#these are all my personal impressions and opinions

[hfjonewiki]

a non-comprehensive list of my favorite brian koch cheese credit card answers

pickle wishes he never met taco

nickel needs balloon way more than he realizes

salt needs pepper way more than she realizes

if taco had the chance to do it all again differently, she would

fan's favorite game would be lego star wars

apple still has her pony from santa, which she named "dino brawler". this is presumably the toy she was holding in episode 16

knife tried harder to be good at video games than he lets on

suitcase is still a little annoyed with oj for eliminating her for no reason in episode 7

oj and bomb are on better terms now, but will never be best friends again

he sees soap and microphone having a more sibling-like relationship, since their voice actresses are sisters (judging by the 20+ private replies, someone had some opinions on this one)

mephone 3gs didn't know his crew very well. when he watched them die, he was surprised by how much he felt

pickle genuinely made taco laugh a few times during season one

evil paper liked playing checkers (this implies that this is a trait exclusive to him that paper himself does not share)

mephone x would probably use he/him pronouns, but cobs doesn't put that much thought or humanity into the mephones anymore

mephone4 wanted to impress cobs for a long time, but meeting 3gs recontextualized a lot of his negative feelings

if mephone4 wasn't hosting inanimate insanity, he would probably be a lost media archivist

taco doesn't have nearly enough hobbies. brian thinks that's part of the problem

nickel sees himself as more worthless than most would assume

mephone4 and oj's relationship is "honestly not great"

under the guise of "scheming", taco and mic would sometimes just hang out together when there wasn't anything game-related to do

trophy struggles to do push-ups

despite being an outdated medium, cobs still sends out discs with nothing but propaganda material on them

despite not sharing much screentime together, brian thinks knife and pickle are the best ii yaoi

yin-yang likes being in cars. yin will drive, and yang will pick the music

soap would play splatoon, since all of the messes are just virtual

mephone4 is iffy on physical contact due to his past experiences with cobs

salt genuinely thought her and oj were in a relationship

just like mephone4, mephone4s' favorite food is cookies

cobs doesn't see himself as evil, he's just giving the people what they want. "not what they think they want. what they ACTUALLY want."

if silver spoon and candle are occupying the same space, people will leave because they can't take seeing how silver acts when he's around her

for a long time, baseball was the only person nickel respected

if mephone5 could live an everyday life, he would be a public menace. (destroying property, going up the down escalator)

taco actually enjoys the taste of lemon

while characters like fan weren't originally written with the intent of being on the autism spectrum, he lines right up with it

on a scale of 1-10, the amount that mepad misses toilet is "off the charts"

toilet wanted to impress mephone4 like a son would want to impress a father. "the cycle repeats a bit."

lightbulb and paintbrush take turns feeding baxter, but paintbrush usually ends up doing it because lightbulb isn't particular enough about what she considers "food"

mepad's favorite colors are black and white. "very mesmerizing."

walkie talkie (and presumably other invitational characters) didn't attend the hotel oj party

knife doesn't need to work out. he's just naturally like that

when someone asked if fantube was canon, brian answered "what more do they have to do?!"

springy hasn't had their own cereal in a long time

microphone and taco have both never been closer to someone else than they were with each other

silver and candle are a bit more distant now, but they both agree it's for the best

when the eliminated contestants were still being kept in the hotel oj closet, mepad would "unfeelingly" deliver and check in on them at mephone's request

[literaryvein-reblogs]

4 Great Motives for Writing by George Orwell

George Orwell:

From a very early age, perhaps the age of five or six, I knew that when I grew up I should be a writer. Between the ages of about seventeen and twenty-four I tried to abandon this idea, but I did so with the consciousness that I was outraging my true nature and that sooner or later I should have to settle down and write books. Putting aside the need to earn a living, I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living. They are:

(i) Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful business men – in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. The great mass of human beings are not acutely selfish. After the age of about thirty they abandon individual ambition – in many cases, indeed, they almost abandon the sense of being individuals at all – and live chiefly for others, or are simply smothered under drudgery. But there is also the minority of gifted, willful people who are determined to live their own lives to the end, and writers belong in this class. Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more vain and self-centered than journalists, though less interested in money.

(ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm. Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed. The aesthetic motive is very feeble in a lot of writers, but even a pamphleteer or writer of textbooks will have pet words and phrases which appeal to him for non-utilitarian reasons; or he may feel strongly about typography, width of margins, etc. Above the level of a railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic considerations.

(iii) Historical impulse. Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.

(iv) Political purpose – using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people’s idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.

It can be seen how these various impulses must war against one another, and how they must fluctuate from person to person and from time to time. By nature – taking your ‘nature’ to be the state you have attained when you are first adult – I am a person in whom the first three motives would outweigh the fourth. In a peaceful age I might have written ornate or merely descriptive books, and might have remained almost unaware of my political loyalties.

Looking back through the last page or two, I see that I have made it appear as though my motives in writing were wholly public-spirited. I don’t want to leave that as the final impression. All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives there lies a mystery. Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist or understand. For all one knows that demon is simply the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention. And yet it is also true that one can write nothing readable unless one constantly struggles to efface one’s own personality. Good prose is like a windowpane. I cannot say with certainty which of my motives are the strongest, but I know which of them deserve to be followed. And looking back through my work, I see that it is invariably where I lacked a political purpose that I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.

Published in Gangrel, No. 4, Summer 1946

More: George Orwell

[darklinaforever]

First picture :

Second picture :

The first person is aware that Lydia could remove the files from her mouth at any time? Literally, she takes them off on her own to talk when she gets tired of them! Beetlejuice is a very powerful fucking demon, if he wanted to completely silence Lydia he could and would have done so. However, he didn't do it. I'm tired of seeing people make this situation worse when in reality it's not as restrictive as it seems.

Same with the baby's delusion, which yes, is admittedly very disturbing at first and the only real reprehensible thing that Beetlejuice does to Lydia in this film in my opinion (because with the song that is played at their wedding ceremony and the how easily he lets Lydia send him away (I'm sure he wasn't really planning on marrying her this time). But then again, he didn't actually get Lydia pregnant ! And she didn't really give birth to his demonic child either ! And she seems to get over that weird, disgusting prank made by Beetlejuice pretty quickly.

Also, I don't know why but I never had the impression that Beetlejuice had traumatized Lydia in the first film as an attempt to affirm these people, particularly the second.

Literally, she doesn't seem to have any after-effects in the first film, and the sequel proves it even more. At what point in her scenes with Beetlejuice himself does Lydia seem to be truly afraid of him or particularly traumatized by him ? And I'm talking about the scenes where she is with him in the flesh. Because the moments when she thinks she's hallucinating his presence, it's logical that she panics. But no, she never seems terrified of Beetlejuice himself.

Not even at the famous wedding, contrary to what the second person says. This is bullshit.

The scenes where Beetlejuice makes declarations to Lydia like the serenade or the marriage, she doesn't seem disgusted (except when he throws his heart in her hands and that's somewhat normal) or terrified, or both.

She just has a face that generally says : Wtf ? Because the situation is WTF ! This wedding scene is not at all portrayed as creepy in the first place !

Frankly, it's bad form to say the opposite for me ! It’s deliberately turning a blind eye. Beetlejuice is a horror comedy, these scenes are above all funny with touches of bizarre and gothic !

The actors love their characters together, including Winona who totally ships them. To say that she played her character as being terrified of Beetlejuice is bullshit.

And even if his acting was out of step with the script, that's not the case. Because once again, Lydia is not traumatized by Beetlejuice even through writing.

Aside from the fact that Lydia doesn't want to say Beetlejuice's name to avoid screwing up her life again (and we understand), there is nothing that indicates a real fear of Beetlejuice, the individual, in her !

And no, Lydia does not have any trauma that caused her to hallucinate the Beetlejuice presence. We know it, we see it, Beetlejuice does this on his own, so when Lydia sees him it's real. These are not hallucinations resulting from trauma at all !

Yes, Beetlejuice is problematic, obviously he's a demon ! Yes, Beetlebabes also has problematic aspects, obviously since once again Beetlejuice is a demon !

