Shadow Puppets au - Charlatans

This is actually planned to be part of a larger sequence involving a third character who calls Belos out as not talking to the Titan, but we haven't gotten to this part in the RP yet so said character's dialogue isn't set in stone, but this exchange is

For anyone seeing this au for the first time

Philip and the Collector "Astrophel" are genuine friends in this au, and have been since Philip was eight years old

No one can see or hear Astrophel unless they have touched the Collector's tablet or the Stella-Luna Amulet that Belos wears around his neck

Astrophel is an active and equal part of Belos's scheme to deceive and destroy the isles, consulting with him and using his limited power to affect the outside world to cause natural disasters on command in order to make it look like Belos is communicating with the Titan

Philip is also actually cursed in this au, and I don't think I've mentioned this before, but his eyes glow when the curse is acting up

The Power of Love according to Season 5 of Miraculous

Something disturbing dawned on me concerning...a lot of the development in Season 5 and it comes down to one thing: Love.

At first, Andre and Felix getting redeemed while Chloe gets sent off to the worst fate the show would allow didn't make a lot of sense. The only thing I could get from the writers was just that "Chloe bad, so everyone else good." It was stupid, but it wasn't insidious. At least, not that insidious at first. And then the finale with Gabriel happened and while it took me a while to process my frustrations with this, something finally clicked. Not only concerning that, but some of the other developments I've seen.

Felix getting another chance to the point of JOINING the heroes in the new universe seemed like nonsense until you look at what happened before that. He was someone who Astruc went out of his way to bury in the narrative and was exclusively causing trouble for everyone up to and including GENOCIDE...until he showed his love to Kagami. Suddenly, his actions are seen as righteous and his backstory of being abused by his father was justification for his actions. You see, he loved Kagami and he also apparently loved Adrien too because they were "the same."

Andre was basically just some corrupt politician who was also a pathetic snob. Then when Zoe came in, we suddenly get all of these humanizing bits about how Chloe totally mistreated him (because apparently, not having the guts to say no to your daughter is mistreatment) and when he divorced Audrey, he gets Zoe because he's someone he could be happy with. A true familial love unlike the one he had with Chloe.

Chloe, meanwhile, doesn't love anyone as far as the writers are concerned. Any genuine connection she might have in either the platonic, familial, or the romantic sense, whether it'd be to Adrien, Sabrina, Zoe or Ladybug, are shown to be either fake or so utterly shallow, it doesn't count as "love." With that, everything she does is absolutely reprehensible and doesn't deserve a shred of forgiveness even if it's clear she's a neglected child who needed help. BUT, because she "doesn't love anyone", she doesn't get redemption and deserves to be sent away with a parent who doesn't love her either. Same with Lila, she doesn't love anyone at all and in fact, just jumps from family to family purely to keep up her manipulations.

Finally, we have Gabriel, who had done nothing but sheltered, belittled, and outright ABUSED Adrien as well as commit a multitude of horrid crimes throughout the series. His actions constantly escalated in awfulness throughout the series, even showing that he doesn't care if he destroys the universe to get what he wants. Yet there was always this trait he possessed. His love for Emilie and that ended up coming to the forefront in the finale. Marinette, who had Gabriel dead to rights, decided at the last moment to try and appeal to his humanity because she knows he loved Emilie and in her mind, that love is enough grounds for her to offer him one chance to step up and help. Then when Gabriel opts to betray Marinette and starts the wish, he tells her at the last moment to try and help Adrien remember all of the times he "tried to be a good father," which is apparently an indicator that he actually LOVED Adrien too. THAT ended up being why Marinette decided to lie about Gabriel by saying he died fighting Monarch and went as far as to try and tell Adrien to remember him as a good man. All because she knew Gabriel "loved" him.

This tells me something distressing. Now, the concept of "Love Redeems" is something I'm not at all against and is in fact common in a lot of stories I like. However, it's what Miraculous does with this concept in Season 5 that angers me. The message of Miraculous ends up giving in its grand finale for the Agreste arc isn't that love can help people find the way to kindness. It's that anything you do can be justified as long as you do it for "love." It doesn't matter if you purposely get a cab driver in trouble, attempt to sabotage a date that your crush is in, put together a project that tries to commercialize air, betray someone to help a terrorist, commit genocide, cause untold amounts of damage to your town and beyond, or even destroy the universe! As long as you love someone, everything you do can be justified. Except when we decide that you don't love ANYONE, then we'll do everything in our power to show that all of your connections don't count as love so you can have the worst punishment we could possibly muster. Regardless of intent, that's how the writers ended up describing the Power of Love in Season Five of Miraculous and that's wretched to me.

I've seen a number of people on my Beloathed and Darling thread go on tangents in the tags where the Villainess and Prince's parents are both bad actually because it turns out the whole system is corrupt/cultish/evil and the kids, by breaking free of it, are actually the good guys. And, I'm gonna be real... I always hide those reblogs. Because 1) I don't want to see them built on (and it's my thread, so I'm allowed) and, more importantly, 2) ...it completely misses the point of the concept.

Yes, the main purpose of Darling and Beloathed is 'aesthetic' and 'cute fun couple,' but, at a slightly deeper look, it's also a story about two people with extremely conflicting world views and moral codes deciding to not only be together, but figuring out how to be together in such a way that neither of them has to truly compromise their beliefs in order to do so. It's about two people, one who is undeniably a good person and the other who is unapologetically evil, deciding to make it work without anything like a redemption arc or the discovery that actually both sides are wrong and they need to find a new, third way to exist. Because if the system itself is evil, then it kind of undermines all the work they've put in to find the pre-existing places of overlap and figure out what parts of their lifestyles they're willing to compromise on to make their partner comfortable without making themselves unhappy.

And that, to me, is a far more interesting concept overall, because it's something we're much more likely to encounter in real life. None of us are ever going to tear down an entire government's worth of systems with the help of love and a couple spunky friends; it's fun to read about, it has its place in literature, but it's not gonna happen. In contrast, there's a very good chance that one day we'll meet a person whom we really like, really enjoy spending time with, but whose views on religion/politics/sports/character ships/whatever are completely at odds with our own, with neither of us willing to change our opinions, no matter how much we like that person in other regards.

And that's when we'll have to decide whether we're just going to stop hanging out, or whether, like the Prince and Villainess, we can find a way to make it work while respecting both ourselves and each other. Sometimes reality isn't about redemption, systemic change, or harsh, gritty truths. Sometimes it's about having the breathtaking courage to acknowledge that a person will never be like you, but being able to love them anyway.

