#and taking away their complexity and nuance

[monstergili]

When you really think about the whole universal translator in speculative fiction, it doesn't really work considering all the questions you've brought up. It feels like there is this expectation that it should be just translated easily into one language; often in English for a person with no hearing disabilities and no problems during the process. Compared to how real languages work, it can be so complicated; some languages are not commonly spoken, with some languages being quite hard to translate. A few languages are rare due to how few people speak the language fluently. Even if you managed to have a large library of languages available, how easy is it to translate one into another? I'm no linguist, but even I know that not every word can be easy translated into another language. Translations can lacks the nuance of a particular word or phrase because the translation tries simplifying it to be more understandable, losing that nuance in the process. That's not even covering the ever changing use of slang; with words changing meaning, new ones being invented or phased out for new ones. Would you have a big enough library for the various slang used across the world and beyond?

I don't think I've really seen anyone even take into consideration how sign language would be used for the universal translator. Sign Language differs across the world, use different signs for particular words, which could have different meaning in another sign language if applicable at all. Some verbal languages might not even have their own sign language available so it might be even harder to translate because you could be jumping through two other languages first before being translated into a language you know. If they tried making you still see the speaker when you're looking away, it would likely be disorienting, possibly leading to headaches from the sensation. It could possibly lead to minor accidents from the different inputs given to the user. Never mind if the sign language of another species requires more than one pair of hands; how do translate THAT?!

The Universal Translator usually doesn't take non-humanoid anatomy into consideration on how it would impact language. In most mainstream Sci-Fi settings, humanoid aliens are the norm for sapient species. In the Mass Effect games, I know one alien species had to verbalize what they're feeling when talking because their use of pheromones couldn't be translated for the other inhabitants. Another species were basically space jellyfish that used a translator to verbalize language, based on their bioluminesce. (Looking back, I think there was a missed to opportunity to use chromatophores to create a complex language that was also hard to translate.)

I know that not everyone is interested in conlanging or trying to write multiple IRL languages. It's hard to conlang or translate languages, especially if said language is notoriously difficult to speak/read. I don't blame people using universal translators as an easy workaround for plot convenience. Yet I do feel like that it can be a little too easy to use for every setting you make. This is why I like how @jayrockin handles languages in their Runaway To The Stars universe. I'd recommend checking out their work if you want more interesting and grounded way of handling alien languages. It even includes sign language.

how do science fiction real-time universal translators (the type where people automatically perceive everything as being in their native language as it's being spoken) handle sign languages. does it alter the perception of native sign language speakers so it looks to them like people using spoken language are actually signing? for that matter, would it "translate" written language into a spoken form for someone who natively speaks a spoken-only language?

[pennie-umbra]

Maybe its because I'm bitter or because I just left a fandom that reduced one of the main characters to a one off joke when the POINT is that they're complex but I hate how this fandom treats Izutsumi.

I hate how some people who interacted with the fandom before watching the anime thought that she didn't even speak because EVERYONE just draws her as a cute stupid cat whose personality is just being a cat

Again, maybe I'm just bitter, but I hate how the most common joke is the "Izutsumi: izutsumi" cause apparently no one can be bothered to actually consider her thoughts and feelings and personality.

Like yeah I'm not saying it can't be funny but it quickly becomes tiring when she's reduced to just that

Especially when her entire arc is about finding her identity as a person and as part of a community, finding a balance between her human and cat souls because she's both but also neither. Especially when canonically she's ashamed of the one time she behaved like just a silly little cat (golden kingdom)

[fictionadventurer]

There's something about reading really great writing that's so relaxing. You can just sit back and let the words wash over you, knowing that you can trust the writer.

[darkmist111]

You complain about the fandom oversimplifying the themes of good and evil but then you oversimplify them into moral greyness which is even less complex. The themes of devil may cry are more than good and evil, in fact good evil and morality rarely are the forefront or center of the demon human conflict.

Devil may cry is a story about the ability to empathize and care about others. And how that ability makes people stronger beyond the physical aspects.

The villians are evil not because of demons and not even because they choose to be but because their selfish, their unable to care about or even see the pain of others. This trait is inherent to demons who often represent power. The desire for it, what it takes to achieve it, and ultimately how hollow it is.

The title Devil May Cry represents the fundamental change needed for a Devil to gain a soul, the ability to care and Empathize. Dante mourning his brother representing is revelation that just because he’s half demon doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a soul.

Lady understanding that demons and humans can both be monsters and this being treated like a condemnation of humanity is fundamentally opposed to the theme of empathy of the series.

Demons having the fundamental ability to empathize and have a souls undermines the importance of that choice as well as the themes of power and strength and their true meaning.

The humans and demons have always had shades of grey, but that doesn’t change their was always clear black and white as well, all three aspects painting a actually nuanced setting.

Sparda proves even demons can choose to be good but if you make it a innate trait or just throw away the concept of what good and evil are supposed to be that undermines the point of choice.

Humans are not innately good, they do however have the innate ability to care, demon cannot innately care for others, it’s something they must learn and choose.

Also Vergil does not straddle the line between human and demon, he is always actively trying to jump off that line into the demon side. His entire story is him desperately trying to gain power to cover his weaknesses which he views as his human side and his ability to care about anything other than powers. We see the innate familial bonds and his desire for connection which is why we root for him despite everything.

The White Rabbit very clearly did not throw away his heart. Despite everything and how twisted his role became his primary motivation was his love for the demon world. His empathy is portrayed as twisted but still true and called innately human, going against the themes of the series.

