#*original th post

[chrliekclly]

——————

it’s been 6 years exactly nd i apologize for everything about this

[tw: implied csa]

[enigmatic-pers]

Local otaku preparing to go to war with a godly powered dragon, little does he know the dragons already coming to him 💀

[khaoala]

❝What if I'm not who you think I am? Would you hate me, then? Everyone has secrets, you know. My brother always says, don't trust anyone too easily. Otherwise, you end up being the victim.❞

FIRST KANAPHAN as KANT and KHAOTUNG THANAWAT as BISON mock trailer of THE HEART KILLERS

[candy8448]

Totk: an amazing game, a terrible sequel | game analysis

I can see why cassual fans would love totk, wven have it as one of their top three zeldas, because the game is GOOD

But the reason why i and a lot of more in-depth fans dont really like the game is because of the story. Despite totk wanting to be a more story-focused game, the way they executed the storytelling was the worst aspect of the game. A lot of fans were excited about how this game could develop the zelda timeline more, but what ended up happening was a boring retelling ocarina of time and an explicit retconning of the entire zelda timeline, a single game deleting over 40 years of history.

Like, you understand right?

The memories were handled terribly as well, while botw memories didnt have to be found in order these ones had to be. I made a much more in depth as to why the memories in totk dont work ages ago on my rambles masterlist which explains why the story like this didnt work and completely ruined my experience of the game, in an effort to not spoil myself i had to phuedo-spoil myself as well as only play on guided rail lines.

And the story doesnt even continue well from botw! No one recognises link, the sheika tech is nowhere to be seen nor are even mentioned by people like purah and robbie! The calamity isnt mentioned anywhere apart for a brief second in the school sidequests

And even though the zonai is the main thing in the game, and what every youtube theorist obsessed over in botw (i was never interested in them and didnt really care) but these zonai dont even have the same architecture as the ruind we see in botw! The ruins look completely different and any lore we got for the zonai doesnt fit in with the botw zonai ruins. The botw and totk zonai mighht as well be completelyt different races! (I also made a post a ling time ago about the zonai)

Totk destroys and deletes the previous game's and series' stories while also failing to execute a story of it's own in any sort of engaging way.

Totk, while being such a fun game that i enjoyed the actual gameplay part of, and the way they handled dungeons and such were a lot vetter than botw, but it is trying to be an in depth story game while trying to be an even more sandbox game than botw, whichh ends up with it being lacking in both aspects and being a faceless game, with new characters we dont care about who are there to deliver shallow sidequest stories more often so a singular story doesnt feel developed at all, it trying to be a transformative game but just being really shallow and faceless.

I definetly feel like how the story was tackled really really poorly and just knocked down the rest of the game with it

The story is just kinda objectively handled terribly

There isn't even much environmental storytelling, it just reuses the same map as botw (something that never happened before) and fails to use it for it's own development. There is no way where the story effects the world other than the blantant sky islands and caves but that is not the definition fo environmental storytelling, thats just usig the story to make the world a bit different. What "environmental storytellin" there is, is only dotted sparingly around the world with an explicit sign or headstone or someone to tell you "this lore tidbit happened to [important figure] here" there is no care for the past that us players have and the world isnt even used to peaque that interest and we have no reason to care even about the bigger figures. In botw, the stoey had a clear effect on the world, from bits of rubble and abandonned wagons you could piece togeþher your own story about the nobodies that lived in the world, as well as the bigger more important people. We could see how things happened as well as see how this is actually a developed world with character who were there living their lives and not just there to fill space and deliver sidequests. Zelda thrives off of it's environmental storytelling, and while i do love a grand narrative adventure (skyward sword is litterally my favourite game), totk exists in a world which asks for nuance and doesnt deliver any of it. Sksw's grand anrrative works because it was handled well, told a good and engaging story, while also being in a world that is kade to deliver that, totk has none of that

And while i admit that i personally dont like the new mechanics, its not for me and i ended up just playing botw inside of totk and my personal opinions about the mechanics doesnt make the game objectively worse (unlike how some people talk about skyward sword and spirit tracks), and i had a blast actually playing the gameplay and ignoring the story, and the world feels so much fuller wiith things to do, i think that botw had a much more in depth story, and there was just as much content in the overworld but handled a lot more subtly rather than totk's attitude which seems to be "botw was so succesful so we need to make this seem better by making everything sparkle and the content to be even more in your face and easier to find," disregarding the genious triangle map situation and just making everything shine and massive that i just dont like the athetics of the game as much.

