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)

It is not quite fair to say that Donald Trump lacks core beliefs, but to the extent that we can take apart these beliefs they amount to Give Donald Trump Your Money and Donald Trump Should Really Be on Television More. The only comprehensible throughline to his politics is that everything Trump says is something he’s said previously, with additional very’s and more-and-more’s appended over time; his worldview amounts to the sum of the dumb shit he saw on the cover of the New York Post in 1985, subjected to a few decades of rancid compounding interest and deteriorating mental aptitude. He watches a lot of cable news, but he struggles to follow even stories that have been custom built for people like him—old, uninformed, amorphously if deeply aggrieved.
—  David Roth
6

“I was talking to the boys [Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz] about the actresses they were seeing for Emma. It was very important to me that they cast someone with whom I would feel confident playing second fiddle. I was always acutely aware that Emma was the throughline. It’s Emma’s story — she’s the new princess. They called me one night and all they said was, “Jannifer Morrison”. And I said “Oh, thank God! That is the show I want to be on” — Ginnifer Goodwin.

6

The Art of the Hunchback of Notre Dame:
Quasimodo | Esmeralda (link) | Frollo (link) | Phoebus | Clopin

A Twisted Soul

From a design standpoint, the filmmakers conceived Frollo as spindly, elongated, and severely angular, qualities which serve as apt visual metaphors for his authoritarianism and austerity. His design also nicely compliments the vertical composition of Paris architecture and environment stressed in the background paintings and layout designs supervised respectively by Beauty and the Beast contributors Lisa Keene and Ed Ghertner. Despite Frollo’s apparent self-denial and piety, his costume is deliberately the single most finely detailed and materially sensuous of any in the film, subtly suggesting the character’s inherent arrogance, narcissism, hypocrisy, and corruption.

Full write-up behind Read-More

Keep reading

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

vox.com
Bernie Sanders’ plan to save Obamacare
Medicaid, rock star rallies, and the road to single-payer.
By Jeff Stein

ST. CLAIRSVILLE, Ohio — Shortly after he finished his rib-eye steak and baked potato on Saturday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was interrupted by his Outback Steakhouse waitress. “I just wanted to thank you for all you’ve done,” she said. “All of us fought over who would get to take this table.”

Sanders was in the middle of doing something notable, and perhaps a bit awkward. He was on a campaign-style trip through western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, well before anyone might reasonably be campaigning for the next presidential election. And at each stop, he was rallying to save Obamacare, a health law he criticized relentlessly in his rise through the Democratic primaries in 2016, but which now hangs in the balance in the Senate.

Sanders was trying to find a way to fuse his calls for a single-payer health care system with a plea to save the system he wants it to replace.

His bridge was Medicaid. In his speeches, Sanders cast the Republican health care bill now pending in the Senate as cutting Medicaid for the poor to pass tax cuts for the rich rather than as a way to repeal many of the controversial and complicated policies embedded in the Affordable Care Act.

If Democrats can make this battle a referendum on Medicaid rather than one on Obamacare, Sanders seemed to suggest, they’ll have a shot at saving both — and building toward a single-payer future.


In his speeches, Sanders focused overwhelmingly on the impact of Medicaid cuts

They showed up by the thousands. About 1,700 people in Pittsburgh, 2,700 in Columbus, around 600 in Charleston — all came to see Sanders’s health care rallies as if they were being held in the heat of a presidential campaign.

David Bowie’s “Starman” played on a seemingly endless loop at all of the events. The crowds overflowed the auditoriums, as attendees waved banners reading “Medicare-for-All,” and the big screen overhead displayed charts from the Congressional Budget Office. Vendors hawked “Bernie 2020” pins. One volunteer in Columbus reported several hundred people began showing up at close to 7:30 am.

But amid the festival-like atmosphere, Sanders had a grim message for the audience: Senate Republicans are trying to kill children, the poor, and the disabled, he said, by taking away their Medicaid, in order to subsidize enormous tax cuts for the 1 percent.

