#i said it when the movie first came out and i think the entire discourse around ken afterward has proved me right lol | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

marciabrady · 11 months

Note

did you see that jodi benson is applauding the lyric and story changes to the remake? does that make you feel like the energy is of the film is the same as the original?

I'm going to preface this by saying that I haven't been a fan of any of the live action remakes and that, while I do admire Jodi, I can be objective about what's going on.

Before I state my opinion, let me start with just listing some facts: Jodi is currently a Disney employee and relies primarily on her Disney salary for her income and livelihood. Jodi has become very deferential to Disney and has contradicted herself and changed her opinion many times in the past, vacillating between what was arguably her authentic opinion and a PR answer (for instance, she was pretty vocal about having a lot of difficulties with the creative team of the third movie and disliking it, before changing her tune entirely and giving seemingly rehearsed soundbites; she also did this when asked about the character of Ariel. Anytime she would give her take on how strong Ariel was or if the character was a good role model before 2019, she would always defend Ariel, but after 2019...well, we'll get into that later). Jodi has been vocal about getting in trouble with Disney in the past and having to adjust accordingly. Jodi is doing everything she can to maintain her relationship with the company and is trying to have her daughter hired into the company and possibly her son. Now, take all of those things into consideration, alongside the fact that anyone who's said anything against the live action remake has been essentially labeled as a bigot or problematic, etc, so it's impossible to really have any discourse about the film in a way that's earnest or isn't overly flowery and complimentary, which is what Jodi is doing.

I think art ceases to be art and becomes completely commercial the minute every person has the exact same take on the film, and this has been the case with this project since before even a single frame of it was shot. And, honestly, that kind of encapsulates why I don't think this film will be anything like the original? Well, it won't retain its energy, at least. Obviously they're ripping off the songs and the characters for their own gain.

It's hard to overstate how dire the conditions were that the original creative team was working under and how much was riding on this project- how inventive it was, how fresh a concept, how much it married a traditional reverence to the classic Disney films while marking a stamp all of its own to it. Time and time again, the success and novelty of this film has been accredited to one man- Howard Ashman. Howard Ashman did so much for the original production- he wrote some dialogue, he wrote the music, he performed key numbers for the talent to the point where they just copied whatever he did- he even invested his own money into the film. The fact that this was the first time an openly gay man had so much creative control over a project at Disney is something that, sadly to this day, is an outlier that has never happened again. This, married with some of the other gay talent working on the film- like Andreas Deja- infused a necessary element of queerness into the energy of production. Even the fact that Ursula was based on drag queen Divine, or the animator working on the scene where Ariel's grotto was destructed drew parallels of his father kicking him out when he came out...this is the definitive queer-coded fairytale for the gay community, going back to the original author and his artistic intent, and that's why I'm so happy that so many LGBTQIA+ people were able to contribute to the film in the 80s. When you mix that with how down animation was at the time and how animation would've ceased to exist at Disney, had this film not been successful, how the animators were pushed off the lot to working in trailers for the first time in the company's history...I think all of that contributed to lending an authentic energy of repression and being underground, etc, all things super necessary to illustrating the gay experience and having all of that ring through on screen. All of the people involved had something of being an outsider in society, too, which I think is perfect for the story of Ariel. Did you know about Jodi Benson before The Little Mermaid? No, of course you didn't, because she had virtually no fame and had auditioned for Ariel as a pity gift from Howard after the show she had been performing in had flopped, according to Jodi. Whenever she told her family and friends about the project, they laughed at her and told her the only people that do animation are ones whose careers are downhill and were so discouraging, until she finally stopped saying anything to them about it at all until the premiere where the success shocked everyone. Even Pat Carroll was a third choice- they wanted a different actress, and once they didn't get her and hired another one, she didn't work out either which is why they finally called Pat in. This film was solely riding on the creative energy and passion and love the creative team had for it and so many bets and stakes were on its back. The success of it came as a surprise to everyone, and it arguably reinvented animation and brought forth the animation period known as the Disney Renaissance.

Compare that to the 2023 film...literally nothing about it is inventive or edgy. It's the 100th live action film that is anything but the reimagining it's remarked as- it literally tries to be the same film as the animated which has already found success, down to naming the mermaid Ariel, giving her red hair, a green fin, a fish friend named Flounder and a crab named Sebastian, and other inventions that were created specifically for the 1989 film as opposed to going back to the original story and trying to be its own thing (every single live action Disney film does this which I think is so stupid honestly; like people being surprised that Sebastian and Flounder look like that...of course they do, because they were created for the medium of animation, not whatever this movie is try to be; how much better would Emma Watson's performance have seemed if she didn't have to live up to the animated Belle's songs or the iconic gold dress?). It rips off the same songs, which have since become Americana and already proven to be successful. In the age where so many critiques have come up regarding the original film, this movie softens both the characters of Ariel and Ursula to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible further illustrating that while the emphasis on the first film was to bring forth a reality to the characters of Ariel and King Triton, this movie just wants to be liked by everyone and has nothing to say.

While many people have stated that Halle's casting was progressive, every other principle character is portrayed by a white actor- Ursula, Eric, Ariel's Father, Vanessa, etc. The man that has taken over Howard Ashman's seat is painfully straight (sorry Lin Manuel, but I can't get on board) and has already written songs for huge Disney productions in the past (ever heard of Moana?) and is currently very popular (ever heard of Hamilton?). Besides, a Disney Princess being racebent isn't a new concept- as we saw with Brandi's Cinderella in the 1990s- and it isn't even new to this property, as we saw the voice actress of Moana playing Ariel in a live action version back in 2019. Remember when I mentioned how the original cast hadn't been super well known prior to the film's release? Halle was literally recognized by Beyonce and had already been in an established singing group with her sister and news of her casting was announced four years prior to the release of the film and super publicized- which, by the way, the marketing budget for this film is nearly double than the production budget for the original, so just think about that...Melissa McCarthy and Javier Bardem literally admitted to texting the director begging for a part, which they got since they were already bigshots in Hollywood. Speaking of Melissa, if Disney really wanted to be progressive or inclusive or be any of the things they're touting to be, I feel they should've hired a drag queen to portray Ursula. Instead, they gave us a white straight married woman from Illinois who's never sang a note in her life. I'm sorry but there's no way she was the best possible choice for the role. Also, outside of not hiring any substantial amount of queer talent or talent of color in front of or behind the camera, Disney has intentionally tried to distance themselves from the community and the subtext of the original movie's queerness. I already mentioned how Ursula was based on a drag queen, and it was Howard's invention that she had a fling with Triton in the past, which you can hear Pat confirming in this interview. This 2023 film makes them siblings...also, I'm sorry, I'll never get over the fact that the original author of the fairytale was part of the community, Howard was, and then they give us...Lin Manuel? There's so many things about the production of this film that make me so uncomfortable and it's all rooted back to the erasure. Which reminds me- Disney announced that they were taking a documentary based on Howard Ashman, his creative achievements and his struggle with AIDs, off of the Disney+ platform the same day they were going to release TLM 2023, before they later repented due to complaints. Aside from the erasure, it's also unsettling to me, as I mentioned before, that there's such a lack of diversity in the cast and it's nearly all white principals when this movie LITERALLY has advertised how "diverse" it is above all else.

In 2019 they announced they were going to set the film in the Caribbean, which I thought was new to this retelling and I was excited to see what it would've looked like and what the new music would've been etc...but this was back when they were planning on casting Harry Styles, a white British man, as Eric. I think having a white British man as the ruler of the Caribbeans is horrible optics, and when he backed out, they hired another white British man...it honestly doesn't sit well with me, especially when other young actors of color were auditioning and were allegedly encountering racism (just saying allegedly because I'm not trying to get sued lol). Also take into account that women of color that have actual talent when it comes to singing were auditioning to be Ursula, even women with pull and influence in the industry, before it was given to director friend Melissa McCarthy who begged for the role via text. Unfortunately, none of these topics are being addressed because Disney very smartly tied audience approval to this film on whether or not they agree with Halle's casting so people are treating it as above reproach and don't really want to speak out or discuss these really problematic elements of production for fear that they might come across as not being in support of Halle having gotten the role and, by extension, making it appear as though they don't support any leads of color.

Finally, where the original was a labor of love with barely any money going into it, fueled purely by a spirit of creativity and love and art, such is not the case with the remake. The remake doesn't offer anything new in the endless strings of live actions, which are doing the same thing with each film- down to how they're marketing the female talent (a strong woman who don't need no man!!). The director has even shown that he doesn't understand the character of Ariel multiple times and fed right into criticism that the talent from the original, like Jodi, used to speak out about before she was ironically silenced. Because she doesn't anymore...because Disney won't let her, allegedly. Jodi allegedly works with a speechwriter and you can kind of tell. I've met her and I've seen almost every panel she's been a part of, and when you ask her about an experience or a memory or her opinion, her stories change a lot. There are still the same truths to them, but she'll reveal different details in each, just the way you would when you're telling the same story to different people because anything that's natural isn't something that will be duplicated too much and there are going to be changes and shifts depending on when you tell it, who you tell it to, etc. Starting in 2019, Jodi stopped defending Ariel and began reciting a speech which she's repeated ad nauseam over how Ariel was appropriate for when she was made but, by virtue of how much "stronger" female characters are now, she'll pale in comparison to someone like Merida or Mulan. She claims you can't hold a 1989 portrayal up against a 2019 or 2023 one, because of course it would have aged...which is the opposite of what she used to say. I've heard her parrot this speech time and time again- and even in person. And that goes back to your original question...I wouldn't place my bets on the remake offering anything authentic or new if Jodi's saying it. Even aside from this, the BATB original cast have all said disparaging things about the remake, aside from Paige O'hara, who's continuously sung its and Emma Watson's praises (and what a coincidence that she's been invited to the premiere and gets more attention from Disney)...until you catch her on an off day or at a convention and she starts complaining about the darker tone, or the gun inclusion, or how Emma couldn't really sing but it was fine because she could act, or how she didn't approve of elements of the costuming...at the end of the day, these people are celebrities in their own right and have to do and say things that are canned tbh just to keep their likability up and remain palatable to the masses and hirable to Disney and Jodi's unfortunately sold out, in my opinion, in that way.

#ask #anonymous

37 notes · View notes

mermaidsirennikita · 6 months

Note

What did you mean by twilight being “era specific” in your tags on the reblog about upcoming reboots?

I think that when Twilight came out, the book especially (which built a ground fanbase for the movie to launch from) there was less pseudointellectual web analysis, PLUS there was less care for the genuine problems with the series. In some ways, Twilight Discourse helped propel some early era "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" puritanical bullshit.

things people weren't clocking super heavily when Twilight came out that I think are legitimate issues:

--Stephenie Meyer is a devout Mormon, and as such her politics seep into the books; the conservativism surrounding sex despite the inherent titillation of "when will they fucking fuck"; the anti-choice messaging; the racism, which lemme tell you, has some Very Specific Implications when it comes from a Mormon author. (Now I.... clocked her as soon as I saw the name "Stephenie", and had it confirmed as soon as I read she was named that for her dad, for reasons I won't get into. But a lot of people didn't.)

--Going back to the racism... It's real bad, and the movies made it worse by casting a white guy the most important indigenous role. Everyone else was played by Native actors. Not Jacob Black, the third most crucial character in the entire series. The fact that they baldly got away with that in 2008? Says a lot. Like, they weren't even trying to pass him off, they just went "well, he can tan". In fact, I think Taylor Lautner SAID he'd work up a tan for the second movie. I mean, he was already pretty tan, the just sprayed him down further. Problem solved, right?

--Nessie is dumb as hell in general, but it's also like... so anti-choice. Like. Bella is literally dying lmao. But not only is it presented as Right and Understandable that she'd want to die to birth this demonic child--the crucial thing about this is that EDWARD, MY MAN, is presented as the bad guy for really, really wanting her to abort. He is being completely logical and a loving partner here. He rightly points out that they have no fucking idea what this kid is, and also, most importantly, he loves Bella and puts her first and wants her to LIVE. Can I just say--unintentionally, the romantic hero everyone was losing their shit over in 2005-2012? Being super about his wife having a life-saving abortion? Kind of iconic. Edward is a pro-choice ally, lmao. (He even tells Jacob like "FINE WHATEVER IF SHE WANTS A BABY THAT BAD YOU CAN FUCK HER IDGAF" in what is. Objectively. A hilarious scene. I've seen Edward antis try to paint this as like, him trying to control her bodily autonomy--dude, Edward could have physically forced Bella to get an abortion. He does not, he simply wants this woman to LIVE.)

