#2001.wrt

[prettyboysdontlookatexplosions]

one of the key points that emily hanford makes in sold a story is that as a result of the politics surrounding no child left behind, reading pedagogy itself wound up regrettably politicized. the bush administration’s “reading first” initiative was intended in part to bring american classrooms up to date with what was known about the science of reading, including a “back to basics” angle that involved systemic phonics instruction; because this fell under the banner of Bush Education Policy, and also because (as is literally always the case in education) the roll-out was poorly managed, many teachers (as per hanford) rejected it.

what this means is:

(1) if you attended kindergarten through second grade after 2002 and are glad you went to school in the era of phonics, unlike these misbegotten youth, no you didn’t; as the podcast highlights, the initiative failed at scale (although she notes that some teachers in the few districts where implementation was handled with care found the professional development around it useful)

(2) if you attended kindergarten through second grade in the 90s and are glad you went to school in the era of phonics, unlike these misbegotten youth, no you didn’t; the rise of phonics as a battle in 2001 onwards indicates that it was not in fact settled practice at that point, as indeed does the resistance practicing teachers mounted to being asked to incorporate systemic phonics instruction. balanced literacy, the approach sold a story spends much of its time critiquing, is typically said to have arisen in the 90s.

(3) if you went to elementary school before the 90s, tbh you’re also on thin ice wrt these claims, because whole language, the pedagogical model to which balanced literacy is in theory a more phonics-friendly update, is based on a set of theories originating in the 60s & 70s and probably hit its peak in the 80s, with the balanced literacy of the 90s being seen as a “compromise” between whole language and a more traditional approach.

(4) the traditional approach featuring phonics doesn’t mean that it taught phonics well enough for all students to succeed. hanford early on in the podcast includes the story of an adult who never successfully learned to read in school. this person was a vietnam veteran.

remember: some kids can in fact learn to read without much instruction in phonics, or with essentially a basic overview. tbh unless you received remediation/support for a learning disability, i would not draw any conclusions from your fuzzy childhood memories and the mere fact that you can read about whether or not your school was teaching reading right. (to give one example from my fuzzy childhood memories - if your first grade teacher taught you “when two vowels go a walkin, the first one does the talking,” as mine did in 1994 or so - that was teaching phonics poorly! that’s not a rule it’s recommended to teach, because it’s not reliably true! if it was enough for you, that says more about non-classroom factors in reading success than it does about your first grade teacher, who may have been lovely in other ways.) on the other hand, teachers certainly have always existed who have been more proactive than the field at large about incorporating science into their practice (or, alternately, recalcitrant about change in ways that sometimes have benefits lmao); having lucked into one or several of those doesn’t mean you grew up in the era of phonics, because, like, there are so many fucking teachers in this country.

[glitter-stained]

As I mentioned before, Judd Winick's writing is chock-full of parallels, and Green Arrow: Seeing Red is literally built on them. So here's a reason list of stuff I recommend reading before reading that comic in order to get the full experience:

Essentials:

> Batman 1940: A Death in the Family: made a whole post about the parallel in there. It's not the most character-defining comic for jaybin but it's essential for understanding Winick's red hood in general and Seeing Red in particular.

> Batman: Under the Hood: This comic is important to:

-understand who Winick's Jason is, his status as a victim and his actual philosophy beyond "daddy issues"

-understand Winick's Batman characterization and why he's an unreliable narrator

> Green Arrow: 2001: yes, all of it. Look, I get it, Jason is a super popular character, I get reading through his comic appearances one by one without taking the time to read the whole thing -I've done that with characters before. But in order to get the full experience, you absolutely have to read it, for many reasons but mostly to:

-understand Mia's character, how she deals with her trauma and how she defines herself as a survivor

-note the parallels between Jason and Mia, and why Jason isn't totally incorrect in pointing out how similar they are

-note the differences between Ollie and Bruce, which are imo the pillar to understand the point made in SR and why the UTH tragedy could never have happened in a Green Arrow story

-the treasure trove of parallels and references to different arcs in this story. Mia's becoming Speedy arc and The Diplomat's Son. Why it's relevant that they're fighting in the school gym. The Away Game Arc -the parallels between both Jason and Oliver and Jason and Natas, as well as the difference between Jason and Natas. "moving to the higher reading group". The Heading Into the Light Arc (which really highlights how comparatively not that bad Jason is, honestly. Yes the bar is on the ground, but with the way people talk about Jason's horrifying actions against Mia, you'd think they'd be talking about Dr Light...). I'm probably missing some, but the point is, you need to read Green Arrow 2001, otherwise you won't get the intended experience for Seeing Red. And no, I'm not saying that just to get you to read Mia.

To really understand what's going on in there:

-Snowbirds don't fly: This one makes a great parallel with the Mia getting diagnosed with HIV and becoming Speedy arc (in GA 2001, which we've already established you should read) and I think the conjunction of those two, especially in regard to Ollie's characterization, is essential to understanding one scene with Batman in Seeing Red that I will not spoil - a scene that feels off and, I will argue based on the parallel, is intended to feel off-putting on purpose.

- The Diplomat's Son: This one has a very interesting parallel, again, with Mia's becoming Speedy arc; I will argue that the parallel really highlights the differences between the two issues in question (you'll know which upon reading them). And those differences, imo, are at the core of the misunderstanding between Jason and Mia in Sidekick Showdown: it's the key to understand exactly where Jason's reasoning went wrong and why it made Mia so upset... While neither of them has access to those elements that would clarify the situation.

-War Games: This one I'm only including because I need to highlight exactly how much of a hypocrite Bruce is wrt Jason's role as a crimelord. This parallel is far more interesting and would be better developed in a UTH meta, but the key point here is the parallel between Bruce and Jason, and the way it downplays literally anything Bruce says about Jason's crime-lording, from UTH to the way it carries into Seeing Red. I'm not trying to absolve Jason of anything, he did chop off those heads, but really, when Bruce makes repeated comments and assumptions about Jason's intentions and motivations, the parallel between War Games and Under the Hood is essential to understand really how untrustworthy those assumptions are. Is there any part of truth to any of them? Maybe, who knows. God forbid Seeing Red tells us anything for sure.

+ FYI

I'm not gonna rec Batman Annual #25 or Red Hood: Lost Days just for that, but I do think it's really important to remember Jason and Mia are in the same age range!!!! Besides, in Mia's literal intro arc in GA 2001, she's said to be 15 and we see a panel of Jason, dead, in heaven -and we know Jason died at 14-15, so even just counting age based on GA 2001... They're the same age. I highly, heavily encourage you not to apprehend Jason and Mia's dynamic as "older man VS teenage girl", I think it truly harms the story both on aspects of the characters and what they mean to eachother, and on Batman aspects, especially with the way Ollie treats the question of parental responsibility in this comic. Jason is a teenager and that's essential to the story.

