#molly meta

[dream-with-a-fever]

i love the silver trio so much but it always grinds my gears when i remember that while neville and luna still don’t have that much screen time, you still get an essence of who they are as people. their personalities, their morals, their relationship dynamics with other characters (like harry) and yet ginny, despite being a bigger character than both of them, and being harry’s future partner, mother of his children, most important person in his life (to name a few), ginny has exactly ZERO opportunity to shine. unlike her pals, she gets little to no screen time, let alone scenes one-on-one with harry (which both neville and luna have), her entire personality is erased. everything that makes ginny who she is is removed.

it’s absolutely infuriating to watch. as an audience, how are we supposed to get to know her? to understand her? to understand why she is the woman harry wants to spends the rest of his life with? like i love luna and neville, they’re wonderful characters and additions to the story, but prioritising them over ginny in the films (and giving them additional scenes like luna and harry in the forest alone?? it’s a sweet scene but also??? harry & luna don’t interact like that in the books, not to mention luna is much more eccentric and unintentionally amusing in the books, more so than she is perpetually wise and friendly… like we couldn’t have the library scene or the ‘lucky you’ scene in ootp - arguably the most important scenes for ginny (and harry’s) development but we have time for luna to share some nice slightly ooc wisdom with harry? again, i love luna, and i love that scene too, but cutting other important scenes…?)

i could go on and on about this. but i just hate that she is so sidelined, and discarded in the films, despite being such an important character as an individual and in relation to harry. i’ll never understand you david yates. ginny, sweetie, i’m so sorry.

[currymanganese]

GUYS, I CAN'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS, BUT WHAT IF THEY ACTUALLY HAD A GOOD REASON FOR JOHN CENA BEING CAST AS SAMMY FAK?

please bear with me (pun intended) and let me know what you think of my speculation under the cut~

In a mind-boggling case of a seemingly big-lipped alligator moment in season 3 - John Cena appears in a bizarrely over the top (even by the tonal comedic standards set previously by The Bear e.g. Ecto Cooler punch at a kid's birthday party getting spiked with Xanax in Season One) and jarring scene that stretches on and on as he obnoxiously squabbles, blathers and exchanges nonsensical rapid-fire quips with his brothers Neil and Ted Fak as they buff polish The Bear's dining area before a food photographer from The Chicago Tribune arrives to take a photo for a review of The Bear.

In this scene, he also intimidates and threatens to 'haunt' (in a Fak family tradition ( that even the Faks find annoying) - that involves pranking and being an unrestrained nuisance to their loved ones especially when they least expect it) his brother Ted for, "stealing his SD cards"......

This scene and the increased screen presence of the seemingly plot-irrelevant Faks this season is currently being eviscerated by plenty of fans and critics alike.

Edit:

I now strongly suspect that John Cena's role was always in the works ever since S1

..................................

But what if there's a (debatable, but) really good reason for this scene and the increased involvement in Seasons 2 and 3 of the massive numbered siblings family of Carmy's pseudo cousins, the Faks?

See Exhibit A:

In season 2, episode 3, Sundae - after Carmy has already asked Sydney out to Kasama, a husband and wife owned restaurant run by Tim Flores, and Genie Kwon*, ostensibly just to brainstorm and gain inspiration for planning for the new menu, and after Sydney has already gone home and freshened up and changed her clothes, then arrived to Kasama early, despite the meeting only being scheduled for an hour after she last spoke to Carmy at his apartment, Claire calls and interrupts the whole hypothetical shebang with Syd and Carmy at Kasama (the Tagalog WORD FOR TOGETHER) with the words,

"Did you mean to give me a fake number? You do know that I know your entire family [translation: she must know Donna too and Claire assumes that Carmy's folks approve of her - and she's proven to be technically right throughout Seasons 2 and 3 ], right? And I know ALL the Faks! [translation: tee hee! they're bigger than you - to quote Neil and Ted with their Uncle, "We Faks do have a particular shape, don't we?😇" - and they outnumber you, you scrawny punk, slay!😉✨]"

Claire then proceeds to playfully threaten to have said "massive numbered siblings" Faks, which includes Sammy Fak, played by John Cena (a professional wrestler, from an industry that is mixes both bawdy over the top theatre, a performance art that values Kayfabe (legerdemain/slight of hand anyone?) and comedy, and an athletic discipline) that is TALL. BUILT. HENCH. AND BUFF AF.....Claire 'playfully' threatens to have THESE FAKS, beat up Carmy, who is short in stature and cannot fight well from all the previous physical confrontations we've seen him be involved in, despite supposedly being a former high-school wrestler, and who has already been seriously physically abused thrice in the series run thus far (not counting him play fighting or trying to fight with Richie) after being JUMPED by a GROUP of assailants, not once, but TWICE in season one, by the Ballbreaker nerds in the pilot, and the Bachelor Party attendees in the season finale (the first season started and ended with Carmy being beaten tf up, Holy Shit! 🤯); AND AFTER BEING SLAPPED IN THE FACE IN SEASON 2 BY HIS OWN MOTHER, DONNA.

Notice the way Carmy goes from being lost in his thoughts but being completely relaxed after his menu planning session with Sydney, and in anticipation of seeing her on their would be inspiration seeking meet-up (definitely not a date, no Sir! 👀) at Kasama, to being tense and jittery and apprehensive when Claire calls him (after going behind his back and getting his number from Fak).

Notice the way Carmy's voice shakes when he asks Claire if she really knows all of the Faks.....

Notice Carmy's defeated and annoyed reaction after he hangs up the phone.

No wonder Carmy is being so avoidant and conflict averse in his handling of Claire in both Season Two and Three, he has absolutely no faith in himself or his loved ones at present to defend himself should he assert the type of boundaries he may have been desiring to have with them for these past two seasons, after all - who can he count on to fully have his back even to the point of physically intervening for him if he gets into a scrape or is genuinely attacked, by the Faks on account of Claire taking offense at or misrepresenting his words and actions to them, e.g. Claire apparently twisting Carmy's self loathing stream of consciousness confession (that she eavesdropped on) and telling Tiff that they broke up because Carmy said that "Claire will ruin everything good for him?" while he was trapped in the fridge?

What if Carmy knows he has to rip the band-aid and call Claire and apologize for his part in the superficiality and disintegration of their dalliance, but is afraid to do so because he knows in so doing, if he is being fully honest with himself and with Claire, he never truly wanted to be with her in the first place?

And who knows how Claire will take that revelation - it probably won't be pretty will it?

