#i'm not interested in discourse

[laurapalmerz]

re: my james post i'm gonna be so honest when i say i completely forgot that he's modeled off of james dean. i don't think it helps either i've never seen a movie he's stared in. i've always had a bit of a blind spot when it comes to 50's/60's pop culture and celebrity. but i can see the similarities, especially when putting them next to one another like this.

though i'm not sure he's really modeled off of james dean the person since he was multifaceted and troubled in life, moreso the image that was crafted for him by studio execs, especially (as was pointed out in the replies of that post) the tough guy he presented as in 'rebel without a cause'. i'm still standing behind my post though. james deserves to be treated better. mostly cause i'm tired of seeing headlines like this whenever i search his name:

and reading sentences like this:

or this:

and this:

(this article sucks btw, don't read it) james is not "the worst thing about twin peaks", not by a long shot. if i must point to a specific example; the adult woman who groomed james into a sexual relationship. it was unnecessary, there was no character growth or regression as a result, and is repeatedly ignored when discussing james at all. or the subplot about nadine regressing to a teenager after coming out of a coma and getting with mike (also unnecessary and very gross!). or even JOSIE TURNING INTO A DOORKNOB! these are all aspects that really bog down the show, but are they brought up in equal measure with how much they hate him? no. putting him above leo, any of the renaults, the black rose (because i don't wanna call her by her actual name, yikes), fucking BOB, is short sighted. he's a teenager, struggling with the death of a girl he truly loved while making poor decisions, not the end of the fucking world. get your head screwed on straight for a minute and prioritize where your hate is being funneled.

[shamelesstragedyenjoyer]

The closest you can get from hell on earth is having your bottom loser wife bitch be characterized as a top daddy matcho fucker in the fandom

[nemesis-is-my-middle-name]

that article going around abt firefox's new ad program is annoying bc it's phrased as though "mozilla has finally TURNED on its people and is SELLING YOU OUT for cold hard cash!!" when. that's not what's happening. it is specifically being implemented to discourage tracking behavior, and literally all the data they are giving to advertisers is aggregate and anonymized, which is like, the opposite of what that post wants you to worry about, lol

[arcadecoconut]

There's a lot of great meta about how Bells Hells never seemed to realise how powerful they became over the course of the campaign, and how this skewed perspective gave them a strange and at times hypocritical relationship to authority. There's also been a lot of discussion about how having a single-focus plot established early in the campaign was detrimental to individual character development, but I don't think I've seen much about how the single-focus plot is directly connected to their ignorance about their own power level. I think one of the key benefits of having various smaller arcs across c1 & c2 was not only that it supported individual character development better, it also gave the parties a sense of their own growing capability and power scale in the greater world. By having distinct arcs with enemies who were overcome and defeated, the PCs have concrete evidence of their own growth. Each arc follows a mini heroes journey too. For the MN, the Lorenzo and Obann arcs both involve PC characters being killed or overtaken early on, setting high stakes and establishing difficulty. Eventually, with persistence and planning, the Nein were able overcome and eventually defeat them. For Vox Machina, it's the Briarwoods, then the Chroma Conclave, then Vecna. At the start of each arc, every mission feels like an impossible task but again with persistence and planning, they conclude each arc in a stronger position - not just on their character sheet, but with concrete in-world elements too - the resources of Whitestone, key allies in powerful government positions, etc. These victories give each party a material sense of their achievement, which is mirrored by their internal acknowledgement, which is so natural it's mostly not explicitly acknowledged unless they're pointing out how they're capable of stepping up and helping more people. Bells Hells, by comparison, got very few distinct arcs. As a result, they never really achieved the same smaller victories to give them a sense of escalating power and agency over the course of the campaign. To be clear, it was possible this could have been achieved anyway, even within the constraints of the moon-plot. Defeating Otohan, defeating or flipping Lilliana, severing the alliance between the Unseelie Court and Ludinus, explicitly winning allies out of The Volition, or the Grim Verity, or Vasselheim and the Judicators - each of these could have been distinct arcs with victory conditions that would have served as markers of Bells Hells growing power. If they'd had concrete mini-goals to achieve along the way to dealing with Ludinus/Predathos, they could have taken time to focus and plan. In this way, we could have gotten larger investment into the world and NPCs. Imagine what it could have done for her personality if the party had to research Otohan’s role in the Apex War! Maybe if they needed to broker peace between the Grim Verity and Vasselheim to unite them against a greater threat, we could have seen Bells Hells establish their own authority in Exandria. Instead, all these potential villains and world building hooks ended up largely ignored or accidentally achieved along the path of some other muddy goal. By not giving the characters this sense of growth, BH and particularly Ashton and Laudna ended up with a very skewed perspective of themselves. They never realise their power grew well above average, putting them in a much more privileged position than the average Exandrian. It’s this skewed perspective - and their resulting attitudes towards various NPCs - which gave many viewers an 'ick' factor about their interactions. I also can't help but juxtapose this with exu: divergence, where the party's relationship to power (both their own and others') has been a core element. Their story has also been conducted over a very short time period in-world, yet their responses show a marked difference in awareness and empathy.

