there are no obvious characters in this

anonymous asked:

As some canon proof to how jadedavekat shits all over karkats entire character: karkat literally has an in-comic argument with his future self about how stupid and selfish he is for wanting terezi in not one quadrants but in ALL of them and for wanting her “all to himself”. Its pretty obvious that he cant use the quadrant system, its just not how he functions, he would literally be unable to do it........ Which is how saying jadedavekat completely destroys his character (PLUS JADES TBH!)

youve given me an excuse to ramble about this yet again like the broken record labeled “shouty alien top 50 hits” i am so here you go

karkats entire character revolves around him being what is effectively, a closet human weeaboo. everything about his character should be informed by the fact that he does not fit into his society in absolutely any way and fits earths better, even if he tries EXTREMELY hard to overcompensate for it. his blood color, his lack of violent tendencies, his ability to empathize, his shit fighting abilities, and his romantic tendencies, his lack of wings as a godtier, hell even the nubby horns that are barely there. the other trolls are also like this to various degrees (vriska and terezis characters also tie into this) but karkat is essentially the poster child of this particular aspect of the comic imo. nothing about him fits whatsoever, to the point where vriska said that hed make a better human than troll, and hussie said in the book 3 commentary quote “…he exhibits qualities which are somehow more human than most other characters, which is ironic, because he is not a human.”

for him to get any sensible character development he has to move away from alternian values that are canonically toxic (remember that the literal villain of the story implemented them in order to exploit trolls) because this is at the core of the vast majority of his character faults. he judges himself by standards he shouldnt be judging himself by and is why he thinks hes utterly worthless, and is the reason behind his brash, negative behavior that comes from his mad scramble to overcompensate. he has to learn to accept himself through rejecting these values, or at least not viewing them as the end-all-be-all to start to get over this. (i dont think quadrants are necessarily bad, just like straightness in human society it just shouldnt be ENFORCED by pain of death) this doesnt just extend to him, but extends to the entire hybrid society he was put in charge of building…because how nonsensical is it for echidna to put some kid that parrots doc scratchs shit he was brainwashed into at the forefront of anything thats meant to be an escape from LE?

so the reason why i said i think putting karkat in any sort of poly relationship is character assassination is because it completely goes against his momentum here. him realizing he doesnt fit in romantically EITHER quadrant-wise or polyamorous-wise like we saw him edge towards on-screen and like his ancestor did was the first step in him coming to any sort of relevant understanding here along with him admitting that he isnt good at fighting. having him go back on the terezi development and compromise with an alternian-lite poly relationship is literally reverting character development and also implies weird shit like him not feeling about dave in the same way he did towards terezi or the signless did for the disciple, and is just plain ooc irt his insecurities.

this is why i also think people who say him getting over the jealousy is character development just dont get the whole troll context he comes from and dont see that he was doing that regardless of jealousy being punished by death in his society. also you can get over insecurities that result in massive amounts of jealousy while still being in a stable monogamous relationship, those things arent mutually exclusive…in fact im positive that just him KNOWING that hes entering an exclusive relationship and accepting it as a valid option to begin with that fits him the best and is actually something he wants is enough to quell his insecurities and calm him tf down a lot (versus unreliable vacillating quadrants and sharing partners) along with his general growth in maturity he already went through

ok so i gotta ask

justice league had great character development, it wasn’t too dark, it had awesome character interactions, the pacing wasn’t off, didn’t have gratuitous cameos, it cut down on the slomo (except for the barry scenes because those are kinda necessary for a speedster), and it even showed clark smiling more (which was apparently a huge deal in bvs?)

so….what’s the fucking problem now?

