#it undermines the players decisions

[dreamingkelz]

Every time I see someone say “well the eggs HAVE to die for the lore to progress,” I get frustrated.  Why?  For what?  Part of this Dungeon Master-style storytelling is that sometimes your players will go off the path, and sometimes they’ll straight up break the campaign.  It’s happened to me before.  My DM didn’t retcon our decisions or railroad us into making the choices he needed us to make.  He rewrote the ending.  And it was an amazing ending.

It seems pretty clear that the admin team had no idea just how much of a hit the egg event would be.  These players have all had their own, personal streaming buddy for the past two months to get attached to.  But the story apparently dictates that the eggs have to die, so no matter what the players want, and no matter how hard they try to prevent it, the eggs have to die?  Why?  What is so necessary about dead eggs that the story can’t be reworked to give the players more agency in whether or not a huge chunk of their character, not to mention gameplay gets taken from them?

[vicholas]

July 26, 2024

(...)With the Paris Games starting on July 26, Israel's killing of athletes and players in Gaza, along with its destruction of the enclave's sports facilities, has triggered mounting demands to disqualify Israel from the tournament as activists and spectators question the legitimacy of its participation.

Palestinian writers and sports commentators contend that Israel's Gaza onslaught, which has killed nearly 40,000 Palestinians, also represents an attempt to eliminate sports and athletic achievement.

"It's a genocide ... ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, and the attacks on athletes and sports in particular in the Gaza Strip are all very systematic attacks to obliterate and erase sports in the territory," Abubaker Abed, a Gaza-based sports journalist told Anadolu.

Israel's intentions go further than eliminating Gaza's current athletic capacity, according to writer and lecturer Abdaljawad Omar, who held that it was part of a concerted effort by Tel Aviv to undermine Palestinians' achievements in all areas, with sports being no exception.

"Israel systemically seeks to ensure that Palestinian accomplishments and potential in all realms remain dampened and always dwarfed by its own achievements.

"This applies to political, intellectual, economic, and literary fields, where historically, many talented and highly accomplished Palestinians have been targeted. Sports is no exception in this sense," he explained.  

The situation is "extremely worse" for athletes in Gaza, according to football journalist Abed, adding that many players have been killed in the territory.

According to the Palestinian Olympic Committee and Palestine Football Association, about 400 athletes have been killed since Oct. 7, with the football association noting that the war has claimed 245 players in that sport alone, including 69 children and 176 young men.

Some 33 scouts and 70 members of sports unions have also been killed.

According to the association, Israeli forces have also detained players, including 12 in the occupied West Bank.

Israel's attacks have killed several Olympians as well. Sixty-nine have been killed during Israel's ongoing assault, says the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, launched in 2004.  

Besides athletes, sports facilities also have not been spared. Dozens, including gyms, training halls, fields, and stadiums, have been damaged or destroyed since Oct. 7.

A total of 42 facilities have been leveled in Gaza, while seven were destroyed in the West Bank, says the Palestinian Football Association.

Abed pointed out how Israel has destroyed football schools, including the Al-Wahda Academy and the Champions Academy, which "was one of the most promising football projects" in Gaza.

He pointed out how Israel has eradicated talent in football, the most popular sport among Gaza's residents, leaving only one stadium, the Al-Dorra stadium, intact out of the enclave's 10.

Israeli forces have been seizing stadiums in Gaza and turning them into detention centers.

Human rights monitor Euro-Med highlights that the Israeli army turned the Yarmouk Stadium in Gaza City into a detention center "to hold and humiliate hundreds of Palestinians, including children, shown naked and stripped of their clothes in footage published by the Israeli media in December 2023."

A report by the group published in May indicates that facilities bulldozed and destroyed include "300 five-a-side courts, 22 swimming courts, 12 covered sports halls for basketball, volleyball, and handball, and six tennis stadiums.

"Twenty-eight sports and fitness centers have been targeted, damaged, and destroyed."  

Israel's offensive has also caused the death of prominent players in Gaza.

This includes Palestine's first-ever Olympian and flagbearer, Majed Abu Maraheel, who died due to kidney failure in a refugee camp in June.

The 61-year-old Olympic distance runner died as Israel's ongoing blockade of humanitarian assistance left many, including Maraheel, lacking medical treatment and facilities.

Maraheel had competed in the men's 10,000-meter race at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games.

In January, the Palestinian Olympic football team's coach Hani Al-Mossader was killed in an Israeli airstrike.

The same month, Nagham Abu Samra, a karate champion who was set to participate in the Paris Olympics, died in a hospital in Egypt after succumbing to her injuries.

She had been severely wounded by an Israeli attack that left her with head injuries and led to the amputation of one of her legs.

(...)With hours left until the Paris 2024 Games' opening ceremony, experts are still questioning the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) decision to keep Israel in the tournament.

"Athletes, whether footballers ... whatever the sport is, they don't belong to political factions ... they are targeted and are illegitimate targets for Israeli forces, and this is absolutely prohibited by all international laws and all FIFA regulations," says Abed.

He argued that Israel's actions show that it lacks the Olympic values of peace, tolerance, forgiveness, love, and sportsmanship.

"So, how could Israel even participate in the Olympics?" he asked.

Russia, meanwhile, has been banned from Olympic and FIFA tournaments after it launched its war on Ukraine in 2022, noted Abed, who maintained that Moscow's actions in that conflict were mild compared to the devastation Israel has caused in Gaza.

This "disgraceful stance," he asserts, revealed the hypocrisy of the IOC, as well as the world governing body for football.

The organizers of this year's Olympics have said their decision to keep Israel in the Games while upholding the ban on Russia and Belarus is due to Moscow's annexation of Ukrainian territory, while Tel Aviv has not formally seized territory in Gaza.

Fadi Quran, senior director at US-based rights group Avaaz, said the Olympics and the IOC's current leadership will be remembered for "turning a blind eye to a country committing what the ICJ ruled is a plausible genocide, and said is apartheid."

He was referring to a preliminary ruling by the International Court of Justice that recognized genocide as a plausible risk in Gaza. Israel stands accused of genocide at the top UN court, which in its latest ruling has ordered Tel Aviv to immediately halt its operation in the southern city of Rafah, where over a million Palestinians had sought refuge from the war before it was invaded on May 6.

Quran expects that athletes will protest Israel's presence at the Olympics and fans will boycott events where the Israeli flag is raised.

"Now that the IOC has refused to ban Israel, activists across the world will take action to ensure that the Paris Olympics are branded as the 'Apartheid Olympics,' or 'War Crime Olympics'," he said.

According to Abed, it will take a decade to revive sports in the Gaza Strip.

"The war on Gaza has changed everything. The war on Gaza has killed the dreams of many."

[misstrashchan]

I know people have picked up on the board game scene in RWBY V2 Episode 2 (Welcome to Beacon) as foreshadowing the events of the show, but for funsies I want to take a stab at how it foreshadows the general arcs of each four kingdoms myself.

So we have Blake playing as the Kingdom of Vale, and she's completely unaware of the events of the game unfolding and not really paying attention, clearly distracted.

"Alright Blake, it's your turn!"

"Huh? Sorry, what am I doing?"

"You're playing as Vale, trying to conquer the four kingdoms of Remnant!"

"...Right."

The Vale arc is the first three volumes of RWBY, where all our protagonists are at Beacon, but during that time, much like Blake during the game, they're unaware of the larger conflict with Salem, and aren't actively participating in the war at that point. They are ignorant and reactive instead of active. However it's ironic that Blake plays as Vale, since the reason she's not paying attention to the game and seems distracted is because, out of all the main characters in the Vale arc, she is the one most concerned about being kept in the dark and that they're ignorant as to what's really going on.

Blake: I just, I don't understand how everyone can be so calm.

Ruby: (approaching Blake) You're still thinking about Torchwick?

Blake: Torchwick, the White Fang, all of it! Something big is happening and no one is doing anything about it!

