#And audience reaction very much influences some of these works

[bijoumikhawal]

honestly RE: censorship has produced some very appealing queer coded relationships, I think part of the problem is that like. Straight relationships often don't compel me, yeah? And part of it is that I frankly, don't believe a fair amount of these characters are in love. The art contains social conventions so you'll assume they're in love. And if you're unaware of it and buy into those conventions, you never notice a problem (unless they're using the conventions that give female characters no depth. People today are somewhat more aware of that). There's a level of laziness to the way so many straight relationships are written.

Many queer censored relationships can't engage those assumptions because straight people don't understand something is gay until it's bedazzled in rainbow rhinestones, and even then some of them have doubts, so (usually) an artist must put effort in to make you think there's something there. There (usually) must be legitimate connection. And because they're censored, they continually cannot rely on anything too lazy to keep interest. They also can't try to deliver payoff that isn't ready (because they're rarely allowed to deliver payoff, if ever). They can't squash the appeal of a relationship by not knowing how to write these characters in a steady relationship to the point where you hate it.

You basically end up getting a (sometimes years long) build of potential and genuine connections, without a satisfying resolution- which sucks, but it also can be very compelling. The inability to say I love you outright means the characters must say it in other ways that tend to be more emotionally impactful- such as holding out a human heart to each other, selfless and hopeless sacrifices, pulling you out of hell, etc. You could argue these moments are an example of "showing not telling" even.

But as we move into more mainstream queer art I feel like some people are starting to use the same conventions I find so lazy and boring in depicting straight relationships. Because it's a Gay Piece of Media you know there will probably be a gay relationship, so you do come in with assumptions that the creators can play off of more efficiently than otherwise. You can miss at establishing the connection. You can rush the payoff. You can write the chase well but fail in writing the domestic. You can tell me these characters are in love without me buying in and believing it because you didn't really give me much to believe in.

[theheirofthesharingan]

In defense of my pov and maybe I wasn't very clear in the ask... I do think the point of Itachi in the earlier arcs is that he is meant to come across as one dimensional (of course to writers and those who read a lot this actually should equal something potentially being incredibly fishy), so when we get the conspiracy reveal after his death I mean that I wasn't surprised there was more to it and I love how it threw every interpretation of his actions from beginning to end into a new light. (And I realize I forgot to fix a sentence and I love Itachi now, but when I first encountered naruto in my early teens, he honestly didn't scare me that much 😅, he comes into town, doesn't kill any of the main characters because that point in the story wouldn't have made sense for such a thing, and then he leaves, seemingly on a tactically considered whim which fits his characterization at that time)

I also think it's actually incredibly important that Orochimaru and Itachi are both meddling in Sasuke's lives at the same time, which is why I brought them up as a "comparison" even though their motives are never even remotely the same! Orochimaru is horrific as an individual and a villain, but from a narrative standpoint serves as an incredibly effective smokescreen. Orochimaru is an immediate threat from the moment he is introduced, he's a constant and threatening presence and Sasuke goes and exposes himself to that for years which leaves him very little time to introspect on the circumstances around his family's death.

Itachi on the other hand is more of a goal than a threat. He's dangerous, we see enough of him vs other cast members like Jiraiya and Kakashi for that, and he very badly wants Sasuke to pursue him (seen as early as the hotsprings town attack and later made abundantly clear to be because he wants Sasuke to spend his vengeance on him, although even that reasoning is multi layered). He's one of Sasuke's primary enemies, but he functions so differently from Orochimaru that the audience just sees him as a different kind of big bad is all.

(Sorry for the long explanation, I just don't want you to think I'm stupid 😅 but I also might be coming at my interpretations from a different place than you and that's fine too! I appreciate your first answer regardless and thank you for those panels! The manga is so long that I definitely forget things.)

For the purposes of my own work, I often think of how information is compartmentalized in the village... because other members of the konoha 11 also come to the conclusion Sasuke should be killed, but the tactical ones have different justifications than Sakura if I'm remembering correctly? I think they're mostly meant to parrot the village policies, esp since they're secondary characters at best, just cementing the way that villages sacrifice individual members for the sake of less war (which is different than real peace!), but it still makes for some interesting considerations of how much/what other characters know and where they get their information from.

Anyways, sorry again for the long ask but thank you for so much uchiha content!

Oh, of course. Initially, he is meant to be a one dimensional villain, and there are hints dropped to give him more nuance, which make sense after the truth reveal. When we move towards the chapters/episodes leading to his death, the story starts to explore his fragility while he's still a villain.

His reveal didn't surprise me. It devastated me. I've been one of those who had some gist of him not being evil, but the tragedy was entirely unexpected.

If you love Itachi too, then welcome to our hell because we suffer forever here, loving both the brothers.

Don't worry, I loved reading your interpretation of both Itachi and Orochimaru and their influence on Sasuke. Itachi is a big deal because even though Sasuke faces an actual threat from Orochimaru, he isn't scared of him. But whenever he sees Itachi, his reactions are always intense. And even after their battle, he was completely shaking, even if he knew Itachi would have exhausted his chakra too. The only person Sasuke was really scared of was probably Itachi. Other than Itachi being invincible, there were a lot of feelings. Itachi had been cruel to him. Not only physically or psychologically but also emotionally. The only one who could dismantle him was Itachi. And Sasuke had all the unanswered questions in his mind because from his POV, his beloved brother one day stopped loving him when he'd always been so supportive of him.

I think other Konoha Shinobi wanting to kill Sasuke is different from her wanting to kill Sasuke. They didn't love him, they didn't care about him, and that also includes Kakashi. She claimed to love him, and concluded that he needed to die for his own sake. I have no expectations from Konoha 11 and I don't care about their opinions on Sasuke either. But she married Sasuke and never bothered to know why he changed so suddenly and why he would want his brother back. Does she even know anything about the Uchiha clan and its history? And what happened with Itachi and all? Probably not.

Don't worry about the long ask. It's totally fine. Thank you. :)

[bengiyo]

I am curious for your perspective on the way the OF creators are interacting with fans and have even admitted to editing the show based on fan reactions. It strikes me as an unusual level of interaction and capitulation, though of course TV is a live medium that is nearly always responsive to reactions to some extent. My preference is for a lot less of this kind of thing, but I know you have experience with direct interaction with media creators and have found it enhances your experience sometimes. What do you make of how these dynamics are showing up in OF and the effect it’s having on the show?

TV and Critic Background

So, I am actually the worst person to talk to if you think the creators should be quiet about their work, because I really enjoy talking to directors, producers, actors, cinematographers, and especially editors about their work. I often go to film festivals just to talk to the creators about their processes.

I've also been in the TV space a really long time, and I am used to this kind of behavior. I don't think a lot of folks who are in BL are used to being in the process of TV itself, and I think a lot of people have let the Netflix binge model inform the way they view TV. TV is not like movies. When you get a movie, you are seeing the end product of filming, editing, test screenings, re-edits, etc. TV is usually only an episode or two ahead of the viewers.

It's extremely normal for a show to respond to feedback when characters test well. The 100 did this with Jasper. He was supposed to die in the pilot when that spear entered his chest, but he tested well with audiences so they revived him.

Fun Fact: This is why Kiseki: Dear to Me didn't just move their release schedule up when episode 8 was leaked early. They probably weren't finished assembling episode 9.

I followed Sense8 through its entire development process all the way from rumors and then J. Michael Stracynski's posts about it, to the things Lana and Lily said about it, to the commentary from the cast.

