#sure we all have our own interpretations of the film. but no one has disagreed with the main themes n shit

[rockets-and-raccoons]

I'm never gonna be able to take the 'hundreds of people can never agree on anything' plot device seriously ever again thanks to Goncharov (1973).

#sure we all have our own interpretations of the film. but no one has disagreed with the main themes n shit #goncharov 1973 #goncharov #martin scorsese #unreality

[musingsofalovelymillenial]

Final thoughts before Dead Friend Forever finale

Long Post! 

As we approach the finale of  Dead Friend Forever I want to make sure to say all my final thoughts about this show and one of the things I love the most is the ability for this show to change how I feel about characters and the psychological aspects attributed to the characters. I respect all opinions regarding characters and their actions and I think honestly one of the best parts of dissecting a show with fellow fans is that we all have perspectives based on how we interpret what we see and even how our own lives may affect how we receive certain characters and we can always agree to disagree while remaining respectful of each other and I think when that happens it makes the overall fan experience better.  Before I get into any final predictions I want to break down my personal feelings regarding each character. Also shout out to ( I can’t find the post to tag the person who originally posted about this) I am glad that there was a discussion regarding the want for death and revenge because the genre of horror and the escape from our own reality allows for us to indulge in the justice of the group getting what they deserve because I think that is what makes horror or even psychological based media intriguing is the intrinsic look we have at our own morals and ultimately what we think of justice, morality and how we view human behavior. 

Characters:

Por: Por is not only a bully but a rich bully. We see that he has been taught he is above other people based on his parents actions and he is very aware that his status allows him access to things that would not be possible to other people. We see Por use his status many times to keep him at the social top of the group's inter hierarchy as well as a way to control others ( Non with the camera/script). Por is I think a character that people instantly recognize in that for many people (not all) he represents the quintessential rich kid whose life seems easy, he has it all but he also represents the deeper societal classism and advantages/privileges that wealth brings. Por is a character that lacks emotional empathy, he has a sense of entitlement, we as an audience see that he is pressured to live up to his parents expectations of him, and he is self centered to the point of narcissism. Por’s only genuine connections are with his friends; they are the people he has chosen to connect with and to be around. When we see the script getting praise and winning the contest Por is thrilled because it not only reflects well on him but is something he can use to his advantage and also given that he wants to direct it he is very protective of something he considers his. We see this two different times; once when they are all eating after winning the hidden character when they exclude Non and also in the way he discusses the film with his parents. Por deeply desires for something to be his outside of his parents ( we see his face when Fluke/Top mention that his parents bought peoples views/the news about the film). This desire is quite frankly the reason I believe he was so over the top with Non in many instances. Non not only threatened Por’s position in the group should the group like his script and ideas more but on a larger scale if anyone were to find out especially his parents that this film being praised was not his original work then everything he has built comes tumbling down and not only does it leave him with negative feelings regarding his ability to be a director or to accomplish something but it also derives him of his parents approval and what he may view as their love ( since we have seen how quick his father was to try and hit him for the camera and that he clearly is expected to behave a certain way). For someone like Por there is nothing else that matters to him than those things which is why he has no problem treating Non the way he does; as a bully. Por is also a prime example of someone who was only sorry for his actions toward someone else when it came at personal cost and risk to him. Por never apologizes or feels bad for anything that happens to Non only how they are inconvenienced and then when he is dying and injured it is the only time he expresses any type of guilt. Too many people in real life feel that way, that they only worry about apologizing either when they are dying or it's the last resort. I am not surprised that Por was the first friend to die and narratively it makes sense that his suffering was not over quickly, that it dragged on because that is exactly the role he had in Non’s life. He dragged on Non’s suffering so within the genre of this show Por got not only what he deserved but like mirroring real life too often people who should be apologizing seldom do. 

Top: Top for me is an interesting character in the fact that he is not interesting. We know almost nothing about his background. He is friends with the group, he is the first one to directly on screen make fun of Non, he is superstitious, he seems to be varying levels of close to Tee, Por and Fluke comparatively to Jin and at times he seems to be even too much for his friends. Top is a character that does not need an in-depth background because he is meant to represent the more basic sense that sometimes people are just crappy but I think in the beginning he is also meant to represent the more underdeveloped side of teenagers as well. Top wants to be center stage, he wants attention but he is also a bully who lacks emotional maturity and to be honest I think he represents action without thoughts of consequences ( impulsivity and shortsightedness). Top does not think of his actions with the camera and has no problem immediately trying to shift the blame to another person, he does not stop at all to consider how sharing the picture of Non and Keng that Tee had would impact not only their group but also Non/Non’s family. His self centered absorption and view of their actions much like Por shows that Top is also only worried about himself and only cares about others if it is a direct threat to him. Making fun of Non gives him not only power but makes him feel better about himself and it puts him on equal ground with those in his social group ( peer acceptance). Top becoming a victim who takes on the identity of the masked person and then through the drugs actively is attacking the group makes sense because his entire identity IS the group and in terms of punishing him and the group for their deeds toward Non who better to attack the group than the one person who seemingly has nothing of substance to him but this group.

Fluke: Fluke is the epitome of a bystander but also he, much like Top does not seem to have a life outside the group. I think Fluke shares a lot of qualities with several members of the group. Fluke wants to be a doctor and make his mom proud but other than that we are only left with what he can infer about him through his behavior. Fluke definitely seems like someone who stays friends with this group because as long as he is friends with them he will not end up like Non and can also reap any potential benefits from his association with the group. Fluke, anytime he is presented with an opportunity to stand up for Non or do the right thing; he does not. He clearly has anxiety, high expectations and just wants to keep his head down and get through. Fluke’s behavior is quite telling in that I wholeheartedly believe he is the one that shared Jin’s video since he is the only other person besides Jin who even knew about Jin’s recording. I myself, like a lot of people I assume, are asking why Fluke is even friends with this group if they have graduated high school and while valid I think we are given this answer directly through his bystander behavior and that is without this group he would be alone and friendless like Non. I think deep down Fluke is desperate to do anything that in his mind safeguards him from both being taken advantage of but also being bullied and still allows him social ties.  For Fluke the risk helping Non would pose to the group and his position within their dynamics was not great enough for Fluke to be self-sacrificing or decent person. This overall threat or perceived threat from Fluke is enough for him to cut off an escape route for the group. Fluke ultimately believes because he did not actively and directly bully Non that he is better than everyone else and therefore not responsible. In many ways Fluke is voyeuristic in his approach. He watches but doesn’t act, he uploaded the video but didn’t record it, he is part of the group but does not actually interact himself with Non and therefore in his mind is not in the wrong simply because he did not initiate it and it is everyone else’s fault for getting him involved. Within this show I believe Fluke will die and I think it is only fitting that it will be 100% due to his choices and the consequences of those choices. He caused Por to bleed more to silence him, he yelled, threatened and had White at gunpoint, he destroyed the walkie-talkie and he shot Top. Fluke actively switched from being a bystander to an active participant and he can no longer blame the group or by extension Non for what will happen to him. He has been consumed with the idea of others being the problem or not wanting his idea of a perfect life getting ruined when in reality the reason all of those things will happen are his own fault; he is his own undoing. 

Continued in Post Part 2

#dead friend forever #dff the series #barcode tinnasit #be on cloud #copper phuriwat #dff spoilers #fuaiz thanawat #jj chalach #jjay patiphan #mio athens #bump pawat #us nititorn #jet jetsadakorn #ta nannakun #dff theory #dff meta #dff series

[papercherries]

Interpretation and AI

In an essay by Susan Sontag (you'll have to forgive me for not remembering which one (it's either Against Interpretation, On Photography or Regarding The Pain of Others. Though I'm also not 100% sure on that)), she explains an argument the art world has been having for over a century. Is photography/film truly art? Many people have and do believe that because of the nature of the photographic image, it cannot be art because it is objective. It is factual. It's not like a witness statement which can be removed from the truth or a reporter piece which has a sense of hyperbole. It is a cold, hard objective perspective. Sontag then disagrees with this, she view photography and film as an interpretation of something. Her point being, that two people can take a picture of the same thing and have different results.

This crude summary doesn't do the piece justice but it helps me make a point. I agree with Sontag, photography and film are interpretation art, especially when it comes to photography. Film can be moulded and is mailable due to it's theatrical nature (if we ignore experimental film). Therefore it could be described as a theatre art or a narrative art. Where as photography doesn't fill the same boxes, photographs can be staged but in this essence they represent a painting or a drawing. If I were to put it in a rough summary, I'd say films are a continuation of theatre and opera (though I do believe that film is also a continuation of photography/fine art due to the more experimental side of film) and photography is a continuation of the gallery. Fine art and such. Hence why these two mediums usually find themselves in those environments.

Some people, who may have had their head held too close to the wall as a babe, would then say that AI is the next step toward artistic expression. Why, it's not so different from photography! In photography you are just taking something from the real world and capturing it. AI is very similar in that sense. To these people I would express my sincerest apologies, for they have missed the point of photography by such a mile, their arrow has curved the earth and penetrated their own skull. A husk of a person remains, saliva dribbling out of their mouth as they consume their next ration of black steak.

AI cannot produce art, or at least in a way that we express it. The first reason is it's non-communicative. It is not a communication created by a human, it is an amalgamation of centuries of human thought and expression, condensed into a single image. It communicates something in the barest sense of the word, in the same sense that light is reflected from our eyes to make an image. It's only form of communication is the fact it exists. Besides that it is devoid of meaning and soul. It literally can't mean anything because it doesn't consider this.

Secondly, most, if not all the art used in the creation of these poisonous engines, is stolen. For centuries artists have been abused and ripped off, at the moment it is at it's peak. Starving artists fuel the engine because they must, they must upload their art to the internet because it's their revenue. Some of them draw pornographic images that couldn't have existed 10 years ago and some of them make graceful crochet bags and socks. The internet has been the most liberating invention for the modern day artist, but it has also been it's crown of thorns.

Finally, AI art can't be an interpretation. This is to say it is always as literal as it can be. If you were to give an AI a prompt, it would try to create the closest thing possible. If you tell a person to take a photo of a dog, the results will be different every time because of the interpretive nature of humans. The millions of factors that play into what goes into a picture of a dog being taken. Is the dog outside? Is it sunny? What's the dog doing? What type of dog is it? But most importantly, who is taking the photo? where do they like to point their lens? Do they like to leave dead space? Where do they want the dog in the image? What is the most aesthetically pleasing placement of the dogs nose? Do I even want to take a picture of this ugly dog? (all dogs are adorable). The point being, an AI can't think like this, it will just churn out the most literal version of what you typed. It has no room for exploration and no room for experimentation. If neither of those existed in art, we would still be stuck with boring portraits and INTERPRETATIONS of biblical events. (Not to say there wasn't experimentation within these genres of art).

Using AI as a tool can be an incredible thing, lessening the amount of labour we have to do is the dream of the future. But it is being pointed in the wrong direction. Without the proper infrastructure, humanity would fall apart if AI were to take over the work force because there would be no support for people who required those jobs. Which we shouldn't have to require, at least not for basic necessities like food, water and shelter. Why that's a radical thing to say is beyond me.

The only way, I'd ever accept AI art is if AI becomes sentient. But then we would have to consider what that means for the human race. We would be creating something smarter than ourselves. Releasing it onto the world, it would be like a teenager experiencing the true world for the first time. AI doesn't have time to build character. We don't live in a kind enough world to allow a powerful sentient species to grow. Let alone, an powerful sentient AI.

#creative writing #spilled thoughts #writing #AI #photography #filmmaking #essay #susan sontag

[a-froger-epic]

Get out your glitter leotards and pour some champagne in your cat mugs! 🥂 🍾 It’s time to celebrate Freddie! 🎉😸

🎊 Freddie Mercury Weekend 2021 🎊

❤️ 🧡 💛 💚 💙 💜

ABOUT THE EVENT

This weekend is a content creation event in honour of the man himself, the legend we all love, Freddie Mercury! Once more, everyone who is inspired by Freddie is invited to share their creativity with the fandom. You can write, draw, edit, record, even cross-stitch 😉 content for absolutely anything related to Freddie, any ship, any genre, any way you like. This is an indiscriminately inclusive, positive event. Everyone is welcome, there is no wrong way to be a fan of Freddie! (Except convincing yourself you're dating his ghost maybe. That's pretty wrong. And weird. Don't do that.)

WHEN? On the 21st, 22nd and 23rd of May.

HOW? On the above dates (or after!), post your contributions to the AO3 collection or alternatively on Tumblr, tagged ‘#fmw2021’ or/and ‘#freddie mercury weekend 2021’. If you post on Tumblr, please also tag @a-froger-epic to make sure you get a reblog from me!

