#valid criticism isn't my issue | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

maplebellsmods · 3 months

Text

Hello! Here are the new traits that I have been working on. I have made 15 new CAS Traits

How does this work?

Just like you would add any other CAS trait for your Sims. For reference, you can look at the photo and these are all the traits you would find in the game. These are compatible with all of my other previous traits.

Depending on what trait you use sims with the traits or sims around the sim with these traits can have certain reactions. It's just like how the traits work in general.

Gamer: These Sims gain significant happiness and stress relief from playing video games, may become tense if they haven't gamed for a while, and excel in tech-related careers.

Romantic Idealist: These Sims dream of grand romantic gestures and true love, often getting mood boosts from romantic interactions but may become sad if their love life doesn't meet their lofty expectations.

Cuddle Bug: These Sims love giving and receiving hugs, gaining positive moodlets from cuddling with loved ones and pets.

Fairy-Tale Fanatic: These Sims are obsessed with fairy tales, feeling happy when reading or discussing them and often aspire to live out their own fairy-tale romance or adventure.

Baker: These Sims find joy and comfort in baking, experiencing mood improvements when making and eating baked goods.

Memory Keeper: These Sims cherish memories more than most, often reminiscing about past events, which can significantly affect their mood.

Vintage Lover: These Sims have a passion for all things vintage, gaining happiness from wearing vintage clothes and decorating their homes with retro items.

Home Chef: These Sims love cooking at home and experimenting with recipes, gaining positive moodlets from cooking meals for others.

Body Conscious: These Sims are often critical of their body, frequently feeling insecure and may seek validation or comfort from others regarding their appearance.

Love-Struck: These Sims easily fall in love, often feeling elated in romantic relationships but may experience deeper sadness from breakups.

Monogamous: These Sims prefer deep, committed relationships, gaining substantial mood boosts from stable relationships but may feel insecure with casual romances.

Heartbreaker: These Sims find it easy to start and end relationships, gaining confidence from romantic conquests but potentially leaving a trail of broken hearts.

Natural Beauty: These Sims are confident in their natural appearance, often receiving compliments and feeling happy without makeup or styling.

Elegantly Aged: These Sims age gracefully, often receiving compliments on their mature beauty and feeling confident in later life stages.

Body Positive: These Sims love their body in all its forms, often inspiring others to feel the same and rarely feeling insecure about their physique.

Hairstyle Hobbyist: These Sims love experimenting with their hair, feeling happiest and most confident after a visit to the salon or trying a new hairstyle at home.

Unkempt: These Sims don't prioritize grooming, often feeling indifferent to their messy appearance but may occasionally feel embarrassed in social situations.

Age Insecure: These Sims struggle with aging, often feeling sad or anxious about getting older and may seek rejuvenation through various means.

What else do I need for the mod?

The Mood Pack (If your UI disappears or there are UI issues after you play an animation with a mod it is because the Mood Pack isn't properly installed or installed at all. Please make sure you make note of this.)

Does this mod require any DLC?

The mod is BGC. The traits do tap into each pack so having them will create a more full experience. Not required though.

Questions and concerns you might have?

If you have one send it here: Trait Requests

Report it here: Mod Bug Report

How to install the mod?

You can choose to download whichever trait you want from the downloads below OR you can download the zip file "Maplebell More CAS Traits #3" If there are also traits you do not want then you can delete them from the folder.

Electronic Arts/The Sims 4/Mods <--- Unzip the file and make sure it's placed in this path.

Download Here

Public: March 21

#the sims 4 cc #ts4cc #the sims 4 #ts4 mods #ts4 #the sims 4 mods #ts4 cc #the sims #simblr #sims 4 edit #the sims cc #ts4 download #ts4 mod #sims 4 mods #thesims4

1K notes · View notes

blueskittlesart · 2 months

Note

I've heard that while most people really really love BotW and TotK, some people hate those two for going open-world, and some people hate TotK specifically for something about the story. As the resident Zelda expert I know of, what do you think of those takes?

"something about the story" is a bit too vague for me to answer--if you look at my totk liveblog tag from back when the game was newly released or my general zelda analysis tag you may be able to find some of my in-depth thoughts about the story of totk, but in general i liked it.

the open world thing though is something i can and will talk about for hours. (I am obsessed with loz and game design and this is an essay now <3) breath of the wild is a game that was so well-received that a lot of the criticism from older fans who were expecting something closer to the classic zelda formula was just kind of immediately drowned out and ignored, and while i don't think it's a valid criticism to suggest that botw strayed too far from its origins in going open-world, i am more than willing to look into those criticisms, why they exist, and why i think going open-world was ultimately the best decision botw devs could have made. (totk is a slightly different story, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.)

Loz is a franchise with a ton of history and a ton of really, REALLY dedicated fans. it's probably second only to mario in terms of recognizability and impact in nintendo's catalog. To us younger fans, the older games can sometimes seem, like, prehistoric when compared to what we're used to nowadays, but it's important to remember just how YOUNG the gaming industry is and how rapidly it's changed and grown. the first zelda game was released in 1986, which was 31 years before botw came out in 2017. What this means for nintendo and its developers is that they have to walk a very fine line between catering to older fans in their 30s and 40s now who would have been in nintendo's prime demographic when the first few games in the franchise were coming out AND making a game that's engaging to their MODERN target demographic and that age group's expectations for what a gaming experience should look like.

LOZ is in kind of a tough spot when it comes to modernizing, because a lot of its core gameplay elements are very much staples of early RPGs, and a lot of those gameplay elements have been phased out of modern RPGs for one reason or another. gathering collectibles, fighting one's way through multilevel, mapless dungeons, and especially classic zelda's relative lack of guidance through the story are all things that date games and which modern audiences tend to get frustrated with. for the last few releases before botw, the devs had kind of been playing with this -- skyward sword in particular is what i consider their big experiment and what (i think) became the driving force behind a lot of what happened with botw. Skyward sword attempted to solve the issues I listed by, basically, making the map small and the story much, much more blatantly linear. Skyward sword feels much more like other modern rpgs to me than most zelda games in terms of its playstyle, because the game is constantly pushing you to do specific things. this is a common storytelling style in modern RPGs--obviously, the player usually needs to take specific actions in order to progress the story, and so when there's downtime between story sections the supporting characters push the player towards the next goal. but this actually isn't what loz games usually do. in the standard loz formula, you as the player are generally directly given at most 4 objectives. these objectives will (roughly) be as follows: 1. go through some dungeons and defeat their bosses, 2. claim the master sword, 3. go through another set of dungeons and defeat their bosses, 4. defeat the final boss of the game. (not necessarily in that order, although that order is the standard formula.) the ONLY time the player will be expressly pushed by supporting characters towards a certain action (excluding guide characters) is when the game is first presenting them with those objectives. in-between dungeons and other gameplay segments, there's no sense of urgency, no one pushing you onto the next task. this method of storytelling encourages players to take their time and explore the world they're in, which in turn helps them find the collectibles and puzzles traditionally hidden around the map that will make it easier for them to continue on. Skyward sword, as previously mentioned, experimented with breaking this formula a bit--its overworld was small and unlocked sequentially, so you couldn't explore it fully without progressing the narrative, and it gave players a "home base" to return to in skyloft which housed many of the puzzles and collectibles rather than scattering them throughout the overworld. This method worked... to an extent, but it also meant that skyward sword felt drastically different in its storytelling and how its narrative was presented to the player than its predecessors. this isn't necessarily a BAD thing, but i am of the opinion that one of zelda's strongest elements has always been the level of immersion and relatability its stories have, and the constant push to continue the narrative has the potential to pull players out of your story a bit, making skyward sword slightly less engaging to the viewer than other games in the franchise. (to address the elephant in the room, there were also obviously some other major issues with the design of sksw that messed with player immersion, but imo even if the control scheme had been perfect on the first try, the hyperlinear method would STILL have been less engaging to a player than the standard exploration-based zeldas.)

So when people say that botw was the first open-world zelda, I'm not actually sure how true I personally believe that is. I think a lot of the initial hype surrounding botw's open map were tainted by what came before it--compared to the truly linear, intensely restricted map of skyward sword, botw's map feels INSANE. but strictly speaking, botw actually sticks pretty closely to the standard zelda gameplay experience, at least as far as the overworld map is concerned. from the beginning, one of the draws of loz is that there's a large, populated map that you as the player can explore (relatively) freely. it was UNUSUAL for the player to not have access to almost the entire map either immediately or very quickly after beginning a new zelda game. (the size and population of these maps was restricted by software and storage capabilities in earlier games, but pretty muhc every zelda game has what would have been considered a large & well populated map at the time of its release.) what truly made botw different was two things; the first being the sheer SIZE of the map and the second being the lack of dungeons and collectibles in a traditional sense. Everything that needs to be said about the size of the map already has been said: it's huge and it's crazy and it's executed PERFECTLY and it's never been done before and every game since has been trying to replicate it. nothing much else to say there. but I do want to talk about the percieved difference in gameplay as it relates to the open-world collectibles and dungeons, because, again, i don't think it's actually as big of a difference as people seem to think it is.