But then, as soon as the demon baby is born, he's all in love with her because he realizes she was a Soul Baby this entire time. Lol. No. In a post-Dobbs world, I don't know how you do this, and I think that if you have to entirely redo a crucial part of the series, why. bother. making it.

Never mind Jacob falling in love with a baby.

There are other problems, obviously, but you also have the SAVE THE GIRLS FROM THEIR HORNY DESIRES crowd, who thinks the entire series should be thrown in the trash because Edward is a) abusive because he doesn't want Bella to go be a frosty delight and die or b) abusive because he does want Bella to be a frosty delight and die c) abusive because he doesn't put out (a truly wild take lmao, he's sexually manipulating belly by dangling his cherry in front of her, and she somehow has zero alternatives, certainly not the other guy vying for her hand) d) abusive because he like, tries to buy her a new car and give her nice things...? e) abusive because he doesn't love the idea of his girlfriend hanging out with another guy who tries to kiss her and shit f) abusive because he DOES want her to hang out with that guy and wants her t have werepuppies to distract from the loss of their demon babies.

There is a lot of discourse around Bella, Edward, and Jacob that I find very stupid. I cannot imagine it's going to be any better in a post-Twitter post-X world.

I also think that, frankly? The youth want different things. If they want vampires, they want the Gothic melodrama (and more racially conscious updates) of a show like Interview with the Vampire. If they want teen content, they want teen content that incorporates people who aren't universally cishet and white (Quileutes aside, and as we have discussed... bad).

UNFORTUNATELY, the teens are also less horny, apparently, than they were when I was a teen. Which I think is the result of puritanical stuff/the conservative appropriation and perversion of theoretically solid progressive concepts.... among other things... and we need to make it so that teens feel comfortable with exploring things in an emotionally and physically healthy way. BUT. That's going to take time, and I don't think that the thing that really helped Twilight surmount the discourse, which is that--we Twihards were largely very horny about it--is going to work right now.

Also; if you are not a puriteen, I don't really think Twilight's particular brand of "oh my god, he might just touch my lips while I wear my khaki skirt" horniness is going to work for you, either. Like I said, it was a specific time. The kids who were really anti-sex were less the liberals who are worried about fictional characters' consent being violated when we watched movies... It was Silver Ring Thing kids, who lemme tell you, as someone who did not partake but knew several... Those kids.... wanted to throw down. Really bad.

And so Twilight appealed to that mindset that was like, pervasive in 2008--you don't abstain because you don't or shouldn't want it, you abstain because it's this thing that you will be able to have as soon as it is Right to have it. Like the Jonas Brothers! They did that, right? They really committed to the purity rings, riiiiiiiiiight?

The knowledge that you're waiting for this thing that you have a semi-specific timestamp on (your wedding night) and it's going to be sooo worth the wait (it will not, at least not for a while lol) was this deeply titillating thing for much of the target audience, because that's what Twilight was almost literally evoking. Edward wouldn't have sex with Bella until their wedding night, but he TEASED her. The entire series was arguably abut this leadup to the sex. And boy, was it disappointing! But until it happened, I think the series really captured that breathless anticipation. And I just don't think people are currently very interested in that.

They might as well have been soaking

Also. Bella's dad is a cop.

#AND FIN.#there are a lot of other issues but i think remakes are more often than not. stupid and bad.#interview is arguably a counterargument but it's not so much remaking the 90s movie as it is adapting the book again

12 notes · View notes

buckymilf · 2 years

Note

When there's a discussion on whether Steve's ending was good or not, there's one thing that actually bothers me, and it's when people say that it was always meant to happen because it was already planned and the entirety of Steve's arc throughout the movies was purposely made to have that ending regardless. Like, that's just not true.

The creators confirmed a few times that the script for Endgame had a lot of changes and that they had different versions for the movie. I'm pretty sure that the Russos said at one point that in one of these versions Steve died during the battle and was decapitated. Steve dying was an option, and probably one that was going to follow through because it would just be easier and it wouldn't leave the public confused after previously stablishing a good and understandable enough explanation for time travel. It would also save Marvel from now having to explain what happened after Steve came back, the comment in FATWS about people believing that he's on the moon, and having to keep everything vague enough for the possibility of Evans agreeing to come back.

But the evidence of this ending definitely not being planned years before it's the movie itself. If Steve was really meant to end up with Peggy, they wouldn't need to bring her up so many times during the movie, it shouldn't be necessary to explain again and again how much she means to him, that's something that the audience should already know. When there's Civil War discourse people argue about who's right, the political perspective of Tony and Steve, whether Steve should've told Tony about his parents, or if he shouldn't have dragged the other avengers to battle, whatever, but I've never seen people question why he's so intent on defending his views and protecting Bucky from the government, because in CAFTA and CATWS the audience got to see and understand that Steve acts based on what he thinks is right and that Bucky is important to him. It's stablished, and so in Civil War people don't need flashbacks of the 40's or constant reminders to understand Steve's actions.

If Steve talked about his friends that were gone with the snap in the group therapy session, if the compass was replaced for a wrinkled photo of him with Sam and Nat or if he paid attention to SHIELD'S basement when he went to get the capsules and saw traces of Zola's work, and even then, ended up going back to the past, many more people than it did when the movie came out would get really upset about his ending. I mean, one of the main reasons why some people didn't believe the spoilers when they were leaked on Reddit was Steve's ending making no sense. Of course they had to try to make it seem like not getting to be with Peggy was Steve's biggest regret, because what the audience knew about them together was that that she was kind of the first woman that paid attention to him, she kissed him once, then told him that he had to live his life because she already had, and then enter his new love interest. If his ending was meant to be like that and was really planned in advance, we wouldn't need constant reminders of her character and their relationship, and in the previous movies it would've been clear that Steve hadn't moved on and that him being in the 21st century was still his biggest problem.

At the end of the day is media, you can like it or not, but there's no need to try to justify the way that a multimillionaire company fucks up characters' storylines and characterisation.

THIS 👆👆👆 FUCKING THIS 👆👆

you know what i think it's the sickest part? if they wanted us to belive that peggy was the most important thing in Steve's life, enough for him to comeback to the fucking segregation era, that they were always "mean to be" why would they made him kiss her niece???

it's clear that marvel just wanted the most heteronormative ending possible for the character, even if that means ruining his entire arch, beliefs, and ignore the best mcu trilogy aka the Capitan America one.

#Yes I'm STILL salty about endgame and this anon ROCKS!#anti endgame #steve rogers #steve #anti mcu #anti steggy #captain america

165 notes · View notes

dm-clockwork-dragon · 1 year

Text

Another Unpopular Opinion

I was asked to delete my earlier reblog by the OP, so they didn’t get sucked into discourse, so I’m reposing this as it’s own thing Well, here I go publicly stating another opinion that will probably get me cancelled. To be entirely fair, I’m sort of beyond caring at this point?

I think people need to calm their fucking tits - homegrown, surgical, or happily removed - over not just this game, but about HP stuff in general.

I’m a recently hatched egg, but I’ve considered myself non-binary for almost 15 years, and been an ally for as long as I knew what an ally was. I also have no particular love for the franchise, despite enjoying it a lot when I was a kid. That’s not virtue signally, or an attempt to defend my position - just letting you all know a little context, and that I do actually have a horse in this race.

I get it, I really do. JK is a fucking terrible person, and should burn in a thousand multicolored hells for the bullshit she spews and the hate she engenders in others. On top of that, she’s a shitty writer, to the point where she accidentally created an entire wizarding world where the difference between the good guys and the bad guys is just what flavor of Nazi you want to choose. But there’s a couple reasons I think that people really need to try and separate her from the franchise that she started.

1. Death of the Author.

This is the one that everyone else gives. It’s possible to enjoy, appreciate, or interpret a creative work in absence of it’s author or their intent. We do it with music, we do it with painting. and Like OP here points out: if we were to burn every book written by a problematic author, we would leave glaring wholes not just in our understanding of our own history and society, but in our understanding of how to avoid the same injustices and suffering caused by those authors. Dead or alive, the author’s right and control over who others interpret their work the moment they share it with the outside world.

2. You guys don’t know how JK makes money, do you?

I see all kinds of arguments out there about how engaging with, or - dare I even mention - paying for HP content is somehow a crime against transfolk because it directly supports a raging TERF and her platform. It doesn’t. Aside from the argument that JK makes all her money through investments and stock market trades - just like any rich person - She also DOESN’T OWN THE FRANCHISE. She retains intellectual property rights: AKA, she can write new books or shit if she likes (we have seen how that goes for her), and she is still treated as the primary source, but the IP and all production rights are owned by Warner Bros. JK doesn’t make a dime off of game, movies, or anything else that WB license or produce based on THEIR franchise. She already made her money by selling the franchise to them years ago. Honestly, she probably got the raw end of the deal at this point. At most, she might get some meager royalties that are eaten up entirely by the cost of paying someone to process them. That’s how publishing contracts and movie deals work - they are a fucking racket. 3. HP isn’t just something some people can throw away.

Like I said above, I sorta grew out of my HP phase, long before any of the issue of JK being a TERF ever came up. And I know that a lot of people who considered themselves fans have also willingly distanced themselves from the franchise in light of her shitty views and actions. But not everyone has that ability. To give you a different example: I grew up reading the Dune books. I finished the core series for the first time when I was 8, and have re-read the entire extended series more than a dozen times since then. It’s more than just my favorite book series, it’s a formative part of who I am as a person. So much of my beliefs and identity as a person have been informed or inspired by those books that I would argue it is impossible to truly understand myself without them. Hell - I’d argue the entire reason I started explore my gender and sexuality in the first place is because of the emphasis those books placed on the “Quisach Haderach” as the perfect fusion of male and female. Even if I were to verbally disavow the series for some reason, those books still define who I am today, and It would be physically impossible for me to separate myself from them Harry Potter is the same way for a lot of people. I think some of us loose sight of just how meaningful those books are to a generation. Not all of us - even within that generation - had the same connection, but for a lot of people who grew up reading them from the time they could turn a page, those books are just as formative and intrinsic to who they are as Dune is to me. they couldn’t separate themselves, even if they wanted to. And pissing all over someone for something they can’t change about themselves is exactly the sort of thing we are supposed to be fighting against! Same can be said of the bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other work that was meaningful and formative to a persons cultural upbringing. Even within the trans community, there are countless Christians, Jews, and Islamic followers. They make the faith their own, because it is an intrinsic and immutable part of who they are. If you are going to condemn Trans or Allies who can’t separate themselves form HP, then you are also condemning any Ally or Transperson who still practices or believes in some form of the religion the grew up with. 4. If we can reclaim slurs, we can reclaim this! I see so many of the same people who rail against HP, also writing or relogging posts about how important it is to reclaim slurs and other labels that have been historically used against us, and I agree. But that shit goes a lot further than just the names we have been called. Reclaiming something from those who would hurt you with it is like picking up the rock that was thrown at you, and saying “neat, this is mine now, you cant have it back”, as opposed to just kicking it back to the abuser so they can hurl it at you again. JK is a terrible person. which is all the more reason that we have a responsibility to take this beloved franchise away from her. She doesn’t deserve it, and as long as it remains in her power, she can continue to use it as a platform to hurt people. And this isn’t without precedent: Look at Butch Hartman, or Joss Wheaton, or Notch, or Gary Gygax. We have a history and a present filled with examples of taking beloved content away from shitty people a deciding “this is ours now, you can’t have it back.” We take those things that were or are important to us, and reframe them, re-write them, or reimagine them into something positive and supportive. As an author myself, I know quite well how painful it can be to see your work taken away from you, and transformed by people who don’t share your vision. So lets hurt JK where it counts! Not in the wallet, not by railing against her on social media, but by taking away the one meaningful thing she has ever created in her miserable life. Because she doesn’t fucking deserve it.

#HP #harry potter #not dnd #jk rowling #unpopular opinion

34 notes · View notes

smokeybrandreviews · 2 years

Text

Float On

The discourse around the new Kenobi show is very interesting to me. I am a massive fan of Star Wars but i wouldn’t say it’s one of the pillars of my childhood. Those are definitely Spider-Man, Godzilla, and Transformers. Star Wars is more a support beam, along with the Alien franchise. That said, i enjoy it enough to have a pretty solid hyperfixation with the lore. All of it. Particular the Legends stuff. What i am not a fan of, is the vast majority of what Disney has farted out under Kathleen Kennedy. I enjoyed The Force Awakens, Rogue One, and came around to Solo, but the rest of the movies are dog sh*t. I respect the first season of Mando because it was the first great Disney Star Wars entry, absolutely loved the second with all the callbacks to prime can ( I shill hard for Ahsoka Tano, man), and pretty much abandoned Boba Fett early on. Those two episodes of Mando III which got forced in there were pretty dope, though. So, as you can tell, it’s been a mixed bag for me. That said, my beef with these entries are definitely not what the loudest of disgruntled Star Wars fans are screeching about.