EDIT: before anyone brings it up, the obvious whedon bullshit doesn’t count cause it wasn’t that much and i’m choosing to forever ignore that

what i don’t get about mpreg (and nyopreg) is that there are many, realistic ways you could have your main gay couple have a kid:
-adoption. this is the most obvious one, but for some reason no ne ever picks this option. and if your issue with writing adoption is “but it’s not really their child” (implying that adopted children are less worthy than biological ones), then you don’t have the emotional maturity to write about parenthood at all.
-surrogacy. it’s a delicate subject, and a controversial one, but it exists despite the moral controversy surrounding it and there are ways it could be done well; it’s also a way to include a third female character into the family dynamic, which would make for a very unique story.
-this is a very delicate one, and not all trans men (myself included) would feel comfortable with this, and it can easily end up as being even more offensive and worse than mpreg if not handled well, but writing one character as trans could be a viable option. it doesn’t happen very often- but some trans men have chosen to have their own biological kids, and there are plenty of articles and resources online on the subject.

if you don’t feel like you have enough knowledge or sensibility to handle these subjects, just giving them a kid and not explaining how they got them- leaving it up to the interpretation of the reader- is also a way to write about a gay male couple having kids. 

however people never go for any of those options, especially not the last one, which would be the simplest if you think about it. it’s almost like there’s this underlying obsession with showing a pregnancy and details of a pregnancy at all cost in an almost voyeuristic way and let me be real, that’s the creepiest shit ever…

“He’s trying and learning-”

No he’s not. Rick isn’t learning, he’s just ‘trying’. There is a huge difference between those two. Stop defending him with that when it’s painfully obvious that he isn’t learning anything he’s just slapping white features onto Characters of Colour and calling it a day

hey i saw justice league on friday night n here are some quick spoiler free thoughts

  • the most fun dc movie they’ve put out
  • this is not a zack snyder movie. the reshoots are extremely obvious and paint a picture of how extensively whedon edited the movie from the original version (there seems to be only one, maybe two scenes where henry’s moustache isn’t edited out) let alone the fact he got a different composer in on this
  • the post credits scenes are both great
  • some characters are ooc some are the best they’ve ever been
  • this is definitely a step in the right direction tone wise
  • henry cavill’s moustache removal is damn renaissance art when put next to the 2004 video game cutscene villain
  • it’s the first time i’ve left a dceu movie smiling

in conclusion

go see it

anonymous asked:

In fantasy writing, how can you quickly make it obvious that someone is a sort of celebrity? Is it just a manner of titles or capitalization, like, The Preacher? Is just calling someone The Whatever effective without the background? Is it possible to convey importance in the exposition/dialog of other characters without overdoing it? "oh, the Preacher, I've heard of him, he did that thing that time in that place". Is that enough?

It kind of depends on the narrator perspective and how the scene is set up, but you’re on the right track. You have to be very careful about the dialogue aspect and find a balance in the exposition. 

“Expositional dialogue” is what I’d call the example you gave me, and that kind of writing is a quick track to making things sound fake, cheesy, forced, or many other things you don’t want. 

Think about it, if you see Leonardo DiCaprio on the street, you don’t turn to your friend and say “Oh look, it’s Leonardo DiCaprio, famous actor and environmental activist. I really enjoyed his work as a lead role in Titanic and his speeches about climate change.” No, it’s more like “Holy shit, it’s Leonardo DiCaprio, do you think we should say something?” or maybe just a smile of recognition if you’re a calmer person or not the biggest fan.

Exposition is where you explain the background, but there is a line of over-explanation, or too much “telling”. Unfortunately, the line is in a different place for every situation, but a good guideline is to give information in context. Only explain what’s needed for the reader to understand the scene. 

Titles can help, and can be a good form of “showing”, but you should trust your reader to pick up on some of the implicit meaning behind the title. The “Preacher” is probably someone who spoke out about something, or continues to, and the term has religious connotations so they’re probably spiritual or part of a spiritual organization. 

Essentially, you want character reaction with a bit of exposition, but that reaction is going to change depending on what the character thinks of the person. A character who doesn’t care may not even convey the celebrity status of the person they see.

Here’s an example:

She squinted at the male figure across the street, his green robes and embroidered emblem shimmering in the midday sun as he conversed with one of the market shopkeepers. Only one person wore that kind of clothing.

“Is that the Preacher?” her brother said.

“It has to be,” she said. “But I didn’t hear about his arrival.“

The Preacher was a wanderer, a man who traversed through towns looking to spread his knowledge. Most of the lords welcomed his presence with open arms and a celebration, but there was no announcement this time around, at least not one that she heard of. 

Keep the dialogue natural, and then give context via exposition. The best exposition is filtered through the narrator and the situation so it feels like the character is the one conveying the information, instead of the writer. 

