#when that's not the case and also lacking in critical pieces of the story.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

BY: GILEAD INI

Before looking at specific examples of disinformation by the “critics,” as the Times and NPR calls them, we should address a few broader points.

Despite evidence of rape, those defending Hamas from charges of sexual violence point to a lack of forensic evidence — the kind that might be revealed at the denouement of a television crime show. Indeed, Israel’s frontier with Gaza on and after Oct 7 was less untouched crime scene and more battlefield and disaster zone.

But this is neither exonerating nor unusual. “There is very much what’s known as the CSI effect, where there is a perception that without forensic evidence or DNA, then you don’t have a case,” an expert on sexual violence in conflict zones told NPR. “And that’s just patently not true.”

In this case, the full CSI treatment was impracticable. “As is common in war, collection of physical evidence was hindered by ongoing combat and a large, chaotic crime scene,” NPR reported.

With limited resources and such a large-scale attack, compromises were necessary, journalist Carrie Keller-Lynn explained. “Instead of going through CSI, which would make it possible to produce evidence of crimes, the bodies are being processed through the disaster victim identification (DVI) track, as is common for mass casualty events,” she reported. Or as the UN mission put it, there was a “prioritization of rescue operations and the recovery, identification, and burial of the deceased in accordance with religious practices, over the collection of forensic evidence.” (The mission noted additional factors, too, that hindered the collection of forensic examination. See paragraph 46 of its report.)

The deniers had also pointed to lack of testimony by victims — a puzzling defense in the context of this story, where survivors describe women raped then murdered; where recovery workers noted naked and bound corpses; and where released hostages say those still in captivity had said they were sexually assaulted. Which category of those victims, exactly, would the deniers expect to have heard from? (When a hostage did eventually speak out about being sexually assaulted, the self-appointed investigators were not particularly interested, or worse, dismissed her account.)

None of this means every testimony is beyond reproach. Just as the record of 9/11 was contaminated by multiple false accounts and fake survivors, likewise after 10/7 false accounts were reported by pretenders, and some unfounded atrocity charges were shared, believed, and repeated. The “critics” did not miss the opportunity to capitalize on these inaccurate accounts in order to push the idea, through innuendo or explicit denial, that every witness of rape and every first responder account of sexually abused bodies are fake.

The Critics

NPR’s story about “critics” of a New York Times piece on sexual violence repeatedly cites The Intercept.

Once of many acknowledgements by The Intercept that its claims come from the further fringes.

And across The Intercept’s incessant efforts to discredit those shining a light on Palestinian sexual violence, its reporters cite Mondoweiss, Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada, and Max Blumenthal of Grayzone.

It is an echo chamber of Hamas apologia — invariably, one story links to identical accusations by the others, which link back to similar pieces by the rest. The common theme, other then denial, is the extremism of its participants.

Consider, most relevantly, their response to the Oct 7 massacre:

A writer for the Intercept, at least, grants that the attack was “horrifying” — though this was in a post whose argument was that we shouldn’t view it as horrifying.

Others are less subtle. Denier Ali Abunimah, for example, was self-evidently delighted by the slaughter of civilians in Israel. He not only defended the attack, calling it “just”; not only insisted we shouldn’t feel bad about it (this just minutes after he posted video of elderly female hostage paraded and taunted on video); but also viciously attacked those — including critics of Israel — who would dare share any sympathy for the victims of the mass slaughter of Jews.

Mondoweiss summarized the deadliest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust with an announcement that “Gazans have broken out of their open air prison imposed by Israel and launched an elaborate surprise attack on their occupier,” while pooh-poohing the idea that Hamas had started a war. As the extent of the atrocities became apparent, Mondoweiss’s defenses of the assault grew more emphatic. On Oct. 8, its culture editor Muhammed El-Kurd insisted the attack was a cause for “celebration.” On Oct. 9, it published a piece insisting we “must shout our support for the resistance from our rooftops.”

Max Blumenthal minimized Hamas’s slaughter as ”guerrilla bands bursting out of a besieged ghetto with homemade weapons.” In response to a Twitter post noting that at its attack on a music festival Hamas “began shooting those in attendance,” Blumenthal mocked the victims and justified their slaughter.

The motivation for their leap to action at the first accusation of rape, then, is as simple as it seems: It is born of sympathy for Hamas.

[dancefloors]

Hard agree Taylor's interview was weird. There's almost no substance to any of her answers.

for real. I'll try to be brief or at least make this the last one (because I know I am being annoying about this but really I just find her a very fascinating case study), but for a songwriter who is often introspective and eloquent, it all seemed like a very shallow look at her life and career. a hodge-podge of buzzwords and dated pop culture references. I do wonder if that's just the nature of this being a sort of 'PR smooth over' for the unfamiliar audience, setting the record straight on a few accounts, and sort of rewriting the narrative of rep/her last relationship.

but it also was very intriguing how the image she paints of herself, and one she seems to internalise is that of her as a successful 'underdog', a perpetual victim in an uphill battle. I'm sure she's faced adversity in her career, but it's notable to me that the way she frames it ("female rage" at her image destruction, "freedom from patriarchal structures through the flow of economy") is in a way that sort of silently demands an obligation to celebrity and wealth. she points to her "cancellation" as gaslighting from a "social structure" but what structure is that? who is the perpetrator when the dip in your fame can be largely attributed to a PR fumble and public dissent at blatant money-driven strategic friendships (which she personally admitted), relatability marketing, and recognition that they are being sold an image? her song The Man/interviews regarding it detail how structural barriers that bother her the most are the ones preventing her from flaunting her money, chasing fame and fortune openly, being praised for the strategy and calculation behind her capitalist endeavours, from using people and discarding them when done (à la Leo in San Tropez or her partners being "playthings for [her] to use"). is it a structural issue when you leave your record label of your own accord and those very same business strategies and ploys are used against you? are fame and art to be free of criticism? is it victimhood when people point out the parasocial and expositional practises that gave you your fame, which you intentionally intertwined with your image?

I won't brush aside the misogyny that came with it. I believe women have the right to feel safe, supported, their sexual exploits not held against them, their career progression not halted purely because of their gender, that artists have ownership over their work.

but do I think they are owed fortune, that a couple months being reclusive in million dollar mansions and jet-setting around the world equate to 'cancellation', that people becoming aware of hollywood PR ploys is misogyny, that public favour is owed and losing it is the highest punishment (especially when they actively wield their team to push puff pieces to bury their own and their associate's/partners' bigotry), that speculation about a public figure's personal life is the greatest crime, that their own role in their career deserves to be seen simultaneously as that of an innocent subject of magical coincidence AND a mastermind strategist (but never the dagger of "calculated"), that their cries and causes should be heralded and never doubted or viewed with a critical eye even though the activist outfit is only ever put on for themselves, that they should be viewed as a brand when they want to shirk responsibility and an individual when they demand sympathy, that fame is owed, that any common person should think about all of this - consider their 'full story' and believe the image they want to sell of themselves? that we should be actively celebrating their excessiveness (it's for our own good!)?

no. maybe because i lack empathy for the rich and famous, but it all seems very out of touch. it's never been more blatantly about consumer feminism, bread and circuses, a prayer to her own idolatry, even further out of reach at the moment.

her fixation on the past, her own endlessly self-referential world, speaking about "defeating enemies"..... its just fascinating. and confirms to me that her main gripe has always been with the contradictory nature of her own fame. why can't she have it all? i don't say this in a bitter way, i think she's just an interesting case study, especially watching her career come up from the beginning. you only enjoy the circus when they are cheering for you. and she seems to have leaned into that more recently. i don't know what has gone on in her personal life (seemingly many references to a "life she gave away"), but it seems to have driven her closer to that, aware that at least in THIS world (that of fame, fortune, etc) she is somewhat an insurmountable titan not even stoppable by "a force majeure", whatever she may claim. maybe she can't control her personal life, but she can control this to a degree, and if not, the things that stand in her way can be / must be regarded the most unjust of nondescript "social structures".

again.. no hatred, just fascination. her image, success, and fan relationships hinged on relatability for so many years. this feels like a departure from that. an acceptance that she is extraordinary and that even her struggles are out of reach for the common man. she's operating in a different echelon, she's the centre of her world (why wouldn't she be), and she is free from the shackles of self reflection on her place in the broader world... I guess she's too soft for it all. I don't know... an interesting change. I'm sure someone smarter than me has something more interesting and eloquent to say.

