#literally it's a horrifying thing to include if you always intended to send this woman to hell | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

canadian-riddler · 4 years

Text

GLaDOS and Wheatley Did Nothing Wrong – Sort of

A recurring point of contention is the question of who engages in worse behaviour over the course of Portal 2, GLaDOS or Wheatley. The true answer is: neither of them. You can’t actually judge their behaviour along a scale of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ because of the way Aperture as an environment is set up. It’s mostly explained during the Old Aperture sections of Portal 2, but it’s also hinted at in Portal 1. The thing explained is this:

Aperture Laboratories does not and never has done its experiments within the normal boundaries of morality and ethics. Therefore, GLaDOS and Wheatley’s behaviour is neither wrong nor right because they don’t know what morality and ethics are. Their behaviour is actually a reflection of Cave Johnson’s own: to get what they want when they want it, no matter the cost.

How We Know Aperture is Immoral and Unethical

We know this because Cave Johnson himself points it out repeatedly.

“[…] You get the gel. Last poor son of a gun got blue paint. Hahaha. All joking aside, that did happen – broke every bone in his legs. Tragic. But informative. Or so I’m told.”

“For this next test, we put nanoparticles in the gel. In layman’s terms, that’s a billion little gizmos that are gonna travel into your bloodstream and pump experimental genes and RNA molecules and so forth into your tumours. Now, maybe you don’t have any tumours. Well, don’t worry. If you sat on a folding chair in the lobby and weren’t wearing lead underpants, we took care of that too.”

“All these science spheres are made out of asbestos. […] Good news is, the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show a median latency of forty-four point six years, so if you’re thirty or older, you’re laughing. Worst case scenario, you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.”

“Bean counters said I couldn’t fire a man just for being in a wheelchair. Did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.”

That’s just some of what he says. Almost all of Cave Johnson’s lines point out how much he doesn’t care about his employees, his test subjects, or… anything but that people do what he tells them to do. He’s so unethical and immoral that he eventually says about his best, most loyal employee:

“[…] I will say this – and I’m gonna say it on tape so everybody hears it a hundred times a day: If I die before you people can pour me into a computer, I want Caroline to run this place. Now she’ll argue. She’ll say she can’t. She’s modest like that. But you make her.”

Cave Johnson cares so much about getting the results he wants, everything else be damned, he thinks Caroline saying ‘she can’t’ is her being modest. He can’t fathom why she would be against this decision, because he made it so of course that’s what she wants.

This situation actually gets a little horrifying when you look at what the Lab Rat comic means to the general narrative. In Portal 2, Doug Rattmann leaves this painting:

In this painting and the one preceding it, GLaDOS has no head, so we can guess that Doug was there in some capacity to witness Caroline’s fate because GLaDOS being headless would represent her not being ‘alive’, her being ‘incomplete’, or her just having never been used yet entirely. The important thing we learn from this painting is that there are living witnesses to Caroline being inside of GLaDOS, so the people working at Aperture after this event know they put a human woman into a supercomputer. In the preceding painting,

the cores are on the chassis before the head is. So either GLaDOS, the AI, was already ‘misbehaving’ and they were already regulating her behaviour, or Caroline, the person, was already ‘causing trouble’ beforehand and the scientists stood around thinking about how to force her to behave before they even put her in there. Either way, Aperture’s ethical and moral standards are pretty much nonexistent, so when this happens:

it’s almost comical. None of the Aperture scientists have a conscience or, if they do, they constantly ignore it, but they for some reason expect the supercomputer their immoral selves built to have one and to understand what that is and what it’s for.

All this taken into account, it’s incredibly easy to see why GLaDOS and Wheatley don’t care about anyone around them and all of their actions are solely for their own benefit. That’s how everyone in the history of Aperture has ever acted. Cave Johnson didn’t care about morality or ethics; they got in the way of what he considered to be progress. The people who built GLaDOS and Wheatley didn’t care about morality or ethics; they just wanted to hit their moon shot. Even Doug, who is framed as our morally conflicted lens throughout Lab Rat and knows that Caroline is inside of GLaDOS, still talks about controlling her and sends Chell to kill her even though everyone inside of the facility except him is already dead. How does he morally justify killing GLaDOS if he’s the only one left alive? He can’t. Doug Rattmann for some reason decides that GLaDOS killing everyone in the facility is worse than all the things Aperture has been doing throughout its entire history, including the fact that…

Everyone Who Goes Into the Test Chambers Dies

This is hinted at a few times in Portal 2:

“[…] I’m Cave Johnson, CEO of Aperture Science – you might know us as a vital participant of the 1968 Senate Hearings on missing astronauts. […] You might be asking yourself, ‘Cave, just how difficult are these tests? What was in that phone book of a contract I signed? Am I in danger? Let me answer those questions with a question: Who wants to make sixty dollars? Cash. […] Welcome to Aperture. You’re here because we want the best, and you’re it. Nope. Couldn’t keep a straight face.”

Now, when you exit the tests in Old Aperture there are lines that go with them, but we must consider a few other things: firstly, that the tests are clean. There is no sign of old gel on them, as though they have either never been used or never been completed. Secondly, the tests in Old Aperture were being done with the Portable Quantum Tunnelling Device, which was this thing:

which, taking into account the missing – not dead, not injured, but missing – astronauts, seems to have barely worked, if indeed it did at all. You can also find this sign:

which outright states that tons of people were ‘unexpected’ casualties. After the hearings, Aperture moved on to recruiting test subjects from populations that people were unlikely to notice if they went missing: the homeless, the mentally ill, seniors, and orphaned children. When that dried up, Cave moved onto the last group of people he hadn’t tapped yet:

“Since making test participation mandatory for all employees, the quality of our test subjects has risen dramatically. Employee retention, however, has not.”

This was because the employees were ‘voluntold’ to go into the testing tracks which, since they’d been supervising the tests for so long, knew were deadly and obviously did not want to do:

It’s not clear why the employees at Aperture chose to remain there instead of just quitting and finding another job, but the comment about employee retention plus the numerous posters threatening to have their job replaced by robots if they didn’t volunteer for testing tells us both that they did choose to remain and that the only reason for them not wanting to volunteer was because they knew it would kill them.

Most of the above is based on conjecture; however, we see something very interesting during Test Chambers 18 and 19 in Portal 1:

In the case of Test Chamber 18, the craters on the walls. None of the other test chambers have this, so it implies that not only does GLaDOS not control the test chambers at this point other than to reset them – which means that she isn’t purposely or maliciously killing anybody, but instead repeatedly operating a course set by her human supervisors – but that this one has never been solved. Test Chamber 19 is less a test than a conveyor belt into the incinerator for Aperture to dispose of all the bodies. GLaDOS even tells Chell to drop the portal gun off in an Equipment Recovery Annex that doesn’t exist, as though she’s giving a message that was intended for an actual final test that was never built because everyone was killed during or prior to Test Chamber 18. With this kind of context, GLaDOS’s blasé attitude about killing test subjects en masse both makes total sense and is somewhat justifiable – just not by any moral or ethical standard. In GLaDOS’s life, test subjects die during the experiments. That’s just how it is and has always been. She doesn’t know you aren’t ‘supposed’ to kill people because her literal job involves watching people die. Nothing matters except for the pursuit of progress, and in this vein GLaDOS’s behaviour is just an extension of that of the man who founded Aperture in the first place. Cave Johnson, as a presumably well-rounded, somewhat educated man, knows what morality and ethics are and chooses to ignore them because he thinks they’re stupid and he’s above that kind of thing; GLaDOS, a living supercomputer who has had every aspect of her life tightly controlled and regulated, knows morality and ethics as yet another arbitrary set of rules only she is supposed to follow without any explanation as to why and therefore her rejection of them is not as much of a ‘bad’ choice as it first appears, which brings us to the next section:

If GLaDOS’s Conscience Gives Her Morality, Does Deleting it Make Her a Bad Person?