That's all for now, but I'll definitely add some to those if I notice/realize I've forgotten another comic the story is built upon! Happy reading, I'm 100% serious when I say having read all those comics can make all the difference in engaging with Seeing Red.

[notatzimisce]

wrt last post this is also what hearing about the average tabletop group sounds like. It's always some shit like "I literally can't speak aloud without three other players interrupting me with banana spork internet 2001 grade humor" or "the rest of the party fed my one-year-running character to a dragon as a 'joke' and laughed at me when I was upset" or "the GM brought a box of real life bees to the table and shook the box and released angry bees into the room and we all got stung a lot" and if you Dare to tell them "that's genuinely unacceptable behavior, your tabletop group sucks and you need to play with other people" then they'll immediately get defensive about how like. these people they literally only ever say bad things about are actually fine and they're actually having fun all the time, and besides they don't have anyone else to play their tabletop games with. bitch your game sounds worse than nothing

[zahri-melitor]

sorry this is a ramble but to a lesser narrative extent wrt to fanon, part of the tragedy of jason todd is that he is mostly remembered as the suit in a case — he doesn’t have the same connections and support structure as tim or dick do. even if we ignore that the graysons are a foundational part of tims origin story, the idea that so few people KNEW jason before his death is crucial to how he eventually returns

This is true! And it's particularly caused by the time period he operated in; not only was it a period where Bruce was fairly isolated in Gotham, but due to COIE falling smack bang in the middle and 'Jason' actually ending up being effectively two separate characters due to the retcon, everyone's titles were more focused on things like re-establishing what the new timelines looked like over arranging many crossovers, and the only events post-Crisis Jason gets a look in on are Legends and Millennium (Invasion! happened alongside ADITF). He spends a bit of time with the NTT but that's about it.

He fundamentally simply was not Robin for very long in terms of real world time OR on page (post-Crisis Jason's got ~55 issues as Robin in the 80s. Damian has more appearances as Robin between 2009 and 2011, across significantly more titles).

Characters not being able to tell Tim and Jason apart is a joke as late as Quiver in 2001 (you'd MET Tim, Ollie, at Clark's funeral and during Bloodlines and Zero Hour, if nothing else. He watched your funeral).

[whompthatsucker1981]

got tagged by david @blabsabbathlatheofmaiden for Posting 5 favorite/best songs, since i have a lot of trouble just thinking abt ranking things, i'm thinking of this as a list of 5 songs i really really like that first come to mind so i don't despair trying to narrow down. also to not put something really obvious wrt my blog, it's gonna be a selection of zero international songs. no gringos allowed.

rios, pontes & overdrives - chico science e nação zumbi

drama de angélica - alvarenga e ranchinho

tua - liniker e os caramelows

2001 - os mutantes

fala - secos & molhados

and to tagging uhhhh. if you see this and feel like sharing 5 songs that caught you in some way, feel free to cite me as the person who tagged you :)

[perpetualdreamruin]

Valentino Rossi: A Legend of Motorcycle Racing

Valentino Rossi was born on February 16, 1979, in Urbino, Italy, and raised in the small town of Tavullia in the Marche region. He is the son of Graziano Rossi, a former motorcycle racer, and his early exposure to motorsports deeply influenced his career path. Initially interested in kart racing, Valentino soon turned to motorcycles, where his natural talent quickly emerged.

Rossi made his debut in the World Championship in 1996 in the 125cc class with Aprilia. A year later, in 1997, he clinched his first world title, marking the beginning of a legendary journey. After dominating the 125cc category, he moved up to the 250cc class, again with Aprilia, and secured the world championship in 1999. These early achievements confirmed his status as one of the brightest young talents in motorcycle racing.

In 2000, Valentino stepped up to the premier class—then known as 500cc—riding for Honda. After finishing runner-up in his debut season, he won the 500cc World Championship in 2001. The following year, MotoGP replaced the 500cc class, introducing more powerful four-stroke bikes. Rossi adapted instantly, winning the MotoGP titles in 2002 and 2003 with Honda, dominating the new era of racing.

In a shocking and bold career move, Rossi left the dominant Honda team in 2004 to join Yamaha, a manufacturer struggling for success at the time. His decision proved historic: he won the opening race of the 2004 season in South Africa and went on to win the championship, demonstrating that his success was not just due to superior machinery but also to his exceptional skill and determination. He continued to dominate, winning more world titles with Yamaha in 2005, 2008, and 2009.

Rossi’s career was not only marked by victories but also by fierce rivalries that defined modern MotoGP. His on-track battles with Max Biaggi, Sete Gibernau, Casey Stoner, and Jorge Lorenzo captivated fans worldwide. However, the most controversial rivalry came with Marc Márquez. In 2015, tensions peaked when Rossi accused Márquez of interfering with his title hopes, leading to a highly controversial final race in Valencia that cost Rossi the championship.

Between 2011 and 2012, Rossi made a high-profile move to Ducati, but it turned out to be the most difficult chapter of his career. He struggled to adapt to the bike and failed to achieve a single victory in two seasons. In 2013, he returned to Yamaha and showed remarkable resilience, remaining competitive and fighting for podiums well into his late 30s. In 2015, he came agonizingly close to a 10th world title, finishing second in the standings after leading much of the season.

After an extraordinary 26-year career, Valentino Rossi retired from MotoGP at the end of the 2021 season. By then, he had accumulated staggering numbers: 432 Grand Prix starts, 115 victories, 235 podium finishes, and over 6,300 career points. He remains the only rider to have won world titles in four different classes: 125cc, 250cc, 500cc, and MotoGP. His legacy extends far beyond statistics—Rossi transformed the sport into a global phenomenon. Known as “The Doctor,” he became an icon of modern motorsports, famous for his charisma, colorful celebrations, and his number 46, which became legendary in racing culture.

Following his retirement from two-wheel racing, Rossi seamlessly transitioned into automobile racing. He began competing in GT and endurance series, including the GT World Challenge Europe, the 24 Hours of Spa, and the World Endurance Championship, driving for Team WRT and later for BMW. His performances in these events have been respectable and show his continued passion for motorsports.

