frumfrumfroo

[frumfrumfroo]

Are there any big no-no's when it comes to time skips and/or separation in romantic arcs that span multiple entries?

I mean, if you're asking me personally, the no-no is doing it at all. I dislike time skips and separations as a general principle lol.

But as far as telling an effective story, I think it's just a case of making sure that it actually serves a necessary purpose, that it feels authentic both in that it's something the characters would actually allow to happen and in its effects on them, and that you aren't just killing all your narrative momentum by doing it. Because I think that's the main issue with a lot of separations in romance- it can totally destroy the tensions and build up that your audience is there for.

People seem to forget a lot, but romance is in many ways a kind of suspense, and to sustain that sense of anticipation without exhausting the audience is already a fairly delicate balance, so introducing a big separation can be a gamble. You risk losing the immediacy, you risk losing investment, you risk making it seem like the relationship maybe isn't that important to the characters involved or to the narrative arc.

So basically, it has to be justified. It has to feel like an obstacle put the in path of our couple which they cannot avoid but must overcome. When it's something we go through with them, we can be rooting for them and kept invested by their pov and their struggle, but when it's something like we left off at a cliffhanger and the next installment picks up two years later... That, I would say, has to be earned and it has to come at a place in the arc before any romantic resolution has been accomplished.

If you're going to do that, some big shit better have changed when you pick back up. eg: the TLJ cliffhanger is a breakdown in communication after Rey and Ben thought they were on the same page and discovered they weren't, both desperately wanting to be together and having it fall apart because of internal obstacles which manifest as an external space battle. The way to have a time skip is to radically shake up the circumstances so the internal obstacles can be approached from a different angle. We come back to discover the First Order is still using him as a figurehead, but actually Ben's gone missing, we come back to discover Hux has formed a splinter group within the ranks and there's a power struggle, etc.

You don't want character or relationship development of your pov characters to take place 'off screen', ever, because that's the thing we care about. But plot events which leave them floundering or throw them into turmoil, which triple down on their emotional state and position them to address the flaws that put them in the situation we last left them in, those are good reasons to have a time skip.

The big no-no, imo, is the classic bad kdrama time skip/separation, where you take people at the end of their romance arc, who have resolved their feelings for each other but haven't figured out the way forward yet, and are headed into their happy ending, and then randomly waste 1-3 years of their lives for absolutely no reason before then having an anticlimax final episode where they finally actually get together, but it's mid and awkward because all the urgency and momentum is gone. That's just aggravating.

#writing #tropes

[frumfrumfroo]

I double-checked and so far no, Rey Film has not been confirmed as cancelled (it's been denied by Lucasfilm in an article published by ScreenRant as of a day ago). Daisy Ridley also claims she's returning, Steven Knight is working on the script, but we're way out anyway. I tried to suss out his body of work, and can't really discern anything standout - Peaky Blinders perhaps at best, but I don't recognise much else, nor can I really discern his ideology or approach to Star Wars.

A corollary of this is that an enemies-to-lovers/redemption ship in a book series which was adapted to screen got a more flattering version in the show, and I tepidly predicted this because the showrunner herself was a fan of the ship in the books. Liberties were taken in adaptation, but I cannot fault her that. Anyway, Rey Film will probably be written by committee. Imagine a soup of misogyny wearing the guise of feminism and that will be our answer. Tie-in merchandise for the robots and maybe a cursory figure of Rey or two, and if they're really trying, Rey-branded makeup palettes to help you forget the ghostly memory of your dead love of your life evil enemy who died to save you in a hilarious way of eliminating himself and your agency from the narrative killed his dad. Actually have they ever done that for SW? I know they did it for Hunger Games and Barbie which was hilarious.

Anyway it's all very 'c'mon, do something' poking SW with a stick. On a brighter note: the other night I sobbed for half an hour because of Good Storytelling, and the difference between that and TROS was a gulf. Good Storytelling makes life worth living.

Good Storytelling makes life worth living. Absolutely, anon, fucking preach. (This is me now wanting to rewatch DW S9, knowing I will be a total wreck at the end, but in an earned and cathartic way, not a rage and despair way.)