[tocomplainfriend]

Responding to your post about fiction affecting reality: very well-written post and that’s something I agree with wholeheartedly!

Full disclosure: I am a Vivz supporter and don’t really interact with the critique community because of negative past experience (hence the anon), but I really liked your post as it was well-researched and brought up a lot of points that I did agree on. Mostly that, as you evidenced, “it’s just fiction” isn’t a great argument for poorly portraying a serious concept when there can be tangible consequences for that portrayal. And you gave some really striking examples.

In terms of Hazbin, it is not that I believe that Val’s portrayal as an abuser (and consequently Angel’s as a victim) lacks any impact, but instead that it adds a positive one. This isn’t something I’ve researched so the evidence I have of this is personal experience, but as you said in your post that media can affect real life I felt inspired to add to that conversation with how it personally affected me.

So I was aware rationally that a common result of abuse/SA is hypersexuality, like I’d seen that on psychology blogs and such but never really understood it. I’m ashamed to say I thought it was a little weird and very rare. Hazbin was what finally challenged that notion with me. Being able to see how abuse looks and attribute those events to Angel’s actions step-by-step made something click in my head. I even remember that shortly after seeing that episode, I apologized to one of my friends (a survivor themselves) over some judgmental comments I’d recently made over hypersexuality. Said friend also watched Hazbin with me and it’s the reason they talk more openly to me now and we’re a lot closer. Val’s “stupid” behavior in the show and mentioned in Vivz’s comments did not lessen the impact that episode had on me, or make it unbelievable to me that Val could be manipulative. If anything I understand more now that abusers don’t always appear as psychopathic masterminds. And I know my friend finds comments like the Mean Girls one funny and they tell me it’s empowering to make fun of Val’s incompetence.

That’s not the only positive influence Hazbin’s had on me, but the most relevant to your post, I believe. It’s the reason I’m often a skeptic on most criticisms, because my lived experience tends to go against them. You said the negative impact of Val was that people are drawing fetish art of him, but the only time I ever see that art is within critic’s posts. It never shows up in my regular feed, so it looks to me like he’s equally as fetishized as every other character; the unfortunate inevitability of the internet. I can’t say I’ve seen anyone post about stories like mine about learning to understand survivors, but I have heard positive stories from survivors themselves in person and online which lead me to believe that the positive impact outweighs the negative.

Fiction has real impact, very true. But consider that might be a good thing in this case.

Thanks for being respectful!

TW: Rape, SA

I'm a victim of SA myself and that's why I wrote all of this post. If you got something positive out of this piece of media, that's great. Same with victims that saw potion and were okay with it- that valid as much as the people that didn't like it at all. I recommend watching many others shows yourself (or movies, books, whatever) will help you out with sorts of topics in bigger ways. I understand you feel like you got something good out if (and I'm glad) but I do need to say, this is minimal in comparison to other media you could consume regarding the topic!

I personally suffer with Hypersexuality, and the treatment in the show (and merch and otherwise) I found completely wrong. Even if you got to a good understatement of the topic, please put research into it (also outside Tumblr for that matter! There are better places to find stuff about!). Thank you also for admitting your faults over your treatment of hypersexuality and apologizing for it. Many people will never let themselves grasp this concept, so thank you.

If you took Valentino's comparison to Mean Girls or Powerpuff Girl as a way of making fun of him, that's you. I found it, personally, terrible. Specially cause many comments regarding that (that I put on the post) were people actively disregarding the topic at hand. Saying that Valentino is just a karen, or He is Bubbles coded, feels so out of the realm of everything (the last one didn't feel like making fun of him). I don't like the comparison of an active sexual predator to a mean high school girl or a kinder garden girl that's regarded as bubblely or dumb. Feel like you should reach into his actions over It feels diminishing to me and other people (who also complained about this themselves).

People should be extremely careful of what they portray about this topic in media. Other stuff written in Hazbin or Helluva Boss regarding R-pe jokes also is extremely disgusting to me. Never forget that if you think this portrayal is ok, one episode apart it's a gang r-pe jokes towards Sir Pen... and an r-pe joke towards Moxxie in Spring Brakers. Which I find extremely disrespectful to do and adds to r-pe culture as much as any other r-pe jokes (general or towards men) in media. Especially when they want to portray it in a serious way with Angel, where was that energy then? (Don't say Viv didn't write that, she liked a tweet about the Sir pen joke, and the spring braker is written by Viv and Brandon.)

Also, about manipulation:

The tweet right below says that "He isn't manipulating them" because he is too stupid to do so. Responding "The Vees are just meangirls" it's crazy to me.

About "You said the negative impact of Val was that people are drawing fetish art of him, but the only time I ever see that art is within critic’s posts. It never shows up in my regular feed"

Val has being fetishized by the crew itself! The person (who is not an SA/r-pe victim said by themselves, who has being open of shipping ValxAngel and being into r-pe porn) is the one that produce the whole poison part of the episode (also based on his previously non canon ValxAngel comic). You could also go throught the people Viv's responds and likes and it's mutuals with, and they also do the same thing as this crew-member (Raph). Congrats that it doesn't appear in your timeline, tho. If this art appears in a critic post, it is because it's being criticized or brought up to make a point.

[It's not on my blog yet, but I don't like receiving double ask in the inbox, specially of anons! Sorry. I don't know if it's the same person or not, and I don't want to end up receiving 5 asks in my inbox again.]

[hymnsofheresy]

Truly He taught us to love one another His law is love and His gospel is peace Chains he shall break, for the slave is our brother And in his name all oppression shall cease Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we With all our hearts we praise His holy name Christ is the Lord! Then ever, ever praise we His power and glory ever more proclaim!

“Since that first rendition at a small Christmas mass in 1847, "O Holy Night" has been sung millions of times in churches in every corner of the world. And since the moment a handful of people first heard it played over the radio, the carol has gone on to become one of the entertainment industry's most recorded and played spiritual songs. This incredible work--requested by a forgotten parish priest, written by a poet who would later split from the church, given soaring music by a Jewish composer, and brought to Americans to serve as much as a tool to spotlight the sinful nature of slavery as tell the story of the birth of a Savior--has become one of the most beautiful, inspired pieces of music ever created.” (x)

Learn about the abolitionist history of O Holy Night:

“Things start in 1843 or 1847—there’s some discrepancy about the year—in Roquemaure, a small town in the Rhône valley region. Placide Cappeau, who had followed his father into the wine business, was also known for the poetry he composed. Though a critic of the Catholic church, Cappeau was asked by the local priest to write a few stanzas in celebration of the town cathedral’s newly refurbished organ. He is said to have written the song’s words while in transit to Paris on business, with the biblical Gospel of Luke as inspiration. On the advice of the same clergyman who had commissioned him, Cappeau took his completed work—then titled “Minuit, Chrétiens,” or “Midnight, Christians”—to Adolphe Adams, a composer of some renown. Adams, who was of French-Jewish descent, arranged the music, and the song was newly christened as "Cantique de Noel.” The carol would make its world debut, with opera singer Emily Laurey belting lyrics, during Christmas eve midnight mass at the Roquemaure church...

Though "Cantique de Noel” would quickly become a French Christmas favorite, it was later denounced by the French Catholic church—a reported consequence of Cappeau being an avowed atheist and socialist, along with the discovery that Adams was Jewish, not Christian. One bishop reportedly dismissed the song as having a "lack of musical taste and total absence of the spirit of religion.” There was also some resistance to Cappeau’s overtly anti-slavery lyrics in the third verse, which were perhaps made more glaring by his emergent political outspokenness. In any case, the ban reveals where the French Catholic church stood on matters of abolition...

In any case, "Cantique de Noel” would make its way across the Atlantic to John Sullivan Dwight, a white American abolitionist, Unitarian minister, musician and classical music aficionado who published a magazine called Dwight's Journal of Music...