My frustration with Disney Star Wars is how poorly this sh*t is written. There is an extreme level of disrespect that runs through the new Lucasfilm and that is directly Kennedy’s influence. She’s been trying to alter the entire canon over some perceived slight, like she doesn’t get the credit she deserves for the success of Star Wars. Ma was a glorified coffee runner when these films were created but wants to change that narrative while sticking it to Lucas for telling the truth about her role. Everything i find frustrating narrative, can be traced back to the sycophant writers, spineless directors, and dismissive attitude of Kennedy, herself. And then Favloni came through with Mando and blew everything she has ever made out of the f*cking water. Mando is so good because the narrative is f*cking solid, man. It feels complete. It feels grandiose. It feels like Star Wars. Through the first three episodes of Kenobi, i see those same bones and it weird more people aren’t on this show like i am. Now, to address the major issues I've seen the fandom grip about:

Baby Leia is great. I can totally see this girl growing up into the Leia Organa that we all know and love. The actress, Vivien Lyra Blair, is doing a great job and she’s surprisingly not annoying like most child actors. The physicality is a struggle for her but she’s nine years old. Cut the kid some goddamn slack, you degenerates. Not everyone can be Chloe Moretz or Anna Paquin.

Reva isn’t that bad but she ain’t great either. Kenobi needs this type of foil before actually completing the Hero Journey he’s on. This is a story about how Kenobi finds his faith, finds his way back to the force after literal years of abandoning it after murdering his little brother. Reva is the perfect stop-gap between Old Ben and a Punished Obi-Wan. I imagine we’ll see the change in his dueling posture in this series or some sh*t to align it closer with what we got in the original trilogy to signify his reconciliation with the past.

The broken canon can easily be fixed. I don’t care for the breaks, themselves, as much as others but with good writing and a proper understanding of the lore, this sh*t can be corrected with a one sentence reveal. The Grand Inquisitor is dead in Kenobi but alive and well in Rebels? His people have two stomachs and Dark Side wielders have survived much worse. Vader exists. That man got dismembered and burned alive. Maul cut got in half and lived for another twenty years or some sh*t. There really aren't any egregious transgressions that can't be corrected by the end of this show. Stop spazzing out about them until we know for sure if they f*cked everything up.

It makes sense Kenobi is about Kenobi’s journey back to the force and not just him being a bad ass on Tatooine. Think about where we left the character. Kenobi defeated his brother, dismembered him, watched him burn alive. The Jedi fell. All of his Masters are dead. He literally has to go into hiding. This dude has lost everything he holds dear and the only thing good in his life is Luke, some one he's not even allowed to interact with. Kenobi is a broken man here. He's not the reassured Master he is in A New Hope. Dude is pathetic. That's the point. Its absurd to me that so many people have missed that point.

Obi-Wan Kenobi is really good. It's easily one of the best things Disney Star Wars has ever produced and people are letting it fall by the wayside because of outside issues. It's a lot like Secrets of Dumbledore that. I'm not here to defend Kennedy' mess or slight the responsibility she holds for marginalizing a once beautiful franchise but Kenobi is not The Last Jedi. It's not Rise of Skywalker. It's not The High Republic or The Acolyte. Does it have it's problems? Sure. But er are three episodes into a six episode narrative and this sh*t ain't coming out of Kennedy's Writer's Room. This is Feloni and Favreu. This is the team that brought us Mando and Clone Wars. Boba Fett left us all wanting, true, but Obi-Wan is much better than that. Give the thing a chance before casting it out as “woke” and “feminist” or whatever buzzwords we're losing to denigrate sh*t out of Kennedy's Lucasfilm. Not everything is trash just because she sits in the big chair.

#Star Wars: Obi-Wan Kenobi #Kenobi #Star Wars #Lucasfilm #Some ol' bullsh*t

2 notes · View notes

smokeybrand · 2 years

Text

Float On

0 notes

euphoriaonpluto · 3 years

Text

Queer Representation

Alright let's talk about Loki and Good Omens.

Before anyone tries anything, I am going to state upfront that I am a biromantic asexual. So keep that in mind before you automatically take what I want to say in bad faith and go to accuse me of bigotry.

I want to talk about how the only ones benefitting from the way we handle queer rep discourse right now are the queerphobic networks and execs.

First, let's look at Loki. The MCU's first canonically queer character. Since episode 4 came out yesterday, I have seen multiple accusations go around of people who are upset about the hinted romance between Loki and Sylvie being biphobic. Bi people are allowed to date people of the opposite gender, you say. And of course they are. But you are purposefully missing the whole point of why people are upset.

The MCU is a 13 year old franchise and Loki is the first time they are actively acknowledging the existance of queer people. This, despite how infuriating it is, is pretty par for the course when it comes to fantasy and sci-fi media. These two genres are notoriously horrible when it comes to diversity and the portrayal of queerness. So it's only natural that people are going to be upset about what Disney is doing right now, and no, they aren't upset because they hate bisexuals.

Fiction in inherently limited to what is portrayed on screen/in the text. We don't know a character's every thought and feeling and we have not seen their entire life. Which is why good media follows the 'show not tell' rule. A character making an off-handed comment about their sexuality is never going to be enough representation, not when Marvel continues to refuse to portray explicity queer relationships or have their queer characters have any experiences tied to their queerness at all.

So sure, bisexuals can date people of the opposite gender and still be bisexual, obviously. But why are you guys acting as it that isn't how most bi people are portrayed anyways? Aren't most bisexual characters only shown being in het-alighned relationships and their identities only acknoleghed like a couple of times in passing converations? Please point me to the abundance of bisexual characters in fantasy and sci-fi shows who have actually been shown being in a relationship with a person of the same gender or have explicitly gone through stuff linked to their queer identity. Please go ahead.

Now let's look at Good Omens, specifically Aziraphale and Crowley's relationship. The constant discourse there is that queer relationships don't always need to be physical. "Aziraphale and Crowley can be asexual!!!! They don't have to kiss on screen for their relationship to be valid!!!!!" Okay fine but can you please first point me to all of those explicit mlm couples that you are refering to when you use the word always. What does always mean in this case? Are you telling me that fantasy and sci-fi shows are so oversaturated with explicit mlm and wlw relationships that some change of pace is desparately needed?

All of this discourse around the two shows is purposefully ignoring the history of homophobia in film and TV. Despite the code being removed almost sixty years ago, the film indistry is still in the shackles of the fucking Hays code. Queerness is viewed as dirty and sinful. Queer men and viewed as sick predators. MLM relationships are treated are perverted and nsfw and will someone please think of the children!

So why, please tell me, WHY are you giving the powers that be such loopholes for them to continue to not portray queerness while wearing a brand new woke hat? Do you not realise that you are giving Disney the option to continue to never portray queer relationships because all they had to do was write one short line of dialogue and now whenever someone tries to demand mlm representation they are going to be accused of biphobia. Loki can go on to never be shown having interest in someone of the same gender or having queer experiances at all, be it discussing his identity or anyone else around him acknowledging it or having his part experiences shape his behavior or anything at all that is just part of real queer people's lives. And people will continue to uphold his character as good representation because he said the sentence "a bit of both". Disney would rather Loki go and fuck a female version of himself than portray a mlm relationship on screen and you go and accuse people of biphobia for pointing that out.

Nuance is great. It's needed. But, perhaps, before we start talking about the nuances of sexuality and identity and the nature of queer relationships we should at least get to see some gay people kiss on screen, don't you think? When there is sufficient mlm and wlw representation in fantasy and sci-fi shows and movies, we can go on to talk about all of these things. But until then all you're doing is giving networks the excuse to never show an ounce of queerness on screen and then market their product as queer rep becase the writer said they love each other on twitter and oh if you object to that at all you're acephobic because their relationship doesn't have to be physical! Nevermind that homophobia still holds that industry by the throat and they continue to find gay relationships are disgusting and less than and to be avoided at all cost.

TL:DR - let some gay people kiss on screen first before you start giving networks exuses to not portray explicit queerness.

#loki #marvel #good omens #loki spoilers #queer #lgbt #i am SO tired my GOD #i can count the mlm relationships in fantasy and sci-fi on my fingers and y'all are treating these shows as peak rep for doing the bare #fucking minimum #ineffable husbands #azirowley #aziraphale #crowley #lokius #i guess

1K notes · View notes

sleepynegress · 2 years

Note

Uh… Chris Rock has ALSO experienced abuse first hand when he was young. Why does only Will’s matter?

Nonny, if you read my post then you know abuse matters regardless. Since I literally said the slap was wrong. A lot of us have experienced it. I hope all who have been through it find space to heal from it. Chris Rock's abuse may have influenced his empowering yt peers to use the n-word and why he's used black girls and women as fodder for his humor so many times...But it's no excuse for it. Since he continued to do it. Again. The difference is one person has held it together for 30+ years, even going above and beyond in a his rap career to be clean w/ the pressure to be a role model for black men and boys (if you're black nonny then you know that pressure of being rep for your entire race in a public space). Quiet as it's kept, Smith went farther in some spaces than SLJ, Denzel, and Poitier, regardless of how you feel about his acting talent. He broke the black male lead (and black female lead partner) summer blockbuster barrier with Indepedence Day. That is HUGE.

Thanks to his discipline in the public eye, his family is prvileged, wealthy, and have alternative ways. I remember the protection of their kids, allowing black kids to reap the benefit of those privileges, but never seeing them do anything cruel, be exploited, or be trifiling to their peers. Jaden, starred in some movies, wore dresses, philosophized, made music and an anime and started a non-profit to get water to people in need.... SO MUCH better than other nepotism kids in Hollywood. Willow made a cute song empowering black girls and women to be silly with their hair at 8. Dressed and singing appropriate lyrics AGAIN never did anything cruel, harmed no no one, came out as queer, and continues to make music. They raised free, joyful black children, in the public eye, who get to be weirdos, travel, think and live outside the box publically... And again, if you're not black and of a certain age, you haven't a clue what an accomplishment that is and how much of a precedent the Smiths set w/ that... And all this in spite of folks, white and black constantly talking shit about that family. That family has been awesome in so many ways like Will and Jada's relationship with his ex-wife and son. Jason and Lenny are a meme now, but the Smiths started that. Meanwhile, taking tally of Rock's years of comedy and the ways he's given space and permission to yts to use the n-word and laugh at black women (stealing a doc from a black woman) and even his own response that he wouldn't talk about Jada anymore... immediately after Will's tacky and illtimed slap... Chris didn't press charges. Hopefully both he and Will are getting therapy. ...But I'mma be real. SO MANY worse things than a damn slap between men w/ the resources and wherewithal to manage it, have gone on with your faves in Hollywood and those folks were allowed their careers and celebrated w/o a quarter of the accomplishment, pressure, and alt-decency the Smiths have managed to express through the years. The only reasons this is as huge as it is because it's Will (known for those 30 years), it happened at the Academy Awards (and I've explained why their moral posturing is laughable) and because (and you know this to be true) is an easier public discourse than all the heavier things that are going on that have definitely been a psychological burden on the masses. It feels solvable and judgable, unlike a pandemic, evil folks on the right who keep getting away w/ evil shit, and knowing a meglomaniac is bombing innocent people because Cold War nostalgia and ego, for a just a few examples. That said, while I'm here...the B.S. with Zoe Kravitz right now, is just a disgusting public pile-on mob. So the fuck what she thinks differently about the slap. So the fuck what she's ALWAYS been a hippie biracial woman. People are using this now as an excuse to air out their long-held jealousy for her privileges. It's a slap. We're allowed various opinions on it. We're allowed that. You're allowed that too nonny. Social media really gets the scale of things wrong sometimes. The B.S. about Zoe being a pedo (which seriously that trend needs to STOP). The Q's and so-called progressives need to stop that mess, the baseless accusations are gross, gross, gross and only done, because people aren't willing to deal with the actual heaviness of the crime, its a convienient untouchable accusation to throw at folk, and worse; ONLY makes it easier for the real crimes to go under the radar w/ the all the damn wolf cries. Anyway, all that to say... I hope all parties grow and heal from this pretty minor incident in the grand scale of things and likely major long-held personal ones that lead to it.

#long post is long #meta #will smith #chris rock #and will did also mess up w/ janet hubert #but he did air that out with her #and she's come to his defense recently too #people fuck up it's part of life #because it's public #we have opinions on it

119 notes · View notes

tomatograter · 3 years

Note

What are your Thots on jake’s pq route?

