#and i think michaels opinion is pretty clear

[8dayrain]

first day of school

#fnaf #fnaf fanart #elizabeth afton #michael afton #evan afton #cc afton #my art #they were forced to hold hands #evan doesn't mind at all #lizzy is NOT a fan but she's smiling for the picture #and i think michaels opinion is pretty clear #i feel a bit meh about the shading in this but oh well

[paperclipninja]

I know that Aziraphale's words/actions/reactions of the final-fifteen™ have been dissected and discussed (and will continue to be I hope because I live for the theories and analysis!) and caused many and varied opinions, but I think in the emotional chaos of that final episode, it's easy to overlook the opening 1 minute and 11 seconds.

Because episode 5 flows straight into episode 6, I feel like we get caught up in the

of it all (me included!). But what we see in the opening moments of the final episode is Aziraphale taking control, giving clear directions to JimGabriel, even when Nina asks if she can ask 'just one simple question', his response, 'if I hear one, of course' somehow holds a certain authority. Even his answer, 'three questions, none of them simple' - I can't explain it, but there is a specific choice there that Michael has made in delivering these lines, to show that when required, Aziraphale has command.

We see capable, calm Aziraphale working to come up with a plan, yes, but we also see the takes-no-shit Aziraphale when Shax throws open the bookshop doors and threatens, 'you're going to let us in, whether you like it or not'.

Aziraphale is unwavering here. I'd even go so far to say, fierce. His drop in tone, his stance, there isn't even an option here for Shax.

Aside from the terrible image quality, what we see here is Aziraphale's ability to be protector and commander.

I cannot help but feel that it is very deliberate that we are reminded at the very beginning of episode 6 of this side of Aziraphale, that he is not simply easily manipulated or bullied. Bookend it with that final moment, in the elevator on his way back to heaven

Whether any or none of the theories floating around turn out to be true, one thing that has been set in motion from that first scene in the final episode is that Aziraphale is an angel who can and will stand his ground, take control and do what he needs to to protect what's important. And I'm going to guess that will come to pass pretty early on next season and that heaven will have underestimated the angel for the last time.

#good omens #good omens meta #aziraphale #good omens 2 #good omens spoilers

[henbeaka]

BYLER and SUBSTITUTING

like this:

Because, I mean, without you, we'd all fall apart. Even me. Especially me. These past few months, I've been so lost without you. It's just, I'm so different from other people, and……when you're…when you're different, sometimes……I feel like a mistake. But you make me feel like I'm not a mistake at all.

which is the most OBVIOUS substitution in byler history because it is clear the audience is meant to pick up on it. it's not subtle. but-- mike does this too.

“It's not my fault I don't like girls. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Okay? But we're not kids anymore. I mean, what did I think, really? That we were never gonna get girlfriends? We were just gonna sit in my basement all day and play games for the rest of our lives?”

the difference is mike is projecting onto will rather than a side speaker. and you might think this isn't supposed to be used as a substitution for himself. but will is not the odd one out here. dustin wanted to play games and he had a girlfriend. like, logically, its two v two because they knew dustin would also want to play dnd. (and i'm not assuming, they say it in the fight.)

another important line here: we're not kids anymore.

okay, michael wheeler, let's look at byler speeches from when you guys were kids.

Do you remember the first day that we met? It was... It was the first day of kindergarten. I knew nobody. I had no friends and... I just felt so alone and so scared, but... I saw you on the swings and you were alone, too. You were just swinging by yourself. And I just walked up to you and... I asked. I asked if you wanted to be my friend. And you said yes. You said yes. It was the best thing I've ever done.

nothing's in red. nothing's crossed out or changed. because mike said exactly what he meant here (hoorah!). back when they were kids when they could actually tell each other their emotions and feelings because it didn't have to masquerade a romantic love. that love was normal to them until it was ostracized through internalized and externalized homophobia.

and what is stranger things at its heart??

a sci-fi show with villains and superpowers and lore YES BUT BEYOND THAT AND INTO THE CHARACTER ARCS

it's a show about kids growing up (and also jopper).

so? so, the change in their substitution says a lot. it says how hard they are hiding their feelings from each other, how it increases as they get older. which leads us back to their true feelings, aka season 2 ish, where they were pretty openly in love, in my opinion. holding hands, comforting each other, making freaking love confessions as seen above.

and juxtapose that with season 4, with all its red and changes in meaning?? we as viewers should understand that nothing the boys say is what they mean. they are hiding!!!

aka byler endgame

#byler #stranger things #authors note #when mike says that its his fault he doesn't like girls #i dont mean that #i mean that thats what he thinks #that is the highest form of his truth or what he thinks is the truth

[nofomogirl]

Metatron's manipulation step by step

Part 2: learning from past mistakes

Part 1 - where I discuss the significance of the coffee.

I believe that to fully understand what exactly is going on in the final episode, we need to go back a little and have a closer look at Metatron's role in season 1.

He appeared near the end of episode 4 when Aziraphale decided to try and talk directly with God but got Her Voice instead.

What lead to that moment?

At the end of episode 2, Aziraphale learned who and where the Antichrist was and it was the first piece of real information he got that could actually make a difference. He needed to make a choice about what to do with it and it pretty much paralysed him.

First, immediately after finding out, he got a call from Crowley asking for updates and lied claiming he didn't know anything. Then he arranged the meeting with the Archangels but withheld most of the information and when asked directly where the Antichrist might be he lied again that he wasn't sure. Then he met Crowley face to face, once more lied (by omission) about the Antichrist, insisted he wouldn't tell him anyway, and eventually broke up with him. The next day he approached Gabriel and tried to reason with him by mentioning "human prophecies" but not the Antichrist. Then Crowley approached him again and was rejected again. And finally, he got cornered and assaulted by Michael, Uriel, and Sandalphon.

Frankly, I haven't even noticed it before, with all the other scenes in between, and all the emotions involved, but it's a very clear pattern, isn't it? Crowley - Heaven - Crowley - Heaven - Crowley - Heaven. Nothing could illustrate better how Aziraphale was swinging between the two. Eventually, Heaven won, but it was a very precarious win.

That's when the conversation with Metatron happened.

And tipped the scales in Crowley's favor.

Immediately after the conversation was over, Aziraphale grabbed the phone, called Crowley, and without any preambles announced he knew where the Antichrist was.

Things got complicated after this but that's beside the point.

The point is that Metatron's cold and uncaring attitude made Aziraphale realize that Heaven won't help him and won't help the Earth. It was a reality check, a cold shower, a wake-up call. It was what ultimately triggered Aziraphale's rebellion and indirectly made it possible for Armageddon to be stopped.

Back then it seemed Metatron was simply like other angels - indifferent and ignorant. But now, after season 2, we know he's actually much smarter than the rest of them. Which means that he was so openly dismissive of Earth and humanity, and so inconsiderate of Aziraphale's feelings not because he didn't understand them but because he didn't think they might matter. He expected Aziraphale to stay in line and obey, regardless of his personal opinions.

Imagine what would have happened if he didn't. If he was aware that Aziraphale was capable of defying orders and choosing what he will and won't protect.

If only Metatron told Aziraphale he was onto something, and asked him to come to Heaven to explain everything in detail, Earth wouldn't stand a chance. Honestly, Armageddon was mere hours away. All he needed was to stall a bit.

In season 1 Metatron grossly underestimated Aziraphale. It's very likely that he understands it and is determined not to repeat this mistake again.

Continued in Part 3: The Entrance

#good omens 2 #good omens #good omens spoilers

[loveforlandonorris]

🎤 Lando at the Drivers' Press Conference before the Chinese GP:

(The video is from F1Fever on YouTube)

Transcript:

Interviewer: And Lando, what about your expectations coming into the weekend?

Lando: Probably not as high as Suzuka. I think that's our opinion. But still in a good position. I think we've been happy with how the season started. I think we're in a good qualifying battle with Aston, Mercedes, it’s very close and even last weekend ahead of Ferrari, but I think the order is still clear.