Dwight gave his translated verse the title “O Holy Night” when he published it in his music periodical in 1855. It apparently became a hit in the U.S., gaining popularity among the abolitionist crowd during the Civil War. Even as the song was being banned in its home country, it was becoming a staple of Christmas, and a song of protest, thousands of miles away, in the U.S. It’s long since become part of the broader American Christmas songbook.”

(x)

[doodlegirl1998]

Oh my god...

I just realized something about how some characters are treated, so I'm gonna quote Joshscorcher from one of his fails videos

"You aren't a person, you ARE a disability! You're not a human, you ARE a skin color! You're not alive, you ARE a checkbox!"

Doesn't that just fit some of the characters in BNHA to a T?

We got the crazy yandere! The hotheaded rival! The hardass teacher with a heart of gold! The black guy!

And of course! The disabled kid who magically gets cured to be like everyone else!

Hori seems to believe that if he just adds pieces of representation or tropes that people like, they will just eat it up without question.

Not even considering or bothering to think about actual backstory, personality, goals, likes or dislikes.

You know, things that make a character an actual character!

Hi @theloganator101 👋,

This fits how MHA treats it's characters to a T or at the very least they develop from Nuanced characters to a stereotype which is never what you want from a series. Also Hori even fails at fitting these characters into the cookie cutter molds he tries to contort them into at times.

Let's give a few examples based on what you have said above:

"Crazy Yandere and Token Bi" = Toga (which the LGBTQ fans of MHA should be offended by, because having a Yandere who is coded very creepily (yet also not condemned for her creepy behavior in general or how she groped Uraraka without consent) as prominent representation is not good...

"Sweet generic shonen love interest" = Uraraka (well this is what Hori intends for her with IzuOcha endgame even with how weakly its built in the series. And Uraraka herself denying her feelings for Izu and freely simping for Toga. I feel so sorry for Ocha fans, how she has been written with Toga is a complete mess.)

"Hardass Teacher with a heart of gold" = Aizawa (or this is what Hori intends for him realistically a lot of his actions under a critical lense read as malice at worse and negligence at best but go off about how he cares about his kids, Hori. Despite dropping a building on them and making them believe their parents are kidnapped by villains. Or the fact that he expelled tonnes of other students prior to 1A without a care - what makes 1A so special?)

"Hot headhead rival" = Bakugou... (Well this is meant to be him, narratively speaking, but rivals are meant to inspire and respect each other. Bakugou doesn't respect Izuku, Bakugou abuses Izuku and acts as his parasite. Bakugou brings Izuku down at every opportunity.)

"The 'token black/ blasian' characters" = Rumi and Rock Lock. (While I'd say Rock Lock is good black representation. Rumi... She's not my favourite. I like strong female characters but the way she's so aggressive and violence hungry as a hero - that rubs me the wrong way. Realistically, I could see her killing a villain by accident through use of excessive force. And I can't ignore that she's used as a stick for Hori's gore porn fetish which isn't a great look as one of Hori's few Blasian characters.)

"The disabled kid who gets magically cured to be like everyone else." - Midoriya Izuku. (You could say this is the case for All Might and Aoyama too but Izuku is the most prominent example as the main protagonist.) Izuku's story and the lack of how his backstory is touched on is one of the one that's the most upsetting parts of MHA to me. Personally, I have a disability and mine can't be fixed, while I accept and embrace it now, I didn't when I was Izuku's age. I would daydream about getting "fixed" and being like everyone else so I could fit in. As an adult, I have now achieved many things that I was told that I could not hope to ever be able to do - and I didn't need to be "fixed/ made normal" to do it. Instead, I worked my ass off to achieve those things.

Izuku's story would have been way more powerful if he trained relentlessly with All Might, stayed quirkless and achieved as much as his quirked peers.

OR, if he had to gain OFA, the cognitive dissonance between how he was treated then in his backstory vs now should heavily influence him. Either way, he should have grown out of "Kacchan" and told Bakugou, his bully and abuser, to fuck right off.

The fact that Izuku isn't allowed to think of his backstory or one negative thought of Kacchan severely limits him. And it's one of the things that has stunted him as a character. All Izuku is now is OFA 'generic shonen protagonist' who will save Shig and destroy All for One. What a waste.

TLDR - developing good characters is like nurturing a particularly fussy plant, you can put down the right soil (backstory) to get readers hooked but if you get lazy and don't water it regularly (develop plot points, think through what is in character rather than what you as the Author want them to do, have them show up regularly) it (the characters) will never grow.

[the-monkey-ruler]

starting to think novel fans should chill out about inaccuracies in lmk like it’s doing its own thing like china, japan, and others have. it gets weirder when they use a shield like ‘protecting chinese culture’ like i understand with smth like the disney adaption, but not with a show that’s popular with chinese kids.

I mean… I think it is less with how inaccurate it is and more than it kinda getting the message of the novel is being spread as something that it is not. There are a lot of Westerners for whom this is their first introduction to Xiyouji and, yes, there is a lot of misinformation going around because of the creative liberties but I don't think it's coming from a place of "Oh it's different and it's bad," but more "People that are watching this cartoon should understand that this is a reimagining of the world and shouldn't take it so seriously when they try to critic Xiyouji despite never reading it."

Let me start that taking a new twist on Xiyouji media is nothing new. Like I get doing new things is fun and interesting and draws in a new audience and Xiyouji fans are NOT unused to having different Xiyouji re-tellings that range from horribly inaccurate but something being the most beloved things to be very accurate and being mid.

But that is because of how the characters are driven and what I think is the biggest issue that LMK has had with its storytelling. They have been making a lot of character choices that I think really undermine what Xiyouji is about and how it kinda is disrespectful to use something so deeply ingrained with Chinese culture and almost sweep away any reference it has to Daoism or Buddism and make it very… one-sided in that regard.

Like for what LMK is… it's fine. REALLY. It's a cute cartoon. A lot of Chinese people enjoy it and no one is trying to say that isn't true.

But what is true is that a lot of Westerns are being introduced into Chinese culture and folklore and there have been many cases of… insensitivity to say the least to blatant racism to say the most.

But I think a lot of fans of Xiyouji understand that there have been centuries of misrepresentation of Chinese, and other Eastern cultures, in Western societies and the response to wanting to correct inaccuracies comes from simply wanting to be represented in a good light. I would think that if Flying Bark was to take a new spin on other media without so much cultural significance they can do amazing but I can see where a lot of misinterpretation of the source material in Western fans is leading to high tensions.

The issue I've seen is how Western fans have really taken things like LMK or Overly Sarcastic Production, both Western adaptions of the novel, and taken that as pure fact. Again I'm not trying to say they are bad, I am saying they are interpretations all on their own and shouldn't be considered 'canon.'

I think fans trying to correct these inaccuracies in the fandoms as a way to try to say "Hey this culturally important piece of literature actually has a lot more meaning and ingrained messages that cannot be separated from the source material and shouldn't be interpreted as such by Western standards." and most cases being blown off for trying to correct these takes in Western fan bases.

Personally, I think that there has been lack of Wukong or his journeymates' perspectives has caused more confusion than anything else. Also with the depictions of heaven as well. And trust me this would not be the first time that Heaven was seen as 'the bad guy' in Xiyouji media but…. they just make it so clear that Wukong in this series has nothing working for him and it's because this creates a lot of discourse.

I do genuinely do enjoy LMK Sun Wukong, he isn't a fav but he is a delight, but I think the narrative that he is incompetent, incapable, illiterate, and a one-noted character has been taken too far at this point. I know this is not his story but, it's Xiaotian's, but it really feels like the studio is so insecure that Xiaotian can be a good hero on his own that they need to make Wukong seem more incompetent to make Xiaotian the one to fix his mistakes.

It is a very unbalanced dichotomy that I feel Flying Bark is not handling well personally, always pushing aside Wukong's point of view in favor of villains for the sake of "drama" and suspense and while that can be interesting… the balance just makes it feel too one-sided.

