throughlines

>>>What I learned from this article:<<<

-The show writers want to explore Keith’s Galra heritage more in depth

-The paladins are going to strengthen their bonds with their lions even more

-The yellow lion is a boy 

- The red lion is very assault based, the green lion is not a very destructive being

-Character throughlines are going to be told over the course of seasons, not just in an episode or two

-The writers feel like they improved Allura’s role from the original show to the point where she wouldn’t need to be in a lion to be considered a valuable part of the team

- Lotor is going to be cooler and more motivated in VLD than in the original series

-Zarkon isn’t defeated completely

-Zarkon being out of the running is going to open up doors for other ambitious Galra to step up (not just Lotor)

every cartoon network show with a narrative throughline thats come out since adventure time eventually spirals into fourteen simultaneous liquor store fires

TAZ FIC REX

So there’s not a lot of stuff in this particular internet corner, but somehow there is a higher proportion of That Good Shit, so since this seems to be going around, I thought I’d put together my own (not at all) brief list of things to read if you like The Adventure Zone Dungeons and Dragons Podcast Brought To You By Totino’s™.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

OMG I am so excited Kabby is baaack! Loved the bandage check moment in the premiere! Wondering if you think they'll address Abby's wedding ring on her finger/neck. You think they'd ever have her remove either at some point? If so, when do you see that happening , like at what point and context?

I’m pretty sure Paige just confirmed on Twitter that we’re gonna see it NEXT WEEK and I’m super hyped about it because my hope is that it means we get a real conversation or moment that’s about Jake.  I have a lot of thoughts or headcanons about what I might want to have happen with the rings (my fave would be either for her and Clarke and Kane to have a little ceremony and bury them at the Eden Tree so Jake and Vera are together and that’s their place they go to remember them, or that fic I love but forget the name/author of SOMEONE HELP ME OUT HERE where Raven welds them into an infinity symbol necklace for Clarke to wear).  @brittanias is voting for Abby giving the rings to Kane for safekeeping before she leaves for whatever her mysterious mission is on that boat in 404, and I also know there’s a strong contingent rooting for her putting her ring on the chain with Jake’s ring and keeping them both around her neck, which I would also love. I think it’s likely that they will come off at some point in advance of the scene where they’re in bed together, because I feel like that emotional throughline makes a lot of sense; like if we see her making the decision to go to Kane’s room, like she’s consciously making the choice to take that next step, and removing the rings is part of that process of moving on.

My mother died nine years ago, and my father remarried about a year and a half after that.  I have my parents’ wedding rings.  They live in a little tray on the top of my dresser with my jewelry, where I can look at them every day.  My mother had ALS, which causes your muscles to begin to atrophy, and after awhile her rings were too big to stay on her hand.  They got them resized, slicing a little piece out of the back of both her engagement and wedding rings so you can like bend and stretch them to fit, like you do with cheap plastic jewelry from the dollar store.  That worked for awhile, but eventually she just took them both off and put them on her dresser, where she could see them every day.  It didn’t make her and my father any less married.  They were together for thirty years.  In the last years of her life he had to bathe her and dress her and take her to the bathroom and feed her through a feeding tube.  The rings weren’t the factor that determined how married they were.  They were a symbol, but they weren’t the whole.

My dad took his wedding ring off after my mom died.  I don’t know when.  We didn’t have a conversation about it.  But at some point when his relationship with my stepmom was becoming serious, his wedding ring appeared in the little tray next to my mom’s on the little dresser where we still kept her jewelry because nobody was ready to get rid of her things yet - except for my brother, who was still living in the family house and moved into my parents’ bedroom when my dad moved in with my stepmother.  He had to share a closet with his dead mother’s clothes every morning and it was starting to make him crazy.  We had an estate sale a year or so after she died, and cleared out the dressers and the closets.  I took the jewelry back to my house, my parents’ rings with it.  I told my brother if he wants the rings someday, if he ever asks the feminist archaeology major from New Mexico to marry him, he should take Mom’s if he wants it.  And if not him, they can go to someone else, or they can stay in their little dish on my dresser.  Either way, our mom is still our mom.

We were in family therapy for a little while after my mom died.  The four of us siblings felt like my dad had started dating again too quickly, and my stepmom was someone we had known before, whose kids had grown up with my youngest brother.  We knew her from soccer and basketball games, and sometimes she and my mom and my sister and I would go out to this little wine bar near our house together and talk about politics or books or her divorce.  We liked her as a human being, but not as our dad’s girlfriend, because our dad wasn’t supposed to HAVE a girlfriend, and our mother had only been dead for six months and she had been the center of our lives, and we had gone collectively a little insane from mother grief, so all we did was cope badly (drinking for my sister, food for me, putting headphones on and shutting the world out playing video games for one brother, hostility for the other one).  My sister and I both got therapists, but none of the boys would.  We finally talked them into group family therapy, which was such a disaster that we quit after four sessions.  I blocked out a lot of that time, because it was so traumatic to go from being a family who had always been this unbreakably strong unit to being these people who got angry and said unforgivable things to each other.  So I only have one really clear, vivid memory from those therapy sessions.  I remember sitting on this couch next to my youngest brother, my other two siblings across from me and my dad in a chair next to the therapist.  I was crying so hard I couldn’t see anything clearly.  The therapist asked me point-blank if my father being in a relationship made me feel like he had forgotten my mother or didn’t love her anymore.  I wanted to lie, but I told the truth.  I said yes.  It did.  That was how it felt.  The therapist asked my father, “How does that make you feel?” And I was grateful, then, that I was crying too hard to see anything, because his voice was one of the most terrible things I have ever experienced.  So quiet and so broken and so sad.  “It makes me feel awful,” he said.  “We were married for thirty years.  She was the love of my life.”