“This bill calls for massive cuts to Medicaid … at the same time, this legislation would allow the 400 highest-income taxpayers, most of them billionaires, to receive $33 billion in tax cuts,” Sanders thundered in Ohio.

I went to all three rallies, and the throughline of Medicaid was unmistakable.

(Continue Reading)

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

I’m thinking of making a Mono Red EDH deck...

Two of my preferred options are

and 

My quandry is that both lists benefit from Krenko, Mob Boss, which is fine in itself.  But Krenko needs goblins, which is also fine in itself.  However, both of these points lead towards a certain conclusion.  Would these cards be better served being in the 99 of a Krenko Commander deck?  

It would be optimized for Krenko, who is a very powerful engine, and then these cards act as payoffs.  Versus the other way around, where Krenko does enable both cards, but not as well as in a deck dedicated to what he can do.  Add in that I like both cards, and by maining Krenko, I can still play both cards.  (I guess I can still play all three in either of the other decks, but we still run into the problem of focus.)

It seems simple, but I like the niche-ness of the two original cards, and I like the idea of building a deck to express and explore their dynamic.  I wonder how do people balance things like that.  I see good reasons for going either direction.  What do you all think?

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.

Zack Snyder is a Randian

I’ve been trying to put my finger on why I dislike Zack Snyder’s movies so much, and this honestly explains most of it. He has a sincere disdain for altruism, which is why he didn’t understand Watchmen as a deconstruction of the superhero genre, but as a critique of altruism as a whole . 

It’s why he doesn’t like the idea of a Superman that is good to other people because it’s the right thing to be. He’s deliberately reframing both Superman and Batman as Objectivist heroes who are not constrained by society’s rules or mores. It’s why the conflicts in his movies seem forced and unnatural: Almost everyone is either a direct mouthpiece of some objectivist talking point, or suffering because they are not objectivists. That’s the point pa Kent sacrifices himself to make: you don’t owe anybody a gd thing. That’s why Superman and Batman kill and torture and don’t care about civilian bystanders. It’s why they’re uncompromising and mercurial, and it’s why they are so similar compared to other incarnations of the pair: because Zack Snyder wants both of them to be sympathetic and both of them to prove Rand’s social views, they can’t honestly be very different. At least when Frank Miller wrote this story, he made Superman out to be a Government Stooge. Zack Snyder has to make movies about Superman though, so he doesn’t have the option of making Clark his antagonist. That’s why these movies feel so forced and removed from my image of the characters: Zack’s using them all to make the same point I disagree with.

Man of Steel and Batman V. Superman have thematic throughlines. It’s just that I think Randian values are destructive, contradictory and unsympathetic. They are incompatible with the things I like about superheroes, and highlight the reasons that Superheroes are really terrible people if you think about them in a realistic context.

I can’t believe it took me this long to figure out my fundamental criticism of Snyder’s creative vision. 

[Edit: I confused Scott Snyder and Zack Snyder, so I went back and fixed it. thanks @4thwallnarrator]

No, Keith is not a mary sue.

He’s a lead protagonist stuck in an ensemble cast. 

Writing an ensemble cast is hard, and it’s a different creature than ‘hero and plucky sidekicks’. AtLA, LoK, BtVS, and HP are all HaPS-style stories: the hero’s core journey provides the throughline. Side-character developments are reflections of, and reflect back on, the core protagonist. Additionally, when the story does focus on sidekicks, it’s for things that will be necessary for later support of the hero’s goal; frex, Toph learning metal-bending, Sokka learning sword-work.  

Ensemble casts may have a nominal ‘lead’ – Star Trek, Gundam, LotR fall in this category – but a side-character’s development is often independent. Their plot lines may intersect, but they’re just as likely to run parallel. Their changes instead support the story’s overall goal (which is not necessarily the hero’s personal goal); Merry and Pippin contribute to overthrowing Sauron, but they diverge from Frodo’s personal arc. 