[karenandhenwilson]

I think I've figured out why the insistence on including Eddie in pride posts and the systematical exclusion of Tommy grates on my nerves even more this year than it did last year.

Because every time I see people complaining about Eddie — who has now been declared straight on our TV screens by himself and his best friend — not being included in pride posts (which are coincidentally always the same people excluding an actual gay character from their pride posts) I feel the exact same way as when people protesting the existence of any pride event ask "When will we celebrate straight pride events?"

[swordscleric]

I'm only halfway through the second phase of Predathos (which, to be clear is an incredible vibe for a bossfight, love a good head & hands/multitarget-same-entity boss) but I cannot shake the feeling of disappointment and just dissatisfaction I have had with this campaign that definitely started with Dusk/Yu, got followed up handily with the first Delilah/Sun Tree fight and then has been unfortunately reinforced with every discussion surrounding the Prime Deities since Hearthdell. This campaign is fascinating to pick apart, I have been really enjoying pulling apart why it isn't working compared to C1 or C2. But as much as I'm having fun dissecting where the worldbuilding has led to the current weaknesses in the gods' argument or reading other people's incisive commentary on the lack of personalities on the Ruby Vanguard's end, the "girlfailure" nonsense, etc etc, man do I wish this campaign was better than it is.

There are so many avenues of improvement -

Matt telling everyone to prep and write characters for this campaign instead of a C2-esque character-focused campaign.

Matt working religious organisations into the world properly.

The cast engaging with Marquet as a genuine location rather than set-dressing.

Otohan, Ozo and the rest of the Vanguard having more than "*insert snappy line here*" for their personalities.

No Delilah.

Bell's Hells having an iota of curiosity for anything outside of their own selves, including but not limited to: the gods, religious worship, the Elemental Titans and why they were sundered, how the people of Exandria feel about the gods, Vasselheim and its role in suppressing information about Predathos, Ludinus Da'Leth's plan and how it would still break the world if they did it in his place

I don't know why all of this fell into place in the way that it did, but it did. We can endlessly speculate why - the cast resting on their laurels after C2, not having enough time between the animated shows and Daggerheart and Candela Obscura and, and, and - but at the end of the day I really do hope that whatever form the final campaign wrap-up takes, they burn the damn questions asking the cast "what if the world was made of pudding and this character and this character kissed?" and instead pick questions that get them to introspect for a potential Campaign 4. Otherwise I don't know what will happen, but it sure as hell won't be Mighty Nein part 2: Issylra Boogaloo.

[lesbianelsas]

alicent + (lack of) bodily autonomy

"This felt like a baptism. Stripping the outer layer, and that f-cking collar [laughs]. Her getting into the lake on her own is embryonic, in a way. It’s weirdly a coming-of-age moment for Alicent—the start of the rest of her life, what she’s about to do, and the woman she’s possibly about to become." (x)

[fromtheseventhhell]

I love how people are only ever interested in defending Arya's right to be weird-looking. It's never defending her intelligence from people who claim she's incapable of thinking for herself, highlighting her importance to the plot and refusing to see her as just a prop, acknowledging how much of her story gets stolen and given to other characters, talking about her trauma or how often it gets erased and overlooked, seeing her as more than just an attack dog/bodyguard, etc. Nope. It's just a "why can't people let Arya be ugly/unconventional looking? :(" post every other week because people are, for whatever reason, obsessed with how Arya is visually perceived. One of the most misinterpreted characters yet the issue is only ever with her being portrayed as "too pretty" or the wrong "type" of pretty. This fandom will entirely rewrite a character's motivations, values, and role in the story to the point that they consider references to canon "hate" but! The true injustice to canon is we acknowledge that she is described as pretty several times. Arya simply existing as her pretty, important, and non-conforming self is too complex and confusing for people to comprehend 😔.

