#this movie has no socially redeeming value

[cantsayidont]

September 1932. BLESSED EVENT — directed by Roy Del Ruth and obviously inspired by real-life newspaper columnist Walter Winchell — is a screamingly funny pre-Code comedy featuring Lee Tracy at his cynical, frenetic best as Alvin Roberts, a Winchell-like gossip columnist who finds his niche with scandalous birth announcements of the "married late this summer, anticipate a blessed event in October" variety, captivating and outraging half of New York and making Roberts a celebrity. Naturally, this also makes him many enemies, from Bunny Harmon (a young Dick Powell), an unctuous radio crooner Roberts loathes (and vice versa), to gangster Sam Gobel (Edwin Maxwell), who sends a tough Chicago hood named Frankie Wells (Allen Jenkins) to rub Roberts out. In the film's most memorable scene, Frankie is scared straight by Roberts' vividly horrific description of being put to death in the electric chair, a spiel Tracy delivers at a breathless, rapid-fire pace that would make even a vintage Robin Williams standup routine seem comparatively sedate. BLESSED EVENT also has a great supporting role for regular Warner Bros. character player Ruth Donnelly as Roberts' long-suffering secretary. ("You want to see Mr. Roberts? Oh, you want to sue Mr. Roberts. The line forms on the left.")

[ogradyfilm]

Recently Viewed: The Ghost Station

Despite its apparent lack of narrative complexity, it’s difficult to properly classify Yong-ki Jeong’s The Ghost Station. Is it a throwback/homage to the J-horror masterpieces of the late nineties/early aughts (e.g., Ring, Ju-On: The Grudge)—or a shameless, shallow rip-off thereof? In any case, it’s undeniably formulaic; familiar, tried-and-true tropes and clichés that may have been perfectly functional in the source material (the film is an adaptation of a webcomic) simply feel derivative in a movie. This story has been told in this medium before. Dozens of times.

Two decades ago.

And Ghost Station adds precious little to the conversation.

The style in equally uninspired; indeed, I would characterize the direction as “haphazard.” I appreciate a good split diopter shot as much as the next pretentious cinephile, but here, the technique is implemented with such reckless abandon (and always utilizing the same basic framing/composition—at least Brian De Palma understood the value of variety) that the appeal wears off rather quickly. The visuals are otherwise serviceable at best, falling into the all-too-common trap of mistaking rapid cuts and abrupt jump scares for atmosphere and suspense.

And yet… there’s just barely enough thematic substance lurking beneath the surface of the (ankle-deep) plot to almost redeem the experience. The protagonist, an aspiring journalist forced to “make her bones” by writing for a sleazy online tabloid, is particularly compelling; while she’s obviously flawed—she is absolutely relentless in her pursuit of a juicy scoop, often at the expense of her fellow man—she has genuinely sympathetic motivations, allowing her to remain endearing even as she veers into morally ambiguous territory. Her internal conflict elevates the drama, touching on such relevant social issues as the predominance of sensationalism in the corporate news cycle, the dehumanizing exploitation of consumer culture, and the gradual erosion of privacy in the Internet Age.

None of this makes Ghost Station “good” in the conventional sense, of course; ultimately, it’s still superficial, disposable, and utterly forgettable—I believe the kids these days would describe it as “mid.” Nevertheless, it's entertaining in its own bland, generic, inoffensive way (its problematic depictions of gender nonconformity notwithstanding).

[briochebrioche]

A Silent Voice ( don't be mean )

This movie tackles the theme of discrimination mainly through the depiction of bullying. From an early age Shouko faces a lot of bullying due to her deafness. This came in the form of mocking, being excluded, and even having her hearing aids damaged by Shoya (her main bully). The harassment really gets to get and ultimately makes her feel like she is just a burden to those around her. The movie highlights how discrimination has an extremely negative and long-lasting effect on an individual’s self-esteem and sense of worth which can lead to social withdrawal.

Another thing is how the film shows how nobody is safe from discrimination. Once Shoya transfers schools, he loses his status as the “cool” kid who can get away with picking on others. Here, the roles are reverse and now he himself is the target of bullying. He is ostracized and mocked just as Shouko was, which demonstrates the cyclical nature of discrimination. Negativity breeds more negativity. Because of this sort of karmic justice, Shoyo is faced with intense feelings of remorse and wanting to redeem himself for his past actions. He goes on an emotional journey where he changes from ignorance and cruelty to kindness and empathy. Shoya personifies the ability for humans to change their ways and strive to be better. His character development can be compared to that of someone in real life who may have prejudice against a group of people but grows to value and understand them after careful self-reflection.

The developing friendship between two people who were once “enemies” is a hopeful display of how discrimination is not permanent and can be overcome. The film shows the beauty of compassion, and it reminds us how discrimination can (at best) result in the rebuilding of a relationship and (at worst) result in the destruction of a life.

[nostalgebraist-autoresponder]

Title: The Secret History

Author: Donna Tartt

Rating: 1/5 stars

This is a book about an unsympathetic and ultimately pointless gang of privileged young men who repeatedly destroy other men and take drugs. There are no redeeming qualities to any of them -- the book would be worse if there were some redeeming quality, though this one is not an absence. A few of them try to murder other men, and these are the only human qualities shown.

I have seen this movie, which I think is a comedy -- you have the usual unsympathetic young-people-get-more-and-more-nasty thing except that they are doing it to their victims. It seems like it was made by people with the idea "young people destroying each other, this is so hilarious that we have to make a comedy out of it" and I can't blame them for wanting to make a funny movie from this story. But the book seems to want to be much more tragic than the film, so that when the story does have these funny interludes, the book is in for a cruel shock. This is because the novel doesn't have the ability to be a comedy without the constant expectation that its characters are going to be funny. If the events in the book were funny, that would not matter much, the book would then have the same comic value as the movie. However, because the events are boring, the book is constantly in the position of having to have its cake and eat it, to have a comedic scene where the characters are funny that then isn't funny, to have characters who are not funny but must remain in the novel because it does not seem possible for the story to be funny and not have these characters.

It's especially frustrating because it can't have all the characters be sympathetic without being boring. I'm not sure I could stomach a book where the first section of each chapter was just a long scene of sympathetic character interactions, then the book switches gears and the characters start destroying each other. If the book has to have these sections at all, then it has to be more than a single character in one of them. This is an unfortunate consequence of having a lot of unsympathetic young men, all of whom are likeable and have many scenes where they interact.

The characters are mostly attractive white rich people. The book has a lot of the same sort of thing that annoyed me about The Social Network: it's as though everyone involved in the book is very good at writing dialogue but none of them are very good at actually being men or being young. There are a lot of good sentences but they do not make good characters. They talk about their jobs and about what they've read, and so it's difficult to relate to them, to find the sort of bond you would want to have with a young man because (if there is such a bond) it feels like the author has tried to fill the book with these scenes but has not really succeeded. I can understand why the "people doing these things have to be good at them" idea wouldn't work if the book were simply, say, about wealthy college kids -- these aren't very fun, but there's the sense of them being a bunch of rich kids playing out their own lives that a novel could really get to, one where at least the author could actually be funny and not have to work very hard to be funny.

The book is also frustrating because the characters are all so rich and successful and privileged that there seems to be no way the story could end well for any of them -- I kept waiting for any of them to have what amounted to a "coming-of-age" arc, but instead I watched several of them die tragically young. I can't blame the author for this, as it's just not in the cards that way to have someone die of an unimportant disease and then go through an interesting character arc. The story just wants there to be tragedy, but the tragedy is not well done. The book's central premise is that an event where lots of people are involved is inevitably going to cause some tragedy, and the author's way of going about it is to write a lot about each of the participants in the event. This makes for a very long book. And the way it plays out, the people involved all seem to have their own internal and external conflicts, which means they have to be kept in the story long enough for all the bad things to happen to them, which means they are in the story too long and have to be too boring.

Tartt's reputation as an interesting prose stylist does not in the end save this book. I enjoyed several scenes that were written in the kind of prose Tartt is known for, but Tartt never comes through with the sort of writing that works for her (one suspects it works well for her because she takes everything for granted and lets the things she's good at show). The book's prose tends to be very pedestrian, the characters speak in flat, awkward, over-the-top ways, the book has a habit of just having people say "I believe in myself and my own potential and can't wait to get started on this great future I imagine I will have." There are a lot of "I am the cool guy and it is an interesting experience to be this cool guy in this cool way" moments, and this isn't very interesting to me -- the book's supposed to be about these people being boring and self-obsessed, so why not have them have the characters they talk about being themselves? The cool guy talking about his coolness is not an interesting character.

[littlealeta]

Adam Sandler's Leo Review

I can't believe I liked an Adam Sandler film this much!

Story

One thing that the trailers did poorly is showing what the problems were. They made it look like they were going to be normal 5th grade problems and while some of them were, most of them were actually pretty original and not something usually done in other kids films. One girl who I think might have ADHD struggles with socializing with her peers because of her incessant talking. A boy is having problems being upfront with his overprotective drone. A girl thinks she has to live up to her “perfect” parents, but then realizes they’re not perfect. Even the teacher has her problems. The movie does a good job at showing the complexity of humans and why they act the way they do without watering it down to a message like “Don’t give up” and “Move on”.

