#it is also a cop out with stories that focus on ‘redemption’
Text
A Case Against “Redemption = Death”
“Redemption = Death” is, in my opinion, one of the laziest “telling not showing” cop-outs you can write, and it happens over and over and over again. It’s manipulative, it’s cheap, it kneecaps the character’s development, it undermines the meaning of a true redemption, and it promotes a message that some people are so evil, the *only* redemption for them is the ultimate sacrifice.
**Taking an aside here to plainly ignore religious connotations and focus on the success or failure of a satisfying character arc**
I hate this trope. I have never seen a flawless execution of this trope in its basest form: Evil bad guy is evil for 99% of their story, and in the 11th hour has an out-of-character realization that they’ve done wrong and sacrifices themself for the heroes, whom they don’t actually care about, for ~drama~.
Today’s writing advice is pretty straightforward: Please stop doing this. It tends to happen in action movies like the superhero genre, but also in action-heavy sci-fi and fantasy where rich character development is sacrificed for spectacle and cool battles. I love action movies, even the stupid ones, and I firmly believe that they can do better.
1. It’s manipulative
A malignant evildoer who shows zero remorse for their entire story, commits heinous acts of violence and abuse, who murders, steals, beats, cheats, betrays, and uses other characters does not earn any shed tears over their ultimate sacrifice.
Time and time again, the big bad will do a 180 and leave the protagonist distraught over how to react to this, often with lines like “maybe he was a hero all along,” or “you know he really wasn’t that bad”. (a la Snape before we all woke up and realized he's a whiny Nice Guy)
Nope. He was actually that bad, and his final act of terror was convincing you to give a damn about him and regret not being able to save him (and it is always male characters. It’s always men. Find me a story where it’s a woman and I will gladly read it and complain about her, too).
This character has only themselves to blame for their Tragic Backstory. They were never a tragic hero, they didn’t fall from grace. There was never any hope or expectation that they could do better, the hero isn’t even trying to redeem them, it just happens in an attempt to engineer depth where there isn’t any.
2. It’s cheap
A hastily-written “redemption” tips the author’s hand, showing that they didn’t plan for or can’t conceptualize how to fix the mess they’ve made. Now, maybe the villain dies in the last chapter of the book and the story has no room for the aftermath anyway—that’s fine. It’s only a problem when the villain gets an unfounded “he wasn’t so bad” reflection by the survivors to scribble a deeper meaning and message for the story in the final lap.
If you’re planning from the start to have your villain be “not that bad,” provide any evidence other than them deciding maybe they don’t want the world to burn as the clock on the nuke counts down to zero.
This would be like if Gandalf told Pippin Denethor was actually a decent guy as the man flings himself off Gondor's tallest tower after nearly burning his son alive.
3. It kneecaps the character’s potential
Character deaths, whether they’re permanent or not, are generally treated by the other characters as permanent and final in the moment. There’s tears, there’s funerals, there’s grief and regret over what could have been, what might’ve been, what should have been.
And all of that development goes straight to the surviving characters, not the one that died.
Your dead evildoer can’t prove they’re trying to do better once they’re dead. They can’t show their remorse, they can’t show how they planned to fix all their mistakes, they can’t follow through with choosing the path of “good”. They’re dead.
You killed them to avoid the hard work of having to write them as a good guy.
4. It undermines the meaning of a true redemption
Self-sacrifice is a noble end, but self-sacrifice because a character can’t imagine actually committing to the long and bumpy road of fixing all their mistakes is cowardice. The people they hurt are still suffering, the wrongs they committed still need answering for, the damage they’ve done still needs rectifying and dying leaves all that work to those who survive them.
They’ve done nothing to prove they’re worthy of redemption except to stop digging their hole deeper and at that point they’re not “redeemed” they’re only marginally defined as a “tragic hero” by the skin of their teeth, depending on what catastrophe they prevent with their death.
5. It argues that some people aren’t worth redeeming
Ironically, “redemption = death” proves the exact opposite of the case you’re trying to make. They die because they’re convinced they must, because not a single other character could either talk them out of it, or cared enough to show them death wasn’t the only option.
“Redemption” is only for those who everyone thinks aren’t worth redeeming. But he’s irredeemable! Is he? Or do you just want to see him punished and have zero faith that he can’t at least try to right his wrongs?
This would be like if Zuko showed up at the Western Air Temple and instead of becoming Aang's fire bending teacher, he died fighting Combustion Man or Azula in a blaze of glory, all because Katara would not budge from her "he's evil and always will be" stance.
Or, if Zuko died in the last agni-kai, taking Azula down with him, as if the story said "yeahhhhh, we just gotta go clean slate here and expunge the whole Fire Family, but hey, Zuko did stop Azula in his blaze of glory".
—
But what happens when “redemption = death” is actually satisfying? Aka, not a redeemed villain, just a tragic hero. So let’s look at a famous example: Darth Vader.
This is a character that checks two boxes: He has one pillar of light determined to save him, and he’s shown before his moment of sacrifice to have some remorse. It doesn’t come out of nowhere.
He’s not redeemed, though, because his one act of murder-suicide may end the war (ignoring the sequel trilogy) but doesn’t undo all the damage and lives lost and planets destroyed. He’s just a tragic hero.
Sometimes, however, this character knows the only way all the evil ends is with their death. They know they’re doomed because by their continued existence, evil persists, and they literally cannot live on to fix things because things will never be fixable so long as they’re still breathing. Or, they’re terminally ill and incurable through their own machinations with the Big Bad and will die no matter what they do, might as well go out swinging.
Greed, from Fullmetal Alchemist fits here. He spent more time as a reluctant good guy occasionally doing bad and selfish things because his essence is chained to a good guy, but he cannot survive the story, because by his very nature, he’s a piece of the main villain.
But even then, Greed’s redemption comes *before* he dies, we all already love his character, this is just the tragic icing on the cake. His realization that, in his final act, he becomes the most selfless character in the show—the antithesis of his entire being.
Your mid-redemption character redeems themselves as much as they can while they still breathe. They help the other heroes, they teach the team everything they know, they show their plans for a better future and have even built tools to help the survivors thrive. They’ve dreamed about being a part of this future that’s barred from them. They’ve fully understood and accepted the consequences of their actions. They understand that their final punishment is never living to see the paradise they nearly destroyed.
Even if they can’t change the world with their actions, they’ve done all the emotional and personal labor they can manage with those that they’ve hurt. They’ve made friends, allies, even romantic endeavors.
And when they die and the heroes mourn, they mourn the hero that this redeemed villain became, not who they imagined this villain could be if they tried, if they'd made different choices. At that point, redemption didn’t even equal death for them, redemption was the short road to recovery before the consequences of their actions finally caught up with them.
#writing advice#writing resources#writing tips#writing tools#writing a book#writing#writeblr#character design#redemption arc#character arcs#last airbender#atla#zuko#fullmetal alchemist#greed fma
32 notes
·
View notes
Text
I keep using the word "frustrating" but I feel like it doesn't capture the anger that's building in me at how it doesn't seem to remember its own goddamn books. Everything with Jagged Peak in particular is incredibly sloppy.
With Clear Sky I get the feeling that they HAVE to misremember previous books, else you encounter the simple truth that he is a fucking monster. If you don't use passive voice religiously as if you're writing a NYTimes article about a cop, you'd have to address that he wanted to kill children after he slaughtered their mother for her land, that he beat an innocent woman to death and blamed it on a fox, and that he's a compulsive liar with a fragile ego. And you can't do that and ALSO say "he was a good mislead boy all along."
So... it's malicious but it's "understandable" on some level. The character they wrote is completely incompatible with the ""redemption"" they're trying to write. So you have to ignore it.
But Jagged Peak...
So Thunder is watching Jag's kittens as they play in deep snow. Jag sees this, freaks out a little, and tells the kids to stop playing because they could get hurt. We get this confrontation;
Those who have been following will remember that it was partially JAGGED PEAK'S fault that Sparrow Fur got mauled by One Eye, by letting her run off into the woods alone because "she was very insistent" about finding her biodad, Tom the Wifebeater.
This teeny little scene feels like they're going to address how Jagged Peak's biggest flaw as a kid was his recklessness, and that his irresponsibility continued into his adulthood because he was coddled. That this, right here, is a sign of character growth... but, the rest of the series doesn't seem to actually think this.
Gray Wing gets scolded for being "unkind" to him as if he's the same as Clear Sky. Jagged Peak's physical ability, like fighting to defend his honor and leading a patrol to get herbs, are what the narrative is fixated on. It's the thing he did back in Blazing Star that made Clear Sky "realize he was wrong about him." It bothers me. Badly.
We are slowly watching Gray Wing die of asthma (except when he needs to do something "cool" like rescue Turtle Tail from Tom the Wifebeater) and every other disabled character dies horribly. But here's Jagged Peak, with a story about how he's "Barely Even Disabled At All" with a little love and encouragement :)
What was behind the choice to make so much of this disabled character focus on his physical ability? In this arc which has THREE "useless" cats exiled for their lack thereof (Jagged, Bumble, Frost)? They say Jagged Peak needed a wife (introduced and then pregnant in the same book) to become his life coach, and that allowed him to overcome his leg... but why?
Why do this, when they obviously COULD have focused on his character traits? This little fucking scene proves it. They COULD have done this instead.
It feels like they're 3 different stories they want to tell about Jagged Peak and none of them are coming together; but the main one they're trying to write is awful.
#dotc hate#bones reads dotc#It doesn't help that this sort of story bothers me. badly. to begin with#disability is disabling. i hate the narrative of 'With a little love you can be Just As Abled as everyone else :)'#like NO? I am still disabled no matter how much you love me actually#And quite fucking frankly I would still be disabled if you stopped#Jagged Peak IS a full character. His personality (for better and for worse) shines through in some moments#But it gets ignored and the story they tell about him is completely about his leg#ughhhhhhhhhhhhhh I hope this is making sense
29 notes
·
View notes
Text
Philosophies of Justice and Narrative Catharsis in Young Royals
Do you ever just have… conversations with yourself at 2 am?
Me: Wow. August did some bad shit. I want him to get therapy and help, but I also want him to face some kinda legal punishment.
Also me: Oh, self. You don’t trust cops or judges or prisons. The legal system would be way harsher on Simon about the drugs. Doesn’t that give you anxiety?
A third me, thousands of words in and possessed by a hyperfocus demon: Well fuck. We might be doing a meta about it. It’s okay, this can just be building blocks for our graduate school thesis on YA literature. Ahaha it’s fine.
The following meta looks at philosophies of justice, both retributive and restorative, as they appear in the worldbuilding Young Royals. This is a monster of a meta, like ~6500 words long, so be aware of that going in. Content note for discussion of all the usual crime topics in YR, as well as the injustices present in real world legal systems.
Intro: Shifting the Focus
Fandom loves discussing—and disagreeing about—the redemption arc. Who can blame us? As human beings, we’re wired to notice novelty, and redemption arcs involve a character experiencing some sort of dramatic transformation. This transformation could be gradually built up to for a series of chapters or seasons, or it could be sudden and jarring. It could involve one big dramatic gesture or a series of small changes. Whatever happens, fans end up debating what they see onscreen.
Now, I love a good discussion. I also love stories that poke beyond simple notions of good and evil, where characters are capable of change in multiple directions, And yet, as someone who has spent years in fandom, I increasingly find the discussion of redemption arcs unsatisfying and even boring. Everyone seems to have their own definition of what constitutes “enough” good deeds for a character’s redemption, and even their own opinions of who is worthy of redemption in the first place. It seems we can’t entirely agree on what the term means, and everyone gets bogged down in discourse.
At first, my dissatisfaction prompted me to ask what I considered a well-written redemption arc. Well, no, that’s not accurate. There was a little arrogant voice inside me telling me that I, the great bluedalahorse, who has devoted many hours of academic study to various literary texts and even made complicated spreadsheets to track ideas in my favorite books, could use my genius analytical skills to find out what a perfect redemption arc is supposed to look like and develop a formula for it. And then I stepped back and laughed at myself. Since when did good writing ever follow a formula? All the best writers know how and when to break the rules. Also, I am not as much of a genius as I think I am. I’m literally just hanging out here and overthinking my fictional faves like the rest of fandom.
A lightbulb moment switched on when I attended a workshop focused on restorative justice in schools, back in the summer of 2022. As I listened and processed the things I was learning, my storyteller brain kept poking me. Hey, it was saying to me. Heyyyy can we use restorative justice principles to write better character arcs? Particularly redemption arcs? I talked to my MFA adviser about this as we began to workshop ideas for a critical thesis in Young Adult literature. We started to explore the ways that restorative justice principles showed up in books like Patron Saints of Nothing by Randy Ribay and All American Boys by Jason Reynolds and Brendan Kiely. I got a little further along in my theories, identifying techniques authors used to show characters confronting their privilege, unlearning old behaviors, and making amends for harm that they caused others. Still, something was missing. I just wasn’t getting where I wanted to with my analysis.
A few weeks ago I had a second lightbulb: what if we stop looking at justice in relationship to character arcs alone, and start looking at worldbuilding?
That clicked. Oh, boy, did it click! You really can’t talk about characters without understanding their world. Once I attended a panel on writing villains, and one of the panelists asserted that you can’t develop your villain as a character until you’ve developed your world. (Whether villains are outcasts hellbent on revenge, or oppressive tyrants at the top of their society, their world plays a role in shaping them.) Since what we call redemption arcs so often involves taking a character out of a villainous space and into a more heroic one, naturally worldbuilding has to be a factor in that kind of story. I also realized that the framing of the “redemption arc” frustrates me because on some level, it’s still tied to the Western Christian idea of individual salvation. I didn’t want to necessarily focus on what what one character does or doesn’t do individually without also focusing on that character’s relationship to other characters and their communities.
So I decided to experiment with shifting the focus of my thesis research. There were only two things left to do: come up with a framework for exploring my ideas, and test those questions out on Young Royals. Because it’s my favorite show, and it has a lot to say about justice. That said, a lot of what I say here and the methods I use could be applied to other shows as well. I’m curious to hear what it might have to say about your other favorite works of fiction!
