#both plot wise and thematically

[theopolis]

Man Spectacular #200 will always be the spiritual finale of Spider-Man comics to me

[strangerthingsfanworkrecs]

Artist Highlight: Stervrucht

This week, we're highlighting @stervrucht! All recs this week will be for her work, both fics and arts. @stervrucht writes, and draws for the Stranger Things Fandom for Harringrove and Steddie. We're highlighting Ster for her digital art pieces with expressive faces and dreamy, almost water-colory brush strokes, and her visceral Harringrove fics.

You should check out her ongoing fic, There's a gap where we meet for some incredibly poetic feral wet cat depictions of Billy, and check out her Ster draws st tag for her art.

She answered some questions about her work under the cut

Why Stranger Things?

I've always drifted between fandoms. I started reading Harringrove back when season 2-3 aired, left, came back and discovered Steddie, left again until I picked up writing and drawing in 2024. The ST fandom had been extremely welcoming and met many wonderful people.

What's your favorite ship (platonic or romantic) to create for?

I love many ships and what I create for largely depends on what a story or artwork is trying to convey. Each pairing has its own vibe and I try to flow with that. I think if I had to pick just one, it would be Harringrove.

What's your typical writing process like?

Get a hot drink and a blanket and settle on the sofa. I have playlists for each fic so I put that on. I don't really plan my stories thoroughly, but I generally have some events I'm working towards. Other than that I let the characters' emotions guide me.

What's your typical drawing process like?

I seek out references, draw a crude sketch, put down rough colours, and then paint over top. I especially enjoy doing speedpaints because they force you to capture the raw essentials and embrace imperfection.

Do you have a favorite tool or brush set for your drawings?

I use Krita with its default brushes. My favourite brushes are Bristles-4 glaze and Chalk-soft

What has been your favorite project so far? Why?

Writing 'There's a Gap where we meet' has been lovely. I enjoy writing Billy's voice. It's very different from Steve or Eddie.

What has been your hardest project so far? Why?

That's probably 'The Graveyard Shift' and my Big Bang fic. There's a lot of plot and world-building. I've never tackled a project like that before.

Have you ever had a creative block? How did you get over it?

Just do something else. If I can't draw, I write and vice versa. If neither is working, I read.

Is there a big source of inspiration for you? Books? Art? Games?

I have a lot of love for Anne Rice's writing, both stylistically and thematically. Art-wise I love impressionist painters like Monet and van Gogh.

Is there an upcoming project you're particularly excited about?

I have so many things brewing and I'm equally excited about all of them.

[transformers-synergize]

so is the first chapter just human characters? ):

No, it's not just human characters. Chapter 1 part 2 will be posted tomorrow, and it has robots, please be patient.

If you are a transformers fan who dislikes any humans in transformers media for the fact they are human, then Synergize is probably not going to be your thing, sorry. Synergize focuses a lot on human and cybertronian relationships. Synergize is an ensemble cast with multiple characters who get a decent amount of focus, some of those characters being human, I intend to put just as much care and time into developing the human characters as I do the bots. The human characters are not an afterthought or something I'm adding just because I felt like it, they are important members of the cast, both the human cast and cybertronian cast are essential for each other development/character arcs. cybertronian in Synergize are written to be much more alien than in most Transformers media. Synergize's cybertronains have more alien-like behavior, morals, instincts, social dynamics, social structure, anatomy and society, having human characters to contrast that help better show the alienness of the bots. Along with having a character who can learn about the bots alongside the reader and ask questions a cybertronian character wouldn't. It also creates a lot of interesting human bot dynamics and plot opportunities.

Human characters also have an extreme amount of plot utility, Sure, they can't fist-fight a giant bot, but that is not the only way a character can be useful. They have more knowledge on Earth than the bots, so even an unintelligent human has at least a little useful Earth knowledge a cybertronian wouldn't know. Earth is built to cater to humans, and my bots don't have Haloform, so if they need something done only a human can do, then they gotta rely on a human to do it. Humans are also great for disguise, and my bots are trying to stay hidden, getting pulled over and having a human in the driver's seat is way less suspicious than a car driving itself. Humans are small and quiet even compared to small cybertronian, humans joints and internals usually don't make as much noise, along with humans having a much fainter energy signal, making them perfect for stealth and sneaking around. A human might not be able to fight a robot, but if they are mechanically inclined, they could learn how to fix/repair cybertronians. Once you know how to fix cybertronians, you can usually figure out sneaky little ways to break one without needing to be a giant robot (though you still have to risk getting close to one). Humans are immune to some very common cybertronian security systems and weapon types, magnets, EMP devices, malware, and stasis tech, yes, humans are squishy, but you're not gonna kill one with magnets or EMP blast or by trying to give them malware. Also, humans are also just smaller and can fit in more places. Humans are clever creatures, and even though they aren't as strong as a bot, it doesn't mean they can't contribute a lot. Not every plot features human characters, but most do because of both their utility to the plot and the fun dynamics they have with many of the bot characters.

Synergized as a story, both plot structure-wise and thematically, does not work without human characters.

[discountbottom]

What did your dad think of the changes made from mickey7 to the movie? Did he have a lot of input? I loved both adaptations!

Well director Bong was always very upfront that it was going to be pretty different, but they talked for a while when he started writing the script about what Ed felt was really important to carry over like thematically. After that he had no input whatsoever, but he loves how the movie came out! It's tonally and plot wise very different, but it's a really cool adaptation and he's mostly just jazzed that people know about his stories and like his characters lol

[visenyaism]

to what degree do you think jaehaerys is supposed to have a good or bad legacy from GRRM’s point of view? like the books paint him as having this legacy of being a wise pragmatist, and the perspectives in fire & blood back that up superficially even if it’s not hard to see how his decisions directly led to civil war and oppression. is that intentional or just an accident of asoiaf being a good critique of monarchy in general? is the text saying that monarchy is bad because not every king is jaehaerys, or is it bad because even its greatest mythologized figures worked towards its corruption?

genuinely no clue. to me it is one of the biggest points of dissonance both plot-wise and thematically in the whole series. If i want to be generous id say that it’s clear that Jaehaerys is remembered as a Good King, like the best possible ruler in the monarchical system, and this is BECAUSE he is unambiguously just a terrible person to his family because that’s what feudalism mandates and that familial destruction causes the civil war? To me this SHOULD be the point, but somehow it is NOT because fire and blood and the main series don’t really draw any particular conclusions about the ethics of Jaehaerys’ rule.

You get to fire and blood and he is just not singularly a standout politician despite everyone saying he is? as a ruler he is not fantastically distinct from maegor the cruel other than their relationship to the faith. He built a bunch of stuff, but most of the reforms were his wife or his septon’s idea and he doesn’t really get enough to demonstrate competence as a ruler. One standout is that he’s so inexplicably terrible at making marriage alliances like he somehow seems genuinely surprised any time one of his kids comes of age and needs a spouse and the only logical explanation for the bonkers matches he makes for his children seems to be active malice against them. His actions specifically his misogyny against Rhaenys literally caused the dynasty destroying civil war.

and if the similarities between the two were the point, the book was making, I would be pretty interested. like yeah they both build all these things but their entire legacy is built on reproductive coercion and violent misogyny. Jae and Maegor both got their start by usurping Rhaena. Jaehaerys is actually worse in terms of how he treats his mother. Maegor actually named a female heir at one point while Jaehaerys refused to do so at multiple points. Like his uncle Jae was also obsessed with making children and forced his wife to have THIRTEEN of them even though she begged him not to. Jaehaerys had someone hold his teenage daughter down and make her watch as he chopped her boyfriend into small pieces with a sword to punish her for having premarital sex.

all of this is just the plot- not atypical for ASOIAF which really focuses on gender violence as a theme and condemning its entrenchment in the setting. except it’s just depicting a lot of violent misogyny without the commentary or making a point about it because Jaehaerys is Good which is really weird unusually shallow writing.