If your celebrity is the narrator, then this gets a little tricky. Celebrities are still people and they tend not to walk around thinking “it’s me, the Preacher”, they just act normal in day-to-day life. In that case, you typically need an external force to show the status. Someone can approach them, they can overhear something they’re famous for, or maybe they’re in the middle of a tour pertaining to their famous-ness, but you still have to keep the reaction natural. A celebrity narrator may actually be less likely to give information about what they’re famous for, since to them it’s just part of life. 

Good luck with your famous character!

Dany / Sansa character development

Jonsa stans who are also anti Dany:


Sansa is no longer the self-centred girl she was when the story started. Her character is now humbled, and she learned as the story progressed.


…but Dany is an insufferable hypocrite because she’s anti-slavery but did not stand up to Drogo whose khalasar enslaves, rapes and pillages.

Did we magically forget Dany’s origin story and only remember Sansa’s? Dany clearly thought it was wrong, but she had no power, most importantly, no AGENCY at that time.

Are we also going to condemn Sansa for not standing up against the Lannisters in KL even after seeing all the horrific things they did in addition to them killing her father? NO, because we know she had no power and no authority to do so.

Dany’s past shaped who she is today (anti-slavery, pro-marginalized people). Dany is not a stagnant, she also grows.

hollowgirl136  asked:

If it's okay I'd like your opinion on something I saw on a post of the translated juni taisen character profiles. So I noticed under each profile there was a listed "wish" that the characters had(?) Some were mentioned in the novel/anime that made sense in context, such as Monkey's wish for peace, but there were two that had me confused. Those being Horse wish for talent and Ox wish to be saved. Could I have your opinion on what you think the meaning behind them is?

I think their wishes are pretty obvious tbh. Horse wants talent, he wants the power to never be helpless again. He went through countless experiments for his iron skin just so he could have that talent. The way he felt in the forest when we saw his backstory was helplessness, he wants talent so he never has to feel that way again. Ox wants to be saved, he doesn’t want to do what he does anymore. He’s tired, he doesn’t want to be the best fighter in the world anymore, he wants to be saved from a life of endless killing.

anonymous asked:

I think the gay metaphor was pretty obvious (“Credence, there is no need to hide, no need for shame. You and I are the same. We’ve both had to hide what we want, and who we are.” - deleted line from Grindelwald). I know that gay metaphor doesn't exactly = gay character, but I do feel like it is unfair how Credence is going to end up w/ an obligatory het romance. A lot of this might just be Hollywood not even considering the idea of another gay character, bc Dumbledore exists, no need for another

I think that Credence and Grindelgraves being gay-coded is an entirely separate matter from the metaphor of the obscurus and I still stand by my opinion that  the metaphor is quite lost if it is strictly made about sexuality when it as much(and even more applicable) to other kinds of repression when and because THIS kind of metaphor is much more needed in those cases.

Let me explain. As an obscurial, Credence hurt people in between of consciousness and unconsciousness. He couldn’t control his temper and his powers. His own society, the ones who should have tried to protect him tried to execute him. In the second movie he seems much angrier and I really think that he will be more aggressive before Dumbledore and he interact. Credence is not an abused boy. He is an abused man with violent tendencies. The movie makes crystal clear that these tendencies are not his fault. It gives to his character the tragic proportions that are required for the realistic representation of depression, trauma and mental illness. There are so many mentally ill characters and real people who are completely blamed for their violent tendencies or even their temper and while I’m 100% here for accountability the notion that these people are not just assholes who chose to be this way and can’t necessarily master the will-power to help themselves without the system and their society caring for them and at the very least trying to help them  is lost and I consider it very much needed.

‘But isn’t this metaphor applicable to the LGBTQ+ community too?’, you may ask. It may be to some extent, but the way Credence’s anger bursts out exceeds it (for the most part) in my opinion. And does it really work on that level? Because it seems to me that this kind of metaphor for LGBT repression is a repressed statement for the repression it supposedly alludes to. Thus, it ultimately cancels itself. 