I already wrote some about it in this post where I discuss the problem with taking dirkjake as a literal parallel to tavris (Mainly, that it’s inaccurate to both situations and misrepresents the dynamics at play) but it’s been long enough since release that I feel like I can talk about it without that criticism being taken as a personal witch hunt. TL;DR: As a general rule of thumb I don’t cite Jake’s PQ as part of his characterization, and I think basing your Jakewriting on it will only lead you astray.

I liked a lot of the Pesterquest routes and the alphas were among some of my favorites, but I think when you play the four of them in sequence Jake’s really... stands as the odd one out. It’s almost as if he’s afforded way less sympathy from the get go for some indiscernible reason, or like MSPAR took a day to say ‘I can’t stand this kid in particular’ after dealing with waaaaaaaay more mindboggling troll customs or stupid dangerous situations that tested their patience and their limits. When it comes down to it, it’s mostly an issue of framing.

Let’s go with the “Just the Alpha routes” example, because I think that makes the overall context clearer and the response/reactions it gathered (or the lack thereof) easier to understand. The alpha kids were the last 4 Pesterquest episodes. They were also afforded entire volumes just for themselves, which cemented our expectations on “oh, they’re going to really dig into unexplored territory!” and for the most part, that’s what we got! It was really nice to see the internal mechanics of Jane as someone raised within a corporate echochamber, Roxy as a grieving, isolated kid, deprived of all human contact, and Dirk as a nerdy doomsday prepper haunted by private flashes of himself as a supervillain. It all works! Those are things the alpha kids were dealing with on the background of the broader Homestuck story, things we were only hinted at as the *larger* problems played out. It makes you understand their point of view. Except on Jake's route, where nothing about his life seems to be relevant at all?

With Jane we get discussions about HIC and her family, with Roxy beautiful passages about a mother they never met and growing up alone— Same for Dirk, who gets a whole brother zapped from an alternate timeline. But on Jake's route there's not even an expansive dialogue path dedicated to Grandma English, Skaianet, the rebellion, or the giant red ship that came and murdered her in the night and then bombed his house, leaving him trapped inside his only surviving tower. No understanding passage realizing that this kid has had to fend for himself in an island full of Actual Giant Alien Monsters trying to eat him alive, or that he cremated his guardian specifically to avoid attracting predators to the scent of fresh blood drying on her mutilated corpse at the age of an actual toddler. The text refuses to dig into any of the psychological implications or impact an environment like this could have on a kid, which is even weirder when you consider MSPAR has met and helped Vriska get out of a similar situation. The whole thing with Jane in the previous volume has just happened, even, while Jake's particularities go unremarked. He was just supposed to deal with it. And that's because a choice was made to portray all of Jake's problems in this route as sort of... single handedly Dirk's fault? Something he should have Just Dealt with?

There's not even a hint that Jake knows Hal exists. Which is important! Jake can pick out Hal from Dirk based on *verbal cues*, and the fact that he considers Hal a barrier between him and his "real friend" getting to communicate with one another is a whole point of contention (and even comedy) in the story proper. Instead of examining Jake's isolation, or grief, or how he literally locks himself in his room and plasters it with cinematic posters to pretend he's just the main lead of a wacky adventure movie in the face of the immense shitshow outside, we get brobot acting nonsensically and threatening to break into Jake's room to beat him up.

A general reminder on brobot: He was programmed to scout the jungle and deal with predators so Jake could a) Be allowed to safely leave his room (something he simply didn't do before age 13 out of sheer terror, and we know this because dirk and jake talk about it on his birthday conversation, when he first gets brobot) and

b) Learn how to defend himself in the case of a surprise attack, with different combat settings adjusted to his level. The brobot has a novice mode Jake feels patronized by, but pushes him up levels quickly enough. In Homestuck proper, the brobot only enters "stalking mode" after Hal gets pissy with Jake for finding him out, and forcefully switches the setting on to make Jake work for the Uranium inside it. When you take Hal out of the picture, this plotline makes no sense! Jake's route is set way before the Alphas even think of entering the game, so this particular event hasn't even happened. Jake goes on to text Roxy and she turns the stalking setting off remotely anyways, so even if brobot was programmed to murder Jake in his sleep, or jump him inside the safe zone of his room (he's not) he has literally no reason to be acting like that when he's been set to Baby Buff Up Mode.

(Brobot does end up spontaneously pulling himself apart to give Jake his reward after this)

Which brings me to my other problem with the general framing of this volume; the alpha kids don't feel present in Jake's life as friends at all. It's all "romantic options" and "shipping discourse" and MSPAR making these silly logic jumps to justify insisting on this line of query, and all it does is completely flatten out anything of interest having to do with Jake as a Person, to build up an image of Dirk as being suspicious and shady for his volume and more or less come to the conclusion that Jake sucks because he just Cant Choose Who To Date Between All His Friends! And that's why jake is just like tavros… and dirk is just like vriska! Or something.

And just as a reminder, here's Jake talking with Roxy so I don't have to explain why that feels like a weird choice to me. (click to zoom)

And then there's the endings. On the vriska ending, MSPAR just ends up weirdly angry at jake for being such a piss baby and not getting that he's tavros and dirk is vriska so he had to… uh… take all his anger out on this 13 year old alien girl he has never met and teach her a lesson to prepare to do the same on dirk, or something. And on the other ending Jake mentions his pen pal, is zapped to meet jade, they have some non-committal greetings and then a cosplay party where Jake insists that he totally likes Lara croft not because she's a femme fatale and he relates to that, because he's never ever in his life thought of anyone being interested on him. Or Something. He likes Lara croft for normal reasons only. He wears really tiny shorts and does sexy poses because he's not aware at all of how other people find him attractive. He's just too dumb to get this, or the shipping thing, or that he's tavros and Dirk is vriska (who the hell are these people?).

Jake feels like an afterthought in the grand scope of events. Sidelined on his own episode. This volume is busy with rehashing age old fandom arguments that have little to do with his character, because said arguments were started and maintained by bored teens engrossed on fighting online instead of analyzing Homestuck; we introduce vriska for no interesting reason at all (thank god at least Jake has enough decency to say he's not into hitting on 13-year-olds, because that would have been particularly rancid.) And aside from catchphrases and old slang sprinkled liberally into his dialogue like a fog making machine, none of the motivation for the character is there. What does he want? What does he fear? Why does he act like the way he does? What would accommodating him look like? What would helping him look like? We get this on Jane's volume, Roxy's volume, and Dirk's volume. To really heart-wrenching and dramatic results, too. You get to know who they are, where they live, what they want, what they fear, what might help them get better, but Jake is just sort of There. He's a burden. MSPAR either ends this volume berating him for not doing what they want or finding him weird and confusing and like they don't know each other at all, and the fact both of those were marked as dubiously bad ends in the game files speaks for itself, I think.

#jake english #pesterquest #vriska serket #jane crocker #roxy lalonde #dirk strider #meta

367 notes · View notes

9worldstales · 3 years

Text

MCU Loki: Why I fear they failed to deliver what they promised

At this point I’m kind of confused by who the “Loki” series is trying to reach or which is the goal/message they’re trying to pass along.

They had tried to intrigue assorted audience but, if you ask me, the series has often failed to deliver what it seemed to promise.

Of course I might be wrong. Or maybe I'm not seeing another type of audience the series aimed and managed to reach.

When the series started I wanted to keep a positive mentality and hope whatever seemed not to work would be fixed along the way or have a reason for existing that I just wasn't seeing because I hadn't seen the full story yet.

However, after 5 episodes I'm starting to lose hope the series will make a genuine effort to reach the fans at whom it seemed to aim.

PART 1 – “LOKI” IS NOT FOR THE OLD FANS WHO PRODUCED META SHOWING HOW HIS TRAUMA DAMAGED HIM

"I think it's the struggle with identity, who you are, who you want to be. I'm really drawn to characters who are fighting for control. Certainly you see that with Loki over the first 10 years of movies, he's out of control at pivotal parts of his life, he was adopted and everything and that manifest itself through anger and spite towards his family." [Loki's Struggle With His Identity Confirmed To Be A Focus Of His Disney+ Series]

What was it about Loki as a character that attracted you? He’s just fun, for one. He has a very playful sense of humor about him. I like how he never quite lets you know what he’s thinking. Beyond that, what I connect to about him is the same thing the legions of fans do, which is his humanity and his vulnerability. This is a guy who—yes, on the one hand, he was the prince of Asgard, seems like a nice life—but his father, in fact, killed his actual birth father, adopted him, lied to him about his heritage and parentage his entire life, he was forced to live in the shadow of his oafish older brother who was born to be king. He’s experienced a lot of trauma, and I think that what he’s looking for is just a little bit of control over his life. Which he feels like maybe he’s never quite had. That’s something I think we can all relate with. [From Loki to Doctor Strange and Star Wars, Michael Waldron Is the New Franchise Whisperer]

Let’s be honest, the audience for the “Loki” series is not really meant to be Marvel movies old time fans who enjoyed “Thor” and “The Avengers”, made countless Meta analyzing Loki’s behaviour and who wanted answers about what happened to Loki prior to “The Avengers” or wanted to see Loki’s family terrible dynamics be discussed, or at least to see explored the wrong dynamics of Loki’s interracial adoption (he’s taken away from his planet, the truth is hidden from him, his look is changed to disguise him as an Asgardian, nothing is done against the racial hate for the Jotuns at which Loki is exposed, even witnessing it from his brother) or talk how much in control of himself Loki was during “The Avengers” (okay, the web said the sceptre manipulated Loki, but what about acknowledging that in his own series? It doesn’t have to come from Loki who had no idea he was manipulated but someone could mention ‘think yourself lucky here the stones don’t work, they’ve the nasty tendency to manipulate people’).

The series has avoided digging into all that as much as they could.

Even when Loki talks with Sylvie, the most we get is a small big about how Frigga was awesome in his eyes and taught him magic, but this isn’t meant to explain any of the issues Loki had with his family, it just make Sylvie feel bad because she can’t remember her adoptive mother, as for the D.B. Cooper born out of a bet with Thor, yeah, fun but completely random. What’s meant to be the message about family dynamics here, that it was the bets between Thor and Loki that caused Loki to decide to conquer Earth? Or what about the Sif loop? Is it there to push on Loki the blame of his poor relation with Sif?

No, clearly not.

In regard to Loki the Frigga flashback is there to remark he had a loving and supportive family while the other two are there to have Loki admit he is ‘a mischievous scamp’, ‘a horrible person’ and ‘a narcissist’.

To put it in Classic Loki’s words: ‘Damn it! Animals, animals! We lie and we cheat, we cut the throat of every person who trusts us, and for what? Power. Glorious power. Glorious purpose! We cannot change. We're broken, every version of us. Forever. And whenever one of us dares try to fix themselves, they're sent here to die.’

In short it’s all Loki’s fault if he does bad, nothing happened to him that could have messed him up, he’s just a horrible person… however…

PART 2 – “LOKI” IS NOT FOR THE OLD AND NEW FANS WHO BELIEVED LOKI TO BE A DANGEROUS, EVIL, PSYCHOPATH VILLAIN EITHER

"Loki is an a**, and that makes my life as a writer, easy." ... "Due to the trauma in Loki’s life, I would even [accept a story] in which he is committed to being all bad." [Michael Waldron on Loki: He’s an a**. That makes things easy]

Considering the series is trying to pin SOLELY on Loki his wrongdoing, completely skipping the toxic way in which he was raised you might think they want to paint him as an evil, psychopath who was just born bad.

But no, that’s not the intention, we see it from the start.

Loki is given a quick briefing on how his beloved family loved him despite him hurting them, a briefing that contains false information which would work if we accept the briefing as manipulative but, at this point I’m not so sure that was the author’s intent. The Doylist purpose of the briefing is clearly to show the audience how Loki cares for his family, how he still has feelings, feels pain at the idea Frigga and Odin died and wish to make up with his brother.

It’s not just they loved him and did nothing wrong toward him, it’s also he who loved them and didn’t mean to harm them. That’s why we’re fed that damn discourse about Loki sending the Dark Elves to kill Frigga, because the series wants to remark that no, Loki didn’t want to kill his family, he loved them.

Tom Hiddleston used to say what Loki is came from a place of pain but the series didn’t explore that place of pain… it just gave him more pain and not just in episode 1. Episode 2 has him discovering Asgard is destroyed, episode 3 has him remembering Frigga, episode 4 shows him believing Sylvie die and watching Mobius being pruned. He doesn’t cry in Ep 5, episode 5 wants us to truly feel bad for Sylvie, not for him, but there’s a lot of bitterness from Classic Loki who commits a heroic suicide so you might say we get a sad Loki anyway.