And that's why i think that cassual fans like totk as one of their favourites just because of the gameplay and the in your face story

Ive always said ever since i first played totk years ago:

Tears of the Kingdom is an amazing game, but a terrible sequel

Mentioned posts:

Memory system, the Zonai, Age of Imprisonment

[dramalove247]

Earth as Hang 😍

Our favorite part of Ossan's Love Thialand was 100% the acting. Let's be honest, we were here for Earth and Mix. Of course Mix was great and we felt every one of Mo's emotions, but it was wild seeing Earth play Hang. Watching Earth bring this absolute goober of a man to life was really fun and he made us love Hang!!! Huge departure from what we've seen from him in the past and we LOVED it!

bonus: epically delivered tears by both our boys

We felt that!

Special thanks to all the great GIF makers! We love you!

[nureyevs-worst-alias]

Ah, good evening, Traveller! And welcome to The Penumbra. [Sound: Key's jingling, rifle clicking] Today's tale is, Juno Steel and the Swift and uneventful Drive through the Grassy Knoll

[peteytheparrot]

The gang of fireflies ✨

[karebear923]

A WHOLE YEAR!?!?!?

2 minutes into the episode and I’m already pissed! 😤

[cowchickenbeefpork]

You know, I was thinking about a more comic accurate appearance to Sofia falcone and how it would relate back to Jim since jim is how she is introduced in the story really and he also has sexual ties with her in this verison of the Batman mythos and uh.

I realized that if she was more buff and “ugly” like her comic appearance then their relationship would be similar to Jim and Oswald’s in a way because Jim is getting bossed around by someone he doesn’t not agree with and does not fit neatly into traditional genders but he has to work with because they’re a necessary evil. If we’re going to make her act like Oswald in a way, why not go futher? Why not keep the detail that she’s feminine a wrong way? It would connect her further with Oswald in the narrative and would bring a whole criminals being non conformist in gender thing that Gotham and Batman media in general loves to use.

Also, her being less traditionally feminine in appearance like she is in the comics could also be a tactic used for manipulation for Oswald since she could use how she looks and how it has affected her in her life in order to make Oswald think maybe he can trust her since she has experienced things similar to what he has gone through. She’s trying to replace the hole Edward left in order to destroy Oswald, so wouldn’t making her be non conformist in a way similar to Oswald is in one area make it easier for her to get closer to him since Edward fulfilled that role before? She knows he’s craving for connection from someone like him, so wouldn’t making her look more like her comic form make manipulating him into thinking she actually cares for him slightly more easy?

Nevertheless, Gotham is too sexist to not cast a conventionally attractive women for every major female role so we’ll never see this kind of shit….sigh…….HER BEING LESS TRADITIONALLY FEMININE LIKE SHE IS IN THE COMICS WOULD'VE BEEN SO INTERESTING FOR THIS SHOW!!! IMAGINE HER OWNING THE FACT SHES DIFFERENT DESPITE HOW IT MAKES OTHERS AROUND HER UNCOMFORTABLE!!!! AUGHHHH!!!!

[c-o-z-m-o]

The bowties ^_^

Please reblog my art instead of just liking it.

[tyrannuspitch]

further ergi thoughts:

the basic asgardian assumption is that it's not gay if you're on top... and when only one partner is seen as queer, the closet is complicated. a relationship being publically known is likely to be mostly humiliating and dangerous for *one partner in particular*. which raises a few points:

A. the relationships (or one-off sexual interactions) that are publically discussed are most likely ones where the normative partner doesn't care about the queer partner - so ones which are imbalanced, abusive, or outright nonconsensual. so the idea of m/m sex as violence becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. you do (real or imagined) violence to your partner by sleeping with him, and then you do (undeniably real) violence to him by talking about it; and because making it visible is itself violent, non-violent m/m relationships are erased and become difficult to understand or imagine.