She also leaves the game during her turn, much like how she runs away after the FoB and the end of the Vale arc.

"Right. Well, I think I'm done playing, actually"

Yang is playing as Mistral, and she's the most savvy and knowledgeable (hah) player, winning many rounds of the game, teaching Weiss how to play, and has the other players falling into her trap cards.

"Heh, pretty sneaky sis, but you just activated my trap card!"

There's two ways this can be interpreted, with how the Mistral arc (volumes 4-6) is when our protagonists start to gather more knowledge and awarenesses of themselves and the world. It's also in Mistral that our heroes have their most decisive victory so far. It's fitting to have Yang playing as Mistral then, since during the Mistral arc she's the one who who learns from Tai to fight smarter, and to question the authority figures around her from Raven, and after confronting her in the vault is the one who retrives the relic of knowledge.

But, most of the losses our heroes experience are because of Cinder, who is from Mistral, and them falling into her own "trap cards" with the Fall of Beacon being orchestrated by her, killing Pyrrha and Ozpin. And in Atlas the same, with her manipulating Ironwood, undermining the heroes plans to evacuate everyone from Atlas, and killing Penny. She often finds ways to trick and exploit others, and is most dangerous when overlooked and underestimated, like falling into a trap.

Which brings me to Ruby playing as Atlas, where Ruby and Yang have this exchange after Yang's trap card is activated by Ruby:

"Giant Nevermore! If I roll a seven or higher, fatal feathers will slice your fleet in two!

"But! If you roll lower a six or lower, the Nevermore will turn on your own forces!"

"That's just a chance I'm willing to take"

In the Atlas arc (volumes 7-9) the theme of trust and taking risks is very prevalent. Like the move Yang makes in the game it is a risky one, that could end badly for her, but it is one worth taking nonetheless. They take the risk of trusting Ironwood but he ends up turning on our heroes. Oscar takes a risk trusting Hazel and Ozpin, as well as Emerald later on being accepted into their group, and it ends up working out for them. Ruby takes a risky chance in sending a message out to all of Remnant and evacuating Atlas, which saves a lot of people, but they still lose some, including Penny, a dear friend of Ruby's.

"Noooooo! My fearless soldiers!"

"Eh, most of them were probably androids anyways"

"Goodbye my friends... you will be avenged!"

Ruby acts distraught when losing her turn in the game as Atlas, expressing anguish over losing her friends who are described as androids by Yang, just like how Ruby is incredibly depressed and broken after the Fall of Atlas in V9, mourning the loss of Penny, who was both a sentient android and Ruby's friend. (I do wonder if Ruby's comment on avenging her friends might be foreshadowing for her wanting to avenge Penny's death in the future, like how Jaune tried to 1v1 Cinder in V5 to avenge Pyrrha, but I think it's too soon to say)

As a sidenote the fact it is a Nevemore in this turn that has a chance of turning on Yang or helping her is interesting, as it puts me in mind of two characters who can turn into ravens/crows, like the bird and poem Nevermore is associated with. It could pertain to Raven, someone who turns on Yang in v5 during the battle of Haven, but appears to help her and her friends in the V9 epilogue. It could also be about Qrow and his semblance, since during the Atlas arc it begins to evolve so that it is not simply a bad luck semblance, but one that can generate good luck too. In other words he can affect whether the chances are in people's favour or not.

After defeating Ruby (Atlas) Yang says this:

Yang: Not until I draw my rewards! Which are double this round thanks to the Mistral Trade Route!

Ruby: Bah!

Yang: Oh, and what's this? The Smugglers of Wind Path?

Ruby: Bah! Bah, I say!

Yang: I say, it looks like I'm taking two cards in my hand!

After the Fall of Atlas Cinder retrives not one but two relics for Salem, and with Atlas falling into Mantle, two kingdoms are destroyed in one fell swoop.

Then it's Weiss's turn. Weiss is playing as Vacuo, but has no idea how to play the game. Yang takes it upon herself to teach Weiss how to play and what she can do to win the game:

Yang: Well, Weiss, it's your turn.

Weiss: I have... absolutely no idea what's going on.

Yang: (Yang slides up beside her and puts her hand on her shoulder.) Look, it's easy! You're playing as Vacuo which means that all Vacuo-based cards come with a bonus.

Weiss: That sounds dumb.

Yang: See, you've got Sandstorm, Desert Scavenge... Oh, oh! (She pulls up a card to show Weiss.) Resourceful Raider! See, now you can take Ruby's discarded Air Fleet—

Ruby: (crying) Nooo!

Yang: —and put it in your hand!

We know from the end of V9 that what remains of the airfleet of Atlas, as well as the airfleet of Mistral and Vale, have all flocked to Vacuo's defence. What remains of the kingdom of Atlas, the airfleet, but most importantly the people, have now fled to Vacuo and are trying to make a home there.

Yang continues to give Weiss advice on how to win the game to Weiss, building her up, until Weiss starts to get arrogant, believing she's going to win the whole game and is the one in control:

Yang: And since Vacuo warriors have an endurance against Natural-based hazards, you can use Sandstorm to disable my ground forces and simultaneously infiltrate my kingdom! (Yang points a finger at Weiss.) Just know that I will not forget this declaration of war.

Weiss: And that means...

Ruby: You're just three moves away from conquering Remnant!

But then Yang turns on Weiss, activating her trap card, and Vacuo loses.

Since this is may be foreshadowing for the Vacuo arc that we haven't seen yet, I can only speculate what this might mean.

...But judging from the V9 extended epilogue and the books, my best guess would be that if Yang/Mistral is meant to be in part Cinder/Salem and their forces, then Weiss as Vacuo is in part the Crown. In the extended epilogue Jax and Gillian appear to be recieving help from Tyrian and Mercury, meaning Salem has decided to recruit them to her cause.

The Crown wants to restore the Vacuoan monarchy and detest outsiders, especially Atlesians. They do however wish to protect Vacuo from the same forces that destroyed Beacon, aka Salem, and so they are likely going to be manipulated like Weiss is by Yang in the game, being offered aid and giving them advice on how they can win and achieve their objectives, making them believe they can "conquer Remnant", only for them to realise later they were being tricked and used.

"Once again, Vacuo had been isolated from the conflict raging throughout Remnant—only this time it was an opportunity. With the global CCT network disabled, Vale in ruin, Haven leaderless, and Atlas closed off, Vacuo was theirs for the taking. This was likely their last, best chance for a generation. And it was their only hope to defend Vacuo against whomever had been targeting the other kingdoms. In likelihood they had written off Vacuo, like everyone else did, but if they tried to move against the Crown, they would have an unpleasant surprise.

Vacuo wouldn't break this time around."

Weiss: (Weiss stands and a thunder clap accompanies Weiss' overjoyed psychotic laughter.) Y-yes! Fear the almighty power of my forces! Cower as they pillage your homes and weep as they take your children from your very arms!

Yang: Trap card... (Yang's arm appears holding the card.)

Weiss: Huh?

Yang: (Yang shuffles the pieces on the board, Weiss' pieces disappearing in a puff of smoke.) Your armies have been destroyed.

Weiss: (Weiss slumps in her chair, cries and whines.) I hate this game of emotions we play!

Weiss as Vacuo may lose to Yang after realising they've been tricked, but is offered comfort afterwards by Ruby who relates to her losses and empathises with her, which is interesting since Ruby plays as Atlas. So I'm predicting at the end of the Vacuo arc they'll experience somewhat of a loss, whether that's the Crown, our heroes, or likely both, but Atlas will give support to Vacuo and the two kingdoms will come together to heal and ultimately work together, making steps to overcome their tense history with one another.

"Stay strong Weiss we'll make it through this together!"

