Rewatching My Love Story for like the 4th time and something I’ll forever love and appreciate is how much both Takeo and Yamato love Suna. He’s never treated as a third wheel even if he feels like it. To them, he’s a very important and essential part of their relationship. They love having him around and they know they can rely on him for anything. They love appreciating him and everything he’s done for them and god I love it so much. Suna deserves it! He’s a great friend and they both know that! It’s just so funny when he’s hauled around and is apart of dates when he doesn’t even want to be there sometimes, but you can just tell he’s happy all the same anyway because he loves his friends too.
Nothing’s worse than when you’re talking to someone about character nuances and they refuse to take their shipping goggles off bc I said “oh yeah I think these two could have a really interesting dynamic if it was explored” and they went “well I ship this character with someone else so…” like bro I said they could have a compelling relationship, not that I wanted them to fuck nasty style
Look I just think that if you’ve ever loved Star Trek, Like really loved it (not just had a passing interest or casually consumed it) then it’s gonna be a part of you forever. It injects a little whimsy in you. A little thoughtfulness and curiosity and wonder. I’ll watch Star Trek and every time I do I feel like a little kid staring up at the stars holding onto the grass. I’ll watch Star Trek and every time I’m sitting out sharing a sweater with my friend as we talk about Spock and the sun starts to set. I’ll watch Star Trek and it’s the same feeling of calm awe that I get when I sit in the aquarium.
Aliens aside it’s about humanity. It’s always about humanity and trying to understand despite it all (which I think is a core tenet of humanity). And if that compels you then it’s going to stay with you. No matter if the packaging is a bit silly. Maybe even because the packaging is silly.
Also once you love Spock I don’t think you can stop
Kind of related to that post I made a couple days ago but I love you people who make “odd” animal-like noises, especially people who don’t do that on purpose, I love you people who growl when they’re frustrated, I love you people who mimic the animals around them, I love you people who bare their teeth when feeling threatened/on edge, I love you people who make purring noises when they’re happy/satisfied
i’m so sick of writers who proudly proclaim that they don’t read and directors and actors and other filmmakers who smugly say that they rarely watch movies or any artist who acts like an audience is stupid for connecting with their work like what the fuck is wrong with you that you hold such contempt such derision for the art that you have chosen to make the art that so many people dream of the opportunity to make the art that brings meaning and connection to people’s lives it’s unbelievably disrespectful to both your audience and the art-form and if you can’t muster basic respect for either your art-form or your audience then kindly fuck off and do something else
absolutely vile that today should be about recognising legitimately important women’s issues and achievements and you go onto any social media and it’s just terf city
Generation Loss is a comedic tragedy in every sense of the word. Every character we see exemplifies this fact, but no one other than The Austin Show proves its truth.
We begin at the carousel. Austin, Gay, takes his turn by pleading for himself to live because he has a wife and children back home. The rest of the cast interrogates him about his “wife and kids,” clearly suspicious of his truthfulness without even knowing his dubbed “title.” Everyone in the room treats Austin like a joke.
In turn, so do we.
Next, we reach the closet and shortly after the failed drag show, Austin remarks, “Look, I uh… I didn’t expect to die here.” It’s a moment of pure honesty, whether we like it or not. It happens again when the Puzzler tries to party with them, and Austin has to angrily remind him that they are his captives and are actively trying to kill them.
Austin: “What are you doing? What are you doing? What are you doing? We're trying to get out of here. I have children and wives— wife. One wife! What is this some sort of game? I’ve been stuck in hear for hours it seems. We’re trying to get out. Why is nobody else freaking out? We’ve got C4 strapped to our neck…”
It isn’t until Ethan’s death, his blood pooling out from underneath the door, Austin screaming at the others, begging them to have a reaction, to care about their circumstances, to care about death, that we finally understand Austin’s role in Generation Loss.
After all, in every great comedy, someone always has to play the straight man.
Who wants to bet Peerless Cucumber has an entire fan base within the pidw’s fandom? Potentially even bringing in a portion of pidw’s readers who just want to enjoy shen yuan just loosing it in the comments.
Like sure, some of the fandom’s definitely there for the toxic masculinity and papapa, but I guarantee you there’s an entire section dedicated to gleefully watching the fandom sewer rat being feral.
i know a lot of people have mentioned this, but i’m just obsessed with the way taylor refused to sanitize herself on this album. she’s telling you everything. she got off to gross men whilst already in another relationship. she fell for the most obvious lies because she wanted to believe them. she was mad at anyone who tried to warn her. yes, she’s still mad at you for clutching your pearls and watching her like a circus animal btw. she’s having his baby—no she’s not! she just likes trolling. she does really want babies, though. like a lot. she felt like she’d been abducted by aliens and found cosmic love, but in reality, she was manic. and then he fucking ghosted her! and he didn’t even measure up in any measure of a man!!!!! and now she’s devastated by him and his predecessor! she feels like a wondrous prophet one day and the desperate victim of a curse the next. btw he knows how to ball and she knows aristotle. and fuck kim k! also man sex with certain men kinda fucked her up, but at least the writing that came from it defined her legacy. the manuscript isn’t hers anymore. she hopes this insane ass manuscript won’t have to be hers, either! free her of these stories.
Another reason I dislike Les Mis adaptations that make Jean Valjean constantly openly angry/violent is because they miss that Jean Valjean is not allowed to be angry. The fact he is forbidden from expressing anger is, I argue, actually a very important part of his character in the novel!
One of the subtler political messages of the story is that some people are given freedom to express anger, while others are forced to be excessively meek and conciliatory in order to survive.