❤️ 🧡 💛 💚 💙 💜

THE PROMPTS

You can be as free with the prompts as you like. They are here to inspire, there is no wrong way to write them! Change them around, mix them up, make them fem!Freddie, A/B/O, add your favourite ship. Anything goes! 😊

21st of May - 500-1000 word challenge!

We’re kicking off the event with ficlets and drabbles. First time writer just testing the waters? No need for an epic, just write a scene! No time to write but you want to participate? Surely you’ll find time for 500 words! 😉 Interpret these mini-prompts however you like (every one is a separate prompt, but you can combine them!):

Make-Up 💄   |   Pain/Pleasure 👀

Strip 👕   |   Ring 💍

Forbidden 🤫   |   Delilah 🐈

Piano 🎹   |   Dormitory 🛏 

Outrageous 🎉   |   Contentment 😌

Come Together 🎇   |   Ballet 🩰

Piece of Art 🎨   |   Leather 🧥

Cockring 🐔   |   Kimono 👘

Petals 🌸   |   Leotard 🕺🏻

Mustache 🧔   |   Last Time 😔

22nd of May - Is This The Real Life? 

A list of real event/canon timeline prompts from Freddie’s life. How real you want to keep them, however, is entirely up to you!

Down in flames

Freddie is 16 years old when he leaves boarding school. Does it have something to do with the school gardener, Sanjay? Did he flunk his exams or did he not even sit them? Is one thing connected to the other? Does he really find a boyfriend when he goes to stay with his aunt in Mumbai (then Bombay)? Either way, there’s the small matter of his parents finding out about all of it... (Sources: x x )

When Freddie met Kenny

Freddie is a guest on Kenny Everett's radio show in spring 1974. Freddie is living with Mary, Kenny is married. Two gay men, deep in the closet. To no one's surprise, they hit it off immediately. (Source: x )

But when did he? 

At some point during his relationship with Mary, prior to his relationship with David, Freddie had already begun sleeping with men. But how and when did that first happen? Cottaging in London? On tour somewhere in the world? Your guess is as good as ours… 

Flying High

Sex, Drugs and Rock n' Roll. Like all rock bands of their time, Queen doesn’t escape the copious amounts of cocaine in the entertainment industry for long. Somewhere on tour in America, perhaps, Freddie is first introduced to it. Where? How? 

Hide your tears

Jim said that he tried to be strong for Freddie and only cried in private, so as not to burden Freddie with his feelings. But this time, he is found. 

One-liners:

In 1969, Freddie doesn’t know how to cook an egg and neither does Roger (Source: x )

In 1977, Freddie meets Joe while on tour in Boston and starts dating him behind David's back

In 1990, Brian and Freddie work on 'The Show Must Go On' (Source: x )

In a year of your choice, Jim reminisces about his fondest moment(s) with Freddie

In 1976, Freddie and Mary end their relationship 

In 1984, Winnie gives Freddie a wedding ring (middle of the post: x )

In the late 60s, Freddie agrees to model for an Ealing Art School fashion show, but panics and flees the runway (Source: x )

In 1974, Freddie is strip-searched upon arrival in Australia (Source: x )

In 1982, Freddie and Roger go shopping in Amsterdam (Source: x )

In 1978, Freddie swings from a chandelier - naked (Source: x )

23rd of May - Is It Just Fantasy?

A list of AU prompts to spark your imagination. Take them and run with them or change them up, just have fun!

Make your dreams come true

Freddie hasn't been very fortunate in his life, until he finds a very special oil lamp, and rubs it just the right way. 

Beautiful stranger

Freddie meets an alluring stranger at a masquerade ball, who has more secrets than he can hide behind a mask. But Freddie has some of his own. 

Thicker than water 

Freddie agrees to a dreadful fate in order to save his little sister from the very same. Fortunately, he has friends who are more than willing to help him, but can they? Or are they, too, in danger?

Diamonds are a boy's best friend

Freddie is the prized jewel of the court, a skilled belly-dancer and entertainer, but he may also be plotting murder and getting away with it. 

Almost Real

In a distant future, humans have all but done away with face to face interaction. Humanity largely lives online. Children grow up isolated and live with only their families well into young adulthood. Cybersex is the new normal, although some families take a puritanical approach for fear of addiction. One day, impossibly, a real life young man falls through the containment field in Freddie’s back garden. 

One-liners:

This plane is going to crash (Freddie knew there was a reason he hated flying) 

Shipwrecked on an island (Freddie could never bear to be alone, but luckily/unfortunately for him…) 

Hunger Games AU (Freddie is so dead) 

A terrible road accident (Everyone is so dead, or are they?) 

Blind Date AU (Freddie's best friend is so dead for setting him up with this person… or are they…) 

Bank robbery (but who are the robbers and who are the hostages?) 

Magic AU ("Yer a wizard, Freddie!")

Film Noir AU (Secrets and cigarette holders) 

Interior Design AU (Does the carpet match the drapes?)

The Bodyguard AU (“And I will always love yooouuuu…”)

❤️ 🧡 💛 💚 💙 💜

RULES & FAQ

⛔ Strictly No Hate ⛔

This is the NUMBER ONE RULE of the event, to ensure that everybody feels safe. No rudeness, provocations or hate aimed at creators or other commenters will be permitted, not on AO3 nor Tumblr.

Follow these steps if you receive a comment or ask that distresses you:

Do not engage. (You can take a screenshot as proof.)

Delete it. No ifs, no buts. Just delete it. (Don’t hesitate to block anon hate on Tumblr.)

Alert me ( @a-froger-epic ) or @aboutnothingness, who is lending me a hand to make sure all needs are attended, all questions are answered and everything runs smoothly. We are here to actively support you. We’ve got your back, and we will gladly talk to you and help you feel better.

If you choose to ignore this rule, your work may be removed from the event. We would hate to resort to that.

But what if one of the works has upset me?

Can the thing that upset you be tagged, but it wasn’t? Then please inform @a-froger-epic or @aboutnothingness, and we will bring it to the creator’s attention. (Remember to use the appropriate tags, everybody!)

Was the thing that upset you already tagged? Or is it perhaps simply the characterisation you find disagreeable? Then we suggest you click on the ‘back’ button, take a deep breath and remind yourself it's just fanfic.

Who can participate?

Anyone who is inspired by Freddie Mercury in any way shape or form. This event is open to all.

Can I combine prompts from different days?

By all means! We look forward to your futuristic Freddie-gets-kicked-out-of-boarding-school Maycury Film Noir AU. With leotards. Go crazy.

I'm not sure where my creation fits in, what day do I post it? 

The days, like the prompts, are only suggestions. We don't mind when you post it, as long as you post it! Even if it's two weeks late! 

Help, I've never posted fic before! 

Don't worry, we've got you! (And more importantly, we've got AO3 invites!) @aboutnothingness is more than happy to walk you through the process of setting up an account and is also offering her services as a beta.

I’m still too nervous to participate!

You can post anonymously to the collection. You can disable anon comments on your work. You can disable comments entirely and just collect the kudos. You can close anon asks on Tumblr temporarily. But most importantly, we are here for you and we want you here!

❤️ 🧡 💛 💚 💙 💜

“I love the fact that I make people happy, in any form. Even if it’s just half an hour of their lives, in any way that I can make them feel lucky or make them feel good, or bring a smile to a sour face, that to me is worthwhile.”

- Freddie Mercury

#Freddie Mercury Weekend 2021 #FMW2021 #freddiemercuryweekend2021 #fandom event #Queen fandom #Freddie Mercury #it's here! #REBLOG REBLOG REBLO-

[djhedy]

what is canon and should we respect it (a not-essay on aftg fandom)

i want to write an *entire* essay on this but i am between meds right now so exhausted and suffering a HEAT WAVE (uk?? why! we are normally so temperate) and also there's always a risk of sounding patronising when trying to put your opinions/experience across, so i'll try to write briefly and wotnot

what is canon:

"the material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story" or, as we'd probably all put it "wot the author wrote"

why this matters, and why the author matters - our characters wouldn't exist without them

beyond a basic respect for the author, which i would define as like not being a bitch to them (because every human being has feelings, and this is something easily forgotten on the internet), we land on the question "should we respect canon"

well... maybe?

it sort of depends why you're here. the experience of literature/art can be defined a few ways: what the author intended, what the reader experiences, the impact on society.

what nora intended: if you care, she's written a lot of extra content on tumblr. but given that the majority of people who read the books probably won't care enough to find the extra content, this isn't canon. it isn't canon because it isn't in the books of the story. calling it canon is gatekeeping. but it's SUPER FUN and i enjoy seeing what nora's interpretation of her own characters are. thanks nora we luv u.

the impact on society: people get SO UPSET about this question. and it's a reasonable question for sure. art does impact society and vice versa. i just kind of don't think this is the big deal you think it is. people are always hunting for signs of homophobia, sexism, transphobia etc in fandom works. and like... sure, you can do that if you'll enjoy it. this essay isn't really about this, and i don't want to ramble. but aftg is an indie publication. its impact is so insubstantial. maybe chill out. the people who are like AARON IS HOMOPHOBIC BUT ANDREW THE MURDERER IS UWU or, opposite, SETH DESERVED REDEMPTION AND MATT IS ABLEIST - my guys it's a book. these characters are flawed. literature isn't meant to be a pinnacle of morals (unless... it is) and we're supposed to love these characters because they work through their flaws and settle into who they are. are they still dicks at the end? sure! it's fun. not everything has to be light and perfect. and you'll have more fun with art if you stop hunting for homophobes in the fandom of an independent publication with a few thousand readers. that's not how to succeed at the gay agenda. we're on it, i promise.

WHAT THE READER EXPERIENCES: this is the big one! you know when you read a book or watch a film and say "oh wow so it was about THIS, THIS was the important bit!" and someone disagrees? well, they're not wrong and you're not wrong. experience is a whole thing. what someone has experienced in life before they come to the art, what they experience during the art itself. art is a communication from the creator to the audience and that communication is subtle and will be different for *every* single person.

this will upset a lot of people, but it isn't canon that neil is demisexual. the label isn't mentioned once in the books. can it be inferred? ABSOLUTELY. he's demi in all of my fanfics because i personally love it. but nora mentioning it in extra content does not make it canon, in the same way that jkr telling everyone she saw dumbledore as gay after the books, does not make it canon. #theauthorisdead (but let's still be nice to them. ...unless you're jkr. fuck jkr.)

my point is just that canon doesn’t always matter. collectively most of us have decided neil is demi, which is important rep to a lot of people without rep. how sexy of us.

and experience matters. there will be people to whom it's important to write neil as not-very-demi. there will be people to whom it's important to write neil as super ace. be kind to each other.

i've decided i need to add another heading.

WHAT'S THE POINT OF FANFICTION?

to preserve canon? no, because... nora already did that. there's a huge amount of fun to be had trying to write neil and andrew as *accurately* as possible - but this *accuracy* will be different from person to person. because a work of literature is complicated and writing is hard and - individual experience. we've already gone through that. but like, have you ever tried to write andrew's dialogue accurately, the way he speaks like he's half-high half-shakespearean?? it's DIFFICULT. i have tried.

you know what's also fun? experimenting. what would their relationship be like if neil was an alcoholic. what if andrew liked wearing dresses. what if one of them cheated. what if matt died of a drug overdose.

in my head the point of fanfiction is EXPLORATION.

sometimes you're exploring the characters as accurately to your experience of them as possible, sometimes you're adding a new element in to see how they would react. let's be honest, that new element is usually something you're obsessed with in your own life. gender presentation? why people cheat? why people relapse? why relationships break down?

anyway, back to the list.