[aerithisms]

zuko's redemption arc is very good, it is beloved for a reason, but it's also poisoned discussion on redemptions in fandom in such an annoying and exhausting way. people always talk about the idea of "deserving" when it comes to redemption and at least some of this feels like it stems from atla depicting zuko as having originally been a kindhearted child who got corrupted into bad behaviour by abuse. therefore he "deserved" to get redeemed because he was always a good person deep down.

there is obviously nothing wrong with this being the way zuko's character is written but because it's the most beloved redemption arc in all of fandom now everyone thinks every character with a redemption arc has to have secretly been a good person all along. as though arcs about characters seeking redemption aren't actually about exploring people changing, they're just about confirming their inherently good nature. i think this is a very shallow way to think about human beings and a very boring way to write fictional characters!!!

the question of whether it's a good idea to give a character a redemption arc shouldn't be about whether they "deserve" it. the whole point of redemption is that the character starts out a bad person at the beginning of the arc, and we explore what it takes for them to change. it's bizarre that so many people in fandom have taken the stance that people don't really change, they're either bad or they're not, and redemption arcs are only for exposing the goodness that was already inside people.

the question of whether it's a good idea to give a character a redemption arc should be about whether it's the most compelling direction for that character and whether it aligns with the themes of the story. that's all. it's not a question of morality as if the characters are real people, it's a question of what the story is about and is trying to communicate. sometimes this means it would be mean spirited and ill fitting with the themes not to give a character a redemption arc. sometimes it means a character who has yet to show any modicum of remorse or kindheartedness will receive a redemption arc, because the story is interested in how that person could possibly change. and sometimes it means a character who does show signs of goodness may never get to realise that, and will never change their ways. it depends what the story is trying to say and what makes for the most interesting and fitting character journey for that story. because the character is not real and is first and foremost a tool to communicate that story.

[azure-clockwork]

I love three houses discourse because I'm pretty sure everyone just picks their route based on which house leader they're the most gay for and then tries to defend their pick by pointing out the other sides's war crimes via twitter memes. Reader, all four of them do substantial quantities of war crimes. So many. We're just here because the woman with Issues and a big fuck-off axe said so, and then we gotta justify everything she did in the name of dismantling the class system. I mean, I'm here for that, but you could also try justifying Charm Man uses poison and perfidy to try to stop racism, A Sad Little Meow Meow gives no quarter instead of doing therapy, or the Thicc Pope tries to bring back her mom via human experimentation, depending on your tastes

[littlespoonevan]

i think the thing for me and the thing that's actually bothering me the most in general is that i don't think any show in 911's category that i've ever watched (that is: network tv shows that run on a weekly basis for most of the year with no definitive or planned ending until cancellation) has gotten better after killing off a main character

[pollsnatural]

If you blame him, please write in the tags/comments why. I'm curious.

[beedreamscape]

This has to be the last thing I say on C3 finale because otherwise, I will not stop, it simply baffles me in its mediocrity. And obviously, this will be negative, if you loved it, good for you, this is my takeaway as someone who loved this campaign and was severely let down.

This finale changes everything that came before and not for good, better yet, it emphasizes all the faults in the structure of what c3 tried to be, it made most of the campaign feel like a true exercise in futility — How far can we go in a campaign that is meandering and unsatisfying? How long can we have the same discussion over and over and over again despite everyone knowing how this will end? How long can we drag out characters that don't change without anyone noticing? (spoiler everyone noticed)

Can't say I was emotionally invested in the finale because I tapped out back in the 70s, came back for Aeor/Downfall shenanigans, and left again. But in experiencing the finale something became clear to me:

THIS STORY NEEDED TO BE SHORTER.

WITH ANOTHER PARTY AT THE HELM.

If the objective from the very conception of C3 was to wipe out the gods, that had to be clear from the very start. And it wasn't clear, at all — not in the characters, not in the starting city, not in theme. This was a completely different campaign at the start! That clarity was what made Calamity so great, it was short and precise, and every pc SERVICED THE THEME, filled with hubris and contempt, not to mention the setting.