And I think in the racing we've done a good job. Not as good as Red Bull but and Ferrari, but I'm a head of Aston and Mercedes. So I think we're in a good spot. This wasn't a great circuit for us in 2019 but many things have changed since then. So I'm so optimistic we can have a good weekend.

Interviewer: What is it about this layout that gives you less confidence?

Lando: The long corners. Just, like, Turn 1. Yeah, this type of corner is just not good for us. Similar to, say, Zandvoort, that kind of experience for us. So yeah, we've got some things to try. And we're constantly trying to improve these areas. But it's an area we know is one of our biggest weaknesses, and maybe we kind of get away with it in qualifying but especially into the race becomes a bigger problem for us.

Interviewer: There were some race day frustrations for you in Japan, but afterwards, your boss Andrea Stella, said that the team can win this year. How quickly do you think you can do that?

Lando: Not anytime soon, that's for sure. I think we can. Right place, right time, if we improve the car how we need to. Honestly, there weren't too many frustrations with Suzuka. I think everything went pretty much as expected. I don't think we did a perfect job and I think we probably should have finished one place higher up, potentially. But I don't think it was far off. We've been the same place all season. We've been behind Red Bull, we've been behind Ferrari and we've been a bit of a step ahead of the other two teams come the race. And that's exactly how last weekend went.

So I don't think there's too many frustrations. But we know the issues, we know what we have to improve. And if we can improve them. I think Andrea is right. I think we can win races this year. And we can be competitive with these other two teams ahead of us. But that's an if. And you know, we have to work hard to improve the car in some of these certain areas, which have been a big challenge for us over the last many years, not just for years, but last many years. But if we can, then I'm confident we can have some good races.

Journalist Questions:

Q1 (Ian Parkes – New York Times):. I don't know if any of you drivers have had an opportunity to inspect the track as yet. But Charles mentioned it earlier, and a couple of other drivers have mentioned it in their media sessions earlier today, that the track has been painted. What does that means pecifically? Do you know? Does it cause any concerns? What issues are you expecting from such a track?

Lando: I have no idea. So I think we have to wait and see honestly, I think that's something new, something we don't think we've seen before, so hard to predict exactly what's going to happen. So I honestly have no idea. So I'll see you tomorrow.

Q2 (Michael Butterworth – Xinhua News Agency) To all the drivers briefly. It's been a while since we've been to the Shanghai circuit. Just keen to hear your thoughts on it. And any particular features that make it especially challenging or memorable for you?

Lando: I always raced here once, but I didn't finish the race. So not the best memories. But yeah, it was still in my first season. So everything was new back then. But it's always been a cool track to drive. Definitely was not my back then. But excited to give it another crack and see what we can do this weekend.

Q3 (Henry Clark – Daily Mail) I was wondering, obviously a lot of tracks that we come to, it's only been a year or so since you've last been here. But for everyone here there has been no race for at least five years. I was wondering what are the unique challenges that brings? Does that make this weekend particularly exciting? Or are there extra worries that come with that?

Lando: I guess just excited. Always excited for every weekend, but especially when you haven't been to a place for a while. For me, I didn't get a proper experience of it back in 2019. So things have changed. I'm a very different driver to what I was back then.

So I'm excited to see what it brings and how the whole weekend pans out I think anyway being a Sprint race and having two opportunities to try and nail the set-up for the first quali and then the set-up for the second quali. I think also there is plenty of opportunity. So I don't think it’s not going to be exciting for anyone. I think there's a lot of opportunities on the table, there's a lot of things that can go wrong at the same time, so excited for all of it.

Q4 (Henry Clark – Daily Mail) With all due respect to some of the more senior drivers, a question to a couple of the younger guys on the panel. When you see Fernando committing his future to racing well into his 40s, how impressive is that dedication? How much does it take to keep doing that? And also, do you see yourselves wanting to race for as long as that in your own careers?

Lando: I’d better be careful what I say. I think it takes a lot of dedication. I don't think anyone thinks Fernando lacks that in any way. I think he shows that with everything that he does in life. Whether it's at the track or away from the track, you know, in different sports or whatever. So it depends what you want to do. Everyone is different.

It's rare that you see someone commit for so long in any sport, you know, he's probably one of the oldest guys competing at the top of any sport in the world and I think to be able to do that at the level that he has done and continues to do, you're probably never going to potentially see it again, you know within Formula 1 and if you do, it's going be extremely rare.

So yeah, I think a lot of respect for that kind of thing. I have no idea if I want to do it in 20 years’ time, if I'm still going strong, but I love where I am now and I continue to do such a thing. Yeah, we'll see.

#lando norris #landonorris #ln4 #mclaren #chinese gp 2024 #formula one #formula 1 #f1

[autumnaltrees]

so i was thinking about mike's bassment beats spotify playlist and how the first song in said playlist is smalltown boy by bronski beat - a song about the need for gay men in the 80s to flee from homophobic small towns to the freedom of the city and i thought about looking up the meanings of the other songs included in the playlist to see what other hints there are to mike's character

i was also thinking about how significant it is that smalltown boy is the opening track to the playlist and i wondered about what the final track to mike's playlist is as that would seem equally significant to me

so the last track on the playlist is be afraid by franz ferdinand and the lyrics go as such:

Don't be afraid if you hear voices Feel the sweet air spoken upon you

Dream again

Sometimes the sound of a thousand whispering

it's pretty short in terms of lyrics and has less of a clear meaning compared to smalltown boy so i thought i'd google the meaning of the song just to see if there were any explanations from the band or a sort of general opinion on the song meaning which i didn't end up finding, however i did come across another song by franz ferdinand almost immediately called micheal and i thought well that's a coincidence (but not really) so i looked up what the meaning to that song was and lo and behold

so it's about a gay man who wants to be with another man called micheal

the music video is set in a basement

and the song contains hidden secret messages such as how the show queer codes mike

but also it's interesting how in the song the hidden messages can only be heard when played backwards

kind of like upside down...

bonus thought! the lyrics to smalltown boy:

Mother will never understand why you had to leave

But the answers you seek will never be found at home

The love that you need will never be found at home

and the hidden message in the song michael:

She’s worried about you. Call your mother.

#mike and will are for sure confessing their love for each other in the upside down #perhaps in mike's basement #byler #mike's bassment beats #stranger things #mike wheeler #will byers #gay mike truther #smalltown boy #bronski beat #michael #franz ferdinand #st theory #stranger things theory #st s5 #s5 speculation #mine

[letmetellyouaboutmyfeels]

Hii!! I just read your answer to the other anon about quuerbait and journalism it was akl very clear, thank you. I have only one doubt in my head, if they already have a gay canon couple with henren and in general the show is very diverse. Why wouldnt fox let them make buddie canon?

If my speculation is true and FOX wouldn't let them do Buddie (I know nothing this is entirely speculation)...

There's this continued bias in television that characters are whatever sexuality you decided they were when you first introduced them. Queer characters can only be queer if they were planned as queer from the beginning. Hen and Michael are both strongly established as gay in the pilot episode, for example.

Characters that started out straight (or as far as the audience knows are straight) and are allowed to be revealed as queer, or realize they are queer, are very few and far between. Networks, showrunners, writers, etc still struggle to accept that maybe a character has naturally evolved, or a relationship has naturally evolved, into something queer.

Especially when it's conventionally attractive men, because you not only bring homophobia/biphobia into play but toxic masculinity as well.

Additionally, we know that FOX really, really pushed Oliver (the handsome young white man) as the "face" of the show and pushed him to do the majority of the PR for the show the last few years. So it would not surprise me if they wanted Buck to remain an available man with various (straight) romantic escapades for cheap stereotypical drama.