So, because Scott is poor, Derek should buy him a new car? That seems logical to you?

Did you come here looking for a fight? Because you just found one. I believe that this ask refers to this post, where I argued that Derek's performative asceticism isn't accidental, and that the show was implying that his privilege and wealth enable his antagonistic behavior in the first two seasons.

Nowhere did I argue in that post, where I compared the speed with which Derek repaired his car window after Chris Argent's thug smashed it to the fact that the McCall family vehicle didn't have a driver's side window all season, that Derek owed Scott a car. I have, in the past, argued that the Hales owed Scott McCall reparations for repeated assaults, property damage, disruption of academic pursuits, and for taking over their self-appointed task of protecting Beacon Hills. I wish that the show had made it explicit in A Promise to the Dead (4x11) that Derek gave Scott the money from Garrett's locker rather than leave it ambiguous.

I'm never going to suggest that Teen Wolf went all in on an analysis of class struggle -- Heavens, no! -- but it didn't ignore the consequences of the Hale's upper class identity. "Everyone can be corrupted by money!" Peter howls in Monstrous (4x10) and he is a prime example of that. Similarly, Derek's wealth and privilege enable him to dwell, unhealthily, on the traumas of his past. I know of very few people who could take three months out of their life to obsess over family tragedies with no mention of work or responsibility, and still have cars, properties, and personal care items. Derek is not well served by this behavior, isolating himself from the mundane and from the mechanics of living. He intends to achieve his goals by himself due to trust issues, but he is forced to rely on Scott McCall as the only way to accomplish these things, and man-oh-man is he bitter about it.

But as the show had it's lead protagonist argue in Weaponized (4x07) "while we're trying not to die, we still need to live." In fact, I would argue that you can trace Derek's redemption arc by his willingness to live. At the start of the show, Derek is "totally alone" and his wealth and privilege allow him to operate like that. In Seasons 3 and 4, though, he starts to remember how to live. We see him in an actual home, even though it is the Loft of Solitude. He purchases a more practical vehicle. He allows himself to think about romance. He makes friends with the Sheriff and, amazingly, Chris Argent. A key scene is when he puts his wealth and privilege to positive use by trusting Braeden, hiring her to find Kate. He's using his wealth in a positive manner. It is no longer enabling his isolation. Look at Derek in the movie. He is fully living. He has a home, a family, friends, a business. Before the nogitsune seeks its revenge, Derek's primary focus is watching his son play lacrosse and getting him to embrace his family's heritage.

Since Derek's role was always to serve as a narrative foil to Scott, the lead protagonist, this arc highlights Scott's story. Regardless of what happens to Scott, he never isolates himself, with one important exception. At all other times, he worries about his grades, he wants to get into a good school, he wants to play lacrosse, he wants to date people, he keeps his friends close, he works with Deaton, he brings his mother lunch, etc. Yes, there are terrible things happening, but he doesn't forget to live while trying to stop corrupted hunters, Alpha packs, Japanese fox demons, and multi-million dollar assassin hit-lists. Fandom tends to hold the attention he pays to everyday living against him, but Scott knows from direct experience these things are important, and he doesn't have the wealth and privilege to put them on hold for months while dealing with villains or his own trauma. The exception? Season 5A, where Theo schemes to isolate Scott. Scott is still an alpha, a True Alpha, but that privilege alone won't save anyone. There's a reason that Melissa's primary advice -- as much as I might despise it on an emotional level -- is "You'll get them back. You have to."

Teen Wolf certainly wasn't an "eat the rich" show, but it did have a definite point of view that virtue was based in everyday things, the tasks and opportunity that should be in common with all of humanity, and not in the isolation that great wealth, ancient pedigree, or exclusive privilege grants.

In regards to Cia in a lot of the LU fanon space (aka fics and headcanons), I feel like she's being portrayed far worse than she actually is in Hyrule Warriors. I do think that Wars would have a lot of trauma regarding her considering she's the whole reason a war was started in his name. I do also think that starting said war is pretty bad. But I don't think she really deserves the black-and-white viewpoint most people have of her, it undermines the (attempted - it was a bad and rushed attempt but an intentional attempt nonetheless) redemption of her character arc. I say this as someone who owns the game and has combed through it for hours to attempt to rewrite that bullshit game.

But I think a lot of people are missing the part where Cia actually had control over her one-sided love for centuries as she only watched each hero and never interacted, but it was when Ganondorf came in and corrupted her that she started the war. She was under Ganondorf's influence throughout most of the game, even when she defected from him and attempted to gain the Triforce. She eventually made attempts to redeem herself after becoming free of Ganondorf due to Lana. There's also an element that Cia herself was exploited for Ganondorf's own power fantasies, it was likely that he manipulated or even told her to go to such extremes as making a war to get the Triforce and just used Cia's quiet yearning as a motive.

As dogshit as Hyrule Warriors is as a game and story, I think the idea that Lana is this perfect good is a great foil to Cia's unwavering evil, both forced to these extremes because of Ganondorf, who then regained their humanity once Cia finally broke free of him, though is more subtle in Lana is actually expressed kinda well compared to the rest of the wonkiness of the game. I think there's something to be said about Cia treatment as a antagonist compared to others like say Shadow, the way they're treated as being redeemed villains who were manipulated by Ganondorf for his own gains is vastly different across the fandom. Idk if there's a reason but it feels so distinct and I can't answer why.

This isn't to say that I don't think Wars would have a lot of issues surrounding what happened, its quite obvious he would have a lot of relationship problems on top of everything going on about the war. Its more a ramble about how people portray Cia post-HW/during LU. I myself don't understand how it happened, but as a DLC that was added for free in the Definitive Edition, Cia was revived and re-evilised, so yes she is technically alive still. I don't blame people for thinking she's some mega evil seductress that wants to capture the hearts of all the Chain, she seems very one-sided as a character at first without either getting the game and playing through yourself or skimming every website about the game (which is surprisingly few compared to its Age of Calamity counterpart - which also has its issues) and analysing the very misleading text in wiki pages and reviews. But no, she's not portrayed as a rapist (wtf literally where in the game is it even implied) nor is her character shown to be a pedophile (each hero she has been shown to fawn over are very explicitly the adult heroes).