WHAT'S THE POINT OF FANFICTION?

to dick around and have a nice time? yes.

to work through your own identities/traumas/what have you? probably if you're anything like me and basically everyone i know in the fandom lol.

i think this is everything i want to say.

no wait i lied! final point.

if you've ever studied literature or philosophy the first things they teach you is to question *everything*. for example: what is fanfiction, what is canon, "we have to respect canon" do we??

if you've heard someone using the word "feminisation" to mean "make neil soft uwu", rather than repeating the word, question why it's being used here. what does feminise mean, what does soft mean. maybe you love the dark side to neil, maybe other people like the side of him that can heal.

there's nothing wrong with playing with sexual dynamics and relationship dynamics. sometimes you might be writing something cliched, homophobic, sexist - if you work out you are doing that, maybe stop it. on the other hand lots of couples *do* play out the dynamics of - trousers on in the bedroom, trousers on in the relationship. it's not homophobic to depict a homosexual relationship where one is subby and one is dommy. it exists. so like, chill a little.

and remember you are not always right and everyone is different?

man did i accidentally make this patronising?

woops.

lots of love hedy x

#aftg #fanfic #a whole fucking essay #yes im gay and my gf is sub as shit #it's fucking hilarious #i'm also an ex-lit student and i miss it #be gay do crime #etc #if you're mad at me come tell me #conversation is cool #just be nice to each other plz

[gffa]

OKAY, IF I’M GONNA DO THIS, I’M GONNA DO IT PROPERLY.  WHICH MEANS YEAH IT’S GONNA GET REALLY LONG. A couple of things to say ahead of time:  Lucasfilm’s Story Group has always said CANON > WORD OF GOD when it comes to these matters, so when I quote canon examples from supplementary materials that contradict what he says, that’s LF’s official position, but that doesn’t mean that an influential person like Dave’s views couldn’t affect how things will be shaped in the future, like Deborah Chow listening to this may be influenced by it on the Obi-Wan show, despite that Master & Apprentice contradicts him.  It’s an incredibly murky area!  Mileages are going to vary.   Another thing to keep in mind is that Dave Filoni never worked on The Phantom Menace, that was long, long before his time at Lucasfilm (which I think he joined sometime around 2007? and TPM was released in 1999), that he has worked with George more than probably anyone else, but we cannot and should not treat him as infallible or the True Authority on things, because even Dave himself has said things like: “I mean, I know why I did that and what it means, but I don't like to explain too much. I love for the viewers to watch stuff and come up with their own theories -- and they frankly come up with better things that I intended.”  --Dave Filoni, Entertainment Tonight 2020 interview Or, in the same episode as the above Qui-Gon interpretation:

So, when I dig into this, I’m not doing this out of a sense of malice or even that I suddenly hate Dave or don’t appreciate all the incredible things he’s brought to SW, but in that I disagree with his take, Dave understands that he doesn’t always get it right, that he enjoys that fans come up with different things than he does and sometimes he likes those even more.  There’s room for both of us and, for all that Dave mentions George a lot (and, hey, fair enough, the guy worked with George and I’m just quoting what George Lucas has said) doesn’t mean that this is straight from George, especially because I have never seen George Lucas utter so much as a peep about how the Jedi were responsible for Anakin’s fall.  He has explicitly and frequently talked about how Anakin’s fall was his own choice, as well as I’ve never seen him say anything Jedi-critical beyond “they were kind of arrogant about themselves”.  I have read and watched every George Lucas interview I could get my hands on and maybe I’m still missing something, but that’s literally the extent of him criticizing the Jedi I have EVER seen. (It’s from the commentary on AOTC where he put in the scene with Jocasta to show they were full of themselves, but I also think it’s fair to point out that Obi-Wan immediately contradicts this by going to Dex for help, showing that it’s not necessarily a Jedi-wide thing.) Before I go further, I want to say:  this is not a post meant to tear down Qui-Gon, he is a character I actually really do love, but the focus is on showing why the above interpretation of him is wrong, which means focusing on Qui-Gon’s flaws. He has many wonderful qualities, he is someone who cared deeply and was a good person, I think things would have been better had he lived!  But Anakin’s choices did not hinge on him, because Anakin’s choices were Anakin’s, that has always been the consistent theme of how George talks about him, the way he talks about the story is always in terms of “Anakin did this” or “Anakin chose that”, and the Jedi are very consistently shown as caring, they believed very much in love and Dave’s own show (well, I say “his own show”, but honestly TCW was George’s baby primarily and he had a lot of direct, hands-on say in crafting it, through at least the first five seasons) is plenty of evidence of that. I’m not going to quote the full thing because this is already a monster post, I’m just going to focus on the Jedi stuff, because I like the other points a lot, but if you want the full text, it’s here.  The relevant part is: “In Phantom Menace, you’re watching these two Jedi in their prime fight this evil villain. Maul couldn’t be more obviously the villain. He’s designed to look evil, and he is evil, and he just expresses that from his face all the way out to the type of lightsaber he fights with. What’s at stake is really how Anakin is going to turn out. Because Qui-Gon is different than the rest of the Jedi and you get that in the movie; and Qui-Gon is fighting because he knows he’s the father that Anakin needs. Because Qui-Gon hasn’t given up on the fact that the Jedi are supposed to actually care and love and that’s not a bad thing. The rest of the Jedi are so detached and they become so political that they’ve really lost their way and Yoda starts to see that in the second film. But Qui-Gon is ahead of them all and that’s why he’s not part of the council. So he’s fighting for Anakin and that’s why it’s the ‘Duel of the Fates’ – it’s the fate of this child. And depending on how this fight goes, Anakin, his life is going to be dramatically different. “So Qui-Gon loses, of course. So the father figure, he knew what it meant to take this kid away from his mother when he had an attachment, and he’s left with Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan trains Anakin at first out of a promise he makes to Qui-Gon, not because he cares about him. When they get Anakin, they find him on Tatooine, he says “Why do I feel like we’ve found another useless lifeform?” He’s comparing Anakin to Jar Jar and he’s saying “this is a waste of our time, why are we doing this, why do you see importance in these creatures like Jar Jar Binks and this ten-year-old boy? This is useless.” “So, he’s a brother to Anakin eventually but he’s not a father figure. That’s a failing for Anakin. He doesn’t have the family that he needs. He loses his mother in the next film. He fails on this promise that he made, “mother, I’m going to come back and save you”. So he’s left completely vulnerable and Star Wars is ultimately about family. So that moment in that movie which a lot of people I think diminish, “oh there’s a cool lightsaber fight”, but it’s everything that the entire three films of the prequels hangs on, is that one particular fight. And Maul serves his purpose and at that point died before George made me bring him back, but he died.“  --Dave Filoni  I’m going to take this a piece at a time to show why I really disagree with the content of both the movies and The Clone Wars supporting what Dave says and, instead, contradicts it a lot. The rest of the Jedi are so detached and they become so political that they’ve really lost their way and Yoda starts to see that in the second film. He doesn’t explain what this means, but I’m pretty sure that he’s referring to this conversation: OBI-WAN: “I am concerned for my Padawan. He is not ready to be given this assignment on his own yet.” YODA: “The Council is confident in its decision, Obi-Wan.” MACE WINDU: “The boy has exceptional skills.” OBI-WAN: “But he still has much to learn, Master. His abilities have made him... well.... arrogant.” YODA: “Yes, yes. A flaw more and more common among Jedi. Hmm... too sure of themselves they are. Even the older, more experienced ones.” MACE WINDU: “Remember, Obi-Wan, if the prophecy is true, your apprentice is the only one who can bring the Force back into balance.” OBI-WAN: "If he follows the right path.” None of that has anything to do with being “detached” and, further, I think this is something that’s come up with Dave’s view of Luminara a lot, because he’s described her (re: the Geonosis arc):  “We were trying to illustrate the difference between the way Anakin is raising his Padawan, and how much he cares about her, and the way Luminara raises her Padawan. Not that Luminara is indifferent, but that Luminara is detached. It’s not that she doesn’t care, but she’s not attached to her emotionally.” Here, he says that the Jedi care, in the above, he says that the Jedi don’t care, which makes me think there’s a lot of characterization drift as time goes on, especially when fandom bombards everyone with the idea that the Jedi were cold, emotionless, and didn’t care.  However, look at Luminara’s face in that arc, when she’s talking with Anakin:

That is not the face of someone who doesn’t care.  She even smiles brightly in relief when Barriss is shown to be okay, that this really doesn’t convey “detached” in an unloving or uncaring way.  (We’ll get to attachment later, that’s definitely coming.) (I’m also mostly skipping the political thing, because I think that’s just a fundamental disagreement of whether Jedi should or should not lean into politics.  My view basically boils down to that I think ALL OF US should be leaning more into politics because we are citizens who live in the world and are responsible for it, and the Jedi are no different.  This is evidenced by:  - M&A’s storyline has Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan saving the day specifically because they play politics, that’s how they manage to free the slaves, through playing politics and being part of the Republic/having Senate backing. - The Clone Wars has shown that the Jedi believe “lasting change can only come from within” and “it’s every citizen’s duty to hold their leaders accountable” when Ahsoka teaches the cadets on Mandalore, as well as that politics are not inherently bad, given that Padme and Bail are working to make the system better or “create lasting change from within [the system]” - "Trying to serve the greater good does not always make you popular” says Padme Amidala in a very caring speech - Star Wars Propaganda makes the case that the Jedi might have won the war had they leaned more into politics. - Sometimes the Jedi get unfairly accused of playing politics when there’s just no good choice and they still have to choose one or the other.) But Qui-Gon is ahead of them [re: caring and loving] all and that’s why he’s not part of the council. This is flat-out wrong in regards to canon.  Mileages are going to vary, of course, on how much one takes a novel into consideration, but Dave Filoni is not a fan with the luxury of deciding what is or isn’t canon, he works on Star Wars where canon is canon.  Now, does that mean canon will never contradict itself, especially if Dave gets to write something for Qui-Gon?  Of course not, SW isn’t immune to continuity errors and they themselves have never said otherwise, even when fans want to hold them to that standard. However, this is still pretty much a big “that’s not what happened” instance.  In Master & Apprentice, the Jedi Council offer a seat to Qui-Gon on the Council, specifically BECAUSE he has different opinions from them and they welcome that.  (Excerpt here.)      “We hope it will also be our gain,” Mace replied. “Qui-Gon Jinn, we hereby offer you a seat on the Jedi Council.”      Had he misheard? No, he hadn’t. Qui-Gon slowly gazed around the circle, taking in the expressions of each Council member in turn. Some of them looked amused, others pleased. A few of them, Yoda included, appeared more rueful than not. But they were serious.      “I admit—you’ve surprised me,” Qui-Gon finally said.“I imagine so,” Mace said drily. “A few years ago, we would’ve been astonished to learn we would ever consider this. But in the time since, we’ve all changed. We’ve grown. Which means the possibilities have changed as well.”      Qui-Gon took a moment to collect himself. Without any warning, one of the turning points of his life had arrived. Everything he said and did in the next days would be of great consequence. “You’ve argued with my methods often as not, or perhaps you’d say I’ve argued with yours.”      “Truth, this is,” Yoda said.      Depa Billaba gave Yoda a look Qui-Gon couldn’t interpret. “It’s also true that the Jedi Council needs more perspectives.” Ultimately, Qui-Gon is the who turns them down and gives up a chance to shape the Jedi Council because he doesn’t like the shape they’re taking.  That he does become less political, but this is after he’s argued that the Jedi should be working to push the Senate harder, so when he has a chance to help with that, he turns it down.  It has nothing to do with caring and loving, it’s about Qui-Gon’s desire to not have to deal with the work himself, when he wants to be more of a hippie Jedi.  (I’ve written a lot about Qui-Gon in M&A, why I actually think it’s really spot-on to someone who can be both really kind and really kind of a dick, but it’s not the most flattering portrayal, even if narrative intention likely didn’t mean what came across to me.  I think this post and this post are probably the most salient ones, but if you want something of an index of the web that’s being woven with all the various media, this one is good, too.) So he’s fighting for Anakin and that’s why it’s the ‘Duel of the Fates’ – it’s the fate of this child. And depending on how this fight goes, Anakin, his life is going to be dramatically different. I have only ever seen George Lucas talk about Anakin’s fate in one instance and it’s this:  “It’s fear of losing somebody he loves, which is the flipside of greed. Greed, in terms of the Emperor, it’s the greed for power, absolute power, over everything. With Anakin, really it’s the power to save the one he loves, but it’s basically going against the Fates and what is natural.“ –George Lucas, Revenge of the Sith commentary I’ve made my case about why I think Anakin’s fate is about that moment in Palpatine’s office, and so I’m not fundamentally opposed that “Duel of the Fates” is about Anakin’s fate, but here’s what George has provably said about the “Duel of the Fates” part of the story: - In the commentary for The Phantom Menace during “Duel of the Fates” and none of Dave’s speculation is even hinted at, there’s more focus on the technical side of things and the most George talks about is that it’s Obi-Wan who parallels Luke in going over the edge during the fight, except that instead of a Sith cutting off a Jedi’s hand, it’s a Jedi cutting a Sith in half, drawing the parallels between them. - He does say of the funeral scene that this is where Obi-Wan commits to training Anakin and how everything is going to go (though, in canon we see that Obi-Wan still struggles with this a bit, but Yoda is there to support him and nudge him into committing even more to Anakin, because the Jedi are a supportive community to each other).  This is some solid evidence for that Obi-Wan is already caring about Anakin beyond just Qui-Gon. - Then here’s what he says about the “Duel of the Fates” fights and themes of them in "All Films Are Personal": George Lucas: “I wanted to come up with an apprentice for the Emperor who was striking and tough. We hadn’t seen a Sith Lord before, except for Vader, of course. I wanted to convey the idea that Jedi are all very powerful, but they’re also vulnerable — which is why I wanted to kill Qui-Gon. That is to say, “Hey, these guys aren’t Superman.” These guys are people who are vulnerable, just like every other person. “We needed to establish that, but at the same time, we wanted the ultimate sword fight, because they were all very good. It sort of predisposes the sword fight between Anakin and Obi-Wan later on. There’s real purpose to it. You have to establish the rules and then stick with them. The scene illustrates just how Jedi and Sith fight and use lightsabers.” “So Qui-Gon loses, of course. So the father figure, he knew what it meant to take this kid away from his mother when he had an attachment, and he’s left with Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan trains Anakin at first out of a promise he makes to Qui-Gon, not because he cares about him.  We’ll get to the “attachment to his mother” thing in a bit--but, for now, let’s just say, George Lucas’ words on this are not that attachment to her was a good thing. Fair enough that “not because he cares about him” is up to personal interpretation, but canon has also addressed the topic of Obi-Wan’s treatment of Anakin and Obi-Wan stepped up to the plate on this.  In addition to how we see Obi-Wan REPEATEDLY being there for Anakin and being concerned and caring about him, they specifically talk about Qui-Gon and overcome this hurdle.