The Framework
After some drafting during early morning bus commutes, I came up with three questions I wanted to explore when looking at Young Royals and other texts. These questions are:
What is the authorial philosophy of justice? What principles of justice are at play in how the author constructs the characters, world, and storylines?
How is justice enacted (or not) through the legal system(s) in this story’s setting? To what extent do the ideals of that legal system match up with its reality? To what extent should they?
What are the individual characters’ experiences of justice in their day to day life? What social norms do they end up creating in their smaller communities to enforce their ideas of justice?
What I like about this series of questions is that it allows a text to speak in multiple voices. There has been a lot of fandom discourse over the last ten years (and even longer, honestly, this shit goes back at least to Plato’s dialogues) about authorial intent and whether depiction equals endorsement and so on. I don’t think I���m going to end those debates today. Still, I do think it’s worth pointing out that a TV show or a book or a movie is able to tell a story and make a point in a different way than an essay or campaign speech does. You can have different characters own different parts of the truth. A particular setting can be positive for one character and negative for another. Fiction is really good at exploring paradoxes, contradictions, and tensions. I created these questions because they force me to tease out the tensions in a narrative and where there might be meaning in them.
Come on, Blue! you say. We know Young Royals has a lot of tension in it. When are you gonna start talking about your fandom? Okay. Fine. I’ll get to the sad teenagers now. Put on your school uniforms, everyone. We’re going to Hillerska!
No Good or Bad People, Only Good or Bad Actions
The title for this section comes from me paraphrasing Omar paraphrasing Lisa in an interview.
Two questions you may have about this section are: 1. What makes authorial philosophy (a term I am pretty sure I just made up for the purposes of this meta) different than authorial intent? 2. What’s the relationship between the author’s philosophy and their worldbuilding?
To answer question 1, I am defining authorial philosophy for the purposes of this meta as what the author intends + how effectively they convey that through their storytelling and craft. So like, authorial intent, but we’re also holding the author somewhat accountable for how their message comes across. Generally I read Lisa and the rest of the team as pretty intentional in how they craft their stories, and I can see how their ideas play out in practice, so I am more likely to give credence to authorial intent. I might not do that for other authors. As someone who reads heavily in the YA novel field, I’ve seen plenty of books with surface progressivism that end up being kinda reactionary when you scrape beneath that surface. Usually it’s a craft issue or the author not being intentional enogh. Young Royals, so far, has not been that kind of text.
As for question 2, authors can use their worldbuilding to reinforce their authorial philosophy, whether that’s through having characters in the story espouse said philosophy, or by using the story’s plot and character arcs to test their story, or by some combination of the two. Lisa is a writer who affords her characters a lot of grace, but I also see her as willing to test that grace and our her personal philosophy on trial. She’s very aware that ideals don’t always match up with reality, and those tensions are part of what she explores so well in her writing.
Now that we’ve addressed those questions, let’s address the authorial philosophy of Young Royal.
Young Royals stands out from other school dramas because it handles nuance so well. But how do Lisa and her team achieve that nuance? Part of it is the way their approach to characters resonates with the philosophy of restorative justice.
Restorative justice can be defined as “a system of criminal justice which focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large.” This website has some additional information about what restorative justice looks like in theory and practice. (Plenty of other websites do as well.) Restorative justice is really hard to pull of IRL, but philosophically it does ask us to think about the ways in which more retributive and punitive justice systems are failing people.
Now, before I get too far into my explanation, I don’t know if Lisa chose a restorative justice approach to her writing on purpose, or how much she’s read about the subject. But a lot of what she prioritizes as a writer lines up with certain RJ principles anyway. For example, RJ practitioners believe that every human being has worth and dignity, and that leaning too far into a retributive justice model (more on that in the next section) can be dehumanizing for both victims and offenders. In Lisa’s writing, each character is humanized, there are no characters who are caricatures. Everyone in Young Royals has their own reasons for behaving why they behave—even when they make choices that harm others. There aren’t excuses, but there are explanations.
Two other important ideas in RJ are accountability and dialogue. Season 2 of YR deals a lot with the question of accountability. Wilhelm’s positive growth is signaled by his willingness to be accountable for his actions; August’s more tragic arc is characterized by his baby steps toward accountability followed by his dramatic backflip away from it.
Regarding dialogue, Wilhelm’s growth is fostered by important and vulnerable conversations with others. Sometimes these conversations are with the people he harmed or impacted in a negative way. He and Felice have to talk their way through the weirdness of that kiss, while he and Simon have to talk about… well, everything. TBH they’re not done talking yet. But they’ve started, and that’s where the progress and catharsis is happening. Other times, Wilhelm’s conversations with other members of the Hillerska community—Nils and Boris come to mind—help him to see things in a new light and clarify his ideals. When we cheer on Wilhelm as he comes to better understand his privilege in the world and the weight that his actions have, we’ve been enlisted by Lisa to support restorative justice philosophy.
No one character represents Lisa’s philosophy entirely, because she’s so committed to all characters being fallible in their own ways, but I would say that of the main cast, the Eriksson siblings and Felice are the most likely to express different parts of restorative justice philosophy. All of them strive to look for people’s human side instead of relying on stereotypes. They want the people close to them to be accountable for their actions. They talk things through. They recognize the needs of multiple people in a situation. This doesn’t happen all the time, with every person, in every instance. They get distracted and led astray. There may be times where it would benefit them to get outside help and they don’t. Sometimes their efforts blow up in their face. But they’re trying, and I think Wilhelm has definitely joined them by the end of season 2.
So sure, all the characters in Young Royals might brush up against the principles of restorative justice, but they still “live in a society” as we may or may not still say on the internet. In order to understand more, let’s talk about the legal system as it’s presented in the show.
Call Your Lawyer Stepdad
As a writer, Lisa may believe in restorative justice principles, and this likely guides how she depicts the characters in her story. The legal systems she depicts in her work, however, are not restorative. What’s more, they are applied unequally based on the identity of the person who breaks laws or rules. Young Royals is very clear about the distinction between the ideals of the law and how the law actually gets enforced.
Obligatory disclaimer: I’m not a law student or someone who’s studied much comparative politics, so I can’t say for sure whether Sweden’s legal system leans more retributive or more rehabilitative. I also can’t say whether the ideals of its legal system match its reality, but I am making a safe guess that they don’t entirely. (Sweden, my ancestral homeland, I love kanelbullar and ABBA, but your current right wing government and your response to the COVID pandemic and your history of colonization, among other things, shows that you are just as capable of bullshit as any other nation. Forgive me if I approach your legal system with caution. If anyone from Sweden or another Nordic country has more info and can weigh in, feel free to weigh in.) It’s also worth mentioning my own preconceived notions here. I live in a country with a massive mass incarceration problem and a legal system that was specifically created to reinforce white supremacy, so my trust in law enforcement and courts and the like is… not high.
What I can say about the legal system in Young Royals is this: the writing of the show primarily focuses on the retributive aspects of the legal system. In a retributive justice system, those who break the law are criminals, and they are punished for their crimes. Punishment is seen as a way of deterring crime and keeping it from happening in the future.
We see the impact of a system like that when legal consequences motivate characters and the choices they make. Simon is afraid of getting caught and prosecuted for bringing drugs into school, while August fears being put on trial and imprisoned for leaking the video. What’s interesting to me, though, is that it isn’t just that both characters fear punishment. They also fear the stigma that comes with being publicly convicted of a crime. Simon doesn’t want to be stereotyped as the poor kid who comes into school and pushes drugs on the rich kids. He knows how dangerous drug addiction can be from witnessing his dad, and he brings the drugs into school out of financial desperation. August, meanwhile, wants to think of himself as an untouchable elite who is discreet about secrets, and probably (more sympathetically) also wants to think of himself as a relatively helpful guy who showed Wilhelm around school and took care of him the way Erik would have wanted. I think it’s very clever how Lisa had Simon and August each break the law in ways that betray their respective core values, because it brings this issue with a retributive justice system to light. Once someone has committed a crime, how do they move past that stigma and make themself into the sort of person who doesn’t do a crime again?
This leads to another issue with retributive justice. We often equate legality with morality subconsciously, but these two ideas are not the same thing. In August’s case, leaking the video is easy enough for us to label—it is both illegal because it is against the law and immoral because it violates Simon and Wilhelm’s right to sexual privacy. Simon bringing in his dad’s drugs—that’s against the law, sure. But is it immoral? Simon is up against a corrupt teacher who rewards students who can pay more with better grades. He needs to pay for tutoring if he want to succeed. He’s at a disadvantage because of his socioeconomic status, and he also probably hasn’t had time to process trauma around his dad’s addiction. From the point of view of a Hillerska parent, however, they’re just going to see Simon as a threat to their kid’s well-being.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Simon’s reasons for breaking the law are absolutely more sympathetic than August’s reasons. I cannot stress this enough. We see the way the system screws Simon over, and how it drives him to do what he does. Simon gets drugs to students who consent to take them, but when August films him and Wilhelm it’s without their consent. Moreover, August is complicit in Simon’s lawbreaking because he ends up being the guy who sells drugs on Simon’s behalf. (Jesus, August, sell a painting or something.) But who is the legal system in the YR universe more likely to give grace to? August. Who is it more likely to come down hard on? Simon. Simon does not have the wealth to afford a trial. He doesn’t have a lawyer stepdad on speed dial. He doesn’t have an in with the media like the royal family does, so he can’t control the public narrative of his life the same way that they can.
On a purely literal level, August dangling the threat of the pill bottle in front of everyone is the most textbook example of August being a little shit. On the thematic, level, however, this reminds us who the justice system really serves. It’s a caution against relying on the justice system—or at least relying on the justice system alone—for narrative catharsis in this story. Instead, we should be looking for narrative catharsis elsewhere. And, we should definitely be looking at more than one character arc if that is the case.
The Only Person You Can Truly Control Is Yourself
While season 2 includes the retributive justice of the legal system as part of its worldbuilding, we also see Wilhelm embody the philosophy of retributive justice through his actions. Wilhelm starts his arc in a place where he wants to punish August for what he’s done by taking away everything he cares about. He justifies this by pointing out the problems with the legal system—rich kids never actually face the consequences of their actions. While Wilhelm is correct to call that out, he ends up transforming himself into a more extreme agent of the retributive philosophy in order to pursue what he sees as justice.
Now, this is a writing gambit that could have failed spectacularly. We’ve all seen versions of the “if we are awful to our enemies, we’re just as bad as them” story that end up reinforcing an icky status quo. But that’s not exactly what happens in Young Royals. The first thing to notice is that Wilhelm’s approach works… initially. August has lost a lot at the beginning of season 2, part of it due to Wilhelm’s efforts, and that’s made him more willing to reflect and be vulnerable and listen to Sara when she tells him he can preserve his self-respect by turning himself in. I actually don’t think Sara’s being entirely naive when she points out that January August would have turned himself over. The problem is that as January August becomes February And March August and starts to gain new things to protect (an in with the palace, a new relationship with Sara) he becomes afraid of losing everything again, and starts to go back to his old ways.
The other thing to notice is that Wilhelm mostly acts alone. Felice is his confidant, but she’s not working alongside Wilhelm, suggesting they swap out August’s hair products with toothpaste. (I kinda wish she would have, though.) In spite of the fact that the video probably hurt Simon even more than it did Wilhelm (reminder: Wilhelm has access to a press team and hired security that let him walk away at first) Wilhelm doesn’t center Simon in the process of doling out punishment. He does it with the best of intentions—he doesn’t want Simon getting hurt—but that moment where Simon’s like “You did ALL THIS TO HIM when we could have reported him together???” Yeah. That’s extremely valid. And it hints at one of the central ideas of s2—yes, dealing with August is important, but priority number one for Wilhelm is Wilhelm taking accountability for his own actions (denying that it was him in the video) and making things right with Simon in that way. With that relationship restored (see what I did there? restorative justice?) they can lean on one another as they slay their next monster. At the end of the day, the person who Wilhelm has the most control over is himself. That’s why we end season 2 on him making the speech and publicly acknowledging his relationship with Simon, not with the arrival of cop cars at Hillerska.
Speaking of the choices Wilhelm decided to make, I invite Young Royals fans to consider how Wilhelm’s role as crown prince give his actions symbolic weight. The royal family may not have real lawmaking power, but they’re still supposed to represent Swedish values and traditions to the general public. If Wilhelm starts pursuing a kind of justice, then he’s making a statement about what justice looks like in Sweden whether he wants to or not. If he had shot August in the field, that would have been more than a murder—symbolically that would have been an execution, in a country that banned capital punishment in the 1970s. (Then again, Stella and Fredrika would probably be okay with that.)
I want to make one more point here as I transition into the next section. I don’t think Lisa is necessarily saying that August shouldn’t be punished or face consequences for his crime. But I do think she’s being very clear that a retributive justice philosophy is going to hit marginalized people without the resources to defend themselves—people like Simon—a lot harder. And that opens up the question of where we’re supposed to find catharsis. Can we really exhale at the image of jail cell doors clanging shut, knowing that this same legal system can come for Simon using the same tools? If Simon somehow manages to evade prosecution, can he ever really find relief? How long will that last? What’s to say the system won’t screw him over in other ways, and what’s to say that other rich kids won’t get away with what August did, or worse?
It would be one thing if a crime only harmed the individuals involved, but restorative justice philosophy reminds us that this harm also impacts communities and involves communities. So, without further ado, it’s time to zoom in and examine how justice plays out (or fails to) in the Hillerska community.
Snitches, Stitches, and Scapegoats
In the microcosm of Hillerska, students have organized their own justice system in miniature. Conformity gets rewarded, while open nonconformity gets ostracized. While there is some understanding among the students that individuals will deviate from heterosexual, traditionalist, rich kid norms, this deviation is generally only tolerated when students do it in secret. In this climate, Hillerska students do a lot of self-policing. Stella and Nils cover up their sexualities in ways that may not work for them long term. Felice frets about her physical appearance and how people will perceive her if she pursues boys a certain way. You get the picture.