And.....

to quote Neil Fak,

"Claire's the best."

"We love Claire."

"I did that." [setting Carmy and Claire up in Pop)

And.....

Claire. knows. all. the. Faks.....

TL;DR

They cast John Cena as Sammy Fak, and the Faks had a lot of screen-time this season because they are the physical manifestation of being haunted in their family's sense of the word:

and a satirical visualization of Carmy's desire for Syd being cock-blocked ; plus Claire is a Love-able Alpha Bitch, and Carmy is ambivalent towards her, and even a little scared to face her, because her henchmen are the Faks!

If you enjoyed this post, then thank you for reading and I'd recommend that you check out the following meta on the way Christopher Storer and Company have seemingly (and controversially) committed to sticking to the bit of lying to the audience and breaking the fourth wall throughout this entire season:

Richie and the viewer - by @whenmemorydies with my add-on in the reblogs about Richie, not Carmy, potentially being Christopher Storer's author avatar in this series (from a post originally written before season 3 premiered.

Fourth Wall being broken - by @brokenwinebox and @thoughtfulchaos773

Claire being a possible representation of addiction, being a habit that is hard to kick - by @thoughtfulchaos773 and my and @devisrina 's add-on speculating that Claire may also be meant to be interpreted or revealed as a bit of a mean girl, to reference TVTropes, she (and by extension Season 3) may be a deconstruction/ mashup /send-up / subversion of the: Girl Next Door, the Cute Bookworm, Nerds Are Sexy, MPDG, Yandere, Alpha Bitch, Loveable Apha Bitch, Childhood Friend Romance, High-School Sweethearts, Sickeningly Sweethearts, Getting Crap Past The Radar, Freeze Frame Bonus, Parental Bonus, Viewers Are Geniuses, Give Geeks A Chance, Even Nerds Have Standards, Beauty Equals Goodness, Face-Heel Turn, Cerebus Syndrome tropes etc.....and a subtler mirror version of Donna Berzatto.

Edit: See my reblog add on to @espumado 's thread on the recurrent 'haunting' theme this season and the possibility of the Claire x Carmy x Sydney love triangle being a Lilith x Adam x Eve allegory, and my webweaving about Syd x Carmy's Adam and Eve parallels. sidenote: Lilith is Adam's first wife apocryphally and in Jewish mysticism that left him, and became a she-demon / mother of demons after being impregnated by the archangel Samael - wait is 'Sammy' Fak a Samael allegory?!!

and another reblog add-on of mine to the thread linked above - on The Faks as the living embodiment of all that is fake in Carmy's life, C Storer's handy dandy tools for slight of hand,

you can't spell fake without FAK.

and please see

Clairecarmy as Ann Veal x GOB from Arrested Development

and with Richie's frustrated refrain of, "Who cares?!" whenever Claire and Claire and Carmy's breakup is brought up in 3 -

see the running gag of George Michael Bluth's (from Arrested Development) family's disdain for Ann and his relationship with her.

5. The parallels between The Bear and Burnt by @ambeauty - a post Season 2 post which was proven to be prescient and insightful given the Easter Egg inclusion of Bradley Cooper's character from Burnt on the photo wall of chefs at Ever in the Funeral dinner in the finale.

6. The parallels between The Bear and Boiling Point - a gritty film and mini-series set in a restaurant which features several plot elements and characters reminiscent of certain character archetypes and subplots present in The Bear - seriously think of this IP as The Bear's cynical, dramatic, older British cousin.

Decision to leave by @anderwater

This anon that recommended Boiling Point to me and wrote about its connections to The Bear.

The difference between The Bear and Boiling Point by @theblvckvenus

The similarities between The Bear and Boiling Point in this reblog add-on to @happylikeasadsong et. al's thread.

7. Claire/Carmy and the Walk In - my old post on the parallels between Strange Days (1995), Can't Hardly Wait (1998, and The Bear.

and @ambeauty 's meta on Claire as a representation of the fridge

8. My post on the possible connection between The Bear Season 3 and Andrei Tarkovsky's experimental, semi-autobiographical, psychological Oedipal drama film The Mirror (1975) - a film which was incredibly divisive upon its initial release, but has since gained wide acclaim and re-evaluation as a masterpiece, and that has had a legacy of subsequently inspiring multiple renowned filmmakers.

9. The Bear series' lead actress, and the director of Napkins, one of the only episodes of The Bear Season 3 to receive almost universal acclaim - Ayo Edebiri's trollish sense of humour and assertion that lying is the pinnacle of comedy.

10. And last but certainly not least with the inclusion of a Genie Kwon*'s, of Kasama fame, cameo in the season finale and the prominence of Kasama being key to Syd and Carmy's stymied relationship progression, courtesy Claire, see

The Kasama of it all by @gingerylangylang1979

@mod-doodles @lunasink @vacationship @chansoooo1-blog

@bioloyg @msmoiraine @nerdyblerd @ripley-stark @uncriticalbunny @prowitchazel @msmoiraine @mswyrr @anxietycroissant @turbulenthandholding @tvfantic87 @laryssamedeirss @tejidaepoque @angelica4equity @inalltheirgorgeouscolors @houseofevangelista @glitterslag

@uncriticalbunny @imliterallyjustablackgirl

@bioloyg and @ambeauty please don't say I told you so or welcome back, I'm flabbergasted that I wrote this, but I want to believe! 😭

P.S. If you're still reading this, do yourself a favour and read @brokenwinebox 's post

New Paradigm

and this follow up

Mocktail is a dirty word

and check out her #the magic trick tag!

and also check out these Sydcarmy and Rosalind x Orlando from Shakespeare's As You Like It parallels:

The Bear as a pastoral comedy

First Meetings

Fumbling with your crush

Separation, keepsakes and lovesickness

and also C Storer really did tell us in the music that this season would inspire

Mixed Emotions 🥴

[wxywardsun]

My favorite thing in red dead redemption and red dead online is how the characters are HUMAN! Not just in the way they are,but in their appearances too! They have wrinkles,they have scars and smile lines and gray hair,the works. Sean is missing a tooth (albeit through a painful situation),one of Molly’s teeth in the front is slightly bigger than the other,Dutch has forehead wrinkles,Maggie in red dead online has a blind eye and a huge burn scar,a lot of the characters have crows feet too! They’re all SO human and I love red dead for that!! It’s a beautiful game with details that are still being found all these years later but the details in the characters by far are my favorite

[folie-a-deux]

I don't know who needs this info but I just combed through every moment of TWOTL curious to see if Will has ever stopped wearing his wedding ring with Molly at one point in Season 3B but no, he was still wearing it 'til the end.

