#suspension of disbelief? these are Real Characters i can't believe that someone who isn't them is making these sounds and doing these things
Note
I don't usually interact with "succubus/incubus" esque monsters in my monster-loving ventures because I feel weird about them being designed to fulfill others desires. Almost like they can't have boundaries?
I usually enjoy your writing so I read some of your succubus stories of Santi and Vesper, and though I'm still not exactly a 'lust-monster cheerleader' I find myself enjoying them with less of my usual hangups!
I really like how you convey the monsters as enjoying the activity outside of just sex = sexual pleasure = all good folks!
The idea that pleasure/lust gives them pleasure isn't new but the way you write it is refreshing in allowing an easier suspension of disbelief.
With how depraved and lust-driven you make the monsters it's easier to believe that they really do enjoy all the kinks their prey enjoys and are within their comfort zone. Instead of some objectified fantasy of a sex-doll coming to life but still being just a sex-doll, it only comes to life to make the person feel wanted and less of a loser (nothing wrong with those who partake in those fantasies every now and again but I personally don't like it, especially when it's repetitive and still no personality).
By giving them personalities that aren't just "sexsexsexsexsex" or some facet of it (so many succubus/incubus characters tend to fall back on the trope personalities traits of charisma, self-absorbed, shallow) you make them more fleshed out without losing the idea that they still are lust-driven.
Also, kudos for sticking to your guns about them being sexually polyamorous (though not always romantically poly) because it makes sense!!!! So many stories seem to go with the idea that once they find The One they'll be monogamous (and if people want to read that then good for them it's their preference), but being sexually polyamorous makes sense and doesn't negate the meaningfulness of their relationship any!!
You don't shy away from what it means to be a Lust Monster, which I really appreciate as someone who is into monster loving for how 'other' the monsters act (not just look).
It also allows them some agency in a way? I can't really explain it but something about you not disregarding their monstrous aspects or expecting them to change and loving them for it. Something about not expecting a beast that feeds on lust to conform to your perception of the world. Something about not controlling or owning them. Something about how their species give pleasure to receive pleasure and you can't physically withstand enough of their pleasure-giving for them to receive enough pleasure so you give them pleasure in a way by encouraging them to receive it elsewhere. Something about adapting to their ways of affection & love based in pleasure as they adapt to yours based outside of it and both of you being better off for it.
I do wonder;
Does Vesper have any boundaries (in relationships or otherwise), even if they're not sexual?
Does he ever have a moment where the realisation that his spouse isn't just in it for the sexual gratification he can offer them or the power of being with him fully sets in? That he isn't just lust-worthy but love-worthy? I imagine he is loved by many but probably for his capabilities, his power, or the persona he displays. But to be loved for something other than what he can give/serve others?
(I may be coming to the realisation that this aversion to lust-monsters could have something to do with the uncomfortable familiarity of being loved for the servitude you offer and not for who you are)
Would he react in any particular way?
[Ohhh lord, this is huge (no offense genuinely), so I'm going to keep the answer under a read more and divide it so people can tell when I'm talking about Vesper.]
I'm going to be real, I actually like the idea of monsters who are genuine sex creatures. Creations that exist solely to please sexually and have little to no autonomy as well as a basically non-existent sense of self. But that already comes from my somewhat present objectification/mindbreak fetish. I did laugh when you talked about the "fantasy of a sex doll coming to life", because I could get into that. I know perfectly well that a character of this caliber would be extremely one-dimensional, and therefore a bit of a "one-trick pooch" that I can't poke and prod at too much unless I give them a personal development arc that is quite profound.
I agree with you in the sense that, even if just subconsciously, I've always felt like people weren't really exploring the lust monster trope too much. Or maybe I just wanted to put my own very different spin on it. (This is a bit rich of me to say, considering I've intentionally reduced Gluttony to what amounts to "heehee hungy :)))" instead of "overbearing indulgence".)
I enjoy trying to translate their view of the world into terms we can understand. Sex isn't just a recreational commodity for them, it's food, it's a basic necessity, it's their bread and butter- Even a science! But it's also trivial. Sexual cheating just isn't a thing for concubi, unless one of them has entered some sort of exclusivity agreement, for whatever reason.