"Shut up, don't touch me! "

...Which does make Weiss specifically playing as Vacuo especially intriguing, as she is the SDC heiress from Atlas, and Vacuo is a kingdom that has suffered the most in being exploited and colonized for it's natural resources by Atlas. From the epilogue it seems like the Schnees are being confronted directly with all the harm that has been caused by their family and kingdom, so I wouldn't be surprised if Weiss recieves a certain amount of focus during the Vacuo arc in deciding what her legacy as an Atlesian and heiress to the Schnee name will be. Moving forward to make amends, maybe inspiring the citizens of Atlas/Mantle to come together with Vacuo so they can all help and support one another, instead of isolating themselves and suffering alone.

Jaune offers to plays Weiss's hand for a turn also, with Weiss refusing:

Jaune: (Begging with both hands folded together.) Come on, let me play your hand for a turn!

Weiss: I'm not trusting you with the good citizens of Vacuo!

Which is reminiscent of how Vacuo is mistrustful of outsiders, as we've seen in After the Fall and Before the Dawn books.

Yang follows up to say that Weiss attacked her own forces, which could reference the infighting in Vacuo, especially with the Crown.

Weiss: Besides, this game requires a certain level of tactical cunning that I seriously doubt that you possess.

Yang: Uhh, you attacked your own naval fleet two turns ago. (Weiss makes an annoyed sound.)

Overall Weiss as Vacuo recieves the most help as any player during their turn, being taught how to play by Yang, offered comfort by Ruby after losing, and Jaune wanting to help her by playing her hand for a turn. This seems to fit with both how all kingdoms have flocked to Vacuo's aid in response to Ruby's message, but also Weiss as a character, who starts out "the loneliest of them all" but gradually opens up and warms up to other people. The crux of her arc being looking outside herself and at the people around her, relating to their struggles and coming to support them and being supported by them leads to her better understanding herself and becoming stronger for it... Which is kind of what the Kingdom of Vacuo needs to learn too!

Following this is Blake's turn as Vale, which I covered at the start of this post, but that's not the end of Vale's turn. We don't actually see it, but we know the aftermath of the game is this:

Yang: Ugh, we should have never let him play!

Ruby: You're just mad cuz' the new guy beat you!

Blake leaves the game during her turn as Vale, and presumably the "new guy" which is likely Neptune, who they'd just been introduced too, takes over her hand as Vale and wins the game of Remnant overall, even beating Yang and her trap cards. This is likely the endgame of RWBY itself, our heroes return to Vale after the Vacuo arc during the last volume for the final stand, where they win.

How and what that victory will look like I don't know, as we don't see the last turn of the game, so yet again this is even more vaguer speculation. Neptune doesn't really have much plot significance so I can't think there's any meaning to that except that he's a minor foil to Jaune, and the line of it being "a new guy" that wins, so maybe someone who recently joins our heroes side in the final act of the story, possibly Mercury or Cinder.

[wild-magic-oops]

I had hopes for this but the end result is not particularly an improvement imo

There are 4 options

1st option - ends the dialogue but you can ask the twins again

2nd and 3rd option - end the dialogue and you can't ask the twins again as long as Gale's your LI (I assume)

this is what you get if you try to ask again

And this is pretty much where any positive changes end imo

The 4th option can lead to sex. And they decided to word it like that. In Gale's mind, making love as gods is about intertwining their spirits. It's intimate on a profoundly deep level. It's not just about sex, but also about a connection to the person you love.

And that is used as a reason that he must be curios about having sex in a brothel with a couple of hired randos... It's just so disappointing and yikes to me.

The problem with this whole scene for me wasn't the persuasion roll itself, but the coercive manner the option plays out. That hasn't changed, but now you also don't need to roll for this decision which undermines that it's a shitty decision actually. Does this look like the face of a person who's enthusiastic about smth?

To me it reads that he definitely doesn't want to participate, but would tolerate watching his partner participate. But he sure af doesn't look like he wants any of this.

The rest of the scene plays out like it did before I think, soothing the player for their choice by implying that Gale enjoyed it actually, it's all fiiiine.

[thydungeongal]

Hey there! I just say your post about dungeon crawlers. I was curious about your second bullet point, "Dungeon-crawling challenge games actually kind of own if you're willing to engage with them on their own terms! There's a lot of potential for cool gameplay if you let go of silly reductive notions like "roleplaying" being just being when you play-act your character or social interaction!" I was curious if you'd mind telling me more about how you feel roleplay should be handled in these types of games. I am genuinely interested to hear your thoughts. :)

Okay, first of all, I have a very broad and admittedly circular definition of role-playing (in the context of role-playing game): role-playing is when you're playing a role-playing game.

As said, it's circular, but ultimately, throughout my years of playing role-playing games I've found that all other definitions are unsatisfying. To conclude that role-playing is the parts where the mechanics aren't used (the roll-playing and role-playing dichotomy) implies that mechanics are somehow inherently contrary to a good role-playing game experience, which is simply untrue, because good mechanics can actually enhance the narrative! Saying that only the social parts of play are role-playing undermines the fact that players will be still making decisions for their characters in various other situations where the personal and emotional stakes can be even greater than in social situations!

Ultimately, role-playing games as a medium are defined by the possibility space, and specifically that possibility space being near infinite. There's an old line I keep bringing up from some painfully twee eighties RPG ad which goes like "Role-playing games are like board games but you can move outside the board!" and ultimately that is the thing that defines a role-playing game. It's a game where the players collaborate in a shared fictional space to produce cool little narratives although sometimes the cool little narratives aren't the point but it's literally like a lil challenge that the players try to overcome by interfacing with the fiction and engaging with the mechanics.

To tie this into dungeon crawlers: even a traditional dungeon crawler is ultimately a role-playing game because it has the players engaging, via their characters, with the shared fiction, sometimes mediated by the rules. A lot of people assume that a dungeon crawler must mean that the gameplay is nothing but a meat grinder, but this is actually ahistorical and not actually reflective of how old-school dungeon crawling RPGs play out!

Even the most basic dungeon is still a location in the setting it's part of, so there is plenty of narrative content to be found there. The characters might just be motivated by greed, but there is plenty of narratively satisfying content that can happen in the pursuit of that goal once one accepts that there need not be a linear narrative where the characters must hit certain story beats, but the story itself can just be "the characters went into a place, explored, interacted with the locals, found out some secrets about the dungeon, fought some monsters." That is still role-playing.

None of this is to say that the play-acting part of play (which I sometimes call characterization) is in any way bad: in fact, it can very much enhance the gameplay. But that is in and of itself not the end-all-be-all of role-playing!

Anyway role-playing is so much more than describing your cool elf kissing other cool elves, it can also be your cool elf finding a cool sword in a dungeon and giving it a name. Dungeon crawlers kick ass because the GM can craft a whole narrative about how the dungeon used to be and then reveal it slowly to the players through their characters finding fantasy audiologs and that is already narratively satisfying in and of itself!

[melmedarda]

I read a post recently in which the poster said they did not like meljay. I have no issue with that. But one of the reasons why they did not like Meljay is because of power imbalance and lack of connection. I'd like to address that.

The issue I have with that line of thought is that first of all, Mel only became romantically involved with Jayce after he possessed just as much clout within the city as she did. Additionally, Mel had invested a great amount in the development of hextech, and in order to ensure it's success, she mentored Jayce in the political arena because he is the face of hextech. The man of progress. If he had not been mentored by Mel, the hextech dream would have been shut down before it began. She was the only one within the council who believed in Hextech, and thanks to her Jayce was able to become a real power player within the council, a far cry from where he was in Act 1.

Let it be known that Jayce makes his own decisions. Mel only serves as his advisor. Whenever a decision must be made, she leaves the choice to him. She does not force him, manipulate him, or intimidate him like her mother does. (She manipulates the hell out of Hoskel though, surely you can tell the difference). Mel does not undermine Jayce's choices; even when Heimerdinger continues to discourage Jayce, Mel urges him to continue to pursue his ideas, because like Viktor, she believes in Jayce. She is Jayce's strength, and encourages him when he is overwhelmed with the realities of war. Of death.

