#it's storytelling 101

[what-do-1000-swords-look-like]

This might be a hot take but I've gotta get this off my chest:

I have seen so many times in the past two years the point being made by a particular section of the fandom that Sam was the hero of SPN, the "Luke Skywalker" of the series as Kripke himself stated, and that the finale ending made sense for not only Sam getting to live but also for Dean's ending. And in the very same breath, it's mentioned that the show was always about the brothers, no one else, that's what Kripke always wanted, etc., but this argument is always made from a very pro-Sam slanted/skewed anti-ship (and sometimes anti-Dean) point of view without taking into consideration of just how much the story of SPN evolved even before Kripke left the show.

Like say what you will about Sam being the hero of the story, and I'm not going to disagree with you about that being Kripke's original intention because you're right. Sam was the main protagonist; that's clear from the outset of the series. The whole first season is everything being told from Sam's POV. It's evident in every single episode in how each case has resolution thanks to Sam. He is made to be the hero. The whole arc of season 1 is about Sam being dragged back into this world due to his desire for revenge for what happened to Jessica which turns into something more aka Sam is naturally a hunter and he wants to help people/help his family->Dean. It's even Sam in the season finale that chooses a different way compared to John's quest for revenge by choosing Dean/his family over his revenge.

So, yes, you're right when you say in the beginning of the series that Sam was the hero/main protagonist. Absolutely. But what is not being mentioned/realized is that somewhere along the way, during Kripke's era, Dean's own story within the series became just as integral to the main story like Sam's as did their relationship as brothers. Kripke developed the story to include both. They both become essential to the main overhead arc of the entire show. The whole reason John and Mary even got together (through Heaven's intervention as per SPN canon) was to bring about both Sam and Dean's existence. Dean becomes the complement to Sam's role. We find out that Sam is the chosen vessel for Lucifer, and then we find out Dean is the chosen vessel for Michael, which leads to the showdown between Heaven and Hell essentially through the two. Both have a decision to make; both are tapped on the shoulders by both sides (i.e. Cas/Ruby); both are essential to the main plot while having their own separate arcs/journeys. Dean is no longer a side character or even the "Han Solo". His story is developed and we not only see his own hero's journey that he has to go on (when physically separate from Sam for example; going into the future though this is still intertwined with Sam's journey itself; going back in time, etc.) but his own desires, thought processes, relationships (outside of Sam), are also brought into the forefront for his story. Can this happen with side characters? Sure. But that's not what happens here because Kripke not only develops/beefs up Dean's story but also interweaves it with Sam's very carefully, to the point that the show doesn't work without both characters. Hence, Sam is no longer the sole main protagonist.

Which is why, for example, Dean is the one to kill the YED even though Sam had been determined to make YED pay for what happened to Jessica. And Kripke masterfully balances the main plot between the two as the show develops, so much so that we get payoff for Sam's journey (which leads up to Swan Song but I'll get to that in a moment), by fulfilling big plot points such as his killing Lillith and setting Lucifer free. He even still gets the hero's end by choosing to sacrifice himself to save Dean and the world in 5x22. Kripke beautifully takes Sam's original journey and tweaks it in such a way that while Sam had his dad's training and a similar quest for vengeance, he made a different decision and he did that while having much more on his shoulders (literally the weight of the world) than John ever did. And we still get payoff for what was initially set up way back in season 1. We get a close out to the Jessica story line, to Sam's powers story line, all of it, before Kripke dipped out.

And in the same fashion, we also got a closeout to Dean's story line. If he would ever get out of hunting, would he allow Sam to go into that dark night alone, would he be the same as John -- all of it.

So the ending to 5x22 absolutely makes sense. And we get: Dean surviving and going to live a "normal" life & Sam making the sacrifice (as the hero the series started out with) while also somehow surviving & making his way back to his brother. That's Kripke's ending. Now to be fair, Sam making his way back to Dean more likely had to do with them setting up the next season, but ultimately he wasn't dead after throwing himself and Michael into the pit.