I have a special hatred for Rick Behrman over Star Trek.

I absolutely hate Russel T. Davies because of Cucumber.

I bailed on Supernatural because of the way the writers condescended to us at comicon after killing Kevin.

I know some fans are upset about the idea that scenes they wanted to see got cut, but I was there for Noah Galvin opening his fucking mouth to talk shit about other actors at ABC who were playing beloved gay characters and that subsequently getting The Real O'Neals canceled. The show had a very short second season and I feel forever salty about that.

What does this mean for Jojo and Ninew and Den?

I actually think Jojo, Den, and Ninew are fine. I don't think they usually poopoo on valid reads from what I've seen, and mostly they're having fun with the fans, too. I just don't think people are used to the creators being so honest about how feedback affects the editing process.

I think this is the first time we've had a big show in a while where the creator was fairly active on socials about the show. Aof and Au are usually pretty quiet when their shows are airing, and only give small tidbits while they show is airing. Jojo is silly and likes to play with fans. Den is feisty and has a gay agenda to pursue.

Truly, I don't think Jojo and friends are that bad about anything with this show, because they're mostly just laughing and stating things that are obvious to people who pay attention to how the sausage is made.

Shipping

That being said, the biggest struggle OF is having is shipping. The FK girlies are so loud and their heavy breathing has likely influenced the way Jojo and friends decided to write Ray. The FB girlies are so into them that it's made Jojo and them dial back some of their Top content because the audience hates him so much. Only Boston and Nick feel like they've made it through the shipping gamut intact because Neo and Mark aren't bringing a bunch of preexisting shippers to the table.

Coming off of episode 10, you can see this plainly with the nasty4nasty dynamic with Boston and Nick. The emotional core of their dynamic feels true, even down to the way their moments in the store mirror their first interactions again. Boston came in for service about his phone and intentionally showed Nick something on it.

I don't think Jojo has ever had to work with multiple acting pairs that were big branded pairs prior to this, and this is only his second time really dealing with that. With Never Let Me Go, Pond and Phuwin weren't that big yet, and he wasn't threatening their ship with anything complicated. OF is challenging for people who just watch BL as fap material and have to deal with their faves not being easy people to parse.

As usual, we go back to that post that goes around all the time, thought I think the OP deleted it:

"Never ever be normal about fictional characters but please GOD be normal about the people who play them, I am begging you" -tumblr user mantorokk-writes

[thatonefandomjumper]

I feel like a big part of Heroes of Olympus was influenced by audience reaction. 

I don’t think I’m grasping at straws here. I genuinely just don’t get why some decisions were made if this wasn’t the case.

The plot of the books themselves has always felt very muddled to me and that’s why it always feels like it’s supposed to be a story about characters and relationships, but it just kind of isn’t. Sure, on a surface level, yes, and we get some very lovely character dynamics, but it also feels slightly artificial in a way? The plot was built first and the characters thrown into it, but there wasn’t much thought given too how the characters should be with each other. Even the romantic ones.

Though I feel that I could tie this idea into pretty much every part of the books, there are two things that I personally think of the most while discussing this idea.

For one, there’s Octavian’s entire character.

I have always been confused as to what exactly Riordan wanted from Octavian. He really feels like a plot device most times, made solely for the purpose of stirring conflict between the Greeks and Romans. He as an individual never really mattered. Now, there are some very cool people on this website that have managed to squeeze a decent character out of the scenes we got, but with the way he was written, that in itself is a challenge, as post SoN, it feels like the only intent behind his character was to make him as unlikable as possible. He really was a real character in SoN, despite weird decisions here and there (The killing Gwen scene for example was purely to establish that the doors of death weren't working, and to make Octavian unlikable, but Octavian himself really didn’t have any motive for the killing. It benefitted him in no way.)

In SoN, Octavian is manipulative and well spoken, but after that, he is portrayed as some sort of dim witted idiot, clouded by his desire for personal glory.

The only way I can rationalize this shift in character is in the truly visceral reaction the then fanbase had to his character. They loathed him, taking not a second to rationalize his actions, but simply hate. It also made it so Octavian became the but of a lot of jokes. Those jokes characterizing him as his idiot and megalomaniac that it he shown as in Mark of Athena, House of Hades and Blood of Olympus.

I always suspected Octavian was supposed to serve some sort of grander purpose, or his role in HoO was supposed to be at least a little more dignified or dare I say sympathetic, but there really was no turning back with how hated he was, making Riordan embrace it rather than giving him actual human qualities.

Then on the other hand, there’s also Leo and his relationship with romance in general.

I’ve touched upon it in my Caleo essay (That I kind of wanna redo with more points and evidence to back up my claims, because I am unhappy with certain aspects but I still stand by all I said) that Leo is a character that was written in such a way that getting a romantic partner before resolving certain things would actively detriment the development of his character, including healing from his trauma. The way he was written was just not meant for romance and I will take this to my grave. I’m not saying there was no room for romance, but the way they went about it was... very bad. (A girlfriend will fix my problems. That is his mindset. But he doesn’t grow out of it. Instead he gets a girlfriend. A girlfriend that he treats as a fix to his problems when she is not. A girlfriend that is bad to and for him in so many ways.)

But it is very interesting to note, that especially after Mark of Athena, the speculations and demands for Leo’s future girlfriend went absolutely crazy. I can’t speak from experience but from the tweets from Riordan and fanarts from that time that I've seen it was at least to the point that he took active notice of it. 

Besides Nico and Reyna, there weren’t really any other characters just lying around to pair Leo monogamously up with (I doubt Riordan be willing to make any characters besides Nico explicitly queer at the time and then in the next book he decided to pick up one of the background characters and said, you will do, when pairing Nico up with someone. )

There are many more examples I could go into. The universe suffered in many ways from this. Sure, it’s not the only problem that were detrimental. I believe Riordan had a plan from the beginning with all the main plot points of the series, but I feel he didn’t exactly know where he was going with the characters besides the basics. Don’t get me wrong, I love all the HoO characters. That is why I spend so much time talking and thinking about them, but the issues with the series and characters are so many that it’s borderline ridiculous.

[eliziarts]

It really gets me how you can't say shit about Helluva Boss (or Hazbin Hotel for that matter) to actually critique without fans getting buthurt, and the only people agreeing with you people who just hate Vivzipop (for the record i dont lol). But here are my gripes that I wish people were actually talking about (btw I really *want* to love Helluva Boss and none of this is mean-spirited, just things I've noticed that I wish the team would fix, or I believe are beyond fixing):

1. The very confused tone. I know a lot of people deflect any criticism from the show by saying 'oh but it's a comedy you shouldn't take it too seriously'. Here's the thing- it's literally taking itself too seriously. There's a balance that a show can have between dark elements and humor, but Helluva Boss consistently tries to tackle very, VERY heavy subjects. This combined with the Brandon Rodgers-essque d!ck joke comedy doesn't.. work. At least not in the way they're attempting. I think the most egregious example of this is the scene in the latest episode when Moxie's dad is literally threatening to kill him if he doesn't follow through with an arranged marriage... immeadiatly followed by Moxie walking though a hall of wall d!ldos. It kind of says, 'hey, we were taking this really seriously 2 seconds ago, but jk actually now you should laugh!'