I know this isn’t an answer to the question that you actually asked me, Anon, but it’s something that I’ve been thinking about a lot lately because when the fandom talks about Abby and Jake and their wedding rings and what they mean, on some level it always feels personal to me.  When someone says that it would mean Abby was forgetting Jake if she ever took the ring off her hand, I think about sitting in the living room with my siblings and my stepmom and my stepbrothers while my dad told us college stories about my mom, and how my stepmother enjoys them just as much as we do, because she knew my mom and what she meant to all of us, and how the fact that my dad wears a different ring now doesn’t mean my mom isn’t with us every day.  When I hear people say that the headcanons about Abby passing both rings onto Clarke as a memento are a betrayal of Jake’s memory and it’s wrong for Clarke to have them, I think about my parents’ rings sitting on my dresser. 

This has gone quite a bit sideways from your original question, which is something that I tend to do from time to time, but this is a question that has popped up in the fandom before and stirred up a lot of emotions, and erupted over the past few days since we got those promo photos where Abby isn’t wearing the ring anymore, and I’ve been thinking a lot of thoughts about it that I’ve been trying to articulate.  

I think everyone has the right to their own opinions, their own headcanons, their own feelings about what they’d LIKE to see happen with the rings, but the fact of the matter is that both options - Abby continues to wear the rings forever, maybe adding a second one on her hand next to the first; or, alternately, Abby removes the rings when she is ready to move on - are deeply personal things that real people do, which are intimately connected with the specifics of that individual person’s grieving.  There isn’t a right or a wrong.  There isn’t a “you’re disrespecting the person you lost by grieving them incorrectly.”  The only right thing is whatever Abby decides.

‘Orphan Black’ Creators Preview Final Season: ‘We Went For All the Feels’
Tatiana Maslany as Cosima ‘Orphan Black’ (Photo: BBC America)

Like the saying goes, if you love something, set it free. That’s a lesson Orphan Black co-creator John Fawcett learned firsthand while putting the finishing touching on the show’s series finale. Fawcett and his fellow clone mastermind, Graeme Manson, spoke with Yahoo TV the day after locking the final episode, and he says that letting go wasn’t an easy process. “I dragged my feet for awhile. I didn’t want to give it up! I don’t know that I was making it better anymore — I was just nitpicking over details. I literally just had to go, ‘Okay, it’s done.‘”

As the chairmen of Orphan Black‘s international Clone Club, both Fawcett and Manson are well aware about the fan excitement surrounding this final season, as well as the sadness that accompanies saying goodbye to these beloved characters. But they also confess that having a definite endpoint allowed them to re-enter this shadowy world of clones and conspiracies with renewed creative vigor. “In a lot of ways, it was easier this season than it has been because we were working towards a destination,” Fawcett says. “In other ways, it was the most difficult, because we had to tie all of these threads together, and there’s a lot of expectations.” On the eve of the beginning of Orphan Black‘s end, we chatted with the creators about how Season 5 became the most character-intensive season yet, and why they wanted to give fans “all the feels.”

‘Orphan Black’ creators John Fawcett and Graeme Manson (Photo: Steve Mack/Getty Images)

Heading into this final season, what overarching themes were on your minds?
John Fawcett: One of the biggest for me was: “From great strife comes rebirth.” That’s certainly something I feel after doing five seasons of this show! [Laughs] And I think it lands on all of our characters to some degree.

Graeme Manson: We sat down with the writers early on and asked ourselves to look at where the characters started and where they are now. We really wanted to try and give the audience a new angle on the journey of these characters they know so well. So we did some character-based episodes this year, and allowed ourselves to use flashbacks.

Fawcett: The first two episodes of Season 5 are very plot driven, and kind of typical Orphan Black episodes. Episode 3 is the first character-based episode, and it’s focused on Alison. We decided this year that we really wanted to broaden each of our favorite clones and allow the audience a deeper understanding of them.