Then in the later seasons, which some fans like to exclude or dismiss (but it's still part of Sam and Dean's official story), their stories were still integral to the main story but they had also evolved to include other characters (such as Cas, Jody, Donna, etc) and they had developed over the next ten years. So when looking at the series as a whole, Dean and Sam's endings in the series finale do not make sense. Kripke already got his ending in 5x22 and the show moved past that, and quickly set out to dismantle it in 6x01. This theme continued and the idea of free will became the center stage even more than it had in the first five seasons. By the time the last season rolled around, Dean and Sam had different desires, their stories had not only been completely intertwined to make both of them the main protagonists but both the heroes, and how their ends/hunting boots were hung up in the end would both matter.

So if you watched all of the seasons, 15x20 doesn't make sense. Because Dean and Sam wanted very different things by that point, they had both built relationships with other characters (Cas and Jack were the biggest ones but those two were not the only ones), and their story had effectively changed.

And if you didn't watch any of the later seasons (or you dismiss it), 15x20 still doesn't make sense because this wasn't the ending Kripke had for the seasons 1-5 Sam and Dean. If anything, it felt like it could have been 1x02 instead of the Wendigo episode, ending Dean and Sam's story in two short episodes with nothing in between.

That does not make sense.

Imagine we were discussing the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. We all know how that ended (I'm talking TV only, not the comics). Buffy saved the world, she survived (finally!), and she was free from Sunnydale. Now imagine she had been killed off. Not only would it feel redundant but it wouldn't feel like a true ending for the story told over the past 7 seasons. What would have been the point of her being resurrected in season 6 then? What would have been the point of her relationship with Spike, Dawn, and the others? Could Joss Whedon have made it into another hero's sacrifice (instead of Spike doing the heroic/redeeming sacrifice), that she got Dawn, Willow, Xander, and the other Slayers ready to defend the world that she would die saving? Sure. But again, when you compare that ending to her story, it doesn't really make sense. There is no payoff, for the viewers or for the character of Buffy. She had earned that ending, the freedom from the Hellmouth and from the burden of being alone as the only Slayer (aka Chosen One). Which is why we get that great shot in the end:

Willow: "Yeah, the First is scrunched so...what do you think we should do, Buffy?"

Faith: "Yeah, you're not the one and only Chosen anymore. Just got to live like a person. How's that feel?"

Dawn: "Yeah, Buffy, what are we going to do now?"

The hero, who had already made the hero's sacrifice more than once, finally earned the ending that she wanted: freedom and the ability to choose to live her life for herself. The burden of being The Slayer had been removed and spread out to others (effectively building a network, hold that thought for a minute), she was no longer alone, she had defeated the Big Bad (which was effectively the Hellmouth since it kept creating/calling to these other Big Bads she faced over the years as well as the monsters she started out fighting), she might have more to face in the future, but it's up to her now what she wants to do. She is given the choice aka free will and that's what she earned after everything she had gone through during the duration of the show.

That's an ending.

This isn't:

Death wasn't supposed to be their ending. While some might be able to turn to you and say 'but they end up in Heaven together, they're at peace', that doesn't make it a payoff ending, for the viewers (early seasons only or all seasons) or for the characters of Sam and Dean. That's not effective storytelling. Neither ending was heroic or earned.

Dean dying, while again wouldn't make sense given the story, could have been painted as heroic if it happened during the battle with Chuck for example. Their final battle with the ultimate Big Bad. Even though they both died heroically quite a few times before this, it could have been done and while ultimately disappointing, it could have been the hero's end for Dean (just like Sam's end in 5x22 was the hero's end for him). This death wasn't heroic; instead it was from vampire stunt guy #4 who apparently juiced before that scene getting an upper hand on the hero and impaling him on a piece of sharp rebar. During a milk run hunt. Now imagine if that were Sam. Ask these people who think that by the end of the series that Sam was the only hero, ask them if that happened to Sam instead, would they still be praising the finale? Or imagine that was Buffy. That she survived like she does, the Hellmouth in Sunnydale was finally gone, only to be killed by a random forgettable vampire who she had faced off with in the first season and got away, only to suddenly return and take the hero out, thus negating the payoff/earned ending she and the viewers got. Doesn't make sense, right?