I'm fine with headcanons, but the kind of stuff I see passed around in LU fanon is basically character assassination. It's kind of sad to see Cia just absolutely obliterated. I'm fine with some of the tamer headcanons, but some of the aforementioned like her being a rapist or a pedophile is so gross to me (and yes I've seen both multiple times in many more words to try to soften the blow of the writer/headcanoner's implications). I don't really like her character myself but I feel like I've analysed her and reworked her and picked apart her character too much to even consider humouring these kinds of ideas. Saying things like she's hypersexual or playing into her seductress image and appearance is fine because it's almost canon, I'll even agree with people calling her a stalker because she definitely was one during the war, but saying anything close to her committing anything more extreme is just not it for me.

I have received news from the front (Twitter discourse) that talking about abstract characters 'deserving' xyz given narrative outcome as a given consequence of thematic intentions and not just simply what a character should flatly 'deserve' emotionally is apparently 'anti-empathy'; the spirit of the original criticism was to reject overly punitive approaches to characters through narrow moral reasoning and to consider their higher emotional purpose (and character needs), which I find an ironic criticism. I don't think the notion that characters 'deserving' something on the basis of narrative needs is actually anti-empathy at all - it doesn't preclude an emotional response to their arc, but you can't reason based on whether this character you really like should be rewarded just because you like them or punished just because you hate them. What feelings are elicited when things contrary to your deeper desires happen? What are the things that need to happen?

I think it's a little static sense of storytelling, too. It's not like characters stay one thing or another, and as they evolve over the story, and do the things they have to do, they evolve beyond your first impression. Maybe you think a villain doesn't 'deserve' redemption, and then you watch it evolve onscreen and come around to it. Maybe you can scarcely believe the corruption of the hero and find their fall painful. Maybe that's the point.

The point of discussing 'catharsis' in storytelling, and not just vindication, is that it encompasses a spectrum of emotion which acknowledges the transformative feeling of storytelling - that isn't just about whether it makes you feel good or not. That's one type, and sometimes, yes, you want that; sometimes that's hard-baked into the genre expectations or the flags we get about character or narrative stakes. That's the intelligible system of storytelling. But if a character's ending is disputed from what they deserved on an individual reader/viewer level, the story could be anything if it's divorced from the aims and intentions of the storyteller. Everybody lives and all the bad guys die. I mean, sometimes you need a story where everybody lives... there's always a time and a place.

Sometimes, though, I think people have lost the good art of longing. We're delivered such cynical endings in popular media cultural moment after moment, and denied the catharsis of real tragedy. I feel such pain and longing for Paul Atreides and the story he could never have, by design. It's very powerful, and it hurts a lot, but it's done successfully and in a way that I cannot deny it's the only appropriate story, for the world he's in and the purpose he serves. It's not a 'shock'; there is a terrible weight on him from the moment he's introduced. The gom jabbar is no mere task to be overcome but a demonstration of the pain he can bear. Literally. In two senses. (To bear, as in withstand, and to carry). It's a massive cast of gloom over his story.

Sure, I think we can get a little abstract with the whole 'narrative criticism' thing; storytelling is storytelling, and at its barest components we feel what we feel. That's the magic. But on the other hand, once fandom (and relatedly media) discourse begins playing the narrative criticism game to condemn naughty, naughty villains and the apologists who love them (or valiantly defend Characters Who Didn't Deserve to Die), you do actually need to start asking questions about what basis you can start saying who does and doesn't deserve to live or die or go to space jail, and start digging deeper into what ideas these characters service. It can seem mechanical, but only when you get too close and forget what it all serves, which is that higher purpose of the story proper. We can talk about absolute appropriateness not just in subjective feelings, but in that world the story inhabits. Maybe, sometimes, the unfairness is the point. *shrug*

I'm still reeling from this position being called 'anti-empathy' though. That's a new one. I think empathy is one part of the picture here, and probably something that people miss as much as they catch it. Lol.

I picked up CC again and I need you all to understand how invested I am in Good Seph. Because. Because they made him a better character by making him a worse character it just boggles my brain.

Because in the OG 7, he really doesn't function as anything other than a generic muahaha. You know, gotta have a villain so the heroes have a reason to hero. 'He hung around some books and then got very angry and murder-y' is a perfectly passable villain origin story - his actual devolution from good guy to bad guy doesn't really matter because it's irrelevant to the story. He is doing Bad Things and he has to Be Stopped. (And yeah I realise there was more to it than that, but I'm being reductive for the sake of brevity here.)

Yet by its very existence, CC makes it relevant. Now we have a clear enough picture of things to see the flaws in the tale. We experience Seph as the hero we're told he used to be. And damn if he isn't loveable. Loyal, compassionate, principled; able to make jokes, all the while taking his duty to protect others very seriously. He's also a very existential guy. Very philosophical. At multiple points in the story his worldview is directly challenged, and/or he undergoes some intense trauma, and he always falls back on his own moral compass. He'd rather destroy himself than become a weapon wielded against others - thus the more he realises his position in life does more good than harm, the more tortured he becomes. This doesn't inherently make his turn to evil unbelievable, in fact in the right hands it's the perfect tragic setup with his own ideology being turned against him. The issue is in the execution.

Now, maybe it's because we're not really in his head. Even up close as we are we're still not privy to exactly what's going on when everything goes down since he shuts himself away. But that doesn't excuse the problem of it all feeling a little...like falling in the desert and landing in the ocean, if you feel me. The natural endpoint of a moral and good character who becomes corrupted in some way is usually some manner of redemption, but Seph never gets that. He's just fought and killed like any other one-dimensional villain - not a hint of "oops, he was being controlled the whole time" or "his morality was messed up but in the end he saw the error of his ways" to speak of. So experiencing him as this fundamentally moral person deeply concerned with his own goodness then having him heel-turn, regardless of the justification, only for that foundation to never come up again feels a little hollow. I can't replay vii anymore and fight him without thinking of the way he used to be. Beating him doesn't feel victorious, it feels sad.

And yet. And yet. For as iconic a villain Seph is, and as much as I appreciate him for what he is to vii, I actually prefer his CC iteration. I don't think every villain needs a Tragic Backstory or a ton of nuance. And I certainly don't think that vii as it stands would necessarily benefit from a Seph Redemption Arc or a more relatable and sympathetic villain. It's a pro-environmental romp with banging music and a strong emphasis on mental health. It doesn't need to be anything else. I just think CC Seph is neat and I enjoy him ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness Review - Contains Spoilers

Came out of DS2, and it ended up being quite a trip. Have to say that its a movie that left an impression on me for sure and a good one. I wouldn't call it one of the best MCU movies but its definitely one of the most memorable and unique ones. Definitely a film that felt different in a good way. But its not without its flaws.