Wealthy conservatives like Monsieur Gillenormand can “fly into rages” every five minutes and have it treated as an endearing quirk. Poor characters like Fantine or Jean Valjean must be constantly polite and ingratiating to “their superiors” at all times, even in the face of mockery and violence, or else they will be subjected to punishment. If Gillenormand beats his child with a stick, it’s a silly quirk; if Fantine beats a man harassing her, she is sentenced to months in prison.
(Thenardier and Javert are interesting examples of this too. Thenardier acts superficially polite and ingratiating to his wealthy “superiors” while insulting them behind their backs. Javert, meanwhile, is completely earnest in his mindless bootlicking. But I could write an entire other post on this.)
The point is that….Jean Valjean has to be submissive and self-effacing, or he puts himself in danger. He can’t afford to be angry and make scenes, or he will be punished. The only barrier between himself and prison is his ability to be so “courteous” that no one bothers to pry into his past.
Jean Valjean is excessively polite to people, in the way that you’re excessively polite to an armed cop who pulls you over for speeding when you secretly have a few illegal grams of marijuana in the your car trunk. XD It’s politeness built on fear, is what I mean. It’s politeness built on a desperation to make a powerful person avoid looking too closely at you.
It’s politeness at gunpoint.
Jean Valjean has also spent nineteen years living in an environment where any expression of anger could be punished with severe violence. That trauma is reflected in the overly cautious reserved way he often speaks with people (even people who are kind and would never actually hurt him.)
So adaptations that have Jean Valjean boldly having shouting matches with people in public and beating cops half to death without worrying about the repercussions just make go like “???”
Because that’s part of what’s fascinating about Jean Valjean to me? On one hand, he is a genuinely kind compassionate person, who cares deeply about other people and behaves kindly out of altruism. But on the other hand, he was also “beaten into submission” by prison, and forced into adopting conciliatory bootlicking behaviors in order to survive. And it can sometimes be hard to tell when he is being kind vs. when he is being “polite” — when he is speaking and acting out of earnest compassion vs. when he is speaking and acting out of fear.
The TL;DR is that I think it’s important that even though Jean Valjean is very (justifiably) angry about the injustice that was inflicted on him, his anger is harshly policed at all times— by other people, and by himself. He has been told his anger is wrong/selfish so often that he believes it. His anger takes weirder more unhealthy forms because he has no safe outlet for it. His rage at society becomes a possessiveness towards Cosette and silent hatred of Marius, but primarily it becomes useless self-destructive constant hatred of himself. And while I might be phrasing this wrong, I think that’s what’s interesting about Jean Valjean’s relationship with anger— the way his justified fury at his own mistreatment gets warped into more and more unhealthy forms by the way he’s forced to constantly repress it.
Every day I’m haunted by the fact the boys happily swim in sewer water
Even if it’s filtered somehow there’s no way it’s not still nasty 😭 Bet they can defeat any of their villains just by accidentally giving them diseases I swear
In the wake of FCG' fate I've been thinking about death in ttrpgs, and how it kind of exists on three levels:
There’s the gameplay level, where it only makes sense for a combat-heavy, pc-based game to have a tool for resurrection because the characters are going to die a lot and players get attached to them and their plotlines.
Then there’s the narrative level, where you sort of need permanent death on occasion so as not to lose all tension and realism. On this level, sometimes the player will let their character remain dead because they find it more interesting despite there being options of resurrection, or maybe the dice simply won’t allow the resurrection to succeed.
Then, of course, there’s the in-universe level, which is the one that really twists my mind. This is a world where actual resurrection of the actual dead is entirely obtainable, often without any ill effects (I mean, they'll be traumatized, but unless you ask a necromancer to do the resurrection they won’t come back as a zombie or vampire or otherwise wrong). It’s so normal that many adventurers will have gone through it multiple times. Like, imagine actually living in a world where all that keeps you from getting a missing loved one back is the funds to buy a diamond and hire a cleric. As viewers we felt that of course Pike should bring Laudna, a complete stranger, back when asked, but how often does she get this question? How many parents have come and begged her to return their child to them? How many lovers lost but still within reach? When and how does she decide who she saves and who she doesn’t?
From this perspective, I feel like every other adventurer should have the motive/backstory of 'I lost a loved one and am working to obtain the level of power/wealth to get them back'. But of course this is a game, and resurrection is just a game mechanic meant to be practically useful.
Anyway. A story-based actual play kind of has to find a way to balance these three levels. From a narrative perspective letting FCG remain dead makes sense, respects their sacrifice, and ends their arc on a highlight. From a gameplay level it is possible to bring them back but a lot more complicated than a simple revivify. But on an in-universe level, when do you decide if you should let someone remain dead or not? Is the party selfish if they don’t choose to pursue his resurrection the way they did for Laudna? Do they even know, as characters, that it’s technically possible to save someone who's been blown to smithereens? Back in campaign 2, the moment the m9 gained access to higher level resurrection they went to get Molly back (and only failed because his body had been taken back by Lucien). At the end of c1, half the party were in denial about Vax and still looking for ways to save him, because they had always been able to before (and had the game continued longer it wouldn’t have surprised me had they found a way). Deanna was brought back decades after her death (and was kind of fucked up because of it). Bringing someone back could be saving them, showing them just how loved and appreciated they are. Or it could be saving you, forcing someone back from rest and peace into a world that's kept moving without them because you can’t handle the guilt of knowing you let them stay gone when you didn’t have to. How do you know? How would you ever know?