I like the idea of there always being a healthy amount of "pros" and "cons" in all types of monsters, it keeps them balanced and more two dimensional as characters, and it makes for a very good base when it comes to world-building. (Keep in mind I'm talking out of my ass, I have no formal/professional insight on any of this.) Sure, you can have a concubus as a partner, it'll be the best sex of your life, you'll find new sides of your carnality you never saw before and you'll be able to withstand some acts that would break your physical limits- But you'll get quite literally drained of your life if you insist on being their only meal. But you can and will become hypersexual depending on the circumstances. But there's quite a bit of social stigma. But many of them are afraid of commitment. But kids might never be on the table. Etcetera.
That makes things more interesting, doesn't it?
I'm a firm believer that perverted characters can have depth to their personality, sex-driven narratives can have interesting premises or twists and a wide variety of personalities that serve to enhance the smut, you know? In fact, you should strive to make these lust monsters as distinct as possible, so that they don't all fall under the same umbrella of repetitive humdrum smut. There's nothing sadder than a sexual setting that falls flat on its ass because you can predict everything.
I'm not going to lie, I think the idea of them becoming exclusively attached to you romantically and sexually can work- But in a very toxic and "horror-esque" setting where the concubus is so mentally ill with their hyperfixation that you end up dying eventually because they don't acknowledge your limits and simply keep shattering you for their own gain/pleasure.
Thank you for the insight though! I'm very happy you find some sort of novelty in the way I portray these characters!
When it comes to Vesper, you have to remember he's a bit of a romantic.
Both him and Santi are given how much contact they used to have in the past, how Vesper helped mold Santi into someone better. Naturally, Santi is more of a romantic than the King for a couple of reasons I can't get into right now or I'll risk making this response longer than it needs to be. They're both also yandere, keep that in mind.
From the very start, Vesper is extremely affectionate with you and quick to profess his love. He expects you to want to be with him for the sex, obviously, but he also desperately wants you to return his love and he thinks he can get you to love him with enough pleasure and pleasantries.
Since we're talking about an Icon, Vesper doesn't really make a strong separation between "what he can give others/receive from them" and "who he is". Icons are less two dimensional than standard characters, so whether you love him because you like Vesper as a person or because he makes you feel like nobody else in bed, it's all the same to him- Because it kind of is the same in his mind.
Maybe I'm not being too clear, but I hope it's understandable.
Boundaries... It kind of depends? I'll ramble.
You're romantically monogamous to him as he is to you, but there can be a polyamorous dynamic at some point, if desired;
His mark is the only one to ever stay on your body;
On the realm of preferences, you know he doesn't really like to have sex while he's clothed because clothes are unappealing to him;
He doesn't like it when you wear chasity devices;
He won't humor castration as a fetish for you or him specifically;
Don't portray him chastely;
It really does depend on the situation, because Vesper will gladly let you refer to him as a "brainless fucktoy" or nothing more than cocks on legs, or something equally derogatory that suggests he's not even a person.
As the embodiment of depravity, he's bound to only get more aroused by his own consistent dehumanization, so the demonlord's boundaries end up being things you wouldn't really expect, you know?
62 notes
·
View notes
Text
God I hate it when people say the writing of something is "objectively bad."
I know it's a pretty lukewarm take at this point, but it still needs to be said. The idea that objective standards of artistic quality is so pervasive, and I believe extremely harmful.
The main argument for objective quality in writing existing is things like plot holes, character inconsistencies, etc. Things you can point to and say "this doesn't make sense." There are several problems with this argument, not the least of which being that things "making sense" is subjective. Your own experiences shape the way you view things. A character moment may seem weird and out of place to you, but make perfect sense to someone else because they've experienced something you haven't.
One example of this kind of thinking is a lot of the discussion around Helluva Boss. Many people praise the show for what they believe is clever comedy, while others ridicule it and its fans for finding enjoyment in immature and juvenile humor. I've seen people say things like "if you don't like this you clearly don't understand good writing," or "how could anyone enjoy this? It takes no effort to write jokes like that." But what both of these stances ignore is something even many people who believe in objective quality think is subjective: taste. All the intricacies of making those kinds of jokes funny is lost on people who those kinds of jokes don't appeal to in the first place. And the people who do like those jokes are baffled when others can't understand what makes them so funny. Neither side is wrong, but they both believe their personal taste is universal, and anyone who disagrees is a snob, a middle schooler, or just generally doesn't have basic media comprehension.