I also feel the crew of LMK has gotten too involved with Fandom culture. Reminds me a bit too much of Legends of Voltron fandom and how that kind of fan to Creator communication can be… dangerous to say the least.

I can't say I can agree with you anon with the amount of disrespect I've seen from some fans in the LMK fandom with its treatment of Eastern regions, customs, and even the language itself. I think that LMK fans trying to dissuade these attitudes are trying to stop the wave of disrespect by using the book but really reducing such a culturally important piece of media to just 'silly little legos' does reflect in reducing Chinese culture that is ingrained and cannot be separated from the original source material into something like an aesthetic really does damage.

Chinese films that play around with the idea of Sun Wukong can do so successfully because the established idles of Xiyouji are never changed while I feel that so many LMK fans taking the show too seriously in their interpretation of the novel and even Buddism, Daoist, and Chinese folks lore can be damaging.

Lego Monkie Kid as a show is fine. It's not the most groundbreaking or even the biggest Xiyouji media I've seen here but it's a fine show.

But I think some fans are trying to dissuade Western fans from reducing Chinese culture to something 'otherly worldly’ just being of the colonialism connections that the West has had with taking Eastern media and reducing it to products.

[themanwhomadeamonster]

prefacing this by saying i love dd2's soundtrack and i have some of it downloaded on my phone already. but i recognise that it gets a lot of criticism (for good reason too imo) and i am going to explore why that is without trying to sound like a hater 😭 also slight spoilers because i talk about the end credits theme

tl;dr: main title screen theme fucks up perception of the rest of the soundtrack because it's so musically disconnected from everything else

i think the problem with dd2's soundtrack "lacking a (recognisable) leitmotif" isn't that there lacks a leitmotif because there's actually two main ones, both of which stem from the end credits song. this generally isn't a bad thing, though just one is usually standard, there are sets out there where more than one leitmotif is used. the thing is though, in dd2 most of the in-game soundtracks use variations of the chorus melody (cyclops, griffin, some story cinematics, etc.) and quite recognisably too imo which makes sense!, but the (main) title screen uses the melody from the verses.

(side note: before anyone argues that even the chorus leitmotif isn't present in the generic combat soundtracks either, that wasn't the case for dd1/da either (except for the low intensity dd1 combat track) so i think dd2 can be excused on that front. i also think it's good that they didn't use it everywhere in either game because it would get annoying very quickly)

nobody remembers the theme of the dd2 title screen (don't lie, i don't either and i had to crank my brain to recall it when writing this) because you barely hear its leitmotif in-game until the very end during a handful of cinematic cutscenes. i think even the trailer music uses the chorus melody. so you have two competing leitmotifs, and on top of that, the one which SHOULD be memorable because it's the title screen theme is actually very rarely heard in-game. you wouldn't piece this together until the end of the game, AND that's if you even stick around for the credits to let it play!

in ddda, the title screen theme already plays in the first cassardis cinematic AT THE BEGINNING OF THE GAME, in a scene that was emotionally significant early on. those who hand down the story as an ending medley works because it's of two already strongly established themes (cassardis + eternal return). this didn't work with dd2's end credits theme because the two leitmotifs were not established as cohesively by that point. dd2's chosen leitmotifs should've recurred more regularly and in emotionally significant points in the game - even melve by itself and not anywhere else until the end would've been a good opportunity to use the verse motif because it's at the start of the game to hook the player + let them be able to connect it to the main theme, and it also lines up with the end credit's verse's lyrics

so musically i think the dd2 soundtrack is fine. catchy enough and imo memorable that it's an earworm. though i miss the rock/jazz/flamenco elements from the first game, the theme of dd2 as being very high fantasy instead of classic medieval low makes the folk/orchestra/occasional dungeon synth hybrid an appropriate choice to me, and this proves itself as a strength imo in its ambience. the lowkey ethereal dungeon synth of seafloor shrine and ancient battleground soundtracks + post-game ambience is atmospherically amazing. on top of that, i think its identity this time around lies more strongly in the folk instruments style for both vermundian/battahli ambience/combat music, which establishes the high fantasy folk vibe strongly.

unfortunately, the title theme does not reflect this at all LOL being a purely orchestral arrangement only - no folk instruments. into free was weirdly jpop but at least the rock elements did have some place in the soundtrack. as a COHESIVE soundtrack, it sounds very confused with its direction and that in itself is understandably more than enough to fundamentally turn off fans despite the positives. ultimately i think its musical identity would be stronger if the main title theme was changed tbh 😐 (and it did later, but by then it's too late + it only matches post-game vibes not the other 90% of the game). there's a thematic disconnect (conflicting theme/leitmotif until the end credits) as well as stylistic one (in-game folk music vs classic orchestra) which skews expectations of the rest of the soundtrack

additionally, i think due to the wack difficulty scaling - somehow worse than dd1 RIP, the side effect is that we end up hearing the low intensity soundtracks for most of the game and further ng+'s which of course are meant to sound less complex in comparison, which further perpetuates the weak soundtrack perception

[no1ryomafan]

So I finished mazinkaiser awhile ago after months of procrastination on it and for one reason or another I’m not gonna give my solid thoughts on it but there is one specific thing I wanna point out, not as a critique but more so a confusion. That being: I find it weird how Mazinkaiser isn’t the turning point for Mazinger where they finally go “hey the robot is sentient” because it’s not yet near the end literally EVERYONE talks to Venus A as if shes actually a person:

I’m not saying this as a criticism for the reason of my already biased to vaguely sentient robots-because as much as I prefer this angle with mecha, I understand not every and all mecha can approach this because sometimes the robot is JUST a narrative tool and not a character, which is fine-however I’m confused with Mazinger of all things didn’t take this approach when there’s already so much emphasis on Mazinger being tied to gods. I mean, apart from the fact the robots are based off Greek Mythology and there is a constant message of “will it become God or Devil” which feels like it warrants this enough, it would start to make sense if the robot grew sentient because Mazinkaiser is treated as the ULTIMATE Mazinger. (And where have we heard a case where the “ultimate” form of a robot starts to be the one that displays more self awareness *cough* GETTAH🗿)

Especially also within this ova- it seems to do stuff on its own accord to PROTECT Koji, like going on auto pilot as he’s knocked out and somehow keeping him safe from being burned alive in magma, but I cannot tell if this IS a indicator Mazinkaiser is actually sentient or if it’s just all auto pilot. Oh and it’s a more minor thing but also just- the human poses Kaiser and Venus take during the beach episode… I cannot tell if that’s something they wanted or if their pilots just posed them comfortably because lines seem to blur with the robots just being treated as the extensive of the pilots. (Venus is literally based off of Sayakas appearance after all)

It’s just weird Nagai never went this route and just stuck to metaphorical stuff, when it feels like SOMETHING he would do given the nature of his stories and yet the only fully sentient Mazinger media I know is Zero. Of course I still have such a limited window on Mazinger so if this is me actually being wrong please feel free to correct me, but I still will never not find it weird Mazinkaiser lacks this aspect asides from maybe vague allusions to it that may or may not be implying it. Maybe if I ever rewatch it or find more Mazinkaiser content specifically I’ll be able to piece things together a bit more.

[nolongerapileofashprobably]

So I feel like at this point im becoming kinda known for having a very enthusiastic, positive voice when it comes to Tears of the Kingdom. Because of that, I do want to delve into things I hope the DLC will touch on and points of the story that are indeed weaker and I wanted more of! And… then I’ll go into why I’m not completely upset about it.

First and foremost, the sages of old. While we have seen old sages for mere moments in the past, the reason I feel differently about totk’s sages is that we have a character actively interacting with them, aka Zelda.

The sages of old are faceless (which may be a result of opting to utilize headpieces and reusing avatars due to them focusing on the rest of the game) and all have the same cutscene. It was incredibly repetitive and boring by the fourth time we saw it. Zelda’s scene with them is similar as well, which is fine but having an added variety and flair would have been nice, especially as I’m going through the game again.

Overall, the critique is the lack of details in the past. I wanted more and I understand the direction they took, a balance between botw’s open world and a linear story game. It’s more in depth in Botw but not absolutely required like the rest of the Zelda games. That in general is a commonly shared negative critique.