In addition to racing, Rossi plays a major role in developing the next generation of riders through his VR46 Racing Team and VR46 Riders Academy, based in his hometown of Tavullia. Through this initiative, he has helped launch the careers of several top-level riders, including Franco Morbidelli, Francesco “Pecco” Bagnaia (MotoGP World Champion in 2022 and 2023), Marco Bezzecchi, and Luca Marini.

Valentino Rossi’s story is one of genius, longevity, and reinvention. From his first race to his final lap in MotoGP, he has redefined what it means to be a racer—combining talent with showmanship, strategy with passion. Even after leaving the MotoGP paddock, his influence endures through the teams, riders, and millions of fans he has inspired. More than just a champion, Valentino Rossi is a cultural icon, forever etched in the history of motorsports.

[ironworked]

Just a reminder of how hard it's been to get to where we are today wrt queerness on tv:

2000, Dawson's Creek: Berlanti says “I had to threaten to quit, basically because they wouldn’t let us have the characters kiss,”. WB also asked them to film it from across the street.

2001, Buffy The Vampire Slayer: co-ep David Greenwalt, once recalled that he received a phone call from an anonymous WB exec asking "Is [Joss] really going to do this gay thing?". They were asked to cut Willow and Tara's kiss, and Whedon 'declared he would walk away from the show' if they didn't get their kiss.

2005, The OC: network affiliates said they were getting complaints about the bi Marissa storyline, and they went to the network saying, ‘If this doesn’t go away, we’re not going to air your show anymore.’. “I’ll never forget when we were forced to cut their first kiss way back before it aired. [...] I’m like, ‘What are we doing? Why are they doing that? They just made us cut this thing down to like a tiny little smooch,’” Schwartz recalled.

2000-2007, Gilmore Girls: Sherman-Palladino: "The networks were very different in how permissive they would allow you to be. So, Sookie was originally supposed to be gay, but that was a non-starter at that time."

2007-2012, Gossip Girl: “There was not a lot of representation the first time around on the show.” Safran said [...], adding: “I was the only gay writer I think the entire time I was there.” / ''Sure, Eric Van Der Woodsen came out in the 1st season -- he also triumphantly outed his boyfriend, which tells you a lot about where we were in 2007''.

2010, 90210: Q: 90210 doesn’t shy away from allowing its straight characters to express their sexuality. Will the show be as frank in its depiction of Teddy’s romantic relationships? Sinclair [EP]: I hope so.

27 LGBTQ+ characters were killed off in 2016 across various networks and shows.

Carter Covington (Faking It, 2014-2016) said in 2016: “Networks are terrified. They’re completely scared right now. They will look for any reason not to do something. …I would hate for us to lose opportunities because of fear.”

Javier Grillo-Marxuach [...] explained [he] doesn’t own the properties for which he is telling stories. “I don’t make promises I can’t keep,” he said. “I will not stand up in front of the world and promise to do this and then somehow become the scapegoat on something that is not my property.”

Extra not-related-but-kinda-related fact: 1999 - Felicity's Haircut: network executives suggested it could have been series star Keri Russell's drastic haircut that did the real ratings damage. According to entertainment president Susanne Daniels, [...] she provoked a reaction so "overwhelmingly negative" that audiences stopped tuning in. Rather than chiding viewers for their superficiality, Daniels promised Russell would regrow her mane. "Nobody is cutting her hair again on our network," she said.

Sometime around 2021-22, the 9-1-1 team starts seriously working up to expand their roster of queer characters (originally including two black women, two black men and a white man) by exploring Buck's bisexuality... but Fox hits the brakes and ends up cancelling the show. Fortunately ABC (owned by the same production company) picked it up and that storyline got the go ahead *.

* Note: It should be said that by the time Buck's bisexuality was greenlit, the m/m black couple had left the show.

Now, The CW. Know Riverdale? that show where every plot point or detail that crosses your dash makes it seem even more bonkers, and whose fans are quick to tell you that actually it's even weirder? romantic entanglements included?

So there's a recurring gay character, and then the main cast (which includes Cheryl, who is a lesbian). Who kisses who? Cheryl and Topaz? YES. Cheryl and Veronica? YES. Cheryl and Betty? YES. Betty and Veronica? YES. Archie and Betty? YES. Archie and Veronica? YES. Jughead and Betty? YES. Jughead and Veronica? YES.

Archie and Jughead? NO.

...🤔

ETA a correction from the notes:

My main points:

Queer storylines are still not easily greenlit, especially for pre-existing characters (don't take risks. don't fix it if it ain't broken). It's getting easier, but it's still not easy.

White, male, and straight is still seen as the default and as neutral by the networks, and let's admit it, by a portion of the audience. So while they might be willing to include some diversity in their shows, I think these characters are still seen as 'other', and there's a strong reluctance to taking one of those 'neutral characters everyone can identify with' and... 'officially/openly queering them', so to speak.

And what about Supernatural? The show that Pedowitz was happy brought on some very wanted male viewers, and which they used to usher in new shows:

“It has been the lead-in or lead-out to almost the entire schedule,” Pedowitz said. “It’s made successes out of shows that might not have [otherwise] been sampled, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that Supernatural brought in an audience that demographically was 50-50, male to female.[...]"

The show that got this network note in season 1 (2005):

For the episode "Route 666" though, "… The note I got from the network was 'The girl can't be on top.'"

More not-fully-related-but-relevant tidbits, this time from Nancy Drew:

"[straight pairing were] never endgame in the very early days. It was never even a thing. It’s that beautiful thing that comes out of creating a show and getting to 62 chapters of a story and all of a sudden it kind of takes you somewhere."

[Actress from Nancy Drew] told Us that she “made it [her] mission” to make sure there were “little moments” between the two characters that fans could latch onto. “[Even] in subtle ways that weren’t necessarily scripted — just in case they decided to go that direction [so] that it would feel supported,”

Glaad Media's yearly 'Where We Are on Tv' Reports: 23-24; 22-23; 21-22; 20-21; 19-20; 18-19; 17-18; 16-17; 15-16; 14-15; 13-14; 12-13; 11-12; 10-11; 09-10; 08-09; 07-08; 06-07.

[alwaysalreadyangry]

Hey! I have a ridic niche poetry / gpt complaint & you are possibly the only person I know of who shares this weird mashup of interests so I'm sending you this ask, feel free to ignore my word vomit / thoughts on yaoi, etc.

