#paraphrasing but you get the gist | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

queerfandomtrifecta · 6 months

Text

How Izzy’s Death Could’ve Made Basic Storytelling Sense

Just to be clear, Izzy is my favorite and I wanted him to live more than anything. This isn’t about that, and that is NOT why I hated his death. Had it served the narrative in a way that made even the most basic storytelling sense, while I’d admittedly have been devastated in a different way (i.e. the character whose queerness was relegated to the subtext in s1 and as soon as it’s textual and his whole arc is that he’s killed, but that’s a whole separate post…), but at least there would’ve been a correctly crafted arc from a surface level narrative standpoint that ended in the death of my favorite character. But that’s not what this is about. It’s is about how the show could’ve actually made the death actually make sense and work effectively. (Also, if you want my unasked for thoughts on how most of the existing plot of s2 (minus 7-8) could’ve easily been adjusted to fix the narrative as a whole and keep Izzy alive, I wrote this)

But. For those in the fandom insisting that Izzy HAD to die, including DJenks who has said as such in interviews (for reasons I do not understand), from an objective developmental editor standpoint, this is what I think needed to change to make Izzy’s death serve the narrative, character arcs and dynamics, pacing, structure, and thematic elements correctly.

It’s about 2K words just so you know what you’re gonna get into. Spoilers under the cut.

Issue 1. Izzy’s relationship with the crew and how they truly became his family this season totally vanished during his death scene. The same crew who he protected from Ed during the later, worse parts of the Kraken phase. The crew who banded together to save his life by hiding him from/lying to Ed about it, and amputating his leg to save him. The crew he saved by crawling up those stairs during the storm, hobbling out into the rain with one leg and shooting Ed before he could shoot a cannon ball through the mast and kill them all. The crew who called him “our dick”. The crew that then banded together with Stede’s half of the crew to him the leg and the new unicorn (aka the figurehead of the ship). That crew didn’t cry a SINGLE tear when he died. What?? Fang sobbed most of episode one and really lost it when Izzy got shot. Where was that when he died?? Izzy’s last speech to Ricky had something along the lines of: piracy is about belonging/family. We are Good. (Forgive me, I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the gist). Izzy truly did find his family in the crew outside of Ed. That was absolutely fantastic, especially in the first four episodes and episode six. It VANISHED when he was dying and dead.

The fix: To make the death impactful, effective, or even to make it make sense on a very basic acting and writing level, the crew should’ve been utterly DEVASTATED. At least heartbreaking music and like 30 seconds of everyone breaking down and holding each other. At least some of them crying and holding each other in the background when he was dying. Come on.

Issue 2. Thematically speaking, is piracy Good or Bad? Again, Izzy tells Ricky that they (the pirates/his crew) are capital G Good. Yet Ed has spent a lot of time maintaining piracy is capital B Bad. He tells the urchins as such. Here’s some money that I never had, now you don’t have to be pirates. Don’t be pirates. He doesn’t want Stede to kill Ned Low in cold blood. Ed just doesn’t want to be a pirate. Even at the end AFTER Izzy dies telling Ed he’s with his family (implied that this is the crew) and they love Ed, Ed LEAVES THAT FAMILY AND LEAVES PIRACY IMMEDIATELY. We’re left with him and Stede watching the family Izzy swore was Good and loved Ed sail away because Ed thinks piracy is Bad. Which is it?? The death served nothing in convincing Ed he could be happy with his found family on the sea as Ed, not Blackbeard, so the dying words were pointless. The thematic elements are all over the place (for the whole season but that’s another post) and that needs changing to make the death scene make sense.

The fix: Izzy should’ve told him he sees he doesn’t want to pirate anymore, he’s glad he’s found love with Stede because Izzy isn’t going to make it, go run your fokkin’ inn, you twat (affectionate).

Issue 3. Izzy died of bad planning and bad luck. Why didn’t they take the gun from Ricky? Between Spanish Jackie, Izzy, and Jim, SOMEONE would’ve thought about it. If not those three, someone else would’ve, but come one. One if not all of those three would’ve known better. Yeah, Izzy happened to be standing in front of Ed and he got shot instead of him, but you’ve gotta be REALLY looking for that to even be aware it’s what happened. It wasn’t even on purpose unless Ed strategically placed himself behind Izzy (which I doubt was the intent). Izzy didn’t position himself protectively/take the bullet for anyone on purpose. It was just happenstance and you only notice it if you’re rewatching and hyper-analyzing everything (which a lot of us, me included, in the fandom do, but casual watchers don’t. It’s totally unclear as far as the surface level narrative goes) Any sort of “heroism” is not acknowledged, it’s barely even noticeable in the shot. If that was the intent, it HAD to be clearer and acknowledged by the characters so the audience would realize the stakes and repercussions of clear choices. As it is, I don’t think it was intentional. If Izzy HAS to die, it should truly have rounded out his arc in a way that CLEARLY changed the course of the scene, leaving him to protect people he’d put in danger at the end of s1. It didn’t. It just read as terrible planning to the point of it being out of character for more than one character, and bad luck.

The fix: Izzy should’ve saved someone. I personally don’t like the idea of it being Ed. I’s have rather he save Stede (Not really, but it’s better than Ed I guess) But really Izzy should’ve died saving the crew. The crew makes the most sense to me, narratively speaking. He’s their figurehead, he’s protected the Kraken Crew for months and they should’ve been fiercely loyal to him, he blames himself for what Ed did to them (more on this later) so it makes sense for him to fiercely protect his crew. His family. Who should’ve been devastated that it happened because Izzy is the one character of the main three who’s managed to earn that status this season.

Issue 4. The death did not serve to move the plot along. There are literally zero things that would’ve been different for the end of the episode, save Izzy being alive and on the Revenge in his rightful role he earned with his crew as the captain, if he’d have lived. Ed and Stede aren’t partnering with Zheng to go after the guy who killed him in the next season. Nope. They got the offer but nah. They’re running an Inn. Which Izzy would’ve supported based on literally everything we’ve seen from him in episodes 5-8. The crew who Izzy protected fiercely and who viewed him as their leader? Not one tear during his death or the the funeral. Happily sailing away to do presumably more Muppet Treasure Island hijinks. No character development happened. No plot development happened. The season could’ve ended literally the EXACT SAME WAY with Izzy alive aboard the Revenge!!! No stakes were changed at all. No one was impacted enough for it to seem like it was even going to be a plot obstacle next season. It just happened, Izzy’s toxic situationship who maimed him multiple times over the course of months to the point of his leg needing to be amputated was sad for one (1) scene, then we moved on and did not seem sad at all at the funeral. What.

The fix: The plot should’ve been driven by the death. Ed and Stede (but especially Ed), and DEFINITELY the crew should’ve been sailing off plotting to avenge the death and defend piracy against Ricky and the British, especially with Zheng who lost her whole fleet. Ricky and the British are clearly (or so I hope, nothing’s clear here anymore tbh) the primary antagonist for the theoretical third season. No one should be running an whim-based inn for fun or sailing off happily into the sunset after the death of the most major character aside from Ed and Stede, who beyond proved himself a major part of something every character (his family) should’ve cared about this season. If he HAD to die, that death should have furthered the plot. But instead, it seems everyone shrugged it off with tears exclusively from Ed.

