dont get me wrong i love jotaro kujo and i love stardust crusaders so dont think this is jotaro hate but like the whole fandom rides jotaro like a damn bike but then some people turn around like “giorno is so boring”. im not going too deep on this analysis because im tired and i want to sleep but like…
giorno is about as expressive at first glance as jotaro, just as calm and composed, (and albeit has a vastly different personality) but genuinely has a lot more thought and intention in the way his personality is, and a deal more complexity as show by the narrative. while jotaro seems to serve as an archetypal “strong silent” character (while subverting some tropes and not entirely playing into them in other cases because araki knows how to properly write archetypes without making them uninteresting), giorno’s design seems to be a lot more intentional in regard to his heritage.
giorno displays a mix of jonathan and dio’s characteristics. he’s charismatic, intelligent, tricky, but also kind, caring, and passionate. He’s got a very righteous drive and a strong moral compass, but it is self-serving (thought not malicious) and with something akin to dio’s unrelenting ambition, he’s a little terrifying and unstoppable. He also has a tendency for cruelty, like Dio, but not towards his allies, whom he comes to rely on very deeply, like Jonathan.
He has a lot of his own traits as well. he doesn’t lose his shit like dio does, but he clearly shows distress and rage, though he seems to keep a pretty good grip on himself so as to control those emotions and use them to his advantage, instead of letting them control him. there’s even more to his character, stuff that even the first few chapters of part 5 make clearly evident. he’s a product of his ancestry and his abusive childhood as well as his redeeming encounter that led to his life’s dream… giorno is altogether a really interesting character but he gets so much more shit even when his very same (baseless) criticisms could apply to a character that the fandom worships. i get that the translations arent the best but its not that deep yo
tl;dr if you dont like giorno i beg u to reconsider he is a good boy
This is a great (slightly long) read that summarizes all of those basic story archetypes you hear about so much (and some that you’ve don’t). Examples of what it covers:
Mimesis: forming a picture in the viewer’s mind
Mythos: the plot, or message structure of the work.
Opsis: the physical and visual presentation of the drama.
Desis: the “tying” together of story elements that result in the end.
Anagnorisis: a discovery, or incident that sparks the story events.
Lusis: the “untying” of the story’s “mess” into a climax.
Katharsis: the audience’s emotional “purging” from experiencing the story.
The Three Appeals
Ethos: the credibility of a subject or author.
Pathos: the emotion (e.g. pity) of a subject.
Logos: the logical reasoning of a subject.
The 16 Master Archetypes
Osiris Saviour (good side) vs. Punisher (bad side)
Poseidon Artist (good side) vs. Abuser (bad side)
Zeus King (good side) vs. Dictator (bad side)
Hera Matriarch (good side) vs. Scorned Woman (bad side)
Isis Saviour (good side) vs. Destroyer (bad side)
Perisphere Innocent maiden (good side) vs. Troubled teen (bad side)
The Unspecified Abstract 7 Plots
[wo]man vs. Nature
[wo]man vs. [wo]man
[wo]man vs. the Environment
The 7 Basic Plots — Christopher Booker
Overcoming the Monster: The protagonist sets out to defeat an antagonistic force (often evil) which threatens the protagonist and/or protagonist’s homeland.
Rags to Riches: The poor protagonist acquires things such as power, wealth, and a mate, before losing it all and gaining it back upon growing as a person.
Tragedy: The protagonist is a villain who falls from grace and whose death is a happy ending.
The 20 Master Plots — Ronald Tobias
Quest: The hero searches for something, someone, or somewhere. In reality, they may be searching for themselves, with the outer journey mirrored internally. They may be joined by a companion, who takes care of minor detail and whose limitations contrast with the hero’s greater qualities.
Adventure: The protagonist goes on an adventure, much like a quest, but with less of a focus on the end goal or the personal development of hero hero. In the adventure, there is more action for action’s sake.
