#sorry for the non aa posts. i'm developing

[trlvsn]

"romantic partner" "platonic partner" literally all i want is for someone to play imagination games with me. i tell you an evil witch has cursed the town mid-conversation and you start picking up leaves off the ground to make us a magic-repelling elixir. we play stupid chess where neither of us actually know how to play chess and eventually the board gets flipped and we bring some dice into the mix. can we exist in our own dimension

[sol1056]

"subtle touches that Korean studios use to indicate a Japanese character" this is so interesting because i never thought of it that way, assuming that being made primarily for american tv audiences meant that that overrid the way studio mir would have made something for a korean audience. i'm not an american viewer and watch more anime than cartoons, and i actually thought shiro looked... more korean than japanese. but now i'd love to read a post about these visual cues you mention!

I’ve been trying to find my notes! I think it was an AAS conference, and unfortunately the professor’s gone to bed so I can’t ask for help jogging my memory. I’ll repeat what I can remember, but I’m pretty sure I’m forgetting some details. It’s a little disjointed ‘cause I’m trying to remember the specifics, so this isn’t quite up to my usual standards of citing chapter and verse. Sorry!

There are three levels (generally) of signaling, I think it’s called. Or maybe signifying? – this is where you’re using visual cues to tell the viewer what they’re seeing. If you’ve seen Mulan, when she’s revealed as a woman, her face shape changes slightly and I think her lips get pinker – those are signaling that we’re now supposed to ‘see’ her as female. Sometimes it’s relatively low-key, like just skin tone and, say, lips being full or thin. Other times it’s all-out by adding mannerisms, style of dress. 

The first level of signaling is when the character is like you. There’s a difference in these two (like when each is used and what that means to the audience) but the default will either be way-distinct or way-bland. Distinct is when there’s special touches but they don’t mean ‘not like us’ (ethnically) but ‘a particular one of us’ – like, arched eyebrows and an upturned nose and rosebud lips. In other words, signaling an important character. 

The way-bland is just the generic house style. The eyes will be larger and more expressive (not necessarily massive, just not teeny or only lines). Standard face shape, nose size, whatnot. In other words, any crowd shot’s gonna show you a hundred of these, and there’s your default. Even non-realistic cartoony styles are going to show you a default, like the Simpsons or South Park, and your brain goes, okay, these characters are like me. 

The second level of signaling is for when the character isn’t entirely like you but is sort of. So, for an American audience but the character is Irish, or Italian, or Cuban. One signal is skin-tone, but if you remove that, you’re looking at the same basic style. Western also uses hair-color a lot, like a vaguely UK-ish accent + red hair is either going to mean the character is ‘Scottish’ or ‘Irish.’ 

For Japanese audiences, there are equally subtle little markers for Korean and Chinese. One is the eye shapes. Sometimes those are simply horizontal or angled lines. Another is face shape – pretty sure Chinese faces are indicated with roundness. In Korean manhwa, the Japanese characters tend to have more pronounced… uh, the line of the upper lash, leading out past the eye. Also a little bit of a tilt upwards at the outer corners. And Taiwanese representations of Japanese, the eyes are like that but even more exaggerated, sort of squinting. 

It’s a kind of medium-othering? Sort of like us but just enough different that you can’t be entirely (or aren’t meant to be) comfortable with seeing the person as ‘like’ you. 

And then there’s full-on othering, like when Anglo- or African-descent characters show up in anime: big noses, large square jaws, large lips, etc. Or look at the way non-western, non-white characters are represented in the Simpson. The face is almost as distinct as a main character, but it’s intended to make you go, woah, foreigner. 

And then we get to the weird kind, which is when a studio in one country wants to make sure their animation will be marketed in another country. (Not quite the same as when a foreign studio does the in-betweening but close.) So what would’ve been a level of signaling for the in-country audience has to get flipped on its head, and the ex-country audience is still Othered but in a more idealistic fashion, I think would be the way to put it? Like, this is still identifying the character as not-like-us but in a more complimentary way. 

(ETA: I’ve seen that complimentary-ish style for westerners, too, when the story is intended for overseas co-broadcast. it’s not that off default but it’s usually the nose and the jawline? and the shoulder width. something like that...)

Of course there’s another layer in here that you can see with Keith pre-timeskip and post-timeskip, which is that larger and more expressive eyes also indicate youth or innocence. As a more mature character, Shiro’s not quite as wide-eyed, literally. But I keep twigging on the way his eyes are drawn, and the way it sort of exaggerates the detail to hint at ethnicity without turning him into an outright caricature.  

