principle pictures

anonymous asked:

I'm reading what you say about your boyfriend, and you two are so cute. Please continue to be happy, because I hope I can find a relationship like yours. Best of luck to you two!

We’ve been through hell and high water both apart and with each other. Do you know that the first day we met, it’s because he literally flew across the country to get me out of an abusive situation that I felt I could not leave on my own? I hadn’t seen or talked to him prior to that day I packed up all my things and never looked back at something that had been a part of my life for 7 years.

Then half a year later, I got him out of his similarly abusive situation. Only way to return the favor, fam. lol

He’s seen me at my absolute worst, and vice versa. We’ve most def had our ups and downs like any relationship. There have been times that neither of us thought that our relationship would survive it. BUT WE STILL HERE, DORKY ASF

(Not a great pic of us but it was on Halloween and he made my Cleopatra costume for me)

… and here’s one that LV was like “OH I SEE OLDER!GLADIO” and I was like “…look, he was pissed when older!Gladio appeared cause he ain’t want his least fave chocobro to look like him at all”

His hair is longer than mine and I’m salty about it, but lemme stop before I gush forever about mah mans

I don’t like to be trite and say corny things like “everyone will find their soulmate someday!” But I do trust that you’ll stumble across something fulfilling and life-changing when you least expect it, anon. Because that’s how it seems to always happen. May your kind words and blessings given to me help expedite your fortune.

Things I really loved about Spiderman: Homecoming in earnest!

Spoilers!!

1. That it felt new)
Look, it needs to be said first off that Homecoming had the added pressure of not just being a good movie, but being a new and different take on the THIRD reboot of a character in 15 years. That’s a really hard thing to do, and they nailed it. Holland’s Spiderman is distinct and his own while also feeling like the character, and the world he inhabits and the story the movie tells feels Spidery without feeling like we’ve seen it in the last two reboots.

2. World building)
The Marvel universe - when it’s not featuring in its massive collab films - always needs to find a way to feel connected, and not only did Homecoming succeed at this, it also found a great way to build on the Marvel world. The Captain America PSA’s were funny, but they also really helped shaped the idea that this is a world that has had superheroes for more than half of these kids lives. Same with Keaton’s daughter’s picture at the beginning, or the game of Fuck, Marry, Kill that the girls play with The Avengers; this is a world with superheroes that feels lived in and that was great.

3. Vulture)
Speaking of world building, I loved everything about Keaton’s Vulture. Marvel villains - beyond Loki - have always been just a little bit meh, but Vulture was perfect for the story they were telling. His whole story was a fantastic “view from the bottom” look at the Marvel Universe. A regular guy (in a tough economy) who is just trying to provide for the best life for his family, and is doing so by profiting off the “scraps” of what the Avengers leave behind. I LOVED that Vulture didn’t try to take over the world, or that it wasn’t really personal for him. Yeah, he loses a job because of Tony and didn’t like him, but he was just stealing from him because he had the stuff he could steal, and not say, building a villainous and overly complicated revenge scheme because he got stood up at a party once (side eyes Iron Man 3 just a little bit).

4. Vulture and Spidey’s dynamic)
Damn, that was a reveal done right. I’ve never jumped once at a Marvel movie, and Homecoming had me do it when Liz’s mother comes into the frame behind Peter. It’s a totally innocent moment, not even really a jump scare, and that is a true testament to the tension in that scene. Also, the fact that Vulture clearly respected Peter was great; he thanks Peter for saving his daughter, doesn’t sell Peter out in jail. I kind of felt like part of the reason Peter doesn’t take Tony’s offer was because some part of Vulture’s “little guys” speech had sunk into him, and that’s a really great dynamic between hero and villain.

5. Continuity Easter eggs)
The comic heavy hints are great (like say, Donald Glover’s character as Miles Morales uncle), but I’m a sucker for in universe Easter eggs, and Homecoming delivered. Things like principle Morita having a picture of the Howling Commando he played in Captain America; The First Avenger were fantastic little nods that you didn’t have to have any comic book knowledge about but still were really rewarding.

6. Ned)
I love Ned. I loved that he was quirky and uncool and totally cool with that. I even love that he was out of shape; it’s always great to see positive portrayals of people not just of different races but of different body types, and I love that he was never bullied or made fun of for his weight. Also, I just really loved that Peter had a friend (that wasn’t Harry Osborn). I genuinely can’t remember if the past 2 Peter Parker’s actually had a friend that wasn’t Harry (and thus weighted by the knowledge he was going to end up a villain) and it was so nice to just have Peter seem like a real kid who has friends and hobbies.