Pursuit: the focus is on chase, with one person chasing another (and perhaps with multiple and alternating chase). The pursued person may be often cornered and somehow escape, so that the pursuit can continue. Depending on the story, the pursued person may be caught or may escape.
The 36 Dramatic Situations — Carlo Gozzi/Georges Polti
All these reviews by people pretty new to Harry, who had dismissed him as just being from a boy band before now, seem to sense that there’s something more going on with him than just the deft encyclopedic references to rock and roll of the past. The lyrics seem shallow to them not only because of the tired misogynist archetypes of a few songs, but because those archetypes seem so antithetical to the rest of Harry’s package that they’re seeing, including the other, deeper songs on the album. As a whole, it doesn’t work as a womanizer package OR the modern sensitive feminist guy. It’s like everyone has a collective itch that something isn’t quite right, that the parts aren’t adding up to a coherent whole. Why are the songs about women seemingly just echoes of older tropes? Why does it seem like Harry only knows tired archetypes, not real women? Even when you understand that they’re meant to be metaphors, the references still seem to be to past metaphors employing female archetypes, not to women themselves as the muse or vessel of his creativity. He even all but quotes Bukowski on “Woman.”
So, how many of those reviewers and new listeners are now going to take the time to figure out why it seems dissonant?
hii i saw your tags on the post about Joss Whedon taking over Justice league. I know a lot of people don't like him but I don't get why?
Without going into essay-length discussion of it, I think it’s a two-pronged thing: one is that a lot of people just plain don’t enjoy his storytelling, like the way in which he makes movies/tv and the themes he incorporates (I think one of the main complaints is that he doesn’t have a real breadth of skill – he tends to repeat old tropes and character archetypes a lot – and I think that complaint is 100% valid). Still, that’s aesthetic; the much more widespread reason is that Joss Whedon has not got a great record when it comes to social justice, despite being hailed as a giant feminist icon.
Which, in the 1990s, the work he was doing with Buffy the Vampire Slayer I think genuinely was pretty feminist for television, at the time (and at first – in later seasons that was less the case). But culture moved forward, and Joss sort of froze where he was. His behavior toward Charisma Carpenter, who got pregnant during the filming of Angel, has been the subject of a lot of controversy (he wrote a really ugly episode about pregnancy and then killed her off) and since Buffy his treatment of women in his work has just kind of sledded downhill. Most recently, his spec Wonder Woman script was leaked and it’s pretty unpleasant; all about how Wonder Woman isn’t human because she’s invulnerable, and how she needs to be humbled, I guess? I haven’t read it.
I watched Buffy and enjoyed the earlier seasons; I watched some of Angel but it got dull. I tried watching Firefly, gave up because I thought it was kind of appalling, and stopped watching media Joss made after that (I found the idea of Dollhouse super offputting). I went back several years later to rewatch Firefly with the hope that I’d been too immature to understand it, or that the out-of-order episode airing had impacted my viewing, but I ended up understanding better than ever why I disliked it. (I wrote an essay about it here if you want more meat on why.)
Imagine the man who wrote a space western and could only conceive of the Native Americans within that story as a ravaging, sub-human race whose sole emotion was rage – and now imagine how he’s going to look at an Aquaman played by a person of color. Imagine a man who was so enraged that one of his actors got pregnant that he killed off her character after writing an entire episode about how horrifying pregnancy was – imagine the man who wrote Natasha’s story in Age of Ultron, for that matter – and now imagine how he’s going to control the future of Wonder Woman. (I’m aware that Justice League is mostly in post, but he’s still going to be writing and shooting additional scenes. And if he’s in on it now, there’s no guarantee he won’t be asked to step in more permanently.)
I think the upshot is that Joss Whedon tends to poison things he touches in ways so insidious that he gets acclaimed for doing it. And that couldn’t stay unnoticed forever.