Issue 5. Izzy got shot in the left side. The side in which canonically NO ONE DOES FROM BEING INJURED ON IN THE OFMD UNIVERSE.

The fix: Yeah I know this is just too nit-picky but it was also just SO sloppy. Like just shoot him on the other side if he has to die, because this was a very memorable plot point more than once in s1. Like, come on y’all.

Disclaimer: Issues/fixes 1-5 would all need to happen together to truly fix it and make the death serve the narrative correctly. Issue/fix 6 is a totally separate route, which I personally hate, but at least the narrative would’ve made sense this way.

Issue 6. The idea that Izzy had to die so that Ed could be free of Blackbeard makes no sense at this point in the story. Ed already threw away his leathers and gave away his treasure to symbolically get rid of Blackbeard, and Izzy very sweetly encouraged him to follow the feeling that throwing out the leathers gave him. Izzy told Stede that he and Ed were good for each other. They balance each other out. Izzy is on good terms with both of them and their relationship, so Izzy “having to die” so Ed could flourish as Ed genuinely makes no sense and came totally out of left field.

The fix for 6: This one stands alone and is my absolute least favorite option, but if it HAD to happen without the 1-5 fixes, here’s how it could’ve made sense. If THIS is truly the way it was going to end, Izzy needed to be continuously antagonistic or avoidant to at least Ed and actually be shown holding Ed back from happiness until that last second. He wasn’t. He was so much better. Izzy clearly does blame himself (that’s for a separate post because I have lots of thoughts there) but to be fair they were both abusive in that relationship, for years it seems. Although I think by the beginning of s2, the power dynamic has clearly flipped and it was Ed who was doing most of it and Izzy was exhausted and knowingly “reaping what he’d sewed” (I don’t Blame Izzy for his abuse but I think this was his mindset) so the crew wouldn’t get the brunt of it.

If he seriously HAD to die because the writers just had to have it that way, those are the changes I think would’ve made the narrative work/make sense, served all the character arcs and dynamics correctly, and actually driven the plot as fictional deaths are supposed to, compelling things into a third season. Seriously, this season finale was a mess of baffling choices the most series finale season finale I’ve ever seen.

Anyway. There’s my unsolicited two-cents. Now back to hoping Izzy’s in the gravy basket waiting to be sea witch necromancied back by seagull Buttons in season 3. I love this show and I hate hating what I hate hating about it because it’s my absolute favorite and I can’t stand it because it’s fantastic and the worst thing I’ve ever seen. (Also, Izzy should’ve lived).

#ofmd spoilers #izzy hands #ofmd #ofmd season 2 #ofmd season 2 spoilers #ofmd meta #izzy my beloved #izzy deserved better #we deserved better #eyyyy djenks if you need a dev editor for s3 just hmu #david jenkins #ed teach #stede fucking bonnet #stede bonnet

179 notes · View notes

boys-with-gunss · 2 months

Text

𝐙𝐄𝐑𝐎 𝐃𝐀𝐘 (𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟑) 𝐀𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐘𝐒𝐈𝐒

I never stop yapping about Zero Day, he here's literally all my thoughts on it right now so I can stfu for a couple days.

Table of Contents:

Film Summary

Andre Kriegman

- Character Overview

- Character Analysis

- Strengths & Weaknesses

- Conclusion/TLDR

Calvin Gabriel

- Character Overview

- Character Analysis

- Strengths & Weaknesses

- Conclusion/TLDR

Cal and Andre

- Similarities and Differences

-Who really is the "Leader"?

Film "Critique"

Overall Conclusion

Sorces

Zero Day full movie, making of, and screen test (free)

Also quick disclaimer, obviously I take direct information from the movie itself, but some of my information is paraphrasing of character wiki's (which are made by fans) so if any of it is inaccurate, just lmk and I'll correct it. Sources will be linked at the end

FILM OVERVIEW (spoilers)

Basically, Zero Day is a 2003 film centered around characters Cal Gabriel and Andre Kriegman, two teenagers who document their plans to commit a shooting at their high school via video tapes with the intent that after they're done, authorities/media will get a hold of them and send out their message. The entire film is supposed to be like "found footage" type stuff, the entire film is just these tapes they recorded, then at the very end, security camera footage of their school after the carry out their plan. That's essentially the gist of the film and basically all you need to know.

ANDRE KRIEGMAN

𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄: Andre Kriegman is Cal's best friend, born in Köln, Germany, his parents immigrated to the United States whilst he was still very long. He was on the track team, worked on the school paper occasionally, and was an active member of the science club at his school. He as brown hair and eyes, and average build, and has some mild acne. He's has a pessimistic sense of humor and overall world view. He's hard headed, selfish, methodical, and orderly with a short temper. He tends to take charge and likes things done the way he plans. He's intelligent for his age and uses that to his advantage

𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀: Andre is a natural "leader", he's very assertive and gets upset when things don't go his way, go off track, or when there's a risk it won't work out. We see this numerous times throughout the film, usually when Cal does something off plan (for example, the poem Cal presented about the shooting, Andre for very upset with him as it could risk them getting found out. Then the time when Cal wanted to write a letter to Chris after they stole from him, Andre objected multiple times because he didn't want ti being traced back to them before the shooting took place. Also we tend to see most of the plan being put together by Andre, like how he came up with the safety deposit idea, the idea of making a 'Will & Testament' type tape and leaving it in the car, breaking into Chris's, stealing his father's guns, etc, etc. You get the point. Rachel, Cal's " love interest" said hersslf that Andre seemed to be the leader of the Cal and Andre army of two and how she was more scared of him.)

Sources say Andre has an INTJ personality type (Introverted, INtuitive, Thinking, and Judging), his XwX is unknown. INTJs are usually focus on the big picture, are very logical, are very organized, and tend to be lead by reason rather than emotion. They're analytical, innovative, and strategic. We see examples of almost all of these things when viewing Andres character in the film, I'll just go through them one by one and provide a rating based on how well it fits him.

Focusing on the big picture - 7/10, obviously the main goal was to shoot up the school and kill as many as possible, and Andre was set on that and it was what the both were building up to the whole time, Andre mainly focused on that and that alone. Though he also focuses on a lot of the little details in the steps, which obviously lead up to the "big picture", but he spent a lot of time thinking over the specific. For the most part all of the things in the film that weren't directly related to the shooting or the "off-topic" stuff was caused mostly by Cal. (Ex: Scenes with Rachel, the prom, his monologues, getting Andre to go with him to read his poetry and getting him to drive with his eyes closed, etc.)

Logical/Analytical- 7/10, like I said before, he's very intelligent and had a well thought out plan, but the reason I rate this a 7/10 was mostly because his original plan was to shoot up the school and then just leave in a car with almost nothing and go from state to state with Calvin, which would be near impossible for two teenagers and in the long an short run, very, very unethical and illogical.