The ring as seen in 3x12.

1st photo: During the escape; 2nd photo: As they were killing the Dragon.

[wisteria-lodge]

What do you think about Molly Weasley?

I have a lot of thoughts about Molly Weasley. I think she’s a fantastic character,  just not in the way that JKR intended. 

I think the intention was to make Molly kind of a mama bear. Fiercely loving, fiercely protective, hot tempered… but you know. In a cute way. In a warm way. I do think that Movie!Molly threads this needle. (I also think that her bear-ears hairstyle is perhaps intentional.) 

Movie!Molly gets her big duel with Bellatrix, she gets (reasonably) annoyed at the boys for stealing the car. Her only spicy moment is the Howler… which is softened and made more comedic by 1) including a nice message for Ginny at the end 2) including a tongue-sticking-out moment, which turns the whole thing into more of a joke on Molly. Now it’s your mom being kind of weird and embarrassing… versus her public shaming you, toxic tik-tok mom style. The Howler is much worse in the book: “​​I THOUGHT YOUR FATHER WOULD DIE OF SHAME, WE DIDN’T BRING YOU UP TO BEHAVE LIKE THIS.”

So let’s talk Book!Molly, because there’s a lot there. She’s a Prewett, growing up in a more *typical* pure blood family as opposed to being a “blood traitor” Weasley. (Cedrella Black was disowned for marrying a Weasley, Lucretia Black married a Prewett no problem.)  Molly also married Arthur really young, and really quickly. It’s even lightly implied they married too quickly - 

“I just think [Bill and Fleur] have hurried into this engagement, that’s all!”  “They’ve known each other a year,” said Ron (...)   “Well, that’s not very long! I know why it’s happened, of course. It’s all this uncertainty with You-Know-Who coming back, people think they might be dead tomorrow, so they’re rushing all sorts of decisions they’d normally take time over. It was the same last time he was powerful, people eloping left, right, and center —”  “Including you and Dad,” said Ginny slyly.  “Yes, well, your father and I were made for each other, what was the point in waiting?” said Mrs. Weasley.

There’s some psychological truth to that. (Also, Molly and Arthur were 100% hooking up while at Hogwarts:)

“[The Fat Lady] was here in my time,” said Mrs. Weasley. “She gave me such a telling off one night when I got back to the dormitory at four in the morning —”  “What were you doing out of your dormitory at four in the morning?” said Bill, surveying his mother with amazement. Mrs. Weasley grinned, her eyes twinkling.  “Your father and I had been for a nighttime stroll,” she said.

And the timeline’s too fuzzy to know for sure…  but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Molly getting pregnant with Bill was one of the reasons she and Arthur got married so fast. 

It’s hard to say, because you never get a great sense of their relationship, but I’m actually not sure how compatible the two of them are, or if they would have gotten married at all if it hadn't been for the war and all these external factors. There is an ongoing conflict between them: Arthur is a political radical who seems to enjoy upsetting the Malfoys - he’s not playing nice, he doesn't have a prestigious job, he’s not getting a promotion anytime soon, and he’s fine with this. His interest in muggles is fringe counterculture stuff, and his hobby is illegal. And Molly… is pretty establishment. She wants her sons to be Head Boys and Prefects, and then she wants them to get jobs at the Ministry:

“Mum went mad at [Fred and George after finding their prank candy.] Told them they weren’t allowed to make any more of it, and burned all the order forms. . . . She’s furious at them anyway. They didn’t get as many O.W.L.s as she expected.” “And then there was this big row,” Ginny said, “because Mum wants them to go into the Ministry of Magic like Dad, and they told her all they want to do is open a joke shop.”

Like we hear about this interaction secondhand, which softens the emotion, but I’m sorry? Molly burned their order forms? She wants them to do jobs they very clearly have no aptitude for, instead of being entrepreneurs? Arthur sides with the twins, and of course he does. They’re anarchists just like he is. But it *really* bothers Molly, and this conflict just keeps coming up. 

[sidenote. You cannot tell that Arthur Weasley, once he was in his late 20s/early 30s, once he had grown into himself a bit. Tell me that this man didn’t once think “you know, I really should have married a Muggle. That would’ve been perfect.”’]

But back to Molly Weasley, nee Prewett. She wants a big family, and there is no way this doesn't have something to do with the fact that both her brothers were just brutally killed. She’s trying to distract herself, fill some void, find some meaning. The fact that it doesn’t work (because how could it, she’s got just buckets of unprocessed trauma) is maybe why she is so set on having a girl. Maybe a little baby girl is what she needs. 

In the main timeline of the book, Molly 100% needs enrichment. She needs to start breeding alpacas or join a book club or get a job. (Job could be cool, especially since she has no kids at home and money is an issue.) Like come on, Molly is intense, Type A, and powerful. Possibly one of the best duelists in the entire series. She takes out Voldemort’s number two, and Bellatrix has already defeated Sirius - incredibly talented and powerful in his own right. I do think that the reason JKR made this choice (instead of letting Neville have a confrontation with Bellatrix, which would have been more narratively straightforward) is because (whether consciously or unconsciously) she doesn’t like the idea of one of her good-guy GUY characters hurting a woman. So Molly defeats Bellatrix with magic mom powers, which is the same reason Narcissia can lie to Voldemort’s face I guess.

What Molly definitely does NOT need to be doing is obsessing about her kids' significant others. Like take Fleur. (Who I think we as readers were meant to dislike more than we actually did?)  Fleur is great. So when Molly has a problem with her… then starts trying to matchmake Bill with Tonks… until Tonks (another fan favorite) also starts annoying her… it makes Molly looks really unreasonable. Also, let Bill have his long hair and earring. 

She gets weird about Hermione in Book 4, after she believes Rita Skeeter’s write-up that she's some sort of temptress playing Harry and Krum off each other. Instead of, idk, asking Harry (who she thinks of as a surrogate son) she sends Hermione a passive-agressive comically undersized chocolate egg. Harry and Ron get huge ones. That’s not cute, or funny.

Also, Percy and Penelope Clearwater. I know the real-world reason Percy hides his relationship in Book 2 is so he can be a red herring acting all suspicious… but in universe, I guess Percy just wants to date someone without his mom being weird about it? Like Penelope Clearwater is nice and normal and fine. Why is he hiding this relationship?