Now imagine if say Dawn was killed off in a similar way (though tbf Dawn's role was not the same as Dean's in the story) or during the battle, and we see Buffy living her life through the years, getting out of slaying, having a family which consists of a daughter she names Dawn, wearing her own Party City wig and looking at a picture of Dawn all teary-eyed, dying in her sleep as an old lady, and then reuniting with her in Heaven. It doesn't work. Not only because Dawn had a very different role in the show when it came to the main story but also because it DOESN'T WORK. What kind of hero's end is that? What payoff is that? Is it great that Sam gets to choose to get out of hunting and have a family? Sure. But that's not where his story was headed, in later seasons, or even during Kripke's era.

Going back to the network thing I mentioned with Buffy, Sam had done that. Not only were there strong hints of leader!Sam near the end of the series, but he had effectively built a network of hunters for a time until Alt!Michael killed them all. But he and Dean still had a network going through Jody, Donna, Claire, even Jack until he turned God!Jack. Wayward Sisters might not have taken off when it first aired but the point was made: a hunter network still existed. And these characters, this network, even though not shown in the finale, still survived no matter what happened with Sam and Dean in the end. Why is this important? Because not only does it extend the hunting universe, but it also removes the burden from the heroes' shoulders. So they could have gotten out of hunting if they wanted to, just like Buffy could have laid down her axe (or stake). The heroes had earned it.

So for Dean to die on a random hunt and for those few to say that it was being foreshadowed this whole time with Dean's quotes (from before season 15 btw) and a proper ending to his story...they really don't know what show they were watching or how storytelling works in general. Because when they say that, they negate Dean's whole arc of season 15 (while also negating his whole series arc). Dean was angry in the beginning of the season because he thought not only had his free will been taken from him, but also because he thought he hadn't had any free will this whole time. There's a reason why he says what he says to Cas in 15x02. There's a reason why he was so gung ho on letting Jack sacrifice himself, and only once once Sam and Chuck say what they say in 15x17 does Dean make a different choice: his family (and the world) vs his own desire (his idea of free will, not fully realizing that he's actually utilizing it by making that choice). It's only when he chooses not to kill Chuck in 15x19 that he is completely self-aware and that he is using his free will to make a choice. A choice that affects how the Big Bad is ended/defeated. "That's not who I am."

He was given the hero's choice and he made it. And his decision was the right one that had payoff from not only the events in 15x17 and 15x18 but for his overall story. That's why what Cas says to him in 15x18 about who he is as a character was so important. It set Dean up to not only have self-realization but to also act upon it. Think about how many times over the years Sam and other characters have told Dean this about himself but he never really believed it. Why? Because he hadn't reached that part of his journey yet. Because he hadn't reached the end of it yet. So it makes perfect sense how 15x17, 15x18, and 15x19 play out. This is the appropriate ending battle for not only Dean but Sam as well:

This was the hero's sacrifice they made. They could have been killed from Chuck beating on them as he did. He could have chosen to snap his fingers at any point. They made the sacrifice in order to get Jack the time and energy he needed to power up to overpower Chuck. And they never stayed down no matter the pain, no matter the potential of their deaths at Chuck's hand. They refused to give it up. This is why Sam helps Dean back up and why they're laughing/smiling. Because they know that no matter what happens to them, Jack/the world is going to win. "Why are you smiling?" "Because...you lose." And their sacrifice not only hands victory over to the new generation aka Jack but also instates the new God who replaces Chuck aka The Big Bad of the entire series. EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS SCREAMS HERO.

So it's not only payoff for Jack's story (as well as Chuck's) but also for Sam and Dean's. And both brothers were the heroes. Which is why Sam tells Chuck that he loses and Dean tells him that they won. Why both of them tell Chuck about their plan that they formed together (and Jack doesn't say a word). Which is why Chuck says he's going to die at both of their hands, both Sam and Dean look at each other, and then Dean makes the choice not to kill Chuck. "See, that's not who I am. That's not who we are." Because they both were the heroes and main protagonists of the series. Something that Kripe had set up long before 5x22.

"What kind of an ending is this?" One the heroes had earned. Chuck as the Big Bad wanted violence and death, an ending he would be entertained by. And even for an ending he hadn't imagined for himself (where he loses), he still expected a grisly death at the hands of the heroes. Had either Winchester done that, then Chuck would have gotten what he wanted and it wouldn't be the heroes' end that they had earned.

