Maybe I'll find time to make a longer AT post, maybe even a detailed presentation, but for now I have to say:
The arc they put Simon on for the miniseries is just so, so wrong. It's incompatible and not what his character needs to grow at all.
Simon's problem was never that he couldn't see how important he was to the world or other people. In fact, that was one of the flaws Simon always had - valuing himself based on what he could do for other people, and not for what he values in himself.
Simon lived for Marceline because he needed to care for her and keep her alive. It was the right thing to do, and this sense of purpose slowed his descent into madness a lot more, but it wasn't enough.
When Simon is freed from the crown in the future, he doesn't worry himself about Marceline anymore because she's grown up and outgrown him. She's not a weak little girl anymore so Simon decides in his short time that she can live without him, now that she doesn't need him. Of course he knows that his death would be sad, but Marceline has friends and family now. In his mind, Marceline will be ok because she's not alone.
What else does Simon do with what little time he's given? He apologises to Betty.
Again, it's the right thing to do. Their "breakup" was very scary and confusing. So he makes it his duty to explain himself to her and he tries to set Betty free. "I went crazy. You don't have to feel bad about leaving me. I forgive you". Again, Simon is thinking about his life in relation to other people. He was a bad boyfriend to Betty in that moment, so he must rectify that.
And after that, what does Simon do? Does he fight to stay alive? Does he ask for help, does he try one last time to crack the crown and free himself before he dies?
No. Simon seeks and accepts death because he's tired, and he thinks he is empty. That there is no point to him staying alive.
Nobody needs Simon anymore.
Simon does not value or care about himself.
🐰🐈 So, how does this relate to the Fionna and Cake series?
Well, the issue is that putting Simon on this "Ghost of Christmas everything" style journey through the multiverse does not address Simon's problems at all. Simon isn't a selfish and arrogant character like Scrooge who needed to learn to care about and value other people. In fact, Simon was always very aware of how much people needed him. Simon liked feeling needed.
So this whole "Look Simon, Marceline is evil in the universe where you're dead!" and "in this universe, the crown ruined Finn Merten's life" isn't helpful for pushing or developing Simon's character. If anything, it's just enabling his tendency to value himself as a tool for other people.
And I know people are going to say "yeah, that's the point. In the end Simon learns to live for himself because Betty has moved on from him and wants him to be happy".
But it's like...no??? That's not really a cohesive story at all.
Man wants to die, metaphorically or literally. He can't admit it, because it's shameful to himself. Then someone needs his help, so he uses "helping people" as an excuse to sacrifice himself again, so that he can feel good about himself.
But this multiverse journey doesn't teach Simon to start doing things for himself again. The only new "friends" he makes are Fionna and Cake, and that was really forced. Simon isn't pushed to change anything in his life in the series, because he's not even inside his life anymore, he's hopping around in a multiverse adventure that is basically just a longer, more distracting version of the adventure Finn sent Simon on in episode 2.
Simon isn't shown the benefits of living for yourself. He's only told to keep on living "because he has to". Because the multiverse needs him. This is just Simon and Marcy 2 all over again, but worse, because we're supposed to believe that this experience showed Simon how to care about himself. This is the same reason he was living for Marceline. "Because he had to".
And what's the conclusion of this mismatched character arc? Does Simon finally find something new and exciting that sparks his will to live again? Does Simon make a new friend on his own volition, without the obligation of "saving them"?
No!!! XD We go on another tangent where Golbetty shows Simon he was being selfish because he wasn't paying enough attention to Betty's needs, puts him back in exactly the same shitty situation that pushed him to death to begin with -
Except now, for some reason, he feels happy, and doesn't want to die.
This is all completely wrong!!!!
You can't show a couple's entire relationship with 1 bus scene and then tell the audience it was unbalanced. It looks like Simon is being punished for one mistake (not getting on the bus) even though Betty is an adult woman who makes her own choices, and needs to communicate with Simon as well. It's lazy, it's rushed, and it's so half baked that the sentient dough is raw and asking not to be baked into bread 💀
Simon and Betty's problems are not given enough time to fit into the 'Simon your life impacts others arc' and it doesn't properly address Simon's inability to live for himself at all. We're shown he worships Betty and that his love makes him live for others, but we're never shown why he's like that. There's no new context about Simon, no new information.
