I feel weird giving out unprompted permission statements because I'm making a big assumption that anyone's going to want to use my work. That said I also know people do like to build on other people's art and can't always work up the nerve to ask, so: Anyone is free to use this design if they want to for any reason- I don't own this character anyway. (Although I am hopeful that you do not, you know, monetize it, because i cant do that and if you do that its not fair ;_; ) Feel free to remix, improve, use as basic inspiration, etc. I would appreciate a tag/mention if you use it so I can see what you did!
This design has evolved a little since I first started drawing it, and I will see people reblogging the original design notes and think 'oh no! those are out of date and I don't have new/accurate ones!'
Reblogging the old one is still an honor- and the first take on a design just sometimes has a different appeal because it's less refined and more chaotic (especially with a character that should be chaotic), so I suspect some people will just prefer the older drawings & they'll still get shared, which is great! But I felt as if the project was a little bit incomplete without an update, since I think I've reached the point where if you see that old post & then come to my blog and look at my current content, there's a noticeable difference.
Also I kind of like making design notes.
If anyone's wondering why things changed, the answer's really simple- 90% of it is just the result of him settling into having more consistent anatomy and facial structure so that I can keep him looking accurate across different angles and poses. If you look at the old drawings you may notice that Gollum has an inconsistently shaped squishy head. That's fine for a concept post but doesn't work as well for maintaining him across different comic panels or in an animatic, at least not the way I work.
In the same vein, while my art is still & will always be heavily stylized, I started giving him more structured semi-sorta-realistic anatomy so that he wouldn't look entirely out of place next to less bizarre-looking characters such as Aragorn. (I feel that's also helpful in nudging Gollum into the uncanny valley where he ought to be, rather than leaving him so abstractified that there's a risk you won't see anything wrong with him having noodle arms.)
He also acquired the new-style 'garbage bag' outfit because I found a reference in LOTR to his arms and legs being bare/exposed (it's in one of my favorite passages, the 'an eagle would think Gollum was dead if it came by right now' passage in The Two Towers):
Not even an eagle poised against the sun would have marked the hobbits sitting there, under the weight of doom, silent, not moving, shrouded in their thin grey cloaks. For a moment he might have paused to consider Gollum, a tiny figure sprawling on the ground: there perhaps lay the famished skeleton of some child of Men, its ragged garment still clinging to it, its long arms and legs almost bone-white and bone-thin: no flesh worth a peck.
314 notes
·
View notes
will says that el has a book of letters from him because he’s just pointing out that they kept in contact regularly whereas he and mike didn’t but somehow mike interprets that as if will was implying there should be something romantic between them too and it stumps will bc that’s not what he meant at all and he doesn’t realize yet why mike is actually so mad or who he’s mad at, and while we clown mike for being oblivious i think will is oblivious too bc this isn’t the first time mike’s done that and yet. will doesn’t question it. he never does and they never talk about it. he just continues with what he’s saying about how they used to be best friends. they never talk about the fact that when will fights to salvage their friendship mike talks about it as if it was more than what it was and as if continuing as they were would get between his relationship with eleven. which implies that he himself feels that their relationship is inappropriate if he wants to date eleven concurrently and explains why it’s the only friendship within the party that seriously falls apart and why will is the only party member that he completely changes his behavior n actions towards and why he’s the only party member that he no longer touches once he dates eleven. which again also explains why after they start dating it’s only when eleven isn’t around that he allows a softer, more open and present mike to reappear around will. it’s just like. why would he do any of that if he’s not projecting? will is literally the one with a canonically confirmed interest in him and yet he’s mad at the roller rink because will is ignoring him [or so he thought at that point]. he’s not mad that eleven lied. he’s not mad at what those bullies did to her. he’s mad that will didn’t talk to him. he’s so mad and hurt by will that he doesn’t even console his girlfriend who was encircled, taunted, and had a milkshake thrown on her all on tape. he stays by will’s side despite everything, even when she’s fidgeting and crying to the side of them. to top it off he even makes a passive aggressive bitchy little comment at dinner afterward because he’s still. mad. at. will. will is the one that ruined his day. not those bullies being cruel to el, but will. it clouds his vision so much that he can’t even pretend or begin to attempt to entertain the idea of being there for her when she so clearly needs him. how does anyone fucking watch any of that and not get what’s going on. HOW????
299 notes
·
View notes
Ngl, I really think that these bylers that are crying 24/7 about "purity culture" or whatever, are playing dumb when they start with their "but Nancy and Steve were 16 and 17 in that scene of s1!!!1" like... We got introduced to these characters at that age and the people playing them were already adults. So yeah, sorry but I think it's easy to see why most viewers would be uncomfortable with a more sexual scene of Mike and Will and it's not automatically homophobia, I think that would be the case with any of the kids since we got introduced to these characters when they were 12 and the actors were babies as well. We literally saw those kids grow. And I'm not saying byler should only get to peck or hold hands, It'd be cool if they have their epic kiss or whatever, but Will hasn't even had his first kiss yet and some of these people are already talking about sex scenes, like... Be for real 😭
funny you should say that...because i've used the nancy was 15-16 in season one argument (last tag) before while also saying that i understand why people find the sex part of their sexualities uncomfortable to discuss. and i wanna reiterate that, again, i totally understand that people feel like they've seen them grow up etc etc and that they still think of the actors themselves as children even thought they're not anymore.