(That's literally the whole appeal of this ship between these two... Nobody likes Beetlebabes because it's a healthy relationship !)

But I'm tired of people trying to make it worse than it is.

In this sequel, Beetlejuice literally saved Astrid, Lydia's daughter, and he also saved her from marrying a complete asshole !

Not only that, but the way he pursues Lydia, or courts her if you prefer, isn't really cringeworthy.

He helps her save her daughter. Saves her from a bad marriage. He plays the serenade. Gives her a hand kiss. Is ready to accept Astrid as his child. Offers her his beating heart (yuck), etc. Frankly, it's a good overall approach for me !

And even if it's frankly not cool to haunt her in recent years, the film suggests to us that it's really due to a connection between the two characters. So that balances it out a bit.

Frankly, the antis greatly exaggerate the issues of ship Beetlebabes and the character of Beetlejuice.

It's like those who say he's a pedophile, when he only seeks to marry Lydia for convenience in the first film, not because he has feelings for her. Plus people seem to forget that Beetlejuice comes from an era where girls generally married at the age Lydia was in the first film...

But hey. Really thinking about these is a bit hard obviously for the antis.

And I'm not even going to bother talking about those (like this second person) who think Beetlejuice having a picture of Lydia from the first movie on his desk is creepy...

[idontliekmondays]

excerpts from a daily mail article released shortly after her arrest

When members of the Geneva High School role playing club asked 16-year-old Lindsay Souvannarath to choose a character they were expecting an elf, a sorceress or perhaps a female warrior.

But the shy, clean-cut teenager opted for a rather more unsettling choice, presenting them with a detailed pencil drawing of her chosen persona - the 'Nightmare Nazi'.

The trench coat, jackboots and gas mask were unmistakably those of an SS soldier; the skeletal hands clutching a vast dagger more akin to dark fantasy art.

Former classmates at Geneva High recall Lindsay Souvannarath as a shy, withdrawn youngster, who had few friends and instead sought out after-school groups and writing clubs to express her creative side.

But she was also prone to bouts of anger and violence - allegedly stabbing another student with a pencil in one outburst and occasionally letting slip an alarming infatuation with the Third Reich.

'On first impressions I didn't think there was anything too strange about her,' he told Daily Mail Online.

'She could be funny and intelligent but most of the time she was quiet and not very warm or outgoing.

'One year her character was a sort of Wonder Woman-type heroine, then all of sudden she tells the group she wants to be a Nazi ghost.

'You choose your species and come up with a back story. Hers was that her character was a guest from a crazy, dark Nazi universe.

'It's supposed to be a game in a medieval, fantasy setting but she would just argue if she didn't get her way.

'So we went on our quest with a robot, a couple of elves, wizards and this weird Nazi.

'Aside from the character's background he didn't do anything racist or too alarming. We didn't know about her interests at that time so we just got on with it.

Ms Szigeti recalled how Souvannarath began to idolize black-death metal bands in her mid-teens.

She became particularly infatuated with Varg Vikernes, a white supremacist musician convicted in 1994 of killing a rival guitarist and burning down three churches in Norway, describing him as 'cute' and writing essays about him.

'Her work was always dark and full of violence, there were soldiers and Nazis and all this weird stuff,' Sabrina said.

'She acted normal on the surface. She was never physically violent but she would get aggressive and upset if you criticized her.

'Everyone was uncomfortable but we just avoided trying to start a fight with her. 'If you asked her straight up 'are you a Nazi?' she would argue that she wasn't.

As far back as 2007 - when she was just 15 - she allegedly wrote 'free speech is dead' in one forum, adding: 'That's why we need people like David Duke to bring it to life again.'

In another warped entry, writing that same year under the pseudonym Snoopyfemme she wrote: 'They use sex in commercials all the time to sell products. Why don't they ever use violence?

'Wouldn't you love to see a bunch of guys tearing each other apart with machine guns to get a bowl of Cheerios?

'Sure, it might traumatize our children, but in my opinion, children aren't being traumatized enough.