Their relationship, contrary to what many believe, is not based on politics. It is based on mutual trust, on understanding and respect. They can be vulnerable with one another. When Jayce finds Viktor is dying, he goes to Mel. She does not take advantage of his weakness, his vulnerability, but opens up to him. Shares a bit of her heart as well. They continue to be each other's strength in the hardships that assail them at every turn. Mel is protective of Jayce; confronts her mother when she thinks Ambessa is trying to corrupt his values and manipulate him.

Meljay also possess the same set of values. They want a better world, and are looking for the best way to enact positive change. Not only for themselves and Piltover, but for Zaun as well. Theirs is a relationship that has grown with them, not hot and toxic and fast but slow and steady. And to me, that is part of their beauty. Thanks for coming to my TED talk! And have a wonderful day!

[trainsinanime]

The Getaway, the new show by the Wendover and Jetlag team over on Nebula, is really fun. Basic premise: There's a game show where there's money to be won, but as far as the players know, one of them is secretly the snitch who undermines them all. The not-so-secret twist, which is in the trailer, is that everybody is the snitch.

So there is a lot of interpersonal intrigue and conflict between the players, which is what the show is ostensibly about, but then there's also the bigger story of the twist.

The way they shoot and edit it is to frame it as a cat-and-mouse game between the production team (specifically the Jetlag crew, who are all well-known YouTubers in their own right) and the players. We get almost as many confessionals from the producers as we do from the players. There are times when the players do a confessional, and the producers then react to it on camera.

The show also takes great pains to take their players seriously. Their thoughts and their decisions (they vote people out regularly) are given weight and taken seriously.

What this means in practice is: A player does something. The show could cut to the producers, who then go, "haha, those idiots!" But instead it cuts to the producers who go, "oh that's clever! I wonder whether they're close to figuring out the twist!" To me that's really crucial to why the show feels more fun than mean.

If you're into internet-based streaming game shows, there's a certain amount of overlap with Game Changer, notably the Bingo episode. Which they should frankly lean into; there's no way to make a second season of this, but if they combine it with Game Changer, perhaps without telling Sam, Ben and Adam (or at least Sam), that could be something.

[linka-from-captain-planet]

This is Part 3 and 4 of #celeneposting about the notion that content from The Masked Empire is "missing" from WEWH, featuring two related points:

mischaracterization of Briala to portray her as a victim (and the player as a hero), and the desire fans have to punish Celene for things she's already been punished for.

When fans say that What Celene Did to Briala is "missing" from WEWH, not only are they usually referring to things that only Celene and Briala know, but that are already resolved by the time the quest comes around.

To be ever so real, Briala has amazing PR because the fandom finds her cause to be sympathetic and Celene to be unsympathetic, so some fans undermine Briala's agency, over-inflate her benevolence, and de-emphasize how very Orlesian (/slur) she is. Some fans really want to frame her a victim, not because they really care about her - but because they really hate Celene, and want to frame Celene as a perpetrator so they can feel righteous for killing her as a punishment for What She Did...

even though Briala herself already gloriously and thoroughly punished Celene for What She Did.

Briala doesn't need or want the player to coddle and cape for her. The notion that she doesn't know what's best for herself, or can't make her own decisions, or can be forced back into the arms of her ex by a stranger is not just a weird slight on the agency of a fully-realized competent adult character, but frankly insulting. It comes off like this subset of players think that because she's just an elf, she needs to be saved - as if she hasn't saved herself before and can't do it again.

The entire reason that the peace talk ball is even happening is because Briala essentially shot Celene and left her in a ditch at the end of TME, perpetuating the civil war that would have otherwise ended then. The score between them is settled - the Inquisitor doesn't need to gain clairvoyance and settle it again. The context of their breakup isn't "missing" from WEWH because it was resolved in TME, and thus it remains in TME where it belongs.

The romantic subplot of the quest isn't about what happened in the past, but the possibility of a future. It's about what's unresolved between Briala and Celene: that they still love each other and want to be together, despite everything.

In this you can infer that Briala forgives Celene...

which is a problem for the fandom, because fandom is wildly critical and hyper-punitive, and no amount of Celene's regret or eagerness to make amends can overcome the way that fandom treats redemption as a finite resource that must be conserved for characters who Truly Deserve It*

*men

[raleighrador]

The Bear S3 - Plot and Sydney

Sydney is perpetually frustrating to me and I love it.

I really loved a lot of what happened in her story this season, especially: her not opening the partnership agreement despite multiple reminders (and what she allows her dad to believe); the competing offer from Shapiro to start a new restaurant with her as CDC (I REALLY hope she takes the job); her and Carmen's (lack of) communication.

All of this is underpinned by the general sense of Sydney being very talented, thinking of herself as very talented, and being frustrated by what she sees as a lack of respect and equal treatment. Envy is a big component here - I loved the contrast of her reading all the profiles of Carmen vs the single review of her dish pinned to her fridge in the finale. She thinks she is every bit as good as Carmen and wants that to be recognised.

I love this. I also love how it plays out through the 3 elements I most enjoyed.

She has literally been offered a partnership stake in the Bear. All she needs to do is take 10 seconds to click "yes" on a DocuSign. Isn't this what she wants? Why hasn't she done it yet? Carmen is clearly supportive, Sugar is supportive, Cicero is supportive. All the key players in the Bear have made it very clear that they want her as a partner. They think she should be a partner.

That is the most explicit endorsement they could possibly give her. How much more recognition does she want? And why doesn't she the sign it?

Part of it is that she cares less about the partnership and the money than she does about having control in the kitchen, cares less about it than she does Carmen actually including her in decision making. That is legitimate. But she would probably have an easier time actually landing that point if she was a fully onboarded equity partner.

I think it is also because signing the agreement, actually being a partner, the most explicit confirmation that Carmen does think she should be an equal, fundamentally undermines the narrative she has about herself.

In general - she wants these opportunities, she's good enough, the only reason she hasn't yet succeeded is no one gave her a chance/something outside her control went wrong.

That no longer sticks if she signs the agreement. Carmen's not listening to her is much more clearly a communication problem to be overcome than a reflection of his true feelings.

I especially loved the detail that she allows her dad to believe that the Berzattos are lying about the partnership offer. His perspective seems to be: Syd told him the Berzattos offered her a partner stake. They have then NOT delivered on that promise. Ergo, they are dangling a false carrot in front of her. Even Sydney's "defence" of the Berzattos is "oh they are still working on it". All that does - from her dad's perspective - is emphasise that Sydney is being charitable and naive.

She doesn't say "I literally have the offer in my inbox but I haven't opened it". Why not? Why does she choose a lie that still makes it the Berzattos fault?

Because as much as she desperately craves authority and respect and to be her own boss she is actually terrified of taking that step up.

This is again highlighted in the offer from Shapiro. It is everything Sydney wants! Her own restaurant, total creative control, a partnership stake etc. So why the hesitation?

Her not opening the offer from the Berzattos becomes a neat tool to put off the decision - she doesn't know what she is turning down, she needs to have both offers before she makes a decision. Not opening the Berzatto offer means she can - "justifiably" - put the decision off for as long as she wants.

Pete ruins that by laying out the terms of the offer (which are ok but worse than Shapiro's offer).

Why then does she continue to hesitate? Because the actual point is she is terrified of taking the sort of control she spends her life craving.

Being given total control is awesome but it is also terrifying. She also presumably feels some sense of loyalty to the Bear and guilt about leaving etc whatever. Those are also important but I don't think they are the key. Even if they are, it just reveals a different crack in Sydney's self image: she values friendship and community more than being given control and achieving excellence.

I also like that we, the audience, are able to contrast and compare Sydney's options in a way she cannot. Shapiro's offer is almost ideal from her perspective. More money, more control, Shapiro says he doesn't want to cook everyday so he won't even be in the kitchen etc vs the dysfunctional Berzattos and Carmen with the promises but incredibly bad behaviour.

However, we know that Adam is actually a control freak perfectionist (who blames others for his mistakes). He spent a whole week screaming and shouting and swearing about a smudge (that he left) on a plate. So is his restaurant going to be some kind of peaceful, well adjusted utopia? Probably not.

