#but at the same time despite being spoiled i'm still lacking context for like. a lot i'd need to know if i want to write them post-canon. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ghost-in-the-corner · 11 months

Text

Ok I'm back on my Barbie movie bullshit

The song they're using to promote it, Dua Lipa's Dance the Night, is so incredibly depressing.

For context:

The music and singing are very upbeat. It sounds exactly like what you'd hear from a Barbie song. Same thing for the title; Barbies are glamorized, always having the time of their lives.

In this way, it's very reminiscent of Aqua's Barbie Girl song. That song is about being (for lack of a better word) a bimbo, living a party lifestyle and getting spoiled by your partner, who gets a lot of sex in return.

This sort of objectification has surrounded Barbies for years. They're toys, meant to be pretty and dressed up and dance with other Barbies.

But Dua Lipa's song. The lyrics are so depressed and existential. The first line:

Baby, you can find me under the light, diamonds under my eyes

Sounds like a regular party night. Later from the background singers:

Even when the tears are flowing they're diamonds on my face.

Barbie literally starts the song out crying.

The whole thing continues in this trend, with her talking about how, despite everything happening - her heart breaking - inside, she keeps on presenting the perfect idea of a Barbie. Not one hair out of place, not missing any steps, still with that smile and tight outfit.

This, again, shows the existential crisis Barbie is going to go through in the film. She has an ideal she has to live up to; society demands her to be the perfect Barbie, always happy and pretty and carefree. But she doesn't want that. It's why her feet go flat, and why she wants to put the heel on. She fully believes herself to be the doll everyone else made her, thus doesn't think she should be able to express how she really feels. It's why Barbie keeps moving, cause if she stops, she'll shatter.

I'll still keep the party going, not one hair out of place - yes, I can

And because she's convinced herself that she needs to be the perfect Barbie, she does well acting like it, so no one else feels what she feels. Every other Barbie and Ken don't have these ideas, thus making her the lone figure, isolated from both the world she's in and the world she wants.

When my heart breaks - they never see it

I think this leads into the idea that Barbie's inner conflict might make her choose between the worlds; in Barbieland, she's the perfect doll with a fabulous life, but in the real world, she's a person with emotions and free will.

48 notes · View notes

stillness138 · 2 months

Note

for hc ask game: triss is actually coral, ngl my fav "mainstream" theory

so uh

i don't like it 🙈

there are, i feel, two types of people into this theory: us the shitposters, and redditors who can't discern between books and games and end up taking it completely seriously.

so the idea of it is that Triss did die at Sodden and Coral used the chaotic situation to assume her identity, right?

my biggest issue with it is... Coral has no reason for doing that. She was well-known and well-respected in life as herself, she had everything she wanted, including Geralt. consensually, even.

my other big issue with it is that book Triss exists for a reason. The jealous best friend who is just spineless enough to throw the people she supposedly cares for the most under the bus when faced with a decision that would require her to take a real stand. seemingly sweet and caring, but spoiled inside. Sapko was trying to say something with her and gave her an arc that would've been undermined if it was actually someone else.

my last major issue with it, stemming from the previous, is that it diminishes the impact of what Triss did to Geralt. Coral wouldn't reminisce about him from the time during Season of Storms the same way Triss thinks about him in Blood of Elves because Triss is recounting a rape. And it was her, no one else, because again, she's the jealous best friend. Like, i'd rather Geralt didn't go through that at all, but given Triss also repeatedly tries to kiss him and whatnot after coming to Kaer Morhen... it's her, not Coral.

(in SoS, Geralt says smth like "you caught me on your flowery-peachy-magical perfume pheromones" [yeah he says pheromones, i don't know either man] and Coral goes "aint no way, actually you caught me on your elaborate mating dance when we first met" which like, you could read as she legit used magic and gaslit him afterwards but the whole, for the lack of a better word vibe, or i guess context of it comes across way different than the very much one-sided account from Triss. Geralt reads as very aware and very active in SoS. they are somewhat similar backgrounds, but i truly don't think what Sapko wrote post-saga in SoS is supposed to be the same event he described in BoE.)

however, i understand where the theory came from, because it seems to me like a similar place to the origin of W3 Dijkstra being a doppler. it serves as a bit of a cope for game Triss having like 3 different personalities early on.

that's the other side of the theory, right? that (only) game Triss is Coral?

which i definitely get, but again, there's no reason for Coral to do that. why would she be interested in all the manipulation and politics? game Triss eventually crystallizes into more or less her book personality - sweet looking, but rotten - despite CDPR's unwillingness to acknowledge her crimes in the text of the games. they still keep referencing everything else from the books, game and book Triss aren't two different characters.

as someone who takes design decisions way too literally, i truly think there's not much to it beyond Triss in W1 being written by mashing together book quotes by a bunch of different characters. it is wild and kinda funny but yeah. i'm not a fan :D

#the witcher #ask game #shut up elis #i dunno it's just kinda silly and convoluted #i haven't read the whole of SoS so maybe i'm missing some of coral's ambitions that would line up with the plot of w2 but #i still don't trust the theory #to give some credit tho i'm glad someone is able to come up with an elaborate theory that actually takes root in the fandom because #we're starved for stuff like that

3 notes · View notes

gobbochune · 6 years

Note

What fantasy stories do you enjoy? And what makes something fantasy vs not fantasy? Not to argue, I'm just curious how you define it

Never be afraid to ask me about my personal nitpicky definitions for media, i love this shit!