Once again, let's look at the classic formula. I'm going to start with the collectibles and lead into the dungeons. The main classic collectible that's a staple of every zelda game pre-botw is the heart piece. This is a quarter of a heart that will usually be sitting out somewhere in the open world or in a dungeon, and will require the player to either solve a puzzle or perform a specific action to get. botw is the first game to not include heart pieces... TECHNICALLY. but in practice, they're still there, just renamed. they're spirit orbs now, and rather than being hidden in puzzles within the overworld (with no explanation as to how or why they ended up there, mind you) they're hidden within shrines, and they're given a clear purpose for existing throughout hyrule and for requiring puzzle-solving skills to access. Functionally, these two items are exactly the same--it's an object that gives you an extra heart container once you collect four of them. no major difference beyond a reskin and renaming to make the object make sense within the greater world instead of just having a little ❤️ floating randomly in the middle of their otherwise hyperrealistic scenery. the heart piece vs spirit orb i think is a good microcosm of the "it's too different" criticisms of botw as a whole--is it ACTUALLY that different, or is it just repackaged in a way that doesn't make it immediately obvious what you're looking at anymore? I think it's worth noting that botw gives a narrative reason for that visual/linguistic disconnect from other games, too--it's set at minimum TEN THOUSAND YEARS after any other given game. while we don't have any concrete information about how much time passes between new-incarnation games, it's safe to assume that botw is significantly further removed from other incarnations of hyrule/link/zelda/etc than any other game on the timeline. It's not at all inconceivable within the context of the game that heart pieces may have changed form or come to be known by a different name. most of the changes between botw and other games can be reasoned away this way, because most of them have SOME obvious origins in a previous game mechanic, it's just been updated for botw's specific setting and narrative.

The dungeons ARE an actual departure from the classic formula, i will grant you. the usual way a zelda dungeon works is that link enters the dungeon, solves a few puzzles, fights a mini boss at about the halfway point, and after defeating the mini boss he gets a dungeon item which makes the second half of the dungeon accessible. He then uses that item in the dungeon's final boss fight, which is specifically engineered with that item in mind as the catalyst to win it. Botw's dungeons are the divine beasts. we've removed the presence of mini-bosses entirely, because the 'dungeon items' aren't something link needs to get within the dungeon itself--he alredy has them. they're the sheikah slate runes: magnesis, cryonis, stasis, and remote bombs. Each of the divine beast blight battles is actually built around using one of these runes to win it--cryonis to break waterblight's ice projectiles, magnesis to strike down thunderblight with its own lightning rods, remote bombs to take out fireblight's shield. (i ASSUME there's some way to use stasis effectively against windblight, mostly because it's obvious to me that that's how all the other fights were designed, but in practice it's the best strategy for that fight is to just slow down time via aerial archery, so i've never tried to win that way lol.) So even though we've removed traditional dungeon items and mini-boss fights, the bones of the franchise remain unchanged underneath. this is what makes botw such an ingenious move for this franchise imo; the fact that it manages to update itself into such a beautiful, engaging, MODERN game while still retaining the underlying structure that defines its franchise and the games that came before it. botw is an effective modern installment to this 30-year-old franchise because it takes what made the old games great and updates it in a way that still stays true to the core of the franchise.

I did mention totk in my opening paragraph and you mention it in your ask so i have to come back to it somehow. Do i think that totk did the gigantic-open-world thing as well as botw did? no. But i also don't really think there was any other direction to go with that game specifically. botw literally changed the landscape of game development when it was released. I KNOW you all remember how for a good year or two after botw's release, EVERY SINGLE GAME that came out HAD to have a massive open-world map, regardless of whether or not that actually made sense for that game. (pokemon is still suffering from the effects of that botw-driven open world craze to this day. rip scarlet/violet your gameplay was SUCH dogshit) I'm not sure to what degree nintendo and the botw devs anticipated that success, (I remember the open world and the versatility in terms of problem-solving being the two main advertising angles pre-release, but it's been 7 years. oh jesus christ it's been SEVEN YEARS. anyways) but in any case, there's basically NO WAY that they anticipated their specific gameplay style taking off to that degree. That's not something you can predict. When creating totk, they were once again walking that line between old and new, but because they were only 3ish years out from botw when totk went into development, they were REALLY under pressure to stay true to what it was that had made botw such an insane success. I think that's probably what led to the expanded map in the sky and depths as well as the fuse/build mechanics--they basically took their two big draws from botw, big map and versatility, and said ok BIGGER MAP and MORE VERSATILITY. Was this effective? yeah. do i think they maybe could have made a more engaging and well-rounded game if they'd been willing to diverge a little more from botw? also yeah. I won't say that I wanted totk to be skyward sword-style linear, because literally no one wanted that, but I do think that because of the insane wave of success that botw's huge open world brought in the developers were under pressure to stay very true to botw in their designing the gameplay of totk, and I think that both the gameplay and story might have been a bit more engaging if they had been allowed to experiment a little more in their delivery of the material.

#wow it's been a while since i've written a real homegrown organic legend of zelda essay. i missed this #hi everyone. when the fuck is the next game going into development i need to have something to wildly theorize about again #god. it's been. seven years since botw came out. im going to go chew on live electrical wires #zelda analysis #asks

118 notes · View notes

megabuild · 4 months

Note

wait I'm so curious what are the four 'sects' of mcyt ?

full disclaimer: this is something i've been thinking up myself largely based on my own personal experience with each aspect of the fandom, so if people want to correct things or add on, i'd be happy to see it! having said that,

this ⤴️ is a condensed look at my fandom crit autism. largely fuelled by the people's want to label mcyt fandom as one single united fandom when that is far from the case- never mind that plenty of smps has vastly different audience, eg. a preteen who's just getting into 3rd life after watching hermitcraft as a kid is not going to be rubbing shoulders with hardcore fans of epic smp, even within fandoms of singular smps there are still vast differences between the areas of discussion- leading to this labelling of four "sects"! there are other areas ofc, such as insta and tiktok, but i would consider these the main areas where mcyt is discussed (at least for hermitcraft/3l, which is my personal focus- i know dsmp was big on tiktok with cosplayers(?) but can't speak to it much) in depth, as well as the main areas ccs may look to in order to understand their fandom.

it's a massive simplification but the categories are as follows; ability to interact directly with ccs (and if the cc is likely to respond), ability to engage with criticism (both valid crit and more negative commentary, veering into hate), ability to engage with characterisation (as in, accepting that cubito is separate from cc, and what level they will accept that it- this also goes for shipping/nsfw content) and the primary age group (because that is in part relevant when dealing with youtube comments.)

to me this especially matters not just for ccs but for people within fandom to understand where certain sentiments (especially irt negative commentary) is coming from and how they can solve that- too often i see people on here picking fights over perceived negativity when it actuality that largely comes from reddit and yt. that's not to say it isn't possible here, but it is certainly less of an issue imo.

#anon #asks #meta

219 notes · View notes

our-lesboy-experience · 1 month

Note

hiii!!! so uh, this is sorta about 'contradicting' (?) identities in general, but i only recently found out about, like, lesboys and gaygirls and all of that, but what is it exactly? like how does it work? or is that weird to ask? i'm trying figuring myself out but a lot of stuff i've seen doesn't exactly... explain it (or explain it well), and while i guess i do get why, it's just kinda hard to understand it myself for my own identity

also, probably a question you get a lot in a hating way, but isn't the definition of lesbian nonman loving nonman? so then how does lesboy work? like is it for people with more complicated gender identites, like fluctuating genders and bigender? just genuinly confused, my apologies...

sorry for not getting to this sooner- been busier lately and didn't have the time to collect everything I needed to respond!

About what it exactly means to be a lesboy or a gaygirl ('turigirl' is the more common term, 'turi' meaning turian, another word for gay attraction to men. so I'll be referring to it as that from now on), there isn't exactly....one right way to call yourself such. it really depends on the person, but I can give you a basic definition and a list of common reasons someone may call themselves such

im gonna put a read more because this ended up being super long so sorry

lesboy is a term for any lesbian who may have a connection to manhood and/or masculinity. turigirl is just the opposite of that, a gay person (mlm/nblm) who may have a connection to womanhood and/or femininity. common reasons I've seen are:

being multigender or genderfluid

being cusper/in between trans and cis gnc (in between trans man and cis gnc woman, in between trans woman and cis gnc man)

being a system who uses lesboy/turigirl as a collective identity or when identities blur together

a person who uses man/boy or woman/girl as a means of masculine or feminine gender expression but not actually identifying as such

being a trans man/ftm or a trans woman/mtf who still identifies as lesbian or gay for personal reasons

those are far from all the reasons, everyone has their own unique experiences, but the gist is these people may have some sort of connection to manhood/womanhood while still having a queer attraction. personally, I'm multigender, genderfluid, and transmasc. lesboy I find is a nice label to express being both my bigender self and being a lesbian, as it forces people to acknowledge both without separating the two. it's cute and makes me feel validated!

as for "nonman attracted to nonmen" definition of lesbian......it has its issues. it's received criticism all around from all sorts of lesbians in the community. this definition is very new - it emerged only in the recent years, and someone on twitter had date searched it and found it didn't even really exist before 2019. and having that as the one and only official definition that every lesbian has to abide by, when lesbian is a centuries old word with so much history behind it, is a bit ignorant. people who are multiple genders or ftm or bi being lesbian is not even remotely new, going back decades upon decades, and it never stopped existing too. It's a bit weird to have a whole new definition that doesn't include all sorts of lesbians that have been here for so long and just tell them they're not welcomed anymore, right?