As for the quote, let’s not forget that this is Grindelwald we’re talking about. This line is not placed when we see affection from his side or when Credence is clearly emotionally affected by him, a.k.a. in the scenes that allude to the characters’ sexuality. It is when Grindelwald sees that Credence has magical abilities, immense power and a violent side that he can use. Grindelwald did not hide his sexuality. I am not saying that he was vocal about it, but from what we’ve seen it is implied that he uses it to manipulate. It is not just a part of him, it’s made into a weapon. On the other hand he has to hide his violent tendencies from the person he was closest to (Dumbledore) and from his followers. He has to go for righteous justification over expressing his true intentions. As I strongly believe that in metaphors or symbols there has to be some sort of correspondence between the symbolic aspects and the point that is expressed through them, I don’t think that this is something I would relate to the LGBT community in this context. And if I was forced to do so I am not sure that I would find it sympathetic towards it.

Moreover, if the obscurus is a gay metaphor this also applies to Ariana. I am 100% against this…not because of her very young age though… I headcanon Ariana as straight for a very simple reason. The Dumbledores are 3 siblings. One is gay and for the other there are hints of bestiality, regardless of whether each reader takes them literally or as a joke. I have heard and read so many homophobic comparisons of homoeroticism to bestiality that I dread how some might twist this and equate the sexualities of the three siblings.

That said, I still hope that they may somehow skip the het-romance with Credence and make his relationship with the Maledictus non-sexual. In my opinion he shouldn’t even be having a romance so early and when he eventually did it should be with a nice guy that would treat him well. I think that it is essential to have a gay guy other than Albus and (potentially) Grindelwald, whose sexualities should be stated overtly by the way. They are my favorite HP ship, but with the manipulation and destruction that came with whatever they had, I think that it is quite important for FB to include a gay ship that has a healthy relationship. There is need for representation, but also for positive one that would be juxtapositional to the toxic aspects of the connection between Gellert and Albus.

And I definitely agree about the tokenism that is deeply integrated into Hollywood’s weird mentality about representation. I can only hope that within 5 movies Rowling and the production-team will find their footing and surprise us positively.

Umm Justice League is kind of awesome?? Thank you, bad reviews, for giving me zero expectations (a life lesson tbh). Also, going in I didn’t know who they cast as Henry Allen and I almost screamed—PERFECT casting omg he and Ezra have like the same face and duh with the Snyder connection. Beautiful visuals (again duh with Snyder), Danny Elfman’s score is heroic and powerful (and made me weirdly emotional when the Flash did his thing?), the characters are A+, it’s fun, etc. But I couldn’t stop laughing at Henry Cavill’s face; it’s so obvious when they CGIed his mustache out omg.

Idea for a Superman origin movie

built around two solid points:
1) Lois Lane is the lead character; and
2) The audience dose not know who is playing Superman going into the movie.

So the movie centers around a young Lois, who’s desperately trying to get a job as a reporter at the Daily Planet, despite a hiring freeze as the printed journalism business struggles to keep up, and despite the fact she has no prior journalism experience (at least, not outside of an expensive degree that has yet to start paying for itself). Even though no one at the Planet will even return her calls, she barges in in the middle of a work day, trying to get an interview. She bounces off a lot of people (a number of them tall guys with dark hair and nice eyes who she barely notices) until she tracks down Perry White, who tells her, sarcastically, that he’ll hire her on the spot if she can bring him a properly sourced article revealing the story Metropolis’s new hero, who just yesterday stopped a runaway train with his bare hands. 

She gets to work. Her friends tell her she’s crazy. Her sister bails her out of jail at least once (maybe a montage of times). Her father, General Lane, threatens disownment and/or military arrest. This “menace” broke a muggers arm last week, and is wanted for vigilantism. If she really does find out the identity of this man (who’s been gaining notoriety with every feat) and brings it to a newspaper before the military, her father would have to take action. (This country is his family, after all.)

But the more Lois looks into this ‘super man’, the more she likes what she sees. It’s hard without credentials, but she’s been collecting eye-witness reports for months trying to find the pattern to track; the pattern that everyone’s been looking for. She has dozens of interviews with police, and store owners, and caught criminals, but it’s in the interviews of the regular folk that she finds the pattern:

This man is kind. 