…and that’s about all I can remember at this late hour. There was a lot more about how the conventional styles developed for each country and the core influences but my brain is done with wording for the day. I know the guy also did several books on animation and movement, which were really fascinating – but I don’t know if he covered this particular topic. It was more of an extemporaneous end-of-panel discussion prompted by a question. Which is usually when you get the most fascinating answers. And now it’s bugging me that I cannot remember his name… uuuuuuh. Sorry!

[jananabananawithnopeel]

(Ok wait, I just wanted to say, "I agree but let me elaborate just a bit" and I went way overboard, I'm really sorry. Mostly my opinion and some things to think about, so take it as you will :D)

I liked the movie a lot, but I think it came more to the fact I was waiting for it a long time and the feeling of nostalgia it gave me so I'm very biased concerning Kaamelott.

Nevertheless, I agree with most the things you say about the movie. Plainly put, the movie was not that great. Some cuts/jumps could have been better, the visuals were a bit lacking as well as the story but the music was phenomenal.

Now I would like to defend KV1 a bit.

The 6th book, the last season of Kaamelott was in 2009 and between now and then we didn't get much media distribution about the show. Alexandre Astier went on other projects (some theatre pieces, some acting, directing two Asterix movies and a lot of others stuff a lot) and didn't give anything Kaamelott related in 13 years except a few standalone comic books and Kaamelott Resistance, an exhibition of drawings/concept art, texts and story-board about what happened in the 10 years reign of Lancelot, available at the Comic Con 2012 then on a dedicated website (I don't need to tell you how this went quickly under most people radar).

Anyway, fast-forward 2019 (I think, not sure), Alexandre Astier has everything he needs to (finally) begin the prod of KV1 but he can't just take the story where he left it. More than a decade later, he needs to address to his older fans but also to people who will discover Kaamelott for the first time. He also would like an international distribution, meaning a bunch of non-french people who never even heard about Kaamelott before and who didn't go thought 6 seasons worth of character development for Arthur, Guenièvre, Lancelot and the many others.

I feel like he tried to content everybody by making an "in-between" movie. Something mildly entertaining, re visiting his characters like you would visit a childhood house before renovation (if the metaphor makes sense). Re introducing well known characters, introducing new ones. A necessary but precautionary step to go back in if you will, without taking much risk.

And I mean, he shouldn't take the risk. It took him so long to get to this point, to actually be able to tell his story the way he wants and not how a tv/movie corporation would dictate him and to have Kaamelott exactly where he needs it that there is no point on risking everything on his first movie. But maybe that's another mistake too ?

To French people, Kaamelott is an institution. It shaped a chunk of some folk youth, even the way comedy and show were made. AA is an estimated personality, musician with perfect pitch, tremendous actor, prolific scriptwriter, he can do pretty much anything and is considered an all-around genius by some. He doesn't need to show off to us, we know he is great. But KV1 is not (only) for us, it's also for people that don't know his work. So yes, maybe he should have taken the extra step to make his movie a bit more visually appealing, a bit more epic and dynamic, a bit more ... like a Hollywood movie ?

But here is the thing, KV1 is a promise. It's the first installment (roll credit) of the epic and romantic and mind-blowing story of his King Arthur. A light showing the way to greater things to come. A long time ago, AA promised us a hero, a beautiful story with a tragic ending and he will deliver (he has to if he doesn't want an angry mob of frenchies at his doorstep).

So yeah, KV1 is meh but trust the process there is still 2 (possibly 3) movies to go :D !

(Also if you are interested, I had a really cool exchange with another English viewer about some aspect of some characters - mostly Guenièvre, Arthur, Lancelot and Léodagan/Séli - and a bit about the movie on this post but I prefer to warn you, it's huge 😄)

I watched the Kaamelott movie

So... I did actually not enjoy the Kaamelott movie that much.

Some small comedic moments were great, even if probably I missed most of the comedy given that I am not French, but in the past I could always enjoy the tv show. I loved Guinevere scenes, and the whole subplot for her (the new "lover", the tower, the interaction with Lancelot was hilarious)... but - I don't know. So much of the movie felt useless, like it could have been comfortably cut out to not even need two movies at all. The Lancelot confrontation was so disappointing, and I am not sure what the point was of the ending given that we are going to definitely get a final confrontation in the next movie.

I wish we had focused more on Arthur's past vs the way he refused to take responsability.

But, yeah, I will definitely watch the final (next) movie. I am also very very sad that there was no Mordred at all.