Dunno if they'd want to associate her directly with makeup after spending so much energy trying to wash the girl cooties off of her and make her acceptable to the most insecure manchildren on the planet. Jedi Nun permachildren probably shouldn't wear it, they'll get scolded by their Velvet Elvis sibling parents.

Well, that's a shame. But there's still lots of time for this to fall through. Maybe the funniest way for it to happen is for them to pull a Batgirl, actually make it, and then lock it in a basement somewhere. Watching them flounder and waste money is the most entertainment I'll get out of future Disney Wars properties.

#the saltiest

[frumfrumfroo]

Now apparently the Rey film has been canceled. Guess DLF through in the towel and said “ You win published Reylos.”

Is that confirmed? Hilarious, if true.

#I did say at the beginning of this that it was presuming a lot to assume it would even actually get made #bc the odds were always high it wouldn't #any film announced or floated seven years out is a long shot never mind this fucking omnishambles DLF has going #haven't they announced and cancelled like a dozen sw things by now

[frumfrumfroo]

I get tired of Zuko being brought up as the archetypal redemption arc (I get why people on the pro-redemption side do it, because he's a cultural touchstone for many people when we're kind of in dearth of villain redemptions, contrary to popular belief). But it's interesting how he lacks many of the elements I find engaging about redemption arcs, partly as a consequence of it being a children's show - Zuko can safely be redeemed because his daddy is the true baddie, so we still have the archetypal 'hero defeats villain' story; Zuko doesn't have a romance, and you can argue he's a villain protagonist in many ways, so the absolute product of his arc is kind of discrete; Azula (though apparently she was intended to be redeemed) still functions as a baddie for him to take down, so it's not like nonviolence is embedded in the narrative (which is what I personally find powerful) - and so on.

If I may add to your post, I definitely agree with you that it's a product of the current cultural/media climate, and comparisons to Zuko tend to not be productive. The anatomy of the fallout is little to do with the emotional arc or verisimilitude of the character's development, and so changing that isn't going to change anything. There are also elements like, Zuko gets to be the 'one' contrastive character who did it correctly - emotionally unbound in the story (his major redeeming relationship is with his uncle, even) - and for many people in the current discourse, from a time of childhood idealism. If I were to psychoanalyse these people, Kylo Ren, for instance, is so uncomfortable as a product of teenage narrative cynicism, maybe even worse because the Sequel Trilogy unearthed the OT. Zuko functions sort of like 'the one female character written correctly' which people bandy about to silence discussions of female character criticism or the presence of female characters, despite the fact this is an extremely limiting and antihumanistic approach (for black characters, for black female characters, for disabled characters, and so on - we want a variety). It's like how the 1:4 ratio of women to men is considered 'even'.

But I would go so far to say that why Zuko fails as a point of comparison is that many elements I view as powerful, moving, and challenging in redemption arcs are simply not there. This makes him feel safer. If Zuko is the 'limit', then you can suppress the discussion surrounding villain redemption arcs this way. Because romance isn't a feature, nonviolence isn't a conclusive feature, Azula can't be redeemed (she's truly crazy and evil), so redemption is a 'yea high' bar of disappointment. This is why I am tired of Zuko as a point of comparison bandied by the anti-redemption crowd, both because it stymies storytelling (there is no limit on what sorts of stories deserve to be told) but because it's actually kind of... not the same thing as what we're talking about. It doesn't go far enough. It barely does at all (and in anime, the villain redemptions tend to go pretty far, so what Avatar was playing off of was, well, playing it safe).

I also think it would be a different story if they had gone for Zuko/Katara with a female POV, but I don't really believe that both of those things were ever the intention. There's not really room for it in the Aang Show where the girl is a prize. But I'm not sure that many would meditate on it with such content if romance were involved at all. Hell, even now there are people who insist that Vader's redemption wasn't one at all because it commits too much - and that's why I think Zuko as an example persists.