It sounds like an extrapolation of what you did by bring Beth back last season. Through those flashbacks, the audience really got the chance to know her before saying goodbye again.
Manson: It definitely springs out of Beth, and the experience of bringing that character back. It was difficult narratively, but rewarding for the fans and a great challenge for Tatiana. This year, we’ve embraced flashbacks strongly. That will be fun for the audience who have followed these characters from the beginning. Once you get deeper into a series, like Season 4 or Season 5, you want to do something fresh and interesting without blowing everything up. So going deeper into your characters is a good way to do that rather than going, “Okay, we’re suddenly in Tahiti!”

Fawcett: And there’s only so deep the conspiracy can go before you naturally hit an end. In some ways, the conspiracy plot in Season 5 is much simpler than it’s been in past seasons. It’s important for us that there’s still a lot of twists and turns and uncertainty. But really, you’re coming to the end, and there’s only so far you can dig into the conspiracy. So we decided to dig deeper into the characters to expand our story.

Kevin Hanchard, Josh Vokey, Cara Ricketts and Tatiana Maslany in ‘Orphan Black.’ (Photo: BBC America)

Looking ahead to the series finale, did you already have the ending firmly in mind, and did it change at all as you plotted out the season?
Manson: Plotwise, John and I had the ending in mind for a long time. And the ending was important in a season that we decided was going to be our most character intensive. When we got to the end of our story, we wanted to feel like it would give a taste of the future, so it felt open-ended and not closed. Our finale has an interesting structure; it’s a bit of a two-parter between Episodes 9 and 10, so it’s going to be good, long drawn-out agony for the audience. It’s a lot of fun that way. [Laughs] We agreed, and all the writers agreed, that what we wanted was the feels. We went for all the feels!

That’s certainly what the fans want!
Fawcett: That’s also what Graeme and I want. We do find ourselves very interested in what the fans say, and how they’re reacting to the show. But at the end of the day, we’re the ones who have to live in it, be in it and make it. So it’s really what was right for the series. It’s hard. I don’t know the finale can ever be what Graeme or I expected it to be. I think it’s really damn good, but I’m so critical of everything.

Manson: John’s probably seen the finale a 100 times. I’ve been the outside eyes, so I’ve only seen it about 5 or 6 times, and I never got through it without crying in three separate sections. Those might be my feels! But I think a lot of the people who have seen it get pretty emo.

Did you involve Tatiana Maslany in crafting the clones’ final journeys?
Manson: We began bringing Tatiana into the writers’ room in the first season. Nobody has deeper access to these characters than her when you’re thinking about the hearts and deeper drives of these characters. That’s kind of been a constant ever since. We’ll go to her with character questions daily, but there are longer sessions where she’ll actually come into the writers’ room and sit with us. During the finale, we did that a couple of times. She even gave up weekend time to come in and help us figure out the sticky points of character, and really nailing this thing.

What was it like to watch her accept her Emmy last year?
Fawcett: I wasn’t there, I was prepping [Season 5], so I watched it on TV with all the other plebes. [Laughs]

Manson: It was really something for us. It was so unreal, but we felt it was deserved. She accepted with such humility. and went right back to work on Monday. She made us all feel from producers to production assistants that we had all won that award together. And that’s Tatiana.

Fawcett: We all had so much belief in her from the beginning. To be honest, thinking about the Emmys is not even in our head [early on]. Certainly as a Canadian TV series, it seemed like Pluto! I do remember taking her aside at our Season 1 wrap party and saying, “I think you’re going to win an Emmy for this.” I felt onto that belief that it was possible, and it happened. We’re very proud of her.

It’s also a credit to you both for crafting a genre show that was able to bring home an Emmy. As fans know all too well, that’s notoriously difficult for genre television.
Manson: That really meant something to us. Who was the last genre Emmy winner for Best Actress? Was it Jennifer Garner for Alias? [Note: The answer is Gillian Anderson for The X-Files in 1997] John and I are really happy that we were allowed to do these mash-up of tones, and we have to thank our producers and the network for their trust. We had these different worlds, and we were like “Why does it need one tone?” We have a Sarah tone that’s our throughline, but we want to be able to genre-hop within our genre. And that’s something we’ve been allowed to do and the show was successful at doing it. It’s an element of the show that helped it stand as unique.

Fawcett: Because of the diversity on television these days, you’re starting to see a lot smarter, character-driven science fiction. That’s why Orphan Black was so exciting to us. Yes, there was a plot-driven element, but what really got us excited at the beginning was all these characters.

The final season of Orphan Black premieres Saturday, June 10 at 10 p.m. on BBC America.

Read more from Yahoo TV:
• #EmmyTalk: Alexander Skarsgård Revisits His Tense ‘Big Little Lies’ Therapy Scene
• Late Night Hosts Have a Field Day With the #ComeyHearings
Ken Tucker on ‘The Sopranos’ Series Finale 10 Years Later

Every time I see this I am so not over it. Her soothingly rubbing his shoulder/chest like that, it was just so unnecessary. He’s a grown man and a cop, not a small child who needs to have his booboo comforted away. But his angel just wants to coddle him and make him feel better if she can, even on the job. That’s one of the things I love about their depiction on the show, they always have these little supportive, couple-y gestures and interactions while on duty, it’s so sweet. And a nice way of keeping a throughline of their connection and relationship on the kind of show that doesn’t revolve around or put a heavy emphasis on romance. And Erin’s little chest rub was just the most adorablest thing I’ve ever seen her do for Jay. I can’t with them sometimes.