One of the ways to identify ensemble vs hero-and-sidekicks is the complexity of the backstories. If you can give someone’s overall backstory in about ten words or less – and this applies across the board – you’ve got groundwork for an ensemble. The more intricate the backstory, the more attention must be paid to unravelling it – and that means more screen/page time spent on it, and by extension, to the character attached to that backstory. Ergo, main protagonist. 

I do think VLD began as ensemble, but mid-S2, for whatever reason (skill or intention), the writers slowly moved Keith to the forefront. Other characters’ paths (ie Lance’s insecurities) became less about that character and more a reflective view on the (now main) character’s development. Keith ends up feeling like a Mary Sue not because he fits the profile on his own, but because the writers failed to balance the ensemble cast. The contrast between the original ensemble and the new HaPS dynamic creates the Mary Sue effect. 

What VLD suffers from more, though, are plot tumors: sub-plots that have expanded to take over the story. Lotor exploded onto the scene with zero foreshadowing, bringing with him oodles to unravel: his history, his relationships, his motivations, and his goals. The ambiguity in Shiro’s return torques what could’ve been “warning: infiltrator” suspense into a mystery that colors every scene. And Keith’s development – with the Galra ancestry now turning his assumed backstory into a convoluted mess – has twisted away from ‘learn to trust others’ into ‘who is this person’. 

Basically, there are three significant characters in S3/S4 who all have the ‘who is this person’ hanging over their heads – and any one of them could power an entire story on their own. In this story, though, they’ve become three plot tumors to unravel. If the original throughline was “overthrow the empire and bring peace to the universe”, that’s… pretty much fallen to the wayside. 

Sure, the characters kind of wave in that direction in S3/S4, but there’s minimal forward movement until the end of S4. Most of S3/S4 was setup and exposition related to the plot tumors, Pidge’s S4E1 awesome notwithstanding. The writers’ refusal to deliver the goods – by skipping beats, withholding answers, and avoiding payoffs – has just fed the problem. 

That still doesn’t necessarily make Keith a mary sue. His origins in the story are one among an ensemble, with little imbalance. It’s the writers’ failure to control their scope that led to the distortions we currently see, and the signs of that impact are felt across the entire story.

slifykins  asked:

Hello! I love you tumblr and your insights - there are so good and well explained :D I was wondering if you could provide any insight on Priest Seto's theme being on the Japanese OST? I have only seen the English Dub and I think it has a different soundtrack. Many thanks!

Thank you for the kind words.

In the same way the dub heavily tampered with the script, it switched out the soundtrack entirely.

As a storytelling device, animation can offer a plethora of advantages: color palette, camera movement, voice acting, sound design, and music. A crafty director will utilize all these things, conveying information and guiding our emotions beyond just the words being said to us. (A pool of us already guessed the ending theme, “To Believe in Something,” was about the relationship between Seto and Atem. Now we have this line from Yugi thoroughly endorsing that: “I thought the Pharaoh would never return. But you never stopped believing.” The optimism of the song should be telling.) I don’t doubt that the use of Set’s theme during the film’s final scene was significant.

This is what Seto Kaiba knows of his past self, an ancient throughline imprinted on his ether:

Reading the manga, I’ve always taken the impression it isn’t that Seto disbelieves in magic and his ancient past—it’s that he doesn’t want to believe. It’s a fiery desperate denial. Think of when Isis first confronts Seto at the museum and just how over-the-top his reaction is. It isn’t some scoff like, “Sure, whatever you say crazy lady…”

In the manga, Seto is one of the first integral characters to recognize there’s two Yugis. It’s telling how upset he becomes when Yugi removes the Puzzle during the pier duel with a possessed Jou. By the time of the film, in the face of Atem’s disappearance, Seto’s denial of magic has peeled away entirely.