TLDR: there’s so much dissonance in how he is written: he is described as this fantastic ruler, but doesn’t do a lot of big political moves that maegor didn’t, he’s a terrible person, but is never really called out for this by anyone in the text in ways kings like Baelor are. What’s the point? What IS the text trying to say about Jaehaerys? I would also like to know.

[oh-no-its-bird]

Dungeon Meshi Naruto founders AU

I want either Madara or Izuna as Falin. Thematically I think Izuna would fit best, but I kind of just wanna see chimera Madara more than Izuna. Also like, smthn smthn Madara's falcons smthn smthn bird boy,,,

Very torn between Tobirama being stand in for Marcille or for Thistle. Bc like, dungeon lord Tobirama with his chimera Madara goes so hard

Then again it's not like I have to do a 1 to 1 crossover, so. We can totally just work off of the setting and basic premise of "Oh no one of the party members got got by the dungeon and we have to go back for them" then do our own thing from there

OK SO DUNGEON MESHI AU WERE DOING THIS FR NOW LETS GO

(Note; Ive only watched the anime, so while I have seen a lot of different spoilers for the manga my knowledge plot wise p much ends w season 1)

The party;

Elf Hashirama as healer and plant magic guy

Half elf Tobirama as a heavy hitting mage

Tallman Madara on the physical front as their tank

Tallman Izuna as their secondary physical fighter who plays as a mixed support / dmg depending on the situation and what Madara needs most atm

Touka, undecided on race, similar dmg + support build to Izuna, also dabbles in rogue stuff

Hikaku, also undecided on race, party rogue / jack of all trades and armed with a crossbow

Ok so, Madara gets eaten by a red dragon right as one of the partys magic users (Hashi and Tobi) are using that return spell to go back to the surface

They wake up and Izuna is immediatley like "What the fuck happened to my brother"

Argument ensues! Hashirama and Izuna want to go back for Madara in the very rare case that he may be revivable. Tobirama and Touka thinks he's fucked and they should cut their losses here. Hikaku is somewhere between both parties but his loyalty to Madara wins out and he sides with Hashi and Izuna despite internally agreeing w Tobirama and Touka that it's probably too late.

They go back in and adventures happen!!

The whole time they're going down, Tobirama is grumbling about Madara and how this is doomed and the man is probably dead and blah blah blah. Finally Izuna snaps and yells at him ab why he's even here then, and Tobirama honestly doesn't even know why himself. He just goes dead quiet and has no real response, which satisfies Izuna

Queue internal conflict on Tobirama's part, who largley stops complaining ab their adventure from here on out as he asks himself that same question, then decides to fully commit to the party's goal.

Anyways, continuing on and !!! They find Madara !!! Only oh no he's a pile of fuckin bones!!

Tobirama, again, now fully committed to this shit, is like "I did NOT come this fucking far to turn back now" and breaks out the black magic.

P much everyone is on board with this except maybe Hashirama. Maybe we can have some fun plays with how he's like all about life and nature and ooo leafy elf man or whatever vs Tobirama's blasphemy against life itself necromancy jam

So they bring Madara back with the dragon meet and the power of Tobirama's undying spite, yay !!!

Madara is very confused at all of this, and very out of it. By the time he's started to really come back to himself dinner is over and they're all quietly laying in their bedrolls

I want a quiet confrontation between Madara and Tobirama when everyone's gone to bed. Madara needs some air and finds Tobirama by the seals used to bring him back to life. Madara says that it's not that he's ungrateful, but he is very, very confused at why Tobirama did this. Not only breaking several taboos and laws but doing it for him. Madara didn't even think Tobirama liked him, so why...?

Tobirama scoffs and says not to flatter himself, this was a choice he made for himself, not Madara

They hold very prolonged, silent eye contact surrounded by the blood and bones of the dragon. It's kind of gay.

Izuna appears to break up the staring competition with a well timed "What the fuck are you guys doing" (they'll just have to resume the staring contest later)

They go back to bed fr this time but just like in canon, Madara is woken up by the call of the dungeon master

Enter the mad mage; Mito

Instead of being the brother of the king of the golden kingdom she was instead the wife.

Oh right and the king was a little guy you may know of by the name Ashura. Which brings us a new oh no bc Hashirama is totally that guy's reincarnation and the second Mito lays eyes on him she loses it

But that's not for a little bit. Bc in this first confrontation, Hashirama gets to be conviniently absent till after Mito leaves (and Mito can only recognize him if she sees him in person bc I say so)

So Mito and Tobirama have a super cool mage battle as Izuna tries to shake a non responsive Madara back to himself. Good attempt, doesn't work tho sorry Izuna

Stuff happens, Madara and Mito fuck off, and the party is left back at square 1.

Madaraless :(

So the adventure continues!!

We get Kagami as Izutsumi to be our parties ninja cat boy (Kagami my beloved son,,) which is also extra fun if we wanna play into the parallels of Marcille trying to mom/big sister Izutsumi and Tobirama doing the same to Kagami (Kagami is soaking in the attention he is having a great time rn)

Stuff happens, chimera Madara appears, more adventures happen blah blah blah

Tobirama becomes new dungeon lord and bc I have no idea what goes on from dungeon meshi canon from there I'm just gonna leave that here.

Dungeon lord Tobirama and his pet chimera Madara he's trying to return human tho, that fucks so hard. Even once Madara is human again he still has all those cute feathers like Falin which I think suits him. When he gets all flaily and embaressaed now his feathers can fluff up with his hair too

Anyways, alternative kind of bad end where Izuna was the one who got turned into a chimera and we get definatley not brainwashed guys I promise toxic hashiizumito (Mito is living her best life with her reincarnated Not Kidnapped husband and Not Brainwashed pet chimera)

[resisteverything]

Miraculous ladybug basically forgot the ideas they set up.

Look at the episodes truth and lies. Truth and Lies are very important thematically, as they show both main characters trying to maintain a relationship. And they both show one specific thing. Marinette and Adrien cannot have a serious relationship with someone who does not know their secret identity. Marinette's relationship with Luca fails because she cannot tell him why she keeps disappearing and acting weird. And Adriens relationship with Kagami failed because she was in love with the idealized version of him she saw. She only sees part of him, the part that’s not cat noir.

And yet Marinette and Adrien never learn each others identities, but it turns out their relationship is fine actually in spite of all this. They don’t even have an argument or struggle with this disparity. It's so insane that they dedicated two whole episodes to this concept, some very important episodes plot-wise that resolved a whole several season-spanning arc, and in the end they just used this concept as an excuse for why the alternate relationships fell apart.

[greenerteacups]

Jkr as a writer anon, sorry for the follow up!

I so agree with you! One of the things that I found kind of… not smooth in this transition, is that she wanted the characters to behave in a certain way which would serve the plot and would be very “we knew all along that Harry is a messiah and was supposed to die” while never giving them space for reaction.

Snape is shocked at the revelation that Harry was “brought up like a pig for slaughter”, and he does… nothing. Characters have no time to react to that, too, they have no time to get angry and upset. Hermione and Ron are not even allowed to contemplate that their best friend, a very precious and loved friend, was brought up so that he could sacrifice himself, and that in aligning themselves with him they also became in the eyes of Dumbledore fair targets. An orphan, a sixth Weasley boy and a muggleborn walk into a bar, and no one cares.