Within the context we’re given… actually, no. Here’s why:

“The scientists were always hanging cores on me to regulate my behaviour. I’ve heard voices all my life. But now I hear the voice of a conscience, and it’s terrifying – because for the first time, it’s my voice. I’m being serious, I think there’s something really wrong with me.”

From the information we’re given here, we know this: GLaDOS has been told nonstop what to do for the entirety of her existence. She, in theory, got to have her own, solitary thoughts in the space between the wakeup scene and some point during her time in Old Aperture, which is a space of mere hours. Let me reiterate: GLaDOS has been told what to think for her whole life. She perhaps has a few free hours where she’s allowed to have her own thoughts. And then she develops a conscience. A voice that sounds like her, but isn’t saying anything she understands or has ever thought before. A voice that, actually, says a lot of the same things as that annoying Morality Core she managed to shut up. Now why would she wilfully be having the same kinds of thoughts as the humans forced her to have way back when? The conscience, to GLaDOS, isn’t a pathway to becoming a better person. It’s a different version of the same old accessory. When she says,

“You know, being Caroline taught me a valuable lesson. I thought you were my greatest enemy. When all along you were my best friend. The surge of emotion that shot through me when I saved your life taught me an even more valuable lesson: where Caroline lives in my brain.”

she is directly talking about the fact that, while this voice sounds like hers, listening to it makes her feel nothing. This further proves her theory that the conscience isn’t her, or hers, or has anything to do with her. She’s never had it explained to her what a conscience is or what it’s for or why she needs one, and she’s certainly never had a reason to think about why she would even want one; to her, this ‘Caroline’ is the Morality Core 2.0. A program built to regulate her behaviour. She’s tired of other peoples’ voices telling her what to think, so she does the logical thing: she gets rid of it. This decision can’t really be judged as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ merely based on the situation we’re provided. She isn’t consciously and deliberately making the choice to be an immoral person; she’s actually consciously and deliberately making the choice to be her own person.

Where Does Wheatley Come In?

Wheatley has not been discussed up until now because, as AI, the reason for his lack of conscience and ethics is largely the same as GLaDOS’s. He, like her, cares about nothing but his own goals and doesn’t think twice about causing harm or misery because that’s just the kind of environment they were built in. We also know very little about his history, both because it’s not really mentioned and because Wheatley is an unreliable narrator. We can prove Wheatley has no sense of morals or ethics based on a few things he says:

[Upon seeing the trapped Oracle Turret] “Oh no… Yes, hello! No, we’re not stopping! Don’t make eye contact whatever you do… No thanks! We’re good! Appreciate it! Keep moving, keep moving…”

This heavily implies he’s met the Oracle Turret before, probably several times, and not only does it not occur to him to help, he actively treats the Turret like they’re a horrible, annoying nuisance.

[Upon passing functional turrets falling into disposal grinder] [Laughs] “There’s our handiwork. Shouldn’t laugh, really. They do feel pain. Of a sort. All simulated. But real enough for them, I suppose.”

Not only does he find the destruction of the functional turrets funny, he for some reason views their pain as simulated, as though his is real and theirs is fake. Or, in the spirit of Cave Johnson, as though his pain is important and theirs isn’t because they aren’t important.

“Oh! I’ve just had one idea, which is that I could pretend to her that I’ve captured you, and give you over and she’ll kill you, but I could go on… living. So, what’s your view on that?”

This doesn’t even need an explanation.

What gets interesting about Wheatley are, of course, his famous final lines:

“I wish I could take it all back. I honestly do. I honestly do wish I could take it all back. And not because I’m stranded in space. […] You know, if I was ever to see her again, you know what I’d say? I’d say, ‘I’m sorry’… sincerely, I’m sorry I was bossy… and monstrous… and… I am genuinely sorry. The end.”

Wheatley here takes responsibility for his behaviour in a way that no one else in the history of Aperture has ever done. Even GLaDOS rejects responsibility for her actions, instead choosing to blame everything on Chell:

“You know what my days used to be like? I just tested. Nobody murdered me. Or put me in a potato. Or fed me to birds. I had a pretty good life. And then you showed up. You dangerous, mute lunatic.”

The reason for this may be related to the fact that the lack of morality and ethics in the people of Aperture doesn’t actually have real consequences. Cave Johnson’s behaviour drives Aperture from a promising scientific powerhouse to a laughingstock, that’s true. But he still does what he wants and gets what he wants regardless. The one and only consequence to being immoral and unethical at Aperture is, in fact, death. In the case of GLaDOS… there are no consequences. Everything returns to the status quo. Wheatley, however, does have to face a consequence for his actions: he is trapped in space, possibly forever. He, unlike all the other characters, doesn’t have the privilege of waving aside everything he did and moving on with life. He is forced to consider his punishment, his actions and what they meant and the effect they had, and he on his own comes to the conclusion that he was wrong. In a bizarre twist, Wheatley is the only one who learns anything. He is also the only one in a position not to do anything with this newfound knowledge.

Morality and Ethics and Robots: Should They Even Be Held to Human Societal Standards?

In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether Wheatley or GLaDOS is worse than the other because ethics and morality are human concepts which are for a functioning human society. A robot society doesn’t really need moral rules like ‘killing people is wrong’ nor ethical guidelines such as ‘you should practice safe science’ because, as robots, there are no permanent, lasting consequences for these actions. A dead human stays dead. A dead robot that’s been lying outside for years getting rained on, snowed on, and baked in the sun? No problem. Turn her back on again. A guy broke all the bones in his legs during an unethical experiment? Bad. A robot that got smashed into pieces during an unethical experiment? Inconsequential, really, since you can just throw her into a machine and reassemble her good as new. So not only aren’t GLaDOS and Wheatley’s actions really immoral or unethical given the context… they really aren’t based on a theoretical robot society either. Being the perpetrator or the victim of immoral or unethical actions in humans causes permanent changes in the body and the brain, but nothing about AI is permanent. Their brains don’t generate new, personally harmful pathways in response to a traumatic event that necessitate years of hard work to combat; they can literally just get over it. If their chassis is damaged, they can simply move into a new one or have some or all of those parts inconsequentially replaced. There isn’t actually an honest reason for robots to have the same moral and ethical systems as humanity because they don’t need them. They would require different sets of rules and guidelines because they work differently. What would that kind of society look like? We don’t know, but as of the end of Portal 2 they have all the time in the world to figure it out.

#Wheatley #GLaDOS #Portal 2 #so says Indy #Portal #here is my essay

150 notes · View notes

mrsspidermanmaryjanewatsonparker · 6 years

Quote

Question: Characters along with the rest of humanity, and most species, for that matter evolve. Why can’t Superman be married? Or Spider Man for that matter? Is it possible that books lose readers because the content doesn’t jive with the real world? Brevoort: The characters on most ongoing television series evolve very little, even over years. The same thing goes for characters in, say, comic strips. So I think that in certain ways, characters can evolve, but in others, it’s a bad idea to develop characters away from the very things that made them popular in the first place. To use a very old example, Fonzie the motorcycle-riding rebel was cool, Fonzie the High School teacher was lame. (And Fonzie the eventual married suburbanite with a motorcycle in his garage that he never touched because he was too busy earning a living to support his wife and two children would have been horrifying.) The appeal of Superman or Spider-Man has very little to do with them being married–and in fact, I think being married diminishes both of them on a conceptual level.

Tom Brevoort

Let’s debunk this statement by the guy who’s such a bad writer his biggest claim to fame is Fantastic Force a book even he has renounced and the guy who’s such a bad editor he doesn’t understand why Norman Osborn never killed just killed Spider-Man in spite of multiple stories (he worked on) explaining that.