Lead by reason - 5/10, from the tapes we saw, the whole point of the shooting was to send a message, to show the consequences of the mistreatment Andre had faced. While those seem like I guess "good" reasons, they're really not. His actions are a result of his anger and his want for revenge. We saw it in the very beginning of the film where he and Cal threw eggs at Brian Hoff's (wrestling team captain who was a dick to them) just because they were mad at him and they could. I'd rate him lower but I have him a 5 because while his reasons for doing what they did weren't very reasonable, he executed the steps leading up to it and the act itself well.

Innovative - 10/10, Andre was good at creating solutions to almost every problem that interfered with their plan. For example, making his fathers gun shorter, thus more concealable. Not only was he good at creating things physically, but he found ways to benefit him and Cal through simple things, such as convincing Chris to take them shooting so he and Cal could learn how the guns work. Andre was also shown to be the more manipulative, finding small ways to move along he and Cal's plan by just interacting with people.

Strategic - 9/10, he executed his part of the plan very well and aroused zero suspicion and planned everything he did almost perfectly, the only reason I gave him a 9 was because of his idea to literally break into Chris's house while there were tons of people right across the street. I understand it was basically the only option, but it's not very ethical.

𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀:

Strengths - intelligence, quick thinking, agility/speed, manipulation

Weaknesses - Primarily anger driven, unrealistic goals, inability to "stand up for himself" without literally murdering tons of innocent people

𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻/𝗧𝗟𝗗𝗥: Andre Kriegman is the perfect example of a leadership role, his intelligence plans a big factor in everything he does and he's great at subtle manipulation to help get to his end goal. He has sort of a "mastermind" type personality because all his traits together are really what made him able to do his part of the plan (even if in reality he isn't the mastermind, neither is Cal though, and they both realize this). Though he's aware his intelligence and he's selfish, which has him set unrealistic goals, while he's not necessarily overconfident in himself and he knows that some things are just plain stupid to go through with, he doesn't think, but hopes, he can get away with it anyways.

CALVIN GABRIEL

𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄: Cal Gabriel is Andre's best friend, I assume who lived Connecticut his whole life. He played the guitar and sitar in his schools six-piece band and is survived by his parents and younger brother and sister. Cal has a seemingly great family and he's seen as a relatively nice and likeable and charming boy. He doesn't have trouble gettin along with people and Rachel really did like him a lot and overlooked his negative traits as Andre influencing him. He's obviously not been made fun of or bullied to the extent Andre has, but there's been instances. Calvin, on the outside is just such a "normal" kid some people see him as boring (ex: Rachel's friends at prom). Overall, on the outside he just seems like any other kid, he's not exactly outcasted like Andre either as people actually seem to like him. Though on the inside he's much more manic and impulsive and unstable.

𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀: While with Andre, no one suspected him because he was manipulative, no one suspected Cal because he was deceptive and persuasive. He was good at putting on a front when interacting and was such a normal, friendly kid no one thought he could've been capable of something like what he did, and perhaps it wasn't his intention to out on a front at all, it was just second nature (Examples include: Him making Andre believe he was going to go alone with the original plan, the getaway car plan, until the very last second, him convincing Andre to do things just for the fun of it, like burning stuff and driving with eyes closed, and literally every single one of his interactions with characters other than Andre). Though sometimes in front of others he gets burnt out and starts showing how he really is. For example, the party he and Andre were at, he walks outside and sits on the porch, obviously overwhelmed and just becomes disconnected and quiet, practically the only thing he said in that scene was "I'm just not good at parties.", which shows while he is a very likeable person, perhaps the reason he's so close with Andre is because Andre doesn't have any other friends he has to hand out with like Rachel does, he doesn't get so burnt out and overwhelmed because he only has to focus on Andre, who he sees as very similar to him (even if they aren't that similar at all, which we'll get into later). He's very impulsive and manic as shown through the whole film. He just does stuff because he can and he knew the whole time be wasn't going to live to see the consequences or rewards (ex: the poem, going to prom with Rachel, joking around all the time, messing with the student during the shooting scene). Cal is seen as being more hesitant/remorseful about the shooting because of incidents such as him writing a note to Chris after stealing his guns, and him lagging behind Andre when they ran into the school. I personally don't see this as the case though as I think the only thing he felt remorseful about was the stealing from Chris, he said it himself in one of his solo tapes, that's why he wrote the note. Also I think the reason he lagged behind was because he was carrying more than Andre and Andre was on the track team, so obviously Andre would be faster. It's very clear though that through the entire movie and shooting he wasn't remorseful at all. Maybe he was hesitant in the beginning as in the tape he recorded outside he said something now "I'm ready for Zero Day NOW" and he said how he wanted to keep the feeling of being ready so he wouldnt back other, which can mean he was hesitant at first but he eventually stopped, we see him become more and more eager throughout the tapes as well.

Sources say Cal has an ISFP 4w5 personality type (The Artist/Adventurer personality type, Introverted ObServant, Feeling, Prospecting). ISFP are usually quiet, sensitive, flexible, relaxed, warm, artistic, adventureous people who are aware of their needs and desires, have a strong set of practical skills, want to live in the moment, and are emotion driven, though they are also seen as sometimes scary and hard to know. I think this is the most accurate for Cal than anything else ever could be, I'll explain why by doing the same thing I did for Andre and rating how well Cal fits these traits. Because we know his XwX, there's a lot more to go off of, so I might group up similar traits.

Quiet/Warm - 5/10, while on the outside and interacting with other people he was very friendly and humorous yet soft spoken, like we see when he was talking with Rachel's friend in the limo, during the shooting scene he was very much the opposite. HE was the one screaming and shouting, HE was the one kicking and knocking over things and losing his temper, HE was the one taunting and teasing the students, which came as a surprise to many because it was a complete switch from the character he was throughout the entire movie. I gave him a 5 because its a middle ground, as he both equally fits and doesn't fit these traits depending on the situation, which brings me to the next trait...

Flexible - 10/10, during the main part of the film, the tapes, he really just went along with whatever Andre said, while sometimes he just did whatever he wanted, he adapted quick to everything and didn't have a set order he wanted to go in like Andre.

Sensitive - 5/10, I wouldn't say Cal is sensitive to others, sure there's moments when he can come off as sensitive or defensive, like when Rachel said she knew Cal was going to show Andre the tape and he immediately defended himself on it and seemed to take it personal. But I think he's not as sensitive to others emotions as he is to his own, though I can't really rate this as we don't see him interact much in a situation where he could be sensitive aside from with Andre, who's his best friend, so he'll obviously be more comfortable and take any reprimands or insults from him not seriously.

Relaxed/adventurous/desire to live in the moment - 10/10, throughout the entire film, very rarely was he tense and he didn't seem concerned at all for the consequences of anything he did because he knew the whole time he was going to end up killing himself, as to Cal the shooting was like a suicide mission, but to Andre it was for revenge and to prove a point and send a message. Because he knew it would end in suicide for him anyways, he lived in the moment, like I said before in examples of his impulsiveness, he went off track from the plan just because he could and it was his chance before he died. He burnt his stuff because he could, he made fun of the poets just because he could, he went to prom with Rachel because he could, he didn't care at all.