The film is one of the few where I feel that watching in 3D really helped enhance the experience. The visuals are definitely really cool and all the action scenes are hugely enjoyable to watch. From a story perspective, this film is a lot like The Terminator. Wanda being The Terminator, America Chavez being Sarah Connor, and Doctor Strange being Kyle Reese. There are some visual cues that are reminiscent of the movie as well. Wanda is a legit terrifying villain in this movie. Probably one of the best villains in any MCU movie. WandaVision definitely does enhance the viewing experience of this film from that perspective. There are lines and musical cues that are directly from WandaVision and her whole plot is related to her trauma. The story isn't all that complicated, and that's a good thing in my opinion. Its just about Strange trying to protect Chavez from getting killed from Wanda and that leads to a trip through the Multiverse. One of my fears was that this film would feel like a Wanda movie and less a Doctor Strange and I'm happy to say that's not the case. Doctor Strange is really the anchor of the film and his character goes through quite a journey and has a fairly fulfilling character arc. I feel this probably the most likable Strange has been in the MCU. This film really humanizes him quite a bit. As I mentioned before, there are some really cool bits in this film. The coolest of which was a musical note based fight with two Doctor Stranges. That was pretty awesome. The finale was also pretty sweet with Zombie Defender Strange. There are some very dark and spooky sequences where Wanda lays waste to everything and everyone that comes in her way. Honestly, the action scenes are exhilarating. One of the things that I was initially disappointed with before watching the film was the runtime. I expected the film to be longer, but having watched the film, it makes a lot of sense. Because the plot is not overly complex and the setup for the villain is already accomplished in WandaVision, it makes sense for the run time to be 2 hours. While I loved the trippiness of the visuals and the action, I think more of it would be too much of a good thing and would have gotten overwhelming and repetitive. I think the film manages to use the time effectively and given some closure to the Strange and Christine relationship and establish a pretty affectionate mentor/mentee relationship between Strange and Chavez.

There are issues with the film, like I mentioned earlier. While Wanda makes for a terrifying villain, the film doesn't quite earn her turn to the complete dark side. While on one hand, there are references to the Darkhold having corrupted her mind, but on the other hand, Wanda seems to be completely aware of the things she's doing. The end of WandaVision didn't really imply that she was this unbalanced. As it stands, I'm not sure where else the MCU can go with her, because she's about as evil as she could have gone, but she also then had a redemptive moment at the end. They can't go back to her being evil because that would make the end of this movie pointless, and I highly doubt she's dead. The Strange and Christine relationship is also a big crux of this film. While I think there is a very affectionate chemistry between Cumberbatch and Adams and the What If episode about them went a long way towards making that relationship stronger, the the film is depending on an emotional investment in that relationship which the MCU has never really earned. Then there is the use of the cameos in the film, which probably represents my biggest disappointment with the film. I was spoiled on the cameos before the film, so I didn't have wild expectations going into this about other unexpected appearances, but what was disappointing is that the film has some high profile appearances of actors playing major characters, all of whom ended up looking really stupid and going out like punks. The whole storyline about Strange being on trial didn't really hold up in the first place. They were basically judging him for another Strange's actions, despite the fact it did seem that, despite his mistakes, Strange was really the key to defeating Thanos even in their universe. The level of distrust and some of the arrogance shown by Captain Carter and Captain Marvel and the stupidity shown by Mr. Fantastic and Black Bolt and the rest just makes their appearances very disappointing. I mean, its really cool to see Patrick Stewart as Xavier and Krasinski as Mr. Fantastic but they really get nerfed. Surely Xavier could have put up more of a fight in Wanda's head or done something and Mr. Fantastic could have done more than just get shredded. Captain Marvel and Captain Carter were oddly unlikable and they went out like punks as well. On top of that, there is a layer of conflict between Mordo and Strange in our universe which we have never seen on screen and apparently happened between movies, which this movies depends on to have tension between our Strange and AU Mordo. Its a weird choice and again seems unearned.

The performances in the movies are all outstanding. Elizabeth Olsen is getting a lot of plaudits for her work and its well deserved. She's superb and pretty scary and yet there is a layer of sympathy that you have with her right at the end. Benedict Wong as Wong is wonderful, with a genuinely substantial role. Rachel McAdams is always lovely to have although she is still not used to her full potential and it doesn't seem like we will see her again. Xochitl Gomez as Chavez is quite likable. Ejiofor as Mordo, Stewart as Xavier, Krasinski as Mr Fantastic, Hayley Atwell as Captain Carter, Lashana Lynch as Captain Marvel, and Anson Mount as Black Bolt are all welcome presences. But the film's real anchor is Benedict Cumberbatch. I think people will underrate his work here because his performance is subdued and understated compared to Olsen's more overt villain character, but he carries so much of the weight of this film. There is a hidden pain in this performance. He has to play it as a man who is keeping it all bottled inside. And despite that you really feel he's going through a journey and he adds quite a bit of humor to the proceedings.

Overall, Sam Raimi definitely bring a distinct horror touch to the movie. I will say that he, along with Taika, Gunn, and Chloe Zhao, are the directors whose distinct touch is very much apparent when watching the movie. I can imagine this film is not for everyone. Someone not caught up on WandaVision or Doctor Strange's journey in the MCU so far, may not connect with this movie much and find it cluttered. For me, I really enjoyed it. I give it an 8/10 on first viewing. I'll probably give it another watch next weekend.

Also, I would say that a non comic follower would have zero idea who Charlize Theron is playing in the mid credit scene. Could have included an "I'm Clea" in the scene. Also, the post credit scene is an epic troll. Got a big laugh out of that. Basically similar to the Captain America one from Homecoming.

The worst part of enemies to lovers to me isn't even if a redemption isn't done well. Sometimes you can have the must beautifully written redemption arc and then it becomes obvious the writer didn't plan for what happens after and suddenly the bad guy has a personality switch and loses all of their past morals and there isn't any more conflict, ever, and they just unconditionally love their partner and become Good and Supportive and Wholesome.

No!! If they are an asshole they should STAY an asshole. Why erase the most interesting part of their personality!! This is why I think it's actually pretty hard to write enemies to lovers well, because if readers tuned in for a specific dynamic and then you go and change the dynamic, they will not be happy, but this type of story relies on you changing the dynamic in its central premise. It's hard to do that in a way that makes everyone happy, that draws a congruent line between the past and current self. It's so easy to fall into storytelling tricks that feel stale and overwrought, and it's hard to decide which traits connect the throughline. My biggest issue with this trope isn't even that it gets boring after they get together, it's that 50% of the time it feels like completely different characters in a completely different relationship.