Juxtaposition doesn't work if it actively confuses its audience on what to feel. I'm not sure how much influence Vivzie and Brandon have on the outcome of the show vs the rest of the writing team, but it seems like Brandon's humor and Vivzie's tendency to write melodramatic soap opera scenes just aren't really meshing together quite right. I wish it had more similar pacing and tone shifts that HH had, because it felt more sudden in a purposeful way, rather than 'we're too lazy to find a good transition between these two scenes.'

2. Why does Vivziepop never write interesting female characters? I know this is talked about a bit more, but it's growing increasingly prevalent in Helluva Boss. We still haven't gotten an episode focused on any of the female leads that's actually about *them*.

Millie is practically nonexistent without her relationship to Moxie. Even the episode where we meet her family, it doesn't give us any insight about her. Every time she goes feral(tm) it's either to save her husband or it's part of a group fight. The only backstory we got for Loona was there to service Blitzo's character, and show us *his* reaction. The only things we've seen with Octavia were put there to help us learn more about Stolas. Even in the scene where they only had Loona and Octavia on the screen, it didn't feel like it was about them at all. It didn't feel like the scene existed to show us them bonding about their shitty dads. It felt like the scene was there to once again ask the audience to give Blitzo and Stolas pity points. Which- brings me to my next problem.

3. Its justifications of abuse. I know they're in hell. Most of them should be shitty people, and they are! But I wish the story would stop trying to pretend they're not. Helluva Boss keeps doing this thing where it draws a line between 'good' abuse and 'bad' abuse. And this kind of completely changed Stolas and Blitzo's relationship. Ik some people may like this change but I personally don't.

Earlier on, we were made to believe Stolas kind of fucked up by cheating on his wife. Not only did this affect Stella (tho ofc we later learn it's due to image reasons) but his daughter as well. It's just generally an uncomfortable and tricky situation. And I liked it! It was interesting and had levels of nuance. However, now that we know that he was basically being abused by Stella this entire time, and met Blitzo when they were kids (which is a WHOLE OTHER UNCOMFORTABLE CAN OF WORMS LMAO) the audience no longer feels like Stolas did anything wrong. Now his actions feel justified.

As much as I loved his confrontational scene with Stella the first time I watched it, as I know many people did, I also know that it kind of ruined any sense of nuance that whole situation had. Now, Stolas suddenly has been absolved from any previously implied mistakes. And, Stella is portrayed as this 1 dimensional cruel monster.

Which brings me to the point of abuse in this show. It's a very prevalent theme, and it's a heavy one for a show branded as a sit-com to portray (hard, but not impossible). But it fails on the end that it doesn't stay consistent in its condemnation of it. Every time a character does something 'bad', as soon as we find out there is a reason for this bad behavior, the show suddenly makes it seem like we should feel bad for them and that their actions are justified because they're a broken person. See: the narrative around Stolas' affair suddenly being changed as soon as we find out he was being abused by Stella.

Inconsistent emotional consequences in writing is lazy for sure. But the real problem is when it gets to the abuse side of things, it can actually become harmful. It's implied that Blitzo had an emotionally abusive relationship with Verosika. But ohh we know he had a fucked up childhood and has fear of forming emotional bonds so! Geuss it's okay! But when it comes to Stella, she's just downright mean, 1 dimensional, and literally says she's doing things for no reason other than to make Stolas suffer.

It's important to note that every single time a character gets a *reason* for their assholery, it becomes a *justification* in the way the show frames it. But whenever a character doesn't have a reason for being as asshole, like Stella (at least not one that's shown), that's where the show then draws the line.

This is harmful! Hate to break it to you but the bulk of abusive people out there were abused themselves. They have multitudes of reasons for why they are the way they are. But that doesn't excuse their actions! And I really hate that this is the standard of framing Helluva Boss has set up for their show because now, no matter how bad a character's actions are, they can slap on a sad backstory and suddenly make that character a sympathetic one.

Yeah but anyways idk. If you read all of that I thank you for taking ur time to listen to my 2 cents. The last episode I really enjoyed was the Ozzie's one and I'm just kinda bummed at a lot of this stuff I mentioned.

[lyndentree63]

Let me talk about genre, expectations and Burrow's End.

The tl;dr version is that I felt betrayed by Dropout's marketing of Burrow's End, and I'm trying to figure out how much of that is a me-thing that I need to work through in therapy, and how much is due to ineffective communication of genre. (If you feel the need to defend Dropout, or want to say "I was fine with what happened, actually", please do it somewhere not connected to this post, so I don't have to see it. I'm not here to trash Dropout, I love them very much, but I am working through some Stuff and don't need to hear defences right now.) Dimension 20 traditionally has very clear genre-coding for their shows. Game of Thrones meets Candyland. DnD meets John Hughes teen drama. LOTR but it's the bad guys in a workplace comedy. Americans go to wizarding school. The Burrow's End trailer dropped, and it was different. There's not a single joke. It's explicitly Secrets of NIMH/Watership Down, but what's the twist, beyond "it's with stoats"? The trailer gives off melancholy, heartfelt family drama with mysterious danger and the promise of violence. Many comments about "this is going to rip my heart out, I'm going to cry so much, I love this little stoat family so much already." Now, Burrow's End is already a bit sadder and darker than something I prefer to watch (I don't go out of my way to watch sad movies, and have intentionally never seen or read Watership Down). But I trust Aabria and this cast to tell a great story, and I trust Dimension 20 to deliver a series that touches you in the deepest part of your humanity in a way that ultimately makes you feel whole (even though it might rip your heart out in the middle). So even though I don't feel 100% comfortable, I'm excited about watching Aabria DM, and I want to watch this weekly as it's released because it's FUN being in suspense with a whole bunch of other fans and nobody except the creators knowing where the story is going to go. (But I'm not watching live as it's released, that's too stressful.) So I watched the first episode of Burrow's End. I was prepared for cute animal trauma. I was not prepared for environmental toxin terror. This is 100% a me trigger. I work through it. And then the second episode of Burrow's End is released. The One With The Bear. I'm reading people's reactions to it, seeing the content warnings. It turns out this is body horror? With Annihilation influences? I don't really do horror. There's a reason why I waited until Neverafter finished, why I haven't watched it yet. I did not sign up for this. And this is when the feelings of betrayal start to settle in. Because the trailer promised violence and mystery. The trailer did NOT promise body horror. The 'warning' we got ahead of time was stuff like "you have no idea where this story is going", "episode 2 is WILD", and one tweet from the art team about having nightmares working on the battle map. And content warnings the day of release about body horror. And I'm not upset that those things are IN the story. Aabria can do what she wants. Dimension 20 can tell whatever stories they want to, and if it involves body horror, more power to them. You narsty. What I find upsetting is that I was set up to expect one thing with the trailer and conversation about Burrow's End, and got blindsided by something else. Something else that I needed more emotional energy and preparation to deal with because I was expecting a story more. . . within my window of tolerance. Now that Episode 3 has been released, there are more articles about Burrow's End, and we know that the comps for the season are Watership Down/Secrets of NIMH/anthropomorphic junior fiction and Annihilation and some other third thing yet to be revealed.