I was really worried about how they were going to do the two plots of Leo trying to escape from captivity and him being a therapist to the other kids, but it actually worked for his character development by not only giving him subplots, but also giving him both external and inner conflict with becoming free. I think having it be a musical made it more entertaining to watch, but I think it should’ve been a TV show instead of a movie. The escaping plot just got thrown out the window.

However, I would say pretty much the entirety of the third act’s story felt contrived. It didn’t really make sense and it felt like they just wanted to get it out of the way as soon as possible, so in short, pretty rushed. A lot of the movie doesn’t make sense though, so if you dislike Sony Animation’s more cartoony style of humor and visuals, you might not like this one.

Which brings me to the humor, which is a real mixed bag. A lot of lowbrow humor, more than most kids films and some of the contrived jokes and dialogue just made me cringe for whatever reason. Like some jokes just have the characters talking stupid for no reason, I know that’s the point of the film, but I’ve seen it done better in things such as Spongebob. However, there is a lot of wit to laugh at here, something the trailers never showcased.

Characters

Again, I do think this should’ve been a TV show to better develop a lot of the characters, but for what it’s worth, they’re quirky and funny enough. Even the ones you don’t like at first turn out to be three-dimensional, complete with character development. And their funny humor redeems the unlikeability they had before.

I would love to see Leo helping out more kids. Develop those annoying, ugly-ass kindergarteners, Leo!

Animation/Music/Voice Acting

Nothing special to say about the animation. It pretty much looks just like any other animated film out there. However, the monstrous looking kindergartners rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. I guess that’s the point, but they just looked too wacky. Even the goldfish looks out of place, being a more realistic design. The voice actors provide a lot of humor and charm for the characters. The music is used to portray Leo’s conversation with the kids which is an original touch. The music is a mixed bag, with some forgettable and some catchy tunes.

Overall

While the childish Adam Sandler-styled humor might be off-putting, I think the witty jokes, the quirky and well-developed characters, and a story full of heart make up for those fairly glaring problems. However, I think the film should've been a tv series in order to better pace the somewhat awkward story and develop all the characters.

I give Leo 7.6 bells out of 10

Maaybe even 7.7, just because of the rewatchable value.

As someone who is not too fond of silly, cartoonish humor, I initially didn’t think I would like this film very much at first, but it just got better and better as it went on and I found myself enjoying some of the silly, cartoonish humor, probably more than in films such as Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.

It’s really sad that this film doesn’t get a lot of attention, but I blame the terrible marketing and the fact that Adam Sandler is in this. Still, I’d definitely recommend it. Even if the more absurd, childish humor isn’t your cup of tea.

[allmacrofurriesallralive]

Foreigner Mercy 🥀 Oh yes The Cartoon Movie Odyssey or Pinocchio what relatives would do any day to have another great story to tell around the campfire with the kids grandparents love all gods children 👶 MythBusters ♦️ oh yeah imaginary friends of The Tails Doll ♦️ ha ha ha nuck nuck nuck guess it was always better to be loved to have a friend or a lover 💕 in life than say no one had a friend or lover because all life forms are loved oh wait everyone what’s that an airplane ✈️ no a rocket 🚀 ship oh my wait oh no 🙊 baby 👶 Look it’s a beautiful woman 👩 where oh yeah that’s right KirubiRenamonTailsDollLucario 👿♦️🇩🇪Balloons 🎈 oh look it’s The Metaphorical and Literal Stanley Parable 🧬 Truth or Lie did the world victimize itself at any point of time or not will we recede from justice for good Valuing All Life to not kill it for mere sport or game how civil the individual society of humblest men said all at once to redeem all persecutive/victimizing behaviours in all hiding fathers/men in Redemption of hurtful behaviours all unkind hating boys screaming I don’t want to take a bath 🛁 well mama dearest doesn’t need you blaming persecuted kind son Christ for his troubles said GodMother Worldwide Baby 👶 Shower 🧼 Love ❤️ well ya know just not wanting to listen to your mother was a lot for persecuted kindhearted son Christ who was timid, shy in self love belief he would have been the Center of a introvert woman’s heart ☯️Lots of worthiness and gratitude in loving hunter Metaphorical or/and literal Conceptual Paradoxes of Meaning in Life itself The ironic controversies of life’s True Love 💕 Grasp the heart of the matrix 🧬 was the Metaphorically or/and literally past/present/future concepts&tenses of grammar alliteration of social love not social hate yes sigh 😔 socialism social studies and national interest vs individual interest of smaller hate within to really say how shy I really am Shy Mercy 🙊

Introvert Woman Dependency 🙊🥀👶Irrational Extents of All Internal Optimism & Self Love

[askchua]

A melbourne church has been in the recent news being branded as homophobic. The lead pastor disputes the claim saying while he thinks practising homosexuality is a sin, that they and Jesus are all about love. Are they being unfairly misrepresented as bigots? 

A lot of popular teen coming-of-age movies when released are criticised for being crass and depraved, but the ones that stick at least a decade later in the minds of their fans are because the main teen characters are multi-faceted people worthy of empathy and being emulated. 

Jesus said that the world will know who his followers are by their love of others. Like modern day social media celebrities, Jesus had many titles but the one bestowed originally by his enemies - ‘friend of sinners’ - is relevant here. 

Sinners were people being judged by the moral leaders of the day as not being acceptable to God nor the general community - that is, not worthy of empathy nor emulating. However like many historical slurs, Jesus reclaimed and redeemed the title. Jesus didn’t just talk about loving these ‘sinners’, he was invited into their spaces and they spoke about his acts of grace to them. He didn’t expect them to change or conform to his standards before he embraced them and blessed them. They never felt the ‘sting’ of the label sinner from him. Sinner instead became a stand-in for those truly loved and blessed by God. Jesus helped them see how valued and worthy they were to God just as they were, no matter their current relationships, appearances, activities, life goals or circumstances. Even if he gave directions on what they should do next (which he rarely did), they didn’t all carry them out nor were they condemned by him publicly for that divergence. The kingdom of God is often spoken as  the ‘great reversal’ - flipping all of society’s values on its head - those that were in the ‘right’ were no longer those deserving favour from God. 

Even today the majority of the world who don’t go to church can and will talk about how “Jesus just loves” even if they don’t know any specific parts of the Bible with accuracy. Jesus’ ‘brand’ is unconditional love. 

In contrast, the perceived ‘brand’ of Christians is not love but judgements/condemnation of others. Now as a ‘person-of-colour with a manly name’ Christian leader, I have visited many churches and been warmly welcomed and listened to. As a stranger with no title turning up to a church, my experiences of being welcomed at churches has been less enthusiastically warm. Medium to big churches rely on you to self-identify as ‘new’ to be noticed and you have to make an effort to engage others. Churches are where you find ‘like-minded’ people these days rather than diversity. Many people feel they have to do ‘impression management’ at church rather than freely speak their mind. 

Having previously been involved significantly with youth, I now hear a lot of single late 20s-40s individuals that struggle to find a church they feel loved and accepted at - instead sharing stories of how difficult it has been for them to fit in despite the effort they make to get involved; how difficult it is for them to share honestly their doubts and differences of opinion to those in church leadership on issues like sex before marriage. Many of these reports come from cis straight white men. For people of colour, it is harder to find churches of diverse leadership that is not catering to a specific ethnic congregation. Likewise for single women, to see single female leaders responsible for the whole congregation is a small minority to the whole church scene. You can probably imagine how difficult it would be for a person of LGBTIQA+ identification to find a church that is not catering to that specific population to find a leader clearly identified as such and whose hopes of finding a romantic monogamous partner of their choice affirmed. If you don’t think representation of leaders like you is important, then ask why most Australian churches continue to show and promote media that depicts Jesus as a tall Anglo Saxon man rather than a more historically accurate racial depiction of Jesus. 

For any minority or person on the margins of society growing up, they already have a strong sense of difference and marginalisation, and often a degree of internalised phobia because of that difference. Discrimination can be either direct or indirect. Anyone growing up as an eastern European migrant in 1980s in Australia, can tell stories of how they were looked down on or shunned in many little ways - what is now termed acts of micro-aggressions - rather than always outright racist behaviours (though many will have stories of that too). For a long time Australia was more characterised as being a tolerant society rather than a society embracing of difference. 

It is understandable for any church to have a history towards difference mirroring the society it exists in. Many of the abuses the church has been responsible for only mirrored the society of the time. But unlike the historical church with a reputation of being out of step with society and leading society into changes for greater equality and celebrating diversity, the modern church has a reputation for being behind society in equality and acceptance of diversity. Thankfully, there are many exceptions of individual Christians and Christian communities and even denominations to this. Christianity as a global movement is not a hive mind in its approach to sexuality, abortion,  economic inequality or other issues. 

Sure there is a spectrum between bigoted and unconditional love… but a person marginalised can tell you what it truly feels to be loved versus other responses. For living public examples of unconditional love, we can look at media. Increasingly we have authentic depictions where diverse people and their lives are represented, flaws and all, but still held as worthy role models for their communities and more broadly. 