that's not even close to the only issue there is with it. it's been disliked for centering lack of attraction to men, or defining lesbian in relation to men, rather than who we're actually attracted to. putting nonbinary people in a new binary of either being "men or nonmen," which not all feel comfortable putting themselves into. especially when considering a definition of gay being "nonwomen attracted to nonwomen," man-woman bigender people are simultaneously excluded from being both lesbian or gay. It inherently overlaps with mspec identity ("attraction to nonmen, which is more than one gender" and "any orientation that involves attraction to more than one gender" kinda obviously overlap), despite people insisting that a lesbian can never be mspec. people have found multiple loopholes in it, (which I can elaborate on if someone wants me to, for the sake of trying to make this as short as possible), and lastly, and term "nonman" (and nonwoman) were found to have existed before to describe the degendering of black people in society. this isn't the only source I've seen for this, but sadly I can't exactly find it (or find it without going back to that hellsite called twitter and I'm not doing that to myself)

oh and as the link points out, defining lesbian by these words also ends up excluding a lot of two-spirit people from ever identifying as lesbian, myself included. which is also really racist. I don't know how you're gonna end up excluding a whole cultural gender that's common for indigenous americans to describe themselves with and try to prove it somehow isn't racist, to be honest

and lastly, some surveys/polls have shown that the definition isn't the most widely accepted by lesbians as people make it out to be. there's this simple poll that someone posted asking how lesbians felt about the definition that received 1,529 responses, and 61.1% of voters said they disliked it. comments gave lots of reasons I've stated already. there was another survey put out that received 211 responses that for any lesbian who had a genderqueer or unique relationship with gender, and one of the questions asking opinions on the "nonmen loving nonmen" as a definition. the average among the group was slightly negative (average 2.838), and reported that the group who tended to feel the most positively about it didn't consider themselves to be trans, with the other positive leaning group considered themselves to be somewhat cis. the group that felt the most negatively sometimes considered themselves to be trans. and of the multigender participants, the average opinion was 2.255 (more negative than the overall average). When concluding, the original poster stated, "When divided by gender, the only groups to feel positive about this definition were "not trans" and "somewhat cis" participants. Multigender participants felt especially negative about this definition"

all of this shows that this definition isn't nearly the best for everyone who considers themselves a lesbian. I know it's been a way to include nonbinary people who are lesbian in it's definition, but I think it really misunderstands why nonbinary people are included in lesbianism in the first place, and just assumes that all nonbinary people aren't men and fails to recognize that multigender/genderfluid people are nonbinary too. and it's not like lesbian has to only have on definition- it can definitely have multiple and depend on each person's experience with it. if someone personally defines them being lesbian around being a nonman attracted to nonmen, and takes pride in not being attracted to men, that's totally fine. what becomes a problem is forcing all lesbians to define themselves like this and make it the standard, or else they're "not real lesbians." it is ahistorical and ignorant to require this or else you'll strip them of their lesbian status, and is really at the end of the day, lesbophobic. especially as a requirement that primarily exists in online spaces. im sure the lesbian who is not at all connected to these circles doesn't particularly care about strict requirements or whether someone is a "nonman" or not. in conclusion, it is not the best nor most accepted definition of lesbian, and deciding which lesbians are valid or not based solely on that definition is pretty exclusionary and ends up policing a lot of lesbians, myself included

#lesboy #turigirl #lesbian #gay #multigender #genderfluid #mspec lesbian #asks #tw exclusionism #tw queerphobia #lesbophobia #I can definitely elaborate on some points if asked #I do have some thoughts I've never shared before

105 notes · View notes

scintillyyy · 6 months

Note

I love your Stephanie Brown post. It verbalized this feeling I've had about her character for awhile but didn't quite know how to phrase.

Just wanted to thank you for that!

ah thank you <3

yea to me, the super frustrating thing is that dixon's sexism gives her flaws that i find super narratively compelling and interesting and 3-dimensional and overall strong in a way that other writers somewhat miss the mark for me (i actually have a lot of criticisms about bg2009 and how bqm wrote her--overall i find it a very surface level girl power story veneered over pretty standard 2009 era sexism wrt the dynamics between women that has not aged super well and doesn't do much for actually giving steph interesting depth as a character & i find it's weakened by the fact that it is a doylist apology for the absolutely horrific way editorial treated steph prior to her death (which. she does deserve an apology and to be treated better), but also by doing that it makes almost every other character such as babs seem unreasonable and bad for their very understandable watsonian response to being wary of steph for many valid reasons and also makes it hard to actually give steph any flaws that aren't just quirky or clumsy--she's not perfect because she's adorkable). dixon steph has so many problems, being written by dixon, but she's truly my favorite flavor of steph because despite how horrid dixon is, you can absolutely tell how much he truly cared about her as a character. like. i bet if you asked him, he would have nothing but positive things to say about her personality and other characteristics. in fact, i believe a lot of the letters to the editor that talked about her back in the early robin issues had a lot of super positive things to say about her! like he created her! she's his blorbo! he wants to put her through the struggles!

like so many of her struggles when he's writing her is so much due to his sexism (she's never quite as competent as tim, and shouldn't be because she's The Girlfriend--compare to characters like babs and dinah and helena that were women but also written as extremely competent and good at what they do) and also because he wanted to put her through the wars, give her adversity to overcome! like steph is treated horribly a lot. by everyone. but it's partially because he wants her to perservere through it because he likes her and wants her to succeed. like a couple of very common threads through dixon's storytelling for her are the following:

tim is condescending (because that's how boys and girls are. see also: every 90s tv show that had a beleaguered sensible man with a nagging, over the top, ridiculous woman who does silly things that the man Puts Up With) -> steph gets mad -> tim thinks to himself that he shouldn't be so hard on her and usually apologizes -> well, actually tim was probably right because steph did get into trouble but steph making constant mistakes isn't actually narratively seen as "hey, maybe she should stop if she's making mistakes" because dixon wants her to continue.

more experienced vigilante (male or female--tim gets a lot of flack, but honestly, almost every single vigilante in batbooks at the time seemed to think steph wasn't quite good enough--batman, dick had his reservations about her, barbara didn't really necessarily want to train her, *cass* straight up told her she shouldn't be doing this, dinah didn't want to be her mentor, etc) tells steph not to screw up -> steph screws up -> steph has to get bailed out by more experienced vigilante -> steph keeps trying despite this

like so many of her diary entries that steph writes involve some flavor of "i've been told not to do this, but i have to, it's something i need to do despite all the naysayers". and it's sexist! because chuck wouldn't necessarily write the 'screw up and overconfident which usually leads to needing to be bailed out but keeps trying anyways' kind of a narrative for a male lead character (male characters get the 'i'm super competent but insecure/humble about it and when i make mistakes i'm able to figure out how to fix them by myself' narrative). but at the same time, it's what he truly believed for her--that she deserved to keep going despite any naysayers. if he truly believed that steph shouldn't be a vigilante or thought poorly of her, she would have been written out and/or he would have written her as making a mistake so bad she wouldn't have continued her activities as spoiler and finally agreed with everyone that she's not cut out for this. but he didn't. dixon writes her as not as competent as her peers because he has a worldview where girls are lesser and not capable of being as good as the boys. but he writes her with dogged determination to keep trying despite this because dixon truly thinks she deserves to keep going despite any mistakes he writes her making and that her perseverance should be rewarded.

like consider the arc where steph finds out tim's identity. dixon makes steph seem unreasonable for daring to change her mind and realize that yea, she does want to know the boy under the mask she's dating after all (because dixon thinks that girls are fickle and change their minds and boys shouldn't have to put up with that kind of nonsense behavior, not because this is a super valid thing to want) -> he has her go beat up an innocent boy named tito and stalk him in the hospital (because dixon is a sexist who things girls are just like this) -> tim does rightfully get mad about this and leaves in a huff -> batman tells steph tim's identity and she gets what she wanted?? -> tim is mad at her and batman until JLL when this is all swept under the rug and they go back to happily dating again + at this point everyone is open to training her/finally giving her a chance (until murderer/fugitive when she gets locked out again--which also leads into the era where dixon is no longer writing her--and after this is when we really get a lot of the really iconic unfair treatment towards her because at this point didio wanted her gone). and it creates this absolute interesting dissonance where you can see the overt sexism in dixon's writing and it's infuriating. and at the same time dixon also rewards her for the sexist way he writes her and she does generally get what she wants because dixon wants to give her the reward for her perseverance.

hell, consider the pregnancy storyline which is beyond overtly sexist and conservative but is probably the part where steph is most treated the best/in the right. tim and her mom are shown as in the wrong compared to her "correct" decision to keep the baby and they have to come around to support her. not just that, but for her to be given a teen pregnancy storyline in the 90s and not be shown as a Bad Girl for getting pregnant as a teen? dixon hates women and yet to him steph is a good girl who makes a mistake (something something he'll judge others, but when it comes to his daughter that's a different case. exceptions apply.) and she gets an ultimately supportive good boy boyfriend who helps her go to birthing class despite the fact that i'm sure dixon looks down on unwed teen mothers a lot.

it's just. i want to study it under a microscope. there's so much to unpack there.

#anyways apologies for the super long answer #i am just fascinated by dixon's treatment of her #it's sexism! but he does it because he wants to give her something to overcome! but it's definitely sexist!#scintilly ask tag #annah-kitathryne

167 notes · View notes

nutzgunray-lvt · 8 months

Text

I will FOREVER be salty about how Hori paints his characters with valid criticisms against the status quo as in the wrong:

Monoma - hates Bakugou, therefore hates 1A by association and is painted out to be some over the top arrogant asshole who freaks out every time they so much as breath (Monoma's not my favorite, but he's 100% right when it comes to Bakugou).

Rock Lock - doesn't want the first years (maybe also the third years, idk?) involved in the Shie Hassaikai raid due to how dangerous it is and due to having recently had a newborn son, is painted as someone who's being overprotective and unfair to these heroes in training.

Inko - isn't comfortable with Izuku continuing at UA after the Forest Camp Attack, is painted as being overprotective (I have my issues with Inko, but she had an incredibly valid point here).

The media - rightfully criticizes UA's utter inability to protect their students and reign in Bakugou's behavior (the hill I will die on), is painted as trying to unfairly persecute UA/Aizawa.

Present Mic - uses common sense to deduce that there's a traitor in UA's midst, is portrayed as being a shit stirrer who's quick to distrust his colleagues and students (another hill I'll die on).

Gran Torino (a minor one) - calls Aizawa's high expulsion rate as what it is: nasty (showing that even he has standards), is immediately corrected by Present Mic that the expulsions are "only on paper" and Aizawa truly cares deep down (which actually makes it WORSE since it stays on their permanent records regardless).

Other students taking the Provisional Exam - call out Bakugou for being an obnoxious asshole, are immediately painted as "not understanding how hard he works."

