#And that may create a narrative problem... But who knows. We'll only be able to judge after it's over.

[kyouka-supremacy]

Honestly even if for the next arc stakes don't seem that high enough, I think it can still be good? I mean after this one maybe we will get to see a good look on the development of everyone. I mean, a murder mystery? The ADA is a detective agency, and other characters get involved because we'll after this arc I think Japan in general is gonna be on a bit more havoc, especially Yokohoma, or maybe they need help

I don't think it needs very high stakes, it just needs to be interesting. If I'm not wrong it is the last one (<-not sure), so it would be a good way to like wrap it all up, a good murder mystery showing off how everyone grew from the first season, and if it isn't the last one well still. I'll take anything over this arc, please can the characters at least have a 5 minute break for the love of god

In theory, I wholeheartedly agree: I will find a low stakes arc to be just as enjoyable as a high stakes arc, probably more. It's just that it feels a bit counterintuitive: one generally expects arcs to have increasingly high stakes, and for it not to be a crescendo is just a little odd. I think the final arc should have the highest stakes of them all, that's what feels like the natural narrative flow. But right now I don't want to think about bsd ever ending pfffttt.

[blackflash9]

That Time When AC3 Flipped Indigenous Portrayal

I always liked that AC III flipped familiar tropes about Native Americans in media, particularly regarding the language barrier and cultural awareness. Ziio mocks Haytham for assuming she can’t speak English, subverting the usual narrative where the comedic effect of not knowing the 'language of the land' is on the indigenous.

It is also Haytham - not Ziio - who causes the bar commotion despite his rather arrogant and baseless assumption that her culture would make her more prone to violence despite only being in the country for roughly a couple days. This also highlights that she understands the land and its people far better than he does.

Redcoat: "Oi, where you goin’, cully?" Redcoat: "No. The other cock robin." Haytham: "Well, I uh… I WAS leaving." Redcoat: "Oh? And now?" Haytham: "Well, now… I’m going to feed you your teeth." Kaniehtí:io: "And you were worried I was going to be the problem."

This also extends to Connor, as he regularly defies expectations by displaying more morality and virtue than many of his colonial counterparts. He criticizes the manipulative nature of the media for countering lies with more lies.

Sequence 5: Stop the Presses (Transcript)

Samuel Adams: "So now you've had a chance to see how it all works. Untoward actions will upset the citizens and inevitably lead to the guards being called. Depending on the severity of your transgression, they may simply search a bit before giving up and returning to their posts. But should you offend them severely or repeatedly – they'll become much more aggressive in their pursuit. I've shown you three ways to turn the tide. Remove wanted posters, bribe town criers, or visit a printer to create your own propaganda." Connor: "This feels wrong. Why not just speak to someone and explain my innocence?" Adams: "You can't be serious?" Connor: "We counter one lie with another. Words on paper instantly taken as truth. And all of it without question."

Calls him out on his hypocrisy in fighting for freedom while owning slaves.

Sequence 6: On Johnson's Trail (Transcript)

Samuel Adams: "Of course. I'm headed to a meeting with some men who should be able to help. Why don't you come along? It's good to see the people finally taking a stand against injustice..." Connor: "Says the man who owns a slave." Samuel Adams: "Who, Surry? I practice what I preach, my friend. She's not a slave, but a freed woman... At least on paper. Men's minds are not so easily turned. It is a tragedy that for all our progress, still we cling to such barbarism." Connor: "Then speak out against it." Samuel Adams: "We must focus first on defending our rights. When this is done, we'll have the luxury of addressing these other matters." Connor: "You speak as though your condition is equal to that of the slaves. It is not." Samuel Adams: "Tell that to my neighbor—who was compelled to quarter British troops. Or to my friend who's store was closed because he displeased the Crown. The people here are no freer than Surry." Connor: "You offer excuses instead of solutions. All people should be equal and not in turns."

And even stops Israel Putnam from kicking a dead enemy’s body - emphasizing that even someone as ruthless as Hickey was still a man.

Sequence 8: Public Execution (Transcript)

Israel Putnam: "At ease, men! At ease! I said lower your goddamn guns! This man's a hero! The General can be so stubborn sometimes. Piffle, he said, when we warned him something like this would happen! Piffle!" *Israel Putnam kicked Thomas' body* Connor: "Stop." Israel Putnam: "He wanted to kill the Commander. Nearly killed you as well. He was a scoundrel." Connor: "But still a man." Israel Putnam: "Hmph. You're nothing, if not consistent."