Then there’s Molly the disciplinarian, which we mostly see in the context of Fred and George (although there is also Ron being public-shamed by the Howler.) She is constantly giving the twins a hard time about their life choices, their jokes. Ron says “I remember Mum walloping Fred with her broomstick." Then yeah, she burns their order forms. She does feel bad about this later, and after the whole thing at the Quidditch World Cup hugs them and says, “What if You-Know-Who had got you, and the last thing I ever said to you was that you didn’t get enough O.W.L.s?” It’s meant to be a sweet moment, but this would annoy me just a little. It’s a little like saying, “I’m glad I don’t have to think of myself as being a bad mother.” 

I also want to point out Molly's pretty clear favoritism. Fred and George are the problem children, Ginny is the baby (although we almost never see her and her mother interact, so it’s actually very hard to say what their relationship is like), and Percy is the golden child. We see how this sort of sets him apart from all his siblings, how he's described as pompous and full of himself, but also how he’s secretive and hides things from his family. It’s kind of precarious being the golden child, and when he finally does stop pleasing his mother he falls hard. (Although I will always be a big believer in Daddy Issues!Percy. That has to be why he commits that hard to Barty Crouch Sr that fast, and then ignores that many red flags.) 

And of course Ron is the invisible child. Almost the first thing we hear him say is, “She always forgets I don’t like corned beef.” I’ll let that one slide. Molly’s got five kids at home, she made corn beef sandwiches, not everyone is going to be equally happy. But Ron’s clothes.  Molly makes her own clothes, she's defined by her facility with household magic. She knits Ron sweaters... but at least two of them are maroon despite the fact that Ron hates maroon. His room is  plastered top to bottom in bright orange Chudley Cannons merch. She couldn’t make him an orange sweater? There’s also the issue with the dress robes. Ron clearly doesn’t like them (“Mum, you’ve given me Ginny’s new dress.”) But he is the one who cuts off the lace trim later, and he doesn’t do an amazing job. I know that it's a joke, but like. That sounds like a job for Molly.

We do get Horcrux!Hermione telling Ron that he is the “Least loved, always, by the mother who craved a daughter,” so this idea of Molly picking favorites is *kind of* in the text. But Horcrux!Hermione is wrong about Harry/Hermione being a thing, so maybe we’re meant to read this as Ron’s baseless anxiety? It doesn’t feel like that though. What it actually feels like is an unresolved plot thread. 

So here’s my take on Molly Weasley. This is someone who is pretty high-powered, who suffered a period of emotional upheaval, then got married and started having kids because she kind of thought that was what you do - and it wasn’t as fulfilling as she thought it would be. I think a lot of her comments come off as *meaner* than JKR intended, because let’s face it - JKR has a kind of mean sense of humor. And if I want to speculate further… I think there are quite a few parallels between Molly Weasley and JKR. I don't think she put them there consciously.

[super-who-locked-me-in-here]

Okay I need people to look at these two gifs together:

This gif made by @lousolversons

And this gif by @not-psychotic

THAT IS THE SAME SMILE. THAT IS HUGH DANCY'S ROMCOM SMILE AND I HAVE SO MANY FEELINGS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES IN THE WAY HUGH PRESENTS IT FOR EACH MOMENT.

First of all, the moment presented in the first gif is why I believe Will did love Molly. Yes, I'm a firm believer that Will still held feelings for Hannibal while he was with Molly, but I don't think she was a placeholder. The way I think Will's love for Hannibal and Molly works at the same time is like when you meet a widower who remarried.

Yes the widower (Will) still loves his first spouse (Hannibal), and it's terrible that they were ripped apart the way they were, but he can eventually move on. And he loves his new spouse (Molly), but there will always be a part of his heart that belongs to his first spouse. Except in the case of this analogy Hannibal isn't actually dead and he will come back.

And I mean, honestly, if the love of your life died and came back completely in one piece and still loved you after years of separation, what would you do? Would you tell them to move on because you've found someone else that you love almost as much as you loved them? Or would you discard your new spouse for the one you had always imagined you'd stay with? It's a really difficult decision.

But anyway I do wanna analyze these smiles. Obviously in the second gif Will is smiling at Hannibal, but in the first gif, Will is smiling at Jack while talking about Molly. They're the same smile but they're also so different.

In the first gif, the "romcomness" of the smile almost feels exaggerated. It's the way he smiled and kind of laughed but especially it's the way he broke eye contact. He breaks eye contact but the smile stays. It says "Molly and I can't see each other completely, but I'm happy enough." It reads as coy in a way we know Will Graham is not. It's a performance, but it's a performance based on a truth.

On the other hand, in the second gif, Will's smile is there but more subdued. Of course it could be just that he's tired and/or in pain as he's obviously injured, but to me it's lesser because it's just him and Hannibal. He doesn't need to wear his mask for Jack or for Molly or for anyone else. And he keeps eye contact with Hannibal even as his smile falls away because he and Hannibal can see each other. They accept the good (the smile) and the bad (the loss of the smile) in each other but that's okay for them because they're true to each other like they are to no one else.

The way Will smiles at Hannibal in the second gif is so much more intimate than the way he smiled about Molly in the second gif, and I can't help but wonder: if we got more scenes where Will and Molly were interacting face to face (because let's be honest there's not many), would Will smile the same way he did in the second gif? Would he even smile at her the same way he does talking about her in the first gif, or is that just him trying to appear like the happy/satisfied husband in front of company? I know Will loved Hannibal, and I know Will loved Molly, but these two gifs side by side just confirm for me that what he felt for Hannibal was so much more impactful for Will than his love for Molly.

[arkashas]

other people have pointed out that hannibal’s seaside house was supposed to represent will’s “boat on the sea” which will tells hannibal makes him feel safe in Œuf, but i haven’t seen much comparison of it with re: molly’s cabin and how they differ.

(will’s house as shown in Œuf)

(the seaside house in the wrath of the lamb)

as we can see, hannibal’s seaside house had huge windows and let in a lot of natural light and was brightly lit up in the dark, just like wolf trap.