Even Ludinus went in circles for convenience of the campaign length and became a weaker opponent for it, more of a nuisance than a villain. The threat he posed at episode 50 was much stronger than now at 120 something. The battle against Otohan was more nail-biting and emotionally engaging than fighting Ludinus and Predathos, a god eater!!!!

This campaign would've benefited from three to four acts instead of one overarching objective like the past campaigns because urgency is the name of the game and we can't carry urgency for 70 episodes straight (and they didn't).

The constant inclusion of the other parties made it clear how easy it was to detach BH from the story, how easy and fun it was for them to tell it through another party's eyes (one of the main reasons why I walked away back when I did, but that's more of a personal preference).

Which is not to say Bells Hell's didn't deserve a long story! They could very well have existed in a more intimate campaign which these characters were clearly built for! Their premises begged for closer looks in slow moments, something tragicomical, exploration of the inner world while developing MARQUET and its microcosm of injustice and politics which was left in the dust mid-campaign (pun intended).

And I'm not suggesting this just for our enjoyment, I know it's them playing and their enjoyment comes first blah blah, though this is a multi-million company therefore their jobs but this would contribute to their enjoyment! You could see several moments in the campaign how tapped out they felt and acted. I doubt it was "fun" discussing the gods situation ad naseaum, trudging through landscapes they barely cared about, with empty arcs.

I could nitpick every fault I see in the finale but it would be pointless, these issues have been dragged from ages ago and poor character matching, and now this is a culmination of everything and it barely fazes me anymore.

(And yeah it's their game and it's "free", but that doesn't undermine its weight as a story, stories were made be analyzed, and it was a poorly structured one no matter how much I still like and admire them as people.)

WHICH is not to say I had no fun at all ever, I did! several times! and that's what makes me upset, it could've been great instead is just meh.

[swordscleric]

I can't stop thinking about the post from a few days ago about how Critical Role has been great at doing personal faith but didn't put the necessary work in to discuss the religious/god angle of c3 in-depth. Like the fact that Cardinal Respa was linked to both the Dawnfather and the Chained Oblivion is, on a personal level, very interesting (fallen/corrupted priest goes hard) but like does that mean that there's a Papacy somewhere in Exandria dedicated to the Dawnfather? If so, are there more cardinals who ordain the bishops of the Dawnfather? Are there Conclave-level intrigues going on in the Dawnfather's Sistine Chapel? Why is the Dawnfather so Christianity-coded in vibes alone if there's no actual outline of his religious organisations? With Downfall the Dawnchild/Dawnfather thing makes the allusions to Christ as Son of God co-existing with the Father textual - was there a Dawnfather Schism around whether the Dawnchild was a separate mortal? Was there a Reformation about how the Dawnfather's Pope kept selling indulgences? Is that why the priest of the Dawnfather Grog & Pike offer a drink to doesn't partake because of a cultural shift between Protestant-Temperance-League-coded and Catholic-coded Dawnfather congregations? Why do I have so many questions about the religious organisation of one of the most important Prime Deities in Exandria and to Critical Role's 3 campaigns? How on earth were the cast (and us as the viewers!) meant to care about the gods if all they had were "really tall kings" instead of interrogating how religious organisations provide both a place of healing and community to a wide range of people and also a place of horrific harm and abuse for a wide range of people?

[ingravinoveritas]

Since there's been a lot of talk about the BAFTAs over the past week and folks are still having many thoughts on the show, it seems like a good time for another poll. So, in thinking about David hosting for a second time and based on the overall quality of the performances/writing/format we saw...

[fiona-fififi]

could you explain to me why you think bucktommy forever would be narratively satisfying but there's no possibility of them introducing a love interest for eddie that would be satisfying? i don't understand

I DON'T think bucktommy would be narratively satisfying.

I DO think there is more potential in the current narrative structure for them to make bucktommy endgame work in a reasonably narratively satisfying way (IF Eddie's story wasn't a factor, which it is).