This was the ending that Sam and Dean earned:

The choice to continue on if they wanted or to get out of hunting for good. To go see Jody, Donna, and the girls, or go get Cas out of The Empty, or go on milk run hunts for a while, or even to go to a freaking baseball game (screw you, John!); the point is it was their choice. That's what they had earned by the end of the series.

The ending that Chuck earned was not only the worst he could imagine but it was punishment for everything he had done. Both brothers say as much:

Sam: "I think it's the ending where you're just like us. And like all the other humans you forgot about."

Dean: "It's the ending where you grow old, you get sick, and you just die."

Sam: "And no one cares. And no one remembers you. You're just forgotten."

This was not the heroes' ending or the ending both characters had earned/deserved:

This was:

For the ones who insist that Dean's sacrifice was the right ending for his story and that he got a new Heaven as a reward are incorrect. Heaven wasn't what Dean wanted, not before he got what he earned.

For the one who insist that Sam's ending was right for his story and that he got to have a family and choose to get out of hunting as a reward are incorrect. Sam wanted Dean to be a part of that life (however it looked) and he had no desire to get out of hunting by the time the series came to an end.

15x20 is not the right ending for either Winchester.

And for those who say that Dean hadn't become one of the heroes in the series or that the finale was right because Sam was the sole main protagonist by the end (or even Kripke's ending in 5x22) clearly weren't paying attention. Not only did Sam not get the heroes' end or the end he wanted and earned, but neither did Dean who had been developed into the other main protagonist of the series, by the series creator himself before he left the show.

Bonus:

15x20 was not their real finale and here's how you know:

Next shot (after cutting to black):

Nothing after it.

SPN:

Next shot (after fading to black):

And then:

(while still in costume, the two leads thanking the fans and then the crew/bridge drone shot complete with show music)

Compare this to how 15x19 ended as well. We get the montage, the drive off shot, and then the scene from 1x01 of Sam shutting the trunk of the Impala as Dean watches. Then cuts to black.

That's their finale.

[boylikeanangel]

sorry but the whole "aziraphale keeps a gun inside a hollowed out book" is THE BIGGEST missed opportunity ever to do a LITERAL Chekhov's Gun I'm so mad about it can you imagine if in episode 6 when they're fighting the demons in the bookshop and they run out of encyclopedias to throw and they're completely out of options instead of exploding his halo aziraphale just pulls a pistol out of a book and starts fucking shooting them

[rosequart]

it's important to me that marcille did fucked up crime magic to resurrect falin. like, isn't it so riveting that she knew the potentially devastating consequences of ancient magic and did it anyway

"marcille did nothing wrong" actually she did and that's what makes it interesting! it was out of love and it was selfish and desperate and it ruled

[muffinlance]

Do you get the impression the live action is treating us like utter morons?? Like I thought that making it aimed at an older audience would open the doors for more subtle story telling, but no, they're just using monologues to tell us eveything! Like in the second episode Katara's like 'oh his power isn't that he's the avatar, it's that he ~connects~ to people'. Girl we're not idiots we can see that!! And the first episode with Aang's goddawful 'I don't want this responsibility' monologue

THIS, YES. The word that keeps coming to mind is definitely "subtlety". The show for literal children? Had it. The remake for adults? Not so much.

[spicymotte]

Part 02 of my Storytelling Basics series! (( Part 01 here! )) I'll be sharing my notes and insights from working as an author and comic artist. Maybe you'll learn something new, too! :) Part 02 deals with the plot itself. How do you turn an idea into a pitch or a plot summary? It's not as hard as you might think!

(Download the PDF here!)

[wakeupthemembersofbylernation]

Everyone who aggressively denies obvious Byler foreshadowing pointed out to them is gonna look awfully foolish when Byler is endgame. It’s one thing to be a GA member and just not know the evidence; it’s another thing to be an avid watcher of the show and be shown specific evidence in great detail, only to be like, “Nuh-uh, this means nothing 🙅‍♂️”

[emblazons]

I feel like the SECOND Finn Wolfhard said this anyone who has spent any time watching stranger things before S4 should have known some shit was up.

