Who up eating souls rn

Xeno flags used: x x x x x

Hey all! So recently Wish was added to Disney+, and I thought it might be a good opportunity for me to watch it again for the first time since I saw it in theaters. I asked you all what I should write about after watching it, and in the end, the top answers were an analysis of the criticism surrounding Wish and something focusing more on the positive aspects of the movie, rather than just the usual mindless bashing.

So that's what I intend to write! A look back at some of the common criticisms I've heard about the film, and how much weight they actually have.

Now, before we begin, I should put in a disclaimer -- I don't particularly like Wish as a film. I think it had ridiculous amounts of potential that were likely hampered by corporate decisions, but I personally find it to be one of Disney's weaker animated films. That being said, as promised, I will make any critiques I do include as balanced as I can, and I will try to include praise where I can too.

So let's start!

"Asha is a badly written character because she has no character arc."

This is a critique I actually found on a list also discussing valid criticism of Wish, and I knew I had to include it, because even BEFORE I rewatched the movie, I thought it was a bit unfair. Because here's the thing: there are plenty of good films, Disney or otherwise, where the main character doesn't have/need a character arc. All of Walt's original three princesses, Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora, don't have character arcs. Ariel doesn't have an arc either -- instead her father Triton is the one who goes through a change of heart. Neither does Pongo, or Basil of Baker Street, or Robin Hood. Indiana Jones doesn't go through any real character development in Raiders of the Lost Ark, yet he was interesting enough to inspire a whole movie series! with mixed results. The important part is that even if a main character doesn't develop personality-wise, we should still be able to root for them and want them to achieve their goal. We don't want Cinderella to be abused by her stepfamily -- we want her to find someone who loves her and will take care of her the way she takes care of others. Although it can be more interesting to give your characters an arc while they pursue their goals, it isn't necessary to tell a good story or write a compelling character. Sometimes a story can be more focused on how their life circumstances or environment changes around them.

Another criticism this leads into is the idea that Asha is just another "quirky female lead" a la Rapunzel, except without any background that justifies it. And well...plenty of people griped that Anna was too much like Rapunzel, when Frozen came out. I saw people compare Moana to both Rapunzel and Mulan, when her film came out. Mirabel was also compared to past Disney heroines like Anna and Rapunzel. Even before Wish came out, people tried to argue that Asha looked just like Isabela Madrigal, which was just ridiculous. There's plenty of bad-faith criticism out there that'll shallowly associate one character or story element with one trope exclusively without looking at any nuance or detail. And I think most people would agree that truthfully, none of these female characters are the least bit "the same," no matter how much someone might try to all boil them down to "the quirky Disney female lead." And, like the others, Asha has traits that set her apart. The big one for me is her bent toward social justice, which is something we haven't really seen in a Disney leading lady since Esmeralda in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Even so, I admit that Asha's quirkiness isn't as justified by her backstory as the trait is by Rapunzel's isolation or Mirabel's "outcast" status in her family, and that does make it so that her characterization has less depth than those of some of her counterparts'. Does that make Asha a bad character? Of course not. If you like Asha as written, that's totally fine. Underdeveloped doesn't have to mean unlikable.

"There are too many characters in this movie!"

Even I've been a bit guilty of thinking this. I still feel as though the film would've saved a lot of space if some aspects of Asha's friend group had been redistributed to other characters. Like okay, you want to reference the Seven Dwarfs in Asha's inner circle, but give them all distinctive personalities? Have her mother fill the Bashful role, and cut Bazeema. Have her grandpa be Happy, and cut Hal. Have Valentino be your Grumpy role, and cut Gabo. Have Star play your Dopey, and cut Dario. Suddenly you only have three characters -- Simon, Safi, and Dahlia -- to introduce in that kitchen scene instead of seven, and you've also now given Asha's mum, grandpa, and sidekicks more personality as well!

That being said, the amount of characters truly isn't the problem. The real problem is time. Because let's be honest, we can ALL think of media with a large cast of characters we've become strongly emotionally invested in. The Lord of the Rings -- The Avengers -- Hazbin Hotel...but the difference is how much time the audience is given to get to know all of these characters. Even Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which has a cast of eleven, ends up leaving the Prince and the Huntsman rather underdeveloped compared to the Dwarfs. We don't ever learn the Evil Queen's whole deal or even her name, and she gets a lot of focus! With Wish only being ten minutes longer than Snow White with a cast of fourteen, it's little wonder the filmmakers struggled to have all fourteen of them leave a strong, unique impact. Even when I first watched the film, I didn't feel anything negative toward Asha's friend group -- if anything, I was happy to see a Disney animated female lead with a friend group of her peers, since the closest we'd gotten to that previously was Hiro in Big Hero 6 and Mei in Pixar's Turning Red. All of Asha's friends had the potential to be very interesting people, and that's why it's sad that we didn't get to see more of them and have the chance to become invested in them as individuals.

