characters of inception

littyr  asked:

what do you think drives lady macbeth's cruelty and do you sympathise with her at all?

This post and this post might be of interest. But I think ‘cruelty’ is the wrong word. Cruelty implies violence for the sake of violence and enjoyment of violence. (See here.) Lady M doesn’t revel in the violence. She doesn’t delight in it the way some of the characters in, say, Titus Andronicus do, or even Margaret in Henry VI does after the murder of Rutland/during the murder of York. For Lady M violence is always a means to an end. “Infirm of purpose” is what she calls her husband when he starts to get faint-hearted. He’s too full of the milk of human kindness “to catch the nearest way.” For her, it’s all about the outcome. The ends justify the means. Like I said in one of those posts, I think her driving force is ambition. She wants more than what she has. 

Interestingly, she never expresses any personal desire to be queen. She does, however, use the singular possessive pronoun ‘my’ when she says “The raven himself is hoarse / That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan / Under my battlements.” She claims the crime as her own, and even though the idea of murder occurs to her and her husband independently, she is the criminal mastermind. She says,you shall put / This night’s great business into my dispatch; / Which shall to all our nights and days to come / Give solely sovereign sway and masterdom.” And at the end of the scene: “Leave all the rest to me.” This regicide is her baby–and I use that word very deliberately. There are a million possible explanations for why Lady Macbeth is so desperate to seize this power for her husband. My guess is it has something to do with that baby she mentions in 1.7 which doesn’t appear in the play. A woman’s function at this point in history was basically to be a baby-making machine and ensure the survival of her husband’s line. She hasn’t been able to do that (for whatever reason) and her husband, at least, is already middle-aged, so that procreation window is rapidly closing, if it’s not closed already. By early modern standards, that’s a huge dynastic failure. My guess is that her power-grabbing is about agency and compensation. Maybe she can’t continue Macbeth’s line, but she can make him king. And she does

But here’s the other part of it which I think is really important and often gets overlooked, and it goes back to the fact that Lady M never expresses a personal desire to be queen. She wants her husband to be king, and she thinks he is fully deserving of that office. “Thou wouldst be great;” she says, “Art not without ambition, but without / The illness should attend it.” AND THIS IS SO KEY. Because Lady M is nothing if not full of ambition. What she’s saying here is “You don’t have enough darkness in your soul to do this, so I’m going to do it for you.” Now. Is that somewhat fucked up? Absolutely. However, that is an enormous sacrifice to make. I’m not going to get into this in depth, but there’s a lot of natural law theory floating around in this play. What’s important to know is this: In the protestant ethos of this play, if you commit regicide, you are 100% going to be damned for eternity. There’s no doubt about that. So, in an insane backwards way, this is actually an incredibly loving, selfless thing to do on Lady M’s part. She is willing to sacrifice her own salvation to make her husband king. Let that sink in. That is so much more hardcore than just saying, “I’d take a bullet for you, babe.” She is willing to burn for all time to put him on the throne, and not only is she willing, but it’s her idea, not just something she does with her back against the wall. That is a crazy kind of love. And that’s one of my favorite things about this play. This is not a unanimous opinion by any means, but I firmly believe that even though the Macbeths are terrible tyrannical people, they are desperately, devotedly in love with one another. Their language is incredibly intimate. In his first letter Macbeth addresses his wife as “My dearest partner of greatness,” and throughout the play they are constantly struggling to help and heal one another. Theirs is a relationship built on love and equality, whatever else they do (and however their relationship is also sometimes toxic and fractures through the play). Look at Macbeth’s conversation with the doctor in 5.3 when his wife’s health begins to fail: “ If thou couldst, doctor, cast / The water of my land, find her disease, / And purge it to a sound and pristine health, / I would applaud thee to the very echo, / That should applaud again.” That. Is. Love.