It could be a interesting subversion on the weaponization of empathy, if it was treated like that and not another “took it too far” political story.

i still think the devil may cry fandom's vast oversimplification of the themes in devil may cry (regarding human "good" vs demon "evil") are amplifying some very bad faith criticisms of the netflix adaptation. as well as some weird moral essentialism i just really don't vibe with. this is long and kinda messy but whatever.

i see people mostly take issue with this scene in which lady and white rabbit have their confrontation and lady says this:

this, to me, does not go against the themes of the game at all. it's not some cynical attack on "humanity". contextually, this is a sorely needed moment of reflection on lady's part, where she's able to connect with white rabbit and realizes that their ruthlessness is a shared trait. she's speaking about herself here. lady considers herself the antithesis of a demon, yet she realizes how terrible she's been acting and that they're Not So Different. she's a flawed human being and this is an explicit, textual acknowledgment of that.

i really take issue with the idea that devil may cry has ever been about coddling and portraying humans as innately good. most major villains in the dmc games are human, statistically. every single dmc game except the first 1 has an over-arcing human villain at the center of the conflict. sanctus is a religious cult leader. agnus is an unethical mad scientist. arius is a CEO. arkham is a wife killer. these are all very human evils. demon villains like mundus and argosax tend to embody more stereotypically villainous evils, but the human villains are much more nuanced and varied in their approach, which in some respects makes them a lot more dangerous.

but you might say "well they're evil because they throw away their humanity, as dante even calls out. these tears are a gift only humans have" and to which i say, so? these are conscious choices these villains made to get where they are. yes, thematically their decision to throw away good traits like compassion and empathy led them on the path to evil, and dante himself equates these traits with humanity, but dante is also biased against his demon half and has an entire arc about being wary of that part of himself until he's finally able to accept it, which is how he awakens his sin devil trigger in 5 (mirroring vergil's rejection/ultimate acceptance of his human half.)

idk man. just feels yucky seeing all of this "well demons have always been an Evil Race in devil may cry" when no, it's always been more complex than that and pretending otherwise is a massive disservice to this series. there is no hard moral dichotomy in dmc. sparda disproves this from the very opening scene from the very first game. he was one of the most powerful demons in hell, who fell in love with humanity and decided to turn against his own kind. even if demons in a general sense tend to be "evil" (mundus seems to be a particular outlier in how evil they are honestly, hating humanity to an almost comical extent), they're shown to be completely capable of good, just as on the flip side, humans are capable of being evil. again, it's about choice, what you do with the power given to you, choosing to protect what's important or throwing away everything. these are not immutable traits of humans or demons, as that would mean characters like sparda, trish, arkham, sanctus, lucia, bradley, baul, modeus, etc would not exist.

there's maybe an argument to be made about dmc netflix's explicit use of politics and whether this is appropriate or not, but i don't think it's a bad thing it decided to really dig in on the nuances of humanity. i think the choice to make white rabbit a human villain who in a sense "throws away his heart" makes him thematically consistent with devil may cry's ethos, as ive mentioned in my other post about him. i view him akin to a character like vergil, who straddles the line between human and demon, and doesn't really fit into either "demon overlord" or "overambitious human sociopath" like the other series villains. more variety is good actually.

[tvckerwash]

watching people discover the fucked up science guy part of viktor's lore and then being like "we need to acknowledge that he's a fucked up science guy 😔" is so funny. like yeah, he is a fucked up science guy who thinks ethics committees are bullshit because in his mind having rights temporarily violated is perfectly fine if it means saving lives—especially when the ones condemning his beliefs don't offer what they consider to be an ethical alternative to fix the problem and simply let it continue to exist.

and yeah, he's a fucked up science guy who experimented on himself following a, quote: traumatic period of introspection. he had a mental breakdown, fell into a major depressive episode, and spending this horrible time of his life "alone in the depths" reinforced and radicalized his previous beliefs, and to showcase his beliefs (and to try and get rid of his emotions because of how overwhelming they were) he turned himself into a cyborg (and did in fact make himself worse in certain ways but ehh who cares /j).

and yeah, he's a fucked up science guy who gave a kid back alley anti anxiety meds so he could face down his bullies, but he did so after making him a cozy beverage, teaching him about the dangers of propaganda and baseless rumors, and having him scream into a megaphone to freak out said bullies because it was funny (not that he'd admit to finding it funny because then he'd have to admit to having emotions, and well he can't do that, no sir).

so yes, viktor is a fucked up science guy, but that's half his charm! he cares so much about helping people, but he's a weirdo and freak about it! though to be fair, in the city that also has a chemically enhanced werewolf (warwick), a sentient blob of goo (zac), a wind and water goddess (janna), and a literal war criminal who invented chemical warfare (singed), among many other wacky individuals, he's pretty normal all things considered! fucked up science is just a part of life in zaun, my dudes!

[fairyroses]

She was the only thing I was living for. I’m sorry for your loss, sir, but right now we need to get you airborne. Police will be here any minute. I’m well aware of that. I’m turning myself in.

— SMALLVILLE, “Bizarro” (7.01)

[pyr0cue]

Ok like I don’t hate Fiona Gallagher I believe she is one of if not the best character in the show. She is by FAR not my favorite, but I don’t hate her. I just hate the narrative I think a lot of fans built around her, where she is the best older sister ever and all her faults and mistakes can be forgiven because she was forced into being a caretaker at a very young age. Like she is interesting BECAUSE she is a terrible person and, frankly, just an on sister, that is the draw for ALL the Gallaghers. Just because she was forced to help her siblings does not mean she doesn’t hurt them constantly. The conflicts that arise from Fiona’s actions are what makes the show good and Fiona is a good character because we get to unpack her actions through the lens of her past.

[official-lauchzwiebel]

People need to stop thinking in storytelling categories when it's only leading to self-loathing. It can be fucking destructive. Fuck 'main character' fuck 'NPC' fuck 'important to the plot' LIVE A LITTLE these categories are used for narratives for a reason this is no way to live

[maraslesbian]

we finally finished s5 of the dragon prince with my roommate and man that show is doing things to me... the last 2 episodes were absolutely incredible i am. on the floor

[kaleidoscopic-quiddity]

i know i shouldnt be suprised but sinners being out for less than a week and already tumblr is fandomifying and 'poor wet pathetic cat'-ifying the main white man villain of the movie is so... disapointing??? like did the fucking point of the movie really go over your heads that badly or are you just willingly ignorant and stupid?