[sineala]

Sine, Sine! I'm sorry to bother you, but do you have any good tips for writing 616 Tony! I just love your characterization so much :)

Oh, boy, an opportunity to talk about my fave! I was actually sitting here thinking, gosh, I hope someone asks me to write meta about my favorite characters sometime soon! And then you did, so thank you, anon! (And thank you, I’m glad you like my characterization.)

Uh. This got long.

I don’t know if what you want are tips on writing 616 Tony as distinct from other Tonys, or 616 Tony as distinct from other people in his universe, but I will try to hit both.

If you haven’t read Elspethdixon’s 616 Steve/Tony ship manifesto, you really should, because it contains the most important tip for writing 616 Tony, namely: Tony hates himself. A lot. Self-loathing is the background radiation of Tony Stark’s life.

The second most important thing, which you will also learn from that ship manifesto, and which you already knew, is that Tony Stark has a suit of Iron Man armor. Now, in MCU, we know that the way this goes is that Tony spends most of his life fucking around and being rich and wasted and making weapons until he gets captured in Afghanistan, takes a bunch of shrapnel to the chest, and decides to devote himself to superheroing. He has a secret identity that lasts… until the end of Iron Man 1. He is Iron Man, and it’s made him reevaluate his life. Also, he probably doesn’t hate himself. As much. I will leave that discussion to people who are more into MCU than I am.

616 Tony, on the other hand, becomes Iron Man when he’s really, really young. Like, early twenties. He doesn’t spend decades in dissolution. Vietnam is his impetus to become a superhero, yes, but it’s really not the same thing at all. By the time we get to modern canon this means he’s spent basically his entire adult life being a responsible superhero, and now he’s busy mentoring the next generation of superheroes – Kamala, Sam, and Miles while he was alive, and Riri now that he’s dead. (”Dead.” Comatose. Whatever.)

But the way that Tony’s self-loathing intersects with Iron Man is that he does the secret identity thing. No one knows. No one knows for years. Even after Steve finds out in the early 80s, most of the team doesn’t know for at least a decade after that. The public doesn’t find out until the early 2000s. (Twice. It’s complicated.) So even if you look at him now and see a guy with a public identity, you should realize that this is a very recent development in his life.

A lot of superheroes have tension between their caped and non-caped identities. Steve, for example, has a bunch of angst about trying to be Steve Rogers, a regular guy, versus Captain America, and how to live up to that, and how much of a regular life he should try to have. This is not Tony’s problem, as Tony’s regular life is… pretty out of the ordinary, as these things go. No, Tony uses his identity as Iron Man to fuel his self-loathing.

Iron Man is a hero. Iron Man saves people. Everything that is good about Tony, Tony puts in a box and calls it Iron Man. He compartmentalizes. (I could probably write a whole other post about how Tony’s a control freak.) Iron Man’s fine, and Tony develops a drinking problem. (Demon In A Bottle actually happened while Tony had a secret identity, and included him deciding that he was sick of being Tony Stark and was just going to be Iron Man.) While with someone else it might not be a bad thing to say that Iron Man is all the best parts of him… that doesn’t leave a lot to be Tony. And he doesn’t really like the parts that are left.

However, I think Tony Stark is still a really good guy. I mean, early canon is early canon, sure, but even as a boss he’s always depicted as, basically, the most benevolent face of capitalism you could possibly imagine. Like, the fantasy job that was available in the fifties and sixties where a dude could support a family of four and buy a nice house in the suburbs and then retire with a generous pension? A SI job is clearly that job. He knows his employees’ names, all of them, and he just seems deeply concerned about them, all the time. And, hey, how about that time he let the Avengers move into his house and never leave, huh? :)

Also he’s… not really a playboy, as I would use the term. During the early years, when he was dependent on the chestplate, he certainly used it as a cover, and we see him deliberately keeping himself from getting close to people because he was just going to die and make them sad (no really), as well as presumably to preserve his identity. We see him wishing that he could get closer to people because he has so much love to give! In the romantic relationships we’ve seen him in, he’s generally very devoted, occasionally more than the other person is, occasionally to the point of creepiness. (Okay, that’s not really one of his best traits.) He falls hard and fast. He just falls in love a lot. He sincerely does. He’s a romantic, even if his persona says otherwise. So, yeah, he has a public persona. Tony Stark is a public persona. It’s pretty evident that that’s not really him, either.

