There are a lot of great educators out there, but too many people just critique without actually considering why it's like that.

(as usual, join on Patreon for bonus content)

Hozier visited my college and held a competition which I won, the prize was that I got to play Wii Sports Resort while he critiqued me.

An absolutely killer quite from Harper Jay in this article from Aftermath.

I Saw Wish

And it was the worst animated Disney movie I’ve ever seen. I have to watch it again before I can get into the nitty gritty details. But I don’t need details to sum it up, because my dad actually said it perfectly as we left the theater:

“It was like someone who didn’t really understand Disney movies tried to make a Disney movie.”

Both the form (the technical arts of filmmaking) and the content (the morals, values, and themes of the movie) were totally horrible.

I don’t know who’s fault it was. Jeremy Spears was in the storyboard room and Mark Henn and Eric Goldberg did some 2D animation. But they must have gotten outvoted, or they must not care anymore.

Because holy cow. Here’s some stuff that’s just off the top of my head.

SPOILERS. Not that it matters, because nothing interesting happens in this movie.

The writing? Terrible. Ninety percent of it feels like the characters are filling time with quirky one-liners that are trying too hard to be appealing, then failing, then taking you out of the movie. The jokes aren’t funny. The characters just respond to each other in conversation to check a one-liner box. The other twenty percent is whole conversations repeating tell-don’t-show exposition that has already been covered, usually twice, in previous scenes. Like if in Tangled, every scene had included some variation of Rapunzel saying to friends and enemies alike, “I have to see the floating lights so I’m sneaking to the castle with this thief who wants a mysterious tiara I hid from him. Don’t tell my mother, she’s a bit overprotective!” Over. And over. And over.

The character motivations are way too broad. Asha? Her dream is just “that everybody around me gets to be happy.” That’s it, in a nutshell. No deeper exploration of that. Nobody asks, “why do you care so much?” Nobody tries to convince her she should look out for herself, and then she proves she was right all along. The King? We are told (not shown) that he doesn’t want anyone else’s dreams to be “destroyed.” But he in no believable way expresses that that motivation is still what’s driving him during the movie—what’s driving him is just a plain old lust for power, no nuance.

By the way, the whole premise of the movie? Undercooked. Half-baked concepts strung together with no definitive meaning. Therefore, it’s not believable. Example: The characters act like the wishes are beautiful—well, actually, no, this movie doesn’t know how to show, so there’s not a lot of meaningful acting—the characters just tell us that wishes are “the most beautiful part of someone,” and that’s why it’s worth going through this adventure to give their wishes back to them. But there’s no proof of that in the movie. In fact, it directly kicks it’s own legs out from under that idea, because it has every character who gives up their wish forget that part of themselves. Asha’s grandfather has forgotten his wish, but that doesn’t make him any less “beautiful.” She, and everyone, still treats him like he’s this wonderful old man who deserves the world, who everyone loves…but why is he so appealing? If he “gave up the most beautiful part of him?” The only character who is changed by their lack-of-wish is the Sleepy-analogue character…who is just sleepy, which is described as “boring.” But nobody else who’s given up their wish in the whole kingdom acts like that. It’s just him. Also, the King acts like it’s so important to protect the wishes from destruction. But what does destroying a wish look like? That actually happens to Asha’s mom. Her wish-bubble is broken, literally, and she just says she feels grief. But like. Why? She never remembered it in the first place; it had been missing from her life for years. Also, what the heck is a wish?! It seems to range from broad concepts like “inspire people” to “fly.” Just “fly,” like a bird. The desire to levitate off the ground is the most important, beautiful essence of one background character. Like, what?! But no character ever has the why behind their wish to make us care.

I could go on and on about that point. Like, think about Disney movies that wrote the book on how to make movies about characters with wishes. If Ariel were in Wish, her bubble would look like “dancing and learning and exploring on the Surface with someone who understands her.” But we believe that that is her real, genuine wish, and that it matters to her, because we are shown why being understood is so important to her. Because it’s missing from her life. There’s a scene where she explores a boat alone, and even her best friend doesn’t get excited about it with her. Her dad won’t listen to her point of view. Her siblings don’t ask her about her life even when they think she’s in love. She wants what she wants because of pieces of her life that we are shown.