So. Why does Lady Macbeth do the terrible things she does? There’s no certain answer. Ambition has a lot to do with it. But I think that ambition is rooted in guilt about what she hasn’t been able to provide her husband with, and a passionate yearning to make up for that, somehow. Leo’s character says in Inception that positive emotion trumps negative emotion every time, and I think that’s true here. Lady M doesn’t orchestrate Duncan’s murder because she’s inherently cruel. She does it for love.


ULTIMATE SHIPPER CHALLENGE: [3/5] the moment you started shipping them
↳ Tom (Eames) x Cillian (Robert Fischer); during the kidnapping scene in Inception

inception movie character rant

do you ever like sit there thinking about an old movie or show that has ended? like.. are the characters ok? are they still alive doing their thing? I mean, yeah they’re fictional, but are the okay??

just saw a post talking abt how it sucks when ppl write characters w disabilities but they have superpowers to compensate (which generally i fully agree with) and it listed “theyre autistic and a great detective” as one of the bad examples and just….hmm..strongly disagree lol thats not a super power ? first of all, second of all (ok like i know they fucking mean sherlock so ill say sherlock) i assume the gist of the post is its not Realistic but the pitfalls of autism are also very much shown ….and also being autistic actually can give a real human person more ability to Notice Small Details and Remember Lots of Specific Information (like being a detective warrants) i dont think that’s wrong to incorporate. they’re unique strengths- and theyve been core elements of the character since his inception, you can’t make sherlock holmes non autistic OR a bad detective, it’s insulting. obv not every autistic character should be a detective or s/t but a detective being autistic isn’t horrible. idk that’s just my personal 2 cents as an autistic fiction creator who would make a great detective

The more Hannibal (2013) I watch, the more I see GD as an Asian Hannibal Lecter than I do Khada Jhin.

I regret exactly… nothing.

Two Hundred And Four Reasons

A seven-part series of informal essays about the exploits of Spartan-IIs John-117 (a.k.a. the Master Chief) and Kelly-087. Moving in in-universe chronological order, these writings examine the contents of the official novels, animated shorts, and comic books. With emphasis on the moments that attest to the bond between Blue-One and Blue-Two, and how their relationship as teammates and friends has been an important part of what has defined both their characters since the inception of the Halo Universe.

A Rocky Start

Into the Fire

Heavy Price Paid

Unwavering Trust

Before Anyone Else

Thinking of You

It’s in the Subtext

i found The Latest Hot Discourse post that i’ve seen being mentioned here and there, and i wanted to offer my own 2 cents on the whole thing… However this isn’t really me trying to throw shade, but rather how some of the points got me thinking about how character inspiration and inception comes about in the first place………

Keep reading

Concerning the Post

Well, it’s been a bit since I did an animation related post, but we have another post going around on tumblr. You guys have probably seen it by now. It’s the one with this gif:

Originally posted by kaiko-art

There’s been a few responses to the initial post, including a joke made at the expense of CalArts, other people ripping this post apart, some guy with an anime avatar claiming that all western animation is the same, and at least one post commenting that “Sans is Shaped Like A Friend.” 

These designs actually don’t bother me. The rounded head and the big eyes make these characters look friendly and non threatening. Designs like this are meant to play on human’s natural instinct to protect babies. Designs like this are pretty standard in shows where the protagonist is meant to be appealing to a large audience. Disney has been using this formula for years. 

Contrary to what this posts suggests however, the character design for these characters do show enough variation worth looking into. While these characters do share some similar characteristics, the way they’re depicted in the actual show itself shows just how distinctive these characters can be. Lets take a look.


Originally posted by czidge

I’m really not to familiar with this show, but just from pictures and gifs alone, I can tell that this show isn’t too preoccupied in trying to look like other shows. The design seems to be ugly in a very deliberate way. From what I gather, this show has a strong appeal towards nostalgia, and I can actually see that. The designs look like the were lifted from the doodles in some grade school notebook. Personally, I don’t find this shows art stye to be particularly appealng to me personally, but I do have to give them props for making something so unmistakably their own.

Star Butterfly

Originally posted by loosescrewslefty

When I see Star Butterfly, I see somebody’s deviantArt persona personified. Normally that would be considered a bad thing, but given Star’s character in the show, it seems all to perfect.

