I'm on the train right now, utterly pissed because I lost the train before this one, and I will arrive at my house late, but I remember I made some funny edits of my bestie Jason because it's his birthday. If I was in Gotham, I would ask him what are his other placements and be buddy-buddy with him because we are both fire signs. If he has something in Sagittarius, I would scream.
so i’ve decided to read under the red hood because i told myself i’d read comics this summer, and i can’t take jason’s helmet seriously. i just can’t. it’s so smooth. how am i supposed to be intimidated when all i can think of is how ridiculous it looks.
my genuine reaction watching batman beat the ever loving fuck out of Jason in under the red hood when the only other batfam media I know is wayne family adventures
People will try to convince you Jason Todd is the impulsive doesn't think before he acts type of guy and its funny bc Jason is almost comedic in how fucking long it actually takes this boy to plan out anything
I’ve realized that the main reason I don’t give a fuck about Red Hood’s actual canon crimes is not that I think they’re justified, or reasonable, or even just funny. He has been shown doing very fucked up shit that at times has very little, if anything, to do with any reasonable moral code. But the reason I don’t care is that I’ve steadily become very critical of villain framing. It’s so very common to have a villain say something very reasonable like “poor people shouldn’t die” and then complement it with “and I will kill babies about it.” If the first statement is reasonable, and the narrative does not provide a reason that justifies the balls-to-the-wall batshit “solution” the character came up with, then I assume the author is either deliberately or subconsciously villainizing a specific group of people for no reason, and I don’t vibe with that. At that time I no longer care about what the author/narrative actually has to say and my reaction becomes “the narrator is actually a biased witness and anything they say about this person’s actions should be taken as exaggeration”. Oh, so Jason is an indiscriminate killer who thinks every petty criminal deserves to die? Wrong. They’re exaggerating and taking the facts out of context. So he killed a hundred people in prison with barely any provocation? It probably wasn’t that many and the ones he did were trying to kill him to begin with, with no intervention from the guards, so it was self defense. He attempted to kill a child? Wrong, that was a two-sided fight between two teenagers, he just won so the other one’s bitter. Like, I don’t care how much made up context I need to stuff in there to make it make sense, I will do it because the narrative decided to frame the homeless kid from a poor neighborhood as the villain against the nice and kindhearted humanitarian billionaire so its logic is fucked from the get-go