AND BEFORE ANYONE STARTS; im not saying you cant like remmick, he's a very interesting character, a great villain, and jack o'connell gave a great performance playing him, nor do i care if you think hes sexy, I think hes sexy

but i think to come out of a movie where vampires serve as a metaphor for how black american communities have the life sucked out of them by white people via cultural appropriation (remmick wanting to use sammie's gift to summon his own ancestors) and forced assimilation (all the turned vampires singing and dancing along with remmick's irish folk song and dance juxtaposed with the blend of cultures during sammie's song in the juke joint) and for your main take away to be 'aww the main villain is just a misunderstood sadboy' or 'idc abt the atrocities he looked sexy doing them (when the atrocities in question were racism)' then youre just being so disengenuous and antithetical to the whole point of the film?

and dont come at me with the 'let people enjoy things' bullshit, sinners is a movie FUNDAMENTALLY about racism and racial dynamics in the united states, and i do think focusing on your little y/n x [whiteboy of the month] fics and 'hes so babygirl' posts do actually stunt your own critical engagement with the message this movie was trying to convey to its audience

i think its also a disservice to remmick's character; the moral nuance that comes to light when you consider his position as an irish immigrant to the US, a victim of the colonialist british empire just like the black main cast (although in a very different way) and how, whilst his desire to reclaim his ancestry and heritage is understandable and even relatable, his pursuit of sammie and willingness to kill literally everyone else at the juke joint is allegorical for how, regardless of their own marginalisation, white people will prey upon and steal from black culture(s) and destroy/disenfranchise black communities to serve their own interests, and the movie is NOT subtle about this either, delta slim literally lays it out for us "white folks like the blues just fine, they just don't like the people who make them"

idk im yelling into the void here, the ppl im complaining about are never going to give a shit about racism or even just critically engaging with art when theres a new cute whiteboy to write fluff and angst about, but its just soooo annoying to see, yet again, how fandom spaces, which SHOULD be about uplifing and celebrating art in all its diversity and complexity, once again is nothing more than people ignoring anything that actually makes them have to confront reality and filing off the serial numbers to slot characters into pre-determined fanon molds so they can pump out incorrect quotes and coffee shop AUs en masse until the media iliterate heat death of the universe

[princesssarisa]

Disney's unconventional "Cinderella" (1950) (long)

Having watched most of the many adaptations of Cinderella, I've come to realize what a unique adaptation Disney's 1950 animated classic really is. Unlike Snow White, which only had a few stage and screen adaptations before Disney produced its groundbreaking film, Cinderella had already been adapted many times before Disney's turn came, and Disney's version makes a surprising number of departures from the standard Cinderella "formula." It was definitely a fresh, creative Cinderella when it made its debut, and it arguably still is. Yet because it's become so familiar in pop culture, and today so often serves as our childhood introduction to the tale, it's easy to overlook its inventive storytelling choices. The 2015 live action remake uses several classic Cinderella adaptation tropes that the original 1950 film actually subverts!

Here's a list of the often-overlooked ways in which Disney's Cinderella stands out from earlier adaptations, and from many later ones too.

Cinderella herself. Disney's Cinderella isn't a traditional Cinderella in personality. The "traditional" portrayal of Cinderella, seen in virtually every adaptation before Disney's and several afterwards too, is the portrayal I call "The Waif": a very young, fragile, melancholy girl, dressed in pathetic rags and smudged with ashes, who makes the audience want to rescue her and who wins the Prince's heart with her wide-eyed innocence and artless charm. But whether chiefly to set her apart from earlier screen Cinderellas or from Disney's earlier delicate ingenue Snow White, Disney's Cinderella is none of those things. She comes across as older, or at least more sophisticated. Nor is she waif-like, but instead combines down-to-earth warmth with ladylike dignity, even at her lowliest. She doesn't sit in the ashes ("Cinderella" is her real name in this version), and her servants' dress is humble yet clean and only slightly tattered. She's gentle and kind, yes, but also intelligent, practical, playful, sometimes sarcastic, philosophical, optimistic, genuinely cheerful when she's with her animal friends, and yet angrier and stronger-willed than virtually all earlier Cinderellas. She doesn't beg to go to the ball, but asserts her right to go, and then sets to work fixing up an old dress of her mother's for herself. Only her stepfamily's sabotage, first by keeping her too busy to finish the dress, and then by destroying it after the mice and birds finish it for her, prevents her from taking herself to the ball without a Fairy Godmother. To this day, she stands out as a complex, unique Cinderella, which pop culture too often forgets.

Lady Tremaine. Some critics today complain that Disney makes Cinderella's stepmother a total monster instead of giving her "nuance" and call her portrayal "sexist." But can't we agree that her sheer cruelty enhances the film's dramatic power? And compared to earlier portrayals of Cinderella's Stepmother, it definitely makes her stand out. In most pre-Disney Cinderellas and many after, the Stepmother is a pompous, vain comic antagonist. Once again, Disney was innovative by portraying Lady Tremaine as a dignified, manipulative, and truly sinister villain, who takes quietly sadistic pleasure in abusing Cinderella and will stop at nothing to prevent her from going to the ball or marrying the Prince. As far as I know, she's also the first Stepmother to realize before the slipper-fitting that Cinderella was the lady at the ball and to take action to prevent her from being found. That's a commonplace plot device in more recent adaptations, but in 1950 it was a creative twist!