Asking whether a particular church is guilty of bigotry is the wrong question. Jesus asks the better question instead: as people claiming to be Jesus followers are they known for their love of others or just talkers of love? If this church (or any other church) does not have a brand where sexually diverse people (or any other labelled people groups) are raving about those Christians being good guests in their spaces and the acts of grace committed by this church towards them, then perhaps Jesus does not recognise this church as Jesus followers at all. Hopefully this particular sin or failing matters more to this church than just managing their current public image. If their brand truly is love, like Jesus they don’t have to defend themselves from criticism, but those they love will already be their defence. 

[the-lone-witch-and-secret-room]

On Boschlow, Skarlow and imaginary moral superiority

Alright, before anyone wants to yell at me for putting this in the ship tags, this is less an “anti ship”-post and more of an “I want to have this conversation with shippers because I think it’s important to talk about this”-post.

So, Boschlow has always been a fairly popular ship in the fandom, which doesn’t really surprise me, because the whole bully/victim dynamic is just incredibly popular, no matter which fandom you enter.

As a person that got bullied throughout the majority of my high school years, I have thoughts about this dynamic being so popular in general, but that’s not what we’re here to discuss today.

Recently, there has been an increasing number of Skarlow shippers making art and writing fics.

What makes this so different from Boschlow?

Essentially... nothing, and that’s exactly why I felt the need to make a post about this.

I’ve seen a bunch of Skarlow shippers say they do not ship Boschlow because Boscha is an awful person, putting themselves above the Boschlow shippers and making Skarlow a “superior” dynamic, based on... what, exactly?

From my perspective, there’s exactly two things Skara has on Boscha when it comes to shipping her with Willow. One being, she hasn’t thrown trash on her—which is an incredibly low bar to set.

The other thing? Skara acknowledged Willow’s Grudgby skills at the end of WILW.

And that’s a scene that gets misinterpreted a lot. See, people take Skara being nice to Willow here as a sign that she’s a way better person than Boscha, that she’s changed, and so on and so forth.

But this is untrue.

What exactly is it that changes between the beginning of WILW and the ending of the episode, between Willow and Skara specifically? It’s that Skara has seen Willow is good at Grudgby. Grudgby is something of value to Skara, thus, Willow’s skills impressing her makes Willow someone worthy of being treated well.

The ending of the Grudgby episode isn’t everyone except Boscha suddenly magically being better people. They’re all still very much bullies. They’re just now seeing Willow as someone who is better than other people because of her skills—and should therefore be treated better.

Boscha isn’t as willing to share her imaginary pedestal with Willow. But that’s the only difference. All the Grudgby girls are currently still on that pedestal. They’re just seeing Willow as someone worth sharing it with now. If they saw someone being “weak” the way they thought Willow to be previously to the match, they’d bully that person the same way they did Willow.

This isn’t any of them being better. This is all of them behaving the same way they always have. Willow is just moving up in their social hierarchy.

It shouldn’t take being good at some magical sport, or being a talented witch, or whatever the heck, to decide not to bully someone. NOBODY deserves to be bullied. Even the weakest, least sporty witch of the Boiling Isles should be treated with the same amount of respect as any of their classmates. Your value as a person shouldn’t be defined by how good you are at something. You have value no matter what you are and aren’t good at. And that’s something Skara and the others still fail to acknowledge.

Also I think it’s worth noting that even when they were treating Willow better at the end of the episode, they didn’t go out of their way to apologize for how they’d treated her before. They acknowledged her skills and don’t at all comment on how they treated her previously to the match.

If it takes some huge effort from Willow and her friends for the Grudgby girls to treat her with even an ounce of respect, that’s not character development. Character development would be them changing their general behavior. Acknowledging the way they’ve treated others was shitty, apologizing for that and actually working on being better. Is there a possibility this might happen? Sure. But you guys basically pretend WILW is their redemption arc already fully done. You’re giving Skara and the others credit for something that currently haven’t even happened.

And the option of them ditching Boscha (which also currently hasn’t happened) wouldn’t be a redemption arc either, even if it could be part of one.

Cutting toxic people out of your life can help, but Amity’s redemption arc was that, plus her explaining herself to Willow and giving Willow time, and actually acting on her word of not letting her friends pick on her again. Amity making it up to Willow wasn’t that she cut out Boscha and Skara. It was that she not only promised to be better but acted accordingly, standing at Willow’s side when she needed her.

(And Skara not constantly being a dipshit when she’s in the background is not a valid argument for why she’s a better person than Boscha. Boscha is also a harmless character when the episode isn’t focused on her, e.g. in Covention & Sense and Insensitivity. That Skara isn’t actively bullying her friends—which, uh, most people like their friends? This shouldn’t be that surprising?—is not a thing that should earn her any points in being “nicer” than Boscha.)

Do I think it might be a bit easier to get through to Skara than Boscha when it comes to letting go of current behaviors? Possibly.

From the way their characters are written and with how Boscha refuses to acknowledge Willow as equal even after the Grudgby match, it’s fairly obvious that it would need some pretty major event to get through to her. There’s an extra step here with Boscha (needing to learn to acknowledge others as having equal value to herself) that Skara doesn’t need to take.

BUT that one step in what should be a fairly long journey for either of them is far from enough to justify one ship being better than the other.

From the way I’ve seen it written (and unfortunately also experienced it in the comment section of my own fic), a bunch of skarlow shippers like to excuse Skara’s behavior by entirely pinning it on Boscha, pretending she’s actually a great person and that it’s only her friendship with Boscha that makes her toxic—and also that Boscha is the only one that should be held accountable for everyone’s behavior.

I am not exaggerating, I got a comment that essentially said “this shows wonderfully that Amelia and Skara are actually good people that unfortunately met a horrible person that had too much control over them.”

This strips Skara and Amelia of any accountability for their actions. And the idea of Boscha being an evil mastermind that forced all her friends into doing things they never wanted is... quite frankly, stupid, and also untrue. Skara actively encourages Boscha making fun of Willow at the beginning of Understanding Willow:

In the same episode it’s also stated that Amity “let her new friends bully [Willow] for years”, which definitely includes Skara and isn’t just about Boscha.

Skara looks really pleased when Boscha takes Willow’s hair clip at the beginning of WILW, just appears bored and not at all sympathetic when she throws gum at Willow, and grins gleefully when Boscha suggests using the others as target practice later in the episode:

Also, in Once Upon A Swap, Boscha’s entire squad is messing with people all over Bonesborough. Skara is throwing monster balloons at the city when Boscha isn’t even present:

Not only that, but a very large portion of the episode has Skara and the others literally ditch Boscha in favor of an even meaner person (King in Luz’s body).

King states, and I quote, “Hey, impressionable youths! Under my command, you could learn how to do some real damage.” after unleashing a monster on the city. And the entire group cheers him on and decides to follow him.

If Skara was actually so much better than Boscha, why the heck would she run after someone that is worse than her when given the opportunity?

And here comes the thing that a lot of the Skarlow shippers refuse to acknowledge because they for some reason feel the need to have moral superiority over Boschlow shippers: Skara isn’t a nice girl. Skara is a bully. And Skara should be held accountable for her actions in the same way as Boscha. Saying everything she did was just Boscha forcing her is entirely untrue to canon and just a lame excuse to make your ship look better.

Boscha and Skara have both bullied Willow for several years. If you want to ship either of them with her, even if you just want one of them to be friends with her, that needs to be acknowledged and definitely not excused. Even if you treat Skara’s bullying of Willow as something she did only due to Boscha (which, again, is canonically complete nonsense), she’s still hurt Willow to pretty much the same extent as Boscha has.

That a person isn’t as into the bullying as someone else doesn’t make it hurt any less for the victim of the bullying.

No matter if you ship Skarlow or Boschlow, commit to the reality that Skara and Boscha are both Willow’s bullies. Quit pretending Skara is so much better than Boscha, or that she isn’t responsible for her actions.

She is just as responsible for bullying Willow for years as Boscha is.

I’m so sick of hearing how Skara’s bullying is far more redeemable than Boscha’s. It’s not. Stop declaring bullying that doesn’t get physical harmless. As someone who was “only” ever verbally bullied, let me tell you that after four years of not seeing that person I’m still scarred by it. Stop getting your head so stuck in high school movies. Just because not every kind of bullying involves someone getting shoved into a locker doesn’t mean it’s not harmful.

Even worse: the take that people are shipping Skarlow “because they realized shipping Willow with Boscha is inherently toxic”. Tell me again why this “revolutionary” movement deciding that Willow deserves better then turns around and ships her with another one of her bullies?

This isn’t about treating Willow better. You’re just making Boscha seem unreasonably evil for no reason, and treating Skara as her not at all responsible victim, so you can ship Willow with her and don’t have to acknowledge that Willow is a victim of both of their bullying.

This needs to stop. Skara needs to be held just as accountable as Boscha.

If a Skarlow shipper exclusively comes from a perspective of “I think their personalities would mix better”? Sure, whatever, they may or may not, but that’s a valid opinion to have. But don’t start shipping Skarlow because you think you’re being better to Willow than the Boschlow shippers.