7. That Peter felt like a kid)
Homecoming nailed this in a way that the last two series never really did. Admittedly, the fact that Holland is much closer to the age of the character he’s playing than the two previous helped, but the movie did a great job of it in other ways. That he’s never driven, that he’s susceptible to peer pressure and just wants to be well liked; Peter felt like a real teen who had this situation thrust upon him and that was fantastic.

8. In media res)
You cannot know how thrilled I am that Homecoming skipped the whole death of Uncle Ben and spider bite thing. The death of Uncle Ben especially; yes, it’s important to shaping the hero and the man Peter becomes, but it’s also been done twice in recent memory, and leaving it out took guts (and not even a dream sequence like say, the recent reboot of some other dead superhero parents). Instead Homecoming treats the audience like they’re smart and just alludes to it, and the spider bite, and I’m so for it. Homecoming feels like we still get to see an origin arc without all the trappings of the origin we already know, and it works 100%.

9. MJ’s new character)
Look, there’s a bit of a pin in this one, which I’ll explain at the end, but I really liked this new adaption of MJ; the little we got to see of her at least. No, she wasn’t the same character as in the comics or the Rami films, but again, I really admire the fact that they were risky enough to try new things. Also, her little arc; “I have no friends,” to “my friends are up there,” to “my friends call me MJ” was this neat transition from loner girl to decathlon captain with friends and I found it really sweet.

10. The web in the suburbs)
HAHAHA OMG this was my biggest laugh in the movie. I’ve literally joked with my sister that Spider-Man is a hero who really only works in New York (one of the most vertical cities in the world) and having that scene play out was just perfection.

11. WHAT THE FU-)
Second biggest laugh by far, but I am SO down with Aunt May knowing about Spider-Man. The “hiding my secret identity from my loved ones” is a cliche that’s worn pretty thin, and I am here for the next movie where May knows.

12. Pepper)
I don’t care what you think of Paltrow; I love Pepper Potts, and I love her relationship with Tony. I don’t even mean that on a shipper level; Tony and Pepper really have always felt to me like the best balanced, healthiest and most real MCU couple, and the fact that they were on the outs in Civil War (because of what was likely the cost of having the actress be there) sucks. Homecoming fixed that, and it did it in such a characteristic way; Tony asking for the ring as a media diversion, Happy having it for 9 years, Pepper just rolling her eyes at their antics and Tony catching the ring anyways (hinting at it being semi serious) was just this perfect 2 minute look at their dynamic.

13. Tony and Peter)
I loved that that mentoring relationship felt very true to both their characters. That at the start Tony wanted to be a mentor but didn’t really know how to and that Peter just wanted his approval and how, by the end Peter had grown into someone that deserved Tony’s respect, and that Tony had become a better mentor by being able to let him walk away and acknowledge that not joining the team was best for him. Also; “I wanted you to be better than me,” and “if you’re nothing without the suit than you shouldn’t have it,” are just great lines. A+.

14. “Come on Spiderman” and the building on top of him)
Like, that whole scene, just, perfection. Tom Holland owned that scene, and it was both agonizing to watch his pain and his desperation, and utterly uplifting to see him triumph. A+++

Thing I wasn’t so crazy about:

1 . The MJ reveal)
Look, I said there would be a pin in that and here it is. If the Vulture reveal was the perfect example of how to do a twist reveal right, this was a pretty textbook example of “a twist just for the sake of a twist.” A good twist or reveal should change the mood, the dynamics and the stakes. Finding out that the villain was the father of the girl Peter had spent the whole movie evolving his relationship did all of those things. Finding out that Zendaya’s character- who is literally called Michelle once, right before she announces herself as MJ - does none of that. Her being MJ rather than Michelle doesn’t change her arc or her impact on the movie at all, especially given how little of her we see in the movie. I honestly think it would have been much better if she’d been MJ from the beginning. Having this new iteration of MJ - who is really different from previous ones - would have given the audience time to acclimatize to her take on the character. Instead, it’s played as a reveal with utterly no stakes, and I think that’s an unfortunate sign that perhaps they didn’t believe enough in their version of the character to stand up on her own merit, which is pretty disappointing.