The mice and other animals. Viewers debate whether Cinderella's mouse friends, Jaq, Gus, et al, and their misadventures evading Lucifer the Cat are a welcome addition or take away too much screen time from Cinderella herself. But there's no denying that the presence of the mice and birds is an inventive storytelling choice, which makes Disney's Cinderella stand out! And I can provide a long list of reasons why they're more than just "filler." (1) They add liveliness, humor, and appeal for younger children. (2) They gave the animators an outlet for the type of character animation they did best, rather than binding them to the harder work of animating realistic humans. (3) They give Cinderella someone to talk to besides her stepfamily. (4) They give her a way to demonstrate her kindness. (5) The struggles of the mice with Lucifer parallel Cinderella's abuse by her stepfamily, and Cinderella's undying optimism not only keeps her from despair, but inspires them too. (6) They arguably provide a further reason why Cinderella stays with her stepfamily – not only does she have nowhere to go, but an entire community of small sentient creatures relies on her for food and protection. (7) They reward Cinderella for her kindness. From the start, her friendship with the mice and birds makes her life easier to bear, both by easing her loneliness and because they do helpful deeds for her, like mending and cleaning her clothes. They fix up her mother's dress for her to wear to the ball – only the stepfamily's last-minute cruelty requires the Fairy Godmother to step in. And in the end, they're directly responsible for Cinderella's happy ending by freeing her from her locked room. They do all these things because Cinderella has protected them, fed them, made them clothes, and been their friend. Therefore, Cinderella's good fortune never feels "just handed" to her: her kindness directly earns it.

The Fairy Godmother. It's always varied between illustrators whether Cinderella's Fairy Godmother is portrayed as a grandmotherly old woman or as youthful, regal, and beautiful, but screen and stage adaptations before the Disney version virtually always took the "youthful, regal, beautiful" approach. That is, when they didn't change her into a wise, fatherly male magician-advisor, as in several opera adaptations! At any rate, seriousness and dignity were the norm for this character in most adaptations from the 19th century through the 1940s. Making her a sweet, comforting, grandmotherly figure, with a comically and adorably absent mind, was another of Disney's fresh choices.

Cinderella's entrance at the ball. We all know the classic image of Cinderella's entrance from other adaptations. Cinderella appears at the top of the grand staircase that leads down to the ballroom, and a hush falls over the assembly, as not only the Prince, but all the guests and members of the court are amazed by the unknown lady's beauty and magnificent dress. Even in versions without a staircase, Cinderella captivates the room the moment she enters. Adaptations both before and after Disney's, including Disney's own 2015 live action remake, play her entrance this way. But the 1950 animated classic subverts it! The grand staircase leads up to the ballroom, not down to it, and Cinderella's entrance isn't a triumph at first, but a vulnerable moment as she makes her way up the stairs alone, dwarfed by the splendor around her. Then, when she reaches the ballroom, no one notices her at first, because the other ladies are being presented to the Prince and all eyes are on him. But then the Prince notices her in the shadowy background as she quietly marvels at her surroundings, and leaves his post to approach her and invite her to dance. Only then does the rest of the assembly notice her, because she's the one the Prince has singled out. It's more understated and it feels more realistic than the traditional entrance, as well as more clearly symbolic of Cinderella's venturing above her station, then both literally and figuratively being led out of the shadows by the Prince's unexpected attention.

The slipper-fitting plan. Over the years, it's been fairly popular to mock the idea of using the glass slipper to find the Prince's love, as if there were no chance it would fit anyone else. Disney's version is creative by having the slipper-fitting search be the comical, hot-blooded King's idea, not the Prince's, and making it clear that it's not, nor is it meant to be, a foolproof plan to find Cinderella. The Duke points out that the slipper could fit any number of girls, but the King doesn't care if they find the right girl or not: he just wants to hold his son to his pledge to marry "the girl who fits this slipper" and force him to marry the first one who fits it. This also means that Disney doesn't do what most adaptations do and have the Prince conduct the search himself, but follows the original Perrault tale by having a gentleman, in this case the Grand Duke, do it instead. This prevents audiences from mocking the Prince for relying on the slipper instead of knowing his beloved's face.

Cinderella breaking free and asking to try on the slipper. Even though in Perrault's original tale, Cinderella asks to try on the slipper, she almost never does in adaptations. In most versions other than Disney's, including Disney's own 2015 remake, Cinderella's presence in the house (and/or the fact that she has the other slipper) is either discovered by accident or revealed by Cinderella's allies, not by Cinderella's own initiative. In some versions, she even tries to hide from the Prince and/or the search party, either out of fear of her stepfamily or because she feels unworthy of the Prince in her rags. But not Disney's animated Cinderella! First of all, she has an assertive emotional breakthrough when she calls on her dog Bruno to chase Lucifer away and free Gus to slip her the key to her locked room. Earlier on, she urges Bruno to try to get along with Lucifer, lest the stepfamily not allow him to sleep in the house – it's clear that Bruno represents her own rebellious side, and in that scene she's really talking about herself, revealing that she tolerates her stepfamily's abuse so she won't lose her own "nice warm bed" and be homeless. But in the climactic scene, when she finally sees a way out, she gives up playing nice and seizes her chance. First she unleashes Bruno on Lucifer, and then she runs downstairs and directly asks to try on the slipper, not caring how her stepfamily will react, or what the Grand Duke will think of her shabby dress, or whether the audience will accuse her of gold-digging or not. This isn't a common breakthrough in other Cinderella adaptations, but it fits perfectly (like a glass slipper, you might say) with the Disney Cinderella's stronger-willed and more self-assured characterization.

"I have the other slipper." We can probably all safely assume that when audiences first saw Disney's Cinderella in 1950, they all expected Cinderella to try on the glass slipper she lost, with her identity revealed by its perfect fit. They never would have expected Lady Tremaine to trip the footman and break the glass slipper... only for Cinderella to calmly reveal that she has the other one. It's yet another clever and unexpected twist, not seen in any other version. Not even Disney's own 2015 remake.

Disney's Cinderella deserves far more credit than it gets for being unique among the myriad versions of the tale, especially compared to the versions that came before it.

[dcvina-claires]

i think the six of crows fandom has a real problem with acknowledging complexity in the characters which is ironic because it’s literally a book about morally grey characters. like yes kaz is a cold blooded murderer who cares more about money than being a good person but he’s also a dumb teen boy with a crush and a bad haircut. inej is a knife-wielding spy as well as a deeply religious girl who never stopped believing in kindness. jesper is a confident, reckless sharpshooter but he’s also incredibly scared and angry. wylan is an empathetic and kind artist along with being a dangerously intelligent explosives expert. nina is a fun, food-loving girl but she also stands up for the oppressed and struggles to recover from an addiction. matthias is an angry druskelle but he’s also the boy who learned to love grisha unconditionally. even kuwei has more depth than we give him credit for. he’s the flirty troublemaker as well as a grieving kid who’s had too much pressure put on him. they all have nuance, please don’t take that away because it’s such an important theme in the books

[horrendoushag]

I think you have an amazing point OP, though I don't think it's right to say that Dan isn't Danny. I do agree that he is majority Vlad, and that this should be addressed more often within the phandom (that would be super cool honestly), but as far as the writing in TUE goes he is definitely intended to be a future version of Danny and Plasmius.