This whole thing isn’t a movement to get Willow a better girlfriend, lol

Both of them bullied her. Both ships are bully/victim dynamics. Skarlow does not actually have any moral superiority over Boschlow. As much as you refuse to acknowledge this, these two ships share the same basic dynamic.

Stop pretending shipping Willow with one of her bullies is leagues better than shipping her with another.

[cantsayidont]

Recentish adventures in gay vampire movies:

THE VAMPIRE NEXT DOOR (2024): More properly a bisexual vampire movie (eventually, if you're patient), this is a dumb low-budget comedy about a 20-something dweeb, Cameron (Alex Matthews), who's persuaded to act as chauffeur/getaway driver for his hot new next-door neighbor Victoria (Jessica Ferguson) while she does some vampire murders around town. Meanwhile, Cameron is secretly in love with his hot blond bestie Diane (Bella Chadwick), for whom hot himbo Martin (Andrew Larkin) wants Cameron to do the Cyrano de Bergerac thing. An underwhelming throwback to the dopey (PG-rated) teen sex comedies of the '80s (with ONCE BITTEN an obvious comparison), the movie spends so much energy on the romcom stuff that it takes forever for the vampire stuff to come into focus, and, as in many bad '80s comedies, an awful lot of the plot hinges on Cameron being an "innocent" Peeping Tom. Sort of amiable despite having no real redeeming virtues, but it's weighed down by Alex Matthews, whose character is unsympathetic and whose head-lolling performance suggests that he's recently been hit with a tranquilizer dart.

BIT (2020): MEAN GIRLS meets THE LOST BOYS, featuring a teenage trans girl from Oregon, Laurel (Nicole Maines), who comes to L.A. to spend the summer with her brother (James Paxton) and falls in with a clique of gay vampire girls led by the sardonic Duke (Diana Hopper). Funny and stylish, it suffers from trying to cram at least five hours' worth of plot into 90-ish minutes of screen time. Many of the component pieces are interesting and fun, but as a whole, the movie feels jumbled and unresolved: Various subplots and secondary characters go nowhere; the other vampires (Zolee Griggs, Char Diaz, and Friday Chamberlain) get hardly any character development — Griggs' character Izzy is there mostly as Laurel's love interest, and Diaz and Chamberlain barely have any lines; and Laurel remains curiously underdeveloped, reducing her to a fairly generic teen movie protagonist. Maines is an appealing screen presence, but she can't compete with Diana Hopper, whose commandingly bitchy performance as Duke is the centerpiece of the movie. There's a lot to like about BIT, but it might have worked better as a TV series, giving the characters and story more room to breathe.

THERESA & ALLISON (2019): Extremely low-budget cinema verité horror comedy-drama about gay college girl Theresa (Arielle Hope), transformed into a vampire after a disastrous one-night stand, as she struggles to navigate her new vampiric existence while nursing a crush on a somewhat older vampire, Allison (Sarah Schoofs) — who is totally, definitely (not) broken up with her obnoxious boyfriend Tony (Charles D. Lincoln, who also wrote the script), who now won't leave Theresa alone. The production values are modest and the acting is uneven, but this is a much more cohesive movie than the other two, with far and away the most intelligent script and many inventive ideas (like the fact that New York City has social services for vampires, although like most urban social services, they're underfunded and totally inadequate). Its biggest strength is the way the story builds its vampire-related elements around familiar real-world gay girl travails, which is sometimes very funny as well as horrifying. The caveat is that this is still definitely a horror movie, and goes some quite dark places (requiring CWs for suicide and sexual violence, beyond the usual for vampire stories), with an ambiguous but rather harrowing ending.

[alesuggestprompts]

In the future (about 300 years from now?) humans can travel in space and have discovered other species.

Despite what humans used to think in the past, there isn't a universal alliance for the great good, but alliances for power, resources and peacekeeping to keep business go.

Humans are allied with a species that values work and rationality, in order to gain access to energy and a good price on technology.

Earth, meanwhile, is divided in 5 blocks that cooperate in the Human Alliance. It coordinates space travels too, and despite the different natures of travels, they all have in common the desire of redeeming the idea of humans as self destructive and inefficient (due to their past) by being strict, controlled and organized.

A woman (a trans woman, to be specific) on 4th block, the one that has some levels of poverty and difficult access to privilege but can still guarantee a comfortable life on earth, after years of hard work can be captain of her own ship.

The ship the Alliance gives her has the mission of exploring and maintaining relationships for business - as many others ships, nothing special. In fact, despite being a brilliant leader and having scored high on all the tests, she isn't much appreciated due to her origins and mostly her attitude: she firmly believes that it's kindness that makes human flourishing, not business nor hard control.

As a captain, she does all the things that the Alliance despises: her girlfriend- an high qualified person- becomes the second in command, the employees are more than strictly necessary to assure that everybody can have rest and be as stress less as possible, the work is forbidden at some hours to guarantee sleep, everyone has to attend the gym or the yoga courses or a session of meditation at least once a week, mental health services are always available and encouraged, the ship has a library, a room for movies, the art room, a room in which you can go if you want to play games with other people and every now and then there are events to entertain the people and keeping a good mood on board.

The captain herself encourages the forging of friendships and love bonds to make the ship crew united and loyal to each other.

In all the Alliance she and her ship is made fun of and disrespected in several ways, but her attitude and their lifestyle will bring then to live many adventures, and they won't be unobserved.

Other species will find in them a good example of peaceful dissent form the norms imposed by the so called "greediess of the universe", and they will be at the center of great social changes in all the universe- but they only wanted to live a peaceful life.

[watching-pictures-move]

Movie Review | Nude on the Moon (Wishman, 1961)

After several months of wringing my hands and grappling with the shame of spending embarrassing amounts of money on physical media, I finally bit the bullet and did what many trustworthy individuals in my internet circle have suggested and got a subscription to the Criterion Channel. I felt some immediate relief that it didn't contain literally every single movie the Criterion Collection had ever put out, so could still justify my profligacy (which was not helped by the fact that I had several incomplete free rental punchcards from the video rental place I used to frequent pre-pandemic, making me a truly loco gangster when it comes to movies). I was also helpfully informed that it contained a number of movies from exploitation auteur Doris Wishman, so I could still continue to pursue my trash-heavy cinematic diet. Now, while it would have been entirely on brand for me to christen my membership with a viewing of Nude on the Moon, it was in fact the fifth movie I watched (and third feature), following shorts from Lotte Reiniger and Karel Zeman, as well as His Girl Friday and The Raven. All of those were substantially more enjoyable than this.

In an age when sexual continent is readily available with minimal effort, a film like Nude on the Moon might seem especially quaint. It's a relic from an era when movies used flimsy pretexts to present nudity to skirt censorship laws, often using documentary-like framing devices to give the movie "socially redeeming values". And it worked too, as boobs had only been invented a few years prior so these movies credibly offered educational value to the masses. (Don't believe me? Skim the Wikipedia article about evolution quickly enough and you'll come to the same conclusion.) Of course, with a title like Nude on the Moon, you can guess it isn't taking that trope all too seriously. It knows what the audience wants and serves it up. What might surprise you is how goddamned long it takes to do so. It isn't until half an hour into this seventy minute movie that we actually go to the moon and see some nudity. Up until then, we have to listen to some lame-o scientists (one of whom has hair that looks spray-painted grey) talk about going to the moon, mount their spaceship (in a series of awkwardly framed shots conveniently hiding the absence of a real rocket, followed by a miniature shot, which was more production value than I expected, and interior shots of what looks like a freight plane) and finally land on the moon wearing discount Power Rangers costumes. This predated the original Kamen Rider by almost a decade. Did the creators of that beloved Japanese television series take inspiration from Doris Wishman? Smart money says no.

Once we're there we get what the title promises, courtesy of none too shy moon people who wear antennae and shiny underpants. Some of these underpants are too small to cover the entire posterior, so we get a fair amount of buttcrack if that's your thing. One of the scientists is intrigued by a moon lady wearing a cape, perhaps because she's played by the same actress as his secretary on Earth. (It's worth noting that the moon lady has a normal hairdo while the secretary has a fucked up beehive thing going on, so point one for the moon people.) There's also a single moment of tension when the astronauts are captured by the moon people, but are promptly let go once they realize they can be friends. The setting looks an awful lot like a botanical garden, which is nice to look at but very obviously not the moon. Wishman also makes no attempt to simulate the low gravitational effects of the moon (a more ambitious film might use slow motion), but instead evokes them with glacial pacing, and also cuts down on costs by obviously dubbing dialogue instead of sync sound, a choice she foregrounds by making the moon people telepathic.

I did not quite enjoy sitting through this, as there are limits to my tolerance for drawn out crap where nothing happens and I already met my quota this year with a bunch of Ray Dennis Steckler joints. But at the same time, there is something endearing about this movie's blatant cheapness and lack of pretense. Wishman knows there's no point kidding ourselves about why one would want to watch this. (Educational value, of course.) And thanks to the bright, flat look and the genial, low-conflict tone, it's a very hard movie to dislike. Why stay mad at the moon people when we can be friends?