'The only reason for Americans to breed is to create more soldiers to fight for freedom. We need to weed out the weaklings early on. Survival of the fittest, man.'

'She was very odd to the point among a lot of our classmates that no-one was surprised by her arrest.

'She was a very lonely person - but she isolated herself. 'From what I remember she was even suspended for stabbing someone with a pencil in middle school.'

'She was known for putting spells on people. She would do it by saying weird things and then putting on a curse - obviously we did not take her seriously.

'She would break out into laughter in the middle of class for absolutely no reason.

'When we saw that Lindsay did something like this, nobody was surprised. She was the one most likely.'

source

[xhxhxhx]

Before I started writing here again, I tried to write something else, somewhere else, for about two years. Let's do an inventory.

That's what I wanted to say, at least. I was going to give you an inventory of my failed projects. Instead, I started writing up the first item on my list. And that's where I stopped.

I was going to write something up on the "equal protection component" of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954); Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 168 (1964); United States v. Valleo Madero, 596 U.S. 159, 166 (2023) (Thomas, J., concurring).

I had even read up on some of the literature. See generally Richard A. Primus, Bolling Alone, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 975 (2004); Ryan C. Williams, Originalism and the Other Desegregation Decision, 99 Va. L. Rev. 493 (2013). See also Daniel Farber & Suzanna Sherry, The Pariah Principle, 13 Const. Comment. 257 (1996).

I was explaining to a friend that the affirmative action case, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), turned on structural questions that none of the opinions really spoke to.

But I don't reach any of that in this post. Not the equal protection component. Not the affirmative action case. Not the structural questions, at least not directly. I got stuck earlier than that. I got stuck on maybe the most basic question of all.

Why do we even have two Due Process Clauses?

I.

The United States Constitution, a little instrument of seven articles and twenty-seven amendments, has two Due Process Clauses and one Equal Protection Clause.

The first Due Process Clause provides that "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That's the Fifth Amendment. The second provides that "No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That's the Fourteenth.

The Fourteenth is also what gives us the equal protection of the laws. "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But set that aside for now.

At first impression, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause almost seems superfluous. No person means no person. If no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, it follows that no State shall deprive them of it. The Fifth Amendment takes care of everything, doesn't it?

But however general its "[n]o person" language reads on first impression, we take the Fifth Amendment to bind only the United States, not the several States. That's what the Court told us in Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 247 (1833), at least. It's what we tell ourselves today, if we care to think about it. It's why we have the Fourteenth Amendment.

II.

At the time, the Constitution was generally taken as an instrument addressed to the United States, not the several States. (That's the Barron idea, at least.) It spoke to the United States, not the several States. It was something more than a treaty, but something less than a full constitution.

The Constitution sets up the United States an imperfect sovereign, with an imperfect power over its territory and people. The Constitution left the several States more or less as they were, but set up a United States, separate and paramount, with a controlling power over the several States' territory and people within the scope of the United States' own imperfect sovereignty.

But it's not the imperfection that makes the Constitution something less than a full constitution. It's the silence. It's that the Constitution leaves the several States more or less as they were, without saying what they can do or how they can do it.

The Constitution leaves the several States not just as imperfect sovereigns, but as uncertain ones. The several States can do as they please with whatever the Constitution has not denied them, unless the United States steps in. But the Constitution doesn't say more than that. It doesn't even quite say that. It's not for them.

The Constitution always speaks to the United States, and always binds it, but it only speaks to the several States when it expressly addresses them. That's when it binds them. That's Barron. And that's how we read the Fifth Amendment.

It doesn't expressly address the several States, so it doesn't bind them. When it says "[n]o person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it's only talking to the United States.

The several States don't have to read that bit.

III.

That conclusion wasn't universal. Some thought that the Constitution did bind the several States, even when it didn't expressly address them. Some thought that those parts of the Constitution were always binding, but only enforceable against the several States by the States themselves.

See generally Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Yale L.J. 1193, 1203 (1992); William Winslow Crosskey, Charles Fairman, “Legislative History,” and the Constitutional Limitations on State Authority, 22 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1 (1954).