To quote Dan when he returned to the past, speaking to Tucker: "In my weaker moments I sometimes miss your droll sense of humor." In that one line you can see both Danny, missing his friends, and Vlad, talking like a drama queen.

So what I would say is that while Phantom and Plasmius combined to create a new ghost, Dan as a person is not "new", he's not a different person, he's a future version of both Danny and Plasmius simultaneously.

Anyway good post. Team Dan-is-also-made-from-Vlad-guys-don't-you-remember-that-bit? ftw

About Dan

Something I would like to see addressed more in Danny Phantom fanworks, especially crossovers, is that Dan is not Danny.

Just to be clear, I don't mean that in a "Danny didn't take that path and didn't become that person" way. A lot of stories tend to refer to Dan as an evil version of Danny from another timeline, but that's not what he is.

Dan is not Danny.

He never was.

Dan is not Danny's evil future self. He is not Danny from an alternate Timeline. He is not Danny at all.

In Dan's timeline, Danny and Vlad both got split in half. The ghost halves of both merged and became Dan. Dan is a new entity who was made from half of Danny and half of Vlad. He is not a version of Danny any more than he's a version of Vlad.

Dan actually has more in common with Vlad both physically and personality-wise. Physically, Dan has Danny's hair color and face shape, but he has Vlad's eye color, skin tone, fangs, ear shape, and hair texture. Personality wise, Dan got Vlad's cruelty, ego, lack of empathy, some of his manipulative tendencies, and his flair for the dramatic. He got Danny's impulsiveness.

There are similarities between Dan's origin and the "evil future self from a bad future" plot that is so common in superhero stories, but that's not what Dan is. Danny doesn't exist in Dan's timeline. His human half is dead and his ghost half was part of the materials used to make Dan. This is spelled out pretty explicitly in the show. The Boo-merang doesn't track Dan because it's locked onto Danny's ecto-signature, not Dan's.

You could compare Dan to an offspring of Danny and Vlad. It would certainly be closer than calling him a version of Danny. That said, I think the better description would be that, whatever Frankenstein's creation was to the people whose graves Frankenstein robbed to make him, that's what Dan is to Danny and Vlad.

Danny's fears regarding the Dan timeline would not be about his own potential to go bad, but about Danny's friends and family dying, Danny being left at Vlad's mercy with no support system, and Vlad experimenting on him until the incident that results in Danny's death and Dan's creation.

I noticed that a lot of Danny Phantom and DC crossovers especially tend to simplify Dan into an alternate Danny who had a villain arc, and it occurred to me that a lot of people approaching from the DC side of things probably never watched The Ultimate Enemy and don't know the actual story behind Dan.

It's really too bad, because I think there's a lot to be done with it.

[sammakesart]

Castles in the Fade, or What Was the Point of the Veil Anyway

Something that will now haunt me until the end of time is why was the concept of the Veil ever introduced into this series.

We’ve been hearing about it since the very first game. There’s a codex entry about tears in the Veil in Origins. Tamlen mentions a thin spot in the Veil if you play a Dalish elf. Sandal has a prophecy in Dragon Age 2: “One day the magic will come back—all of it. Everyone will be just like they were. The shadows will part and the skies will open wide. When he rises, everyone will see.” Admittedly, this is just one line said by a character who often says odd things, but it hinted to the fact they were planning to do something with the Veil from the very beginning. The state of the Veil is repeatedly brought up. It all had to mean something! Or so I thought. 

When I saw “The Dread Wolf Rises” quest in Veilguard, I said, “Oh, here we go!” The Veil is coming down, magic is coming back, and it’s going to set up such an interesting story for the next game. 

Alas, no. 

I hadn’t really enjoyed my time playing Veilguard up until this point. It felt like the game was ducking and dodging every bit of world building and lore that could possibly bring nuance or complexity to the story. Every returning character or faction was a cardboard cutout of themself. They shoved Solas is a time-out box and gave him nothing to do. They refused to let him have any impact or influence on the story when he had been set up to be our main antagonist back in Trespasser. This game used to be called Dreadwolf! And while we learn about his past… we never talk to him about it. In the present, he’s in stasis.

Elgar’nan and Ghilan’nain are our villains. And they are your typical evil for evil’s sake villains. They are mad, bad, and only as dangerous as the narrative will allow as to not give Rook and co too much trouble. They are surprisingly patient while Rook fixes all their companions’ problems… until Elgar’nan moves the moon to cause an eclipse. A vital component in making his own lyrium dagger. For some reason. This guy can move a satellite!? And he just let Rook walk away in previous encounters… twice. Ok. Sure.

The Evil Duo need their own dagger ostensibly to tear down the Veil, because they want to unleash the full force of the Blight onto the world. Because they are evil. And they were thwarted last time they tried to Blight the entire world. Why do they think Blighting the world is a good idea? What’s the point of ruling a world if everyone is dead? I guess they haven’t thought that through, because of the madness and the evilness.

Ok, I thought. Perhaps the gods will be the one to tear down the Veil. Or maybe we’ll have a choice to let Solas do it his way before they can, which will be less chaotic and less full of Blight. Because the Veil has to be coming down one way or another? Why introduce the concept of the Veil, especially a Veil that has been thinning and failing since the series began, if it’s just going to… stay.

There is a principle in storytelling called Chekov’s gun. If something is mentioned in a story, it must have a purpose. If you keeping mentioning that gun hanging on the wall over the fireplace, it’s because at some point in the story, someone is going to take it down and use it. The Veil felt like Chekov’s gun to me. Chekov’s Veil, if you will. It’s been here from the beginning of our tale, the spectre hanging over our protagonists’ heads for multiple games.