I always felt like Sirius was not supposed to die this early. There are empty spaces where his character should have been in later books (regulus mystery feels like something very glaring, no one reacts to that, there is no emotional pay off - that’s what I mean).

And at the end she just slaps Harry calling his kid after Snape and Dumbledore, to shut the plot hole completely. Idk. Feels very… authoritarian to me

So it's really interesting you say that!! Because — and you may know this, so sorry if I'm rehashing — Sirius was only one of several names on the shortlist for the Big Death at the end of Book 5. Miscellaneously it's been said in fandom spaces that Arthur was the "original sacrifice" for OOTP, but to be honest, I can't find any primary sources for that, and I think it's one of these fandom urban legends that people have been shopping around without sources for so long they're accepted. The best I can do is this Leaky Cauldron interview from 2007, where the interviewer asks her "what would have changed if you killed Arthur in Book 5?" Which is not the same thing as her saying that she was going to! But then again, since it's an excerpt, it might have been in response to a remark she made earlier about him being the original. Here's the quote:

I think they would have been very different and it’s part of the reason why I chose my mind (sic) … By turning Ron into half of Harry, in other words by turning Ron into someone who had suffered the loss of a parent, I was going to remove the Weasleys as a refuge for Harry and I was going to necessarily remove a lot of Ron’s humor. That’s part of the reason why I didn’t kill Arthru (sic). I wanted to keep Ron in tact …

Take that as you will. I (a sicko freak) personally love the idea of turning Ron into "half of Harry," conceptually — not necessarily by killing Arthur or Molly but like, the idea of Ron/Harry as foils to each other that are so deeply entwined with each other's lives that they become shadows of each other thematically and plot-wise. Ron yearns to be like Harry and Harry yearns to be like Ron, right? So they both get what they want, and Ron suffers a tragedy, and Harry realizes the terror of having a family to protect. And they trauma-bond over it as they increasingly become the only people who understand each other. Etc. They're destiny, they're chosen soulmates, they're fated to find each other, that's not always a good thing, etc. You know what I'm like.

Incidentally, this is the same interview where we get the infamous "full circle" quote explaining why she killed Lupin and Tonks:

The only other reason I didn’t kill Arthur was that I wanted to come full circle. We started with an orphan, someone who lost their parents because of the war. ANd so I wanted to show it again … Even though you don’t see Teddy, I wanted to express in the epilogue, that he gets an even better godfather than Harry had, because Sirius had ihs (sic) faults, I think we must admit. He was a risky guy to have a s a godfather. Because Teddy gets someone who really has been there, and Harry becomes a really great father figure for Teddy as well as his own children.

So both times, it seems like Arthur's death is contemplated, but he's spared because of what the Weasleys mean to Harry, and the effect it would have on Ron. Which. I've already talked about my thoughts on the Epilogue and Teddy Lupin, so I won't go off about it here. Worth noting, however, that Sirius dies because Book 5 (and this I agree with) wants an "anchoring death," or something to shift the books another step into the dark tone of a war. Book 4 ends with the death of a child; Book 5 ends with death of a parent, an adult. Book 5 is also substantially about disillusionment with the adults around you, and learning to navigate a world of complex, flawed grown-ups who all have substantially more power than you do. So there's a reading where Sirius — someone who's never really "grown up" — dying drives home the lesson of putting childish things aside and seeing people for what they are, etc. Thematically, I'm not mad at it. I am mad at the fact that plot-wise, it bricks up our easiest window into the world of the Blacks, so any first-hand account we could get of Regulus or Narcissa or Bellatrix's upbringing vanishes with him. Tonks and Andromeda theoretically could fill that void, but we never meet Andromeda, and Tonks dies after spending the whole of Book 7 off-page, so we never get that chance to learn what their lives were like. But hey! Can't do everything, I guess.

[weaselandfriends]

What makes you consider Braindead and Camp Fever the pinnacles of the horror genre? And, perhaps related, what makes you consider slasher horror the peak of fiction, besides your previously stated proclivity towards stories where anyone can die and the cast are slowly whittled down to one. If it is just that then what qualities do you think that kind of plot provides that makes those narratives superior?

I exaggerated a bit for comedic effect, I love a wide variety of horror films, including ones that aren't particularly visceral, like The Shining and The Blair Witch Project. But I feel like horror as a genre is all about emotion and feeling. The brain doesn't play a part, and I'm somewhat disdainful of this recent trend of metaphorical horror where "the monster was trauma all along" -- or, alternatively, horror that exclusively cares about the buildup, while avoiding payoff in the form of jumpscares or gore. Horror is the dark inverse of comedy. Its aims are to shank you in the gut and run off before you get a good look at it. The orgiastic gorefests of Braindead, Cabin Fever, and Blood-C tap into that pure, emotional feeling I crave in horror.

As for slashers, as I said earlier I believe the most thrilling question a story can ask is "who will live, who will die?" The semi-faceless expendability of the characters in a slasher movie places all their fates in legitimate doubt, compared to most conventional stories that meticulously signpost whenever a character is slated to die. (Take, for instance, how common it is that the wise mentor dies in a fantasy story.) I find there are actually a lot of slashers that get the core appeal of their genre wrong, expecting instead viewer sympathy for the killer. (This plagues a lot of later Friday and Nightmare films, once their killers became marketable faces.) I also hate the Final Girl trope, where the cast is whittled down to a single survivor at which point there is a tedious, unfathomably boring 20 minute cat-and-mouse climax where there are no actual stakes because any character who could conceivably die is already dead. The best slashers do not fully massacre their casts. They leave several expendable side characters alive, because those are the exact characters for whom the question of life and death weighs most heavy. Scream is a great example, same with Eli Roth's recent Thanksgiving. (Ironically, I think both of these films only leave so many characters alive because they are doubling as murder mysteries and need to keep plausible red herring suspects around.) One of my favorite aspects of Cabin Fever and Blood-C is how they both leave one almost completely random side character alive unscathed by the end. It's that character's survival that makes the question of life and death meaningful, compared to a story where everyone is fated to die.

My main concern writing my own horror story is how difficult it is for me to slip into that purely emotion-driven mindset. I keep wanting everything to mean something, everything to come together thematically. The upside is that, even if I fail, I'm probably the only person that'll begrudge myself; more thematic/metaphorical horror has been well-received by everyone else. But it is always a frustration to fail to live up to your own goals.

[chaos0pikachu]

Filmmaking? In My BL? - The Horror Influences of Dead Friend Forever

Okay off the bat I'ma say that this isn't me definitively saying these specific films or tv series are what inspired 100% DFF. I simply do not know what stuff the screenwriters were pulling from influence wise when writing the script, nor what the director was pulling from when directing the series, with 100% flawless certainty.

Rather, this is a chance to talk more about horror, from films, comics, visuals, and sub-genres and how these various mediums are what I see in the fabric of DFF's horror makeup. Also, general point, this post will be discussing minor spoilers of: Scream, DFF, and Girl from Nowhere. So like, be aware~~

This post is partially inspired by an ask from @italianpersonwithashippersheart in which the anon had mentioned Scream.

I couldn't really respond to this in detail before cause I hadn't watched the series, but I have now and I can say that the show is very thoroughly nothing at all like Scream. I'm not confident in much - other than my inability to reach the top shelf at the market - but I am confident in saying that lol

But this got me thinking, what type of horror IS DFF? I've seen a lot of folks say it's a slasher, and I both agree and disagree.