Every headline is about a larger-than-life figure who catches falling statues, wins chases with cars, and stops bullets with his pecs. In the words of the innocent people of Metropolis though, is someone else. Someone who flies broken cars to the shop from the highway during rush hour. Someone who takes a sobbing child from the scene of a bike accident and drops off a smiling one with their parents. Someone who’s been spotted leaving flowers by the headstones of the ones who didn’t make it out of that train crash. Someone who sits in a secluded corner of the park and plays chess with the old woman who’s husband can no longer leave the house. Someone who literally pulled a dog out of a river and a cat from a tree. 

So, to find the Man of Steel, Lois searches for kindness - and she finds it everywhere. She finds all the coats freely shed for someone cold. She finds all the grocery carts paid for by the previous customer. She finds lonely veterans offered a seat at the family table in restaurants. She finds hate symbols painted over with cute cartoons and symbols of love. She finds dozens and dozens of volunteers who help clean up and serve food and rebuild after train crashes and car wrecks and robberies. 

She finds Superman.

And then she finds a man in the park.

He’s not doing much, just sitting on a bench with his head in his hands. The copy of the Daily Planet on the bench next to him speculates on the dangers of super humans, as it has every day for the last two weeks. Some have even suggested that the Man of Steel is an alien, though those theories have only barely broken into mainstream. Whatever this man is worrying over, whatever weight is on his shoulders, seems much heavier than a newspaper, though. Lois hasn’t worried herself with the same issue’s as her prospective employer, either. Thoughts still on the group of teens she’s just passed, each promising to beat up on some boy for their friend, are still fresh on her mind, and she takes the spot next to the stranger on the bench.

He’s not a stranger, though. Lois recognizes him. She doesn’t know his name, but she saw him that day at the Daily Planet months ago, and she’s seen him across the police tape at scenes she’s investigated. He wrote today’s front page article: “Man of Steel, or Menace of Steel?”

He’s politely flustered when she sits down, and she promptly tells him that everything about his article - she’s already read it, of course - is absurd. She doesn’t care who “made him write it”, the entire thing is just plain wrong. She finds herself repeating stories she’s read and re-read at all hours of the morning. Stories of regular people who’d told her how they’d been inspired by Superman. How they’d taken leaps of faith toward recovery and new lives thanks to Superman. Teenagers have chosen to live because of Superman. She quotes sources, and sources of people, including herself, who have said that the city of Metropolis - maybe even the world - was so much better because of Superman.

“Superman?” the reporter asks.

“It’s just something I’ve been calling him. He’s got that big S on his chest, right?”

The reporter laughs. He hasn’t smiled the whole time, only looked at her with wide eyes. His smile is… nice. His glasses are dumb though.

“Yeah,” she admits, “it’s a dumb name.”

“No,” he says. A weight has fallen off his shoulders while she was flipping through her notebooks. He sniffles a bit. Lois had just torn into his article with all the fury she could muster, is he crying about it? No, he’s smiling, still. “I really like it. Have you written all this down?”

Lois Lane writes it all down. Her new friend (who proofread the hell out of it because Lois is driven as hell but can’t spell) Clark Kent turned it in to his boss. The newest headline reads:

The Story of Superman -by Lois Lane


She’s getting paid more than Clark in under a year. He just seems to be so distracted all the time. Maybe she should look into that…
she was a queen
with neither crown nor kingdom,
the most powerful piece on the board
with no moves left to make,
so she overturned the table.
—  l.s.CHRYSALIS © 2016

ok listen i know we’re all very aware of Virgil’s dramatic character development but some thoughts popped into my head and i just need to write them out.

when Virgil is first introduced he’s this intimidating & guarded kind of confident tough guy that scares Thomas into doing what he needs to do or scares Thomas away from what he thinks is potential danger, but the others don’t so he’s an annoying, grumpy, negative hindrance.

as the series moves along his intentions are now completely misconstrued. antagonist. negative nancy. negative end of the spectrum. bad guy. unwanted. holding Thomas back.

and now finally his true colors are shown. protector. vigilant. fight or flight. good guy. protagonist. part of the group. family.

he’s trying really hard not to be, but he’s still brooding & startling at times. but hey that’s his job. and his job isn’t bad.

6

A subtle reminder that Rob is the father in real life [for added effect]

4

Here some posters I made to enter in the next contest, but I think I wanna try making some new ones instead cuz this is all pretty old, and I didn’t make a counterpart undamaged poster for three of them… Or a damaged one for the first one.

Edit: Band of Buddies/ Enemies