But then there are things like plot holes, and these are objective. How could thing A happen if thing B contradicts it? They objectively exist, but aren't necessarily flaws. The problem with plot holes is that they remove your suspension if disbelief. They take you out of the experience because you can no longer convince yourself the story is real. But sometimes that doesn't matter. Sometimes people are able to let things slide because of how deep they are in the experience. To them, it's not a problem at all because it didn't hinder their enjoyment.
The pattern here is that stories are what we get out of them. Their worth is determined entirely by the people who experience them. And because people are complicated and immensely different, because we see the world in different ways, everyone is going to have a vastly different experience with those stories. To claim that any one experience is "objectively correct" is stupid, because the only metric you can base it on is that experience.
Here are a few common phrases I've seen that imply you think a work of writing is "objectively bad." Not necessarily that you do, but I think it's important for those who both do and don't to understand what they're saying.
"It's objectively bad."
This is the most common and overt version of this statement, and all other versions at the end of the day circle back to this one. On the surface, it doesn't seem too bad. If objective quality exists, someone stating the fact of "it's objectively bad" isn't a problem. The problem is that objective quality doesn't exist.
"You just have low standards"
This isn't said as often as it is implied. Memes like "Fans of X when a new episode drops" and it's a video of people dancing around in a pile of trash. I don't know if that exact video exists, but you get the point. What memes like this imply is "the thing you like is stupid, and you're stupid for liking it."
"Your take was so unbiased!"
As mentioned above, we are ALL biased. Our experiences and perspectives are all wildly different. In that context, the only way to be "unbiased" is to be stating an objective fact, implying that quality is objective, and that your take is correct. The only difference between "biased/unbiased" and "agree/disagree" is that the former needlessly elitist.
"A classic example of cringe/millennial writing"
I've seen this take in a number of youtube videos. They seem like good ways to describe things you don't like about stories... until you realize that's the only workable definition any of them provide. They'll give examples like vocabulary, the emotions invoked, etc. It passes itself off as an attribute or pattern that anyone with basic media comprehension could spot, when at the end of the day the only definition that encompasses everything classified as "cringe/millennial writing" is "thing I don't like."
At this point, you may begin to see another pattern emerging. I saw a youtube comment recently that I think sums it up pretty well: "I guess I just have a sixth sense for detecting bad writing." It's ego. The belief that you and you alone can determine what is good and what is bad, and anyone who deviates from that doesn't know what they're talking about. That kind of thinking pervades discussion of fiction, especially online, and I believe it is very harmful. When you're bombarded by people telling you that you're wrong or stupid for liking what you like, it's hard not to believe them. It's easy to believe that they're just better than you at this, and that there's no point in analyzing stories for yourself because you're bad at it. I speak from experience when I say it's really discouraging.
So I need everyone, whether you believe fiction is objective or not, to hear this.
You are not the ultimate authority on what is considered good and bad, nor are you any better than anyone else at "detecting it."
You DO get to judge how the experience of that work of fiction affected YOU.
Your opinion on any given work of fiction is no more or less important and valuable than anyone else's.
0 notes
Text
Part 4 - Basic Concepts of Miraculous Ladybug: Glamour
You can call it however you want: kid's show logic, superhero disguise logic, magical girl show logic, cartoon laws, suspension of disbelief, etc. But the fact that nobody recognises Marinette, Adrien and others when they are suited up IS NOT BAD WRITING. It's one of the main laws of this genre. That's not because characters are stupid, okay? So, being frustrated that everyone in the show acts stupid about this "wearing a mask that covers only eyes" trope is strange. This criticism is not valid or fair.
But, this trope has to make sense in-universe as a worldbuilding and narrative element.
Miraculous doesn't give us much direct information on how glamour works. And in this case, I think we need both SHOW and TELL. Because if you don't establish the glamour rules clearly, you are going to run into problems and create unfortunate implications with your storytelling choices.
Appearance
Miraculous obviously gives our heroes magical glamour. In "Lady WiFi" we find out that masks can't be taken off. It's magic. No other explanation is needed.
Miraculous can slightly change the appearance of users (eyes, face shape, height and hairstyles). People can identify and notice the hairstyles of heroes (numerous Ladybug wigs, statue in Copycat). Jagged Stone points out the change of hair when he mistakes Chloe for Ladybug ("Antibug"). But it's just a costume. There is no magic that prevents Jagged from understanding that Chloe isn't Ladybug. So, how does it work? But it's forgivable because it's cartoon logic. Suspension of disbelief works here, I suppose. I won't judge this too harshly.