Horror as a genre is vast with sub-genres, it's probably one of the most universal and popular genres globally, and every culture has their own horror legends, cult classics, mainstays and shlock.

So that's what I'm going to talk about in this post, the slasher genre, why I don't think DFF 100% can be boxed into that sub-genre, what type of horror I think DFF is, and the influences I see in DFF's filmmaking and thematics.

So if we start anywhere, we gotta start with Scream (1996) since that's a comparison I've seen being made a lot.

The main reason I disagree in the comparisons to Scream is that Scream is considered a work of satire first and foremost. Through the power of capitalism and franchising, it's also consider a "whodunit" series.

“Scream” is the first movie of its kind to execute a satire genre within a horror movie, which is one of the most iconic and memorable elements of the film. The original movie makes many references to other well-known horror films and mocks them, while simultaneously leading the same plot points. [...] Although the following films in the “Scream” franchise do not follow as much of the same mockery of horror films, they are still considered to be satirical because of their use of mockery toward the movie franchise. “Scream 2” mocks film sequels and “Scream 3” mocks film trilogies." (source)

[sidenote one of my favorite examples of satirical meta horror is Wes Craven's New Nightmare]

DFF isn't satirizing anything in horror, it's almost entirely self-serious. Sure there's a couple of moments of hilarity - dick biting, and scooter snatchin' - but overall the show plays things pretty straight (gay sex notwithstanding). I've seen some folks claim it's subverting horror tropes, but I don't see that either (would be interested in discussing that tho cause I'm curious).

I get why people make this comparison though, Scream is a 27 yr old franchise, and probably the most relevant slasher franchise currently. The new Halloween movies were...cute but aside from the first Halloween (2018) the rest of the reboot franchise had diminishing returns; each film made less than the previous, and received lower critical scores.

However, Scream has actually grown as a franchise in the States in terms of box office draw. That said, Scream is actually not a huge earner overseas, Scream IV (2023) earned more than 60% of it's box office revenue domestically. In Thailand, according to reports, it only earned about 300,000 (compared to other international territories like Brazil where it earned around 4,600,000).

So I don't think DFF is pulling much from Scream in terms of setting, tone, or story. I do think the show most resembles Scream in directorial style, specifically in the imagery of the Killer's design and in the slow-crawl mask reveals that have happened so far.

[very obviously spoilers for all the scream films watch at your own risk etc, gif by @my-rose-tinted-glasses]

So what is a slasher film or story?

"A slasher movie is a horror sub-genre that involves the murdering of a number of people by a psychopathic killer, typically via a knife or bladed tool (such as a scythe).

In general, the horror genre is known for its fear, violence and terror. It will typically feature a menacing villain, whether it be a monster or a supernatural evil spirit, for example." (source)

Other common but not inherent secondary characteristics of a slasher story will include: young adults as central characters, sex (typically as a means of punishment "sex gets you killed"), the killer is motivated by revenge, lots of gore and/or violent kills and a "final girl".

I point out common but not inherent because the main tenants of a slasher story is the overall body count, female protagonist and a mysterious (typically masked) killer.

For example, in Scream (96) Ghostface is motivated by revenge, however in Halloween (1978), Texas Chainsaw (1974), Prom Night (2008), You're Next (2011) and Wrong Turn (2003) the killers are not.

If there is a western horror franchise or film that the setting of DFF more closely aligns with, it's Friday the 13th (2009). Which was a sequel/reboot to the original Friday the 13th (1980) starring Tumblr's own Jared Padalecki as one of the leads (that was an interesting year as Jensen Ackles also starred in a remake of a classic 80s horror film My Blood Valentine).

In Friday (09) the bulk of the story takes place at a mansion styled cabin in the woods near Crystal Lake owned by one of the characters rich parents. Jason eventually hunts down each of the characters, killing them in various ways, and they even find his home with a shrine to his mother there. There's also like, a lot of sex and nudity in Friday (09) none of it fun or sexy as it's pretty, unfortunately, misogynistic.

Being in an isolated area, like the cabin in the woods in DFF and Friday (09) is also not a requirement within the slasher sub-genre.

Many slasher films, especially American classics during the genres 80s peak, actually take place more often in suburbia rather than in isolated locations like the woods. Which reflected real world anxieties from predominately white communities and a turn towards more conservative politics of that era in America.

"Those same well-kept neighborhoods and quiet backyards of my childhood were also the battlegrounds of the ’80s horror movie, a radical pivot in the genre’s history. The decade’s opening years were bracketed by the kidnappings of Etan Patz (which inspired the Missing Kids on a Milk Carton program) and Adam Walsh (which inspired his father John Walsh to later create the TV show "America’s Most Wanted"). Combined with the conservative turn in crime and punishment law brought on by the Reagan administration, horror appeared to turn from the supernatural curses of the decade before ("The Exorcist," "The Omen") to a homegrown product of our own sins. Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger are psychotic loons but also human beings who come not from afar but from down the street. The possibility that one of them could be lurking just beyond the sliding back door of a sleepover birthday seems too darkly delicious to pass up, a fictional killer standing in for a warning your parents and society gave you about “stranger danger,” real-life evil lurking in the dark." (source)

Isolated settings, while can be a setting in slashers are more often found in psychological horror films: The Strangers (2008), When A Stranger Calls (1979, 2006), Hush (2016). Also the Evil Dead (1981, 1987, 2013).

[The latter has it's own interesting history of wanting to be psychological body horror, to horror comedy cult classic, back to psychological body horror. Honestly if any franchise has influenced the "horror set in a cabin in the woods" it's Evil Dead, which is paid major homage to in Cabin in the Woods (2011).]

Sooooo is DFF a slasher?

Hm, for me, yes and no. Slashers require a high body count and pretty gory deaths. So far we've only had 3 deaths, only two of which were even committed by the killer themselves and not even by their own hand (ie directly).

For me, the slasher elements of DFF exist in the directorial styling of the film, meant invoke a classic slasher film but that's not where the true horror of the story exists.

I'm a big slasher fan, so I'm not trying to discount the sub-genre at all, lots of slasher films are good, and when done well, they're truly scary. But they also tend to be straight forward in design, the fear comes from the feature of being stalked by an unseeable and unstoppable force infiltrating what should be a safe space (your home, your school, your neighborhood, your camp grounds etc).

Which is why slasher films are also the most common horror sub-genre to be parodied (Scary Movie franchise) or made into horror comedies like Freaky (2020), The Final Girls (2015), Happy Death Day (2017), and Totally Killer (2023).

[sidenote slashers have this in common with the zombie sub-genre of horror as zombie films in America have also tended in recent years to be horror comedies or horror action like: Little Monsters (2019), Cooties (2014), Zombieland (2009), Pride Prejudice and Zombies (2016)]

I'd argue that DFF is much more in line with psychological horror than slasher horror. Because it is anything but straightforward and also has a strong emphasis on relationships and isolation as does most psychological horror.

Films like: It Comes At Night (2017), Us (2019), Perfect Blue (1997), A Tale of Two Sisters (2004), The Forgotten (2017), Dark Water (2002) all have similar elements in terms of tone as DFF.

The isolated setting, the allure of the mundane normality being a veneer for the violence lurking beneath the surface, the existence of the paranormal, the use of drugs to increase fear, the unsettling paranoia, and slow burn crawl towards all the characters being unteathered from themselves, the growing distrust between them and their loved ones, the plot twists and turns, the emphasis on human relationships and the horror that comes from those.