I also (personally) noticed after season one a real drop in letting the characters be... adults that have adult sex lives? The way the couples interact is very... PG? Even Bathena who is noted for having a kinky sex life, it's played for laughs. Compare the "fire in the kitchen" roleplay that May walks into vs the handcuffed situation Athena calls Hen for help with in season one. But Hen and Karen especially it felt very PG? this is just a personal vibe and others might very well think I'm crazy but I just got a real... sense that Hen and Karen and other queer characters were allowed to discuss their queerness but not show it. There wasn't a genuine sexiness allowed. But that was an issue (in my opinion!) across the board after season one. I just really really noticed it with Hen and Karen.

But that last one is really my personal "vibe check" and others could certainly feel differently. Mostly it's the fact that we're seeing FOX didn't allow them to do things they wanted in other areas, so it wouldn't surprise me if they also didn't allow Buddie to happen, especially when you consider that FOX really pushed Oliver/Buck as the star/face of 9-1-1 (something the actors commented on and disliked) the last few seasons (Tim has even hinted that he felt recent Buck storylines were stupid), and the fact that historically, trying to take a character originally believed to be straight and having them actually be queer gets a lot of pushback and is still pretty rare in the TV landscape.

#mads answers things #everyone is clearly very relieved to be on ABC and not FOX anymore #so it wouldn't surprise me if Buddie was something else they were not allowed to do #given aforementioned biases regarding perceived-as-straight characters #which characters are 'allowed' to be queer and HOW they are allowed to be queer #and how FOX treated Oliver/Buck

[utilitycaster]

I'm so kdhdkdjdkd jazzed about the fjorester proposal !!!! But something that popped up pretty immediately that baffled me was these like... cope posts i guess? Of how "beau and jester should cheat leaving their partners for eachother and how dw guys marriage is just going to spice up the inevitable affair" and it's not even treated as a joke and Im just confused? Like i got into cr2 by the time it was over with so idk what it was like waiting for releases, but why after all this time do people hold on as much as they do? Do they like the story or not?

So I will be totally honest: I am not above checking the blogs of those I know hold terrible opinions, for a number of reasons both reasonable (keeping an eye out for potential harassment; inspiration for meta; my genuine enjoyment of analyzing fandom trends) and less so (schadenfreude and sending DMs that say Can You Believe This Idiot) but I actually have not seen this! To be clear, I would not be surprised it was out there - heaven knows this was a refrain during late Campaign 2 and in the leadup to the two-shot - but I thought that most people finally gave up in late 2022 after the two-shot made it clear the existing relationships are still very much in place. Granted I, as always, rarely go on Twitter.

Anyway. I think some of it is just that people whose enjoyment of works hinges on their ships becoming canon, rather than that being one of many facets to their fandom, also tend to not know when to give up just generally (you can look around this website and still find people hopping mad and/or pining for resolution regarding shows that ended before Campaign 2 even started). I think most of them did finally give up and leave, which is probably healthier for both them and the fandom, but there will probably be a dwindling number of holdouts who will gasp out on their deathbed fifty years hence "Beau and Jester should have been together" to a politely confused hospice nurse.

To actually answer your question, no, they do not like the story. I know I've been very hard on people who seem to only be able to enjoy fiction through a lens of either shipping or intense projection of the self onto existing characters, but in my defense, I'm right. This is a whole separate post, which to be honest I've kind of already made several times, but the usual complaint about the Campaign 2 noncanon ships (echoed in the complaints about Campaign 3 primarily by those who do like the canon ships thereof) was that they would have happened and been flawless and perfect but for that Pesky Plot, ie, the story. Unless the entire point of a story is a romance (eg: the genre that is cleverly titled "Romance") romance is always optional.

I also think, to be honest, Campaign 2 attracted people who were patient. This is a good thing! I think that, for example, people who are not entirely feeling Campaign 2 13 episodes in are valid, because I was similarly enjoying myself but not entirely won over by the plot yet, and it was only a combination of that patience and the burgeoning character dynamics that kept me going (plus the fact that watching week to week is a lower commitment than a binge). Granted I think if you fully give up at that point you are weak and will not survive the winter and should probably go watch Michael Bay movies or Bluey, but that's a separate point. Anyway. Some people are patient beyond a point where it is rewarding or even neutral and pass into a realm of showing up to the Story That Has Fjorester and Beauyasha In It muttering "I hope this doesn't have any fucking Fjorester and Beauyasha". I don't know how to help them, nor do I particularly want to, but I do know that not going on Twitter has been super helpful.

One final note: again, haven't seen the thing you mention in your ask yet in relation to this one-shot and not for lack of poking around Tumblr at least; but I have seen people who were deeply bitter about Campaign 2 but are still around for Campaign 3, though not a ton, and this was also frankly true of people who loved Campaign 1 and have not really cared since but still stick around. There's a weird zombie problem in the fandom; you get people who are very invested in being a fan of Critical Role and can't seem to leave, but haven't actually been happy for literal years, either because they were ultimately only fans of Vox Machina, or the Mighty Nein, or a specific ship within that. It is actually something I try to be cognizant of because I was very cautious about becoming that during the stretch when I was more frustrated by Campaign 3 than I am now. I think, ultimately, it's a conflation of one's fandom with one's external identity and I don't know how that happens or how to fix it but that might also be a factor: people who really don't like the show and haven't for years and are grasping at a thing they think would fix that and make them happy again, and refuse to admit it might be time to move on because that would mean they need to change their conception of themselves.

#answered #Anonymous #follow for more amateur fandom sociology #critical role spoilers

[nientedenada]

Why the Altmeri Commentary on Talos is Important to Lore Discussion (Even if It Isn't the Thalmor's End Goal) 

Originally posted on r/teslore three years ago. To be clear, important in this context means if you're trying to guess where TES might go in the future. And as the years go by, and we now have an almost complete turn-over of developers at Bethesda, it may be less relevant. Still, the new developers will have all these old ideas to rummage through.

This begins with a split among fans, though I don't think it has to be a nasty split. There is a very strong opinion in /r/teslore that Out-of-Game texts are valid if you want them to be, if you find them interesting enough for your Tamriel. And there's another very strong opinion that only official lore is really valid for theorizing. To be completely honest, we all probably dabble in one or the other at different times. Sometimes we are more creative and speculatory about Tamriel, other times we are arguing out the Lowest Common Denominator of agreed-upon lore. (It's never actually agreed upon, but that's part of the fun.)

But there's a third possibility: examining Out of Game texts for the perspective they can give us on In-game lore. A really good example of how this works would be the document: On the Nords' Totem Religion. It was a design document for Skyrim which was not incorporated into the game directly. However, the document gives a lot of insight into the little we do see in Skyrim of the ancient Nord religion. It is useful in interpreting the game itself.

It's also useful for going forward. When ESO returned to Skyrim this year, we could bet that the devs would be taking a closer look at the local religion, as they had in Elsweyr last year. And we could also guess that they might turn to that unofficial Skyrim design document which best explained the original ideas for the Nord religion. As of a few weeks ago, much of the Totem Religion document's lore has been added to the official lore as in-game books in ESO.

The totem religion document is as uncontroversial example of this process as you can find. Most everyone in lore circles has regarded it as a very useful document. You won't find that agreement about all OOG unofficial writings. But I'd like to make the argument for why the Altmeri Commentary on Talos is worth knowing and discussing even if you don't end up thinking it's true.

So, I'll begin with quoting the whole thing. It's pretty short.

What appears to be an Altmeri commentary on Talos To kill Man is to reach Heaven, from where we came before the Doom Drum's iniquity. When we accomplish this, we can escape the mockery and long shame of the Material Prison. To achieve this goal, we must: 1) Erase the Upstart Talos from the mythic. His presence fortifies the Wheel of the Convention, and binds our souls to this plane. 2) Remove Man not just from the world, but from the Pattern of Possibility, so that the very idea of them can be forgotten and thereby never again repeated. 3) With Talos and the Sons of Talos removed, the Dragon will become ours to unbind. The world of mortals will be over. The Dragon will uncoil his hold on the stagnancy of linear time and move as Free Serpent again, moving through the Aether without measure or burden, spilling time along the innumerable roads we once travelled. And with that we will regain the mantle of the imperishable spirit.