Aware of needs, desires, and wants/emotion driven - 10/10, the entire time Cal knew he wanted to kill himself, and he did whatever he wanted before the shooting because he knew he wanted to, and he went through with the shooting because that's what he wanted to do.

Artistic - 10/10, Maybe he didn't like draw or paint and stuff, but he was still very artistic in many ways. In the tapes of him where he's by himself, the way he words things is somewhat poetic, also it's the fact that he literally wrote a poem. Also Calv is seen wearing a Pearl Jam shirt at one point, which could be a reference to their 1992 single Jeremy, which is primarily based on the story of a 15-year-old boy who brought a gun to school and proceeded to kill himself with it in front of his English class, which in itself is something very poetic as well and the story is very similar to Cal's intention behind the shooting. This shows how he expresses himself through more literary art forms and not necessarily how normal people would express themselves, which by the way, the urge to be different or to express emotions differently to be unique is a common ISFP trait.

Strong set of practical skills - ??/10, we know of his ability to deceive and persuade, but those aren't really practical skills, we don't honestly see many examples of practical skills in Cal, so I can't really rate him on this.

Hard to know - 10/10, practically every interaction he had never completely showed his true personality, which in itself proves he's hard to know. Also the kids in the Limo just didn't like Cal for some reason despite him just being nice and normal the whole prom and ride there and back, which can mean Cal is just a hard person to understand and like when you actually interact with him, despite seeming so nice and likeable to people who've either never interacted with him in any way, or to people that are close to him.

Scary - 10/10, he murdered multiple innocent people, and the fact he even thought of doing it in the first place is horrifying.

𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀:

Strengths - Deception, persuasion, likability, normalcy, knowing what he wants and how to get it

Weaknesses - impulse, emotional drive, instability,

𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻/𝗧𝗟𝗗𝗥: Cal's character is the perfect likeable character, and that's what makes the movie so interesting, because the main characters, especially Cal, who is shown to actually be the most violent and unstable, are so likeable, the way they interact with others seems so normal and friendly. Cal is a character who knows what he wants, and has a strong impulse, which just makes him go for it. He's artistically expressive and partially because of that he's a hard to understand and know, though he doesn't have trouble keeping friends. He's good at putting on fronts and that's part of the reason no one suspected him, because he was so normal.

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

Through the movie, Calvin stresses how similar he and Andre are, but maybe they aren't that similar at all.

Similarities:

Both are social outcasts without many friends

Both wanted to do something like Zero Day before they even met, Calvin states this he also states they never had to talk about doing it, they just knew they both wanted to and started planning

Both condone things like Zero Day in general

Very obviously both mentally unstable

Both deal with a power struggle

They make joking threats

God complex

Relatively uninvolved with anything unrelated to each other or Zero Day

Emotion driven

Differences:

Cal has a less hard time getting people to like him and isn't bullied as much as Andre

Cal is suicidal, manic, and impulsive while Andre had a will to live, for a while at least and tends to stick to a plan and is very oderly

Calvin is very artistic while Andre honestly doesn't really seem to have any special qualities about him

Cal saw Zero Day as a suicide mission, Andre saw it as a way to send a message

Cal is more laid back and carefree and "fun" then Andre. During the shooting too we see Cal laughing and shouting and taunting and teasing just for fun, while Andre wasn't doing much of any of that.

Andre was manipulative, Cal was deceptive

Andre is very pessimistic whole Cal always seems to be optimistic

Andre has a more leader like an assertive personality and Cal just tends to follow along because he doesn't really care what they do as long as it ends in him killing others and himself.

Cal liked to wait to kill the students because he thought it was funny, but had no hesitation killing himself, meaning he overall had zero value for life in general, whether it be others or his own. Andre liked toying with some of the students but generally didn't waste time and just killed them immediately (unless he saw that Cal wanted to fuck with them first) but after the shooting was over, he was hesitant to kill himself, which shows how he values himself over others and doesn't want to die but would rather die by his own bullet then a police officers because he felt he was too good for it, which highlights his inflated sense of self worth and god complex.

SO WHO REALLY IS THE "LEADER"?

Short answer, neither. Cal and Andre like to see them both as "leaders" because they want to be seen as powerful, but neither of them are leaders at all, you can't have two leaders of the same plan, especially when the two people have completely different end goals. Andre is meant to seem like the leaders simply because he's more assertive and comes up with a lot of the ideas, though we see Cal can be equally assertive and while he takes a more careless approach he still executes Zero Day the way he plans, which is a leade trait. Also we see both Andre and Cal order each other around. This may seem like both are leaders, but this just isn't true. Cal said that the whole time, even before they met, they always wanted to do something like Zero Day and the built up their own plans and were only motivated to executed it when they met. He says neither of them had to say anything about wanting to do Zero Day, they just knew, and they worked together to make a plan. There was never a leader, Cal and Andre were both equally involved, neither one was more powerful than the other, they were equals who's different strengths and weaknesses put together actually benefitted the both of them.

FILM "CRITIQUE"

I honestly have nothing bad to say about the film, even the low budget worked in the movies favor as it made it seem more realistic and unplanned, like how found footage films should be. The actors were amazing and did a good job of portraying the role of both "normal" high schoolers and mentally ill murders at the same time. I don't think I'd change a single thing about the film except for the fact that we lack some information on the main characters. Cal recording tapes by himself helps a lot in the area of knowing his character, but I wish they did something like that for Andre too.

OVERALL CONCLUSION

Overall this is one of my favorite movies ever and it's so underrated. If you haven't watched it, you should (despite me basically spoiling the entire thing). I literally stayed up all night from 11 am yesterday to right now today, so I think this is pretty good. Anyways if I missed some shit or I got something wrong, tell me, please. Anyways, here's the sources

SOURCES

ZERO DAY FULL MOVIE + MAKING OF + SCREEN TEST (FREE)

(Note: this movie is free on YouTube and widely available, but I know others aren't and with streaming services raising their prices, piracy is a completely valid alternative that I support. So if you can't afford or just don't want to pay for streaming services, hmu, I have links to good sites and torrents and resources and information on how to stay protected and keep your data encrypted when on them. I know, I know, I'm a real one.)

youtube

Anyways, that's my film analysis, go watch Zero Day, I put an entire day of my life into this so yeah, cool if you read all this.

- Ronnie🔥🔥💯

#Youtube #zero day #cal gabriel #andre kriegman #zero day 2003 #zero day movie #zero day fandom #film analysis #zero day film analysis #i love cal robertson #kid in an army t shirt #army of two #ron hates blondes #future archives #ron-hates-blondes

51 notes · View notes

thedaythatwas · 9 days

Text

TW: Hegel.

So, what’s up with Shuake and dialectics? Click below to watch this user (who is not a philosopher) give this (frankly too invested) analysis a shot!

Something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately is the fact that most– but not all– of Joker’s confidant routes involve some sort of transaction. Joker does something for someone, Joker gets a favor in return. Joker’s identity revolves around what he can do for others. He’s got a different mask (haha game mechanic is narrative device etc.) for everyone in his life.