It’s perplexing to me that one of the standard archetypes in media that panders to male nerds is “extremely attractive woman who vocally hates nerds, but is obliged by circumstance to interact with them anyway, and constantly complains about having to do so”. Like, exactly what is the draw there?
Teenage girls who chew too much bubble gum and somehow know everything about everything. Girls who ditch class to grab a smoke and escape from wobbly desks and fluorescent lights. Sharing secrets and memories, scheming, and laughing laughs that sound more witch than girl. They walk their neighbourhoods, bringing malice and evil with them as they smile through bright pink lips and lollipop stained tongues. On stormy days, when the gray sky sags with rain and the earth no longer smells of sunny suburban afternoons, they swing on old playgrounds, letting their short skirts whip around their goose-bumped thighs as teenage boys gape. They are girls who know exactly what they are and what they are capable of as they prowl for victims in moon lit skies and neon lights.
OK BUT IN TERMS OF CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE DADSONA BRIAN’S ROUTE IS THE MOST INSIGHTFUL AND BEST ROUTE??? BECAUSE LITERALLY BRIAN WAS MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR PEOPLE WITH ACTUAL DAD ISSUES (which the Dadsona clearly had)???
Think about it. He’s the most ‘Dad’ of all the dads. He most resembles the typical dad that many of us might have grown up with or know. Deck building, fishing, working with tools and construction, he’s a plethora of Dad Tropes put into a jolly Dad Bod package, and this is important both for the Dadsona’s perception of him and Brian’s actual personality.
You as the Dadsona are projecting your Dad Issues and insecurities from your own father onto Brian (see: the fishing dream). Brian resembles what Dadsona probably had for a father, which skews Dadsona’s perception of him, which causes Dadsona to want to prove something to him.
Brian is put in an unfair position, as he is simply trying to impress you, to make you happy, to get you to like him. He is a very typical traditional Dad figure, but from a romancing standpoint he is simply an honest guy who is enthusiastic about his likes and who loves his daughter, his work, life in general. He lives in the moment in the best way possible, and Dadsona is so stuck on past issues that he doesn’t see that until he goes through the appropriate ~character development~
Each dad is tailored specifically to very common tropes and archetypes which we assign to “dream daddies” or older men we are attracted to. They are all very specific character types, and equally important, subversions of said character types.
Brian is a subversion of your most archetypal American dad. And learning to see past his archetype to his actual personality is what makes romancing him so compelling. He’s the Daddy Issue Dream Daddy because his whole arc is for you, the character, to let goof what Daddy Issues you have and accept love from somebody you don’t have to prove yourself to.
And honestly, add that to his whole cuddly, warm, “i’m proud of my daughter and want you to like me” persona and he’s just an extremely lovable Dream Daddy and one of my favorites
“Between the velour suits and impeccable pop homages, John Carney’s eighties-era coming-of-ager Sing Street is possibly the most joyful time capsule to be seen at the movies this year. But Carney isn’t just emptily reminiscing in this tale of a Dublin teenager who throws together a ramshackle rock band to impress his crush, played by the exquisite Lucy Boynton. As Cosmo, the frontman at the film’s center, first-time screen actor Ferdia Walsh-Peelo offers yet another avatar of awkwardly-evolving boyhood, which isn’t exactly a foreign entity to indie film these days, although Cosmo is far more than just another morose boy with floppy hair and a guitar.
