btw in my world halsin himself speaks to any partner of tav's that is potentially entering into a poly dynamic with them, whether they discussed that as a triad or a v - really, in my world, they all three of them sit down and talk about it together to air any reservations and/or misconceptions. if there is ever anything less than enthusiastic consent given for the negotiated arrangement, he will recuse himself, expressing his best wishes for the couple.

gene im so glad you said this cause I haven't seen anyone else comparing it to the book as source material for like character and tone but i am So sure that if terry was alive the season would not be like this but i fear good omens fans dont realise how big a factor the lack of terry's influence is?? or like they forget that good omens was never just neilman???

ok before i go any further: i rly don't want to detract from anyone's enjoyment of the season and everything im going to say comes from a place of love for a) the original novel (& season 1 to a certain extent bc it got me back into it lol) and b) tv as a medium so like peace and love on planet let people enjoy things etc etc

but

like u said, terry's influence on the book was enormous – what makes gomens gomens is the balance of his genuine warmth and precise understanding of humanity tempered with neilman's sardonic voice and general like.....savvy approach to storytelling? i guess u could call it? anyway what rly helps the book is that it took them years to write it, passing ideas back and forth and rewriting each other's work until their voices blended seamlessly and a well structured capital-s Story was created. when i praise the book for being self-contained i think a huge part of that comes from the circumstances in which it emerged: two authors with complementary styles writing in a v particular time period where they had both the space to play with their ideas and the constraints of the novel as a storytelling format from which to craft something extremely specific.

adaptations are a tricky business and a tv version of gomens produced literal decades after the book was always going to have some unique challenges, but i don't think that's a bad thing bc the challenges could prove to be creative opportunities to take both the established audience and those new to the story by surprise. my biggest hot take here is that i don't think translating a story into a different medium means it has to follow the original narrative exactly, bc each medium has its own ways of communicating information and these structures, rules and traditions in turn inform what that story is. what matters more than following a story beat-by-beat is capturing what that story is about at its core, what themes and messages and ideas it works through and how.

all this is to say i never expected tv gomens to be a perfect reproduction of the book and if it had it been, it probably would have been worse off for it. that being said, there are parts of the book – like u said, its tone and character – that needed to have some fidelity in order to pull it off, and for the most part s1 did that bc it was still working predominantly within the bounds of the novel & its core ideas. while i did have some issues w how neilman & amazon adapted some details and characterisations, i generally rly liked s1 – it reminded me of why i loved the book and it was just generally fun to watch.

s2 was. not that fun to watch

a few positives before i go ham w the critiques:

the hair & makeup + costumes were fantastic (although i feel like s1 was slightly better re: makeup?)

the sound design & score made some of the more awkward scenes bearable and thats no mean feat imo

david & michael gave incredible performances w what they were given – michael especially managed to salvage aziraphale enough that his complete 180 didnt feel completely tonally dissonant (more on this later)

the detail of the sets is NUTS and i genuinely want to see more of hell bc of how intricate and fun the props look

i actually like gabriel/beelzebub!! their getting together montage worked for me, although they could have spent sliiiightly more time establishing what it is they like abt each other so much + why gabriel wanted to stop armageddon 2.0 so suddenly

the opening scene, although not on par w the novel's & s1's, was visually gorgeous and thematically resonant (although neilman owes me royalties for ripping it off from this shitty fic i wrote back when raphael!crowley was all the rage lol)

now w THAT being said:

like i said yesterday, the pacing was fucking awful. flashbacks are hard to work w at the best of times and the way they were used in this season felt so needless, especially the 40s one in ep 4 that takes up like 90% of the episode. in both flashbacks + present day there were scenes that dragged for no real reason, dialogue that looped back around on itself to stretch out the runtime, and weirdly enough places where there should have been character & plot work where there just,, wasn't any?? for example, maggie & nina's night locked in the café – some parts of the dialogue in later episodes made out that they'd had some rly deep conversation abt how they feel about each other or even that they'd had an affair, but that isn't clear from those scenes in the café. i'm not saying we had to see that conversation in its entirety but that there needed to be more connective details – either in dialogue or direction – that gave that part of the story coherence.

(there were pacing issues w the editing too but i don't want to jump down the editor's throats on this one bc im more focused on writing & direction issues)

the second major problem that i mentioned in my tags yesterday is the protagonist shift, which is an issue that started in s1. aziraphale & crowley are side characters in book gomens – significant ones, yeah, but still somewhat peripheral to adam (& anathema who counts as a deuteragonist imo). this works incredibly well w who they are as characters: they're Just Some Guys who happen to be involved in this epic biblical-level bureaucratic nightmare and importantly, they don't want to be in the spotlight. the arrangement was created so that they could explore what it meant to be themselves away from the Big Narrative; literally any time they get involved in larger affairs is bc the plot is alive and caught them unionising on company time. the last fucking chapter is adam (& god) being like haha u guys are alright keep it sleezy and letting them go. like. hello. neil u let them go.

but then!! tv gomens s1 does something interesting at the end w the body swapping addition that i dont totally hate – it gives aziraphale & crowley the extra bit of character work that brings them slightly more adjacent to their book selves. see i kinda view tv a/c as the younger, less settled versions of book a/c; they're still caught up in the immediacy of being key players and haven't fully realised that earth is their home. i haven't watched s1 in a while but one scene i remember rly clearly is crowley throwing all those astronomy texts in the air and angsting abt when he was an angel; i remember it bc his anguish in that scene feels a lot newer and rawer than book crowley's feelings about falling. when tv a/c do their bodyswap, it gives them the chance to land a blow against heaven/hell in a way that solidifies their allegiance to earth in a way that more closely resembles what book a/c have been abt the entire time (still adjacent, though. not parallel).

the reason why this works is that it does one final pivot to orient aziraphale and crowley as almost-main characters in a manner that makes sense in relation to a) their book selves and b) the position the tv show has placed them in. a combination of factors made tv a/c feel a lot less mature than their book counterparts but at the end of s1 they're sort of facing the same direction the book ended in, albeit through their own flashy late 2010s means.

when s2 was announced i was.......apprehensive bc to me, that felt like a satisfactory ending. i get the impression that amazon saw how wildly successful the adaptation was and was like oh shit we could make way more money out of this and neilman, having all those undead darlings that he and terry killed in the process of whittling the book into a workable novel, jumped at the chance to resurrect all those half-realised ideas. but not only were those ideas probably discarded for a reason, they've either been laying in wait for years unworked or they're new inventions, which means they weren't molded in the way that the book had been. like i said before, book gomens underwent years of rewrites and creative collaboration, and i think that process was what made it so good; s2 didn't have that. even if some of terry's ideas made it into s2, his influence is still missing bc he and neilman weren't in dialogue the same way they were in the book (and in some ways s1 bc i know terry was involved in the process of adapting gomens to screen before his death).

i don't think it's a case of newer fans forgetting terry so much as it is the context of terry's involvement being so removed from the current circumstances that certain aspects & discourses (i.e. is the s2 finale queerbaiting (no), does binge watching change the viewership experience (yes), etc etc) about the show overshadow other discussions that would usually be taking place. and before anyone says it's a case of neilman forgetting terry, i definitely don't think it's that either bc thats. yknow. wildly disrespectful. but also there are larger systems and structures at play than one writer no matter how much beef i have w him and his decisions, bc ultimately he's just one guy (a powerful and wealthy guy, but just a guy) and there's a wider cultural shift happening rn towards rehashing old stories without understanding what made them successful in the first place, and that same culture just doesn't allow for much, if any, constructive discourse analysis

so yeah

I keep thinking about @/fauville’s tags (“#literally no one else calls the detective by a nickname #not their mom. not tina or verda”) on this post and how it's just another example of the way that the constraints of interactive fiction as a storytelling medium (e.g., limitations in what the writer knows how to code, inability to account for all players' (and player characters') reactions to the text, nuanced conversations reduced in-game to multiple choice answers, etc.) inadvertently provide characterization for the game's characters.

