#for all i know this is terrible tho

[bad-surprise]

at the museum, with you across the way

chapter 16: keep me in your glow

haladriel college au | E | 52.6k | 16/?

[yooboobies]

angel sunshine for an angel sunshine | for @huhfeatjhope

[marvelsmostwanted]

This is sad but unfortunately I think this is just going to be the norm for the next few years as streaming services die a slow death.

HBO Max should in theory be able to make money from a show that was at one point the top new series in the US. At the time, David Jenkins said "This is what happens when a major media company invests in inclusive mainstream stories" (agree!) but unfortunately that major media company, like all streaming services, has a terrible business model that can't support that investment.

This is an interesting article about how streaming services are losing money and scrambling to make it back by trying to convince people to buy cheaper, ad-supported options or bundling with other streaming services. Unfortunately for them, I think that's like... all of the options? At some point they're just going to continue to lose money. Making shows is expensive and very few consumers are willing to pay more when they could just cancel and use a cheaper service (or, you know. 🏴‍☠️)

This is also a good article that was written after Shadow and Bone was cancelled by Netflix about whether it could be saved:

"The problem is that while saving shows used to be plausible, at times, the cost of Shadow and Bone combined with the fact that streaming services are really, really starting to cut back on spending means that this would be an extremely tough sell. WB Discovery’s Max is being lambasted for killing finished projects for tax breaks to chip into its massive debt. Disney Plus has done the same thing and has said they will cut back on things like expensive Marvel shows. Amazon Prime is mired in expensive creator deals going nowhere and throwing insane amounts of money at projects they are realizing are not panning out. Paramount Plus losing $500 million a year. NBC’s Peacock is losing $650 million a quarter."

TLDR; Streaming services have reached such a dire point financially that they have to cancel some of their most popular content (Marvel shows on Disney+???? These have seemingly been very successful; it's wild to read that they're "cutting back") in the desperate hope that a new season of something that's cheaper to make will get more attention.

What I gathered from these articles is that steaming services are dying a slow death and sadly, a lot of good shows are going to go with them.

[carnivalcarriondiscarded]

happy halloween! hope everyone watched a scary movie that'll keep you up tonight but was nonetheless enjoyable! i sure did!

[echo-bleu]

@actual-bill-potts and @chthonion wanted Finrod in Crysania's dress to go with Annatar as Raistlin. Finrod deserves the best sleeves, so I provide.

The two of them as a diptych because they're made to match:

[aphverse-confessions]

my inner demons would've easily been the best series on the aphmau channel if the daemos didn't act like children 95% of the time. the potential was THERE. ava was a great protagonist and the entire premise of the show was sooo good but ultimately fell flat due to almost all of the male cast being frustratingly clueless and stupid. it was beyond the point of being comedic and instead just annoying.

.

[kacievvbbbb]

Look I like Roger enough, I understand what he represents and I generally don’t think he was a bad dude. I do however think he was shit at interpersonal relationships because, what the fuck. Whitebeards crew is infinitely more well adjusted and I’d say he arguably had the more traumatic death.

Like what even, what kind of planning leads a 53 year old man to sire a child knowing he is dying of an incurable illness and is about to turn himself in to be excuted by the marines where he will cause so much chaos it is literally still turning the world on its head 22 years later. He knew he was going to cause so much of a stir that he literally disbanded his crew and told them to spread far and wide to keep them safe. Because he knew the marines would hunt them far and wide But yet he still brought a baby into the world. Babe. What the fuck? What even is that? What was the thought process. I sincerely hope it was an accident and not a deliberate attempt to bring about a new era.

Because if so babe I need to see the recipe or I’m afraid we can never let you cook again

[cybertron-smash-or-pass]

WFC trilogy Megatron

[drenched-in-sunlight]

I gotta say I did not expect I’d love Miles this much, enough to look up shit like Secret War and Civil War II reading order, and worse, subject myself to Bendis’ writing of all things (he’s the reason why I stopped being a comic stan 5 years ago. I were a DC/ Superfam fan. You know the beef was BEEFING). Like, my tolerance of that dude now only stops at him being one of Miles’ creators. So that better writers can do the kid justice years later. That’s it.

Like, why is the “r u and Ganke together haha” a whole shtick that comes up multiple times during his run? It’s so annoying and painful to read. Miles can go around being paired up with different girls but the moment THAT question came up you know he gonna be super defensive and >:( about it which, eh, just does not line up with anything else happening in whatever story is happening at the time. At all.