Sing Street improves on this archetype (and the old tropes that come with it) through Walsh-Peelo’s plucky and resourceful performance, which imbues Cosmo with a quietly-attuned watchfulness and wades through the mucky swamp of uncomfortable adolescence with a heady blend of bullishness and apprehension. He develops a physical vocabulary that fits the character to a tee, starting off with the slouching gait and fidgety body language of a teenage turtle still living painfully beneath his shell. You can actually see the actor steadying his fitful frame with each passing chapter of Cosmo’s soulful emergence into a more assured version of himself, while never fully abandoning the shrugs and fidgets of a boy who’s still, like all of us, an undeniable work-in-progress. Every actor in Sing Street is something close to a dream, but Walsh-Peelo is the central, finely-tuned instrument that allows this song to really sing.” — Matthew Eng
“It’s easy when playing the lone girl in a boy-dominated coming-of-age movie to become a glassy idea of girlhood rather than a concrete entity in one’s own right. But Lucy Boynton, as the aspirant teenage model and willing musician’s muse in John Carney’s incredibly infectious Sing Street, has two huge assets on her side that prevent her from falling into such a trap. First, Carney clearly and deeply cares about Boynton’s Raphina, giving her plenty of soul-searching close-ups and an atypically moving and detailed arc. And second, Boynton herself is a born star with remarkably subtle instincts and a magnetic hold on the camera that help a potentially indefinable character learn to slowly but steadily define herself.” — Matthew Eng
3+ WIPs: realizing you have certain tropes and emotional themes and character archetypes and visual motifs that end up in All of your shit and having to confront what those specific ones say about you and being annoyed at yourself for your overreliance on the same shit every time while still trying to be kind to yourself and acknowledge that this is something all artists experience and not some kind of inherent failure of imagination on your part
When I first started this show, I picked it up out of boredom; thinking it’d be just an action-flick reverse-isekai, not really expecting too much. — 22 episodes later, and here I am in tears, lol.
Having said that, Re:Creators is not a perfect show. It may not be a show for everyone, but it definitely set out what it intended to do and did so very graciously. For having been able to leave a deep emotional impact on me, that was enough to make this show shelf-worthy. (And I will, whenever they compile a Collector’s BD…)
There were parts where the plot was weak; and even towards the end a few loose knots remained untied. There were some highs and lows in the narrative, but thematically it was pretty steady all throughout. If anything, ironically, the more watery parts of the plot melt into the theme and narrative itself. For an anime-original, they really didn’t do too bad on time-constraints.
When you consider the demographic, the show was a huge shoutout towards its native audience, where an overwhelming number of its citizens are writers, artists, or all other sorts of creators. There were tons of tropes and archetypes being thrown around, a ton of lampshading. But most importantly, there was a universal message that was directed to and could be understood by anyone who had the heart or understood the heart of a creator.
This show…what can I say, some of the dialogues really hit home. Really hurt, really relieved, and deeply connected with me in a way that few other stories could. The anguish of making something, the self-wallowing perfectionism, the low points of quitting and the high points of inspiration, everything that has to do with the self when you become so deeply attached to your craft. To me, the plot of this show never really mattered; everything was within acceptable predictability (no irony intended). So what was great about Re:Creators is its banter and artistic struggles. Every character got a word in, and every message was important. For me, the whole show was a well-intended letter, seeking, hoping to inspire. It’s also one of the few series where I feel like the dialogue has a lot of life to it, and the characters really did break free from sounding scripted. Overall, I love the show and would highly recommended it to anyone regardless.
But especially…if you are a writer, or an artist… This is the pick-me-up show for whenever you’re in low spirits.
best trope: young immature “chosen one” archetype being called things like “kid” “son” etc. by everyone else especially their mentor figure and then finally reaching their climax or full potential and their mentor using their full name/honorific/etc and being Proud
The Marauders (and Snape and Lily) as Star Wars characters AU…..
I’ve been on a random HP nostalgia kick recently so this was probably inevitable XD But hey, they grew up in the 70s so the first Star Wars would have actually been in theatres then?? (ignoring the time-travelling EU and prequel costumes, and any implied family relations!)
Some of these are a bit random – I was tossing up between making Peter be Anakin since he also literally loses an arm, but Snape and Anakin just have a lot of narrative parallels (a.k.a. Mr “tragic anti-hero/villain guy with a somewhat… intense… love for a childhood friend who makes the worst life decisions and destroys everyone they love but turns back from the Dark Side with much controversy”) … aaand my hand slipped. ¯\_(シ)_/¯