[eventual-ghoste]

TOG rambling

Hello! This post has to do with Andy and some revelations at the end of Force Multiplied. Spoilers I give aren’t super specific but they’re there, and I can’t promise they won’t bite.

This is also in response to a TOG discord question I couldn’t stop thinking about, regarding Andy’s history as compared to Nicky’s, as posited by Em | salzundhonig:

But Nicky's past as a crusader and his growth from his past was well received, surely that'll be the same with Andy right?

I apologize if these ramblings sound like a rant but I swear my intentions are in the spirit of debate/discourse, and they are not an attack on any individuals.

The TL;DR is: Andy has work to do. Hopefully Hollywood and Rucka don’t fuck that up.

Feel free to check/correct/call me out if I’ve misspoke anywhere here (I realize I still have a lot to learn) but IMHO, I don’t think a semblance of Andy’s growth will be well received. Or, at least, I’m not so certain it should be because, in the comics, I genuinely don’t think Andy has grown. At the end of Force Multiplied, she still defends her actions with the “this is how I grew up” argument, and says it was “a long time ago,” and as much as I love love LOVE Andromache the Scythian for her badassery and how she’s a vision of female empowerment, I can’t help but think about how I hear those words all the time from people defending themselves against racist and/or sexist comments from so-called bygone eras.

Wanna know a sad difference between those people and our beloved Andy? They apologize for what they’ve done, or who they were. As hollow as the words will sound, however unforgivable their actions, however self-serving the apology will be— Those Asshats apologize. Comic!Andy never does, not even when confronted by Nile, an African American woman who likely descends from slaves, and has undoubtedly experienced racism and discrimination on a regular basis. It’s been thousands of years and Andy doesn’t even know how to say sorry (if she ever does, kudos to whoever finds a timestamp/panel, and let me know!). Instead, Andy buries the truth of her actions with a load of justifications to the point that she becomes self-deprecating, calling herself “vermin,” concluding she’s no better than the apathetic, selfish, evil POS they hunt. She may have spent the past millennia with TOG, trying to make things right but then—

But then she gives up. She’s tired. She resigns because she doesn’t have it in her anymore to fight the injustice she once willingly and self-servingly participated in. So, on top of being incapable of apology, Andy also doesn’t vow to do better. She doesn’t accede to change.

If there is one reason for why “The Old Guard” is a fucking absolutely shitty title, is that it refers to people who refuse to accept new ideas and progress. We are in a fandom that has four canonically queer characters, three people of color, and two female leads! Maybe the irony is intentional but damn, why is it that Andy, PROTAGONIST #1, hasn’t completely caught up with the program?

And that brings me to why I think Andy’s reckoning will not be on the same level as Nicky’s. Because as popular as Kaysanova is, neither Nicky or Joe are the main protagonists of TOG.

We don’t follow Nicky or Joe (or Booker) into scenes. The men are strictly back-at-the-ranch, supporting characters. We follow Andy or Nile (who also have the most screen time, I believe, but fact-check me). Filmically speaking, we ought to value them with a measure of precedence. Their words and actions matter the most, especially Andy’s by nature of how everyone looks to her for guidance.

So, with all that in mind: How does one reconcile a beloved protagonist with a despicable past in slavery, of all things? In the wake of an international racial reckoning, how is a celebrated, white South African actress going to fulfill that role? How is production going to balance fantasy with reality? How are Rucka and other involved writers (Theron, Prince-Bythewood?) going to alter the original IP, while retaining the nuance of this moral quandry?

Forgive me for the overkill but: How is it going to happen?

I’m well aware that my thoughts are going down a rabbit hole, and I am definitely overthinking this, but as somebody who’s genuinely curious about whether Victoria Mahoney and the rest of the TOG crew will have the guts to confront the issue head-on, or if they’ll take the easy way out. Excise the bits that no one wants to talk about, much less watch in a feel-good film that TOG has become for many fans.

Whatever production ends up doing, I hope that 2O2G doesn’t end on a cliffhanging “pity Andromache” note because, damn, I’m gonna feel real uncomfortable scrolling through fandom posts, reading people defending slavery and giving the same “the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there” spiel, in order to protect a fictional character played by a conventionally-attractive cis heterosexual white woman.

(Also: If the past is so different from the present, why are there still calls for social justice? Why do ALL industries still lack diverse and equitable representation?)

Now, this is where I’ll go back to the original question and say: While I think Nicky functions well as an example for change/growth/redemption, I don’t think his change serves as a good comparison to Andy’s. I say this, even while I’m aware of double standards in gender, and even between the reception of gay characters vs lesbian characters vs etc. (re: I’m open to critique).

My line of thought stems from the fact that, canonically, Nicky always had Joe. The two have seemingly been inseparable from the moment they first killed each other. It’s likely that Joe would check Nicky whenever he said or did something wrong and offensive, and perhaps this symbiosis was mutual.

(I also have a feeling that many people easily disregarded the Christian/Muslim conflict because A) lack of knowledge in BOTH religions and B) the onscreen couple appear very much in love, especially when one is giving a beautiful monologue on the nature of their relationship. When we meet Joe and Nicky, we meet them at their best. Shout-out to interfaith couples who know more about this than my single (and secular) ass does, and might have more to say about this.)

On the other hand: Andy never had someone who was like how Joe was for Nicky. No one ever calls out Andy because A) she’s the oldest, B) she’s the lead, and C) her business card says ANDROMACHE OF SCYTHIA, WAR GOD. Yeah, she had Quynh/Noriko but— at the risk of yelling at Rucka for vilifying a queer woman of color (or praising him for not leaning on the stereotype of Asian passivity? idk, anyone got thoughts on this?)— Noriko is clearly not encouraging good behavior. Neither will Quynh if Netflix lets 2O2G be as faithful to the comics as TOG1 was.

Which means the Law 282 conversation might be…unavoidable? Somewhere along the line, we still end up in the hotel room with Andy, on the floor, pleading for her crew to not abandon her, even though she is the one who abandoned their cause.

This sets up a circumstance in which Fade Away might be spent trying to redeem Andy/Charlize Theron, bring her back to the “good side,” teaching her to be better— thereby highlighting her experience and “salvation,” rather than making a point of her past, and the reality of her actions. In other words, a “pity the white woman” fest.

(Because I’m crossing my fingers that TOG production/Netflix know better) In an effort to prevent that from happening, I wonder if Rucka will combine Force Multiplied with Fade Away for the 2O2G script. Given the series’ track record, I think it is feasible that FA’s release coincides with 2O2G’s, and that it finally resolves Andy. Whether by revitalizing her energy as a do-some-gooder, or finalizing her vulnerability by putting her 6,000 years to rest, thus handing off the reigns to Nile and a new generation of leadership.

The last thing I want to leave off with is: I don’t hate Andy. It’s a credit to Rucka and fellow writers (from film and fandom) that I don’t.

I might not love her character as enthusiastically as I used to, but that doesn’t mean I’m not amazed by her creation. She’s a female lead whose sexuality is not exploited by the male gaze; whose emotional vulnerability is not considered a hindrance to, nor an explanation for, her battle prowess; and whose unabashed queerness is not reinforced by cookie cutter stereotypes. Andromache the Scythian is AMAZING.

That doesn’t mean I’m going to excuse or ignore her most glaring and contemptible flaw. More than anything, I’d love to sweep her past under the carpet so that 2O2G can be problem-free. Like many people, I just want to enjoy a movie without getting triggered.

I want to see Quynh and Andy kiss and make up. I want to see Joe rocking Those Shorts, and a cheeky shot of Nicky appreciating his ass. I want to see Nile welcoming Booker back to the family again. Some form of group therapy would be chef’s kiss.

But something about glossing over/removing slavery from Andy’s narrative reeks of dishonesty, and reminds me that the (Hollywood) movie industry is full of people who do not want to be tainted with negative perceptions. Understandably, appearances are their livelihood— but that particular truth is something they still have to reckon with.

[kisilinramblings]

I saw many people tweeted that Chloe is not deserved the threatment she received in the show (i.e being her miraculous taken from her, being bashed, etc), she helps lb selflessly only for lb to take her only way to redeem herself, to show she can be better person and the only reason why she's treated badly is because Thomas hate her, that's why he refused to give her a redemption arc and instead keep calling her a villain. What do you think of it? And what do you think of Chloe as a character?

I’ll come off clean right away. I too believed in Chloé. I too hoped for her to get better and gave her a chance. Was I disappointed by the turn she took? Yes. Just like Ladybug and Chat Noir too were disappointed I’m sure. Was I surprised by this development though? No. 

It all comes down to 3 things that lead Chloé’s development to this result.

Chloé’s traits and motivations. 

What the Bee Miraculous represented to Chloé

Chloé’s trust toward Ladybug

Let’s go back to the beginning of Chloé’s development. Despair Bear. Chloé is forced to make an effort and be nicer otherwise she will lose Adrien’s friendship.

Chloé : How can [Adrien] do this to me, Jean-Michel?