So ok, here's the thing: obviously chatgpt has changed the landscape wrt ai-generated text (for the worse, IMO) & given the spam that, say, Clarksworld, saw as a result I think it makes sense for journals & mags to bar submissions of work that wholly or partially uses ai, especially in the short term as norms & best practices around usage get sorted out. But today I was doing submission research & ran across a poetry place that bars it explicitly because they consider anything that uses ai text generation (out of any platform not just chat got) to be plagiarism. And, like. I have so many frustrations with this.

Because, yes, a person can use ai in a plagiaristic way, to create digital forgeries & the like, but like (a) by painting all uses as plagiarism it becomes harder to call out specific unethical uses, as well as make it harder to establish good boundaries for what constitutes ethical usage & best practice & (b) while I think there are many questions to be asked about training sets & what material is fair game for the companies making these models to use, I'm skeptical that output from models that haven't been fine-tuned with a specific person's work can constitute plagiarism. If you can't name a specific artist who's work is being plagiarized then that feels like it fundamentally can't be called plagiarism? Like, sure, if you want to say it's unethical in other ways, that feels fair, but is the idea that, what, any text that has been generated using ai is plagiarizing everyone? I don't think the basic premise holds; a better thing would be to say that ai is banned because of unanswered questions surrounding the datasets the model was trained on, or general ethics or whatever.

Anyway, I guess what I'm really annoyed about is the best criticisms of chatgpt & similar have largely come from people who actually have been doing interesting things with gpt / ai for years & some of the worst / most counterproductive takes seem to be coming from places like this which repeat Twitter takes without understanding the underlying issues. Aaaaand /rant.

Anyway hope you're doing well & are not spending the start of your weekend annoyed by submission guidelines as I am. (I will not subject you to my other rants about submission pet peeves, but if you have any of your own to complain about, please know I would listen with avid interest.)

(hope you don't mind me answering publicly - if i did it privately i'd lose the message you sent so this is what i default to!)

yeah i really feel you here - every time i see people talk about how AI can never make literature~ or whatever i feel like saying. it already has, just maybe not in the way you're thinking, or the way tech people with no real involvement with lit think it will, should, can.

so much of poetry & avant-garde literature and art of the last century has been made by cutting up and appropriating text or images found elsewhere, through chance operations, through bots and markov chains and generative software... the idea that ~AI (a misnomer of a term honestly) poetry, computer-generated poetry, is new is funny to me. i saw an exhibition in 2019 in vienna with this installation that dates back to 2001... the first fully autonomous poetry generator. the issue with the current state of things is like -- not about the whole concept of computer-generated or computer-aided poetry! but, like! with these increasingly large language models made by scraping the whole internet...

[italwayshadtobeyou]

Fans who insist that monstrousness in SPN is a metaphor for the Tumblr-accepted queer categories are missing the point. "Character experiences social rejection for stupid reasons, then makes a cool new found family and gets therapy so that they can do what they want without problems" is not a horror concept, it's a bad Lifetime drama.

To fall into the category of horror, monstrousness must be not merely frowned upon, but horrifying in a way that, WRT most LGBTQ Westerners, is impossible outside of small subcultures. Anti-homosexual witch hunts existed in large part because people believed that permitting sodomy would bring the wrath of God down on society, Sodom-and-Gomorrah style. (They ignored the part where the cities would have been spared for just 10 righteous men.)

But by the turn of the millennium, few people believed that. In 2001, when Jerry Falwell tried to blame the 9/11 attacks on homosexuals, abortions, and the ACLU, he received such vehement outrage, even from conservatives, that he offered a series of insincere-sounding apologies. According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who support criminal penalties for homosexuality hasn't cracked 50 since the 1980s; majorities have "in general" supported similar job opportunities for gays and lesbians every year since the 1970s. When I started joined Facebook, in 2005, you could state your interest in men, women, or both-- regardless of your own sex. That didn't keep Facebook from attracting hordes of Boomers when it became available to the general public in 2006. Nor did outrage from the new arrivals lead to the feature being dropped: It survived until 2022.

Too many Americans did, and do, disapprove of and even dislike LGBTQ people. But they don't expect that mere proximity to homosexuals will result in fire and brimstone raining down on their heads. They don't expect the consequences to be horrific.

I guess that "monstrosity as a metaphor for taboo sexual desire" could work, but only if you went with desires that are horrifying to 21st-century audiences. And, particularly in the world of internet fandom, "this male character wants to have sex with another male character" doesn't come close to qualifying.

TL;DR: A desire you can never pursue without causing harm is suitable for horror; a desire you just need some therapy to pursue without guilt is not.

[midnightactual]

Discord Server Interest Check

so my activity has obviously not been the most happenin’ for a while now and I’m gonna be out of country for about 3 months in a week so I can’t guarantee what my engagement will look like over that timespan... but!

it’s probably no secret that my interest wrt Bleach is both delving into what’s already there and also building upon and advancing it in ways I think plausible. while I totally understand and respect people running prior parts (be that “historical” stuff before the start of Bleach, during Bleach’s main 2001–2003 run, the 2013 epilogue, Breaths From Hell in 2015, or anything nebulously in between) that’s not really my jam. to me all of that is the past and I’m interested in the present so since being here I’ve largely set my stuff (here as well as with @obsidiennes) in the “now” of between 2020 and 2022 (ignoring... certain events... obviously). here’s a rough rundown of events mostly since 2021? I like making a kind of shared, persistent, communal setting that’s more ours than just a playground we occupy

some people like that or at least like engaging with it sometimes and after some comments by @uraharashouten I think it’d be neat to create a place where it was easier to discuss and coordinate such things. not a closed RP group but rather a loose association where people can more readily and easily interact with that sort of persistent shared universe. think of it as like the RP equivalent of the MCU

to that end I’m thinking of putting together a Discord server to cater to that specifically and to also serve as a place to do smaller communal RP interactions too because let’s be real multi-party threads on Tumblr are awkward. this is ultimately an interest check for wanting to be involved with that!

I don’t intend to drop threads with anyone who’s not part of it or any other such thing (when my spoons return and I actually do drafts) so this is just something of a value-add for people who like that idea. you don’t need to be primarily a Bleach blog to be interested although this is a “future” of Bleach type of thing first and foremost (though maybe AUs could be plotted and spun-off too?)

[the-hellsing-organisation]

One (and I can't stress this enough) dumb thing that's always puzzled me is the Dog!card vs Baskerville interpretation. And I purely blame that on the Gonzo version depicting what appears to be Alucard in dog form in the intro. I always see fanworks and the like depicting Alucard taking on a dog form that looks like Baskerville. And I guess he could take that form technically, but like...did...did the fandom just look at Baskerville and think "okay, yes, but what if Alucard was a dog and he looks like that" or was that just like a weird and widespread minterpretation that Baskerville was actually just Dog!card and not a separate entity?