Because of the pressure to maintain a pristine image of the school (gotta make those admissions brochures look sparkly clean!) the student body as a whole sweeps crime and “deviant” behavior under the rug by closing ranks and agreeing not to snitch on one another. The elite status of Hillerska students allows them to get away with a lot their public school peers would not. While gossip flourishes within Hillerska’s walls, woe betide anyone who lets it escape into the outer world.
On occasion, there are crimes that can’t be covered up, and it may be that more than one student is involved. We’ve seen what happens in this case. Hillerska students do not collectively assume responsibility, but instead agree upon a narrative about what happened and choose a scapegoat to pin the problem on. We see this most clearly in episode 1.5, when Alexander is found with the drugs that the Society used for their party. August suggests they pin the drugs on Simon, while Wilhelm breaks with tradition and says Alexander should take the fall, because Alexander can easily bounce back from an accusation like this. Sure enough, Alexander is back at Hillerska next season, far less innocent than before and far more likely to engage in political intrigue. Wilhelm’s considerations about how Alexander can more easily absorb the blame for the drugs are well thought out and in some ways compassionate—and we’re happy to cheer him on for defending Simon and to some extent we should. However, Wilhelm’s willingness to participate in the scapegoating system backfires on him nonetheless, and also entrenches him in one of the most toxic parts of Hillerska culture. He’s cut off one hydra head and two new ones have sprung up to take it’s place.
One obvious danger of scapegoating is that innocent people are often blamed for things they have nothing to do with. We’ve seen this negatively impact Simon on the rowing team and elsewhere. Vincent makes Simon the scapegoat for the rowing team’s loss in episode 2.3 and uses it as an excuse to bully him. Simon doesn’t get to sing his solo because people will recognize him from the video and that will affect the school’s image and the royal family’s image. Simon is innocent in these areas, but he’s being made to take on blame for situations that are a lot bigger than him. Of all the individual students at Hillerska, Simon’s probably getting the shortest end of the stick, and that’s directly related to the fact that he lacks privilege.
Feeding the Myths
There’s other ways to make people symbols of crime or deviance, however, that can damage the fabric of social groups in other ways. Since scapegoat isn’t quite the right term here, because it tends to presume innocence rather than superlative guilt, I’m going to borrow some season 2 language and refer to this as the Worst Person in the World Phenomenon. Now, this is where I’m going to go out on a limb a bit and ask a question the show might not engage with in season 3. They might do it. They might not. It may be beyond the scope of the story Lisa feels she is able to tell. I’m going to ask this question all the same:
If August faces public consequences and punishment for leaking the video, what impact will that actually have on the culture of Hillerska students? Will it prevent such a thing from ever happening again? Will it at least encourage self-reflection?
You could argue that a high profile case like August’s could deter his classmates from engaging in harmful behaviors. He may affect some students that way. I mean, what he did is Very Bad on the Bad scale. You might even call him… the Worst Person In The World. Who would want to be like the Worst Person In The World?
The flip side of the Worst Person In The World phenomenon is that can actually discourage people from taking responsibility and holding themselves accountable. Because gosh, what I did isn’t that bad. It’s not serial killer bad, or Vladimir Putin bad. Do we realistically believe that other students at Hillerska aren’t doing problematic things? That the rowing team has zero boys who will show a topless photo of their girlfriend (without her consent) to some of his bros while they chuckle over it? That some of the girl groups aren’t spreading wildly inappropriate and homophobic rumors about classmates that seriously damage reputations? That kids aren’t paying one another for test answers or putting pressure on one another to unsafely experiment with alcohol and drugs, even when students express boundaries and don’t want to? That kids don’t collectively work to bully teachers at times? And generally the kids aren’t getting in trouble because they’re the children of rich, elite parents, who will grow to be the rich people who run the systems and structures in society for the next generation.
Now, none of the Hillerska kids (that we know of) are doing bad things on the scale that August did when he leaked the video. This is important to stress. But it’s also important to stress that this “getting away with bad behavior” culture of Hillerska and rich people in general is part of what made August who he is. Are the other participants in that culture willing to reflect on that and actively work to change the culture in question?
Again, this does not mean that August shouldn’t face consequences or punishment, or that he shouldn’t go to prison and undergo some sort of rehabilitation. There are excellent reasons for him to face consequences. He did revenge porn FFS. But I think it’s worth acknowledging that the punishment of a very obvious, high profile offender can feed the myth that the legal system is finally working toward justice when in fact the system is continuing to perpetuate injustice. We can see how this works when only a few select predator men were convicted to placate the #MeToo movement, we can see how this works with corrupt cops when only a few who kill are ever convicted but most get away with it, and we can see how this works with political parties taking advantage of the fact that other political parties are, well, worse.
And yes, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, no ethical consumption under capitalism, etc etc. I think we can keep that in mind while also keeping in mind that we still bear a responsibility to Do The Work in whatever way we are able. This is wandering off of Young Royals a bit. But I’ve given a lot of thought to the way we point at glaringly bad examples of human behavior and say “at least I’m not that guy” while not really doing the reflective work about what we can do to be better and how we can change our culture and systems. This kind of rhetoric is what allows people, especially people like the Hillerska kids who are at the top of society and the peak of privilege, to sleep at night. And maybe they shouldn’t be sleeping so well.
I think a lot about how the scene with Sara warning August that Simon is going to call the police (which is about Sara giving August one more chance to embrace accountability) is followed by a scene of Henry showing up to his group project meeting with no work done. Henry might not have done his work on a literal level, but as a symbol, he’s doing a lot of work. Not only is Henry foreshadowing that August isn’t going to do the right thing and turn himself in, he’s also lampshading the broader culture of Hillerska itself. For all the fancy plaques about responsibility, the students use their privilege and power to avoid doing what’s right and keep the status quo going. This is who they are. This is what they are going to have to overcome to be ethical humans who make their world better.
Working for Catharsis and Healing (A personal opinion section)
I don’t make predictions. The idea of making predictions for season 3 is in fact pretty stressful for me. But what this intellectual exercise has opened up for me is a question of where I would find catharsis and healing in the narrative. It’s not in the sound of police sirens. Maybe that’s different for you. That’s okay. I think we can learn a lot from the discussion in question.
Let’s start with the obvious jerkface himself and the question of him facing punishment. I think it’s worth separating August from other people for a time, to prevent him from doing additional harm to others. If we’re going to call that prison, then sure, let’s call it that. But let’s unpack what that separation looks like. In order for Wilhelm and Simon (and Sara and Felice for that matter) to heal, they’re going to need to be away from him. They should not be the ones responsible for his rehabilitation. As a restorative justice nerd deep down (at least, mostly, but fictional teenagers are well within the broad spectrum of people I’ll offer grace to) I still think he deserves a chance to heal from at least his drug addiction and his eating disorder and his trauma over his dad’s suicide. I also think he needs to understand accountability and the impact his actions have on others, and needs to learn to act in ways that repair the harm he’s done and prevent future harm. This is what he owes the world. There’s not time enough for us to see that whole journey, but I feel like the writers could show us the first few steps.
I’ve seen some people try to argue that August can’t change because he didn’t respond enough to Sara treating him like a person. I can see their point, and I can see the show using the Sara subplot as a shorthand for the idea that August can’t change. Writers often have to use that kind of shorthand to make a point about a character. (The relationship between redemption arcs and romantic love is one of my ongoing problems with redemption arcs in fiction, just for the record.) The way I see it, though, Sara is just one neurodivergent girl with a family history of abuse experiencing her first romantic love. She’s not a team of trained mental health professionals and social workers and other help-minded adults who’ve studied up on how to de-program systemic nonsense. After all, we can accept that although Simon loves Wilhelm very much, Simon’s efforts alone weren’t enough to fully dislodge Wilhelm from his place of privilege. Wilhelm needed Boris and therapy, and a mom who made him go to therapy (Kristina often does more harm than good, but her making Wilhelm go to therapy is the broken clock being right twice a day), and Felice as a friend and confidant, and Nils as a different sort of confidant, and a literature teacher like Fröken Ramirez who’s assigning him books with queer representation. Wilhelm’s journey is still ongoing. Romantic love may be transformative, but individuals in love don’t change people on their own. Communities change people. I am an aromantic relationship anarchist and I will die on this hill.
Speaking of the Eriksson siblings, I want Sara and Simon to have a chance to repair their relationship and build it anew. This would be another point of catharsis for me. I’ve seen a lot of people saying “Sara needs to do xyz tasks…” like we’re in a confession booth and a certain number of Hail Marys will save the day, but step one is that Sara and Simon just need to start communicating again, and communicating honestly. I think it’s easy to point to August as being the root of their relationship struggles, but there were a lot of unspoken tensions between the Eriksson siblings long before he entered the chat. They would have had some other falling out even without Hillerska. Simon’s been led to believe he should parent his sister, and Sara’s been convinced she’s a burden to her brother forever. They both are still reeling from trauma related to their dad, and it may need that they need different things to heal from that. Even without all that, they’re both maturing and defining their values and exploring romance for the first time, and Sara’s getting friendships of her own without always tagging along with Simon and Rosh and Ayub. Simon and Sara are getting to the age where they may not always be the most important people in each other’s lives, and they need to learn to grow up without growing apart. That doesn’t always happen automatically; it takes self-reflection and commitment and listening. I don’t think we’ll ever be back to the innocent days of Sara teasing Simon about his fairy tale prince. But I do think they can move their relationship forward in a new direction, and bounce back stronger.
I also think both Eriksson siblings need to come to terms with the fact that they violated their own values. Sara didn’t do anything illegal, but she did do something that violated her own morals, and you can tell that she feels pretty awful about that when she’s alone on the bus and driving away from school in 2.6. As for Simon, I don’t know if he’s fully gotten a chance to sit with the fact that he violated his own values when he brought his dad’s drugs to school. Again, I don’t want Simon to have to go through legal trouble, or deal with the prison system. The legal system is stacked against Simon in ways that are not fair. But Simon values accountability, and Wilhelm basically rescued him from being held accountable in season 1. I imagine that’s caused cognitive dissonance for Simon he’s still sorting through. I wonder what that’s going to be like for him.
On Wilhelm’s end, I’d like him to continue growing in the ways he’s grown in season 2. He’s learned not to be a symbol of extreme retributive justice. What would it look like for him to model restorative justice practices instead? (Note: this doesn’t mean that he personally has to forgive August. That’s entirely up to Wilhelm.) How can he encourage his community to act differently?
For Felice—well, one of my few issues with season 2 was how they handled Felice, and how they made her ancillary to others’ arcs instead of having her own, but that’s a post for another time. All the same, I think Felice is learning to trust her instincts, push past her biases, and take a unique point of view on things. She’s able to look at the video and see the broken pixels rather than the scandalous gossip scene everyone’s talking about. She can sense Sara’s hiding a secret from her and knows Sara needs to talk. Even if the conversation they end up having is deeply upsetting for her, it brings truths to light that need to be shared. Felice doesn’t have every tool in the toolbox yet, but what she observes and how she interacts with people can be helpful in delivering justice.
I don’t have meta space to consider every parent and adult on the show and things they can do differently. But I expect in season 3 we’ll start to see some adults (I don’t think it’s likely that we’ll see all of them) consider the roles they play in perpetuating systems and cycles. At least, I hope so. It shouldn’t be all on the young people to achieve change in society.
As for the Hillerska culture, it needs to change too. It’s worth asking if a place like Hillerska should even exist. Every secondary Hillerska student is going to act a little bit differently in response to the events of the plot, and I don’t know if I’d buy it if the show tried to tell us the Hillerska culture changed overnight in a magical ripple of self-consciousness. We might see individual students taking baby steps toward responsibility and liberation here or there. We might just see status quo as usual. I think of all the threads in this story, this is the one I would be okay with seeing Lisa Ambjörn leave things unresolved or in a place of tension, as long as that tension feels intentionally placed. Because changing the world is hard, and not everything changes all at once.
Young Royals doesn’t have to tie up every loose end by the last episode of season 3, but I do think it’s already raised a lot of questions about the relationship between justice and storytelling and where we find catharsis in fiction and our own lives. These questions are worth us considering, even if the answers point toward all the work that still needs to be done for the future.
#young royals#young royals meta#my meta#simon eriksson#wilhelm young royals#august young royals#sara eriksson#felice ehrencrona#long post#holy crap this is long thank you if you read it
96 notes
·
View notes
Text
League of Villains Redemption Discourse;
Its been a while since i’ve been talking about redemption for villains because it kinda become obvious that it will happen at the end of Bnha and all but there is still some discourse for villains, especially league of villains. That ‘Gentleman and La Brava fits redeemable’ type of villain better. That characters like ‘Twice are redeemable’ but Dabi isnt or Dabi can be saved but Shigaraki is bad blah blah blah. Like, the idea that ‘certain type of villain deserve to be saved’ while other doesnt. It is also ironic that people think characters like Shigaraki, Dabi and Toga are too far gone or they think this wasnt hinted. Well, here we go.
I would like to focus on league of villains to try to explain why i disagree with those opinions.
First of all, Shigaraki and Dabi’s redemption is hinted since the beginning.
The first time we saw Shigaraki, he was heaviely hinted that he is abuse victim and he was groomed. This his literally first introduction and story is telling you that this character is victim. And he had a conversation with Deku at the mall. Loosing his mind while saying ‘He hates Allmight because people are laughing as if there is noone he couldnt save’. And we get a little flashback form his childhood, ‘Noone saved you, didnt they?’. His entire character literally screams ‘SAVE ME. WHY NOONE SAVE ME? I HATE EVERYONE BECAUSE THEY DONT SAVE ME’.
And Overhaul arc. It is abour saving Eri who is parallel with Shigaraki, once again it is about saving Tomura in a parallel and we also seeing Shigaraki is capable of caring about other people which is a positive character development. And MVA arc is even more obvious. Not only story making his story more empathic because it is showing how tragic it is but also because we meet with Tenko who is kind kid who would help outcasts and well, Tomura even after ewvrything does the same with league. Showing that his inner kindness didnt disappear. Which is even making it more obvious.
