exposure to the original series. I know copyright laws with fan content can vary but when you compare Nintendo’s track record of taking down fan content to other corporations, it feels like they’re really just rallying against fanart out of fear.
#pokemon#when I typed ‘other companies’#I specifically had Hasbro in mind#the amount of amazing MLP fan content I’ve watched them absolutely annihilate is insane#oh Nintendo also does this with Mario as well!!#they’ve taken down several Mario fan comics and games and it’s super frustrating#I’m starting to think Nintendo fears that fans of their games will turn to fan work over the original work#which tbh is fair thing to think because fan work is straight up better LMAOOOO#ok but being fr#it’s totally unfair and has no real reason to be happening other than fear#Pokémon games
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
wanbskin3
Untitled
heartbreaker-t
my true love
theladycaroline
The Lady C
povere-creature-2024-in-italiano
Cineblog01 | Povere creature [2024] Streaming-ITA SenzaLimiti
rexexemplar
vincit qui se vincit.