the-ultimate-junkyard

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

Discussing video essays is annoying bc some people see the existence of some bad, lazy video essays, and extrapolate that the entire genre does nothing with being video and is all just people turning text into videos so they can show you ads or whatever. Which just isn't the case

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO IS TAKING ME OUT

THEY ARE LIFE AND DEATH COMPANIONS FOR A REASON

YOO JOONGHYUK YOU PATHETIC LOSER SHARE THE DUMPLINGS WITH YOUR SENIOR !!

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

damn people rly hate type 2 diabetics don't they

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

I feel like we need a refresher on Watsonian vs Doylist perspectives in media analysis. When you have a question about a piece of media - about a potential plot hole or error, about a dubious costuming decision, about a character suddenly acting out of character -

A Watsonian answer is one that positions itself within the fictional world.

A Doylist answer is one that positions itself within the real world.

Meaning: if Watson says something that isn't true, one explanation is that Watson made a mistake. Another explanation is that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made a mistake.

Watsonian explanations are implicitly charitable. You are implicitly buying into the notion that there is a good in-world reason for what you're seeing on screen or on the page. ("The bunny girls in Final Fantasy wear lingerie all the time because they're from a desert culture!")

Doylist explanations are pragmatic. You are acknowledging that the fiction is shaped by real-world forces, like the creators' personal taste, their biases, the pressures they might be under from managers or editors, or the limits of their expertise. ("The bunny girls in Final Fantasy wear lingerie because somebody thought they'd sell more units that way.")

Watsonian explanations tend to be imaginative but naive. Seeking a Watsonian explanation for a problem within a narrative is inherently pleasure-seeking: you don't want your suspension of disbelief to be broken, and you're willing to put in the leg work to prevent it. Looking for a Watsonian answer can make for a fun game! But it can quickly stray into making excuses for lazy or biased storytelling, or cynical and greedy executives.

Doylist explanations are very often accurate, but they're not much fun. They should supersede efforts to provide a Watsonian explanation where actual harm is being done: "This character is being depicted in a racist way because the creators have a racist bias.'" Or: "The lore changed because management fired all of the writers from last season because they didn't want to pay then residuals."

Doylism also runs the risk of becoming trite, when applied to lower stakes discrepancies. Yes, it's possible that this character acted strangely in this episode because this episode had a different writer, but that isn't interesting, and it terminates conversation.

I think a lot of conversations about media would go a lot more smoothly, and everyone would have a lot more fun, if people were just clearer about whether they are looking to engage in Watsonian or Doylist analysis. How many arguments could be prevented by just saying, "No, Doylist you're probably right, but it's more fun to imagine there's a Watsonian reason for this, so that's what I'm doing." Or, "From a Watsonian POV that explanation makes sense, but I'm going with the Doylist view here because the creator's intentions leave a bad taste in my mouth that I can't ignore."

Idk, just keep those terms in your pocket? And if you start to get mad at somebody for their analysis, take a second to see if what they're saying makes more sense from the other side of the Watsonian/Doylist divide.

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

One thing I’ve noticed about AI users is that they are completely repulsed by the notion of feeling bad or frustrated for even the slightest moment

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

"these researchers published a paper on something that literally any of us could have told you 🙄" ok well my supervisors wont let me write something in my thesis unless I can back it up with a citation so maybe it's a good thing that they're amplifying your voice to the scientific community in a way that prevents people from writing off your experiences as annecdotal evidence

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

you may notice i use the phrase "my beloved" frequently. this is because i am in love with the world and everything in it. hope this clears things up <3

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

yjh getting spanked in the new chapter 😌😌 silly chibi yjh in the new chapter 😌😌😌 the world is healing

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

“Ariel sold her voice for legs just because of a guy“

Meanwhile Ariel with legs;

Ariel already loved the human world long before meeting Eric (you don’t get a collection like hers overnight) and when she finally got a chance to explore it, she took it.

Ursula made it more about Eric than Ariel ever did.

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

based on the mechanics of the fourth wall blocking kdjs facial features, can you see his face clearly if the fourth wall gets shaken? if this happens it's such a great concept to utilize in adaptational purposes... like imagine a show that starts with the audience clearly seeing kdj actor's face, but once 7 pm hits and the paid content starts and bihyung appears, kdjs face gets blurred right at the moment he realizes WOS became a reality. and the only times you'll see his face clearly going onwards is during those moments when the fourth wall is shaking (theater dungeon, punching sung minwoo, conversation with his mom, etc during the early scenarios for instance), or when the audience gets a glimpse of sys, lsk, hmo, ysa and yjh's point of views

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

For funsies, if u wanna reply here with ORV quotes that didn't make the cut but that you loved, please go ahead!

Especially if its about the rest of the cast and less yhk-focused! :)

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

every time someone says “look how they’re looking at each other! they’re in love!” about a non-canon ship i just think of the kuleshov effect for a second but then i come to my senses and decide to have fun

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

For whatever reason you’re in the closet, you deserve to enjoy pride! 

[the-ultimate-junkyard]

also i think this has been figured out at this point but the whole "i miss queerbaiting" convo is like... the part of queerbaiting that ruled was because the show was usually putting forward two dudes, those two dudes got to have character arcs and motivations and writing behind both of them. they could both be interesting individually. because neither of them were shunted into 'disposable romantic interest' for each other.

but if a gay couple on tv is now supposed to be there, writers can fall for the m/f trap of 'only one of these characters needs to be fleshed out, the other is just here to explicitly be the love interest and maybe die later' except now they can both be dudes. it's not that queerbaiting was inherently better it's that unfortunately people have always been bad at understanding what makes fictional romance compelling, which is 'who the fuck are these people in the first place and why should i care'