Theme of Bnha is questioning the meaning of hero. Main character who wants to SAVE people in a fake hero society and his enemy who is entire character is about SAVE MEEEE, never really had choice because he was kidnapped by big evil, turns out still caring people and even helping them just like he used to be as kid. Its so obvious when Deku is like I WANNA SAVE PEOPLE and Shigaraki is like SAVE MEEE so yeah, well, it was always hinted that Shigaraki will be saved by Deku. Of course, he could die by being saved, we wouldnt know at first but one thing is sure that he would be saved. Shigaraki’s story didnt change. He was always redeemable and waiting to be saved. And the more story goes on, he only proved this more. Because in stories, positive character developments usually means noble death or redemption.
Btw, i dont think he will die because after everything happenned in story, there is no point of him dying. It also loose the point of being saved.
And Dabi.
This one is tricky since Dabi was mysterious character. I think two things make kinda hint that he will most likely get redemption. 1- He is heaveily hinted that he was Todoroki. He is doing what he is doing because he was failed by abusive hero. He is very similar to Earlyroki. So there is family drama there. Shouto is already tragic character in a positive story, so i dont see him ever killing his brother or something. Not to mention, if he is Todoroki, it would mean, he became villain because of his hero father so killing victim of hero, instead of saving would be very bad look. Not to mention, during the story, Dabi acts like dark cop or something. (Not to mention Frainkeinstein parallels). Despite revenge plan, he seems to care about morals, justice and even feeling remorse. What happens later, it doesnt change his story because he is parallel with Shigaraki a lot too.
2- Save the cat moment.
A “save the cat” is a moment, very early on in the story, where we meet or see our hero do something nice that makes us like him and say, “I want to follow this person's story.” It's important to have it because you want your audience to be sympathetic or empathetic towards your protagonist.
This was mentioned by @hamliet and other people. The scene when Dabi decides to spare Aoyama, despite noticing him. Note; Dabi didnt know Aoyama was traitor. ‘Save the cat moment’ for a villain can be hint as a possibe future redemption for him.
And others. League of villains. I think their redemption werent necessarely hinted or it was necessary. I think for them MVA arc hinted it.
For Toga, we didnt know her full story and life until MVA arc and it turned out she is also victim of society, not just crazy villain. She is parallel with one of the main kids like Shigaraki and Dabi so assuming that ‘if Shigaraki and Dabi are gonna be saved by Deku and Shouto, Toga will be most likely be saved by Uraraka’ wouldnt be weird. Not to mention is this whole arc was about the family bond between league, that they are capable of caring other people. Same for Twice, Spinner and Mr Compress too. Because story is telling you that those people are here because society failed them and they have still humanity in them, they are not doing what they are doing because of evil but because they are victims so it wouldnt be weird to assume that whether they will get redemption or noble death, like Twice did.
‘Characters like Gentleman and La Brava are better example of redeemable villains’
No, they are not. They are not even real criminals. They never even did serious crime. I like them but they are like joke villains, they are not meant to be ‘actually’ villains. Whole point of ‘redemption’ is people who did commit serious crimes. If there is no actually wrong action, then we wouldnt need redemption at first place. I think redemption exist for characters like league.
Note; Of course, other villains can get redemption too, i am just focusing on them because they are good example to use. Especially since even characters in story told them, characters like Stain and Overhaul and even Redestro seen as ‘better person’ just because they have ‘goal’, just because they dont want destruction, like Tomura did. But in the end, Tomura proved them wrong because despite being at the lowest of low, he still showed more humanity and positive character development than them, just by treating his comprades better.
And i also dont like it when people see one league of member more redeemable than another. Especially with Twice and others. Because Twice is very obvious when it comes to showing how much he cares about others. He is obvious victim. He is not ugly victim like Tomura, Dabi and Toga. But the thing is;
Every member of League has side that makes them look irredeemable but also they have their own redeemable features.
Tomura's desire to destruction makes him look ireedemable but he is the only villain who never had a choice at life, he feel miserable with his life and he is very kind leader to his comprades.
Dabi’s distancing himself from others, using people he cares, even trying to kill his brother just for revenge against his father makes him look irredeemable but he is the only villain in league that feels remorse for killing others. He has strong sense of responsibility and he doesnt think its justified. He doesnt even plan to live long. He just wants to punish his father for his sins and thats it.
Toga’s self centered side, not caring about others without remorse makes her look irredeemable but one, she is the only one who born with serial killer quirk, with urges, like damn and second, this one is interesting. Compared to Shigaraki and Dabi, Toga never once had a grudge against people who hurted her. She never hated the society, heroes, people for calling her monster. She just accept this monster label and decide to live her life according to it.
Twice, Spinner, Compress arent different from them. Their redeemable side is how much they care about league and how much they go for their friends but they also kill many people and they dont seem to care which makes them look irreedemable too. Basically, it is pointless to separate one from another.
Also, i think it is kinda wrong to decide who ‘deserve’ redemption (i am talking about hero characters because you can always hate bad writing) because it not up to you to decide. It is up to you to do right thing by giving them a chance to rehabilate and changing or not will be theirs. Well, it is complicated.
Point of league of members isnt that they are just pitifull victims or they are just evil. The thing is they are bunch of losers. And thats what makes them beautiful.They are mentally ill victims. They need help and they need to be stopped at the same time. They lash out because they are messed up. Their violence arent justified because there is no such a thing that violence that can be justified. Violence is bad. But you can understand where it comes from. The thing about league is especially main villain trio, they are written to be metahpor for pain of abuse/society victims. Some victims never get saved, some of them make wrong choices and they messed up but some of them can still be rehabilate which is why redemption is exist. It makes sense why they get redemption because they are not bad people. And redemption isnt a bad thing either, it means taking responsibility and healing. It also fits to their characters so its good writing, well, hopefully it will written good later as well.
#bnha#bnha redemption#redemption arcs#Villains#league of villains#bnha analysis#Heroes#mha meta#shigaraki tomura#dabi#todoroki touya#toga himiko#twice#jin bubaigawara#spinner#mr compress#fandom critcism#writing criticism#writing advice
117 notes
·
View notes
Note
I know some otherwise intelligent people that can't seem to appreciate "Leverage". How can this be?
I mean I feel like mostly the answer is "because different intelligent people naturally have different tastes" and also "one does not control the special interest." But here's a few possible answers just for kicks:
1. If you can't get them to START watching, are you sure you're meeting them on their level? I've been telling my bff about Leverage for years and he's never been interested. Then I remembered that he was never interested in MCR either until I showed him the Danger Days music videos, because what he IS into is apocalypse stories and comics and classic anime. BAM, he was obsessed. So I told him about all the people from STAR TREK who work on Leverage and he was like "WHY did you never tell me this before???" He still hasn't actually WATCHED it because he's just become a full-fledged Ivy League professor and also has ADHD up the wazoo, but now it's actually on his radar because I started where he's at.
2. If they've started watching and aren't getting into it, make sure they're watching in the CORRECT ORDER. As with a certain other halcyon 2000s show, the episodes were originally aired in the wrong order, and that's the order that streaming services usually retain (I believe the DVDs have the intended order). You can just google to find the right order, I usually find it in imdb's trivia section. How big a difference the change makes will vary by person, but for me watching int he wrong order made the emotional storylines make a lot less sense. Episode 3, for example, was SUPPOSED to be the Wedding Job, not the Two Horse Job. So it feels like she's really jumping the gun when Eliot's ex tells him he has a new family now -- really, he's known these people for like a month?? Well, that was supposed to come later. And likewise, this was supposed to be the point where Sophie freaks out because she doesn't know where her relationship with Nate was going. But because they moved THAT to later, it feels like she's happily settled into the status quo and then blows up out of nowhere. I legitimately didn't like Sophie at all when I first watched the first season, and it's NOT HER FAULT -- it's because they fucked up her emotional storyline by putting the episodes in the wrong places.
3. A lot of people fucking hate that the main character is a white male tortured asshole genius trope. Yeah there are lots of other characters they can focus on, but Nate is kind of a lot if that's not what you're into. I will never in my life UNDERSTAND not being into it because that trope is literally what got me into the show, but I realize I'm in the minority there.
4. Gotta get a little more serious now. One thing I appreciate about the Leverage fandom is we usually don't get hung up in arguments about what's problematic about the show and what issues people "should be talking about." We realize it's a show from the late 2000s created by a couple of white guys and it's not perfect, and then we focus on all the great stuff it was able to accomplish anyway. I LIKE that. BUT. It means when we go to recommend it to people, we sometimes oversell it. "It's a queer poly band of thieves trying to take down capitalism!" Well, no, it actually isn't. Just because JR likes to talk about how the OT3 is so totally canon actually doesn't make it true. He says he did everything the network allowed him to do, but now that he's making Redemption the way it is, we can guess that's not entirely true either. I think there are actually no canon gays except that one lady cop. And speaking of cops, there are a lot of those, and they're sometimes corrupt but they're very often good guys and sending the bad guys to jail is very often written as a major win, and that is understandably a problem for a lot of people. And finally, they are not actually trying to take down capitalism. I think it was Latimer who told them that they were actually just trying to REGULATE the system, not take it down -- and HE WAS RIGHT. They're trying to fix the system by taking down the Bad CEOS and replacing them with Good CEOS, which is an easier sell on 2000s network TV than it is to a new watcher today. There are other issues that might be more problematic to some people, I'm just using these ones to make my point that some of the most commonly mentioned selling points of Leverage aren't entirely accurate. So just be realistic when recommending it to avoid some serious sticker shock.
52 notes
·
View notes
Text
A Long, Unnecessary Love Letter to Comic Books
I’ve gotten way the fuck into comics lately, ranging from weird titles from publishers I’m pretty sure are defunct (Solar, Man of the Atom follows the ongoing adventures of an energy being whose origin story includes accidentally destroying his own timeline) to unsettling little horror tales (Gaiman’s Likely Stories disturbed me to the point of feeling physically ill once or twice) to big, bombastic superhero fair (just give me anything with Batman). It’s particularly this last category that I want to focus on, because it was while reading the 2018-onwards run of Justice League that I realised why I’ve been getting so into comics at the moment. They’re currently filling the niche that film used to fill.
You see, folks, I have a little problem when I go and see most films nowadays. The problem is very simple. While I still enjoy movies, that enjoyment is somewhat marred by the fact that NINETY PERCENT OF THE TIME I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING TO HAPPEN! I’m a progressive chap- I’m a commie, a sometime-advocate for fat acceptance (obvs) and I’m viscerally disgusted every time I hear about some fresh injustice perpetrated against non-white ethnic groups by the racist-as-shit American legal system. I’d never call myself a feminist, but I accept that feminism has a point in terms of its broad complaints and aims (I part company from both rad and third wave on a fair number of specifics, but that’s probably just because of my nine foot musical penis). And yet, as most of you already know from my previous spates of bitching and moaning, media wokeness winds me up. It’s not just that it’s obviously insincere and designed to curry favour with an imaginary demographic of humourless wankers- it’s that it also hobbles any story’s ability to surprise or engage meaningfully with its own fictional universe. Give me a list of characters and tell me nothing about them besides skin colour, age and gender, and I’ll tell you who’s going to live, who’s going to die, who’ll be permitted a redemption arc, and who’ll turn out to be a ‘twist’ villain (and I use the term ‘twist’ with heavy-duty sarcasm marks). It’s cloying, constrictive and a death sentence for any kind of creativity. It’s gotten so bad that, whenever a movie does manage to pleasantly surprise me, I have to fight back tears of fucking gratitude. Progressive values are all well and good- I actively subscribe to them myself every time I go out and assassinate a member of the fucking Tory party- but modern movies and telly don’t operate from a place of deeply-held progressive values (or any values). The mainstream media’s ‘wokeness’ is just a tired list of boring tropes that cowardly, talentless screenwriters cling to lest creating something original engender cancellation.
And so, we come to comic books (and on comic books, if they have General Zod in them. Kneel before Zod? I certainly fucking will!). I was about type the words ‘even mainstream comic books are great’ but then I started laughing like the Joker watching a snuff movie, because that would have been an idiotic sentence. You see, while Superhero comics are ‘mainstream’ in the sense that they’re the thing people most associate with the medium, they still have a relatively tiny readership. In fact, I suspect that requiring their audience to know how to read is the main barrier to entry nowadays- it seems like something of a lost art.
The point is that I’ve been reading the ‘Justice/Doom War’ arc in Justice League and I’ve noticed something about it. It has a huge, diverse cast of characters from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, different genders and different belief systems and walks of life… and not even one of them is an insufferable twat defined only by their relative privilege or oppression! To give you an example, Green Lantern John Stewart is a heroic space cop who happens to be black, but the plot never grinds to a halt so he can give us a lecture on race dynamics in modern America. He’s too busy using constructs of solid light to smash the ever-loving crap out of pan-dimensional cosmic monsters. When the plot does slow down to give him time to breathe, we learn more about his conflicted yet complementary history as both a soldier and an architect than we do about his skin colour. I mean, it’s not like it never comes up- the DC universe has some ties to reality and characters do occasionally find themselves on the receiving end of racism, but if it’s not relevant to what’s happening, the story doesn’t bend over backwards to include it. Conversely, Batman is a rich white dude, but the story never feels the need to ‘hold him accountable’. His main arc at the moment is about learning to be a good father figure to a sentient, telepathic starfish who wants to be the next Robin (yeah… the 2018 run is gloriously fucking weird). Hey! Here’s another example! On the surface, Hawkgirl is the epitome of the ‘strong female character’ beloved by modern media: a ferocious, take-no-shit warrior woman with countless lifetimes of carefully-honed experience. But she’s not some bloody sexless, characterless archetype designed as a flag for empowerment rather than a person: she’s a fully-developed character. She has complex internal motivations; she has romantic feelings for Martian Manhunter; she experiences grief and loss and is changed by them; she makes mistakes that she then has to triumph over. She doesn’t get to win just because she’s the first person on hand with a clitoris- she actually has to work and go through a character arc. Surprising and sometimes unpleasant things happen to her, making her a sympathetic and interesting character who I actually want to see triumph.