The only silver of light is that Miles actually never says he doesn’t like boys, he just denies ever dating Ganke. Like, he could just say he doesn’t swing that way and the question would have stopped, but he doesn’t. So I know he be running around kissing the punk-est boy in the whole spider verse, ha!

Idk I’m near the end of Bendis’ run and some of it r good but a lot of them put me thru excruciating pain (cringe) so I have to complain about it.

Did I mention I were a DC stan 6 years ago? I were a DC stan 6 years ago so this isn’t even my first rodeo with white dudes writing weirdest things in American comic, but I just can’t believe I got dragged into this again because Miles blinks his bambi eyes on screen and makes me want to rotate him in my brain so I need to know the lore of him in every medium, apparently.

[galedekarios]

g*le: im not sure i consider myself father material

g*le: quite good at setting relationship boundaries and speaking up abt them

g*le: never mentions wanting kids / actually has / adopts a kid unlike a plethora of other companions

g*le: shoos t*ra away at the mention of grandchildren

fandom: we just don’t have enough information on how g*le really feels about the topic of fatherhood

[vvalllerie]

@kings-highway hi love i drew this for you,, sorry its kinda wonky lookin i’m still trying to figure out how digital art works :3

[jestroer]

sometimes memory loss helps

[shadystranger]

"The fandom unnecessarily villainizes sam and dean for choosing each other over strangers when it's literally how humans work" great critic but I actually think the fandom (those interested in the brothers' relationship) are reacting to it how they're meant to: in a negative light.

To trace things back, yes, it's a given, kind of an innate human nature to respond in situations by prioritizing the people you know over ones you don't. That is true. On an individual basis, each person would do this, I would do this, and anyone'd be crazy to villainize this act on my and your part. But sam and dean do it, and it's painted in this hyperbolic moral degeneration light both by the narrative (we could argue) and by the fandom. Because see, sam and dean are a little different than you and me.

They're positioned in their world as tragic heroes who, given the nature of their job, are expectedly deprived of things the normal person could enjoy. They don't get to lead normal lives, they don't die by natural causes, and they must navigate through life bearing more than they must know with soul-crippling responsibilities. "We're the people who save the world," sam and dean don't spend much time before they assume the token role of saviors in their world. Along with that role comes even more imposed limitations.

They are more viscerally equipped and knowledgeable. They have access to things randoms could never dream of having (like death and god). The more you know, the worse you sleep and comes with the mere knowing is the obligation to do something about it. Someone ignorant to the whole ordeal simply doesn't have to answer to it.

Basically, they're soldiers. Imagine samdean reporting for duty, they preserve peace of the public and their blind following to decision moral rightness is taken for granted. It comes with the job. You don't get to make ill-advised progress in your self-interest as a person (sth random ppl can enjoy) when several lives are at stake.

At some point, sam and dean themselves are metaphoricaly acting Gods: people's survival or death depends on them. Sometimes, it's a city's worth of population. Other times, it's the entire world. Their right to free-decision making stops depending only on its virtuous intent and starts being consequential. They're elevated to adhere to higher standards and criteria than normal people are held to.

The rightness of their actions will not be determined among a set of feasible options but instead assessed by whether they chose the option with the best consequences. Or not. The main decision-making factor for "heroes" like them should be putting the general welfare at its fore interest. Not one individual's. Especially not if it's one individual's.

When dean and/or sam sacrifices someone stranger to save his brother, it's a subjective good call I can relate and see myself in it, but given their position within the universe it's irresponsible and far objectively wrong; especially if at the cost of saving his brother, several others suffered.

There are criteria for judging the actions of the pivotal role they uphold. From a subjective moralness standpoint, sam and dean are only humans, and they can be cut some slack or even not at all villainized for doing what their instinct demands. On the other hand, moral objectiveness influenced by the world-setting's structure deems the goodness or badness of how they behave based on the particular consequences of their given actions and whether said actions affected people in good or bad ways. If sam and dean did something that brought peace to the world on the whole and reduced suffering, it's good and logical, whereas if said action caused suffering and threatened peace, it's bad.

dean grudgingly accepting sam’s plan to overtake lucifer even though it meant losing his brother is the objectively morally good choice to make. He had to sacrifice his precious family, but he ultimately was rational and responsible enough to know his brother's life is not a fair trade-off to millions. both sam and dean here act in accordance with their positions within the story/world: they're heroes. But by S8 dean doesn't let sam make a similar sacrifice. He prioritizes sam's life over the many who'll be possessed and will either kill others or be killed themselves. sam releases a world-ending evil to save his brother, and later on, both take turns facilitating the guy who practically promises them an apocalypse to once again save each other.