(molly’s cabin in the great red dragon)

now compare that to molly’s cabin - molly’s cabin had an overarching roof which made it dark even in the daytime, the windows are small, the space is lit up by low wattage bulbs which don’t give out much light, and she keeps the windows closed with dark curtains. i think this is supposed to represent that molly wasn’t will’s “boat on the sea”, that she couldn’t be his anchor.

later, we see will drinking in ‘the great red dragon’, and then call someone (presumably molly) but the phone keeps on ringing without anyone picking up.

will’s mind is then filled with crime scene photos. and - who does he ask to see? hannibal.

now in the next episode, molly does pick up, but when will puts down the phone and goes to sleep, he has a nightmare and hallucinates his face falling apart in the mirror. molly was a brief respite, but she couldn’t truly keep the darkness at bay.

the truth is apparent - despite all the time spent together with molly and all the time spent apart from hannibal, hannibal is still who will thinks of as his safe space, who he feels at home with. not because hannibal keeps the darkness at bay, but because he taught him not to fear it and to find the beauty in it.

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

How similar in temperament are your versions of Molly and Hermione? I can't help but wonder if they would be thick as thieves or Dire Enemies if they were contemporaries

Thoughts on Hermione

Thoughts on Molly

Oh, Hermione's a thousand times worse than Molly. Molly's the normal amount of judgement and spite you expect from a person. Yeah, she's not as nice as Harry thinks she is, but she's relatively normal. Hermione will cut your face.

As for whether they'd get along or not...

It depends.

In canon they get along fairly well but do have their moments of friction. Namely, in fourth year, Molly believes that Hermione's a gold digger because of the Rita Skeeter articles and that she's after Harry and Viktor and who knows who else. Now, they got over it, we discover Rita's a fraud, Hermione shuts Rita up, and Molly moves on to hating Fleur instead and thinks Hermione's just wonderful for Ron.

But they're both extremely judgemental and it's not so much about who the other is as a person but their veneer.

Hermione hates Lavendar and Parvati, and true part of it is their treatment of her, but a large part of it is that she views them as silly girls obsessed with makeup and boys. Hermione despises the very idea of them.

Molly, for her own part, likes girls next door who are pretty enough but not bombshells (e.g. Fleur) who know their place and have the humble virtues that she approves of.

It works out because they're at the ages they're at. Molly is so "mother" that Hermione doesn't think about the fact that she's raising these seven children, has no career, and has a very affectionate relationship with Arthur and is interested in things like household charms. She's Hermiones surrogate mother, not her peer. Hermione, in turn, is a bright young woman, Ron's close friend, and easily becomes a sort of Percy-like (but without all the betrayal) daughter for Molly.

I think they'd hate each other if they were the same age.

Hermione would think Molly is dumb, unambitious, too focused on boys and her future as a house wife while Molly would think Hermione's snobby, uppity, and weirdly focused on employment.

[aveline-amelia]

You know how I complain about the lack of emotional resolution in The Final Problem? It's not an issue exclusive to that episode.

In The Great Game, there is an explosion at 221B, when John enters the room expecting to see a hurt or injured Sherlock, but instead, we see Mycroft and Sherlock talk about a case.

Why is this interesting? We know Mycroft went straight there after he heard about the explosion, most likely for reasons other than the case like, idk, to check if his brother is still alive? We are not shown that. If Mycroft showed any concern towards him, it is entirely off screen.

We are shown Mycroft watch Sherlock get tortured and speak to him in bad Serbian (why was the Serbian so bad? Was it supposed to be bad?), mirror the actions of his torturers and refer to his torture as a "holiday."

What are we not shown? Mycroft helping him out of the chains. Arranging for him to get his wounds mended. Any possible show of concern. See a pattern?

The Great Game was mostly from John's pov, so it makes sense there. John wasn't there. Here you have no excuse, as season 3 is mostly Sherlock's pov.

So why did they not show us that? They were afraid of consequences. It's the same reason the Lazarus explanation felt like a retcon and a cop-out to people.

I saw a hypothesis that just as Option 1 was Anderson's fantasy and Option 2 was the fangirl fantasy, Lazarus is Sherlock's fantasy.

In this version, he had the events perfectly in control, Mycroft didn't cause him to get screwed over and it was all intentional and they worked together, John, Mrs H and Lestrade were not in any real danger, Sherlock didn't get as emotional on the roof and didn't cry etc. etc. etc.

You see if Mycroft was to blame for the fall, if he was what truly led to Sherlock's downfall and it wasn't all premeditated, you would have to address that.

Sherlock would be angry with him. He would resent him for something he actually did as opposed to a vague reason we were never given or explained.

You wanted to play with emotional stakes, but you didn't want any relationships to actually evolve.

That's why John's beating of Sherlock is not addressed in The Final Problem even when it would be relevant.

That's why Molly is shown back in 221B at the end when the last time we saw her, Eurus put her friendship with Sherlock in serious jeopardy if not outright kill it.

That's why they wrote Rosie into the show and then did next to nothing with her.

That's why 221B explodes and then is rebuilt in a quick montage at the end of the episode.

That's why Eurus is put back into the very same prison she had no issue mindfucking everyone in and escaping from.

That's why we don't see Sherlock reacting to Mycroft being freed or have them discuss events of Sherrinford.

Because they wanted to put these characters through hell, but not actually have anything change.

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Why do you think the Weasley family didnt allow Ginny to play Quidditch? Afterall the sport is not segerated by sex at Hogwarts and all her brothers are used to young girls starting age 12 joining the Quidditch team and being team mates. In fact why is Ginny's interest the sport hidden to begin with when its the number one entertainment in the WW? (she doesnt join the World Cup talk in book 4, she is shocked at Krums wronski feint move, falls asleep at the after match talk, no mention of posters or love for Qudittich players in the ealier books as an excited little girl etc)

Like, out of Story, I'd say JKR just decided on Ginny's interest in Quidditch when she wrote book 5 and she decided Ginny would be Harry's love interest (honestly, I don't think it was all that planned).

In-universe, I'd say the younger Ginny probably isn't interested in Quidditch as a sport. Like, I think she was interested in playing because her brothers did (hence why she broke into the broom shed), but her interest in professional Quidditch was sparked only later, and likely not from home. I kinda headcanon she started growing an interest in professional Quidditch because, as she said in book 6, never really grew out of her crush on Harry, so she looked into it at first as a means of getting close to Harry. To have a common interest with him. I think she grew to love Quidditch on her own though, Harry was just what sparked the initial interest. That would explain why in the earlier books she isn't involved in any Quidditch talks or trying out for the team, she isn't interested yet in Quidditch as a professional sport.