Pro Heroes and Present Mic - call out Bakugou for not taking Ochako seriously in the Sports Festival, are told to RETIRE for not understanding how Bakugou clearly works harder than anybody else to be a hero (but then Bakugou proceeds to get the second highest amount of internship offers, so idk what the fuck point Horikoshi was trying to make here).

Vlad King is a weird one because while his one-sided rivalry with Aizawa/1A is obnoxious and unprofessional, he IS a better teacher than Aizawa is and it's a point not focused on aside from an off hand comment by Aizawa. You'd think this would make him examine whether or not his beliefs are truly benefiting his students or have Nedzu call him up and say, "what's up with your class consistently underperforming against 1B?"

Best Jeanist is perhaps the ONLY Pro-Hero to see Bakugou's behavior for what it is and takes him as an intern to rectify it... but proceeds to focus on all the wrong things (his style being the main one) and not really get to the core of his goal.

Society as a whole doesn't trust heroes for a myriad of reasons (some unreasonably, some for extremely valid reasons) and are painted as being unfair and incredibly biased against heroes as a whole.

Izuku leaves UA due to AFO having Ragdoll's Quirk, is essentially ganged up on and beaten/shamed into submission by Class 1A who completely disregard his POV (I don't agree with him putting himself in this position, I'm just pointing how it makes sense narratively).

Me, trying to make sense of all of this -

Like... how is your story supposed to be nuanced and your characters three-dimensional if you paint the complainer as always in the wrong?

#mha critical #bnha critical #horikoshi critical #anti bakugo katsuki #anti shota aizawa #present mic deserves better #rock lock deserves better #neito monoma deserves better #izuku deserves better #best jeanist deserves better

333 notes · View notes

miraculouslbcnreactions · 8 months

Text

In Defense of Marinette

I like Marinette. While there are many valid criticisms of her writing, the same can be said for literally every other character and she's actually doing pretty well given that she's the main character. After all, in a show where consistent characterization is an ongoing issue, the one with the most screen time will probably be the one who's the biggest victim of the issue.

This is heavily exacerbated by the rule that supposedly governs Miraculous. Namely that, in each story, Marinette must make a mistake. Or, at least, so says the head writer:

I really do not care what this guy says on Twitter or anywhere else. I only care about what's in the show because, if you have to go outside the text to understand the text, then you have no idea how to tell a good story.

However, unlike many of the tweets that I've seen, this one isn't some BS bit of lore. It's a writing rule and it has substantial backing in the text. It's extremely rare to have an episode where Marinette comes out smelling like roses and that's a problem because Miraculous has over 100 episodes. In other words, to follow this rule, the writers have to come up with over 100 ways for Marinette to be wrong so of course she's going to come across poorly. Why would you do this to your main character?

It's extremely common for kids shows to have a "lesson of the day" element to them. Someone always needs to learn something, but I've never seen a show misunderstand the assignment so badly. Learning a lesson is not the same as doing something wrong.

It's been a while since I watched the 2010 version of My Little Pony, but it really leaned into that whole "lesson of the day" thing and it actually knew what it was doing, so I'm going to talk about it briefly to discuss things that Miraculous should have done.

The first thing to note is that MLP had an unambiguous main character - Twilight Sparkle - but Twilight was not the one who learned all of the lessons. She had a pet dragon and a crew of five friends who would, occasionally, be the ones to learn the lesson because there were lots of lessons that simply didn't fit Twilight's character. Instead of warping Twilight to make the idea work (cough cough Ikari Gozen cough), the writers just let someone else have the spotlight for a bit.

This is an excellent way to build out your cast and Miraculous had plenty of opportunities to do it. For example, Lila should not have been Marinette's issue. The fact that Lila hates Marinette could have certainly stuck around, but the one who takes her down and learns to investigate her sources? That should have been Alya. A liar is the perfect enemy for an investigative journalist, but a poor enemy for someone who shines as a battlefield commander and overthinks when she's given too much time.

Another way that MLP would teach lessons was to have someone other than Twilight or the main crew cause the issue that they then had to deal with. This leads to one of the best moments in children's television:

youtube

And, frankly? Marinette deserves a moment like this. That poor girl has been through hell and is never allowed to make the right call when it really matters. The show will even completely rewrite its lore to make her fail (see: Strike Back). That is such an awful thing to do to your lead! Shows about female empowerment should include women feeling powerful and, no, Lila and Chloe don't count!

Also, the show is literally about Gabriel taking advantage of people who are upset. You don't need to have Marinette make a mistake to shoehorn in a life lesson. Akumas are life lesson fodder and season 1 actually seemed to get this. I'm not sure why they switched gears to "Marinette is the star and, therefore, must always be wrong."

The final way that MLP taught lessons was to have Twilight do something wrong because having your main character do something wrong is a totally valid way to teach lessons. It just shouldn't be your only way because you know who is always wrong in children's media?

Villains.

They wrote Marinette like a villain.

And a large part of the fandom hates her for it because of course they do.

You're not supposed to like villains.

#ml writing salt #ml writing critical #marinette deserves better #Youtube #justice for my poor girl #she legitimately has a good base character and she's fun to write if you keep her consistent #The applejack thing crossed my dash a bit ago and I keep thinking about it and feeling sad for Marinette

174 notes · View notes

utilitycaster · 2 months

Text

@rowzeoli replied to your post “Do you think part of the D20 journalistic bias...”:

I rarely go on tumblr so sorry if you see me spamming your posts tonight, but I really enjoy your perspective and thoughts! I think I'm the journalist you're referencing in regards to the Fantasy High Junior Year article and unfortunately 1) journalists only get access to interview subjects at very specific junctions (usually press day before the series goes out or halfway through) 2) most publications are honestly Going Through It and cutting freelance rates and just not paying to cover AP

So I'll be totally honest - I post on Tumblr because I assume it is far more unlikely to be seen and so I can vent freely (hence the fairly harsh tone of the criticism in the original post), but I guess this is a chance to clarify. I don't expect anything to change, nor do I expect you to respond; indeed, I wouldn't blame you if you block me after this. But if readership is down (and who knows? maybe it's not and I'm the outlier), this may be illuminating.

The issue with your specific article - which I brought up relatively tangential to the larger point of "at this point I think Polygon's AP/TTRPG coverage is a waste of time to read" isn't really that it's only an early look at the series; and because Fantasy High Junior Year is at this time ongoing, it's honestly entirely valid that there hasn't been a follow-up. It's, well, the "surface-level and factually wrong" issue.

Dimension 20 was by no means the pioneer of remote recording as you claim in your article; that had long been the default of smaller recorded AP shows well before pandemic lockdown for the simple reason that if you're not a media company the overhead is very low - no need to have a dedicated space or even cameras beyond decent laptops. Burrow's End's puppetry? Critical Role's Call of Cthulhu: Shadow of the Crystal Palace did shadow puppets in 2019. They had diagetic audio on the main campaign as early as 2016. I don't even like Kollok, but that's had complex set design since 2019. Meanwhile premise of the article is yet another rehash of Polygon's "Dimension 20 is CHANGING THE GAME" constant drumbeat, while your actual pull quotes from Brennan Lee Mulligan are him musing that this is simply an entry in an ancient tradition of storytelling and isn't, in fact, terribly novel. The interview fails utterly to back up your point and indeed contradicts it; I get that the timeline was probably tight but this is outright incorrect in multiple places and your argument isn't just unsupported; it's outright dismissed by the very person you claim is proving it. If the premise came before the interview, it needed to be reworked afterwards, and if it came after the interview…I'm not sure what to say, really.

This isn't your article, and I'm putting it here to illustrate that this has been a pattern for Polygon's AP coverage specifically. This article about Worlds Beyond Number is perhaps my favorite example of "this is not serious journalism:" Rusty Quill Gaming, The Adventure Zone, Friends at the Table, and NADDPod are all theater of the mind long-running podcasts (RQG's campaign lasted a whopping 7 years of real time) and that's just off the top of my head; the idea of a long-running edited audio podcast being novel is laughable. RQG and TAZ both started at level 1; I'm not personally familiar with Friends at the Table. I don't actually think starting at level 1 vs. 2 is terribly important in storytelling in the first place other than that a few D&D classes pick their subclass at L2 and that choice can be narratively relevant, which it was in TAZ; however, some classes pick a subclass at L3 so you can still achieve this with a level 2 start (as Critical Role's second campaign does). Both Emily Axford of NADDPod and Griffin McElroy of TAZ have long been composing their own music and RQG is heavily sound designed. These are not obscure pulls, either; these are some of the more well-known names in the space.

At this point, Polygon AP/TTRPG articles - by multiple different writers - simply feel like madlibs: "(actual play show) is groundbreaking in its (thing that other shows have been doing for 5+ years); I especially liked (visual effect) and (incorrect understanding of TTRPG mechanics)."

The people I allude to in the post you responded to as having egregiously uncharitable and sanctimonious takes on Daggerheart (within, again, hours of its publication) are a frequent Polygon contributor and a Rascal editor and they further my mistrust of those publications: There is this constant insistence that everything they like be "groundbreaking" and "innovating" and they will claim this even when it's demonstrably not the case, as the above examples note. As Mulligan says in your article "it’s important to keep new artists with new experiences and backgrounds flowing in," and yet by focusing intensely on high production values (difficult for smaller indie upstarts to have) and by incorrectly claiming that a well-established media company within the space like D20 invented a number of things it flat out did not, this journalism is actively, if unintentionally, working against that goal. As I put it elsewhere, Polygon's bizarre pedestaling of Dimension 20 and simultaneous putdowns of Critical Role (which turn into wild contortions when D20 mainstays like Mulligan or Aabria Iyengar collaborate with CR; for that matter others besides me have observed that Polygon acts like Spenser Starke is two different people, the genius who created Alice is Missing and the knuckle-dragging moron who put out Candela Obscura and Daggerheart) coupled with the obsession with production values over story has the whiff of claiming they're the champion of the little guy for sticking it to the 700 lb gorilla in the space and then focusing on 500 lb gorillas while making it impossible for smaller monkeys to compete because most brand new shows without the name recognition of someone like Mulligan involved can't exactly hire Rick Perry to do their models or Taylor Moore to do sound design.