I could go on… and on… and on… and on… pretty much forever. I could probably write an entire essay just on how Lex Luthor uses his wealth for selfish ends even while purporting to represent a higher cause while Batman embodies an idealised version of how those with power and money should use it for the greater good. I could talk about how Superman is both effectively an immigrant and the most endearingly Rockwellian slice of walking Americana one can imagine. I could write fucking books on what the character of Perpetua says about the modern world’s complex relationship with faith and fanaticism and where the line is drawn.
But the real point is that I don’t know what’s going to happen next! Character who would never be allowed to triumph under their own power in movies succeed. Characters who would never be allowed to fail in movies get broken by horrible events and circumstances. Arcs are never what I expect them to be about, but always make sense when I look back and consider what I know about the character’s personality. It’s wonderfully refreshing in a way we just don’t get to see much nowadays… and I started to wonder why comics are so much better than everything else going on at the moment.
I was recently reading an Editorial in Metal Hurlant (basically the French 2000AD- a comic anthology of sci-fi and horror tales published on a monthly basis). The top brass were bemoaning the niche-ness of the comic book medium, asserting that comics should be promoted in bookstores and literary circles; that there should be a widespread push for them to reach a readership and audience that traditionally don’t engage with pulp culture (my term, not theirs). And what I realised is that this would be a terrible, terrible idea- because the main reason comics are so good is because they’re niche; their small; their disposable. Consider, if you will, the mainstream film industry. A big part of the reason that it mainly produces hot garbage is that it’s too big to take risks. Hollywood (for want of a better catch-all term) has spent its entire life-cycle pursuing larger and larger audiences so it can fund more and more epic blockbusters with bigger names and bigger, bolder FX. It’s a cycle of abuse in which each new generation of films has to outperform the generation before it. Meanwhile, because the audiences have to be so vast, the people making the flicks don’t think of those audiences as individual people with specific interests and ideas and a desire to be challenged and entertained. They think of them, instead, as demographic swathes; undifferentiated and united by broad, base commonalities that each project has to play to. But people aren’t demographics and the movie industry is currently getting a royal drubbing for its decades of ever-increasing contempt-of-the-viwer. Disney in particular is haemorrhaging money because it thought it would be a good idea to make Star Wars and Indiana Jones films and telly shows for a generic set of imagined demographics instead of people who actually like those franchises and are interested in the themes and ideas that go with them. As much as watching Disney fail gives me the warm fuzzies, I have to ask: who in their right mind would wish this fate on comics?
You see, folks, comics do sell plenty of copies- more than enough to justify the fairly modest expense of printing the darned things) but the overall audience for any one title is less than half the audience for any given major film release (I did some research and applied some maths that I won’t bore you with, but the absolute top selling comic books of recent years sold under a quarter million copies overall while an average film from any of the major studios sells around half a million cinema tickets in the US alone- and then there are the DVD and streaming sales on top of that. Notice how the latter number is more than double the former number. Regrettably, data on both films and comics is jealously guarded by vested interests, so I apologise for how ballpark those figures are, mind). Meanwhile the total audience of comics in general is much narrower in certain key respects. Perhaps the most obvious point is this: pretty much everyone who reads comic books is a comic book fan, whereas not everyone who goes to the cinema is a cinephile. But what does that actually mean? Well, for one, it means that comic book readers and writers are more of community- they tend to trust one another more; leaps can be taken that would be considered too chancy when dealing with ‘demographics’. At the same time, however, the writers’ connection to the fans means they have a better sense of when something is going to alienate large sections of their audience or piss people off (something film-makers have proved either bad at or wilfully blind to lately). The result is stories that know what bold ideas they can pursue while also knowing where to draw the line.
I think another reason comics are currently kicking the film industry’s pallid white buttocks in terms of creative merit is that they’re real cheap. Paper on ink is much easier to organise and send forth into the world than a vast audiovisual experience containing hundreds of actors, countless FX and goodness-knows-how-many extras, all put together by an enormous team of people who often never get to meet one another. If I wanted, I could probably write, draw and distribute a limited run of say, fifty comics, for the price of a Payday Loan. I wouldn’t, because it’s not where my talent lies, but the point I’m trying to make is this: companies and distributors are more willing to do interesting things when there’s only pocket change on the line compared to when there’s millions or billions of dollars. It’s why we get comics like Serial Artist (about a dude who claims his paintings are of his murder victims and becomes the centre of a vast government conspiracy) and W0rldtr33 (an ongoing slice of weirdness in which the internet comes to life and starts murdering people). It’s why something comparatively mainstream like Justice League can have an arc about Batman parenting a starfish and why the whole thing becomes Dark Nights: Metal and Death Metal for awhile (the Metal comics are end-of-the-world stuff inspired by- obvs- heavy metal albums… and they’re fucking great). It’s why stuff like Metal Hurlant and 2000AD is given a chance to find readers. So do comics need to be bigger and more widely accepted? Fuck no! The fringe is always where interesting stuff happens and aiming for mainstream acceptability is, it seems to me, a massive trap. The allure of more money and better social status is like one of the bug-zapper lights that draws in the moths and then fries their brains.
But what the fuck is the point of all this rambling? Comics are good- and thank goodness, since a lot of shit isn’t at the moment. There, I got it all down to once sentence, so what was the point of the rest? Well, I suppose there’s a lesson to be learned here. I’m a writer finally starting my career; finally putting work out into the public domain with a real publisher. No, I don’t do comics: I do sci-fi and fantasy books. But the lesson’s still applicable and it’s this: it’s a lot better to be good than popular and sometimes- just sometimes- you really do have to pick between the two.
#Secret Diary of a Fat Admirer#comic books#comics#graphic novels#Justice League#Metal Hurlant#Dark Nights: Metal
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
I'm about halfway through season 4 paying specific attention to Sikozu and her relationship to Scorpius. I got thoughts, bro.
On second rewatch, their relationship isn't as annoying as I remembered. Season 4 has bigger issues than their relationship: Grayza, unresolved sexual violence, other characters should take focus, yoyo Aeryn/John, and then this plot device tacked on. I can get to these later. The reason, I believe, it's hard to support Sikozu/Scorpius is that Sikozu seems generated as a character to soften Scorpius in the eyes of the viewer, and that's a cop out for both characters.
Reason number one, why it doesn't work is that Scorpius doesn't need it. He arrives on the ship at the start of Season 4, has ample reasons to be there, and by now the viewers have an opinion of him that is not easy to change. He is a gray morality character. He is not the kind of character that receives, say, a redemption arc, as he doesn't experience guilt (which is fundamental in these arcs) and his plot arc is already crystal clear. It's a revenge arc. Full stop.
And reason number two, Sikozu is more interesting than this. Even in the first few episodes after her introduction, she's smart, capable, and motivated. She's a Kalish revolutionary robot for f's sake, why place her in this role to be this rescue damsel for Scorpius? I can see them becoming ally's for understanding the threat of the Scarrans. But do we really need a new character at this juncture of storytelling? I wonder if the writers knew this was going to be the last season, because it is the weakest of the bunch.
I like Sikozu, sorry for being hugely bisexual on main, but she's got a really strong look. She's beautiful. The bantu knots are fire. Her red outfit and green eyes are a strong look. (I find it really fucking telling that in Peacekeeper Wars, she wears black and has the most dated aesthetic of the entire 00s decade. Tribal tattoos, really? Why not give her a rhinestone belly piercing, you hacks? But on a storytelling level, she's obviously lost a part of herself to no longer be rocking her red.) She's also smart, integrates with the crews issues well, and it makes logistical sense she'd align with Scorpius, the least insane of the bunch (haha, at least the least insane emotionally).
But I also find it rude to make a character simply to see another side of a different character. The story is still doing work to undo Scorpius. He's now an antihero, but he was too good as a villian. I can see that adding a romantic interest helps highlight another side of a character, but as above, it's not necessary. It's actually sort of cheap. I expected more creative choices made in this show.
In short, I'm pretty sympathetic to Sikozu in this watch through. Imagine going into a relationship with a guy, and immediately asking "will I ever be more important to you than John Crichton?" Only for him to say "no." Hmmmmmmm...... No wonder the betrayal happened, huh?
Season 4 should have spent more time fleshing out Grayza, as she is so one note, and perhaps, I dunno, spent some time on Chiana's plot arc? It's like they forgot about her. Fun disastrous idea, what if instead of introducing Sikozu they tried to patch in showing Scorp's dimensionality by trying to have Chiana flirt with him? Oooooof. Hate that. Do it.
6 notes
·
View notes
Note
Yay button! Tell me all about the Catra Christmas Carol plx!
Sure!
Tw: Nothing of this will make sense if you don't read the story first. So go ahead:
There. Have you read it? Good. So...
On one hand, not much to tell, just another f*****g retelling of a tale old as time. I hadn't really been writing anything for ages and this was just something I found easy to do.
On the other, it was a very fun experience, I enjoyed writing it very much. The name was pretty much the starting point, with the three C's in a row. And with Catra being the major villian along with her redemption arc made her more or less the only scrooge possible.
Shadow Weaver as Marley was also clear from the start. Now that I think about it, Scorpia would have worked as well, if I wanted to go a bit more xlose to the original... but on the other hand, who wants dead scorpia?
The plot about the melting pot is stolen from Peer Gynt, but it feels a bit OOC for Shadow Weaver to be so remorseful, but... she is dead and she has seen more than us mortals so... eh. But it was a stretch, and a step away from the main plot.
What to include more then... Well, the three ghosts was a must, that was more about who fit which where. Christmas past is always Jiminy Cricket for me, and that was the reason for the first ghost being Angella. Swift Wind as present was more of an ass pull, but I hadn't written him in a while so... he's there because I wanted to. (Also, I wanted to have an annoyed Catra.)
When it came to make Mara/She-ra the third... To use her was pretty clear from the start. I wanted to do something different. Something a bit more light, and then throw in a twist. I'm as bad as that director we don't mention... oroginally it was supposed to be DT but they're not that sinister. Prime is evil enough. And Mara had to show up at the end. My constant pre-reader Bagge suggested more focus on the choice and that Catra had time left to change. I was going for something else but as usual, his suggestion was better.
Well, Catras life... having Hordak as her boss and Prime as some sort of etheral judge... Perhaps not the best match, but you know what, my fanfic, my rules.
Scorpia as the nephew, AND tiny Tim? Of course. I try to keep the cast restricted, and I couldn’t really see Frosta there.
Catras childhood, I went for "poor, strict but fair and Catra doesn't get it." Maybe it low hanging fruit, but the idea of never wanting to be poor again felt like it suited Catra, and.as in the show, she takes it to the extreme. Lonnie is my favourite supporting carachter and I want her in.my work a.m.a.p. and if she's there, so is Kyle and Rodge
Originally, Lonnie was to be the sole friend, but to not include Adora? Really? Of course not. The childhood friend turned rival had to be there, but to go the full enchillada and do Catradora felt like to much. Hence Glimmer. She kinda doubles as a high class person, someone Catra would look for as a sign of her status. It's not explicit, but part of Catras quest for power is to show Glimmer that she has enough to provide for someone like her. Also, Glimmer is much better as neglected gf. More drama. Now, is Angella her mother? Who knows?
As with 99% of all She-Ra fanfics, shipping has to be there. Scrooge did once have a fiancee, Catra still has one.
Originally, chapter one was written more ambiguously since I couldn't make up my mind if Glimmer or Adora was the LI. But as soon as I had chapter 2 written I knew.
Huntara was originally mermista but her voice didn't fit the part. Also, I have huge problems separating her and.Sea-Hawk.
(I also have enormous problems separating Glimmer and BOW. Making him.Glimmers pet felt a bit like a cop out, but come on! He HAS to be in her life!)
I have a few regrets. I threw in madam Razz mostly.because I wanted to,.and her part feels a bit unnecessary. I also feel I missed the opportunity to use her as spirit of Christmas past, it would make her later appearance so much better. But that's how it is when you make shit up as you write.
It annoys me I forgot to write what happened to Lonnie but... You know what, your idea of what happened to her is probably better than mine.
I think that was all?
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Today I'm Gonna Play: Red Dead Redemption 2
To be honest, I'm a GTA fan (yes I'm also excited for 6). I had 0 intention of ever playing the Red Dead series as I'm not into the Wild West, but I copped it on a whim a few years ago. Did this game change my mind about the setting? Let's find out. Spoiler: It kind of did.
This game is massive. Like REALLY massive. Both in the game world, mechanics and even the storage space. There's so much to do that you could either get excited by it all and want to try everything out, or get overwhelmed. I initially felt the former and then the latter after the novelty wore out, which made me focus on story mode after the first 10 hours of my playthrough or so. I also went on and off with this game due to performance issues but got it fixed down the lane. But anyways, this world is definitely a lot more alive than I expected. The biggest feature that got me was that you could interact with NPCs. Greet them, antagonize them, defuse the situation or rile it up even more.. I can't think of any other game that does that.
And what surprised me even more were the random events. I enjoyed doing them in GTA V since a couple of the dialogue were just absolutely nuts, but RDR 2 takes it up a notch in a different way. Your actions ACTUALLY have consequences. I've had NPCs remember me for saving them, or see their life turned around (didn't experiment with being a jerk to them) which made them feel like real people. I've been in situations where it was too late to get to them, and all I was left with was a brutal, grim silence and a sense of mourning. I still remember when I was crossing by a mountain during the night, and came across a man being attacked by a wolf from afar. He was screaming in a foreign language (assuming Spanish), and I tried to aim at the wolf, but I was too late. That moment has been haunting me since then.
Another great aspect is probably the elephant in the room, the story. Admittedly with my lack of interest in this kind of setting, I wasn't too hooked in the beginning. Didn't care much about the characters or even the protagonist. I'm so happy to say I was proven wrong by the second half when everything started to pick up. I don't think I've seen a better protagonist than Arthur Morgan, nor did I realize the significance of his journey and how much of an impact he can make around him based on what you do. Rockstar somehow managed to create an anti-hero so ruthless (in terms of what he does) yet so emotional. He's a great example of being imperfect, but yet tries to be better with any means possible. Arthur is one of those protagonists that I would remember for a long time, like a friend.