That conclusion left the United States without the power to enforce the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment against the several States. That conclusion was acceptable in practice, even for skeptics of the prevailing reading of the Constitution, as long as the several States guaranteed and enforced the same rights themselves.

But as States denied what were taken to be fundamental rights, as Southern states did during Jacksonian controversies over antislavery speech and the antislavery press, Northern opinion, and especially the advanced part of Northern opinion that came to constitute the Republican Party, turned against that conclusion.

Republicans came to feel that the United States should have some power to enforce the Constitution's guarantees against the several States, in the several States, even if only in extremis. And so they gave us the Fourteenth Amendment.

And that's why we have two Due Process Clauses.

[spiritsong]

After seeing @felassan's post about there being two different versions of Neve and Taash's cards, I needed to sate my curiosity and went digging to see if I could different versions of the other companions as well.

Lo and behold, there are! I found them for every companion except for Emmrich. There's no way to say with absolute certainty which is the old version and which is the new; hopefully we can get some confirmation on this.

For the time being, I went ahead and marked the differences for those who have trouble spotting this sort of thing. Hopefully it's not too overwhelming for the ones that are very marked up, but I wanted to include some of the more mundane changes as well.

Neve — The biggest changes are the crossed leg (making her prosthetic more visible) as well as the metal rivet detailing on her outfit (see: the collar, the shoulder pads, the sleeves, the skirt portion). Some of what I'm calling the more "mundane" technical changes include the lighting and shadows on her staff, her nose, and her chest.

Taash — The most notable difference here is the coins (I didn't circle all the individual coins but you get the point) and the dragon in the background. In one version, the eye is more distinct, and a bottom row of teeth have been added to the dragon's jaw. There have also been changes made in the shading of her face. Her body shape (namely, the torso and her arms) have also been changed, as well as the general shape of the "spikes" on her hips and her shoulders.

Harding — Just a couple changes here. Her eye is more white/ghostly looking in one version, and the shading on her face and neck have changed.

Lucanis — LOTS of differences. They're pretty inconsequential, by which I mean there hasn't been any added/removed/changed symbolism in his card. The shading on his nose has changed, as well as the shading on his collar, hand, forearm, armpit (didn't circle this one oops), hips, and hip dagger. The purple "wisps" have changed in shape here and there. One of the orbs in the upper left have moved, and there is another orb above that one which has been removed/added.

Davrin — Just a few changes with Davrin, though they are big ones. His face/head has been changed, and the vallaslin has been redrawn. The scar on his eyebrow has also moved slightly.

Bellara — Bellara's head has shifted and her neck elongated/shortened. There are stars in the background and around her arm in one version.

As for Emmrich, I mentioned I could only find one version. I did compare the image we currently have with what I believe is the earliest Emmrich art that was shared with us (a cropped version of his card) by overlaying the two on Photoshop and didn't see any differences.

And that's it! You might have also noticed that some of the versions on the right hand side have a white line at the top of the image. Make of that what you will.

(People viewing this post on PC will have an easier time quickly clicking back and forth between the images to spot the difference. If you're on the mobile app and care enough to do so, you might have an easier time saving the images and flipping through them in your photo album. At least I know it's easier if you have an iPhone, I don't know about other models.)

[imflyingfish]

Fish you are so good at building to me your the Bdubs of people I know

Pheo ;w; ty

[khajiitclaws]

The things that bothers me the most about Estinien is that he does fuck all post-hw. He has no purpose in the story. To me at least he still doesn’t really feel like a true Scion bc he’s so in the background. He’s basically just there and says as much repeatedly. He’s a very one dimensional and flat as character that we really only know very basic things about. Supposedly he’s supposed to be “the dragon guy” and to have recovered from his lifelong quest for vengeance but he still acts mostly the same. Endwalker could have had him play a much bigger role with Vrtra, the setup is all there, but they never really do anything with that. To no one’s surprise he just scolds a dragon. Like he’s done every other encounter. They could have made him like an ambassador for Dragonkind, promoting exchange between dragons and humans since he supposedly has more respect for them. It ever really made sense to me why he actively avoids Ishgard and his supposed closest friend, Aymeric. Like okay he doesn’t want to be employed and keep his options open. To do what then exactly? Hell, he canonically has no hobbies, which is frankly stupid as hell. Even though he’s considered a Scion, he never really expressed any desire to be one and only joined bc Krile and Tataru’s pestering. Characters need purpose in a story, but he has none and imo all his actions in the story post hw could have easily gone to another character. Post-HW he automatically loses a lot complexity since his narrative foil Ysayle is gone. His banter and conflicting ideals with Ysayle is what makes his character have meaning and gives him depth. Without that, he fails to stand on his own. He just goes where the wind blows with no rhyme or reason, with a majority of his scenes only played for comedy. It’s not only boring, but is not good writing to me.