"Magnifico was actually right the whole time! Asha is the REAL villain of the story."

I see this one a lot, both from people who disliked the movie and fans who stan Magnifico, and as much as I won't give anyone a hard time for liking Magnifico, I think this view isn't really fair to either character or to the story the filmmakers pretty clearly wanted to tell. And sadly, as much as I want to be positive, I think this interpretation comes about partly because of inconsistent writing on the filmmakers' parts.

In Welcome to Rosas, there is this utopic vision presented of the island -- one that only reinforces the story told to us at the beginning by Asha, of how this man who loves wishes learned powerful magic so he could found this idyllic island kingdom with his wife where he could make wishes come true. Unfortunately, for some viewers, I think that propaganda works a little too well -- making us see Rosas as a place that truly is that happy and content and peaceful. And yeah, that does make it so that when Asha sings about how she wants "more than this," that could make her come across as rather selfish and entitled. But I think there are a few things that are good to remember --

Welcome to Rosas is framed as an advertisement of sorts -- like one of those commercials you see promoting Disneyland and how magical it is, without ever bringing up how much money it costs or how many lines you'll have to stand in. Asha's guiding some new people around with the goal of convincing them to stay and give their wishes to Magnifico, so of course it's going to sanitize the kingdom and make it seem like a place you'd want to stay in. There's blatant hyperbole thrown in there for dramatic effect, like the idea that you could go to outer space. Asha even sings that you're "unlikely to be unhappy": not that you'll be happy living on this island, just not unhappy. And yes, there is a difference between contentment and true, fulfilling happiness.

Simon's friends flat-out call him boring, after he turned eighteen and gave up his wish. This foreshadows what we learn about the wishes later, which is that they're a core part of a person that they're left a shadow of themselves without. At the wish ceremony later on, we can see this in the animation of the two "new citizens" giving their wishes to Magnifico. When they think of their wishes, they're full to the brim with joy, but when they've given them up, they're left looking confused and almost bereft, and even as everyone else cheers, they look unconvinced by the crowd's cult-like "forget without regret" chant. According to Wish's own canon, you're cutting out the "heart" of who you are, when you give up your wish.

Considering Amaya says that Asha will need to keep the tea hot, listen whenever and for however long Magnifico wants to talk, and never question anything, Magnifico didn't want an apprentice -- that would insinuate he'd actually be teaching them magic. If anything, it sounds more like he wanted a personal servant to cater to his whims. And when that person interviewing before Asha disappoints him, he's left running down the hall crying hysterically. This develops Magnifico as the film's future antagonist. Already long before he uses the evil magic book, we see that he wants a subordinate to do whatever he wants without question or complaint, seemingly for nothing in return except his own approval and, I would presume, some sort of paycheck. (I mean, I'm not saying Asha was right to expect favors from Magnifico so soon, or that that kind of quid-pro-quo stuff isn't corrupt as heck, but considering she and Magnifico did seem to connect over how important the wishes were, and considering Sabino's 100 years old, can you blame Asha for opening up about her hope that Magnifico would consider granting her grandfather's wish? She never framed it as a quid-pro-quo, and this probably would be the best chance she'd have to appeal to the King directly.)

Asha is seventeen! Of course her world view is going to be smaller and more idealistic than Magnifico's, and of course her family is going to be the center of her world. At the same time, even if Asha is young, it doesn't mean her perspective isn't worthy of compassion and respect. Sometimes the young do have a more meaningful view of a situation than their elders -- just look at David Hogg, or Malala Yousafzai, or Greta Thunberg...hell, even Anne Frank! However upset Magnifico was about Asha disagreeing with and contradicting him, it does not justify how pettily he decided to shut her down. He was an adult, and a ruler besides: it behooved him to act like one.

