There’s no canon dottolone content can I bear you with the responsibility of writing their law?
I think I'm underqualified for this, but I will take this responsibility-
The sad truth of the matter is that there will likely be very little canon content, seeing the path Genshin is on. I could write a whole essay on why it's highly improbable that we'll ever get the content we desire, but I'll try my hand at writing the law.
From here's three fundamental laws to writing these two:
1. They hate each other's guts. If Dottore had to choose between scooping out his own organs with a spoon and being stuck in a room with Pantalone for more than five minutes, the spoon is about to get some serious use. They would rather bite out each other's tongues than mash face, the thought alone is mortifying.
2. Banter. They annoy the living shit out of each other, and it can be equated to two kindergartners fighting over one of them calling the other names. They have to literally be pulled apart before one of them ends up strangling the other in meetings. It might be a clone, but Dottore is still Dottore, and Pantalone has a vague murderous urge whenever he's in the vicinity.
3. They're absolutely obsessed with each other. Not necessarily in the romantic or even friendly way, in the I want you to choke and die and think about it every day way. It develops in other ways in the future, but these two hate each other's guts, and will go to a near extreme degree to irritate each other. They will not stop ranting about how much the other annoys them, and the other Harbingers are convinced that they're married at this point.
This might be a toxic relationship, but it's a sick bastard falling for another sick bastard. There are no expectations here.
As for other mini-laws I've given myself:
-Pantalone is absolutely crazy for Dottore's eyes. They might be red and considered absolutely terrifying for those that behold them, but Pantalone loses his mind over them. So cruel, but so beautiful. He kisses Dottore's eyelids even, to show how much he adores them.
-Dottore claims hates Pantalone's voice, but actually somewhat likes it. Sure, it sounds pretentious as hell, but when Pantalone gets into his droning, it's actually somewhat pleasant. Though he'll never admit that, he's too proud.
-Any physical encounters between these two always end with their faces inches away from mashing. I don't make the rules. Makes the tension go 📈📈📈📈📈.
-Pantalone has to either criticize or attempt to fix Dottore's horrendous fashion. He can't be seen with such an unruly mess of straps and buckles, now can he? So they must go-
-Violence is always the answer with these two. That's the only thing they'll ever agree on.
Honestly, these two are menaces to society and mashing them together is the worst possible thing you can do. And that's why I do it. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
79 notes
·
View notes
So I accidentally almost got into an argument on Twitter, and now I'm thinking about bad historical costuming tropes. Specifically, Action Hero Leather Pants.
See, I was light-heartedly pointing out the inaccuracies of the costumes in Black Sails, and someone came out of the woodwork to defend the show. The misunderstanding was that they thought I was dismissing the show just for its costumes, which I wasn't - I was simply pointing out that it can't entirely care about material history (meaning specifically physical objects/culture) if it treats its clothes like that.
But this person was slightly offended on behalf of their show - especially, quote, "And from a fan of OFMD, no less!" Which got me thinking - it's true! I can abide a lot more historical costuming inaccuracy from Our Flag than I can Black Sails or Vikings. And I don't think it's just because one has my blorbos in it. But really, when it comes down to it...
What is the difference between this and this?
Here's the thing. Leather pants in period dramas isn't new. You've got your Vikings, Tudors, Outlander, Pirates of the Caribbean, Once Upon a Time, Will, The Musketeers, even Shakespeare in Love - they love to shove people in leather and call it a day. But where does this come from?
Obviously we have the modern connotations. Modern leather clothes developed in a few subcultures: cowboys drew on Native American clothing. (Allegedly. This is a little beyond my purview, I haven't seen any solid evidence, and it sounds like the kind of fact that people repeat a lot but is based on an assumption. I wouldn't know, though.) Leather was used in some WWI and II uniforms.