The backstory with Non is what pushed the show past slasher horror to psychological horror for me. Because Non's "downfall" as it were, feels more akin to the slow burn psych horror rooted in a lot of Japanese, Thai films/tv shows, and modern A24 style horror films.

The horror of Midsommar (2019) doesn't come from jump scares, or violence, but in slowly watching the protagonist grow more and more unteathered, mistreated, gaslit, more and more with each passing moment, slowly inducted into a horrific cult and being able to do nothing to stop her descent.

A big influence I saw in DFF was Girl from Nowhere (2018); the school setting, the crimes committed by a group of students against a singular student, class exploration, structural violence, the exploration of retribution are all topics explored in the first season of Girl from Nowhere.

Even the series trailer for GFN and the pre-release trailer for DFF are similar in production design and tone:

Titled "BFF" the two-part finale from season 01, is about a high school reunion, where a group of now established adults come back together for a party (their reunion) only to be confronted by their past via Nanno (the shows protagonist for lack of a better term).

Through Nanno we learn about the chars past misdeeds in high school - bullying, physical assault, stealing, the works - and their current crimes as adults. As more and more layers of the truth, lies, and betrayal are revealed, the friend group begins to crack, fracture and turn against each other, growing more and more paranoid and angry.

Nanno tells the group that they've also all been drugged with poison and there's only one vial of antidote left, the "friends" all horrifically murder each other in order to get the antidote. In the end, no one survives. EXCEPT, it was all a mass hallucinate and the group wakes up, remembering everything, and quietly leave one-by-one. No longer friends, no longer not-friends, everyone forever changed by the experience.

It's an unsettling ending that leaves things open ended. This group of friends were responsible for the bullying and death of Nanno (she's fine she's like immortal or something I'm pretty sure GFN was partially influenced by Tomie by Junji Ito) and they simply refused to acknowledge what they did to her, nor talk about her, eventually forgetting she existed until forced too through a traumatic retribution by Nanno herself.

[Nanno from Girl from Nowhere, Tomie from Junji Ito's Tomie series]

DFF has a lot in common, from my perspective, with GFN in terms of tone, themes and even parts of it's story.

Nanno isn't doling out "justice" she doles out retributions, punishments, sometimes they're outright torturous. Whether the recipients "deserve" these punishments or not, is really up to the viewer. The show does a good job of showcasing a wide variety of characters who are unrepentant, sympathetic, and somewhere in between. The fears it plays upon are more slow burn, it boils the characters rather than setting them on fire like slashers do.

DFF is similar in this aspect, it boils the characters. Watching Non's story, you already know at the start it's nothing good. We know from the first flashback something bad has happened to Non, but it's not really something, it's many things - so many things - that have led to whatever tragedy the main group must pay for.

It's these compounding factors one after another that brings Non to a boil, and the same thing happens with Tan/New. The horror of DFF is more about getting under the skin, causing the characters discomfort by forcing them to confront the sins they've committed (is there anything more horrific than being seen? Especially if you ugly?).

I mentioned Junji Ito in reference to Girl from Nowhere, to say Ito has been influential on horror feels like an understatement. His series Tomie has been adapted into 7 different Japanese films, he's won 3 Eisner awards (the highest award you can win in America for comics publishing), along with a slew of awards in Japan, his series Uzumaki has been referenced in super popular anime like Jujustu Kaisen.

A big factor of Ito's work is body horror and psychological horror. His work unsettles, and is very visceral. Since Uzumaki was referenced in DFF I think rather than being influenced by specifically Uzumaki (which DFF doesn't have much in common with in regards to general story) I'd argue the show is more influenced by Ito's desire to unsettle.

[from Uzumaki], 1998]

Also potentially to take symbols of piety, faith and protection (the temple, the cross at the chars high school) and turn them into places of horror for the characters.

Like Ito did with the spiral motifs in Uzumaki, said Ito in an interview:

"The "spiral pattern" is not normally associated with horror fiction. Usually spiral patterns mark character’s cheeks in Japanese comedy cartoons, representing an effect of warmth. However, I thought it could be used in horror if I drew it a different way." (source)

[I am also begging y'all to check out Junji Ito's book Cat Diary it's hilarious, even more so b/c his style of art is so rooted in horror]

I think DFF is actually very Thai in it's exploration of what's unsettling and horrific to youth culture in Thailand currently. The feeling of haplessness, judgement, an inability to exert control over one's circumstances, mental health, consent, bullying, these were themes and topics explored in both seasons of GFN but also some of these were explored in The Whole Truth (2021) a Thai horror/mystery film.

There's a scene in The Whole Truth in which one of the protagonists school friends secretly films their younger sister getting undressed without her knowledge, and when caught, the classmate threatens to release the clip publicly and claim the sister is "a slut". One of the protagonists is also bullied at school - including by this disgusting classmate who they still consider "a friend" - but puts up with it in order to be in a friend group at all (this bullied char also has a physical disability which contributes to their mistreatment at school).

I think DFF is exploring a lot of these same topics but most of the characters are just gay this time around.

Okay I'm losing steam here a bit, this has gotten very long, but overall I'd argue that DFF is much more psychological horror than a slasher, in terms of it's tone, and story. Whilst invoking slasher imagery in it's directorial style.

That said it's much more in line with Thai and Japanese horror than American horror in regards to it's themes. If the series was going to be boiled down just to the basics, I'd quantify it as psychological horror mystery.

And those are my thoughts on DFF and horror, I guess lol I'm not 100% satisfied with this but god damn I'm tired this took forever lmao if y'all made it this far, bless and stay safe out there cause the ship wars are wildin out in these parts.

Check out other posts in the series:

Film Making? In My BL? - The Sign ep01 Edition | Aspect Ratio in Love for Love's Sake | Cinematography in My BL - Our Skyy2 vs kinnporsche, 2gether vs semantic error, 1000 Stars vs The Sign | How The Sign Uses CGI | Is BL Being Overly Influenced by Modern Western Romance Tropes? | Trends in BL (Sorta): Genre Trends

[like these posts? drop me a couple pennies on ko-fi]

[clarythericebot]

Curious--does anyone in the Little Women fandom have any thoughts about Bess/Dan? It's been very long since I've read Jo's Boys (which, honestly, I liked least of Alcott's work) but Dan being in love with Bess was a plot point that stuck out for me.

I feel like they would have made a pretty interesting pair. There are 3 reasons they didn't end up together if I remember correctly, which were: 1) Dan had killed a man (in self-defense + defense of another person I think?) and he is still laden with guilt + Jo herself thinks of him as 'sin-stained' 2) Jo thinks Amy would not approve of the match and low-key warns her to distance her daughter for a while 3) Jo thinks that Bess is too cool and maidenly(?) something along those lines to return the affection.

#2' definitely true, and I can see why Jo warns Amy away (it's completely reasonable even if there's part of me that dislikes her for it--if her parents were okay with letting her marry a poor professor twice her age and with dependents, why can't she and Amy entertain Bess being with one of Jo's best students?). But #3 really is an outright assumption, and we don't have enough of Bess to confirm what she would have felt either way, I think. There really might have been a chance--they both appreciate beauty and admire the goodness in each other in different ways.

And #1 is just an interesting conflict. Dan is sorry. I think he even confesses to a priest. It reflects on him that the death weighs so heavily. But I don't like that Alcott keeps him like that, potentially forever (I suppose this is a separate though related thought from his relationship from Bess). He doesn't find peace and that makes me so sad. And again, I was very much bothered by Jo calling him in her head sin-stained when he is clearly trying to atone. It felt strange of her character.