Stranger Things has been winning awards since 2016 for its (admitted) romanticization of outcasts, nerdiness and nostalgia for things that might be considered childish by other creators or “mature” adults—

—and the boy who was central to that from LITERALLY MINUTE ONE of the show, where he was ring-leading a DnD campaign, had an actor saying his character is trying to act normal, a concept we’ve already unpacked as negative multiple times before? ☠️ That’s the clearest setup for something not going as it appears to be on the surface in his arc I’ve ever seen in my gd life.

“That I love you to his girlfriend is the solution to his narrative in this show” and in the canon he’s already saying shit like “i worry too much about her” and “one day she’s gonna realize she doesn’t need me” while ignoring his girlfriend at the very end of the season to latch like a barnacle to his “it’s not the same without you” best friend…be so fucking serious lmaooo

[filmcourage]

50 Ways To Write A Screenplay

See the video on Youtube here.

[mythcreantsblog]

Writers are under a lot of pressure to develop our characters well. Sometimes we’re under too much pressure. Back in 2014, I wrote the article Five Signs Your Character Is Fully Developed, but when I look at that article today, I worry I was reinforcing unhealthy attitudes about writing. Yes, we want to write great characters, and it’s wonderful when we feel a connection to them. But it’s also easy to forget what we’re doing it for.

The purpose of developing a character is to give you and your readers a good experience, not to meet some glorified ideal. We don’t have to engage in extensive character development to look good in front of our peers or to validate ourselves as serious writers. Regardless of what we do, there will always be people who scoff at us. But those people shouldn’t dictate how we create our characters.

[sillygoblinantics]

I wanted to bring this up as I saw something recently that spread information about the elements to writing and character story.

So allow me to sperg to those who are looking for knowledge about the elements of story.

How should I structure a story?

Depends on the type of story, for the sake of consistency in topic; we’ll go into the multilayered story.

You may have heard this name before or read books by him but the way we write and outline our stories came from the mind of Joseph Campbell.

This is a good video for my visual learners out here, it’s very good and gets the points across very well!

While Campbell is the go to for his 12 step structure there are a plethora of other authors and writers who’ve just as equally mapped out the hero’s journey!

Dan Harmon a man that needs no introduction as far as bibliography goes: a fellow nerd, dnd fanatic, telovision writer and creator.

In his story circle, he takes Campbell’s journey and breaks down the fundamental key points to how any storyteller should structure an episode or general story outline/arc.

In other words: it’s simple and straight to the action!

It’s so easy to forget or lose track of your story without a simple point of reference to structure your characters arcs!

Arcs?

Character arcs

This are crucial to not only telling but showing the moments of who we are following on the journey.

Without hurdles, highs and lows, pain, and every kind of thing that life has and will throw at you, than what thrill and satisfaction will the audience get from their turning point?

“Rome was not built in a day, for if it was, the Romans would be left with nothing to do”

- Illymations (animal crossing video)

I like quoting this when the topic of storytelling comes up.

If you had everything you ever wanted and didn’t need any kind of work to get it would the reward still feel rewarding? Probably not. That’s why when you put off doing simple chores and finally get around to completing them that you feel better; it’s rewarding!

Your character should have to run an obstacle course to get to the finish line, but it’s can always look different.

Some stories start with a climax while others have it in the middle!

As long as your character goes on a journey where they return home having grown into someone new and learned something important that forever changed who they started as. You have a story.

And the setting can be just about anywhere and any time. Past/Present/Future, modern or scifi, even in a coffee shop.

Note:

I want to specify that by no means should the point of my lil sperging be disregarded by personal bias and opinions of the names mentioned as its not relevant

Properties of the three acts!

The three act structure is the three different key moments to any narrative: the beginning, middle and end. When I talk about acts I’m not talking about plot, that’s a different story ;3 (badumm tsss)

Act 1:

Introduction

Act one is where we establish the world, setting and rules that apply to it.

It is also where we meet the character(s) of the story.

As we proceed I will be using the Steven Universe movie as an example for the 3Act Structure.

