generational trauama<3
very basic explanation: Shuya, the youngest child, was killed during a mission Sanemi was leading & Kyogo was very disrespectful and dismissive about it bc he doesnt see them as anything other than fodder. Sanemi, overcome with the grief of his latest sibling's death and the years of abuse, lost his shit and lunged at him with intent to kill.
His arm went through Kyogo's chest and together they went through the window, Kyogo briefly fought back and Sanemi used a wind jutsu to utterly shred the inside of his chest cavity. He sits back and processes what just happened and realizes that the pain and grief hasn't gone away.
Shizu finally gets to him- Genya close behind though I didn't show it -and he breaks down over the fact he just killed so brutally so easily. He's become a monster just like Kyogo shaped him to be. Shizu calls for some water & washes the blood off, then gets the bone fragments out and heals him.
Rest of the clan's freaking the hell out bc He Just Snapped We're Next Oh Fuck Oh Fuck, no one knows what to do abt Kyogo bleeding out, but hes just Sitting There, Crying
17 notes
·
View notes
who is lying ? 🕵️♂️🕵️♀️
yesterday ksoo claimed he didnt cry when he watched prince of tennis..
HOWEVER other members have stated that he cried when watching it for around 9 years now ?!?
even korean fans are calling this debate jongin versus kyungsoo as theyre unsure who to believe
theory time on who is lying~
so the reason soo mentioned prince of tennis in the 1st place was because the fans in the bubble messages keps saying that when he claims he cried from a drama
chanyeol 1st mentioned that he cried from this anime all the way during exo’s showtime in 2013 and other members joined in laughing about it as if they were either there or they heard about it. kai mentioned it on his bubble in 2020. that means not only are there MULTIPLE witness accounts of the event but the statements are a whole SEVEN years apart. if only chanyeol had mentioned it then maybe we can brush it off as just a funny thing he said for the show but why would kai mention this fake event years later and on his own accord?!?! hes even questioning why he cried 🥴
(hes as confused as me because i watched some clips from the anime and its just a standard action anime.. nothing is sad 💀)
so is it safe to assume mr doh kyungsoo is lying???
its believeable that he thinks naruto is sad, it does have some serious moments. hes also clearly not too embarassed to say naruto is sad, so is he too embarassed to say he cried from prince of tennis??? i dont think so... while one is clearly more embarassing than the other it just doesnt make sense that he would lie for this anime, in fact he could have just ignored the bubble messages that mentioned it but he went out of his way to say he didnt cry? what IF he isnt lying??? what if exo have had this weird misunderstanding about soo crying over this dumb tennis anime for a whole 9 years and hes too embarassed to tell anyone the real reason?
this misunderstanding theory is mentioned when theyre explaining but then they double down and poor soo never says anything 😭
so in conclusion to the most pointless essay ive ever written i can safely say that mr. doh kyungsoo is not lying when he says he didnt cry from this anime but the other members are not lying either.
as for what was actually making him cry? i guess we will never know...
29 notes
·
View notes
actually, no. you know what? i am so sick of this “marinette is just a friend” bs. okay. cool. adrien said she was just a friend a few times. whatever. it’s not that big of a deal and everyone in the mlb fandom like. hyperfixates on that??? idc if it’s a “just a joke” because it’s utterly ridiculous at this point. i have literally seen people go on heated rants about how stupid or clueless adrien was during the umbrella scene because he called mari just a friend. are you kidding me??? y’all are really going to take away that moment for him? he just made like his first ever friend in nino and when he called her a friend, he looked so excited because this boy has only ever had one friend before. of course he’s going to call mari just a friend because he just met her and the only time she’s actually spoken to him outside of the suit at this point is to yell at him like... y’all...
and this is not me hating on mari because i love her so so so much. i just hate how passionate and heated fans get about this. i mean... y’all... adrien didn’t even think mari liked him??? like, in puppeteer two, he is literally upset because he came to the conclusion that mari hates him. also, of course he’s not like in love with or crushing on her when she’s barely spoken actual sentences to him! again, not me hating on mari and her nerves because like i get it, it’s hard. and also this is like adrien’s first time interacting with people as peers, so 1. of course romance is not his main priority 2. he doesn’t understand social cues or situations very well At All which is made abundantly clear in the show 3. i don’t... i don’t think adrien knows what affection is??? i mean, he’s definitely learned some over the course of the show, but he’s used to a neglectful / abusive father, his stoic assistant, his bodyguard who doesn’t really talk like at all, chloé being chloé, and hoards of fans declaring that they’re in love with him, hanging all over him, acting like he’s a shiny thing rather than a person, etc... so like. how is adrien supposed to actually comprehend that mari likes him???