We are never shown why Asha’s grandfather is obsessed with inspiring people, so we have no reason to believe it, or care whether he gets it or not. We can’t feel disappointed when his wish is said to “never come true,” like we did when Quasimodo was abused by the people he wished to join. We can’t feel elated when he finally “gets” his wish, like we did when Simba smiles on Pride Rock remembering the same way he used to as a cub and claims the crown with a roar. We don’t have anything to hang on to, nothing to relate to, nothing to grasp and feel with the characters. So we don’t feel, because they didn’t put the work in to help us feel. They just say, “the mom’s feeling grief. Feel grief.” And expect us to do the work ourselves. I have to stop harping on this point and move on.

But The main point of the movie is very broad because of that lazy premise, and it’s barely reinforced by any kind of appealing storytelling. If I had to guess, the point would be “Keep wishing for more even when it’s hard.” But the story they told to communicate that meaning was so unimpactful. Asha doesn’t have a dream of her own that’s such hard work to accomplish! (Neither does her grandfather; his wish is “to inspire people.” And at the end, we’re supposed to see him strumming a guitar and believe it’s inspiring? We were never shown how he worked hard to learn how to play the instrument. Or that he carved it with his own hands, or anything like that. So there’s no meaningful demonstration of working hard for it or achieving your wish even if it’s far out of reach.) And nobody except the king is trying to take wishes away from anyone, and he just does it literally, after they voluntarily give them to him, so there’s not even any impactful demonstration of “don’t let anyone tell you your wishes are dumb or unachievable, or stop you from reaching them.” Even when he takes them away, it’s just because they…could, someday, be used to threaten his kingdom in a vague, really unlikely way. There are so many things you could do with “keep wishing for more even when it’s hard.” For instance; you could say the main character has always been afraid to dream (wish for more), because maybe when she was a kid something wonderful almost happened but ended in tragedy, so she keeps her head down and doesn’t want much because if you don’t dream you’ll never be disappointed. She takes no risks, and has to learn that sometimes trying and failing is worth more than slogging through life all self-protective. I mean, the pieces were right there. She has this line about her dad, and how she wished he would get better but then he died. She has lines about how nobody should have to live with grief?? Then that’s never addressed again! It’s just a throwaway emotion-moment with no buildup or follow-through to tie it to and support that main theme.

The compositions of too many shots were so terrible. Characters got cut off in weird places. One shot has Asha dead center, with her grandfather on the left side of the table and her mother on the right, having a family dinner with a super exposition-heavy conversation that is meant to be emotionally charged. But despite everything else being perfectly centered, half of her mother’s body is chopped off. The movie’s shot like someone’s mom who doesn’t understand technology tried to take a video with her phone.

The charm of the art “style” wears off basically immediately. I know what they were going for. I see the sketch lines and watercolor textures. This is maybe the first time Disney ever failed to accomplish a visual “look” that turned out good. Everything looks dull. Muted. De-saturated. Slightly out of focus, but not in a cool Spider-Verse way. The sets or backgrounds are lazy; at no point does the scenery look complete; big, empty, boring spaces that do not create any kind of “stage” for impactful moments. The rendering looks unfinished. When Asha’s hair moves during her belting of the “I Make This Wish” song, it’s bad. It’s unnatural. It flops in a way that doesn’t make sense for the weight of her hair. The most impactful visual moments come from the villain, and they’re moments when he looks way too unhinged for the kind of line he’s saying.

There is no interesting character development. Asha goes from believing everyone is basically good and their wishes deserve the chance to come true , to….that, again. That would be fine, she could be a static character, if she proved contrast-characters wrong, in a believable way. But she never does. Because no other characters argue with her except the King. And it goes no deeper than “everyone’s wishes are basically good and they deserve the chance to make them true” vs. “nuh-uh, because I get to decide what makes them deserving.” The King doesn’t have any kind of interesting development, either. They don’t expand on his tragic backstory—it consists of one drawing of him near a broken boat, and a few images of the corner burned off of his family taoestry. They never say “King Magnifico wished for _____ and it was taken away!” They literally never tell you what his wish or dreams were, or what motivated him to create the whole kingdom that the movie’s premise sits on. So there’s no convincing sense of progression, how he got this way, why he’ll keep going “so far.”