the reason it took me so long to piece together my feelings about this show is because, like i said, its tied up with the uncanny valley of my personal tastes. There is no one obvious decision that is bad, but rather it consistently presents a character or theme I might enjoy and ruins it for me. The characters are somehow simultaneously over explained and unrelatable. The world is too realistic but also so cartoonishly dark you cant take it seriously. everything that happens is predictable, and yet i still manage to be disappointed by the execution. it is so out of synch with the bare minimum of what i’m willing to tolerate that its almost impressive. Usually when i hate something i’ll consume everything i can from the franchise so i can properly illustrate my complaints (or in the hopes that it will redeem itself) but game of thrones was so contentious to me specifically that i couldnt even be in the room if it was on. The only other show that has ever offended me that badly was scandal, which coincidentally is also a shock value political drama.

Its not enough to say “Game of Thrones shouldnt count as fantasy because XYZ” because I have examples of the same things being done in different fantasy books without contending with their classification. I don’t even like some of these books, and yet I still got a clear taste of the world and characters in a more tactful way then game of thrones does anything.

But my initial interest in Game of Thrones (and subsequent disappointment when it doesnt live up to my expectations) can be boiled down to one complaint:

The Tone

When I think of the perfect fantasy adventure that exemplifies what I lowkey want from any fantasy world my mind inevitably drifts to the presentation of The Last Unicorn. What this surreal not-quite-a-kids movie from the 80s lacks in vague writing and a pretty lackluster 3rd act it makes up for with its almost oppressive tone of loneliness, searching, loss, and wonder.

youtube

The film opens with a song about a world that wastes away waiting for just one glimpse of a unicorn before everything succumbs to the cynicism and apathy. The lyrics express how it feels to slowly lose your sense of wonder as nature crumbles, seasons change, and time passes. But at the end of each verse, as if to represent a silver lining, there is a reminder that there is just one unicorn left. She’s old and broken and you might never see her, but she’s a reminder that magic lives somewhere out there. And for that, you feel alive.

That feeling of carrying on with the bittersweet hope of seeing a unicorn follows throughout the movie. Every single character the unicorn comes across has had their hope destroyed, but those who kept believing are able to see her and join her on her quest. It presents optimism and faith as an unquestioned truth, but a truth that weighs on your soul as you grow up.

Like game of thrones the world of the last unicorn is cruel and unfair. In such a world hope is a heavy burden, and those who wait for unicorns instead of moving on with their lives destroy themselves waiting. Its so sad and unfair that when they finally meet her they fall to pieces.

The last unicorn journeys is to find others like herself, other spots of light in the darkness that have been stolen away by the cruelty of men. It is this sacrifice of her own innocence that saves the other unicorns, and though she can return to the forest happy there are unicorns in the world again she’ll never truly go home again. Her home was defined by the eternal and immortal hope she represents, and with that gone, it will never be the same.

The Last Unicorn is haunting and oppressive and bittersweet, and it never has to explain its themes to anyone.

We never learn what happened to Molly Grue in the years she waited to meet the unicorn. She doesnt get a monologue where she explains in masochistic detail every terrible thing she saw and did to make her so ashamed to stand before the unicorn now. If you’re young like I was when I watched this scene, you might have no idea why Molly is angry at all. The answer comes with age and experience, not through the writer describing the disgusting abuse she faced from her husband and his men. This scene is darker and sadder than anything that happens in Game of Thrones because of its sincerity, not its content. We can listen to Cersei talk about how the period-appropriate misogyny made her sad as a kid but she never allows herself to be as vulnerable as Molly Grue in this scene. By comparison we know Molly a lot less than we know Cersei, but Molly manages to instantly have my sympathy in one scene while I still dont give a fuck about Cersei after six seasons.

This refusal to explain itself is present in the lore as well. Rules are not drawn up and given context but instead referenced with such certainty that you believe and remember them.

Why must one never run from an immortal? Because it will only attract their attention.

This rule of the universe is brought up once but I think about what it could mean all the time. What if it means that immortals are so powerful that your only hope to avoid their notice? That their nature as an eternal truth makes running away pointless? Perhaps theres something about immortals being so ancient that they can only see you if you’re moving quickly. It is such an alien and vague statement thrown out so casually that it makes you feel confused and out of place in a strange environment you dont understand.

Like, I dont know, you’re on an adventure through a fantasy land or something.

While its cool that I know the scientific properties of fire that keeps burning until its all gone, if I understand that fire as a threat its mere presence in the story already spoils its effect. Its a fire that keeps burning. Big Whoop. I guess those ships are gone now but what exactly did that add to my experience? The dragons are neat but they’re a type of lizard that is capable of preforming magic. Once you know what that magic is theres nothing all too mysterious or dangerous about them. They’re just large aggressive carnivores. Of course its a stupid idea to let them run rampant through a city. Anything shocking that happens because of the dragons isn’t a reminder that this world is a strange world filled with unpredictable consequences, but that these big fire-breating animals are being managed by idiots.

It doesn’t matter where the Harpy came from or what exactly happened to Molly Grue. The harpy is terrifying despite having no special powers and Molly’s arc begins and finishes within a minute and 16 seconds and it manages to be more believable and tragic than anything that happens in Game of Thrones. And while the idea of a dry political drama within a fictional universe is a cool idea, its just not one I have any interest in and I’m tired of people insisting i need to watch it.

24 notes · View notes