to use @/fauville's example of the detective's nickname: tina and verda should, at the very least, know that the detective has a nickname and should use it; however, they use the detective's first name instead. this is speculation (i don't know if mishka has ever gone on-record to say why nicknames were not a part of book 1), but I suspect, from a writing standpoint, that this decision was made because nicknames hadn't been included in book 1 (perhaps because mishka didn't yet know how to code nicknames in choicescript, or because she hadn't anticipated players wanting a feature like optional nicknames) and it would have seemed jarring for someone who has always called the detective by their first name to suddenly start using a nickname midway through book 2. unit bravo can get away with this change because they hadn't known about the nickname previously (doesn't know about the nickname -> learns about the nickname -> uses the nickname) in a way that tina and verda, who have known the detective for years, cannot (doesn't know about the nickname -> learns about the nickname -> doesn't use the nickname for years -> suddenly starts using the nickname with no explanation ??).

just because we, as players, can acknowledge and understand the external factors that influence a game's production (e.g., not knowing how to code a particular feature at the start of the series and later learning how to implement that feature, if this is indeed the case), doesn't mean that I think we should ignore the implications these gameplay (and game-making) decisions have for the coherence of the story and character. perhaps tina and verda's use of the detective's first name was motivated by external factors, but it still says something about the characters that they do so (perhaps it lends to the way that verda can sometimes seem more formal or put-together, or speaks to a past between tina and the detective before the detective started using a nickname, etc.).

even more interesting (to me, at least) are the implications that rebecca choosing to use the detective's full name has for rebecca's character and her relationship with the detective. rebecca will call the detective by their first name regardless of both their past relationship and their current relationship. in a low-approval playthrough, it is pretty easy to come up with reasons that rebecca might not call the detective by a nickname. perhaps she doesn't feel like she's close enough to the detective to use a nickname. perhaps she and the detective are so distant that she doesn't even know the detective would prefer to be called a nickname in the first place.

furthermore, what does it say about rebecca that she still won't use the detective's nickname even if they are close? we've seen through the series that, even on a high-approval playthrough, rebecca seems to feel a lot of guilt for not being around through the detective's childhood (regardless of how that guilt actually informed her actions) - is her refusal to use a nickname she should know about some kind of self-flagellation wherein she doesn't feel as though she deserves to be close to the detective and so she creates an artificial distance between them through the use of their full name? what motivation does rebecca have for not using the detective's nickname, and what does it say about her that she doesn't?

I just find it endlessly fascinating the ways in which the constraints of the medium can unintentionally provide characterization for the game's characters. I don't think that we, as players, should write off these moments of characterization just because they were the results of a constraint. regardless of whatever external factors influence the game's production, why, in-fiction, does a character do a certain thing, and what does that action or decision impact how we understand them?

I’m just remembering how relative size works and getting a little giggle out of like. All ranboo has at their house is like. Those jumbo soda cups. You can put soup in them you can put smoothies in them you can put rice in them. Why would he get anything else

also like yeah Michael_B would probably either have some kind of agoraphobia or claustrophobia. Even though I don’t like the “cbeeduo keep their kid in one room all day” interpretation because those are just kind of the constraints of the medium.

firstly yasss cranboo truly is american he loves his 32oz soda cup

secondly oh my god yeah i dont like the direct interpretation either its definitely not for me. i think an interesting way of interpreting the "michael is kept in the attic for two years" is like.... theyre just insanely overprotective, which definitely is the case in canon and sure they we as the viewers understand its because.... certain creators........ cant help but grief other players. but i agree with the agoraphobia part for sure. he also probably has problems talking to kids his age too, since he really only interacts with adults.

So, that Zelda movie...

I was just watching a thing on Youtube about the upcoming Zelda movie - just a fan speculating on what he wants to see. He made mention of how, over the years, Zelda-fandom has, by and large, imagined a potential Zelda movie as animated rather than live action. I actually have some thoughts on that - why Nintendo probably chose the live action medium. I imagine that it is because they want Zelda be to be more serious than the Mario movie. (I have yet to see the Mario movie...). The "cartoony" CGI style fits with a Mario story, wherein Zelda? The Zelda games have a very epic feel and while, I, myself, would have loved to see a good anime movie of it (as in, the ultimate dream for a Zelda movie is Studio Ghibli, am I right?) I can just imagine how some of the talks / speculation with Nintendo went regarding medium-decision. The Legend of Zelda is a game series that is more popular in the West than in Japan. They probably had in mind Americans as the main fanbase and there remains a depressing trend in America concerning animation. Loads of us love it and understand it as a serious medium - but we often have to find our serious, mature and generally epic animated films and movies from a foreign market (mostly anime). Most studios in the United States seem to still think of animated fare as "children's / family entertainment" or else, the adult stuff, which started catching on in the 1990s due to the success of The Simpsons as "comedy sitcom with edgy humor." That is the dichotomy of Western animation - either it's "for the family / kid-geared" or it's got raunchy sex jokes in it and isn't particularly deep. And those Western animated series that DID get deep? Still with that kind of edgy humor. (Seriously, I do think that Bojack Horseman is one of the deepest shows I've ever seen, but it still was "wacky adult edgy humor sitcom" half the time and even most of the time before it got to the deeper stories it wanted to tell). And I believe that Nintendo, in conjunction with Sony? Whomever... on the idea of making a film based on a very beautiful, sweeping, epic fantasy game series (with a notoriously critical fanbase) couldn't risk the constraint of having it be relegated to being marketed as "kiddie," nor did it fit the other big Western animation market. And they probably thought that homegrown anime would be a hard sell for the American market, only accessible to geeks rather than a mainstream audience. And so... they chose live action in hopes of capitalizing on successes of recent live action + cgi fantasy series such as the Lord of the Rings films, the Game of Thrones TV series, The Witcher and similar. Probably a wise decision. Unlike the youtuber I was watching, I hope they actually use Adult Link in it, although, like said youtuber, I hope they use an unknown actor. I also want him to be soft-spoken and given only a few words, because that's everybody's idea of Link (unless they want to go with the buckwild version that everybody's been playing in Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom lately)... but I really, really don't want to see a live action link torturing those poor koroks.

If you had to say, do you think this past few arcs of MHA, including the this final one, are rushed? I know many, many people have said it is so far, but like I just don’t see?? It seems that the pacing has been quite good, and the important moments are given impact, But the common complaints I see are that the story isn’t given enough room to breathe or it feels like it is going off a checklist. Do you think so too?

Yes and no. I do think some plot points have been expedited, but not out of lack of consideration for the story/characters or out of a desire to rush the story to an ending (or because Hori "secretly hates mha and just wants to get everything over with," or whatever absurd and insensitive nonsense redditwtter believes).

Rather, I always get the sense that Hori's always frustrated that he can't do even more for the series-- and recent interviews only cement this impression. MHA is his passion project and it's clear that he loves it deeply, but the constraints of this medium and his health problems sometimes make it difficult for him to fully realize that passion. Like, I don't want to overstep my boundaries as a fan and make insensitive assumptions, but-- as someone who also loves storytelling and art, I imagine it must be so unbearably frustrating to not be able to tell your story exactly the way you want to because of those aforementioned constraints. Despite that, he doesn't give up-- and as much as I want him to rest, I also can't help being in complete awe of his art/composition and how he delivers this level of quality on a near-weekly basis. He has an absurd level of talent.

Anyway. I feel that overall, act three has been paced just fine. The final act started out a bit rough with the dark hero and starnstripe arcs feeling mildly disjointed from each other-- but Hori found his rhythm again by the start of the war and thus far has managed to tie the themes and arcs of his core cast together in a satisfying way. I feel like people who claim that the pacing has been bad are kind of letting the cold, unrelenting march of real time cloud their judgement (MEMENTO MANGA AND MEMENTO MORI BROSKIS 🤘)-- but if you go back and binge read from the start of act 3 to now (306-405), it's easier to see that the final act has been paced well imho.

I've also mentioned this before, but, I feel people need to take the fact that Horikoshi introduced a lot of MHA's characters and plot elements when he was healthier into consideration with their critiques. Ongoing manga should not be critiqued the same way that one would critique a finished book-- understanding of the medium and its constraints are absolutely factors that need to be considered before you start bashing things like pacing or arguing that things have been "retconned," I feel.