@reconditarmonia said: run it again?! as in a part 2 to the first one, or a separate one? aka CAN I BE IN IT

Run it again, so same game a second time!  I think the current plan is to aim for Intercon, but since I’ll be out of the country, I don’t know all the details.  There are…apparently a lot of people who want to play this danged game, so it’s almost certainly going to happen again.  We just gotta fix up some stuff first.

Basically, yes, you should come play!  (I have put…some thought into who we’d cast you as.  >:})

Some of our first run players are pushing for a sequel but all the GMs are like…we’re tired…please let us rest for fourteen seconds before we even think about sequels…

7

“… if ever an actor demonstrated the principle that a picture paints a thousand words, Kitchen was the man to do it.”
Michael Simkins - The Rules of Acting

Michael Simkins, known to Foyle’s War fans as Chief Superintendent Hugh Reidhappens to have written a number of entertaining musings on life and his profession. He also writes a regular column for The Guardian. 

In his book, The Rules of Acting - a knockabout romp with a serious core, he pays tribute to the craft of Michael Kitchen:

My favourite summation of the screen actors’ craft came from the inimitable James Cagney, when he said, ‘Find your mark, look the other fellow in the eye, and tell the truth.’ 

As in all branches of the profession the leading protagonists are extremely skilful at their craft and you can learn a lot by studying their methods. I’ve worked with most of them, and their expertise in bringing each new episode to life is something else. Keep an eye open if you get the chance.

My time as Sergeant (sic) Hugh Reid in the very first series of Foyle’s War gave me the chance to witness a very particular form of genius close-at-hand.The actor playing Foyle, Michael Kitchen, already had a prodigious reputation on both stage and screen, and his character as Foyle is famously chewy of disposition, not given to hysterics or wild outbursts of emotion, preferring to leave the baddies to condemn themselves out of their own mouths. At times he hardly seems to speak.

And there was the problem. So adept was Kitchen at being able to summarise the whole content of a speech by a simple glance, that it gave the scriptwriters something of a headache. It soon became apparent that Kitchen could convey the entire sentiments of long speeches with a single sideways grimace of the sort that was to become his character’s trademark.

‘I can do that speech with a look,’ he’d often say; and what’s more, he could.

All well and good, but the repercussion was that swathes of the script were being lost. Fortunately, the producers soon adjusted accordingly and the show turned out to be one of the great hits of the genre. But if ever an actor demonstrated the principle that a picture paints a thousand words, Kitchen was the man to do it.

anonymous asked:

Hi I was wondering is visualization basically using you focus and desire together in a spell? Is that what people are talking about when they say visualize? Thank you

Hello!

Well, that can do it, seriously. That isn’t exactly what I think of when I think “visualization,” but those things are important in spellwork too.

When most people speak of visualization, it comes down to “seeing” things in your mind’s eye or whatever. Like, close your eyes and picture certain things happening in relation to your spell. (Eyes can be open too, if it’s easier that way, I just prefer closed.) For example, a visualization for a ward could be something like “seeing” scales growing all over your skin, like dragon scales and body armor. You can visualize an ideal relationship for a love spell, a large wad of cash in your pocket for a money spell… It’s basically drawing pictures in your mind that relate to your spell to help empower it.

I Googled the term “visualization” for second opinions, and Wikipedia’s definition is so fucking convoluted it’s crazy:

Creative visualization is the cognitive process of purposefully generating visual mental imagery, with eyes open or closed, simulating or recreating visual perception, in order to maintain, inspect, and transform those images, consequently modifying their associated emotions or feelings, with intent to experience a subsequent beneficial physiological, psychological, or social effect, such as expediting the healing of wounds to the body, minimizing physical pain, alleviating psychological pain including anxiety, sadness, and low mood, improving self-esteem or self-confidence, and enhancing the capacity to cope when interacting with others.

An easier one to understand is “the formation of mental visual images.” Yeah. xD

Have some links! (Because it wouldn’t be a post by me without them lol)

* = external links / resources

I never want to type the word “visualization” ever again.

I hope that helps you!