But the big boom came in the mid-C20th in motorcycle, punk/goth, and gay subcultures, all intertwined with each other and the above. Motorcyclists wear leather as practical protective gear, and it gets picked up by rock and punk artists as a symbol of counterculture, and transferred to movie designs. It gets wrapped up in gay and kink communities, with even more countercultural and taboo meanings. By the late C20th, leather has entered mainstream fashion, but it still carries those references to goths, punks, BDSM, and motorbike gangs, to James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Mick Jagger. This is whence we get our Spikes and Dave Listers in 1980s/90s media, bad boys and working-class punks.
And some of the above "historical" design choices clearly build on these meanings. William Shakespeare is dressed in a black leather doublet to evoke the swaggering bad boy artist heartthrob, probably down on his luck. So is Kit Marlowe.
But the associations get a little fuzzier after that. Hook, with his eyeliner and jewellery, sure. King Henry, yeah, I see it. It's hideously ahistorical, but sure. But what about Jamie and Will and Ragnar, in their browns and shabby, battle-ready chic? Well, here we get the other strain of Bad Period Drama Leather.
See, designers like to point to history, but it's just not true. Leather armour, especially in the western/European world, is very, very rare, and not just because it decays faster than metal. (Yes, even in ancient Greece/Rome, despite many articles claiming that as the start of the leather armour trend!) It simply wasn't used a lot, because it's frankly useless at defending the body compared to metal. Leather was used as a backing for some splint armour pieces, and for belts, sheathes, and buckles, but it simply wasn't worn like the costumes above. It's heavy, uncomfortable, and hard to repair - it's simply not practical for a garment when you have perfectly comfortable, insulating, and widely available linen, wool, and cotton!
As far as I can see, the real influence on leather in period dramas is fantasy. Fantasy media has proliferated the idea of leather armour as the lightweight choice for rangers, elves, and rogues, a natural, quiet, flexible material, less flashy or restrictive than metal. And it is cheaper for a costume department to make, and easier for an actor to wear on set. It's in Dungeons and Dragons and Lord of the Rings, King Arthur, Runescape, and World of Warcraft.
And I think this is how we get to characters like Ragnar and Vane. This idea of leather as practical gear and light armour, it's fantasy, but it has this lineage, behind which sits cowboy chaps and bomber/flight jackets. It's usually brown compared to the punk bad boy's black, less shiny, and more often piecemeal or decorated. In fact, there's a great distinction between the two Period Leather Modes within the same piece of media: Robin Hood (2006)! Compare the brooding, fascist-coded villain Guy of Gisborne with the shabby, bow-wielding, forest-dwelling Robin:
So, back to the original question: What's the difference between Charles Vane in Black Sails, and Edward Teach in Our Flag Means Death?
Simply put, it's intention. There is nothing intentional about Vane's leather in Black Sails. It's not the only leather in the show, and it only says what all shabby period leather says, relying on the same tropes as fantasy armour: he's a bad boy and a fighter in workaday leather, poor, flexible, and practical. None of these connotations are based in reality or history, and they've been done countless times before. It's boring design, neither historically accurate nor particularly creative, but much the same as all the other shabby chic fighters on our screens. He has a broad lineage in Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean and such, but that's it.
In Our Flag, however, the lineage is much, much more intentional. Ed is a direct homage to Mad Max, the costuming in which is both practical (Max is an ex-cop and road warrior), and draws on punk and kink designs to evoke a counterculture gone mad to the point of social breakdown, exploiting the thrill of the taboo to frighten and titillate the audience.
In particular, Ed is styled after Max in the second movie, having lost his family, been badly injured, and watched the world turn into an apocalypse. He's a broken man, withdrawn, violent, and deliberately cutting himself off from others to avoid getting hurt again. The plot of Mad Max 2 is him learning to open up and help others, making himself vulnerable to more loss, but more human in the process.