And I also feel that as fans, we do have a responsibility to be aware of the grueling work conditions of this medium and the effects it has on the author, and then temper our expectations accordingly instead of expecting Horikoshi to neatly resolve every single subplot or minor character arc (For example: "Why aren't Momo, Denki, and Kirishima getting their moments in the final war?" bc they all got their big moments during the first war; "Why didn't we -see- Izuku and Toshinori developing their relationships with ALL of the 1A kids, Class 1A vs Deku and IronMight felt so forced!" *afo voice* BECAUSE THEY'RE EXTRAS-- bc this would be an absurd request even If Horikoshi didn't have health problems. It's perfectly fine to narrow the focus of Izuku's relationships down to certain key members of his class to emphasize the effect he has on people and narrow the focus of Toshi's relationships down to two or three other students to show his growth as a teacher-- the story would become excessively bloated & lose focus if we tried developing *every single side character/relationship*. This is literally basic writing 101).

I do agree that glossing over certain emotional beats in the aftermath of the first war was unfortunate and unlike what we'd come to expect from Hori (Midnight's death being treated like a footnote instead of a chance to explore the concept of personal loss in the students is the most egregious example)-- but for the past year or so we've seen a return to form in emphasizing/exploring the emotions of the core characters, so I do have high hopes for the finale/epilogue of Act 3!

Something that is strange to me is that all manhua, donghua and The Untamed adaptations show Fairy as a medium sized, husky-similar fur patern, fluffy company-behaving dog when, if I recall correctly, in the novel Fairy was a big sized, hairy black hunt dog. To be honest I imaged them as a Tibetan Mastiff or a giant Chow chow.

I understand why The Untamed would change so much about the breed, considering the dog had to be available for a limited time, had to be trained and used to spaces with too many people and movement, so I don't think there were so many species available.

But I still don't see why the manhua and donghua would choose to keep those changes. Any ideas?

Merry Christmas, btw, hope you have a good holyday.

Merry Christmas!

To answer your ask: I feel like Fairy being portrayed as a smallish husky (because I’d consider that small as someone who has been around huskies) is just an mdzs adaptation version of telephone.

Cql was the first visual adaptation of the novel to drop, right? And the others finished well after cql had already aired and ended. So it’s probably that, instead of being a straight adaptation of the novel, the later adaptations become a mix of the novel and earlier adaptations. Cql portrayed Fairy as a husky due to the constraints of filming with live animals? Fans liked this adaptation? Fairy is now “canonically” a husky. Done.

Similarly, I feel like this logic applies to the softening of the Jiang leaders and Jiang Cheng. Cql played up the tragedy of the “lost love” in the Jiang family, which does not exist in the novel, to downplay the actual love between wangxian, that is in the novel, that got censored out. The donghua takes a similar route as cql by painting the Jiang leaders as having a tragic love vs. the canonically abusive relationship forced by Madam Yu in the novel, showing Madam Yu protecting Wei Wuxian during the fall of Lotus Pier vs. grievously injuring him just prior in the novel, and portraying Jiang Cheng as someone who was physically affectionate to Jin Ling to replace all the moments where Wei Wuxian was physically affectionate towards the boy in the novel. They still end with wwx and jc cutting ties forever due to jc’s abusiveness towards wwx, but the donghua makes this the climax of the story: as if the story is about completing wwx and jc’s relationship and not about wangxian’s love story (again, censorship).

Some of these story beats in the donghua sound more familiar to how cql portrays these characters than to anything that is in the novel, so it’s not too far off to believe that whoever worked on the donghua was taking inspiration from cql as well. (I didn’t read the manhua, but it seems to more closely follow the novel than the other two, just not in the case of Fairy lol).

I ramble about Junnana in the stage plays or a look at the contrast of a stage girl on and offstage

I rambled a bit about Mahiru’s different portrayal in the stage plays vs the anime (https://www.tumblr.com/waffleweirdo/738532714130620416/its-really-interesting-to-me-how-a-lot-of-the), and off-handedly mentioned Junnana in it. Now I ramble about Junnana!

The only real context you need is that Junna + Nana + Mahiru are often paired together in the stage plays versus the anime which sticks more towards the Karen + Hikari + Mahiru, and Nana + Junna pairings. Of course a lot of that is just due to the nature of the differences in medium and form of story, BUT it also has some interesting narrative effects!

A lot of Junna and Nana’s relationship as we see it in anime is incredibly intimate and personal. They obviously share a room together and so spend a lot of time alone, and of course some of it is just due to, well duh a lot of important emotional moments for them would happen with just the two of them. But they are also uniquely tied to the two’s loneliness.

This is just ramblings, so I’m not being super exhaustive, but some notable moments are Junna comforting Nana after she lost to Karen which specifically centers on Nana’s incredible loneliness from the isolation of the loops. There’s the revue of hunting, which while most revues in the anime are one on one, specifically highlights the two’s isolation with literal cages. Plus (because I will never shut up about it) the overture manga chapters focusing on them show Junna and Nana connecting over understanding each other’s loneliness, and being there for each other when the other is alone.

Loneliness is of course a very central theme to basically every single revstar character, so this isn’t really a revelation or anything. But when combined with Junna and Nana being very guarded, and crucially having to confront themselves and learn to grow beyond this (Nana hiding in loops, Junna afraid to embody the star she seeks etc…) the loneliness that has helped tie them together is VERY IMPORTANT (see revue of hunting).

So why does that matter?

Well in the stage plays it’s obviously a bit harder by nature to focus on individual moments, and with the stricter time constraints and large cast it’s a bit harder to dedicate time to. But far from impossible. In fact Junnana never face each other in a revue properly….

Kaoruko and Futaba who are in a similar position of not being the ‘main protagonists’, do get a revue, just like Maya and Claudine do, but it’s absent for Junna and Nana…

(Disclaimer I haven’t watched Climax yet, so I could be wrong, but from what I remember of the plot summary I don’t think it happens there either)

In fact, while very different, but somewhat similar in subject matter and matching the narrative significance of Revue of Hunting is Nana and Mahiru’s Revue of Cherry Blossoms! Huh??

I don’t mean to suggest that they have a different relationship in the stage plays. These are very much the same characters, it’s our perspective and the story structure that have changed. So what does that mean?

(Very much my own biased interpretation)

Well I think it is a really interesting depiction of how their own loneliness and intimacy defines their connection. In a medium like theatre that focuses on exaggerated and dramatic emotion, in a story more centralized on all 9 of them we can’t see the same moments of quiet, and comfort that the two give each other.

Faced with the characters who are insecure and alone, who are afraid of facing the stage and full of loneliness when they are on stage we can’t see the same moments of vulnerability and comfort that they show to each other!

We can literally see the heart of why Nana first wanted to loop (disregarding how it got twisted from there). When we just see the performance we are missing the moments that shine and matter most for her. This is the exact reason she hates ‘the lead’ and wants to be ‘everyone’s banana’!!

And looking at Junna, while she certainly wasn’t having a good time at the start of the anime, and overworks herself to the point of fainting, in the stage plays when she loses to Hikari she literally begs on the floor desperate to be able to not stand on stage.