I can't speak on the actual content because I was never in the fandom and haven't seen the show, but I'm sure you're right. I also think it's largely to do with these people having seen Zuko's arc when they were younger and it being 'grandfathered in'. As we see with some of the antis in sw fandom being totally fine with anidala or thinking Anakin is a sympathetic and tragic character, but lose their shit at the suggestion Ben is intended the same way despite being a far, far less demanding example. Even though anidala actually was an abusive relationship and reylo is not. etc.

Because they grew up with it and have already accepted the story's conclusion, they retrofit the 'good' and 'hero' labels and are thus fine with Anakin's redemption. The label is more important than any action he could take, because these people are working from an indelible label-based 'morality'. It's a form of Protagonist Centred Morality.

And I'm confident the same is true of A:TLAB.

And yes, there's also the fact that it's apparently an extremely tame and not very challenging redemption, because it's a show for little kids and thus Zuko doesn't kill anyone or do anything that violent. And again, I haven't seen it, but I get the impression he was always at least a bit sympathetic? So you never saw him as a simple and unrepentant villain. I could be wrong about that idk.

It is an extremely annoying thing that people still trot this out as the 'one acceptable redemption arc for all fiction ever', but that attitude has nothing to do with the writing of his arc or his character and everything to do with the people saying this and the circumstances under which they were exposed to him. And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point because he's been given the pass, so even people coming to the show later already have permission to like him and won't respond to him the way they would otherwise.

The anti echo chamber will keep perpetuating this.

#fandom #tropes #writing

[frumfrumfroo]

If Ben wasn't responsible for Han's death, I'm pretty sure 90% of the redemption discourse would never have happened. Because he and Zuko have the same arc, the only difference is Zuko didn't kill Iroh.

Granted, the American political climate didn't help matters.

Nah, it still would. Zuko would have way more if that show had come out a few years later than it did. And I'm sure there was still discourse in that fandom at the time, but these things become retroactively okay once the ending is established and most antis move on to the next thing.

And the other reason the discourse was more intense, besides the reasons mentioned in the first link, was that Ben was not only a romantic, vulnerable figure, he was the love interest of a female protagonist and the mythic fairy tale prince in need of rescue. He is not a male avatar for the assumed male audience to project onto and 'get the girl' in the love story, he is the object of desire. This version of a conflicted antagonist and redemption arc is a romance trope and anything tied to the romance genre always attracts maximum vitriol. Double whammy of american cultural hostility towards the idealism at the heart of SW and general (sexist) hostility towards romance.

But yeah. I've seen this with every character who falls into this archetype I have ever cared about. None of them killed Han Solo. A lot of them didn't kill anybody. It doesn't matter.

#fandom #audience reactions

[frumfrumfroo]

Remember when you said that DLF could always make thing worse? Well get a load of this recent rumor per courtesy of YouTuber Tyrone Magnus through a "reliable source". In the Rey movie, Rey will have a 9 year old daughter fathered by none other than Ben Solo's force ghost.

Yep, you read that correctly FORCE GHOST. The “leaker” literally says that Rey could not have a child with anyone else but Ben Solo’s force ghost. 6 whole years after Ben’s death. She will have force ghost sex. In an effort to placate the Reylos and get some of that NYT bestselling moola per the leaker.

I for one as a Reylo will never give them money again for as long as I live if this is true and they go through with it . I haven't since 2019 and I felt that eventually I would get over it and move on, but this? I don’t care how perfect the casting is for the kid. And I don't care if they film Adam and Daisy rawing it on a bed of roses, I would never invest in something so asinine and that’s a promise I will happily keep.

Well, straight off, I don't believe this at all and would say don't worry about it because the chances of anything like that happening are astronomically minute. Just zero credence. But given how catastrophically moronic and goofy the tros leaks were, I can't much blame people for thinking no leak is too stupid to be true. 'Too stupid to be real' is not an argument with purchase in the post-tros world.

In this case, however, it would require them to have understood that Bride of the Brand, creepy permachild cenotaph avatar Rey was bad and why it was hated, and I just don't see it happening while the same people are in charge. They've done nothing but triple down on all their most repugnant and reactionary choices and this (insane) story would be walking a lot of it back. It'd be walking back Repatine Skyusurper and admitting Ben matters, the family matters, and that romance is productive. In the worst way possible, but still. That's admitting they fucked up on pretty much every level. It goes completely against their chosen direction.