The filmmakers clearly envisioned Magnifico as the villain. Even if you want to ignore the promos where they compared Magnifico to the likes of classic Disney villains, Magnifico is portrayed as an arrogant, vain, vindictive control freak. He thinks only he knows what's best for everyone else, has decreed that only he has the authority to cast magic or grant wishes, and knows how beautiful people's wishes are, but prefers to hoard them away like trinkets, long before realizing that crushing them gives him power. (Not to mention he looked at Asha's hand-drawn animation and actually said, "Do we call that a talent?" I mean -- excuse you!) I've even heard some people theorize that Magnifico was based off Disney's "collect-'em-all" CEO himself, Bob Iger, and not in a flattering way. His main argument scene with Asha has been compared to how creatives have felt about their corporate bosses abruptly shutting down and locking away their incomplete films rather than let them be finished or released. Admittedly Wish also goes out of its way to try to make Magnifico sympathetic by giving him the slightest of tragic backstories, having him actually trust Asha enough to show her the wishes after only just meeting her, and (later on) not giving into the temptation of the random evil magic book because Amaya asks him not to, and that definitely muddies the waters. I still have to stand by the fact, though, that one's motivation doesn't excuse their bad behavior, however much one can explain the other. Magnifico having a sad backstory or trauma doesn't mean he's justified in treating people poorly, collecting wishes for his own enjoyment instead of truly loving them and the people they're attached to by sharing them with others, or not wanting people to ever question him or his authority. Magnifico's "nicer" moments don't mitigate these things either. Nor does his role as king. Even if yes, the story could've done well to add more nuance to the idea of wishes and make clear that not all of them are good -- and yes, the story could've either made Magnifico's villainy a bit more straightforward or followed through with the idea of Magnifico being a misguided anti-villain...in this film, we only see good wishes represented in Rosas. Magnifico even calls the wishes "the very best part [of a person]" -- and so one can only presume that all of the wishes Magnifico's collected are that way. Asha even suggests (before Magnifico interrupts her) that if a wish is dangerous, they could probably address that, while still giving back the wishes Magnifico won't grant. And the wish that Magnifico explicitly calls too "dangerous" to grant is Sabino wanting to inspire future generations, presumably through music. Paranoia on Magnifico's part? Perhaps, but also unjustified, in the context of the film. When Star comes down, every last person in Rosas -- including Magnifico's wife and queen, Amaya, who presumably must know something of his trauma and understand wanting to protect their people -- feels nothing but warmth, hope, and joy: all except for Magnifico, who immediately reacts in fear just seeing the wishes moving outside of his control. This insinuates that Magnifico's perception is the odd one out -- he's the only one who's afraid and not inspired, because that alternative magic threatens his absolute rule and control. Just like he's threatened by his people asking too many questions about the wishes he's taken. Just like he's threatened by the idea that Sabino could inspire the next generation in a way he doesn't approve of. And in the end, if that random evil book did corrupt Magnifico, it only magnified what was already there inside of him -- a greedy, obsessive need to hoard things away all for himself and to control others.

Again, for those people who see Magnifico more sympathetically than the filmmakers intended, I can understand why. Wish has two very conflicting ideas of who Magnifico is supposed to be, likely because it was compiled from dramatically different script drafts. But I feel demonizing Asha or ignoring the film's overall message about the value of people being free to chase their dreams to try to prop Magnifico up is misguided.

"Wish is bad because it's 'woke.'"

I almost wonder if I even need to say anything. This sentiment is so disingenuous, it seems like I should really be able to let it speak for itself. Ironically enough, though, I would actually argue that one of Wish's biggest shortcomings is that it isn't as revolutionary as it clearly wants to be.

For one, the culture of Rosas -- inspired largely by Spain and the Mediterranean -- is really never explored. We get no real influence of either of those cultures on the soundtrack aside from a few mandolins and a flourish of castanets now and again, unlike how Encanto embraces Colombia or how The Princess and the Frog celebrates New Orleans with their music. There's a lot of diversity in Wish's cast with a biracial lead and her colorful friend group (including Dahlia, who has a crutch!), but that would be a lot more meaningful if that diverse cast of characters had had fully fleshed-out personalities and relationships that made us emotionally invested in them, such as how Turning Red handled Mei and her friend group. We have aspects of social justice in Wish's storyline, sure -- but as much as you can draw parallels to Wish's story and the writers' strike that had been going on earlier that year and I think those parallels are striking, a film that clearly dealt with so much corporate oversight and meddling almost couldn't commit to making their villain a True Evil sort, and in the end, Rosas doesn't even do away with the absolute monarchy at the end of their supposed "revolution": it just shifts leadership from its King to its Queen. (And yes, I acknowledge saying "no more royalty" is a message that Disney, of all companies, would be hesitant to put out there, but you can't deny, it would've been both ballsy and different.)

Does this mean Bob Iger was right, that Wish is proof its creative types are focusing too much on message and not on entertainment? No. I'd say the bigger problems with the film were more likely caused by corporate interference -- you know, like hiring some popular pop composers to write songs that can be repackaged into other projects easily rather than primarily tell the story and develop the characters. Or deciding that our main female lead has to be able to do everything on her own without "too much help" from her main co-star (LOL, pun) because "feminism." Or defanging the villain with similarities to the company's CEO so he won't scare the kiddos. Or even animating the film at the exact same time as you're writing it like you previously did with Frozen II, to save time and take advantage of the 100th anniversary timing.

Even so, I sadly can't help but feel that Wish is "woke" largely in a performative sense. It features people who look different from each other and it talks about revolution and positive change, but it really doesn't go far enough to depict diversity in a way that people can get really excited about it or inspire deep thought and even maybe positive change in its audience. That's not focusing too much on message and not on entertainment -- if anything, it's more indicative of not giving the relevant and timely themes and the diverse culture enough focus.

"The meta Disney references are awful."

This one I think really is much more subject to personal taste. I've heard quite a few fans say how fun it is to find all the Easter eggs for other Disney projects or even to theorize how Wish could be connected to those movies in some kind of Disney Cinematic Universe. Personally I'm not in this camp, but that doesn't mean that I hate all the references included. The film opening with the exact same kind of text from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs actually made me smile. The Sleeping Beauty-esque drawing style in the storybook was pretty. Even the Seven Friends as an idea I thought was cute, when I first saw the concept art for them.