Act one perfectly captures the key points of the first act!

A recap of the events in the show

Introducing Steven and company

As well as the motivations and personality of each main focal character: Steven, amethyst, pearl and garnet

We get a somewhat forward send off to one character

We reach the very last few points of the first act believing nothing bad could change the day before

Once we meet the final focal character we are thrown into the main overarching plot.

Once Spinel gets poofed, act one ends

Act 11

Not in Kansas anymore

The second act is where the character(s) have to interact with the changed/new environment, the struggle or challenge being had.

We follow them as we have to trek the difficult terrain and solve puzzles that help the character get closer to the end goal

In the movie Steven needs to face three problems: reviving his family (gems) stopping the injector and figuring out who spinel is.

The hero usually faces three trials

They’ll get through 2 but the third is often not successful.

We get garnet back but not fully (this is the failed trial. For now)

Amethyst is first to be brought back

Pearl needs to be reminded of a rebellious spirit to come back

Spinel runs off

And now we enter the final lap

Act 111

Race to the finish line

As we get to the climax and resolution, we have the big confrontation between the character(s) and the driving force. Sometimes said force is the reason for our arrival into the second act, either by a force of nature or by something/someone.

In the movie Steven confronts spinel rather he chases her, we learn more about her past and her motivation and her relationship with Steven’s mother. The two are able to talk about it now knowing the full story so as Steven returns and catches the others up, all is well until a seed of doubt and fear plants itself in spinel as she panics. Before we get a 1v1 between Steven and spinel garnet returns.

Conflict and the climax have been reached when the highest point of tension finally erupts! And as we fall so too does the tension as we reach the resolve.

So… where do we get there in the movie?

Spinel slowly realizing before during and after she lets all the bottled feelings she’s kept inside out and she calms… as we close to the victory lap the first minor plot returns with the diamonds coming to earth and spinel finally gets her need.

Wait need? What about the want?!

I left it out for this section.

Characters want vs need

In the beginning the character has a want or that’s what they think until the middle of the story… right in the middle of act 2. Our hero realizes that the original want is no longer there. Now, they have a distinct need. This is when our character grows up and matures!

In the movie Steven has to learn or relearn that he isn’t his mom and doesn’t have to be someone that others expect him to act or be.

Alright I’m low on spoons, but that’s my points!

Oh and characters aren’t perfect just the same as people, if everyone was there wouldn’t be excitement or interesting stories to be told!

[linkspooky]

what are your favorite scary movies?

THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT

This is the most predictable response for top found footage movies list, but some things are popular because they're good. Blair Witch shows wat is good about found footage as a medium because you get to follow these college students who just act like regular people deteriorate in real-time. There's no narrative behind it like a normal story. You just see them wander around trapped in the woods with no end in sight.

The scare doesn't just come from the monster that may or may not be there lingering just out of sight, but your concern for the characters that you have spent long enough time to grow attached to. It's distressing to see their distress. There are some horror movies that scare because they make you dread the inevitable fate of the characters, you wish for their survival but you know it's not happening so you just watch hope get slowly peeled away from the characters. The scariest quote of the movie is just one girl giving into her despair as she's lost in the woods.

Heather Donahue : Everything had to be my way. And this is where we've ended up and it's all because of me that we're here now - hungry, cold, and hunted. I love you mom, dad. I am so sorry. What is that? I'm scared to close my eyes, I'm scared to open them! We're gonna die out here!

"I'm scared to close my eyes, I'm scared to open them" is just such an emotional statement to make.

PSYCHO

The shower scene in Psycho literally changed cinema permanently, and is probably one of the most scary thoughts that a film maker has preyed upon that someone can just bust in when you are traditionally naked and vulnerable like that

Psycho is far scarier however for the reasons underneath the surface of the film. This video analysis does a good job of eplaining what made me love Psycho.

Psycho is famous for doing the protagonist switch, the movie starts out as a typical thriller about a woman who stole money to elope with the man she's having an affair with until she stops in a strange motel on the side of the road. What makes the shower scene so shocking itself is because Janet Leigh who played Marion was a big name star at the time. No one was expecting her to get killed halfway through the movie, and no one was expecting the movie to turn into a horror in the first place.