I suppose a good way to put this, since I've run into this in many spaces, not just AP/TTRPG or even journalism, is that bias on its own in a subjective medium isn't inherently bad; but if something is so nakedly biased against something I love, I will, naturally, turn to it with a far more critical eye, and if its arguments are not ironclad I'm going to start noticing every structural issue in every argument and every tiny mistake. Sure, as a fan of Critical Role, and as someone who feels that Kollok was nigh-unwatchable and that Burrow's End was promising in parts but deeply flawed, I disagreed with Polygon's nonstop mud-slinging towards the former and glowing, verging on fawning reviews of the latter two. But that's not entirely damning on its own; I do get that not everyone will like Critical Role and that some people will love Kollok or Burrow's End for valid reasons. What's damning is the journalism itself is riddled with factual errors and the analysis is so weak that to call the arguments a flimsy house of cards would be generous. The opposite is also true; if Polygon's lead editor were out here repeatedly misspelling the name of one of the main characters in Worlds Beyond Number (note: this has since been corrected) but the articles had compelling arguments, even ones I disagreed with, I'd be far more forgiving, but as is? It's offering me absolutely nothing: it's poorly researched, it's poorly structured, it's poorly written, it's poorly copy-edited, and it shits on things I like seemingly just for clicks. I'm done giving clicks.

I am deeply sympathetic to the pressures facing digital journalism and media and the arts in general; as someone who is fortunate enough not to personally face those pressures and has the income to be a patron, I would love to help in my small way (and I do, at least, financially support a number of the AP shows I love). But the quality of some of this journalism is truly so bad that I can't bring myself to support the institutions putting it out; it's "dead dove do not eat" until such time as someone whose analysis and opinions I do trust cites them (or, perhaps, until there is a sea change of lead editorship). I know that this won't help the crunch, and may make it worse, but I just can't because the quality is so poor. I don't have a good solution to how to write about something that takes a lot of time to watch and process and about which the articles pay very little in return, but the current strategy of bouncing between uninformed provocateur and utter sycophant depending on the show and creators; of drooling over such surface features as shiny production and falsely claiming everything is "groundbreaking" while getting the most basic facts wrong has driven me away.

#rowzeoli #i'm leaving this rebloggable but other people...try to be respectful i will turn off reblogs if need be.#long post

69 notes · View notes

charcubed · 11 months

Text

Disneyland's Rogers: The Musical, propaganda that turns Steve Rogers into more myth than man, and revisionist history (possibly) to a purpose

Any of my thoughts in this post could just be me reading too far into things. I'm very aware of that, and please know that this post exists just because this sort of thing is fun for me! This is a thought exercise where we propose "What if we live in a world where the MCU is actually doing a cool and interesting thing as a longcon?" If you have anger at Marvel, that's valid and relatable, but please don't get angry at me or imply I'm an MCU stan who doesn't think critically about the mouse. Thanks!

Breaking news: I'm back on my bullshit!

A quick personal recap: I infamously hated Avengers: Endgame for a long list of reasons (and I even rewrote the movie). One of those reasons is that I've always taken issue with Steve's ending. But in the years since then, and as the MCU's phase 4 has evolved, my frustration at Steve's "ending" has turned into an ongoing and legitimate theory that the MCU could be slowly leading into a loosely adapted Secret Empire plot line. I know we've all been joking about Steve being trapped or about an imposter Steve since 2019, but uhhh, it's kind of not a joke to me anymore? It feels weirdly plausible at this point and so I enjoy discussing the potential.

You can find a full elaboration on that here, where I wrote out my "Steve was snatched by HYDRA" theory in 2021.

In that post, one of the things I mentioned at the time was Rogers: The Musical being in the Hawkeye trailer.

[The musical's] very existence is an example of how in-universe the stories of the lives of the heroes are being commodified, especially (in terms of how they’re framing it) for Steve’s. The heroes are no longer seen as people, if they ever were. They are, as Kate Bishop says to Clint in a recently released clip, more about “branding.” Sam Wilson will be redefining the shield moving forward in a Cap context, but simultaneously, the world is still enamored by Steve Rogers as a symbol in his own right. And that is ripe for manipulation as a Trojan horse to control public opinion… whether in the context of things like this by themselves (is the musical portraying Steve accurately, or is it painting an inaccurate picture of him the world accepts as fact?) or in future (is this propaganda that makes the public see Steve a certain way and continue to love him, to set up a fake or brainwashed Steve coming on the scene later?).

Now a form of the musical exists in full, at Disneyland and all over Youtube. Considering some of its baffling content – which I will break down below – this perspective seems even more strongly worth considering.

I have two main reasons for why I'm defending examining this musical so closely:

1. It is (arguably) an in-universe piece of media that has bearing on the MCU canon. It isn't like any other typical Disneyland attraction; its very existence is meta and it was in canon first. Obviously it's seen in Hawkeye, but there are also posters for it in several different phase 4 properties. It's lurking in the background indefinitely. So what can this musical tell us about what the wider public within the MCU is being told about the life story of Steve Rogers?

2. This Secret Empire graphic – which is animated in the center of the stage of a prolonged period of time – feels like a literal sign to pay attention.

Granted, this is obviously still ancillary material. 99% of the MCU audience will never see this musical, whether in person or on YouTube. But just because it isn't a vital piece doesn't mean it's automatically an entirely irrelevant piece.

They've given me an inch with that sign and I'm taking a mile.

So if you're interested, please join me on this journey :)

For the record, let me just say that I salute the creative team behind this show. It's pretty fun and the songs are catchy, the sets and costuming are cool, and the cast is overall very talented.

It's also fucking maddening. LMAO.

Why? Firstly, because of the seemingly deliberate ahistorical inaccuracies. We all know Ant-Man is wrongly shown in the Battle of New York, which originally "came from [the Hawkeye showrunner] and Marvel, as something to further aggravate Hawkeye as he watched the show, and also as a comment on how movies and articles and people always get something wrong." It seems like they expanded those meta nods, but most inaccuracies are now in service of glorifying Steve and Peggy's "love story." Yes, romance objectively makes for good theater; but again, I feel that this is worth examining considering the full context.

And secondly, Steve's ending is framed as an offer presented to him, convincing him it's the happy ending he deserves because he's tired. In my mind, these two big elements go together, and I'll walk you through the details of what happens in the musical before I tie the thought threads back around into some theorizing.

For your reference, here's a list of the main songs and story beats:

• "U-S-Opening Night" - the Starkettes (who are basically a Greek chorus) frame the show's story, and then it turns into an ensemble that loosely takes place at the Stark Expo. • "I Want You" – Steve's "I want" song about trying to enlist in the army. • "Star-Spangled Man With A Plan" – Steve performing on the USO tour obviously, and then there's a reprise with an added voiceover that (very briefly) covers the Howling Commandos' rescue + the war via comic book imagery. • "What You Missed" – Fury and the Starkettes tell Steve some pop culture things he missed while he was frozen, + they tell him about the Avengers. Then Fury goes down a list of other hero characters, including the Guardians? Doctor Strange? Wanda?? It plays loose and fast with time, because many non-2012 characters are bafflingly mentioned in this nonlinear Avengers list – including the Winter Soldier (???). • "Save the City" – this is the song seen in Hawkeye, with the civilians + the Avengers all involved, but it's slightly different here and expanded to also reference other battles. • "End of the Line" – Old Steve presents main Steve with the time stone as an opportunity for his happy ending, and they reflect on things together. (Yes, this is insane.) • "Just One Dance" – Steve and Peggy reunite and sing about their love. • And then there's basically a reprise of "Save the City," with the Starkettes and the whole cast closing the finale out.

Right out of the gate, let's address this: the main reason you're going to see some fans pissed about this musical is not only that Steve and Peggy's ~epic romance~ is made a pillar of the story... but also that Bucky's importance/involvement in Steve's life is minimized as much as possible.

And they took Bucky-related elements from canon and made them center more around Peggy instead.

• For some weird reason, Peggy is in the Stark Expo scene. When a soldier is hitting on the Starkettes ("hey sweetheart, I wanna dance!"), Steve tells the soldier to show the ladies some respect. The soldier grabs Steve and throws him down, and then Peggy swoops in to yell "Pick on someone your own size!" and punches the guy before walking away. So she's given Bucky's TFA line verbatim, and she is given the role he had of saving Steve from bullies. There is blatantly no reason they couldn't have had Bucky still serve that function and be truer to "history," because he briefly enters this scene in uniform less than a minute later to announce he's shipping out to the 107th – and then he spins off with a date on his arm. (We don't see Bucky on stage again until the full cast comes out for the finale!)

• After the Star-Spangled Man show, Peggy rushes in to talk to Steve. Steve is excited about his USO performance (???) but she urgently tells him to listen as she says that the 107th has been captured. Peggy apparently knows it's Bucky's division, and she knows Steve is going to go, so she tells him that she's already arranged transport for him. This is a subtle twist from the truth of how it went down in TFA, in which Steve recognized 107 as the number of Bucky's division, and his dogged determination inspired Peggy to relent and help his rescue mission. Here, Peggy is given a stronger role in the Cap origin story. And before Steve rushes off, Peggy sings a short untitled ballad hoping for their dance, so Steve pauses before he leaves to ask her to go on a date with her when he returns. • The most egregious Bucky-to-Peggy change of all is the song "End of the Line," in which the infamous Steve and Bucky line/promise (that broke Bucky's brainwashing...) is re-contextualized to be about ???? Peggy waiting for Steve in the past??? Old Man Steve and regular Steve sing it together. But we'll go back to that in a minute.