What it doesn't say: Nowhere does it say it's a Thalmor document. Nowhere does it mention the Towers. Those two points are pretty well-known in lore circles, but they come up enough to make it worthwhile to point out.

Second thing to notice: its date.

Submitted by Lady N on Sun, 09/19/2010 - 19:53 Obscure texts Author: Michael Kirkbride Librarian Comment: Many of these are in-character snippets taken from various forum posts.

It doesn't have an exact date; the old forums have been deleted. But we do see that it was re-posted on the Imperial Library on 09/19/2010, the year before Skyrim came out. This important detail is glossed over in a lot of the discussion of its relevance. It is not a document written after Skyrim trying to put a creative spin on some details in-game. It's a document published before Skyrim came out, and hence a window on the discussions that were going on in the development of Skyrim. We need to look at the stuff in Skyrim with the question: Does the Altmeri commentary shed any light on what's going on here?

Well, the fact that the Altmeri Commentary suggests that Talos needs to be erased from the mythic makes it very relevant. Maybe this is not the reason for the Thalmor's Talos ban in the game that eventually was released. But it's evidence that during the development of Skyrim, the reason was being kicked around by someone in discussions with the devs. It's that context that finally informs the two lines in-game that might refer back to the Commentary.

The first and most often quoted is Ancano's boast:

You think I can't destroy you? The power to unmake the world at my fingertips, and you think you can do anything about it?

It's pointed out that he can simply be boasting of his power there, without any reference to a supposed greater plan. And yes, that's true. But remember, we aren't interpreting that line in a vacuum. There was a development-related post that brought up a fanatical Altmer idea of unmaking the world before Skyrim, and it's just a coincidence that a fanatic Thalmor member boasts of having the power to do so in the game? These things have nothing to do with each other?

And then there is the other line from Esbern which I think is even more significant.

I don't suppose they want the world to end any more than we do. Or at least, they'd prefer it to end on their terms.

Esbern's statement does not confirm this is the Thalmor's plan. What it does is confirm that the idea this is the Thalmor's plan exists in-universe. And Esbern is not some random conspiracist; he's a lore-master. Dragons were his hobby but we also know from his dossier that the Thalmor consider him responsible for two of the most damaging operations on Dominion soil. He knows his stuff when it comes to the Thalmor. His opinion may be affected by paranoia, he may not even hold the opinion very strongly (suggested by how he corrects himself there), but he is not some random guy in the pub with a conspiracy theory about the Thalmor. If it's a conspiracy theory, it's an important one in-universe.

So, we have a timeline that suggests the Commentary is important, and two references in the game of Skyrim to the idea presented in the Commentary. The references are independent, coming from ideological enemies, Ancano and Esbern. I'd say that makes a very strong case for the Commentary's ideology existing within the universe.

If this concept exists within the universe, the Commentary is important even if it does not represent the Thalmor's ultimate goal accurately.

But where does one go with that? With Michael Kirkbride's historic and ongoing influence on the TES franchise, elements of the Commentary are quite likely to make it into future games. On the other hand, the Commentary may be a window on an idea in development that was tossed around and ultimately abandoned. Maybe it's not Thalmor belief, really. It could even be Blades propaganda. Maybe Ancano believes in it, but he's actually a fanatic who's out of step with the Thalmor in general. etc. etc. etc.

Acknowledging that an Out-of-Game source is relevant does not mean accepting it as the Truth Bound To Be Revealed by TES VI. TES fandom has had enough of that over-certainty already. I think we've all met someone who takes some random developer's post as The Gospel Truth that cannot be questioned. That's frustrating, for sure. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn't make sense to ignore it completely in discussions about the Thalmor's ultimate goal. There are enough sources to make it worth looking at, both inside and outside the universe.

This post was about the relevance of the Commentary, but if you're interested in how the Commentary's ideology could function within the Thalmor, I can never recommend enough this old /r/teslore post: Analyzing the Altmeri Commentary on Talos.

Additional reply in comments: I thought I'd hedged enough on my statement. I won't claim Esbern as an expert on the Thalmor's ontological goals, although he definitely is more knowledgable about the Thalmor than the random guy at the pub. I do think, however, that his statement confirms that some people within the universe think this is the Thalmor's end goal. I see his statement there as he's not certain himself of it.

In the comments of the original post, a user who has since deleted their account posted a very interesting timeline of the development under discussion. I also recommend this discussion with Misticsan about the post and whether fans give the Commentary undue importance in contrast to other sources on the Thalmor.

This was only the beginning of a very involved journey into the weird fandom status of the Altmeri Commentary and the Towers Theory. It's a lengthy saga, and I've put off formatting it for tumblr but I do mean to eventually copy all the teslore posts over here.

#tesblr #teslore #thalmor #Skyrim #niente lore

[scoobydoodean]

what’s your opinion on the different methods michael used to keep dean subdued? specifically regarding the belief (as stated by sam) that to pacify dean would best be done by giving him a happy and calm life… personally i see the appeal of it being a balance (he’s at peace but isn’t entirely removed from hunting) but smth about the way they did it has always kinda made me raise an eyebrow i guess but idk what exactly about it lol

I can't say I've found myself having any problem with it. Dean wanting a home (and some peace) is a through-line in the series from season 1 onward. His sense of how that home can and should look slowly adapts. I think Michael's strategy is interesting. Dean tends to be pretty good at enduring—persevering. He fought Michael every step of the way during the previous possession. Dean's good at finding a way to chew through the enclosure. Michael thought he'd try a new strategy to keep him quiet so he wouldn't know to chew to begin with. I can see why it could raise an eyebrow in the sense of "false paradise" and how that's something Dean has explicitly rejected as a solution to his problems, but they also make it clear that Dean isn't aware that he's trapped in a false paradise until Sam and Cas show up. It also isn't a complete paradise, because monsters show up to attack him. I think a completely peaceful existence would have made Dean suspicious and uneasy, because he believes in the inescapability of hunting. Presenting him with enemies wanting revenge but who he dispenses with easily, makes this vision of a more peaceful future more realistic, and also makes it so Dean isn't antsy—worried about being unprepared/losing his edge and then getting attacked when he least expects it. In a strange way, the monsters help placate him.

#14.10 #season 14

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Michael After Midnight: The Films of Quentin Tarantino

There are few directors out there as ridiculously praised and extremely controversial as Quentin Tarantino. He’s done nothing his whole career but release films that garner critical acclaim and massive fanbases due to the stellar acting and writing within his films, but at the same time he’s been relentlessly criticized for his excessive use of racial slurs, his excessive homages to the point of plagiarism, and his habit of inserting his fetishes into every single one of his movies. What fetishes do I mean? Let’s just say his films have a lot of sole, and it would be no easy feet to go toe-to-toe with how in your face he is about what he likes.

While the man does have his problems (don’t get me started, I’m here to review movies, not gossip) and his style certainly isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, I’ve found myself enjoying his work a lot ever since I was a teenager, and his films are what pushed me into checking out a lot of more obscure films in the exploitation genre; in particular, I’m a pretty big fan of blaxploitation thanks to Tarantino’s work, and I doubt I would’ve ever checked it out if not for his constant homages. I can’t really hate a guy who helped make me aware of Pam Grier, can I?

What’s most impressive is that out of his ten films there’s not one I would say is genuinely “bad.” Sure, there’s at least one I think is a boring, middling affair, and there are a couple of heavily flawed but still solid films, but there isn’t a single awful movie in his filmography. That’s honestly pretty impressive, especially considering the sort of weird throwback films he makes. After finally sitting down and watching Once Upon a Time in Hollywood recently, I decided it was finally time to bite the bullet and do what was a long time coming on this blog: Review Tarantino’s movies. And then I just decided, hey, why not review them all at once, as an homage to Schafrillas Productions and his director rankings? Oho, see, I can homage things too!