The pacing is weird. It undercuts every moment that could have any kind of emotion behind it. One minute Valentino is suavely bouncing around, then he’s given a two-second beat to blubber with badly-animated tears that he’ll miss Star—then he instantly gets to have another funny one-liner so we forget he might’ve been sad a second ago. We’re clearly supposed to believe that the King and his wife are devoted to each other, and his turning evil was such a big betrayal, but there’s no time and no impactful evidence for us to believe either of those things. And even if we did, the moment he’s defeated and trapped in a mirror, and begs to be let free, the Queen kind of shrugs it off, makes a forgettable one-liner, and tells them to throw him in the dungeon. And he doesn’t look remorseful. And we don’t even get to assume he’s embarrassed or emotionally devastated that he’s come to this—because the last thing he says is “nooo, the dungeon is so smellyyy!” Like this is a half-baked LEGO short that can’t get emotionally deeper than what an actual 3 year-old’s parents might be okay with.

And that’s the worst offense: The movie is not genuine. It works hard for nothing, and it has no vulnerability. It just uses old Disney standbys to pretend to be vulnerable. Have the music swell and the characters gasp and the songs drip emotion when characters are meant to be saying or doing something emotional.

But truthfully, think of all the Disney movies you’ve ever seen with the hardest emotional moments. The sheer joy of Genie when he realizes he’s free. The anguish when Elsa thinks Anna’s been frozen forever, or when Anna thinks she’s dead. The trauma when Simba loses Mufasa. The longing and dreaming of Ariel when she reaches up out of her grotto. The sense of foreboding when Mother Gothel says “fine, now I’m the bad guy” or the heartbreak in Rapunzel’s eyes when she thinks Flynn has abandoned her, or the shame on Aladdin’s face when Jafar reveals he’s a street-rat, or the horror of cruelty when the stepsisters rip up Cinderella’s dress, or Kala’s tears when Tarzan leaves her in the treehouse, or Sarabi’s tears when Simba comes back, or Mulan’s father tossing aside the sword and token of the Emperor to embrace Mulan, or heck, even just Lilo pushing Stitch in the woods and telling him “get out of here.” This movie has no moments like that. It has moments you can tell that the filmmakers wanted to hit like that—but they don’t.

Because no work is put into building them up. You know how much Simba loves Mufasa, because you’ve been watching their chemistry more than any other character all the way up till he dies. You know how much Mulan wants to please her family because she spends all of Act I desperately attempting to do that. You know Quasimodo believes the world below is beautiful and wants them to accept him because he has interesting things like—talking to gargoyles, convincing us that he’s lonely; building a scale model of the townspeople, convincing us that he sees them in a beautiful way and wishes he were beautiful in more ways than one like them, too.

Right down to the facial expressions, none of them are as anguished, happy, sad, excited, silly, in any convincing way like all of Disney’s other movies. Asha’s “low moment” when she’s afraid her “wish” hurt everyone else (still vague on what that wish ever was) lasts two seconds, she’s not crying, she’s barely sitting with slumped shoulders, and her family barely spend two seconds comforting her. They basically just say, “aw, no, it’s not y fault, it’s the king’s.” And she’s like, “yeah okay” and that’s that. It’s like the animators we’re afraid to animate really intimate emotions on the characters’ faces. The voice actors, too.

And the whole movie is peppered with Easter eggs to past Disney movies. But all that does, if you really know Disney beyond the visuals, is make you think of how hollow this movie is in comparison. How much you wish you were watching Cinderella or The Little Mermaid or something with depth and vulnerability instead of Wish.

I just noticed that this is the kinda thing Viv likes to do with her characters. I mean- it's fine to add this kind of conflict to make the characters interesting an all dat, but 4 characters?

That's a concerning amount.

Prefacing by saying I have been a hardcore Hazbin fan since mid 2019, pre-pilot release. I am not an embittered anti.

Hazbin's pacing doesn't make me angry, it makes me sad. I think about this show setting up like a normal cartoon, letting us get to know the characters, letting us see them day-to-day and strengthening their relationships with each other and how they cope in different silly or serious situations, and I get... just, upset. This isn't a cartoon, this is a webcomic, and it's a webcomic based off some lady's twitter where she gave us a character sheet for everyone before we clicked on so the comic wouldn't have to waste time explaining it. I'm sad.

Who is this Camille lady and what do I care if she killed an angel? Her daughters? Who? I don't know either of their names and I don't care enough about her or them to check. I just met her today! If she dies, if her daughters die, what difference does it make to me? A random decent character design is gone? Ok??

What do I care if Vaggie has self esteem issues? I don't know her, I just met her! I'd care so much more about her song if I cared about her! I'm just expected to care because, hey, Hazbin had a huge fandom pre-release, so why wouldn't I care? She's had so much fanon and speculation, that practically did all the set up for me, right?