The way the protagonist changes, from Marion to Norma, just goes to show the foiling between the two of them as illustrated by the above picture. Marion smiles like this at the beginning of the movie when she believes she has gotten away with her crime. Marion begins the film as an ordinary, slightly put-down woman who succesfully bamboozles all the men in her life and makes her escape because practically none of the men expected such deceptfulness in such a tame woman.

Norman at the end of the film smiles like that while the "mother" personality speaks in his head, informing the audience of her plan to play innocent to try to deceive the detectives that have arrested Norman.

At that moment the two of them display the term uncanny in its true Freudian sense.

"For Freud, fear comes from a natural progression of phantasy, so that the uncanny is not just the familiar turned unfamiliar but also the childish wish turned monstrous. It is Marion's quest for fantasy and respectability by running away and marrying her lover, that leads her to the Bates MOtel, where she encounters Norman a manifestation of respectability turned pathological."

The uncanny is the connection between Marion and Norman that manifests here, the same way an unseeming woman can flip around and turn money, the unseeming man she meets in the hotel can turn out to be her killer.

CARRIE

The single best Stephen King Novel, Carrie simply tells the story of a girl who snaps, but it tells it so well. There are a lot of ideas in play in Carrie, including the inhuman actions of bullying itself and how it's perpetrated by everyone in Carrie's life just making the collective decision just not to treat her as a person basically no reason.

The pointless cruelty of what happens to Carrie. The logic of Carrie having to be bullied, because she's ugly, because she's socially awkward, because in the book she's fat and pimply. Also, the hidden underlying reason for all of Carrie's strange behavior at high school being that she's relentlessly abused at home, and that not a single person in school cares or shows empathy for her. They've all just made the collective decision to either ignore what's happening to her, or take part in that cruelty.

This is what makes the pig's blood falling on her at the prom such an effective scene, because o the pointlessness of that cruelty. Carrie was finally having a moment of feeling like a normal girl, and several bullies had to go out of their way to kill a pig and set up that prank just to humiliate her further. They also thought there'd be no real consequence afterwards, they just get to keep beating down on their bullying victim for the satisfaction fo it.

Carrie is also a character that blurs the line between victim and perpetrator. She is both the monster of the story and the main character. It's like if the creature of the black lagoon was a teenage girl. The moment where she snaps the audience feels far more for her than they do the innocent children she's massacring, which is kind of the whole point of the story to blur the line between how much of Carrie's rampage was her own fault and her own fault, and how much of it was caused by the way people around her treated her.

TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE

There's so much themes and meaning in a movie that basically got famous for a guy wearing a leather mask who chases a woman around with a chainsaw.

The whole movie takes place in what's basically a post-apocalyptic landscape, even though it's just the declining rural America.

"Hooper's apocalyptic landscape is ... a desert wasteland of dissolution where once vibrant myth is desiccated. The ideas and iconography of Cooper, Bret Harte and Francis Parkman are now transmogrified into yards of dying cattle, abandoned gasoline stations, defiled graveyards, crumbling mansions, and a ramshackle farmhouse of psychotic killers. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre [is] ... recognizable as a statement about the dead end of American experience." Charon Charett."

This is what American Gothic looks like. It's a man chasing you around with a chainsaw.

Leatherface and his family are victims of capitalism, and the dry, dusty desert and the ruins of an old farmhouse the main characters spend most of the movie journeying through are the wreckage left behind by American capitalism. The movie is basically about the cannibalism of capitalism, using slaughterhouses as a metaphor and treating human lives as callously as the way the animals marched into slaughterhouses to be killed and made into meat is treated. Their house parodies a typical wholesome farm home, but everyone inside of it are murderous monster.

The themes of the exploitation of women in this movie are so strong too, especially the ways their bodies are both sexualized in brutalized not only in horror movies but in society at large are also right on point. There's the reason that the ending scene to Texas Chainsaw Massacre is so legendary and it's because despite representing the "final girl trope" Sally Hardesty, chased, terrorized, tortured over the course of the movie does escape but her experience has completely mentally broken her.