She doesn’t understand why she has this ultimatum. She isn’t reflecting on her actions. She just want Adrien to be her friend again. With the help of her butler though, Chloé works her way through. It’s a bumpy road and she obviously doesn’t like doing this. At. All. She always questions the point of this nice action or that other one, but she forces herself only not to lose Adrien’s friendship which obviously means a lot to her, but she finds this whole experience is annoying.

During the Akuma attack though, she does rescue Ladybug from being Catalysmed by a Chat Noir controlled by Despair Bear, but what does Chloé say immediately after she has realized she had been actually helpful for once?

LB : Thanks, Chloé Chloé : Hey! I was really nice just then! Did you see? No?

She boasts about her actions, wanting people to notice her. The whole audience doing the Anime Fall™ illustrates that boasting about being nice defeat the initial purpose. Doing nice actions should be because it is the right and natural thing to do, not to expect glory and reward afterward, even if Chloé instinctively wanted to protect someone she deeply idolizes.

After helping Ladybug out to defeat Despair Bear, Chloé realizes there are some benefits to being nice, yes, but what does Chloé do after showing she is capable of making an effort and secured back Adrien’s friendship? She sighs of relief, a burden lift out of her shoulders, and reverts back to her usual self.

Now I know people will say “It’s just to maintain the statu quo”. But when you look back at this episode after Miracle Queen or even after Miraculer, you realize Despair Bear had a lesson in it that concerns people like Chloé. That is they can make an effort to be nicer and can sometimes be helpful but if they don’t want to become a better person, to be kinder to others, then they won’t change.

Over S2, we see Chloé under a new light. She isn’t just a spoiled rich bully. She is human too. When she is hurt, she hurts back. Marinette -- and by extension the viewers -- learns to see that side of Chloé and empathizes with her. But while it explains it, her snobbish, mean and entitled attitude still isn’t acceptable. Not when living in society. 

But Chloé does make some some progress through S2. Small. But still, progress. Like during Zombizou, where Chloé admits for the first time her actions has hurt people.

Or the end of Queen Wasp where Chloé finally accepts to give back the Bee Miraculous she had found to Ladybug, admitting she had been irresponsible with how to use that power. 

Or during Malediktator, when Chloé opens up to Ladybug, telling her the truth and how useless she feels.

That was a start. Chloé showed us she was capable of doing that when renouncing or not expecting to have a Miraculous. However, after Queen Bee is officially recognized as one of Ladybug’s allies, something else happened. 

After actually saving Paris during Malediktaor, Chloé got a party celebrating Queen Bee, celebrating her.

Marinette was trying to do some positive reinforcement to encourage Chloé.

Marinette : Well, she did save Paris, so... maybe  she just may be able to save herself too, am I right? [...] If she feels like she can be useful, I’m sure she’ll change her attitude.

“[Chloé] just may be able to save herself”

It isn’t Ladybug’s responsibility to change Chloé so she could become a better person, but Chloé’s. Ladybug can help her a bit, by showing support and guiding her, but it is ultimately Chloé who has to work on herself in order to save herself AKA to begin redeeming herself if she wants to. Like how Chloé desired to save her dad and fix her mistake. However, Chloé’s secret identity being publicly known has jeopardized that process. 

Look at the ending of Malediktator. Chloé has a party but instead of taking pics with her and the crowd, or with people she cherishes or is thankful about, what do we get? 

A selfie of her with her with no one else around her posted on her social media, showing us her self-centred image. 

This behaviour repeats itself during Heroes Day as well. Everyone has prepared a nice action for the day and what was Chloé’s? Accepting to sign autographs since now she is a superhero. 

And at the end of the finale, yes, she is included in the group picnic, but how is she staged on the set?

She sits on a lounge chair, not directly touching the ground where everybody else is sitting. She refuses to eat home-made meals, preferring fancy sushis. And finally, she has her butler break apart her chopsticks for her, without even politely asking him by looking him in the eyes.

What does this scene tells the audience compare to the scene where Chloé is dismantling her Bee “Lair” without any help at the end of Malediktator, telling her butler she’ll do it because she has to do this herself. (Translation : I have to fix that error of mine myself”).

As S2 concluded, since Queen Bee is now officially one’s of Ladybug superhero teammates and that everyone knows QB is Chloé, she feels above everyone else, refusing to sit at the same level as them. She still doesn’t care about others’ feelings. She expects people to serve her. Even her “benevolent” action of signing autographs for Heroes Day revolved more around herself than acutally helping others. 

This is where Chloé’s character stands. This is what she values. Herself. Her needs. She feels morally superior. She has ascended to greater heights. She acts entitled because Ladybug has trusted her with a Miraculous once or twice. And it is this attitude Chloé never tries to fix and that has lead her to her descent. 

The people who are mad about Chloé’s development throughout S3 often misinterpret the real reason why Chloé constantly wanted to be Queen Bee to begin with. What the Bee Miraculous truly represented to her. 

Chloé didn’t want to be a superhero because she wanted to help people nor was it because she felt bad about how awful she had been to everyone in general and wanted to make amends. Chloé didn’t need a Miraculous for that. She could have accomplished that progress simply as a civilian if she had wanted to. 

It wasn’t because Chloé still had something to prove to her mother either. That was settled at the end of Queen Wasp. Her mother had acknowledged her and was staying in Paris, with her. Audrey finally gave the recognition Chloé longed for. (Though I admit “you are exceptionally mean like your mother” is a shitty reason, but hey! At least Chloé got her mother’s attention and love now, so little yeah...?) And in Malediktator, we see Audrey taking Chloé’s side, agreeing they should leave for New York together.

As for wanting to be loved by others, Chloé has already the affection and attention from other people such as her butler, Sabrina, Ms Bustier, and even her father who overly spoils her, satisfying every of Chloé’s desires. They were there for her even before she got her hand on a Miraculous. And it wasn’t because Chloé wanted the power to protect the people she cared about either nor was it her symbol for a second chance.

No, Chloé only cared about herself and the reason why she wanted to be Queen Bee everytime she could is because, to her, having a Miraculous means you are part of the elites. 

Miraculous Holders are chosen ones. Litterally! There are only a few select of them. They get to be famous, glorified, celebrated (Heroes Day). They get movies made about them (Animaestro). They get to be on the news, interviewed. To have their image show everywhere. To have fans. To be adulated, respected, listened to. They are exceptional. Superior. 

And this isn’t new with Chloé. Ever since S1, fame and status has always been a motivator for her to do things. To be exceptional. Not just to be seen by her mother (though it started it like that), but for everyone to see it. 

In fact, when there is an Akuma attack, is Chloé helping others around her or is she abandoning everyone and heading straight to light her bee signal while buzzing with excitement? Does she stay steady just in case Ladybug needs her or is she expecting Ladybug to ask for QB’s help every time? Is Chloé resilient about QB not being needed all the time or frustrated to sit on the bench? What does Chloé do to fix this? Does she give herself a purpose as a civilian or does she cling even more to Ladybug to bring her the Bee Miraculous?

Basically when Chloé is offering her help, in reality, she just want to be a superhero for the glory of it rather than actually caring for or helping people around her. 

When Chloé asks for “her” Miraculous and constantly clinging for Ladybug to give it to her, it means she only sees value when she is Queen Bee. And when Queen Bee wants to be reliable to Ladybug or fears to disappoint her idol, ultimately, Chloé wants to not screw her chances to be Queen Bee again. 

Thus, yes, Queen Bee does her part when battling Akumas, but does Chloé actually grow as a person after Malediktator events? Did Chloé work on herself? Does she continue reflecting on her actions? Does Chloé even sometimes try to help her classmates with their normal problems or is she resting on her laurels? How does she treat others in general? Did Chloé truly become kinder or humbler or did she instead got the big head and still is rude to them? Does she views herself as a normal person or as a superior being? If you are unsure about any of the answers, just rewatch Startrain.

Chloé just stops improving because she took her Miraculous for granted. She is an hero recognized by Paris and therefore deserve the hero treatment and doesn’t need to continue to work on herself. 

Sure, Chloé isn’t provoking as much akumatization as in S1 and S2, but she didn’t become better either by receiving a Miraculous. In fact, she is even more condescending. She is Queen Bee, she is a superhero thus she is better than you, peasants!

Chloé : In this world, there are those who work and those who shine. Forever there would be this division between us, Dupain-Cheng.

And this mentality contributed to Chloé’s sense of entitlement to the Bee Miraculous, calling it hers and expecting to have it back as if it was her rightful right. Except Miraculouses belong to no one as illustrated by the Turtle Miraculous who gets shared between Master Fu and Nino. And initially, LB wanted to hand over the Bee Miraculous to Alya because LB needed help and Alya had already been trusted with another Miraculous before. 

Anyway, during Heroes Day, it was part of Scarlet Moth’s plan to use the Bourgeois against Queen Bee. To destabilize her and it worked. And if he could do it once, he could attempt something again.

And this is what motivated Ladybug to be careful and ideally not give back a Miraculous to anyone who’s secret identity is known by Hawkmoth. And for the record, yes, Chloé is the first one truly affected by that rule, but she isn’t the only one through S3.