No, Obi-Wan is not Anakin’s father figure, on that we definitely agree.  Anakin never really even treats Obi-Wan like a father--he says “you’re the closest thing I have to a father” in Attack of the Clones, as well as he says Obi-Wan practically raised him in The Clone Wars “Crystal Crisis” story reels, but Anakin has never actually acted like Obi-Wan is his father--”then why don’t you listen to me?” Obi-Wan points out in AOTC--as well as Obi-Wan glides past those remarks, which I’ve always taken that he doesn’t want to reject Anakin’s feelings, knowing that Anakin can be sensitive about them, but neither does he want to confirm them. This does not mean Obi-Wan was not supportive, caring, and loving.  He says, “I loved you!” to Anakin in Revenge of the Sith, he asks after him and if he’s sleeping well in Attack of the Clones, and even George Lucas himself said that the elevator scene was set up TO SHOW OBI-WAN AND ANAKIN CARE FOR EACH OTHER:

PUTTING THE REST UNDER A READ MORE FOR A BETTER LENGTH REBLOGGABLE VERSION, IF  YOU WANT.

This is further evidenced by how the Jedi do see themselves as family, they just don’t need to put it into strict nuclear family dynamics:     - “You were my brother, Anakin!  I loved you!”  [–Obi-Wan Kenobi, Revenge of the Sith]      - “We are brothers, Master Dibs.” [–Mace Windu, Jedi of the Republic - Mace Windu]      - “Did your parents bicker?” she asked. “The adoptive ones, I mean.”         A slow smile broke across Ashla’s face, curling first one side of her mouth and then the other. Whatever she was remembering, Kaeden could tell it was good.         "All the time,“ Ashla said, almost as if she were talking to herself. [–Kaeden Larte, Ahsoka Tano, Ahsoka]      -  Vos, brought to the Temple even younger than most, felt that he had hundreds of brothers and sisters, and it seemed that whenever he went into the dining hall he ran into at least half of them. [Dark Disciple]       - “It was not his birthplace, exactly, but the Jedi Temple was where Quinlan Vos had grown up. He’d raced through its corridors, hidden behind its massive pillars, found peace in its meditation hall, ended-and started-fights in rooms intended for striking blows and some that weren’t, and sneaked naps in its library. All Jedi came here, at some point in their lives; for Quinlan, it always felt like coming home when he ran lightly up the stairs and entered the massive building as he did now.” [Dark Disciple] Brothers, sisters, and other more non-traditional kinds of family are not lesser and Obi-Wan and Anakin absolutely were family, just as the Jedi are all family to each other, so, no, there was no “failing” Anakin, except in Anakin’s mind, perhaps.  (In that, I can agree.  But not on a narratively approved level, canon too thoroughly refutes that for me.) Rebels as well pretty thoroughly shows that non-traditional families are meaningful and just as important--we may joke that Hera is “space mom”, but she’s not actually Ezra or Sabine’s mother, Kanan is not actually their father, and even if they sometimes stray into aspects of those roles (as the Jedi do as well in the movies and TCW), that they don’t need that traditional nuclear family structure.  Mentor figures--and Kanan is Ezra’s mentor--are just as meaningful and needful as a “dad”.  And I’m kind of :/ at the implication that anyone without a dad/father figure or mom/mother figure is being “failed”. When they get Anakin, they find him on Tatooine, he says “Why do I feel like we’ve found another useless lifeform?” He’s comparing Anakin to Jar Jar and he’s saying “this is a waste of our time, why are we doing this, why do you see importance in these creatures like Jar Jar Binks and this ten-year-old boy? This is useless.” Whether or not Obi-Wan is being genuinely dismissive in this movie (I think you could make a case either way), the idea that Qui-Gon is better than Obi-Wan about this, as shown through Jar Jar isn’t exactly very supported given how Qui-Gon and Jar Jar first exchange words:

QUI-GON: “You almost got us killed. Are you brainless?”   JAR JAR:  “I spake.”   QUI-GON: “The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.” Qui-Gon is just as bad as everyone else to Jar Jar, he’s not somehow elevated above them. It’s also baffling because, Dave, I have watched your show.  The Jedi are specifically shown to be kind to people and creatures, not considering them “useless”.  Henry Gilroy (who was the co-writer for The Clone Wars and frequently appeared in featurettes on the same level as Dave Filoni) explicitly draws this to The Jedi Way, that “life is everything to the Jedi“, when he said this about the Ryloth episodes:

(Caps cribbed from Pan’s blog, because I cannot make another gif, save me, please.)      Henry Gilroy in an Aggressive Negotiations Interview:  "Obi-Wan truly is a Jedi in that he’s like, ‘Okay, I’m not going to murder these creatures [in the Ryloth arc of The Clone Wars].  They’re starving to death.  They’ve basically been unleashed against these people as a weapon, but it’s not their fault. They’re just doing what they do.  They’re just animals who wanna eat.’     "So the idea was–and I think there was an early talk about how, 'Oh, yeah, he’ll go running through them and slicing and dicing them and chop them all up or whatever, and save his guys.  And I’m like, 'Yeah, but that’s not really the Jedi way.  He’s not just gonna murder these creatures.’     "And I know the threat is [there], to save one life you have to take one, but the idea of him [is]: why can’t Obi-Wan just be more clever?  He basically draws them in and then traps them.     "It says something about who the Jedi are, they don’t just waste life arbitrarily.  And someone could have gone, 'Oh, yeah, but it would have been badass if he’d just ran in there with his lightsaber spinning and stabbed them all in the head!’  And 'Yeah, you’re right, I guess he could be that, but he’s trying to teach his clones a lesson right then, about the sanctity of life.’       "That is the underlying theme of that entire episode.  Which is:  A tactical droid is using the people as living shields.  Life means nothing to the Separatists.  The droids.  But life is everything to the Jedi.  And even though he doesn’t have to say that, it’s all through the episode thematically.“ It’s also Obi-Wan who teaches Anakin about kindness to mindless creatures in the Obi-Wan & Anakin comic:

"These beasts are nearly mindless, Anakin.  I can feel it.  They are merely following their nature, they should not die simply because they crossed our path. Use the Force to send them on their way.” Now, fair enough if you want to say Obi-Wan was taught by Qui-Gon, but also Qui-Gon is dead by that point and Obi-Wan growing into being more mature is his own accomplishment, not Qui-Gon’s, especially given that we see Qui-Gon himself being pretty dismissive to Jar Jar in TPM. This isn’t unique thing either, Padme is incredibly condescending to Jar Jar in “Bombad Jedi” and expresses clear annoyance with him to C-3PO when sighing over him.  Jar Jar is a character you kind of have to warm up to, pretty much the only one we’ve seen consistently being favorable to him is Yoda (and maybe Anakin, though, Anakin doesn’t really interact with him a ton) and Mace Windu warms up to him considerably in “The Disappeared” and even specifically is shown to be teaching him and helping him, which is a huge theme of the Jedi and how much they care.

So, ultimately, the point I’m winding my way towards is--the other Jedi do show kindness and consideration to Jar Jar Binks, including characters like Mace Windu, so if you’re judging the Jedi based on that, the conclusion of Qui-Gon somehow being more compassionate and loving is really pretty thoroughly disproved by The Phantom Menace and The Clone Wars themselves. So, he’s a brother to Anakin eventually but he’s not a father figure. That’s a failing for Anakin. He doesn’t have the family that he needs. He loses his mother in the next film. He fails on this promise that he made, “mother, I’m going to come back and save you”. So he’s left completely vulnerable and Star Wars is ultimately about family.  You could be charitable and say this is just from Anakin’s point of view that it’s a “failing”, but within the context of what Dave’s saying, it’s clearly meant as a more narratively approved take, not just Anakin’s point of view, and I really, really dislike the idea that Anakin--or anyone, really--needs a traditional nuclear family, ie a “mom” and/or a “dad”, or else it’s a “failing” for them. Setting aside that the idea that Qui-Gon would need to be Anakin’s dad to be kind to hi (which is ?????) is contradicted by The Clone Wars as well.  Yes, Qui-Gon is warm with Anakin in several scenes, which is what Dave is presumably drawing on to show that Qui-Gon believed the Jedi should be caring and loving, but you know who else is warm to younglings?  OTHER JEDI COUNCIL MEMBERS.

Those two scenes have the exact same kind of warmth to them.  Ie, THE JEDI ALL BELIEVED IN BEING LOVING AND KIND, NOT JUST QUI-GON.  The things evidenced to show Qui-Gon was loving and kind are evidenced just as much in other Council members, in Dave’s own show. As a bonus--have Mace Windu, known Jedi Council member, being super kind and loving towards a young Twi’lek girl he just met in a canon comic:

But I know that this is about the way the Council treated Anakin in The Phantom Menace testing scene, but here’s the thing--when I go back and I watch that scene and the Jedi aren’t ever mean to him, they’re neutral in an official testing situation, where they are trying to determine if he’s able to adapt to the Jedi ways.  They never once say he’s bad for holding onto his fear, only that he does--which Anakin digs his heels in and gets angry about, he can’t really even admit that he’s afraid and that’s a huge deal for the Jedi. I’ve made a longer post about it here (and here), but the basic gist is: - That scene has Yoda giving the famous “Fear leads to the dark side” speech which is almost word for word how George Lucas describes how the Force works, showing the Jedi are narratively correct - “Confronting fear is the destiny of a Jedi” may be from the sequels, but it is thoroughly supported by the movies and TCW and Rebels and even supplementary canon material, including that the Jedi literally design their tests around both Masters and Padawans for it (Ilum, the Jedi Temple on Lothal, etc. - Anakin cannot admit to his fears in that TPM scene - We have examples of Jedi younglings do admit to their fears and the point isn’t not to have them, but to face them--the younglings in “The Gathering” are the most blatant example of this, but it’s also pretty much the entire theme of Jedi: Fallen Order, especially when Cal goes to Ilum to face his fears and get another kyber crystal. The point isn’t that Anakin--who has very good reasons to be afraid! nothing in the story or the Jedi have said he didn’t!--is wrong or bad, but that he’s not a great fit for the Jedi life because he is “unwilling to accept [Jedi philosophy] emotionally”.  And they’re right about this, because this is how George Lucas describes Anakin in commentary: “The fact that everything must change and that things come and go through his life and that he can’t hold onto things, which is a basic Jedi philosophy that he isn’t willing to accept emotionally and the reason that is because he was raised by his mother rather than the Jedi. If he’d have been taken in his first year and started to study to be a Jedi, he wouldn’t have this particular connection as strong as it is and he’d have been trained to love people but not to become attached to them.”  --George Lucas, Attack of the Clones commentary And so this brings us to A T T A C H M E N T, which, yeah, we’ve been having this discussion forever, but I’m going to state it again:  Within Star Wars, ATTACHMENT IS NARRATIVELY A BAD THING.  It is consistently tied to possessive, obsessive relationships, to greed and an unwillingness to let things go when it’s time (letting go is a huge theme in Star Wars) and equating love with attachment is fundamentally wrong according to George Lucas’ Star Wars worldbuilding: “The Jedi are trained to let go. They’re trained from birth,” he continues, “They’re not supposed to form attachments. They can love people-- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith. But they can’t form attachments. So what all these movies are about is: greed. Greed is a source of pain and suffering for everybody. And the ultimate state of greed is the desire to cheat death.” --George Lucas, The Making of Revenge of the Sith If attachment and love were the same thing, then he would be saying, “They should love their enemies, they should love the Sith.  But they can’t love.”  The way George makes the distinction shows that, no, attachment and love aren’t the same thing at all, attachment is not caring.  Further, there’s another instance of him showing there’s an important distinction between relationships and attachment and the association of attachmets with possession:  "Jedi Knights aren’t celibate - the thing that is forbidden is attachments - and possessive relationships.” --George Lucas, BBC News interview So, yes, when Anakin is attached to people, it is directly tied to obsession, possession, and greed, all things of the dark side: “He turns into Darth Vader because he gets attached to things. He can’t let go of his mother; he can’t let go of his girlfriend. He can’t let go of things. It makes you greedy. And when you’re greedy, you are on the path to the dark side, because you fear you’re going to lose things, that you’re not going to have the power you need.”  --George Lucas, Time Magazine  “But he has become attached to his mother and he will become attached to Padme and these things are, for a Jedi, who needs to have a clear mind and not be influenced by threats to their attachments, a dangerous situation. And it feeds into fear of losing things, which feeds into greed, wanting to keep things, wanting to keep his possessions and things that he should be letting go of. His fear of losing her turns to anger at losing her, which ultimately turns to revenge in wiping out the village. The scene with the Tusken Raiders is the first scene that ultimately takes him on the road to the dark side. I mean he’s been prepping for this, but that’s the one where he’s sort of doing something that is completely inappropriate.“ --George Lucas, Attack of the Clones commentary ATTACHMENT IS BAD IN STAR WARS AS THEY DEFINE IT. Finally, I’m going to circle back to: Because Qui-Gon is different than the rest of the Jedi and you get that in the movie; and Qui-Gon is fighting because he knows he’s the father that Anakin needs. Because Qui-Gon hasn’t given up on the fact that the Jedi are supposed to actually care and love and that’s not a bad thing. Here’s the thing about this:  You know who else, by this logic, Qui-Gon should have been a father to?  OBI-WAN KENOBI. This isn’t said as “Anakin specifically needs a father” (which I think would be an interesting idea to bandy about and I’m not disagreeing, though, it’s complicated because of what Anakin refuses to accept emotionally), it’s said in a bigger context, that Qui-Gon is better than the other Jedi because he understands the need for fathers (and thus this ties into Return of the Jedi) and he’s ahead of the other Jedi, who apparently think loving and caring about people are bad things, but Qui-Gon does not treat Obi-Wan like his son.  Or, if he does, he’s not exactly a stellar dad about it. Within Master & Apprentice, there’s an incredibly consistent theme of how Qui-Gon thinks supportive things about Obi-Wan, but never says them aloud.  He thinks he should talk to Obi-Wan about the upcoming decision to be on the Council and then never does.  He could have explained why he kept Obi-Wan training the basics but he never does.  There are multiple instances showing that Qui-Gon is actually really, really bad at actually handling a young apprentice who needs him to talk to them about important things.  Qui-Gon continues this in From a Certain Point of View where he still never talked to Obi-Wan about everything that happened, even after he became a Force Ghost.     Damn, damn, damn. Qui-Gon closed his eyes for one moment. It blocked nothing; the wave of shock that went through Obi-Wan was so great it could be felt through the Force. Qui-Gon hadn’t thought Kirames Kaj would mention the Jedi Council invitation. It seemed possible the soon-retiring chancellor of the Republic might not even have taken much note of information about a new Council member. --Master & Apprentice     That comment finally pierced Qui-Gon’s damnable calm. There was an edge to his voice as he said, “I suspected you would be too upset to discuss this rationally. Apparently I was correct.”     “I thought you said my reaction was understandable,” Obi-Wan shot back. “So why does it disqualify me from hearing the truth?”    Qui-Gon put his hands on his broad belt, the way he did when he was beginning to withdraw into himself. “…we should discuss this at another time. Neither of us is his best self at the present.” --Master & Apprentice     Obi-Wan walked toward the door, obviously outdone. “At the beginning of my apprenticeship, I couldn’t understand you,” he said. “Unfortunately, that’s just as true here at the end.”     Only yesterday they had worked together as never before. How did Qui-Gon manage to get closer to Obi-Wan at the same time he was moving further away?     Just before Obi-Wan would leave the room, Qui-Gon said, “Once, you asked me about the basic lightsaber cadences. Why I’d kept you there, instead of training you in more advanced forms of combat.”     Obi-Wan turned reluctantly to face him again. “I suppose you thought I wasn’t ready for more. The same way I’m not ready to believe in all this mystical—”     “That’s not why.”     After a long pause, Obi-Wan calmed to the point where he would listen. “Then why, Qui-Gon?”     “Because many Padawans—and full Jedi Knights, for that matter—forget that the most basic technique is the most important technique. The purest. The most likely to protect you in battle, and the foundation of all knowledge that is to come,” Qui-Gon said. “Most apprentices want to rush ahead to styles of fighting that are flashier or more esoteric. Most Masters let them, because we must all find our preferred form eventually. But I wanted you to be grounded in your technique. I wanted you to understand the basic cadences so well that they would become instinct, so that you would be almost untouchable. Above all, I wanted to give you the training you needed to accomplish anything you set your mind to later on.”     Obi-Wan remained quiet for so long that Qui-Gon wondered if he were too angry to really hear any of what he’d said. But finally, his Padawan nodded. “Thank you, Qui-Gon. I appreciate that. But—”     “But what?”     “You could’ve said so,” Obi-Wan replied, and then he left. --Master & Apprentice     "I owe you that. After all, I’m the one who failed you.“     "Failed me?”     They have never spoken of this, not once in all Qui-Gon’s journeys into the mortal realm to commune with him. This is primarily because Qui-Gon thought his mistakes so wretched, so obvious, that Obi-Wan had wanted to spare him any discussion of it. Yet here, too, he has failed to do his Padawan justice. --From a Certain Point of View, “Master and Apprentice” (Further, in Master & Apprentice, Qui-Gon thinks that the Jedi give Rael Averross--who is HUGELY paralleled to Anakin--too many exceptions, were too soft on him because he came to the Jedi later than most and has trouble thinking of them as his family, and he thinks they should have been stricter with him.) It’s also readily apparent within The Phantom Menace itself:

You can take some charitable views of this scene, that Qui-Gon was pushed into a corner where he had few other options (and this is the view I generally take even!), but this is after the entire movie where he’s never once indicated that Obi-Wan was ready, has instead indicated that he still has much to learn (not just of the Living Force, but in general), as well as made it clear that he’s still teaching Obi-Wan, like on the Trade Federation ship. And I do think Obi-Wan got over this because he understood, because Obi-Wan actually is a very selfless person, he clearly cares (which is furthered by how we see him warm up to Anakin very quickly), but look at their faces. This was not a good moment, and they do somewhat make up, where Qui-Gon says that Obi-Wan has been a good apprentice, that he’s wiser than Qui-Gon and he’ll be a great Jedi--but if we’re counting that as Qui-Gon being this great Jedi, then you can’t say Obi-Wan failed Anakin, given that we show him doing the exact same thing, except better.  He tells Anakin, “You are strong and wise and will become a far greater Jedi than I could ever hope to be.”, echoing Qui-Gon’s words, but also he never threw Anakin aside for someone else. This is kind of a major undercurrent throughout The Clone Wars, where Obi-Wan never takes another apprentice, where he continues to teach Anakin, to support him, even to the point of occasionally co-Mastering Ahsoka with him.  “This has been quite a journey for our Padawan.” Qui-Gon’s treatment of Obi-Wan in this scene isn’t the worst, he’s kind about it later (though, he never actually specifically apologizes for this), but we can see that this is a moment where Qui-Gon hurts Obi-Wan and knows it. And you know what George Lucas has to say about Qui-Gon?  This: “So here we’re having Qui-Gon wanting to skip the early training and jump right to taking him on as his Padawan learner, which is controversial, and ultimately, the source of much of the problems that develop later on.”  –George Lucas, The Phantom Menace commentary There’s nothing about Qui-Gon being right or better than the other Jedi, but instead that Qui-Gon’s actions here are a source of much of the problems that develop later on. So, ultimately, I liked some points Dave made in that speech, it’s a beautiful and eloquent one, but I thoroughly disagree with his interpretation of George’s intentions for Qui-Gon and I thoroughly disagree that that’s what the movies, The Clone Wars (DAVE’S OWN SHOW), and the supplementary canon show about Qui-Gon and the other Jedi.  I still stand by my appreciation of Dave’s contributions to SW as a whole, I think he does a really good job at making Star Wars, but he doesn’t always get everything right and this is one thing where I think the canon and George’s commentary show otherwise, as much as I love his desire to defend the prequels’ importance in the story.  Because, my friend, I have felt that every single day of my SW life.

#anakin skywalker #qui gon jinn #jedi order #george lucas #dave filoni #meta #long post #really long post

[nightswithkookmin]

Dear new friend,

I just finished reading your messages. First of all, thank you. I think I would have been less traumatized out here if a lot of people took to sharing their thoughts on matters such as these in the manner in which you do.

I think I set myself up too because I be wanting to participate in certain topics and discussions and so often I find myself trying to sieve through the vitriol and pejoratives.

The gender of the word is feminine not masculine. I don’t see how that is misinformation.

"Sorry, the misinformation bit was because I was thinking about that tweet that went viral about this word being used only for woman. The person said it was an adjective, and you said it was an adjective, so I thought you were basing this information on that tweet. That day was crazy, some people spread this, wanted to change his pronouns, trend a hashtag and were saying he had came out... This was too much. And the "debunked" thing was about this tweet, as well. Not about the words being feminine and masculine. That's a fact, you're right."

I had no idea a tweet went viral like that claiming he wanted to change his pronouns. That's wild and I disagree. Lol. I think I've always maintained he uses He/him pronouns and said time and again I do not think he wants to be emasculated at all. As I said, that would have made him transgender not bigender and thus defeat the purpose. To be bigender he has to be two genders at the same time not one.

But I have been following the discussions on this topic on the bird app and I try my best to bring nuance to certain discussions. I try. Lol.

I take note of the differences between your language and Latin as you rightly pointed out. But I also do see the similarities and I think the explanation you gave and the examples you provided gives me a better understanding of the language structure.

"Yeah, totally fine hahah We tend to interpret things according to our own experiences; for me, a gendered word is part of my daily life, normal, and I don't bat an eye about it. Is just a word, the importance is in its meaning ─ and it suits filter SOOO well. For you, it's something more. At the end of the day, art is here to be interpreted, and if Jimin doesn't explicitly explain the filter performance, tattoos, set, outfits... It's open for interpretation. (And I'm not a person that tries to find hidden meanings. I simply enjoy what I enjoy. I have this thing about being as accurate as possible, so I try to stick to facts (like: I don't feel comfortable saying he chose these words, because I don't know if HE was the person that chose it (in the sense that he was the one that bring it up to the staff/company). Maybe someone else showed it to him and he was like: "Nice! I want it!". But I feel okay saying he's had a tattoo with these words (A fact). Also I don't make a big deal of most things ─ for me Jimin is Jimin and I'm supporting him regardless, he's precious)

(But Memories 2020 is coming and I'm almost sure they are going to show filter behind the scenes!!!! So we're going to understand better this masterpiece (I HOPE SO))

I understand what you mean. Some people are inclined towards taking the literal meaning of texts or in this case art and not read much into situations beyond what is presented at face value- not me🤣🤣🤣🤣

I do the magnifying glass and errthang👁

I think humans are complex and there's always a possibility of a psychological and or pathological stimulus underscoring their behaviors, choices and actions in most cases.

But that aside, I think it's easier to take a heteronormative view on things sometimes because cis straight has always been the norm even in appreciating art- but truth is, coding and co opting codified expressions is almost always part of queer culture and behavior too. If any other queer celebrity had used that expression, I would be reading much into it too beyond its semantics.

For me it's simple, would I be reading too too much into the language and art choice of someone I thought was cis straight? Hell No. Straight is boring and blunt as fuck.

Unless of course they were being intentionally witty or secretive about something, I'd assume and expect their expressions to be pretty much straight forward- generally. I went home to be would mean just that.

If I sensed the author were queer coding Home would mean something else entirely to be. Home becomes a symbol not a word. And if he chose to write that in Latin and not the language they spoke naturally, I'd assume there's something about that language that he likes and perhaps uses to code a queer message.

For closeted queer people who live in a world where they are constantly coerced to take on a duality and have an expressional alter egos- two identical identities with one being the facade and pretense through which they openly and largely perform normalcy of self, the other being their real self which they tuck away because it is inconsistent with the acceptable norms- I'd a take a very different approach to their art. But that's me.