I think that Dropout wanted to keep the influences under wraps so things would be a surprise to the audience. And boy howdy were they a surprise. But not a good one. In my opinion Dropout dropped the ball on this, instead of it feeling like a fun surprise to me, it feels like they pulled a bait-and-switch — promising a certain kind of story but delivering something else — and now I'm left reeling with a bunch of mental mess and crap I have to clean up. But if they had been just a little bit more forthcoming with the influences and genre and tone of Burrow's End, I could have gone in more mentally prepared and had FUN. This is why I'm upset. Genre gives us vital information about what to expect in a story. And there's a difference between subverting a genre, and making a hard left into an entirely different genre than the audience expected. I feel like the latter happened with Burrow's End, from the trailer to where we are now in the season (waiting for Ep 4). (What I find fascinating is that this is a unique issue to this moment in time. By the time the season is over, we'll know what the genre is and the influences are, so there won't be this expectation gap. Even now, people know about The Bear, so it's not as shocking as if you experienced it as it was being released and didn't know what was coming.) Anyways. I don't really know how to wrap this up, but I got hurt by the trailer and marketing for Burrow's End seeming to indicate one thing, and delivering something entirely unexpected.

[friendrat]

Ok... I know that everyone in the Bluey fandom is pretty set on the theory that Chili had a miscarriage, and Brandy is infertile... but I have a slightly different theory to propose: Brandy is not infertile, but is the one who had the miscarriage.

We know from The Show that Chili has an emotional reaction to the popped balloon under Bingo's shirt while she plays the part of Chili, and Bandit comforts her. Since she's playing Chili, the audience tends to think this means that Chili is the one who had the miscarriage.

Here's the thing, though... In Onesies we learn that Brandy really wants something she can't have, and we normally read that to mean she wants and can't have children... but we learn something else in Onesies that is overlooked. Bingo looks like *Brandy*. Chili has a distinctive dark spot on her face, but Bingo and Brandy both have the same colored markings on both sides.

So I think that when Chili was watching The Show and the balloon popped, I think in that moment that she saw her sister. She saw Brandy and thought of all the pain she had gone through. Also, if we assume the episodes are chronological (which I don't necessarily), then it has been somewhere around 4 years since Chili has seen Brandy. That is definitely enough to elicit an emotional reaction and require comfort.

And yes... I know that people say that Sleepytime shows that Chili lost a baby. But I just don't see it. First off... it's a dream sequence, which, yeah, it could be some deep-seated memories that Bingo's trying to work through, but we also see that this sequence is heavily influenced by her surroundings. Second, I do not see the broken planet that people think Bluey hatched from? I only see Earth (Bingo) and the moon (Floppy). Third, Bluey never mentioned a baby before her in The Show, she just said Chili got pregnant with her (Bluey), so if she did have a baby she lost before Bluey, I don't think she's told the girls. Even when she talks about Brandy not being able to have kids, she's very subtle about it, so it's clear that she doesn't think the girls are old enough for all the details yet. So, given all that, how would a missing sibling show in Bingo's dream? Especially with her being the younger sister. If anyone would have been told, it would be Bluey, and as I said, she didn't mention another pregnancy in The Show.

So, there you have it: my alternate theory on Brandy and Chili and the whole situation. I have now devoted way too much time to analyzing fictional dogs. 😂

[iridescentscarecrow]

Hi. Just wanna let you know that I enjoy your aki analysis thread a lot. (Saw it first on twitter and have been anticipating it ever since you first mentioned working on it.) Especially the connection of Aki's character being so tied to the state and in that respect, Makima by extension, and how that feeds into his revenge goal + the symbolism of Ghost and Himeno in how she, through the notion of Ghost cements herself in his tragedy. An interesting side note, the Easy Revenge cigarette in the original Japanese version of the manga is further explained as 気楽に復習を which translates to "Hang loose with your revenge." (Saying "hang loose" probably sounds silly here but it's the best I can think of for this phrasing using 気楽 which means "easy-going/carefree" a literal translation would be something more like "Take your revenge in an easy-going way.")

Back on topic, the framing and dynamics addressed in your thread is also something that has been on my mind for quite some time that I haven't seen discussed as much (at least as far as I'm aware) so it's nice to know that I'm not alone in having these thoughts. I just find Aki's arcs and narrative themes very intriguing to think about (to the point where he can almost be his own de-facto main character even though his existence is meant to supplement and build Denji. It's just something in the way he views the world of CSM and how the audience views the world of CSM through HIS lens while it's evident that he's just strung along for the ride under the belief that his story is driven and motivated by his own agency unaware of how both his choices and his story are shaped by influences and machinations outside of his chosen perception. Aki's faux main character syndrome if you will. Sorry I'm rambling.) And ultimately what all those aspects reflect back on the world of CSM. There's more I'd love to talk about but this ask is already so long. Anyways, I'm usually more of a casual lurker in this fandom but I appreciate and enjoy tuning in to your analysis.

first of all, a huge apology for taking so long to respond to this. i'm so glad you liked my aki meta!! i love how fjmt intertwines the more Symbolic aspects of his world (the devils) with his narrative & i think himeno's character is an excellent version of that.

i wasn't aware of the original version of the phrase -- that's definitely interesting / will be thinking about that. some thoughts in my head already but they're very muddled i'm afraid.

and yes!! you've put it perfectly here re: the framing. aki's character (the "manga protagonist") is the pov that denji borrows from to string us along into the very shounen tropes that fjmt subverts. and aki's narrative occuring alongside denji is so tasty in this regard. "under the belief that his story is driven and motivated by his own agency unaware of how both his choices and his story are shaped by influences and machinations outside of his chosen perception" !! absolutely. i love thinking about how denji's initial borrowing from aki (also enforced by mkm's asking him about the gun devil / aki's reaction to this outside the hotel) is presented as this Cheap version of aki's own motivations. it's so good. it's what leads us in the end to denji staring at aki's gun fiend corpse in the streets (and i do enjoy considering Fiendhood as sort of. a giving of a Body to an Idea. what aki effectively did with the gun devil -- and then the irony of his revenge climax isnt that ironical at all, isnt it?)

thank you for sending this in, and i'm pleased you enjoy reading my analysis. i'd def be interested in hearing more of your thoughts about csm if you wanted to share them :3

[a-slut-for-vegaspete]

Playboyy – Porn without Plot?

Initial Thoughts on/ Reaction to Playboyy Episode One

As someone who loves to study (quite literally; I’m currently pursuing a MA degree in cultural studies) and investigate depictions of sex and sexuality in media, Playboyy has been one of my most anticipated releases of 2023 and it’s easier for me to work through my issues with a piece of media when I put my thoughts on paper or in a word document; so this post is primarily for myself.

Sex is sometimes presented as a personal, individual matter but in reality, our thoughts on sex, our dislikes and likes are a product or, at the very least, are shaped by, and of course in term can also influence, existing, dominant discourses on sex(uality), gender, class, race etc. One example of this – one most BL viewers/ queer individuals will recognise  – would of course be sex between queer individuals; an issue that remains highly debated. Some people/governments to this day like to think that they have the right to dictate who is allowed to have sex with whom and what sexual practices people can engage in without facing societal/legal punishment. So sex is never just about sex but is always also political; it’s just that this is more obvious to people who are part of a (or multiple) marginalised group(s). Sex is an entangled, complex phenomenon that always needs to be understood in relation to other discourses on e.g. (normative) femininity/masculinity, national identity etc. So any sexual act (on screen/irl), whether intended or not, engages with these discourses, subverts them and/or reaffirms them.

Regardless of whether the creators of Playboyy – or any piece of media for that matter – have meant for this series to serve as a critique or subversion of certain ideas surrounding sex and sexuality, the series (un)intentionally presents us with certain performances of sex and in doing so adds to, intervenes in and shapes existing discourses on sexuality and influences how topics such as kink, queerness, sex work (to name a few) are understood and talked about. 