By and large, the references I tend to see more favorably are the ones only hard-core Disney/animation fans would pick up on. This might make me sound snooty, but I still personally enjoy references like Star's design being based on one of the star cherubs from a discarded Snow White sequence far more than I do the more blatant ones like Magnifico crushing a dream about a "perfect nanny" or the boy dressed like Rosasbound!Peter Pan. I guess for me, the first kind of references feel more like homages, rather than things that are deliberately supposed to make you think of other Disney movies you could be watching instead of this one. For other people, though, thinking of different Disney films while watching Wish is fun, and it reminds them of how much they enjoy those other movies too. It's good, clean, nostalgic entertainment. And well, Disney has put plenty of Easter eggs in its work before, though usually a bit more sparingly.

So yeah, I think ragging on the flood of Disney Easter Eggs in Wish is a bit unfair. As much as most of them aren't for me and I would've been happier with a lot less of them, I know there are other people who find joy in them, and I'm happy they do. The animators working on this film undoubtedly had a lot of fun including those references too, and I don't blame them! It's fun to create art celebrating what you love with like-minded people.

"Wish's songs are all terribly written."

Now up to a certain point, I could just say exactly what I said against the last criticism -- that this really comes down to personal opinion. Unlike meta Easter eggs, however, music is an art form, and there is real craftsmanship to it -- hell, people study music theory for a reason. And as several Youtubers have discussed before, there are real structural problems to how a lot of these songs are written. In some cases, it's an issue of cadence, where the way the words are sung don't sound like how they'd be naturally spoken aloud. In Knowing What I Know Now, for instance, sometimes the singers use the wrong emphasis on certain words, just based on where they land in the song, such as when Asha sings about Magnifico showing his "TRUE col-ORS in SHADES of GREEN," even if people don't naturally emphasize the second syllable in the word "colors." In other cases, it's over-stuffing a line with words so that the melody line isn't as memorable, such as in This Wish where the amount of syllables per line are all over the place and sentences get cut in weird places --

Isn't truth supposed to set you free? (9) Well, why do I feel so weighed down by it? (10) If I could show them everything I've seen, (10) Open their eyes to all the lies, then (9) Would they change their minds like I did? (8) But when I speak, they tell me, "Sit down!" (9) But how can I when I've already started runnin'? (8) Oh, this is where we've been, (6) But it's not where we belong, (7) And I may be young, but I know I'm not wrong... (11)

There are also cases where the songs barely use any actual rhymes in favor of half-rhymes or worse twist themselves into pretzels just to make an actual rhyme, such as in I'm a Star, with lines such as "When it comes to the universe we're all shareholders // Get that through your system! (Solar!)" and "Ooh, I'm a star! // Watch out, world, here I are!" (Excuse me while I cringe.) And then of course, most infamously, there are the redundant and otherwise weird lyric choices, most commonly cited in Magnifico's And This is The Thanks I Get?!, such as "I got these genes from outer space!" and "I let you live here for free and I don't even charge you rent!"

By and large, people have not responded as well to Wish's soundtrack as they have for many other Disney musicals. It could also be argued that the songs don't tell the film's story as well as they could've. The most egregious example of this is At All Costs, which is supposed to be our villain and hero singing about the beauty of the wishes the first has collected, but was literally written as a love song first, just because Julia Michaels wanted to write a song that could be played at people's weddings even if the movie in question didn't feature any romance. Even This Wish was written well before the script was finished, and this is when we can tell from all the concept art released by Disney that this movie had been dramatically rewritten at multiple stages of development.

And yet even with this, I still see people making animatics for At All Costs featuring their own characters or Asha and the discarded Starboy concept. (And yes, we'll come back to that.) I still see fan-made music videos featuring This Wish. Hell, even I have some of Wish's songs on my IPhone, and I listen to them actively! Knowing What I Know Now, as much as I see what's technically wrong with it, is still a bop for me. However much I had to take a full-on sanity break after listening to I'm a Star a second time, I do enjoy This Wish and At All Costs, just on their own. I don't think This Wish (reprise) is a bad musical or thematic climax, especially if one considers Magnifico's fear that Sabino's wish was to inspire the next generation through music, and it ends up being a song -- sung by his loving granddaughter -- that ultimately defeats our antagonist. I don't think any of Wish's songs really help tell the story as well as other Disney songs do for their films, but I still think there's room for personal taste here. Music -- like all art -- still has an element of subjectivity. It isn't a science -- yes, there is talent and skill involved that can only be mastered with practice and hard work, but there's still a bit of magic that comes with the finished result, and as much as it might not be popular with the masses, that doesn't necessarily make something worthless, or that public consensus can't change. Tchaikovsky famously hated the work he did for The Nutcracker, as did the critics of his day, only for it to go on to become a staple of holiday entertainment and ballet productions overall. Plenty of cult classic films like Labyrinth and Heathers didn't make a lot of money or get lots of praise when they first came out, but soon enough they found their audience.