As for why Molly would disapprove of Ginny's interest in Quidditch... the only quote I could track down about it is this:

“Come on, Ginny’s not bad,” said George fairly, sitting down next to Fred. “Actually, I dunno how she got so good, seeing how we never let her play with us...” “She’s been breaking into your broom shed in the garden since the age of six and taking each of your brooms out in turn when you weren’t looking,” said Hermione from behind her tottering pile of Ancient Rune books. “Oh,” said George, looking mildly impressed. “Well — that’d explain it.”

(OotP, 573-574)

Fred and George imply they were the ones who didn't let her play with them, as a sort of "annoying the youngest sister" thing and a "ugh, the younger sibling is on the field so now we need to be gentle", and not so much Molly not allowing her to play.

I'm sure as the only daughter, Molly was incredibly overprotective of her, and I actually remembered Ginny being forbidden to play by her, but when I went back I couldn't find any quote about it. Just her older brothers leaving her out, which, is pretty usual with siblings. Ron also mentions they didn't let him join them all that much, so, it's just Ron and Ginny being the youngest siblings and left out and not Molly being unfair towards Ginny.

So, Ginny wasn't forbidden from playing by her parents, her brothers just didn't want the little sister to play too because than they'd need to change how they play to accommodate. Because you could bet that if Ginny was playing Molly would shout at them being too forceful.

[sxnshxnxxnddxxsxxs]

how poor are the weasley’s?

i think this question really just encapsulates jkr’s shitty world building because there are so many interconnected elements.

oh and as always fuck jkr for the antisemitism, transphobia, racism, holocaust denial, barely veiled misogyny and the rest of her sins.

why is there poverty in the first place?

in a world with magic where you can create practically anything but food out of nothing why are people poor. especially when the you can’t create food rule has the caveat if you already have food you can just duplicate it. moreover in a world where theoretically you can get everything you need with the right spell why do you need money? the answer in all likelihood is probably convenience because most people don’t have time to find the spell for this that and the other. but if you don’t have money theoretically there is still a away to provide for yourself. also i’m pretty sure there’s no lore against just conjuring gold so theoretically there’s no reason to be without money.

the weasleys and mismanaging their money

in harry and ron’s first train ride we get the introduction to the weasleys poverty and the frankly ludicrous mismanagement of their funds. first of all we get that percy got brand new robes not because he had grown out of his old ones but because he was made a prefect and that he also got a new owl. then we get ron who has bill’s old robes, charlie’s old wand and percy’s old rat and no money for the trolley just his least favourite sandwiches. now i’ll come back to my thoughts on the robes in a bit. now charlie’s old wand is a known plot hole but still why did he get a new wand especially considering that charlie graduated from hogwarts in the summer of 1991 if you have money to buy a wand at that point in time surely it should go to the child who needs a wand and doesn’t yet have one. but say charlie just really needed a new wand then use the spare cash you spent on percy’s robes and owl. like it just gives irresponsible to not dedicate money to the kid that needs it the most.

what are the indicators of the weasleys poverty?

i ask this because while poverty certainly manifests differently in different situations i find that the way the weasley finances are described and how they are portrayed to live don’t quite match up. now the big one is when they go to gringotts in CoS when all that’s in the weasley vault is a small pile of sickles and one galleon. but i’d also say that that is the only real indicator of the weasleys being poor because the two main other factors are the hand me down clothes and books. now i personally don’t find this to be an indicator of poverty at all i actually find it entirely normal. as some who had a school uniform (i went to state school in the uk) they are not cheap one full set of my uniform (blazer, jumper, shirt, kilt and socks) cost upwards of £200 and in a pair of shoes that will last at least the year and that’s at least another £50 or so. so it was the unquestionable norm in my school that if you had an older sibling who had spare uniform because they were graduated or had grown out of it then you would wear it (provided it was in good nick) and it was the same with textbooks the syllabus barely changed unless the entire national curriculum was updated so if you could inherit a textbook or set text you would, in fact you were at an advantage if it was for something like english lit because the annotations would already be there. and even if you didn’t have an older sibling in my school we were actively encouraged to buy second hand books. like i’m sorry but i just don’t accept hand me downs especially in this context as being a sign of poverty. now there are very big indicators of poverty that the weasleys don’t have (and obviously irl you can still be poor and not have these apply to you i just think it’s worth mentioning) which are food insecurity and housing insecurity.

now i would like to make it clear that i don’t think that the weasleys are particularly well off i just don’t think that they’re destitute in the way jkr wants the audience to believe (possibly because she’s never interacted with poverty on a significant level) which leads me into my next point.

comparative poverty

most of the times that the weasleys poverty is being examined it’s in the context of a comparison to either harry or the malfoys who are all significantly wealthy (the malfoys more so than harry) which provides a very skewed perspective of how poor the weasleys are because i’d wager that hermione (who is implied to be upper middle class considering her parents are dentists) would look poor certainly next to the malfoys. with harry it’s harder to say just because we really have no clue how rich harry actually is.

class vs money

now this is both related and unrelated but partially because of jkr’s very inconsistent writing of the weasleys being poor and her world building or lack there of but the weasleys very much come off to me like an upper class family. and this is a reminder that in the uk money and class are very different and that one does not inform the other. money can help you present your class but that’s about it. it is more than possible to be upper class and not have a pot to piss in (or in the forever iconic words of beverly: not have a pot in which to piss). and i think that the weasleys being an upper class family that lost their fortune at some point really informs some of their decisions like the fact that they are a single income household when after ginny goes to hogwarts i don’t really see why molly wouldn’t get a job. and the fact that when when arthur and lucius fight it’s generally about money and arthur being jealous of lucius’s fortune which would make even more sense if at one point the pair were equals in the social hierarchy. not to mention that the weasleys are part of the sacred twenty eight and class and blood status are very closely linked in the narrative.

all this to say that when you examine the nature of poverty in the wizarding world especially when your case study is the weasleys it makes very little sense. not only the first question of why is there poverty in the first place (and why the hell is there inflation i could write a whole separate think piece on this tapped fucking money system). but since it does exist how does it manifest itself? like bills aren’t really a thing because houses are powered by magic and rent isn’t really mentioned i don’t think, the weasleys own their house (another class indicator). it just really doesn’t make sense to me. also i haven’t really included ron being bullied for being poor by draco because the majority of people are poor compared to draco and draco is a dickhead eleven year old like i doubt he even knows how money works.

