i love the new pjo tv show don't get me wrong but i feel like it's missing the like, campiness of the original? that got translated pretty well into the musical but honestly 2-3 lines of witty dialogue per episode isn't really getting the original Ridiculousness of the book across.
like it's been pointed out that they seem to immediately know & recognize every myth they encounter, which is part of it, but like...episode 7 in particular made me sigh a lot because they cut so much of the humor! things like annabeth just immediately training cerberus to stay put and them bald-face lying to Charon that they are all dead, actually, they drowned in a bathtub. Together. it was such a nice like, breather before they get into the Very Serious Underworld Scenes and instead...nope, just more ACTION.
and they took out stuff in other episodes that made the tone lighter-things like percy and annabeth getting grossed out by the mirrors in the tunnel of love ride, the dam snack bar jokes, grover eating cans, them playing around in the lotus hotel, etc. i feel like half the fun of the original books was that, at any given conflict, the main characters were either going to sword fight their way out or completely bullshit their way out in the most convoluted ridiculous way possible. which was hilarious and also suspenseful-is percy going to pick up riptide, or is he going to start talking baseball? and them giving impassioned dialogue all the time instead of goofing around a bit just weighs down the whole tone of the show.
i feel like the show is very action-adventure whereas the original book was more of an adventure romp. i also feel like with the new heaviness that's come with multiple POVs (like seeing percy and sally's backstory) the show would really benefit from like, sad shot of sally and poseidon talking then BOOM cut to percy complaining about getting sand on his favorite pair of jeans while on the beach with ares. or something else.
64 notes
·
View notes
so I might be having a blast playing Rebirth, but I'm still thinking Octo2 stuff, and just realized bc of the Dolcinaea fight I could see the weaknesses for every character (except Agnea) and since I can turn just about any random detail into a "hmm, does this mean anything" thought exercise, here's some observations (minor story spoilers):
Throne, Osvald, and Partitio have the fewest weaknesses at 3. This makes sense for Throne and Osvald (professional thief/assassin raised to be a thief/assassin, Throne can't have any openings if she hopes to survive; Osvald relied on his keen observation to Shawshank Redemption himself out of prison, so of course he'd have fewer openings bc he's always keeping an eye on things around him). But Partitio surprised me--although it does make some sense, he had to keep his wits about him to become the best merchant in Oresrush, and he's wicked smart (honestly, Ori's the only one who ever seems able to genuinely sneak up on him, and that makes sense given that she's, y'know, Ori).
Hikari has no weaknesses to weapons of any sort, and only has elemental weaknesses as a result. He is not weak to light or dark though (a reference to Shadow's Hold/Light's Radiance or else his bloodlines perhaps?). On the flipside Osvald has no weaknesses to elements and only weaknesses to weapons (all the weapons he's weak to--polearms, daggers, and bows--are "ranged" in some sense, suggesting his magic maybe makes it impossible to get close enough to attack him).
Throne and Temenos continue to act as foils to each other, with Throne having only one elemental weakness to light, and Temenos having only one elemental weakness to dark. Throne's only two weapon weaknesses are axes and bows, which sort of makes sense (either someone has to get close enough to strike her quickly or they have to attack from a very far distance to get the drop on her; there are also interestingly the hunter's base weapon set, so the only way to stop a thief is to hunt them; also there's a ranged bow counter to her close-range sword and a close-range axe counter to her ranged dagger). Temenos's weapon weaknesses include swords, daggers, and axes, which are interestingly all "close range" weapons to some degree (Temenos never lets anyone get too close to him emotionally, so it makes sense the only way to actually harm him would be to "get close" to him; swords and daggers are also the thief's base weapon set, and given how much assassination goes on in his story, it makes sense he too would be vulnerable to Throne's trade weapons).
Partitio's only elemental weakness is ice (makes sense given how arid his hometown is). He has a weakness to swords and staves, both close range weapons to contrast the longer-ranged polearm and bow weapons he uses.