When we see Junna and Nana on stage we can see their own fears and struggles with the stage realized. And it helps to show just how important those moments off stage are for them, and how important the other being there for them is…

But at the same time on stage we see them do wonderful, miraculous things. Nana (with Junna’s help) is able to not be defeated by her past (Daiba Nana #1 afraid of the future is able to not be defeated by her past!!) Junna is always standing in the spotlight. Even when she is afraid and unsure if she can reach it! She already is!!! It’s so-

I kind of got a little on a tangent at the end. I have so many thoughts about Junnana and about revstar’s meaning of standing on the stage… but essentially the different mediums showcasing Junnana’s fragile connection and significance to each other, and being able to literally depict their fears of standing on stage in a reality when they are literally on stage is really neat…

This is just me rambling, and might make no sense, or could be totally me over analyzing things (I think about them so much I take some things for granted), but I love them so much

I hope some of this was enjoyable or interesting?

let's look at the coastline in elden ring.

it's tricky if you hit it at the wrong time of day; the simulatedly foggy marine layer glows the same color as the horizon so you end up letting torrent run off the edge like a fucking dufus. but sneak up on it when it's a little dark out, and there it is, just a chunk of the world razored off

but no if we want the main show, we have to aim the camera downward like so

what i think is most interesting about the abyss in elden ring is that it being entirely and unconvincingly simulated doesn't do a thing to mitigate the uncanny valley dread of it

when you fall off of something in this game, gravity chucks you like brock fucking lesnar, your character having precious little inertia, their falling animation not quite matching up with their bearing and angle. they sorta stay upright, puppetlike

if you want to take this journey with me, you gotta wonder what happens when your little elden ring girlie falls off the edge but she doesn't die. the death camera stays in place, fixed right over the ocean's surface, still half-aimed at the eerie undersea drop, while the tarnished vanishes into the black

it's a scary enough proposition in real life. what i think really kicks this concept across the line into nightmare fuel is the constraint of janky video game physics, the weird way you drop through the water without any convincing representation of fluid resistance. it's hard not to imagine falling like that forever

when i was your age, whippersnappers, we didn't have any fancy schmancy backrooms. we had ecco the dolphin's open ocean level:

this is the video game that taught me what thalassaphobia means.

ecco is an infuriating but beautiful puzzle/exploration type deal where you play as a cute lil dolphin. most of its stages consist of gorgeously-drawn undersea caverns, coral reefs, lush and overgrown lagoons, etc etc.

i don't know how it ends, though, because at some point you have to play Open Ocean

the scenery drops out entirely, leaving your lil dolphin self stranded out in an endless, monotonous scroll of deep blue. water filters in murkily from the surface in pale white, plummeting its way down a crispy noise-diffusion layer of darker and darker blues

open ocean.

i couldn't handle this. i'd gamely attempt the level, careening to the right as fast as my rubbery little body could move, but i'd get more and more anxious until i had to pause the game and turn it off. i couldn't really understand what the game was doing to me

i tried again a few times. skimming the bottom felt like the natural move, there being a minimal but ever so slightly comforting texture scroll of coral reef, but the problem was the sharks. sega genesis only had 256-320 pixels of horizontal screen space to work with, so flying madly around the place felt like swimming blind; i'd always smack facefirst into a shark and freak out.

the surface wasn't much more comforting

i remember this being a weird turning point in the game's tone. it's warm and vibrant and so utterly normal up until this level. and then suddenly it's this eerie music that never gives you a moment to rest, and an empty, alien sky with a diffuse light that comes from nothing, and artificial-looking silvery waves that repeat onward and onward and onward

elden ring's water looks realistic enough; your brain can agree ah yes, that is water without too much trouble. that it does look real enough is the problem, because if you can trust that it's water, you can trust that it'll act like water. it's creepy because when you fall through it like it's nothing more than fog, the reassuring illusion it provides of a physical medium you could swim through is shattered. you don't realize you're plummeting into a bottomless pit until you're already plummeting into the bottomless pit

by contrast, ecco's water is creepy because the illusion is never there to begin with. up until now the water has held to certain rules: you can go in any direction, you can leap across the surface, and your world is reasonably constrained by the ocean floor. open ocean takes away the floor, save for a vague hint of it at the bottom - yet it still feels like you could swim down forever if you wanted. also it throws sharks at you

these are mostly weirdo thoughts i kept to myself for most of my life, except for a stint back on the early days of reddit where i wrote a little essay about thalassaphobia on r/gaming. people seemed to get it

i was pleased as punch when eventually the concept of liminal spaces had penetrated the internet's public awareness. it gave language to something i understood but could never really ideate! not only was i able to understand why the safeway parking lot in tucson unnerved the shit out of me, but also i recognized at once that the ill-defined boundaries of ecco's open ocean and elden ring's jarringly bottomless sea cliffs were prime examples of artificial liminal spaces. the concept was definitely too abstract for the web and eventually it got diluted into horror game schlock fuel, but early on they had the right idea in that these spaces could invoke feelings of fear, loneliness, sadness, wistfulness, curiosity, more.

i think it's really neat that video games can do that, too. here's my very favorite liminal space:

if i had the wherewithal, i would have made this a little embedded video with sound, so you could hear the crunchy 8-bit din of the ocean in this weird little corner of the original legend of zelda. little 4-6 year old me loved to park link on this sliver of a mountain path and just kinda vibe here.

this screen's tilemap was so ruthlessly simple that you can't help but fill in the details in your mind's eye. isolated from the rest of the map, there's no telling if this little chunk of black/orange/yellow rock is meant to be a cliff looming over the sea, or some kind of depression in a sort of seaside crag, or perhaps something stranger still, known only to the japanese gentlemen who plotted it out.

my preferred mental image was that of link winding his way up a path no wider than he, carved into the surface of this enormous rocky monolith. in this context the path's presence in the foreground makes it feel as if it's somehow 'hidden' from the ocean, a safe refuge, free of meddling octoroks and zoras, to recuperate, soak in the sunlight, and from a secretive vantage, look out over a span of nearly-blank water that must go on forever.

i feel like this part of zelda is supposed to invoke the same thalassaphobic response i get from elden ring and from ecco the dolphin, but the presence of the cliffside, and more specifically the way the path is couched toward its center, makes it feel like we're regarding the ocean from far, far above. it might go on endlessly baby, and beyond its reaches the world might be nothing but vapor, but we're safe up here. the weird high concept void can't get us

The Netflix ATLA adaptation is-- ugh-- not good? At least... it won't be good if you've ever seen the animated ATLA. It's an --eh-- adaptation, yet a decent story. So, it will be entertaining and a lovely family show for those completely unfamiliar with the animated series.

In terms of adaptations, I'd compare it to the Lightning Thief and Sea of Monsters movies. Some strong casting choices and an entertaining story (in a vacuum) with exciting fight sequences and special effects. But the story they tell is more "inspired" by the original than an adaptation of the original into a new medium. You have the same characters, and the characters start their journey for much the same reason (same overarching conflict), and the bad guy is the same, and there are a couple destinations that are the same along the way, but the rest of the plot is completely new, and the reason they've come to certain familiar destinations is also new.

Now, I understand that adaptations need to omit parts, blend parts, change parts, and-- well-- adapt parts for a new medium and in consideration of time constraints and logistical constraints (a good example of this is NATLA removing the end of summer deadline given the logistics and time-frame for filming). I have no issue with that, so do not take this post out of proportion.

I'd actually contrast this adaptation with the recent PJO Disney+ adaptation. While there were parts of the show that were hurried due to time constraints, what was omitted (see: hell hound scene as an example), what was blended (see: DOA recording studios and Crusty's as an example), and what was adapted and added (see: Percy's confrontation with the Luke at the end, the flashbacks, meeting Hermes and laying the foundations of Luke's character and past, and no spiders in the tunnel) do not detract from the story. It tells the same story in a new, creative way for a new medium, and that is what an adaptation is supposed to do. It did so well that the show's only major weakness was its tendency to show rather than tell for the sake of time in a few instances toward the end of the season.

An adaptation can add and omit and be different from the source material, often to help with pacing and to observe new time constraints or logistics concerns, but NATLA made seemingly unnecessary choices that completely change character arcs, and this will have major consequences for how this version's story will end (if Netflix gives it an end). I saw one user on here say that Netflix's ATLA adaptation is as if they took ATLA, stirred it up in a large pot, and then chose certain bits and pieces of that story from there. It's like Lacroix ATLA, a hint of being written next door to a viewing room by people who only kind of remember these character's arcs from their childhood.

EX:

They mashed together the Swamp plotline (kinda) with the Solstice plotline (kinda) with every Spirit World plotline in season 1 of ATLA (yes, Hei Bai, Roku, and Koh) with a bit of the Blue Spirit plotline and June's plotline in two episodes (but omitted the Abbey as they changed the Bato plotline). They also mashed together the Omashu plotline with Jet's plotline with the Northern Air Temple plotline (the mechanist) in about one-and-a-half episodes.