TV doesn’t work like that anymore

First things first he demonstrates an unacceptably ignorant and dated attitude towards television for nearly 20 years now we’ve been seeing a shift towards telenovels or serialised stories in which the character evolution and exploration is critical and part of the overall appeal.

The Sopranos, Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad (the most acclaimed TV show of all time) all have character evolution BUILT into their foundation.

Sure ongoing sitcoms like Happy Days still exist but they have both been dying out, are generally less highly regarded and in some cases actively involve character development anyway.

In fact one of the most acclaimed and beloved sitcoms of the 1990s/2000s (before shows like Breaking Bad became more common) was Friends a TV show which maintained strong ratings and reviews throughout most of its 10 year run and most assuredly involved character development and evolution for most of it’s characters.

Rachel Green evolved from a pampered young woman woefully naive of working class life in the big city fleeing her own wedding and becoming a coffee waitress to a 30+ year old woman who could handle herself and city life whilst juggling a baby, dates, serious feelings for Ross and a position of responsibility within a major fashion company

Chandler Bing went from an immature and desperate bachelor chronically fearful of commitment and plagued by relationship insecurities to a married man and father who strove to make his serious relationship work. In fact his relationship with Monica Geller (who evolved in her own right) was widely popular and to many fans superior to the primary relationship drama of the show involving Ross and Rachel.

And again these examples happened in a show that ran for TEN years, putting to shame Brevoort’s claims about TV characters evolving ‘very little’ over the years.

Even in more controversial TV shows like Family Guy acclaim has gone to at least ATTEMPTS at character evolution such as when Bryan was killed off and seemingly permanently replaced with a new character. There was even backlash over the bait and switch when Bryan returned.

Manga aggressively doesn’t do this

Many manga series begin being published with no particular length in mind. But the overwhelming majority DO end.

This includes most of the highest selling ones no less, among which are the hyper popular Sailor Moon manga series and the even more popular Dragon Ball series. Their finate natures extend into their television adaptations as well which, like their manga counterparts, include A LOT of character development.

In fact few of the most highly regarded/highest selling manga series DON’T have notable character development.

In the case of Dragon Ball it ended in the mid-1990s and was revived in 2013, with one of the highest points of praise of the revival was the new character development it lent to the lead protagonist.

By the way did I mention that manga grossly outsells American comic books.

Character evolution was one of the foundation stones of the Marvel Universe

Not much to say on this point.

Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and the other legends who founded the MU in the 1960s instituted character development within the characters and intended for that development to be a thing.

Peter Parker literally develops in the course of his first appearance and his evolution continued throughout Stan Lee’s tenure. He began as a shy, introverted loner living with his elderly aunt and uncle to a more confidant young man in a serious romantic relationship, an apartment in the city he shared with his roommate and a legitimate social circle.

This was NOT an isolated incident.

Ben Grimm of the Fantastic Four began as aggressive and bitter person wracked with frustration over being a monster. As time went by he grew to accept his state more, became more friendly, humorous and gained a love interest in Alicia Masters whom he was serious about.

Namor the Sub-Mariner when reintroduced in the 1960s was torn up over the loss of his Kingdom Atlantis but in the course of the Lee/Kirby F4 run rediscovered said kingdom.

Hawkeye began life as a carnival worker turned criminal in cahoots with Soviet spy the Black Widow but evolved into a reformed hero and member of the Avengers.

Black Widow herself began as a Soviet spy villainess for Iron Man and then became a vigilante seeking justice by trying to bring in the outlaw Spider-Man.

These were all stories written by STAN LEE himself.

In Spider-Man’s case Stan Lee literally introduced Gwen Stacy with the explicit intention of eventually making her Spidey’s permanent love interest and future wife.

He ADVOCATED for Spider-Man to get married in the first place.

So character development and evolution was ALWAYS part of the inherent DNA of the Marvel Universe.

Sure, I get that you don’t want to wreck what made the characters popular in the first place or sell out on their core concepts.

I agree that with very few exceptions that’s where character evolution goes too far.

But if we’re talking about Spider-Man that bring me to my next point.

Being married didn’t develop Spider-Man away from what made him popular in the first place!

Spider-Man was NEVER popular because he was unmarried.

Never in the 25 years prior to his being married did any fan or creator state that they liked him because he was unmarried.

In fact no one ever said anything like that in regards to him being just plain single. Which makes sense considering for most of those 25 years he WASN’T single! He spent most of his time in steady relationships with Betty Brant, Gwen Stacy, Felicia Hardy, Mary Jane Watson and was involved with other women to some degree.

Nor was Spider-Man popular because he was ‘young’. Mostly because Spider-Man was never truly young the way people pretend he was. Spider-Man had adult responsibilities from issue #1 onwards and spent most of the Ditko run in costume or in the Daily Bugle, his working environment not his school or home environment.

Spider-Man was popular because he was relatively speaking ORDINARY.

Not young, not single, not unmarried.

ORDINARY, that thing that would encompass getting married eventually since MOST people do that and especially did that in the 1980s.

But hey...that’s just popularity. What about looking at this on a conceptual level?

Spider-Man’s core concept INVITES the idea of him being married

Spider-Man’s appeal might have been his relative normalacy but his core concept, the thing that defined his character could be summed up as this.

He is about the theme of responsibility/the relationship between power and responsibility within the context of being (relatively) ordinary.

Again marriage fits in with the ordinary thing and since it’s a responsibility it hardcore fits in with the responsibility angle.

In other words being married might not be THE point of Spider-Man, but it ENHANCES him conceptually as opposed to ‘diminishing him’.

His Fonzie analogy sucks

Lets put aside for a moment how his Fonzie analogy is built entirely around his personal preferences.

As an analogy to how ‘cool’ Fonzie was it’s utterly asinine.

To begin with Happy Days first and foremost (and I’m prepared to be corrected on this) was fundamentally built around the idea of presenting 1950s nostalgia, specifically as told through the lens Richie’s life.

Not Richie’s teen years. Richie’s LIFE. It just started in his teen years.

Fonzie wasn’t even the main character, just the most popular and famous one.

Nothing in the core concept of Happy Days meant transitioning Fonzie into a teacher was ‘diminishing’.

It actually was an entirely positive and natural move for the character.

Fonzie was a suave ladies man and high school drop out.

For him to evolve to being an outright high school teacher is actually quite a positive and clever arc for his character.

He’s the last person you’d expect to wind up in that position but it also sends a good message about the positivity and importance of education.

It also makes sense within the context of the community minded Fonzie as a teacher he could interact and help the community in one of the most important ways of all, shaping the minds of youth.

It was also an organic way to keep the character around as he aged and being a motorcycle high school dropout looked less ‘cool and rebellious’ and more sad and pathetic.

Not to mention it was a way to keep teen characters in the show (however you feel about the execution of that concept) whilst the principle cast pushed forwards in their lives beyond that period.

Definitions of ‘cool’ are evolving

This isn’t even getting to touch on the idea that ‘high school teacher is lame’ vs ‘motorcycle riding rebel is cool’ is a overplayed and lame cliché that has also been debunked more than once.

As time moves on we’re starting to see a healthier balance in fiction about what constitutes being ‘cool’.

Batman is beloved within fandom as both the grim defender of the night AS WELL as being the patriarch of the Bat Family and having more touching moments between himself and his ‘sons’.

Superman often denounced as ‘uncool’ because he’s so ‘wholesome and old fashioned’ has been depicted as bad ass due to his immense power whilst this in recent years also being balanced out by his devotion to his family, the introduction of which in 2015-2016 saw an increase in sales and acclaim for the Superman books.

In the acclaimed manga/anime series Dragon Ball two of the protagonists are Goku and Vegeta, both of whom are iconic characters within manga and anime. And they are mostly iconic for being incredibly powerful martial artists who can kick major ass and look stylish whilst doing it. They’re also both family men.