He’s not as quippy as MCU Tony, or as all-around warm-and-fuzzy nice as AA or MA:A Tony, or as utterly flamboyantly campy as Ults Tony (although, man, if you want to talk about drinking problems, go see Ults Tony). If you’re writing his internal voice, I tend to go with a fair amount of obscenities (more than Steve, anyway), and bring your science metaphors to the party if you got ‘em.

But, yeah, the self-loathing. I like to joke that you can tell it’s a good Iron Man comic if Tony is naked and crying, possibly in the rain, because he thinks none of his friends love him. (By this criterion, Iron Age and Execute Program are very good.) Possibly contingent upon the self-loathing, he never passes up an opportunity for self-sacrifice. Sure, any superhero worth his or her salt will happily die to save others – it’s part of the character type – but they all have to get in line behind Tony, who will be there killing himself first. Possibly several times. As many times as it takes. You know that moment in Red Zone where Tony rips off his helmet, exposing himself to deadly flesh-eating bacteria, to give Steve CPR and save Steve’s life, because Captain America is more important than him? That’s Tony Stark. I will also once again point to Execute Program, where Tony literally stops his heart to save Steve. He really likes killing himself for Steve.

I guess other than the self-loathing the main trait I think of as characteristic of 616 Tony is the sense of responsibility, and yeah, I do mean that in the Spider-Man “with great power” sense. He’s a founding Avenger. He knows what he’s doing. If you’re writing an MCU or an Ults story, say, there are a lot of things you could put the Avengers or the Ultimates up against that they’ve never seen before, and they might freak out. Just a little. (When the Ultimates first fight the Chitauri, Tony nearly gives up. He’s just a regular guy. He’s having a hard time dealing with this stuff.) But the thing about 616 is that it’s going to take a lot to make the Avengers, and by extension 616 Tony, freak out about anything. Their lives are weird. So, yeah, he’s seen it all, he’s vastly experienced, he’s been a professional superhero for ten or twelve years now – which, unlike in MCU, means it’s more or less his whole adult life – and he’s going to step up and take charge and do whatever needs to be done.

As an illustration of both his sense of responsibility and the degree to which he regards Tony and Iron Man as two different people, I want to point you to Iron Man v3, the Secretary of Defense arc. Following Red Zone, in which it was revealed that the Red Skull was the previous Secretary of Defense (616 governments are terrifying, okay?), Tony has been nominated to replace him. And we see his Senate hearing, and one of the senators has reservations about Tony’s suitability, based on his public persona. (This arc happens shortly after the first time the public learns Tony is Iron Man.) And this is Tony’s response:

Senator: We can’t let you loose in the Pentagon. You’ll turn it into a cult of personality and you’ll never listen to this body again! You’re too smart for school, Mr. Stark. You make up your own rules. For legal behavior. For being honest with people. I won’t even get into your personal life…

Tony: Is there a question in there, Senator?

Senator: It’s all a question! Why should anyone think that Tony Stark would put this nation’s safety before his own personal aggrandizement?

Tony: Because I’ve been doing that for years! Because I’m Iron Man – and I never ONCE took the credit!

Senator: What exactly do you mean, Mr. Stark?

Tony: Just what I said, Senator. “I’m Iron Man – and I never took the credit.”

Tony: Did I try to associate his positive image with my companies? Yes, I did. But that’s all. I never, ever asked for a direct reward for anything I ever did as Iron Man.

Tony: And for every life I told you I saved as Iron Man, there are tens – hundreds – that I’ve kept to myself. To save lives, I have traveled far. Farther than any of you will ever go. I have traveled to dark places. All alone, away from anyone who could see, hear, or help. I have staved off threats that you will never, ever hear about. The simple knowledge of them would wreak more fear and ruin on the world than I could ever hope to gain from them.

Tony: Yes, Tony Stark is Iron Man. But Iron Man is not about Tony Stark. Iron Man is about everyone else… and if Tony Stark is Defense Secretary, it’ll work the same way. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.

(This is IM v3 #76 & #78, BTW. We get half the speech during the hearing, and then half in boxes later while we see Iron Man risking his life to save people. Tony gets the SecDef job.)

So I think that speech basically sums up 616 Tony. He’s Iron Man, and he never took the credit. And that’s who 616 Tony Stark is, to me. It’s not just that he’s about accountability, as the MCU arc goes; it’s true that he’s also about accountability, but he’s about accountability not as something he’s finally learned but as a part of the core of his character from the very beginning, as a part of being responsible and doing the right thing and saving people. And not needing to take the credit.

I hope that helps answer your question!