∇ for Alya and Chloe
∇ -. old age/ageing headcanon
Sorry Anon, I hope you don't mind if I do it for my Miraculous team AU/fanon version of the characters because honestly, at this point of the story, I have a hard time imagining how any character will age ^^;
So Miraculous Team verse:
Alya
She will have a flourishing and fulfilling journalism career just like she dreamt it. After some extreme reports, she will settle back in Paris and will become the editor-in-chief of her own newspapers. After years of journalism, Alya will decide to slowly retire, entrust her newspapers to trustworthy people, and become an author. Her children's books will become especially popular in Europe, and some of her stories will become best-sellers internationally to the point they get (animated) movie adaptations - that she will closely supervise!
As for her relationship status, I can see her either staying single and living happily, being the "cool aunt" and "fairy godmother" of many children (both related and not); or married (not sure with whom yet though!) with 2 or 3 adopted kids.
Alya and Marinette will still be very close/best friends after years and a mentor for new Miraculous users (when she chooses to stop being one herself). Also close to her own family, her parents would be worried sick for her during her "journalist of the extreme" years, but still very proud of her.
Chloé
Choosing a career will be quite a challenge for her, it might take some time for her to know what she wants to do, what her skills would allow her to do, and so on. For about 5 years, she will be a food critic for a famous guide (think of the equivalent of the Michelin Guide), travelling around France. It will be a very good experience for her, but after having various stomach problems and her liver protesting, she decided to change her career path and take care of her health.
Chloé will travel with her girlfriend, then wife, Kagami around the world both for the latter fencer career, and to assist her in her other job. After a while, she will become an event planner and will enjoy it a lot, making some important events for people unforgettable (in a good way!).
She and her father will mend their bond in a healthy and loving way, Audrey Bourgeois merely a shadow of their past. She'll become one of the biggest fans of Zoé and a huge supporter (to the latter embarrassment and joy), advertising her little sister's movies and claiming loudly: "It's my baby sis!! Look! Isn't she cute? And talented? DON'T YOU DARE SAY NO!!!"
7 notes
·
View notes
"Why do you look so frightened...?"
BLOOD WARNING
Also me questioning the Dreams update thingy for oyster because I'm me-
Okay look, while I myself do like sum good ol' added angst material; I don't really know why she even stole and (maybe) murdered her "friend" in the context the nanny gave.
I mean- I get it in the lore-sense to specify how she apparently got "cursed", but that just didn't feel right to me.
Because it conflicts with this flavor text in a trivia screen. "Old sailors say that when a mermaid loses her pearl, she will be cursed to descend into the lightless abyss."
Soooooooo.... Originally I thought because since she gave her pearl to moron Oyster Senior, she was slowly becoming more and more corrupt along with the growing greed of dumbass. But. she was still putting on a brave and happy front. Because love right? Until eventually Oyster just ran off and completely and literally threw her to the deep end... And THAT'S how she got cursed and bitter.
And it seemed to be going the way I figured... More or less, the naivete and growing greed was a new one but eh, I'm flexible.
But then the whole petty theft thing happened suddenly and just... Why is it when she steals from her buddy does she THEN get cursed? Is that one different from the first one? does she have two? Is the Nanny's story add-libbed? WHY DID SHE EVEN STEAL FROM THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHAT WAS HER GOAL THERE???
217 notes
·
View notes
LISTEN TO ME steph didn’t know anything about jason and no one told her anything about him except as a cautionary tale so for YEARS she was being compared to this dead kid that she never met and she KNEW that was the reason bruce didn’t trust her so when she died she was like “damn guess bruce was right :/“ then realized NO it’s NOT RIGHT because she was a kid and she wasn’t the one that made those plans so fuck bruce and his shitty treatment of her!!!! ANYWAYS jason is back and he’s STILLLL just a cautionary tale to her because she never gets to meet him?!??!?!? she comes back and he’s The Red Hood and she sees him as the robin that “went crazy” because she doesn’t know anything about him!!! all she knew was what she was told, which was that he was “reckless” and “got himself killed” and then he came back as a murderer so she couldn’t even know what he was actually like or how similar they were because the only similarities anyone ever told her about where the bad ones!!!! aaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! she has no first hand knowledge of who he actually is because she!!! never met him!!!!!!!! all she can know is what she’s heard from other people who refuse to actually talk about him!!!!
552 notes
·
View notes
Reasons Why BAE Deserves to Win the Road To Legend Paradox Live Competition
They were the first group to be introduced in the original competition lineup
They were the first group to do a stage battle. And against Cozmez
BAE got second place in the finale, lost to Cozmez by just a few 100,000 points
Bonus:
Allen IS the Bible
37 notes
·
View notes
This just in: Yoko genuinely believes that John had a vision about a man on a flaming pie who told him the name of the Beatles.
“[John] wrote a piece called ‘On The Dubious Origins Of Beatles’, and the basic line that we all laughed at was something like “I had a vision and a man came unto me on a flaming pie and said ‘You shall be Beatles with an ‘a’, and so it was.” We took this to be Goon humour and a sort of Biblical joking – “and God said unto thee ‘come forth’, and he came fifth”. That’s very much the humour that was going around Liverpool at the time.
Now, it turned out that we couldn’t have this in the Anthology because Yoko believes that John did have a vision. I’m very friendly with Yoko now so I don’t want this to look like a snide thing, but it genuinely intrigues me that she thinks this. And the way I tried to put it to her was, you can say, “I had a vision” and people will go “OK”. You could say, “A man came unto me”. “OK, it’s starting to sound a little biblical, but it’s all right, still.” “On a flaming…”. “Yes, this is OK, it’s even more biblical”. Now, if you’d have gone to the word “chariot”, we would be all right. Or if you’d gone to the word “phoenix” we would be all right. But the word “pie” is a dead giveaway. “A man came to me on a flaming pie?” I know, in my mind, that John didn’t have a vision about this, but the way Yoko puts it is, “If it’s OK for Paul to dream ‘Yesterday’ then it’s OK for John to have a vision.” So these are the kind of things that cropped up. It’s only a difference of opinion so it doesn’t matter vastly. We’ve tried to make our point, she’s made her point and we’ve arrived somewhere in the middle.”
— Paul McCartney, Club Sandwich Interview, November 1st, 1995
211 notes
·
View notes
I was thinking about a genuinely refreshing post I saw a few days ago, but it also got me thinking about something else that I always end up coming back to.
I feel like a lot of people believe (consciously or not) that the problem with punitive justice is that we could be mistaken about guilt. The idea that we should be identifying and punishing wrongdoers remains. And I also feel like even this is smaller than the broader underlying assumption that determining guilt from innocence is essential to moral judgment of human beings' responses to one another.
And yes, sometimes it is one essential part of a larger picture. But I think the fixation on guilt vs innocence obscures such basic nuance as "some things are not right to do to anyone, no matter what that person is like." Someone being guilty of wrongdoing does not justify any and all responses to that wrongdoing. You can be on the "right side" in a general sense and still behave unconscionably towards your opponents, and so can larger bodies like communities and states. Human rights should exist, actually!
This idea that someone can be genuinely guilty and it's still not morally tolerable to do anything you want to them seems very basic on paper. But I see arguments essentially assuming the opposite across a lot of different contexts and I always find it really disturbing.
139 notes
·
View notes