They omitted the Pirate plotline, the Canyon plotline, and the Deserter plotline (Jeong-Jeong erasure). They also kinda skipped over the Bato plotline (rather than a short arc meant to force Aang's character growth and feature Sokka and Katara's choice to fully commit to the hero's journey, it was a flashback to explore Sokka's despair and fear of being a leader), but this change to the ice dodging story was okay. They also kinda skipped over the Storm plotline (we still got Zuko's background and the agni kai with his father, but his relationship with his crew is very different, and we do not get Aang's story about choosing to run away from his future responsibilities), but I liked how they incorporated the 41st Battalion-- the new recruits Zuko was banished for speaking out for-- into members of Zuko's ship crew.

However, all of this means we do not have a story featuring Aang coming to terms with cultural change over 100 years. We also do not have a story about Aang feeling like an outcast (then and now) and coming to terms with his guilt. While he does get a conversation with Gyatso, who tells him that he shouldn't feel guilt, this is very different than personally coming to terms with the culpability he feels for the fate of the world after being frozen for 100 years and running away (show Aang did not run away, but went for a short fly to clear his mind and got stuck in a storm). Aang's tendency to avoid conflict (like running away or hiding things, etc) will be a major part of his struggle with earth bending. However, this Aang does not avoid and evade. Season one explored Aang's struggles with change and flow as he learned to bend the element of change and flow: water. However, this Aang does not seem to have trouble accepting change, going with a new flow, and adapting to new circumstances. We also do not have a story about Aang learning to be a diplomat.

Additionally, we do not have a story featuring Sokka and Katara confronting their grief and coming to terms with their feelings of failure in their respective roles as assigned to them in their parentification (Sokka as the last leader and protector of his cultural heritage in the face of genocide, where he is expected to lay down his life for people with "bigger" destinies than him-- Yue, Katara-- and Katara as the last water bender of the Southern Water Tribe, tasked with surviving and learning to be a bender, possibly at the sacrifice or danger of the people she loves-- her mother and her friends), despite getting one about their despair.

They also omitted events that showcase Aang's carefree nature in season 1, which will make it difficult to contrast who he becomes by the war's end and upon mastering all four elements. This version changes Katara's character, too (as it seems to have done with all the characters), as she's far more level-headed and cautious in this adaptation and is largely missing the anger that made her such a relatable character for many young girls. I also do not know how they'll introduce the white lotus for the Liberation of Ba Sing Se-- if Netflix, notorious for canceling shows, gives this more seasons-- when chunks of the white lotus have been omitted from this version.

I think these changes to the character arcs ultimately detract from the characters and the overall course of this story, making it into a story inspired by the original-- like an AU-- rather than an adaptation.

On the other hand, a change from the original material that I enjoyed is this adaptation's telling of Azula's story, portraying the immense pressure she was always under, as well as the way Ozai manipulated her and encouraged his children to resent each other. I also enjoyed that Ozai wasn't just an archetypal big-bad, but a deeply flawed and cruel man driven by his fanaticism. It was clear he knew what he was doing in his treatment of those around him, and he knew that it hurt them, but he did it anyway because he believed it was morally right and that he had the moral right as the leader of his nation and family.

The NATLA actors had big shoes to fill, and I think they did their characters justice for the story those characters were given. Daniel Dae Kim said his inspiration for Ozai was modern politicians, and he really brought that to the table. George Takei was a great choice for the voice of Koh, and casting a comedian, Danny Pudi, to play the mechanist was also a good choice. Ian Ousley (Sokka) brought the energy of a sardonic, cringe-fail nerd with the potential to become a wicked smart strategist and engineer who is weighed down by grief and impossible responsibilities. Dallas James Liu (Zuko) brought the energy of a resentful and, at times, cruel ball of anger and angst who is tormented by internal moral conflicts and memories of abuse. Gordon Cormier (Aang) and Kiawentiio Tarbell (Katara) both brought the idealism of their characters and the hope for the future they represent in the face of genocide.

Ultimately, I think the show was handicapped by its medium (live-action) and length (eight 40-minute episodes). There were a lot of critical character-development plotlines they had to omit, and many that they had to find a way to sort of shoehorn into just three to four middle episodes. However, to do that, they made critical changes that will affect the story. What makes ATLA such a beloved piece of media is how dynamic the characters are, and I just can't see this adaptation accomplishing this given how the characters and their arcs have been changed.

A good adaptation is hard to achieve.

Avatar: The Last Airbender Netflix Live Action Episode 1 Review

So, going in, I made it a goal to have an open mind. This is an adaptation, not a remake. There are different constraints and considerations when changing the medium like this. (For example, in the One Piece Live Action they removed the typical anime cartoonishness from the violence because in Live Action punching your friend in the head just comes across as abuse, not a gag.) There's also pacing changes from fewer but longer episodes to ensure the story is cohesive. Having watched the first episode, I am getting a feel for the kinds of changes that have been made and I understand and appreciate the creative choices involved.

Spoiler Free- What I liked and Didn't like

Liked: The Bending

The way bending is depicted beautifully merges with martial arts choreography, so that bending is an extension of the martial arts. It feels very much like old school wire fu in the best way. In fact, the first 15-20 minutes has very strong Hong Kong cinema vibes, and I really enjoy that.

Liked: The characters

While there are some changes (necessary for the medium, in my opinion), the core of the characters still comes through. Aang is very clearly a sweet kid with too much responsibility, and the adaptation does a great job of conveying the inherent unfairness of putting all this on a kid. Zuko accurately conveys anger, hope, desperation, and arrogance with good facial expressions. Sokka is sarcastic, an over-protective big brother, and clearly struggling under the weight of his own responsibilities in protecting the tribe. Katara is brave and kind, and she struggles but still refuses to give up and is very focused on doing the right thing. (She is very clearly someone who will later say she won't ever turn her back on people who need her.) Iroh hasn't had a lot of screen time yet, but his two main interactions with Zuko and Aang show someone who is wise and compassionate. He's more direct in this adaptation and less cryptic, but I don't think that's a bad thing.

Liked: The world building

I think the thing I appreciate the most is that the adaptation doesn't rely on you having watched the original to understand what is going on. This is a common trap that many adaptations fall into, creating a disjointed narrative, but here they have taken the time to establish the world, the stakes, and the chief players, and while there is some necessary exposition, for a lot of it they do a good job of following Show Don't Tell. Also, the sets are beautiful.

Disliked: CGI

While the fight and bending choreography look great, and Appa is adorable, there are moments where they over-rely on CGI, especially when depicting the Avatar State, that leads to some Uncanny Valley moments. I wish they had used more practical effects.

Dislike: GranGran

Probably the weakest performance comes from the woman playing GranGran. I'm sure she's a lovely person, but her delivery was flat and wooden.

Spoilers: What I liked and Didn't Like

Liked: The Air Nomads

Opening with the events of the Comet and the Air Nomad Genocide was perhaps the biggest change from the original. (RIP Random Earth Bender guy- you were a real one.) We're shown Aang's relationship with his people, especially Gyatso, and then we're actually shown the Fire Nation attack on the Air Nomads. We see the horrors of what is happening (and get a pretty potent reminder of why incendiary weapons are a war crime) and this very effectively gives an emotional weight to this war while clearly establishing the stakes. Again, this is very different from the original, which was a children's cartoon and therefore danced around the horror of war (for a very good reason.)

Liked: Aang and Katara friendship

Another big change- they scrapped Aang's early one-sided crush in favor of building a friendship based on mutual understanding and support. The door is still open to develop it into a romance, but by giving it this base I feel it will be more earned. I also think that given the constraints including the crush would have been an unnecessary distraction to the Very Important Events going on.

Mixed: Aang didn't runaway

Well, not really. Instead he goes on a flight to clear his head because he is (very understandably) feeling overwhelmed. He very clearly intends it to be a short flight. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, Running Away is Aang's chief character flaw in the original. On the other hand, I have always been annoyed that this flaw is never really dealt with in a meaningful way. The deus ex machina at the end of series that let's Aang keep running away without consequence instead of forcing him to overcome it, allowing him to hold to his No Murder stance without any struggle is probably the point I criticize the most in the original series. I would have preferred if they had kept that flaw and actually dealt with it, but if there was one thing they cut I'm not exactly mad it was this.

On the whole, it's not perfect, but I am enjoying it a lot. I'm looking forward to seeing these characters and story develop in new ways.