"The animation is lazy!"

There's actually a much better video discussing this, made by a real professional animator, and I think I'll just let him handle this.

One thing I want to touch on, though, is Jennifer Lee's commentary about why Wish ultimately wasn't done in 2D animation --

"What happens in hand-drawn is that you have the incredible hand of the artist, but also limitations in what you could do on screen. What happened in CG is you'd have incredible, boundless opportunities, visually, that elevated it — even to the point for some — into realism, which is not what we wanted to do. The more important thing to us was to have a way to find technology that can do everything. Connect to the true vision of the artist, but bring in technology that could finally take away limitations."

-- and yeah, I'm not going to lie, this sentiment leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. The idea that hand-drawn animation somehow limits what art you can create is mind-boggling for anyone working in animation to think, but especially for someone working in Disney animation. I can't help but feel like Uncle Walt would've been ticked if he'd heard anyone suggest this. Anyone who loves animation I think would be annoyed by it, and I'd say people like Hayao Miyazaki continue to prove that Lee's thought process isn't true, considering that his hand-drawn film won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature the same year that Lee's Wish was passed over by the Academy altogether. To be fair, though, this is more a reflection on certain Disney leaders' dismissive attitude toward the medium that built their company as well as the vast majority of the films they're supposedly celebrating, rather than any condemnation of the hard-working animators who worked on Wish. And yes, although no one can argue that Wish ultimately doesn't look as good as its animated peers like Sony's Spiderman: Across the Spiderverse (which was made with half the budget Wish was), that's more the fault of a flawed vision on the part of the filmmakers than anything. It's certainly not indicative of a lack of talent, resources, or caring from the animators themselves.

"Wish would've been so much better if it had featured a love story between Starboy and Asha!"

Okay, let me pop this bubble right now --

None of Disney's official releases have ever indicated Star was going to be Asha's love interest.

The concept art featuring Asha and human!Star? Yeah, that exists, but there's nothing strictly romantic in any of those concepts, like them kissing or even hugging. At All Costs originally supposedly being a love song for Asha and Star? As touched on above, nope, it was even more of a cynical corporate decision than that -- the songwriters just wanted to write a love song that they could repackage and use elsewhere, even if there was no love story to go with it. The thing about Asha and Star supposedly being soulmates? That's derived from a comment in the artbook from Wish co-writer Allison Moore, talking about Asha and Star in their current forms, and so therefore the sentiment was intended platonically --

"Now Star and Asha have an emotional journey. They are soulmates."

And well, just based on a good chunk of the Disney animated films that had come out prior to Wish featuring male and female leads -- Zootopia, Moana, Big Hero 6, Wreck-It-Ralph -- there was really nothing definitive to suggest that our two central characters were going to be romantically linked. And even if Star and Asha were going to be love interests, that still would've been no guarantee of a better movie -- you'd still need compelling, well-developed characters, if you want to likewise have a compelling, well-developed relationship between them. And as I've argued in the past, a movie doesn't need romance to be good. If someone could feel sincere platonic love between Star and Asha as their actual movie selves, then any romance between them wouldn't be needed. I truly believe the only reason that so many people have gotten so hung up on the idea of a Star/Asha romance is because that original platonic "soulmates" idea Allison Moore and others envisioned just didn't ring true for them. They saw more love and interesting chemistry between the original concept art versions of Star and Asha than they did between any of the characters in the finished film...and so they've built upon those flickers of love with their own imagination and then built that mental image up into something that I don't think the filmmakers probably ever intended.

I must be honest, it was kind of a slog, watching Wish for a second time. I stopped multiple times to take notes, unable to just sit back and let the movie wash over me. Even so, I truly appreciate how much time you must've spent to skim through this way-too-long analysis, as well as the votes you all cast in that one poll of mine! I love analyzing Disney, and as much as I don't love Wish, I do think it provided great fodder for new fan creations and has amazing potential as an educational tool about both good storytelling and film-making. And if there are more criticisms of Wish you'd like me to discuss, please feel free to reblog this post with them! Thank you for your support!

To close us out...if you love Wish, then keep on loving it! Don't let anyone -- including me -- tell you otherwise. I don't think a film that was truly the worst thing ever would've attracted as much attention or overanalyzing as Wish has received. And for those of you who are still dissatisfied with Wish, here's a list of films I compiled that you can watch and enjoy instead!

For Starboy/Asha stans...Stardust!

For both Starboy and Chris Pine stans...Rise of the Guardians!

For those of you who love the idea of storytelling magic...Whisper of the Heart!

For those of you hungry for a diversely cast, "woke" fairy tale...Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella (1997)!

For people looking for a colorful, family-friendly musical...Wonka!

