Selfishly thinking that Orion could be persuaded to act in one of the band music video. Just once.
Anyway, go play @infamous-if cause it’s amazing!
Little bonus, I put the rambly scenario that sprouted these under the cut in case you wanna know more 🤷♀️
It’s got to be a team effort and a chore to get Orion on board but somehow they manage to convince him in the end(cause he got a soft spot). In my head the idea was Violet and Rowan’s, Iris jumped right in cause it sounded fun and then Jazzy and Devyn joined in. Chris tagged along too cause heck yeah. They all come up with a list of pros and cons cause they know that Orion will fight against it, but thanks to Devyn they come up with sound and logical enough reasons. Rowan and Violet do the presentation and after a lot of debate, Orion accept in the end to everyone (and his own) disbelief. The video is a success, the views count gets higher and half the comment are about Orion.The band tease him relentlessly and Orion swears never again. The end.
330 notes
·
View notes
Bolts upright from my bed
In an AU where Pharma lives the Adaptus thing and comes back on the Lost Light, wouldn't he find out that the crew had to deal with being cornered and nearly killed by the DJD and a bunch of other Decepticons?
And then Pharma could get to be like "oh I see :) you were under threat by the DJD :))) why didn't you just run? Oh you couldn't and had no means of escape? Funny :)))) didn't you call for help? Oh you did right??? And did anyone come???? :)))))) did anyone come in time to save you from the DJD????? DID THEY????? DID YOU JUST CALL FOR HELP AND RUN AWAY AND THE DJD JUST LET YOU GO????? :))))))))))) OH THE DJD BLOCKED COMMUNICATIONS AND HAD YOU SURROUNDED????? OH HOW TRAGIC I GUESS YOU COULDN'T ESCAPE AFTER ALL AND A LOT OF YOUR FRIENDS DIED :)))))))))))))))) AND THE ONLY REASON YOU WON WAS BECAUSE YOU HAD A LOT OF SUPERPOWERFUL FIGHTERS ON YOUR SIDE???? WOW IMAGINE WHAT MIGHT'VE HAPPENED IF YOU HAD NO FRIENDS AND BARELY ANY MILITARY SUPPORT AND THE DJD CAME HUH??? WOW WHAT A RELIEF THAT DIDNT HAPPEN"
-
In other words, I'm pretty much convinced that the reason Pharma is remembered as "the evil cowardly doctor that murdered innocents to save his own skin" instead of "the Autobot that got mindbroken by Tarn into thinking that making a plague and killing everyone was his only way to escape" is because he got introduced before the DJD were established as a pants-shittingly evil and sadistic group of freaks, and unlike Rodimus' crew he didn't have the luxury of being a main character whose thoughts and experiences were shown on screen. Pretty much his reputation as "crazy token evil Autobot" was sealed from MTMTE #5 and by the time MTMTE #50-something brought Dying of the Light, Pharma was a footnote in the story and never got to have this new information about the terror of the DJD factored into his own character.
28 notes
·
View notes
An argument over whether or not Dan Heng is Dan Feng seems to have begun getting sparked again in certain parts of the Fandom and it does nothing but hurt my head to no end
Both sides cherrypicking or treating it like a strange situation, making false equivalents. "Yknow governments don't consider people who've lost their memories to be separate people" that's a flawed argument to use in favorite of DH = DF because it's not just he lost his memories. He literally grew up, experienced his own childhood, had a whole identity cultivated based on those experiences and that life and continues to live his own life. To treat the situation like it's just him getting a bit of amnesia is wild to me
But also I hate when people continue to insist he's running from Dan Feng and his past and how he's miserable and shouldn't ever confront the past and deal with it as if his and Blade's whole stories aren't centered around rebirth and karma, paying for your past life's karma. He needed to confront the past to ensure a freer future! He literally has!! And he will continue to do so because he realizes this, DH isn't dumb and he's grown since we first saw him. He understands
But yeah uh I'm so tired
This whole thing feels very Ship of Theseus. What makes the ship what it is, the physical aspects of its planks, its sailing history, or both?
For him, the question is what makes someone who they are? Is it the body that makes them up and any inherent genetic factors (like traits)? Is it their experiences, how they've grown up, and the identity they've developed in that time? Or is it both factors mixed together?
Personally in the case of Dan Heng, I think it's both! Yeah he has a lot of traits from Dan Feng. There's a lot inherently there. But we can't disregard his own experiences and the identity that has formed based on his history and what he's seen.
Again I can't stress this enough... It is a false equivalent to compare him to people who lose their memories or get amnesia, he didn't just lose those memories. He started life from the beginning, a whole different kind of life. And even then, the amnesia topic comes with its own debates. Isn't there a whole other thought experiment regarding someone put to trial who ends up with amnesia and what their verdict should be?