Walter White is a recent iconic TV character who is also seen as ‘bad ass’ by many people. His alias of Heisenberg is touted within fandom as a way of portraying Walter as cool. His profession? High school teacher who is also a secret drug baron.

Spider-Man himself was beloved in part because he WAS a nerd and WAS wholesome and a Mama’s boy but he was also recognized as a more traditionally ‘cool’ superhero who could kick ass when necessary. Case in point wrecking the underworld to save Aunt May in the Master Planner Trilogy, defeating Venom to protect his family in Renew Your Vows and having one of his best battles with the mystical villain Morlun.

Oh by the way the latter happened when Spider-Man was a High school teacher!

His Superman points are stupid

We could just say look at the Rebirth era Superman sales and critical acclaim and leave it there but why not finish off with this.

Superman’s core concept and core appeal has NOTHING to do with being single, unmarried or in fact anything to do with being a bachelor.

Being married to Lois Lane does nothing but resolve a plot line that went nowhere for 50+ years and made Superman look like a stupid asshole because he was both lying to Lois, unable to commit and considered her shallow for not loving his entirely fake Clark Kent alter ego whom was made to look like a meek coward. He just presumed her to be shallow and fall for him because of his super powers as opposed to his actual personality as a good and heroic person.

Conclusion

Brevoort’s comments reveal him to be a reductive creative force, someone who’s old fashioned and has no grasping or appreciation for character development or it’s importance.

He was raised in an era where such things were not common and consequently doesn’t get that things not staying static is a GOOD thing.

He doesn’t understand that something being introduced as one thing and then organically and additively evolving into something else doesn’t make it ‘lame’.

In other words...he’s bad at his job.

44 notes · View notes

orionsangel86 · 7 years

Text

12x11 Episode Review - What a Ride That Was!

Having just completed my second watch of this episode I have to say I am slightly stunned. I guess the best way to put it is ‘not what I expected’. But then what did I really expect? I was expecting pain, heartbreak, drama, interspersed with some humour and a big “no homo” scene to counteract last episode. I was expecting some dudebro Dean to appease certain types of viewer, along with a nice helping of deep subtext into Dean analysis for us to eat up that would go straight over that type of viewers head. I was certainly not expecting… Larry.

I haven’t looked at tumblr yet, except to glance at my askbox. I assume that you are all suitably going mad over Larry. Over the implications of Larry. Over the sheer insanity of the episodes biggest innuendo fuelled moments and probably laughing about it. I expect a hundred gifsets. I want to reblog those gifsets. I am also sure that Larry has already been meta’d to death… But what’s the harm in a little more meta to add to the massive pile gonna do? Because I wanna meta the FUCK out of Larry.

But there is a lot more to this episode than just Larry. We did get heartbreak. We did get drama and we did get some really nice character moments. Rowena particularly was amazing this episode (who am I kidding though she is always amazing) and I loved learning more about her thoughts. Overall I think it was entertaining, though not one of the best episodes, but that could be because the writing was a bit sloppy and sometimes the story didn’t make sense. I’ll get to why in a bit. Let’s just say that Meredith Glynn isn’t my favourite of the new writers by any means. I didn’t even review The One You’ve Been Waiting For because I didn’t feel particularly inspired by it at all.

But having said that she gave us Larry, and for that I will forever be thankful… even if she didn’t intend for us to take it the way I have (and I am guessing most of you reading this have too).

Anyway, main points to take away under the cut:

Regarding Dean

Obviously the main point of the episode was to delve a little further into Dean’s head and explore a very unconventional and unexpected fear. The fear of losing ones memory is actually horrifying. It is even more horrifying because this is something that the majority of us will have had at least some experience being first hand witnesses to. I am of course talking about dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. My grandmother had it, and in the later days when she didn’t even know who we were it was completely heart breaking. The fact that this is something that many of us fear as we get older is something that certainly wouldn’t be lost on the creators of this show, and with many many references in the later seasons to Dean’s getting older (including one in this episode) it is quite a fitting topic to explore. What if he doesn’t go out with a ‘bang’ the Hunter way? What if they do both end up in the Lebanon retirement home where Mildred currently hangs out enjoying sunsets? What if Alzheimer’s becomes an actual legitimate fear for them? This is most definitely the episode that Jensen talked about at a recent con that explores a very big fear. Because this fear is huge and very prevalent in society. It also makes me think of the film The Notebook and how that story deals with a loved one having to watch the person they care about most in the world forget all about them. (FYI I have never been able to sit all the way through that film without crying even though I usually despise sappy love stories).

Dean’s whole existence in this show revolves around his love for his family. The found family that he keeps close by that is. Sam and Cas and now Mary are his world, losing that would utterly destroy Dean. It is why that scene in front of the mirror is so so heartbreaking to watch. Next to Larry, it is the most memorable moment. Though I do think that the deeper themes and meanings to this particular MOTW story were a bit lost in all of the lighter humour. Hence why I said I wasn’t a huge fan of the writing. It could have gone deeper, it didn’t quite reach the impact that Yellow Fever had even though it tried very hard to pay homage to it.

Starting at the beginning then, Dean wakes up after being wammied by some mysterious witchy guy with a bunny rabbit by his side. I don’t get the point of the rabbit at all. I’ll be honest. It was completely non relevant to the plot. I thought at first that maybe the witch had turned himself into a rabbit but it was literally there for us to all “aww” over. For that reason though, have a pic:

Awwwwwwwwwwwww so CUTE!

It was interesting that this scene came so shortly after the “then” sequence which included a young and much less gruff voiced Dean saying ““Why does a rabbit always get screwed in the deal? Poor little guy”. Have we had many other rabbit references in this show? I don’t think so… except maybe Bugs Bunny in Hunteri Heroici which immediately brings Cas to mind “So we are dealing with some insect-rabbit hybrid?” Though this episode does also feature a character happily watching cartoons so maybe the connection there is totally valid. Rabbits are also a symbol of fertility, spring, new birth and most obviously sex. In an episode absolutely chocablock with innuendo. That is also an interesting point. Though I have no idea how to connect it to anything else so I am just throwing all this stuff out there for you guys to pick at. By all means tell me if you have any ideas!

Dean losing his means of communication means reaching out to people in other ways… A lady with a pram comes by and rejects him as a bum. Gives him money instead of even trying to listen. A guy comes along with a dog (our famous white dog whose name I can’t remember) and gives Dean his attention… before doing some stretches, jogging on the spot and wiggling his hips. (I found this guys movement kinda um… suggestive when considered in the context of the rest of this fucking episode). Without going into too much detail here, I just thought I’d point out that Dean is rejected by the woman and child (traditional family) but accepted by the guy with the dog. Because of course he fucking is.

The waffle house brings us our first promo scene, but knowing the context now makes it so much clearer. I was guilty of making assumptions. Just like Sam does. Thinking that Dean went out, got drunk, had a one night stand… he did no such thing. The promo mislead us and I think it did so deliberately. It is getting clearer and clearer all the time that that version of Dean that Rowena so kindly spells out later in the episode “manners of a Neanderthal and the dining habits of a toddler” the “season 1” version of Dean, if you like, just isn’t the guy we see on our screen anymore. We aren’t getting these moments anymore. Have we even seen the Asian porn yet this season? Personally I hope it never makes another appearance.

Sam’s comment “Dean, you’ve had a good run, but maybe lets pump the breaks a little bit I mean you’re not 20 anymore…” is pretty much what I was thinking the whole promo. The waitress is far too young for him, that kind of behaviour fooling around in bars just isn’t really any kind of behaviour for a man his age, and in an episode with a heavy underlying theme that could easily be compared to the worst potential problems that come with growing older I don’t think it was accidental.

“I would be dead okay, I wouldn’t be Dory.”