To be clear here, I’m only reviewing the films Quentined and Tarantined by the man himself; the “Tarantinoverse” is a bit more expansive than his own filmography, as True Romance (which he wrote) is canon and Machete, Machete Kills, From Dusk Til Dawn, Hobo with a Shotgun, Planet Terror, Thanksgiving, and the Spy Kids movies are all part of the “show within a show” side of his world, but those are all topics for another time. Right now, it’s all Tarantino baby! Now let’s get on to the actual ranking, and pray that I don’t put a foot in my mouth with these opinions.

10. Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood

I feel pretty safe in calling this Tarantino’s worst film. It’s not necessarily awful or anything, it has good qualities to it, but it takes every problem Tarantino’s style has and cranks it up to 11.

The film is long and dialogue-heavy, with lots of that classic Tarantino writing, but while individual scenes are good such as when Leonardo DiCaprio’s character is filming a scene with a little girl or Brad Pitt’s character goes to the ranch the Manson Family are holed up at they never really feel like they congeal into a cohesive narrative, instead feeling more like a long string of vignettes. This is especially bad in regards to Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate, whose numerous scenes really add nothing to the movie but constant looming reminders that Helter Skelter is going to happen and lots of shots of Robbie’s feet. The excessively padded runtime is so bad that when you finally get to the part where the tables are turned on the Manson Family, a historical twist that should feel fun and cathartic, it comes off as too little, too late instead.

It’s really a shame the film is so meandering, because in almost every other aspect it really shines. Every actor is giving it their all; Pitt and DiCaprio are absolutely fantastic, Robbie brings charm even to her filler role, and every single bit part actor is fully committed and leaves a mark. Standouts include Dakota Fanning as the de facto head honcho of the Family when Manson is out and Mike Moh as Bruce Lee in a scene that is at once deeply disrespectful to one of history’s greatest action stars and also very funny. This is a film you can tell everyone involved gave a shit about.

But for me, it’s not enough for me to really love the film. I like a lot about the movie for sure, but I just hate how nothing ever really comes together in a satisfying way. Maybe if a bit of the fat was trimmed I would have a higher opinion of the movie, but as it is three hours of vignettes (even well-acted ones) is truly excessive. It’s mid at worst, but for Tarantino that’s still pretty shocking when everything else he’s done is above average at worst.

9. Death Proof

This is a truly underrated film, but frankly, it’s easy to see why it is that way. This half of the double feature that was Grindhouse is a throwback to films that were actually two movies spliced together, and it has all the issues that entails. The first half of the film is a more grounded, dialogue-heavy buildup to a terrifying conclusion, while the second half is a wild and crazy action and stunt showcase, and the two halves feel at odds with each other…which is by design, but still.

This might be a hot take, but I find the slow burning first half to be the superior part of the film. As much as I love Tarantino’s insane action films, Kurt Russell’s portrayal of the sinister Stuntman Mike is just just utterly gripping; he is easily one of the best villains in Tarantino’s filmography. The whole first half establishes him really well, building up the anxiety until he finally gets to show the girl he leaves with just how well he death proofed his car. He’s just so damn cool.

And then comes the second half where he’s reduced to a bit of a chump. And this probably wouldn’t be nearly as bad if the protagonists up against him were compelling, but they’re not. They’re a bunch of girls who are boring at best and relentlessly unpleasant at worst; the fact they leave behind one of their friends to an uncertain (but likely unpleasant) fate at the hands of a creepy redneck is especially appalling. Beatrix Kiddo they ain’t.

This is a wildly uneven film, so I can see why it didn’t find its audience right away, but I think these days it had garnered a minor cult following. If you can handle the flawed second half, this is still a really good movie with a captivating villain performance that more than makes up for its shortcomings, but I definitely can’t justify putting it any higher on this list.

8. Inglourious Basterds

Oh, this might be a controversial one. This movie is the same sort of beast as OUATIH, which is why I have it so low, but with one crucial difference: It does everything better. Yes, this movie is long and a bit meandering, but it always feels like it’s moving towards a final goal. Yes, it ends with a history-altering plot twist, but this one might be the most cathartic one of all time. And yes, there’s gratuitous feet shots, but at least they’re in plot-relevant scenes.

Of course, the best thing about the movie is the villain, Hans Landa. Christoph Waltz’s big American breakout is one of the most compelling villains of the 2010s, a charismatic, cunning, self-serving Nazi bastard who you really want to see get what’s coming to him. I might be inclined to call him the best Tarantino villain of all time.

I think what weirdly brings the film down is the titular Basterds themselves, and not because they ultimately feel superfluous to the plot; it’s the same sort of thing as Raiders of the Lost Ark, them being absent wouldn’t have changed much but we also wouldn’t have much of an exciting adventure. My issue is that Brad Pitt aside they are just not interesting or compelling at all. You really need to work hard to sell attempted filmmaker Eli Roth as the ultimate Jewish badass, and the film doesn’t really deliver. If only Adam Sandler took the role as was the original vision; we really were robbed. It’s all the worse because it cuts away from the actual compelling plot with Shosanna for these schmucks.

To be clear, I don’t think this is a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, but I find it falls short of the hype around it. I’ve seen it described as movie with a lot of great scenes that never really comes together to be a great movie, and I mostly agree with that assessment; there’s so much to love here, but also so much I don’t care about. It’s definitely worth watching but it’s also where you can see the seeds for the problems with OUATIH planted.

7. The Hateful Eight

This isn’t a Tarantino film held in a particularly high regard; it’s not exactly hated, but it’s not what anyone would call their favorite either. Its contentious nature boils down to something apparent right in the title: Every character in this movie is a fucking asshole. It can be genuinely hard to get invested in these people when they’re a big collection of liars, killers, sadists, criminals, racists, and rapists.

Now, if you can stomach these nasty characters, what you’re left with is “John Carpenter’s The Thing… but a Western!” And I have to admit as a huge fan of The Thing, this is a very solid reimagining of the concept in a grounded setting. I do wish there was any character to root for here, but watching a group of people slowly tearing each other apart in a claustrophobic, isolated setting is still fun to watch. I don’t think it’s nearly as good or insightful as Carpenter’s movie, but very few movies are.

This is definitely a movie I can see people hating more than the previous two films, but I feel like this movie is more consistent than Basterds or Death Proof. Those movies have higher highs, but this movie never hits the lows they do, and even if his character is a massive asshole Samuel L. Jackson is always great to see in a Tarantino flick. Plus that brief appearance from Channing Tatum is great, especially with how it ends. This is a very solid film, but “very solid” is about as high as the praise I’ll give it will get.

6. Reservoir Dogs

Tarantino’s directorial debut, and boy is that readily apparent. It does a good job at establishing hallmarks of his style, like the sorts of conversations his characters have, their love of racial slurs, non-linear storytelling, and his trend of casting himself as a douchey minor character. It does everything fairly well, and I’d go as far as to call it one of the best directorial debuts ever… and that’s about it, really.

Like this is a very good film with strong performances—Michael Madsen and Steve Buscemi being the standouts—but it definitely feels less refined than his later works with the same style. His sophomore film just completely blows this one out of the water, to the point it’s hard to muster up the interest to revisit this as opposed to watching Pulp Fiction for the hundredth time. It’s not that this film is bad; it’s just that Tarantino’s later films do what this one does better.

It’s definitely a good film, maybe even great, but there’s clear room to improve. Hell, there wasn’t a single shot of a woman’s feet in the whole movie! Tarantino was slacking.

5. Kill Bill: Vol. 2

Now we’re in to the really great movies. And yes, while it doesn’t keep up the energy of the first film, I would definitely call this a great movie.