That all said, Dog!card fan stuff is usually really fun, so I'm not against it or anything. Just baffled I guess.

Dear anon friend, you are reading my thoughts.

I’m very conflicted about this too and Gonzo certainly didn’t help my confusion.

Let’s see if we can bring some light into this.

(The dog in the Gonzo opening)

(The dog how he is portrayed in the OVA)

Most interesting here is Walter’s comment when he faced the dog in the manga/OVA.

On top of it all we have reason to believe that Alucard/Dracula ‘can’ turn into a dog, as seen here

There was of course a considerable concussion as the vessel drove up on the sand heap. Every spar, rope, and stay was strained, and some of the `top-hammer' came crashing down. But, strangest of all, the very instant the shore was touched, an immense dog sprang up on deck from below, as if shot up by the concussion, and running forward, jumped from the bow on the sand.

(Bram Stoker’s Dracula - Chapter 7)

To form a theory on this, lets look at the release dates.

Unfortunately I dont find the original chapter releases in “Young King Ours” so we have to look at the tankōbon volumes releases, though the first chapter was released in 1997 apparently.

The first episode of the Gonzo anime aired in October 2001.

Given that the anime was already produced before it was aired - naturally - we can assume it didn't include more than the story until volume 4 - give or take.

So they certainly did have the information about what Walter would say, even though they already had the Hounds appearance when it ate Luke and they too adapted it in the Gonzo anime too... making it a bit of a mess.

Okay lets see what we get from here ....

I can only assume the creator of the Gonzo anime already had the Dracula information beforehand - as we too see in the last episode, because in the anime it wasnt revealed yet - even though yes of course you could have figured it out.

Therefore I am too assuming they meant to link the anime closer to the original novel, where Alucard/Dracula - as we saw ^ - was definitely able to turn into a dog - at least in the opening.

(Correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t think he ever did that in the anime itself, didn't he?)

Correction

@tallvampiresinhats

WRT to gonzo, we actually do see his dog form !!! It’s right after his first showdown with Incognito and he seems to have been taken down for good, to the point where Incognito is able to capture and have Integra pinned to whatever magic circle while incognito calls Set. Basically, Integra just calls for alucard VERY loudly and, powered by the energy of “because she told me to!!!” We see his dog form racing thru London and back to the tower for a rematch. It’s only like a 30 second long sequence

I remember now. You are right. It had been years since I watched it. xD

In general they made a few more references to Dracula, like portraying how certain weaknesses affected Seras for example.

.....

I kinda forgot where I was going with this, so lets wrap this up.

In the novel Dracula is shown to turn into a dog, though this ability is portrayed in neither anime, even if the Gonzo one makes a reference to it in the opening.

Going with the manga it is to be assumed that the dog Alucard uses is probably really the Hound of Baskerville. It is a familiar like all the other ‘souls’ he uses, linked to his ‘shadows’.

The manga makes no mention if Alucard is able to turn into anything but bats, or his other human forms.

So maybe he too has a dog form like the Gonzo anime implies and the novel tells us, but we never see it, or he has none and Hirano was going with the take the dog from the ship was a random one and not Dracula like implied.

It’s a bit of a mess admittedly. 

[dykehaus]

growing up i thought lesbian culture would be like that erin wasson/natasa vojnovic 2001 gucci campaign instead it's been the like inside of an alison bechdel illustration. not that the sentiment in bechdel isn't beautiful, but as as far as taste? lol do you think there's any hope? beyond the sideways baseball cap cringe/corniness of kstew-lesbians

a reference! i’d forgotten about that ass crack out the back of the dress shot... might just be crossposting that later for posterior posterity. anyway: 

i actually don’t mind bechdel at all and honestly wish the vacuous cottagecore lesbians (and associates) would take a literal page from one of her books. i don’t find bechdel boring even if the universe, style, and aspirations of dykes to watch out for are not personally compelling to me. it’s a smart and reverent depiction of the lesbian community when we weren’t so balkanized as a group. (lol.) also she was legitimately funny on the page and never infantilized her cartoon avatar or fictionalized friends/lovers.   

many significant lesbians of the twentieth century were aesthetes, just godforsaken snobs - insufferable basically - and incredibly antisocial wrt other lesbians, even the ones they screwed. many were famously self-isolating (which i do relate to unfortunately). there’s a stubbornness to what we conventionally understand as good taste, I think: an unwillingness to consider the lowest common denominator for the comforts and belonging it would offer. so yes, i agree basically. i wish there were more of an embrace of fantasia, play, variant reference points (particularly from literature and pop culture), less sensitivity re the role of film/mainstream media to validate us (as though that’ll make our material lives that much better haha), and more tolerance for contradiction. so much of what’s compelling comes from that friction. this is not a popular opinion it seems. 

TLDR: there is hope! practical advice: literally just find the lesbians who aren’t like. relentlessly “lesbian” (imagine i’m doing air quotes here). there are many who feel content sinking into a homogenous homosexuality but there are also a lot of lesbians who feel alienated by what passes for the culture lately and don’t feel like they can criticize it openly. all that affected earnestness is kind of annoying and definitely boring. so literally do what makes you feel good and challenges you and forget about the corny lesbians - it makes them happy, so we really can’t begrudge them. <3 

[moviegroovies]

confession time: for someone who (semi) actively runs a movie blog, i really haven’t seen a lot of classic movies.

(i know this comes as a shock for those of y’all who have been subjected to nothing but my half-baked thoughtpieces on bad 80′s horror for the past couple of years, but bear with me.) 

to be honest, even this review doesn’t REALLY represent me making an active choice to remedy that so much as it does me pulling a long con where i endear myself to marilyn monroe by watching her movies to get myself excited to watch the miniseries blonde (2001), for abnormally pretty, young jensen ackles purposes*, but let’s not dwell on all that. the practical result is the same; i watched some like it hot (1959). now, i hope y’all are ready for a few some like it Thoughts™:

first, idk how much attention y’all have been paying to the loose bits of personal lore i occasionally scatter within my reviews, but one thing about myself that i feel i’ve been pretty open about is the fact that i’m trans. this being so, and knowing not a whole lot about the movie beyond the very basic premise “1959 extended man in a dress gag,” i can’t say i went in with the highest of expectations. imagine my surprise, then, when the gender aspect of this movie was... actually pretty good? i mean, full disclosure, it’s not exactly gender studies, but it’s passable! it’s tolerable! there were even a few moments where i felt inclined to say the words “oh, GENDER?” out loud!