Star is the perfect example of a parody sue, with her design emphasizing the fact. 

  • Her horns seem to recall the fancy hats and headbands created by many fan artist’s oc’s. You can find headbands like these at your local Hot Topic or else in comic conventions everywhere. Star Butterfly is totally a character who’d go out of her way to buy one of them
  • Along with her hair, these horns also serve another purpose. While Star’s face and eyes all give off the babyish round design people are meant to find appealing, her horns and her hair add an element of danger. Star is a destructive character, though it may not be so obvious at first. These spikes are subtle reminders of the fact.
  • Her teeth and mouth are actually very fun to draw. It would be very easy to give a character like Star a set of perfect teeth, but for whatever reason, her mouth seems to be filled with nubs. Perhaps its from chewing her wand all the gosh darn time.
  • Her clothing changes from episode to episode. This is both reminiscent of many straight mary sues in fiction, but in the context ofa cartoon in gives the audience variation. 
  • Perhaps the greatest asset to Star design is her jaw line that actually moves with her mouth, and squishy cheeks the animators are actually allowed to squish (all these characters have the same kinda cheeks, but this show takes advantage of the fact on a regular basis) something actually kind of rare in this style of animation. this allows for some truly great expressions from her character.

Originally posted by clxcool

Originally posted by rad-star

Originally posted by rad-star

And lets face it, we all knew at least one person who acts like Star in some way or form, inflicting their forced cuteness on the world. Star may look like a self insert character from a Sailor Moon fanfiction, but she’s written like the people who write the bad fanfiction in the first place. Her design is entirely intentional.

Dipper and Mabel

Originally posted by jazzy-j-wolf

I’m sorry, but the initial post really doesn’t do Dipper justice. I mean he’s given an incredibly out of character grin. Admittedly that Grin seems right at home with Stay and Clarence, but Dipper never, ever makes that face, something I’m sure has been done intentionally in the character inception. Heck, I don’t even think Mabel is allowed to make that face. 

If anything, that first gif shows why big smiling face with soulless staring eyes are inappropriate for most characters. Facial expressions on the character designs are just one kind of way cartoons arre meant to be set apart from one another. Take a look at these faces:

Originally posted by insomniadealer

Originally posted by beautygxd

Originally posted by ermahgerdkerfer

While Dipper is certainly allowed to smile, the faces he’s most often seen with are meant to communicate his status as straight man to the rest of the cast, something usually accomplished be giving him a serious scowl. Contrast this with his twin sister Mabel:

Originally posted by gameraboy

Originally posted by transparent-gravity-falls-gifs

Originally posted by doafhat

Despite sharing a character base with Dipper, Mabel’s expression embody excess. Even her unhappy expressions stay away from subtlety

Originally posted by dippydip

Originally posted by tannermumm

The big exceptions for both of these characters seem to occur when acting out of character is the entire point. Mabel picks up some subtler unhappy expressions when the moment is genuinely meant to make the audience feel sad.

Originally posted by honeylemonsweets

Meanwhile Dipper’s out of character squeeing is only funny because of how uncharacteristic it is for Dipper to make an expression like that.

Originally posted by starfleetrambo

Heck, the only time I think Dipper made the face featured in the original gif was in a scene playing up how creepy that expression really is.

Originally posted by heroinewithoutashell

So here we have two characters who have an in universe reason for looking the same, and yet both characters are still distinctive enough to be recognized as their own characters. Compare that with, for example, Dragon Ball Z.

Originally posted by dragonatics-saiyan

Originally posted by dragonballzforlife

There really is a lot to like about this show, but Character Design is not one of them. I’m sure anime can have a wide range of art styles, but the ones that seem to get popular always seem to have a similar art style, and in the case of shows like Dragon Ball Z, it can be really hard to distinguish characters from one another. When searching for those gifs, I actually had to make sure those two really were separate characters. 