For me, I actually thoroughly enjoy the open world, not entirely linear storyline. That is of course not the case with everyone, but that was the entire concept of botw and ultimately its sequel; they delivered games with entirely open world concepts and a story that is followed through the player’s choice rather than a requirement. And both are fantastic. Botw was light on the plot, totk was much heavier and does have a more distinctive storyline.

Love or hate, they did it well in ToTK. Not perfect, but pretty damn well. It ultimately comes at the sacrifice of story details, especially with characters like the old sages. It’s disappointing to say the least, but it is simply a product of how the games’ concept affected the story.

Another thing I am not entirely a fan of— Nintendo establishing a whacky timeline and then completely abandoning it. Of course, so many people can theorize and speculate but I feel like a lot of common criticism of the game would be helped with them officially stating where this game appears in the overall timeline. Especially if they say “botw and totk are the skyward sword of a new timeline, one so far into the future the remnants of old legends are rare to find”.

That’s how I’ve taken botw and totk. Rauru and Sonia are the first to establish a new Hyrule. They have no connection to Skyward Sword and the rest of the series, because they are so far along in time that tens of thousands of years have passed. The Zonai, the secret stones, and the Sky Islands are all pieces from a time and era we were JUST introduced to. I’m anticipating more knowledge, lore, and history to come to light in future games. I’m okay not having ALL the answers. Because I recognize that botw and totk are the start of a NEW era of Zelda games.

That angers some people, some dislike it, others are fine with it, and some even love it. I’m okay with it because I have enough faith that this will all be explored more in depth in future games. But it is a flaw in ToTK, one I understand, and it’s completely okay that it’s one I don’t necessarily like! Patience is key my loves.

Something I do not love at all is Nintendo’s firm standing on Link being the ‘link to the player’ rather than his own character. I find some of the best Zelda stories have a strong, expressive Link! In botw, I do get it! But in totk… I wanted more. Because then I remember Wind Waker and Skyward Sword, two of the absolute best stories in the Zelda franchise (in my opinion, twilight Princess is also up there) and I get a tad disappointed.

Totk is still open enough that there are people that DESPISE Zelda for ‘stealing’ Link’s house and are vehemently against the idea of Zelda and Link being together, when it is all but stated in the story and the details we got. I feel like half of the emotional appeal of totk’s story truly comes from Link’s wish to bring her back home to him, safe and smiling. It was his entire motivation in Botw, to see her smile again, so taking that perspective and really appreciating Zelda brings that strong emotional reaction totk’s story targeted.

So yeah. If I go on more, I’ll just be talking about how people have the right to dislike Zelda but if they do, then they won’t get the emotional connection to totk and its story the way players are intended to. And that is their right, but it’s not how Link canonically feels about Zelda so yeah. If we just got small expressions from Link, maybe some of that could be avoided.

Alas.

The depths— insanely cool the first time I dived down! But they’re repetitive in their own way, to the point that I have not gone back down once since completing the side quests (bargainer statues, Kohga, Mineru) and lightroots. Though whoever said “let’s make the lightroots connect to the shrines on the surface” I want to give you a forehead smooch bc you are a beautiful genius and I love you.

I think that getting to fight the final bosses for the temples and the Gleeoks are super fun, which makes up for the repetitive landscape. I’m not insanely bothered by this, but I do dislike that a third of my maps are completely ignored now that I’m done with it story wise.

A commonly shared opinion is the stupidity of having to run up to one of the Sage avatars to activate their power. I replayed botw and the sheer joy in getting to take out a Modulga by using Urbosa’s Fury only to remember that it takes much longer now made me very thankful. But yeah.

Tulin is Perfect. The rest? Nah. Give me a Sage button rather than a map in the wheel. Like geez, it shouldn’t be so difficult to call your avatars over. Even when I whistle, I’m chasing Sidon down and he’s useless so I banish him.

Overall, I wanted more DETAILS. But I understand the concept; I got enough to make me excited for when we get more. I can live with the flaws because I can celebrate all they did right! I love Zelda, I love the new sages, and I love the side quests that brings Link closer to characters like Hudson and Penn.

I adore the little communities, Link’s side adventures, and the new landscape changes. I love the sky islands, because they’re just really fun to create whacky Zonai flying contraptions to try and reach the ridiculously far ones. Yeah, they could of had more of an impact in the game but as someone who can and would travel the surface level of Hyrule 1000x and not get bored, I didn’t mind how little I spent in the sky once i did the lightroots and side quests pertaining to the sky.

Overall? The game is pretty damn amazing. The new lore, the characters, and the quests are all so fun. It’s a brilliant game with a phenomenal emotional storyline that had me actually distressed for DAYS. No other game has done that to me for as long as this game did.

So yeah it’s precious to me and I am a Totk enthusiast and a Zelda enthusiast and a Zelink enthusiast. I am a ✨supporter✨

[hypomanicsatanicpanic]

a few thoughts on the queer Purim comedy show I went to last night

The queer humor was fantastic. Some of the Purim content was ok. I am a non/post-Zionist, but I absolutely expected and looked forward to jokes about Israel and Zionism, given that I found out about this event in an explicitly anti-zionist discord server, and 50% of the money raised by tickets and donations went to the Palestine Children's Relief Fund, but I at least expected them to be jokes, you know? The whole thing gave "white guilt." It gave "white savior" and "noble savage." It gave "I'm one of the good ones."

First, it was a mixed bag on funny:

Four of the eight comics were hilarious, I fell out of my seat laughing during about half of those sets. I would pay money to see any of these people do comedy again.

Two were ok, laughed out loud at least 1-2 times during their sets. Wouldn't leave if they were at stand-up night, but probably wouldn't remember their sets after the fact.

Two were very seriously talking about things they obviously (and understandably) found upsetting, but trying to pass them off as deadpan jokes. One of those comics (who identified themself as an Arab Muslim) repeated several pieces of misinformation about Israel and Palestine-not even different opinions, verifiably false information that has been widely debunked. The other (who identified herself as a secular Jew) made several boomer wife jokes at the expense of her Palestinian wife. Those two comics also repeatedly complained about being called names by Zionists, concluding they "gave off incel vibes" as a punchline. For that to be funny, you've gotta unpack it! Say something original and unexpected, or you're just regurgitating antisemitic Tumblr posts and my former friend who uses "zios" as a slur. These two also made fun of people in diaspora who were feeling uncomfortable about being visibly Jewish in public. This same person also called Purim "just another Jewish holiday celebrating genocide" without unpacking that at all either.

It was also such a weird tone-clash for people to be talking about "ongoing genocide" and "40 family members killed" and "people sacrificed for a brave and noble cause" completely seriously--**during their comedy set**-- right between people joking about spelling out their pronouns in nipple grafts after top surgery, and other people joking about yonic hamantaschen and boric acid suppositories. That's not to say we shouldn't talk about it, it's just *how* and *when* felt pretty badly off in this case.

I'm not one to call other Jews self-hating, or kapos. But it really felt gross to see such performative hatred of other Jews who did not share the exact same views or life experiences get so much applause, despite being low-effort and unfunny. Like, don't get me wrong, the content was low-level upsetting, but became much more so because it was such lazy comedy. I think I would have enjoyed it much more if those statements/jokes were balanced with some good-humored, self-critical jokes. Telling the audience whatever they want to hear is cheap and boring. Tell us shit that confronts us, makes us uncomfortable, but forces us to laugh at it!

And the assumptions that everyone there would be 100% on board with everything said about other Jews present and historical, no matter how nasty, bad-faith, or false. The absolute and wilful misunderstanding about others' actual beliefs and experiences, the lack of compassion for Jews struggling with antisemitism *in their own cities and communities*, the self-pity, the failure to successfully lampoon OR engage meaningfully or originally with the ongoing conflict or the more troubling parts of the Purim story... The assumptions about the views and experiences of everyone else there. The absolute certainly and smugness about being morally superior to the vast majority of other Jews.