[dream-with-a-fever]

in defence of ginny weasley (ft fleur delacour)

never thought i would feel strongly enough about this topic to comment on it, but the ginny bashing in this fandom is just insane so i thought why the hell not. ginny seems to get hate for everything under the sun from being being a mary sue who can do no wrong in anyone’s eyes (meaning she’s boring and uninteresting as a character) to being a nasty bully responsible for hurting those around her (??? and they’re both completely contradictory statements btw). when the latter is brought up, ginny’s “terrible” mistreatment of fleur is always front and centre. ‘she’s nasty, she’s cruel, she is a jealous bully etc!’ and i just feel like we should put on our thinking caps and actually take a step back for a fucking second. people may disagree with me, but i think ginny’s reaction to fleur was totally understandable — and reminder, she is a TEENAGE girl, (not to mention both mrs weasley and hermione held fleur in the same regard but no one seems to focus on that side of things).

now in the books, we do see ginny mocking fleur, calling her ‘phlegm’ behind her back, imitating her gait and elegance, expressing her annoyance at her newfound presence in their lives.

let’s look at why she might have reacted that way. first of all, in general, we see that the w are a very humble and welcoming family; they don’t have much but what they do have, they are more than willing to share with others. their financial circumstance plays a massive role in how the characters in the wea clan react and interact with others (as seen with their refusal to accept money from harry etc). their sense of pride in that regard is also quite prevalent. we see that when harry first goes to the burrow, ron is slightly embarrassed by his home, painfully aware of the way many people in the wizarding community view/judge them. when harry goes on to say it’s best place he’s ever seen, we immediately see how touched ron is. ginny is the same in that sense — embarrassed that she has second hand robes & books etc, but at the same time she, like ron, is fiercely protective of what they do have, and what they as a family stand for. they are also very protective of people they love inside and outside of the family (see, ron with ginny, mrs weasleys with all of them etc).

this is relevant because one of the reasons ginny and in turn mrs weasley, have a problem with fleur is the way she talks to them. despite them inviting her into their home, fleur makes her distaste clear even if it is in small ways. she says it’s boring at their house as there’s nothing to do, she often talks disparagingly about how things are done in the weasley household, she loudly mocks celestina warbeck (who mrs weasley loves to play at christmas time) and insults her, she speaks badly about tonks several times etc. her words and mannerisms are also viewed by some (ginny etc) as very pretentious and arrogant — also rather posh, a sign of her family’s wealth (which might have been a sore spot for ginny also).

now don’t get me wrong. i love fleur as a character. i think she’s really cool, charming and brave, and i wish we got to see more of her honestly!! i think she makes a lovely contrast to the other younger characters, and i think she undergoes some nice character development in the books we do see her in. it’s also very clear to me, that when she acts the way she does, it is never out of malice or cruelty— it comes from a place of openness and honesty — which often comes across as quite blunt. it’s a cultural disconnect in many ways; when she inadvertently insults people throughout the books, i think it’s pretty obvious she isn’t trying to hurt anyone’s feelings. but i also think it’s obvious how this attitude might annoy those around her.

calling ginny is a big bad bully for disliking fleur (in the beginning), when her behaviour towards the weasley family would make anyone a bit frustrated, is a bit far. not to mention, her individual treatment of ginny is understandably annoying - ginny complains that fleur is very condescending when speaking to her (‘you’d think i were about three!’).

there’s also the fact that ginny is bill’s little sister. he is her favourite brother (as seen from the way she respects him and his opinions, looks up to him - she wanted to go to hogwarts ever since bill went!). ginny having a reaction to her brother’s new girlfriend is very normal - he’s her big brother! all his attention is now on his new girlfriend - who ginny finds to be full of herself, patronising & annoying. part of her may also be worried that fleur will end up breaking his heart in the end — because she’s protective of her brother.

add the fact that her brother and old crush and basically every man ever is drawn to her because of her godly beauty (as a part veela), her and bill’s wont to shower each other in public displays of affection (who wants to see their brother doing this!?) and the fact that ginny always gotten along with tonks (the person her and molly had in mind for bill’s future partner) has always treated her kindly and as an equal, and therefore would much prefer as a sister-in-law — it’s not that surprising that ginny feels the way she does towards fleur.

nevertheless, do i think this is something ginny would grow out of? yes, of course. we already see changes in their relationship in the final book. besides, a lot of this stuff is surface level, as ginny and fleur don’t know all that much about each other — i think fleur’s love for bill (especially shown in the hospital wing after he’s been attacked by greyback) definitely changes the way ginny regards her. i also like to think that they grew closer as they got older, as with age comes maturity, and with maturity comes understanding. i also feel that fleur was someone who really stepped up when it came to supporting the weasleys after fred’s death, something that ginny would have appreciated. i see them having a nice relationship later in life.

ANYWAY, this was an exceedingly long rant for which i apologise but i have often seen people talk about how nasty ginny is to fleur, and i think it’s so unfair to not look at the context which leads to her being a little frustrated at her future sister in law. plus, she is allowed to dislike someone who she does not get along with and who she finds unpleasant to be around. we all have people like that in our lives but god forbid ginny does…not to mention, ginny is never openly rude to her EVER, and she’s allowed to voice her frustrations to her friends/family. the fact people call her an outright bully for this is just insane.

people on here will defend so many other dubious characters but the second a teenage character with good intentions makes a mistake / doesn’t act perfectly (i.e ron, ginny), they are suddenly the epitome of evil in human form, i mean get a grip, honestly. also one last quick thing(!!!), i do note some people blame jkr for writing her female characters this way, as we’ve seen the way she seems to frown upon conventional/typical displays of femininity (lavender and parvati being seen as ‘silly’ girls with frivolous thoughts, cho chang as overly emotional - despite having a very rational reaction to the death of her boyfriend, fleur as overly feminine and therefore less serious/intelligent). her heroines are women who often conceal or discard these more feminine traits — and i will say that despite loving these characters very much, i do think some more nuance here, could have been very beneficial to the story, and to the message being sent to young female/female identifying readers. there is strength in femininity, and rejecting feminine traits does not make you more or less a person.

okay, rant over. if you actually got to the end, bless you, if not — well, that’s totally fair (lol). also please don’t kill me in the comment section if you disagree. this is just my two cents. ok that’s all.

[currymanganese]

Fak is too involved in Carmy and Claire's relationship. From giving Claire Carmy's number to showing up at her job with his equally annoying brother. He needs to mind his business and stop assuming what Carmy wants. In s3 ep9 Fak tells Claire he thinks (then later says knows) Carmy loves her. If you don't know Carmy's true feelings about her, why tf are you speaking for him?