Gumball Waterson

Originally posted by themeddler

Gumball is a blue cat drawn in a deliberately flat art style. This show is a love letter to many, many different styles of animation, and the main characters themselves resemble graphic design in their flatness. This of course is contrasted beautifully with the live action backgrounds. This is probably the only case I will mention where the design decisions are less character based and more art direction based, but these decisions are ultimately what made this show so unique to begin with.

Steven Universe

Originally posted by thespoonmissioner

Here we have a character’s whose round cheeks are purposely meant to evoke the characters youngness. Though this is of course present in the other characters as well, Steven is notable in that his young looking features are an actual plot point in the series, as well as one of his defining traits.

Steven was designed to be the ultimate little brother (A bit ironic since he’s older than pretty much everyone except Star on this post) and his design looks it. 

Finally, I’d like to point out that if these characters were all standing next to each other and silhouetted against some harsh light, then it really wouldn’t take much effort to tell who’s who. Dipper has his hat, while Mabel has her hair. Star has her horns, and Gumball has his ears. Even Steven and Clarence, who in real life would likely have similar body types feature enough extra traits to set the two apart.

Besides. We have plenty of other characters who don’t use that basic head shape:

Originally posted by rustyblust

Originally posted by sinirliananas

Originally posted by the-ice-castle

Originally posted by justaheartt

And let’s not forget our favorite rectangle head is coming back as well

Originally posted by omundode
Que Sirrah - ladyprydian - Inception (2010) [Archive of Our Own]
An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works
By Organization for Transformative Works

Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: Inception (2010)
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Relationships: Arthur/Eames (Inception)
Characters: Arthur (Inception), Eames (Inception), Ariadne (Inception), Yusuf (Inception)
Additional Tags: Cat, Kittens, cat giving birth to kittens

“We’re neighbors who don’t really talk but your cat might have gotten my cat pregnant?? We must raise this little kitty family together” AU
- ironinkpen link to the prompt

Note: Please do not redistribute my fanfiction on other archives or sites without my express permission. Thank you.

fake film + inception au pt. i

gugu mbatha-raw as the extractor / oscar isaac as the pointman / idris elba as the mark / margot robbie as the forger / robin wright as the tourist / chiwetel ejiofor as the chemist / ruth negga as the shade / golshifteh farahani as the architect

nora boyd (mbatha-raw) operates as the team’s leader with gabriel castillo (isaac) as her righthand man. the two of them founded this dream share team together and are rumored to be lovers, but they carry an air of a strictly professional relationship. carey hayes (robbie) was recruited in part due to her relationship to nora’s younger sister, vivian boyd (negga), and her talents in the art of deception. the team’s chemist, godfrey young (ejiofor), was good friends with gabriel back during their college days and was reluctantly convinced to join a few years prior. the now last member of the team, anahita saidi (farahani), was taken in during one of the team’s earlier missions in singapore, when vivian was still the architect. however, with vivian’s untimely death a few years back, anahita has taken over that role. 

currently, corporate head, annalise turner (wright), has hired the team to infiltrate the mind of her rival and former coworker, marcus taylor (elba), and extract the secrets that nearly destroyed her company and family. their mission quickly spirals out of control as the dream world becomes a battle ground once other dream share teams join the fray, vivian’s shade undermines team efforts, and annalise and marcus are discovered to be more than meets the eye.

character aesthetic - ariadne, the woman of the mazes

And I am nothing of a builder
But here I dreamt I was an a r c h i t e c t
And I built this balustrade
To keep you home, to keep you safe
From the outside world
But the angles and the corners
Even though my work is unparalleled
They never seemed to meet
This structure fell about our feet
And we were free to go

Catwoman 75 #6

I guess it’s my turn to get all mushy about my girl Selina Kyle.

When and how did I fall in love with Catwoman?