Again, I get it, yeah? It's for theater. Whatever. But in reality, the obvious logical truth is that Peggy is centered (to the point of taking elements from Bucky's story, and in turn Bucky is downplayed) because they needed to convince the audience that Steve going back in time to be with her makes sense. Steve's time travel ending had to be justified, so the Peggy and Steve "love story" had to be a pillar in this with everything else being given lesser weight.

And the inherent selfishness of him doing something as big as going back in time also had to be justified... which is why they do their best to convince you Steve fought so much he deserved it.

Let me elaborate on that by describing the lead-up to the "End of the Line" song.

So, right before "End of the Line" is "Save the City" – which includes Steve belting "I can do this all day!" repeatedly, of course. It's the 2012 Battle of New York as the Avengers come together to win.

As they begin to disperse, the song then transitions to a voiceover alert mentioning Sokovia being under attack by artificial intelligence (a.k.a. Age of Ultron). The Avengers group rushes back to center stage to say "Save the city! Help us win!" together for battle again.

And then things get fucking weird.

Because the next voiceover threat is "Washington DC. Attack: the Winter Soldier." This is not accurate to the order of events! The Winter Soldier events were before Age of Ultron; the public of the MCU would also know this.

And suddenly on stage Steve is now in the center while everyone else gestures to him. Instead of singing with him, they're telling him "Save the city! Help us win!"

Then, another voiceover: "Wakanda, under attack" (Infinity War) and again, Steve is centered while everyone else points to him. The ensemble says, "Save the city, help us win! Save us all from the state we're in! Got to hear you, got to hear you, got to hear you say..." as Steve is buckling to his knees under their pointing. And as the lights go down to one spotlight on him and everyone else leaves, he says "I can do this all day" one last time, but now it's subdued.

The implication is that Steve has been fighting and fighting, people leave him or he loses them, and he's tired.

And then fucking Old Man Steve arrives.

He says "On your left," because yes, they gave him Sam Wilson's line. BATSHIT.

So now there's two Steves on stage! There has been no mention of Thanos or infinity stones or anything up to this point! (I can only assume that's because in the MCU universe no one would want to be reminded of the trauma of "the Blip" – though it's pretty wild that they're allowed to know about magical time travel?)

Steve is baffled by Old Man Steve's arrival. I, too, was baffled by Old Man Steve's arrival.

As Steve questions how this is possible, Old Man Steve shows him the time stone from his pocket – and only the time stone – which Steve recognizes.

OLD MAN: "You've got to remember where you've been to know where you're going." STEVE: "Where am I going?" OLD MAN: "A date with destiny." STEVE: “Destiny. So we’re the hero till the end?” OLD MAN: “That’s the thing about endings, Steven. They can be rewritten.”

Lmao???????

Steve starts singing about how he hopes this means they "win" and calls himself a "tired hero."

STEVE: "But sometimes I wonder, who will save the savior? Can we really do this all day? So here I am, now and also then. Just a man, looking back at where he's been." OLD MAN: "The road is rough but wounds are healed by a thing called time. You can't forget what's waiting at the end of the line."

Me, watching this: the fact that he says this out of the blue makes absolutely no sense.

There's a bit more singing, including "end of the line" repetition, and then Old Man Steve pulls out the time stone to essentially show visions of... I don't fucking know. Past, present, and future?

That's pre-serum Steve, Steve with Mjolnir, and Sam Wilson as the new Cap. This is the only reference to Sam in the whole thing.

More singing, and then: Peggy's silhouette.

OLD MAN: "Can't forget who's waiting..." STEVE: "I can't forget who's waiting..." BOTH: "Don't forget who's waiting..." STEVE: "At the end of the line."

At this point I'm like, what in the hell?

Did Old Man Steve just brainwash normal Steve into thinking "end of the line" is now about Peggy? Because uhhhh, sorry, that's what it feels like!

Then Steve uses the stone to go back in time, reunites with Peggy, etc. etc. finale.

It's truly some crazy shit.

[drags hands down face]

Look... there's a lot to unpack here, and there's a lot that gets me about it. I know this is dramatized for the stage! I KNOW! But the fact that Old Man Steve shows up to convince Steve he should go back in time makes me want to gnaw on furniture.

Another person essentially uses the lure of a life with Peggy to tempt Steve into doing this, dramatized or not. That is how it's framed.

It's a hell of a way to frame it, and it makes Steve's ending stand in even starker contrast to so many other things in phase 4. Desperately trying to go backwards when you shouldn't or to bring back a lost lover is an evil temptation, and it results in a trap or negative cosmic consequences for basically all of the other characters in the MCU.

• In Shang-Chi, Wenwu is tempted by the Soul Eaters beyond the Dark Gate. They use the voice of his deceased wife to convince him to set them free. • In "What If" episode 4, Doctor Strange becomes evil in a desperate bid to save Christine and he destroys his universe. Along the way, he tries to tempt/trap the good Strange who's fighting him by using visions of Christine, but good Strange knows she isn't real. • Wanda's grief and desire to bring back Vision leads to – well, you know. • In No Way Home, Peter trying to undo things is what causes the multiverse problems.

And the fact that they frame it as Steve being tired, so basically the argument is he deserves that time travel ending (just like MCU fans who defend Endgame say in real life)... Well.

There's no way to make it hold up, especially because in "What If" they explicitly subverted that and had Captain Carter not go back in time despite how she felt she'd "earned" it.

Lastly, in this musical as Steve decides to pursue time travel as his course of action, he basically has the meaning or memory of "end of the line" rewritten for him. I refuse to not think that is some nefarious shit. Yes, it's not out of the realm of possibility that it's just some general Disney erasing Steve and Bucky nonsense.

But... this is on another level to me. I do think that it's a blatant choice that they had to be aware even general MCU fans would call bullshit on. Everyone knows it's inaccurate. "End of the line" is embedded in pop culture consciousness as being connected to Bucky. It just is! Surely that means it's not a stretch to theorize it could be deliberate meta commentary.

How, in the MCU world, would the in-universe playwrights even know the phrase "end of the line"? How the fuck would it be accidentally applied to Steve and Peggy? Not to sound like a crazy person, but who the fuck was rooting around in Steve and/or Bucky's personal business or their brains in order to obtain that knowledge and then remix it, and why? Neither of them would flippantly mention it in the public eye or interviews ever. So where did its inclusion come from?

And in the finale ensemble, this is Bucky's line when he comes out on stage and salutes + points to Steve: "Don't forget who's waiting..." And Old Man Steve completes it with "...at the end of the line."

What on God's green earth am I meant to do with THAT?

Smh.

The vibes are fucked, folks.

The MCU public wouldn't know enough to say the vibes are fucked. The MCU public wouldn't know the origin of "end of the line" as a phrase. But us? The ones who know the "true story" via the movies? We can call bullshit.

Whether the creative team behind this musical did every aspect of this consciously or not, in my opinion the fact that they had to tweak canon "history" to A) make Peggy's involvement in Steve's life more central and B) emphasize Steve as a tired hero all works as commentary on and almost a condemnation of Endgame's frustrating ending. In a way, it's also what Endgame did with the compass and 1973 moment with Peggy as well.

Steve's ending had to be convincing.

It's theater.

And so, maybe the same is true for the in-narrative perspective of this musical in the context of the MCU world. What purpose would it serve to tell the MCU public a feel-good narrative about how all Steve Rogers wanted was to no longer be a tragic man out of time and get to make a life with his best girl? To frame it as being about how he fought so hard for years and so he earned a happy ending? To minimize and nearly erase Bucky's importance in his life?

Who would want to do that sort of propaganda, and why?

The MCU civilians are given this happy explanation and maybe don't widely question it. Who cares about the details or logistics if it makes a good story, I guess. It's a stretch, but maybe they mostly applaud it. Maybe they're happy for "America's favorite son" (not unlike people who uncritically liked Endgame). In a way, it's even a rehabilitation of his image (after the Accords) like putting the shield on the Statue of Liberty. And maybe they'd even be ready and waiting to applaud if Steve ever made a dramatically selfless and de-aged return to the spotlight or a position of authority.

But mostly, the public is being conditioned to not know or to forget that anyone else like Bucky Barnes or Sam Wilson would possibly know Steve Rogers the person well enough in the modern day to call bullshit on any of this – or on his hypothetical miraculous future return.

So. Sure, it's probably nothing.

But what if it's not?

-------

UPDATE: @faeriecap added to this post with some incredible information and further behind-the-scenes context about the MCU/Marvel stuff at Disney parks! Check it out here :)

#rogers the musical #rogers: the musical #steve rogers #captain america #captain america meta #marvel meta #imposter steve #anti-endgame #peggy carter #stevebucky #mcu #marvel #stucky #anti-endgame steve #char writes things #me: is anyone else going to write about this being propaganda? no? fine I'll do it myself #I should not be posting it after midnight but I don't want to be tempted to fucking look at it again tomorrow. be gone you monster

264 notes · View notes

cosmics-beings · 7 months

Text

okay so finally my unpopular opinions on the starscream es episode.i liked the starscream episode as you know, because it was nice and important for his abuse to be validated. and it was even more libearting to see a Steve Blum voiced starscream get his justice because of how poorly tfp starscream was abused and it was made into a joke and seen as something he 'deserved'.

but I've been wanting to also just share my critique on it for some time! it's a little critical, so just putting that out there if you don't like earthspark or starscream critique you should skip over this. I've spoken a lot of positive things about the episode so these are just my thoughts. so warning, heavy critique.

my main issues are fandom's treatment of hashtag, and people using the episode to perpetuate the 'perfect victim' mentality on starscream and forget that he's flawed and nuanced.

starting with hashtag, i really don't like how a lot of fans make hashtag "mother" starscream and act almost as if she's supposed to be his caretaker, when she is a minor, who is facing her own trauma. i think she was needed to validate starscream and to make him feel that his own abuse is real and that it isn't his fault for getting abused.

but i also think people took that and decided to a.) make hashtag his mother figure and b.) use it to excuse the way he treated and was borderline abusive to others (i.e him kicking his trine mates when they were on the ground, and since they were female character no one actually cared).

i think hashtag was needed as a completely neutral source to make starscream's own trauma's validated and to show the viewers that his abuse isn't funny, and that just because megatron is 'good' doesn't mean that it's excusable and that starscream has to like him. moreso, it's important to show that children can also call out and understand abuse. that was why hashtag needed to do it. it doesn't matter how much megatron was a part of her family and practically an uncle figure to her, he still abused someone and she still recognized that.

