Tumgik
#which were. awful.
the-witchhunter · 3 months
Text
DP x DC: Fractured Soul
So a common misconception about John is that he sold of pieces of his soul
I just want to point out that a soul isn’t like an object in DC you can just break into pieces without consequences. It’s your spirit, it is your ghost after you die, it is your consciousness, it is YOU
So what a fractured soul would look like isn’t John Constantine
It’s a Fun Danny and Super Danny situation
Tumblr media
This is straight up a fractured soul
Different parts of his personality and various traits separate into two incomplete beings, and probably disturbing on a spiritual level if you think too hard about it
So what I’m saying is, if you were looking for bits of someone’s soul, John or otherwise, then you aren’t looking for an object or contract,
you’re looking for a whole ass person
437 notes · View notes
masterofiodine · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media
capvers doodles yay
378 notes · View notes
silverwhittlingknife · 2 months
Text
from this real advice column:
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
i see you person who wrote this sdfsdfdsf
400 notes · View notes
hylialeia · 11 months
Text
you don't get it. she loved him once. she didn't have a maester, she had a brother. he sold their mother's crown to keep them fed. he said Dany, please. she loved him, once.
Tumblr media
825 notes · View notes
yrrtyrrtwhenihrrthrrt · 3 months
Text
I've been thinking about what the Nimona characters would be doing after the events of the movie and have decided that Ambrosius, after all the pressure that had been on him to maintain this big public image and have a huge career and be a rich successful icon, I have decided that he would be a Stay At Home Dad and nobody can tell me different. He'd adopt some adorable child/ren with Ballister and he would spend his days building a family and a household filled with the warmth, love, and intimacy that he lacked growing up.
He wouldn't have to deal with the normal issues with that lifestyle bc he comes from a stupid rich family which eliminates the financial danger of becoming a SAHD, and we all KNOW Ballister would NOT be some incompetent father!! He would recognize his husband's rewarding but exhausting labor for what it was and share household responsibilities whenever possible and be an active and involved parent and husband ‼️Also Ballister would still cook because his Rich Kid Husband cannot be trusted!! They are partners in life fr
I am just giddy at the thought of Ambrosius planning out crafts and other activities for his kid(s) and finally, finally getting to live in peace. Ballister is the one who craved adventure and honor, Ambrosius just wanted to love his family. He deserves it 💛
158 notes · View notes
transmasccofee · 10 months
Text
Tumblr media
i got board and tried to draw him in one of those shitty free drawing apps
452 notes · View notes
cloudysarts · 4 months
Text
Tumblr media
this show would be good if literally everything about it was different
162 notes · View notes
ofj-art · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
2K notes · View notes
radiocity · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
The L Word | S2E01
260 notes · View notes
feluka · 2 months
Text
when i make a post about coptic culture and someone tags it as "worldbuilding"... a chill runs up my spine
98 notes · View notes
puppyeared · 2 months
Text
Why have sex when u can watch blackhead removal videos
79 notes · View notes
scintillyyy · 7 days
Text
as we all know i LOVE rite of passage (detective comics #618-#621) and to the father i never knew (batman #480). i have analyzed them so much & i will continue to analyze them so much more in the future. they are so, so dear to me. i look at them with heart eyes.
at the same time, i blame them for fanon drakes.
because listen--the concepts that fanon drakes largely came out of are from these particular potrayals of them & particular panels from them--rite of passage is famous for the postcard letter, which fandom warped to mean they don't call tim (along with the drakes as selfish ceos) and the way thay they're portrayed as ostentatiously wealthy with the million dollar jet (leading to tim & the idea that he grew up ostentatiously weathly in the vein of bruce wayne wealth with his empty mansion and completely unaware what a banana costs or what normal people are like). the idea that they had tim as a business baby does have roots in jack saying that tim is going to take over the company one day (and tim not wanting to take over the company one day) in the father i never knew. now fanon has warped & exaggerated these traits immersely, but the initial concepts honestly stem mainly from alan grant's work on them (because it's the only time we see them *so* ostentatiously wealthy, on everyone else/the vast majority of the time they drakes are upper class but also jack and dana make tim do chores and he has normal sized rooms and boarding schools).
and i just wanna talk a little bit about how and why those traits came to be under him & why they ended up working in interesting ways in canon but end up falling flat in fanon. because those traits were put there for very specific reasons & when you lose or alter the context of them, it takes away what's interesting about them existing to begin with.
because let's give the main context for them: the drakes were this way under alan grant. and when alan grant is writing, alan grant is gonna put his agenda in there. and i say that in an entirely neutral way. and in the 80s, alan grant was an anarchist--notably creating the character of lonnie machin aka anarky. which brings us to our second main context: though he was never even a contender for it, alan grant had created lonnie with the thought that he could maybe make lonnie the third robin (unbeknownst to grant, wolfman and o'neil had already decided on and were creating tim drake specifically for the role--there were no other real contenders at the time).