B. if a relationship becomes publically known and you DO care about your partner, you might try and obfuscate who the so-called "dominant" partner is. (a question which might well not even apply, but which is always assumed to). in an asgardian context, m/m relationships are normally asssumed to be masc/fem, straight/queer, but like... i feel like trying to be vague will backfire and just end up with both partners being seen as queer. if you're unwilling or unable to defend your masculinity, you must not have any. a mutually queer relationship is strange to an asgardian mindset, but not unimaginable. by being vague, you yourself have opened up the possibility that the strict straight/queer dynamic doesn't apply - but there's no way you can BOTH be straight, so you have to both be queer instead.

so, while more noble, this might actually be a less effective self-defence strategy than letting one partner "take the fall".

C. there's also the full no-homo option. "neither of us are queer because we weren't actually having penetrative sex, we were just messing around!" it's not gay if nobody's on top! this is technically a possibility, but i do feel like asgardians are likely to see it as *a technicality*, and highly suspect. it might even be seen as a version of option B. of course one of you was the woman, so why will neither of you admit it?

also, it might be difficult to assign top/bottom roles to non-penetrative sex, but i bet a lot of asgardians will try anyway. they might not agree on what the rules are, but they'll probably mostly agree that the rules exist; the idea that sex always carries a power imbalance is a deeply engrained one.

D. sometimes a m/m relationship being publically known might mean each partner pointing at the other and saying "no, HE was the woman, not me!" the court of public opinion is relevant here, but this one is a situation where it might actually come down to a duel. an interesting alternative to what i think is the more typical honour-defending duel ("i fucked him" vs "no you didn't, nothing happened.")

E. since relationships with straight men carry this imbalance in risk and privilege, it seems likely that a lot of queer men would seek out relationships with each other for safety.

this might also help them to slip under the radar. as i said above, mutually queer relationships aren't *unimaginable*... but they definitely aren't seen as the norm for m/m relationships. so rumours of a queer relationship might be seen as less plausible if no one can agree "who the man is". ...maybe.

F. so, apparently m/m sex is violence - but violence is not the only thing defining queerness. it seems clear from how the characters act in the films that excessive affection is unmasculine, and therefore potentially queer.

but again, excessive affection between two men is not the typical sign people will be looking for. a healthy, mutually affectionate, power-balanced m/m relationship is not the imagined norm! if affection is feminine, it will be primarily associated with the feminine partner and therefore with disempowerment.

so, in contrast to the real modern world, where being too affectionate with another man might feel mutually dangerous ("will you be homophobic?" and "do i seem predatory?")... an asgardian man being too affectionate with another man might just feel like he's unilaterally putting himself in danger. ("will you be homophobic?" and "do i seem like an easy target for assault?") (and these fears are not necessarily conscious/literal - sometimes it's just the core idea of who is being vulnerable here.)

but this is still a little too simple. this applies to affection in the sense of trying to show kindness, fondness or care. but physical affection just in the sense of touching someone could still have implications in the other direction: entitlement to touch someone or be in their space -> entitlement to their body -> masculine, alpha male, maybe predatory.

and, even if it's less (directly) stigmatised, that connotation will go some way towards restricting (romantic or platonic) m/m affection too! even if you aren't seen as queer for it, people might not want to be around you if you come across as overly dominant or threatening. and the status implications might also cause offence, conflict and power struggles - "how dare you try to hug me? i'm not a girl!"

but at the same time, if you *do* want to show affection to another man, doing it in a domineering, masculine way might be the easiest way, if you can get away with it. male society on asgard *is* intensely hierarchical. so if you're a ringleader or a father figure or in any other way high status, it *might* be acceptable.

and this is where thor and loki ultimately fall. their relationship is familial, not romantic, and i don't think there's any real fear or threat of it *looking* romantic... but it IS shaped by this cultural context and it is intensely gendered.

in the avengers, we see thor trying to be affectionate and loki being cold. which, at first glance, makes thor feminine and loki masculine.

but in fact, thor's affection is almost all that forceful, domineering, masculine kind. and before loki rebelled, we see much less affection from thor, and a few little hints of much more from loki.