Getting a little bit in my head about this led me to a (not-all-that-novel) realization: Akechi’s confidant route is largely non-transactional. Sure, he says that he wants to meet with you to talk about the Phantom Thieves, but that more or less directly translates to just wanting to hang out with you. The “favor” that you're doing for Akechi, if we follow the logic of some of the other confidant routes, is spending time with him. And really, that’s what your relationship with him is, up until you realize the heart he needs you to change is actually one of the big-bads of the game. And at that point… Well…

Where am I going with this? I’ve also been thinking a lot about Hegel (I’ve seen some really fun posting about Akechi and Hegel on here this past week– thank you philosophy P5R tumblr!). Akechi’s paraphrasing of Hegel goes a little something like “advancement cannot occur without both thesis and antithesis.” Hilariously, this is how he frames his desire to talk to you more, his flirting is just like me forreal I understand him etc. etc. BUT! The interesting thing here is that the game is cueing you to view your relationship with Akechi through the lens of Hegel’s dialectics.

More on that to follow, but first, I want to plug the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s page on Hegel’s Dialectics here– If you haven’t used it before, SEP is a reliable, peer-reviewed source. It’s great. I use it like. All the time. It’s good for getting the gist of big ideas when you don’t have time to read full texts. (Also if I get any of this wrong please know that philosophy is not my field and I’m totally open to constructive criticism.)

Hegel’s dialectical process revolves around three key moments: the moment of understanding, the dialectical moment, and the speculative moment. These moments can also be referred to as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The moment of understanding, thesis, is the point at which an idea is seemingly stable. In the dialectical moment, antithesis, this idea “sublates” itself– the idea is challenged and destabilized because an inherent contradiction in the idea has been made apparent–importantly, part of the idea is preserved. The speculative moment, synthesis, negates the contradiction. A new idea takes form, containing elements of the original idea that was sublated (Marx’s theory of history, anyone?)

This process continues on and on. Ideas naturally reveal their contradictions, are destabilized, and resolve their contradictions through the creation of a new idea, which is challenged again. This is because the dialectical moment does not come from outside an idea. Antithesis is not an external push against thesis, but rather, the moment when thesis is forced into instability because of its own tightly-bound restriction.

So back to what I was saying. The game kicks off your relationship with Akechi with a nod to, uh, all of that. Could this be a throwaway comment? Of course! But it’s much more fun to work under the assumption that it isn’t. So bear with me. Akechi is framing himself and Joker as thesis and antithesis. What does that mean? Why do I think it has something to do with Akechi and Joker’s relationship being non-transactional?

Previously, I’ve thought that in the context of their relationship, Akechi represented thesis, and Joker antithesis. This isn’t exactly true (at least per the criteria above) but I do think I was on the right track.

At the beginning of his story, we can think of Akechi’s worldview as thesis. The world is a stage, and he is a performer. His entire life is dedicated to destroying Shido. It’s a key narrative element of P5 that Akechi doesn’t have confidant relationships (as contrasted by Joker, who has many confidants and becomes stronger through building up those bonds). He views himself as deceiving literally everyone in his life for his goals– his “fans,” his father, the Phantom Thieves. He doesn’t trust, because to him, trust is failure.

Still, he’s starving for approval, and not just from Shido. You can see the inherent conflict between his desires and beliefs in just about every interaction he has with Joker, particularly those where Akechi overshares about his past. He desperately wants someone to hear him. I don’t think his (primary) aim in that was to strategically win Joker’s trust by showing vulnerability– if that was all he was going for, I doubt Akechi would have been so honest. He omitted information, sure, but he gave Joker the honest-to-god broad strokes of his childhood.

When Joker comes into his life, Akechi comes to realize that his stable worldview might be wrong. Watching Joker and the rest of the Phantom Thieves reveals the cracks in his own internal logic. Joker has friendships and he is stronger because of them. When Akechi sacrifices himself for the Phantom Thieves on Shido’s ship, we see his moment of synthesis. If Akechi really still internalized all of what he said in his “Teammates? Friends? To hell with that!” monologue, he wouldn’t trust Joker to change Shido’s heart in his stead. To be clear– he probably would have reached this point with or without Joker’s intervention. Joker just happens to push Akechi towards self-sublation a little bit faster.

In Royal, we see a new iteration of Akechi. He doesn’t really regret his actions, and he is still very distinctly Akechi, but we can see that his original perception of the world has made a shift. He is willing to team up with Joker. While he may not place a great deal of faith in all of the PTs, he certainly has real trust in the protagonist. He’s learned that he can be recognized (dare I say loved?) without being perfect, and accordingly, his driving desire for approval has been displaced by his desire to never be so completely under anyone else’s control again.

But ok— that’s kind of an old take. Perhaps a hotter one: I’d also like to propose that Akechi does the same for Joker.

As mentioned above, Joker’s identity for most of the game is defined by what he can do for the people around him. While a large part of this has to do with the fact that he is a playable character, this is a game, and a game needs to have things for you to do– it wouldn’t be very fun otherwise– it also seems pretty clear that this is part of his characterization. Joker is selfless to a fault. Like Akechi, he is a wildcard who can take on multiple personas. Unlike Akechi, instead of having a handful of personas directly linked to the core of his character development, Joker has as many personas as you want him to. He literally has a mask for every situation. You can equip a persona of the correct arcana to level up your relationships faster– a game mechanic, but also, an interesting meta statement about how Joker bonds with his confidants.

In Royal, however, Joker has the option to do something for himself. His greatest wish isn’t for someone else's happiness– it’s to have Akechi back, for selfish reasons, I would argue. Joker can sacrifice reality to keep him in his life, and depending on the actions you choose to take, sometimes, he does.

Loving Akechi teaches Joker to be selfish. This is especially poignant when you think of how adamantly opposed Akechi is to staying in Maruki's reality. Giving up the true reality to keep Akechi is a wholly selfish act on Joker's part, nothing altruistic about it. And if he doesn't make that choice? Well, don't forget about how Joker spent his wish.

He would have learned how to do this without Akechi– one tends to realize that neverending self-sacrifice is unsustainable sooner rather than later. Again, Akechi just pushes Joker towards effecting that self-sublation a little faster.

By spending time with Joker, Akechi learns that there are people he can truly trust. By spending time with Akechi, Joker learns how to put himself first. Their confidant relationship from this perspective is not only transactional, it’s actually one of the most transactional relationships in the game. Joker actively impacts how Akechi sees himself and the world around him, and vice versa. Their relationship is profoundly transformative for the both of them. To paraphrase Akechi, advancement cannot occur without both thesis and antithesis.

But also, we can forget dialectics for a second. Even without a fun analytical lens, Akechi’s confidant route centers two misunderstood people who find understanding in each other. That’s enough for me!

#persona 5 royal #p5r spoilers #shuake #goro akechi #akiren #time allocation decisions were made today

48 notes · View notes

theashesofthefirststar · 5 months

Text

Genuine question: why do people argue that Gale couldn’t have known Mystra during his adolescence?