The Veil has been a character unto itself. It was the central focus of the third game, and its dissolution was set up to be the core conflict of the fourth game. We learn everything we thought we knew about the Veil was a lie. It was not created by the Maker to separate the Fade from this world because of jealous spirits, it was created by a guy named Solas to trap the elven gods and the Blight from destroying the world. Also, the elven gods were never gods, and they are also evil.

This reveal will surely throw the Andrastian religion into chaos! This puts the very existence of the Maker into question! The Evanuris are a lie; it’s only fair Catholicism—oh, I mean—the Chantry is a lie too. We briefly touch on that in Veilguard… then it is quietly discarded. Religious crisis averted.

But I digress.

When the title of the fourth game was changed from Dreadwolf to Veilguard, I started to see the writing on the wall. Still, I held out hope the Veil would have some greater purpose in the story. That its introduction as a concept was for a reason. That something in this world would change.

Instead, from the get-go, the question of the Veil is no question at all. We only get Solas and Varric making oblique or catastrophizing statements about it. Solas says little beyond he has a plan. If I ever wanted to hear a villain monologue about their plan, it was now! Varric, on the other hand, decries Solas’s plan. He warns that should the Veil fall, it will destroy the world and drown it in demons. And that’s that.

We never really learn why Solas wants to tear the Veil down, or why he thinks it will help anyone. “The Veil is a wound inflicted upon this world. It must be healed,” he says. And that’s basically all he says about it in Veilguard. In Inquisition and Trespasser, we learn it took the immortality from the elves. It cut most of magic off from the world. Spirits are trapped and are being corrupted into demons, and most of what we know about spirits and demons is wrong. There are ancient elves possibly asleep? That part is left vague, but ancient elves are still about. We meet some in Mythal’s temple. There seems to have been some merit in bringing it down, because elves were flocking to Solas’s cause at the end of Trespasser. He had agents working for him already. What do they know that we don’t know?

Apparently nothing, because by the time Veilguard rolls around, there are no mention of agents. He is working alone. His only motivation now seems to be he’s too deep in his sunk-cost fallacy. The Veil is unnatural, so it must be removed—consequences be damned. We are never given any reason to think Solas has a leg to stand on in his pursuit of tearing down the Veil. We never hear any kind of counter argument from anyone, not even Solas, as to why the Veil should come down. We are only told it will destroy the world. It will drown the world in demons. This is all Solas’s fault.

There is no nuance. No complexity. No moral quandary to mull over. The game gives us vague warnings with no explanation as to what exactly is so world-annihilating about the Veil coming down. We must take Varric’s word at face value. We’re the heroes; Solas is the villain. Stop him.

It makes me wonder why Solas was ever a companion in Inquisition, let alone a romance option. Solas was presented to us as a complicated character in Inquisition. We had the potential throughout the game to make him see the value of this world, to help him realize he was wrong about it. “We aren’t even people to you,” the Inquisitor says in Trespasser. Solas replies, “Not at first. You showed me that I was wrong...again.” He began the third game viewing the world as tranquil, seeing the people in it as nothing more than figments in a nightmare, just as we saw our companions in the In Hushed Whispers quest. He ends the game having made friends, having recognized he was mistaken. He might have even fallen in love. (Or he may still seen no merit in this world if the Inquisitor antagonized him the entirety of their time together.) But something makes him continue with his plan to tear down the Veil, despite recognizing this world is real. He must know something we don’t. Something we’ll learn about in the next game.

We’ve been hearing about the Veil for three games now. We’ve set up our complex antivillain for the next installment, and he’s going to tear the Veil down. We swear to stop him or save him. But it has to be more complex than that. It can’t be so straightforward. Uncomplicated. Simple. Boring. Right? Right?

Nope. He really is just the villain, mustache-twirling and all. He apparently had no greater motivation, no as of yet unrevealed knowledge that would put this whole Veil thing into a new context. It was really as simple as the Veil falling will destroy the world, so Solas must be stopped. There is no new information that is revealed which makes us question what we are doing. Solas is never given any nuance or complexity to his actions. Nuance and complexity have actively been taken away. Both him and the Veil are looking like they are the worst things to be in a story: pointless. Why introduce the Veil if it’s just going to remain unchanged? Why introduce a character like Solas, bother humanizing him (for lack of a better term), giving us his backstory, setting him up as a cunning antagonist, only to make him look stupid, then put him on a shelf until the last ten minutes of your game?

Solas was the trickster archetype of this tale. He was our version of Loki from Norse mythology. What is the role of the trickster archetype? To challenge the status quo. To bring about events of extreme change, like say, the tearing down of a Veil that holds back all of magic. Loki is a huge contributing factor in Ragnarök. Through his manipulation, he causes the death of the beloved god, Baldr. This ushers in a long winter, which signifies the beginning of the end. Loki is imprisoned for this crime. When the final battle between gods and giants begins, the sun and moon are swallowed, plunging the earth into darkness. The earth shakes and Loki is freed to fight on the side of the giants. The world burns in raw chaos, falls beneath the sea, and is reborn. The world is remade, and a new realm of the gods and a new, better earth is formed.

It really felt like this was the setup they were going for. Solas causes the death of Mythal, and this is his catalyst for creating the Veil, which ushers in a world without magic. This could be seen as equivalent to the long winter. Solas falls asleep, trapped in dreams. He wakes and sets in motion bringing about the apocalypse. It’s not a perfect one to one, but it’s there if you squint. We have a war against the gods in Veilguard. I was expecting a few remaining Titans to wake and join the fight. But we don’t get any of that. There is a final battle, but it does not end in the end of the world. Or a better world. It just ends, and everything is the same.

It seems our trickster god caused his apocalypse thousands of years before our story started, when he created the Veil. His role in this tale was over before ours began, and he really is just some relic from a long-past age. He has no role, no purpose in this story. He is here to be thwarted. He is no Loki at all.