Where the first volume was driven by action, this one is more driven by talking, and thankfully the characters are saying a lot of interesting things here (the standout being Bill’s media illiteracy in regards to Superman, which reveals a lot about his character). There’s also the reveal of Beatrix Kiddo’s name as well as her backstory, and there are some standout moments like Beatrix escaping from being buried alive and the tense final conversation with Bill. Overall, the film does a fantastic job at fleshing the story out and expanding our understanding of the characters.

Like I said, though, it just doesn’t keep up the energy of the first film. Budd is great and serves as a more psychological opponent, burying Beatrix alive as a way to test if she has the resolve to finish her quest for revenge, but both Elle and Bill himself are dealt with in a rather anti-climactic manner. It says a lot that O-Ren, one of Bill’s former lackeys, put up a grander and more impressive fight than her boss did. While I do appreciate the more philosophical approach, it’s hard not to be miffed when a duology called “Kill Bill” doesn’t kill Bill in a more grandiose way befitting the character.

Obviously, I don’t think it brings the film down much, and this is still a good conclusion to the story. I just can’t help but feel it could’ve amped things up just a bit, y’know?

4. Jackie Brown

This is probably the weirdest film in Tarantino’s filmography, being an adaptation of a book that lacks a lot of his usual style and features a lot of people he didn’t work with afterwards (like Robert De Niro and Pam Grier). This has led to a lot of people praising it as one of Tarantino’s best works for being unique among his oeuvre… and also a lot of people deriding it for how different it is from his usual style.

I definitely think it’s up there with his best works, but I don’t think it’s the absolute best. It’s sort of like how I see Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies; they’re great films (well, the first two anyway) but I can’t in good conscience hold them up as the best Batman media because they ultimately lack a lot of what makes me love Batman as a character. And this film lacks a lot of what makes me love a Tarantino movie; it’s a fantastic, realistic crime drama, but that’s not really what I’m watching Tarantino for, you know?

Still, its placement on this list should tell you I still see this as a must-watch. Starring Grier alone makes it worth checking out, and it definitely showcases Tarantino has far more range as a filmmaker than you’d expect.

3. Django Unchained

Right from the opening song, you can tell this is going to be an epic movie. Tarantino truly nailed the Western on his first go around, adding his own spin to the genre and making a truly stellar film. However, it’s not without a few issues.

The main cast is fantastic. We have Christoph Waltz as a noble and heroic abolitionist, an atypical role he pulls off flawlessly; Samuel L. Jackson as a sinister house slave who is all about licking the boot that treads on him; and of course Leonardo DiCaprio as a hammy, egotistical slave owner, a stellar villain role that should have nabbed him an Oscar. Even minor roles are great, with Don Johnson appearing as a plantation owner early on and Jonah Hill of all people popping up as a proto-Klansman.

You might notice I didn’t mention Jamie Foxx as the titular Django. That’s because, unfortunately, he’s a bit of an issue with the film. It’s not Foxx’s performance; he makes Django cool and likable, and his awesome trademark Tarantino roaring rampage of revenge in the third act sells him as a truly badass character. No, the issue is the narrative seems to seriously sideline him in favor of Waltz’s character, to the point for large swaths of the film he feels a bit like a side character in his own story. I don’t find it to be a huge issue, but it can be frustrating, especially since this is a very long movie and a few scenes drag on a bit longer than necessary. You really couldn’t give the title character a bit more to do until the last half hour, Quentin?

Still, I don’t think its issues hold it back all that much. This is an incredibly fantastic film whose highs easily overshadow its frustrating lows. Frankly, if any Tarantino movie deserves a sequel, it would be this one; I think Django has a lot of interesting stories in him, and a film where he actually gets to be the central character the whole time would be great.

2. Kill Bill: Vol. 1

This right here is pretty damn close to being my absolute favorite Tarantino film. Where something like OUATIH is all of Tarantino’s flaws compounded into one film, this is all of his strengths together in one film. Fantastically violent action, stellar casting with not a single weak performance, an awesome soundtrack, tons of great homages to the works that inspired it, non-linear storytelling used effectively, and more style in a single frame than some movies have in their entire runtime.

Frankly, I don’t have a lot of issues with the movie, though I kind of don’t like how all the action is front loaded while all the character insight and dialogue gets shoved into the second part. It’s nothing that makes me think less of either film, but I think maybe sprinkling more insight into who the Bride is in this movie and putting some more action in the second part would keep the sequel from feeling a bit anti-climactic. I also wish we got more of Vernita Green, the first assassin we see dispatched onscreen and the one who gets the least characterization; with a third film increasingly unlikely at this point, meaning we won’t ever see her daughter seek her vengeance, it’s a shame we don’t get at least a little more of a look into who she is as a person like we did with Budd and especially O-Ren.

Aside from that, though? This is Tarantino at his best, and Uma Thurman’s crowning achievement as an actress, one that cements her as action royalty alongside the greats like Schwarzenegger, Stallone, and Weaver. There’s just one film Tarantino did that, objectively, is a much better film, and I’m sure as soon as you saw this ranking you knew exactly what it’d be...

1. Pulp Fiction

Of course this takes the top spot. Was there ever any doubt? This movie is everything Tarantino is about rolled into one supremely satisfying package.

The cast is nothing short of phenomenal. We have Bruce Willis in his prime, we’ve got John Travolta pulling out of a career slump, we’ve got Uma Thurman and Ving Rhames in roles that put them on the map, and we have a veritable buffet of talent in minor roles, the most memorable of which is Christopher Walken telling a child the delightful story of a pocket watch’s journey home from war. There’s not a bad performance here. But of course the real superstar is Samuel L. Jackson, who gave a career-defining performance as Jules, the baddest motherfucker around (it says so on his wallet).

The great performances wouldn’t matter much if not for the great script, though. The dialogue in this film is unreal with how good it is, with characters having very odd yet also very realistic and natural conversations. Jules and Vince discussing burgers, for instance, is one of the most memorable sequences in the film… and it’s just them driving! Some of the writing is a little contentious (did you really need to have your character say the N-word fifty times, Quentin?), but none of it is really bad.

I will say Tarantino as Jimmy is one of my few issues with the film, but also an issue I kind of like anyway. His acting is a wonky and there is genuinely no reason why he should be spouting off all these racial slurs (even in-universe, since his buddy Jules and his wife are black), but the sheer audacity of the whole thing saves it. Still, I can’t help but feel the scene hasn’t aged as gracefully as a lot of the film, and the amateur performance from Tarantino sticks out all the more because he is standing right next to two of the most talented actors ever.

Another aspect of the film I think has aged pretty poorly is the gay hillbilly rapists, but I don’t think this aspect is as cut and dry as “hey maybe the white director who has little acting training shouldn’t play the guy who says the N-word.” On the one hand, having the only queer characters in your movie being depraved rapists is not a good look, though this was par for the course for the 90s. On the other hand, the movie treats Marsellus getting raped with the same level of deadly seriousness that a woman in that position would receive in a film. That’s a pretty bold, progressive plot point, especially since men getting raped (especially male-on-male) was and still is used as a joke. And watching the movie in a day and age with tons of queer characters in media does soften the blow a bit, because these aren’t the only gay characters you’ll see in fiction anymore. I think it’s important to have discussions about these sorts of archaic portrayals of queers in film, but I don’t think this breaks the movie.