It was troubling to have so much in common with so many of the people there, and yet to feel so alienated. We were almost all queer Jews, with all of that attendant baggage. And I'm 100% certain we want the people who live in the Levant (Arabs, Jews, everyone!) to have lasting peace and safety, and also want Jews to be able to live and thrive in diaspora. Ultimately though, I'm not willing to throw other Jews (most of whom actually share those goals!) under the bus to signal those beliefs or get a couple of feeble chuckles. I wouldn't want to make money at their expense, even if some of the money went towards a worthy cause.

Next time this event comes around I'll probably skip it and just donate what I would have paid for admission to the Palestine Children's Relief Fund (which you can do here )

[ehlnofay]

literally just stop a tes fan lmao...there are other fantasy games out there, or like. literally just make your own world, it's really easy if you hate the games so much (I say this as an ex-tes fan)

HA. this is the first time I've gotten an ask like this... I feel Important. thanks lmao

as a serious answer - less for whoever asked this and more for anyone else who doesn't understand the way I interact with the media but whose lack of understanding is actually in good faith - if I hated the games and everything about them, I wouldn't have continued to play them, much less made a blog about them and dedicated so much of my creative energy to fan content. We both know that I don't view this franchise as in all ways awful and irredeemable; we both know that there are things about it I like. I would not be here if there weren't.

However - and again, I dearly hope that we both know this - deriving enjoyment from a piece of media does not make it flawless. This is the case for everything, from the works of Shakespeare or Austen to the D&D web show I've watched religiously since I was fourteen. Consuming media critically - learning to recognise the flaws of something you enjoy and accept that those flaws and your enjoyment can coexist - rather than simply receiving its messages unquestioningly and refusing to consider nuance is so crucial, especially when fictional media is so central to how people interact with one another.

There is a lot I dislike about TES. Its handling of sensitive topics is often hamfisted at best and feeding heavily into dangerous narratives at worst, and refusing to acknowledge that would be irresponsible and cowardly. But at the same time, I derive a lot of joy from this world, its stories and lore, and most especially the pockets of genuinely lovely communities that have sprung up around it. I've met some very cool people through being active in this fandom space. I've seen some absolutely incredible ideas and fan creations working to refute the bigoted undertones (or just blatant overtones, as the case may be) in canon. I've written pieces that aimed to provide a counter-narrative to the harmful ones presented by the games' reductive portrayals and been told that they really touched people (which was so deeply heartening to hear). It isn't that I believe my amusement is more important than the bigotry its source upholds and perpetuates, but that I believe that by acknowledging that bigotry and working constructively and in tandem with the beautiful fan community to rectify it in our own space, maybe I can produce more caring, sensitive narratives and offset the harm a little bit.

(Also, I don't know you and I can play video games however the fuck I want.)

[notsosilentsister]

There have been common complaints of female characters not being developed or as characteristically fleshed out as their male counterparts, but what if the people who wrote the shows in which the female characters are underdeveloped and just sexy lamps which you can't project yourself onto— 'somehow' know that well-written female characters that aren't cookie cutter, who often don't appeal to male fans, or fantasies are going to get a lot of hate, and scrutiny, thus making them not sell as well?

This type of backlash makes it so that any anime with female protagonists who don't fit in the mold of 'acceptable' or 'fuckable' doesn't get the spotlight and is shunned. However, I believe that the 'audience' is also somewhat 'responsible' and 'complicit' for the lack of developed female characters in anime.

Sexist Double Standards

Female characters in any type or form of media are and seem to always be held to higher standards compared to their male characters, they are not just seen as a character or a person; they are female first and foremost—thus, they must purposely and inevitably fulfill the roles and stereotypes that people associate with 'female' physically and 'emotionally', but also need to somehow deviate from those expectations, female characters need to do both and neither—be flawed (in an acceptable way) but also perfect.

Flawed or villainous female characters are often hated, harshly and unfairly criticized, and get unnecessary (sometimes really vile and disgusting) contempt compared to their male counterparts who are the same, if not worse than them.

One example I can think of is Malty from 'Shield Hero', who falsely accused the protagonist of a very horrendous crime and is overall a 'horrible' (mild, compared to what the MC does throughout the story) person, the hate she gets is deserved, but a good chunk of it has just gone beyond overboard and disturbing.

Naofumi actually enslaves and grooms children and women both in the LN and anime, he is also said to have even contributed to the continuation of slavery in their Kingdom due to his constant financial funding of it by buying slaves (who are children, even!) in the LN. The Queen of the Kingdom gave him protection against 'false' accusations of the crime he was accused of (meaning any accusation he gets is invalid).

Malty is given to the 'Pig' King who is known for doing the horrendous crime which the protagonist was accused of to the point of death to the fiancées his 'given' to, any women who engaged to him have ended up killing themselves due to the fate of sickening torture and pain they knew was awaiting them, she is also tortured in numerous ways before being handed over to the Pig King.

Despite a large chunk of the fanbase of that show knowing this, they still openly support Naofumi and his actions and even revere him as a character, as well as cheer and imply that Malty deserves that fate.

Implicit Bias

There is also the writing aspect of both female and male characters—for example, when a both a female and male character are left underdeveloped, plot and character wise, it may sometimes be done in different ways; a male character that is undeveloped canon and plot wise can often times still be projected onto, thus giving leeway and passage for more characterisation and headcanons that can make a story out of small 'pieces' of the characters' actions and words throughout the story, people often recognise that the character was fucked over by the author.

When it is the case for female characters, however—things play out very differently, leaving us with 2 scenarios. The female character in question is either made a sexy lamp—you cannot project yourself on a character such as that, she always has very little impact on the plot other than her sex appeal or looks and does very little in terms of actions, and may even have little to no personality whatsoever, and when people can project themselves upon her, she is still harshly criticized for being a 'bland' character and is not further developed by fanon or its fandom at all, the 'audience' blames her lack of character development on herself and not the author themself.

People are more likely to forgive a male character who fucked up compared to a female character who did so.

Explicit Bias

There are also people who prefer writing male characters due to the lack of baggage and pressure which male characters come with—they are often (but not always) not as judged or as easily hated as female characters are and can pretty much be anything and you can project yourself upon them compared to female characters (who may be synonymous with restriction and narrowness for a large chunk of people).

Female characters always need to be perfect and flawed (in the right way) and can't be 'ugly' physically and personality-wise for people who tend to woobify them. There are also those who do not like seeing themselves in female characters due to internalized bias or some form of trauma—so male characters become a barrier they can put to separate themselves from such an identity.

TLDR: Female characters are often seen as a hive mind (or political in extreme cases) who represent all women and realistically act, they aren't people or characters, but all women first who must conform to the expectations of what people believe a 'female' is, yet must somehow deviate from it (according to how fans like it).

What are your thoughts on this?

I've been trying for a while to think of anything I might add, but I think you already covered all the important points and I fully agree. The problem is definitely not just on the writing side but also with reception - a compelling experience of art is always a cooperation between artist and audience, and that also goes for the creation of compelling characters. Reader and writer have to bring something of themselves to that cooperation and female characters are disproportionally underserved.

[artis-lined]

Regarding Recent Events

(Believe whoever you want, I don't care, I just hope this stops.)

Hey guys, I unfortunately didn't want to have to be the one to do this, but I'm sorry to say with everything happening, I have obtained enough evidence to confidently accuse @slow-snail and @luminous000 of everything. Strap in, because this genuinely going to be a long one.

Red Flags

Let's start with some things arent quite evidence yet still may be a cause for suspicion. If you'd like to skip this section, please go to the next, titled "The Stalker"

Lumi has very similar texting patterns as Ghost

I have been in multiple situations where someone I know has faked being two or more people. I feel like I know the signs at this point. Lumi and Ghost are very similar, I remember thinking that they were just the same person and it was just a back up account before Ghost said it was his bf.

Ghost makes uncalled for jokes that are not, infact, funny.

I understand humor being a coping mechanism. It is even recognized by many mental health professionals. The thing that bothers me (and hopefully many of you) is the point where it stops being a coping mechanism. Playing dead for a day and a half is not funny. It is not cute. It is, infact, hurtful and can even be traumatizing for some. It's not funny how worried we were. It was a worrying time, many of us were so shaken up we blamed ourselves. It is not funny.