I wouldn't say I prefer corruption arcs, but most of the corruption arcs I've seen do feel more cohesive and well done. I can recognize the character behind them. I think it's because there's less tropes to fall back on? It's not as common of a narrative as the redemption arc, there are entire genres of romance built on the redemption arc. Tropes are not bad, buut they do become bad if people fall back on using them because they're easier and not because they actually work with the story.

Morbid and Garbage for Kel'Thuzad, Warped for your pick? :>

Morbid: how do they feel about death? Either their own or others?

As a lich, death and rebirth is part of Kel'Thuzad's life cycle. Its one of those things he has to plan around and schedule (if he isn't subject to misadventure). It's the best way to heal all of his injuries and reset all the wear and tear on his body. But, I don't any of the liches really enjoy dying. They're complicated undead; it's painful to die and resurrection sickness affects them for a period after they reincarnate. In that way I think now he's a bit blasé about it.

Garbage: what is some emotional baggage they carry?

On some level, I think KT is forced to compartmentalize what he did in service to the lich king because he wasn't always in control over himself. He has to build that separation for his own sanity, which I think is a pretty natural reaction to that situation. However, I think he was the brain (and the charisma) behind the success of the cult of the damned. It was his messaging, of teaching people magic & giving them social equality, that won people to their cause- which I think he believed in. But he had to watch it be used to this nefarious end. KT had one opportunity to stop it all though. When Noth threatened to go to the authorities when he realized the plague cauldrons were going to be used, KT could have put a stop to the whole thing. But instead he murderd Noth, which I believe he did of his own volition. To me I think this shows he believed what he was doing was necessary & that summoning Archimond was the best way to cripple the burning legion.

TL;DR- he feels guilt for killing Noth & he doesn't trust himself necessarily because a lot of the things he believed were used for eeeeevil.

Warped: have they been corrupted? Have they been darkened and twisted by the story? Or is theirs a path of redemption?

I'll stick with KT. His arc is about him becoming himself again and stepping up to accept the responsibilities in his personal life. He has to prove to himself that he's worthy of friendship/love etc. I don't really think of it as a redemption arc- that sort of implies to me that he would have to atone for his wrong doings. Right now if he were to confront that part of his past he would totally implode.

who do you think is going to be the big bad of the server? like c!dream is a villain but i also think he’s being set up for not really a redemption more like a he just leaves type arc. i’m thinking dreamxd is probably gonna be the big bad with c!ranboo and maybe c!george. imagine the angst possibilities of c!george takes dreamxd’s side as a villain

this is a fun consideration because it forces you to wonder if there IS gonna be a big bad overall

obviously c!dream is the main antagonist - his actions have been at the centre (or at least a focal point) of pretty much every major conflict. however, i find it hard to imagine that he would be in any position to cause much havoc once he's gotten out of prison. sure, there's a chance he could regroup and come back with a vengeance, but ... he's just one guy, and there's no saying he would have anyone really backing him if he wanted to start shit. and what would his goal even be at this point? i don't think there's a question of 'reuniting the server' or whatever his old claims were. so like... revenge on c!q and c!sam? going after c!tommy? i find it more likely he would scarper and stay out of the limelight for a long while

that leaves the other characters who have been acting ambiguously, if not overtly villainous. i don't think c!q has terribly megalomaniacal intentions in spite of his actions, so i don't think it would be him. i can see c!wilbur causing a lot of damage if he remains unchecked, but i still don't know if he would be a BIG bad. i don't know enough about c!ranboo's lore to speak to his alignments, tho ofc the enderwalk raises a lot of questions in that regard. as to c!george ... i still feel like the cc just isn't engaged enough with the lore to take a position as a main antagonist (much tho that concept would be cool lmao). and while i would love to see dxd become a more relevant power to the other members of the smp, i couldn't say if they're invested enough in the server's goings-on to have much skin in the game

which brings us to the consideration of what it means to have a big bad - because a final boss, so to speak, implies that the story is going to end. so whoever fills that role is going to be in some capacity responsible for the end of the dsmp story as we know it. so what if the main antagonist of the story is merely ... entropy?

(credit to @strandedcrow for making me aware of this concept btw)

imagine. the server has a thousand loose plot threads dangled about. unfinished arcs, unanswered questions, conflicts with no resolution. the server has been locked in a cycle of distrust and violence for so long, so much of the sense of community lost, all while people continue to stab each other in the back or look out for their own. the server itself is ailing, wounded - or in computer terms, corrupted. and what do you do when hardware is too broken to function?

you perform a hard reset.

the big bad of the dsmp may not be a person. it could be the fact that the server can't continue in its current state & needs to begin anew, free from all the pain and mess that brought their society to a shambles. the only way out could be starting from square one - a clean slate, both for the server itself and the people involved

... but that's just a theory

I highly doubt Horokoshi will redeem them after all the Shit they did.like seriously Shigaraki is too far gone to be saved.Like Ok maybe Killing them is a bit far but it's clear they can't be Redeemed.Horikoshi wouldn't redeem literal Mass Murderers.

Their Trauma and Backstories don't justify or Excuse mass and Serial Murders, Destruction Arson and Torture.Do I feel bad for them?,Yes but they're clearly not able to be saved,This isn't Naruto where you can change the villian's minds by talking to them.

Seriously They are huge Threats to Japan and are literally breaking every Criminal out of prison to cause destruction.

It's Clear the Villians Have to be Stopped,big time.

Dear anon,

maybe. Maybe you are right. But, me and you both are not here to discuss Horikoshi's plan for his characters. I won't pretend I know where the story is going and even if I did, it would probably be just as delusional. What I can tell you though, is that, in my opinion, and please do not take this an offence, what you said is a load of bullshit.

Let me explain before you throw me to the wolves:

The story, from what I get is just now nearing its apex, which means that the whole ordeal of what happened in the last arc (let's call it, PFL vs Heroes because for the life of me I can't remember the name of the place in this moment) is a pre context to what is going to happen right now. PFL vs Heroes has the function to introduce 2 things: villains redeeming arc (or also: AfO being the only real villain of BNHA) and the crumble of society as we know it (heroes retiring and all that crap). Which also means that this, THIS PART, is the origin of what actually is the main arc of the story and which (may, in the long run) might be the why and how of Deku being the N1 Hero in a new society (I talked about this here).