And it's awful and stupid and would please no one, but you know, again, we can't use that argument any more.

I'll never give them money again or invest in their shit again no matter what they do, and I will indeed die mad, but I would be very surprised if this was anything other than whole cloth made up. Not shocked per se, because I feel like I've lost the capacity to be shocked by incompetence at this point, but very surprised.

[frumfrumfroo]

(Sorry if I am belabouring the point, so feel free to ignore this ask) no yeah I'm definitely the same way and you're never wrong for having personal reasons not getting into something immediately - I think some of the fandom anxiety comes from the fact that things get cancelled so quickly without sufficient viewership (or even with sufficient viewership, which is a whole other nut). It puts a weird amount of onus of a show's success on the fandom, which is even stranger in the time of broken trust and active resentment of audiences/audience engagement with a text/trying to 'outsmart' us. But ultimately there is something severely rotting at the root that I don't think we have any control over.

And yeah the popular perception of TD season 1 is that it's grimdark because its protagonist is deeply wounded and many a fanboy is butthurt about its celebration of redemption. It's an incredibly, incredibly dark show, and so that tragic beginning is hard for a lot of people to get past, I think, when it's not the final conclusive thematic remark*. I would say that Dark is similar to this if you want an idea of the tone. Somehow we have ended up where the children's modern day fairytale is grimdark and nihilistic and shows inured in tragedy are idealistic and redemptive.

Anyway, very thankful for your blog in keeping me sane in the time of psychedelic narrative rules, and being Principled, because sometimes I feel like a stick in the mud lol.

And the asterisk is there up above because I have heard this exact description of a popular book series (A Song of Ice and Fire) and I disagree with this conclusion, partly because the series is unfinished, partly because I think the fanbase on Tumblr is overly optimistic, and also because TD has an absolute conclusion which is idealistic. So I just want to note this so it doesn't seem like I'm misrepresenting or overstating the show lololol.

It's also extremely unsavoury the way big name fans and the former twitter cabal, wherever that hangs out now, will take advantage of this anxiety and use it as a bludgeon to make a captive audience feel like they have some 'duty' to support the financial success of giant evil corporations. Giving Disney more money and bullying people for not giving Disney more money is not a moral victory, I think we should all be able to agree. Abusing calls to support artists by co-opting them into the service of mindless consumption of branded refuse is fairly repugnant. Saying 'vote with your dollars' between a choice of Disney Extruded Movie Product A, B, or C is both hilarious and sad.

eg: that tie-in comic, I think it was the TLJ one? The one with the terrible art. It's a commissioned product, the artist was paid once and as little as possible to create it for solely marketing purposes. Applying fandom etiquette to it or saying it should not be criticised because of high turnover times is frankly fucking ridiculous. It's a professional commissioned product they were selling for profit. They had all the time and all the money in the world, there's no excuse for it to be awful and absolutely no one should have felt obligated to buy it or keep quiet about how bad it was. Maybe the artist could have done better under better working conditions, but that doesn't make the actual product we're being asked to purchase acceptable. Giving Disney your money is not going to improve those conditions and it's not going to help that artist.

The same with the tros defenders saying they tried therefore you can't criticise them. A) they did not try B) this was not a sincere piece of art and pretending otherwise is just insulting and C) it's a corporate product made by a near-monopoly who employed alleged professionals. Nothing could possibly be more fair game for harsh criticism.

Ultimately putting this onus on fandom of you must throw your money away on this thing or be a free shill for this brand or maybe they'll stop throwing us any crumbs... like it's debasement. Given all the many recent examples of how public support doesn't matter unless it's that first weekend a show drops on a streaming platform or the opening box office, how being the 'wrong' audience makes you irrelevant no matter how many of you there are, how even very successful shows are dropped after two seasons because producers don't want to pay actors, etc. etc. it's even more silly. We should be demanding better, not propping up this nonsense. Creative people are being profoundly fucked over by this system and are often still fucked even if they make something successful.