I made a Reddit post a week back discussing the relationship between Gale and Mystra and merely the implication that she revealed herself to him at a young age set a bunch of people off for (insert lore related reasons here). The thread got way too big and overwhelming for me to keep reading through, but the gist of their arguments, I think, was that the timelines didn’t line up. Not a timeline given in game, but the timeline created by the preexisting canon.

Which, okay. I think bg3 values thematic clarity more than it does making a 1 to 1 replica of the 5e canon, but it had been a while since I played act 1, so, I thought, maybe I misremembered.

Well, I’ve been doing a new play through and I finally got to the part when Gale reveals the story behind his arcane hunger, and i guess I was expecting something more subtle, but it’s actually more explicit than I remember. Does Gale look at the camera and say “Mystra groomed me”? No, but the implication of what he does say is pretty damning.

{paraphrasing} “I was a child prodigy. That’s what caught Mystras attention. She revealed herself to me and became my teacher. Later, my muse. Later still, my lover”. I guess you could interpret it as her becoming his teacher when he was already an established wizard/adult, but that seems like a really overly generous reading. Like, bordering on bad faith, because the sentence is structured in a way that’s meant to imply cause and effect. ‘My talent as a child caused Mystra to pay attention to me, which had the effect of her becoming my teacher’.

I know that bg3 is supposed to follow the canon of 5e, but some people were arguing she couldn’t have revealed herself to him any earlier than five years ago because (insert more lore reasons here) and that just isn’t the vibe he’s giving at all. it’s more likely to me that they made tweaks to the timeline so that it worked within the individual stories they were trying to tell.

I get that dnd super fans are going to want to defend the integrity of this world that they love. That’s fair. But I’d rather judge characters and relationship dynamics based on the themes of a story than how perfectly they align with pre-established world building.

#bg3 #baulders gate 3 #gale of waterdeep #gale dekarios

94 notes · View notes

lightning-macrine · 7 months

Text

You know what? Yeah I’m being sooo ungraceful and smug about Izzy Hands right now. The usual suspects™️ are still spouting their nonsense, I genuinely had to read the sentence “I can’t wait for Ed to tell Stede what Izzy said to him in ep.10 and for Stede to kick him off the ship!!” (Okay that was paraphrased but you get the gist) like yeahhhh tooootally that’s deeefinitely what they’re going to do 🙄 let the writers just walk back on the past 3 episodes of character growth and development to say “oh whoops yeah Izzy was mean to Ed last season guess the toes and the foot and the abuse of the crew was justified!!1” 🤷🏻‍♀️💀 The copium is real lol

#izzy hands #the izcourse #ofmd izzy #ofmd spoilers #ofmd season 2 spoilers

102 notes · View notes

taylorswiftstylequestions · 2 days

Note

omfg i'm sorry to rant but i NEED a sympathetic person to hear this. i like the every single album podcast more than most swifties, but today's ep -- and the last few -- are driving me insane. i am so fucking sick of hearing nathan and nora wring their hands over what joe might deal with. all harassment is bad, but i am done pretending that jake g and john mayer went through….any kind of wringer? they had like...a semi-awkward couple of weeks? jake is still a mega a-lister and john mayer is widely considered to be one of the greatest living guitarists. fuck, what mayer did was outright predatory -- and he's done it to multiple women -- and lbr, he lives 99% of his life totally unperturbed by it. he's not losing gigs or status in the places that matter to him; i suspect a lot of swifties aren't aware of this but i'm a guitar nerd, and uh, yeah, he's considered a living god and no one gives a shit what he did to taylor. and literally everyone woman in the public eye, including taylor, goes through worse every single fucking day, even at their heights of popularity. i don't know how to deal with hearing nathan and nora worry about :(((( omg what will joe go through :((((( when he's never going to have disgusting ai porn of himself explode across twitter on a random weekday. maybe i feel this strongly b/c i work in games, where hordes of male fans regularly ruin random women's lives because they animated a female character wearing a t-shirt instead of a string bikini, but i can't deal with this anymore. these men are fine. lots of people get mad at them, but it's because they did truly shitty things to her and she refused to absorb it silently. then it breaks, and their lives go on.

---

I feel like Nora really articulated what Anon was trying to say the other day about along the gist of "I hope something really bad happened to justify all of this." Interesting perspectives! Btw I just want to be super clear that I don't think Taylor or anyone has to justify anything like that! Just thought it was interesting how Nora put it in the latest episode and T's power is the unusual part of this equation.

---

In a very classic "I thought the two of you should meet!" re: today's The Ringer / Every Single Album pod episode.

I will say I read both of these messages before listening to the episode myself and tbh I think Nora ultimately landed in a pretty middle and reasonable place (it started out pretty rocky though) by the end of the episode. My understanding is she ultimately felt like Taylor has every right to tell the story that she wants / needs to tell and the work will speak for itself. That this is Taylor going face to face with the elephant in the room and (probably - we don't know obviously) not obfuscating the reality that we all saw play out in real time behind 'fictionalized' half truths roleplayed by semi-imaginary characters. And at the end of the day the (likely - AGAIN WE DON'T KNOW) reality is that she's prepared to walk through the narrative that is this pressure cooker storyline many are waiting with baited breath for which is the deterioration of her most significant relationship to date.

All that to say is that I think both of these points are incredibly valid. I personally have a lot of feelings wrapped up in it that do tend to come down more on the side of it's strange that the default position is this desire to sign up as first in line defence attorney for a man when the crime as we know it is 'woman writes her life into art'.

Nora interestingly noted that there's a "pressure for this album to come with receipts" (paraphrase) based on this (fan) hyped up narrative of something sinister having gone awry that this album will pull the curtain back on. And if it fails to do that, enter said self-appointed attorneys.

#opinion #tss nanonsense

21 notes · View notes

darkcanid19 · 2 months

Note

ok i'll bite. what is the hi fi normal au

So glad you asked (deranged)! To make a very long story short - paraphrased from @artdragon122 , the basic gist of it is that it follows a timeline where Kale survives and the "bad guys" play nice with the "good guys". A redemption arc if you will, and that was what the original plan was.

Full rundown under cut; General TWs for child abuse and neglect (Kale is not a happy camper).

Dragon and I came up with the AU following just that - everyone is happy and coexists with one another, and it gave us a chance to insert our OCs as well. No one died (well. kind of) and there was really nothing wrong. But I think the general trend with anything I, and by extension Dragon, touch never ends up being pure and happy and blissful.

We mostly use this AU for roleplay scenarios, so the both of us have different characters assigned to one another. The most important thing you should know about this is that Dragon had the ability to handle Kale, and miraculously, turned him into the saddest most tragic wet cat of a man ever. And by that I mean we both noticed that his poor relationship with the rest of his family is. Not that great. We took the fact that neither Peppermint nor Roxanne even batted an eye at his death in the game and ran with it.

Without going too deep into it just yet, Kale was heavily neglected and abused by his mother for not being the favorite child. Peppermint was raised to think he was the scum of the earth and thus treated him as such. Spectra ended up being the result of that, and was originally filled with the intent to brainwash his mother into giving him the love and care he was never able to have. Over time it evolved into something more sinister, thus bringing the events of the game to fruition.