Assassin’s Creed III challenged the traditional portrayal of Indigenous people as either savages or passive victims, instead presenting them as individuals with intelligence, morality, and deep cultural awareness. The narrative highlights their ability to navigate complex social and political landscapes while exposing the hypocrisy and shortcomings of colonial figures. Rather than being depicted as primitive or completely naive, characters like Ziio and Connor demonstrate a greater understanding of their environment and the moral contradictions of their time. The game doesn’t just critique the British - it questions the American revolutionaries, revealing how their rhetoric of freedom often excluded those who did not fit within their social order.

Through Ziio and Connor, AC3 asserts that Indigenous people were not merely bystanders in history but active participants who approached their world with wisdom and integrity.

[incorrect-ikevamp-quotes]

Hi! Just wanted to know what you think Charles' route will be alll about, and how would the Ikevamp lore continue from there? Do you think we'll get an Act 3 or more suitors? I absolutely love reading your interesting insights and hearty theories! They're food for my simping soul ♡(> ਊ <)♡ please forgive my fangirling..

Hihi!!! You’re much too sweet, thank you!!! 💛💛💛 you’re always free to simp and fangirl here, haha~

I'm happy to answer as best I can, though honestly I'm not 100% sure given the main story routes all range--both in terms of topic and larger narrative impact. My guess is that it will likely be about Charles' history as somebody who took part in the French revolution, namely his role as an executioner. In line with that, I would address two lines; one from Mozart, one from Dazai.

Mozart in relation to Charles says "I remember that name..." and Dazai says that "He is a young man with many secrets." I think they both speak to a larger consideration with Charles, which is that he is both a famous historical figure but also one that trails so much blood behind him? This is a man who killed people for a living (and in droves), despite being a medical doctor. There is going to be an inevitable mental dissonance that comes with that dichotomy. His life aspiration was to help and heal people, and instead he was called to murder them indiscriminately (and often for reasons that were openly unjust). Much of his energy and disposition feels like a kind of mask; it's intended to disguise what's truly lurking beneath the surface. When people are convinced they're unsightly or monstrous, they can very often overcompensate with buoyant behavior and positivity. Dazai’s main story really felt like it was hammering this concept home, considering Charles’ insistent cheer directed at MC (yet showing Dazai and Faust a great deal of darkness.)

Interesting too, now that I think about it, because there is a kind of foil mechanism that comes with making Charles the antagonist of Dazai’s route. I didn’t realize it until now, but they both hide their secrets--and the true nature of some of their uglier feelings--with a kind of forcible levity. The difference here lies in the state of their baseline energy, the form by which it is expressed. Dazai is one to joke around and make light of (often serious) things, but he does it to a point of absurdity and mild outrage. He has a kind of desire to be chased out the way I understand him (because being chased out means he can leave and avoid the pressure of being real). If he’s not seeking to be chased out, he wants the person to smile/laugh at his blunders. He’s a mood-maker just as his description entails, and as such his goal is always the regulate/influence the emotional tone of a group in a positive way.

Charles, by contrast, avoids transparency by bouncing around and pretending like nothing really gets to him. He’s forthright and bold, but his desire to have fun belies the reality of who he is and who his master is. The impatience, the burning envy that dwells within remains to be seen--and only makes an appearance in flashes. It begs the question as to what it is he’s trying to avoid moving at that speed, as his increasing velocity means a lowered scrutiny and self-awareness (one that limits him just as much as it enables him to keep going). Furthermore, he has some notion of regulating the mood of the group in that he’s often the one who lowers tension between Vlad and Faust with his upbeat attitude. However, I would argue that it isn’t nearly as powerful as Dazai’s fixation with it; when Charles is upset or wants something, he will not hesitate to put his personal needs first (or demand them, even). Dazai does not seem to have this same audacity generally.

There's also the question of what Charles is hiding, other than the obvious historical information we have. I get the feeling something is lurking behind his desperation to believe in the future Vlad wants to create. Maybe it's some desperate wish to atone for what he's done. Maybe he raised that guillotine under some kind of misguided belief that he was restoring the world to order. We believe outlandish things to survive sometimes, and I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case for Charles. I’d like to see just what it is that makes him tick.

That being said, that doesn't always free us from the truth of what we've done. Sooner or later we're forced to confront and come to terms with it. Dazai's main story (for a short time) forced him to face that gaping maw of trauma, and it was very clear he was not in the slightest bit prepared or able to cope. So there is the question of--if MC confronts him with that--what he will do in response.