And this also works as a shock to make him change his mind about his ‘glorious purposes’. Sorta, with Thor reminding us he’s not so bad and Loki explaining his behaviour as “I don't enjoy hurting people. I... I don't enjoy it. I do it because I have to, because I've had to. Because it's part of the illusion. It's the cruel, elaborate trick conjured by the weak to inspire fear.”

Plot-wise, this is completely useless.

The show will prove Sylvie is not Loki and has completely different motivations and Mobius, being an expert in Variants, should know.

What’s more why would Mobius care if Loki enjoys hurting people or not?

His goal is to capture Sylvie with Loki’s help. The most he should care about is how to keep Loki loyal to him, not if Loki has fun hurting people or not which, in fact, is a knowledge that won’t be used in his investigation.

No, this is here for the viewers, to tell them Loki isn’t a sadistic, evil villain, he’s someone weak who tries to scare others so as not to look weak. As Mobius will put in ‘a scared little boy, shivering in the cold’ who has an ‘insecure need for validation’.

What’s more?

The show will try his hardest to establish he’s not even competent.

Let’s talk of him as a fighter.

In the movies Loki is a competent fighter and side material establish he’s pretty strong, definitely much more than a human.

In “The Avengers” we see Captain America needs Iron Man’s help to beat him and, anyway, Loki’s plan was to be captured. Loki manages to walk away on his feet when Coulson hits him with that superspecial weapon and it’ll take him to be Hulk smashed after a fight with Thor and a meeting with an explosive arrow of Hawkeye before he can’t fight any longer.

This doesn’t happen in the “Loki” series.

Loki gets beaten up by various people in 4 episodes, preferably women (B-15, the people possessed by Sylvie, the guards on the train, Sif). You might say in episode 5 he’s not but actually Classic Loki is the one who gets swallowed by Alioth and our Loki instead survives because he has Sylvie supporting him as, on his own he couldn’t even distract Alioth.

Let’s talk of him as a wizard.

He can use magic, impressive magic but… it serves him mostly nothing. In the TVA his magic doesn’t work. Outside of it is mostly useless. It doesn’t help win fights. The Tempad he caused to disappear gets broken. To beat Alioth they needs enchantment, not his own magic. What’s more, when they’ve to go on the train his disguise wouldn’t have worked without Sylvie’s enchantment and, if this wasn’t enough, he got drunk, removed the disguise and wasn’t even able to make tickets appear.

Classic Loki too, with his impressive illusions is ultimately a distraction. Alioth tears easily through his illusions which aren’t even solid.

Let’s talk of him as a planner.

All Loki will accomplish is to escape from the Time theatre for a brief period in episode 1 and figure out Sylvie hides in apocalypses in episode 2. The rest of his plans fails or are not plan or are mocked over and not even put into practice.

Let’s talk about him as a manipulator with a silver tongue.

He can’t even persuade Mobius when he’s telling him the truth, Mobius dismisses it as a lie due to ‘cockroach's survival mechanism’.

And psychologically?

He’s just someone who crave attention because he’s a narcissist scared of being alone. Not a psychopath.

Loki is not meant to be a dangerous, evil, psychopath villain in this series, he’s a not serious man, a clown, a scared little boy in need of attention, a narcissist who needs to be loved.

Welcome to cartoon villain Loki, this Loki isn’t the Variant of “The Avengers” Loki, he’s the Variant of “Avengers Assemble”Loki… only he’s even less competent than him.

PART 3 – “LOKI” IS NOT EVEN HERE FOR GENERAL MARVEL MOVIE FANS

"That's a lot of Infinity Stones. That's true but they are useless there in the TVA, so I don't know. Is that gun loaded or not? We'll see..." [Loki Writer Comments On Whether TVA’s Infinity Stones Will Return In MCU]

“We had to create an insane institutional knowledge of how time travel would work within the TVA so the audience never has to think about it again. It was a lot of drawings of squiggly timelines.” Marvel already made its case for how time travel works in Avengers: Endgame, but that, Waldron points out, “is the way the Avengers understand it.” With a TV show it’s a little different. “I was always very acutely aware of the fact that there’s a week between each of our episodes and these fans are going to do exactly what I would do, which is pick this apart. We wanted to create a time-travel logic that was so airtight it could sustain over six hours. There’s some time-travel sci-fi concepts here that I’m eager for my Rick and Morty colleagues to see.” [How the Man Behind LokiIs Shaping Marvel’s Phase 4 and Beyond]

BC: The TVA is there to clean everybody up? MW: Yeah, Avengers: Endgame… that's how The Avengers understand time travel. 'Loki,' episode one, is how the TVA explains time travel to Loki and we're certainly building on what's come before us. [Loki: Michael Waldron On Gender Fluidity, Mephisto, Time Travel & More]

It’s true “Loki” is focusing on a new corner of the MCU but it interconnects very poorly with the movies before it.

Although Loki escaped with the Tesseract... it just dismisses completely the Infinity Stones.

Despite talking a lot about timelines and creating branching realities it waved away the whole plot of "Avengers: Endgame" as apparently supposed to happen even though it should have created branching realities.

We see Renslayer wave away how the Avengers went in the past causing the Tesseract to end up in Loki’s hands... and all the other things the Avengers did that affected the past goes unmentioned.

Bruce meeting the Ancient, Thor meeting his mother and taking away Thor’s hammer, Rocket being seen as he steals the reality stone from Jane, Tony stealing a suitcase and damaging the place in which the Tesseract was kept then meeting Howard Stark, 4 flacons of Pyn particles missing, an alarm given to the military bases, how Steve managed to bring back the sceptre if that timeline was pruned, how a timeline handled being without Thanos and Co as they went in the future or how they clearly didn’t bring the orb back the second they took it as Nebula remained unconscious there and nobody came and when she woke up Thanos could get her. It didn’t even explain why Steve remaining with Peggy didn’t change anything.

It's not that the audience has all explained... it's that they were told to dismiss it as 'meant to happen' and that was it.

What's more, the TVA apparently didn't list a finger to stop 2014 Thanos from going in the future and causing Tony Stark's death.

As if this wasn't enough, “Loki” just skips any possible connection with the movies, even hands Loki false information about them (he lead the Dark Elves to his mother when Loki had no idea the Kurse was a Dark Elf and they would have found her anyway as they were searching for the Aether which Malekith could sense, he’s born solely to cause pain and suffering and death, overlooks how he saved Jane twice or helped the Asgardian escape Hela) and never discusses them again.

Even with Classic Loki, who’s a Variant of “Avengers: Infinity War” Loki, they don’t talk about what happened after Loki’s supposed dead, apparently hinting it was better if he died, nor explain how Loki knew Thor survived.

PART 4 – “LOKI” IS NOT REALLY OFFERING A GOOD REPRESENTATION FOR FEMALES EVEN THOUGH IT CLEARLY AIMS AT FEMALE AUDIENCE

Let’s make a quick experiment.

Everyone, let’s name all the characters we remember which appeared in more than 1 episode of “Loki” for more than one minute.

We’ve, of course, Loki, Mobius, B-15, Renslayer, Sylvie, C-20 and Miss Minute.

5 females versus 2 males.

What’s more, females are not sexualized, they remains completely dressed, they’re clearly not there to attract male gazes, they’re represented as strong, dangerous, in control, something archived often by showing them beating males either physically or intellectually or in rank.

It seems promising. At first.

Is there someone who’s sexualized?

The “Loki” series takes care to offer us Tom Hiddleston naked.

So since there’s an abundance of females in the cast and Tom Hiddleston is shown naked is it aiming at a female audience?

Very, very likely but… but how’s then handled all this?

When Loki is seen undressed he’s not in a situation of power, like Thor who’s twice shows half naked in his movies but because he’s changing/washing and perfectly comfortable in showing his body and once in a situation which could be a male forbidden fantasy, to have many women massage your naked body, no, he’s shown as he’s powerless while being stripped by a machine. Clearly not a male power fantasy, more like a male nightmare.

And, in a totally not surprising way, pictures of this scene were spread by many female fans because it was aimed at them… though a part of them, was also honestly appalled at seeing this scene in contest, finding the forced stripping humiliating and degrading.

Sure, a naked Tom Hiddleston makes a nice eye-candy but this wasn’t how Loki’s many fans wanted to see Loki naked.

But let’s talk of female representation here, since the show seems to be interested in female audience… only who even though this was the representation women wanted doesn’t understand much of women representation in the first place.

Why?

For start because women here are all the same type of woman.

Strong fighters who’re in control and confident, with no real characterization beyond this to speak of despite the large amount of screen time.

Renslayer is an ex-hunter who can fight one on one against Sylvie and who clearly has the position of power she has because she was good as a hunter and shows her abilities in fighting after that Sylvie had beaten 2 guards at the same time. B-15 is introduced by beating Loki and is the commander of a squad. C-20 is another commander and, albeit possessed, can dispose of a part of her squad members.

Do I need to spend words on how Sylvie is depicted as this awesome fighter who has learnt to fight by herself, can keep at bay more than 1 Minuteman, can use a sword, has learnt enchantment on her own and is feared by all the TVA? Do I?

And it’s awesome to have women who are strong fighters in positions of command/power/control… but why women has to be represented as just that?

Even when they add a female as an one episode cameo, it's Sif, beating the hell out of Loki. And what about the Lady in Lamentis 1 who was too old to be strong but managed to blast away both Loki and Sylvie seeing through their deceptions?

Even the harmless Miss Minute can avoid being hit by Loki and gets she has to pretend to do researches to stall Sylvie and save Renslayer.

Women kick asses here… but that’s all they’re good for.

And so we get to Sylvie, who is the superior Loki Variant… because she’s female.

Kid Loki: You're different. Why? Loki: No, I'm not, you see? I'm the same, really. I'm the same as all of you. Have any of you met a woman Variant of us? Classic Loki: Sounds terrifying. Loki: Oh, she is. But that's kind of what's great about her. She's different. She's not trying to take over the TVA, she's trying to take it down. And she needs me. Now, you said Alioth is what keeps us here. You said it's a living thing. You said it's a shark. Well, if it lives, it dies. So I'm gonna kill the shark. I'm gonna kill Alioth, and I could use all the help I can get.

That’s what Loki preaches to his fellow Lokis who think a woman Loki would be terrific.

I mean, they’ve an alligator Loki, a POC Loki, but the one who has to be different is the female Loki. Because being female is a character trait.

Mobius: Okay. I feel like I'm always looking up to you. I like it. It's appropriate. [Ep 1]

Basically females in the “Loki” series are all representation of the Action girl trope and aren’t even different representation of said trope. I mean, “The Avengers” have 5 actions boy who’re clearly as different as they could be. Girls can be represented as different too, if they really aim at young audience they can take good old “Sailor Moon” as an example. 5 action girls who are strong and determinate AND DIFFERENT, more than just someone who kicks the adversary away.

And it’s not like they don’t know how to characterize people in a different way.

Mobius is an analyst who shows sympathetic traits toward the Variants and a certain level or intelligence. U-92 and D-90 are hunters who are shown to held Variants in little regard (U-92 wanted to attack the boy they found in the church, D-90 mistreated the scared people in the shelter). Casey is an harmless and naïve guy who had never seen a fish. The guy who made Loki sign the papers about what he said seemed emotionless but he clearly loved cats as not only he had one but on his cup there was also the image of a cat. Martin is clearly a bossy daddy’s son, who think too high of himself to the point he can’t respect rules. The boy in the church, despite thinking Sylvie was a demon, accepted and ate food she gave him and remained in the place despite the crime. He’s clearly more brave than he looked like but he’s also naïve as he easily trusted ‘the demon’ and Mobius.

What’s C-20 character trait when she gets described by Sylvie?

Sylvie: Yeah. She was just a regular person on Earth. Loki: A regular person? Sylvie: Loved margaritas.

She’s a regular person who loves margaritas. Liking a drink is not a character trait!

There’s a more diverse female representation in “Thor” than in “Loki”.

In “Thor” we’ve Frigga, queen of Asgard, loving mother and wife who’s powerless to erase Thor’s banishment. We’ve Sif, a dangerous and loyal warrior. We’ve Jane, the amazing scientist with a lot of enthusiasm. We’ve Darcy, who’s funny and who seems focused mostly on herself but who, when the city is attacked, worried to save all the animals at the pet store.

But maybe the one who gets the worst treatment is the supposed heroine, Sylvie, because the poor girl is turned into a Mary Sue.