However, I do have some nitpicks about the game. As detailed and impressive this game is, it does have some complex controls. For PC players, playing this on keyboard would be an absolute nightmare with the amount of actions in this game (but if you do play this on keyboard comfortably, hats off to you!). It seems like a game that's better designed for controllers. Even apart from multiple controls, there were times where the controls themselves were a little rough. Many times I've accidentally knocked over someone simply because the game couldn't stop me in time, or I take about 5 seconds to try to do something specific with my horse because I'm not lined up properly to trigger the action. It's a bit of a weird downgrade from previous Rockstar games.
And although this game enourages you to take it slow, there were times where I just really wanted to get to my destination asap. As much as the game is beautiful, it does give a bit of a sensory overload at times. In cases like this you would normally use fast travel, but this is only restricted to travelling from your camp (which is your base). So if you're in the middle of nowhere and far from your camp, good luck.
Nevertheless, this was the type of game that had me thinking a lot after playing. I also admittedly cried for an entire week, and no game or piece of media in general has made me cry for that long. I think it's worth trying it out even if cowboys or that particular time period are not your thing. You might end up liking it, or not. And they're both okay.
youtube
1 note
·
View note
Text
anyyyyyywayyy i thought that fic was great because it was rlly interested in providing context for bro strider without like. attempting to excuse him which i think is a compelling angle to take.
probably ppl who feel some type of way abt bro would not b happy w this intense focus on bro as somebody who was more of a teen caught up in addiction n mental illness/neurodivergence n perpetuating cycles of abuse than like. an out and out monster. but. i thought it worked. like for me “you had your reasons but you still fucked up” i think is the way a lot of ppl feel abt abusive parents. that being said i think saying that the three follow up stories more focused around dave n bro r “non-canon” is a little bit of a cop out n i have more opinions abt how dave’s reaction was framed but i also think the story very explicitly says that like hey this is the absolute kindest version of this narrative. i still would have been interested in seeing maybe a messier reconciliation but that is just my permanent addiction to half-solved bittersweet endings.
in a lot of the fic ive read where dirk has to deal w the bro of it all, bro is absent (or appears only in the form of a construct) n also it’s just like “this guy was a full on evil child torturer” which is fine! i’m good w that framing but i do think it tends to get played up for dirk’s self loathing like “see the contrast? dirk is so nice and trying so hard and bro is so evil and unrepentant”. again fine i think there’s interesting stuff there but i did like that this was very focused on dirk like. actually seeing pieces of himself in bro and understanding him and how bro ended up where he was and wanting so desperately to believe that bro could find some kind of redemption and in doing so dirk would also be redeemed in some way. i like the idea of dirk feeling like “yeah i fucked up and my friends forgave me but i’m not convinced i won’t do it again”. bc this provides both an interesting counterpoint to dirks narrative in the epilogues (which this was written contemporarily w) n makes sense as a progression from dirk of act 6
1 note
·
View note
Text
more detailed spiderverse thoughts
if spiderverse 2 was the final one itd probably be miles dad quitting and thats how we find out you can change canon events or whatever. we didnt need a second story with a second cop dad. i think gwens story wouldve been sufficient if it was just about her band. they also couldve cut the bland bird fight and moved the other spider teams introduction, it wouldve been fine if we just followed miles story until gwen came to him and were introduced to the in-charge spider people when entering the spider world or whatever. if they werent making a sequel thats probably how it would go.
if they wanted to make it better, they should make gwen be less annoying, or have some more insightful thoughts about her being annoying.
also idk what theyre gonna do with uncle aaron but im suspicious of how theyre framing him and that universe. i dont think he would do that to miles, even an alternate miles. hes just a guy with a job. and even if he would do that in a specific snecario, the fact they created the perfect scenario for him to do that makes me think theyre trying to frame him as a bad guy which i dont like.
i hope theyre gonna roll that back in the last movie or make it some sort of misunderstanding, without giving him a redemption arc because he doesnt need it.
ok so this next thing isnt a real problem as is but it would be if they cut the things i described and suddenly lacked content: the villain (spot?) has very little going on. but i think hes a cool guy, they could figure something out. make him more inquisitive like the scientist he is, make him struggle more at the start and maybe show some of his daily life. im tELLING YOU HE HAS CUTE PATHETIC POTENTIAL but i suspect thats not where the story is going just because of the way hes designed. the movie really doesnt favour certain body types (thats a whole other can of worms about this franchise that im not opening here, its been going on since the first movie)
or build up miguel more, maybe make him more prominent as an antagonist (although he works okay as it is, i think the scene where he tries to bend miles to his will is great and he works well as a representation of a forced narrative that miles has to defy). they have to be careful with him, hes kind of a basic superhero guy, whose only (but important and interesting) flaw is that he's too lawful. they should follow that lead
also im repeating myself from a previous post but some of the characters just dont have much personality. i hope they let spiderwoman take more of a stance on things in the next one because shes quite inconclusive. is she a career person that doesnt see anything wrong with what theyre doing? does she let miguel do all that stuff because she respects him? or will she completely change camps and support miles when we see her again? what we currently know about her is that shes a spiderwoman and shes having a baby. thats not very anticapitalist of them, to only focus on what a character is doing for society and how shes useful (although showing that she is useful and valuable will do it for some people, that might be important too. but i never buy that archetype "i balance career with my baby perfectly! look how strong of a woman i am")
to sum it up, words cannot describe how little i cared about gwens deal. i wouldnt have brought back uncle aaron at all but since they did they need to make him endearing again. flesh out miguel and spiderwoman
also im only saying this because i care about spiderverse, and i think it has potential, and it has responsibilities and standards to meet that the first movie has set. i still think if youre gonna watch anything in the theatres right now, it should be spiderverse
0 notes
Text
les misérables film adaptations are one of the most interesting things to study, because you can really see where the writers have changed the text to further their ideas depending on context. Of course Dallas, but between 1909 and 1929 it was one of the most popular western properties to remake and set in Japan for a statement film too. Both Indian 50’s adaptations set it as a fight against British colonialism with Javert as a class traitor, and both end redeeming a previously bad guy(Felix and Thernadier) to unite in the fight. 1955 Indian Les Mis even includes real protest footage. The 2007 Sudan Les Misérables by Gadalla and Sara Gubara was made after his film studio was confiscated and he was blinded by police(some scenes are allegedly filmed in the jail he was held in), where he intentionally left out any references to the revolution. The soviet 1937 one shifts focus entirely to Gavroche versus the Monarchy.
But then we also have censorship. 1935 Hayes code les misérables which is scrubbed so clean of anything so unseemly as a single mother or an unjust system it loses all meaning, or the 1951 one which has the same problem and instead becomes about entrepreneurship, prospering in capitalism and the American Dream. The spanish ’71 version made Javert nicer and a Good Cop (I suspect) not to stir trouble with the fash regime at the time. I mean hell, I’d argue BBC les mis is as copagandic as a modern Les Misérables gets, with One Bad Cop who has so many cool cops trying to stop him idk:/ — and it’s the one gay person, and a black man. All of this to say, Les Misérables is some of the most revealing media to adapt, because of its length and themes it has near universal appeal, and it tends to reveal a lot about the context they were made and persons behind it. Is the state unjust, or a friend? Is the Catholic church always good? Do you think Javert is one sole bad actor? Is Fantine a single mother? Is she a sex worker?
Hugo said stories as this one must be told, but what is it about, really? Is Les Misérables about redemption, revoltion, the infinite, Christianity— or economic growth?
520 notes
·
View notes
Text
Good morning good morning.
This is like, my third attempt at writing this because Tumblr keeps fucking me over lol. Happy Friday the 13th.
When the drama in late-June happened I mostly ignored it, choosing instead to focus excitement on the prequel and what it would mean by having Robbie Thompson there and just having new content added to this SCU [SPN cinematic universe lol].
However it’s a month and a half later and this New York Times article got me a little miffed. It reads as an attempt to save face, a hollow attempt at PR redemption, and, as usual with PR, gaslighting and tone-deafness up the ass.
Going to start with this paragraph first:
This is why I’m so annoyed and frustrated. Either Jarpad is the most tactless and clueless guy when it comes to his own words and statements, in which Jesus Christ why are you having him do press by himself — OR he’s the smartest guy out there which would also make him the biggest asshole.
[should state now for the record I don’t hate this man, I’m just frustrated and exasperated at this point]
This bullshit “uwu it’s hard to convey tone over social media’ and ‘uwu i just wanted to let people know I wasn’t keeping secrets from them’ attempt to gloss over what happened is, in my opinion, such blatant gaslighting that I couldn’t believe I was actually reading that.
Let’s take a look at these two tweets [screenshots taken from here]:
That’s not someone who’s struggling for the right words, that’s someone who got angry and fired off tweets before his brain could catch up and tell him it wasn’t a good idea. And this time it’s not some Delta worker or a random person at a restaurant, it’s his former co-workers.
Like this tweet to Robbie especially is not someone who is concerned about tone. If anything, he’s thinking exactly about tone because he’s choosing specific words and even hashtagging them:
And yeah sure he deleted that Robbie tweet but we remembered it, and we also remembered how there wasn’t any public apology for it.
Speaking of apologies, his apologies after were PR-based and stupid, first telling us not to attack anyone, so basically standing by his words, and then the real PR apology that felt really manufactured.
Another thing that irritates me is that if he read the damn article he would have seen it was a script commitment. According to him, Jensen told him the next morning that nothing had even been shot yet, when, duh it’s a script commitment. Jarpad should know what those are — he’s the EP for his own fucking show.
Gutted, coward, etc etc — that’s not someone who’s thinking about how to keep things civil — and indeed — if he was trying to do that he would have messaged these people privately before taking to twitter. This was a cry baby hissy fit, nothing less.
Moving on from that fun trip to Gaslight Land —
This part of the article also pissed me off:
Like — does he listen to himself or anything? That’s what you made. You are a white male in a law enforcement position on this show. Sure there are more family elements to it but it’s still a cop show. It’s not a procedural cop show but a cop show nonetheless.
And I dislike the origin story he keeps peddling in these PR interviews about the show. Seeing an article in 2018 of a border guard who questioned himself after seeing children in prison does not lead to a cop show reboot from a pop culture classic. Where’s the connection, other than “cop guy feels bad”.
It’s just such a tone-deaf thing to say, really, that you weren’t interested in making a tall, white, straight law enforcement character kicking minorities in the face. I haven’t watched it in detail, so IDK if he does ever roundhouse a person of color in the face, but you still made a show about a white man who’s a Texas Ranger. A group, I may add, that’s had some controversial history (like all of law enforcement really but still).
You could have actually done something with a border crossing guard having a crisis of faith. Maybe make the guard a third-generation Mexican immigrant, or really the son or daughter of any immigrant from Central/South America who’s wrestling with identity or something. Something other than a stale reboot of a pop culture show from back in the day that has nothing to do with the origin story you keep repeating in all these interviews.
I’m not going to go into every line about the article, those two bits just really stood out to me the most.
#wank bl#sorry i just hated reading that and just how it's just a continued hollow PR run for the season finale#i usually don't care about PR articles but this one really irked e#*me#i'm probably missing pooints but i'm not really that awake right now akwjeflakwjef#ETA the first paragraph i was talking about
52 notes
·
View notes
Note
19, 22 and 23? :^)
19. What is the one thing you hate most about your fandom?
Tbh there are a lot of things I hate, although by this point it's only very certain parts of the fandom that have these problems, since most of the shitty people have lost interest by this point. If I had to choose just one thing though, it'd be the overwhelming focus on white, male characters over female and/or characters of color. And there are a lot of areas where this shows up. One major example is that a lot of people like the idea of Connor, Hank, Gavin, and Nines (all white, male characters, mind you) staying at the DPD even after:
The DPD was the one (along with Cyberlife) responsible for the deaths, arrests, and brutal treatment of androids, the main oppressed group in the game's world
Connor and Nines are a part of that oppressed group, and at least Hank is shown in game to support them
Connor has already worked at the DPD and was routinely called an "it" (which as someone who is nonbinary and has been called "it" knows how insulting that can be and understands the need to get away from situations where that happens), was allowed to be sent to his death by, and was routinely harassed and nearly murdered, or in some playthroughs actually murdered, by workers at the DPD (*ahem Gavin ahem*)
Hank (if he is your friend) risked his career just to cause a distraction for Connor to keep him alive
Just because the android revolution was successful doesn't mean the DPD was going to follow that. I mean, the androids were heavily compared to African Americans in this game, and we all know how the current police system treats them (and if you don't, pay attention to the news, like, ever. Also read Jim Crow as that book is very informative on the oppression of blacks in the entire incarceration system as well as before and after that)
So I hope it would be pretty obvious to any sane person that suggesting these characters would join/remain in the DPD after everything is offensive on all sorts of levels.
In addition to that, you also have some people saying that they only cared about Connor's story, or that his was the only good one. The female protagonist that risks her own life several times to save that of a child (no matter if she is human or android)? Not important. The (half) black protagonist who is shot by police, has to rebuild himself, and leads his own people to freedom? Who cares? The only important story to these people is the white, male, cop android who spends most of his time hunting down the good guys. And if some people honestly prefer Connor's story because of their own reasons, that's fine. And yes, Kara and Markus's stories have lots of problems. But Connor's does too, and none of this gives people an excuse to ignore the other characters, especially since they are the minority characters. Then, there are also the people who say Connor's machine path was better than his deviant path, or that him being replaced by Nines in the end was unfair. And... what the fuck??? I mean, I get it, it's fun to play through different options, and Connor is hella badass in the machine path. But he is also hella badass in the deviant path (killing the guards in the elevator, possibly the team at the bottom if he doesn't catch the security camera, fighting Sixty, walking in front of all the androids he freed, like, come on), and he also, like, has morals and isn't oppressive??? In the machine route, he kills his own people, including those who just want to be free and might have been completely pacifist the entire way through. So I'm sorry, anyone who thinks his machine path is better is just looking for an excuse to be oppressive without openly admitting it.