We get a little hint that before meeting Betty, he actually was living for himself and doing his own things, but that's it.
And this whole miniseries, as well as reducing Betty to a sexist girlfriend prop again, does nothing to address or even validate Simon's misery.
All it does it tell a depressed, suicidal man that he's not allowed to die because it would make other people sad, and that he plays some stupid cosmic role in the multiverse.
Simon is being treated like a tool, again.
Betty doesn't have her own voice outside of Simon, again.
Anyway, yeah. I didn't like this miniseries obviously, hahaha 😅 and this isn't the only problem I have with it, not by a long shot.
This story was tone deaf and insensitive. Justice for Simon and Betty! They both deserve better writing.
176 notes
·
View notes
I might've added the BG3 Art Book to my dnd assets stash
It' 100% does not have things like the 5e players' handbook + 5e’s character sheet, several gm guides, critical role's explorer's guide to wildmount, baldur's gate and waterdeep city encounters, 101 potions and their effects, volo's guide to monsters, both of xanathar's guides, a bunch of other encounters, one shots, and class builds
In no way are there any pdf’s relating to any wizard who may or may not be residing on any coast
(Edit that I’ve moved the folder to the new link above! So if you catch a different version of this post that link won’t work anymore!)
69K notes
·
View notes
It’s important to recognise that Barbie (2023) criticises both the patriarchy AND the matriarchy. Yes, the Ken’s are just accessories to the Barbies. Yes, they don’t have any say in the government they live under. That’s the point, you’re supposed to feel awful, you’re supposed to want the Kens to have their own agency, you’re supposed to want equality. The Barbie movie explicitly states that the way Barbie treats Ken is wrong, so much so that once he finds a safe space for his masculinity and individual identity he’s so excited to share it with the other Kens.
But they go overboard and replace a matriarchy with a patriarchy and now the same issue exists but in reverse. That’s the POINT!! THATS THE POINT!!! Barbie is not anti-men it’s pro equality PLEASE understand this
13th Aug 2023 UPDATE:
Heeeeey howdy!!
Due to the IMMENSE comments and discussion on this post (thanks ya’ll!!) I’ve decided to update my post with my recent opinions and hopefully clearer explanations!!
First, my original post only considers a very small and very vague analysis of the film!!
Since making this I've read all your comments and learned quite a bit about the matriarchy as it appears in human civilisation. Originally, I was pitting the patriarchy and the matriarchy against each other as though the results of their implementation were equal in the film.
They were not!! Below is the definition of matriarchy I’ll be working off of.
Matriarchy Simple Definition;
Matriarchy is a social system in which women hold the primary power positions in roles of authority. In a broader sense it can also extend to moral authority, social privilege and control of property.
There's a lot to talk about in the Barbie film that would fit better in an essay, so I'll try and condense it into this;
To me, Barbie (2023) is a film about the female experience and the shared connection between women that persists through childhood and adulthood, support and harassment, suffering and joy, mother and daughter.
It uses Barbie as its figurehead because of the immense societal and political impact the doll has had on women, both good and bad (as explained in the film).
The male experience as seen in Barbie (2023) is not the sole focus of the film- rather, it's an accessory (as the Kens are) to Barbie's story, and a necessary aspect of exploration to truly highlight the importance of individualism and healthy personal exploration.
I want to make clear that I in no way think the treatment of the Kens was just as bad as the treatment of the Barbies. I also still agree that the matriarchy fostered by the Barbies wasn’t good for the Kens.
Additionally, I’m aware that this take on Barbie (2023) works strictly within the assumed heteronormative boundaries of gender. There is a lot of nuance in the Barbie film and I don’t think everything can be covered or explained in on Tumblr post— but I hope this clarification helps!!
I hope you're all coming to your own conclusions and analysis of the film in a way that makes sense to you. And for those of you engaging in online conversations and discourse about it, I hope you're keeping yourself and others happy and safe!!!
Much love to you all!! < 3
65K notes
·
View notes