In case someone isn’t familiar with the term:

“The prototypical Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic who obviously serves as an idealized version of the author mainly for the purpose of Wish Fulfillment. She's exotically beautiful, often having an unusual hair or eye colour, and has a similarly cool and exotic name. She's exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws — either that or her "flaws" are obviously meant to be endearing. She has an unusual and dramatic Back Story. The canon protagonists are all overwhelmed with admiration for her beauty, wit, courage and other virtues, and are quick to adopt her as one of their True Companions, even characters who are usually antisocial and untrusting; if any character doesn't love her, that character gets an extremely unsympathetic portrayal. She has some sort of especially close relationship to the author's favourite canon character — their love interest, illegitimate child, never-before-mentioned sister, etc. Other than that, the canon characters are quickly reduced to awestruck cheerleaders, watching from the sidelines as Mary Sue outstrips them in their areas of expertise and solves problems that have stymied them for the entire series.” [tvtropes.org]

So let’s see how she fits this checklist:

1) She's exotically beautiful, often having an unusual hair or eye colour: Sylvie painted her hair blonde even though the Lokis are supposed to be black haired

2) has a similarly cool and exotic name: She is the only Loki Variant who has changed her name from Loki to Sylvie.

3) She's exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting: Awesome at fighting she can enchant people, an ability the Lokis don’t posses, that she magically learnt on her own and that is necessary in the story. Also she figured out how a Tempad worked BEFOREseeing it in action.

4) She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws — either that or her "flaws" are obviously meant to be endearing: No flaws, all her plans involve fighting and brute force is no substitute for diplomacy and guile, which could be a flaw… if it wasn’t for the fact that the series will prove Sylvie can plan just fine without using fighting and brute strength and also be successful at it.

5) She has an unusual and dramatic Back Story: She was taken by the TVA when she was younger than Kid Loki but managed to escape them and had to live alone and on the run till then.

6) The canon protagonists are all overwhelmed with admiration for her beauty, wit, courage and other virtues, and are quick to adopt her as one of their True Companions, even characters who are usually antisocial and untrusting: Loki, who has never loved anyone, falls for her, Mobius saves her and apologizes to her, B-15, who used to look down at Variants, basically asks her what should they do and is shown admiring her, the Lokis don’t criticize her plan, Classic Loki dies to save her, everyone views her as the superior Loki Variant.

7) if any character doesn't love her, that character gets an extremely unsympathetic portrayal: Renslayer, the hunter who has arrested her, is currently playing the part of the antagonist who’s fascist and believes in a murderous, lying cult.

8) She has some sort of especially close relationship to the author's favourite canon character — their love interest, illegitimate child, never-before-mentioned sister, etc.: She’s the Variant and love interest of the titular character.

9) Other than that, the canon characters are quickly reduced to awestruck cheerleaders, watching from the sidelines as Mary Sue outstrips them in their areas of expertise and solves problems that have stymied them for the entire series: Loki, the title character, has conveniently been turned into someone who’s a weak fighter and incapable of planning which Sylvie has to save by enchanting guards or giving him her sword or pruning herself or teaching him how to enchant and coming up with all the plans.

Now all she needs in order to be a perfect Mary Sue is to know how to sing well as Mary Sue usually do this as well, though I’m sure she can do it because Loki could so she surely can.

Sylvie is amazing, Loki himself said so:

Loki: No. We may lose. Sometimes painfully. But we don't die. We survive. I mean, you did. You were just a child when the TVA took you, but you nearly took down the organization that claims to govern the order of time. You did it on your own. You ran rings around them. You're amazing!

There’s nothing inherently wrong in having a new female character who’s competent, for whom the hero falls and who changes him… if all this is built around a solid plot.

Think at “Iron Man”.

Tony Stark is, to quote Tony Stark himself a “genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”.

It’s amazing, isn’t it? But the movie shows us why he’s that.

It spends time setting up his pedigree, how he inherited the money and intelligence from his father, how he was supported as he grew and studied becoming always a greater genius. Tony shows himself to be charming before seducing his first woman onscreen so that when he does it makes sense. His philanthropic activities are, at first, just mentioned but seems rooted in how his father was a hero who helped fighting Nazi and then they became his mission. He felt guilty he was a merchant of death and tried to make up for it.

Sylvie too could have a solid plot behind herself.

Instead than magically knowing what a TemPad does and how it works and managing to escape with it, she could have escaped with, let’s say, a hunter that discovered the truth and decided to rebel to the TVA or just had pity of her. Maybe another Mobius Variant who used to work at the TVA prior to Mobius and that, instead than an analyst was a hunter. She might have learnt fighting from him and then he too died and she was left alone.

Enchantment might have been an ability she might have learnt coming in contact with a mind stone. It could have been an occasion also to talk how mind stones can influence people negatively. Or it could have been taught to her by Frigga who, with a female daughter, decided to teach her a different type of magic than Loki.

Her past could have been explored more instead than being tragic for the sake of tragic. We might have seen her fall in love and either be betrayed or have to say goodbye to her loved one because that reality got pruned. We might have seen her being interested in males and females alike as she’s supposed to be interested in both.

She could have had discussions with Loki that weren’t just about Frigga or about how the TVA kidnapped her from Asgard, she escaped and from that point on she was always on the run, or about how love didn’t feel real, but more about how they were, how they felt, what hurt them and what made them happy, what they liked and what they disliked, their ideals and their fears, things that can built up a relation.

Loki basically fall for her because she’s on a mission for revenge instead than power and seems confident. That’s his reasoning.

She falls for Loki… because apparently he’s the person who spend time with her who praised her. That’s not a solid love story, that’s desperation.

SYlvie could have flaws, she could have learnt diplomacy or persuasion from Loki or could have something she lacks and Loki has so that they would complete each other.

And since the purpose was to have Sylvie and Loki fall for each other… they could have let Loki have characteristics that can motivate the exceptional heroine to fall in love for him PRIOR to him falling in love for her. He might be shown good at something, instead than just a clown.

Even if we say the real purpose of this series was to turn Sylvie into the protagonist, the heroine, a good Loki character was still needed to explain why this awesome girl would fall for him.

So okay, there will surely still be women who can see themselves in Sylvie and imagine they got Loki… and it’s not bad really… but I think we deserved more.

Long story short, yes, “Loki” has many females in its cast and this is meant to draw the female audience… but the representation is poor as almost all of the females have no character traits and Sylvie is just a Mary Sue with no realistic characterization.

A good female representation is diverse and solid. Women don't need to be born irrealistically perfect out of nothing to be good, they can inherith and grow and learn to be as such like any human being.

Last but not least…

PART 5 – DOES “LOKI” REALLY OFFERS REPRESENTATION TO THE LGBT COMMUNITY?

BC: There is a lot of talk on social media about Loki being gender fluid. Wouldn't that actually be a natural fit for the character? MW: Yeah, I guess as, with all questions pertaining to that stuff, I think those answers, truly, are best experienced in the watching of the show, as opposed to me trying to answer them. Because it's just watching it and the way that's addressed and everything will just be more fulfilling. BC: Why do you think it's important that Loki is gender fluid? MW: I think that Loki is a character that a lot of fans see representation in. People that haven't felt represented before, and they see themselves in Loki and everything. So we want to do justice to the character, to who the character is in the comics and in Norse mythology as well. And you also … you know you want folks to feel represented, and everything. That's why it's important. It always has been. It comes from everybody on the creative team. [Loki: Michael Waldron On Gender Fluidity, Mephisto, Time Travel & More]

The series hugely spread the info that this Loki would be fluid and Bisexual. The news were welcomed with delight and it’s awesome how the series didn’t hesitate to put it on paper.

Loki being fluid was written for everyone to see, and Loki having male and female interests was spelled out for everyone to hear.

IT’S A GREAT THING!

However…

It’s all we got.

It had no relevance into the plot whatsoever, it’s just a random info we’re given.

Him being fluid was on a paper along with his other data like eye colour and birth planet.

Him being interested in males and females seems to be put there just to imply he tried a large amount of people before deciding love didn’t feel real.

Assuming the other Lokis too were fluid, they actually found terrific the idea of a woman Loki in a not positive way. They weren’t interested or asking for clarifications about what Loki meant.

Loki’s bisexuality doesn’t even get a side story, them sending Fandral to beat Loki instead than Sif because Loki cheated on him or something. I’m not upset Loki ended up with a female, this is one of the possibilities of a Bisexual person. I’m upset that this was used merely to attract the audience but then wasn’t explored. They could have said Asgard was open minded with it, or disapproved it so Loki had to keep it hidden, or it could have been Sylvie who discussed some experience in that regard.

We were told over and over it was a show about identity. We expected it to be explored instead we were just told ‘ah, by the way, Loki is bisexual, let’s move on.’ And that was all.

Having representation from an important Marvel character is always important, especially considering the shortage of representation. But honestly I expected more.

PART 7 – TO SUM IT UP

Many of the people who worked in “Loki” are fantastic actors. They worked hard for this series, I can see they tried their best.

The premises for the “Loki” series are interesting.

We get a Loki who hadn’t experienced most of what happened in the movies yet, we make him confront with someone who knows his life, the one he lived and the one he was meant to live and we also make him confront with Variations of himself.

Loki has the Tesseract and the TVA has plenty of infinity stones, we could explore them.

The TVA itself have a fascist organization that dictates people’s lives and murders whoever tries to do differently, that goes so far as to brainwash the people working in it, which mistreats and belittle the Variants and establish a manipulative cult around the Time-Keeper with elements of police brutality which could be very actual.

Time travelling was the plot of "Avengers: Endgame" they could have tied the movie to the series, esplore the why some time travels were allowed and some weren't or their effects.

There were references to plenty of awesome comics they could take inspiration from.

But unless it redeems itself with the last episode… well, so far it’s failing to deliver what it promised due to a really poor plot which doesn’t give the characters a chance to be themselves or to be characterized as they’ve no real story nor real differences to speak of.

They’re given more time than a movie as they’re a series… but that’s no good excuse for wasting said time.

I’m still hoping the last episode will be spectacular, that it’ll manage to erase the messes of the other 5… but, as of now I’m disappointed.

I’ll just keep my fingers crossed and hope they’ll surprise me.

#mcu loki #loki #loki laufeyson #loki odinson #9 worlds study

115 notes · View notes

alifeofred · 2 years

Text

In defense of Phantom Planet

Okay so common discourse I see among the DP fandom is a general hatred for Phantom Planet and I just don't get it.

Do I think it's a great episode, of course. Do I think the first half should have been fleshed out more so that calling it the final episode could have justified. Of-fucking-course.

Be that as it may, it's still a great episode. Sure, I prefer Reign Storm and The Ultimate Enemy because those two were stronger episodes that are beloved by the fandom. But Phantom Planet gets a bad rep. And that's unnecessary.

I'll highlight the reasons why it didn't work before talking about how it did work.

Why it was bad

The first half undid a lot of character development for Danny, Sam, Jazz and Tucker. The team was angry at Danny and said a bunch of stuff, Sam in particular, about what a colossal idiot Danny was. And people did not jive with it.

Danny was being an angry bitch and made a stupid mistake just because Vlad was bruising on his ego.

The asteroid crisis came out of nowhere when we still had a lot of unfinished plotlines that could have been way better as a finale.

The entire first half made Danny seem like a joke and I did not like the continuous underwear reveal gag. That did my boy dirty.

Vlad became a bit too much of a maniac. Which he was, but he was always a calculated maniac before who was always ten steps ahead of Danny in every confrontation. But in PP he was just plain stupid...But considering the movie Don't Look Up, I think Vlad was right on the mark. Still, a stupid plan.

The ramifications of team Phantom snapping at Danny and then not making it up to him was not lost on me.

There's also the fact that I wanted to know what happens after because so much was left up in the air. How would the world treat Danny now? What about the Guys in White? What happens to Vlad? And what does Valerie really think? I mean, he did betray her like Vlad did. I want answers!

And finally, we already knew that Danny didn't want the world to know he was Phantom. And all that time he never once cashed in the Phantom popularity wagon, but was instead terrified of it. He liked his anonymity. And we saw just how much a few episodes prior in Forever Phantom in one of his best dialogues "And I just wanted to be left alone. But if we don't figure a way out of this, I don't think I'll ever be left alone again." With the Phantom banner as a visual aid to how severe the consequences of the world finding out he's phantom would have been. But that wasn't taken into account and I want answers!

Why it was great

In iteration with the last entries. I'll say that yes, Sam and Jazz and Tucker may have been hard on Danny. But that was how it always was. He messed up. And they got angry with him. He then makes up to them by being better. There have been so many examples of that in prior episodes so I wasn't bothered by it that much.

Danny was being a jerk but he always did that before there was a lesson he needed to learn. And he always did. Either on his own, or through the help of his friends and family. So I forgive him his tantrum.

It made sense that Danny gave up his powers and that scene was awesome. I understood his reasonings and they were on par with his character. He'd done so plenty of times before. Just because he was impulsive and headstrong and he wanted the easy way out. We've seen him do that countless times, so this time wasn't new. That was a great scene and I stand by it.