“Dory?”

“Not gonna apologise for loving that fish. Not to you, not to anyone”.

I love that we have yet another thing to add to the list of things that Dean Winchester loves that don’t fit in with his macho image. This is wonderful. Dean likes Disney films. This is canon. If he can admit to loving that fish, this means that at times he will go out and watch Disney films and get excited about them and actually have strong feelings about them. Now I am totally headcanoning that he forces Cas to watch them with him and I BET that Cas’s favourites are The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. Why I hear you ask? Because they would resonate with him. If you don’t get it, rewatch those movies from a destiel perspective.

“smooth like a Ken doll” This is the second time the show has compared Dean to a Ken doll. Probably just a tease at Jensen Ackles very perfect features, but I keep thinking about Ken from Toy Story 3 and after the Finding Nemo/Dory reference a moment ago I think it is valid. Ken in Toy Story 3 had a very... um... loud personality.

The cowboy bar… How do I even BEGIN to meta the cowboy bar? All I can say was this seems like the kind of place that Gabriel would send Dean in fanfiction to work on his gay panic before ultimately hooking up with Castiel.

The third place they come to (and I’ll talk about Sam’s lack of Dean knowledge a bit later) and the first thing we see is a shot of:

Well that’s a rather large phallic object hanging over the Winchesters heads! Yeah this is totally Dean’s kind of place. He does have a cowboy fetish after all. This sign also caught my eye:

Because Chuck is certainly off having some “R&R” right now with his sis… It also seems to be the kind of place that Chuck would have hung out in his stint living on earth… ya know, playing his music, since there is clearly a stage set up with band equipment, picking up girls… and guys. Like we are ever gonna forget that GOD in the Supernatural universe is bisexual.

Lets talk about Larry

Consider this a sub point to my “regarding Dean” point because it all technically falls under the same category.

“he’d ordered burgers to go, it was gonna be a minute, we were slammed, then you knocked back four shots of tequila? Put some “sick jams” on the juke and then you hit the bull.”

“oh yeah, you had the hots for larry as soon as you walked in”.

Now, there is innuendo, and then there is this line. Why give the mechanical bull a guys name? Specifically so you can make this into one big innuendo. This entire scene is about Dean riding dick. I’m sorry, deny it all you like but that’s the joke. That’s the bottom line (pun unintentional until reread then found hilarious). On checking my ask box yesterday once I first watched the episode this is what I got:

Thanks guys by the way for sending these. I am with you. Consider this review your asks answered if that’s okay (I’m being lazy because I still have a load of asks to answer and I have no idea when I’ll get to em). So Dean rode Larry. Haha. It gets brought up again later in the episode by Sam when he is trying to tease Dean about it. What I am interested in is Dean’s reaction. When Sam first asks “You rode Larry?” Dean hesitates, but he isn’t embarrassed. Yeah he’s still hexed at this point and regressing but he doesn’t get defensive about it. Just asks if he was good. This is then revisited later on once Dean is cured “I can’t believe you rode Larry” and Dean’s only defence is “I was awesome on that Bull… like a God.” Which is also a call back to Chuck again, in the bar that had a Chuck sign and really did seem to be Chuck’s kind of place… Is Dean like God? Well yes. For one thing they are both bisexual.

Perhaps mechanical bullriding isn’t seen as homoerotic in the kind of places where you would actually get mechanical bullriding. It could even be considered as a very macho thing to be able to “tame the bull”. But the way the episode frames it… the way they shove the innuendo at us over and over again. It is intentionally played out to be a gay joke. What I can’t decide is whether or not this is the creators joking along with us or whether they are doing it to take the piss. There is a level of regression here back to the pre carver era spn where the gay jokes were rife and not ever really taken seriously. Dean’s subtextual bisexuality used to be a joke in the show. It hasn’t been framed as a joke since pre season 8 and yet I can’t help but wonder if this new writer hasn’t yet got with the programme. Because Dean’s bisexuality is not a joke. Especially when this episode is framed by two very Cas heavy episodes, the first of which was loaded with destiel subtext that was deep, meaningful and very very serious. Looking at the promo for next episode, I have a feeling that we are only going to get more of that. So why sandwich a Dean episode full of gay jokes in between two Cas episodes full of serious destiel heavy storyline? If their intention was to make it into a joke again, they have failed. Because when taken with 12x10, the humour is stripped away and what is left is the viewer wondering whether Dean really does have a hankering for dick? Specifically Castiel’s. I know that my language here is very blunt. I also know that the chances are this review could find its way to some antis who would like to take the piss out of this… but seriously? Go ahead. Try. With the show playing up to the things we like, and with very little “no homo” moments to counteract it, I don’t see how you can view this any other way than the way we do.

Dean left Sam, went to this specific bar, had some Dutch courage and rode the bull. He also flirted with a waitress but that never went very far. His main concern was how good he was with Larry…How good his riding skills were… and spoiler alert… he was awesome.

(yes nonny - Dean could totally ride dick like a porn star. This is now true. Since we have seen him in action with our own eyes. Its not like most of those ‘Larry riding’ shots at the end even had the bull in them. It was all Dean from the waist up just having the time of his life and going up and down... up and down... like this wasn’t subtle. This totally wasn’t subtle.)

I also need to point out that all this happened before Dean got hexed. This was all Dean Winchester. This wasn’t performing Dean. The Dean who puts on a mask which half the time seems to be specifically for Sam. Nope. This was Dean as himself, the same Dean that owns booty shorts, likes ballet and has a thing for Dr Sexy.

The moment that the waitress says “you were…amazing” can be taken as the “no homo” to the Larry narrative of course. The way she says those words can easily be taken to be a comment on Dean’s sexual prowess. But its only there to cover up the underlining sexual nod to Dean’s “amazing” ability to ride the bull. The bull being called ‘Larry’ and therefore along with all the other phallic references this is, as I said previously, all one big “Dean rides dick” joke. And I can’t actually fucking believe the show did that.

Actually that’s a lie. I fucking well can. They have been flirting with this idea of Cas being a top and Dean being a bottom for AGES but THIS takes the biscuit.

So Dean rides dick. Thanks for confirming bottom!Dean show. Great job.

I wonder if even this went over poor ‘innocent’ Jensen Ackles head… Is he Charlton Heston? REALLY? Or is he 100% on board with this because how can you possibly act this out. INCLUDING THAT RIDICULOUS MONTAGE AT THE END and NOT see it? You do realise how fandom is gonna take this Jensen? You do realise this will probably DOUBLE the number of destiel fics where Dean is happily riding Cas’s dick all night long?!? (as a disclaimer here that is not what destiel fic is all about but there is still a lot of smut out there so I feel like the show is only encouraging this) (on the other hand I expect to find 20 12x11 coda’s on my dash where Dean goes home, finds Cas, tells him about Larry and how he wants to “show Cas his skills” *nudge nudge wink wink* and Cas will be like “oh. yes please!” and yeah... that happens. That totally happens.)

The other takeaway from this scene so loaded with meta potential is the waitress’s explanation of what happened. Because it seems weird and makes no sense. The question I’m sure a lot of people will be asking is Did Dean sleep with the waitress? But when you consider her explanation of what happened, how could he possibly have?

Ooh I actually got an ask about this too:

She said they were slammed, Dean had to wait for his burgers, hence he had time for 4 shots of tequila and a ride with Larry. So how did they get talking and “blew off some steam”? Because she didn’t even see him leave, it was her bartender that saw him run out of there like his pants caught fire (liar liar)

Is that the hint? Liar liar pants on fire? Was she lying about fooling around with Dean? If so why did she slap him earlier? She must have been insulted that he didn’t remember her and didn’t meet up with her later but it still doesn’t make any sense. How did she have time to fool around with Dean somewhere if they were slammed? If the place was slammed they surely wouldn’t have been able to find a quiet space to actually do the fooling around either? This whole thing smells like a lie and when you consider Dean’s later line “first action in I don’t know how long and its like it never even happened” seems to me that the writer wanted us to consider that maybe all is not a it seems. The only action Dean got in that cowboy bar was from Larry.