i don't think it's all homophobia because like you said, people would probably feel the same about lucas and max and discussions of sex (i don't know if anyone is discussing that because there's much less discourse to have there and you can't argue that people are homophobic if they disagree with you) but i don't think it would be justified either. the "but we knew the characters when they were little" argument makes me think me of an ancient disney channel/abc show that old people and girl meets world fans who watched it for the first time in the 2010s will know, boy meets world (1993-2000). classic comic of age show, look at these kids. and eric in the back (he's fifteen).
they're eleven at the start of the show and then, what happens in any coming of age story happens, you guessed it...
they grow up. this is them in the later seasons, when the main characters are still in high school i think. they grow up, they talk about sex and about having sex at prom in season five and then they don't have sex right away because they figure it's not the right time yet or something like that, and then they have sex later and get married, the details don't matter. but my point is, who watches a show for five seasons, over years and years and gets upset at the main characters having sex because "this is crazy they used to be children"? isn't that the point of coming of age stories that cover multiple years or that focus on the latter years of adolescence, that they're not children forever and that at one point the characters "come of age" which usually includes their first sexual experiences?
i don't think the having sex part is particularly important in stranger things but also it doesn't have to be for it to be portrayed (see jonathan and nancy), teenagers have sex, it's just the way the world works. i'm not advocating for sex scenes of any kind especially because stranger things isn't a show that features a lot of sex in general, the only "explicit" sex scene being nancy and steve in season one with cuts to barb dying, but i genuinely don't think the duffers would have any qualms about portraying teenage sexuality in general with the party. if they did, they wouldn't have included erica threatening lucas to tell dustin what she found under his bed (it wasn't the communist manifesto) and they wouldn't have had max looking at a shirtless steve for an amount of time that's supposed to make the audience laugh. it's been 7 years. if they do a time jump, the babies will be about 17, played by actors who will all be around 20, the age natalia was when filming season one. the characters are teenagers, babies grow up. it happens to the best of us. i get why people would find it uncomfortable and maybe i would find it uncomfortable too but i wouldn't be scandalized. the duffers had no problem having a child actor portray everything will goes through in seasons one and especially two, i really feel like sex is fine and...not traumatizing or hard to watch compared to every single thing will's gone through lol. and again, i'm not even expecting them to have sex lmao, but i wouldn't cry myself to sleep if they revealed that everyone in the party actually knows what sex is.
last question: do we have any indication that jonathan had talked to more than one other girl (the girl at the halloween party being the one girl i'm counting for him) before he got together with nancy. i'm just asking because of your last sentence, because if we don't he should have slowed down also😭
26 notes
·
View notes
i also don’t think ‘security in your masculinity’ functions as a cure for violence against women. in fact, the cure is (put simply) compassion and empathy for women, the recognition that women are human beings, which is something masculinity is explicitly constructed against. because masculinity isn’t a biological reality, it’s a social construct defined against a feminine ‘other’ and associated with power. traits/behaviours/embodiment that one culture and time period associates with masculinity are associated with femininity in another.
In that context ‘security in your masculinity’ means... security that you don’t have to behave like [insert racialised/class-prejudiced portrayal of stereotypes male violence here] to preserve the privileges you expect to be surrounded by as a member of the dominant gender class. the irony in the ‘secure in my masculinity’ brag is that it makes the men with genuine cause to fear for their place in masculine hegemony (disabled men, gay men, trans men, men of colour, jewish men, immigrant men, working class men, etc) more of a threat than the men who are most secure within it. and now, under this framework, striving for inclusion within the privileged class, fighting to maintain its definitions, and subscribing to its values, is... feminist praxis?
and of course, in all of this, men’s experiences are centralised in the conversation of violence against women. violence against women becomes a tribal issue between groups of men, a.k.a 'feminist’ men are taking fundamentally the same perspective as the 3750 year old code of hammurabi.
22 notes
·
View notes
I kinda like but dislike that Rumiko and Sunrise (and fans) have never even mentioned that miko (priestesses) are virgins. And that their shinto ability to tend holy places comes from being unmarried virgins. In modern day I guess it is not really required but I kind of wish more people analyzed Kikyo, the dark priestess, Kaede and Kagome in that light.
Personally I think that due to the era Kagome would not be allowed to remain a miko after getting married and having a child. She would still be one of course due to her spiritual ability, but I think she would no longer be allowed to remain in that societal role.
Kagome is so spunky though that I see her rebelling against it. I think Kagome's strength in being outspoken is another great contrast between her and Kikyo. While Kikyo was confined by society and was only freed from expectation when she became an impure monster. Kagome was outspoken and loud to where she didn't have much of a societal role and yet remained 'spiritually pure.'
There is a huge theme of 'societal expectation' in Kagome, Inuyasha, and Kikyo that I think being a miko is a part of.
Personally I'm torn on Kagome loudly choosing to get married and have a child VS remaining a Miko and Kagome choosing to attempt to do both.
More thematic headcannons in the tag below..
6 notes
·
View notes