If a straight person said they needed escape, it would mean something totally different to me than say if a queer person said they needed escape. Because those two are escaping two very different things.

For example, the words Moon and moonlight used by a straight person means nothing to me- perhaps because I just don't care much to look for its deeper meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words as presented. If it appears in a queer person's parlance, even if in passing, I assume immediately they are referencing something much more deeper, meaningful and coded.

Queer coding is a thing you know? And it's born out of necessity not choice sometimes.

Take for instance BTS's proclivity to 'queer codify' their music. Moon and moonlight has become symbolic of the inner struggles of a queer person amongst black 'educated' queer men and women. It's come to symbolize cultural norms and expectations and how those affect queer people- perhaps of all race.

In the Movie Moonlight, which has become the epitome of queer black struggles and desires for liberation, this motif was used to represent the struggles of a black boy dealing with the pressures of a hyper masculine society.

When RM references this in 4 Oclock, 'the whole world is blue under the moonlight' is he queer coding or just appropraiting queer parlance as buzz word? That expression takes on a whole new meaning were he queer. Blue symbolizes queerness- a theory popularized of course by the Film. When V who once wrote an allegedly 'queer coded song' Stigma says he is blue- what does he mean now? On the surface blue means blue. Would you take a straightforward view on this or assume its symbolic? And what is it symbolic of?? Sadness?? Gayness?

If RM had an accompanying tattoo as compliment to the song in his performance that evoked similar sentiments or hinted at a possible second meaning I wouldn't assume that that tattoo meant nothing or that it didn't have a deeper meaning behind it.

It's just as how Lil Nas X posted a city of rainbows and people said 'rainbows are rainbows. Y'all shouldn't read much into it.' But for queer people that was pretty much a declaration of his sexuality.

Later he had to post again and reiterate that that rainbow post was his coming out moment. 'I thought I made it obvious.'

Somethings are pretty much obvious.

For JM who don't speak Latin- unless he is secretly fluent in which case my bad- I don't think he cares so much about the grammar of the language beyond it's meaning. And perhaps gender? Grammatical gender I mean. That's just because the first thing you learn about Latin is that all the nouns are gendered?

I won't lie. When I first learned that I was supper fascinated about grammatical gender and why speakers of the language felt a need to gender every word of the language.

In the end, we all don't know. I'm out here convinced two Asian men are so gay they can't straight to save their asses. I have a tendency to view everything they do through queer lens. If they are not gay I'm pretty much gaslighting them you know?

I'm always fascinated by different point of views on a myriad of subjects. Just as you said, our diverse experiences inform our experiences and perspectives. I just hope people acknowledge how their straightness informs their understanding of queerness too and how that has a tendency to be invalidating and dismissive of queer issues and experiences.

But to me it's like, if Jikook are gay why do you have to interpret what they do through straight lens?

Personally, I wouldn't interpret straight through queer lens and force that view on to straight people. That would be homonormative? Assuming rainbow means straight people are gay when they are not, moon means feminine to straight men, that the use of the word God makes one a Christian- that's just silly and bizarre.

I use Namaste often and suddenly some people here think I'm Indian. I wish. They have one hell of a culture.

When I was reading through your messages, all that kept playing in my head was- that's a very 'straight' view on the matter. Lol. Please tell me you got the pun. Lol.

I think my opinion will remain the same on the matter if you placed any queer person in Jimin's stead. Any queer person that I believed was queer and had hinted a few times at exploring a dual identity or going through that phase at least.

I think I'd enjoy your blog if you had one.

I love love the lesson on Italian or is it Spanish?

Also, I would love your take on V and Stigma. A lot of queer stans have a queer reading of the lyrics- I see the appeal however I don't have a queer reading of it at all. Thoughts??

Namaste.

Signed,

GOLDY

[icannotreadcursive]

Sometimes, people have different--very different--sets of headcanons and sets of ships etc for a given piece of media and cast of characters because they have basically different understandings of who those characters are.

A lot of times, that’s just because every fan as their own unique life experience to apply when engaging with and interpreting a work, so they see different things reflected back.

But when it comes to what I call Legacy Characters--characters that have had their story told and retold, adapted and readapted, reinvested and reset time and again; such as comic book characters--a huge part of who a fan understands a character to be is determined by what versions of that character they’re familiar with, what aspects of different versions have coalesced in their brain to form their sense of that character in general.  Usually, the biggest influence there is which version of a character that fan encountered first.

I see both knock-down drag-out fights and casual disrespectful disparaging comments within some fandoms--especially big comics fandoms like Marvel--that on the surface of them are more of the typical dumb “my interpretation is the only right one and anyone who disagrees is wrong and Doesn’t Understand The Media” stuff, but that I am SO SURE mostly boils down to this issue of having very different but all equally legitimate senses of the characters from having familiarity with different appearances of the character, or in a different order.

For instance--using what I find to be the most glaring case as an example--the Marvel shipping wars amongst Steve/Bucky, Steve/Tony, Sam/Steve, Bucky/Natasha, and (increasingly) Sam/Bucky shippers.  Sometimes the Pepper/Tony, Pepper/Natasha, and Bruce/Tony shippers join the fray.

These conflicts get so nasty.  Even a lot of the more chill shippers, when prompted, have very ugly things to say about ships other than their own and the people who support them.  Allegations of racism, misogyny, fetishization, and general toxicity run rampant and are often talked about as though they are the only possible reasons someone could ever have for shipping or not shipping a given pair.

I want to make it clear that I personally do ship or have shipped several of the above, including ones that mutually exclude each other.  There’s a few I’m neutral on up there, and one that kinda squicks me--we’ll get to that later.

Every single one of them is a perfectly good ship.  None of them are inherently fucked up in any way and I will not hear any argument to the contrary.  

Do some supporters of these ships get overzealous and obnoxious?  Yes, that’s kinda why we’re talking about it, but that’s not a problem with any of the ships themselves.

I’ve noticed some patterns around people being into particular ones of these ships and their personal histories with various Marvel media.

Steve/Tony: mostly comics fans at this point, either were into the comics before the MCU became a thing or the early days of the MCU got them into the comics and they’re now more into the comics than the films.  Because there’s a LOT of material in the comics to support the ship!  There’s so much!  Including the fact that in one comics reality where Tony is a woman, she and Steve get married!  

Now, there was a ton of this’ere Stony fic that got churned out in the early days of the MCU, a lot of it from fans getting into this world for the first time through the phase 1 movies, at which point other potential partners for these guys either hadn’t been introduced as characters yet, or hadn’t been fleshed out.  A lot of film-main (as opposed to comics-main) Stony shippers moved away from the pairing as the MCU continued, Bucky became the counterpoint of Steve’s Character arc, Sam got brought in, Pepper and Bruce each got more screen time, and the dynamic between Steve and Tony in the films got increasingly adversarial in a way that’s less sexy more fucked up.

The battle cry against Stony from other factions, especially from the Steve/Bucky camp is usually “but they’re so toxic!” and, I mean, yeah--if your sense of these characters is primarily based on how they are in the MCU, they are.  But in my experience, even if they’re working MCU events and settings, the Steve and Tony being imagined by Stony shippers aren’t really that Steve and Tony.

Steve/Bucky: look, Stucky is an MCU thing.  Articles have been written and published about the fact that the dynamic between Steve and Bucky in the MCU follows the beats of an epic romance to a T.  The basis for this ship is all there on screen--throw in a little bit of history nerd mojo and you’re in deep.

By my observation and estimation, most new or formerly-very-casual Marvel fans who came in via the films and remained film-mains, and who are inclined to not-strictly-heteronormative shipping at all went the Stucky route.  Folks who initially shipped Stony then switched to Stucky are pretty common.  People starting with Stucky and then switching to any other ship with Steve to the exclusion of Stucky? Very rare.  And while for a lot of people Stucky is their OTP in the strictest sense, I do see a lot of Stucky shippers who are here for other ships as well, either in an alternate realities kinda way or an amicable exes/polyamory kinda way.

The only people I’ve seen who have a problem with Stucky as a ship (other than “my ship is a different ship, therefore this one is bad and wrong”) are comics-mains whose sense of Steve and Bucky is heavily informed by runs of the comics in which Bucky is significantly younger than Steve and kid sidekick type figure.  For them, the dynamic between the general forms of these characters leans mentor/student or protector/charge, so the inclination is to read the MCU relationship as fraternal, because it being romantic is squicky based on their sense of the characters.

Sam/Steve: comics-mains, film-mains with significant comics familiarity, film-mains who just aren’t into Stucky for one reason or another, or film-mains who are just really into Anthony Mackey which is a perfectly valid reason to get behind a ship.  People who know Falcon from the comics seem much more likely to be into this ship and also more invested in this ship.  I’m not qualified to say much about support for this ship from the comics themselves because my personal familiarity with Marvel comics doesn’t include much of Sam Wilson at all, but I am absolutely qualified to say there’s support from the films, especially CA:WS.

The worst vitriol against this ship tends to come from overzealous Stucky OTP shippers who really need to remember that fandom is supposed to be fun, and flat out racists.  That must be acknowledged and needs to be addressed.  Fandom racism in general, and against Sam in particular is a thing and it can absolutely be a factor in shipping.  

However it’s not inherently racist to just not ship Sam/Steve because you see them as bros, or because Stucky is your OTP, or because you ship Sam with someone else, or whatever.  Worthwhile to take a minute to examine why you don’t ship it, if you don’t, and check that for racial bias in how you view and treat Sam as a character, especially if you’re white.

Sam/Steve and Stucky are the two ships I see coexist the most!  A lot of people ship both of them separately and exclusive from one another, but a lot of people also go ether the OT3 or the “Steve and Sam were definitely a thing for while there but now they’re not” route.

Bucky/Natasha: comics-mains or film-mains with significant comics familiarity, particularly for the comics worlds in which Bucky and Natasha are a couple, which seems self explanatory as to why that correlates.  Not a lot for it in the films, Nat and Buck don’t interact much in the films that we see, and they’re kinda trying to kill each other in much of what we do see.  But, like I said, they’re a thing in some of the comics so there we have that.

This is the one that squicks me.  Clearly it’s a super valid ship; depending on the canon it’s a canon ship.  Frankly, they make sense together, canon or not--their individual backgrounds as spysassins and with brainwashing etc means they’d be able to understand one another in ways no one else around them really can.  But my personal amalgamation of these characters from the films and what comics I’m familiar with has Bucky having been Natasha’s teacher when she was a kid in Red Room.  So I cannot ship it, I can’t do it.  

The fact that I personally am squeaked by it has absolutely no impact on the fact that it’s a good ship, and the fact that it’s a good ship cannot and does not negate the fact that it squicks me.

Bucky/Sam: okay, there’s not a lot of this out there yet, but what there is seems to mostly be coming from film-mains who either don’t ship or co-ship Stucky and/or Sam/Steve, and who really liked the dynamic between these two in Civil War, and I guarantee you we’re about to get so much more of this ship with Falcon and Winter Soldier premiering.  I’ve already seen some hate directed at this ship from the same places Sam/Steve gets hate.  I predict, though, that this one will also get co-shipped alongside Stucky by the less strictly OTP of those shippers and I’m curious to see what the dynamic ends up being between Bucky/Sam shippers and Sam/Steve shippers as this camp grows.

In conclusion, I guess, note that not shipping a ship doesn’t have to mean attacking that ship (and it shouldn’tI) and not liking a ship, even being deeply uncomfortable with a ship for your own reasons doesn’t mean that ship is bad.  We’ve all got our own individual sets of experiences both in life and with the characters in our fandoms that can dramatically change how we see those characters and their relationships to one another.  This gets especially complicated and diverse with Legacy Characters like those from sprawling long-running comics multiverses.  Someone’s understanding and interpretation being different from yours does not make either of you wrong!

As long as no one is an asshole about it it, it’s actually really interesting and cool to compare interpretations and see how your understandings overlap and differ, to think about what bits of canon have been formative for you and what personal experience may have made you inclined to interpret certain things certain ways.

Fandom is supposed to be fun.  Shipping is supposed to be fun.  You can and should hype up and express love for your own ships without tearing down others.

#long post #meta #fandom etiquette #marvel #shipping #stucky #stony #sam/steve #bucky/nat #bucky/sam #squick is a useful word #don't be an asshole

[jiminieloved]

‘Magic Shop’ and the Jikook Connections

This post will be pointing out seeming connections between Magic Shop and Jikook in a variety of ways. You can decide for yourself if these connections are coincidence or intentional. 

I want to start this post out by saying I’m not necessarily pushing an agenda that the sole meaning behind Magic Shop is Jikook’s relationship, however I do think there are a lot of striking connections that seem to have meaning. The song can absolutely simultaneously be about ARMY and about Jungkook’s relationships with the members, and I’ll be showing some reasons why. 