If people want to support artists, buy independent and small label media. Go see original, mid-budget movies at the cinema (if you live in a city where you have any chance of one playing, that is).

And see, I have no problem with darkness, angst, and tragedy if I know it's going somewhere positive. Having to really go through it can make the journey and the ultimate conclusion feel even more rewarding. As long as it's not angst for angst's sake, but is doing something meaningful and necessary, it only enriches the hope at the foundation of redemption or recovery stories.

Idealism is brave, challenging, and requires sincerity. When the modern fairy tales are being produced in cynicism and by committee to meet a quota for the shareholders...

Thank-you ❤️

[frumfrumfroo]

I just wanted to say thank you for your advice the other day, it was actually very helpful and I feel a lot better because of it 🥰 I hope you're having a good day and the new year is treating you well

So glad to hear it!! Likewise ❤️

[frumfrumfroo]

Can't believe I never noticed before that most of the dialogue in TFA is... kinda bad? As bad as anything in TROS. The prequels dialogue is bad, but you can tell it's *attempting* poetry. A lot of the dialogue in TFA and TROS is just stating the obvious or trite quips.

It's not a great movie.

#they had one brilliant transcendent thing which could have carried this whole trilogy and made it seem like real art #could have put it up there as actually worth remembering #made it a legitimate part of the story #but no #no #and I've said this before but if they wanted to make forgettable cash in garbage they should have just done that #and done it in a crowd pleasing way which didn't destroy the narrative #they should have had the OT trio together they should have had unchallenging fanservice #because how fucking dare they tear down the happy ending of RotJ with no intention of building to a fuller and larger resolution #how dare they have Han Luke and Leia all die for nothing as failures #never having been reunited #for no reason #they all had mostly miserable lives and no one ever fixed anything or grew up- the entire saga was pointless and futile #and these people claim to be fans #they couldn't have shit on the OT harder if they'd tried #but yeah legit reylo was so compelling and Ben was so perfectly sw it could have papered over the (huge) flaws that TFA built into the ST #IX didn't even have to be great #if it had had the appropriate narrative resolution it would be beloved anyway #RotJ is the weakest film in the OT but it is deathless because of the powerful thematic statement and resounding conclusion it provides #bc it retroactively makes ESB even better and makes ANH much deeper #deep storytelling from the dawn of time speaking profound hope will overcome all superficial issues #it's so satisfying that we don't care about clunkiness in other areas #but guess it's more important to make the deadline for the quarter than to create something that will still be generating money 60 years on #instead of being swept into the slop bucket of franchise offal and buried in a steel drum on Mars to prevent contamination

[frumfrumfroo]

A mutual reblogged a really dumb post about redemption/redemption arcs (two independent ideas but whatever, that's partly the source of my annoyance) and generally storytelling that has revealed some major differences between us and also bothered me. I feel conflicted because we were talking recently and bonding over some mutual interests. Is it petty to unfollow? Should I tell her why?

I feel like you're the only person who'll understand why it's so upsetting lol. Thank you for reading this.

I do totally understand lol.

There's some things that I just have that gut reaction about and I will instant unfollow over, especially something as indicative of future hot takes as dumb or flippant redemption opinions, but if you have an actual relationship with this person, that's different than if you were just ships in the night. Maybe try to suss out how strongly she agrees with that post or how serious she is about those positions before doing anything. Or you could ask her about the post and see what she says.

Anti-like stuff I have zero time for, but if you can be live and let live about your differences and have other things in common, unfollowing might be hasty. Sometimes you click in one fandom but not another, etc. On the other hand, if this is going to come up a lot and it's going to bother you, then I don't think it's petty to dip. Sometimes tag blocking is a solution, sometimes it isn't.

#I'm on here right now distracting myself from life so you know #you want to minimise the things that are going to upset you in the place you come for relief #and believe me I do get reading a take from someone having it just sink your heart

[frumfrumfroo]

Let's say, hypothetically, you're writing a story that's going to "borrow" TLJ's Force connection mechanic to build anticipation for the eventual confrontation betweenhero and antagonist. What are your observations/opinions on what makes something like this work? How can/should it be used? Does it only work if they've met in person previously or can it be used as a prelude to a first in-person meeting?