one hint is that in t1, loki touches thor affectionately, while thor doesn't do so in return - but it's a very slight and cautious touch. he puts his hand lightly on thor's arm, and no more. thor doesn't acknowledge it; he isn't even making eye contact at the time (while loki watches thor closely and warily). and their conversation is the same: loki's tone is quiet and soothing, while thor is ranting; some of thor's aggression is even directed at loki. loki comforts thor in a way that allows thor to pretend he isn't being comforted, and to feel in control. (yes, underneath all this, loki is manipulating thor - but it wouldn't be a believable lie if it didn't reflect a real dynamic between the two.)

and as i've noted before, loki is the only character to use the word "love" in thor 1. one of the times he says it is: "i love thor more than any of you". this is unembarrassed, matter of fact, even defensive, like he feels the need to prove he's meeting some obligation. in contrast, unless i am very much mistaken, thor STILL hasn't said that he "loves" loki - he just keeps saying "he's my brother", like that's close enough... or as close as he's allowed to get.

this is vulnerable for loki, and it's a mandated vulnerability; he is *expected* to be affectionate and subordinate; he is the right hand man and confidant who thor leans on, trusts, and vents his emotions to. in a way, loki takes on vulnerability on thor's behalf. so avengers!loki drawing back and becoming less affectionate is both defensive and rebellious.

meanwhile, avengers!thor isn't exactly rebelling, but he's rattling the bars of his cage. he desperately wants to show affection, but he doesn't quite know how. he loves loki but he cannot trust him. and even if he did, he can't allow himself to cede too much power, because he believes that him holding power over loki protects them both... thor is deeply conflicted, and it shows in his behaviour towards loki. because there IS vulnerability in it now, profound vulnerability, despite everything - but there's violence too.

[hinamie]

Hello! Makoharu loving anon here :P glad I could make you feel like less of a makoharu island ❤️ also, YES!!! Very proud of you what the heck I can’t believe I didn’t mention how amazing your art is!! Not only do we have new MH art in the god forsaken year of 2025, but it’s fucking incredible!!!! Love your JJK art too ❤️ immaculate taste all around and absolutely stunning work!!

anon we shall have a spring wedding <3 ur gna make me cry thank u so MUCH i think i might have mentioned in passing tht like. despite loving free! since it was airing i never really drew the characters that often,,, whether from a lack of interest or confidence i don't know but either way u can imagine my delight to learn that i can now take the skills acquired from my years spent drawing shounen and use them to return to my roots and do makoto tachibana justice

[karebear923]

Yeah Mo, listen to Ten!

Go get your mans back!

[bastardlybonkers]

re: ur post about toshiro and laios - i humbly offer this panel of laios completely misunderstanding the way izutsumi eats isn't an 'eastern thing', cuz hes not used to it

a good panel to bring up 👆 laios is a great example of a well meaning white person who ends up making micro agressions and racist generalizations without realizing because hes ignorant and very underexposed to any cultures other than his own. i mean hell both he and falin are extremely racist about 'the mountain people'

and much like theyre racist towards the nomadic people, kabru is racist towards kobolds due to him conflating them with monsters. tbh i think every character in dunmeshi exhibits some sort of racial bias at least once, which can be hard for fans to deal with, as i think most people are unused to racism being one of the major character flaws in their favs. unfortunately, when writing a story that is implied to take place in an earlier time period, or hell even just writing a story period, you cant really ignore racism as part of your worldbuilding, especially if, like kui, youre using it to make a point.

tldr everyone in dunmeshi is kinda racist in one way or another and it is a deliberate choice on kuis part, because she wanted to portray both real-world tensions through a fantasy lense and flesh out her own world with realistic tensions that would build in its history. if you are ignoring that the characters are racist then you are missing the point

also, im saying all this as a white person myself, so please Please do not think that im the only person talking about this. there are many poc, both in the replies/tags of my post and in posts of their own, who have made similar points to me and brought up things i havent touched on and you should absolutely read their takes as well

[her-canine-teeth]

bad astrology by flower face

< -

[angel-mira]

I think they sleep a lil funny.