[gif by @fyeahshippers]

In Defense of Hiyoko Saionji (and others)

I serious, massively despise the way Saionji’s character was treated.

It’s a little-known fact in our fandom that Fuyuhiko Kuzuryuu was meant to die during the third chapter, but that plot was scrapped both from a writing perspective in order to avoid making the previous chapter seem like a shaggy dog story, and from the more sympathetic perspective of avoiding Pekoyama’s sacrifice being rendered equally meaningless. I genuinely think this was a tremendous mistake for several other characters at the benefit of only one.

To start, let’s contemplate this revision: these writers, of all writers, were afraid to create the despair of a character arc being cut short? Kodaka, of all people, being afraid of despair? The same Kodaka that was alright with putting Ishimaru through an absolute hell that ultimately led nowhere for him before ending abruptly. And then his answer to this dilemma was to do exactly the same thing to Saionji, only far worse. Let’s not forget that writer sadism plays a major part in just how sadistic the characters in play are allowed to be portrayed: thanks to so little thought being put into her death to the point that no one bothered to look for her murder weapon, the entire Celestia parallel of that chapter is marred by confusion more than despair by making Celes seem ruthless while Tsumiki ends up looking sloppy (I’m sure the laundry list of plot holes with that investigation have been covered enough).

Let’s talk about Ishi for a second: he was basically one of the only people in the original group honestly trying to inject some order into the predicament and keep everyone organized and united, whether they were willing to listen or not. When that sense of responsibility reached a point of him blaming himself for not stopping his best friend in a situation he couldn’t possibly have controlled or predicted, he went near-catatonic with the guilt. Finally, when our protagonist felt bad enough to try and cheer him up using the laptop that seemingly held his last shot at being “forgiven” it only ended up making him an easier target for Celestia to kill (again, she looks so very ruthless under this light, like a proper villain, while Naegi looks so very human and fallible, unlike the messianic figure he’s portrayed as later in the franchise). The real tragedy was that his overbearing nature made it that much harder for the other characters to mourn him because of how poorly they understood the depth of his suffering.

Compare that with Kuzuryuu, who actively tried to spread distrust within the group and failed at it, directly caused two people to die and ultimately grew to be a better person partially through his friendship/comradery with the protagonist. Picture for a second how off-putting it would be to have him die just as he was showing signs of growth, making players long to know what kind of or how much of a good person he could have been. Under these circumstances, he almost becomes a mirror to Ishimaru, much like the majority of the Dangan Ronpa and Super Dangan Ronpa 2 casts play foil to each other’s traits.

Losing this dichotomy, the writers are forced to keep the Chapter 3 parallel going by handing those traits off to Mioda, emphasizing her friendlier nature with her attempts to organize a concert in a need to bring the group closer together. Like Ishimaru before her, she stumbled on her way with all these good intentions in her heart by instead freaking them out with the kind of music she plays, only to be tragically robbed of the chance to at least die the way she would have wanted to (with a completely different personality). While certainly a flattering portrayal for her, it still comes out of left-field because of her spending the last two chapters acting as the loopy comic-relief character more often off in her own world and detached from the severity of the situation: compare her contributions during trials to Ishimaru trying to push the discussion and realize she has more in common with Hagakure up to that point. I’d even argue her final free-time event attempts to play into this unexpected quality of hers by making her one of the only students either trying to help Hinata recover his talent or help him come to terms with himself (which, if I’m being honest, comes off as a little cheesy and unusual coming from the girl that called Imposter Ham Hands or whatever translation you like to use so shortly after his death, almost as if the whole FTE was written in at the last moment). I like her character enough for her to be in my top 3 female students, but I just don’t see a throughline or a foundation for this characterization compared to the rest of her development, and so it comes off as awkward; I want her to be motivated by fixing her own flaws, rather than acting as literally the only student in the series who helps the protagonist at the end of her free-time event path instead of the other way around. There’s more interesting parts for her to play than just tragic savior (because rarely has this series explored the angst of being an unappreciated artist).

So naturally, this shake-up of how character development was getting doled out meant Saionji now had to occupy the same space Kuzuryuu was going to of being the mean character that would die before getting the chance to redeem themselves, except the role made a lot less sense for her because she needed more development up to that point in order to make her loss feel that much more tragic (the way she praises Mioda’s performance felt incredibly forced considering her clear preference for all things traditional). I love to think of what it’d be like to see her looking at the guy who killed her best friend bled to death on a pole and realizing it doesn’t make her feel any better. I cherish the thought of her being forced to see the girl she picked on losing her mind in the courtroom and her being completely terrified at the sight, before finding a certain sense of guilt in wondering if her behavior may have led to all this (and you can probably imagine the epic smack-talk Tsumiki would have given her before her execution). Saionji’s was the redemption arc that could have been something incredible; it felt like it was supposed to be something incredible before getting cut short.