I would say you can do almost anything with it, there's no rules except the ones you create and what you need to keep it an effective device in the narrative. So it just depends on your story and what the connection is doing. How much you want to define or explain it also depends on genre, tone, etc. For SW, eg, it was an infinitely more meaningful and appropriate storytelling element as something mystical and nebulous. Explaining it cheapened and trivialised it, completely robbing it of beauty or power. But if you're writing something less mythical and metaphorical, maybe it actually needs to be defined more sharply.

It's not that rare a trope to have psychic links or some kind of fated apparition to each other or just strange communication or visions, and it's very often between people who have not yet met, so I wouldn't worry about that at all. A sort of similar example is Winds of Fate by Mercedes Lackey, and those characters had not met.

Basically, it's like anything else. How you introduce it to the narrative is what tells the reader what it is for, and so it's important to think about what you're suggesting and what kind of payoff you're implying is coming. You want to sow the seeds of whatever it will eventually mean and you want to avoid steering the reader towards the wrong questions or the wrong expectations (unless you are going to subvert them deliberately in a satisfying way rather than an annoying way- don't lie to the reader about where things are going, the narrative can mislead them and the characters can be wrong, but the truth should seem self-evident and inevitable in hindsight).

A benevolent all-powerful force created the connection? The characters shouldn't be able to directly use it for evil, even if it can be exploited indirectly. The vibe of it should not itself be sinister even if the other character they're being connected to is sinister. Just subtext stuff.

What makes it work is if it serves the story being told and the characters it affects. Let the characters react to it and even though it's a kind of shortcut to force some kind of communication, it shouldn't feel like a shortcut. Its development shouldn't be something the author's voice summarises in a line of prose, you know what I mean? Don't tell me the connection has changed the relationship or how they see each other, show me. Abstraction and metaphor is very, very efficient. That's how reylo was able to cover so much ground in so little screentime, but it has to feel organic, it has to feel like we're going through it with the characters, not that the story is just reporting that it happened.

So to me, this kind of device should be used to create something which otherwise would not be possible. Intimacy, communication, mutual understanding, etc. and therefore the scenes you show of it should always be purposeful and always drive forward in those arcs. And understanding the other person doesn't have to be positive if that's not where you're going, but unless the point is that the connection was never real and it was some kind of deception perpetrated by an evil force, the understanding created must be genuine. It should give insights your characters could never have access to without it and those insights should be pivotal for the story.

#again there's no rules I'm not saying I'm the arbiter of tropes #but I think for this kind of thing to be good writing #it has to be necessary and it has to be dynamic #if they just use it to banter in their heads to no real effect what's the point #that's the kind of thing that regular old telepathy as part of the setting is for #but if there's a special connection it needs to be narratively explicable even if there's never an in-universe explanation for it #I've read a lot of soul bond fanfic and let me tell you #it's so boring if it isn't necessary

[frumfrumfroo]

Yeah, same, I had a bunch of mutuals encouraging me to watch Loki and I just don't trust like that anymore lol. A few of my fandoms are finally getting sequels after some time and I'm just like... dreading it? And not looking forward to it? It's really sad since I've been in fandom for over half my life.

I must ask, have you seen Dark? Because its romance is held up by cosmic loftiness impossible-in-any-other-circumstance and only through extreme means, and the redemption in the story makes me tear up just trying to convey the tone, and its ending makes me ugly cry. That sounds kind of up your alley, and it's sort of my only light in the dark. Puns.

I do find it funny that a show like Dark - a not inappropriate name - manages to celebrate redemption in a higher cosmic way than Star Wars ended up doing. The same jokes were made about True Detective's first season when TROS aired, though TD doesn't have the romance.

I did not know TD had redemption! I saw the memes about the show and saw people hype for it, but I never knew this. I am far more interested in maybe watching it eventually now lol.