I’ll also point out that there does seem to be a connection between Jimin and ARMY for Jungkook, so a song having this dual meaning is not that out of the box, to me. I’ll let this video explain this point for me.

Influences

For those with absolutely no background on the song or its creation, it was a song primarily written and produced by Jungkook, and a self proclaimed message for ARMY.

In October of 2017, Jungkook and Jimin took a trip to Tokyo together, and on that trip documented a visit to Tokyo Disneyland in both Jimin’s vlog and GCF Tokyo. This trip is where many people theorize that Jungkook got the inspiration for a song entitled ‘Magic Shop’. 

In Tokyo Disneyland, there is a magic shop!

Some people speculate something important for the duo might have happened here, and some think he just might have seen the building and gotten inspired. I think either way, it’s a pretty meaningful connection between the song and their trip.

The trip seemed to have had a big impact on the pair, and Jungkook writing a song derived from an aspect of the trip is certainly worth noting. I’m not going to get too deep into how impactful the Tokyo trip was Jimin and Jungkook because I’d love to go more in depth on the topic at a later point in time, but I think if you’re in the fandom and paid attention, its pretty easy to see that their trip to Tokyo was impactful. 

Magic Shop was released in May, 2018.

The timespan between the trip to Tokyo and release of the song make it pretty clear to me that one event directly inspired the other. 

The Contents

As I said, it is absolutely possible for the lyrics to simultaneously be addressing ARMY, and have been written with a specific person in mind. I’m going to break down the lyrics section by section, and do a little lyrical analysis. 

Lyrics are made to be analyzed and interpreted. Artists encourage it. It’s also possible for two different people to get two completely different meanings from a song. I am giving you the meaning that I see, and if you disagree that is completely okay. 

Analysis:

I know that you’re hesitating because even if you say the truth

In the end it will all return as scars

I’m not going to say anything blatant like “find strength”

I will let you hear my story, let you hear it

This stanza seems to be directly speaking to the listener. I’m not sure what ‘the truth’ is, it could ba a variety of things. (Maybe ‘the truth’ is something to do with who this song was inspired by.) Anyway, this is our intro into this song of strength and unity. Jungkook says, “I will let you hear my story.” So the following is Jungkook’s story.

What did I say?

I said you’d win, didn’t I?

I couldn’t believe it (really)

Could I win it?

This miracle that isn’t a miracle

Did we make it?

To me, the first half of RM’s verse seems to be a reflection on the beginning of their careers. Jungkook told someone he believed they would ‘win’, and seems unable to believe that they actually did win. Jungkook was so outwardly confident in their success, but perhaps internally didn’t have this same confidence. It starts with ‘you’, then talks about ‘I’, and then finally it becomes ‘we’. This could be in reference to ARMY (you) and BTS (I). The ‘you’ could also be in reference to Jimin, if this song was indeed written for him. It’s interesting how he says “This miracle that isn’t a miracle” in reference to their success. It reinforces that he was acting strong and confident for the sake of someone else, but in reality thinks it was a miracle that they were successful.

(No) I was here

You were the one that made your way to me

I do believe your galaxy

I want to listen to your melody

Your stars in the Milky Way

Don’t forget that I found you anyways

At the end of my despair

You’re the last reason

For me who was standing at the edge of the cliff

Live

The second half of RM’s verse really reads like a love letter to me. This ‘you’ comes back; again, it is often interpreted as being a reference to ARMY, and I think that’s how Jungkook wants it to come across to us. But if you read it as if it was written as a letter to Jimin, it makes just as much sense. It would certainly explain the extent to which it moved Jimin, but we’ll get into Jimin’s reaction later on.

On days I hate being myself, days I want to disappear forever

Let's make a door in your heart

Open the door and this place will await

It's okay to believe, the Magic Shop will comfort you

Now let’s go back to Jungkook’s supposed inspiration for the song. I find it really interesting that he uses a place of a shared experience with Jimin as the place of ultimate comfort for himself and ARMYs. I think even if you disagree that the lyrics were written about Jimin, you can admit this detail itself is meaningful. 

I’m not sure who had the final decisions for which member sang which line, but if it was Jungkook, I think he used a lot of intentionality about line designation. Jimin is the one who sings the second half of this stanza.

While drinking a glass of hot tea

And looking up at the Milky Way

You’ll be alright, oh, this here is the Magic Shop

Again, speaking of intentionality of line designation, Jimin and Jungkook sing together for the first chorus, singing words of comfort and staring at the sky together. 

So show me (I'll show you)

So show me (I'll show you)

So show me (I'll show you)

Show you show you

To me, this line has a lot of reminiscence to the lyrics of the song Jungkook chose in ‘GCF Tokyo’, “There For You” by Martin Garrix. That song speaks of mutual support and comfort. ‘I’ll be there for you, but you’ve gotta be there for me too. Love is a road that goes both ways.” 

In the same way, Jungkook calls upon a need for mutual support. ‘You show me, and I’ll show you.’ I don’t know if he was directly inspired by the themes of Troye Sivan’s lyrics, or if it’s just a theme he connects to for personal reasons, but I find it interesting seeing this connection between the two events. It may have been subconscious, even, but it’s quite interesting to see.

Like a rose when blooming

Like cherry blossoms when being scattered in the wind

Like morning glory when fading

Like that beautiful moment

I always want to be the best

So I was impatient and always restless

Comparing myself with others became my daily life

My greed that was my weapon suffocated me and also became a leash

But looking back on it now, truthfully

I feel like it’s not true that I wanted to be the best

I wanted to become your comfort and move your heart

I want to take away your sadness, and pain

Okay, first of all, that’s beautiful. It makes me tear up every time I read it.

Jungkook, who’s telling his story through this song, speaks of a need for perfection that wouldn’t go away. He says that he was impatient and restless, and his greed held him back. He says that in retrospect, it’s not that he wanted to be the best, but that he wanted to become a comfort for ‘you’. (you= ARMY, or Jimin.) 

On days where I hate myself for being me, on days where I want to disappear forever

Let's make a door. It's in your heart

Open the door and this place will await

Magic Shop

While drinking a glass of hot tea

And looking up at the Milky Way

You’ll be alright, oh, this here is the Magic Shop

So show me (I'll show you)

So show me (I'll show you)

So show me (I'll show you)

Show you show you

Would you believe me if I said that I was scared of everything too?

All the sincerity, the remaining times

All your answers are in this place you found

In your Milky Way, inside your heart

Again, Jimin is given the line that to me reads as the emotional climax of the song. (The bolded words read as the climax to me.)

All the strength that Jungkook needed, he found within himself, and Jimin is the one who belts out this realization. 

You gave me the best of me

So you'll give you the best of you

You found me. You knew me

You gave me the best of me

So you'll give you the best of you

You'll find it, the galaxy inside you

So show me (I'll show you)

So show me (I'll show you)

So show me (I'll show you)

Show you show you

Again... this is so unbelievably poignant. 

“You gave me the best of me, so you’ll give you the best of you.” 

Oh my god. This isn’t a love song of finding your missing half. This is a love song about being fulfilled from within, with the help of someone else, and in return helping them find their own fulfillment. Jungkook is so, so wise. These lyrics are so amazing I can’t even really put it into words. 

If we’re using our dual interpretation that he’s singing to ARMY and Jimin, this is so incredibly meaningful. Imagine the weight of someone telling you that you helped them to discover the best within themself. You don’t have to imagine; he is singing this to us. But I also have an inkling it was written with a specific person in mind. 

“You found me. You knew me.”

I just want to emphasize the power and weight behind these words. This isn’t your everyday love song. 

The song ends with the returning theme of mutual love, once again giving me flashbacks to “There For You” by Troye Sivan, and by association also giving me flashbacks of the GCF Tokyo Film. 

Lyric analysis TLDR; In my opinion, the song is written with an intentional duality to be about ARMY and Jimin. The song is full of little Easter eggs that reference GCF Tokyo, from the title to the themes of mutual love in the lyrics. Jimin is also given climactic lines that would fit this theory. Something I didn’t mention is that even the genre/sound of the song bears resemblance to “There For You” with a synth pop style. By no means am I saying Jungkook copied or was not original, so don’t twist my words, but I think he very well may have been thematically or stylistically inspired by the sounds from “There For You” or may have subconsciously mirrored some style choices. (It also could’ve been 100% intentional for him to make people like us make the connection. We will never know.) 

Jimin’s Love for Magic Shop

Exhibit A: Comeback Vlive, May 18, 2018

This whole Vlive, Jikook seem extremely close/intimate in their interactions; JK teasing him and smiling at him with heart eyes, Jimin leaning into his space and looking at him fondly. 

As a prompt, Namjoon asks the members what the most difficult or most fun song was in the album. Jimin immediately brings up Magic Shop (21:43). Jimin personally thanks him for his efforts and says out of all the songs they recorded, Jimin put the most efforts into Magic Shop. When Jungkook goes on to explain his creation, and how it’s a ‘fan song’, Jimin just smiles at him with this endeared, knowing expression on his face. I really feel like Jimin seems to have some personal pride in the song, despite having not produced it or written it. And sure, it makes sense that he’s proud of his Jungkookie, but at the same time, something in his eyes just makes me think twice about the whole thing.

Jungkook said that when he was working on the song, all he felt was love for ARMY. Jimin smiles so wide and tells Jungkook he’s a smooth speaker, and that he’s “sweet like candy”...

Exhibit B: Jimin’s Vlive on May 20, 2018

In this vlive, he talks to fans about the album’s release, and around 9:30, begins to talk about how touched he was by the song. This takes him several minutes because he is so careful about the way he words it. 

He eventually gets across that its a song that touches him very deeply in comparison to all the other songs they perform, and the fact that Jungkook made it is very impressive to him. He even tells ARMY that they have to like it. 

Exhibit C: Jimin Twitter Video, February 13, 2019

And then... several months later, on February 13, 2019, Jimin posted a Twitter video of himself singing ‘Magic Shop’ with the ‘Injeolmi’ filter from the Snow app. (There is a theory about the Injeolmi filter being used as a ‘hint’, but I don’t want to get too far into that because it’s a little more on the delulu side. If you are aware of/believe this theory, I think it’s interesting to note.)

5th Muster VCR

Now I think it’s only fair that we look at the 5th Muster ‘Magic Shop’ film. This video puts the ‘Magic Shop’ concept into reality, with the member acting as components of the ‘Magic Shop’, where JK is on a mission to find something he’s missing in his heart. 

JK acts as the main character, coming to the magic shop to be healed. Jimin acts as the owner of the magic shop. 

I find it very interesting that they seemed to portray each member as a caricature of themself. RM destroys things, Suga’s character lazes about, Jin is surrounded by opulence, Tae goofy and photogenic, J-Hope loves dance, Jimin’s character... flirts with Jungkook. 

In the VCR, Jimin takes Jungkook to different rooms, each one containing a different member which tries to find the cure to Jungkook’s unhappiness, without success. 

Each time their remedies fail, Jimin goes back to the drawing board to think of something else.

In the end, with the help of the rest of the members, Jimin figures out the solution....

A pair of shoes? (I’m gonna be really honest I have no idea what that symbolizes... help me out here.)

Anyway, plot aside, I think you’re understanding what I’m getting at. Even in the skit version of this Magic Shop, Jimin’s role is special. He’s instrumental in helping JK, and he ultimately finds the solution to Jk’s problem. (Not to mention the flirting, like what???)

Due to extremely strict copyright, I can’t embed video, however here’s a link to all of the 5th muster DVD content if you’d like to watch it for yourself. 

Conclusion

Anyway, I’m not offering any ‘ultimate proof’, as I said, I’m just pointing out connections that I noticed. Whether or not the song was written about Jimin, I think it’s clear Jimin plays an instrumental role in Jungkook’s Magic Shop. 

I hope you enjoyed reading. If I missed anything you’d like me to add, let me know! 

If you liked this post a lot, buy me a coffee! I take requests. :)

#jikook #kookmin #km #jikook analysis #kookmin analysis #jikook discourse #magic shop #magic shop analysis

[twistedtummies2]

Gotham’s 31 Most Wanted - Number 4

Welcome back to Gotham’s 31 Most Wanted! Each day of January, I’m counting down my Top 31 Favorite Batman Villains of all time! Today’s villainess is, quite frankly, too popular for her own good. Number 4 is…Harley Quinn.