Since only one episode has been released so far, and since I don't know what goes on in the writers’ minds, I, of course, can’t say for certain whether Playboyy is intended to engage with the political and social aspects of sex. However, I do think that Denice’s Twitter accounts (he is one of the writers (@ VivienneActing)) can provide us with insights into the writers’ intentions behind creating this show. In addition, the opening scene of episode one makes it clear that this piece of media, in some capacity at least, serves as a social commentary on the construction of sexual practices and sexual identities (in Thailand). The viewer is seemingly directly addressed, questions regarding sex are posed and the statement that “sex has many forms and careers in many places with many preferences” is made, which leads me to think that the creators have thought about and want the audience to critically think about how sex is often presented and talked about within dominant discourses. The character goes on to say that “it would be great if we could stop faking it and be frank about it”, which implies that the way we currently talk about sex is dissatisfactory to the character in the show/the creators of the show and that this series intends to present their own – potentially non-normative – views on sex. Especially the comment that “it’s a shame that we can’t be that free in this country” functions as a critique of how sex and the sex industry are frequently conceptualised in Thailand. (And when I say ‘Thailand’ here I of course don’t mean the entire country; I’m specifically referring to people/institutions/political parties that uphold and propagate conservative beliefs on and attitudes regarding sex. And I think this is the part of Thailand the series is critical of here as well).

However, I also don’t want to place too much importance on the intentions of the creators (in part, bc as I have said before, unless we are told specifically we can only speculate about their motives). I for one am also very interested in how I myself (and other viewers) read and interpret the narratives the series presents us with.

Little disclaimer: I watched episode 1 last night, half asleep, I don’t have the best memory and since the story has literally just begun (and there are so many ways this could pan out), my stance on these issues will probably change with the release of future episodes. So my ramblings have their limitations. In addition, I’ve grown up in the West, which influences how I conceptualise sex(uality) and gender; which is definitely something to be wary of and to be critical of, as well. 

As of right now, I’m the most intrigued by Zouey and by how he navigates sex and how he expresses himself sexually. What I find so interesting about his character is his non-normative approach to sex. While he is introduced as someone who apparently hasn't slept with anyone yet, we also see that he has sexual needs and desires. I love that the show does not limit sexual expression to intimate relations between two or more people but also showcases the possibility of exploring it on your own. 

I’m fascinated by people’s initial reactions to Zouey and what people make of his character; in particular people’s thoughts on the scene where he is in a dark room masturbating to a painting. I do wonder how much the colour grading (quite dark and gloomy) and the music (somewhat ominous) might influence or shape viewers’ perceptions of this scene and their conceptualisation of Zouey, and more broadly speaking their reception of expressions of non-normative sexual acts (in media).

The way Zoey negotiates his boundaries regarding sex is so interesting to me, as he clearly feels sexual attraction but does not feel comfortable being touched sexually. (I do wonder if there is a reason for this. Not saying that there needs to be a particular reason; I’m genuinely just curious if we might find out more in future episodes). I personally love how that doesn’t stop him from blowing Teena (twice if I remember correctly). I think his performance disrupts the normative script of sex, (or one of the normative scripts. To say that there is only one normative way to have sex would be incorrect I guess). He definitely doesn't adhere to this script/these scripts, and this seems to have created discomfort/confusion for some viewers, while others seem to really appreciate it. 

Also a little side note: the way Zouey does or doesn’t have sex can also lead us to posing the question of what counts as sex. Only penetrative sex? That seems like a somewhat outdated and not exactly queer-friendly definition of sex, right? And what even is virginity? Is Zouey still a virgin or not by the end of the episode?

I think the first episode already touches on so many different issues and I love it. People have pointed out the different social statuses of First and Soong, so we already have a storyline that highlights how sex and class are interconnected issues. We have seen a fair amount of kinky sexual practices, and sex workers have also made an appearance. So to come back to my initial question, is Playboyy porn without plot? Personally, I wouldn’t classify it as such. In my opinion, while the first episode does heavily focus on sex, sex is used as a tool for storytelling and the creators have taken the unique approach of introducing the viewers to the characters via sex. Plus, there is the mysterious disappearance of Nun/Nant(?). But also to me, it doesn’t really matter whether this is porn without plot or not. Firstly, because I think that sometimes (emphasis on ‘sometimes’, okay?) when something is labelled as porn without plot this is done to discredit a particular piece of media and to paint it as something that is inherently ‘less’ (less serious, less valuable etc.) and I don’t agree with this particular conceptualisation of plot without porn because I think it fails to recognise the value of such stories, not just for people’s own enjoyment but also in regards to academic analysis. And secondly, because I am more interested in how the series is situated (and maybe even actively positions itself) in relation to broader discourses such as (non-normative) sexualities, kink, sex work (in Thailand) etc. and for this we don’t necessarily need a “good” plot structure. So I, for one, am I excited to watch (and analyse) the rest of the show. 

[astronnova]

I dont really see the shadowplay as a lie. Wukong was constantly leaving, contantly abadoning, his subjects and macaque for more power. It might have started out as protection for them, but he admits himself he lost sight of that. Macaque abandoned wukong too dont get me wrong, but wukong did it several times. In jttw alone he leaves ffm for years, decades at a time.

Macaque has no right to hurt mk, and his reaction is very bad, but if wukong never hurt or wronged him, then their possible reconciliation just tastes bitter to me. It only works if both monkeys were in the wrong

wukong had left about two or three times pre journey i believe? training with subodhi, then to work as heaven's stable boy, and maybe something else? i can't remember right now (and im falling asleep at my desk LOL....)

yeah, he does admit he lost sight of it! that's very true, and that's important to note that his goal grew to be unclear (as a narrative parallel to azure's conflict during the season and the special). i'm putting emphasis on the fact that wukong says to macaque twice (once directly to him and the other by proxy) that his intentions were overall good.

yes, in the original book he returns to ffm occasionally but then, imporantly, has to return to the journey. if wukong were truly free to make his choice, he could have very much stayed at ffm during the first time he left the journeying group, but he. couldn't do that. the celestial realm needed him to help retrieve/deliver(?) the scriptures and tripitaka still had him trapped with the circlet. and also important to note that in the original jttw, macaque and wukong didn't know eachother.

lego monkie kid is a sequel to the original journey to the west, but it also makes it very clear that lego monkie kid's version of journey to the west is very different from the one we know. claiming some things as canon because it was in the original books (like wukong being macaque's killer) doesn't track with the version of jttw that the show is presenting to us. (not saying this as a way to undermine your point, but more as like a general point that i feel i need to mention).

so, tldr for all that up there that i keyboard vomited is that yeah wukong did leave ffm occasionally but he always returned to ffm & macaque. in shadowplay, macaque's abandonment is portrayed as the time when wukong went off to work for heaven.

in this scene, wukong is dressed in his royal attire (the phoenix cap and armor) while turning around and smirking while joining the figures up in the clouds which is a representation of the celestial realm.

interestingly wukong's also wearing the circlet in this! so this scene can be taken as two things:

wukong leaving to work for the celestial realm as the stable boy (where he canonicaly comes back to macaque and macaque is fine, this is in season 4)

wukong joining the journeying group.

if the second point is what's happening, then macaque fundamentally misunderstands wukong's agency in the journey, since the circlet (aka his punishment/torture leash) took a lot of wukong's own choice out of the matter of if he should go on the journey or not. wukong even wanted to go back to his home when he was freed but had to stick with the journey!

macaque has always been a biased narrator, and that's really interesting to me because he's a trauma dumper too. he constantly tells his version of events without considering another side.

now, im not saying that wukong is an innocent person in their whole *gestures vaguely* situation either, but i am saying that shadowplay is macaque's biased narration that we as the audience can recognize because we know what's actually happening with wukong. the shadowplay is meant to put more doubt into MK and make the emotional rift between him and wukong larger because of wukong's lack of communication skills and MK's easy to influence personality. it's not factually correct, but it gives more insight and helps create more conflict for our characters to face.

i agree! the reconciliation wouldn't be as good imo if wukong had never wronged macaque either. i'm also just saying that objectively wukong has more... concrete? i think thats the word? reasons for doing what he does while macaque's motivations usually revolve around self preservation. its a cool character dynamic (that i am obsessed with)

[0nlythrowharrybeaux]

Don't Worry Darling: Baby Review/Theories!