“Although I am clinging to ideals, my conception of the universe is, l fear, grossly materialistic. As stated in some of my published articles, l have satisfied myself thoroughly through careful observation carried on for many years that we are simply automata acting in obedience to external influences, without power or initiative. The brain is not an accumulator as commonly held in philosophy, and contains no records whatever of a phonographic or photographic kind. In other words, there is no stored knowledge or memory as usually conceived, our brains are blanks. The brain has merely the quality to respond, becoming more and more susceptible as the impressions are often repeated, this resulting in memory.

“There is a possibility, however, which I have indicated years ago, that we may finally succeed in not only reading thoughts accurately, but reproducing faithfully every mental image. It can be done through the analysis of the retina, which is instrumental in conveying impressions to the nerve centers and, in my opinion, is also capable of serving as an indicator of the mental processes taking place within. Evidently, when an object in seen, consciousness of the external form can only be due to the fact that those cones and rods of the retina which are covered by the image are affected differently from the rest, and it is speculation not to hazardous to assume that visualization is accompanied by reflex action on the retina which may be detected by suitable instruments. In this way it might also be possible to project the reflex action on a screen, and with further refinement, resorting to the principle involved in moving picture, the continuous play of thoughts might be rendered visible, recorded and at will reproduced.”

–Nikola Tesla

“Three Famous Scientists’ Views On Thought Transmission.” Electrical Experimenter, May 1, 1919.

3

3 Things to Remember About the New Storymaking

“The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder.” -Alfred Hitchcock

Hitchcock said that when people regularly went theaters. In today’s world, the viewing can continue even when nature calls. Audiences are no longer in the habit of sitting through movies like before. We have developed new habits for viewing, and therefore, we need new habits for making.

Here are a few principles for approaching motion picture narratives in today’s crazy world, and the best advice I can give to anyone getting started today. 

Keep reading

Hello everyone! Now that the Holiday season is (almost) over, I got to start saving up for next’s semester school material, next year’s tuition and possibly moving away from home. While I do have a steady (part-time) job, when your major implies spending 100$+ on art supplies, extra cash becomes your best friend  。゚(。ノωヽ。)゚。

So. As some of you may know, I’m a graphic design student. And as some of you may know, graphics/edits making is a pretty big thing here on tumblr. That’s why I’m offering private Photoshop classes on Skype. My goal isn’t to teach you about graphic design– but rather about new tools and techniques that could make your life much easier as long some tips and tricks to improve your graphics.

I charge 10$ CAD (around 7.50 US) an hour and you can choose you own course(s) among the ones I offer. Some things worthy to note:

  • All the prices listed are in CAD.
  • Classes will be interactive. They won’t be lectures.
  • I can do Skype and Discord but Skype’s more practical for the screen share feature.
  • I can teach in English and French.
  • Please consult the faq if you have any questions or email me at the given address if you question doesn’t figure on the page.

If you are interested, please email me at jadelimaillet@gmail.com with the following form filled and included in your message.

f.a.q. excerpt:

Q- What’s the general procedure of a class?
A- Each class is separated into blocks. Each blocks is separated into a WHY, HOW and DO (exercises). So basically, you get theory AND practical with me. This should cover the majority of the time allowed. What is left is for general questions and, if you’d like, reviews of your own work.

COURSES AVAILABLE BELOW THE CUT.

Keep reading

This isn’t just about one performance getting cancelled. This is about a number of things that have happened that have built up over the course of fifth harmony’s career. This is about how the girls’ do not receive the respect, dedication and proper promotion from their team/label that they rightfully deserve. This is about harmonizers being fed up with having to do all the heavy lifting and basically carrying fifth harmony on our backs by ourselves. This isn’t about the girls. No one is blaming them. They didn’t choose their label/team. This is about loving them and letting them know even if they don’t think it’s true, that we know they deserve better and we want them to achieve the success that we know they are capable of achieving. 

Closed High School AU with fellthroughtheice.

Elsa was sitting in her assigned seat in her geometry class, absorbing all the information the teacher had to offer on the different patterns that shapes could take, namely fractals. Hmmmm, so, if I were to use that pattern instead of that one, I could probably create a more stable structure. Elsa mused as she was drawing out various structures in her notebook as she would then go home and create them in the sanctuary of her private room. Suddenly, the intercom went off and the principle’s voice could be heard saying, “Would Miss Elsa please report to my office?” Scared now, Elsa hurriedly packed her stuff up as embarrassment caused her normally ivory face to flush bright crimson as she swiftly glided out of the classroom and to the principles office. Once there, the principle showed her pictures of ice and snow that were littering the school. Enraged by the fact that the principle was blaming her for the frosty structures, she flashed a dangerous look towards him, “I can assure you, Principle Black, that this is not my doing. However, I will determine who the true culprit is.” Leaving in a huff, she marched to where the first icy structure was, hoping to see the true culprit returning to his first crime scene.