Glamour also obviously prevents people from making a connection that Marinette and Ladybug have identical hairstyles. So people know that Ladybug wears her hair in pigtails, but magic does not allow them to notice similarities.
Another important question. Does glamour work on Kwamis? Can they see who is behind the mask?
New York Special makes it clear that magic does not affect robots and they can see through glamour. Does that mean that Markov, AI built by Max, knows the identities of Ladybug and Chat Noir? And it's never addressed.
Plagg in "Frightningale" says that holders can subconsciously choose their superhero appearance. This is actually pretty interesting and I like this idea a lot. Except the show is not consistent with this. The transformation of Master Fu looks identical to Nathalie's. And we have seen how different from each other Ladybug and Black Cat holders looked in the past. At the same time, Master Fu and Nino have different takes on Turtle superhero suit.
Age Glamour
Does age glamour exist? Do people see Ladybug, Chat Noir and other heroes as adults even when they look like teenagers to the audience (their height and build are smaller even when they are transformed)? Is that why no one ever questions the fact that children nearly die on a daily basis?
I mentioned unfortunate implications earlier. Well, this is where they come into play. Let's talk about "Copycat". A lot of people discussed it before me, so I won't bore you with details.
When I watched "Copycat" for the first time Theo's crush on Ladybug didn't bother me, because I thought that he sees Ladybug as his peer, a girl who is about 20-23 years old. Theo is an artist, his character design is that of an adult. He has his own studio, its appearance indicates that he did serious commissions in the past. The guy has no idea that Ladybug is like 13.
But then we get "Heroes' Day" and "Ladybug". And Hawkmoth calls them "kids", which means that there is no age glamour. Others see Ladybug and Chat Noir as teenagers. Perhaps, other Miraculous users aren't affected by age glamour. Therefore regular people see all heroes as adults but other heroes are able to guess their age more or less correctly. But you must spell this thing out because the audience can interpret "Copycat" differently. If there is no age glamour, then Theo is crushing on a teenage girl and he is fully aware of this fact. And this doesn't look good for your show.
The "No Age Glamour" theory is further confirmed in "Sapotis" where Alya just straight up analyses voice recordings and says that Ladybug is a girl their age. If glamour exists then it should also cover technology. Kwami can't be photographed. Face and voice recognition software shouldn't be able to analyse transformed superheroes and detect their identities in any way.
Besides, after "Sapotis" Alya should definitely be sure that Ladybug is not 5000 years old (also not an adult), especially after she wore Miraculous herself and was one door away from detransformed Ladybug.
SEASON 4 UPDATE! There's no age glamour after all.
In "Furious Fu" Su Han calls Chat Noir a child without knowing his identity. It means that everyone knows their superheroes are teenagers. "Copycat" can't be saved from that, uh, subtext anymore. No one questions the danger of their job or the balance of their lives outside of the mask. No one doubts their competence after "Origins" ever again. No one becomes annoyed after being bossed around by two teenagers in spandex. You had many opportunities to drop these details into the narrative. Someone could have been akumatized over this (I will not be ordered around by some magical kids!).
I don't know why writers decided not to use at least this idea and slightly adjust "Copycat" if they got rid of the age glamour completely. It can be explained as kid's show logic, but unfortunately, I'm reluctant to do it. If many characters sympathise with akuma victims on-screen, why not with the teenage superheroes who must fight them?
New York Special had this weird focus on collateral damage out of nowhere (the damage done by sentimonster Robostus) and yet it has 0 effect on the main story. No one in Paris is pissed that their 2 teenage protectors weren't there.
Ironically, "Furious Fu" and that one remark made by Su Han also created unfortunate implications for other moments in the show. Just hear me out. Apparently, Jagged Stone wrote a "thank you" song for Ladybug knowing that she is 13-15 year old child back in "Pixelator". Fandom is more than happy to roast Lila for lying about saving Jagged Stone's cat and him writing her a "thank you" song. Fandom claims that Lila's tale could harm Jagged's reputation, when he wrote a song for teenage Ladybug several weeks prior. Meanwhile, in-universe this lie is 100% believable.
If we put on "realism glasses", then both this whole song situation and Theo's crush in "Copycat" have uncomfortable implications. However, the show's canon can't be viewed and criticised through "realism glasses". I admit that bits and pieces of my criticisms are affected by these "glasses", but, ultimately, I'm trying to be fair and concentrate only on things that can't be justified by "cartoon logic and worldbuilding".