Will she learns as much from an Executive Chef who doesn't want to cook everyday? Will she be even less patient with an Executive Chef who doesn't cook everyday?

But it is easy for Sydney to imagine it will be an utopia, just as much as it is impossible for her to imagine the Bear being anything but a hurricane of dysfunction.

I really, really want her to take the job. I want her to grab the screaming hot pot handle with two hands. I want her to back herself.

And I want her to realise it basically fucking sucks. It is harder than she imagined, it is lonelier than she imagined. I hope she realises that for all her talent she doesn't know everything. I hope she has huge success and it ruins her life.

Basically I like that Sydney and Carmen are narrative foils and I love the idea of that being explored by Sydney growing past Carmen but not past herself. Delicious.

The final thing I really enjoyed was her communication problems with Carmen and - spoiler - how they are at least as much her fault.

The clearest example here is the scene in Episode 8 where after service Carmen is playing with the meat dish and eventually invites Sydney to Ever's funeral service. A few really interesting things play out:

The whole "keep up with me". First, Carmen says not to worry about it because he has been doing this for longer. Sydney takes offence and says "I didn't mean from a skill level". Carmen accepts this.

Is Sydney as skilled as Carmen? Maybe but it seems doubtful to me. I am sure she is very, very good, and we have been shown lots of scenes throughout the show demonstrating that. Carmen is also meant to be a special talent though, and does just have way more experience than she does. Her defensiveness therefore seems a little misplaced. She also seems to miss that Carmen then just accepts her correction. He assume she is worried about a (reasonable) skill gap and wants to reassure her. He then also immediately accepts her assertion that actually she is just as good as he is. No defensiveness, no putting her in place.

It is also in line with Carmen's attitude to excellence more broadly - nothing is ever enough. Every dish can be better. Every chef can be better. Implying that to be true of Sydney is not actually insightful into how good he thinks she is. He also thinks that of himself.

This is also delightfully contrasted with the whole invitation to Ever. Carmen, as ex Ever & famous chef, has been invited to the funeral service. Other exceptional chef's have bene invited. The invite requirements seem to be: at least 1 of worked at Ever and/or world class chef. We know that Sydney never worked at Ever

Sydney says that it isn't her place but Carmen insists that it is.

It is clear that Carmen DOES believe Sydney is at the same level, is of the same calibre, should consider these people her peers (and his peer, hence the partnership offer). That is totally consistent with still having more to learn and not quite being at the level of her Executive Chef.

The other interaction is Sydney saying she wants to discuss something (presumably the partnership offer & competing offer from Shapiro) before then avoiding the conversation. Carmen makes it explicitly clear that he is available to talk. He reassures that "you (she) got me". He checks that she is sure before dropping it.

How much more are you looking for, Sydney? Your boy is here and ready to talk. The issue is it would require her taking ownership of the conversation and actually being the one to lead the discussion. This is also echoed in Carmen's apology about being hard to keep up with. He says he: "I've been wanting to talk about... about... I don't want it to be so hard. To keep up with me." He then stops talking and makes direct eye contact with Sydney.

In my personal experience when I am in a conversation with someone and they end a sentence before making eye contact with me they - not always but usually - are expecting me to say something. They are expecting a reaction. They are expecting my opinion. They are not expecting me to just stare back at them for a full 15 seconds (I went and timed it) before saying "ok got it."

If that isn't an invitation for Sydney to ask "how do you want to do that" or "why do you do the things you do" or even share some ideas of things she would want to see from him then I don't know what is.

It again reflects a pattern whereby Sydney always wants the other person - and specifically Carmen - to be the one in control. To be the one making decisions, coming up with ideas etc. Despite what she says, when she gets given opportunities to be in the pulpit, she backs away. That way it is never her fault, never her failure.

She also - to my mind - leaves that conversation with Carmen frustrated with him. Frustrated that he didn't give her what she wanted.

Maybe he would, if she just asked (just like he gave her the partnership offer).

The final contrasting communication/Carmen's treatment of Sydney where I think Sydney reads it wrong is the whole menu thing. In Episode 7 Sydney discovers Carmen has changed the menu and makes a number of suggestions that are all shut down. This is presented to us - and Sydney - as evidence of the fact that Carmen doesn't listen to her or take her views into account. There isn't even a discussion, he just "no we will do x instead".

However, this needs to be contextualised by and contrasted with a very similar interaction in Episode 5. While discussing Ever closing down Carmy is playing with his meat dish (at this point it has bernaise foam). Sydney (gently) teases him about it and suggests how to change it. He invites her to explain and she does. He takes the feedback. They then move to discussing the day's menu. Sydney asks about the pasta dish:

Carmen: uh I don't know I was thinking a potato gnocchi?

Sydney: with beef cheeks?

Carmen: yes good done

So it is not universally true that Carmen disregards Sydney's opinions on the menu or food. In fact, when she has a very clear idea and volunteers information he either listens and asks her to explain or he just unquestioningly accepts her suggestion and moves on. He respects her, he trusts her, so if she has an idea and he doesn't he just goes with her. If he does have a clear idea he does that. It isn't at all clear at any point that he is opposed to discussing these things IN GENERAL. However, they need a new menu every day, so if he does have a very clear idea for the menu today, the discussion isn't necessary. So he doesn't actively solicit Sydney's input because he doesn't think it is needed. He also doesn't imply that she CANNOT express it anyway (or, I don't know, write those ideas down and then the next morning she can short cut the menu setting process).

From Carmen it seems much more like an expression of cognitive load management than dismissiveness or disinterest. From Sydney it is an illustration of how interactions that frustrate her and prove her narrative about Carmen get weighted highly and remembered, but moments where he treats her as an equal are dismissed (or at least not lingered on).

[donfermin]

Fermín López, the example of Barça’s different way of proceeding

The Andalusian midfielder goes against all the preconceived ideas of La Masia’s child prodigies, who go through the ranks at breakneck speed

Fermín López has become an established player of Barça’s first team squad after a journey through the blaugrana youth academy that reveals some of the keys to the success of the La Masia formula.

When Barça decided to sign Fermín, the player from Huelva was playing for Betis’ Infantil B team. He was a very skillful player who has already received positive reports three years earlier, but it was not until the summer of 2016 that the decision to sign him was made. At a youth tournament in Tarragona, the then head of the youth system Jordi Roura was convinced that he should be signed. His physique was his handicap but his talent was unquestionable. ‘Fer’ moved to La Masia and there he began a more complicated journey than expected.

From more to less

His coach in the Infantil A Carles Martínez, current coach of Toulouse, had already noticed his enormous talent and his physical disadvantage: “when I saw him at Betis I told the people in charge that because of his physique he would suffer in the first years, but that if we didn’t bet on him we would regret it”.

With Infantil A he scored 12 goals and when he made the jump to Cadete B he finished a remarkable season with 13 goals.

His physical condition, a difficult obstacle

Despite these results, Fermín wasn’t a regular starter due to his insufficient physical condition. The then head of the youth system Jordi Roura advised coaches use him, although his limited stature and lack of strength was a major handicap when competing. His last year as a cadet and his first year as a youth player were an enormous test of patience for Fermín. It is no coincidence that between the two season he did not score more than five goals. His delayed growth prevented him from winning duels, minutes were scarce and it seemed that his short stature was going to be a total hindrance to exploit his talent.

Fermín played two years in a row with the Juvenil B team and, in his last year in youth football with the Juvenil A team, he started to perform as expected when he first was signed. At any other club, Fermín would not have spent so many years as a regular substitute. There certainly wouldn’t have been the patience and a way out would have been sought for him.

Patience and loan

The player’s patience, but above all the commitment of those in charge of the club, eventually paid off. Barça were aware that the gamble on Fermín was a long-term investment with a bumpy road ahead. the athletic conditions were going to undermine his path but, in the end, as his coach in the Juvenil A team Óscar López explains, these difficulties “made him progress and develop other key skills”.