So let’s examine the aftermath of her death and the subsequent redemption arc Kuzuryuu receives in her place. While I know some did appreciate where his character ended up going, to me his development felt like it had stunted after chapter 3, where he either held the position of Hinata’s right-hand man or spoke in mournful tones about Pekoyama (the former a role Souda could have performed easily and the latter I’ll touch upon next). To me, this does little for his character besides revisiting the themes he’s already played through as if Kodaka didn’t know what to do with him past the third chapter, while also doing less than was necessary for Pekoyama.

I honestly thought her send-off was perfect left the way it was: she delved into the darkest aspects of samurai loyalty and ultimately fought with everything she had up until the end to fulfill her duty to protect Kuzuryuu, which made her one of the few characters to truly shatter Monokuma’s point on every philosophical level. He told her she’d feel despair at the end of her life like everyone else he’s executed had and she instead held on tightly to the one hope that her master would be alright, only giving in when her body could no longer last. That is incredibly dignified, and I feel like Kuzuryuu pushing the topic of her death the way he did undid some of that dignity, because I have trouble believing a servile bodyguard who denied her own wants and desires so adamantly is really suitable to act as a guide from beyond the grave; I don’t believe she could yell at him to stop acting like a child the way he said she would have in that final trial. Sometimes it’s best to let a character death lay where you left it.

Compare that to if Saionji had done the same by emphasizing Koizumi’s motherly qualities, and then realize that a girl like her who has plenty of sass to spare and who’s moral foundation held strong enough for her to declare murder wrong even up till the end of her life would have been a great source of guidance; she would yell at Saionji to take responsibility for their actions in the past and to stop being a big baby if Enoshima had pushed her into despair over said past. They could have made Saionji’s dialogue grow subtly less biting over time or even have had her drop vague compliments here and there as she comes to see the rest of the group’s more admirable traits (maybe even coming to begrudgingly admire them or want to change herself in a desire to not be left behind). This is a far more realistic portrayal of how people like her tend to grow: by looking inward and slowly realizing they’ve been a bad person, or seeing the drawbacks of their habits before deciding they don’t want to continue being this way. Bully victims like her who choose to become bullies themselves take years to really change under most circumstances, and that’s a theme that the series has yet to tackle properly. I find that a little sad, and I find how much flatter Koizumi’s character looks by not helping to teach her this lesson even sadder (everyone’s favorite photographer has so many moments of human depth that barely get touched upon, which to me is an absolute crime of character writing).

So to recap: because of Hiyoko Saionji’s death and Fuyuhiko Kuzuryuu’s survival, we have Tsumiki’s murder case making less sense than it could have along with her chance to publicly tell off her bully taken away, Mioda given traits she was never properly implied to have while ignoring traits she could have had, Pekoyama receiving guardian-like qualities she never displayed in the form the game was implying, Koizumi’s better maternal traits being given less chance to shine than they deserved, and one severely wasted redemption arc. Say what you will about her personality defects, but you can’t deny Saionji was the biggest victim of that re-write.

So to Miss Saionji, I give a toast and a clap. You have a fan in me, little dancer.

anonymous asked:

It actually scares me how much a lot of people think that Kylo won't be redeemed. I watched UrbanAcolyte latest video and I'm scared that he won't be redeemed

Don’t let yourself be scared by people’s opinions! The fact is that lots of the people insisting that Kylo won’t be redeemed are your stereotypical fanboys who only want him to become super dark and live up to the badass reputation of Darth Vader. The filmmakers won’t be interested in playing into that narrative, so it’s really not worth worrying about. It’s much more worthwhile to pay attention to what the people working on the film are saying, and the throughline there is about Kylo’s humanity and stressing his sorrow over his father’s death.

I’m getting super bored of “redemption” stories that follow the tumblr-approved social throughline of If You Do A Bad Thing You Must Be Punished. I see that bleeding into how people talk about works of fiction, like the culture of ideological purity applied to human beings becomes a map of the way things must be in stories. But like, in real life sometimes people fuck up and they’re forgiven without having to face a great trial or “appropriate consequences” or punishment, and…it’s fine? It’s life? If you’re growing up on tumblr the pressure to never make a single mistake then leads into if you do you must properly self-flagellate and then we request the same out of fiction and it’s the vicious circle that’s a portrait of a world somehow unrealistically harsh on an interpersonal level 

Not every fictional redemption story is going to be Zuko, you know? And the same is true for real life. Every human relationship is unique and different and none of them follow formal moral narrative rules because people are people. Personally, I like to see that messiness reflected in the media I consume, and I find it refreshing. 