I have so many thoughts after the pre-screening. THIS MIGHT HAVE DWD SPOILERS (barely) BUT I’M SEEING TOO MANY MISINTERPRETATIONS OF THE CONCEPTS AND WANT TO ADDRESS IT SO…

READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!

Review/Plot & PR Theories...

Olivia Wilde talks about “female pleasure” being at the forefront of this film. And because of the trailer and snippets we got I think we all took that as a statement of female pleasure sexually. And again, the marketing eluded to this as well. But I genuinely think that was all intentional and we all ran with it.

When Florence then shared that people were just focusing on Harry eating 🐱 I don't think it was a dig at Olivia, but more of a statement that we were focusing on the wrong thing as an audience (and maybe even as a fandom).

I think the concept and perception of female pleasure was certainly at the forefront of the film as was promised. It's about what we as females are groomed to believe our pleasure should be. Not just sexually, but the pleasures of life we are encouraged to believe we deserve. Deserving is very key to the film (as you may have seen or will see). The idea of men being the providers and keeping us safe, taking care of us, being obsessed and in love with us, doing the most for us. Making women feel that men being in control is an act of kindness & chivalry. This film sheds a light on how society expects women to accept & applaud benevolent sexism as men doing “the most” to please women.

At the beginning I said that it was intentional for the statement of "female pleasure" to be misconstrued as just being about sexual pleasure. And just the reactions people are having to the statement after watching the film proves that point. Yes, there was female focused sexual pleasure, but because that's what needed to happen in the story to keep Alice "happy", or so that's what Jack thinks is a key part of Alice's happiness. And Olivia making that statement and everyone thinking that she was just talking about sex just proves how much we (even women) are trained to accept something as basic as sexual pleasure to be what encapsulates what female pleasure actually means. And then we get this whole view of what is actually happening (in the film) and it is upsetting to think back on that statement made by a woman and then think that our pleasure can be watered down to just that. I'm telling you, this was intentional, and I think she's way smarter than people give her credit for.

I do wish there was more of a backstory as to how our MC's fell into their situation. But the montage of clips re: Alice & Jack's backstory are certainly enough to clue you in as to how they ended up where they did. The film can't address everything (though I would've watched a 4hour film if it had been that because it was just so beautiful) and the plot was certainly more watered down than the original script (this is an adaption by Katie Silberman), but I think it did it's job in getting you to think about the reality we are in and just how much we might still be controlled or influenced by a male-serving society.

Also, it touches on the dangers of toxic masculinity and really gets you thinking about incel culture and gender roles/expectation. I think the point was to bring awareness and not to give answers or address it. Just to pique one's interest enough to investigate for ourselves and understand that things like that exist! Obvs not to the extent of the film, but that people out there think this way and that the opportunity would be seized by some if it were given. In light of that, this film is certainly about female power and claiming back their lives! And the cherry on top is that the ending was perfect. Just giving you that glimpse of hope that what comes next for Alice is only up to Alice to decide. Not even the audience is privy to the next steps.

It was super well done and twisted and I can't wait to see what else Olivia and Katie can produce if they continue working together.

HARR'YS ACTING...

people are still saying he was awkward, seems uncomfortable to be there, is trying too hard and YES, he was but that's exactly how it's supposed to come across. In my opinion he understood the assignment 100%. After seeing the full film it's clear that Jack really is trying to believe and convince himself that what he is doing isn't wrong. He's acting his ass off to Alice & himself, not to the audience. He is trying to be the absolute best and do the absolute most before it all goes to shit. Because really, it is just a matter of time before something goes wrong and he knows that.

I think that Harry replacing Shia was practically a blessing in disguise. I think Shia is an incredible actor, but he would have been far too convincing from the start and would have lacked that naiveté that Harry brought to the role of Jack. Because, really from the get go you know that something is wrong and I think that's the point?

Like the era the film is set in is one that we often associate with optimism and ease, but even just historically we know that this isn't the fact - so I think it's important that from the beginning you understood that just because it looks good, it doesn't mean that it is good. In a sense, it's about trusting your gut; when something feels off, it often is. And honestly, that's all female hysteria is about! Being gaslit into believing that your gut is wrong! And everyone in Victory is there to make life so easy for the women that they don't need to be concerned for anything or even to think. And again, I think it's supposed to be quick and obvious that something is off about Victory.

THE PLANE...

I think this was Alice's first "hallucination" or sign of her waking up. The plane crash wasn't real - she didn't see any debris when she got to HQ, remember. Also, it can't be real unless it was something that was done on purpose in the simulation, which wasn't the vibe I was getting from it. I believe that scene happens after Bunny, Peg, & Alice experience that earthquake together and have talked about what happened to Margaret and her son, also they were neighbors and she'd seen Margaret with the red toy plane. So obviously, that stuck in Alice's mind and I saw it as her subconscious trying to clue to her that something was wrong beyond Victory. I think the plane is just an omen/metaphor that represents this "perfect world" they're in and how it's all about to come crashing down. Red is a color associated with warnings and danger, which is also why I think it isn't any other color and it stands out so much in comparison to all of the other colors used in the palette in the film. I'm of the belief that directors deliberately use symbols and objects like that as an element of foreshadowing in films, so in my opinion the plane was a lot more meaningful symbolically than literally.

SHELLEY (Gemma Chan)...

I didn't read too much into Shelley & Frank when I saw the film. But from what I saw in the film she clearly was in on the whole thing! She knows it's a simulation and how it works. This is proved by her killing Frank, like Bunny explained to Alice, if he dies in Victory, he dies in real life and homegirl knew that! She certainly was complacent in the idea of what he was doing because she was training the women to be more submissive and organized and then when she kills him she says "you stupid boy" or something like that, like he had gotten too arrogant and fucked it up. So maybe it was her intention to continue running the sim but better? Or maybe she was just acting that way to survive and took her chance to get rid of him and get out when it came? Maybe I'll rewatch it again and pay more attention to their dynamic because I really was just focused on Alice x Jack & Bunny x Dean. I also say Bunny & Dean because from the beginning I was suspish about Bunny & Dean!

THE LULLABY...

I found it very interesting how everything that triggered Alice's "awakening" was that song Jack sang to Alice. As we saw, he'd sing it to her while she was in the sim and that was planting her subconscious to reality. Jack didn't even know it, but he was bleeding the two worlds together and ultimately he was the reason she was able to go free as he also taught her how to drive (they said at the start that none of the other wives knew how). I made that connection because in Stranger Things this season they referred to same psychological phenomenon to tie victims in to their reality and escape Vecna.