Also sometimes it seems like Carmy doesn't even like Fak like that. They rarely have one-on-one scenes together and their conversations are mostly surface leveI. I always thought Fak and Richie were closer. In s2 ep3, when Claire and Carmy are talking on the phone, Carmy says Fak isn't his best friend (but then backtracks 5 seconds later saying he's probably my best friend). Then in s3 ep5 when they are preparing for the photoshoot, Fak said Carmy was #1 on his best friends list. The friendship is obviously unbalanced. Fak is one of those childhood friends you have outgrown but keep in your life due to history and familiarity. This is just another example of Carmy being stuck in the past and not being able to let go. He either needs to set some boundaries with Fak or end the friendship.

I love your blog btw. Your analysis on The Bear are very thorough.

*EXTREMELY HOT TAKE INCOMING*

Thanks for the kind compliments / thanks for the ask, but I'm starting to think that, if my suspicions are correct, that depending on how season 4 goes, that she and The Faks may shape up to be fantastic characters, at least from a trollish comedic parody perspective - and that this may be a huge 'star making role' for Molly Gordon and the rest of actors cast as the Faks if what is being set up is executed well post-reveal, and they demonstrate that, contrary to what we have seen thus far on the show, they definitely have acting range.....

Because I'm like 88% sure now that Claire x Carmy x Sydney's love triangle is an allegory/deconstructed (in part) version of Lilith x Adam x Eve from apocryphal / Jewish tradition. And that 'Sammy' Fak may be an archangel Samael figure

Lilith is Adam's first wife apocryphally and in Jewish mysticism that left him and became a she-demon / mother of demons / the "queen of the night" after being impregnated by / becoming a consort of the archangel Samael (whose name means Venom of God and is a seducing/destroying angel).

My thoughts are too incoherent right now to make a post about this theory in its own right, but all of the above could explain why the scenes where Claire is physically intimate with Carmy are shot in darkness and low light, compared to warm /well lit scenes when Syd and Carmy are emotionally intimate; it could explain why the songs that play during Carmy and Claire's scenes are frequently morbid or are outright about death, or lyric less ambient scores that invoke the feel of psychological horror,

and why mostly love songs are played for Carmy and Syd's.

I've made some posts /edits pointing out the parallels between Claire / Carmy / Syd and these biblical / mythological figures, and a post on why I think John Cena as Sammy Fak is a case of good casting (from a comedy perspective) if the Faks are really meant to serve the function that I think they are meant to below;

but some additional similarities between Claire and Lilith are that they were 'created' in the same way, 'formed from the same dust', as their 'Adam' (whose name can also mean red clay/earth and Claire's last name means mud or muddy fortress) - since Carmy and Claire both come from the same neighborhood/highschool and, depending on how much we see of Claire in the future, they may have both come from dysfunctional homes / be the adult children of alcoholic parents.

The posts I linked below are:

1. A webweaving on Sydcarmy + Adam x Eve parallels;

2. A fan edit that I did that was inspired by the webweaving; side note: if Carmy's words to Sydney at the end of their first convo was foreshadowing for them starting a literal nuclear family of their own, and how many kids they're gonna have, I'll scream;

"We're gonna make family, it's meat, (👀) plus three, and we'll eat around two."

3. A reblog add-on to @espumado et. al's @thoughtfulchaos773 @vacationship @kdbleu 's etc. thread on the theme of haunting / religious / mythological imagery and parallels in the show in season 3.

4. Another thread on religious symbolism in Season 3 and Claire and Syd / Carmy's relationship kicked off by @vacationship.

5. Another reblog add on I made in response to @glitterslag about the episode Review in Season one possibly representing/parodying the biblical "Fall of man".

6. A fan edit that I made for clairecarmy with the intent of being humourous at first, but unexpectedly turned out pretty nightmarish / psychological horror-esque without much work because the material/ dark imagery is there; including an eye opening parallel between Claire and Donna.

7. A post on the Bear being a super deconstructed Shakespearean pastoral comedy e.g. like As You Like It.

8. The religious symbolism of Carmy's red string of fate dish for Syd possibly being a visual allusion to the sacred heart of jesus, which is an emblem of God's long suffering and passionate love, an add-on to @twokisses post

Tagging @ambeauty @angelica4equity @imliterallyjustablackgirl @devisrina @ripley-stark @bootlegramdomneess @gingerylangylang1979 @outmakingmoonshine @pureseasalt @augustmonsooning @brokenwinebox @whenmemorydies @mod-doodles @bioloyg @caiusmarciuscoriolanus @post-woke @myloveismineallmine @turbulenthandholding @anxietycroissant

@moodyeucalyptus @ago0112 @unbeweavvveable @blackjack-15 in case anyone wants to chime in.😭

[pesky--dust]

We all make fun of geography on this show, but what about time?

Seriously, I can't believe that season 1 should last like 3-4 months, season 2 lasts 3 months, and season 3A takes place over the course of 8 months.

We know it since, being asked by doctor Sutcliffe (Buffet froid, s01e10), when Will's symptoms began, Will answers, “Two to three months ago” and Hannibal adds, “About the time Will went back into the field, which is when I met him”, so this means that we have a maximum of three months from Apéritif (s01e01) to Buffet froid. Considering that Buffet froid is the tenth episode of the series, we can assume that each three episodes take place over the course of one month, so since each season has thirteen episodes, we can say that this season has a duration of four months.

Episode number four (Oeuf) is Christmas-themed, so it is probably December there. Hannibal's notes on Will, dated February 14 and 21, indicate that this is hypnosis therapy numbers 18 and 19, which indicates that if Will had regular sessions once a week, Will's therapy began on October 18.

In Kaiseki (s02e01), Hannibal's fight with Jack is shown, after which the screen goes black and “twelve weeks earlier” appears, so from Kaiseki to Mizumono (s02e13) it is only three months.

Given the fact how many killers there are in the first season, in my opinion this season should have lasted at least a year. And considering how the law is supposed to work, season two should seriously last longer than three months. 3A is longer than season 1 and season 2 together (there is a black screen between Will in the hospital and him in Norman Chapel that says “8 months later”). Like… come on.

Personally, I would also like 3A to be longer, something like in a novel, but well… whatever.

[slaket-and-sprash]

We all know that they're going to hire celebrities to play Kirby characters if we ever get a Kirby Movie, and if so Dana Snyder should play King Dedede and Antonio Banderas should play Meta Knight.

Also it would be funny to see Puss in Boots and Master Shake being the two gay dads to an illiterate toddler who wants to eat everything

[princess-unipeg]

Is there a way to hit restart?