perhaps most impressively, i’d say the Cis Creator Cringe Factor of some like it hot was actually impressively LOWER than a lot of modern moves with genderswapping premises tend to be. like, i know that one definite explanation for that would be the fact that trans experiences are more widespread today, so modern filmmakers don’t feel comfortable playing with ideas like this without at least giving lipservice to them, while the era that bore some like it hot didn’t face the same “pressure,” but, okay. listen. compared to another movie i watched recently--freaky (2020), in which a teenage girl swaps bodies with serial killer vince vaugn, featuring one incredibly anvilicious scene where, upon being informed by a gay boy that she’s in the men’s bathroom, the girl’s best friend retorts, “she [vince vaugn]’s got a dick in her hand, and you’re wearing chanel no. 5. i think we’re past labels.”--some like it hot, a movie older than my father, was wayyyy easier to watch**. actually, you know what? yeah. listen to me. cis content creators? movie producers? i’m talking to you. DON’T EVEN BRING GENDER (or gender “identities”... which is an incredibly gross term, anyway) UP IF YOU’RE NOT PLANNING TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT. sincerely, this particular bad taste corner of the trans community :).

...anyway.

some like it hot, by contrast, did it right. YES, the premise of the movie was two presumably cis men in disguise as women. i’ll put that in the open. however, there was a certain... i don’t know if “respect” is the right word, but there was an avoidance, at least, of the usual predatory tropes. in fact, the worst behavior by far from either main character comes when joe manages to take off his female disguise, donning another, male persona and using things that sugar (marilyn’s character) confided in “josephine” to create a nonthreatening, desirable “millionaire” in order to trick her into sex. okay, like i said, it’s not gender studies, but, the humor in some like it hot comes from generally the right place. joe and jerry don their female disguises in a matter that in quite literally life and death for them (and it’s more than the creators ever thought of, i’m sure, but there IS an interesting analysis to be had of them needing to pass to live), which to a degree removes the usual pitfalls of male to female crossdressing as a gag; they’re neither doing it for lecherous reasons, nor to parody the female experience. this being a comedy, there is a degree of humor found in the situation, but it’s directed at jerry and joe, the characters, more than their disguises. the general assumption is that they both pass without question, as long as they’re wearing their ladies’ clothes; jerry once comments that he’s “not even pretty,” but it’s never an issue to contend with. 

wrt the crossdressing, the worst moment for me, personally, was a scene on the train when jerry prepared to take off the disguise in order to sleep with sugar, and even this ends up comedically averted at jerry’s expense.

and speaking of jerry.

jerry is actually the most compelling part of the movie for me, especially viewing it through the lens of gender. while joe, who gets the girl and manages to spend large chunks of the latter part of the film in his second, male disguise, never thinks too much about what they’re doing beyond the survival aspect of it, jerry is the one who, erm, “gets into character.” joe’s female name is simply josephine; before they get on the train with the woman musicians, it’s assumed that jerry will be going by “geraldine.” however, when they give their introductions, the duo becomes josephine... and daphne. 

as the movie progresses, this distinction grows more pronounced; when joe has to remind a smitten jerry on the train that he’s a girl, referring to their disguises, jerry miserably repeats the affirmation: “i’m a girl. i’m a girl. i want to die. i’m a girl.” later on, however, as joe’s relationship with sugar develops, “daphne” becomes acquainted with local horndog millionaire osgood, who he at first dislikes, but comes around to after being forced on a date as part of joe’s plan to trick sugar. after seeing jerry excited by the prospect of marrying osgood, a bewildered joe has to remind jerry why it’s an impossibility, and in the same miserable tone as before, jerry/daphne muddles through a new affirmation, one that definitely didn’t ring false to my trans ears: “i’m a boy. i’m a boy. i want to die. i’m a boy.” 

hm. actually, now i’m thinking about a trans male reading of joe. he was the one at first resistant to taking the job (with the all-female band), when they only needed money, and not a place to hide from an upset mob boss, but also the one who seems to know more about the role when it comes time to get into character. while jerrydaphne gets increasingly comfortable with femininity as time passes, joe never performs it in anything but a perfunctory, necessary way, and sloughs the costume EVEN WHEN the danger of being found out has not yet passed, because pretending for such a long period of time is just untenable. something about passing for female being a safe haven and a burden for both closeted (re-closeted, in this case) trans men and out trans women?

anyway. by the end, though both osgood and sugar do find out the truth about the disguises, sugar seems to instantly forgive joe for his treacherousness (again, referring more to his actions as the shell millionaire than his escapade in drag), while osgood appears unbothered by daphne’s truth, leading to an ambiguous ending for the futures of the characters, and any realizations that might come later.

no, it’s not the “real transgender experience.” it (thankfully) never claims to be. BUT, being trans myself, there were some moments that made me feel linked to our protagonists, and relatively few, if any, that made me feel alienated. all in all, that’s a lot more than i hoped for going in, so that’s what i’m happy with.

watch some like it hot, y’all. it’s a good movie in a timeless way, and, as modern movies appealing to short-lived trends that will feel outdated next week (if not by the very time of their release) will show you, that’s more than it needed to be. 

*since my original draft of this post, i DID watch blonde, and i don’t know if that’s technically fair game for this blog (not exactly a movie) or what, but 6/10. fairly well done piece of art but just BEATINGLY tragic, so proceed with caution. jensen ackles literally is THAT PRETTY though, so the jackles cut i give a strong 11/10. i am a homosexual.   **i would like to clarify that this isn’t me telling you not to watch freaky. yes, some of the dialogue is tragically riverdaleian, but there’s also a scene where vince vaugn makes out with a teenage boy. so,

[roughentumble]

I would like to hear.. your silence of the lambs series opinions......

series as in, the new clarice tv show that's out? haven't watched it yet. series as in, those old movies that feature anthony hopkins as hannibal lecter? surely!

fair warning, i probably dont have anything new to say that hasnt been said before, considering these are all long since classics, and my thoughts might be a little disjointed.