For avant-garde animation fans...Guillermo Del Toro’s Pinocchio!

For modern CG animation fans...Puss in Boots: The Last Wish!

And finally, probably most obviously -- for those Disney fans looking for a loving tribute to 100 years of Disney Animation with a bunch of Easter Eggs and good humor...Once Upon a Studio!

Much love to you all! 💛

I just watched nearly all of tlovm in the span of two days and only stopped bc my parents made me. Anyway look at this guy I’m sure he hasn’t embarked on an all consuming journey for revenge

Reasons

comfort drink acquired going to disappear into my music and drawing pit for a hot minute brb

So when I said my renewed interest in Vampire the Masquerade was a “category 5 autism event” I fuckin meant that shit

Having thoughts about I have No Mouth And I Must Scream again, mainly the nature of the survivor's injuries and AM's illusions. Under a cut because long.

I'm not looking at this from the perspective of the game, I never really do since there was a lot of interference that made it less of a work by Harlan and more of a series of compromises with the game developers. To be honest the radio drama could be seen the same way, idk. But! in the story I'm sort of thinking about the injuries that the survivors receive, and how AM plays and does not play a part in them.

For the most part the part of the story where Ellen and Nimdok fall into the chasm during the earthquake stands out to me, since we never really get their perspective of what happens when they fall in.

We only see them carried out and dropped in front of the rest of the survivors later on, and then after Ted, Gorrister, and Benny move on, we see them come join them. Frankly I think the bodies that were taken out of the chasm by AM's systems were no different than the fake corpse of Gorrister. AM dropped those off to mess with the others. The real ones just found their way out of wherever they had fallen and caught up, though since we never get any sort of inclination that they were or were not burnt/mangled from their perspective, who knows. Mainly I'm thinking on how Ted is an unreliable narrator who is pretty fucking delusional and sort of how that plays into what they suffer.

The radiation burns Benny has could be either or. He's the most heavily altered one of the bunch (and the most accident prone if the part where he got his eyes jellied means anything), so it would not be surprising if AM burnt him for real if he went too close to an exposed highly radioactive element or if the burns were fake and made with holomorphy.

The broken leg Ellen suffered may have been a real injury- albeit accidental. That's why it did not just go away after the hurricane, "AM let her keep that" was more of a "AM cannot control every tiny detail of its actions all of the time, and it fucked up." If we were given a more reliable narrator, it could be foreshadowing or a hint to how it would not have been able to intervene in the ice caves. The wind came from its fans instead of being digitally created, so it was not something that could be as precisely controlled as the hurricane bird, or the different environments it conjured up.

But even then those seemed to be pretty simple and One Thing that made up the whole area.

I've already talked about the ice spears in a previous post, that those were likely real ice that had collected on the ceiling of that chamber and AM couldn't do anything about that.

Though I also have another idea about how everything AM makes relies heavily on its survivors filling in the blanks. Or more, their brains filling in incomplete or fragmented information with their memories. I don't know who everyone works, but for some if they focus enough on a certain sensation/smell/color/sound, they will experience it. Thinking hard enough on the smell of an orange will manifest as a citrus smell in the nose. The brain will sort of fill in the blanks in the dark if its too dark for the eyes to get a good grasp on what they're seeing, or just finding patterns/forms in things in general. Faces on cars, thinking a bunch of sticks in the distance is a creature because they're sitting a certain way, etc. Or how if someone is in an area long enough to have a mental map of it, their brain may sort of have a pseudo-image in mind of how it should look.

I'm thinking the survivors sort of have this going on with them regarding the places they roam. It may seem worse than it is, or what they see might look more real than it actually is from the brain sort of filling in the blanks for information, and because they're all not really functioning at optimal because of starvation (which does impact how people think).

Ted is a great example of this, regardless of whether his delusions come from AM or just how the trauma he's experienced from being in the complex for over a century has affected him.

my tavs and their romantic partners

"i haven't worked you like a dog yet, as promised"

@andrewmoocow Personally I find them to be misguided. There is a very well-done analysis video I've cited before that talks about the animation and why it ends up looking like AI, and I think it really addresses this argument better than I could --

-- but TL;DR, the animation looks "fake" largely because of stylistic decisions (l.e. turning off motion blur with the thought it would look "more like 2D") that weren't well thought-out. And I actually think the film's writing issues run into the same problem.

Because here's the thing -- writing high fantasy is not as easy as it looks. I can testify to this because I myself am writing a draft for a high fantasy novel right now.