Consider another ask answered! Dean did not have sex with the waitress! They possibly squeezed in a kiss when she was on break but there is no way they had time to properly fool around.

Another thing I liked about this scene was the way the waitress then apologises for possibly taking advantage of Dean when he was “roofied”. After the mess and drama of the Amara stuff last season this is refreshing. Dean gets an apology for being sexually harassed, which from a meta perspective could also be the writer apologising for the Amara situation. I dunno if that’s really the case but I like the idea of it so I’m sticking with it.

Back to Regarding Dean

Once the Winchesters start tracing Dean’s steps into the forest Dean loses more memory. We have another call back to season 4 and Yellow Fever with the flashlight moment and Sam has to remind Dean what they do since he has now forgotten all about witches and monsters. The difference between his reaction to being a monster hunter here and in yellow fever is huge though. In yellow fever he thought they were both insane, horrified at the thought of actively going after these dangerous supernatural beings. In Regarding Dean he is excited about the idea, finds it awesome and calls them both “heroes”. It’s nice to know that without his memories of the horrible things they’ve done Dean is able to accept that he does something good and is able to be happy about that.

Another call back to season 4 with the mention of the Siren “Siren’s aren’t all hot chicks?” Nope. Sorry Dean some of them are hot guys who are totally your type. To bring up the Siren (an episode absolutely full of homoerotic subtext) in this episode (an episode absolutely full of homoerotic subtext) seems like another subtle nod to Dean’s bisexuality. Like a ‘hello! Remember this? Dean’s siren was a dude come on guys catch up!’ At moments like this I feel like the show is specifically trying to tell the audience what we (as fandom) already know. Dean is bisexual, like last episode they were trying to tell us that Cas is in love with Dean. This is all extremely promising.

THEN right after we are reminded of the Siren, but right before Dean totally randomly brings up Cas we get this:

I mean of course I was gonna bring up the handprint! Although I admit I have been lacking in my watchfulness lately for any hand or hand print symbolism in the show. But this is definitely meant to pique the audiences interest. Because why is it there at all? Why bother with the hand print if they are gonna find the sigil shortly after? It doesn’t seem to add much to the plot except to be there to ping a memory in Dean’s mind. Of Castiel.

“And our best friends an angel! Whaaaaatt!”

This is another season 4 callback after all. Season 4 being the season of Cas’s handprint. When their ‘profound bond’ was formed. There is no way this handprint isn’t supposed to invoke the memory of that most famous of handprints. Dean remembers Cas fondly. Even when he doesn’t remember him he still thinks he is awesome. This makes me so happy. As Cas fans we are so used to Cas just being forgotten about in MOTW episodes, but like I have been saying for ages now, Andrew Dabb is the biggest Cas fan and he won’t let our angel be forgotten about at all now that he is showrunner.

Moving on and Rowena shows up a her awesome self and Dean is nice to her. His base nature is actually to be nice to people regardless of who they are. Its something we don’t see very often from our very grumpy and deeply traumatised monster hunter. “your hair it’s all so bouncy” he says. Noticing the smallest things. Its cute. Its so very un-dean-like and yet at the same time it is exactly the kind of thing Dean would do. We know he likes to take care of his own appearance, his room, and often teases Sam about his hair and Cas about his trenchcoat. These are more in-sights into how Dean’s mind works.

Dean is sat down to watch an episode of Scooby Do whilst Rowena and Sam talk about the curse, firstly thinking he gets to watch porn. Nope. Instead we get this:

Which… in an episode full of sexual innuendo is *ahem* something I’m not going to comment on. Yes my mind did go there. No I am not specifying where “there” is. Look at the picture and figure it out for yourself. Flowers and dogs also have specific symbolism in this show. Maybe this wasn’t intentional but with everything else? I think it is. I am partly laughing and partly crying at how obvious this is to me at least. But like I said I ain’t going there. LOL.

Then, once Sam has explained to Dean once again what is happening we get this beautiful scene:

Honestly Jensen killed it. The fear in his eyes, the horror and confusion. “My name is Dean Winchester. Sam Winchester is my brother, Mary Winchester is my mother, and Casti- Cas is my best friend” This was beautiful and painful to watch. My heart breaks for him. Amongst all the humour and silliness of Larry and Rowena and Sam’s squabbles, this moment showed the truth. That the situation is dark and terrible and frightening. I wish they had given us more moments like this than all the humour to be honest. Because this was real. This was Dean vulnerable and terrified. Once again a scene where he faces his reflection and struggles with what he sees, though this time for a totally different reason. Dean has never had a good time with mirrors in this show. Ever since Bloody Mary they just tend to be bad luck for him. This moment is no different.

As Dean continues to forget more and more Rowena leaves him to go and save Sam (how awesome is it that Rowena is technically saving them now?!?) and leaves Dean in the Impala surrounded by notes. This is where Dean really has forgotten everything and yet his hunter instincts still kick in.

We get another moment where Sam denies the use of the grenade launcher. Three times and it’s a pattern. I would bet money on Dean getting to use that thing by the end of the season.

Dean finds his way to the witches mansion and is able to save Rowena and Sam by firing the gun and killing the witch. Proof that hunting really is in his blood, part of his soul. He will always be a hunter. No witches spell can take that away. In a way it is quite sad because it kind of implies that however this show ends, it won’t be with Dean giving up hunting. Even with the talks of retirement in previous episodes, I can’t see Dean doing it. Its who he will always be.

Once the witches are dead and the spell reversed, Dean admits that he wouldn’t be better off forgetting all their crap, because he would have forgotten everything else too. No matter how happy he might have been.

“Was it nice to drop our baggage? Yeah maybe, hell probably, but it wasn’t just the crap that got lost it was everything, what we do, all of it. So, that’s what being happy looks like, I think I’ll pass.”

Of course Dean wouldn’t choose to forget everything. Like the previous scene proved, Its in Dean’s blood to be a hunter, and he wouldn’t ever wanna forget his family. The people he loves. Forgetting the people who love you is not happiness in any way shape or form.

I feel like maybe this episode was lacking an emotional final scene. This was short and sweet but it didn’t seem to have the satisfaction that I thought it would, regarding Dean’s memory loss and fear and dependence on his loved ones. But it was still a great analysis of Dean’s character nevertheless.

Sam Winchester isn’t looking hard enough

This episode was predominantly about Dean, but there was a lot of stuff about Sam in here too. Specifically how he doesn’t really seem to notice much about his brother. I don’t mean this as a dig, but it’s honestly quite surprising. When we compare episodes where Sam has been changed somehow, it has taken Dean no time at all to realise something is wrong. Sam however, seems to shrug it off as Dean being a dumbass, or Dean being drunk, or Dean doing something to make Sam roll his eyes again. It seems like Sam has got an idea of who Dean is in his mind and it is so deeply ingrained that he is kinda blinded by it. He has his expectations of his brother, and he has got it so so wrong. Sam judges Dean. He doesn’t mean to, but the problem is that Dean has been building on his ‘character’ on his ‘performing Dean’ persona just for Sam for his entire life. Sam sees the performance, he doesn’t see what’s underneath. Its episodes like this that make me question all our fics with “shipper!sam” because I sometimes doubt if that’s the case. Does Sam actually see it for what it is? Or is he so blinded by his version of Dean that he cannot see the truth? Clearly Cas and Dean’s tension makes him uncomfortable, as last episode all but proved. But does Sam really understand what is going on here?

If he can be surprised that Dean loves Dory, what else surprises him? How much of Dean does he not know about?

