god i wish they hadn't retconned maul's death. i get wanting to explore more of his character because he was, objectively, one of the coolest star wars characters to ever hit the big screen and didn't get much screentime prior to his death, but also his role was fulfilled perfectly within those constraints so i wasn't too upset by it.
but by retconning it and making it so he never died it's like. okay. what now? the whole point (well, to me, ymmv of course) of the theed generator fight was that it was the first ever fight between the jedi and the sith in thousands of years, and that in the end even though the jedi (obi-wan) won the fight, a jedi (qui-gon) and a sith (maul) still died. a master and an apprentice dying together to herald the start of a new age/the return of the sith. perfectly paralleling the way in rotj a master (palps) and an apprentice (anakin/vader) died together to herald the return of the jedi. in both instances, a father figure (qui-gon/vader) dies in the arms of their son (obi-wan/luke) as a sith (palps/maul) is cast down into the abyss to their deaths. (palps being alive in the ST and retconning his death in rotj is also annoying for this reason)
i mean i like maul. don't get me wrong. he's an incredibly compelling character and i enjoy seeing more of him... but there's always the thought hovering in my mind like "he should be dead though. he should 100% be dead. this wouldn't be happening if he was dead, but i honestly would rather it not if it meant that maul was dead."
like the tpm fight just doesn't hit the same knowing that canonically he's just. going to become a robot octopus at some point. (shoutout to palps becoming sith glados in the ST) it cheapens the moment for me. it was supposed to be a moment of triumph marred by the deep and soul-crushing loss of a loved one and it's just... not, anymore. or at least not to the same extent. AUGH i'm just. frustrated. wish star wars as a whole wasn't constantly reframing/retconning what's been established. just puts a bad taste in my mouth.
64 notes
·
View notes
So I know people tend to have lots and lots of opinion about dog pound but more often then not, I’ve seen a tendency for folks to give Roman’s recollection of the game (that dog pound was bulling/abusive/messed up in some way shape or form) the most weight…and this candidly baffles me for a bunch of reasons. I know the actor's opinions don't need to be given weight, but I see tons of weight given to actor interviews for Succession in other contexts and both Jeremy and Kieran (per an interview with Kieran around S3) signed on to the read that dog pound wasn’t traumatizing but was instead a rewritten memory because Roman generally felt like a victim and I tend to agree with that read. It also kind of fits in more with the dynamic we generally see Kendall and Roman have throughout the show and especially in Seasons 1-3. Add to this that Roman was around 4 when this took place if we're taking his word for it (making Kendall under 10 and Connor early 20’s-ish?) and again I’m wondering why his memory is given so much more weight than Connors. Do you have any view or thoughts as to why Roman is treated as the more reliable narrator when it comes to dog pound and more broadly how do you tend to think about the siblings various contradictory childhood memories?
It's an interesting one, isn't it?
I agree with you (and the actors, haha), that I think the dog pound wasn't traumatising or that it even really meant anything at the time they were playing it. It's just a children's game that took on a different meaning in their adulthood as Roman and Kendall's particular dynamic crystalised. I talked about it a little bit in this post about games on the show if you're interested in reading more about that in particular!
I do think the context of Roman bringing up the dog pound game when he did is also important and not talked about as much as it should be. After all, Kendall's kind of seen to have the more defined arc over these episodes between the failed coup, his relapse, then the upswing of him getting in bed with the enemy (Sandy and Stewy).
Roman though has a really complicated arc too - it's his inability to stand with Kendall which makes the coup fail, and his elevation as prized son in Austerlitz is undermined by what I tend to interpret as a mix of guilt and shame first over letting Kendall down and then over his relapse, which bleeds into a degree of protectiveness which we don't usually see from him, both in that episode and in the next (it's an underrated moment, but Roman offering to make everyone stop doing drugs at the party before they go in in 1.08 is very special to me).
But there's a shift then in 1.08 which is triggered by Stewy pretty blatantly cutting him out of something and folding Kendall back in. It's this teetering new power dynamic where any guilt he felt is swallowed up by the realisation he doesn't want to lose this new station as the dog at their father's side, and I think he uses this distorted memory from childhood to justify his anger and try to reinforce this position. Kendall thought Roman was the weak dog once, but he's not, Kendall is. Kendall's the one out, Kendall's the weird one, Kendall is, as Shiv aptly put it in 1.01, not emotionally strong and has addiction issues.
(Interestingly too, while it's not in the episode, in the 1.08 script it shows that Roman's there when Kendall realises their dad's sent Greg to keep an eye on him, and I think there's this interesting emphasis there in Roman realising Kendall needs a babysitter twice - himself in the last ep and Greg in this one - which for him reinforces Kendall as the 'weak' one.)
He weaponises a long past memory that he treats as an immovable truth to not just play victim, but I think as a yardstick to show how far he's come, and how far Kendall's fallen.
As for why Roman's treated as the more reliable narrator, I think there are a few reasons for it. In particular, I do think Kendall is the Known Liar of the show, haha. All the kids lie to varying degrees of course, but Kendall really lies in a way that I tend to think can feel more insidious, particularly as he lies in such a wildly broad spectrum - sometimes it's aching self-flagellation, sometimes it's mortifying self-aggrandisement, sometimes it's just straight up pathetic, and sometimes it's just the awkward vulnerability of trying to save face (particularly when he's relapsing).