All these years, Disney has been in an advantageous position with their animated films largely being adaptations of previous works, since they're already given a lot of the parameters a writer needs to build a world, plot, and characters. In a Snow White adaptation, for instance, you need a vain queen, an innocent princess, a prince, seven dwarfs, a magic mirror, and a poisoned apple, as well as a fairy tale world where these things fit comfortably. And since so much mainstream fantasy is largely inspired by medieval Europe, that aesthetic remains very familiar with audiences to the point that you need a lot less explanation for things. We don't really need an explanation for the political landscape of Cinderella because we see "fairy tale kingdom" and immediately know it's an absolute monarchy led by generally amiable rulers. We're not surprised when fairies appear in Sleeping Beauty, or when a magical sword predicts who should be king in The Sword in the Stone, or when Tiana and Naveen are turned into frogs in The Princess and the Frog, or when trolls appear in Frozen -- all of these magical conventions fit within the usual fantasy aesthetic and really don't need any explanation or backstory. I'd hazard to say that most people -- aside from those nitpicky critic types who get all hung up on how many servants are in Beast's castle just because they saw a bunch of extra silverware in the Be Our Guest sequence -- just don't bother questioning these things. And the original material also gives some shape and form to the adaptation's story, characters, and overall feel. It doesn't matter how close the finished product matches the original idea or even how familiar the audience is with that original material -- it still provides a jump-off point and sense of focus for the writer(s), the same way fanfiction (even an AU fanfic) can, in contrast to original content.

All right, well, what about those Disney projects that aren't fantasy? Well, in the case of stories like Treasure Planet, Robin Hood, and Mulan, they're still based off preexisting properties that people will find familiar enough that the writers can focus more on the adaptation's unique additions and not focus on detailed backstories and explanations about how the world and societies depicted in the story work. It's a lot easier to just focus on the fantastical elements like the space tech, talking animals, or Mushu and the ancestors if the rest of the story and cast are relatively easy to understand. Even in the case of original stories like The Lion King (which admittedly was largely inspired by Shakespeare's Hamlet, but I digress), Lilo and Stitch, and Lady and the Tramp, they still exist in a non-magical world that closely resembles ours, with only superficial changes like animals being able to talk or the existence of aliens. Even quasi-historical settings like The Great Mouse Detective and Atlantis: The Lost Empire look enough like our real-world equivalent that their settings are largely recognizable to us.

In just about all Disney animated films, the screenwriters didn't have to world-build that much. They didn't have to put the character development and plot on hold to explain the rules of the universe these stories take place in that often -- not unlike how writers like Rick Riordan didn't have to explain as much about the country his hero Percy Jackson lives in, because his books are an urban fantasy where our real world is just "plused up" with magical elements. We don't need to know if gravity works on the story's characters the way it does for us. We don't need to be told about the political landscape, history, or terrain of our location. We don't need to ask whether dying is something our characters can come back from.

Wish, on the other hand, is an original story in a high fantasy setting that doesn't resemble our world. People might try to claim it takes place in the Iberian Peninsula, but come on -- Rosas is a completely fictional country in a world that has magic we don't know the rules of and countries that faintly resemble cultures from our world, but we don't know the histories of or how similar they actually are to their real-world inspiration. We also have a cast of characters we've never met in any other media and a story and messages that we know nothing about beforehand. This means that we have no preexisting framework going in for what's possible and impossible in this world; no frame of reference about who these characters are and what their histories are; and no parameters that the plot, characters, and themes must fit inside, whether based on the fantastical story being adapted or a real-world setting that's a lot like ours. And I don't think that Disney really thought through just how challenging it can sometimes be to tell this kind of a story without stuffing the script with a lot of "tell" and not "show," which, as just about any film person can tell you, is the exact opposite of what you generally want. In film scripts, you want to show your audience a lot more than you tell them -- this not only takes full advantage of the visual medium and communicates your point in a much more natural and artistic way, but it also lets your audience think for itself and come to its own conclusions.

Now of course, can you write a high fantasy original story that's easy to follow and evokes a lot of emotion in your audience? Of course! But it does take time and a lot of careful and creative world-building. J.R.R. Tolkien was the king of such things. George R. R. Martin has done it. Neil Gaiman has done it. Ursula K. Le Guin has done it. Even the writer of the Nimona graphic novel, ND Stevenson, did a good job of it! But I think it's quite clear that Wish's script was not in the works that long -- development of the original idea started back in 2018, yes, but it wasn't until January 2022 that it was announced Jennifer Lee was writing it and Julia Michaels was brought on to write the songs, so the film's current trajectory likely wasn't pinpointed until then. And if the film was released in November 2023, then that means Wish's script was finished in under two years. Although there are successful Disney scripts that I daresay needed only that much time (Frozen, for instance, was quite rushed, by all accounts), once again, those scripts were done for stories with some sort of preexisting framework that allowed the writers to skip explaining certain visual or contextual short-hand in favor of focusing on their own creative flourishes in character and story. They were written with a tighter focus on the plot and its players without the need to build a complete stage under them.