I think during the whole film Jack was acting weird because he knows that what he's doing is fucked up and I think he does want to be honest with her and have her accept to be in the sim with him. He clearly loved Alice, but he was so insecure and twisted. But in a way, it's like he was kind of hoping she'd figure it out and I think he thought that like Bunny & Dean, they could be that couple that were both on board with it and made that alternate universe their ultimate happy ending.

THE EGGS!

I just realized that the eggs are empty because she’s not really eating. This was another little “wake up call” moment while she was in the sim! Like they’re not actually eating. Their brain thinks they are eating real food - that’s why Jack is like “no tuna for me, thanks!” - because it still feels like they’re eating BUT ITS NOT REAL FOOD!

[curiositykilledtheradiostar]

My review of the FNAF movie, with absolutely Zero knowledge of The Lore

the special effects go hard in this one. apparently those are real puppets so that's pretty rad

if his last name isn't Afton what was the goddamn point of dancing around saying it like that. even I know that Michael Afton has some kind of significance like come on that's just mean. it's because you wanted to hint at a romance with the police girl isn't it

as a horror movie this was a little disappointing because they just kind of brushed over all the aspects that make the concept y'know. horrific. yeah there are kids corpses inside there but don't worry we're going to beat springtrap with the power of Friendship :)))

(addendum to the previous: archive 81 and red valley might have desensitized me to gore more than I thought, because after listening to very graphic audio only depictions of a man being freezer-liquefied and the entire ordeal that is Dan's tape-recorder-ication, nothing much seems That Bad)

there's a lot of plot holes here and I'll willingly ignore most of them because this one doesn't seem like a movie you watch for the plot, but it really bugs me that there's no way Mike should've known the drawing thing would work. We, the audience, know because we saw her cross out his face in every drawing, but he never saw that so it's a hell of a leap to take

also don't enjoy how the whole "what's-her-name was working with William Afton the whole time!!!" reveal is never actually addressed because of the way they did that. like, seriously absolutely no reaction to the knowledge that she was meant to set you up to die the whole time???? Just gonna sideline her at the end there and deny us any sense of closure on her storyline???

You can feel the Stranger Things influence on some of these scenes like a physical cloud over the movie

the cinematography is good in this also. Visually it's a great movie. Cool lighting going on here

Also had a pathetic guy covered in blood at the end so that scores some points

the animatronics were pretty well done in that when they're being mostly innocent is when they're at their scariest because you're just waiting for them to snap. and that when they're "nonthreatening" they move more clunky and then they suddenly get a lot more agile when it's time for Violence. that was spooky

Diagnosis: 'tis a movie. it's cool that the animatronics were practical effects. plot makes minimal sense but it's okay we all know that's not what you're here for

[gaythingsinstartrektos]

I'm glad you support the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes, but in your post, you called for people to stop streaming which is not something helpful to the strike at this time and may be counterintuitive. There are sites that detail the current picket lines for WGA (wgacontract2023.org) and SAG-AFTRA (sagaftrastrike.org). We cannot set new lines for the unions. Only voice our support for their proposals and their fight.

Hi!

And I will continue to call for boycott. There has been people who have called to it.

It is not something I have just come up with on my own, simply something I understand to make sense.

The Union as a whole officially cannot call for a boycott. We all know the studios and streamers to be synonymus, but legally they would get into hot waters since *technically* they are differen entities, on paper. It's the whole business about who owns what under which name. It would be a secondary attack and making them vulnerable legally. So yes, someone sticking their head out is different than a whole movement being in danger by calling for boycott. Please do note that nobody but fans says 'they don't want you to'. The statement that gets shared because it is safe legally is 'it is a personal choice.' It is a choice one can make, not one that is discouraged, though.

As for the counter intuitive part. The reasons that get thrown around seem to be as follows But what about the pay? - we have all seen the checks, let's not kid ourselves, the only ones making money off off your views and subs are the studios. But the projects they will use it against the creatives? - Guys. They are saying to starve them out. Leave them on the street. Replace them with AI. They are spinning the news as if the creatives fighting for their livelihood are the villains, while all the studios have to do is give a fraction of their money to those who deserve it. Threats of broken contracts, recently. It's moot. They have worse weapons than crying 'but people aren't watching' - please also note here that a) there is a hastag, time frame and online vocality on purpose here. Make it known that it is a targeted effort. We can give or take time and money. Their move. That is what needs to be signaled. Then what does this even do? - Glad you ask! Initial turn off has already done some visual damages and the goal, overall, is to apply pressure that investors and big money sources can see and feel.

The influence of general tendencies of the strike (yes we can see Barbenheimer influence on WB, but that was to be expected). And no, that does not mean nothing needs to be done. It simply means this all does not go without reaction. It means pressure can be applied, here. Investors want money. Duh. They want to know these things will continue making money. A little side nudge at this

They have an eye on this. Very much so. Then there is this

Essentially? The studios hope to break the unions by either them starving, being replaced or everyone taking to scabbing because of the first two, so they can keep going as they have and worse. And the audience can hit them where it hurts by signaling we are not taking that and are in solidarity with the creatives. By not giving the studios money. Hurt their numbers. Make them *have* to give in first instead of hoping they will just happen to change their minds for no good reason. The reason will always be easy access to money.

Now some more statements from union members toward certain behaviors on 'oh but they didn't say-'

Vocality on those ~technicalities~ and work arounds. Breaches in solidarity.

“Don’t,” the “Better Call Saul” Emmy nominee said succinctly outside Paramount studios on Wednesday. “It’s a strike. Strike. You lose. We lose. Everybody loses. That’s tough shit.”

Then there is the side of promotion by non union people:

Some more solidarity from those who 'don't have to', since the rules would allow things and their views:

Now for those having a hard time between the line reading, but are still paying attention:

What are promotions and advertisements for? Selling you a product. What does that entail? You ending up watching the product, usually a good and desirable thing.

But right now? No. Right now watching things, old new, what have you, is giving the studios money. Is the opposite of helping them. No it is not just about the people literally putting in work. It is also about not promoting the work so people are not encounraged to watch. Are you hearing me? They have to be indirect. They have to hope someone like Talarico sticking his head out and them being so very vocal where they can be (and this is just a handful), is enough to reach people. That their livelihood being threatened and the disgusting behavior of the studios is enough to make people upset in solidarity so they stop supporting the studios.

As is their personal choice to do. As would put pressure on the studios. As not doing only serves the bottom line of those who are willing to starve out and replace those fighting for fair wages.

Starve them instead. Of your time. Of your money. Stop streaming, be vocal about the reason, make it count. Stand with the creatives.

[scoutpologist]

here's a thought i've had brewing for a bit. it's incomplete, imperfect, and unedited, and meant to be taken as a fandom analysis using a particular framework, not absolute truth.

the qsmp and dsmp fandoms are shitty and discourse-heavy because of the way we're supposed to interact with the media. essentially, the watcher is involved in the most intimate parts of a character's life and thought process, down to the mundane.

there is no planning out what characters are going to say what. there is a random, human quality to every interaction that tinges the entire story with the sense that we are seeing into someone's very heart. it's as if we're being let into the writer's room. we are watching our characters become in real time.

all that to say this: many smps aren't completely livestreamed, but these ones are. this allows the viewer to uniquely enmesh themselves easily with the character and, to some extent, the streamer. with relatively smaller streamers who have slower chats, such as nihachu, you can get noticed in chat fairly often. you might even be able to influence their character or actions.

this type of personal contact with the creator as the work is being created, with that contact through a digital lens, creates both a sense of alienation and connection. you are connected to the streamer you watch, and feel the need to defend them and their character.

at the same time, this connection is hampered by distance, audience size, or language. we cannot literally read the minds of our favorite characters and streamers, and sometimes it's unclear whether something is based in roleplay or reality. that creates a confusing dissonance between the events of the stream and the viewer.

cc bias is an unavoidable result of this. the viewer identifies with the character and streamer they enjoy watching most. so, they justify character actions they otherwise wouldn't and lash out against streamers who make their fave's life inconvenient in any way.

this is also why strong emotional reactions are not only common but standard when engaging with this type of storytelling. the viewer can sometimes react as if the events of the stream are happening to them or someone they love, resulting in high-strung emotions. this has also resulted in the "dead" fandom of the dream smp having reached a much more calm state.