,,,nO. I still need you to do the work! I want to know who these people are before I see all their trauma laid bare, because otherwise all they are to me IS their trauma, and it's tough to get invested in that in a world this bleak with a cast this huge.

Helluva Boss did the same thing - Octavia is introduced in episode 2, and then in that same episode we get some big emotional dramatic moment with her and her father that feels like it should have capped an entire character arc. And yeah, I like Octavia, I like her design and her voice and her relationship to her family, but I sure didn't care when she cried about a conflict I only learned 2 minutes ago I was meant to be taking seriously. She gets another big arc for her issues in s2e2, and I cared a LOT MORE, because not only have I actually met her before that episode, I had the entire episode to develop on her specifically and lead up to the emotional climax! It didn't just play happy dappy with her all day and then make her break down, it was a clear progression. Same with Fizz - I enjoyed his recent episode with Blitzo, because I have had several episodes to build up both their individual characters and their relationship to each other and past tension. If that had been their first episode together, I would have again, not cared one bit.

Man.

people will critique your work if you ask for critique. i bet the word "Hobbit" would have been laughed at on reddit had Tolkien asked opinions on every choice he made about Middle Earth. just be confident in your creation

they'll complain less once your works are sold on the shelves of their local bookstore

All that philosophy can do is to destroy idols.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Nachlass, MS 213

Given my defenses of AI artists/dim view of the moral panic, I think overall people pushing back on this is a good thing.

Like, the sort of AI art I like is by small weirdos doing weirdo things not big megacorps using it to replace workers, and WotC and Hasbro are run by bastards who would probably salivate at the idea of replacing artists on MtG given they'd probably be the easiest ones to replace from a greedy-corporate-bastard view.

However, there's a souple of notes here I think we all should keep an eye on.

Namely, the fact that it was apparently from an artist using an AI tool that WotC didn't know about. Which, I think that's going to be a problem creators run into sooner or later with "AI bans"

Like, I get a lot of images for my photomanip stuff from Pixabay. And more and more I've been seeing a lot of AI art stuff as a part of it. How would those bans impact me if I; say; used them as an ingredient in a photomanip without knowing?

So, there's that. But there's also a disquieting possibility I've noticed.

Namely: Given the main fear about AI is that its ability to work quickly at volume might be used to push out traditional artists and their precision, what happens if corpos push for "the worst of both worlds"?

IE, what if; due to the expanded production speed of AI art; they mandate that creators work at speeds that can only be done if they use AI tools, but also end up forcing them to conceal and lie about it and leaving the artists to take the fall for using it rather than the corpos for pushing the culture of overwork that made it necessary?

TBH, I think that's why we need to focus less on the "stealing" argument being used as a way to talk about the destruction of the artistic ecosystem by mandated speed, and more the idea of the right of the artist to work at their own pace that might be able to do something about it.

But, IDK, that's just me, it's just something to watch out for.

On Houthi and Yemen, and Antisemitism in revolutionary spaces...

We've been observing the response to our statement showing support for Yemen's aid in Palestinian resistance- specifically where we said "Glory to Yemen", as there's certainly a lot more to it than that.

Houthi and Yemen are not mutually exclusive: the country of Yemen and its people, civilians, have been bombed and murdered by the western nations for decades- in which the last FOUR United States Presidents have sanctioned and bombed Yemen.

Houthi, more officially known as Ansar Allah ('supporters of G-d'), are a militant organisation that emerged in the 90s but rose to prominence in 2014 when the group rebelled against Yemen's government. The rebellion caused the official governing body to step down, in hand causing a demobilizing humanitarian crisis.

You can read more about Houthi here:

And more on why they are attacking ships entering the Red Sea here:

It's true, Houthi are Antisemitic and we do NOT support Houthi. Their slogan is quite literally "curse the Jews"; Houthi are not our revolutionary comrades for there is no revolution in hatred and division. Their direct action on Israeli ships subsequently disrupting trade is undeniably important to disrupting the flow of capital and aiding the Palestinian resistance movement- but Houthi deserve no special recognition. Yemen has seen expulsion of Jewish people from the land for centuries, and the Antisemitism that Houthi carries forth is the same hatred that displaced Jewish people within Yemen's history.

Web archive from the Yemen Times about the treatment of Jews in Yemen and Houthi's views.