After a positive end to the season with Juvenil A, Fermín accepted Barça’s decision to loan him to Linares with positivity (t/n 🤔❔🤨). Many others would have been discouraged and missed the Barça train but Fermín saw it as an opportunity. He emerged with Linares and convinced Xavi in the pre-season.

An exemplary attitude

Fermín is an example for the rest of the cantenaros, the road is sometimes tortuous and the key is to face it with an overflowing competitive mentality that allows you to continue to grow. Barça bet on pure talent in the long term without being fooled by his physique and, with time, these difficulties have catapulted the Andalusian footballer to the elite. A good example for the rest of the aspiring stars.

[cheatsru]

PUBG Hacks

In the competitive landscape of PUBG, where split-second decisions can make or break your game, the allure of hacks presents a tantalizing yet risky proposition. While some players seek to enhance their experience through PUBG hacks for that sweet taste of victory, it’s essential to understand the repercussions that accompany this shortcut. Engaging with cheats not only undermines fair competition but also risks your account's integrity and reputation within the gaming community.

Moreover, using hacks may create a false sense of achievement—one might experience an adrenaline rush from easy wins, but at what cost? The true essence of gaming lies in skill development and resilience. Instead of leaning into hacks as crutches, consider investing time in honing your strategies and tactics. As you sharpen your abilities and challenge yourself over countless matches, you'll discover a deeper satisfaction tied to hard-earned victories that no hack can replicate. Ultimately, it's about embracing the journey and celebrating personal growth rather than succumbing to fleeting superficial advantages.

[fantasyinvader]

So, Edelgard's agency. This has been a question that has been at the core of the discourse since the beginning: does Edelgard have any control over her own decisions? Was she under duress, or does her being gaslit by her father absolve her of her actions? Some have even suggested that the Flame Emperor be a split personality threatening to consume Edelgard, and I'll admit that a recent take of mine does sound like that.

However, when you look at the text of The Girl From Hresvelg, the song that was turned into Edge of Dawn, there's lines that imply that regrdlss of which class Byleth teaches Edelgard waivers about going through with the war because of her time at Garreg Mach. Being at the academy with other people is the implied cause for this, not Byleth being her teacher, much like how Claude is a lot more mellow than the shithead he is in Hopes. However, as the song progresses Edelgard tosses this all away in order to go through with the war.

You know, just like working with TWSITD, with Hopes showing she could just kick them to the curb if she wanted to, it was her choice to do so. Then there's how when Edelgard faces information that goes against what she believes, like the Agarthans having that much influence over the Empire and the Empire having abolished it's branch of the Church over a century ago, she chooses to ignore it. The Agarthans don't have a gun to her head, as it's clear from her reaction after Arianrhod that she has no idea about the Javelins of Light. Nor did they take away her free will, because Hopes showed us they could do that if they wanted to.

It all comes down to the choices Edelgard makes, just like how Snow and Flower are about the choices Byleth makes.

Sure, she's acting on information that the game heavily implies came from the Agarthans with the intent to manipulate her into going to war, but it was still her choice to go to war. It was ultimately Edelgard who turned Edelgard into the Flame Emperor. It doesn't matter if she thinks she's doing the right thing because of their manipulations, not when she's ignoring all the red flags that pop up. And on top of this, the text is very clear that Edelgard is also using them. Sure, the translation of Cornelia's death line makes it sound that Edelgard is simply their puppet, making it sound like all the bad shit she does in Flower is because of them before they're defeated after the war and Edelgard is made out to be a better leader (and that Rhea had it coming anyway). Flower still features Edelgard lying to her allies alongside clues that she's still a tyrant despite the liberties taken with the translation. The version of Edelgard Pat wanted to create is still undermined not just by the rest of the game but by Flower itself. And at the end of the day, it's still made out that was attempting to use TWSITD to conquer Fodlan and force her beliefs on the people just like a crusader.

Not to mention, it mirrors the fact that players ultimately have to make the call to join Edelgard themselves. White Clouds still leads into Silver Snow by default, it's the natural continuation of the story alongside the devs saying they built the world to support it. It's the player's choice to ignore the story up until that point, to ignore all the horrible things seen in White Clouds and turn their sword on Rhea instead of those actually committing those deeds all due to an attachment to someone being manipulated by TWSITD. It is framed in the game as changing the story.

In short, the player's choice to walk the path of conquest with Edelgard is meant to be a parallel to Edelgard's own decision to walk down that path. It is the player's choice to become the villain. Because, remember, it's Edelgard final boss theme Apex of the World that's playing in Flower's final map.

For added measure, in the real world the idea that someone is not responsible for their actions because they were "brainwashed" or indoctrinated has been rejected time and time again. It would mean that it's possible to take away someone's free will, and the courts just refuse to entertain that idea. Edelgard can believe whatever she wants, but she's still always going to be responsible for her her actions unless she gets the mental illness label slapped on her. Considering how the trope of villains being villains because they're crazy has fallen out of favor due to it being deemed problematic, I don't think that's the route people want to go down.

Edelgard's path is still made out to be the animal path, one where she hurts innocent people in her ignorance and will lead to her being reincarnated as an animal in her next life. But in her current life, she's still human. She's still capable of rational thought, being able to control her instinct and impulses and act in a humane manner. Even with the Three Flames in contrast to Byleth representing enlightenment in a Buddhist spirtiual sense, she still has that ability. The Three Flames of attachment, ignorance and hatred can only sway her decisions, not make them for her. Even if she has a moment of clarity before her death like I've suggested, urging Byleth to kill her in order to stop the war because she realizes she won't fucking stop of her own free will, even that would not change the fact that Edelgard has free will. It will always be her decision, so long as she can fight to do so. She just realizes she doesn't have the self-control to stop herself from doing so, so she pushes Byleth to do it for her.

Finally, there is no shortage of people who have been manipulated by TWSITD for their ends. The whole tragedy of Duscur was them manipulating a bunch of noble upset about reforms that would limit their powers. Even if those nobles believed they were in the right, what they did was inexcusable because in the end justice was them dressing up their own greed. The fact that Hopes showed that Miklan, fucking Miklan, could be work to make amends when given the opportunity by Dimitri while Edelgard will try to kill Dimitri for offering her a hand? Not a good look for Edelgard, is it?

[rubyvroom]

Oppenheimer certainly is a movie

So I did see this and to its credit I am giving it some thought afterwards. There is a movie inside this movie that is actually pretty good; however, some Decisions were made that obscure this fact.

It is ultimately a Great Man film, and it stood a chance to do an interesting variation on the Great Man film where the Great Man is also the villain of the film. It actually feints at this in ways that I think are extremely interesting, but undermines it structurally in a way I think is detrimental to the film regardless of my opinions on its subject.

The ending, for example, is where Christopher Nolan just cannot help putting in a clever "oh the irony" moment to leave you wow'ed, but it is so transparently doing this that it makes you look back in annoyance at the previous 3 hours.

This invented conversation between Einstein and Oppenheimer that Nolan had to conceal from us earlier in the film to bring back at the last minute so that the viewer can think, oh wow! Of course that conversation was not what Strauss imagined it was at all, he was as a paranoid narcissist assuming they were talking about him rather than reciting the theme of the film out loud for us! It was all a misunderstanding! How tragic!

But why do that? Other than the wow, what is this accomplishing? What is this investigation/hearing structure that we spend much of the run-time of the film in accomplishing? It gives the film a structure that allows us to jump around in time, but what did we get out of this other than last minute reveals? Why did he make it this way?

Well, this is the way to have a film about J Robert Oppeheimer with a villian who is not J Robert Oppenheimer.

So you have Strauss in that role, and honestly, he is played so magnetically by Robert Downey Jr that it almost works. You basically go with it for 2 hours and 50 minutes or so. Because unlike the protagonist of this film he has agency. He is making decisions. He has convictions that he will explain and demonstrate. He's the character making the film go, more or less.