Convenient timing

It seems like every time they get better something either happens to Ghost, or Lumi. If they don't recieve enough attention, the resort to drastic measures to get everyone worked up and then come back to say: "no everything's ok now, ty for worrying 🥹". Like no shit. People are going to worry if you post how you're going to jump off a fucking bridge.

The Stalker

Here I will discuss how the story had more plot holes than things that actually made sense. Please read this part, as it contains important arguments.

Texting us while on the white board

Whether he was lethargic from "blood loss" or abt to pass out, they never stopped typing. On top of that, most of the responses were so premeditated it immediately made me feel like we were all just role playing.

Usage of medical terms

Other than the usage of 'stitches', the other terms were improperly applied.

"The goal of a medically induced coma is to reduce the work of brain cells and protect them from increased pressure inside the skull or after an event such as a stroke."

"The medically induced coma is intended to reduce the metabolic demand of the brain cells."

[Another term for a medically induced coma can also be sedation]

Source

My uncle was placed under sedation when after his heart surgery, his kidneys stopped working on their own. It is different from anesthetics since anesthesia slows blood flow to the brain (and decrease brain activity). Isn't it wonderful what a quick Google search will teach you? Oh, speaking of Google searches..

Lack of News Reports

I'm not saying the news reports everything-- but I find it odd how even when googling key pieces of evidence regarding this case, there was nothing remotely similar. This includes turning off local searches.

Went Home Quickly

After about two days in the hospital, Ghost was released. It was very short considering being in critical condition (including the fact they apparently flat lined multiple times). There was also no vital organ seemingly damaged, so then why would he flat line? Blood loss is serious, but they were alive in the hospital and ambulances have O- blood on hand since it is a blood type that everyone can use.

Ghosts Suicide

Finally, the last piece of evidence. This was disgusting... genuinely disgusting. Please read this part, as it contains important arguments.

Medical Inaccuracies

I'm not going to type out the whole medically induced coma argument again, but the point still stands.

Legal Inaccuracies

Lumi would not have been the person contacted regarding medical information. They have expressed to be around fifteen, and have no legal or blood relation. It's nice that they're dating and all, but it does not make them automatically the one updated with information regarding Ghosts wellbeing. It's one thing to be updated by the parents, but Lumi has shown that Ghosts "parents" don't like him.

Death occurs when there is no more brain activity.

This part was horrible. It had so many lies in it I don't even know where to begin. First, it's illegal to just pay a doctor and say that they're dead. Second, multiple doctors are there to ensure a patients safety. There has to be evidence of brain death.

The Next Chapter

I can't be the only one who sees what they're doing, right? Lumi was in denial when Ghost came back, and it's going to end in one of two ways.

Lumi is so upset about what happened, and as they are plagued by guilt of not know sooner, they attempt to kill themself, and don't succeed. The cycle continues.

It turns out Ghost has been hacked (probably by the stalker if they're feeling like it needs a plot twist) and it turns out the hacker is going to do something horrible to Lumi.

I'm just so done. Like, actually done. I tried to make this post as informational as I could, because I don't want anyone to think I'm being a jerk. You don't have to agree, but I'm probably going to take a short hiatus or something just to get away from all this.

Thank you for reading everything.

@parma-san @i-dont-draw-stuff @aimless-aimz

[s10127470]

The Reason Why Modern Disney Villains Suck

I don’t think this movie needs any introduction….

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish is an absolute godsend of a film. From the stunning and vibrant animation obviously inspired by Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, but with its own flair (heavily inspired by paintings and storybooks), to the surprisingly gripping and mature story about the value of life and coming to terms with your morality.

This film has become an immediate masterpiece among critics and audiences alike.

And one of the film’s MANY praises is in regards to its characters…..or more specifically, it’s villains.

This film has not one….but SIX villains!

This was quite impressive since….

Villains in animated films have become somewhat rare nowadays.

2. The fact that each of them were executed perfectly!

Undoubtedly most of the praises has been going to Big Jack Horner and Death, who both harken back to classic villain archetypes.

Jack Horner is a classic evil-for-the-sake-of-it villain who knows he’s a massive piece of shit and relishes in it. And although he’s incredibly comedic, he’s still treated like a legitimate threat.

and Death is a classic serious, ruthless villain who’s pretty much a force of nature and serves as the biggest obstacle to our heroes.

As a result of these god-tier villains, a lot of people have been looking back on the once-undisputed king of animated villains Disney….and their frankly pathetic villain outing over the last decade.

If you want some more context of this, I suggest watching Schaffrillas’ “So is Disney Just Never Gonna Have A Real Villain Again?”

If you want to check out real quick, here it is.

Basically, Disney’s strategy with villains since 2013 has either been poorly-executed twist villains, forces of nature with no personality, characters who act incredibly antagonistic to only end up getting undeservedly redeemed in the end, or no real villain at all.

Everyone has already gone into detail on why their villain strategy failed miserably, but no one has never really gone into detail on why they’ve been doing in the first place.

Well, I think I might know the reason why…..

Ever since the mid-to-late 2000s, Disney has shown some self-awareness to their common tropes.

Going all the way back to films like Chicken Little and Disenchanted.

The latter even being a parody of their classic films, in the veins of Shrek.

They would continue on with some of this occasional meta humor in later films like Frozen, Moana, and Wreck-it Ralph 2: Ralph Breaks the Internet.

And in all honesty, everytime they do something like this, I can’t help but roll my eyes.

It’s not only because like a lot of people, I've grown mighty tired of meta humor, but also because they reflect a bigger problem.

It’s pretty obvious that Disney has been listening to criticism towards their films from the past.

And while they may seem good, the criticism that Disney seems to be responding to either falls into the category of bad faith criticism or nitpicks.

The live-action remakes might be the best example of this, especially in the case of the upcoming Little Mermaid remake.

In some behind the scenes interview for the film, several people frequently mention that tired old myth about Ariel giving up her voice in order to be with a boy, when she really didn’t.

Ariel gave up her voice because she wanted to finally be able to explore the surface world, something she had been dreaming about her whole life. However, a lot of numbskulls and snooty critics misinterpreted this and eventually led Disney to feel the same way.

Perhaps one of the most notable results from this self-awareness is the lack of romance in many recent films, particularly in their princess films.

Tangled was the last major princess film to have a major focus on romance.

I know there’s Frozen, but the romance with Anna and Kristoff didn’t really spark until about the end of the film.

I do understand that not every film needs to have romance, some people, myself included, feel like the reason they’ve either been exempted or downplayed is because Disney feels like their female protagonists being in romantic relationships would make them come off as weak.

Most of this criticism is obviously directed towards the three original Disney Princesses: Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora.

Look, the main problem wasn’t the fact that they were weak (with the possible exception of Aurora), it was the fact that their relationships between their respective princes were virtually non-existent.

Seriously though, the princes before Eric either had no personality at all, barely appeared in the movie, or didn’t even fucking talk.

And although that major flaw had been fixed with the Disney Renaissance films, which but a greater emphasis on both the male and female leads, it seems critics and numbskulls used this major flaw that only really applied to the earlier films and tried to apply it to all of the other films.

The reason I bring this up because I feel like this is the reason why Disney has been so pitiful with their villains.

Their villain strategy pretty much started off with the notorious twist villain trio: Hans, Bellwether, and Mr. That Was His Mistake himself, Callaghan.

Everyone has already gone into detail why these twist villains didn’t work and failed miserably.

I feel like the reason did these twist villains were done was because a lot of their previous villains were said to have been pretty obvious in the fact that they were the bad guys.

While most people wouldn’t really see that as a bad thing, apparently some numbskulls and critics did. And eventually, so did Disney.

I’m assuming the reason Disney did these twist villains because they felt that they would automatically be better than the villains of the past simply because their villainy wouldn’t be revealed right away.

Unfortunately, they didn’t seem to understand what made a good twist villain….

Ironic given that they have shown in the past that they are capable to making good twist villains like Rourke and King Candy.