Castti's only weapon weakness are bows (a long-range contrast to her shorter-ranged axe), but her elemental weaknesses are what's really interesting. She has a weakness to fire (this makes sense, given that she has an ice-based skill, and a lot of water symbolism in her story arc), but also wind and dark--the two key elements needed to create and spread the purple rain that nearly killed her.
Ochette's the only character with a balance of two weapon weaknesses and two elemental weaknesses: polearms and staves (a longer-ranged weapon to counter her short-ranged axe, and a close-ranged weapon to counter her long-ranged bow); and fire and wind (wind makes sense given that it's the usual weakness to thunder, which is the only elemental attack she has access to in her base skillset, but her weakness to fire is more interesting--is it because she lives in a forest, which are historically susceptible to fires? or because she lives surrounded by water, and fire is the natural opposite?)
Hikari is the only character weak the thunder, just as Throne and Temenos are the only characters weak to light and dark respectively. The other major elements all have two travelers weak to them: Ochette and Castti to fire, Partitio and Hikari to ice, and Castti and Hikari to wind.
Likewise, every weapon is strong against at least two characters, with the exception of bows which are strong against three characters. Swords: Partitio and Temenos, Polearms: Ochette and Osvald, Daggers: Osvald and Temenos, Axes: Throne and Temenos, Bows: Castti, Throne, and Osvald, Staves: Ochette and Partitio.
I dunno if there's any significance to the pattern of: every weapon is strong against two characters except one is strong against three, and every element is strong against two characters except for three elements that are only strong against one character each. But it is some fancy balancing for as far as numbers go.
Anyhow I wasn't going anywhere with this, these were just some interesting observations I wanted to jot down instead of going to bed like I should have half an hour ago.
51 notes
·
View notes
honestly, the absurdity is that Chibnall (and co) shouldn't get any props for just sticking Dhawan in 13's costume in tpotd (I sincerely doubt it's something that even went to the showrunner as an active question?? The scene was him regenerating into her body that was at the time wearing that outfit. You literally wouldn't assume he'd be wearing anything Else other than what was on the body in question to start with because of 60 years of precedent. I imagine that the costume department's only decision was to make 13's costume in a bigger size so he wouldn't hulk out of it).
There was no boundary pushing or much of Anything going on there at all, it was just plain logic. And even aside from the fact that it was just a consequence to an effect, They just had a man wear a slightly silly looking costume made of pants, boots, a t-shirt and a coat. which is not notable. Men wear those all the time.
It's absurd that i'm sitting here irritated that the above is getting a pat on the back when it is an entirely neutral thing that means exactly nothing. And while I am more than aware why the above thing is getting such treatment, it's still not notable as an action at all, up to the point that i I strongly doubt it was even a conscious decision by the production. A conscious decision and an active sequence of choices here would have been Not doing it. Which is what people are really talking about here anyway.
20 notes
·
View notes
At the bus stop one time there was a gaggle of preschoolers waiting to catch the bus for a field trip day, and someone walked past with a couple of friendly little dogs, to great general delight.
But after a little bit, the dogs were getting overwhelmed, and the preschoolers were gently coaxed to back off so the person with the dogs could continue on. Specifically, one of the preschool teachers said, "Sometimes, when you're small, being surrounded by big people can be a bit scary and overwhelming. Even if they are friendly."
This was recieved as great wisdom: after all, the preschoolers were also small, and understood how scary and overwhelming big people could be! And the dogs were indeed even smaller than the preschoolers, so it made sense.
What was funny and charming was that, upon absorbing and reflecting on this wisdom, they all felt the need to tell it to one another. In tones of great insight, they turned to one another and said, "Did you know? Sometimes when you are small, being surrounded by big people can be scary and overwhelming! Even if they are friendly!" Back and forth, without any particular concern that they were all saying the same thing. Have reached comprehension of an insight, it must be shared!
I must say that this behavior is less charming in tumblr users than in preschoolers. Not least because tumblr users, having gained a little analytical skill to misuse, insist on Summarizing and Generalizing and Unifying the insights they repeat, quickly turning any interesting new information into formulaic dogmatic mush.
13 notes
·
View notes