In modern times the film has gotten a reputation as a “red flag” film loved by toxic guys, and I think that’s unfair; is it the movie’s fault dudebros fail to see the movie is a refutation of crime and violence? Think about it: The only person in the film who gets an unambiguously happy ending is the one who has a spiritual awakening and abandons his criminal ways to walk the Earth. Every other major character pays in some way for their continued violent ways: Butch goes through Hell and ends up in exile, Marsellus Wallace gets raped, Mia overdoses and nearly dies, and Vince does die. Hell, there’s an entire segment where Jules and Vince are repeatedly chastised for careless violence causing a huge mess; as you may recall, Jules’ pal Jimmy was not too keen to find Phil LaMarr dead in his garage, and had some choice words to say about it. Stupid people see the blood and slurs and take it at face value, but the narrative itself tells these sorts they’re well and truly fucked because when you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Of course, my favorite interpretation of the film is that it is espousing the belief that Beatles fans are superior to Elvis ones, as an extension of Mia’s comment in a deleted scene that you’re either an Elvis person or a Beatles person. Vince is clearly an Elvis guy, and he is presented as an unprofessional, careless buffoon who causes numerous issues and ends up dying due to his own inattentiveness; meanwhile, Jules is vaguely implied to be the proverbial “Beatles guy” (he calls the robber in the diner “Ringo”) and escapes the film unscathed. This is even funnier when you consider that one of Tarantino’s first onscreen roles was as an Elvis impersonator in Golden Girls, something that implies he might be an Elvis guy himself, which would make the film the most epic act of self-deprecation ever.

This is one of the greatest sophomore releases from a director ever, and one of the greatest films of the 90s. This film frequently finds its way to the top of “best films of all time” lists, and with good reason; it is, to this day, just that good. I think there’s a temptation to call any of his other films his magnum opus due to just how acclaimed and pervasive in pop culture this film is, but it got that way for a reason. It is a damn good crime story with all sorts of twists and turns and plenty of stuff for viewers to ruminate on and interpret as they please. Hell, I thought I liked Kill Bill more than it until I rewatched it, but boy does this just blow even that masterpiece out of the water.

If nothing else, the film is incredible for one simple reason: Tarantino managed to insert his foot fetish into the film without it feeling as needlessly gratuitous as it is in some later films! Bravo, Tarantino!

#Michael After Midnight #Review #movie review #Quentin Tarantino #Reservoir Dogs #Pulp Fiction #Jackie Brown #Kill Bill #Death Proof #The Hateful Eight #inglourious basterds #once upon a time... in hollywood #django unchained #action #crime #drama #exploitation #grindhouse #feet

[wildpeachfarm]

ehh i will say that while dream fans were pretty awful in the earlier years, a lot of stuff did get misattributed to them because the fanbases were a lot more melded together then they are now. now theres very clear divides but especially with the dsmp a lot of fans were mixed together. also i will say, at least dream tries to call out his fanbase when he can, hes not perfect but at least he does it.

something that always frustrates me with the argument of stans being the reason why ccs are bitter is that yeah, i can see why they would be angry, i would be too, but not a single one of these ccs will call out their own fans. they will be angry that dreams stans attack them and direct that anger towards dream yet lack the self-awareness that their own fans do the same thing to other ccs and yet strangely, they never take the hit for it. for example, tommy, ranboo, and tubbo. their fans were fucking awful at the height of the dsmp, with attacking ccs over the prime path, michael, literally Anything. but somehow only dream takes the brunt of his fanbases actions, tommy, ranboo, and tubbo do not face the same bitterness from other ccs. like these ccs will sit and watch their fans call someone a pedophile, be queerphobic, etc. etc. and say Nothing but then turn around and complain when dream stans get pissy at them. it just seems a bit unfair to me.

fair argument tbh and I definitely think the "dream stan" title does get attribute to vile people in other fanbases unfairly but I have seen my fair share of actual dream fans go after people for very little reason just because there might be a /possibility/ that they are talking about Dream. Not 100% comparable but still something to note.

And yeah CCs have such an issue with not calling out their fanbase but personally to me, that seems like a good reason to stop engaging with them and giving them the reaction they so clearly want. We already know that the internet is unfairly against dream and his fans and for years now they have not budged in that. So to me, I don't really know why people are still putting in insane amounts of work to try to change the opinions of random people who have stayed strong in their dumb haterisms for years at this point. idk maybe that's just me.

I understand things like clearing up harmful misinfo or things like that, but when its CCs being vague at best or random stans being shady and hateful, I just don't see the worth in it when it could be unnecessarily dragging Dream's name into a weird position. idk if that makes sense 😭

#ask #anon #anti drummyache tag

[orionsangel86]

I read what Misha Collins wrote on Substack (I don't use Twitter so can't see what he wrote on there) and thought it sounded pretty good. He obviously knows a bit about the situation and is not "falling for western propaganda" (or middle eastern propaganda either). He sounded like he was on the side of the people suffering. Pro-ceasefire, pro-peace, pro-no-more-innocent-civilians-getting-hurt-or-killed. Good. I understand that some people are disappointed that he isn't fully anti-Israel and pro-Palestine, but I think that's good too. Nuance is good. Compassion is good. After 9/11 (and certainly during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) some people called for the death of America (calling what they were doing with their "war on terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan colonialism and genocide), others said "the west" should nuke the entire middle east. Both were wrong, obviously. I hear echoes of that now. George Bush saying "you're either with us or you're against us" and shit like that. As if it was just that simple. It is never that simple. Good for Misha Collins for not giving in to oversimplification of a complex issue.

See his initial post was fair in my opinion and I mostly agree with his stance because at the end of the day the people on both sides screaming "all palestinians should leave!" And "all israelis should leave!" Are failing to see that both sets of peoples have some right to the land and ultimately the only solution is to agree to share it. So if your comments are just based on his initial post then I agree with you and agree that his post was fair.

But then he went on to deny that Israel was committing genocide. I dont know how much more clear it needs to be before the west and western media wakes up to the fact that this is a blatant and obvious genocide. Anyone denying that its a genocide is short sighted, falling for Israeli propaganda (and US propaganda) and its really concerning seeing all these supposedly powerful people fall over themselves trying to explain away a genocide that everyone can see happening. Misha should know better than to make excuses to deny a fucking genocide. It makes me sick when I see people pretend it isn't a genocide. Whatever your opinions are on the conflict, I am utterly astonished at anyone denying what to me is so blatantly obvious.

I have read enough and seen enough to know what I'm bloody seeing. I wont be told it isnt what it is.

Also, quite frankly, on the replies to my post, Michael and Misha are both within their rights to block anyone sending them death threats and saying horrible things about them. I have no issue with people utilising block functions to avoid harassment and do it myself frequently. So Michael Sheen blocking assholes in his replies is not worthy of cancellation in my opinion. No ones opinions warrant death threats and wishes of death upon them. People can have opinions that you strongly disagree with and its still no excuse to wish death upon them.

But Misha needs to be told politely that he is wrong. Denying a genocide is not a good look. Its extremely disappointing to see as a fan of his.

#misha collins #michael sheen #israel palestine conflict

[misc-obeyme]

Still micheal anon but I think that nb Michael is still obsessed with the brothers to a degree to the point that he's willing to do anything to bring them back. While og om Michael has come to terms with it more while still obviously missing them.

It kind of reminds me of a clingy child in that aspect, still extremely attached and unwilling to let go of them even though they themselves might have moved on from him.

I'm also curious about Raphael on this because for someone who just got impersonated he doesn't seem that upset about it. It probably has to do with him at this point in time being closest to Micheal and in his character introduction how he couldn't leave Michael alone after the brothers left. (And I'm glad he did bc even with Raphael Micheal definitely isn't in a sound place of mind but at least he still has Raphael.)

And I was doubting how close Raphael truly was but then I saw how much of an idiot Micheal seemed in the hard mode that reminded me a lot of my own younger brother that really stopped my doubts. It's clearly obvious to me that the Micheal mc knows and the Micheal the brothers and Raphael know are different.

Kinda lengthy again but I do enjoy hearing your thoughts, also for the past weeks I've been brain rotting about him and the possibilities and that really leaks into my asks.

Ugh yes the brain rot is real with this game! I enjoy hearing your thoughts as well, so thank you for sharing them with me!