We don't see Roman explicitly lie all that much on the show, at least not in the way many of the other characters do. In some ways he's actually the opposite to Kendall because Kendall tends to use lies as a means of defense or a way to hide while Roman absolutely and often weaponises a truth. Orrr at least I'd say that's what he would like to think of himself? I actually think Roman lies all the time, it's just less through actual lying like Kendall does, and more through undermining the truth or playing around in the grey of it. He likes to lean on a question and see what it does to the truth, like he knows that it's malleable and wants to see the shape it could take, and that's overall something I find super interesting about his character, and I think feeds into a distortion of truth / memory.
But back to your question about why people see Roman as the more reliable narrator of their shared past, yes, I think it's viewed through the prism of Kendall being the one more likely to lie, but I also think it's due to Roman's abuse being easier to understand and more textual than Kendall and Shiv's. We see him get hit, both Shiv and Kendall talk about Roman being hit, Roman jokes about it and diminishes it, and even in 3.09 blames Kendall and Shiv for it (I actually think there's such an interesting parallel there to Roman being abandoned with the waterpistols and the story of Shiv being abandoned with the chocolate milk in the car, but that's a whole other story, haha).
We get childhood stories from Roman more than any of his siblings, so he feels like the one who thinks about it the most. Is that true? I don't know, but I get why that would make people put more stock in his role as the narrator of it.
As for the contradictory childhood memories, I do think the show is interested in the subjectiveness of memory overall, and the way people influence the past and make history malleable, and I think that exploring that through the very specific context of a family like the Roy's, who have a loose relationship with the truth at the best of times, is a pretty remarkable way to do it.
48 notes
·
View notes
I have no idea why but I absolutely hate how Ameridan' story was handled, they basically dumbed it down to him worshipping both the creators and andraste/chant of light, which kind of proved Cassandra's dumb (and incredibly disrespectful) point of an inquisitor having "room for another god". It's also so unfair how they made the evanuris to just be power hungry slavers and tyrants, my only hope is that if the creators were disproving then I hope it would be the same for the chant of light and maker (seeing asnit was solas who made the veil and not the creator) I really hate how centrist the game has gotten, like flat out, whenever I hear the words grey morality and nuance I can't help burn cringe, that's how much dragon age has ruined it for me.
It's also so incredibly funny how the devs are genuinely surprised that most of the players are pro mage, like of course we are?
i think it's particularly extremely aggravating, the way bioware writers write about a pantheon as if polytheistic religions are simply a thing of the past and dead and some kind of mystery/mythology. according to bioware, this kind of writing for polytheistic religions is fine because no real religion these days would everrrrrrr worship multiple gods /sarcasm. (note that the links are just some examples and not comprehensive in the least)
there's a lot of writing choices i quite simply disagree with in dai, and there's some that are just... i don't even disagree with them because that implies it's something to argue about. some of their writing choices are just wrong. after borrowing so heavily from ethnic groups to shape their fictional histories, the disrespect of writing their fictional oppressed minorities as being responsible for their own oppression because they were not "open" enough to include/absorb expy christianity into their religious beliefs and fought back against violent colonialism. the resulting clumsy collation between isr*el and the indigenous people of the americas wanting to reclaim their lands stolen from them by white colonisers makes my blood boil.
ameridan is just another piece of the puzzle that makes me seethe. we have a man who apparently ~existed before hostilities between the elves and the humans~ which is now the fault of drakon's son who invaded the dales after ameridan was long gone. that's already absolute bullshit because ameridan lived in the fucking dales. elves only started living in the dales AFTER ANDRASTE'S REBELLION. after the fall of arlathan, and hundreds of years of enslavement at the hands of tevinter humans???
additionally, the battle of red crossing happened in 2:9 glory, but tensions between the elves and humans had been building up since the second blight. drakon the first died in 1:45 but the elves apparently did "nothing" to help montsimmard when it was overrun by darkspawn in 1:25 divine - twenty years before his death, there was already simmering resentment. additionally, it was drakon the first that expanded the orlesian empire and the orlesian chantry - wotv2 notes his battles against the darkspawn did more to spread the chant of light (specifically, the orlesian chant of light which he, yknow, fucking made up) than any of his other attempts. by the time the exalted march on the dales happens, over three quarters of thedas is under orlesian rule. maferath himself handed the dales to the surviving elves from andraste's campaign in -165 ancient and the elves lived in the dales peacefully until the orlesian chantry was salivating at its borders. and the orlesian chantry has a history of wiping out "cults" - i.e. other sects of their own religion that differ from belief, no matter how minor, to their own. including, notably, the wholesale genocide of a non-violent sect centered around fertility rituals and, later, the dragon worshipping sect in haven off their own land. (and i'm willing to BET MONEY that they were originally alamarri themselves, considering that andraste was brought there to rest, and considering how cultural variance in religion usually occurs [i.e. through the blending/adoption of folk beliefs or the cultural/religious practices from Before]. so the andrastians slaughtered the cult AND THEN TOOK THEIR FUCKING LAND.)
the entire way andrastianism is treated in inquisition makes me violent. and unfortunately, it does not look like it's going to change - there's been multiple statements about how the maker's existence will continue to remain "a mystery" out of a reluctance to confirm or deny the existence of a One True God which, coupled with how they've shat on every other religion in the game - the tevinter chantry, the qun, the stone, the elven pantheon, every other sect worshipping the maker/andraste - gives me absolutely no hope that the writing team is going to get their heads out of their asses about it.
88 notes
·
View notes