[louismygf]

just recently watched this is us with my college friends

[daz4i]

i'm like a people pleaser but only in theory bc i'm just so bad at it. like i wanna be useful and helpful but i truly just Suck (<- literally can't do shit) and my reflex reaction to anything is to argue. i'm like the most stubborn person on earth that somehow ended up unlocking a few trauma combinations that made it want to justify its own existence but also other... trauma...?? combinations that made it even more stubborn and insistent on being itself no matter what. you can see how this is a problem right

[voidoflotusblooms]

I feel like I'm the only og fnaf fan that didn't really enjoy the movie 💀

In my opinion, it was just really boring. I honestly wouldn't have minded if the movie was actually horror, like advertised?? Personally, i find horror movies to be really slow at first, but a lot of the time, they tend to pick up towards the middle. However, this movie just never picked up for me until pretty much the very end. I think it was just bc there was a lack of jumpscares imo. Like the BB jumpscares were affective, don't get me wrong, but I wish there was more from the others? I would've happily gone in with a different mindset if it was advertised as a thriller tbh. Also, a little bit more gore would've been nice. There were so many scenes that would've been awesome if they hadn't cut away right as a victim was about to die. Also, I didn't really see any lore confirmations that everyone keeps going on about? I feel like Scott just retconned stuff more than he confirmed it? It just seemed like Scott had so many ideas he wanted to do, and instead of picking one, he threw them altogether and hoped for the best

Spoilers ahead from this point on 👉🏼

.

.

Final warning... scroll past quickly if you don't want spoilers

.

.

Ok so here are my disappointments:

What was the purpose of not confirming Mike was Mike Schmidt until pretty much the end of the movie? I feel that was really unnecessary as it wasn't a huge plot twist or anything. Like I understand why Afton cut himself off when reading the name, but to me, it just felt like it was leading to a big reveal that never happened. Maybe it was to help reveal Vanessa was an Afton, but it wasn't pulled off well if that was the case imo

I understand the purpose of the fort scene with animatronics, but that personally ruined the immersion for me. It genuinely just took me right out of the movie bc it was too silly imo. I did think it was cute af how they all interacted in that scene, but I feel there could've been better ways to show that these are dead kids

Where was Afton this whole movie?? I knew Steve was him the whole time, but I wish they developed his character a bit more. A sad short story from Vanessa was not enough for me to really hate William in this movie

Another thing about Afton is that I wish he showed more fear once he lost control of animatronics. Hell, if not more fearful than at least have him be more threatening?? The lack of character development really hindered this scene imo. Matthew Lillard definitely needed more screen time

Back to first thing kinda, the whole Vanessa Afton reveal was confusing for me. Why make her his child when Mike was in the movie? Michael Afton was such a huge part of the lore, and not being a part of the movie franchise was a bit of letdown for me. It doesn't help I just did not have a reason to care for Vanessa till she revealed who she really was. Like William, I wish we could've gone more in-depth with her character

Mike's dreams were kinda dumb. I get it was a way for him to communicate to the dead children, and so we can see his trauma, but imo it wasn't done very well. It also felt like a slap in the face since the majority of the fan base dogged on the dream theory in the past. Like it seemed like a mean way of teasing more than it felt like a lighthearted kind