Within revolutionary spaces you must approach everything with a critical lens, and it goes without saying, especially now more than ever. Whilst we can recognize Houthi's direct action in hindering trade, and the promise there, aids the Palestinian cause by putting pressure on the Capitalist hegemony- we must equally affirm that antisemitism is unacceptable. To punish every Jewish person for Zionist crimes is unacceptable and a hinderance itself in revolutionary spaces. We cannot and will not allow Houthi's Antisemitic ideology to be regurgitated.

Leftists, Communists- recognising Antisemitism within Leftist spaces does not automatically corelate to giving grace to Israel- you must recognise that Judaism, Zionism and Israel are not mutually exclusive. The use, and bastardization of, Jewish symbology by Zionism and it's propaganda machine has long since blurred those lines, and thus it's integral to remain critical and vigilant. Even when Zionists proudly conflate the two to endorse the State of Israel's brutality- you should not deem the acts in and of itself Jewish. There is absolutely nothing Jewish about apartheid, colonialism and hatred.

Antisemitism is an age-old hatred, with the oppressive colonial state of Israel depending on it for survival. When we uproot Antisemitism, when we uproot oppression, division, hatred- we uproot the State of Israel and the Capitalist hegemony itself.

Antisemitism has no place in revolutionary spaces, and as is the case for any other form of discrimination and hatred- it cannot be ran from, only faced head-on. The solution to uprooting Antisemitism from global social infrastructure is not to enforce a new hatred, it is not to oppress another- for the cycle will only continue. We believe that society must educate one another to thus educate our future generations; we must ensure we remove division and hatred from social order, and that includes all forms of hatred.

Division itself must be dissolved to truly revolutionize social order.

this is just plain wrong. this post is like a microcosm of bourgeois idealism.

lets get started on the critique.

how, exactly does individual mental health improvement cause, for example, the degradation of the clan system and the development of slavery? reducing any history to morals is always ascientific, and demonstrates your ignorance.

For example: Slavery didnt begin because of the fucking cycle of violence, or morals, or evil, it developed because of the development of the means of production and private peoperty, and both a cause of and because the degradation of clan society. How, exactly, would the development of morals and Mental Health cause the destruction of slave society? in fact, slave owners were some of the most mentally sound people in history, because of the luxury afforded to them by the exploitation of their slaves! if mental health developments in the oppressors cause social change, then the slave-owner class would have disintegrated as it rose!

also, state violence like public execution comes from, well, the state. as we know, the state is an instrument of domination of oppressed classes which keeps class struggle on the side of those classes in check. the people being executed would be enemies of the state, revolutionaries, thieves, etc.

they heard the phrase “hurt people hurt people” and not only applied it ro all of history, but also used it to justify their absolutist bourgeois view of history, that of “barbarism” contrasted with modern day “enlightened” civilization, and the way history progressed between those two Very Real stages of history is attributed to individual enlightenment. see the similarities?

All Quiet on the Western Front (2022), directed by Edward Berger, follows Paul Bäumer, an 18 year-old German boy who volunteers to fight in WW1, fueled by discourses of patriotism and promises of a heroic status. Only when he's pushed to the front lines of the battlefield and faces the real horrors of war, he realizes there's nothing honorable about dying for his country.

It's very easy for war films to take sides or fall into a romanticization of the subject. All Quiet on the Western Front manages to avoid those clichès and brings together what is probably the best anti-war film ever made. Beautifully shot, with a haunting soundtrack and superb performances that glue together a message so powerful and more relevant than ever.

"Honor? My son was killed in the war. He doesn't feel any honor."

This is a post about Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss

Time to make some enemies lol. I woke up and chose violence.

And another thing—the whole premise of Asha’s motivation, her whole character, is that she believes the people of Rosas deserve “more” than what Magnifico is giving them.

And I’ve already made posts about how that’s already kind of lame, because the movie doesn’t give you a good look at the citizens of Rosas really “suffering” because of Magnifico. They’re not all dull, or diffident, or zombies or anything. So she’s not really rescuing them from anything too bad, in that sense.

But that’s not the point of this post.

The point of this post is that Asha believes all the wishes in Rosas deserve the chance to come true, because she believes that all the intentions of the people in Rosas are basically good…she believes they’re all basically good people.

All their wishes are, therefore, good, harmless wishes.

But that’s so boring. And untrue. Not all wishes are good! Very few of the things we choose to wish for are the best things we could choose to wish for. And even less of the things people wish for are what they actually need.