Then there's the Gavin apologizers. While fanon Gavin is awesome, some people have way overstepped the line of redemption and allowing oppression. I've seen posts defending Gavin's in-game behavior, just because he refers to androids as "he" on occasion. This is despite:
Suggesting "roughing up," or being violent to Shaolin (the HK400 in "The Interrogation")
Insulting his partner, Chris, when he doesn't forcibly move Shaolin against Shaolin's will
Pointing a gun at Connor after Connor rightfully says to stop touching Shaolin for both succeeding the mission and for Shaolin's sake, and only stepping down after Hank points a gun at him and even after insults Connor
Punching Connor right in the thirium pump regulator and then pushing his head right where his LED is in the break room if Connor refuses to get him a coffee
Insulting and threatening Connor in the same scene even if Connor follows all of his demands
Insulting Hank's alcoholism in the Eden Club "it's starting to stink of booze in here"
Purposely pushing Connor to the side in the same scene
Trying to literally murder Connor and admitting he'd wanted to kill him ever since he first saw Connor, sometimes successfully
Both physically and verbally assaulting Connor
I forgive very easily and strongly believe in redemption, don't get me wrong. But trying to excuse Gavin's behaviors is so inexcusable, especially when most of his aggressions are towards androids, the oppressed minority.
Now, let's look at Ao3, shall we? Let's see how many fics posted there are with each of the "main" (including Gavin and Nines since even though they are not main characters in canon they are in fanon) characters... (also, keep in mind, I gathered this data about a month ago so it might not be completely up to date):
Connor: 16,150
Markus: 5,395
Kara: 1,504
Hank: 13,135
Nines: 9,807
Gavin: 9,939
Amanda: 1,177
Chloe: 1,521
North: 3,056
Simon: 3,192
Josh: 1,965
Alice: 1,098
Luther: 848
Rose: 193
This means that certain characters get unequal amounts of attention:
White: 59,042
Black: 9,578
Male: 60,431
Female: 8,549
White, Male: 52,223
White, Female: 7,179
Black, Male: 8,208
Black, Female: 1,370
Well, this says a lot. Now, some people reading this might realize that there are more white and male characters to begin with, so it could be fair even with their numbers being higher. So, okay, let's see the average amount of works a single character in each of the above categories would have (so divide each of the values by the number of characters in that category) (also I rounded to the tenth place aka first decimal point):
White: 6,560.2
Black: 1,915.6
Male: 7,553.9
Female: 1,424.8
White, Male: 10,444.6
White, Female: 1,794.8
Black, Male: 2,736
Black, Female: 685
If anything, these are even more telling. And if you don't believe me, look on Ao3 and calculate these yourself, because you'll get the same thing.
To be clear, I don't have anything against Connor, Hank, or any of the white and/or male characters. I even like the way that the fandom has redeemed Gavin. But the fandom has not done the same job of redeeming other characters, especially the minority ones, and pays way less attention to them, and that needs to be called out with evidence by someone.
Anyway, I spent a LONG time on that first question, so I'll try to make the next answers shorter!
22. Popular character you hate?
There aren't any popular characters that I thoroughly hate. The only characters I hate are ones that are already highly unpopular (Todd, Zlatko, Perkins). If we're talking canon characters, I do hate Gavin with a flaming passion. I mean, he is meant to represent police brutality. But fanon Gavin is cool with me, so I'm not sure exactly how much this counts.
There is one semi-popular character that I dislike though, and that is Kamski. I'm half-counting him again because within the fandom there are very mixed opinions. I personally dislike him mainly because of his treatment of one of his Chloe's: he is willing to let her get shot in the head and killed just to find a dumb answer to his Kamski test just because he feels like it. If Connor doesn't shoot Chloe, he tells Connor he's deviant, knowing full well that Amanda and Cyberlife are watching being the one to design the program, endangering Connor. While he arguably is responsible for deviancy and wants androids to succeed, that doesn't make up for those facts.
Another character that half-counts is Daniel. There are mixed opinions within the fandom on him as well, with some arguing that he is only wanting to not get replaced and protect himself. However, since his first response was to kill the dad, and then he proceeded to shoot at least 3 more cops, killing 2, and hold Emma, the young girl he had been friends with for years hostage, even though she had nothing to do with his replacement. You can't argue that he didn't want to kill Emma and only used her as protection for himself, either, as there are multiple endings where he tries and sometimes succeeds in killing Emma, even when he is also killing himself. I'm not closed to a redemption arc for him, but his in-game actions are inexcusable. He's the one deviant who truly has no valid defense for his actions.
23. Unpopular character you love?
There are a few. I absolutely adore North, Josh, Adam, and Alice, even though the fandom has conflicted opinions on them. Then again, none of these characters are really considered unpopular, just not as popular as others with a select few that don't like them. With North, I've been in this fandom since a few months after its release, when there was a lot of North hatred, and was actually in a group called the North Protection Squad lol. However, now most people like her, and she's really grown in popularity. With Josh, it's less that he's hated, and more that he's ignored. People say that Simon was the peaceful option when he was really the neutral, and recently I've seen more people against Josh's opinions on the revolution. While I don't always agree with Josh being so passive and undemanding (neither do I agree with North's violence), he's still an awesome character with some very valid points. Then, I do understand why some people dislike Adam, as at first he's against androids and almost reveals Kara and the others. However, if you meet him at the border crossing, he apologizes to Kara and changes his mind, promising to help androids. While he may start out scared and not on the right side, he does have a good heart and ends up making the right decisions in the end. With Alice, I haven't seen many people hate her, either, although I have seen some saying she's annoying and lacks a personality. I agree that she lacks a personality, although I argue that's the writers' faults rather than her character's (as are problems with other characters, I mean David Cage wrote this so what were we expecting). I also don't think she's annoying, as after all she is only 9 (in human terms), doesn't admit she's an android because she's scared Kara will reject her (and Kara actually can reject her for being an android, leaving her completely on her own in a world that wants her dead. Also, living her whole life with Todd can absolutely not help her feel more secure with who she is or make her trust Kara to still love her for it), and she is only cold and feels sick because her model of android is literally designed to replicate human sickness and discomfort (and it's clear she doesn't know how to turn them off, because even after Kara knows she's an android Kara still has to help Alice not feel cold anymore. Also, this is November in Detroit, in which the average temperature is 42°F (5.6°C). There are also scenes where it is snowing, meaning the temperature is below freezing. Still, despite the temperatures, in some scenes not having a coat, and feeling sick, she says Kara and Luther can't stop because of her, risks her life to save Kara's if you fail QTEs, and says she's "fine" even when she's cold to comfort Kara. So if you think she can be annoying, yeah, all 9-year-olds can be. But if you think she's annoying enough to actually hate her, idek what to say).
In terms of characters that are really unpopular, I actually like Leo. His actions at first are inexcusable. I mean, accusing Carl of loving an android more than hin, insulting Markus and treating him as less than human, threatening him, breaking into Carl's house and attempting to steal his paintings for drug money, and framing Markus for Carl's death leading to him getting shot and nearly killed are obviously not okay things to do. However, he is clearly on drugs, specifically red ice, the most dangerous drug in the world. Also, if you decide to push Markus leading Carl to still be alive, when you return to Carl's house, you can find a message Leo sent to Carl in which he apologizes for everything and promises it won't happen again. In the extras section, you also find out Carl missed out on Leo's whole childhood, only first meeting him once he was much older. Given that Carl spends all of his days pleasantly conversing with Markus while ignoring Leo, not calling him, only talking to Leo once he comes around himself, and doesn't even argue when Leo says Carl doesn't love him, it's almost fair that Leo thinks the way he does. Since he's also high on drugs throughout the story, at least up until Markus gets shot, we also know that the Leo we see isn't the real Leo. Later, if Carl is dead and Markus visits his grave, he encounters Leo again. This time, when Leo sees Markus he is only shocked. Now, off of red ice, not only is he going to see Carl's grave, expressing love for his father, he also doesn't try to hurt Markus, insult him, or anything mean or dehumanizing. His expression lacks any signs of aggression. It was only when he was high that he was such an asshole. Although that doesn't excuse his behavior, it does give a reason for it, and by the end I consider him redeemed.
~~~
Wow... that was a long response to a very short ask. No need to read all that (although I would highly suggest reading my first answer, at least, since that does contain some very relevant points). Although then again, if you've made it here, you've probably already read all that. In which case I would love to hear your opinions if you're willing to share (as well as anyone who sees this!) I guess I just had a lot of opinions that I needed to put out in the world lol, so thank you sm for the ask!!!!! 💛💛💛
36 notes
·
View notes
Text
Okay, it’s time for some deep nerdery to speculate about Overwatch 2
Overwatch 2 has 30+ characters. That’s one hell of a large ensemble. If Blizzard had any brain cells, they would probably try and take a similar approach to how Marvel handled their large cast in Avengers: Infinity War.
Remember Infinity War? It functioned as a movie by keeping its groups of characters small (at most five people per group) but also by choosing ‘main characters’ that it focused most of its emotional energy on (most notably, Ironman, Dr. Strange, Vision, Thor, Thanos, and Gamora). The main characters were the ones with emotional arcs and therefore had the most screentime. The rest of the cast was quite static. Also, characters in different groups rarely, if ever got to interact with any characters outside of their group, with the rare exception of a quip or two.
My suspicion is that Overwatch 2 is going to do a VERY similar thing. This means that the roster of Overwatch heroes are going to be divided up into groups and assigned either main character or side character status.
So who’s going to be in each group? That I can’t tell you. As Marvel has shown, characters are grouped up not based on character compatibility, or even arc potential, but instead on what would best make the plot go forward. (For example, raise your hand if you predicted that Ironman, Spiderman, and Dr. Strange would team up with Starlord, Mantis, and Drax for the climax. No one? That’s what I thought.)
What I can predict, however, is whether each Overwatch hero is going to be given main character status or not. My predictions are going to be based on lore importance and current emotional arcs that have been set up the Overwatch continuity. Unfortunately, fan favoritism or previous screen time is not a good indicator (again, as shown in Infinity War.: raise your hand if you predicted that Captain F*cking America would have less than fifteen minutes screentime?) and therefore will not be counted in my evaluation.
NOTE: It is assumed that the plot of Overwatch 2 will be the plot that was introduced in the Zero Hour short, along with the gameplay trailer.
I’ll go tank/damage/support, alphabetically through each section.
D.va- Oh, poor D.va. Unfortunately, I think she’s just going to be a side character. Being so unconnected with the rest of the cast is a death sentence for plot importance. The only way I can see her being a major player is in an indirect way- if Blizzard decides to focus on the “Omnic From the Sea” they teased at in the short Shooting Star.
Orisa- Orisa is not so cleanly cut. Given that she was created to defeat Doomfist, she has potential to be the one who takes him down. They’re narrative and thematic rivals (an analysis of which could be a whole other post) which made me finally decide that she’ll be main character status. I know that seems like a cop-out, but given how Doomfist is the main face of villainy, her connection with him makes her important.
Reinhardt- I’m going to be massacred for this, but I don’t see any universe where Reinhardt is a main character. His character is static, his connection with old Overwatch is the most flimsy out of the oldies, and most of his backstory has already been explored. He’s going to be a side character, relegated to a mentor to Brigitte.
Roadhog- Nope. Side character. He and Junkrat fall into the same boat. Not being a part of Overwatch and having no connections to any characters in Overwatch makes more than passing screentime impossible.
Sigma- OUR BOY SIGMA is going to get no screentime, calling it right now. He’s going to be firmly relegated to side character status. Why? Although he might be a serious fan favorite, his lore and the conflict it introduces (the cosmic horror of the universe) doesn’t really apply to the rest of Overwatch. We know he’s affiliated with Talon, but more like a weapon than a character. He’s got serious redemption potential, but the arc would be very. . . simple. As soon as he gets to Overwatch the arc would be over.
Winston- MAIN CHARACTER. Our mans is currently the driving force behind the majority of the plot (that isn’t whatever Talon’s doing). He’s the one who recalled Overwatch. Enough said. If he doesn’t get an arc about learning how to be a leader, I am going to be shocked.
Wrecking Ball- lol side character. Given how Blizzard hasn’t made any attempt to treat him more than a walking gimmick, he’s going to be such a side character that he might blend into the background.
Zarya- This is another character that makes me hesitate. At first glance, she’s in the same boat as D.va in that she has no personal connections with the lore or the main cast. HOWVER, she’s directly involved in the conflict of Overwatch 2 because she is currently fighting Omnics in Russia AND has been trying to track down Talon on her own for a while now. Plus, she also has a very juicy potential character arc: she’s racist towards Omnics. Her comic touched on the fact that she has the potential to outgrow her prejudice. This leads me to believe that Zarya is going to be one of the main characters, if a more minor one than the rest.
---
Ashe- Side character. Her connection to McCree ensures that she’ll get some juicy interactions, but not enough to be considered a main character. More than likely she’ll be contacted to help out with the plot conflict, but she’s not going to have any sort of arc or emotional connection with other characters beyond snarky one-liners.
Bastion- . . . I hate this, but I don’t trust Blizzard to give Bastion the relevance they deserve as a character. Don’t get me wrong, I think Bastion will be important to the plot of stopping the rogue Omnics, but I think Bastion themselves will be treated as a McGuffin. They’re mute and prone to acting naively, which is not conducive to character agency. I’m going treat McGuffin as a third category to my predictions.
Doomfist- literally the Thanos of this conflict. He’s going to be a main character, but I doubt he’ll get any character development, because that’s what Reaper is for.
Echo- Main character. It’s pretty much guaranteed by the fact that McCree sought her out in his animated short and that she was once the payload of Route 66. The Overwatch narrative also treats her as the “sPeCiAl OmNiC” that’s somehow more advanced/better/more sentient than the rest of the Omnic cast. As much as I think the role that they’re going to give her would be better suited for Bastion or Zenyatta, I just know that Blizzard is going to give her the full main character treatment. She’s going to be the magical bridge between Omnics and humans. Count me mad about it.
Genji- I love our ninja boy, and he’s an honorary mascot of the game, but as far as arcs go he just finished his. He’s finally found inner peace. That’s not a good sign for main-character-ism. However, he has tons and tons of connections to the rest of the cast and the lore. . . but I don’t think it’s enough. I think he’s going to end up as the character that other characters are able to bounce off of. Everybody knows him, so they’ll be talking to him a lot, but he isn’t going to drive the plot with his own struggles. He’s a side character. His brother, however. . .