Lastly, William having literal control of the kids was really disappointing. Especially with only a picture. Again, the whole picture thing could've worked out a lot better if Afton was in the movie more. Maybe if we could've somehow seen Vanessa drawing the image as a kid and William putting up the artwork to seem like a good dad when in reality it was for his own personal gain or at least something to show he had some part in it. If done correctly, this movie could've really used some flashbacks

To sum it up a bit, I just really wish there was more character development. It was really hard to care or even relate to majority of these characters bc we brushed past things so quickly

Ok, now on to things I liked! ->

Mike Schmidt's character. I thought he was very well developed actually (despite my previous complaints). He (and Abby as well) was one of the couple of characters I really cared for

The actors/actresses. They all played their parts so well. Especially Abby's actress, Josh Hutcherson, and Matthew Lillard (at least when he was on screen lol). I was actually satisfied by their performances

The animatronics. They were stunning. It really was as if they were pulled straight from the game. Jim Henson company really pulled it off. I also loved how expressive they are. Also, SPARKY!! Never thought he would be an Easter egg in the movie, so that was a really cool surprise. From fake screenshot to being on the big screen :')

The Balloon Boy jumpscares. Got me twice and had me giggling. I just know this was Scott being the troll that we all know he is. It so fucking funny. Really brought out the intense hate we all tend to have for that lil fucker 😂

The springlock scene itself. Tho I wish it was a bit more gorey as well as had more expressive emotions, I still really enjoyed it. The animatronics dragging him away to rot for god knows how long movie wise was such a nice touch

Matpat and Corey's cameos. I was so excited seeing them! Esp Matpat. The dude's acting in that one livestream of his had me fully convinced he wasn't in the movie. Then boom, there he was as waiter. A waiter whose name was NESS, btw. Whoever came up with that is a fucking legend 👏🏻

Og TLT fnaf song as the end credits theme. That was such a nice nod to the fans. I'm so glad they added that in. So deserving

THE PUPPETS THEME. Look, I'm a huge fnaf 2 fan, so hearing that had me ascending lmaoooo

.

.

.

.

SPOILERS DONE

Overall, the movie was meh, and this is coming from someone who went in with low expectations. I'd advise just watching on Peacock (or 🏴‍☠️ it) personally. Don't go in expecting it to be anything similar to the games or even the books cause it's not. Treat it as a separate project. I went in expecting at least some of the basic things we've had confirmed, so I'd enjoy the movie more, but that just didn't work out for me, which is fine 🤷

Also, these are just my thoughts after my first watch. I could totally have a change of heart after another watch or 2. Unfortunately, the first impression was just not a good one, and that happens sometimes. So please don't take what I say to heart as, again, my opinion could change 😅

Overall rating: 5/10

I'm going to watch again at some point, so I'll update if my opinion changes in another post

[infizero]

ok having watched the amazing digital circus for a second time now (via ranboo's stream lol) i think i do like a little better than i did upon initial viewing. but i still will be honest and say its not rllyyyy my thing. like i think its rlly impressive and well-done but ehh. idk. i'll definitely watch though if there ends up being more

[angels-in-overcoats]

My Doctor Who hot take at age 25 is the same as it was at age 15

Donna Noble is kinda overrated

[taylorswifh]

👹

[satari-raine]

Sometimes I wonder about starting a writing blog. It feels silly to imagine it since I don't write as much as I'd like (although having something dedicated to it might change that.) For a while now, easily over a year but probably a lot longer, it's been tempting to change my handle or just go full anonymous with what I write? I mean, I'm kind of anonymous now - I try to keep away most connections to offline stuff, as far as that goes, and I don't have a large presence anywhere - but I don't know.

Sometimes I feel trapped by my handle or any semblance of my identity being attached to what I do even though I probably shouldn't, and I don't know if I could even articulate that thought well enough at the moment. I know there's something freeing almost with a fresh start. I do it enough in video games to know it's an addictive feeling, so sometimes I wonder if I did so with my writing - if I dropped the satariraine handle, changed it up, made another blog, whatever - that maybe I could do more or feel braver, or try new things.

Not sure where I'm going with this. Just a thought.

[toytulini]

sodies are fun, but i miss ink armor. i preferred it