Wish makes a lame attempt at the end, with the clunky Peter-Pan background character, to suggest that what the people of Rosas were missing was a work ethic to achieve their dreams, and collaborate with others, themselves. But it’s lame. And still not compelling. Because not everybody has good wishes. In fact, almost ALL of Disney’s best stories are about a character wishing for something that isn’t completely good for them. I already made a post that was kind of about this, but seriously. Having characters who want something, then discover that something is not so good for them, or something else would be even better, is one of Disney’s trademark tools for making compelling characters and adventures.

Flynn, in Tangled, just wanted to live a life of ease where nobody could bother him or take anything from him. And you know, he’s an orphan. They explained why he has that bad wish, because of his life and the circumstances that made him how he is—so we understand. We don’t hate him for having a bad wish. We get it. But then it’s wonderful to watch him learn to wish for something better! That’s a big chunk of the story! Just like how Rapunzel wished to see the floating lights, because it meant exploring and understanding the world. Not a bad wish, but not everything she could’ve had. Love, with Flynn, was an even better wish.

You could do this with villains, too, as the opposite. You can say,

Gaston had a bad wish. He wished to have Belle, simply because she was the most beautiful girl in town and he felt like he “deserved” her as the most beautiful man in town—and didn’t want to settle for second-best. And he has plenty of evidence to look at in order to recognize that his wish is bad, it’s not good for anyone including him—he has Belle’s selfless love for her father, the Beast’s refusal to fight back, and other adoring girls who would love to have him. But he won’t let it go. He won’t give up his wish or change it to something good—because he won’t acknowledge that it’s bad. So you have a great villain.

You get lots of great villains that way. Having bad wishes, but refusing to give them up. I mean, every Disney villain has a dream too, you guys realize that? And Disney had no problem saying “some wishes are bad” then. So they had strong characters with believable motivations/performances and a gripping story. Plus, actual impactful morals.

Stitch realizing his wish to destroy is bad, and changing it to a wish for family, like what Lilo and Nani have.

Clayton wishing he could “conquer” Africa, right down to selling its most fearsome creatures, right down to refusing to give up in a fight with Tarzan and winding up getting killed for it.

Hercules changing his wish from being a god to being on earth with Meg, because that’s a better fulfillment of his previous wish, which was just to find where he belongs.

Cruella refusing to change or give up her bad wish for a fur-skinned coat made from the pelts of the pets of the friends who insulted her.

The fairies continually giving up their wishes to do what’s best for Aurora and the kingdom—they give up their magic when it fails to undo Maleficent’s curse, then they give Aurora herself back to her real parents even though they’ve loved her, then they put the whole kingdom full of their friends to sleep to spare them the heartbreak of losing Aurora.

I mean, you could think of this as Part II of my earlier post, but what I’m saying is, Wish doesn’t acknowledge one of the most fundamental things about Disney stories: wishes aren’t always good, and they’re not always good for the people making them.

I get that Magnifico was taking away the chance for Rosas to find that out for themselves. No character in Rosas gets to go on their own journey of “is my wish worth getting.” But basing a movie off of that set them up for a boring movie. The whole concept of forgetting the wish you have, but it was probably good/harmless, makes the characters stop being characters, and the story super bland.

The only character that has a wish that he tries to make come true and has to choose to either keep or let go of is Magnifico—and his wish is “maintain absolute power.” Not even the Evil Queen had a wish that was that one-dimensional and bland—at least she had something personal in there. Magnifico doesn’t have a backstory or a personality that hints at a backstory which would explain his being a control-freak. He just has a burnt tapestry hanging on a wall that he sometimes glances at and says super vaguely, “nobody should ever have to live with their wish not coming true!” What wish, Magnifico? What did you wish for that you didn’t get? Say something that makes you real to me, or else I don’t care. Like everything else in this movie.

Okay, name one female character apart from Millie who isn't a b*tch or is seen as in the wrong in some kinda way. I'll wait . . . .

These two literally only existed to be bullies to the male characters and get punished for it later. They could've been rewritten in a way where Fizz could warn them of Mammon's true intentions and they don't listen to him until the last minute once they witness Mammon's abuse

For real though, I actually like these two characters, at least a little bit. Mostly because of their song in the episode. Gave me some kpop vibes. It's just that their character should've been better.

okay feral children, what do we think?

(yes it is a redo of that one thing)