I believe the reason why Nimona turned into a Phoenix specifically in the final scene of the movie was not necessarily a (purely) artistic choice, but rather because Nimona wanted to live.
We know that Nimona can do pretty much anything, including turning into a fictional dragon and spew cereal instead of fire.
And she’s smart, we know that, too.
So I wouldn’t put it past her to be able to figure out a way, on the spot, to not die while throwing herself full force against a cannon that she knew was gonna kill her.
She knew she was gonna die, so she turned into a being that would always come back to life, because she wanted to live.
5K notes
·
View notes
Things every Dick vs Tim Red Robin fallout gets wrong no matter who's side they take
1. They still loved each other
2. Dick went after Tim after Tim stormed out of the cave. He didn't just leave it at that
3. They didn't have 0 contact, Dick called Tim back to Gotham for Blackest Night. They weren't talking because Tim didn't want to talk
4. Alfred gave Damian the Robin costume initially without Dick's knowledge, and his first mission as Robin was saving Tim's life after he got beat up by Jason (again). He apparently left this mess for Dick to clean up, and I don't think anyone ever told Tim that's how Damian ended up with the mantle
5. Dick helped in the process of bringing Bruce back to the current time, Tim presented his evidence when he got home, and Dick checked it out and solved the time puzzle in Bruce's ancestral home. Tim didn't magically pop back with Bruce after doing everything by himself, it was a coordinated effort that involved the Justice League
6. Tim and Damian started to get along. Not during Red Robin, but during Batman: Gates of Gotham
7. They were both grieving, Dick just masked it better
8. Tim didn't feel like he could ask for help because he knew sounded insane (and was feeling/acting insane). He was doing one of those 'i push away everyone i love because i hate myself' things, which he also did to Steph (who he fired as Spoiler under god knows who's authority) and Cassie. Dick wasn't special in this treatment, and he can't force Tim to stay, so he trusted Tim's judgement and let him leave. It is a "Tim's a sad boy" comic, but he's also very much a part of causing his own problems
9. They still loved each other. They never stopped loving each other. They never hated one another. Both in this era asked the other "Do you trust me?" And the other replied "Yes" and did the thing they asked. *shakes everyone who's ever written about this* that's the whole point, it's about miscommunication, and being in a bad place, but having what you need where you started waiting for you the whole time
3K notes
·
View notes
Your post about art vs content got me thinking about the differences between the two. To me there is no difference besides the mindsets. One is of creator and the enjoyer, the other is content and consumer it removes the personhood, the joy/emotion, from the equation. Like a writer or video creator may not see their work as art so content creator maybe a way to refer to themselves comfortably but it sounds so machine, emotionless and lifeless, like a cookie cutter recipe mass producing something verses people lovingly crafting something...then again Disney uses a cookie cutter recipe for the most part and it brings out bangers cause people lovingly make it their own so maybe I'm thinking too hard on this
Does my long-winded rant make sense?
see, I get what you mean, but I still feel like the willingness to entertain calling art of any kind "content" reduces it to the facet of consumption where in reality, the experience of consuming art is not the sole defining trait of it.
Reducing arts like music, writing, painting, dance, voice acting, theater, etc. to the role of "content"- a thing created to be consumed, measured and valued by how pleasant or easy it is to digest- I feel that it was our biggest red flag to herald the incoming tide of AI "art".
Because if art is "content", if arts are nothing but consumable matter, then obviously the key to success is to produce as much soft, tasty, edible paste as we possibly can at the lowest possible expense.
It's the same issue I have with "meal replacements", diet culture, nutrient slurries, twenty-step skincare routines, 24/7 body padding and shapewear and laxative teas and "grind culture". It's not a cause, but a symptom, of the disease that is late-stage capitalism.
Things must be produced at low cost and remain in high demand forever. Things must be perfect and palatable and the new hit trend forever. People must pay hand over fist to consume without asking anything in return, and if they start dropping like flies at the unending unrewarded thankless demand of it all, then that must be treated as a weakness. We should all take pride in how much we can spend, pay, give, produce, and think as little as possible about what we ask for ourselves.
So, who cares if, of two identical paintings, one was made by a person and one was made by a computer program? It's the same work, so what does it matter? What does it matter?
I am an artist. I make art. I ask a question, make a statement, declare something horrific or challenging or upsetting or wrong or grotesque, and when you respond, we are together experiencing a conversation. We are existing, two people living one life and reaching out and touching across time and space. No matter the work, you're at the barest minimum saying, "I'm alive, and you're alive, and at one time or another we shared this same world, and at the end of the day we aren't too terribly different. My heart is worth sharing, and your heart is worth the struggle of understanding."
An AI-generated piece, a computer-generated voice, a CGI puppet of someone long since dead and gone, they cannot speak. They have no voice. Ay best, they are the most chewable, consumable, landlord-beige common denominator possible that you can sit and listen to like the lone survivor of a shipwreck listening to the same three songs on a broken record, and at worst, they're the uncaring vomit of an empty, unloving, value-addled hack wearing the skin of someone I know over their own.
When you abandon art to say that you make content, that should not be a point of pride. That's an embarrassment. That's not sitting down for an intelligent discussion with an equal, that's kneeling at the feet of the crowd and saying, "what do you want to see me do? I can be anyone you've ever loved. I can be them, I can be anyone, as long as you love me."
I can make content. I can be consumed. What do you want to consume? I'll make myself consumable. I'll make myself just like anything you like. And I'll make so much of it that you'll never have to go anywhere else, because it'll all be right here, and under all the cut-and-paste schlock you've seen before I will sit alone in the dark and the silence and I will know that I am safe, because I am valued, because I am desired, and I need to be desired or else I am worthless like a factory that no longer churns out steel or a hen that no longer lays eggs or a cow that is too old to make milk.
Content, the most literal meaning, is something which is contained inside a container. What it is doesn't really matter, and the best it can hope to be is something worthy of being scooped out and used.
Art is an experience that transcends value. Art is something you can eat without paying for. You can make it out of anything and anyone can do it. It can be crude and vulgar and bad, and that's a strength because it means something. It always, always means something, and it doesn't matter if you like it or not. It's not content because it doesn't fill anything. It's a living, breathing thing, and whether you want to birth it or eat it, then you're going to have to be willing to put the fucking work in
348 notes
·
View notes