“This character acted badly, and so x and x and x needs to happen, responsibility, punishment, needs to be called out”…yeah yeah yeah but also maybe……….not. And of course the reaction to that is, it’s bad, but. There’s a lot to be mined from empathy against logic, from kindness, and that’s way more interesting to me at this point in my life as a consumer of media, just personally.

I give [future Hedwigs] a lot of advice, because I work with them all. But the biggest thing that I remind them is that the character is there by accident because of tragedy, and to keep the undercurrent of emotion throughout, because there’s a lot of jokes, there’s a lot of songs, there’s a lot of surface fun. Sugar, so to speak. But to keep the throughline of someone who’s been damaged, and triumphs in the end. Finds themselves. It really is a coming of age story, strangely. And that’s why we’re so excited that so many people can relate to it, and can play Hedwig. You know, everybody’s Hedwig now.
—  John Cameron Mitchell (x)

i am super embarrassingly heartbreakingly invested in poe being canonically gay and i am also legitimately so glad that for ONCE EVER fandom has not just decided to unilaterally ignore a black man having an extremely slashable relationship and have, instead, rallied behind it

but i really wish it would do that without being gross and dismissive about finn and rey’s relationship in ways that literally just mimics the exact same language and rationale always used to exclude black men as romantic interests in both fanon and canon

the fact that you’re shipping poe/finn doesn’t actually make ignoring the obvious romantic setup of finn/rey by discussing how there’s ~no chemistry~ and finn’s so much more like a brother to rey and she so obviously doesn’t return his feelings any less hurtful

like here’s the thing: with john boyega and daisy ridley as leads, with rey and finn written as they were, their relationship being the huge focus that it was, their caring for each other being the emotional throughline for the film that it was, they set up a fucking star wars trilogy to revolve around a black leading man in an interracial relationship with a white woman which is still such a huge taboo it’s straight up fucking embarrassing

and yes it would be a magical occurrence of wonder and delights if finn/poe was actually canon, but it’s already pretty fucking wonderful that finn/rey is so idk maybe don’t casually shit on that bcs it’s kinda important

anonymous asked:

So if you're not trying to mimick the show's humor, then what are you going for? Some of your posts are definitely too absurd to be actual episodes, but some others are indistinguishable from the real mccoy. What's the throughline? I'm curious.

It’s a bit of both. I’m going for what Seinfeld would be like if it kept going past season 9 and their world just got wackier and wackier. I try to mimic the show’s humour as much as I can, but sometimes I also go overboard. If the world was this absurd, I think this is how the characters would act. I hope that makes sense. I’m Christmas drunk.

…s10 but over a jammin’ tune? like the emotional throughline of mercy and the messiness of love

less high-concept tbh than just my brain going ‘oh this line = that scene and then X could happen on the beat’

The Worst Ones Always Live

“I never understood why they treated us differently.”

In the midst of war, a drunken Cersei reflects bitterly on her exclusion from the circles of power to which the men in her family, including her twin brother, have such ready access. It’s a throughline to her character, part grasping, part wounded, and it cuts deeply into what Blackwater is saying about what the ladies of Westeros are expected to suffer in the course of their cloistered lives.

But damn, what a war it is! The season is ending and there’s wildfire roaring in on Blackwater Bay, Baratheon soldiers dying messily on the beaches, the Hound splitting men in half like an enthusiastic Panera Bread sandwich artisan sawing through some choice focaccia; fantasy battles have never looked as good, or as upsetting, as they do in the expert hands of director Neil Marshall of The Descent fame. Marshall uses fog, torchlight, and the haunting emptiness of the bay by night to make Blackwater’s bloody thrills and harrowing combat sequences feel as impressive as any big-budget Lord of the Rings-style CGI extravaganza.

The war fought at home with wine and words is no less brilliant than the one fought on the shore. Cersei holds fatalist court in Maegor’s holdfast and gives Sansa what has to be the single most scarring version of “The Talk” since the Lovecraftian sex-ed session in Late Bloomer, all while Ilyn Payne stands by with orders to shorten the ladies of the realm by a head apiece if Stannis’s men take the city. Better a clean death than the grisly picture of gang rape and torture Cersei paints.

Lena Headey is so alive, so believably in conflict with the world around her, that she steals every one of her appearances, whether she’s browbeating Sansa, interrogating Shae, or smacking around the hapless Ser Lancel. She may not have the freedom men possess by default, but she keeps her claws sharp and her eyes open for any opportunity to exploit, often pettily, the pecking order that giving birth to a king has placed her at the teetering top of. Cersei is a complicated person, as often pathetic as sympathetic, never less than vindictive, and this episode functions in part as a tour of the ruins of the woman she might have been.

Game of Thrones is a show with a lot to say about patriarchy, family, and violence, but nowhere do those themes come together like they do when the Hound pleads with Sansa. Rory McCann is tremendous as Sandor Clegane, a seething smokestack of a human being who lives in a state of terror deferred by violence, a child who made himself into a nightmare so he wouldn’t be afraid of his own. “Your father’s a killer, your brother’s a killer, your sons will be killers,” he tells Sansa wearily. The Hound, broken by his brush with the river’s flames and set on fleeing the city, is moved to share the only wisdom he has: a clear-eyed view of war and violence. That he sees some kind of escape in Sansa, that he wastes precious time trying to bring her with him when he knows deserters are bound for the hangman’s noose, speaks volumes.

