sorry for being active
logical... i think I'm annoying you too much /especially with my bad English/, and if you don't want to answer, that'll be fine ^^` in any case, thanks for your attention! i'm probably overthinking this, but...
the last question was, what is Crippled (and the others for that matter) afraid of? I understand that all the hounds lived in a pretty terrible place, but what about simple, almost human things like darkness and loneliness? Surama seems quite fearless to me, despite her dislike of the dark, unlike her brother (okay, he's just quite active), and Iacar is reliving the past. of course, they worry about each other, I think, but... hey, admit it, who is afraid of thunderstorms? :)
sorrysorrysorry ^^`
English isn't my first language either (terveisiä Suomesta). It's just that I'm wary.
I do not currently live in a creative enough environment nor life situation where I can reasonably sacrifice several days out of my week into such a demanding creative work, alone, without burning out.
And every time I so much as casually mention Wurr online, there's usually at least one person who'll come and let me know how tragic it is that I've "decided" to "abandon" my "great story and characters". (Or, in one case, how irrelevant and pathetic I am as a failure of a person. Fuck that one, though.)
Like, I had a bit of a nervous breakdown because of health and livelihood issues back in last spring that I'm still occasionally dealing with (one's systolic blood pressure is definetely not supposed to stay over 190 for long), and I just don't want to be dealing with the people sending me obituaries for my comic on top of that right now.
Like, maybe, maybe, if I one day move closer to Tampere to have my Brainstorm Buddy in my reach regularly again. I miss having creative company.
But right now? I'm just tired.
21 notes
·
View notes
Have chef eat creek in front of gristle (and branch) so he can see what "true" happiness looks like or have creek try and bargain with chef for her to let him go and in return he'll "help" the others stay positive so they don't turn gray and inedible
Ignoring that first part, what I currently have for the movie is thus:
Things happen as in canon, but with no bunker, Peppy leads the Trolls away from their former village after Chef's attack. Poppy leaves for Bergentown regardless, and some Trolls leave a trail of sorts so she can find everyone once she's saved her friends (it's unspoken but pretty much every Troll is certain that Poppy will obviously manage to save her friends! She's Poppy!!!).
Poppy makes it to Bergentown, meets Cloud Guy before entering the tunnels, and it's all hunky dory as she makes her way to the castle. In said castle, Chef has arrived and is already working her manipulation muscles. And surely, with Trolls in her deck, she's got this game in the bag!
Except. Well. Branch. I still need to work out all the little intervening details, but Branch is pretty obviously going to be an opposing force to the lady that ate his grandmother. So Gristle finds himself with two different people trying to catch his ear and direct his path, and has to figure out who to listen to.
Poppy makes it into the castle, but her timing is slightly off; her Hug Timer goes off before she gets anywhere near the cage Chef is keeping the Snack Pack in, so that cage ends up being taken by Bridget without Poppy ever seeing. As a result, she takes to exploring the castle in greater depth, running into Branch in the process.
While Branch and Poppy are having their little philosophical argument, Bridget is interacting with the Trolls she's suddenly found herself in charge of. It's hard not to, when they look so much like the Prince, and one thing leads to another as she semi-intentionally recruits the Snack Pack to help her out, which ends with Lady Glittersparkles. There's no Poppy here, so whether Bridget intentionally sets out looking for a date with the King or whether she's helping the Trolls with something else and happens upon King Gristle is undecided. I'm leaning towards the latter, though.
So Poppy's poking around the castle while Bridget and Gristle are going on their first date. I still need to figure out a lot of the intervening details, but the current plan is that she and Branch reconvene with the Snack Pack at just the right time and place for Chef to spring her trap. She singles Branch out and "disposes" of him, though indirectly—throwing him down a garbage chute or similar after trapping him in a jar or the like.
The lack of the bunker works in Chef's favor, it turns out, because she's able to find the trail that the Trolls left for Poppy. She and her sous chefs return to Bergentown with full fannypacks, and Poppy blames herself for everything. If only she hadn't thrown such a loud party, if only she had been faster in getting to Bergentown, if only she had found her friends sooner, if only her people didn't leave a trail for her sake (not her fault but she blames herself for it anyway), if if if. She goes gray, and the rest of the Trolls in the pot follow.
Meanwhile, Branch manages to narrowly escape the mortal peril Chef cast him to, through a bit of help from Bridget, who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Or he escapes on his own and crosses paths with Bridget after?? I'm leaning towards the former, though. But, because of Branch and Bridget crossing paths, Bridget doesn't make it in time to be the scullery maid entrusted with bringing the pot into the banquet hall; Chef assigns one of her sous chefs to do it instead. Or another scullery maid.