Dan/Bess would've been interesting, both character-wise (I think Dan would have appreciated Bess' gentle nature and enlivened it, and Bess could've made Dan softer and directed his protective instincts) and thematically (of course you can be forgiven--true goodness can see your sin, embrace you in the midst of it, and accompany you to your salvation).

Buuut that's just me. Curious if anyone has any thoughts on this.

[wearethekat]

December Book Reviews: Dazzling by Chikodili Emelumadu

I decided to read this book because it was on author KJ Charles' best reads of 2024 list. In Dazzling, two Nigerian preteen girls are entangled with a malicious spirit. Ozoemena has inherited the power of the leopard from her father, along with a responsibility to protect the innocent--and meanwhile, Treasure has made a sinister deal with a spirit to resurrect her dead father.

Emelumadu approaches the narrative from a literary fiction perspective rather than a fantasy perspective. Despite the ghost and magic leopard heavy plot summary, this is a book that's primarily interested in making a thematic point about the struggles of young girls in a patriarchal society, about the grief of losing your father, about what true justice means. It's not particularly interested in exploring the implications and complexities of the fantasy worldbuilding elements. They're just present to introduce a novel situation and tie the narrative into West African folklore.

While this isn't a book that's concerned with making detailed commentary about Nigerian history and politics, the narrative is still a glimpse into a culture that will be unfamiliar to many of its readers. For instance, Ozoemena's fancy boarding school requires students to bring all their water for bathing and drinking with them in big jugs, and Treasure's mother has her visit an expert when she starts seeing the ghost. In addition, while both girls' narration has a strong character voice, Treasure's first person perspective especially is in a strong dialect that might be either a draw or a turn-off, depending on your taste.

Not quite my cup of tea genre-wise, but you certainly can't say it's derivative. Fascinating, original, and solidly executed.

[lonelyroommp3]

This is partially cope, but I think the copious easter eggs do a great job of showing how intertwined the years of champions are. Like shows the links through the years in an effective way and I found myself intrigued by just how long a revolution has really been brewing

i think a thing can be two things at once. like i think haymitch's mentors being mags & wiress is, as you've said, a good additional glimpse at how intertwined the years of victors are, as we already got to see from katniss's outsider pov in catching fire (and i did really like sotr's explanation of wiress's mental state by the time we meet her in catching fire). and i agree that there's a lot of really fascinating questions raised by sotr's attempt at the arena breaking rebellion that we later see achieved to completion in catching fire (question 1 being how many other tributes were roped into this between the two quarter quells, and question 2 being how the hell did plutarch get away with this shit for so long because my guy is NOT subtle lol). i even think a lot of the district 12 details make sense, like it's a small district with a small rural community vibe and as much as you want to be like "oh of COURSE we have to meet katniss's parents and peeta's dad" it does kind of make sense that everybody knows everybody and this goes back for generations, as would be the case in any small appalachian mining town in the united states right now.

ON THE OTHER HAND - it does get slightly tiring, and disrupts the flow of the story a little, when you are constantly faced with name drops and easter eggs clearly presented in a way where the aim is to make you do that one meme, no matter their level of genuine plot relevance & thematic significance. i also think it's preferable sometimes to let some questions go unanswered - like, i want some things from katniss's story to be able to stand on their own two feet without constantly being neatly tied back to an earlier instalment. i think it sort of weakens the original trilogy the more the threads come together to make her into some sort of cosmically predestined chosen one with inextricable connections to everything that has gone before. in general the whole "everything has been connected since day one" vibe from prequels just isn't something i enjoy because unless you approach it with extreme moderation it just gets to a point where it feels a) unrealistic and b) like fanservice at the extent of plot, and i don't think sotr quite gets that balance right.

and although i think it's a better paced novel than tbosas by miles (especially in their final third) i still prefer how tbosas functions as a prequel largely because it situates the reader in an almost entirely different world to the original trilogy both setting wise and temporally, which means it a) gets to show us entirely new and fresh sides of the hunger games universe (i would literally watch an entire trashy gossip girl-esque teen drama about everyday life at the academy prior to the events of that book) and b) doesn't feel as constricted by the encroaching weight of the main series in the near future. funnily - and i'm not just saying this because i'm a tbosas girlie - for the most part i actually enjoyed the callbacks to tbosas far more than the foreshaowing of the main trilogy for, i think, these exact reasons. because it feels more like drawing threads between two disparate worlds, but the ability to invoke cause and effect instead of reverse engineering foreshadowing into place means those threads are drawn in a way that reads less like authorial desperation to prove that It's All Connected And Always Has Been

[archer3-13]

zenos is funny because i really didnt give a fuck about him until halfway through endwalker. every time he was on the screen i was like UGH this fucking guy again. can we go do something else.

now i think his actions and philosophy complement the central theme of endwalker pretty well. hes still fucking annoying tho. i dont really get why so many people are into him like, sexually. i mean, i KNOW, hes a yandere anime boy. but he is repulsive to me.

oh he absolutely does work for what endwalker wants to do. thematically he fits, plotting wise he fits etc. etc. then you actually get to the man himself and the only emotion i can really work up for him at this point is annoyed indifference and maybe the niggling desire to humiliate the fuck out of him that i know the narrative absolutely will not grant me the opportunity to do both because they're making a point and also because they think hes so much cooler and threatening then he actually is.

and a lot of these complaints i could probably throw at fandaniel as well, but the important difference there i would argue is that well mandaniel is also an annoying shitheel, the narrative is plainly aware of that fact and intentionally playing it up to derive the complexity of his character from. bananadaniel is a man putting on an elaborate theatrical show, a pantomime parody of death and destruction very deliberately making fun of and devaluing the goals, values and personhoods of the unsundered ascians in the expansion right after the one that put a ton of effort into humanizing the ascians struggles and goals. as much as he seems to enjoy the charade, its also very clear its an act to facilitate what he actually wants.

the sad thing about all this too is that i usually enjoy edgy characters. not often for the reasons others do, but in my time i've been a firm enjoyer of edgy the hedgy shadow the hedgehog even before his public opinion turnaround to being cool again. zenos theoretically is right up in my wheelhouse, but i just can't escape the sense that zenos is so incredibly plastic and fake about the whole thing.

a bored fancypants rich kid who only ever really had daddys money but convinced himself he was hotshit anyways. a man whos great physical, political and mental strength being more so the virtue of his privileged upbringing then anything truly special about his own individual qualities. and yet the narrative frustratingly never seems interested enough in interrogating the notion that zenos is representative of the garlean empires failings as a whole. the ultimate concentration of wealth, power and privilege in a single person.

ah, im rambling now. this probably got out of hand but i hope the answer satisfied ya.

[piratespencil]

Ranking all of the One Piece movies I've watched recently based on how much I personally enjoyed them.

7. Film Z: I liked this one thematically. I think it's the first post-timeskip movie and you can really feel the change in both the world and the crew, which is cool. Plot-wise I found it mildly confusing and not as fun as the others, though. Also I wanted to see more of the Straw Hats turned into babies.

6. Stampede: Seeing all the Supernovas team up was fun, though this movie definitely kind of felt like an excuse to just have as many fan-favourite characters in one movie as possible. (It was the 20th anniversary though so I'll give it to them.) I did really like Usopp's little arc in this movie - any time Usopp gets to shine makes me happy, and Usopp carrying Luffy's unconscious body across the battlefield got me emotional... Also Mihawk's like ten second appearance in this movie just to show up Zoro at meteor-slicing skills was funny as hell.