I guess in the end, it's all up to people's own philosophical beliefs after what constitutes a person. My personal belief that DH and DF will always be connect but the separation between them is also meaningful is something based on my own ideas of what consisitutes a person and their individual identity, similar situation with how I see Rukkhadevata and Nahida as connected but still not the same person exactly. At the end of the day again, it's personal beliefs
But what I can't stand and can't stand by, is someone acting all high and mighty like they're perfectly right and everyone else is wrong, especially when they're cherrypicking or not holding all their evidence to the same standard. According to some ppl, apparently it's better in the CN fandom where instead of treating it like "I'm right you're wrong" people have divided themselves into "DF and DH one person" and "DF and DH two people" groups and most importantly of all, they treat both like theories and just keep to their space and tag which they believe when it's relevant. Why can't we just do that? Why can't we follow in their footsteps instead of bringing up this argument every so often with the same tired flaws from both sides?
23 notes
·
View notes
Margaret of Anjou’s visit to Coventry [in 1456], which was part of her dower and that of her son, Edward of Lancaster, was much more elaborate. It essentially reasserted Lancastrian power. The presence of Henry and the infant Edward was recognised in the pageantry. The ceremonial route between the Bablake gate and the commercial centre was short, skirting the area controlled by the cathedral priory, but it made up for its brevity with no fewer than fourteen pageants. Since Coventry had an established cycle of mystery plays, there were presumably enough local resources and experience to mount an impressive display; but one John Wetherby was summoned from Leicester to compose verses and stage the scenes. As at Margaret’s coronation the iconography was elaborate, though it built upon earlier developments.
Starting at Bablake gate, next to the Trinity Guild church of St. Michael, Bablake, the party was welcomed with a Tree of Jesse, set up on the gate itself, with the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah explaining the symbolism. Outside St. Michael’s church the party was greeted by Edward the Confessor and St. John the Evangelist; and proceeding to Smithford Street, they found on the conduit the four Cardinal Virtues—Righteousness (Justice?), Prudence, Temperance, and Fortitude. In Cross Cheaping wine flowed freely, as in London, and angels stood on the cross, censing Margaret as she passed. Beyond the cross was pitched a series of pageants, each displaying one of the Nine Worthies, who offered to serve Margaret. Finally, the queen was shown a pageant of her patron saint, Margaret, slaying the dragon [which 'turned out to be strictly an intercessor on the queen's behalf', as Helen Maurer points out].
The meanings here are complex and have been variously interpreted. An initial reading of the programme found a message of messianic kingship: the Jesse tree equating royal genealogy with that of Christ had been used at the welcome for Henry VI on his return from Paris in 1432. A more recent, feminist view is that the symbolism is essentially Marian, and to be associated with Margaret both as queen and mother of the heir rather than Henry himself. The theme is shared sovereignty, with Margaret equal to her husband and son. Ideal kingship was symbolised by the presence of Edward the Confessor, but Margaret was the person to whom the speeches were specifically addressed and she, not Henry, was seen as the saviour of the house of Lancaster. This reading tips the balance too far the other way: the tableau of Edward the Confessor and St. John was a direct reference to the legend of the Ring and the Pilgrim, one of Henry III’s favourite stories, which was illustrated in Westminster Abbey, several of his houses, and in manuscript. It symbolised royal largesse, and its message at Coventry would certainly have encompassed the reigning king. Again, the presence of allegorical figures, first used for Henry, seems to acknowledge his presence. Yet, while the message of the Coventry pageants was directed at contemporary events it emphasised Margaret’s motherhood and duties as queen; and it was expressed as a traditional spiritual journey from the Old Testament, via the incarnation represented by the cross, to the final triumph over evil, with the help of the Virgin, allegory, and the Worthies. The only true thematic innovation was the commentary by the prophets.
[...] The messages of the pageants firmly reminded the royal women of their place as mothers and mediators, honoured but subordinate. Yet, if passive, these young women were not without significance. It is clear from the pageantry of 1392 and 1426 in London and 1456 in Coventry that when a crisis needed to be resolved, the queen (or regent’s wife) was accorded extra recognition. Her duty as mediator—or the good aspect of a misdirected man—suddenly became more than a pious wish. At Coventry, Margaret of Anjou was even presented as the rock upon which the monarchy rested. [However,] a crisis had to be sensed in order to provoke such emphasis [...]."
-Nicola Coldstream, "Roles of Women in Late Medieval Civic Pageantry," "Reassessing the Roles of Women as 'Makers' of Medieval Art and Culture"
10 notes
·
View notes
logan sanders is an inherently idealistic and kindhearted person dedicated to helping others. he is critical about societal issues and stays informed but does not become cynical, instead deciding to love the world while also not being complacent. he is a good person and i care him very much. in this essay i will-
184 notes
·
View notes