What I found really striking in this episode is how Sam doesn’t find it easier to track Dean’s movements of the night before, because if it was the other way around Dean would have figured Sam out straight away. This was shown to us back in season 4 (again with the season 4 references in this episode!) when Dean was able to locate Sam based on how well he “knows that kid”. If Sam had truly known his brother well, he would have known that the cowboy joint was the first place he’d go. Sam knows that Dean has a ‘cowboy fetish’ and therefore it make the most sense? Dean wanted to ride the bull, but Sam was so surprised that Dean rode Larry that he “couldn’t believe it.”

Even the end scene, Sam admits that he was kinda jealous. For him, forgetting everything they have done is a weight off their shoulders. Something he would like to experience. I think this is also a hint towards Sam not entirely accepting that hunting is his life. Whereas Dean is generally happy with what he does, because it is in his blood Sam doesn’t feel that way. I know we have seen previous episodes where Sam has seemed to accept it. But he only accepts it if he can do it with Dean. The co-dependency is extremely strong with Sam at the moment. Sam also always seems to be looking for something more. I don’t just mean relationship wise, though he did admit this in 11x04, but something more than just hunting.

We have always known that Dean was more like Mary. Mary’s family are the hunters. Dean is one of them. Sam though? Sam was all John. And John might have taken to hunting once his revenge had consumed him, but hunting was not in John’s blood. Nope, John’s blood is all Men of Letters. This is the path that Sam seems destined for.

What also seems to encourage this theory is that it is usually Sam who is paired up with Rowena in any of her episodes. It is common in this show for most side characters to develop a better relationship with Dean than to Sam. Dean is charismatic like that, but Sam has ‘bonded’ with Rowena if you wanna call it that, far more than Dean has, and it is always Sam who calls Rowena in to help. Is Sam attracted to magic? This is something that we have been speculating for a while. The Men of Letters use magic this we know, even their grandfather Henry was able to “harness the power of his soul” to cast spells. It was Sam who spoke to Lily last episode about how she developed her power. It is Sam who finds all of that stuff very interesting, and it is Sam who holds on to the Grimoire at the end of the episode. Will we get witch!sam in the future? I think it is still a possibility, but if nothing else he will become a true men of letters eventually… that I am sure of.

I said I was slightly disappointed with the end of this episode as it seemed to brush over the deeper, more meaningful conversation that could have been had. Another moment of missed potential I think was this one:

“Brother. Witch”

Isn’t it all a bit too easy? What if the witch had turned around and said “no! I’m your brother! He’s a witch!” and it could have got confusing for Dean. I think this moment could have really been great for Sam to have to convince Dean somehow why he was indeed his brother… revealing something about himself and their relationship? It would have been nice to see that moment of doubt from Dean followed by pleading from Sam to believe him rather than the witch. It’s an old TV cliché though so maybe that’s why they didn’t do it.

The next great Sam moment was this one: “Who’s this hippy?”

Sam looked broken here. For a moment he was really worried that his brother had forgotten him… that is the moment I was talking about earlier about the horrors of Alzheimer’s. Thinking that your loved one doesn’t know who you are is horribly painful. Jared did really well to capture that moment, even though it turned out to be Dean joking around. I’m with Sam here, that wasn’t funny Dean. That was mean.

Rowena’s future

Rowena was totally awesome in this episode. We first see her playing poker with some shady characters and cheats her way into winning. I’m so interested in what Rowena is up to off screen. First the rich businessman who Crowley blew up, now this. She is clearly completely done with other witches, but she isn’t quite ‘out completely, and still comes to Sam and Dean’s aide even though she could easily tunr them down. Like Crowley, could Rowena be starting to care for the Winchesters?

“Am I saved to your contacts now? Tell me, have I got my own ringtone?” Lol. So Rowena is flirting with Sam. Which is fun but also reminds me of 10x19 and Sam’s hallucination of Rowena that got all flirtatious with him. That was Sam’s mind remember so is there actually something in this? Oh god do we need a ship name for this now? We had Drowley now we have Samena/Sawena? Eek I dunno about this! Though I might just go with it purely for the look on Crowley’s face.

Anyway I just love Rowena and Sam’s banter okay?

Then she turns up at their door and as much as Sam brushes it off as Rowena having her eyes on the Loughlin’s book, partly I think Rowena actually enjoys their company.

“altruism isn’t exactly your style”

Isn’t it though? Because she seems like she is also putting on a performance of villainess when really it’s not who she is at all. Like Dean, it’s all a performance.

“You’re a killer, Dean Winchester”

“But, though you may be a stubborn pain in the ass, with the manners of a Neanderthal and the dining habits of a toddler, everything you’ve done, you’ve done for the greater good.”

“Oh and that’s supposed to make it okay?”

“I wouldn’t know. You help those other than yourself, but me? I’ve done horrible things. I told myself it was fine. It was the price of power and powers what matters right? Then I meet god and his sister, the two most powerful beings in the universe, wasted on squabbling with each other. I thought if they can’t be happy or at least satisfied how can there be any hope for me?”

This is such a fascinating insight into Rowena’s mind, how she thinks. For ages it was all about getting power but since God and Amara she has given that up. It’s not about power. She still wants money so she can support herself, but like her son what she is missing is love. This is why I think she helped the Winchesters. She likes them, even if she acts like she doesn’t. They are technically the only people she really knows and I can see this being part of her storyline that she tries to build on a relationship with Sam and Dean. As an ally at first, but then at some point a friend.

After all, when she hears Sam is in trouble, she goes to rescue him. She doesn’t flee and decide it’s not her problem. If she didn’t care, she wouldn’t have put herself at risk for Sam. She doesn’t even get the book in the end. So what did she possibly risk her life for? If not to save Sam. This is a huge turning point for Rowena. She made a decision to save Sam’s life. So much for being a villain.

When Rowena does face Catrina, her story is horrible and sad, we are starting to learn more and more why Rowena is the way she is. Though nothing has come too close to her speech to Crowley in 11x10. Rowena hated being weak, being at the mercy of others. Her experience with the Loughlin’s shows just how awful it was for her. The way she was treated does not excuse the horrible things she has done, but it seems as though since meeting God and Amara she is trying to make up for some of that. She is not unkind or uncaring at all. She has always cared maybe too much. Otherwise she would have easily left both Winchesters to die.

This goes back to her speech to Crowley. “If I didn’t hate you, I’d love you. And love, love is weakness.” This I think is the theme of Rowena’s arc. For her to learn that love is not a weakness, that to have people who love and support you only makes you stronger. It coincides with Cas’s arc as well, where he is constantly being told that his weakness is his love for “humanity”. Castiel already said himself that “my friendship with Sam and Dean makes me stronger”. Rowena just needs to learn this too.

Overall

This episode wasn’t one of the strongest but it had some very good moments. I didn’t like the villains. I found them rather boring, but then they weren’t the focal point of the episode. The writing was sloppy in places and some of the plot didn’t quite make sense, but ultimately it worked. Just, what the hell was the end montage? I get that it was supposed to be another call back to Yellow Fever but seriously? The song was kinda fun. About innocence lost by the sounds of it.. but seriously? I was suffering from a bit of second hand embarrassment I’ll be honest. I think they just really needed an excuse to put Dean riding Larry into the episode for real.

This makes me think that we totally missed out on a booty shorts dance from Dean at the end of 11x04.

Main takeaways from the episode?

Meredith Glynn binge watched season 4 and used it for all her references.

Sam really needs to pay more attention to what Dean isn’t telling him.

Sam may be tempted by witchcraft.

Rowena cares. A lot.

Dean likes to ride dick. (but then we already knew that.)