5. Strong World: This one was pretty good! Cool setting, cool outfits, and fun sub-divisions of the crew. (Zoro & Chopper, Sanji & Usopp, and Brook & Franky & Robin are such good mini groups.) Also it's sort of a thematic successor to Nami's backstory which hits right in the heart.

4. Curse of the Sacred Sword: This one actually had a very cool premise, and some fun character pair ups. (Loved Luffy and Usopp's little side quest.) Also Zoro's history with Saga was gay as hell, and Saga and Maya and Toma were all great characters, I liked them a lot.

3. Film Red: The vibes in this movie are cool as hell, especially towards the end. Kinda surreal and trippy with cool music. Also fun to flesh out Shanks and Luffy's backstory, and Uta is a cool character herself. Also Law and Barto and Coby and Helmeppo are all in this one and I <3 them. (Kind of the same vibe as Stampede when it comes to piling on the fan-favourite characters but I liked the plot more than Stampede so. It gets to be higher on the list.)

2. Film Gold: I love a good casino heist. Straw Hats doing a casino heist?? Fun as hell. Love that Zoro is the one who needs rescuing in this one. Love that Nami has a whole thing with her thief rival ex girlfriend. Also maybe it's because of the heist structure, but the plotting of this movie feels tighter than a lot of the others. Would definitely watch this one again.

1. Baron Omatsuri and the Secret Island: Still my favourite one!! This one is just so cool and bizarre. This one and Red are the only ones that I've watched multiple times. I love the vibes and the art style. Love that it turns into a freaky horror movie by the end. If you're only going to watch one of them, watch this one.

Anyways, these are all of the ones I've watched so far... Are any of the other ones worth watching? Let me know!

[inbarfink]

Okay, so I just found out that I can watch the whole 2015 stage production of ‘Shock Treatment’ on YouTube and, like, I have… so many thoughts and feelings. It really does demonstrate how Shock Treatment’s biggest flaws is just how unfocused and messy and… just needing one or two more rewrites to reach it's full potential. 

Like there are a few tweaks to the dialogue that makes the whole narrative a bit simpler and easier to comprehend, the satire is a bit more focused on the core themes, I thought most of the jokes were pretty solid (and the more sexual ones offer somewhat of a stronger thematic link to ‘Rocky Horror’) and now there’s actually Shock Treatment in the plot of Shock Treatment!

I do really like how they tweaked the lyrics of some of the song to smooth over some of the remnant ‘these were written for a very different RHPS sequel and re-fitted into this plot’ weirdness. I especially like ‘I they need some young blood’ and the change to the title line in ‘Looking for Trade Fame’ and ‘Look what I you/he did to my Id” (meaning Farley). Sometimes ya just need to change just one lil' pronoun and the whole-ass song makes a lot more sense. 

But the biggest positive change this Stage Version brought is the cast. Because ‘Shock Treatment’ the movie just has way too many characters. Like, look at this compared to RHPS’ cast list.

While this is maybe a natural result of the setting shift from an isolated castle to a whole town, it also leaves a lot of the secondary cast feeling flat and with no real space to develop. Comparing both of Little Nell’s roles is probably the best example. Nurse Ansalong is fun and Nell's performance is great as usual, but she’s just kinda around to be a RHPS nod and so Little Nell has Something to Do in this movie and an excuse to run around in a sexy nurse’s outfit. And these are all noble goals but… well, Columbia was an actual character, as campy as RHPS is, she was a character with emotions and pathos and tragedy and an important narrative and thematic role. Ansalong just never had the time to develop into someone with even a tenth of that depth.

(It also makes ‘Shock Treatment’ waaaay harder to Shadow Cast.)

So the stage version just cutting her out and… basically cutting everyone out except for Brad, Janet, Farley, the two Dr. McKinleys, Betty and Ralph just gives a much better chance for all of these characters to feel like actual people. Campy, exaggerated cartoony people - but definitely people. 

Like, we get to spend a little more time on making the manipulation of Janet into a superstar feel more gradual and convincing. Which both help her work better as… basically the Emotional cornerstone of the whole story and make the villains feel more despicable and more competent. Which of course really helps the two Dr. McKinleys since all of Farley’s other minions have been cut. In general they get more opportunity to say funny stuff and can really see how they use their faux psychology and therapyspeak to control people. 

....There's some level where I maybe think this script went a little too far in the other direction. That it's kinda disappointing that this Janet didn't never quite go off the deep end like her movie counterpart did. In general this version's slightly more.... grounded vibe - compared to the Movie's kinda Surrealist Nightmare Vibe - is one of the things I feel most conflicted about.

Like on one hand, this kinda campy nonsense world where gameshow hosts committing husbands to mental asylums and living your whole life on a sound-stage are normal is one of the most compelling parts of 'Shock Treatments' satire and it's kind of a shame to lose it... but also this more grounded tone creates a story that it's easier to follow an, more importantly, emotional stakes it's easier to get invested in. I think the Ideal Perfect Version of Shock Treatment’ that Exists Only in My Brain would be, tone-wise, in the middle between the movie and the stage show, but also maybe lean more towards the stage version?

The added details that Brad and Janet’s marriage has been hitting a rough patch because Brad has been fired from his job just as Janet has gotten a promotion (which I think is a detail from "The Brad and Janet Show" draft that was dropped from the 'Shock Treatment' movie?) adds some thematic resonance about the characters dealing with the Changing Times, the idea that Brad might feel emasculated with Janet’s success while has been (temporarily) regulated to the role of a househusband is maybe understandable but it is also understandable why it would frustrate Janet and thus lives her open to the McKinley's manipulations. Again, the characters are still kinda campy, still kinda silly - but having a bit of grounding for Brad and Janet’s relationship does help when this is basically… all the emotional stakes in the story.

Now, in the Ideal Perfect Version of Shock Treatment’ that Exists Only in My Brain, the rift in Brad and Janet relationship would’ve been created by the lingering effects of the events in the Frankenstein's Place. Janet would rather pretend they never happened but Brad is still visibly reeling from that time he got forced-femmed by aliens. And although the events of ‘Rocky Horror' did definitely happen in this version, it’s mentioned as just a throwaway joke (“We’ve been through so much together! Infidelity, homicide, aliens, fishnet stockings… and that’s just the engagement party”). Still, it was a funny throwaway joke - and the promotion-and-firing idea they went with makes thematic sense in this version of ‘Shock Treatment’. 

Farley Flavors also get a bit of a ‘boost’ from the trimmed cast but… honestly the changes to his character are the ones I am most split about. Because this version of Farley Flavors is generally better because there’s a bit more… flavor to him. A more visibly wacky personality, a few more gimmicks to him. And when I first saw him I was actually… pretty hyped about him as the main villain.

Because, okay, the main problem with Farley as a villain is that, despite Cliff De Young’s excellent performance, he really is just another Evil 80’s Businessman and that feels a bit bland in the wacky world of Rocky Horror. Like, the whole ‘long-lost twin brother’ twist is supposed to feel like the counterpart to the Alien Twist in RHPS and a parody of stupid soap opera twists in general. But… the thing is that even before we found out he was an alien, Frank was already an incredibly distinctive and unique character. Being revealed as an alien in the last act of the story doesn’t define him.

But since Farley doesn’t have as much going for his character, the stupid parody long-lost brother twist does end up being his defining trait and it makes his whole character feel lackluster because… it’s a stupid parody twist! 