I know that I’ve always loved Catwoman and when I was in elementary school one of my friends got me a Catwoman address book (you remember address books right) and I told her that I liked Catwoman more than I liked Batman. Fast forward a few years later, I’m a little fuzzy on the details and timeline, but I remember it was during my watch-everything-Batman-related phase. It must have been a combination of seeing Catwoman in “Batman Returns” for the first time and binge watching the animated series. I went online to look up “best Batman and Catwoman” stories and everyone across the board said Batman: Hush so I ended up getting the trade as a gift. It was either around the same time or within the year “Heart of Hush” came out and Catwoman’s third series had just ended and that was it: I was all in. What a great time it was to be a batcat fan and up until that point I had been reading strictly Teen Titans.

Why do I or What is it about Catwoman that I love?

This is going to basically be the chapter to a book so get ready.

1. The History

I think one of the things that DC Comics has more than Marvel is iconic women. DC Comics have more female characters that can be recognized outside of the comic book medium. Of DC’s women I think that the three most iconic are Lois Lane, Catwoman, and Wonder Woman. Lois Lane, Catwoman, and Wonder Woman are the first ladies of DC Comics. Lois Lane (1938): DC’s first lady. Catwoman (1940): DC’s first bad girl. Wonder Woman (1942): DC’s first superheroine. They’ve all stood the test of time and after 75 or so are characters that have been included in film and tv franchises, appeared in every derivative form of media, and are known extensively by non-comic book readers of every generation. You know who they are, your parents know who they are, and your grandparents know who they are too.

Catwoman was created by the creators of Batman himself, Bob Kane and Bill Finger and appeared in the very first issue of Batman along with the Joker. She predates most of the rogue of gallery. Both a sinner and saint, she’s anything but static. Her shadowy past and a dark allure makes her enduring, while her unpredictable nature makes her infatuating.  Catwoman was one of the few female characters who didn’t fall victim to the Comic Book Code Authority’s draconian guidelines regarding the way women were allowed to be written. Rather than water her down into someone she wasn’t like Batgirl and Wonder Woman she was benched from appearing in comic books for over a decade. She plays on her own team and by her own rules, and is whoever she wants to be whenever she wants to be it. She is the quintessential bad girl, and I say that respectfully. As Elizabeth Valleau puts it:

… there is nothing more dangerous to the patriarchy as women that cannot be controlled. I think there’re few forces on earth more capable and unstoppable than a bad girl.

2. Independence

Unlike a lot of other female characters during Catwoman’s inception there was no male equivalent and even rarer there is a male equivalent to her (Catman 1963). Even though Catwoman exists inside of the Batman mythos, she has been well developed as a character not dependent on him to tell her story. During her first ongoing series Batman was intentionally excluded from making appearances for over two years to give her series time to develop on its own. Catwoman exists in her own right and never compromises who she is to please anyone else. Even at her most reformed she doesn’t follow Batman’s exact code of ethics. She still steals occasionally and at one point commits a murder. She won’t pay the price of submission to be a counterpart to a male superhero.

And her biggest fear is dependency.

I know that the New 52 will have you believing that it’s Poison Ivy but that’s just poppycock. What does that tell you? That Catwoman is the antithesis of the damsel in the distress; an autonomous woman who not only can take care of herself but wants to.

Keep reading


Keays-Byrne [Immortan Joe] says that working in all that impressive-looking gear is harder than it may appear to the viewer. “Imagine somebody gets on of those bulletproof riot shields and then molds it so that’s the carapace, back and front like medieval armor. Basically, it’s a sort of Plexiglas, bulletproof medieval armor with a breathing mask which is there to perpetuate that thing of the Immortan, the god immortal, ‘I’m here for you, the people.’”

McCarthy puts the Bullet farmer, played by Richard Carter, most succinctly: “[He] is an absurdist weapons dealer. It’s the idea of the weapons manufacturer gone insane.”

As for the Bullet Farmer’s look, storyboard artist Adam Sexton credits McCarthy with doing the first designs for the character. “The early inception of what the character looked like [was] the big headpiece with the bullets festooning every part of his costume, the idea of the judge’s wig covered in ammo and long trench coat all combined in a quite striking design. It was all about the accoutrements of weaponry.”

The Art of Mad Max Fury Road, Abbie Bernstein