BUT at the same time, i don't like the idea that the fandom props his emotional trauma and responsibility on HER. in a lot of fics, aus, etc, hashtag is usually made to be starscream's caretaker without any sort of care for her or her trauma. and i think people forget hashtag is a child, shit some people ship them (ew) because they like to make her the one to care for him. Hashtag is a child, and is completely innocent and he own trauma should be validated and honestly, discussed as much as starscream's. People don't really see her or let her exist outside of Starscream. Her trauma is at large, ignored by the fandom and if people care about it, it's only to validate what starscream went through, and never to have him actually caring about her. that's why i like to write fics where HE helps her, because she is still a child and he is an adult.

ths isn't talking about fan content where starscream is literally hashtag's father figure, which i enjoy. i like when content portrays hashtag being a kid, and starscream being a parental figure to her, but that tends to be a small majority of hashtag and starscream content.

and this brings me to the perfect victim mentality that is harmful in fandom spaces but i see it's impacting starscream.

the perfect victim mentality is this idea that in order for an abuse victim's abuse to be validated, they have to be perfect and innocent. they can do no wrong and even their own actions need to be pacified or excused because if they are one bit of flawed or problematic, then that ruins their victim status.

this is why tfp wasn't seen as a victim, because he was evil, he was abusive, he was dangerous, and the writers made a choice to perpetrate the thought that all abuse victims MUST be perfect and if they aren't, then they deserve their abuse.

this is what's happening to es starscream, but the opposite way.

starscream isn't responsible at all for the abuse megatron put him through, and no amount of think pieces are going to change that. but hashtag telling starscream that his abuse isn't his fault, isn't an excuse for how he's treated and abused others. he was a fascist, a war criminal, committed multiple genocides, and in various continuities abused others both before and after he met megatron.

again he was even physically kicking his trine mates and that implies that it's a common occurrence and it's happened before. hashtag also pretty much confirmed it. i know BCS skywarp and nova are women you guys don't really care about them, but the way starscream was treating them wasn't okay.

he is still an abuse victim, but that doesn't excuse his treatment of others.

A lot of people tend to use megatron's treatment of starscream to excuse Starscream's abusive action toward others. Meaning there is this idea that because Megatron abused Starscream, then we can't really hold him (starscream) accountable for his actions toward others, and that is false. Yes, Megatron abused starscream but that doesn't give him a slap on the wrist or an excuse for things he did! And if you are trying to excuse Starscream's actions because of how megatron treated him, then you are also saying that we can't hold megatron accountable for how he treated starscream.

because megatron abuses starscream in response to his own trauma and abuse. and even if he does, he still needs to be called out for it. JUST as starscream should be held accountable for his actions.

Starscream still is a villain, he still did terrible awful things that i hope earthspark addresses. He still caused genocide, because he could, he still killed, because he wanted to! again, it was implied that he was abusive to his crew, if hashtag didn't call him out, he would've been abusive to her because he was going to use her as a hostage. earlier i saw someone trying to explain and excuse that starscream wasn't a problematic person because 'the other seekers are following him' but they had no choice. and then this person really tried to act as if him being 'toxic' to them isn't problematic and that's the issue. you can't cherry pick what is and what isn't abusive because it's a character you like, even if that character is a victim.

the perfect victim mentality skews people's perspective on abuse and makes it seem like you have to be innocent to be an abuse victim. and it scares me because a lot of people have tricked themselves into believing that starscream is a good person who doesn't need redemption and hasn't done anything wrong. and I'm terrified because when he actually starts to act like Starscream, fandom is either gonna turn on him or try to excuse his villainous actions.

So that said, those are my main two critiques with the starscream earthspark episode.

hashtag isn't starscream's mother but it seems the majority of the fandom went with it. and ties her worth and her importance to him.

and likewise, starscream is an abusive victim but he isn't perfect, and that's okay. abuse victims don't have to be perfect to have their abuse taken seriously and i don't think that's realized enough in fandom spaces.

#starscream #hashtag malto #transformers #transformers earthspark #tf earthspark

112 notes · View notes

starchilddante · 4 months

Text

I want to talk about the criticism of Hazbin Hotel and why I sort of understand it but personally don't agree.

The main complaint I see is that it feels rushed. Personally, I don't mind the pacing, especially considering they only have 8 episodes for season 1 and from a story-telling standpoint, you want to establish all the "plot promises" (basically the many plot-lines and their premises) right away and given that they only have 8 episodes to do it I would argue they've done a fine enough job with pacing. We don't know the limitations they were given.

Aside from that, I've heard people saying that it's as if "You asked a Mormon/ Devout Christian to write an R-rated story" as if that's a bad thing or a joke to poke fun at Hazbin and I take a tad bit of issue with that.

Because I would argue, yes, and that it makes sense. First of all, who would you expect to have enough of a religious background to write all of this? Who would have the rage except for those of us who have suffered in the name of holiness?

I think it's written to make you think, "Wow, this religious stuff is totally absurd bullshit." Because it is. We would know, the ex-Mormon's and abused ex-Christians. It's stupid to think that vulgar language or sexual jokes make something "bad" or "good". We fucking LIVED through that shit, man. It's supposed to piss off the type of people we escaped from. Because their religious beliefs are utter bullshit and when they're presented with a valid argument they basically do exactly what Adam does: "Uh, fuck you."

I think the choices are intentional. It's supposed to be vulgar because it proves that good and bad aren't determined by those sorts of things. Because that vulgarity doesn't make the show "bad" or "edgy". It's just a part of the show. And the characters are so much more than "good" or "bad" too.

This show really has a place in my heart because I lived through a religious nightmare. I asked the same questions Charlie does. I cried and I prayed and I begged God to fix me. But the truth was, I never needed to be fixed. And if God exists, he's the biggest hypocritical asshole of them all. This show screams the pain of the religiously abused, and I live for it. If religion is real, then we're all victims of a shitty system. And a couple of curse words don't make a rat's ass worth of difference.

The show is trying to show you what it's like to be born into a life you didn't chose, forced to follow these shitty rules. It's written, if you will, "like a religious person was asked to write something R-rated" because that's the story its trying to tell.

It's fine if you don't like it, if this isn't your thing. But don't make fun of the people that love it by implying that its stupid and "made for prudes trying to be edgy" because then you're implying that we're all stupid for enjoying it. I love this show because it shows the story of the lives of us who suffered in the name of religion. You don't have to love it. But don't shit on me for holding it close and enjoying every part.

#hazbin hotel #hazbin hotel thoughts #hazbin hotel criticism

82 notes · View notes

in-g-major · 5 months

Text

ATLA Unpacked: Kataang is Reactive, not Constructive (Part 1)

In my last rewatch of ATLA, I came to a conclusion about something that's bothered me since I first watched the finale in 2008. After *the kiss* which closes out the entire show, I've been of the opinion that Kataang was an absolute failure, on multiple levels. Over the years I've held that position through multiple rewatches and the perspectives of many other intelligent, passionate fans. However, why it fails is something I've thought more deeply about over the years. There are the implications of a romance with a very lopsided balance of emotional labor, and issues of one party's consent (Katara's) being violated without an apology. Those are serious problems and valid criticisms, but here I'm going to be examining how Kataang fails because of its position within ATLA's story. As a disclaimer, I am not invoking Zutara in this analysis. For most of my time as an ATLA fan I abstained from the shipping wars beyond an occasional comment, and I only became pro-Zutara within the last year after taking on the responsibility of writing about these characters again. Alright, here goes! Reactive vs Constructive? When I say Kataang is a reactive force, I mean that it disturbs the flow and direction of the narrative (the implicit and explicit messages a story is projecting to the audience) by contradicting and clashing with other things we're presented with. A constructive force, on the other hand, is something which shapes the narrative towards an internally sound and satisfying conclusion. To explain what I mean, I'll be going through the show in episode order. No Kataang in sight yet (B1:E1 - B1:E13) A commonly cited argument in favor of Kataang is that it was part of ATLA from the beginning and the show was building towards it all along. This argument doesn't hold up simply because of how many episodes go by before there are any implications of romantic interest between Aang and Katara. The closest thing to romantic subtext is the way Katara appears to Aang after she frees him from the iceberg. (B1:E1)

By itself this doesn't suggest anything particularly romantic, especially since Katara is the first person Aang sees after a very traumatic experience. Later on he tells Appa "I liked her too" (B1:E2), but that's pretty nonspecific. After this we get exactly zero text or subtext until we're over two-thirds of the way into Book 1. Now a romance between two characters doesn't have to be developed from the very beginning of the story to make sense. However, things get messier for Kataang from here, so hold on tight. The Dashing, Dark-Haired Boys in Katara's life (B1:E6 - B1:E10) In my last rewatch I really took notice of how we see Katara's dynamics with no less than THREE dark-haired boys her age or older in the span of five episodes. First, there's Haru (B1:E6), with whom she builds a very sweet friendship that has some romantic possibilities. They bond over the struggles of losing their parents to the Fire Nation, and he's the first person who empathizes with her feelings about the death of her mother.