so when you read through grant's issues on batman and on how he wrote the drakes you do have to take into consideration the following: that grant had a statement to make & thay he had a clear interest in foiling the robin that was created with that of the one he tried to. he wanted to explore a story of capitalistic greed and exploitation and its negatives. so when he writes the drakes as greedy, as ostentatious, as bitter people who argue over a beleaguered secretary's head in rite of passage it's because he has to *set the stage for how this greed will lead to their downfall*. and it does! it gets them kidnapped, it gets their secretary killed. it is a *lesson*, cautioning against greed--does he not have them also lament while they were kidnapped thay had they known what life had coming, they would have chosen to not waste any of the good things (their son)-- the things that *really* matter, not their greed or that which came of it. it is why that as they're reaping the consequences of their greed, tim is simultaneously in his own battle with anarky--so that he can be foiled against him, and making tim's parents stand for everything anarky fights against is *part of tim's foiling against lonnie*, part of his ideological fight with him--as tim is winning, his parents are losing. as tim walks away from lonnie, proud to be able to tell bruce that he tracked him down all by himself, proud to have won, tim is about to receive the worst news--that bruce was unable to save his mom and his dad is comatose, who paid the ultimate price for their greed. the exaggerated awful traits of the drakes work here *because* it fits into the bigger story as a whole--they need to be that awful to make a statement on how capitalism and greed kills and ruins you. and even then grant is not without sympathy for this--tim, as the person who loses so much as a result of everything, is treated very sympathetically despite being a foil for lonnie. tim may have won the battle against lonnie, but he lost so much more. even jack and janet are allowed their moment of realization that they made the wrong decisions before being punished for them. it works to service the inherent political statements embedded within. the exaggerated awful traits work as social commentary.
even in to the father i never knew, the themes of greed & what greed will cost are there (though there are also lots of other delicious themes as well). in here, tim and his lack of greed is played against the greed of his father and phil marin--his father wants him to take over the company, but tim wants to take care of the city--and meanwhile jack's company is being embezzled from by a man he trusts who *tim* ultimately stops. jack's greed and refusal to know his son almost loses him everything and he is unaware of it all. tim knows everything but can't tell him anything. again, jack's exaggerated awful traits work here as *social commentary*.
and when you take away this social commentary aspect of their traits when you exaggerate them and just make them awful to tim, you do start to lose what made these traits *work* in the comics. because then you just get awful for the sake of being awful. irredeemable with no remorse. a rich kid needing to be saved by a rich man. you lose the meat of what their exaggerated negative traits wete supposed to stand for when you lose the interplay of class and social commentary.
68 notes · View notes
calicotisane · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Hylics design explorations and an unrelated bit of rain world but never you mind
99 notes · View notes
aaandbackstabbed · 2 months
Text
Della and Donald: you’ve told us this story many times
Scrooge: and you’ll hear it again!
111 notes · View notes
acesammy · 9 months
Text
The thing about how sam’s arc in season 4 is often discussed is that people simultaneously acknowledge that the angels are bad, while claiming Sam is an idiot for rebelling against them.
like I have listened through three (3) rewatch podcasts and they always seem to fall into this loop of going ‘hey the angels are Obviously up to no good’ while also going ‘Sam is really stupid. Why would he trust a demon when literal angels are telling him to stop’
idk man. Maybe bc the angels are Obviously up to no good????
179 notes · View notes
dirtytransmasc · 9 months
Text
saw someone say they're we're happy Alicent's and Otto's deaths forced them "realize what they had done" and like...
Otto's one thing, I get the animosity. but Alicent? your getting hot and bothered over her realizing she failed, she failed to save her children, she failed to protect them, to them alive? that she tried so hard, so fucking hard, making every hard decision, trying to get between her children and the fate they were damned to by Viserys and Rhaenyra? that she damned her kids, who were already damned to die to begin with, and had to suffer the guilt of them dying to her own hand? that she's going to drive herself mad with grief over her children, her grandchildren?
like... it's not satisfying (especially for show Alicent) watching a woman go so mad with grief it literally kills her because she fought with everything she had to save her children only for them to die anyway. ever since her father's exile, when Rhaenyra's lies took Viserys's favor, when Viserys ignored the Rhaenyra's sons bastardhood at the risk of the whole house, or when Luke took Aemond's eye and Viserys demanded good will; she knew her children's lives were forfeit. then Daemon killed Vaemond and her children's coffins were built, catching cobweb's all the while. she knew and she fought it desperately, taking risk after risk, living in fear until her moment came, she could out Aegon on the thrown, she could protect her kids, maybe, just fucking maybe they'd be safe... only for it to lead to a war that would kill her entire family.
her death, slow and tragic as it was, is heartbreaking. she didn't deserve it, she deserved to feel safe, to feel as though she could allow her past friend take the thrown without her children being at risk to feel as though she and her children weren't being circled by wolves and picked at by vulture's. she didn't deserve to live alone and die alone. she didn't deserve to have her hands coated in her children's blood.
218 notes · View notes