This ties directly into the themes of Our Flag - it's a deliberate intertext. Ed's emotional journey is also one from isolation and pain to vulnerability, community, and love. Mad Max (intentionally and unintentionally) explores themes of masculinity, violence, and power, while Max has become simplified in the popular imagination as a stoic, badass action hero rather than the more complex character he is, struggling with loss and humanity. Similarly, Our Flag explores masculinity, both textually (Stede is trying to build a less abusive pirate culture) and metatextually (the show champions complex, banal, and tender masculinities, especially when we're used to only seeing pirates in either gritty action movies or childish comedies).
Our Flag also draws on the specific countercultures of motorcycles, rockers, and gay/BDSM culture in its design and themes. Naturally, in such a queer show, one can't help but make the connection between leather pirates and leather daddies, and the design certainly nods at this, with its vests and studs. I always think about this guy, with his flat cap so reminiscient of gay leather fashions.
More overtly, though, Blackbeard and his crew are styled as both violent gangsters and countercultural rockstars. They rove the seas like a bikie gang, free and violent, and are seen as icons, bad boys and celebrities. Other pirates revere Blackbeard and wish they could be on his crew, while civilians are awed by his reputation, desperate for juicy, gory details.
This isn't all of why I like the costuming in Our Flag Means Death (especially season 1). Stede's outfits are by no means accurate, but they're a lot more accurate than most pirate media, and they're bright and colourful, with accurate and delightful silks, lace, velvets, and brocades, and lovely, puffy skirts on his jackets. Many of the Revenge crew wear recognisable sailor's trousers, and practical but bright, varied gear that easily conveys personality and flair. There is a surprising dedication to little details, like changing Ed's trousers to fall-fronts for a historical feel, Izzy's puffy sleeves, the handmade fringe on Lucius's red jacket, or the increasing absurdity of navy uniform cuffs between Nigel and Chauncey.
A really big one is the fact that they don't shy away from historical footwear! In almost every example above, we see the period drama's obsession with putting men in skinny jeans and bucket-top boots, but not only does Stede wear his little red-heeled shoes with stockings, but most of his crew, and the ordinary people of Barbados, wear low boots or pumps, and even rough, masculine characters like Pete wear knee breeches and bright colours. It's inaccurate, but at least it's a new kind of inaccuracy, that builds much more on actual historical fashions, and eschews the shortcuts of other, grittier period dramas in favour of colour and personality.
But also. At least it fucking says something with its leather.
1K notes
·
View notes
Thinking abt post-BW2 Ghetsis again...the conclusion to his story is so unique to me because he isn't banished or killed, nor does he find any kind of redemption. He just disappears completely having lost everything and the one person he could have ever cared about. I wonder how he feels about Colress, and how Colress feels about him too.
I find them both such interesting characters because they don't seem like the sort of people who would ever care about finding love or making friends for the sake of it. They refer to their relationship as an agreement several times in the manga and in the games - implying that if either of them were to find their goals diverging they'd just split off. But that isn't what happens at all. Colress loses to the protagonist and allows them to confront Ghetsis. And when they arrive, he's outraged. And throughout both BW and BW2 Ghetsis refers to his goals as strictly his, usually putting emphasis on it to show how selfish his ambitions are. But in that confrontation he says "our ultimate mission." Ghetsis is a selfish man, but the fact he wanted to share his ultimate goal with Colress shows just how close they were.
Colress definitely doesn't hate him, either. He says it, but the way he talks about Ghetsis in USUM shows pretty clearly that he still cares about him, even when faced with the worst possible version of his friend. But Colress hasn't spoken to his Ghetsis since his defeat.
Will he remain a husk of his former self forever? What happened to his Pokémon? Will Colress ever speak to him again, or will they always have this rift between them? There's something so tragic about both of them - they're terrible people who have done terrible things, but they were happy together at one point. While they were pursuing their goals, they were happy, and they understood each other in a way that went far, far beyond just an alliance out of convenience. They had something, but neither of them realised just what it was until it was too late.
But if Colress ever found him and spoke to him, or he ever went back out into the world, I wonder what kind of life he'd lead, and what sort of man he'd be.
50 notes
·
View notes