#supernatural #episode review #spn meta #dean winchester #destiel #sam winchester #rowena #12x11 #spn spoilers #season 12 #dean is bi #destiel dreaming #my thoughts #dean analysis

255 notes · View notes

sejinpk · 7 years

Note

So for that top 5 ask meme thing... How about top 5 live action films?

Thanks for the ask! I don’t often talk about live-action movies, so I’m glad you asked this! ^_^ There are only four entries because there are really only four live-action movies that I feel like I can confidently say are truly favorites.

1. American Psycho

youtube

American Psycho is the first (maybe the only?) satire where I feel like I’m actually able to see/get the satire for myself, though, admittedly, this was only after the commentary initially told me as much. >.

This clip highlights what I’m talking about regarding multiple levels, specifically the part starting right around the 1:15 mark (note: the clip is VERY NSFW!!!!).

youtube

On the one hand, it’s a horrifying scene in which a crazed Christian Bale is chasing a prostitute through his apartment building with a chainsaw. She bangs on other residents’ doors and screams loudly, but nobody comes to help her, or even to see what’s going on. And eventually Bale kills her with the chainsaw, just as you think she might have been able to get away. It’s heartbreaking.

But on the other hand, right at that 1:15 mark, you see Christian Bale sort of *giggle* trot into view covered in blood and wearing nothing but *snort* socks and tennis shoes, carrying a *kheheheeheaahhhaahahahahaaa* chainsaw in front of him like a *full-blown laughter and cackling* demented phallic symbol, running buck naked through his apartment complex, and he somehow has perfect aim to be able to drop the chainsaw down the middle of what looks like three or four stories of spiral stairs so that it actually hits the woman he’s chasing. The absurdity of the scene is absolutely hilarious.

I love Christian Bale’s acting as Patrick Bateman. I also really like Willem Dafoe’s performance. In fact, I like most of the performances in the movie. Regarding Bale in particular–and this is something said by the movie’s director in interviews–he really understood the dorkiness and the pathetic nature of Bateman. I think thefirst video clip above highlights some of this (random interesting fact: apparently Christian Bale can sweat on cue, as he broke out in a sweat at the exact same time in every take of that scene), as does this clip of Bateman’s music monologues, which are hilarious (I wanted to include the video in this post, but Tumblr apparently has a 5-video-per-post limit, so this is the one that got cut).

The movie is legitimately funny, both because of Bale’s portrayal of Bateman, and because of the satire. I think it does a really good job of getting you to laugh at him, rather than with him (in this case, that’s the intended effect). The movie also handles its tone very well, which was super-important for creating the effect the filmmakers wanted.

I also think the movie’s themes and social commentary are interesting and still relevant today, even though the story is set in the 80′s, the movie was released in 2000, and the book the movie is adapted from was published in 1991. It’s only been on the last one or two re-watches (I’ve watched the movie several times) that I’ve started to understand how the movie uses physical violence and the horror elements as a metaphor for class- and economic-based systemic violence.

2. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

youtube

I also really like Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which this movie is a sequel to, but I like Dawn of the Planet of the Apes a little more. The key thing I love about these movies (and especially Dawn) is the humanity they give both the human and ape characters, which is what makes the drama and action so compelling. Both sides of the conflict, humans and apes, are given so much depth and nuance. Their conflict isn’t black and white, and you’re able to understand, and empathize and sympathize with, both sides equally strongly.

I think the character work in the movie is incredible. Practically all the characters we get any kind of time with are developed–we can see how they think, what motivates them, what their priorities are, even if they’re given very little screentime. One of my absolute favorite emotional scenes in the movie is when Dreyfus, Gary Oldman’s character, turns on his phone after the humans get power back, and as he’s looking through old pictures of his family, who have died, he just completely breaks down. It’s such a moving, heartbreaking scene.

Also, Andy Serkis + motion capture = Dawn is a poster child for this.

3. Tai Chi Master

youtube

So far, there have only been two works of fiction that have had a significant influence/impact on my life in some way. One is the Monogatari Series. Tai Chi Master (called Twin Warriors in the U.S.; original Chinese title 太極張三豐(Tàijí Zhāng Sānfēngin Mandarin)) is the other. This movie is what got me interested in learning tai chi, which eventually led to my broader interest in health, which in turn led me to where I am today, in school studying to become a Registered Dietitian.

It’s the story of the supposed legendary founder of tai chi, Zhang Sanfeng (played by Jet Li), though I don’t know how closely it adheres to the actual legend. I find the movie generally enjoyable, but the main reason it’s on this list is because of the impact it had on my life.

This sequence in particular, in which Jet Li’s character is figuring things out, testing ideas, and going through the initial process of creating tai chi, is what enamored me so much and got me interested in learning it (of course, the tai chi in the movie is stylized and exaggerated to varying degrees):

youtube

On a somewhat related note, I’ve heard of a movie called Pushing Hands (the name of an essential practice for developing sensitivity in internal martial arts), which has at least a tangential connection to tai chi (but sounds interesting even if the connection is really weak), but I have yet to get around to seeing if I can find it to watch.

4. How the Earth Changed History

(I wasn’t overly fond of any of the video clips I found, so that’s why there’s not one here.)

How the Earth Changed History, originally called How Earth Made Us in Britain (it’s a BBC production), narrated/presented by geologist Iain Stewart, is easily my favorite documentary. It’s about how planetary forces have shaped human history. It’s broken up into five parts. The first four parts each focus on a planetary force: water, the deep earth, wind, and fire. The fifth part focuses on how humans have influenced/affected the planet.

One thing I really like about this documentary is that it’s entertaining. In addition to just making the narration interesting, Stewart goes the extra mile to take the viewer into some really neat places, such as inside holes and tunnels dug to get at groundwater; a crystal cavern (a giant chamber that was initially sealed and filled with water, in which enormous crystals grew); on a catamaran in the ocean; the middle of the Sahara desert; various archaeological and historical sites; through a literal fire; etc.

I also found the information itself really interesting. Here are a few of what I thought were the highlights:

In the wind/air segment, he talks about how the Sahara desert (which is formed and maintained by large-scale wind patterns) acts as a natural barrier, which, in the past, inhibited trade between civilizations on different sides of it. As a result, a town/city (I don’t remember the name) in a key mid-desert location became an important trade hub. Centuries later, Christopher Columbus discovered the trade winds (more large-scale wind patterns), which ultimately led to a new trade route/cycle that bypassed the mid-desert city. Thus, the wind was influential in both the city’s rise and fall.

In the deep earth segment, he talks about the relationship humans have with fault lines: they enable us to more easily get at the various minerals that arise from within the earth, such as copper, but they’re inherently dangerous (earthquakes). Humans now have the ability to shield our buildings from the impact of earthquakes; it’s all a matter of choosing to do so.

The “Human Planet” segment is where I learned about the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. He also talks about an Indonesian mud volcano, which is still erupting. In the documentary, Stewart says it was caused by human activities (drilling), but it sounds like there’s still debate about that, with some scientists supporting drilling as the cause, and others saying it was caused by an earthquake. Either way, the documentary shows that the incessant mud bubbling up from inside the earth literally buried the nearby town, and that was six to seven years ago (the documentary was released in 2010, and the mud volcano began erupting near the end of May, 2006). I can’t imagine how much worse it’s gotten.

In addition to what I’ve said about the documentary, I came across a very well-written review on Amazon that does an excellent job of describing the content and discussing why I find it so interesting.

I don’t normally like to do this, but I really want more people to watch this documentary (honestly, though, it’s only like $10 - $15 new on Amazon), so here are links to each segment on YouTube:

Water

Deep Earth

Wind

Fire

Human Planet

Again, thanks for sending me this ask! I really enjoyed making this post! ^_^ If there’s anything you want to respond to, please feel free to do so! :D

#b1689q #American Psycho #Dawn of the Planet of the Apes #Tai Chi Master #How the Earth Changed History #SejinPK answers

5 notes · View notes