So Chef undoes the latches on the pot, ready to seize her victory and truly reestablish her political power in Bergentown...
Except all the Trolls within are gray. Inedible. The people are ready to riot, Chef is trying to find some way to salvage the situation, and King Gristle assumes responsibility as King. Chef moves to capitalize on this, to shift the blame off of herself—
Enter Bridget, Branch in hand. Branch goes off on Chef for the attempted regicide, and adds in the fact that she's untrustworthy by pointing out that she used to often flaunt the rules concerning when Trolls could be eaten—his grandmother wasn't eaten on Trollstice, after all. Chef retorts by bringing attention to the fact that Branch is a Troll, trying to discredit him herself.
I still need to work out how, exactly, Poppy gets involved in the scene, but the goal is as such: Branch sings for the first time since Rosiepuff's death, and a three-way harmony of sorts between him, Gristle, and Poppy ensues. Current top contender for the song in question is "Soap" by The Oh Hellos. Color returns to the Trolls, to Branch, and then the Snack Pack reveals that Bridget was Lady Glittersparkles and the rest of the finale plays out pretty much how it did in canon.
Well, there is one difference. Poppy's speech about happiness is more focused on pointing out the pride and fulfillment that Bergens can find in the things that they love, and though it boils down to a similar "you don't need to eat a Troll to be happy" it's just a tiny bit more nuanced than how the movie presented it; happiness comes in many forms and the happiness that comes from eating a Troll may be intense, but it's empty nonetheless.
7 notes
·
View notes
i always thought artificer was irredeemable - even with everything from this world being able to come back from the dead it still attempted genocide of the scavengers. and sure, i'm not saying that others can't like arti (in fact i do like them and their story) or write a redemption arc, they can have their fun that way. but i don't want to be guilted into thinking otherwise
I don't like to terms like 'irredeemable' on animals, even more sentient/intelligent (and fake) ones. Artificer is absolutely expressing unchecked hostility, but ultimately its still in the form of a creature reacting to its own trauma with aggression and, as a more intelligent being, with spite. Slugcats (and scavengers) are at their core not meant to be stand-ins for humans, and I think that there is a tendency for fandom (and humans with other 'smart animals') to correlate intelligence/sentience with at least somewhat of an obligation to conform to human morals. As a biologist who's a fan of wasps, I know how much people tend to project a need for human reasoning and morals onto creatures who literally could not comprehend it nor would want to. Hell, on an individual basis, even humans disagree on where things like that do and don't apply.
Do I think Artificer is good? Hell no, I said myself that I think they're something so violently consumed by their own grief and anger that on a literally spiritual level they have damaged themselves beyond reasonable repair. I think you need to be pretty uniquely fucked up and far gone to achieve that in such a level that it's literally scarred your own karma. I guess I think they are irredeemable in that sense, but mostly on a more meta level referring to their actual ability to recover vs. a moral one. The narrative of the story certainly condemns their actions pretty heavily in what is, effectively, a form of divine punishment- a complete and total inability to find peace in the form of proper ascension no matter what they do now. I feel that even if they threw away their grievances and just lived with Five Pebbles forever they would be unhappy and restless, just stuck with a permanent stain they wish they could ignore because it was an itch they scratched entirely through violence.
But in that same sense I don't think the scavengers are uniquely, humanly evil for killing a slugpup for stealing just because they are also an intelligent creature with the capacity for culture and understanding. I believe the scavengers fully understood they were attacking the equivalent of a slugcat child, and they did not care. That did not matter to them, because they are just naturally very selfish unless they have reason to believe youre on their side already, and even then they aren't above violence due to personal grievance. They killed Artificer's pup because it violated a rule it couldn't have known was a rule, and its unfair that it died for it, but I don't think it makes the scavengers evil for it in the same way I don't fault a lion for attacking the weak or young of a herd, or a bee for stinging.
I mean hell, even the scavengers themselves do it- They attack anything they perceive as threats, and will send squads to eliminate ones they think are particularly significant, even going out of their way to track them down. Sure, this is the a result of the creature already harming them- but Artificer was harmed. They were originally fleeing in their dreams. You could say it's different because Scavengers only target the one, but they already have a natural hostility to some slugcats and slugcats are generally independent (although its worth noting that slugpups pay for their parents' crimes by sharing reputation)- scavengers are not. They're all animals, they do what they perceive to be in their best interests, even if they perceive their best interest to be going out of their way to fight. The Ancients are the closest we have to a society with established morals in Rain World, and their favorite pastime was advanced genetic modification and disrupting ecosystems. It seems a little silly (to me) to be hung up on if any of these things are 'good' in that sense.
17 notes
·
View notes