This said, it should appear clear how 'at this point' you mention means jackshit in the timeline. We just now discovered that Dabi, one of the forefront members of the League and Front, is actually the long-thought-dead son of current hero N1 Endeavour. What is then the whole point of introducing Touya just to do nothing with it? Rei has been dismissed from the hospital, Shouto has accepted that Touya is alive and that they might be more similar than he thinks and even the same Enji knows that if he does not try and save the son he already failed to save once there is no redeeming for him.

Which brings me to my next point: if the same Enji knows this, and in light of the fact that Dabi is willing to die in order to expose the abuse that lead him to actually become a villain, what is the point of then just leaving Dabi be? Like, coincidentally if Endeavour does nothing about this situation not only he lets his son die twice, but he also inherently tells that he does not deserve redeeming. In basic words, the only possibility for Endeavour to actually redeem is to save Touya. His redeeming means that he saves a villain. Does it make sense for you to make this whole plot in order to just drop it afterwards and say 'nah, fuck this, i built a whole plot to actually show how society fucks people them up and then destroy that society just to let these people being fucked by society again?'? Cause for me it does not.

Maybe in your eyes they cannot be saved, but remembers what Touya says here:

He is right. All the heroes are as dirty as they are. And maybe some of them are better than others, but always remember that these villains have so many reasons to be the way they are.

Plus: if you think the LoV is unredeemable, then you must think the same of Endeavour and Hawks (who are currently N1&2), you must also think that BJ is an hypocrite (in regard to him not wanting Touya to expose N1) and that All Might, as Dumbledore, is a caring piece of shit because of what he did to Izuku.

P. S. I don't think that redeeming the villains of the story is condoning their actions. It's actually trying to say that everybody makes mistakes. It's okay to make them. But you have to acknowledge them and want to correct them, in order to be saved. This is also another reason why I think that AfO, after all, is the only villain of the story.

You have also to understand that Horikoshi does not want his villains to change their minds after talking to them. Why would they? What is the point? Why should you believe anyone in the system that fucked you over repeatedly and then told you that someone will come save you and never did? I, for one, would never trust anything that comes from mouth of anyone in that society, be it good or bad. They condone abuse, corruption and neglect, so who are the bad people here? Furthermore, it's not even about changing their minds, because this is not about perspective, but UNDERSTAND OF WHY THE FUCK THESE SOULS DECIDED THAT THE ONLY WAY OF THEM GETTING THROUGH THEIR MESSAGE WAS THROUGH VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTION. Like, they do not need to change their minds. They need to be held together and said that it is okay that they turned out this way because it was not their fault and actually show them why was that not the right way. If they want redemption they will get it. But it's really up to them to do it, however, the fact that they need to be given a choice is absolute. You cannot accuse anyone of not being able to be saved or redeemed if you do not give them a choice to.

Finally, onto the threat to Japan part, I think the threat that AfO poses for Japan and for the LoV (who are puppets in AfO's hands, unless they decide to free themselves) and especially Shigaraki is way more dangerous. You have to separate those actions from the LoV. Liberating criminals is AfO's doing in Shig's body. He does not want to be controlled, but he also cannot sometimes surrender to it. AfO, if he does not need any of them anymore will literally just toss them away. After all, he kept the LoV as it was for Shigaraki, and Shigaraki was strumental to his plans because AfO wants a new body and a new quirk for himself. He needs to be stopped. The others need to be saved (of they choose to). But that was the point that Toga made in that famous panel:

where is the line you draw at being possibly saved? Isn't it enough for you that they are human?

If it isn't, well, I don't know what to say.

I hope this finds you well, and yeah, remember that a choice should be always offered, a hand always out forward (as Izuku did with Bakugō): it's up to them whether they want to catch that hand, but It would be absolutely morally wrong not even try to just because you labelled them as 'not savable'. Everyone is the same. Everyone deserved to be loved and understood. Everyone, here, is worthy of compassion and feelings. Shall that not be the case, the world has failed again. And me, with it.

Completely irrelevant to your upcoming fic, but I'm curious about your thoughts on Wanda as the Scarlet Witch, and her expected appearance on MoM? It's a frequent topic of discussion revolving around the Dr Strange fandom or the MCU fandom in general, so, any thoughts? It's sort of a... 'sensitive' and 'controversial' (?) topic to touch so you don't need to delve into details if you don't want to.

It's all good! I like random asks that get me thinking.

For anyone who's newer to my little slice of internet, I am heavy in the camp of a tag I borrowed from AO3 writer Gwendolyn Stacy (xxgwenstacyxx here on Tumblr, but we're not mutuals so I don't want to tag her and be bothering her). Anyway, the tag is "In This Fic We Love And Cherish All Canon Characters". I stand very heavily by that tag. I don't use Civil War Team Iron Man/Captain America tags, and don't write fics with one side focused on. I don't click on them to read anymore either, haven't for a couple years. I refuse to read "not Team Cap Friendly" and all of their iterations, and I don't enjoy fics that use characters as an author avatar to voice opinions as opposed to maintaining their own agency with their own unique opinions. I can go on and on an on about this, but you didn't ask about that so I'm gonna stop that tangent.

With all that said, Wanda isn't a favorite character of mine. She's *not* a disliked character--I think the only MCU character I actively dislike and would have a hard time to write about objectively is Thaddeus Ross, so I'm lucky my faves also don't like him--but not a favorite either. I think she was a character long, long given the short stick in terms of character growth and development in the MCU and, like Natasha, should have had her own solo thing long ago. But I suspect that if Disney+ did not exist, a lot of characters who deserved more light would not have gotten it (or continue to not get it).

I think the Doctor Strange movie should be focused mostly on Stephen (obviously), but that a side focus of other magic users 100% makes sense, so her inclusion in the film itself is perfectly logical to me. I'd prefer her to have equal or less screentime than Wong, but I'm not sure it's gonna go down like that. I feel the same way about America Chavez, but I'm also super biased towards Wong as being one of the greatest people ever. Like, I'm pretty sure I like him more than Tony at this point of time. Sorry Tony :P

Regarding Wanda being more powerful than Stephen: This is how it is in the comics, so it's not a big deal to me. It's not like power is the equivalent of skill, and I think Stephen is more skilled than Wanda. Wanda's a bomb; Stephen's a sniper rifle. Both have their purpose.