Oppenheimer does none of those things. He is a passive player in his own story. Which is a Decision in this movie, and a big one. Especially if you look through all the contradictions to actual history.

In this movie Oppenheimer really doesn't wrestle with any moral quandries, he does not make difficult choices. The Manhattan Project is a task he is uniquely suited to, as he is to nothing else, as though he is forged for this and only this purpose. Oppenheimer is less an archer than an arrow loosed at the target of the Trinity Tests and left there quivering ever after. It's an inevitability. He does it because it's what he does, what he was always going to do. As a main character he's not so different from the Tenet protagonist in this way. Just like Tenet, this movie is a clockwork propelling the Great Man where he needs to be.

The film absolves Oppenheimer in this way, treating him as swept along by the forces of history rather than making moral decisions. And hell, maybe that's how it actually happened - humans frequently blunder into moral quagmires without planning to. We avoid thinking about the inconvenient truths and wrestling with cognitive dissonance all the time. On top of that, Oppenheimer himself gets a special dispensation for being a Scientist, with zippy quantum physics imagery flashing in his head all the time. How can we expect him to focus on the real world implications of his fancy science? (Except real world logistics is actually the thing he is accomplished in, as we see in the whole section where he designs the Los Alamos project. He didn't actually discover the principals of the bomb, or design the bomb himself. He's not Einstein. He's not even Niels Bohr. He's a project manager. An extremely good one! But let's ignore that, the movie wants us to think flashy Science Visions when we think of Oppie, so okay.) Anyway, we try with a few briefly shown newspaper covers to assign a motive to the man's drive. His Jewish identity gets some lip service, without much conviction or, y'know, actual onscreen depiction. The Nazis are a distant abstraction, less immediate than the lurking communists at every corner. Watch out for the commies, Oppie! They're the ones actually on his street corner, while Nazis are literally represented as a couple headlines. Obviously none of those things really matter. In the end he builds the bomb because he can, because he can do it faster than anyone else and pretty much instantaneously upon realizing it's possible he is mentally committed to the task. It is his destiny and his terrible duty. It has to be him. He is a homing missile. A bomb.

THAT movie is interesting, actually.

I find that part of the movie weirdly compelling, and if they had leaned into that angle I feel like it could have been a great film? If they had only mentioned a few more similar incidents to the cyanide apple, played out his violent tendencies, and contrasted to a genuine love of science -- and what exactly does he love about it, really? -- where does that get us? How does power use people like that? What does it do with them afterwards?

But most of this movie is not that.

Most of this movie is Oppenheimer being unfairly persecuted for being friends with communists, which is presented as an example of scientist as a naive babe in the woods rather than the savvy political operator he actually was in real life. And if you are not pearl-clutching at the thought of talking to commies, this entire plot thread feels incredibly overblown. It's so much of that three hours, you guys. So much. Oppie can't get his security clearance, Oppie is losing his security clearance, wow that's so unfair, and any sense of urgency of what he actually needs this clearance FOR ten years after the war is really underbaked. And honestly whenever they jettison that theme and cover literally anything else, the film comes back to life again -- the Los Alamos/Trinity section in the middle is gripping, his Girlfriend 1 and Girlfriend 2 show actual signs of life in the brief crumbs of onscreen time they are given -- but it's so vastly outnumbered by the time spent in board rooms and congressional hearings.

The purpose of which? The real thesis of this movie, which is that J Robert Oppenheimer was ultimately too naive to understand that the bomb he was making would be used to bomb somebody.

And the nation, represented by Robert Downey Jr (lol) is happy to discard him afterwards. Like I get that's the theme we're working with here. But the movie is none too interested in looking more closely at the why and the how of that discard; Oppenheimer's actual actions after the war are largely elided, as are Strauss's. No context. Oppenheimer's actual political convictions are murky. That would give him agency, you see, and the movie wants a passive martyr (and uses that word incessantly to boot). So our villian is Strauss, an ambitious and vindictive man, in opposition to our pure scientist Oppenheimer, who spent most of his career in Washington while, somehow, lacking any ambition or political opinions at all.

Really, did we need this movie? Yes, it's nice to have adult films with people talking and not punching. The craft is there. It's well made and well-acted, to varying degrees. I like looking at Cillian Murphy's face, and Nolan leans on that smartly. It's most vital sequence (the trinity test) is very good, and so is the scene where he hallucinates the cheering audience after the Hiroshima bombing melting in a radioactive flash.

But honestly? When your key sequence was mic-dropped by David Lynch six years ago, did we need this? What for? Can we have a real discussion now about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That's the one real utility of this film and one we really have not seen come to fruition. Imagine a version of this film where that conversation between Einstein and Oppenheimer is not a gotcha but a catalyst for a real, raw and jaw-dropping look at how the world was warped by The Bomb. I guess for that we have to go to someone like David Lynch, and not Christopher Nolan.

[himbeaux-on-ice]

some new non-comprehensive thoughts on Pride and the meaning of warmup jerseys

(the following is drawn largely from my twitter thread)

honestly, i think the Panthers have like the Sharks taken the best route you can in a bad situation. and there's relief for me in that.

don't cave and undermine all the planning and work you did in order to cover for a few homophobic players. let it land on them. do not stop for their sake. thank you.

idk, personally the teams that backtrack on the jerseys entirely to cover for homophobes in their ranks leave me feeling way more angry and disillusioned than the ones where 90% of the guys are still out there in those jerseys and just one or two dipshits loudly sat out. i would have been way more disappointed by an entire organization making the decision to coddle and shelter homophobes than i am by the revelation that 2/18 players suck but the rest of them got with the program.

maybe that's a low bar. but yeah, i'm weirdly relieved that the jerseys made it to the ice at all. that so many chose to wear them.

it's like. at least some people cared enough to stick by us and not be cowards, y'know? even though dipping out was an option, somebody answered in the affirmative when asked if they'd stand with us. several somebodies did, actually.

when teams pull back entirely, we don't even get that much.

people talk about the "epidemic" of homophobia in the NHL and whether it should change how/if teams do Pride nights, but i would take an epidemic of 1-2 idiots per team sitting out of warmups over having an epidemic of all teams deciding not to do Pride at all because of those few. i would, genuinely.

are they "hijacking the events" or "taking away from the meaning of them"? idk man. these days bigots show up where queerness is visible to spout their bigot shit regardless. i have two pride flags in my hockey twitter display name, trust me, i know. at least when it happens like this, there's also people and an organization supporting us instead of just leaving us to deal with it alone.

does finding out some guys are homophobes suck? yeah. but we always knew these people existed. they're just showing themselves out loud.

and that blows. and it hurts.

but also, the entire rest of the team and the organization showed who they are tonight by not protecting or accommodating them, too.

i'm seeing so many people feel hurt by the two dumbasses who wouldn't stand beside them rather than encouraged by *every* other member of the team who *chose* not to cop out. and like. i get your hurt. but everyone else CHOSE to stand with us.

think about that for a second. sitting out was clearly an option here, if they put up enough of a stink. and yeah, two guys took that out. but *every other player* DID NOT. on the Sharks and Flyers, all but *one* guy apiece got with the program. some of them even did really meaningful community work!!

and the Panthers franchise decision-makers stood by their choice to do this, loudly and with meaningful activism attached, in FLORIDA, even when two of their own players pulled the religious protest card and copped out.

i extremely, massively respect that. i really do.

maybe i'm just a terminal optimist by nature, but. to me, what we are seeing is that when given the choice, so far the vast majority of players on these teams are still choosing to participate when given the option. when it's not taken out of their hands entirely by people upstairs.

the outliers suck, but they are just that. outliers. and i hope they feel like it.

personally, i'm not leaving this sport i love just because it's got a stubborn lingering jackass infestation. they can't have it. no, *you* move.

also, shoutout to the guys who extremely voluntarily opt-in even though it's not even their team's Pride night. genuinely means something

people vocally being asshats is discouraging. yeah. it always is. it stings.

but all is not lost. not by far. keep your head up. and stay loud. 💜

[amerricanartwork]

Part two of this! Felt like I should get around to finishing these. I've already answered the second, but a lot of my thoughts for these go hand-in-hand so I'll kinda answer them as one here.