The Surprisingly Complex Principles of a Successful Picture Book

Melissa Manlove, one of our children’s book editors, writes about what makes a picture book brilliant.

Picture books look simple, right? Well, they’re meant to look simple. But like most books, Over and Under the Snow represents years of work, conversations, revisions, impatience, worry, and inspiration.

While discussing the principles of a good picture book would take much longer than one blog post, Over and Under offers a nice opportunity to explore some of the ways children’s books do a great deal in spare words and art.

Cadence/Music

Over the snow I glide. Into woods, frosted fresh and white.

Cadence is not something you can build from instructions; Ikea does not sell it. Most talented writers seem to have an innate sense of the various musics of our language and the effects of those musics—I don’t know anyone who does this by anything other than feel.

And yet the effect here is very deliberate. The rhythm of these sentences is regular; it is the rhythm of the skiers’ movements; the repeated “ess” sounds evoke the swish of the skis on snow. (In these spare eleven words, there are five sets of repeated sounds. Alliteration and assonance generate a connectedness in these words in addition to their meaning.) And listen to the pauses—you can’t hurry through this arrangement of words. Particularly the combination of ‘frosted’ with ‘fresh’ makes a very slight tongue-twister. Between that and the punctuation, the reader unconsciously pauses three times in this short speech. What we hear in Kate’s words is as important as what she makes us hear in between the words—the space, the hush of this winter landscape.

Accuracy

“Under the snow is a whole secret kingdom, where the smallest forest animals stay safe and warm. You’re skiing over them now.”

Chipmunk, mouse, squirrel—their renderings here vary a bit, tempting the reader to pause on them, wonder about them. But their proportion to each other is deliberately consistent, because some children will never before have seen a chipmunk (for example). Research by the author, the artist, and the fact-checker (always, a fact-checker, just to be sure) underlies every piece of good nonfiction.

Accuracy is less sexy than other qualities, but still of fundamental importance. Behind the scenes at the publisher of any nonfiction book, there is a great deal of discussion about the line between artistic interpretation (in both text and art) and the factual import children need from nonfiction books. How much abstraction for artistic intent is acceptable? What needs to come across in information? What needs to come across in feeling?

Another example of the thoughtful choice between fact and interpretation is the term “secret kingdom”, which is used more than once in the book. Not until the backmatter does Kate explain that the technical term for the place under the snow but above the ground is “subnivean zone”. Both terms are powerful for different reasons, and we deliberately made space for both in the book.


Read the rest over on our blog!

Robin and Guy: different character arcs

In the light of the continuing rivalry between Robin and Guy on the fandom, I want to post something about these two characters which you may find interesting. It is not against Robin or Guy – it is just an analysis of characters.

There is a widespread opinion that Robin is a simple character and that Guy is a more interesting character than the main hero of Robin Hood ballads and of the show. I’ve always disagreed with this statement not because I love Robin very much but because this is just downright wrong

I’m a Robin fan and a Guy fan as well, though I love Robin as a personality and as a character and Guy only as a character.

Guy is a dark character with flashes of the light and humanity in his heart, but he is not completely dark and his heart is not entirely black. Robin is a courageous, compassionate, and noble hero who also has a lot of dark moments on the show and the hidden undercurrent darkness. 

Robin and Guy are in different sides of the spectrum even if some of us want Robin to be worse than he really is just because they love Guy.

Guy is a tormented soul with a potential for absolution and redemption, a soul that must be guided to the light from the darkness and to redemption because he is a weak-willed and unstable man, in contrast to Robin

Guy is torn between the darkness and the light, between his desire to earn power and his secret desire to find redemption. There are many examples on the show when we see the internal battle in Guy, for example when he spares children and is unable to kill them or when he and Allan save Marian after her capture in the disguise of the Nighwatchman.

Guy was banished from Nottingham in early youth, and many people say that he had to step into the darkness to survive. Most likely, he started serving Vaisey because there was no other way for him to survive; my headcanon is that Guy accepted Vaisey’s offer because he had no other choice. I agree that Guy lost ‘the innocence of his mind’ when he is very young, and it is very sad that he had to grow up so early and overcome many hardships just to survive.