The first half may have been slow, but the second half, from the moment Danny gives up his powers, was great.

The asteroid crisis may not have been the ending we wanted, but the show needed to end on a grand scale, and this was it. And it worked.

I understood Sam's frustration because she never pulled her punches with Danny and this time was no different. Their conversation on her steps was the best dialogue exchange on the show. I loved it.

Danny's motivations were validated as well. Because up to this point he always went the extra mile to protect those close to him. He was always overprotective. So this move that he made, was in direct conjunction with that impulse. I can see him letting go of his powers to protect those he loved. And he drove home that point when he talked to Sam about it.

But point is, I understood Sam's point as well. Danny took the easy way out. And he gave up on fighting for what's right. And he didn't care about any of it. Which is what she hated because he's done that before. But this was permanent. So she snapped. And good for her.

Aside from that conflict, Phantom's comeback. And the events that followed were superb. The plan. The kiss in the snow. The fear of what he had to do. Almost failing. Everyone thinking he's dead. But he comes back. And he saves everyone. That was beautifully done.

That scene when he reveals his powers was so beautiful that I'll forgive any mistakes the episode made. His hesitation. Everyone understanding and being there for him. The standing ovation. It was so... beautiful!

And the kiss! The kiss is worth everything. I loved it. Both of them had gone so long without confessing their feelings that this moment felt earned. And it was shot so perfectly. Both of them were hesitant and shy. But then...nothing else mattered than telling the other that they mean something. More than something, maybe a whole lot of everything. And we got what we had been waiting for for so long, at last.

Plus, the ending shot and their talk and the second kiss. Totally solid ending.

So you can say what you want about Phantom Planet. It was still a solid way to end the show. Sure it had it's flaws, but the level of vitriol it gets is unwarranted and I hope you all realize all the good in that episode.

#danny phantom #danny fenton #danny and sam #ghost boy #sam manson #tucker foley #nickelodeon #nostalgia #nicktoons #i dont get why yall dont like it #the ending was banger #that kiss in the snow was worth it all #sure i want to know what happens after even more #i understand the flaws and still love it #i will not condone hatred for it

21 notes · View notes

wickedpact · 3 years

Text

A ranking of all the TTT stories in order of how much I liked them.

(Oh god this is so long)

1 My Mother's Axe

BABY ANDYYYYYYYYYYYY. Honestly this one had the trifecta of developing a character's motivations, developing a character's backstory, & developing their personality. The story starting out with Andy teaching Nile to use the axe was so charming and fun, and you could feel that chemistry they had in Opening Fire, the way they teased and bickered with each other so naturally. I loved the wedge between them on the subject of the axe, how Nile was perhaps a little too young to understand Andy's feelings about whether or not its the 'same' axe. I also love how the axe is obviously the symbol of the franchise and hugely important, but you never get a sense of exactly how important it is to Andy until you read the story.

I love the entire Ship of Theseus theme, and how it feels so natural that for Andy she has to get attached to the idea of things rather than the things themselves because she'll always outlive the things themselves-- the axe is symbolically her mom's axe, even if physically it isn't. And I love how she clearly clings to that concept so tightly. "This is the labrys she held in her hands...." IT GETS ME.

And the fact that this sense of BELONGING, of FAMILY, of CULTURE is so important to Andy that she clings to it (figuratively and literally) with both hands. And of course it's important to her, she spent so long alone that the woman doesn't even remember her birth name. That axe (or the idea of that axe) is all she has left of her mother and that family/culture she was born into.

PLUS on that note I love how Andy doesn't remember if her mom was her actual biological mother, but it doesn't matter to her. This woman was her mother in all the ways that counted. And how her mom BETRAYED AND KILLED Andy but Andy loved her so much that she avenged her and carried her axe for thousands of years. THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!!!!!

I also loved how the story transcends the timeline of the whole franchise and seeing Andy through the years. Loved seeing her with the varying squads and with varying axes. Also baby Andy was so cute. It was cool seeing her so young. like holy fuck. Andromache The Scythian, Immortal Warrior (but smol). Love that.

Also I think this one is one of the few ttt stories that doesn't suffer from length problems.

tldr: goddammit greg you've done it again.

2 Zanzibar and Other Harbors

Zanzibar my beloved. I've said before, but it's downright comedic how little regard there was for Joe and Nicky's character designs in this story. The same person who does the colors for the regular comic did the colors for this one too, and you can tell, every panel of this story was Beautiful.

Ik there was A Lot of criticism of this one (lmao @ how the fandom had no idea what was to come) but I thought a lot of The Discourse was a bit dramatic. I did think Nicky came off as a little oblivious to Joe's feelings in this story, but I've said before, I honestly think that was a 'tone not translating' thing. It felt like Nicky was nagging Joe for [checks notes] saving innocent people, but Joe was so amused by Nicky's complaints I really do think it was supposed to come off as teasing.

Plus I know the 'Joe running off into danger and Nicky reluctantly following' dynamic wasn't popular (I'm a pretty meh on it meself) but I did love how Joe's impulsiveness (if you want to call it that) was interpreted as heroism and not hot-hotheadedness. All of the examples Nicky and Joe talked about included Joe explicitly saving people. (and it also took A Lot for the nazi to actually provoke Joe).

I also feel like their characterization here was closest to the movie canon-- the bit where they hear the woman scream and Joe goes running in to save her while Nicky swoops in on Joe's heels to comfort her while Joe and the nazi were fighting reminds me of the train car scene. Joe had suggested First that they go find Nile because she needed to be protected, and Nicky later added that Nile probably also needed emotional support. Similar reactions.

But it was So Good, the themes of queer community and the enduring nature of queer culture are Not themes you see in media that often and it was such a delight how it was done. Also it's one of the few more modern TTT stories that has a completely valid excuse for taking place when it did. Chef's kiss.

3 Passchendaele

I love the Duality between seeing baby Andy and then seeing Mama Andy in the very next issue. This story doesn't have a ton of meat to it, but the entire concept of Andy adopting a war orphan straight off the battlefield PLUCKS MY TENDER LITTLE HEARTSTRINGS, and I think it's especially poignant for comic!Andy. I think most people wouldn't think twice about movie!Andy doing something like that but comic Andy is so hardened and almost cruel sometimes, and seeing that even for her the world hasn't beaten all of the compassion from her yet is SO!!!!!!! this woman contains MULTITUDES okay, she's violent and angry and tired and Done but she's also so kind and compassionate and THE STRENGTH OF HER!!!!! Also the idea of her and Yitzhak co-raising a kid together is so damn cute. It was #mysterious pre-Yitzhak-story but now it's cute. holy fuck. It's cute.

& the headbonk panel of her and Zeus lives in my heart. anyways.

4 Many Happy Returns

I Know people weren't thrilled about Booker being in this one, but I've developed a pet-peeve about that: this story was *not* booker-centric. Booker only exists in this story to the extent required to explain the importance of the gesture Nile makes towards him. If there was a story about Booker making some grand gesture of kindness to Nile no one would be saying it was Nile-centric. bc it wouldn't be! Booker exists in this story to explore Nile's kindness, its not about him. I saw that a couple times and it bothered me. anyways.

AAAAAAAAAA I loved this one, the art was beautiful, I loved how Andy Nile and Booker were drawn (like their comic selves but.. more looking like actual people). I loved Andy and Nile's Bants, how Andy wanted to jump right in and Do Violence but Nile was basically telling her to hold her horses.

I feel like I'm just repeating the post I made on this story a few days ago, but I LOVED how Nile's plan revolves not around violence or Cool Mercenary Skills but on Nile's own life skills (as she canonly did a lot of minimum wage job-hopping before the marines in comics canon). Her plan used her skills, not the skills of an immortal warrior, and HER SKILLS were in fact more useful for the situation! lov to see Nile's resourcefulness and planning skills.

AND HOW NILE WAS PROBABLY WATCHING BOOKER??? it's so Much bc 1.) nile knew booker A SINGLE DAY and yet he made such an impression on her emotionally that she had to keep an eye on him and 2.) she said in the movie she wanted Booker to get off free with an apology. Yes she's a member of the team but that doesn't mean she's necessarily going to follow orders like a good little soldier. I also love how she convinced Andy to go along with it. her HEART, her KINDNESS, her THOUGHTFULNESS, UGH.

5 The Bear

Honestly I have like no negative things to say about this one other than a.) character design issues which is less about the story itself and is more of a 'tog comic in general' criticism and b.) too short, but it was supposed to be a tease, so.

But I loved Yitzhak, I wasn't expecting to really like him at all but like I said in my other post, he tickled me. I love characters who are Kind™, especially if they have little reason to be so given their backgrounds. Chef's kiss. Lov him.

6 Bonsai Shokunin

I know this one was a little controversial bc of the outsider POV but whenever I see people upset about that they never point out that the Outsider Guy (the samurai) existed as a reflection on Noriko. His ideas are explained in the text to develop hers. The whole story follows how she gave mercy to a scared young man and in response he murdered Noriko, repeatedly! Who gave him the right to inflict such pain and suffering on the world? In his opinion, the lack of response from the gods was his permission. And for Noriko-- over and over again she dies and suffers because she gave mercy, which lines up with her ideas in FM about how it's their fate to rule mortals and if they don't align with that plan/fate/whatever then they suffer. It shows some background to those ideas and how they developed in her mind outside of Ocean Madness™. Additionally, his idea of 'the Gods have done nothing to strike me down so it's fine if I do these things' kind of explains how Noriko may justify her own morally corrupt actions-- she's died so many times and it's never stuck. Maybe if she did die any of those times, or while she was in the water, maybe that would've been a sign she was doing something right, or at least doing something normal. But she hasn't died. Fate isn't done with Noriko yet. And maybe there's a reason for that. In her mind, it's just not a very pleasant reason, is all.

There were things I was kind of meh about tho. I did kind of wish we saw something of Noriko and the team, or smth explaining the way she was before her dip in the pool-- personality, likes dislikes, etc. but it wasn't bad or anything. It was super vague tho, I had to read it a few times before I got what it was going for. Liked the art. Liked the bonsai metaphor. And of course I Respect the decision to use the 1300s (1200s? I don't remember off the top of my head) rather than using the last 200 years.

7 Strong Medicine

Honestly looking back, this one made me kind of sad because both this one and Bonsai Shokunin explored character's ideas on Fate and The Divine and how that intersects with immortality and I totally thought that theme would be continued, especially with Love Letters. But Then It Wasn't™.

Admittedly.... I had to re-read this one to remember most of it. I liked Booker's ideas on God, 'The conductor of the symphony just may not be very good at his trade' but the plot itself was kind of forgettable. Some fuckin cowboys try to kill a doctor (their second) because he couldn't save their sickly brother. Book tries to stop them, gets killed, and then comes back and kills them all before they get the doctor. Alright. I liked the artstyle because the characters were ugly in a similar way that leandro's are, but way more bearable.

I love the Irony of Booker concluding that there is no such thing as fate or destiny and nothing has meaning, AS HE UNKNOWINGLY SAVES MERRICK'S GRANDFATHER FROM BEING KILLED. Booker getting fucked over by life/god/destiny yet again. It also kind of explains about where the fuck hell Merrick's interest in immortal mercenaries even came from.

I originally had this one a lot higher and then I thought about it and moved it down like two spots.

8 Never Gets Old

I liked seeing Booker interact with his kid. And we got a name for the kid! Philippe was a little bitch though, he was a little obnoxious. I liked how Booker was so thrilled to experience a restaurant with his kid (and since we know he was there before, it can be assumed he went with all of his kids and yet he was so charmed each time). It fits with his line to Nicky in the moon landing story about how you don't appreciate beautiful things 'unless you have someone to share them with'. It was charming to see Booker interact with his kid, and to see him so happy. Also lmao @ Booker's big fat Ye Olde Crush on Andy.

However at the same time it was like.. of all the things to write about,,, I guess? Booker's Night Out...... alright. Especially since Book had so many stories.

I don't know, it was alright. The old man killing him really came out of nowhere, (but the 'Salut, asshole!' panel was funny tho).

9 How To Make a Ghost Town

I've hit a point where talking about these stories has gotten less fun. I liked this one but I felt like Achilles getting lynched was not really necessary for a story that was already tragic (a story that already involved Achilles doing a lot of suffering at the hand of bigots). When we first got the blurb for this story I thought it would be about Andy returning to the squad and making friends with Booker after losing Achilles and them butting heads on the idea of family and when to cut off ties. So a little bit of my underwhelmedness about this one might be just my expectations being different.

Honestly I was pretty interested in Andy and Achilles' relationship and I would've liked to see more of them-- like, what was their dynamic like? What did they love about each other?