I hadn't heard about Dark at all, but I will put it on my list to check out. Thank-you, nonnie!

Same. I honestly have always been wary of sequels or continuations to stand alone properties or long-concluded series, but it's become more and more the news you fucking dread hearing, just as you say.

I wasn't interested when the first rumours of the series were going around years before it materialised, and I knew then I wasn't going near it with a ten foot pole. People said I was 'wrong' during the first season, but a) I wouldn't have been wrong about my personal reasons for not wanting to watch it even if it had been great as its own independent thing and b) lol when has not trusting the M- 'continuity? what continuity?'-CU ever been wrong?

#there is no character the mcu has been shittier to and like why would I expect different #and even if I were to give them a chance (why would I do that) I already know they're not going to give me Thor1 Loki #the character I love so much is never coming back the ship has sailed #if by some insane divine intervention he ever did- why would anyone think they'd do right by him #they don't understand why people like Loki and never will #they've spent enough time punishing the character and the audience for his popularity can we all just accept this now #the delusional people who think dlf are going to bring back Ben- if they did it would only get worse

[frumfrumfroo]

My response to the latest circle of Hell for those who don't follow me on main.

Have you seen the recent Adam driver interview re: redeemed Ben solo never being part of the original plans? Apparently JJs idea as pitched to Adam was 'reverse Vader' who begins the trilogy all uncertain and vulnerable and becomes super evil by the third film 😂 considering the mess that was duel of the fates, I'm not surprised. Adam said he was still 'focused' on JJs original arc even though it changed over shooting. Which is baffling to me, because even in TFA you can't seriously believe this character could go stone cold uber sinister. It's terrible how so many good things in the sequel trilogy are there in spite of tptb, not because of them!

I haven't and honestly at this point I don't even want to hear anything else about what a complete fucking shitshow of stupidity and sociopathy this whole production was.

The idea that TFA isn't setting up a redemption is so absurd to me that I'm not even going to entertain it. I don't believe that even JJ is that incompetent, and his commentary plus TROS indicates that he did absolutely understand that Ben must be reclaimed despite his total disregard for the themes and message of SW. So whatever Adam was talking about, I don't know, and I'm not going to listen to this interview to try to figure it out because I'm tired. Maybe he's referring to the earliest ideas where Kylo Ren wasn't the same person as Han and Leia's child?

But in that case I just cannot imagine why they wanted to cast him in that role.

Leaving aside that the entire concept of a 'reverse Vader' is the stupidest shit I've ever heard, because that was a) literally the prequel trilogy, b) antithetical to SW as anything other than a prelude to a subsequent redemption, and c) SO FUCKING BORING. I know this isn't the first time Adam has mentioned this, but it only sounds more stupid the more clear he makes it that they mean 'the opposite of the ending of RotJ'. Which is just 'the ending of every fucking American action movie fucking ever'. Like putting a 'spin' on Vader by having him NOT REDEEM HIMSELF is just called 'being like everyone else' and 'taking away literally the most compelling thing about Vader'.

I need these boring, unimaginative HACKS to fuck off. Like, the idea that JJ's pitch for TFA was 'worse, more boring, less visually creative, less meaingful, more shallow remake of ANH but also we will ruin the heart and soul of the story and make it like all the libertarian slop it literally existed in order to stand against'.

LIKE JAIL FOR THIS MAN. JAIL!

I saw someone say that it's also come out that the reylo connection was Kasdan's idea, which I feel vindicated by bc I've been saying I bet it was forever. But again, JJ was on board for it and knew what he was doing with the imagery in TFA. He is not so incompetent that he didn't understand he was creating romantic subtext. And text.

But like, I'm just so done with these fucking people. That ANYONE at that company much less apparently EVERYONE?? thought it was remotely acceptable to use SW to tell the story of any character whatsoever who was humanised and sympathetic and relatable to children falling into darkness and becoming ''''''irredeemable'''''' MUCH LESS the LAST SKYWALKER, the HOPE AND HAPPY ENDING OF ROTJ, HAN AND LEIA'S LOVE, PADMÉ'S LOVE, the atonement and reconciliation of Darth Vader is just FUCKING BANANAPANTS to me.