Why Most Child Characters Seem Shallow and How to Avoid It

Ah, kids… They all develop at different rates and display unique characteristics. Yet, when you look at media of any medium or any age demographic, do you feel that child characters are a little…flat? Annoying even? Do you see the same kid character in multiple stories just with slightly different appearances? Are they more like plot devices or objects than fleshed out people?

I find often in writing child characters many creators (the vast majority of which are teens or adults) get trapped in the constraints of cultural ideas about how children supposedly work. I understand most people aren’t going to be able to know every aspect of developmental psychology, and that’s fine! Yet it’s ironic, since we were all kids at one point ourselves. Still, media of all sorts is tempted to group kids into categories based mainly on how they impact the rest of the cast, rather than the child’s developing personality and what factors are influencing its trajectory. I am aware that there are exceptions to every rule and I have seen many great well written child characters. However, in this post, I want to discuss what causes the majority of them to seem shallow, and how to avoid it in your writing!

1. Children Don’t Exist in a Vacuum

Children’s behavior is often framed by society in the lens of how it affects others, rather than considering the valid reasons a child may have to behave in that way. For example, a kid screaming and crying in a public place is seen as a brat throwing a tantrum…until someone realizes they’re hurt or being abducted. As a child, you’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t. No matter what you do, or why, or how, if you cause inconvenience, adults will likely on some level take it personally. They think to themselves that there were many other reasonable ways this kid could’ve gotten their needs met, but they chose to do this annoying thing.

In reality, kids rely on others reacting to them to get food water and love. That’s why children (who haven’t been abused) do whatever it takes to get their caregivers to pay attention to their needs, and their tactic is dependent on how the caregiver and their environment reacts. So ask yourself, why would this child character you’re writing be behaving in the specific way they are? Has this been the best way for them to get their needs met with their caregivers in the past? Are the characters around them going to understand this, or be annoyed? How does that make the child feel?

2. Kids Aren’t That Stupid

I can’t stress this point enough. Naive or innocent are not just other ways to say unintelligent or unaware. Kids notice almost everything around them, as they’re constantly absorbing information. They can have difficulties focusing on one thing for that reason. A lot of things are going through those little noggins of theirs, so please don’t go to making your 10 year old character act like they have the awareness of a toddler. I understand that maybe this character you’re writing is one you want to come off as innocent, but this isn’t the way to do it.

Child characters, though maybe not having as much experience noticing certain things, will usually notice the feelings of those around them. Kids can tell when adults don’t take them seriously, or when they’re being brushed aside. Don’t fall into the trap of making your child character oblivious to everything going on around them, or limiting their vocabulary to basic words even as they get to school age to make them “sound like a child”. They know more than you give them credit for, so don’t hesitate to let them be a bit more involved in what’s happening.

3. Tiny Human Problems are Real Problems

So, you may think children overrreact to the most trivial things. That’s hindsight talking for you. Kiddos don’t have as much frame of reference as an adult, so they react intensely to things adults may scoff about. This can either be natural because the child doesn’t know what to expect and is a bit spooked, or taught by how extremely others have reacted to similar things around them. A toddler may not know how to react to spilling their drink on the new carpet, and look to others. If someone freaks out over the mess, the child is likely to start crying themselves, and will feel panic if they spill something in the future. When put to a broad perspective, spilling something is not the end of the world. It’s an accident, and it can be cleaned up. But a child won’t know how that it’s not a big catastrophe unless someone else shows them they can remain calm in the situation.

In fact, as a general rule, extremely young children tend to see everything as revolving around them. This isn’t the same as selfishness. It’s more like they haven’t developed their full sense of “me” yet. Instead, everything is framed as “we”. The child and the world are one in the same. Problems for them are problems for the whole world. We are hungry. We are tired. We want that candy bar, etc. They cry and react so extremely because to their developing brains, this isn’t just their problem, but literally everyone else’s problem too. Keep in mind this also means when someone gets upset for a reason that has nothing to do with them, most children believe subconsciously they did something to make it happen. That belief can stay with them even well into adulthood.

What the Fuck is Art?

Read it on Medium: https://medium.com/@stardustexpress/what-the-fuck-is-art-87b757fadb3

Here’s the thing, there’s no actual definition of what art truly is. Sure you can look up the dictionary definition and call it a day, but that’s boring. I want you to sit down and ponder about it with me.

Art is subjective. It can mean anything. To some it’s their passion, some would say it’s decoration, and to some it’s a waste of time and money.

During one of my gaming sessions where I would spend hours playing Genshin Impact, I decided to play Nilou’s story quest, To The Wise. I won’t say any major spoilers but the gist of it was the Zubayr Theater receives a notice that the theater will get demolished due to their constant violation of the Akademiya’s rules regarding the performances they put out. Throughout this quest, a particular NPC caught my attention, Khasani.

Khasani was previously an Akademiya scholar pursuing the mastery of art. However, he left this path because the more he pursued its mastery, and the more he became a connoisseur, the more estranged and lost he felt with what art truly is. At some point, he asks you and Nilou what you think the definition of art is and that led me to spiral down into this article.

Now if you were to ask how I define it, I’d say that art is both an escape, and a language.

Many artists refer to their craft as an escape from the burdens of everyday life. In this world full of problems, pressure, and burdens, art becomes a sanctuary. It is a way for you to vent out your emotions, letting yourself get lost in the process and forget about whatever it was that is bothering you.

Art reflects the beauties and horrors there is in life. It serves as an outlet where you can freely express yourself and your thoughts with no limits. It helps us communicate the things that are difficult to talk about, freeing us from the constraints of words and immersing ourselves with the language of color, shapes, and movements. There are no rules in this beautiful world, the only limit truly is your imagination.

Have you ever walked into a museum, an art gallery, or even scrolled through social media, and saw this artwork that just sucked you into a whole different dimension? Like the air was punched out of your lungs the moment you laid eyes to the piece. Or after finishing a good movie/series you feel transported back to the real world after being so immersed in that fictional world? That’s just one way of art serving as a literal, almost physical escape from the real world.

"Art doesn’t discriminate, and it appeals to all. Everyone has the right to appreciate art." -Nilou

Not to be that person who looks down on those who just like art for its visual appeal and aesthetic, albeit some of those people tend to look at art on a surface level and if it doesn’t fit their visual aesthetics, they consider it invaluable. That being said, I personally think that it takes a deeper level of comprehension to understand the true essence of a piece. To see beyond the colors and shapes takes a lot of understanding.

Understanding art is like learning a new language, its mediums are its dialects. With this in mind, asking an artist of a certain medium, like graphic design per se, to animate is like asking a person to speak a language they barely know. Sure they can speak it but it wouldn’t be as fluent and refined as someone who has dedicated their time and effort to study that language.

Just like languages, each medium has its own intricacies and technicalities. It takes a lot of effort to be fluent in one. Seeing people who think that we, artists, can do all mediums with ease is kind of insulting to those who have spent so much to master a medium. Seeing people who look down on artists, using the overused argument that everyone can draw, sew, paint, etc., making their craft seem insignificant, is infuriating.

Art is a language not everyone speaks. Humans tend to devalue and ostracize things they do not understand instead of doing the work to understand one thing better. This is one of the reasons why there is so much backlash against abstract art (i.e. Who’s Afraid of Red by Barnett Newman) and high fashion (Schiaparelli Spring-Summer 2023 couture collection, Inferno).

The thing is, art does not discriminate. People discriminate art just because it’s beyond their understanding.

"The meaning of art comes not from its creators, but from its audience.” - Khasani

Going back to Nilou’s quest, the story received so many negative comments from fans, and many players dislike Nilou because her story is “boring” or her existence in the game is simply for fanservice. People who failed to understand the meaning of the quest, nor Nilou’s existence in the game are the same people who look down on artists and the creative industry. The same people who demand creators to produce more quality work in so little time, yet refuse to pay for an artist’s services. Art is nothing in the eyes of an ignorant man.

At the end of the day, this is just my understanding or how I view art. How you define it is all on you. Life without art is devoid of meaning.

Art surrounds us. From the clothes we wear, the music we listen to, the shows we watch, the games we play, even the packaging of your favorite snack. Failing to see and acknowledge its value takes a lot of ignorance.