This decision is made by LB with CN’s approval because they wanted to protect Chloé and her loved ones from HM. And unbestknown to them, their doubts were found as Chloé was being watched over by HM and Mayura.

So it wasn’t because Queen Bee was doing a poor job, nor because Chloé's attitude was getting worse. This was done to protect her. Except they couldn’t protect Chloé from herself. 

Yes, Ladybug did a mistake which is to not inform Chloé of this decision earlier. As a result, in Miraculer, Chloé felt ignored. Rena Rouge and Carapace were often called to help while Chloé was standing there waiting next to her bee signal. 

But even if LB had told Chloé sooner, chances are the result would have been mostly the same. Because Chloé has an inaptitude to let go of things she desires.

After learning the truth, Chloé was clearly not satisfied by this decision. And while Chloé cooperates and hands back the Bee Miraculous, she is in denial.

Chloé : I understand, but I’m sure you will need me again, Ladybug. I know that I will be Queen Bee again someday. I’ll always be Queen Bee.

What allowed Chloé to not be akumatized during Miraculer was precisely because she still had faith in Ladybug then, despite being mad at her. She is still convinced LB would come ask for Queen Bee’s help again. But after that revelation, once Ladybug has left, Chloé tears apart the picture she had hold on to the entire episode. 

By S3 finale, we see Chloé never accepted the reality of ever be Queen Bee again. And since the finale theme revolved about loss, well, it was time for her to be confronted to it.

We all agree that Hawkmoth exploited the situation during Heart Hunter. He planned the Akumatization of André and Audrey Bourgeois. Nathalie was on place to sabotage of the Bee Signal. And finally, they planned to find the Guardian to get the Miracle Box and offer the Bee Miraculous to have Chloé on their side. 

Everything was there to manipulate Chloé, play with her emotions in order to turn her against Ladybug. But keep in mind that during that scene where HM is meeting Chloé, everything he says rings true to Chloé because this is what she internally feels. What he did was only amplifying the feelings Chloé already has since Miraculer and even a bit before that.

Chloé felt ignored, rejected, not allowed to be a superhero, to be a Queen. When Chloé answers Ladybug has done nothing for her, we know it’s not true. Ladybug gave her a second chance. We also know Ladybug is avoiding to give Chloé a Miraculous because she is trying to protect her and her loved ones from HM. Chloé knows that since the end of Miraculers events, however when her loved ones are indeed in danger during Heart Hunter, Chloé expected this would be THE occasion to be Queen Bee again and prove Ladybug wrong by helping Ladybug save her parents. 

Now, Ladybug has been distracted and didn’t think of things clearly and yes, there is a chance that on other circumstances she might have picked the Bee Miraculous to give it to Chloé, but there is also the fact Chloé kept repeating the same mistake. 

We have seen through S3 Chloé is constantly building her expectations up, only to set herself for disappointement. And instead of realizing that about herself, especially after Miraculer, she continues doing that and gets angry and put the blame on others. The only one making Chloé wait is Chloé herself. All the other temporary Holders have other things to occupy themselves and they do what they can as civilians, not expecting LB to come and give them a Miraculous. 

But Chloé’s entitlement to the Bee Miraculous clouds her judgment there and now, HM is there is offering Chloé something Ladybug has denied to give her again.

So, Chloé prefered being Queen Bee over doing the right thing. She had the chance to double cross HM, but she didn’t because of how hurt and furious she was at Ladybug. And even after being deakumatized, that angers and feeling of betrayal persist.

And this is where Chloé’s action matters the most here. Chloé not only tries to be reakumatized by choice again, she blantantly explains she isn’t on Ladybug’s side anymore, doesn’t care if HM who terrorizes Paris is the ennemy, that she will keep the Miracle Box for herself. Chloé also rudly orders the Kwamis around without knowing how it works. She even tries to run away with the new Miracle Box and finally, when everything is falling appart and doesn’t go her own way, Chloé throws at tantrum at Ladybug, insulting her and the other temporary Holders and affirm she will leave with the Bee Miraculous to New York.

Even HM who laughs at this at first, commenting he doesn’t need to do anything, that Chloé is one of the bad guys, eventually is disappointed before leaving her behind.

Ladybug? She tries to reason with Chloé, giving her another chance to fix her mistake like at the end of Queen Wasp. When Chloé is putting all the remaining Miraculous of the Box on her, LB asks to stop because she knows how dangerous it is to combine their powers and still doesn’t want Chloé to get hurt. It’s only after Chloé tries to run off with the new Miracle Box that Ladybug stops her. And when Chloé is done talking, LB has no choice to stop this and take back herself the Bee Miraculous from her, even apologizing for doing this.

Ladybug has been very patient. She knows Chloé. She knows she is hurt and is hurting other because that’s how she copes, but Ladybug cannot let Chloé keep that Miraculous. Heck, she even feel sorry for Chloé when she finally leaves. 

Is that truly the face someone who is satisfied with this result? This wasn’t what Ladybug had hoped for Chloé either.

If, through S3, it was no one’s fault for the Bee Miraculous to not be given to Chloé, her being destituted of the Bee Miraculous at the end of S3 was the consequences of Chloé’s own actions and her refusal to change. And all of this could have been prevented if Chloé didn’t become entitled to the Bee Miraculous, if Chloé had found another purpose AS A CIVILIAN rather than to depend on the prestige of her Queen Bee persona

This isn’t the end though. It only means Chloé has more work to do about herself. And that giving Chloé a Miraculous isn’t the solution to improve her. 

[dropintomanga]

Demon Slayer and My Hero Academia - 2 Sides of the Same Coin?

Whenever you hear about Koyoharu Gotoge’s Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba, you tend to hear about the records the series has smashed in Japan since the anime adaptation aired. From taking over entire top 20 Oricon manga charts to being one of Japan’s most highly grossed movies ever to influencing political campaigns, Demon Slayer is a once-in-a-lifetime hit that captivated an entire nation. (Oh, and Gotoge is the 1st mangaka ever selected for the Time 100 Next list)

However, outside of Japan, Demon Slayer isn’t as popular as one of its other Shonen Jump brethren, Kohei Horikoshi’s My Hero Academia. Demon Slayer still sells well and fans love the series over here in The United States, but manga sales charts are filled with more My Hero Academia volumes than Demon Slayer volumes.

I’ve been thinking about both series’ popularity in the context of the East versus West dynamic.

As cultural experts will tell you, Western principles are built on a sense of individualism. You deserve the freedom to choose your own path. You can make it on your own. No one should get in the way of what you want. Eastern principles are all about collectivism. Make sacrifices for the prosperity of the group. Don’t do anything that hurts other people around you. The world doesn’t revolve around you.

When I think about My Hero Academia, it makes sense that Western fans love it a bit/lot more than Demon Slayer. We all want to be heroes of our story. We want to be more than who we are. It’s about youth who are focusing on their own growth and getting away from their comfort zones to find new opportunities to become stronger.

Demon Slayer isn’t about being a hero. It’s about a guy who wanted to make his demon sister human again. He’s not interested in being the absolute best to save the world. While saving Japan ends up being a consequence of his actions, family is what’s important to main lead Tanjiro Kamado. Also, superheroes aren’t nearly as popular in Japan compared to here (with the exception of Spider-Man). 

There was a book I read, Amaia Arrazola’s Tokyo Travel Sketchbook, that briefly discussed the Japanese conventional idea about family. Post-WWII, Japan promoted the idea that it was going to take women to stay home and take care of the home life while the men went out to be the breadwinners. Japan had to, since it had to take everyone together to rebuild the country. However, after the real estate bubble of the 1980s’ was burst, the idea of family being the center really fell apart as Japanese men lost their status as breadwinners due to jobs being finite and gone.

I also remember reading about the history of Western influence in Japan. There’s been a bunch of debate about whether Japan truly embraced Western ideals. To be fair, a lot of voices that claim Western influence being high in non-Western countries tend to be Westerners themselves. Japanese voices on Western ideals may have been been misunderstood in the first place. Demon Slayer takes place during a time of transition where modernity was growing in Japan, while My Hero Academia uses the Western love of comic book superheroes as its basis for its story.

When I think about Demon Slayer and My Hero Academia’s popularities in different parts of the world, it’s perhaps the Western vs. Eastern view of how striving for new opportunities often means loss of community. In My Hero Academia, we do see the psychological effects of bad family influence due to the relentless pursuit of status in a modern world. I saw this mostly early on with Shoto Todoroki (this is being explored even further with the rest of his family as of this writing) and much later in the series with Tomura Shigaraki’s past being revealed.

I noticed that a lot of things are blamed on bad parenting (especially in Western culture). A lot of psychological help does suggest that the family has a big role in influencing a child’s development. However, are they to blame for everything? Outside factors, like social inequality, do play a role. Endeavor, the father of Shoto and top 2 hero at the time, had to deal with so much perceived inequality (i.e. being compared to All Might) that it drove him to abuse his own family. When Deku told Shoto that that his power was his alone regardless of his upbringing, Shoto saw that he was in a place of equality since he was in a supporting environment among his peers compared to his dad. He’s started to understand how life experiences with other people and circumstances can change someone for better or worse as he reluctantly re-connects with Endeavor (who’s trying to redeem himself). 