What is the use of Set’s theme telling us? It’d probably help if I studied music, so take what I think with a grain of salt. On its own, the arrangement is aerial, sweeping, and hopeful. And this tells me this is a bright ending, not a dark one. But there’s more here too. A parallel is drawn. Priest Set was a true friend to the Pharaoh, and Seto Kaiba is the same to Atem. Atem trusted Priest Set to be Pharaoh, and three-thousand years later in a new landscape Atem called Seto his equal. It’s not about servitude. Rough and genuine and all kinds of unconventional, the bond between these two souls is eternal. Call it profound rivalry, call it friendship, call it by some other name, but it’s eternal. (This post has reached critical levels of sap.)

The arrangement used in the dub for the final scene is something more grand, with a sense of wonder as Seto ventures into a strange new otherworld. Ignoring artistic integrity for a moment I actually don’t mind it, but it does strip away a more intimate context.

Thank you for the ask.

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:

Long or short answer acceptable: what do you think of MCU's treatment of women characters versus Netflix marvel's treatment of women characters?

The short version: neither of them do very well.

But I think they do poorly in different ways?

MCU is bad overall. Not enough ladies, not enough ladies of color, the ladies that are there are inconsistent, too often fall into tired tropes that don’t give them space to be themselves separate from men, and generally I wince.

However, there are specific times, specific moments, that do well–I’m specifically thinking of Natasha in Winter Soldier here. She was good. She was an actual person, not a reflection of someone else (and when she was a reflection of someone else, it’s because that’s the kind of spy she was trained to be). Jane in the Thor movies, even Darcy in the Thor movies, they get some good moments. Peggy Carter was great. I haven’t watched the Iron Man movies but I hear Pepper has her moments.

The list goes on! But while the ladies get excellent moments, they a. rarely get them together and b. are overall inconsistent and not used to their full extent or treated as people with their own consistent motivations.

Netflix is–I mean, it’s hard to say overall things, because all the shows are very different in tone and treatment. (Also, caveat: have not seen Iron Fist, so I can’t speak to who Colleen is there.) But I feel like in Jessica Jones in particular, but also in Luke Cage, there is an effort to treat women as people with their own stories, their own motivations (how sad, that it has to be an effort).

Daredevil is worse at it, but Elektra is her own person nearly as often as she’s Matt’s foil, and Karen has consistent character things (except in Defenders, we’re getting to that) even if they don’t tend to do things with her that I like. However, it seems to fail in the specific on a not-infrequent basis?

Claire is nearly a completely different person in every single show she appears in, and the “nearly” is only there because Rosario Dawson does her best with the inconsistent material she is given. Karen and Elektra are their own people until they need to be in love with Matt, and the Defenders did Karen dirty with her weird suddenly-Daredevil-is-a-bad-thing-now-that-he’s-my-boyfriend thing. Colleen is clearly hyper-competent but spent half The Defenders telling Danny that He Can Do It.

But for me it’s hard to categorize the whole Netflix Marvel Oeuvre, because each show within it has such a specific feel and such specific treatments of characters?

But I guess what I’m saying is that the MCU fails in the general but sometimes succeeds in the specific, and that Netflix sometimes succeeds in the general but often fails in the specific, and that the issues of both tend to be issues of consistency. Characters that are in multiple movies and multiple shows don’t tend to have consistent throughlines, and that bothers me.

‘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

anonymous asked:

The remarkable thing about Eight is his consistency. The movie set his design; the spin-off media has not strayed from it. Eight is a Jules Verne adventurer, as filtered through 1960s adaptions--dashing, charming, deeply humane. The twist: his archetype is placed in situations very far from his own genre. Whether it's the EDAs, Big Finish, or the strips, this is the throughline that holds true: a Jules Verne character in very non-Verne situations. The drama always emerges from the contradiction.

Ooh, that’s a very interesting perspective. I know I’ve seen musings before on how that even is an approach that can clash with the snarkier way McGann plays the role, but I guess, like you say, contradictions are a great source of drama. I like the way you think.