I also wouldn't be surprised if he's among the bolder suitors, seeking her affection and body with more insistence than the boys of the mansion. It remains to be seen, but given the impression I've received from him and the rest of the trio...(a note of caution to people uncomfy with that).

I'm interested to see where Charles will go, in that I'm not really sure if he'll skew to the yandere side or the lowkey wants to help people side. He has every potential to become increasingly demanding of MC’s time and attention, trying to monopolize her as much as possible. Burying himself further in denial, never questioning his master. But he also has a kind of hearty maturity at his core that might result from his life experiences, where he acknowledges what he's done and just tries to do the best he can moving forward.

If the latter happens, there is the very real question of what happens with his relationship with Vlad--which is part of the reason I have my doubts about this possibility. In the infamous (and paraphrased) words of Mulaney(? I think it was) "if this is gonna happen Vlad is gonna need to become suddenly cool with a lot of things very fast" LMAO. I don't really see Vlad ceding his control over Charles' mind easily, and I don't see him satisfied with a future of Charles' autonomy. But then, who knows? I may very well be proven wrong

I'm also curious about Charles’ pronounced interest in Comte, this kind of hope for reconciliation. There's a very real chance that could be a focal point, in that Charles wants there to be mingling between the two houses. There are also a lot of problems with this sort of theory in that it would likely require A LOT of development/time to bridge that gap if it was ever bridged, and I don't think Comte would accept anything less than Vlad agreeing to cease and desist his assault on humanity. This potentiality might be more probable for an Act 3 story progression, now that I think about it.

As for Act 3, I'm really not sure who will or won't get one. The only storyline that has been left openly/grossly unfinished is Comte's to my knowledge, largely because of the agreement they made? In all the other routes, there isn't much of a whisper about her turning into a vampire. (Vlad turns her at the end of his route I’ve heard, and as for Faust I don’t know--but I haven’t seen any signs that he would demand it of her so far.) Comte hesitates--but he has every intention of doing it when they feel the time is right. So there's the question of when or how that will happen. In a bday story? In an event story? Act 3? Dunno

I also wonder about how pureblood society and vampire hunters might come into play, but given they exist on the periphery of the game I don’t know if it’s as safe a bet as Comte vs. Vlad continuing their ideological battle.

As for the suitors in general, there is always the potential of antagonist intervention in Act 3? Maybe they heckle their happy ending or throw the relationship into some kind of turmoil, though I'm not sure exactly how that will work since most of the routes end on a pretty resolved note? There's also the reality of all the rivals being murdered in cold blood after their duels. So like ???? Really depends on the direction Cybird wants to take. Expand on the relationship, create new issues/threats--or make Act 3 a more large scale story progression.

There’s also the possibility that the story is expanded by hinging on the timespace complications. If Vlad saw a desolate future, what does that mean for everyone? Will that come to pass--and if so, when? Will he be supported or stopped? What will that entail? Maybe Vlad sees that the desolate future was the product of his own megalomania. Maybe Vlad turns out to be right and drastic action needs to be taken before it gets that far. Whatever the case, I’m interested to see what narrative avenue Cybird will choose.

As for more suitors, I really have no idea given I haven’t seen so much as a whisper of what comes after Charles. I think my best bet would be potential pureblood suitors (maybe the product of Comte/Vlad story continuations), or more roulette famous figures in line with Vlad’s machinations to thwart the suitors. If Michelangelo comes back and throws hands with Leonardo, I will veritably lose my entire mind

[ba-hons-film-blog]

Representing the Real - Week 1:

Thoughts on Documentaries:

Prior to our first lecture, we were asked to watch the documentaries below and give our thoughts on them.

A Portrait of Ga:

Link: https://movingimage.nls.uk/film/3698

This feels like a very personal film, due to the subject nature and the location, both things very close to the filmmaker's heart. The music and peaceful scenery helps create a calming, contented feel, which are words that could also be used to describe the character of Ga. We get hints of who Ga is, but still feel like we are being held at arm's length and not seeing the full picture of who this woman is, much like her children and grandchildren would. Oftentimes, Ga is distant from the camera or is looking away, or we only see a part of her in the frame. Sometimes, she will be speaking, but we won't be able to hear what she is saying. Similarly, the narration - provided by Ga’s daughter, adds to the distanced perspective to her, as opposed to if it were provided by Ga herself.