The reason some people want to cry "AI!" when they look at Wish's writing is that they're looking at a script that makes the rookie writing mistake of exposition-dumping in an attempt to make its audience care, rather than evoking emotion. That kind of exposition-dumping is something that most novelists usually have to trim and rewrite in future drafts of their work: it's a mistake done while the writer is trying to world-build enough that their audience understands all of these original rules, societies, locations, and characters they're not familiar with. This exposition is then often trimmed down before publishing, and when adapted for the screen it's often trimmed even further or even completely rewritten, in favor of more visual methods of conveying the same information. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz writes about Dorothy traveling down the Yellow Brick Road and about the long journey that takes her and her friends through a lot of side adventures on their way to the Emerald City: it's the famous film adaptation that cuts out the Kalidahs and puts the whole trip to jaunty music for the characters to sing and dance to. Wish could've communicated to us the importance of the wishes to their owners through more visual means, but instead feels the need to reiterate this idea over and over through written dialogue. And again, this is a common mistake by writers when they're inexperienced in creating completely original content, as opposed to spin-offs, sequels, or adaptations of other people's work.

AI writing is generally known for repetitive phrasing and sentence structure, lack of accuracy, and lack of a personal touch. As much as I'll agree that there are a lot of character and world-building choices in Wish that don't make sense, I don't think that's the same thing. There clearly was a story someone (or multiple people) wanted to tell about a person hoarding the precious ideas of other people away, even if it means those ideas can never be shared with the world -- it just wasn't a story that ended up being told that well. And I think this is why Wish is almost worth seeing -- it serves as a good example of why certain writing decisions work better than others and how writing for fantasy projects and/or "family entertainment" is an art form that's worthy of respect when it's done right.

To sum up my stance on the matter -- I think Disney just bit off way more than it could chew and then didn't give its writers enough time to properly digest it.

ITS SERIZAWAS BDAY TODAY!! IM SO GRATEFUL FOR THIS MAN YALL!!

sns and the kids after celebrating all day long... having sweet lil dreams

valentines newsletter ???? ?? HELLO ???????? ?????? ? ????

aughg

cowboyfriends :)

Okay so this idea has been rocking around my empty skull for some time now just we know that Eddie can be a pretty mean DM and a shithead and I've been thinking abt romances in D&D and how it would work in Hellfire

And I had this thought that Eddie would like be "no romances!!" to the Corroded Coffin group (before the kids joined) and they're like why? and Eddie just to tease them says that he doesn't want to pretend to fall for their smelly ugly faces

Which just motivates them to try and seduce like every character that Eddie introduces for a fucking month and it leads to the creation of the rule: Every romance/seduction directed roll must be rolled above 15 to succeed AND if Eddie decides that the attempt is particularly bad the roll is with disadvantage

The Corroed Coffin boys are obviously teasingly like ohhh so we get an advantage if it's good?

"Doubt that would happen boys, but sure, if you make me, Eddie fucking Munson, to blush like a fair maiden then you'll get the advantage on the roll"

They try, they really do, but all the CC boys succeed in doing is killing off all of their party in three sessions and Gareth who is a little shit is actually rolling his third character (because the consequences of a failure are fucking brutal) by the time Jeff and [unnamed freak] give up

After that they know better (except Gareth who still sometimes does that just to annoy Eddie and be a little shit) to try and then the kids join Hellfire and Eddie has even less of an desire to flirt with fucking Wheeler, Henderson and Sinclair (they're baby children!!)

But the kids are a little shits too and they see Gareth being a little shit so they copy

It ends badly for them, they gripe about Eddie being unfair because like "all three of us have girlfriends Eddie and you don't so we clearly know more about romance then you do" Dustin not only gets a flick on the head for that but his character might have ended up being put into situations™ throughout the session that are "totally unfair!"

But fair to say all of Hellfire knows the rules and all of hellfire knows that no matter how well they try and how smooth they are (they really aren't ever smooth) Eddie will not blush or even consider they attempts as "good", the best they got was "tolerable" (Lucas got it and he's still very proud of it, as he deserves okay?), Eddie is impossible to fluster and so it's just is this fun thing they sometimes do when they feel particularly like little shits

And that's it about it

Until Vecna and all the upside down shit and the surprising friendship of Eddie and Steve happens

And suddenly Steve Harrington is not only sitting but playing D&D

Everything is going actually pretty good and Dustin practically vibrates out of his chair at how proud he is of Steve for how well he is doing so far and then

And then Steve tries to flirt with a pretty bard

Dustin deflates, he is ready for the absolute disaster that is going to fall upon Steve, he makes eye contact with Lucas - both of them ready with "it was actually a pretty good line tho!" at the tip of their tongues to defend Steve's decisions, he doesn't know Eddie's special rules after all and it would be funny to see Steve fail, sure, but it's Steve's first game and the kids wanted it to be good for Steve so convincing him to play again would be easier

But now Eddie is going to absolutely rip into him and Steve will never want to play again and-

"Roll with advantage" Dustin gasps, audibly, loudly, the room is silent, except for Steve who's very unaware of the chaos he just created and just rolls the dices, his usual confidence in place

And if someone looked closely - and all of the hellfire is fucking looking - Eddie Munson has indeed a light blush on his face