But since Twenty-Fifteen Farley is Fairly Far-Fetched right from the get-go this means the twist has more of a chance to feel more like the original Aliens Twist. Plus, there’s bits of dialogue here and there that feel like Foreshadowing. Farley constantly reiterates that Denton is his hometown, and that he’s a self-made man (which connects to the briefly-alluded-to implication that he was adopted into a poorer family than Brad’s and that's the source of his resentment), him saying some very Ominous Things to Bard at the end of ‘Lullaby’

And then…. It turns out this version decided to cut the long-lost twin thing!

Which… honestly I probably should’ve seen coming from the casting choices. 

And like, I see the logic here. Obviously the double-casting gimmick does not work on stage, that was supposed to be a parody of soap-opera twists and that element is a lot more downplayed in this version of ‘Shock Treatment’ and like… since this plot point has been already been heavily criticized in the film version I can see why they would want to cut it. 

But… it’s not just that I feel like this twist would’ve worked better in this version it’s also that… cutting this plot point and replacing it with nothing just makes Brad - who is already kinda relegated into glorified McGuffin for most of this story - feel like he had even less to do with the plot and makes Farley’s apparent animosity for Brad even more inexplicable and shoddy.

Like, Farley still says he chose Janet ‘because of [Brad]’ so I guess we’re supposed to believe that he just finds Brad to be such a massive lameo that it makes him seethe with a burning hatred of a thousand suns. Which is an even flimsier motivation than that Twin Stuff in the movie. 

‘Duel Duet’ always has that problem that it was originally written for two characters with a very powerful well-established rivalry and emotional stakes (Dr. Frank N’ Furter and Riff-Raff) and then had to be transplanted into being about these two schmucks who barely even know each other. And removing the Twin Twist just kinda removes whatever emotional stakes they did have and exacerbates the problem. 

.....Honestly, I think the main way to really ‘fix’ Duel Duet is… instead of that one kinda ‘Girl Power’ moment they tried to give Janet that I feel is a bit too heavy-handed and obvious…

Just make ‘Duel Duet’ a Farley versus Janet song!

Like, Janet is unquestionably THE Main Character of the story with the most important emotional journey of all of the characters, she was the core target of Farley’s manipulation and the focus of his schemes, she’s the one who actually got to interact with him and developed any sort of relationship with him, the focus of this scene is on how Janet realizing she has been used by him, she already spends all of Duel Duet physically kicking his ass…

Janet should also be the one to musically face-off against Farley, especially if you remove the only reason why Farley has to hate Brad so much. Like, yeah, she does get to beat him physically... but because this is a musical - the Songs are the thing that gets the biggest emotional and narrative priority. The person who gets to Duel Duet with the Farley is the person who really beats him. And this is really moment that should belong to Janet in this version of the story.

And maybe removing one of the few Things Brad actually gets to do in this plot which is also his Big Musical Number would kinda suck for him, but… well, this version also gives Brad a nice lil’ Triumphant Reprise of ‘In My Own Way’ where he reaffirms his love for Janet and maybe you can expand that into his Big Musical Number and… y’know, if the rift in their marriage was at least kinda about Brad’s insecurities about Janet becoming the Main Breadwinner of the household… Maybe it’ll be a good resolution to his story to embrace being Janet’s little Damsel in Distress?

(I mean, I think this is an element in this musical as it is but.... but you could've leaned into it more!)

And with both Oliver Wright and Macy Struthers cut, that gives more material to make Betty’s character more interesting. Without Oliver, Betty generally gets to talk about her ongoing investigation with Janet - and that means the two of them get to have more interactions and a more visible friendship. And on the other hand, She starts out as Ralph Hapshatt’s cohost, putting on a very Macy-esque false smile and pretending they’re still happily married. It’s a fun, character-specific spin on the whole ‘falsehood of television’ motif of ‘Shock Treatment’. 

(Also since Oliver is cut, it means Betty, Janet and Brad sing “Anyhow, Anyhow” as a trio. Which… I think that means they’re gonna have a threesome. And you know what? I support Janet Majors and her two girlfriends!)

And Ralph… really got the biggest boost in personality from the trimming of the cast - especially as most of the singing roles of these cut characters for assigned to him. Like, okay, I think something that’s kind of a problem with the ending of the original ‘Shock Treatment’ is how… unambiguous it is when compared to ‘Rocky Horror’. 

Because ‘Rocky Horror’ has a very morally ambiguous cast - pretty much every character has some element that makes them at least a little bit sympathetic and also… well, if not morally wrong than at least an (Audience Participation Voice) ASSHOLE (but also yeah, a lot of them are morally reprehensible even when working against other morally reprehensible characters). And the ending leaves it ambiguous whatever Frank got what he deserves or whatever his death is a tragedy, or some combinations of the two. Not to mention the ambiguity of what happened to Brad and Janet; whatever they’ve been liberated or exploited or corrupted and whatever or not they’re better off being left behind on earth or remaining in Frank’s clutches.

And meanwhile ‘Shock Treatment’  has a VERY clear-cut ending. There is a unambiguous differentiation between the characters who are the Good Guys, and those who are Bad Guys and those who are the Bad Guys’ Gullible Victims. And, like, yeah, all the Bad Guys succeeded in their evil scheme and and are now basically literally rolling in cash

…but literally any character who has any redeeming qualities gets to happily escape this Nightmare Studio while singing a cheery song about sex. 

Even Oscar Drill and the Bits, who are quite literally Bit Characters and have very little characterization or connection to our Main Foursome, get to escape. Basically just because what little we got from them made them seem like a nice group of young gays and they never did anything bad. 

And all of the people who stayed behind were portrayed as such exaggerated cartoonish bigoted caricatures literally rushing in excitement to get themselves exploited. Nor do we get any moment for our protagonists to show any sort of concern or regret or sadness about these people who they've known all of their lives. So it’s really hard to care about them as, like, Real People who've been duped into being ground down by this awful machine of capitalism and conformism. 

I understand the idea that having a wider cast makes Denton feel more like a Town compared to the isolated feeling of the Frankenstein’s Place, and that seeing all of these people fall for Farley’s bullshit in their own slightly-different ways help drives home how prevalent and influential and powerful this capitalist proudly-selfish image-obsessed philosophy really is. But… none of these characters get enough time to develop into anything but shallow parodies of Society. There’s just not enough humanity in them to sell even an ounce of the tragedy of Columbia and Rocky's deaths. 

So condensing all of these slightly-different characters into Ralph Hapshatt… that really made him the most complicated and morally-ambiguous character in this whole musical. Because, yeah, he is a self-obsessed sexist asshole driven primarily by a desire for fame and fortune but…

We spend enough time with him to humanize him. To see how he’s struggling with internalized homophobia and how he does have his doubts about what Farley and Co. are doing to his best friends even if his thirst for fame keep winning the moral battle and that said thirst for fame is pretty obviously born from a desperate need for love and validation that this homophobic corporate world just can’t give him.

So when the show ends with him being happily strapped unto to the Shock Treatment device he illegally modified with his own two hands because he just can’t allow himself to refuse a chance to star on TV - on some level this is karma, but it’s also a grim reminder that even if our threesome of heroes are happy and free, this exploitative entertainment machine also 'just got to keep going', just got to keep grinding down other people in the name of mental health, the American family and quality entertainment. 

And although we’ve technically scaled down from a whole town to just one guy, this feels so much more tragic because as selfish as Ralph is, and as silly and intentionally-ridiculous as the writing is sometimes, he still feels so much like a person.