Nevertheless, all of these things cannot justify Guy committing many dishonorable and terrible acts merely on the grounds that he had to survive

What did Guy do? I’m going to list some of his transgressions here not because I hate Guy but because I’m going to make some points about him as a character. Guy is guilty of many things: trying to kill King Richard in cold blood twice, killing innocents in cold blood, oppressing peasants in Locksley and in other villages in Nottinghamshire, abusing Marian’s old, fragile father, coercing Marian into engagement in S1, burning down the Knighton Hall, putting Marian under house arrest in the castle, expropriating Robin’s lands and reveling in the thought that his childhood nemesis lost titles and lands, killing Marian in a jealous rage, and doing many other things.

In S2 Finale, Guy wanted to have everything – he wanted to force Marian to enter into a marriage with him against her will, and he also wanted power and wealth too, being quite ready to attempt regicide.

I’m sure that Guy does have some second thoughts about killing the King, and even in the flashbacks of the Saracen attack we see that Guy stood above the King’s bed hesitating whether he should or should not make a downward killing blow. There was the obvious battle between the light and the darkness in him during the Saracen attack, and then Robin came, stopping him.

Perhaps, Guy wouldn’t have committed regicide in S2 Finale and would have stopped near the line, but we cannot say for sure that it would have happened if Marian hadn’t appeared in the courtyard. I mean that in S2 Finale Guy was ready to commit dishonorable acts in his quest for power and wealth.

By the way, Guy stabbed Robin in the Saracen attack when Robin didn’t see him, from the back, which doesn’t make him look very honorable. Guy also tried to take advantage of the King at the moments when Richard was vulnerable – when he slept in his tent and when he was wounded and lay on the sand with the arrow protruding out of his shoulder. 

Robin, even with all his faults and flaws, would have never tried to take advantage of his enemies at the moments of their vulnerability and weakness, though it is fair to say that he would have preferred an honorable and glorious fight not only out of his honorable beliefs but also because he is very prone to theatrics and likes mocking his enemies.

Guy is a grown-up man, able to think rationally and make his own choices and decisions. Even if I agree that Guy had to step into the darkness to survive, he didn’t have to be so dark for so long. He could always leave the Sheriff and change, but he preferred to serve his master because he was seduced by the idea of having power and wealth. 

Did Guy need to kill the rightful King of England to survive? Did Guy need to kill innocents in cold blood to survive? Did God give him a right to take a human life just because he had many unhappy years after his banishment?

Guy doesn’t need to kill the King to survive, but he needs to kill him because power is such a temptation for him

On the show, Guy oppressed peasants and killed innocents justifying himself by the fact that he served the Sheriff and carried out the commands of his master, but the point is that he didn’t need to serve Vaisey to survive because he is a grown-up man who can make choices but who prefers to take the easiest way to prosperous life and does make the choice to serve the Sheriff

The fact that Guy was banished from Locksley and had years of misery doesn’t justify his choice to serve the Sheriff and torment other people in the process. Guy craves to earn power which, in his opinion, can give him happiness, and he serves the Sheriff hoping to earn more power, even though he has doubts and in his heart he knows that he is not doing a right thing, and there are many flashes of the light and there is humanity in him.  

I’m not painting Guy in such dark colors – I’m taking facts from canon, and I’m not inventing anything. I wrote all these things because I don’t understand why some of us say that Guy is a better man than Robin. Some readers of my stories even wrote that Guy is a more honorable man than Robin, which is something I would fail to understand even in alcoholic haze.

My conclusion is that we should not demonize Guy, but we also should not forget that Guy is a villain with redeeming qualities, even if he is a handsome villain played by Richard Armitage.

I wrote the long post about Robin and the reasons why I like him, so I’m not going to dig deeply here. But I want to say something else about Robin which you may or may not find interesting.  

Guy is a tormented soul, but so is Robin. On the show, Robin said several times that he regretted that he went to the Holy Land and that there was no glory on the battlefield. He regretted that he fought the pointless war for the holy case and was disappointed in the Crusade and the holy cause, even if he was fiercely loyal to King Richard. 