But after that, Disney (thankfully) pretty stopped doing twist villains….and villains in general.

Ever since Moana, there hasn’t been a Disney film with an actual villain.

And while I do understand that not every film needs a villain, there have been some cases where a clear cut villain would’ve greatly benefited the film.

Films like Frozen II and Strange World would’ve worked well with a villain, especially the latter given the obvious environmental message.

I feel like the reason Disney isn’t really attempting to do villains anymore is most likely because of the Twist Villain Trio and the negative backlash they received.

As a result, it led them to believe that nobody wanted villains in their movies anymore.

Here’s the thing that literally everyone has been saying.

WE STILL WANT VILLAINS IN OUR MOVIES!!!!

These characters are not only some of the most iconic characters in animation, but also fiction as a whole!

People love these baddies, their wild personalities, and just seeing them relish in being utterly terrible people.

And worst of all....Disney clearly knows how popular their classic villains are!

For God's sake, they literally have an entire franchise dedicated to these characters!

I feel like another reason from them not having villains is because of the current landscape in modern media.

It's no surprise that during the 2010s, we've seen a notable increase of villains who were either twist villains, had tragic and sympathetic backstories, were something of anti-heroes, or even got redemption arcs.

And while these elements aren't inherently bad by any means, I do feel it did leave a notable impact on entertainment and general audiences.

Classic villains became increasingly rare and even audiences began to believe that classic villains couldn't work anymore in this day and age, the reason being that they believe that not everything is black and white.

And while on one hand, I do understand where they're coming from, but here's the thing.

Some people seem to believe that there are no good or evil people in the real world. But in reality, there are.

There have and always will be legitimately good and legitimately evil people in the real world.

And going back to Puss in Boots real quick, I feel like the characters of Death and especially Jack Horner really made people realize just how much they missed seeing actual, unapologetically evil villains.

And because of this, its led people to look back at Disney and wonder what the hell they've been doing lately with their villains....or lack thereof.

I mean the fact that DreamWorks manage to not only outdo Disney (the former king of animated villains) not only in terms of quality and profit last year, but also villains, is both hilarious and legitimately sad.

Anyway, that's all for now. Let me know what you guys think about Disney's recent villain problem.

[eshithepetty]

Tbh.... if i'm allowed to be honest for a moment, there are things that bother me about the mp100 fandom, though one of the things that i've gotta say I dislike the most, is this... sort of air of superiority that some fans had, about watching this show?

Like, loving and praising a piece of media isn't bad of course. And comparisons can be fun. But a lot of the time, when it came to discussing mp100 in relation to other shows, fans would often go after the other shows just to lift mp100 up in how it's so much better. And like, of course, you can have your preferences, and you can judge the quality of shows and place some above another! But the way that these fans did it, it was so obvious in many cases that they weren't coming into the discussion with a meaningfully critical mindset. It was mostly just fueled by spite, and a wish for a feeling of superiority.

Which is a shame, because there's always insight to be had in analysing media in relation to another, but because this sort of analysis was often about forcing expectations on series, instead of exploring the differences, it made it all feel very petty. We shouldn't hold some one way of creating stories above every other. There is no single right way to write well. If we remain stubborn on our stances and are inflexible when it comes to considering the different intentions with which different media is created, and the angles with which they can be viewed, we just end up shackling our creativity. Different media should all be handled differently. That's how we create unique stories rather than rehash existing ones. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical, but that critique works better if it comes from a place of wanting to understand, not tear down, and this critical lens should go both ways.

I mean, as cheesy as I might sound saying this, mp100 does also teach this, does it not? The message of noone being special - that can apply to no media being universally superior, and how we shouldn't place ourselves above for our tastes. The message of empathy and kindness, and how we should take that and apply it to ourselves and not harass or demean others. It feels like often it's these types of stories, with compassion at their core, which seem to breed these types of judgemental mindsets the most.

Which, I think that comes down to people absorbing the softer parts of those themes, of how your feelings are valid, while disregarding the ones about humility and how we are all capable of harm, because those parts are harder to swallow; as well as that people often get attached to media that makes them feel comforted, which can create an air of defensiveness, as you may not want to loose that feeling of appreciation. But just as mp100's characters can all have both good and bad sides, so can stories; and the bad doesn't erase the good - it just means there is depth. Stories would be boring if there was nothing to critique - if there were no cracks to fill, parts subject to change, reflections of flaws in our society that would do good to acknowledge - if there was no room for growth. And I think, this aspect, of adding your own to what you love, is also why a lot of 'bad media' gets popular. Stories that are lovable, but still visibly lacking in some way, just feel more human. So in that sense, I find a lot of potential in the flaws of what we love, because it challenges us to see the gray areas and inspires more conversations and ideas.

Which is all to say... when season 3 comes, and the fandom returns full force, I hope things will be more pleasant this time, and we can all just have a good time <3

[moviemunchies]

So I figured since I was fresh off of seeing the first movie, it might be good to go ahead and watch the sequel.

Enola has decided that she wants to be a detective like her brother, but it’s a bit more difficult for a teenage girl to start her own business in Victorian England. She’s about to pack her bags and give up when she gets a job from a girl working in a match factory looking for her disappeared sister, leading her to a case much more complicated than expected. Meanwhile, her older brother Sherlock is struggling with his current case.

This movie feels much more streamlined than the first. Look, the mystery about Eudoria Holmes’s disappearance in the first film is (to me, at least) very unsatisfying in its conclusion. Her being gone kicks off the Plot, but in the end it’s not actually the story of the movie, and so when she reappears at the end it’s just, “Oh, huh, okay.” Here, there are two Plots, but they feel better connected to each other, and the ending doesn’t feel like the writers forgot where one of these threads was supposed to go in the first place.

Something kind of cool? This movie is actually based off of an actual historical event. Mind you, it’s far from a documentary, so I don’t think you’ll win any class points by knowing this movie. It’d be a bit like trying to claim you know a lot about NYC history from watching Newsies.  But the matchgirl strike was A Thing that happened, and I was sort of impressed that it was incorporated into the film.

Enola Holmes 2 also drops Mycroft entirely, and I think it’s better off for it. One of my main complaints about the first movie was Mycroft, because he seems so different from the character he’s adapted from that I didn’t think it felt right. Again: I don’t mind writing Mycroft as a sexist douchebag, but his role and the way he acted felt so much like NOT Mycroft that I wondered why they didn’t just make an original character, or write Mycroft in a way consistent with the stories (ultra-intelligent but lazy government worker), as I didn’t think it would be difficult.

The thing that the movie managed to put a greater focus on was the relationship between Enola and Sherlock. Maybe this is just because I have long had a fascination with stories about siblings, or maybe it’s because so few Sherlock Holmes adaptations really want to deal with the idea of Holmes siblings, but I really enjoyed these parts of the movie. Watching two super-sleuths bounce off of each other,  help each other with their respective cases, and guarding each other’s backs is really, really cool. It’s helped by great performances by those two leads.

It is interesting that one thing about this detective movie that really gets it going is coincidence? I don’t mean this as a criticism or piece of praise, but I found it interesting. Enola’s packing up her office for lack of business when someone comes to her after happening upon a scrap of newspaper with an ad for her business on it. In a story that relies on our leads reading every seemingly-irrelevant scrap of information, the event that launches the adventure proper is a sheer coincidence.

Odd, that.

Something odd about the movie, and I’m not the first to remark on it, is that while the race-blind casting is not, on the whole, bad, there’s a thing towards the end of the film that feels strange. It involves a performer of color and a reveal, and the motivations involved would have made a lot more sense if the performer’s race were part of the character’s backstory. As it is, the character talks about the restrictions of Victorian society and noticeably does not mention race, despite it being something that, realistically speaking, would have come up.

Despite that, over all the second Enola Holmes film is just really good fun. It’s not built in such a way that you can enjoy it as much if you haven’t seen the first one. I think if you enjoyed the first film you’ll like this one a lot. If you didn’t like the first film… well, this is that, but more? Not just in terms of content but in quality, so if that’s something you can’t get past, this won’t be for you.