Regarding Wanda being the possible Big Bad: Had a big conversation on Discord this weekend about this, and I honestly think that if she is the antagonist in this film and not, say, being corrupted by the Darkhold One Ring of Power-style, then it will make the last couple episodes of her series and the growth she experienced there entirely pointless. I strongly feel she has to have that redemption arc and, if she is the antagonist, it either has to be a variant version or due to corruption from the Darkhold that she manages to break out of before the ending.

The big, big reason I believe this *must* happen is because Wanda being a villainous character is inspired by a series of comics, written in the 21st century, that are *filled* with problematic tropes and misogyny. While it's nice to let a story stand on its own without thinking about what influenced it, I don't necessarily think we have that luxury with a history such as this. To read more about how a once-beloved Avenger was ruined by one comic book writer, check out this fantastic article.

Overall, I am rooting for Wanda to continue to be developed to a strong 3D character with all the complexities of a traumatized human being. But I think she needs to swing to chaotic-good/neutral-good/neutral-neutral and cannot be wholly selfish for her show's finale to work. The MCU's done sympathetic villains before like Loki, but that may be more on Tom Hiddleston's acting rather than the script he was given to work with. I don't know if Elizabeth Olsen can pull off the same thing if Wanda starts slaughtering people. I'd rather not see it happen, anyway.

Honestly, I'd just like for Stephen and Wanda to be friends. Is it so much to ask to have superheroes who are supposed to be "good guys" stop fighting each other? Civil War was, objectively (and not thinking of fandom consequences), a very good film, but I don't want to do it every 5 years either.

This is gonna sound stupid but I like that you think critically about the stuff you’re really into. A lot of bnha blogs are really bad about that. Like they’ll like one character or one group of characters and if someone says something like “this character did something shitty, and I don’t know if they’ll get/if they deserve a redemption arc” their response will deadass just be like “OKAY triggered ANTI.” and it’s like, look homie, you can be horny for whoever you want, I myself am horny for all the bad boys from endeavor, to hawks, to AFO, but like, you have to at least acknowledge that the other person might have a point about the actions of one character and the way they’ve affected the story and other characters. And then the conversation shifts to “its FICTIONAL LMAO it doesn’t matter” which. Is just a shitty argument all around, because yeah no shit something happening in a story isn’t the same as it happening irl but we can do this neato thing where we analyze the writer’s choices and the message they push, especially for a show that is literally centered around asking bigger more profound questions about the story’s universe and ours because fiction doesn’t come from a vacuum. Like i’m not asking everyone to 4D analyze every little detail, I know fandoms are an escape for a lot of people, I just wish more fandom blogs (this really can apply to all fandoms, but especially anime and bnha) could consume literally anything critically. N e weighzzzz I love you and your blog, have a nice morning and i hope your coffee stays hot ❤️

Well, I'll be perfectly honest, I have plenty of personally-biased takes myself. I'm definitely not like, good at looking at this series critically 24/7, especially because it's actually starting to piss me off. I actually really, like, without a doubt absolutely HATE this plot line of "societal corruption" because I don't actually expect the problem to be addressed in any way whatsoever and like. It's boring to me. I don't fucking care about a story based on the moralities of good vs evil (especially when they're being preached to me by literal children, Deku) because that's all extremely subjective. This is all especially frustrating in My Hero Academia, because it's trying to tackle issues that are cemented in culture and society and law which, I'm going to be honest, are kind of... fundamentally impossible to change? Like not to be a Debbie Downer but this entire plot line of "reforming hero society, the system is broken" is completely pointless because it is not actually something that can be changed. Just like in our world, the societal injustice is deliberate, and changing it would require a level of lawmaking and overturning that just isn't going to happen. That's why I made the comparison to Naruto: at the very end of the series it brought up the inherent corruption in turning children into ninjas, showed you how gritty and violent it was for children to fight in wars and said "there is something wrong here" and then did not change anything about that problem whatsoever and then actually released a sequel where the problem is arguably even worse.

You get what I mean? This entire thing about "Hero Society bad" is all bullshit because uh it isn't actually going to change so to even address it, let alone make it a focal argument in the series, is actually a pretty bad decision, and you could argue it was childishly naive.

Like deadass, spoiler warning for the newest chapter leaks that were released today, but [[spoiler starts here]] Deku literally made some dumbass comment to the effect of "Endeavor is different than he used to be and he's trying to be a better person, the person who was an abuser is no longer here" should honestly tell you everything you need to know. I know this is ultimately a manga for children but the idea that intentions alone make everything ok or just the insinuation that Endeavor doesn't need to face consequences at all is. Dumb. Like Jesus fuck, all this talk about being a better person and helping others and we're told "yeah this guy is blatantly a criminal for multiple reasons but he's on the Good Guy Side so as long as he says he's sorry he doesn't have to go to jail" like literally just Endeavor himself undermines the entire discussion altogether.[[end spoiler]]

Horikoshi created a story about Heroes vs Villains, then said "actually what makes Heroes and Villains different? Heroes can be pretty scummy and some Villains can do pretty good things" and then he turned around again and said "actually nevermind, even though there may be just a few bad faith actors, the Heroes are always righteous and just :)" and honestly I'm sick of it

Dkfkfkfkf anyways thank you! I've tried not to nag too much over here cause I don't want to you know, ruin anyone's good time or anything, but I've been having uh. A lot of issues with the decisions being made for this series so I've been occasionally just... throwing my opinion out there and seeing what people think

So my post comparing Jasper to the monster in the intro got some attention.

I’d like to start by saying that I made the post only to compare the two, and point out the cool foreshadowing. I did not mean to imply anything, and didn’t think anyone would think I meant too.

A lot of people are assuming I meant to imply the monster was a fusion between Steven and Jasper, and a few people are trying to say that this isn’t the case, because every one else’s gems are lit up. Now i personally think that the monster is a corrupted Steven, but i think trying to say the idea of the monster being a fusion is false, and only having the fact that we can see it’s nose and the nose isn’t 1. a gem, and 2. lit up, is a bit dumb. Gems can rotate and move their gems, so its not a stretch to say they can also change the placement of their gems. It is said that Steven’s gem is simply placed in such a way that we can’t see it on the monster, so is it really that odd to assume maybe Jasper’s is too? 