"The good of any one person is no more important from the point of view of the universe than the good of any other." sam or dean's lives aren't more important than someone else's, this was a point so base sam felt the need to make because it needed to be addressed, their lack of changing anything about it is another matter. Thing is they're the world's designated saviors be it by choice or not, the narrative views them as the fact, they're expected to value the well-being of all individuals equally, regardless of their personal closeness. Imagine a firefighter postponing saving you because someone he knows is more important even when the situation for them is not as grave as you. It'd be unethical and worthy of condemnation because in this line of work, and in general when your job is saving people and work towards the greater good, you do it indiscriminately, you don't get to privilege the well-being of yourself or your family over the well-being of distant others.

sam and dean hold a rightful consequentialist commitment to their actions being as good as possible: the basis on which one outcome is better than another is only if it contains a greater sum total of people's betterment. No impartiality.

Yes, it's his brother, his only family, but it's still morally wrong to prioritize him (in their case). Let's use a patriotism allegory. Imagine a general of a losing army. He catches wind of the enemy's secret bases or is exposed to confidentials enough to turn the tide to his side. However, he finds out his family at home is being held hostage. The moment he reveals what he knows, they get killed. A man has to save his family it's the most basic human instinct, yes, but you'd think it's irredeemably wrong for him to prioritize his family in this case. You'd think he doesn't even have the right to choose when it's a choice between two insignificant people and the entire country being infiltrated and invaded, with the deaths of million soldiers and citizens. It's not even a choosing matter. sam and dean are the general in this scenario, and instead of the country being at stake, it's sometimes the entire population they're throwing to the fire for each other. Anyone'd think it's messed up. You're supposed to.

There is a good reason to save your family (brother) over a stranger (or two, or hundred or million); but labeling both actions as right would risk ignoring the important moral difference between the two. And we need to draw an account of what a hero is obliged to do in order to meet minimal moral standards. sam and dean's constant moral failure to meet such standard despite their role in their universe paints them as flawed, sometimes as the story's designated antichrist.

Their ceaseless prioritizing of themselves marks their moral debauchery and decline as heroes. they get away with not fulfilling their obligations that are thrust upon them by design, they're using a cheat code acting not how they're supposed to and that's the characters/narrarive's grip with them. I don't blame corbin for what he did, while It’s extremely wrong that he tried killing sam, it was a call for survival. Your savior normally doesn’t come with conditions. He was faced with an oddity from the typical rescue mission. And he did what he had to ensure the more number of people survives. We sympathize with sam and dean, so we criminalize corbin immediately and side with dean. We're swept by emotions and our judgment is clouded you could say but from a utility standpoint, dean's decision to stay with a dying sam would've lead to four people's death, or three and one heavily wounded meanwhile corbin's leads to three people's survival and the loss of one. With corbin, more lives are saved, with one unfortunate but necessary sacrifice. Morally and objectively, corbin was more right in choking sam than dean was in staying.

[fairyhaos]

good morning!!!!! just a heads up that starting from today (01/04/2024) im gonna be a lot more inactive ^_^ my exams will be coming up in less than 2 months so it's absolutely imperative that i focus on studying for those.

im not gonna disappear suddenly tho!! it'll probably happen over this week n ill just gradually be here less and less. i have a few original works lined up, and i might pop in to refill my queue or answer asks, but eventually ill be logging out and going completely silent <3

don't miss me too much gays!! it's not goodbye from me just yet, just a heads up that it'll be happening soon 💗

[madreemeritus]

This scene is so sad for Angel. As someone who already has several trust issues, he finds out there is a traitor in the Hotel, that is working for the Vees (one of them is his rapist/abuser, Velvette other made the love potion that is used to abuse him, and Vox putted more than 5 cameras in his room, it's literally Hell), is slutshamed by the traitor and attacked with a psychodelic confusion, something he is unfortunately used to (be drugged against his will is probably a similar sensation). It's twice sad because moments ago, Vaggie and Charlie literally told Angel AT HIS FUCKING FACE that he "wasn't trying" and that Pentious was "truly interested".

When I say Charlie wants to help but doesn't know how, I mean it. The first person who actually understood and helped Angel was Husk.

[tlgtw]

Man that DLC's final boss has got me feeling kinda fucked. I'm kinda depressed about it now that I'm done. Everything else is, was, so good. But I do not like that plot development. I honestly think it is bad. Why did they choose not to foreshadow this in literally any way? Why did Miquella attempt to resurrect Godwyn at all in the first place, then? Practice? Was this really what was originally planned? There's no actual evidence to the contrary so you gotta assume it must've been.

So yeowch...