Hanzo- As one of the two people in the Overwatch roster actively undergoing a serious life crisis, I suspect that Hanzo is going to be a main character. The fact that he and his goals are not connected to Talon or Overwatch is a detractor, but his emotional turmoil as established in the short Dragons is too important too ignore. His decisions, however reckless and hot-headed they will be, will significantly impact the plot. Why? Because his potential for redemption is such juicy story bait. Also, he could bring in an entire other faction, the Shimada Clan, into the plot, and that could be a game-changer.
Junkrat- Side character. The same reasoning for Roadhog applies here. He’s not connected in any way to the cast. The only potential mystery about him is the ‘treasure’ that’s been alluded to over and over again. If he has this story bait, why am I calling him a side character? Unfortunately, it’s because his ‘treasure’, whatever it is, is going to be a McGuffin. Junkrat’s going to be lucky if he avoids the same status.
McCree- A side character, but an important one. This decision was a difficult one. He’s got the lore and the connections to the other characters but not the internal character arc. He was an active player in unleashing Echo, but it’s also hinted at that he isn’t going to join the recalled Overwatch, instead striking out to do his own thing. That’s not conducive to being a major player in the story. However, his connections and conversations with other characters might, in the same way I’ve predicted Genji’s might, motivate other characters to drive the plot forward.
Mei- Side character. Nothing much else to say. Her focus on climate science isn’t going to be super relevant to the Omnic plot. She’s got only a very loose connection with other characters in the form of her Overwatch membership.
Pharah- I hate this, I hate this, I hate this, but she’s going to be a side character, calling it right now. She’s got so much potential because of her relationship with her mom, but that’s about it. Ana is her only connection to the rest of the cast. It’s important that they reconcile, but their reconciliation has nothing to do with any other plot point. It’s isolated. That’s not a good sign for her screen time, especially considering that she’s not looking for Ana and Ana is not looking for her.
Reaper- MAIN CHARACTER. You should have seen this coming. As the primary instigator of the plot (aka the reason Winston recalled Overwatch,) it should be meta-textually obvious why he’s going to have a lot of screentime. He’s directly responsible for a significant chunk of the unresolved lore conflict within old Overwatch. In order to resolve it, we’re going to be seeing him, a lot.
Soldier 76- Main character, for exactly the reasons listed above. As Reaper’s foil and the person who’s hunting him down, Soldier is going to be pretty important in concluding that unresolved conflict. It’s destiny. Like in a murder-soulmates kinda way.
Sombra- Tricky, tricky, tricky. . . it’s difficult to say. It all depends, I think, on the amount of emphasis Blizzard places on her conspiracy. If she’s the only character who knows exactly what’s going on, that could set her up to be very plot relevant. However, her relationship with other characters and to the rest of the Overwatch lore is shaky at best. I’m going to leave this one blank. There’s just too much we don’t know.
Symmetra- Here we have the other person in the Overwatch roster that is actively undergoing a serious life crisis that I alluded to. Symmetra might at first seem unrelated to everything- the lore, the characters, etc, but Blizzard has set up a surefire redemption arc for her that needs to be resolved. She is going to realize that Vishkar and Talon are connected, and she is going to make the decision to either go full villain (unlikely) or to turn over all the information she knows to Overwatch. Either way, she’s going to get involved, and she’s going to grow as a character. Main character material.
Torbjorn- Torbjorn, oh Torbjorn. Here’s a case that makes me upset. For all intents and purposes, he should be a main character. He’s the one who helped develop the Omnics, and he’s got an active character arc where he’s trying to undo the damage Omnics have caused. This ties him pretty damn directly to what we know of the plot of Overwatch 2. However, Blizzard lately has refused to treat him with respect, reducing him to a joke character because of his height and accent. Not only that, but they diminished his importance in the lore with the invention of Mina Liao and Echo. I could write and entire post about how the Mina Liao/Echo introduction was made to replace Torbjorn and Bastion’s importance in the potential plot, but all of three people would read it.
Tracer- As the literal face of Overwatch it’s pretty damn obvious that she’s going to be a main character. If you need a reminder, look at the London Calling comics and then the cover art for your copy of Overwatch.
Widowmaker- Widowmaker has literally zero character agency and only very very very loose connections with the lore/characters. HOWEVER, she does have the potential to be redeemed by death (I could make a whole other post on this) but it’s not enough to bring her into major character territory. Side character.
---
Ana- Side character. Given that she’s avoiding her potential emotional arc by avoiding Pharah and the rest of recalled Overwatch, she’s flat out of luck for main-character-ism. She’s going to be very important to Soldier 76 and Reaper but she won’t be the one instigating any plot points. Unfortunate.
Baptiste- Another tally for the side characters. The fact that it took him a year to even get voice interactions with the rest of the cast reflects this. His arc of leaving Talon is already done, the idea of Mauga being added to the game is history by now, and he has few connections with the current cast and plot. Big F, my dude.
Brigitte- With both her dad and her mentor being important former Overwatch members, it makes sense that she should be a main character, right? Right? Unfortunately, I think she falls into the same pitfalls as Reinhardt. Her backstory is already mostly explored and her dad is better at any plot-relevant mechanics that might be needed. She’ll help her dad, no doubt, but she’s a side character.
Lucio- I really want Lucio to be a main, really, I do, but he’s a side character. He suffers the same exact problem that D.va does. He has very little to involve him with the rest of the main caste. He’ll join Overwatch, sure, but I think it’ll be more of a decorative declaration than anything. His connection with Symmetra is his only saving grace, but even that just relegates him as a side character in her emotional arc.
Mercy- I think she’s going to be a side character, because all of her current content has her separated from everyone else and unsure about going back to recalled Overwatch. I don’t see the narrative following her inner emotional turmoil about this decision very much. She also doesn’t add anything to the potential plot.
Moira- Okay, Moira is tricky, so hear me out: her lore importance is off the CHARTS, and she’s a lot like Doomfist in the aspect that she is quite clearly villainous. She brainwashed Widowmaker. She turned Reaper into what he is today (physically, mind you,) and she probably has something to do with manipulating Sigma. But is being a villain enough? She’s not the one directly orchestrating Talon’s plan, like Doomfist is. And she’s not so directly connected to the fall of Overwatch like Reaper is. I hesitate to call her a main. Narratively, she’s going to get her comeuppance, but. . . (I’m going to leave this one blank.)
Zenyatta- The only true wild card on this list. Sure, I’ve left Sombra and Moira blank, but Zenny boy? He’s literally got nothing. There’s nothing to base predictions off of. No lore to speak of. We know that he mentored Genji. We know that he knew Mondatta. We know that he defends Omnics’ rights to exist. However, I doubt Blizzard has the nuance to tackle his perspective on the impending Omnic war in Overwatch 2. He could be a seriously major player if he was treated with the respect that his character deserves, though! He could potentially have an active role in trying to figure out what’s making the Omnic uprising occur and stopping it in its tracks! There is so much potential there! It’s all in Blizzard’s hands. It’s all about how Blizzard chooses to finally flesh out his character. . . IF they flesh out his character at all.
---
Total tally out of 32
Main characters: 11
Side characters: 17
Undecided: 3
McGuffin: 1 (poor Bastion)
And that’s the results! It’s important to note that I am far from infallible and that these are just my opinions/speculations on the future. Please please please argue with me in the tags/reblogs. That would make my day.
#Overwatch 2#overwatch 2 speculation#overwatch#oh boy here comes to the tags#overwatch reaper#soldier 76#hanzo#overwatch hanzo#mccree#overwatch mccree#overwatch sigma#overwatch orisa#overwatch zarya#overwatch moira#overwatch torbjorn#overwatch bastion#zenyatta#symmetra#just realized I can't tag everyone#hopefully I got the major ones
74 notes
·
View notes
Note
If you're still doing character breakdowns- Wilbur and/or Ghostbur? :)
How I feel about this character
c!Wilbur is my og favorite. The drug van stream was the first one I watched on the SMP, from Sapnap’s perspective, and was also my first introduction to Wilbur as a cc - needless to say, he won my heart IMMEDIATELY.
So. Wilbur is one of the most tragically misremembered characters in the entire cast. It’s honestly kind of a beautiful genius how skewed the narrative about him has become, considering how his story was entwined with a certain musical; he is literally now the “villain in their history.”
But early Wilbur wasn’t Burr - he was the Washington to Tommy’s Hamilton, the calming presence in a sea of uncertainty, and the voice of change in a status quo that didn’t favor him and his people.
Wilbur’s early values centered around Peace. While his first endeavors were an attempt at creating a drug empire, the speed at which things changed when Sapnap and Tubbo played cops and threatened him and Tommy was blinding - the character he played switched from a semi-corrupt drug dealer to a noble-minded leader in barely an hour, but progression was clear - the catalyst for change, for L’manberg, was a desire to make things fair for himself, and for Tommy.
He wasn’t a flawless leader even back then, not by any standards, but his men followed him because they believed in him, and they believed in what they were all creating together.
And the idea that they, a group of underdogs, could possibly challenge the ruling powers of the time? That they could challenge tyrants?
That was what Wilbur fostered. That was one of the founding principles of L’manberg.
All the people I ship romantically with this character
Sally the Salmon. Next question.
My non-romantic OTP for this character
I think that Wilbur and Eret’s relationship is criminally underrated. It’s hard to remember now, but pre-betrayal? Eret and Wilbur were friends. Eret was someone who Wilbur trusted to be responsible when he couldn’t trust the same the other, more immature members of L’manberg.
And listen, for the people who started watching later down the line, I’m sure that Eret is someone you probably know as being defined by his title as ‘traitor,’ but I cannot convey just how unbelievable it was at the time. Literally no one, NO ONE suspected Eret, it took everyone by surprise, cc and audience alike. Eret was L’manberg’s rock, one of it’s workhorses along with Tubbo, it’s cool, chilled out emotional support, one of it’s founders!
And Eret’s betrayal hit no one harder than it did Wilbur. The blame for allowing it to happen, the inability to fully trust another person with his burdens?
I truly believe that the betrayal dealt an early blow to the foundations of Wilbur’s mental health that he never truly recovered from, and which would ultimately be the flaw in the structure that caused everything to come falling down around him when the weight of the elections and exile was placed on him.
If Wilbur’s ability to trust had remained intact, I don’t think the Pogtopia arc would have played out in the dark way that it did. The clearest example of this is the button room, and Wilbur’s last(ish) words, echoing Eret’s: “It was never meant to be.”
(and none of this is fully on Eret’s shoulders, either. cc!Eret described their character as “one of the earliest victims of Dream’s manipulations” and beyond that, c!Wilbur is still ultimately the one responsible for his own actions, regardless of how he was hurt. But I do think that the way that Eret’s betrayal fractured Wilbur is an under appreciated moment for the both of them, as it is the core of Wilbur’s final arc and it fuels Eret’s desire for redemption, as they want to make up for the way that they damaged things.)
My unpopular opinion about this character
Ghostbur was a weak character up until his involvement in Doomsday.
There, I said it! I’m sorry!!!!
...This opinion comes mostly from my own wish at the time for Alivebur/Deadbur/whatever to, like, face up to his mistakes and failings, and how Ghostbur just was not there to do that. He was fundamentally not a continuation of the character I was invested in, and even as an individual character on his own I think that a lot of his additions to the story weren’t played out as strongly as they could’ve been.
I think a good portion of this is for meta reasons, as cc!Wilbur just wasn’t active on the SMP as much at that point, and had said as much was going to happen, I just personally wish he had done things differently/only gotten on the server to chill with people non-canonically.
And then that aaaaaaaall changed in the aftermath of Doomsday, my abhorred. Ghostbur is one of the highlights of that event, he pulls some of the most disparate narrative conflicts back together to create something coherent and utilizes his role as a very minor character to drastic advantage by displaying the cost of the “ends justify the means” mentality that was a “focal point” of the conflict, focal being used loosely here because the narrative was so all over the place that it’s difficult to pick out singular parts to focus on.
Since then Ghostbur has been a more platable character for me, as it gave him what I as a viewer personally consider necessary to fully enjoy and be drawn in by a character: a character motivation. Ghostbur wanted to be resurrected.
He’s fallen off again in terms of activety, and that goal has changed a little, but ultimately the character revelations that Doomsday gave us still make him a “good character” to me.
^^^The criticism here is all on a very subjective level, and I hope it goes without saying that it is truly just my opinion... my, unpopular opinion.
One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon.
I will be real, I am such a fan of the Eldritch Wilbur theory/interpretation/whatever. Essentially, the idea that Wilbur will be revived and become a worldwide, existential threat due to having stewed in the vast emptiness of the afterlife.
Now, my initial reaction was very skeptical, as I am very interested in a Wilbur who comes back and regrets what he’s done, rebukes his own “villain arc” so to speak.
However, I am also enamored with the idea that the Afterlife changes you. That the time you spend there can warp you into a facsimile of yourself - if you stare into the void long enough, it will stare back.
I also think that there is a thematic draw to the idea of facing Wilbur as an antagonist again, especially for the OG L’manbergians. He is, in a lot of ways, their greatest failure.
I think what that means is different to each of them; To Tommy, he failed to save Wilbur from himself, to prove to him that it really wasn’t too late to take it back; To Tubbo, he failed to be Wilbur, to be president, to fit those shoes and make him proud. To Fundy, he failed to get what he wanted from his relationship with Wilbur, to find a time where the affection and love was going both ways; To Eret, well, It’s obvious.
So if Wilbur is coming back as an antagonist, I want those four to be the ones to fight him. I want them to prove him wrong. I want them to be better than him. I want them to reach out. I want them to tell him what he always needed to hear, and I need it to be true: “It was always meant to be.”
I want them to prove to Wilbur wrong, that he is right for this server; I need them to succeed this time, and save him.
9 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
twistlickdunk--blog-blog
TwistLickDunk-
chadmeyer
Untitled
riotsiren-blog
The Shipping News
weirdnessinclass
Don't steal my cookies!
charizmaticgukgak
I caved and made a sideblog