While the other bosses survived Chai's escapades, Kale was not so lucky. He, quite literally, exploded to bits and was very lucky to even be able to be repaired. Chai had to and continues to live with the guilt that he did wind up killing someone. As Kale recovers, Chai and his gang handle the events at the secret Spectra lab below the island. Dragon had the brilliant idea of changing the memos you usually find down there to be a log of Kale's descent into insanity. It's very eye-opening for them and changes their entire perspective on why Kale did anything at all (except for Peppermint, we'll get to that later).

A few months later, a groupchat is made (where we stsrted this whole thing) in order to help everyone get along with each other better. It does go well save for a few incidents, one involving Chai stupidly throwing himself into a "rematch" with Roquefort and barely surviving, and some unlikely friendships are made. It slowly becomes obvious that Kale has a lot more going on than originally thought, even after everything, and surprisingly Chai is able to help him and Peppermint restore their relationship as siblings who deserve to care for one another.

Although, there is a more fucked up timeline to all this where Peppermint practically undergoes a villain arc which Dragon and I have dubbed the "Cocomelon AU". That's not important right now though.

That's basically all we have in terms of canon events for now, but here's some extra info that is just a bunch of things we decided to say "fuck it" and make canon:

• Roquefort and Drake (Dragon's OC) are married but like to pretend that they aren't. They're the pinnacle of ""toxic"" yaoi (they care about each other a lot).

• Chai is hopelessly head over heels for Kale. Kale is in that mixed stage of "why do I care about him so much" and no further moves have been made despite Chai's desperate attempts to get together. They'll figure it out eventually.

• Zanzo and Mimosa kiss each other apparently and they make it everyone's problem once people find out. It's horrid (awesome).

• We can make any franchise we want canon. This includes Monster Hunter and Ultrakill. Chai and Peppermint, who are completely "normal" about UK, were able to convince Zanzo to design IRL replicas of V1 and V2.

• Chai is a streamer and a very surprisingly wealthy furry artist. His top paying commissioner is Roquefort. It makes for very funny blackmail material.

• CNMN apparently works retail.

• Chai, Kale, and Peppermint are trans.

• Kale suffers from chronic migraines and is unfortunately subjected to the effects of getting high off of high doses of ibuprofen (may or may not have caused some emotional phone calls with his sister).

Holy fucking shit this is long. We will end up making this a sideblog at some point so if any of you are interested in this AU there will be that! If Dragon sees this feel free to add on LMAO

#canid.txt #ive been writing this for like #a half an hour #hi fi rush #hi fi normal au #hfr

22 notes · View notes

strangertheories · 10 months

Text

Quantum Entanglement and Stranger Things 5

I'll tag @ven0moir and @strawberrybyers because their posts were the first I'd seen talking about this. This is based off of the theory that the tweet and poster as seen below are referring to quantum entanglement (two particles that depend on the other one, no matter how far apart they are).

When looking at quantum entanglement, Mike and Will were not the first pair to pop into my head. I get why it would, as they're framed in front of a poster of it, there's a pair from a love triangle above it and also it would be adorable of them to do that. I think that's a very valid theory. However, does anyone think that this could apply to Vecna and El or, more interestingly in my opinion, Will and Vecna? Or even Hawkins and the Upside Down?

Here's a description of quantum entanglement via this article:

"Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other."

Maybe this is foreshadowing that Will has an entwined link with Vecna so no matter how far he runs or hides, he will be linked to him forever. Especially since Will has his mental link to the mind flayer; they are literally entangled for life and that's why Will can sense him. A change in the mind flayer is a change in Will. This could help explain the seasons long mental link Will has to Vecna; they were doomed to meet the second Will became the flee and not the acrobat.

Alternatively, it could be talking about El in a sort of Harry Poster esque way (not trying to promote HP, just acknowledging similarities) where one cannot exist without the other. This could help to explain the similarities between the Deathly Hallows Part II poster and the volume 2 one.

This could mean that you cannot have Hawkins without the Upside Down; they are too linked, hence why the Russians went to build there. I have a post with a bit about this theory amongst other things that I'll link here. But the gist is that Hawkins is intertwined with the Upside Down and has been for longer than Henry's time.

The example the article used also drew my attention with the Upside Down parallels. I'm paraphrasing here, but they explained it like a coin; there are both a heads and a tails side, which you know without needing to look, but you cannot determine whether it is heads or tails until you look. Hawkins is kind of like a coin, with the main universe and the Upside Down, so even if you shut the gate and break the link, it'll still be linked forever. Maybe to fix it, you have to destroy not just Vecna or the Upside Down, but Hawkins altogether.

I'm mostly spiralling here but this is a really interesting tweet and I think it's worth discussing whether this will be a theme in S5. Personally, I lean more towards Will and Vecna being entwined with each other over a Byler romantic version, but I'm very open to lots of theories.

#stranger things #byler #will byers #stranger things theory #stranger theories #st theory #st5 #st5 theory #st5 speculation #stranger things five #vecna #henry creel #001

87 notes · View notes

forhisgrace · 14 days

Text

Studying the Bible Effectively: A Beginner's Guide

Studying the Bible can seem daunting at first, but with the right approach and tools, it can allow so much spiritual growth!! Whether you're new to the faith or a seasoned believer, having a structured method can improve and ease your experience. Here's a straightforward guide to help you get started on your Bible study journey!

Choosing a Translation

One of the first decisions to make when studying the Bible is choosing a translation that suits your needs and preferences. There are several translations available, each with its own approach to translation. Here are the three categories they fall into.

1. Word for Word Translation: These translations, such as the King James Version (KJV) or English Standard Version (ESV), aim to follow the original texts as closely as possible, offering a literal rendering of the words and phrases. They are great for detailed study and analysis of the text.

2. Thought for Thought Translation: These translations prioritize clarity and readability, conveying the original meaning in modern language by updating language to be mor relevant to modern readers. They are ideal for easy comprehension, especially for beginners or those looking for a straightforward understanding.

3. Paraphrased Translation: These translations capture the essence or gist of the message rather than focusing on precise wording. They are often easier to understand and are suitable for new believers or younger children. However, they are most likely to stray from the original text and can sometimes be slightly inaccurate.

When I am reading to spend time with God (such as my daily reading) I use NLT, which is a thought for thought translation and therefore easier to understand. However, during bible study it is advisable to keep a word for word translation on hand (I use the KJV translation in the YouVersion bible app alongside a physical copy of the NLT).

Establishing a Study Routine

1. Prayer: Before sitting down to read, it's essential to prepare yourself spiritually and mentally. Begin your study session with a prayer, asking God to open your mind and heart to His word and guide you in your understanding.

2. Reading the Passage: Start by reading the passage without taking notes or annotating. Try to grasp the overall message and what God is communicating to you.

3. Annotation and Reflection: Read the passage again, this time making notes of any observations, questions, or insights that come to mind. Consider who is involved, what is happening, why, when, and how. Reflect on the message God is conveying through the text.

4. Consulting Study Tools: Dive deeper into the passage by using study tools such as Bible commentaries, online resources, or cross-referencing different translations. This helps gain a broader perspective and insight into the text. They often also include historical context and reasons for writing.