Also, I apologize if these seem a bit scattered. The questions are pretty broad in their interpretation, so I'm more just using this to get out some loose character thoughts I probably won't end up saying in other posts I plan to make.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

8. What are your opinions of Looks to the Moon (character)?

9. What are your opinions on Five Pebbles (character)?

To summarize what I said about Five Pebbles last time, I basically see him as another example of what I find to be a fascinating kind of tragic villain, where their bad environments combined with their own major character flaws essentially create a vicious cycle undermining all of their successes and worsening their failures more and more until they meet their demise in some way. But like I said before, I stated I also like the idea that Pebbles's own personality flaws and bad decisions, while still being the ultimate problem, were not the only things to blame for what happened to him, and as of now I think Looks to the Moon takes 2nd place in making the worst mistakes when dealing with him, only topped by Seven Red Suns.

I plan to go into it more later, since it's pretty crucial for an iterator off-the-string AU story I've been working on for a while, but I basically believe Moon's biggest flaw is being too selfless and making decisions based solely around what others seem to need while neglecting herself. In this regard Pebbles could actually be seen as more virtuous than her, because he's extremely committed to doing what he believes is right and follows through pretty much unconditionally, whereas Moon can only pursue her goals if it doesn't appear to do anything bad to other people.

Again, I'm gonna go into this more later, but for now I wanna give some out-of-universe thoughts and say that I would like to see more content showing off Moon's flaws and Pebbles's virtues. I feel like both of them can be a bit flanderized from time to time, with Pebbles being portrayed as overly mean or uncaring and Moon being cheery and caring with no flaws. So to help balance out their sibling dynamic better, I'd like to explore the idea of Moon making her own big mistakes, yet hiding it behind politeness and selflessness, and her eventually having to realize that Pebbles has some merits she could probably learn from!

Even despite that though, I really like Looks to the Moon as a character, and she's probably one of my favorite female characters in any story thus far! Firstly, I really feel for her struggle, not just in being collapsed by her own brother, separated from her friends and drowned constantly, but in (at least my headcanon idea of her) how much she enjoys in the world around her, yet doesn't feel like she can enjoy it fully. I get the sense that because of how old and broken down she is, she feels like "her time has passed" more-or-less, and it's no longer her right to exist for much longer. And that's just so sad! Like, poor girl's gone through so much and doesn't feel like there's anything she can do about it!

But on a more positive note, I think Moon is conceptually a really cool character, albeit in a different way to Five Pebbles. Rain World has always seemed to be largely about the feeling of existing in a strange world with a lost history far older and more complicated than you can ever understand, and I think no character symbolizes that idea of civilizations being lost to time than Looks to the Moon. Her primary utility is giving the player lore about the world, and with her broken down state and age old enough to probably have seen a good deal of Ancient society change over time, it feels all the more like I'm talking to one of the last remnants of a lost civilization. And on top of that, she literally is a broken down massively complex artificial structure, the pinnacle of Ancient civilization slowly returning to the natural ecosystem. And I especially mean that last part! Submerged Superstructure is one of my favorite regions conceptually because abandoned architecture being reclaimed by the wilds is a trope I find so beautiful and poetic, and I think it makes this region speak to that theme of Rain World even more so than Five Pebbles's Metropolis. Whereas Metropolis is still relatively barren and unchanged besides the dust, scavengers, and other occasional creatures, Submerged Superstructure is almost entirely flooded, filled with all sorts of flora and fauna, and yet you can still clearly see the identifying architecture of old sections like the Memory Conflux and Abstract Convergence Manifold. Looks to the Moon, both as a region and a character, is just so cool and beautiful in her ability to evoke such sadness to see this strange and fascinating world be lost to time, yet also a deep love of nature knowing that life goes on anyway!

Lastly, I just wanna mention how I love Five Pebbles and Moon's relationship and how central it is to the "story" of Rain World. As much as I love good romance, deep sibling bonds can be so heartfelt too, and it's continuously fascinating and melancholic and beautiful to see these two mechanical gods get humbled from their high status endure so much tragedy, yet still reconnect with each other in the end, if not physically then by mending their relationships and forgiving each other. Throughout everything we see happen to them they seem so interconnected, and yet, at least in my interpretation, they eventually come to learn that isn't such a bad thing after all! Once again, it serves as a reminder than even in this seemingly hopeless and dying world love goes on, like a great cycle! This is honestly part of why I've been hesitant to write my thoughts on this, because their story's ending in Rubicon threatens to make me cry every time I think about it because it's just so poetic!

So, in short, I like the idea that Looks to the Moon is pretty flawed as well as Five Pebbles, I empathize with her a lot, I adore her symbolism as a fascinating relic of a lost civilization, and I honestly think the story of her and Five Pebbles is perhaps one of my favorite parts of Rain World!

Thanks again for the questions, @tanyabadtime159!

[thelordofgifs]

I wish you would write a fic where Maglor didn't get to Uldor in time and now has to manage the aftermath of the Nirnaeth with Maedhros dead.

Sat on this for a couple of days because I wanted to write a snippet, but I have too many Thoughts to condense into one scene so you get bullet points instead!

So: firstly, this is really sad why did you do this!

Anyway Maglor has actually been in this situation before. He’s mourned Maedhros already: when he was first captured, and again when he had to turn down Morgoth’s offer to return him, and again when he was rescued and Maglor realised he was not the brother who had ridden away to the parley and never would be again.

That doesn’t make it better – this is the literal worst thing that has ever happened to him in his life and it’s his fault he didn’t get to Uldor in time – but… in some ways, it’s less of a shock than Fingon’s death was to Maedhros.

The immediate aftermath of the Nirnaeth isn’t very different. They don’t have the strength to hold Himring, so they flee east and then eventually south to Ossiriand.

For Maedhros the Nirnaeth, as well as being obviously personally devastating, marks the end of his significance as a political player in Beleriand. It was his Union that failed, his allies (or Caranthir’s if you’re picky) that betrayed them, his lands that were taken.

For Maglor this is actually less pronounced. He lost his own lands in the Bragollach. It’s hard to pin the breaking of the Union on him.

In terms of intra-Fëanorian power dynamics, I think this means that Maglor actually commands more authority post-Nirnaeth than Maedhros did.

Headcanon time: although they do love each other deep down (very deep down. subterranean levels.) Celegorm and Maglor do not and never will get on; they are far too different and tend to clash.

During Maedhros’ captivity this resulted in a quiet cold war between the two of them, with Celegorm constantly undermining Maglor’s decisions – now we get a repeat of that situation. which Maglor is not a fan of. But he is at least used to it.

Not much significantly changes until Thingol’s death, the fall of Melian’s Girdle and, soon after, Lúthien’s death and Dior’s inheritance of the Silmaril.

Of course Celegorm is frothing at the mouth to go after Dior for the Silmaril, and Curufin with him.

In canon Maedhros appears to have completely abdicated any sense of responsibility at this stage: it was Celegorm who spearheaded the Second Kinslaying.

Did Maglor, who wrote the Noldolantë, who deeply regretted Alqualondë, want to attack Doriath?

Hopefully I’m not just being biased about my blorbo when I say that I think not.

Maglor would follow Maedhros into anything. His greatest flaw is that he has a conscience, and ignores it for Maedhros’ sake.

Would he follow Celegorm? Not really. He hasn’t failed Celegorm the way he failed Maedhros over and over again. He doesn’t owe Celegorm anything.

But he is still bound by his Oath. And it is not sleeping.

… ok I’m sufficiently intrigued this is going on the Sticky Note of things that need writing. WHY did you do this I have enough AUs. @ tfs readers you know whom to blame for the delay in updates! (Or here’s the ask game if you want to contribute)