But anyways Andy leaving and Achilles getting killed anyways feels so pointlessly tragic (which I suppose is the point..... I don't like tragedies) she left to save him and yet people killed him anyway. Meh.

I did love the bits about Andy wanting to have a domestic life (Andy and her multitudes again) and the little detail about how she buried her axe near the road but he buried his guns under his bed-- he was an escaped slave, he never had the luxury of assuredness like Andy did. It was a sad story.

10 Lacus Solitudinis

'You put this one above love letters crim??? how could you???' easy, lmao.

There was stuff in this one I liked. But to talk about stuff I didn't like: (I'll keep it brief, I know ragging on this story has been done time and time again)

UH, setting aside the 6 year cold shoulder between Joe and Nicky, I thought their chosen method of conflict resolution was... bad at best. Nicky's inability to talk about his feelings was also annoying, especially since the entire point of this story is a fight Joe and Nicky had, and yet we don't get both sides to the story, which is...... important? That fact is especially annoying bc in the absence of Nicky explaining his side of the story, it's absolutely a possible (and admittedly probably unintentional) interpretation of the text that we do get that Joe routinely resolves conflict between him and Nicky by simply cutting Nicky out of his life entirely until Nicky just. caves? Even if it takes years?

WHICH i could get into that interpretation and how fucked up i find it. but im not going to. out of restraint.

I don't know, I think there are a lot of interesting ways to go about this conflict but 'Nicky wants to kill a guy and Joe refuses to acknowledge his existence until he stops because he thinks Nicky is too much of a Good Boy to get his hands dirty like that' ('I wont watch as the world turns his (...) compassion into something ugly'. ) wasn't.. how I would've done it. (I mean you know Joe doesn't give a shit about what Nicky is doing in a moral way, because Joe doesn't even care or mention that Booker is killing those cops too. Joe only cares because he doesn't like the idea of Nicky changing in a way he finds undesirable.)

admittedly I've said before, I do like the emphasis Joe's reaction puts on Nicky's kindness. Joe has a complete inability to cope with Nicky simply Not Being Kind. It speaks to the steadiness of Nicky's compassion all those years. but still that fact doesn't make it the conflict feel worth it

hm. I said I would be brief and I wasn't.

oh well. basically I thought there was interesting conflict potential there but it wasn't done the way I would've liked, and the way it was done leaves a lot of disturbing (and again probably unintended) interpretations to lie.

What I did like? Andy and Joe having that pessimist/optimist dynamic. Joe nerding out about science. Andy not being impressed by The Achievements Of Man. I loved Booker needling at Nicky about his outdated slang and also trying to give him Older Brother advice practically in the same breath. I loved Booker giving The Worst relationship advice ever and Nicky being like 'I Will Not Do That, Ever, Thanks.' the family vibes were so good. The Joenicky vibes left a lot to be desired tho.

11 Love Letters

I talked about my problems with Nicky in this story (and Lacus Solitudinis). I don't know, the story isn't bad but I do hold a little bit of a grudge towards it because its very existence begs the existence of a solo Joe story and we didn't get one. If we never got this story, then we could happily count Lacus Solitudinis and Zanzibar as The Joenicky Stories™ and move on with our lives. sigh.

I remember when we first got the blurb for this story I was really curious about why Nicky specifically + the setting, and the answer kind of feels like 'the author had an idea for a story like this and saw ttt as a good enough place to utilize that idea'. Plus I was really underwhelmed by the Romantic Sentiment in the letter. If you look at it line-by-line, the majority of the letter is actually Nicky talking about how lonely and disturbed he is, rather than actual,, yknow,,, Romantic Sentiment. I mean, compare the van speech and this letter and this letter is just kind of meh in comparison. I liked nicky calling joe wise! and I liked the brief sun/moon metaphor! and otherwise it was eh. It didn't even have cute squad banter, which is why Lacus Solitudinis is above this one.

12 An Old Soul

Nun orgy. Nun orgy?????? Nun orgy.......

The whole story felt like a setup to have a nun orgy. Why did Booker have abs? Why did they do that to Andy's nose? ?????? the art was good at least.

nun orgy.

#tales through time spoilers #obviously #long post #seriously dont open that read more unless youre committed to scrolling past all these Words

32 notes · View notes

magireco · 3 years

Note

out of curiosity what do you think of the characterization of homura in rebellion? i hugely dislike it but get the impression you enjoy it which i think is interesting cuz we seem to have very similar thoughts on homura pre-rebellion (CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG)

THIS IS INTERESTING BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON WHAT FLAVOR OF REBELLION HOMURA YOU MEAN. i really really like the way she was done in the first half of the movie but as for the twist at the end...? mmm...

...okay, so... i've been thinking about saying this at some point but i keep avoiding it in fear of causing discourse and such bc... this is a really unpopular opinion apparently, but I really do not think devil homura was done properly. read under the cut if you wanna know why i feel this way!

the first issue i'm going to address is that there wasn't NEARLY enough buildup for it. i'm going to explain this from the perspective of a first-time viewer: what would you have thought would happen after the very last scene of rebellion leading up to them breaking homura out of her soul gem? when homulilly got purified and the flowers on her head turned to sakura flowers (y'know, the flowers that symbolize life and rebirth, homura being reborn from her witch)? did you think homura was suddenly gonna undermine madoka's godliness? because, uh, first-view me did not think that at all. and neither did almost anyone i know who watched it for the first time. not only is that poor setup but it's just so sudden and it feels so out of character compared to what we'd seen in the entire series as a whole, especially considering that the entire last part of the movie leading up until that was about purifying her... and saving her... there wasn't enough buildup. most people are like "but the flower scene happened!" but that's still way too vague...? it's hard to tell what conclusion homura comes to at the end, because we don't get to see any of her internal monologue... there is no other buildup after the flower scene... it just skips to homura realizing she's a witch. wouldn't that bring the viewer to think the flower scene was something that made homura realize she was a witch rather than her suddenly starting to form her plan? it always felt like to me the conclusion homura came to at the end of the flower scene was that she was validating madoka's bravery and telling her that if it ever came to that, she'd have the ability to make that hard decision. which is... so... weird? because i always interpreted that as homura coming to terms with what happened? i could just be interpreting it wrong though, but isn't that supposed to be our proof scene? our buildup scene? why would they make it so hard to understand? we need to know such important buildup points just as blatantly as the natural buildup to homura becoming a witch was. that's just from a moviemaking & writing perspective though.

secondly, i'm gonna discuss homura's motive. i actually ended up understanding were she was coming from after a while of being like "what the hell that makes zero sense!!!!". madoka is a 14-year-old girl who, in order to save the fate of every magical girl, literally had to sacrifice herself and erase herself from the world, and in the end, madoka just ended up saving homura again, and that must've made homura feel like her promise with madoka was never fulfilled. it's unfair what happened when you think about it and the law of cycles should not have been run by madoka herself because she, as any other 14 year old, deserves to be happy on earth. although it was said in magireco that madoka felt happy with what she was doing (and she felt like it truly gave her a purpose), she did admit to feeling lonely and homura probably made that assumption big time. but the way the writers went about it just made her seem so sinister... so out-of-character-ly sinister. what with the evil smirking and the deepened, almost... uh, sensual-seeming voice, and homura completely ignoring madoka's fear. it feels like they twisted her character extremely suddenly and it throws the viewer on a loop. they could've gone with that ending without making such drastic and sudden changes to homura's character, and if they were planning on doing that, why did they not give us more buildup? buildup that wasn't extremely cryptic that you have to scan and search every detail to get a clue? something i love about rebellion is that every time you watch you find something new, but how come some of the only clues illuding to devil homura's existence are in the op? it's odd. why didn't they go with something like making the incubators run the law of cycles? they were the ones at fault for causing it to be created. but honestly, the incubators cannot be trusted with anything, which is why it'd make sense for a magical girl to run the law of cycles, but if homura and madoka had the combined power to do so, what if they just remade the law of cycles so it was less unfair to madoka...? i don't know. either of those possibilites would make more sense than what happened.

something else that kind of irks me about it is that they demonized(literally, lol) homura's love for madoka. homura is very much a canon lesbian, and it's incredibly discomforting to me that they made her seem, outwardly to the viewer, so selfish...? please don't get me wrong, i'm not ACTUALLY calling homura selfish -- i know the entire akumura facade is a mask she put on, but like, it's so much more blatantly sinister than she is in the series when she's putting on the coolmura facade. it's going to really confuse the viewer and see every single one of her actions from the entire series in a completely different light, INCLUDING stuff that happened in rebellion itself. like the genuine sadness homura felt, the way we saw into her soul and felt her pain, that genuinely made a lot of people i've seen think that it was ingenuine upon first inspection... they made homura turn "evil" out of her love for madoka, as if it's a bad thing to fall in love, and as if love for another girl was what corrupted her soul gem... i understand that gen urobuchi probably wanted to explore that kind of path where love leads to obsession or whatever, but homura was selfless to a fault, constantly trying to force herself away from the others in order to not get attached, and deeply afraid of seeming creepy and predatory and scaring(she said this herself), which is exactly what she ends up doing at the end, and i feel so awful that they did that to her... how is the viewer supposed to know what her true motives are at that point? it gets all scrambled up after they did that huge plot twist. i'm going to address another thing super quick before people jump in my ask box over this, i understand also that it would make sense for homura to be obsessed with madoka, but in the series, it was never shown in this light, and like i said, if they were going to do this, why'd they even have the purification scene at the end at all? the buildup is all wrong . it also just made me upset that this ending caused SO many people to start literally believing homura is evil because of her actions at the end, and it made people become even more vehement on their beliefs that homura is obsessive and ps*cho...

i was really confused when i watched it for the first time (and also sobbing hysterically, literally, my funniest rebellion story as someone who has genuinely watched the movie 40-ish times, i remember vividly the first time i watched it i started sobbing on my hands and knees on a yoga mat in my mom's room). also like, just to prove my point a teensy bit more, the ending was so ambiguous and out of nowhere that one of the first google results to "madoka magica rebellion" is "madoka magica rebellion ending explained" because it shocked people so much that that was the first thing they needed to google. also, the fact they left us on such a vague cliffhanger and then abandoned the movie series for a total of 8 whole years only to make a sudden comeback in god's holy year of 2021 was almost cruel. LIKE GUYS I JUST FINISHED UP MY DEVIL HOMURA HEADCANONS IT TOOK YOU LONG ENOUGH!!!

...anyways, um, i really have to address the sexualization. madoka magica, previously, was a series that avoided fanservice in the show, at least, but why did they make akumura's design look like that...? it shows an unsettling amount of skin and like, every three seconds in the end they're focusing intensely on her lips and her eyes and... it's almost like the writers forgot she was 14, but they never seemed to forget that in the series? what happened????? in the transformation scene, we get closeup views of homura's thighs and back and stuff and it's all open everywhere... they made her tights into thigh-highs... in the whole series, even when she went to school, she always wore tights, and she was wearing tights in her magical girl outfit too... they absolutely deliberately did that to sexualize her further so they could make official art with her thighs out. speaking of official art that unsettles me, why does so much of the official art make the whole outfit just glued to her body and you can see all the shading on her features... it's just. ugh. anyways.

i went off a LITTLE too much on this and i know this is probably gonna get me some weird glances in the fandom and i am open to hearing other people's opinions but i don't think i'll ever stop disliking the effect this plot twist had on the fandom's interpretation of homura and although i'm like UNDENIABLY incredibly hyper excited for the next movie, i'm kind of...nervous for what this is going to bring? i don't want this next movie to cause the same amount of discourse the ending of rebellion did and i legit just want to see homura happy. another one of my main issues with the ending is just that homura is SO unhappy when she literally deserves to be happy SOOOOOOO BAD and just take a break from all the loops ... i'm Praying to madokami out there that that's what happens.

i know this is all really funny coming from someone who draws devil homura on a regular basis and literally writes her, but like... i'm a lesbian i'm allowed to<3

ANYWAYS thanks for listening this was a fun ask!!!

#asks #neorattz #rambles #analysis #rebellion tag #IM DEADASS AFRAID TO DROP THIS #like... something i was too afraid to mention is that i Have unlisted disorders that are heavily stigmatized #and the reason why they are unlisted is literally bc of that #and i feel like i'm allowed to have a negative stance on this kind of thing because of that #not that someone who doesn't have those things isn't allowed to have these opinions OR opposing opinions but like #i've seen some people choose to cope through devil homura which like.#i get that.#and then i've seen other people use devil homura as an example on why homura is an obsessed psycho girl who only loves madoka #and hates everyone else #which is also partially where my issue stems from.#it's complicated. just like the ending of rebellion!!!!! LOLL

61 notes · View notes