Robin felt remorse for killing many infidels, even if he killed them in battles, not in cold blood. Robin’s heart is tormented by the guilt of killing Saracens and by his fight with the undercurrent darkness and with his potential for ruthlessness. His fight against the Sheriff may be interpreted as an attempt to find absolution for all his killings in the Holy Land.

The conclusion is that both Robin and Guy are tormented souls in their own ways.

Guy and Robin have different character arcs, but they both are conflicted characters.

Robin has three inner conflicts (here I’ll repeat the part of my previous long post about Robin Hood). The first conflict is between his loyalty to England/to the King and his loyalty to the people & his love for Marian. The second conflict is between Robin’s willingness to suppress the darkness and the effort required to do that, for it is always easier to kill than not to kill, especially for a professional soldier and an ex-Crusader like Robin. 

The third conflict is between Robin’s idealistic principles and the realistic picture of the world: he is fighting for peace and justice, but there can never be universal peace and absolute justice in the world, and Robin Hood’s fight is futile in the long run.

Guy is also a conflicted character, which indeed makes him a complex character and which is the reason why many fans call him ‘the most complex character on the show’ – but it is an illusion.

Guy has two main inner conflicts. The first conflict is between the light and the darkness which battle for dominance in the heart of this man who serves the Sheriff and does bad things but whose heart craves for redemption. 

His second conflict is between his desire to earn power and his ability to understand that power doesn’t give happiness and peace; this conflict is resolved once Guy begins to redeem himself, though not entirely because I’m sure that even the redeemed Guy would always be prone to step into the darkness in case he again has to do that to survive.

Guy doesn’t have the conflict of idealism with realism, and he knows how dark the world can be whilst Robin begins to understand that only in season 3, though he doesn’t lose all his illusions about King Richard, life, and the cause. 

I think that in S3 Finale Robin’s journey wasn’t finished not only because he didn’t bring the King (which was his main mission!) home but also because there was a huge potential for the development of Robin’s disillusionment arc. Truth be told, I also don’t think that Guy redeemed himself in S3 Finale and he had a long and serpentine way ahead too.

On the show, Robin was the protagonist that struggles to overcome internal opposition – the pain he feels when he remembers the years he spent in the Holy Land, the horrors of the war he wants to forget, and his failure to take care of the people during his long absence in the Holy Land. 

At the same time, Robin also faces external opposition: he fought against Prince John, the Sheriff, Guy, and oppression, and he also fought to prove Marian his feelings and earn her trust. Robin’s character arc is the grown arc – to become a fuller, better person, who matures throughout the show and finally becomes a little but not entirely disillusioned.

Guy’s case is very different. Guy is the antagonist destined to change on the show in S3: he is a character whose core values will undergo more radical transformation than Robin’s. 

It doesn’t mean that Guy’s character changes from a villain with redeeming qualities into a savior and a hero, but the transformation is quite radical as he is slowly moving closer to the point when he is ready to break from the Sheriff and becomes his own man, a better man than he was in S1. Guy changes as the plot develops, it means that Guy’s character is the change arc.

Character arcs of Robin and Guy are different. The growth they show throughout the series is different. 

Robin becomes a fuller person, though his character arc could have taken the drastic direction and would have become a change arc if the showrunners would have taken the route to write him as a disillusioned idealist.

Guy acknowledges his mistakes, stops blaming the whole world for his own sins and crimes, and becomes a better man, his own man free from the Sheriff and the darkness.

Robin is a more tragic character than Guy because Robin Hood’s cause is ultimately futile and because he fights for abstract ideals that can never exist in real life, especially in the Middle Ages, the period when violence was a normal part of everyday life.

The conclusion is that you may love or dislike Robin, preferring Guy over the hero, and everyone should respect your opinion. But personal preferences and tastes don’t make Robin a villain and Guy a hero. Robin is not a self-serving villain – he is a flawed noble hero; Guy is a villain, but he is not as evil as the Sheriff and he has redeeming qualities.  

Both Robin and Guy are interesting characters, but each of them is interesting in different ways. Both Robin and Guy are complex and multi-layered characters. If someone considers Robin a simple character, then they probably didn’t take time to think of Robin’s character and analyze him properly, so they just don’t understand him.

Love Guy or love Robin, hate Guy or hate Robin, it is up to you. But please don’t try to change the Robin Hood legend by painting Robin in darker colors than he is. Be fair to the characters because it is a right thing to do.