Could the existence of age glamour solve this problem of unfortunate implications and other concerns mentioned above? YES. Is it better for the narrative? YES. Is essential for the story? NOT QUITE. Could the absence of age glamour be called an irredeemable storytelling flaw? NO.
Disclaimer: On a side note, only older audience can notice these implications. Children, the target audience, most likely won't understand this subtext simply because they don't have enough experience. So, perhaps, this criticism is unfair, because these moments only look weird to me as an adult. It's like an adult joke in a cartoon that you don't get until you reach a certain age.
There's nothing technically wrong with adult writing a "thank you" song for a teenager. It's just an expression of gratitude. However, unfortunately, we live in a world, where adults normally wouldn't write songs for teens to express gratitude only. In real life similar actions would imply pedophilia and would be actively scorned by the public. No one would risk their reputation like that even if their intentions were genuinely pure and sincere. But this show can't be viewed through "realism glasses", because it's a cartoon and in certain cases we as the audience must use suspension of disbelief and pretend that certain things are possible for plot to happen.
Su Han also wants to give Ladybug and Black Cat to adults. Why didn't Master Fu do this then? Writers don't give us any explanation. Throughout the show we never question this up until the moment it's revealed that adults don't have time-limited powers. Then comes "Furious Fu". Story suddenly becomes self-aware here. Because apparently nothing prevented Fu from giving the most powerful Miraculous to adults who won't have time limit and will be more effective against Hawkmoth (see part 3 for more details).
I have a very good example of Age Glamour done right. It works in the story. There is no confusion or unfortunate implications. There is like one plothole connected to the glamour (it's been years and I still can't forgive them for Cornelia and Caleb) but otherwise, it's a pretty solid example of both show and tell. Clearly, writers wanted to avoid uncomfortable implications which are present in "Copycat". I am talking about W.I.T.C.H. comic books and animated series.
If you are not familiar with it, I'll give you a brief explanation. The story follows 5 girls, the Guardians of Kandrakar who are chosen to protect their world and parallel ones from evil. They receive magical powers from the amulet known as the Heart of Kandrakar. Their powers are based on elements: fire, water, earth, air and energy. Our main characters are about 13-15 years old. In the animated series they are younger and they attend middle school, making them 12-14 years old. But the transformation makes them look 18-20. They look like young women to each other and to other people. At the same time, people can recognise them, their looks and voice don't change. Most people don't know that they are really teenagers when they are not transformed and these people don't know that magic can make them look older. That's why everyone treats Guardians like adults when they are transformed. Comics establish this fact in the very beginning. In first issues characters state that they look older, we are also shown this multiple times.
In fact, one of the first side plots revolves around the fact that Irma uses her powers to sneak into the disco club to meet up with her crush. Irma is 13 at the beginning of the series, she is a high school freshman. Her crush, Andrew Hornby is a senior guy 17-18 years old. Irma has liked him for a long time and wants to impress him, so she decides to be clever about this. She transforms into her Guardian form of the 18-year-old girl, hides her wings, sneaks out to the club after her parents are asleep without any problem, and meets Andrew, who obviously doesn't recognise Irma in this girl who looks about his age. Smitten Andrew offers her a ride and 13-year-old Irma doesn't understand the implication of that offer, so she accepts. And, obviously, he decides that she is interested in more than just a ride home, since she agreed, and the comic implies that he fully intended for them to have sex in the backseat of his car. But Irma understands the implication only when Andrew tries to kiss her. She panics and turns him into a frog. And she actually pulls this "I need to look mature" trick more than once over the course of the series.
It's not the only situation where this age difference is handled well and makes sense. People who know the main characters in everyday life remark on their older appearance during transformation. Sometimes people flirt with Guardians when they are transformed. In one of the side-novels centred around Cornelia, she is worried that the prince of the realm they helped to save from famine would try to marry her. That never happens, but Cornelia actually brainstorms with her friends about how to tell the prince that she is really 15.
There are many other plot points where this happens, but I think that you got the idea. I really like how "Age Glamour" was handled in W.I.T.C.H.
How do we fix this? Create the situations where people offhandedly mention "Age Glamour" in the presence of Marinette or Adrien, use Kwami for this.
"Don't worry, dear. Chat Noir and Ladybug are adults, who know what they are doing. I am sure that they will handle this. "
Theo could say: "Oh, I wonder which university Ladybug goes to?"
"So, does that mean that other people see us as grown-ups, Tikki?"
