delete(d)

we got invited to a college graduation party for one of my dad’s nieces or something and my mom literally told me to go because, and i quote, “it would be good for that side of the family to see a young person who isn’t messed up and you can lead by example”

i….. alright

karambura asked:

Whedon thinks he has to kill off a main character to make the audience connect emotionally to the film. He overuses this trope so much, that it entirely lost it's intended shock value. He seems to fail to understand that there are things worse than death. I mean, look at CATWS - the most gut wrenching film in the MCU and no one dies there. On the other hand I couldn't care less about most of the new characters in AOU. I even predicted that it would be Pietro who dies. Main characters were (1/3)

killed off by other filmmakers since Buffy, it’s not as new and innovative as he seems to think. Instead of killing off Pietro, he could have made it so Clint looses his hearing. He could have even made it look at first as if Clint was dead. It would be as emotionally crushing to Natasha as it was to Wanda. But then him waking up in the hospital and doctors telling him, avengers and his family that he lost his hearing. That’s how we could have got canonically deaf Clint and living Pietro. And the film still would have had the “real world consequences” effect that he really wanted to add, without the senseless death. P.S. I’m sorry for the long rant, but remembering Pietro and what happened to him (killed off for the shock value!) makes me a bit angry. 

2

the thing about the stuff i draw is the guy on the right is way more likely to horribly kill you and the guy on the left probably would tie your shoelaces for you and apologize for getting weird goop on your shoe and then feel really bad