I honestly hadn't considered the difference between NB Michael and OG Michael, but you're totally right. NB Michael has only just recently lost all his brothers. I guess I can cut him some slack because of that, it would certainly explain the way he seems like he'd do just about anything to get them back. Even if that means forcing them to choose between leaving Satan behind and possibly starting a war between the Celestial Realm and the Devildom. It's definitely a bit of an immature response, though, because even if he's doing it out of desperation, he's only considering his own feelings by doing it at all, in my opinion.

Honestly, I am starting to really like Raphael. He's a little unhinged, but he seems to have everyone's best interests at heart. I really thought that Raphael just knew all the stuff he did when he was in the Devildom because he was so close with Michael that Michael told him everything. I was not expecting that it was actually Michael disguised as Raphael at all. But I feel like Michael needs Raphael and it's good that Raphael is still around, just like you said. Though I did find it interesting that at the end of the hard lesson, Raphael said maybe he should have followed Lucifer when he had the chance. It makes me wonder why he decided not to. I think Simeon feels really guilty about not siding with Lucifer, but Raphael doesn't seem to have that same regret? It sounded more like he was saying that following Lucifer would have been easier than dealing with Michael now that Lucifer is gone lol.

I definitely think there's a bit of a theme with characters who act different depending on who they're around. Michael is always pretty formal with MC, even when he's pretending to be Raphael. And yet, when he's talking to Raphael, it's clear that he's something of a troublemaker and possibly doesn't actually know what he's doing at all. It seems like he's just using the formality of the Celestial Realm to make it seem like he knows what he's doing, but he absolutely doesn't.

All this is to say that I don't dislike Michael! I actually don't feel strongly one way or the other yet because we don't have enough information about him. I'm just not particularly pleased with the things he's been doing in the last couple of lessons. I get the feeling they're going to introduce him for real in the next season, so I think if we get to spend more time getting to know him, I'll be able to form a real opinion of him.

Though in the end I usually find reasons to love all the characters, so I suspect he'll grow on me just like Raphael has lol.

#I was in love with Thirteen from the moment I met her #but everybody else had to work for it lol #obey me #obey me nightbringer #obey me nightbringer spoilers #obey me michael #obey me raphael #anon asks #misc answers

[punk-and-anxious]

I’m curious about your reasoning for why midam when they share a body and/or have vessels that are identical(?) and based on Adam is okay, but not if Michael is either using John as a vessel (assuming it’s only the body and John himself is not in there too) or just looks like John in AUs and such. Is it just personal squick?

(Speaking as someone who’s been shipping midam for a while. John as Michael’s vessel was pretty common pre-the s15 reveal, especially in AUs, where it’s just a hot face to give to the archangel we want Adam to kiss. Nothing wrong with disliking it, but I like hearing new opinions on this ship and comparing them to the conversations people have been having about it for a while.)

I honestly have no idea why. I made the og post exactly because i realized my preference and had no actual reason for it?

I was already in the fandom pre s 15 reveal and yes i too read shit ton of midam fics with young Johns face as Michael, so im not totally opposed to it. I just prefer the weird mind fuckery of sharing a body (might be because of my love for all cosmic horror and weird mind fuckery)

I think the preference comes from it still looking like Adams dad in a way? Even when it's not. Like have you seen pictures of your parents when they were young. They dont look like your parents at all but its still them. So id see it as weird on Adams pov. Like would he get past Michael looking like his father? Would he see only Michael or his dad?

And yes i would fuck my own clone if i could (for science) so i dont have an opposition on the whole I SWEAR ITS NOT SELFCEST PLEASE LISTEN version of Midam. Because you dont really see yourself that often, so itd be different? Idk

Honestly

I have no idea why xD and im not hating on anyone who likes the young John as Michaels vessel/face. Since, like i said, been there! And if i find a really good fic like that, ill happily read it :3 (i know my og post seemed a bit harsh and stuff but thats just my humor. Dry and angry seeming about small shit. Like anwsering FUCK YOU when someone asks you to get the mail, and doing it anyway. Because why woukd i be mad? But akso i get passionate about stuff and so on. I hope it didnt come off as me hating the idea compleatly!)

Idk if this makes any sense or answers anything or if it's just rambles! Like i said i honesky dont know, and the more i think for a reason the more it makes no sense for me to have a preference on it, yet here we are

:3 ill try clear stuff up more if ya need me to <3

#question #thank you so much anon for the Q!!!! <3 #i hope this makes sense to ya #midam

[oswaldsleftbicep]

I was wondering what you'd think the boys' voices would sound like

character voice claims

ooo i love this one!! i worked hard on this lol this is all just my opinion, as per usual, so if anyone has different ideas i'd love to hear them!!

on a more solemn note, this is gonna be short. something came up in my relationship and i think we're on a break?? idk, all i know is i miss him and my heart hurts lol

genre: other

cw: none

Lucia

❧ the brothers all share one voice trait in common: they got that pretty boy, kinda whiny, a little bit voice cracky, breathy kinda voice

❧ he has a voice similar to childe (genshin impact): it's confident, clear, and has the qualities listed above, very much pretty boy and prideful

Levy

❧ usually has a clear and calm manner of speaking, but when he gets flustered or embarrassed his voice cracks and his tone shifts like crazy

❧ he has a voice like byakuya (danganronpa: trigger happy havoc): smart, know-it-all tone while also still having that easily annoyed tone, only i think levy's voice would be slightly less deep

Mefy

❧ he has 3 main manners of speech that can switch up at the drop of a hat: chipper, mean, and bored; and he's very good at controlling his tone level

❧ he has a voice similar to wanderer (genshin impact): condescending while light and airy, but with less rasp; our boy drinks water frfr

Oswald

❧ deeper voice but definitely not corpse deep, and he manages to not be very loud; he speaks in a soft, indoor volume, it's very dreamy

❧ he has a voice similar to sousuke yamazaki (free! series): i can't not hear ian sinclair's voice with this character, but ignore that and you get the picture; it's deep and suitable for a big tall man, but not overwhelmingly scary

Kaim

❧ he's got a total high class, almost cocky tone; one sentence out of this man and you know he's intelligent and classier than you. so it goes without saying that

❧ he has a voice like any j michael tatum character, i especially picture sebastian michaelis: prim and proper while still being cocky enough to show some personality

Mikael

❧ another prim and proper yet still cocky guy, only he is much worse at hiding his emotions with his tone

❧ he has a voice similar to the actor dan stevens (downton abbey): i can't decide if his voice would be deeper or the same pitch, but he's definitely got that snarkiness in his voice while still having a charming air to it

Ricardo

❧ he's got a cocky, deeper pretty boy voice and i hate him for it. it's the kind of voice that immediately gets anyone hooked on him, and he definitely knows how to use it

❧ he has a voice like flynn rider (tangled): i hate to say that, i love flynn rider, but they share that charming, cocky, carefree tone, very casanova of them

Noel

❧ one of the lightest pitch voices, on par with mefy, which really hints at his youthfulness and even his naivety, but even still you can hear exhaustion in his voice from how much he's been through

❧ he has a voice similar to albedo (genshin impact): breathy, light, monotonous, and blunt. very pretty boy but without the whiny, voice crackiness the brothers share

Lucas

❧ does it even need any introduction

❧ he has a voice similar to howl pendragon (howl's moving castle): personally, i thought christian bale's voice was too deep and didn't match how howl looked, but why not apply that decision to our lovely lucas as well. may as well say it would be a higher pitch though, just to be safe

Kurt

❧ a child, his voice is so youthful and full of the voice cracks, and therefore

❧ his voice is similar to rowley jefferson (diary of a wimpy kid): don't call me, don't come by my house, we're done

#my. hcs #disclaimer: i have never played genshin impact; i only listened to voice lines #nightmare harem #nightmare harem hcs #nightmare harem lucia #nightmare harem levy #nightmare harem mefy #nightmare harem oswald #nightmare harem kaim #nightmare harem mikael #nightmare harem ricardo #nightmare harem noel #nightmare harem lucas #otome games