(there's also the element of numbers - both dsmp and qsmp are incredibly popular, with streams topping national charts. i have no doubt that smaller servers with similar plots and dynamics exist, but they don't get the attention of as many people. the larger the fandom, the more likely you'll come across someone acting inappropriately.)

i don't really know how to continue this. but i think it's an interesting thought? i was reading my textbook yesterday and it talked about the urge human beings have to connect with and through screens, to merge with the digital, so i thought it would be interesting to apply that theory to this.

this might be correct. might not be. might exist in that limbo where most things are in which it's not true but not quite false either. no matter what you think on that end, i hope you enjoyed my shower thoughts.

[jcs-study]

Someone recently told me that British and American fans of JCS have different preferences and I’ve been thinking about that a lot. So what differences do you know of? If you’re American or British what is your reaction to American vs. British productions you’ve seen? What about the original album which has a mix of British and American artists working together? I’m American, but I realized I think of JCS as primarily a British show, so perhaps my preferences lean toward British.

This... is a fantastic question. I apologize that my answer is not nearly as brief.

I feel that Danny Zolli (who has frequently played the roles of Jesus, Judas, and Annas over the years) sums it up best in his interview for our website, referring to the 2000 Broadway revival:

The Broadway production was, in my opinion, a very English-style production of the show. American audiences don’t tend to respond to that very well. American audiences want their Jesus and Judas to be willing to cough up a lung for them in the course of the show. It’s called “the Passion” for a reason — there has to be passion within the actors and actresses performing the roles to give the story its justice.

Maybe my years of voracious JCS consumption have been colored by that opinion somewhat, but I would tend to agree that's the main difference. The next question is why.

Well... in America, the concept album took off like a rocket. It's an icon right up there with Sgt. Pepper in the minds of many people who lived through the era. Such classics as “Heaven on Their Minds,” “Everything’s Alright,” “I Don’t Know How to Love Him,” and “Superstar” racked up frequent radio airplay in their own right. The show’s earliest live success here came in the form of a concert tour (three of them, actually, hastily assembled to beat an already enormous band of pirates), not a theatrical run. Moreover, those early stage productions -- and the 1973 film -- were not a vast departure from that initial sound: raw, imperfect, rough, a little primitive, like the best of classic rock.

Overseas, however, the album did not sell the show. In England, the show only became successful once it was running in the West End, at one point becoming the longest-running musical in British history; in many European countries, the show is remembered much more fondly because of the film or because of the first major premiere in their neck of the woods. (In Spain, for example, it is incredibly difficult to separate JCS from the fact that it began life there as a Camilo Sesto vehicle. He's the benchmark like Ted Neeley or Ian Gillan would be for many English-speaking fans, and they just did a Fosse/Verdon-like TV series about his production over there that was a smash.)

Consequently, when Andrew Lloyd Webber looked back on the show once he controlled the rights, he was able to try to make it more like his later work: acrylic slickness and polish, some adjustments to the orchestrations, some revised lyrics from Tim Rice. It was more about the acting and less about the music, more of a theater piece and less of a rock show, and he put a lot of time and effort into making it so, putting that stamp on the first West End revival in 1996 and each production that followed.

Without weighing in on which version I prefer, I'll simply say there's a distinct difference between major JCS productions before and after 1996 that owes much to ALW's influence, and that's probably what your friend is referring to.

[quindriepress]

This week's spotlight is on NORRIE and his comic Flesh & Flora. NORRIE is a comics creator, illustrator and character designer from Scotland. He lives in Dundee, drinks coffee and watches the birds from his window. He has no complaints.(@prehistoricfrog | website | instagram | twitter)

"Flesh & Flora follows two synthetic characters, Gen and Hare, who are doing their best to hold onto their humanity in a strange new world, prompting them to question each other's mortality. The arrival of an unknown species puts their differing perspectives to the test and may jeopardise both characters' very existence." 

Read the spotlight below the cut!

NORRIE's goal with Flesh & Flora was to create a book that if he saw, he'd want to pick up straight away. "I love the feeling of picking up a book and that being all I talk about for about six months. That's the essence of comics! I've always been interested in themes of identity and the human consciousness, especially when they are placed onto seemingly non-human characters, and I wanted to use those themes to think about very human concepts like ego and in particular the fabrication of responsibility. to make us feel important and in control of our world.

"I'm also fascinated when people describe the world as a character, like what does that mean? So I wanted to really run with that to an extreme: the world in Flesh & Flora is a character in the way that as nature, it is living and breathing but it's also an amalgamation of undulating flesh and a tangle of pulsating wire, flourishing amongst the flora. I primarily wanted it to be an uncanny image but also work as a sign that this world is evolving and that evolution is a process that takes such a long time, what would it feel like to be amongst those who haven't realised it's happened? This is the position I wanted to show Gen and Hare in really wanting to be able to explore this idea and their reaction to being left behind."

NORRIE's love of sci-fi, particularly robots and mechs, is clear throughout his work. "Look, I'm a simple little guy. I've got no shame in admitting that. I like cool robots, hot babes and bananas sci-fi. I've spent a lot of time reminding myself it's fine to indulge in these things artistically but basically, I grew up watching Anime vhs's like Bubblegum Crisis, Patlabor, Dominion Tank Police and Ghost in the Shell, and obviously there's a strong Cyberpunk vein running through these films and shows that's very exciting on a visual level to a kid. Once you grow and you revisit these stories there's much more going on, usually these questions of what makes us human, etc. than just the surface level Cyberpunk motifs that are plastered on everything these days.

"I love Headlopper by Andrew Maclean and Apocalyptigirl has had a big influence on me. Homunculus by Joe Sparrow is an incredible comic. I'm constantly thinking about SOMA by Frictional Games and more recently SIGNALIS by rose-engine really struck a chord and has already got me thinking about future stories." 

For aspiring comic creators, NORRIE has this advice: "Focus on what you love. Comics are hard so you should make sure that you are passionate about what you work on, don't try to please other people – there's no pleasing them anyway. If you want to be a creator, you should create for yourself. You'll always have an audience that way. I think people that appreciate good comics can see work that's honest, you don't have to be the best at drawing or be the next flash in the pan creator, just be yourself and don't be intimidated by others. There is always a place for you."

You may also be interested in some of NORRIE's other upcoming work! "I'm currently working on character artwork for the amazing video game AERO GPX. It's a futuristic anti-grav racer in the style of F-Zero but very much with its own twist. It's roughly scheduled for a 2024 release, it looks amazing and you can wishlist it on Steam now!"  

 You can pick up Flesh & Flora, alongside the other three comics in our 2023 collection, right here on Kickstarter!