I am constantly driven insane by the differences in how Anders and Merrill were treated by the narrative.

Like Anders and Merrill are both reactionaries to Chantry-led imperialism and genocide, re: mages and elves respectively. They have different priorities, but ultimately both are sociopolitical undesirables trying to find ways to push back against the reigning theocracy that is trying to eradicate a mix of their people and culture. Like, yeah, Anders is a bit more actively in the trenches of trying to get people out of the Circle, whereas Merrill is a bit more on the research and development side of things with the Eluvian (it boggles my mind that nobody in DA2 seemed to recognise what the Eluvian can and will be used for, and it was a bit of a relief when Blackwall in Trespasser finally puts to words how they can be used to mobilise troops and evacuate civilians). But by the end of DA2 as confirmed in DAI, Merrill is actively involved in doing social outreach with Alienage elves, which is basically what Anders was doing in Darktown at the start of his run in DA2. And just- beyond that they are both terribly proud, insecure, arrogant, stubborn, passionate people who try to protect themselves from the (deadly) scrutiny of others by feigning harmlessness and moral righteousness.

But the way the narrative treats this, like- I think a lot of people at this point recognise the ableism in how both these characters are treated, but I’m not sure how much people see the sexism. Like- there’s this persistent message in the game that, when Merrill attempts politically subversive actions, she is misguided and needs to be taken back under the wing of someone like Hawke who can steer her straight. Which is so very obviously paternalistic imho regardless of what gender Hawke you’re playing. Versus Anders, whose politically subversive actions are the centre of the plot by the third act and are treated with utmost seriousness and severity. The game constantly reinforces the message that downplaying Merrill’s work and goals is the correct course of action, while doing so for Anders’s is painted as ultimately foolish, and enables his ‘betrayal’ of Hawke and Varric at the end of the game. It’s like, when he attempts to disrupt the political order of the city, he’s dangerous and needs to be put down. When she attempts the same, she needs to be herded back into the kitchen.

Like obviously I don’t think either of these are the right approach when Anders and Merrill are pushing back against what is the equivalent of the Vatican at the height of the crusades. But these characters are just so similar and imho really deserved the full narrative foils treatment, and it drives me absolutely insane that nobody on the writing team wanted to treat Merrill seriously enough or treat Anders humanely enough to see that.

My views on Queen Elizabeth of England often make me an outcast in my own community. My believe is that the adult Elizabeth, the Queen of England, was not a very nice person. She shared a lot of the same qualities as her father. Now, before you start sending me hate messages please let me explain why I believe she wasn’t a very nice person.

IMHO, Henry and Elizabeth had some things in common, but the fundamental difference between them is so big, it outweighs the rather superficial similarities. 

Elizabeth was more bark than bite. She loses her temper, she shouts at you, maybe she smacks you, maybe you’re banished from court which is probably for the best if she’s really pissed, she sends you to the Tower. Fun? No. ‘Nice’? No. But at least you know where you stand. You know when she’s angry, and why, and your odds of dying? Actually pretty low. You just wait for it to blow over. She could be very ruthless (like all the Tudors, except arguably Mary) in suppressing rebellion. But Essex, Mary Stuart, Norfolk... Elizabeth was not trigger happy when it came to executing those three.

Henry was very capricious. You’re his BFF, he’ll love you forever, he’s able to make you feel like the most special person in the world, and then the next day he sends you to the Tower with no warning, and your odds of dying? Very fucking high. And a trial? If you even get one, you might as well have a lie-in and not bother turning up. He’ll miss you more than Elizabeth would....because he killed you and then he calmed down. And he didn’t learn! He missed Thomas Wolsey because he was a good servant then he killed Thomas Cromwell extremely quickly and then missed him because he was a good servant.

These two people are not the same. Not by a long shot.

I like Mary I, I like Thomas More. They were both more affable than Elizabeth. But I’ll take grouchy pragmatist over affable zealot any day.

Why did you like TLJ? Even the actors are complaining about it.

tlj was, objectively speaking, a solid movie.

 i enjoyed it (the story-line, the character development, the character’s actions, etc) wayyy more than tfa… which perhaps isn’t fair to say given that tfa was the introduction to the new movies.. and i’ll be real with you, introductions are always a little boring to me.

just like ALL star wars movies, tlj had some pretty dumb and shitty moments… but they absolutely don’t outweigh how entertaining and just overall enjoyable the movie was. honestly, a lot of the things i see EVERYONE complain about are.. sort of the things that make the movie great to me? the characters are solid, they go through journeys, they make mistakes, they make good choices, they do shit without thinking it through, there’s character development, etc etc etc etc….. idk i see in them (or rather, the way they act) bits and pieces of people i know in real life? to me that’s always a sign that the characters are realistic. 

i think a lot of people dislike (or pretend to dislike) the movie because they doesn’t see their own personal (or fan popularized) hcs in it… also people hating it (or loving it) because of “ships”? for heaven’s sake that’s beyond preposterous (and “shipping” is so far from being what star wars is about anyway). 

regarding the actors complaining about it… i think it’s slightly unprofessional even though i agree with them when it comes to certain things (or i agree with them if they’re talking about the things they’re complaining about). i know it’s very easy to shout “give the fans what they want” (which is quite an entitled thing to do, imho) and “if an actor says smth is shitty they’re probably right” … but … idk man. the actors know what they’re getting themselves into and seeing them as “allies” in w/e cause is always……….. dangerous, not just when it comes to star wars but like in general. actors are paid to do interviews, movies, promote stuff, go to events, etc etc etc… and they’re usually given talking points so like.. i’m always skeptical of people who work in such an industry either badmouthing things or overselling them (esp the projects they are in). 

also, regarding mark hamill.. i see where he’s coming from. i mean, if i was THAT intertwined with a character i’d have trouble accepting certain things too (even if to me they ARE realistic - everything luke did in tlj is totally ic from where i stand… also  the whole jedi’s don’t give up thing is hilarious bc that’s all jedi mcfreaking seem to do lmao there’s like 3 whole movies about it… jedi are a MESS). 

people are being petty to the point of rating a decent movie badly for reasons i have yet to comprehend (valid ones, anyway).  a good friend of mine remarked that there was similar backslash against the empire strikes back (seriously, google it, empire is considered one of the best if not the best star wars movies and when it came out people were SUPER annoyed at it lmao) but that the difference between then and now is that people had time to think things through whereas nowadays you can tweet your opinion as soon as the movie ends, you don’t even get to process what you saw… you just spew your immediate thoughts somewhere into the internet, and lots of people doing that at the same time seldom ends well. i agree with him. 

to finalize this, i’ll say that most people i’ve talked to OUTSIDE of social media enjoyed the movie. in contrast most people on tumblr seem to have hated it for reasons that often contradict themselves, or only liked it because of reylo - neither are, in my opinion, an objective way to measure the “goodness” and “badness” of a movie.

i hope this kind of answers your question. i know i didn’t exactly go into detail about why i like the movie & i’m happy to continue this conversation if you come off anon because i don’t want to bother my followers with it (this is a roleplay blog lmao).