Katara: I lost my mother in a Fire Nation raid. This necklace is all I have left of her. Haru: It's not enough, is it? Katara: No. (Disclaimer: Harutara was my OG ATLA ship) Next, there's Zuko (B1:E9), at this point her enemy and the one who finds her mother's necklace after she loses it at the end of B1:E6. Their parallels so far have revolved around the longing they project onto Aang and learning to master their elements. Here, in their first one-on-one interaction, a further connection is established through Katara's mother's necklace. Exactly why this is significant for Zuko isn't clear yet, but it pays off wonderfully later on.

Zuko: Tell me where [Aang] is, and I won't hurt you or your brother. Katara: Go jump in the river! Zuko: Try to understand. I need to capture him to restore something I've lost: my honor. Perhaps in exchange, I can restore something you've lost. (That first image is the perfect snapshot of how hilariously awkward this exchange actually is. Zuko's only cool when he's not trying to be) Finally, there's Jet (B1:E10), Katara's first crush. She's wooed by his good looks and guerilla tactics against the Fire Nation, then spends most of the episode smitten with him. Jet empathizes with her mother's death when she brings it up, but he also tricks her into doing something she would never have agreed to with full knowledge of his plans. When she confronts him about it, he tries manipulating her with what she told him about her mother, and she truly turns on him when she thinks he's killed Sokka. It's the first time Katara has had her trust violated, and it's a painful experience.

Katara: Jet, why? Jet: Katara, you would too if you just stopped to think. Think about what the Fire Nation did to your mother. We can't let them do that to anyone else ever again. Katara: This isn't the answer! Jet: I want you to understand me, Katara. I thought your brother would understand, but... Katara: Where's Sokka?... I can't believe I trusted you. You lied to me! You're sick, and I trusted you!

(Just putting those images together had me slightly teary. Poor Katara.) What these character dynamics have in common is that they're all constructive. They contribute to Katara's story without contradicting each other. Her feelings and agency are clearly emphasized, and all three boys exist as their own independent characters while simultaneously being part of her journey. Keep that in mind as we venture into our first real Kataang episode. Related Meta & Additional Reading - Katara's Romantic Agency by starlight-bread-blog

#atla meta #katara #katara defense squad #katara deserved better #anti kataang #g major writes #g major meta

66 notes · View notes

super-paper · 11 months

Note

Do you think Hawks will die to save Toga?

Personally, I wouldn't like it if either of them died. Like, the potential narrative payoff here would be strongest if both of them lived, imo. I would rather see a situation where Keigo donates just enough blood to stabilize them both, rather than a situation where one person completely exsanguinates themselves and leaves behind a rash of trauma and unresolved feelings in the person they "saved."

I'm definitely not the best when it comes to Hawks meta, but I'll try my best to break down my personal feelings on why I feel both Keigo and Himiko need to live in order to "break the cycle":

1. You Can Start Over. I'll Help You.

This one's the biggest, most obvious point in favor of them both living imo. Hawks made an offer to help Jin start over, but rescinded that offer and immediately went for the kill the moment Jin showed signs of resistance. This was Keigo's biggest failure as both a hero and as an individual, and something he has yet to atone for.

In turn, Himiko believes there are no second chances-- that her only options are death or being locked away forever. So, she chooses death. She needs someone to offer her a third option.

The set up is there.

There's also the matter of Keigo and Himiko both stating that they want an "easier world" as their core motivation, and both of them state that they want to be the ones who help make that world.

Their goals only sound simplistic on the surface and serve as a mask for their respective traumas, but... ultimately, a world that's easier for Himiko to live in (where she is consensually given blood by someone who loves her and she is allowed to give her blood back to the world in return) is a world where heroes can finally take it easy-- because it's a world that nips the endless creation of its own "villains" in the bud, through unified acts of compassion and understanding.

Both characters have caused others intense pain and hurt others in their attempts to take shortcuts to the creation of an "easier world"-- Hawks is the hero that's "too fast," and Himiko is also associated with her near-supernatural speed. They're both too impatient and want the quickest possible results. Having both Himiko and Keigo living and learning the "right way" to create their ideal world-- and then, getting to be a part of that world as they both continue to atone-- feels much more meaningful than having one or both of them die before they can see that future reach fruition.

2. The Big, Suicidal Elephant in the Room

The majority of the LOV members all struggle with suicidal ideation-- Touya wants to set everything Endeavor ever chose over him ablaze, and he wants that inferno to also serve as his funeral pyre. Tomura has got a dissertation's worth of issues regarding his own mortality and self-perception/identity, and his whole "let's-just-destroy-it-all/we-don't-need-a-future-actually-lol" schtick has always been a symptom rather than a legit proposal for a cure. Himiko wants to disappear into the identities of the people she loves, because the world treats her a little more kindly when she isn't "Toga Himiko." The LOV trio's arcs all revolve around "death of the self" to some degree. (That said... resurrection and rebirth are also heavy themes within Tenko, Touya, and Himiko's arcs, soooo....)

Keigo also struggles with suicidal ideation and places the worth of his own life far, far, faaaaar below that of everyone else.

This has already been said, and shouldn't really need to be said in the first place, but-- people have every right to feel uncomfortable and criticize a story that attempts to validate suicidal characters by portraying their suicide in a noble/redemptive light.

Next!

3. It's All About All Mi-- Err..... Tomie?

"I was fine with that-- not saving her, turning my back on her. Me, who claims he wants to help people." - Hawks, about Tomie.

"I tried to go about things the right way" is a good line that touches on one of the core conflicts of Keigo's character: He suppresses so much of his natural instinct to do good so he can do "right."

Keigo knows in his heart of hearts that "the right way" doesn't save people like his mother, it didn't save Jin, and it's not going to save Himiko. He's been groomed into upholding the society and status quo that caused him and Tomie to nearly fall through the cracks in the first place-- and I've always found it both fascinating and sad that Keigo seems to equate choosing "the right way" (i.e. becoming a hero) to abandoning his mother. Keigo effectively being *sold* to the HPSC is what took Tomie off of the streets and gave her a roof over her head-- it gave her "a chance to start over." But Keigo doesn't seem to view this as true saving. With that in mind, his attempt to "save" Jin by essentially giving him the same offer the HPSC gave Tomie was always doomed end in failure.

Keigo: "My mother feared punishment for harboring a criminal, so she took me and ran."

Tomie first ran out of fear of being arrested after Takami Thief was captured-- which led to both her and Keigo being homeless for an extended period of time. She ran again after Dabi/Touya threatened her for information on Keigo, this time out of fear of her son-- a son who had became synonymous with "the law" she feared so much in her eyes. She can't bear facing him after her betrayal and implicitly fears punishment/condemnation from him (even though Keigo had *no* intention of punishing her)-- Tomie readily leaves behind the "normal" home and "normal" life that Hawks obtained for her through "doing things the right way," bc the imaginary threat of punishment and condemnation is something that comes across as worse for her. This only further convinces Keigo that he failed to save his mother, even though he's the one who's being betrayed and hurt by her.

I can't help seeing similarities between Tomie & Himiko's decisions to run out of an intense fear of punishment/imprisonment, and how this inevitably ties to Keigo. Keigo subconsciously realizes that he can't truly save people like Tomie, Jin, or Himiko as "Hawks" because "Hawks" is part of the problem. He longs to save others as himself-- as "Takami Keigo" (which is why the loss of his quirk kind of has me like "👀 👀 👀 whatcha gonna do next, turkey boy...,,..👀 👀 👀" )

As an aside, I seem to recall that transhawks made a few meta post where they talk about how there are traces of Jin's design in Tomie (esp her eyes, which have the same dead-eyed thousand yard stare) and that their resemblance is likely intentional (edit: link to one post pointing the resemblance out)-- It's not as overt, but imo, Himiko also resembles Tomie (just a little!) when she has her hair down.

Anyway! Both Jin and Himiko dying after Keigo A) has spent his whole life agonizing about how his own mother wasn't able to survive in their current society, B) has expressed guilt about how he didn't even try to save her and didn't make attempts to involve himself in her life, C) has talked at length about he wanted to be "more like Bubaigawara" and then proceeded to roleplay him, badly, for a good third of Act 3 (ohhhh boy ☠️☠️☠️), and D) had demanded that Toga be killed immediately after she arrives in Gunga, only for Ochako and Tsuyu to explicitly challenge and reject the idea that killing was the only option available.... idk, Himiko dying while Keigo does nothing would just feel massively incoherent at this point??

TL;DR The resolution to Keigo's arc currently hinges on addressing his origin, his identity, his guilt, and his ties to these three characters. Keigo feels that he failed with Tomie, and he explicitly failed with Jin-- and I personally don't think his arc can have a satisfactory ending without addressing those failures through Himiko, or without him trying to right where he went wrong by helping her in some capacity. This is a chance for him to finally follow his innate drive to do good over doing what their society dictates as "right."

----

All that being said, if Hori did decide to have Hawks sacrifice himself: Hawks choosing to sacrifice himself because he wants to believe in the future that the hero kids are creating and wants to believe that children like Himiko have a place in that future feels WAAAY more tonally consistent with mha's themes than Himiko choosing to sacrifice herself because she doesn't think she has a future

One message is about healing and hope and belief, the other is about failing to truly save someone who was already suicidal from their inevitable self destruction.

MHA has been defining true saving as "going above and beyond" for hundreds of chapters now-- true saving means saving a person's heart, body, and soul. It means giving them a future. By mha's own definitions, Himiko choosing to kill herself means she wasn't saved. Pure and simple-- You can't save the heart but not the body/soul (Himiko), you can't save the soul but not the body/heart (Touya), and you can't save the body but not the heart/soul (Tomura). There's a lot more work to be done here-- but that's fine, bc MHA has never depicted true saving or true healing as some magical, instantaneous thing. (#recoverygirldni)

#mha spoilers #mha 395 #thank you for the ask!#sophie.txt #suicide tw #mha.txt

180 notes · View notes