and okay no my last point: so so so sick of the double standard. i have seen countless people rant and rave and scream and shout about how stupid adrien is for not returning mari’s feelings or knowing he has a crush on her and then these same people will turn around and berate chat noir and say things like “gosh ladybug isn’t obligated to return his feelings:/” like... hELLO??? why is ladybug not obligated while adrien is??? it’s ridiculous and disgusting and i’m so so so tired of “just a friend” jokes on tumblr, in art, in fics, in youtube compilations... like... can’t we be normal about this? and i don’t mean normal as in “casually enjoy” i mean normal as in can we stop being so aggressive and harsh and hostile towards literal fourteen year olds my God they’re children they’re allowed to make mistakes and mess up and my God the way y’all talk about lila is disgusting, too like i hate her but i don’t want her tortured and killed??? and the way people characterize the classmates as physically and verbally assaulting mari because of lila??? like... my God they would never??? they would all honestly side with mari chameleon is a bad episode and is poorly written and everyone is out of character please use your critical thinking skills and understand that chat noir is not harassing ladybug anymore than mari may be harassing adrien (aka they are not harassing each other at all my God) and stop insulting and demonizing fourteen year olds so your otp can get together thanks
13 notes
·
View notes
Whiplash is pro-abuse propaganda, it sets out to explicitly condone masculine dominance violence. It tells men in positions of power over others to be "tougher" that their criminal abuse is actually helping people achieve. It tells victims to be quiet and love their abusers. It tells people who witness abuse to do nothing, that abusers are in the right. It's a disgusting, violent, abusive movie. It's a weapon aimed at vulnerable people.
i think that’s a really reductive prescriptivist reading of the movie, if you think it frames his actions in a positive light i think that’s a significant misinterpretation. i think it’s fake deep about its whole trying to achieve “greatness” theme, i think it sets up a false dichotomy between the tortured artist and the well-adjusted but unremarkable and tries to deconstruct that idea at the same time that it reinforces it, i think it has very little substance despite framing itself as profound which is pretentious as hell, i think it is extremely male and representative of toxic masculinity, it's also another extremely white movie about jazz, i think it is a red flag for a man to really like this film tbh because i think there is too much room to interpret abuse as “effective” or “helping people achieve” as you put it, and i do take issue with that but that would largely be the fault of the viewer, not the filmmaker. like when people think fuckin fight club is encouraging people to actually do fight clubs (and domestic terrorism) - completely missing the point of the criticism of toxic masculinity. representing the teacher’s views and motivations is different than condoning them, and i think it pretty clearly illustrates that his methods are detrimental to his students' personal wellbeing and their success as musicians. if you think the audience is meant to think he's in the right, i think you have real problems with media literacy and i’m not going to change my opinion of the movie because you misread it. especially since i thought it was only an okay movie! i do think it has a great ending, not because the main character is "successful" or whatever but because of its ambiguity - is he going to get sucked back into the same unhealthy cycle of abuse or is this act of defiance showing that he’ll escape it? will he attribute this performance to being “pushed” or will he realize that this achievement was in spite of that treatment (where his previous “failure” was because of it)? i think we’re meant to get the idea that he will continue to be trapped in this cycle and we’re supposed to be deeply unsettled by this, like his father is - isn't his father recognizing how harmful this is to his son the audience's way into the story, since we, like his father, watch him spiral and recognize it's an unhealthy dynamic even though the main character himself doesn't? doesn’t this film also serve as a criticism of how ineffective “holding people accountable” is when they’re able to get the same job and create the same power dynamic and continue the same patterns of abusive behavior? that's a huge issue in the film industry specifically but also in other artistic fields which has persisted for years, these ideas about commitment and growth through pain and the “tortured artist” being used to manipulate young people trying to break into the industry, and this movie speaks to that issue. i think there are a lot of other films that do this better but i would hardly say it condones this behavior. not a single person who has talked to me about this movie think this guy’s actions are justified. but like yeah, this movie is violent, it’s a movie about violence. the premise is that it’s a depiction of abuse and manipulation. i’m not sure what genre it’s considered officially but it’s essentially a psychological thriller. it’s hardly meant to be taken as a model for good behavior. also you say the film tells people to stay silent when they witness or experience abuse but i don’t see how you drew that conclusion. because the main character feels conflicted about it? because the teacher isn’t a one dimensional villain? because it's not a movie about general morality but about the experience of emotional abuse, and how abusers' tactics affect their targets? do you need them to spell it out for you in bold letters that abuse is bad and this guy's behavior is batshit? do you need movies to spoon feed you the Big Moral Lesson like a disney movie
26 notes
·
View notes