A few words and boom, problem solved. Then allow the "show don't tell" rule do the rest.
#miraculous ladybug#ml#miraculous analysis#miraculous meta#ml meta#ml analysis#miraculous transformations#miraculous critical#miraculous ladybug critical#miraculous glamour#superhero glamour#miraculoustalesofladybugandcatnoir
64 notes
·
View notes
Text
Not that I want to watch new copaganda (I tolerate Law and Order Organized Crime for Elliot Stabler, as a character from my youth), but I got bored and needed something to watch, so I've put on the Turner and Hooch reboot show staring Josh Peck. (OH WAIT THIS ISNT A REBOOT THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE MOVIE! I could believe Josh Peck as Tom Hanks's son. Now I get why they hired Peck.)
I hate it.
Like, I'm sure they won't touch on any big issues and what not, but they are still gonna cop wrong.
So, Turner is apparently a US Marshall and they have this witness they need to protect. Well, the witness got shot and apparently the best place they thought to have him was...
Out in the fucking open with NO COVER.
Like, please think you guys, this is cop show 101. This is one of the reasons Disney shouldn't make a cop show (besides all the other reasons to not make a cop show).
Oh, and they had him crash through a homeless man's cart full of cans for laughs, I guess? Lots of just other really annoying things about that car chase too.
And of course no one took the time to teach Josh Peck how to hold a gun:
BEND YOUR ARM DUDE!
If you are going to make a cop show, please hire actual former law enforcement TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR TALENT HOLDING WEAPONS CORRECTLY AND WRITING CORRECT TACTICAL RESPONSES! I DONT FUCKING CARE IF ITS A DAMN DIANEY SHOW, DO YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH AND HIRE EXPERTS AND LISTEN TO THEM!
I honestly don't understand the target audience for this show. It seems light it's supposed to be a light hearted show for adults, I guess? But if that's the case THEN THEY DEFINITELY NEED TO DO THEIR JOB!
Having a dog in the building is not a health code violation pal, you're a lawyer, you should know that.
The only acting I don't like on this show is by Josh Peck. I until this moment I think he had dead eyes.
Ok, his acting got better.
Seriously, who is the target audience of this show, like, it's dumb. There's so much dumb here. It can't be fore kids too much because someone was shown with a bloody shoulder after an attempted hit. It can't be fore adults because how how back the cop (functional-wise) and how bad the writing is. Who is this for?
Omg, no way an FBI agent pulling an inside job would be dumb enough to actually be part of the team who went to got kill someone. No way.
WHO IS THIS DUMB SHOW FOR?!
At least they are giving their all in the acting department on the show. Well, most of them most of the time for sure.
Why TF did they make a noise somewhere and then go in almost immediately to a room with no less bad guys? Oh yeah, they don't know what they're doing! Such a dumb scene.
"What kind of idiots are you?!" One mind, this character and I have. Except that's me at their production crew, and writers, and director.
The only character that's made any sense on this show is the guy who got shot in the earlier picture that I had up there.
Like, I get that it's tv, "suspension of disbelief" and all that, but, like, some of this is easily clockable dumb.
WHO IS THIS SHOW FOR?! IT'S SO DUMB BUT IT CANT BE FOR KIDS! I DONT GET IT!
The bad guy. Was just. Standing outside.
WHAT THE FUCK.
Uh...
Whoever CGI'd these paws didn't do great job. Like, the fur is definitely too long, the motion or the paws isn't right, they are the wrong color, and not the right size either.
No sure how they did these shots:
But if they were CG too, - which I'm not convinced they aren't, - why are they so much better than the paws? Wait, they might be real. The guy's shirt is crumpled.
Oh god, they are putting an ARC in this show? WHY?! They don't need that. This isn't some serious show, just make it episodic, damnit! We need more episodic shows in this world! Why won't people make those anymore?
McG...wait...(goes to IMDb)HE WAS AN EXECUTIVE PRODUCER ON SUPERNATURAL FROM 2005 TO 2013?! Hunh. Oh and on Nikita. Explains why Lyndsy Fonseca is in this. I like her. He's done some other stuff I've seen too. Interesting.
I MIGHT watch this just to give myself something to do. But I think watching this gave me a headache.
12 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
watermanceraiko
Aiko (^//v//^)
baharoya-blog
Bahar Oya
infifashion
Rohit C
jacopo-luchetti
Jacopo Luchetti