5. Application: Reflect on how the passage applies to your life. Identify one or two key messages and think about how you can incorporate them into your daily life. Is the scripture challenging you to change certain behaviours, draw closer to God, or strengthen your faith? Pray for guidance on how to apply these insights. Personally, I like to make an extra effort to apply these in the upcoming week.

Conclusion

Studying the Bible is not just about acquiring knowledge but also about cultivating a deeper relationship with God and living out His word in our lives. By choosing the right translation, establishing a study routine, and seeking guidance through prayer and study tools, you can embark on a fulfilling journey of spiritual growth and understanding. Remember, consistency and patience are key, so keep seeking God's wisdom as you delve into His word.

#christian bible #christian #christian blog #bible #bible study #guide #how to study #how to guide #christblr #christian faith #christianity #jesus christ #faith #bible verse #christian girl #christian theology #forhisgrace #christian living #pink aesthetic

14 notes · View notes

random-jot · 6 months

Note

So I'm quite behind in starkid lore (haven't seen most of nightmare time or npmd yet), and have learned about the friends of wiggly mainly through tumblr posts but I have to ask. Do you know if they are only in the hatchetfield shows? Because the blinky one, the watcher? That has such tto vibes (they're always watching etc.)

So, The Lords In Black are more or less* only in the Hatchetfield shows

We obviously see Wiggly in Black Friday, and we learn A LOT more about them as individuals throughout Nightmare Time - it is well worth watching regardless but especially if you want that Lore™️

Sidenote: plus, the more people watch/rewatch Nightmare Time on YT, the higher chance of us getting NMT3, which would be pro-shot like short films instead of zoom call readings!!!!

And, I’m guessing you’ve already seen the pics and gifs, but they all show up in NPMD at one point

*So is Blinky not The Watcher With A Thousand Eyes from Trail To Oregon???

Well, Yes and No. TTO was not written or intended to be a part of The Hatchetfield Saga, but in response to this exact question in a Q&A after NMT1 dropped, Nick said this:

"The only way I could see it working is if The Trail To Oregon, the play, was a play that existed within Hatchetfield that was put on at the Starlight Theatre"

And I'm paraphrasing there, 'cause it was a while ago, but that's the gist — if TTO and Hatchetfield are connected it's because TTO is a fictional play within Hatchetfield, same as Santa Claus Is Going To Highschool

Whether it's a harmless reference to a previous SK play, or the actor playing Jack Bauer in TTO genuinely saw Blinky, is up to the us, the audience to decide.

I believe the majority of the fandom do accept this retcon headcanon that TTO was in fact a play put on at the Starlight Theatre, and it exists as a fiction within the Hatchetfield universe

Hope this was helpful!

And hope you’re able to catch up with the SK stuff soon, you’ve got some really cool stuff to look forward to! 😄

#thanks for the ask!#starkid #hatchetfield #blinky #bliklotep #nightmare time #the trail to oregon

27 notes · View notes

toddhewitt · 1 year

Text

do we think “where else would you wake up in the morning and matter” actually struck a nerve with silver?

from what i’ve seen, the majority interprets his reaction as genuine, and i do like this interpretation because it adds a double meaning to the scene, but i don’t think it’s unquestionable.

slightly paraphrasing and expanding on the tags i once put under a gifset of that scene: “silver knows he’s gonna get his share of the gold, but to do that he has to act as though he thinks he won’t be getting it. to be believable, he gets angry with flint (not completely falsely; and still for the reason that flint won’t put the gold first), and then flint needs to convince him that silver needs to stay on the crew. but here’s the thing - silver also needs flint to need to convince him, so that silver can have a reason to stay on the crew that would be convincing to flint (it’s necessary that he stays on the crew so it won’t be suspicious that both he and the gold are gone at the same time). and then flint says ’you walk out on this and where the fuck are you going’ and silver looks stricken - and it’s EXACTLY the result that silver needed. he needed flint to provide a reason for him to stay so he could continue playing his role, and his reaction to it just might be a false one and it just might be a true one.”

if silver isn’t truly affected by those words then the look on his face is just another mask, and it doesn’t have its double meaning, and i love the possibility of the double meaning. on the other hand, as he proves in the rest of this episode and in general, he’s definitely capable of looking like it affected him while it didn’t really, and i can’t find much evidence that “mattering” is something silver pays any mind to. personally i find it fitting if he doesn’t, or at least didn’t up until that point, care for it.

i expect i might see a point being made about silver sacrificing his leg for the crew but that’s another reading that isn’t unquestionable - personally i’d argue that he didn’t do it for the crew (certainly not solely and imo not even primarily, possibly not at all). that’s a whole other discussion i could expand on but it’s not exactly the topic here so i’ll say that the gist of it is that silver obviously noticed vane’s guy’s keys are missing and knew the crew would come to save him, meaning he only had to stall until they did; plus, he couldn’t betray them because if he did and then they got free and realized his betrayal he’d be as good as dead.

looking for other occurrences of silver interacting with the topic of “mattering”, the final episodes give us something interesting: there’s silver claiming (and to me, his belief seems genuine) that he has no story and that his past doesn’t matter; on the other hand there’s flint predicting his “casting about in the dark for some proof that you mattered”, and while we don’t have a lot of evidence of the effect this would have on silver, it is very heavily implied by both the show and possibly treasure island that it would be effective.

besides those, i can’t really recall any other instances where mattering was something silver pays any mind to, but i might be missing something. and if this is truly all the evidence, it’s not really enough to judge either way.

another way i like looking at it is that in their argument in 2.07, flint created the notion that “mattering” should... well… matter, in silver’s mind. this is mostly supported by the fact that by all appearances (though appearances are not the whole story of course) it wasn’t something silver cared for before this conversation. more than that, i adore the thought that flint didn’t create that idea in him in their argument in 2.07 but rather in their final conversation in 4.10. i base both of these readings on the fact that the most notable instances where silver does seem to care about it are when flint is the one who claims so. it also beautifully matches silver’s belief that flint conjures realities, and the whole deal of silver not having a story before flint, silver seemingly not having existed before the start of the show.

it just seems odd to me to treat the assumption that he cares about it as a given, as silver’s cold practicality is one of the most important aspects of his characterization, especially considering the way it contrasts flint. i acknowledge that another important aspect of it is that he contains multitudes and inner contradictions, so it might be that he cares about “mattering” despite the lack of evidence of it, but even so, i believe that’s not the whole truth of it.

it’s possible there isn’t one clear answer here - maybe it’s one of those cases where the story allows for more freedom of interpretation as it doesn’t point strongly to a single reading. i’m just curious to understand why the common reading is that it must be important to him, even if the reasons are as simple as that it’s narratively satisfying or that silver’s manipulation of flint worked too well on the audience.

#mayatalks #black sails #i do wonder what silver’s ’a pattern is a pattern’ in 3.10 means in this context but it might have to do with the fact #that it’s about flint’s story more than it’s about silver’s #as usual i welcome thoughtful discussion etc etc #i wrote something else a few days ago about multiple possible interpretations of the show but it's more serious and i need to edit it first

91 notes · View notes