If you can’t tell, I wanted the Veil to come down. Did I think the Veil coming down would be painless? Have no negative consequences? No. Of course not. But keeping it up has negative consequences too. And it made for an interesting story. Or at least it could have. But we never explore that. The game presents no counter argument to having the Veil stay up, which, again, begs the question: what was the point of introducing the concept of the Veil at all?

Did I think the Veil coming down was actually the best solution to help Thedas become a better place? I don’t know, and I never will, because the game never argues for it one way or another. It just tells you to want it in place and to stop asking questions. In real life, a catastrophic event is not the best way to solve any of the world’s problems. But this is the realm of fiction. We have gods and monsters, magic and myth. We have introduced the status quo of Thedas, recognized it needs to change, then our trickster god appears ready to fulfill his role in the narrative. 

Instead, it all comes to nothing.

I got to the end of Veilguard… and everything was more or less the same as it was at the start of Origins. Veilguard actually tries its hardest to pretend any previously mentioned problems don’t exist, so of course the Veil coming down has no merit. There are no problems to solve in this world, apparently. Solas is just stuck in the past and can’t get with the times. Silly Solas.

The Veil isn’t even a permanent solution. It wasn’t to begin with. It was some duct tape wrapped around a broken pipe, and we’ve just slapped an extra piece of tape on it. It’s still leaking. It is still unnatural, and will fall eventually one way or another. Large amounts of bloodshed weaken it, so I guess Thedas better achieve world peace real quick to avoid any battles. There were seven super-powered mages holding it together… now there is just one. Ironically, the Veil was going to fall after two more Blights anyway. The Wardens were doing Solas’s work for him! It would also have released the full force of the Blight at that time… which Solas was trying to avoid, I presume.

It feels like keeping the Veil up just pushed a big problem onto Thedas’ future generations. We’ll keep slapping bandaids on it until it all falls apart. Someone else can deal with the fallout, but we’ll be dead by then, so who cares.

Primarily, I wanted the Veil to come down from a storytelling perspective. The Veil was an interesting concept and I wanted the story to do something interesting with it. Conflict is what makes stories stories and the Veil coming down could create so much compelling and complex conflict. And the Fade is weird, and I like weird. Stories are also about change, and I wanted to see Thedas change. Yet, Veilguard is over, and barely anything has changed. Instead of magic coming back being a conflict for the next game, they went with Fantasy Illuminati. Oh.

The Veil turned out to be a nothing-burger, and no problems in this world are even close to being solved. Slavery is still rampant in Tevinter. The elven people are still oppressed everywhere. Mages have no more rights in the South than they did in Origins. Spirits are still trapped and being corrupted. The Calling still exists, though might be different somehow now? They don’t really get into that. The Chantry’s validity is still not allowed to be questioned. The Blight still exists in some form, but again it’s vague. Oh, and we learn the dwarves have been gravely wronged, and the Titans are still tranquil. At least if you redeem Solas and a romanced Lavellan joins him, they can work together on healing the Blight and helping the Titans. Oh, good. One problem is being acknowledged and some action will be taken. Offscreen. Hurray? Solas doesn’t have a really great track record of fixing problems, so Lavellan is definitely going to need to be there to make sure he doesn’t fuck it up.

For some reason, this game seemed terrified of letting us think about anything for more than two seconds. It shied away from complexity or nuance at every turn. The game is called The Veilguard—ironically, that word is never uttered in the game—but we are given no real motive for guarding the Veil. We’re unquestionably the hero. The villains are uncomplicatedly evil. Save the world… never wonder what you are doing or why.

I wanted the game to make me question if the Veil staying up or coming down was the right choice. I needed to be given a real counter argument. Convince me the alternative would actually be better or worse, because as I mentioned… things suck quite a bit in Thedas already for a lot of people right now. Let the Veil’s fate be a difficult choice to make. If the conflict cannot be what to do about the Veil, it should be am I doing the right thing about the Veil. If the heart of your game is so thin on motive, everything else falls apart around it.

I hoped they were setting up a complex, Thedas-sized existential conflict for this game in Trespasser, but no. I wanted something to happen, but nothing did. 

I want to feel challenged and changed by a story, not left feeling empty. I’m tired of superficial entertainment. I want to sink my teeth into a narrative that doesn’t paint the world in broad strokes of black and white, good and evil, heroes and villains.

Ultimately, I think my issue is why even introduce a concept like The Veil if you’re not going to do anything interesting with it. Or anything at all. What I thought was Chekov’s Veil turned out to just be a MacGuffin. And that’s disappointing.

[vitaray]

You can disagree with me, but I fucking hate what hotd did to Aegon as a character and how fandom (and his fans too) treats him.

The show has not only made him a comedic figure, but it has also made fun of him (every time they had the chance), humiliating and diminishing him as a secondary character. It's only due to TGC's performance that Aegon has been saved to some extent.

At this point I don't agree with most people on how they view him. Even his own fans by making him pathetic, stupid, good for nothing, just a pretty face little mew mew. He can be that sometimes for fun, but no. You miss the whole point of Aegon's character if that's how you view him.

When I think of Aegon, strength is the first word that comes to mind. Internal strength to overcome everything of what happened to him. To stand up, to accept his fate, to do whatever is needed: marry his sister, take the throne, fight for the throne and take revenge. Many others would gave up, run away or die in his place, but he didn't.

Aegon didn't want any of this, but he accepted it out of a sense of duty. Despite not being perfectly suited for the role, he takes responsibility and listens to those who are more knowledgeable. He wants to end the war swiftly, desires to be loved and make an impact as a ruler.

And let's not forget that he surges to every battle without fearing for his life (it might not be the best decision for a monarch), but it's also admirable.

He loves his family. And trusts them completely.

Aegon is not a fool to laugh at or someone who simply craves violence. He is a complex character (I know people like to laught at that for some reason) and, instead of constantly fighting for sides on who's more right or wrong, or "who's pretty/who's not", I wish fans would rather analyze and understand the nuances of his character and what he could have become with better writing.