Even up against pros like Headey and McCann, Sophie Turner’s Sansa more than holds her own with her battered, cagey portrayal of a child entering adulthood through the gates of Hell. The hardening of her soul, the death of her golden vision of a world of virtuous knights and gracious ladies, is painful to watch. Finding and clinging to the doll Ned gave her back in season 1, a gift she scorned at the time, is a moment potently emblematic of the shame and fear under which she must try each day to survive. As she listens to the Hound she clings tightly to the toy and thus to the man who gave it to her and the memory of the child she was, but those things are gone forever.

This show can be brutal both emotionally and physically, but God if it isn’t also funny - something other prestige dramas in the Golden Age of television often struggle with. There’s an impulse to be grim when confronting the human condition, but Stannis’s callous pragmatism and Tyrion’s appeal to common thuggishness are amazing demonstrations that rousing pre-battle speeches don’t have to hit the same rote notes about honor and sacrifice every time; they can be ugly, dull, and desperate, and still land. Tyrion’s “who’s on first” routine with Lancel, Joffrey, and the Hound, and Sansa’s deft attempt to maneuver a preening Joffrey to his death through self-effacement, along with the sick burn she lands on Tyrion as he marches off to battle, are all worth a shout-out as well. 

‘Blackwater’ is one of the tightest, most engrossing episodes of television I’ve had the pleasure to see this year. When Tyrion hits the sand, when Cersei drops the vial of poison she bullied out of Grand Maester Pycelle and nearly used to mercy-kill her youngest child, when Sansa bids farewell to the man who never beat her but didn’t stop the men who did, we can’t help but feel how human these people are. The end is so visceral, so taut, that it’s easy to forget we basically just spent an hour rooting for Cersei and her putrid son and that the savior striding into the throne room is Tywin Lannister, arch-bastard of Westeros.

That’s good writing, folks.

10

I was thinking about how when you get right down to it the holy trinity of superheroes really are Superman, Batman and Spider-Man. Even if you don’t like any of them, you can’t deny their pop culture and genre shaping impact. 

Spidey invented the teen superhero archetype, Batman the vigilante superhero archetype (precursors were not superheroes) and Superman is the quintessential original superhero. 

But in thinking about it they actually present pretty great counterpoints to one another to as characters and the types of personal and storytelling approaches they take.

Keep reading

Nas Talks Writing Raps for Netflix Hip-Hop Drama ‘The Get Down’


In the first episode, the series’ protagonist Ezekiel “Books” Figuero is portrayed as a gifted teen poet and a formidable park rapper played by Justice Smith, and a grown Nineties hip-hop icon portrayed by Hamilton’s Daveed Diggs. Nas wrote the lyrics for his introspective poems, battle raps and nostalgic reminisces, providing a throughline for an episode already loaded with super disco breaks and claustrophobic krautrock.


Rolling Stone: So you wrote every rap on this show that comes out of Ezekiel’s mouth. How did you get into the headspace of this character?

Nas: I put myself in a position … I said to myself, “If it was you, if Ezekiel was you, you’d be telling your story. I made myself Ezekiel. I said, "Yo, Nas, what’s your story growing up in hip-hop? How do you feel by making it to become a voice in the Nineties, because you remember all the hard times, you remember Mayor Dinkins being elected, you remember New York City when the streets were flooded with crack, and crime was everywhere.” So I am Ezekiel. Ezekiel is older than me, but I am that.

some thoughts on bucky, his victimhood, and his recovery

so i know a lot of you are really bummed by what markus and mcfeely said about bucky in The Podcast – that he’s guilty, that he’s at fault for all the things he was forced to do as the winter soldier. before i say anything else on it, i want to say, genuinely, thank you. you’re doing exactly the same thing steve would do: protecting bucky. and he needs that. he deserves it.

bucky is a victim. i really believe that. and what the writers said about him, yeah, it’s bad. awful. but i tend to agree with @brendaonao3 in this post here, which explains very succinctly that they probably just used some terrible phrasing for a pretty damn complicated idea. bucky’s situation isn’t an easy one: he’s killed a lot of people, and as he says himself, maybe that wasn’t his choice, but it was certainly his doing. he is a victim, but he is also, in some ways, guilty. he feels guilty, because he, too, is doing the exact same thing steve would do – he’s holding himself responsible for all the trauma his body has caused, even if it was in service of someone else’s agenda. this is, after all, what steve was afraid of, isn’t it? that the avengers, leashed by some anonymous political power, would be forced to commit atrocities that they never wanted to commit, but that they are now responsible for? that their powers, their bodies, claimed by someone else, would become the arbiters of pitiless, uncontrollable harm? it’s because steve would hold himself accountable for those actions that he won’t sign the accords, and it’s because bucky does hold himself accountable for his actions as the winter soldier that he is now a guilty man.