[noxthesleepymoodyoverthinker]

Disney's Live-Action Movies are AU

I am an old Disney animated movies fangirl and I'm certainly not as enthused about the live-action movies they have been putting out of the same. (I might have had a different opinion if the live-action movies were actually different stories instead of remakes, tho.)

But despite being "remakes" the few live-action remake movies I have seen make no sense to me: As in, it's like they rewrote a lot of the old lore and plots completely, or didn't understand a lot of the nuances of the old scripts and plots, and that didn't sit well with me at all.

(I mean, OK, there were some changes that didn't miss the plot-point that I liked or were fine with --

(and some that I didn't like at all --

(which a lot of movie-goers and Disney fans also felt like in varying and respective levels, I presume.)

But, I mean, if, after the characters and movies went into the public domain, and other studios re-told/remade them, it would be understandable. Like how a bunch of writers -- old and new -- redo/retell old fairytales. And that's fine, cuz different entities, different creators with little to no access to the original creation process.

But Disney redoing all their own old animated classics into live-action kinda smacks of lazy writing as well as arrogance. And they're not even that good...More like doing well because the movies' old reputation encouraged people to go see it.

But I digress.

What I meant to mainly say is that Disney has twisted their own lore so much with these remakes that now, the only way my plot-concentrated brain can reconcile them at all, is by firmly thinking of the live-action remakes as AU (alternate universe) stories.

To me, the animated movies -- Cinderella, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, 101 Dalmations, The Lion King, etc. -- all happened in different alternate universes to the live-action remakes.

Which would also explain a lot of the varying plots and different details -- like additional characters, differences in storylines and character behaviors, and extra details that would not have fit with the original storyline.

Cruella, to me, is a prime example of this.

(It's also about the only Disney live-action remake movie that I actually enjoy, love, and rewatch. <3)

Because you cannot tell me that the Cruella who adopted a dog she found in the trash -- someone who had her mother's (Catherine's) murderer's Dalmations captive (Dalmations who assisted in said murder, no less) but trained those Dalmations to listen to her instead of making a coat out of them, even though a lot of people thought that's what she did anyway -- would actually decide to buy and steal 99 Dalmation puppies just in order to make a coat out of them!

Horace and Jasper had their own dog too, before Cruella joined them with hers. And they treated those dogs like partners, like family. Quite a jump from that to what we saw in the animated 101 Dalmations movie.

I mean, come on. There are evil villain origin stories, and then there are origin stories of anti-heroes or chaotic characters with the potential-to-be-evil but not turning out that way.

And 2021's Cruella, Jasper, and Horace are definitely the latter.

[loudmound]

chapter 4 of art therapy...............

[officialfoxsquadron]

actually you know what biggest failure of the sequels. why didn't they lop off someone's hand. why didn't rey cut off kylo's hand. disney answer me this

[marypsue]

No this is actually also part of why turning around and saying No Actually Brenner Is ‘Not What He Seems’ He’s Ackshully A Good Guy Forced To Do Awful Things is so fucking maddening - because it’s a complete betrayal of the story and the central theme. We already had Dr. Brenner Is Not What He Seems - that was all of season one! But what he seemed was authoritative and trustworthy! What he seemed was the face he put on for the underlings he sent into the Upside Down to get shredded, and for the Wheelers, and when he tried to talk Joyce around to ‘helping’ him in the final episodes, and even when he bargained with Hopper! And actually, he was bad! He was putting Will and El and the entire town in mortal danger for his own gain and saw absolutely nothing wrong with that! He regularly and knowingly sent people walking to their deaths with absolutely no compunction! He talks fatherly and doesn’t give a shit if anyone else lives or dies! He is already Not What He Seems, and what he Seems is a Good Guy Working Under Difficult Circumstances! That’s the lie! 

And to turn around and say otherwise is to say that the story that you set out to tell is bad and stupid and wrong! Leaving totally aside all questions of morality or ethics or what this says about how the Duffers think about how No Cis White Man Can Ever Be Ackshully Bad, They’re All Just Misunderstood, this about-face is a fundamental betrayal and an undermining of the story they set out to tell and it’s plain old bad fucking storytelling.

[scarlethood]

anyone else tired of 'fresh takes' and just want new stories?