[the-cosmic-cauldron]

Astrology: Those That Deceive Others ( LIARS, MANIPULATORS, SCAMMERS)

Manipulators, deceivers, and liars aren’t always born from negativity. Some simply want what they want, and in order to get it, they take certain routes that may not be morally sound. Sometimes, when we encounter a person who lies, we question whether they truly understand the negative consequences of their lies, or if they simply believe the lie because it’s what they want to believe. There are many intricacies and nuances in liars, deceivers, and scammers. I’m not here to discuss all of this from a psychological perspective, but rather from an astrological one. In astrology, our natal charts can reveal placements that suggest a propensity for manipulation, lying, deception, or even scamming. Some individuals currently behind bars may have these placements. Having these placements doesn’t guarantee that you will lie, deceive, or scam, nor does it mean you’ll end up locked away for life. However, it does make you reflect: Are you always truthful? Are your intentions truly good? And are you sure you don’t use manipulation to get your way?

Mercury Square Neptune: Twisted Facts 👹

With Mercury in conflict with Neptune, deception comes naturally. They may tell you the logical truth, but Neptune distorts reality, serving you deception on a silver platter. Their stories? Just stories. Their facts? Laced with fallacy. The more you believe them, the deeper you sink into their illusion. Mercury meeting Neptune is a mind game, and these people should never be taken at face value. If you want the truth, press them for details or fact-check everything yourself.

Neptune in the 1st House: False Images 👹

Chameleons by nature, these people reflect whatever you want to see. You might think they’re intelligent, witty, creative, and exciting, but in reality, they’re just mirroring you. They aren’t themselves—they are you. Do you love them, or are you just falling for your own reflection? One night, you think they’re the best thing ever; the next, you realize you were the best thing all along.

Pluto Conjunct Mercury: Mind Sculptor’s 👹

Who needs telepathy when you have Pluto conjunct Mercury? These individuals can read your mind, slip into your psyche, and rearrange your thoughts like they’re redecorating a room. They are master manipulators. Speak to them without critical thinking, and you’ll fall right into their web.

Extreme manipulation with their words? Absolutely.

Gaslighting so subtle you won’t even realize it? Absolutely.

Persuading you to do something against your will while making you think it was your idea? Absolutely.

Throwing complex words at you just to confuse you into submission? Absolutely.

These people weave deception so skillfully that by the time they’re done, you’ll swear every lie they told was the undeniable truth.

Gemini Stellium- The Charismatic Persuader 👹

Masters of persuasion, these people instinctively understand the art of manipulation. They can talk you into anything, and they’ll do it with charm—smiling while they lead you astray. They could serve you poisoned tea with a friendly chat, and you wouldn’t realize it until it’s too late.

Gemini flips the script effortlessly. They tell stories from multiple angles, blending truth and fiction so seamlessly that you won’t know which is which. Mercury rules them, so their words are powerful, but remember: they’re air. Here today, gone tomorrow. Believe them today, and they might disappear tomorrow.

Pisces Stellium- Pulling You Into Their Fantasies 👹

Ever met someone who lies, but when you call them out, they insist you’re the one lying? They twist the story so well that suddenly, you feel like the guilty party. That’s a Pisces Stellium for you.

The thing is, they don’t even think they’re lying. They believe their own fabrications so deeply that, to them, their lies become truth. But to you? It still feels like deception. Their world is a blur of misinterpretation, making trusting them a double-edged sword. They may have good intentions, but their version of reality is… unreliable.

Venus Square Neptune- Love Bombers 👹

This is the kind of lover who pulls you in with an irresistible fantasy. The charm, the allure, the magnetism—it’s all there. But Venus clashing with Neptune means that the love they offer is an illusion.

They lead you on. They love-bomb you. They make you believe in a fairy tale, only to reveal that they can’t actually sustain it. Practical acts of love—simple hugs, kisses, affirmations, or even basic care—become difficult for them over time. The more you crave their love, the more distant it seems. Falling for them feels magical at first, but eventually, you’ll realize you were in love with a dream.

Scorpio Mars: Patient Manipulators 👹

They want what they want, and they’ll do whatever it takes to get it. Manipulation? A given. Twisting situations to their advantage? Absolutely. Crossing moral lines without hesitation? Without a doubt.

These people are calculated and stealthy—you won’t see their moves coming until it’s too late. When it comes to taking action, they strike from the shadows. And that’s exactly why you should never underestimate them.

Mercury in the 12th House: Self-Sabotage Leaders 👹

The worst mistake you can make is seeking advice from someone with Mercury in the 12th house. Not because they mean harm, but because they don’t even know what’s going on in their own mind—let alone yours.

Take their words with a grain of salt. They might be sincere in the moment, but ask them tomorrow, and they’ll probably change their stance. Even if they remember what they said, they’ll reanalyze it, rethink it, and conclude that wasn’t exactly what they meant. Meanwhile, you’ve already acted on their advice—only to realize it led you nowhere.

These people don’t just deceive others; they deceive themselves.

Mercury Square Uranus: Lives For The Chaos 👹

Chaos meets intellect in this placement. These individuals are brilliant, but they thrive on disruption. They say things to stir the pot, provoke reactions, and create controversy just for the thrill of it.

They love shock value, whether it’s through pranks, arguments, or saying something outrageous just to see how you’ll react. Trusting them is risky because, for them, stirring chaos is entertainment. And sometimes, that entertainment comes at your expense

Scorpio Moon: Controlling Your Feelings 👹

Yes, I said it. Scorpio Moon is a master manipulator.

They feel emotions so deeply that you’d never even know what they’re truly experiencing. They could love you, hate you, or be obsessed with you all at once—but their poker face keeps you guessing. Detached on the surface, but deeply entangled underneath, they sink their emotional hooks into you before you even realize it.

Their form of manipulation? Emotional control. They make you think they don’t care, even when they’re completely fixated on you. They play mind games, hold power in relationships, and use their intensity to maintain control. Their emotions are their weapon, and deception is just part of the game.