George Lucas should fight these people in an alley.

#salt #a tros ity

[frumfrumfroo]

I think the 'Disney strikes again' anon was referring to the disaster that was Loki season 2. Surprise surprise, the mythic epic romance love-between-worlds they set up in the first season was thrown out, no thematic commitment to anything, everything is miserable. I don't want to say 'I told you so' because I don't think it's bad to believe in and trust something, and it actually burns me that what I thought was going to happen did happen. I hoped for the better, for other fans.

Yeah, same, anon. A lot of people came in my inbox about the show and told me I was wrong not to give it a chance, but there was no way I was signing up to be shit on again even if I had ever thought for one second they might give me anything I wanted for Loki in the first place. Which I didn't, because I knew they were never going to bring back his original characterisation or deal with any of the first film's themes.

#loki #mcu

[frumfrumfroo]

Reading leaks for another massively popular media/cultural institution and it a) threw me back to TROS-era leaks and b) made me wonder how it is that such major productions have the entire story spoilt. Why is this a thing? Spoiler culture really is kind of evil honestly, like stories are just the sum of absolute narrative events in poorly summarised bullet-point.

On the other hand... in a really sad, weird way, it sort of prepares one for disaster. But then you have to wonder if such disasters are a consequence of trying to outsmart the audience/leakers (that literally sound so bad they can't be true).

Sloppy, disorganised productions, especially where people involved in the production are irritated, disgruntled, or don't give a shit because the work environment is awful. Like where things keep changing or lots of reshoots are needed due to poor planning or fickle morons being in charge. JJ's productions are leaky for this reason. He's a goofy hack who runs a loose ship and makes soulless corporate slop.

And this is pretty much a new thing. It's not even that it used to be easier to keep secrets, it's that there didn't used to be this attitude that plot beats were the be-all end-all of what made a story. Traditionally, plays were usually based on stories people already knew, and even if you didn't, they might spoil the entire plot in the first few lines. 'Knowing what happens' was not the point. The point was empathy, catharsis, thematic resonance, and communicating with the audience.

But yeah, it's definitely become so egregious partly because of pop writers increasingly thinking of the audience as the enemy and of 'outsmarting' them as being 'winning'. It all feels dripping in juvenile narcissism. But it's also HUGELY because so many of these modern stories are 'content' which was commissioned based on brand recognition from people working for hire who do not know or care what the source material was about and who have nothing to say except 'look how smart I am'.

A story is always saying something, communication is the whole point of storytelling, but Hollywood has cultivated a media culture where themes are for eighth grade book reports, stories are disposable, and no one expects anything to make sense or mean anything as long as it's flashy and has Brand Name on it.

#salt

[frumfrumfroo]

Hi, this is the Disney Strikes again anon. I was referring to the end of Loki season 2. I haven’t watched it, but apparently Loki ends up trapped in a tree and alone forever like a certain someone from 2019. Even the writers doubled down on the fact that he’s TOTALLY ALONE. Yet, folks still have hope that they’ll bring Ben Solo back just because Disney’s social media accounts keep mentioning him. And I’m like nah fam it’s bait for the Rey movie they’re getting ready to film. They’re evil, evil.

Yep, they mention him because he's the only iconic, bankable character they managed to create from their stupid cesspit of a trilogy besides BB8, who is a mascot not a character and doesn't seem to have pop culture staying power even on that level.

And as for the Loki show... like, I can't tell you how unsurprised I am. I said 'wtf' out loud to myself at 'trapped in a tree' but I'm not fucking surprised. And of course they would go on the internet to clarify that it's the worst possible version of whatever bullshit and not let the fans even have a chance to pretend the bleakest interpretation wasn't the intended one.

We MUST know how pointless, depressing, and hopeless fucking Disney, an empire built on fairy tales and the magic of storytelling, has decided all stories need to be now.

#mcu

[frumfrumfroo]

Welp, Disney strikes again.

This could be referring to any number of things.

#evil empire gonna evil