it's difficult to sum up opinions about it on the whole, since the movie quality honestly varies so wildly, and as i recall basically every single movie had a different director lol. also like, there's definitely a reason silence of the lambs stood out as The hannibal movie that got talked about and went into The Annals Of Film History n' all that. there's something about jodie foster's performance that's particularly electric(though that could be nostalgia talking, i suppose)

the opportunities she had, as an actress, to really show emotion on her face, like the claustrophobic close-ups we got were really intimate and interesting, added to the sense we were getting into her head. that HANNIBAL was getting into her head. i've already used the word intimate, but really, the long drawn out conversations/monologues between her and hannibal are just that-- intimate. you have to have stellar performances to pull off that much dialogue, and shots that intensely focused, where a face takes up so much of the screen. but it works! because hopkins and foster are fantastic actors, and jonathen demme is a good director.

there's a reason a lot of people didn't like the switch to julianne moore, and i would say it isnt entirely moore's fault. ridley scott, for one, is simply a different director with different ideas of shot composition, which changes how the character feels pretty drastically when the style so heavily informed your feelings for her. but also, in general, the film just kind of approaches clarice from a different angle, which is pretty bumpy territory to go into on the tail of switching your lead actress. not only is moore just really different from foster, but we've gone from this kind of invasive intimacy with hannibal probing her in confined spaces, to her being on the chase. in particular what sticks out to me is a chase sequence where she's trying to find hannibal in a crowded mall.(i think it was a mall?? its been a minute since i last watched the film haha) despite how the crowd might lead to a sense of claustrophobia, these are wide open shots with lots of spinning and movement, no time for introspective face journies. it's a chase in a totally different sense than before, and that i think is major difference in tone. which isn't to say it's a bad choice, or a loss, or that it's worse, just that it's fundamentally very different material that moore was given fo work with. of course her performance differed from fosters!

i still think jodie foster did it better, but some folks were too hard on julianne moore. if anything, hold beef with the writers and new director for pivoting tonally(although, dont do that either, i think it was an interesting shift. the scene with her and hannibal, where hannibal fries up that dude's brain was SO GOOD, i loved loved loved the return to a twisted sense of intimacy for that scene, and a few others, and that sense of return wouldn't have hit the same were the whole movie to follow the same tone as demme's work.)

also quick sidebar, when i watched hannibal(the movie from 2001) i was BLOWN AWAY by realizing, in retrospect, just how absolutely perfectly micheal pitt nailed the role of mason verger in hannibal(the tv show). vocally, he sounded almost identicle to the og performance, WHAT!!! major props, i love micheal pitt. so cool

manhunter 1987 or whatever year it came out is garbage and we dont talk about it. it was physically painful to watch. my poor mother made us stop watching hannibal movies for the rest of the day because it literally put her in physical pain. it's so 80s i want to vomit. do not recommend.

red dragon was pretty good, and if you entered the series of films armed only with knowledge of hannibal nbc, gave some really fascinating context to some of the events therein. edward norton's performance was fine-- didn't blow my mind, but i do love to watch him on screen. anthony hopkins' portrayal of a free hannibal, on the run, who still can't help but taunt the police and stick his nose into investigations was shockingly compelling, despite how much of a cliche trope that's become in recent years. can't say i recall anything interesting to say about the directing, but it certainly doesnt hold the same intimacy of the previous films-- but then again, we've lost the intimate character of clarice, swapping her out for graham(who simply isnt as close, or interesting, or compelling, when he isnt on nbc and shaking like a wet chihuahua)

hannibal rising, the last film in the series, was very very very bad. BUT, unlike manhunter 198whatever, it managed to be fun about it! lots of very goofy deaths and things to make you roll your eyes, stupid character motivations and odd acting choices. but it seems aware, on some level, that it's the last and the silliest of the entries into this particular film series, which earns it some good will. whether or not its worth a watch comes down to how much you're willing to consume everything with the name hannibal on it, and whether you can abide by a hannibal that isnt played by sir anthony hopkins.

OK. ok. we're getting to the end of my thoughts here, kids. i prommy.

it's also, despite every single part of it that i enjoy and that brings me joy, almost unforgivably racist and transphobic. the weird exotification and obsession with asia(and japan in particular), especially when none of those elements felt important or relevant to the story was consistently shocking, and consistently present in essentially every single hannibal movie, ESPECIALLY ones that dealt with his childhood. it didn't ever feel like a natural part of the story, where they happened include people from another culture or anything, it felt like the author's fetish. i never truly understood how these reoccuring themes and symbols were meant to tie in with the rest of the story, even after an entire film set in the past, showiing hannibal's childhood and how he came to live with a japanese woman. it was weird! it was uncomfortable! it was bad! even hannibal nbc couldnt make it not weird. i'd love a hannibal movie with a japanese person in it who WASNT treated really, really, really weird. but i dont think i will ever get that.

and like. wrt transphobia-- do i even need to say it? buffalo bill's been talked to death. we all know the issue there.

if a japanese person, or a trans woman, came to me and said "shawn, everyone says its a classic, but i cant bring myself to watch [insert hannibal movie here]" i would not blame them. it isnt the whole movie, but its enough to feel real bad, scoob.

its not enough to make me fall out of love with silence of the lambs, or hate hannibal(the film, god thats a confusing name), or even hate the film series, but its something that deserves tl be talked about. i've heard lots of discussion on the transphobia, but basically none on the racism, which is a real shame. sometimes it feels like no one else even noticed it, and it really leaves me floundering, because its like-- its RIGHT THERE and its so weird and bad. thomas harris, what the fuck

OKAY I THINK THATS ALL MY THOUGHTS FOR NOW?????? i could maybe come up with more, *shrugs*, but i'd need more time at least.

summary:: very problematic, and not because he eats people. but overall some of the films are fantastic, and silence of the lambs does hold a special place in my heart. and even if i didnt like it nearly as much, i'll defend hannibal(the film with julianne moore) till im blue in the face, because even if it didnt quite capture lightening in a bottle it still brought some interesting things to the table. decent enough movie series with enough variation in film tone and quality to make watching them all in a row enjoyable, because it keeps things from getting stale. (could probably have done with SOME consistency tho, lol, they were really flying by the seat of their pants. they had hopkins and that was IT, only thing that carried over from production to production lol)

[perpetualdreamruin]

Valentino Rossi: una leggenda del motociclismo

Valentino Rossi è nato a Urbino il 16 febbraio 1979. Cresciuto a Tavullia, nelle Marche, è figlio d'arte: suo padre Graziano fu a sua volta un pilota motociclistico, e fin da piccolo Valentino fu immerso in un ambiente fatto di motori, officine e corse. Dopo un iniziale interesse per i kart, Rossi si orientò molto presto verso il motociclismo, dove iniziò a correre nelle categorie minori italiane già negli anni '90.