Now ask yourself. How do you define art?

What do you think about the live disney princess movies? Like the beauty and the beast could’ve used separate actors for visual acting and the singing, Emma Watson was a bit dodgy idk. The music is toned down in the live action versions either by removing the songs or just being poorly done. Listening to some clips of the little mermaid 😘 hopefully I get around to seeing whole thing.

so when i was watching the live action beauty and the beast and lamenting the horrible music choices i had a mutual who actually linked me this video essay talking about live action disney's music choices in general and it was quite revealing, i highly recommend it. as for how i felt about the movie on a personal level.. i despised it lol. i think in my thread for rewatching all of these princess movies it took up the most space bc i had so many complaints 😭 here are a few summarized lol:

why i think the drop-off in disney live actions occurs after maleficent and cinderella is bc of the fact that these two were not originally musical movies. there were far less constraints present by which disney had to orient the original character arcs, and it gave the writers room to take the stories where they wanted to. the disney live actions after don't have this luxury bc almost all of them are based on films that were movie musicals in the first place. so you're essentially recreating a film almost letter for letter, while nonetheless trying to push it beyond those constraints, and it overall makes for a product that feels very.. awkward. not to mention the live action's music simply does not compare to the original's in any way, like adapting one of disney's best soundtracks ever was already going to be a hassle but they somehow managed to plummet even further below expectations with the end product

in that vein, i think what the live action beauty and the beast really suffers from is being both underwritten and overwritten. it's not willing to expand on the movie's original canon and instead creates new canon where it's not even necessary. for example: the live action cinderella expands on lady tremaine's cruelty and gives it a basis rather than making her into a randomly evil figure. comparatively, the live action beauty and the beast introduces lore as to how belle and the beast's mothers died and it's just.. not needed at all? they don't bond with each other over tragedy. they bond with each other over being outcasts who are misunderstood.

the live action also strips the original movie of all of its fun. there's no scene with belle's father chancing upon a moment of explosive genius, no maneuvering gaston out of the house into a pig puddle while the wedding band unceremoniously breaks into song. it's so lifeless as a movie bc there's only so much it can translate to a live action medium. this also applies to so much of the line delivery, which hardly feels theatrical anymore

the beast.. i'm so upset over how they revamped his character. there's so much deliberation and built up suspense in his original introduction to both maurice and belle that is simply lost in the adaptation. the beast's not an aggressor from the start, he prowls, he approaches slowly, bc he recognizes that he is viewed by others as a monster, bc he anticipates the rejection and fear. he's not actually an animal at heart in the original. he's the one who offers her a room, he's skeptical but quietly hopeful she might join him for dinner. the frustration only comes after bc it's paired with the despair and desperation of knowing that he may live like this forever. the live action carries none of that nuance. it paints him as an aggressor, as someone who doesn't even Want to treat her as anything more than a prisoner, and is forced into placating her by his servants. it completely fails to understand the beast wanted to break the spell, but he felt hopeless as to how

i respect that emma watson is a feminist but that really did not call for altering the entire script of a movie that was already fine and feminist in its own right lol.. like if i wanted to watch a movie about a man learning that it's not girly and cringe to read romeo and juliet i would peruse romance book twt like it was an entertainment channel. the beast's problem originally was that he had spent so long living as a beast he forgot how to live as a human. he forgot how to read bc in his mind no beast needs to learn how to read. to turn that portrayal of insecurity and shame into something about him not respecting shakespeare was just.. utterly stupid? and condescending?

all of this to say i wasn't really a fan of any of the live actions after maleficent and cinderella lol like obv each movie has its unique issues but they are in the same vein as this one's. except, lo and behold, the hype for the little mermaid was so highly anticipated ig that they decided to learn sense and actually put substantial effort into it. i really think it's the best live action disney adaptation thus far, there are so many things about it i love, not least of all the actually sensible feminist changes to the original script as compared to how beauty and the beast tried to recreate something as "feminist" that was already feminist in the first place. like there's no doubt about it, the original the little mermaid is very largely framed around ariel's desire to be with eric. but without giving away too many spoilers, the live action does such a marvelous job at reframing ariel's desire as one for the world, and in a way that really emphasizes on her conflict with triton. i do have a few minor complaints of the film but as a whole it's a really well done revamp that takes an originally very daring female protagonist and fleshes her out even more in the best way possible. eric is also given way more agency and personality so it really feels like you're watching the development of a romance between equals. i am absolutely sure you'll enjoy it when you watch it!

Sorry if uve answered this before but like. What do u think kon and clarks relationship? I kinda like them being on good terms but in the nebulous ur ny uncle/brother/cousin/close family memeber deal instead of clark being a parent because... waves hands at luthor and the uh. Kinda constant issues of how kon was created and also because I think kon deserves to choose what people to mean to him after everything he's been thru but what do u think

ive had a couple asks about this and i dont remember if ive answered it before or not but i guess ill separate my thoughts into Fanon/my preferred timeline and then canon. but i think im in the same general camp where i think that theyre relationship is very nebulous, but don't mind if Parent is one of those relationships thrown into the mix. saying theyre brothers doesnt feel 100% right, but saying theyre father-son also doesnt feel totally right? i literally don't know how to explain how i feel about it but if you read this maybe it will be more clear

uh this will be long

1)Canon (pre retcon and post retcon)

Sooooo firstly with canon, i chalk a lot of the choices up to the narrative constraints and dc editorial things? because one, they wanted superboy to be a solo hero and not a sidekick, and two, his original story is that he is not a superman clone, but just a clone from a shitbag scientist named Paul Westfield that was altered to look and mimic clark, which is also pretty weird and understandably off-putting for clark still.

then when clark finally "returns from the dead" he's still pretty concerned about the kid? like he helps kon figure out what to do with cadmus and all, and then kon gives clark's old apartment back to him and says he's gonna find a new place and fly "second star to the right and straight on till morning" T-T

and you know from then on he's just a guy that occasionally pops up and gives kon advice.

and then we get to the whole "brother thing" because when kon went into hypertime and met teen clark, teen clark assumed his adult self had shared his secret identity and life with kon, which makes kon feel insecure about not being trustworthy. teen clark explains that he probably has a reason and says they could be like brothers. and when kon comes back and confronts kal-el, kal tells him he's family.

they do act familial, but the brother thing was proposed by clark first so it's not as clear on kon's side. personally, despite his rebellious attitude and insistence on being his own man, he's still a kid, and with how much kon latches onto father figures, laments about not having a real father or mother and even wishes he had one, gets distraught at the thought of losing his father figures like guardian or dubbilex, i don't really blame some readers for hoping clark would step in more as either a mentor or something more?

but again, that would require some big narrative commitments and mightve made it hard for them to be solo heroes with separate lives, and supergirls a solo hero too with a similar age range but she's already been established as a cousin.

now after the retcon, its been changed so that kon is half lex luthor half clark, and though there's still a mixed bag of opinions on it, at least kon's attitude towards paul and not wanting to end up like a shitbag and have to be told by clark he's his own person still applies i guess T-T and the circumstances are more iffy and kon does keep it a secret for a while. it also complicates things by painting clark to be some absentee dad, which frankly is out of character for him i think. so idk kon keeping both his donors a secret could be interesting ? i have to think about it and how to resolve that narrative issue T-T. but also, i dont think the retcon is necessarily bad, just had a bunch of missed unique opportunities they could've used to make it stand out in a medium where this type of plotline already saturates its stories T-T (you could buy a sandwich if you had a nickel for every hero with half villain half hero genes)

so yeah basically im pretty sure readers at the time were hoping for a more father-son relationship while some were fine with just being brothers, and dc cant decide so i have decided that i will apply homestuck rules in which they are genetic father and son and may call each other brothers but in a way where kon looks up to clark so much he's basically a father to him. or like in ninjago where kai and lloyd clearly have a brotherly relationship but lloyd claims "kai was a father to me when i needed one."

because relationships aren't so cookie cutter you know? especially when it comes to family.

