Disco maul be upon yee
[PRINT] - [COMMISSIONS]
Hey remember when legends though it was a good idea to have vader in white (hate that on every concievable level btw) ? Maul would have pulled it off
Mean lesbian maul is now my comfort character to draw kgkfkfkfjf you will probably see her again not sorry xoxo <3
Surprise alt version :3c (cw blood) and process below vvv
White is a bold color to wear for carnage <3
This (hopefully) has some maul lockdown vibes :) but please bear in mind I only read half of it 5 years ago and remember nothing- this is a shot in the dark hope it landed somewhere
PS : why this top ? J'aurai bien fait la guerre pour ces étoiles moi lgigjglgl deso je suis beauf
1K notes
·
View notes
When Katsuki Bakugo needed saving, Izuku came up with a plan where Todoroki, Iida, and Kirishima went rocketing across the sky to reach him.
When Izuku Midoriya needed saving, it was Katsuki, Todoroki, and Iida who went rocketing across the sky to reach him.
Both times, our Twin Stars decided to set their own needs aside and allow the other’s trusted friend to take the lead in bringing them home. Izuku knew Kirishima was the right choice to get Katsuki away from the league quickly and safely, and Katsuki knew Iida was the better man for the job of catching up to Izuku and bringing him back.
Can we please just take a moment to appreciate the parallels. Please.
2K notes
·
View notes
When attempting to critique the values of a long-running franchise like STAR TREK, it's important to draw a distinction between superficial issues and structural ones.
"Superficial" in this sense doesn't mean "minor" or "unimportant"; it simply means that an issue is not so intrinsic to the premise that the franchise would collapse (or would be radically different) were it changed or removed. For example, misogyny has been a pervasive problem across many generations of STAR TREK media, which have often been characterized by a particular type of leering-creep sexism that was distasteful at the time and has not improved with age. However, sexism and misogyny are not structural elements of the TREK premise; one can do a STAR TREK story where the female characters have agency and even pants without it becoming something fundamentally different from other TREK iterations (even TOS, although there are certainly specific TOS episodes that would collapse if you excised the sexism).
By contrast, the colonialism and imperialism are structural elements — STAR TREK is explicitly about colonizing "the final frontier" and about defending the borders, however defined, of an interstellar colonial power. Different iterations of STAR TREK may approach that premise in slightly different ways, emphasizing or deemphasizing certain specific aspects of it, but that is literally and specifically what the franchise is about. Moreover, because STAR TREK has always been heavily focused on Starfleet and has tended to shy away from depicting life outside of that regimented environment, there are definite limits to how far the series is able to depart from the basic narrative structure of TOS and TNG (a captain and crew on a Starfleet ship) without collapsing in on itself, as PICARD ended up demonstrating rather painfully.
This means that some of the things baked into the formula of STAR TREK are obviously in conflict with the franchise's self-image of progressive utopianism, but cannot really be removed or significantly altered, even if the writers were inclined to try (which they generally are not).
What I find intensely frustrating about most modern STAR TREK media, including TNG and its various successors, is not that it can't magically break its own formula, but that writer and fan attachment to the idea of TREK as the epitome of progressive science fiction has become a more and more intractable barrier to any kind of meaningful self-critique. It's a problem that's become increasingly acute with the recent batch of live-action shows, which routinely depict the Federation or Starfleet doing awful things (like the recent SNW storyline about Una being prosecuted for being a genetically engineered person in violation of Federation law) and then insist, often in the same breath, that it's a progressive utopia, best of all possible worlds.
This is one area where TOS (and to some extent the TOS cast movies) has a significant advantage over its successors. TOS professes to be a better world than ours, but it doesn't claim to be a perfect world (and indeed is very suspicious of any kind of purported utopia). The value TOS most consistently emphasizes is striving: working to be better, and making constructive choices. Although this can sometimes get very sticky and uncomfortable in its own right (for instance, Kirk often rails against what he sees as "stagnant" cultures), it doesn't presuppose the moral infallibility of the Federation, of Starfleet, or of the characters themselves. There's room for them to be wrong, so long as they're still willing to learn and grow.
The newer shows are less and less willing to allow for that, and, even more troublingly, sometimes take pains to undermine their predecessors' attempts along those lines. One appalling recent example is SNW's treatment of the Gorn, which presents the Gorn as intrinsically evil (and quite horrifying) in a way they're not in "Arena," the TOS episode where they were first introduced. The whole point of "Arena" is that while Kirk responds to the Gorn with outrage and anger, he eventually concedes that he may be wrong: There's a good chance that the Gorn are really the injured party, responding to what they reasonably see as an alien invasion, and while that may be an arguable point, sorting it out further should be the purview of diplomats rather than warships. By contrast, SNW presents the Gorn as so irredeemably awful as to make Kirk's (chronologically later) epiphany at best misguided: The SNW Gorn are brutal conquerors who lay eggs in their captives (a gruesome rape metaphor, and in presentation obviously inspired by ALIENS) when they aren't killing each other for sport, and even Gorn newborns are monsters to be feared. Not a lot of nuance there, and no space at all for the kind of detente found in TOS episodes like "The Devil in the Dark."
401 notes
·
View notes
Have I talked yet about how important it is to me that Crosshair is queer-coded?
Have I talked about how it doesn’t quite make sense why the character who’s consistently stuck to his family like glue and shown absolute disdain for anyone and everyone outside of his squad is the only one to make the conscious decision to leave them and follow Anakin alone on Skako Minor unless there’s some deeper kind of attraction going on here? Have I talked about how his natural dramatic streak seems to intensify whenever Anakin’s around? How he, who we can assume guards his equipment like it’s treasure, seems so willing to let the Jedi hold it? Almost like he’s deliberately trying to impress him?
What about how it’s canon that Sister was afraid of how she’d be received by the wider galaxy? Or how important the theme of feeling othered and hate being fostered as a result between groups of people that really aren’t so different is to the Bad Batch? And how Crosshair is by far the biggest example of that? Do I really need to elaborate on the implications of their Kaminoan purity-and-perfection-obsessed creators that live in a city associated with blinding white and treat any nonconformity/diversity as defectiveness?
I’m just saying
89 notes
·
View notes