Il suo esordio nel Motomondiale avvenne nel 1996, nella classe 125cc, in sella a un'Aprilia. Già l'anno successivo, nel 1997, conquistò il suo primo titolo mondiale, mostrando un talento precoce e una personalità carismatica. Il salto alla classe 250cc fu immediatamente fruttuoso: nel 1999, Valentino si laureò campione del mondo anche in questa categoria, ancora una volta con Aprilia.

Nel 2000 passò alla classe 500cc, il massimo livello dell’epoca, con la Honda del team Nastro Azzurro. Dopo un primo anno di ambientamento chiuso con il secondo posto dietro a Kenny Roberts Jr., nel 2001 conquistò il suo terzo titolo mondiale, entrando nell’élite assoluta del motociclismo. Nel 2002 la classe 500 venne sostituita dalla MotoGP, una nuova era tecnologica con moto più potenti e sofisticate. Rossi dominò la scena, vincendo il titolo MotoGP nel 2002 e nel 2003 con Honda. Nel 2004 fece una scelta rischiosa e storica: lasciò il team ufficiale Honda, vincente e dominante, per passare alla Yamaha, una moto in quel momento molto meno competitiva. Sorprendendo tutti, vinse al debutto in Sudafrica e poi il titolo mondiale dello stesso anno, dimostrando di essere il miglior pilota del suo tempo anche al di là della superiorità del mezzo tecnico.

Con Yamaha vinse altri tre titoli: nel 2005, nel 2008 e nel 2009, portando il totale a nove titoli mondiali, di cui sette nella classe regina. La sua carriera è stata caratterizzata non solo dai successi, ma anche da rivalità epiche: quella con Max Biaggi nei primi anni 2000, con Sete Gibernau, con Casey Stoner, e soprattutto con Jorge Lorenzo e Marc Márquez nella fase finale della sua carriera. La rivalità con Márquez culminò in una controversa stagione 2015, dove Rossi perse il titolo mondiale all’ultima gara tra mille polemiche.

Dopo due anni difficili con Ducati (2011-2012), in cui faticò a ottenere risultati di rilievo, Rossi tornò in Yamaha e visse una sorta di seconda giovinezza, lottando per il titolo fino al 2015 e restando competitivo fino a quasi 40 anni. Ha disputato la sua ultima stagione in MotoGP nel 2021, chiudendo una carriera lunga 26 anni nel Motomondiale. Ha collezionato 432 gare, 115 vittorie, 235 podi e oltre 6.300 punti complessivi, record assoluti o vicinissimi ai primati in tutte queste categorie. È l’unico pilota nella storia ad aver vinto in quattro classi diverse: 125cc, 250cc, 500cc e MotoGP.

Ma Valentino Rossi non è stato solo un pilota: è stato un'icona, un personaggio amatissimo in tutto il mondo, capace di unire competenza tecnica, talento naturale, ironia e una grande capacità comunicativa. Il suo soprannome, “Il Dottore”, è diventato celebre tanto quanto la sua moto numero 46, che non ha mai cambiato durante la sua carriera. Con i suoi gesti celebrativi dopo le vittorie e la sua rivalità teatrale con altri campioni, ha saputo rendere ogni gara un evento.

Terminata la carriera nel motociclismo, Rossi non si è fermato: è passato alle auto, correndo in diversi campionati di GT, endurance e gare di durata con il team WRT (Audi e successivamente BMW), partecipando anche alla 24 Ore di Le Mans. Inoltre, ha fondato il team VR46 Racing, che milita in MotoGP e Moto2, coltivando nuovi talenti italiani come Marco Bezzecchi e Luca Marini, suo fratellastro.

Parallelamente, la VR46 Academy, sua scuola per giovani piloti, ha contribuito alla crescita di una nuova generazione di motociclisti italiani di alto livello, come Franco Morbidelli, Francesco Bagnaia (campione del mondo MotoGP nel 2022 e 2023) e altri.

Oggi vive tra Tavullia e il paddock delle corse automobilistiche, ma resta una figura di riferimento assoluto nello sport italiano e mondiale. La sua storia non è solo quella di un campione, ma quella di una trasformazione: da ragazzo prodigio a leggenda dello sport, da pilota a mentore, da icona del motociclismo a simbolo di passione, dedizione e spettacolo.

[beevean]

It's a small thing, but wrt Naofumi Hataya's work on Forces I think it's important to acknowledge that he did a *lot* of work on games for the Mega Drive and Master System/Game Fear outside of the Sonic franchise; he has a pedigree in """retro""" game music that I think comes across in the tracks he did for Forces' Classic Sonic stages, and makes them (for me at least) extremely enjoyable. HOWEVER, you have a point in that they don't necessarily sound very "Sonic-y". (1/2)

(2/2) There's a wider discussion to be had about what something sounding Sonic-y actually means, given the series' near constant musical evolution, mind you, and given the subjectivity of music as a whole I totally get Not Vibing with the Classic Sonic tracks (though I personally like them, I do feel they're not as strong as the avatar tracks), but I think taking Hataya's long and storied background in game score at least gives insight into why his contributions sound like they do.

Tangetially, Tomoya Ohtani getting his start in VGM *after* CD quality audio became the norm, and when game tunes- particularly Sonic's- began to draw more from non-game music, goes a way towards explaining whyhis take on "retro Sonic music" is, in some folks' eyes, even more flawed, as he's approaching it entirely from an angle of outside direction rather then a mix of that and past experience. None of this is meant as a dig to ya or whatnot, you're cool; I'm just Thinkin' Out Loud.

Huh, I didn’t know that about Hataya :o I guess that’s one of the reasons his tracks generally feel more genuine than Ohtani’s. But still, @latin-dr-robotnik‘s entire point (and I agree with him) was that “slapping a faux-Genesis soundfont does not a Classic Sonic track make”, so even if he has experience with composing on the Genesis, he doesn’t have experience composing for a true Classic Sonic game - Sonic 2 8-bit and CD are hardly representative of the “genre”. Although, as you say, the “Sonic” genre is extremely hard to define.

I do agree with the bit about Ohtani. That was my entire point: if Hataya at least did contribute in the ‘90s, Ohtani was first hired in 2001 to compose the Knuckles raps, then he did a few things here and there until his role slowly grew from ‘06 onwards. By that time, he got fully immersed in the Adventure/Modern style. You can feel the difference in effort between the Classic tracks he made and the Avatar/Shadow tracks.

I still think Senoue could have done a better job. His tracks in Sonic 4 were fine, just... very lacking in instrumentation, and purposefully short most of the time.