The Pigeon Game:

Link: https://vimeo.com/292880858

This documentary feels very naturalistic, like the camera just happens to have recorded these interactions, and never feels staged. It can sometimes feel a little amateurish - sometimes the focus is off, or the certain shots are over exposed - but this unpolished nature arguably adds to the naturalistic feeling. This feeling is aided by the fact we never see the interviewer - if we did, it would take the viewer out of this world and remind them this is a documentary, so opposed to just someone going about their life. Sometimes it feels a little weird a face is very attached to this voice, but I suppose it could allow the audience to project themselves onto the interviewer.

This film helps to give a very good feel for who these people are, just following them and letting them be themselves, and helps this little world, which someone might initially think is quite odd, to feel very normal.

Same but Different:

Link: https://loadingdocs.net/samebutdifferent/

This documentary felt slightly less candid than the previous one - the subjects were sat down, deliberately framed and (presumably) lit by off-screen lighting, but it didn't feel staged, as opposed to just more formal. The use of the old photos, in a different ratio to everything else, helped to create a sense of what things used to be like for these friends. The interview was also very honest with both friends being very transparent about their feelings. Certain shots however, of the friends setting off on their walk by the mountainside, did feel staged, and while they're just staging a pretty minor moment and not some kind of important conversation, it doesn't feel as real as The Pigeon Game.

Lester:

Link: https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-lester-film-london-jarman-award-2008-2009-online

This film creates a very good sense of place and feels very personal, in the way it will often focus on random trivial details in the room that only the people living there would notice. The handheld nature of the film adds to this feeling and the use of 16mm film also gives it a warm, lived in but vibrant feel. The use of the grainy film and the music gives it a very nostalgic feel.

Personally, I was less sure of the story being told here - while I gained a sense of place and the attachment to it, I was less sure who lived there, for how long, or any of those details. I still thought it was interesting, but due to not necessarily understanding what was happening, did not engage with it as much as I did with the others.

Our Documentary:

Our main project for this semester is to make a five minute long documentary, primarily focused on a single person (either someone a member of the group knows or a historical figure) and a certain aspect of their life, in groups of between three to five people. My group consists of Ben McMorran, Jack Weir and myself.

Our initial idea was to tell the story of Ben and Jack’s friend Sean, whose university application to study film was rejected due to reasons outside his control, who is trying to apply again this year, and would follow him making his film to show the university. The film would touch on how his interest in filmmaking began, what went wrong with his previous attempt and what he intends to do to change things.

There are several pros to this idea:

Sean is someone who Ben and Jack are both able to see and record footage for the documentary with, which is convenient in these COVID times.

Audiences can empathize with people who have failed but are trying again, so should hopefully like Sean.

Watching the stages of a filmmaking process can be an interesting thing.

However, having taken some time to think about it, I’m not completely convinced by the idea, and i have come up with various cons to this idea:

Is Sean’s motivation interesting enough? If Sean had done something wrong in his initial application (his story hasn't been very good or his directing had been poor), there is the potential for a story about personal growth and improving his craft the second time around. However, if the problem is that something out with his control happened, there's not really a lesson to learn beyond maybe to be more careful with your footage, and the audience might struggle to invest as much.

Is the story that interesting? Or will it just seem like some footage of some old films, some scenes of Sean talking to the camera (or whatever form the interview segments would take) and some behind the scenes footage of the film shoot has just been stung stitched together in the hopes it’ll be interesting enough to pass as a narrative?

What distinguishes Sean from other young filmmakers? If the subject of the documentary isn't this interesting, it doesn't matter if you employ some fancy techniques or some interesting editing - if the foundation of the documentary isn't there, the whole thing will fall apart before it's even begun.

How would the university see this (as the university he is applying to is Edinburgh Napier)? The university may see this as us using this project to con them into accepting Sean to the university, and this could well jeopardize his application. If he was applying for any other university this wouldn’t be an issue (or even another course at Napier, as the module leaders on that course would be unlikely to see this film) but seeing as he is, it would probably be wise to avoid this option (even if everything else about the idea was perfect, which in this instance isn’t the case, so letting go of this idea shouldn't be too difficult).

I imagine we will probably go back to the drawing board and see what other stories we could tell. Ben has mentioned there could be some members of his family you could make for interesting subjects, but that is something we shall talk about in greater depth soon. With regards to my own family, I don’t know of any particularly interesting stories I could tell about them, and imagine they wouldn't be too eager to share them anyway, unless they absolutely had to.

If all else fails, doing a documentary on Sean is always an option we can turn back to, but I'm sure we'll come up with a better idea soon, and won't need to use this one.