There is also a bit of evidence that points to the fact that it COULD be a fusion. Jasper’s story revolves around fusion after all! She starts out hating it, thinking of it as a “cheap tactic” and  disgusting. Then, as a last resort, she fuses with Lapis. We all know how that ends. She obviously becomes obsessed with the power it gives her, and tries to fuse with Lapis again. When that fails, she creates her small army off corrupted gems, and when caught, she once again resorts to fusion, this time with one of the corrupted gems, and that of course backfires. She then corrupts, which starts her redemption. And..then what? Fusing with her diamond, someone who her story ALSO revolves around, would be the perfect end to her arc! 

I know this isn't super strong evidence, but note how she isn't in the promotional material below. Almost every other main character is present, but she's strangely absent?

I know there isn’t a whole lot of evidence, and even i don’t believe it completely, but it is fun to think about!

This article was published four years ago and I want to look back on it and see the progression of their relationships, individuality and to see did anything come true out of it.

“What did she have that Sasha didn't?”

The rivalry contains such venom because Banks harbors intense loathing for Bayley—because she recognizes in Bayley her own failed past. Her unsuccessful path of being good on the way to anonymity and irrelevance. This resentment drives this feud. “

“...Instead, she walked by Charlotte and callously attacked a broken Bayley, yelling at her that she had blown her chance. Bayley's failures are vindication for Banks—which is why she works so damn hard to ensure Bayley fails...”

“Bayley is nothing like that, though. One complaint is that she's simply too sweet. But she isn't saccharine; she's real. She's a good person, full stop. She's what we all want to be, and like to think we are. Sasha Banks, however, isn't a bad person: She's what we sometimes become in pursuit of of our goals. Ruthless, arrogant, and yes, successful—but at what cost to yourself?”

Banks: “I am The Boss and I do what I want for myself and my career and I make no apologies for it”

Bayley:” I don’t see my life long fandom as a negative. That’s what got me here”

“Why does Sky's the Limit, which some say doesn't fit because the lyrics especially are too face-like, work for Sasha Banks? Sasha is a heel, and a damn good one at that: but she is not destined to always be a heel. Her redemption arc has all-but flashed in front of our eyes.”

“Sasha has again and again said that "fairy tales don't have a happy ending," and that she would teach all the little girls what a "real role model is. ....It is not that Sasha Banks is mocking the idea of role models for little girls. She's mocking the idea of Bayley being the ideal role model, rather than herself”

Bayley motivation as champion after defeating Alexa: “... I can move to building the SD women’s division. “

“Imagine that Bayley faces failure and failure and heartbreak and heartbreak in the coming years. All the while she sees her greatest rival, the one person most antithetical to her worldview, standing tall and dominating the women's division. It slowly eats away at Bayley—she is human after all—until one day she cracks.”

“Sasha Banks would see this as the ultimate victory—she corrupted Bayley. Bayley....As Bayley wreaks havoc on the division, and crushes the hearts of her most devoted fans, Sasha begins to wonder, have I done the right thing?”

Get ready, guys. Heel Bayley vs Face Sasha Banks is coming!

“It's that the story of Bayley and Sasha Banks should be the future foundation for the biggest wrestling company in the world.”

In Summary: Bayley and Sasha relationship steamed all of Bayley succeeding where Sasha failed of staying true to her morals to have success. Sasha couldn’t handle losing and took wrestling seriously thus her heel turn. Meanwhile, Bayley had the love the business behind her and the fans support keeping her alive. Sasha hated that and so that’s why she always picked on Bayley throughout NXT. Sasha didn’t like that Bayley was having the love of the fans and being happy despite losing. She was jealous of that despite being NXT women’s champion. Bayley besting Sasha made Sasha respect Bayley and even become friends. Shortly after tagging with Bayley at Battleground, Sasha finally achieved success as a face with her passion for wrestling. She became women’s champion multiple times. However, her passion wasn’t enough to stay champion. Her passion couldn’t keep her goals alive. She tried to become Bayley while downplaying everything that made her the Boss and it didn’t work. The Boss isn’t someone that screams about passion. The Boss is someone that knows who she is. Meanwhile, Bayley did something what Sasha couldn’t do- beat Charlotte on PPV for the women’s title. She ended Charlotte PPV streak. She was able to retain the women’s title. However this was all due to Sasha Banks. Bayley owes her Raw women’s title reign to Sasha. On the main roster, Bayley and Sasha suffered tension when Sasha starts downplaying Bayley and broke their trust at Royal Rumble and Chamber. They went throughout the year of 2018 bickering until Sasha finally confessed her love for Bayley. They started tag teaming and eventually won the women’s tag team titles. They intended to bring prestige to the titles. However, Mania was the final straw because they lost the women’s tag team titles. Shortly after Sasha went MIA and Bayley went to SD. She ditched the hugging to be taken seriously but everyone downplayed her. She won MITB, the SD women’s championship, intended to be the role-model champion and build the SD women’s division. However, her opponents like Alexa and Charlotte were pushing her and calling her a placeholder. Bayley frustration was growing and growing. She wanted the SD women’s championship to have the same elevation as the raw women’s championship. She made history like Becky Lynch did fans just talked about Becky. This all led to Bayley turning heel, joined a blue hair Sasha, sending a statement: “Loyalty”. Sasha plan has finally work: she got Bayley “happy ending” to fail? But did it?Bayley didn’t think she changed because she thought she could stay loyal to Sasha while being a role model to the kids. She wanted to teach the kids to be loyal. She supported Sasha actions no matter what. She helped Sasha attacked Becky and Charlotte with chairs. However, her loyalty to Sasha made her take her eye off the ball of her threat in Charlotte. She was lucky to escape with the title at Clash of Champions but HIAC was her downfall. Charlotte defeated Bayley to become Char10tte. But this wasn’t what everyone was talking about. Bayley threw a temper tantrum and started crying:” why does this always happen to me?” This was her breaking point. She was about to snap. The title was the only thing that held her together and now she lost that. Something had to change. This Tuesday happened and Bayley came out as .... the ponytail is gone, she killed the Bayley buddies, and she has transformed. Bayley won the SD women’s championship back. “Turn it Up “ is gone. She has a dark theme song. Bayley is done with the fans. She’s done with the hugs. She done with being a fan of wrestling. Bayley is done being a sidekick. She told the fans “screw all of you”. Sasha tweeted Bayley quote afterwards basically being proud of Bayley’s actions. Sasha told Bayley that Bayley needed to take charge so that people will stop seeing her as a loser. Bayley did that and Sasha has succeeded in Bayley “happy ending” crashing down. However will Sasha regret this in the future?I think she will because Sasha will not able to control this Bayley. Heel Bayley vs Face Sasha is coming