I also don't necessarily think it would be impossible for them to bring in someone for Eddie if I'm imagining they have all the time in the world to make that work. But the reality of the current narrative is that I don't think they have all the time in the world. And as talented as these writers are, I don't see any way they could introduce someone entirely new, with no connection to the current narrative, and make me buy that person as Eddie's endgame. There just isn't time. A couple of years ago, I would have said that I thought Eddie could have an interesting and satisfying ending to his story if he learned that he didn't need romantic fulfillment to be happy. Since then, however, they've really doubled down on Eddie's loneliness and desire for a romantic partner AND they went for the queer Buck storyline. When you add to that all of Eddie's history with Buck and the way he's welcomed Buck into his life and embraced him as a partner both in his own life and in Christopher's, I don't see any way for them to disentangle that story and introduce someone else (unless it was Tommy, maybe, but nobody's going to want to hear that).

It would just take SO much work and time that I'm not sure they have because it would take several seasons, I think, for it to really reach any level of satisfying.

The difference with bucktommy is simply that it would take very slightly less work (though still a TON of work) for a few reasons.

First, Buck is just Buck. With Eddie, there's also the Christopher of it all to contend with, which adds a complicating layer that extends the work that needs to be done in Eddie's story in a way that doesn't exist for Buck's story (as important as Christopher is for Buck, it's very different from what would need to happen for Eddie who is literally Christopher's parent). So Buck's story has fewer complications to contend with, especially since they've already gotten it off the ground with Buck's queer awakening and introducing his relationship with Tommy already at this point in canon. So there would literally just be less time involved.

Beyond that, Tommy is already an established character in universe. They don't need to do quite as much work to help us get to know him, because we already do, even if only peripherally. But he is established as significant to the stories of other characters beyond Buck. He had a role to play in Chimney's, Hen's, and Bobby's (and hell, even Eddie's!) stories long before he ever became significant to Buck's. So, developing his place among the team and their extended family is not nearly as complicated as it would be with someone entirely new—and even someone from Eddie's past wouldn't have the history with the team, so still, more complications there.

So, yes, I think bucktommy has more potential in the current narrative structure (if—and ONLY if—completely divorced from Eddie's storyline, which it can never be).

But not only do I not actually think either could be a satisfying ending for either Buck or Eddie in the current narrative, there actually isn't anything to suggest that the show is doing the work it needs to to make that potential a reality, either. Because they are not separating out Eddie and Buck (frankly, they're entwining them further). And they aren't even doing any work to flesh out Tommy’s character. I know fandom has grown really attached to him, but the reality is that the character is currently just being used as a pawn to move Buck's story forward. Tommy has a past with the 118 that creates a lot of potential, but that potential is not being used. The character is, frankly, pretty flat at the current moment. They haven't even tried to bring him back into the 118 fold—the only people he's really interacted with since his reintroduction are Eddie and Buck, when there has been plenty of opportunity to fold him back into the team in ways that would at least have him vaguely interacting with the others (like, I don't know, Chimney actually inviting him to the wedding or Hen even acknowledging him at the bachelor party). Their relationship is cute and sweet, but there's nothing that indicates it's any deeper than any of the other relationships Buck has had thus far, and they are actively juxtaposing the bucktommy relationship with the buddie relationship in a way that makes very clear just how surface level that relationship really is when compared to the depth of Buck and Eddie's relationship with one another.

So, no, I don't think bucktommy are going to be endgame, nor do I have any interest in them being endgame. But I recognize that there is currently—literally, in the canon narrative—more potential for bucktommy to work if the show really wanted to make it happen and put in the work, mostly because of Tommy’s history with the rest of the 118.

On Eddie's end, there is no current canon potential. There's no current love interest they could turn around (especially because Edy is a shit human being and people would riot if they actually made Marisol Eddie's endgame). There's no past love interest they could bring back that wouldn't somehow have to be worked into the rest of the team. There's the additional complication of the Christopher of it all and how much that changes where Eddie's story can go and how quickly it can be developed.

It's quite literally just the difference in time. If Buck's relationship with Eddie wasn't a factor, I think they could do it in two seasons for bucktommy. For Eddie and this currently non-existent love interest, I think it'd take a good three or more, and even then, I think it would have to be someone they introduce as a part of the team (Lucy? Ravi? Tommy?) because anyone separate wouldn't have any room to develop sufficiently.

But the reality is that, frankly, the ONLY narratively satisfying ending for Eddie and Buck is one another. Any other option would require dismantling so much beautiful storytelling that I cannot see how it would ever be worth it.