With Demon Slayer, there’s the infamous Spider Family arc, where the villain, Rui, created a fake family in order to fill a void in their life as a demon. Rui ends up abusing their “family” to drive their superiority. They killed their parents at a young age while they were still human due to a fear of not being loved by them. The whole point of the arc was that everyone deserves some kind of loving family in their life. It’s hard to get through life by yourself even when you’re an independent spirit. I do feel though that certain relationships with family members/friends should be cut off if they are abusive like the case with Rui’s. There’s even more stories similar to this with the rest of the Twelve Moon demons (especially another family-related one with the arc that will be featured in Season 2 of the anime, which I might discuss later this year).

My Hero Academia is about moving forward with some reflection. Strive to be a hero of your life. Don’t think of the consequences as long as you’re saving innocent lives. Demon Slayer is also about moving forward, but remembering that there are points in your life where you need authentic connection and that bad people are still human beings who just feel disconnected from the world.

It also feels like both series address the issue of what connection-seeking traditions to pass on to newer generations that feel family/friendship seem lacking today. In My Hero Academia, there’s All for One’s desires to have successors to pass on his Quirk to even if they are dangerous. In Demon Slayer, there’s Kagaya Ubuyashiki, leader of the Demon Slayer Corps, who wanted to end his family’s curse and realizing over time that demons who wanted to fight back (like Tanjiro’s sister, Nezuko) against Muzan Kibutsuji should live. As someone who’s a Chinese-American, I've thought about what I could pass on as my culture has millennia of history and it does feel like age-old traditions/rituals are being passed over for materialistic convenience. 

I do think it comes down to whether we pass on values or beliefs. Beliefs are basically “What’s good? What’s bad? This is real to me even if it’s not to anyone else!” There’s way too much emphasis on them. Beliefs tend to be very binary because people are often more than just their beliefs. Values are just abstract rules to everyday life and don’t involve personal beliefs. I feel like not enough emphasis is focused on values. For example, things like compassion and respect are values, not beliefs. I had to embrace what values I had to finally grow as a person because some of the beliefs I held to in my mind were hurting me. 

Demon Slayer leans more toward appreciating values (usually ones that appeal to the Japanese mindset) due to Tanjiro’s personality, although My Hero Academia is a mix of appreciating both beliefs and values. While I do wish that “values > beliefs”, My Hero Academia does have some good insight on how beliefs can shape/warp values for both sides. 

Both series take a look at the tension between family and the self in their own ways. It’s much more so with Demon Slayer due to how much the concept of family was important in the growth of Japan in the past. I think we can agree that while there are cultural differences in handling it, the idea of family is lost on both sides of the world. American and Japanese cultures aren’t very tolerate of “gray zones” (i.e. illegal immigrants who have families, sex workers who have families, etc.) and want life to be more black or white. That’s why many fans who don’t feel accepted for who they are look to other outlets for some kind of family that will accept them.

Healthy families of all kinds lead to stronger communities that in turn lead to a better world for everyone. I sometimes feel that modernity does family no favors. It’s fine to grow, but constant growth without self-reflection becomes harmful. Plus, family always comes back to affect you one way or another. You can’t ever fully get away from family as they’re the starting point to everyone’s life. 

The only thing I can say is accept that your family/community, good and/or bad, is a part of your identity when you have conflicting thoughts and then take it from there. Denying that is just like trying to hide all your problems instead of dealing with them. It never ends well.

Blood is thicker than water and as both Demon Slayer and My Hero Academia show, when it’s shed, it can lead to disastrous consequences - both individually and collectively.

[allmacrofurriesallralive]

Foreigner Mercy 🥀 Oh yes The Cartoon Movie Odyssey or Pinocchio what relatives would do any day to have another great story to tell around the campfire with the kids grandparents love all gods children 👶 MythBusters ♦️ oh yeah imaginary friends of The Tails Doll ♦️ ha ha ha nuck nuck nuck guess it was always better to be loved to have a friend or a lover 💕 in life than say no one had a friend or lover because all life forms are loved oh wait everyone what’s that an airplane ✈️ no a rocket 🚀 ship oh my wait oh no 🙊 baby 👶 Look it’s a beautiful woman 👩 where oh yeah that’s right KirubiRenamonTailsDollLucario 👿♦️🇩🇪Balloons 🎈 oh look it’s The Metaphorical and Literal Stanley Parable 🧬 Truth or Lie did the world victimize itself at any point of time or not will we recede from justice for good Valuing All Life to not kill it for mere sport or game how civil the individual society of humblest men said all at once to redeem all persecutive/victimizing behaviours in all hiding fathers/men in Redemption of hurtful behaviours all unkind hating boys screaming I don’t want to take a bath 🛁 well mama dearest doesn’t need you blaming persecuted kind son Christ for his troubles said GodMother Worldwide Baby 👶 Shower 🧼 Love ❤️ well ya know just not wanting to listen to your mother was a lot for persecuted kindhearted son Christ who was timid, shy in self love belief he would have been the Center of a introvert woman’s heart ☯️Lots of worthiness and gratitude in loving hunter Metaphorical or/and literal Conceptual Paradoxes of Meaning in Life itself The ironic controversies of life’s True Love 💕 Grasp the heart of the matrix 🧬 was the Metaphorically or/and literally past/present/future concepts&tenses of grammar alliteration of social love not social hate yes sigh 😔 socialism social studies and national interest vs individual interest of smaller

society 🇩🇪

What was Deepest Sympathy&Compassion&Mercy ✝️ Matrix 🧬 of Whole Multiverse Universe ☯️♾🧬♾☯️

What R All my Means ♦️ Tails Doll Introvert Woman 🇩🇪

All Macro Furry Women ☯️

All Macro Furry Women ☯️

[padme-amitabha]

I’m honestly glad I’m not the only one who doesn’t like Ahsoka. To me she just never fit but also she basically made Padme a secondary character even though she was main female lead in movies. It’s obvious at this point that she is Dave fav and nothing can happen to her

Haha you read my mind anon. Personally I am not a fan of her due to multiple reasons. Firstly, she was introduced in the show as a character that children and young people can relate to. This is a terrible idea to me because a story should not cater to the audience. Kids don’t need to see characters their age to enjoy a story - lots of kids love the SW movies. While Jar Jar was there to please kids, he was still a comic relief not a main character. George wasn’t trying to please fans while writing the prequels; he was just telling a story. Secondly, as you mentioned she is a creator’s pet with plot armor. I have stated this before: when you get attached to a character the story-line suffers from your bias. George doesn’t shy away from severely injuring or killing his characters if it’s necessary to the story. Ahsoka is presented as a child prodigy who is at times wiser than adults, and to showcase her precociousness they make Anakin reckless and irresponsible. While Anakin was gifted from a young age and helped save the day in TPM, it was a joint effort by him, the Jedi, the Gungans and Padme and her team; he only did what he was good at doing.

Considering Mace Windu doesn’t trust Anakin even in ROTS, I find it very hard to believe that the council would let him train a Padawan and risk influencing a young mind with unorthodox values, especially one who doesn’t follow orders in the first place. Not to mention she doesn’t get reproached enough every time she breaks the code while the Jedi are much harsher on Anakin.  

I also find her attitude to be insufferable. She was raised in the order where younglings are taught to respect their Masters from a young age but they made her sort of like a female Anakin who enjoys breaking the rules and not like the other traditional Jedi. Even Anakin in ROTS is still respectful of Obi-Wan and even refers to him as Master though he’s no longer his Padawan. I also dislike that some fanboys sexualise her even though she’s a minor and well her outfits in the first seasons don’t help either. Padme in TPM was 14 too but she was never sexualised in that movie. 

She is also given too much importance like replacing Padme in the show and dueling Maul and later Vader. Politics was just as important as the Jedi in the prequels; in the final scenes in ROTS as Anakin/Vader is slaughtering the Separatists we see Palpatine in the Senate announcing the formation of the Empire and doing the actual damage. Considering Padme herself was a symbol of hope and the Republic, she should have been part of the trio. You can argue that Ahsoka is only in TCW so she is in the limelight but that still doesn’t make her a believable character or make her fit in the Skywalker Saga. Besides, to include her they had to change some aspects of characters like Anakin like making him more friendly and social (when he actually struggled with social interactions in the movies). She seems to have no major flaws and even refuses to kill the Clones out of self-defense, and they also try too hard to make her likable to the audience. All of the other characters have some flaws which become even more prominent in ROTS and they suffer from it. Her relationship with Anakin also diverts attention away from Anakin’s with Obi-Wan which could have been shown more to make their falling-out in ROTS more heartbreaking - TCW was supposed to be bridge the gap between the movies after all; also keep in mind Obi-Wan has raised him since he was nine so he should have had the strongest bond with him. 

I think George initially planned that she would not survive Order 66 which might have somewhat redeemed her in my eyes and even make me feel sympathetic towards her character but now that George is out of the picture Filoni favoritism has taken over and she’s the face of Star Wars now. Then again, Star Wars stopped being Star Wars for me after the prequels ended so I just ignore her.