more than just guilty, though, bucky is dangerous, and he knows it. it’s why he chooses to go back into cryo: all that stuff hydra put in his head is still there. he’s reclaimed his body, for the most part, but he hasn’t totally reclaimed his mind – all someone has to do is recite the right words in the right order and bucky becomes a machine ready to do their bidding. and even though the things they’d make him do – like the things hydra made him do, like the things zemo made him do – wouldn’t be his choice, in bucky’s mind, they truly would be his responsibility. he doesn’t want any more needless deaths on his shoulders (and arguably, he doesn’t want any more deaths on his shoulders, period – ‘i’m not gonna kill anyone,’ he tells steve, ‘i don’t do that anymore’), so he takes himself out of the equation altogether. they can’t take his body from him if his mind is asleep. it’s not a perfect solution, certainly not for him, or for steve, but it’s a good one, for the time being. it’s the only thing bucky can do for himself right now.

i’ve seen some of you, in reaction to The Podcast, expressing the concern that markus and mcfeely’s comments on this will mean the end of any hope for a meaningful recovery arc for bucky, and i see where you’re coming from. if it seems like the writers don’t care about bucky, then there’s very little reason to believe they’ll develop him further. but i stand by the idea that it was just poor phrasing, and that all the evidence within the writing of catws and cacw points to a deep and abiding concern for the psychological well-being of james buchanan barnes. after all, his state of mind was the crux of civil war. and i know it’s distressing to see him go back into cryo, and i know it’s very hard to see a way forward from here, but let me tell you why i still have hope. it has nothing to do with some handwavey guesswork on the writers’ opinions of bucky, and everything to do with actual textual evidence given to us in cacw.

here’s my theory. bucky’s in cryo because he can’t trust his own mind, right? because he needs his trigger words scrubbed out? and thus far, we have no real clear idea of how that would happen. but we do have one intriguing option, and it was given to us almost at the very start of cacw: tony’s memory technology. he made it for the express purpose of working through traumatic memories. he even demonstrates it for us, showing us how it allowed him to reimagine his final moments with his parents, thereby giving him the ability to move past his grief (at least, until new information about their deaths comes to light). this is a technology created specifically so that the user can reclaim ownership over memories that have, until this point, claimed ownership over them and their actions. that’s exactly what bucky needs, is it not? and aside from the fact that this tech was an amazing way to remind us at the beginning of the film that tony’s still hurting about his parents, establishing a throughline that they then pay off in act three, i’m convinced that they did this not with a simple flashback, but instead with a tool used to reclaim power over memory, specifically because they mean to use it on bucky later. he needs hydra’s trigger words scrubbed out of his mind, and this is the way to do it. all they have to do is convince tony to help, and therein lies our next story.

i know it’s tough to hear the writers talk about bucky like that, but please, don’t lose hope. there’s plenty of good stuff in store for bucky yet.

Beware of Country Bears

I’ve been working on an expanded version of my Disney Gothic story about the Country Bears Jamboree. I’m planning to eventually go back through and de-Disney it all, so that Disney doesn’t try to sue or anything and also so that I don’t have to be super historically accurate. 

But in the meantime I’m leaning heavily on the Disney structure, so I’ve been watching reel of the Country Bear Jamboree (park fans tend to be detail oriented, and you can find videos of the Jamboree on youtube by year, going back almost a decade, as well as scripts going back to 1971). 

It’s just such a weird performance. Most of the Animatronic Burlesques, as I think of them, have a clear narrative arc and a kind of throughline – the Tiki Room, the Hall of Presidents, the Carousel of Progress, they all have a story and a point. The Jamboree is this bizarre fever dream full of bears in wigs and half-understood in-jokes. And once in a while, if you look where the spotlights aren’t, you see some truly unsettling stuff. The piano player looks super sad as they lower him into the pit, and there’s a weird moment where the tiny bear-child on the end of the Jug Band setpiece gives an approving little hoot following a song about a guy who keeps getting yelled at by the women in his life for not being highly sexed enough. 

There is a song about how Mama shouldn’t beat her son for misbehaving, she should just shoot him. This is being sung to a crowd primarily composed of overstimulated children and their very tired parents. 

And people applaud the bears. That’s weird, right? I mean I think I did it, when I was watching it, but that’s weird! They’re robots! There’s no puppeteers or anything. Nobody applauds the Tiki Room or the Hall of Presidents. Though I did startle @scifigrl47 when they introduced Dwight Eisenhower during the Hall of Presidents and I let out a sudden, murderous growl. (I’ve just finished reading Command And Control, about nuclear accidents and escalations, and I have shockingly strong opinions about Eisenhower.) 

Anyway, it all works in my favor, but damn. Ease back on the child murder and bear sex there a little, Walt.