ANYWAYSSSSSSS

2) Fanon/My canon timeline

In my mind's eye, their relationship takes a longgg time to develop, and it has to overcome misunderstandings, but they are always amicable to each other. (Basically, not whatever the yj show did?) Clark doesn't automatically set himself to adopt or whatever, but he promises to look after him and has a more active role in helping kon find a place to stay, on kon's own insistence on being his own independent person. He heavily distrusts Cadmus though but dubbilex and guardian seem trustworthy enough. There is a part where he asks kon to keep an eye on cadmus' shady operations, and in my fanon I'd rather him just say that kon should go to him if anything bad every happens more out of concern for kon's safety than anything else? If that made sense.

Also, Clark is young and still rattling with the fact there's a mini-him running around the place that was meant to replace him so he's allowed to feel weird about it and not have all the answers. He does know that the right thing to do is make sure the kid's safe, but the kon's got a chip on his shoulder and doesn't make it easy. Kon is no one's sidekick--he is going to be superman one day, because it's what he's meant to do. He doesn't always know what's best for him, and always gets himself into trouble, and maybe he knows that, but I'd write it so that he slowly has to learn that it's okay to be a kid and to fuck up sometimes and listen to someone who knows better. Also, he talks big shit about being superman but also places expectations on himself because Clark's shadow is just so big that it makes it hard to connect with clark maybe? Like that's the guy you were made to be one day. And you know for a fact he didnt mess up as much as you did.

And when kal gives him the name kon-el and proclaims that he is family, kon is so happy he cries so you're left wondering why it took so long for them to get to that point. so i think in my timeline it'd happen a bit sooner? or like i would not make it take so long lol.

then you meet teen clark, and i think that's when things start to change. Of course this is the homestuck in me talking, but I think i'd have liked to see kon spend more time with teen clark, where some of that walls between them could have been broken down at now that kon's able to see what clark was like as a kid and bring him down to earth more rather than view him as this big lofty figure in his life. that's also partly what the yj sins of youth arc does too i guess. mmm gotta love the coming-of-age-ness of it all.

teen clark says that having kon around is kind of like having a brother, and kon nods but wonders if adult clark will think the same. after returning to his reality, kon goes to kal-el who reassures him he's family and trusts him and is sorry he doesn't make that more clear. he'd ask what kon wants but kon himself is still unsure. and after that convo, clark makes it a point to check up on him more and grows more concerned. he's gotten to know the kid a lot more!

and okay i could go on and on but basically, he voices his concerns about kon's living situations and surrounding peers a lot more and is careful not to command kon like a scolding parent, but nudge him with advice and let it be kon's decision on what to do. basically this is the stage where clark is acting more like a guardian figure i guess and after kon is finally convinced to go live in smallville with the kents, clark gets a lot more unbearable and acts like an annoying family member to kon and smothers him with sagely advice lol. and kon appreciates the gesture but he's having a hard time adjusting to it all, at having to live a normal life, and no matter what clark does there's still this shadow and expectation that falls on him. and not knowing what to do kon gives in, and tries to mimic clark cuz his previous efforts to be his own person all always landed him in hot shit.

(and if we are keeping the retcon, then finding out you arent who you thought you were would just add more to ur identity crisis T-T and if ur like me who likes to think of kon as queer then aaaah this new life would do a number on you and you might try to act soooo normal and scramble for a sense of control and understanding of your own life. and insisting on keeping it a secret bc ur afraid it'll change what people think of you? ough ik it wasnt meant to be read like that but my brain just went aaaaah. the queer experience. and with the whole luthor mind control thing? I hate 70% of it but i like thinking about it from an angle where kon realllly has to fight for an ounce of control over any aspect of his life idk idk T-T even without the retcon, i think you could still find a way to do something with this notion of identity and control)

anyways, i think time in smallville would slowly allow clark and kon to bond even more and really see each other for who they are as people and for kon to really find out who he is and who he wants to be, not as a sidekick to clark or as superman but as himself (and he'd slowly come back to a more punk and/or flamboyant fashion sense T-T). he's friends with the coolest teen heroes ever who are his family, and he's ma kent's boy. and he's clark's family. he tells his school friends that clark's his cousin and maybe thats what the documents say, and they may agree to call each other brothers, but bottomline is clark will be a father to kon whenever he needs one and will always be there to help kon and be a home to him.

then when clark is older and has jon, i guess maybe kon would still stick around and help out and definitely sees himself as jon's brother. like regardless of what clark and kon decide to call themselves kon is jon's brother like i really want them to be silly brothers. also cuz jon deserves one. there's so many interesting things dc could do with jon and kon aaaag so sad. it's also important to me that clark is a good parent and even if he wasnt perfect, he cared about kon and explicitly shows theyre family? like even in canon sometimes it didnt feel like it T-T

maybe it's just me, but i guess i project a lot of my own experiences and my oc rolin's experience onto him a lot. because rolin lives with his aunt who is basically a mother to him, and he has an older cousin who is basically a brother to him, and then this little girl that barges into his life basically becomes his sister and he can act like an overbearing parent to her even though they're not related by blood. he's got a weird relationship with his own dad, so he sees a father in a lot of older ppl. you can never have too many parental figures!!! so i guess my mind's used to thinking of family members doing double duty T-T ? i just personally really think dynamics shouldn't easily be pinned down as just one thing and think ppl are too stuck on traditional (or perhaps a nuclear or western) family standards. ugh when i write my oc story you will all see.

sorry that was really long and rambly and didn't make sense in some parts--i probably should have done this in google docs and made this fancy. also! who knows i might totally change my mind on a thing anyways. canon is my playdough i mold to whatever i think suits a more interesting narrative or to my personal bias.

Do you feel that ChatGPT will change the education system in a good way or will it continually be frustrating as it gets more advanced?

Asking as a student getting real tired of having to compete with other students who do use ChatGPT on essays and claim its the way of the future.

Hello !

Oof, you are actually asking this as personnally, I am still trying to make up my mind about it.

I was talking about it with a friend recently, and we concluded that just as with any technological (r)evolution, AI as a whole will have benefits, at the cost of trade-offs ; but there is probably no point pretending it is not happening, or refusing to consider the advantages it might offer, simply because we are used to how things are now.

"Ceci détruira cela", said Hugo about the press and the wide availability of books destroying more traditional sources of moral and code of conducts such as religion. And he had a point, but only partially. The press, books, they are tools. They are a medium. They are not the content. If the content is strong enough, it survives the change in tools. Obsessing over tool means overestimating the medium and missing that the value lies in the content.

What will be continually frustrating, at least in University, is probably not ChatGPT itself. It is the use that is made of it by students who do not know better. Who think that ChatGPT will provide them content, when it is only a tool.

ChatGPT writes bad essays because it does not think. And at the end of the day, what we expect in my field at least, is for student to think, to mule over concepts and problems, from the abstract to the concrete, to be creative, innovative.

So I can see some changes that will be "for the best", through ChatGPT, more or less revolving around "now we can focus on the content, rather than what tool, the medium, the writing". that is obviously an over simplification - the writing and the content of the writing will never be fully separate. But I can see how students that struggle specifically with writing, but do have the content, would benefit from this (I am thinking : the slow writers, the ones that do not write well under time constraints, the non-native English speakers, the ones that overthink their writings to the point of barely writing anything...).

But there are trade-offs. Writing skills are valuable in and off themselves, and writing skills go beyond what ChatGPT can offer. Developing your own writing style, especially if you are going in a field where there will be a lot of writing, is invaluable, and we might lose a lot of that. It will be more and more difficult to see which student is using ChatGPT as a tool, the way we have normalized calculators and Grammarly, and which ones are acting in bad faith. And from a wider perspective, I am worries about students relying on AI-generated text without understanding how little we know about this technology, and therefore not knowing its inherent limits.

Anyway, ChatGPT is likely here to stay, and we will have to do more than just incorporating AI-detecting tools. It will be require us to rethink how we assess students, the format of exams and graded work... I want to see it as an opportunity to sit down and think "ok, what exactly am I trying to teach these students ? What is this skills that I want them to get that they cannot simply get by asking ChatGPT? and how can I assess that specifically"? The problem being of course that Universities, (senior) faculty members are famously slow-moving, and conservative in their academic practice. So it is likely to take time, time that neither us nor other students like you trying to figure out what they should do really have.