Oh, Harley…Harley, Harley, Harley…WHAT am I to do with you? Harley Quinn is a character I have a bit of a…curious relationship with. I would say she is to Batman fans like me what I think the film “A Christmas Story” is to a lot of people. There was a time when she was that one Batman character that almost no one knew about. Harley, as many will know, originated in the popular DC Animated Universe, starting with “Batman: The Animated Series.” The character was heavily influenced by the henchgirls the villains would have in the 60s show with Adam West (there are at least a couple I’m positive HAD to have been a direct inspiration, whether anybody says it aloud or not), and was voiced by Arleen Sorkin – who was also something of an influence on the character’s personality and appearance. Harleen Quinzel started out as a gun moll of the Joker; once she had been an up-and-coming psychiatrist at Arkham Asylum, but her ambitions and inexperience led to her being bamboozled by the Clown Prince of Crime, and she fell in love with her patient. The more the Joker worked his black magic on her, the more into depravity Harleen fell, till she eventually adopted the moniker of Harley Quinn – a pun on “Harlequin” – and became the Joker’s daffy accomplice on many a caper. In the show, Harley was a fun and frenetic character – being both complex and interesting as well as just plain nutty – and quickly became a fan favorite, reappearing in multiple spinoffs…but I don’t think anybody expected her to go anywhere after the DCAU ended its collective run. Lord, if only… At first, Harley’s movement was fairly small; I remember those days, because I lived them. She appeared as the main antagonist of the series “Birds of Prey,” but that never really went anywhere. They reimagined her in “The Batman,” but again, that never really went anywhere. Heck, she even appeared in comics, starting with her very own self-titled series…but even THEN, she wasn’t MASSIVELY popular. Heck, not even a small appearance in a big storyline like “Hush” seemed to properly put her on the map! It’s really hard for me to precisely pinpoint WHEN Harley’s popularity exploded, or even WHY it exploded…but suddenly, without any given warning, she started showing up EVERYWHERE. Her appearances in comics became increasingly more frequent and with more and more focus being placed on her; more TV shows and video games not connected to the DCAU began popping up with her in them. She now even has her own TV series, and a movie that, despite being called “Birds of Prey,” is really a Harley Quinn movie above all else. And throughout a lot of interpretations, she’s been able to move away from the Joker in a variety of ways, becoming more and more of a focal point on her own terms. Now…there are two types of Harley fans out there. Some who just love Harley in freaking everything and seem to worship the ground she treads on…and others who are effectively “Harley Purists.” To them, Harley Quinn is the Joker’s Queen, and they just can’t stand all these new interpretations that have popped up over time. Now, I don’t really count myself 100% in EITHER category…but if I had to take a side, I’d go with the Harley Purists. To me, I don’t mind all the various reinventions of Harley, but I just find that very few of them work for me. I don’t mind her being a bit more evil in things like “Birds of Prey” or the Arkham games, but then you have things like “Gods and Monsters” or the Telltale version, both of which I really can’t stand. I don’t mind her changing out of her “classic attire,” but I seriously don’t get all the biker gal imagery, and a lot of her outfits just seem to be either trying to hard to be “sexy,” or are simply garish and ridiculous, even for Harley Quinn. I don’t even mind her being with characters other than the Joker! Let’s face it, that wasn’t the healthiest relationship…but I don’t always feel the characters they DO match her with instead make sense to me, nor do I feel most of those (if any) relationships have the poetry that the Joker had. I also REALLY don’t like how promiscuous Harley is in a lot of modern stories; sure, the original Harley could be flirtatious, and they made it clear she was no angel, but there was a subtlety to it that I think worked to its advantage. To me, there’s always been a childlike quality to Harley that should be retained, and a lot of modern takes seem to miss that mark by a nautical mile, one way or another. Bottom line, CONCEPTUALLY all these innovations are fine! I just think that the number of times they actually WORK, at least to my personal taste – and that IS ultimately the test here, just personal taste – is fairly small. As a result, over time I’ve started to get a little bit ANNOYED by Harley, because it almost feels like she’s sticking her nose in places she doesn’t need to be, and that the writers are playing with her in ways they really shouldn’t have tried. WITH THAT SAID…I know a lot of people disagree. If you’re a huge Harley fanboy or fangirl, and you love all these new trials, good for you! They clearly have to be pleasing somebody, and as long as it’s for the right reasons, enjoy what you will! I’ll just always take the original version any day over pretty much ANY of the reimaginings we’ve gotten since. Having stated all of that…I DO still find I love Harley, even if I’m frustrated with how she’s handled a lot of the time. She’s funny and fascinating; there’s a sort of sweetness and kindness to Harley, in most interpretations, that gives her a sense of being a “light in the darkness.” Despite that, she’s still capable of horrific acts; it often seems like Harley works best when she has someone to bounce off of – Joker, Poison Ivy, Killer Croc, Deadshot – and depending on who she is with and why, that often dictates what level of cruelty we can expect. In cases where Harley IS on her own, more or less, she still holds strong, being able to either show what a capable villain she is, or just being able to showcase her comedy. The reason so many people do so much with Harley Quinn is because you CAN do so much with Harley Quinn. So I do still feel her high placement here is personally justified; she’s flawed, but I still love her. She sort of shares that quality with our next entry on the countdown…but that’s another story. We’ve entered the Top Three! Tomorrow I’ll be covering my 3rd Favorite Batman Villain. HINT: “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Bat…How I Wonder What You’re At…?”

#gotham's 31 most wanted #january advent calendar #new year's countdown #batman villains #batman #villains #dc #comics #supervillains #rogues gallery #rogues #gallery #harley quinn #harley #quinn #harleen #quinzel #harleen quinzel

[taekooktimeline]

Ask

Kayla will focus more on the latest VCR’s while Sara will do so on the one where TK appear under a blue light.

Kayla: Hello! 💜I miss questions like this🥺thank you so much for submitting it, and that means a lot that you appreciate hearing our interpretation of things💜I loved this question so much🥰

Before I start, as always, please keep in mind this is simply my interpretation of things! ☺️

I agree both VCRs seem to heavily hint to deeper things with taekook. Let’s start with Jungkook’s “my time”. He has said consistently this song is about his lost childhood and growing up in the spotlight. However, I do personally think there’s a secondary meaning. I understand some are sensitive to analyzing songs, and no not every song in a member’s solo discography is directed to his lover, but here’s what made me pause - the chorus - “I can’t call ya/hol’ ya” and then, at the end, it changes to “I will call ya/I will hol’ ya”. It fits his struggles in the spotlight - the inability to reach out due to multiple difficulties (busy schedule, saesangs, etc) and eventually he is able to reach out, call, touch. In this instance, the chorus could be considered towards relationships, like a special someone. I don’t normally like Quora, but Helen Xu, an interactor on the site, is very insightful and has said something I agree with. She directly answered a question about “my time”. Below are snippets but I highly encourage reading the entirety of her answer here - https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-My-Time-by-BTS-Jungkook-is-about-himself-I-respect-and-trust-BTS-what-they-say-but-I-can-t-help-but-feel-that-this-song-is-for-his-significant-other-I-really-hope-so-tho-because-I-love-that-for-him-but 

Keeping in mind this, we can examine the VCR a little more closely. Jk looks at a lot of clocks on the walls.

But only a handful are singled out and on a nightstand close by him. For me, this indicates great importance to these specific clocks.

One I am still working on figuring out is the one to the far left of Jk, right behind the phone. I can’t determine if it says 3:09 or 3:10. If it says 3:09… that’s very interesting, as it’s Yoongi’s birthday. Keep in mind, Yoongi wrote letters to only taekook in 2018 that, in Tae’s own words, made him cry for 10 mins. The members joked Jk’s letter must be a “copy paste” of Tae’s, meaning the same letter:

Jk singled out both Tae’s character, Tata, and Yoongi’s character, Shooky, to be the ones supporting Cooky directly in the ring for his 2020 B21 skit.

If the clock truly says 3:09, this is the second time Jk has directly singled out Yoongi in 2020, as well as Tae when factoring the other clock. Disclaimer - Please note this part is shaky since I can’t determine the time enough to feel confident. 

But what we can deduce - as a lot noticed, 2 of the 3 clocks next to Jk show his birthday, 9/1 - 9:01, and Tae’s 12/30 - 12:30.

The fact these are singled out from the other clocks and are closest to Jk imply to me great importance to him. He picks up the third clock closest to him.

This one has the time - zero o’clock. He holds it up and smiles at it, as if he’s embracing the new time.

Zero o’clock is about starting a new day and forgetting what troubles you. For me …factoring in the two clocks being placed in a prominent position (denoting Tae’s and Jk’s birthdays) + Jk then performs “my time” right after + my suspicions that align with Helen Xu, that the song has a secondary (hidden) meaning …for me, this indicates Jk has found his time. His time has come, he’s ready/at peace and he’s welcoming it. He’s leaving his former struggles behind and will live more freely, less restricted. 

The other part of the VCR was very interesting. Only Taekook paint their faces in black. I spoke to a few different people, who were firm that painting oneself with black indicated stigma, sin, being different, in their culture. It can also be viewed as their shadow, as BTS have discussed this extensively. Tae covers his eye while Jk covers his mouth. This reminded me of “see no evil, hear no evil” in the sense their differences/“sins” are not seen or spoken about by society. Society chooses to ignore what they’ve tried to show and say.

Jk paints his mouth black while Tae paints his eye.

After, both smirk.

For me, this indicates they’re embracing their shadow/difference. They are not bothered any further by society closing their eyes and mouths to their stigma. They have come to terms with it. They will no longer hide in their shadows/darkness. 

They also showed the shadow closing on Tae (going backwards, reverse effect, not fully closing since the door still opens for him) and the light opening on Jk - parallels of each other, and again, they are the only two with this symbolism.

What I find very interesting out of all of this is how taekook are singled out as different from the group. There is a reoccurring pattern. We saw it at MAMA 2019. Both were in blue light then, based on standing order, both were in black. (As a side note - i couldn’t find a capture that encompassed Jin in the below blue/red light):

The others are in white while Taekook are black, still hidden, in their shadow. 

We then saw them be singled out as different again in the On MV. Both were the only ones that had thorns, Tae’s on his neck and Jk’s around his wrist.

Thorns also can be symbolic of sin, just like the black paint in the VCR:

Jk even says he was cast out of society for being different.

My personal thinking which isn't necessarily applicable to the VCRs and heavy hinting: a taekook subunit is coming by the end of the year. We’ve said this consistently since about the spring, as noted in the main timeline, based on the first few vlives, some festa promo shoots and the order of the festa board.

There have been some other, more recent, indicators, but this has been my consistent stance - 1) Taekook 2) Yoonmin + Jin 3) Hobi and Joon. We’ll see! I know some have a differentiating opinion on this based on the BTS YT live with two subunits, not three + photo cards but my stance remains the same from spring. And if you disagree it’s ok! It’s only theory- it can be wrong or right. In asks I feel safer theorizing more freely since we don’t have to place as much importance on being “right”. Either way, even if I’m incorrect on the other subunit pairings, I still think Taekook will be a unit. 

BH is working to normalize - to some degree - TK after years of restricting on camera interactions. Part of normalizing, for some, will be a subunit. I feel strongly it’ll happen for that reason. Whether it’s on a BTS album, or KTH1 or JJK1, I’m not sure. But I think by December or, at the latest January, the subunit will happen on one of those three (if it doesn’t happen in November for BE). 

But I want to make it clear … I don’t think singling out Taekook from the group is solely for their subunit. Whether the subunit is on the BTS album or a mixtape, I feel very strongly we are getting one. But the reoccurring pattern of showing them as different from the other five members, with symbolisms of shadow/stigma/sin (and now embracing that)... to me indicates something even bigger is possibly brewing. I’ve got a lot of mixed thoughts I’m sorting through regarding the company’s stance right now so some of that conflicts and I just need to see in time where things go. 

Please remember this is merely MY opinion / theory on this topic, which is subjective and open to individual interpretation. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong :) theory is theory for a reason and I know some disagree on the subunit part (so please don’t flood the asks with stances - I know this is a varied opinion💜😅). All we can do is wait. 

——————————

Sara: I´ve never paid too much thought to concert VCR´s because I wasn't sure if they had enough substance...but now as I pondered I'm quite excited to share my findings. We all know Taekook were the only ones to have a blue light casted over them right? Well, this is extremely important and I’ll tell you why. 

BTS have made references to the blue & red pill dilemma from matrix on multiple occasions, the first time that I recall being in their MV for “N.O.” where they take the red pill & fight the system.

In sum, if you take the red pill you face the harsh reality while if you take the blue pill you stay in a dream-like illusion, a fake and perfect one. In the music video for “Shadow” you can see Suga singing on top of the scenario covered in blue light while everyone filmed him. This is his persona. The persona, for psychiatrist Carl Jung, was the social face the individual presented to the world—"a kind of mask, designed on the one hand to make a definite impression upon others, and on the other to conceal the true nature of the individual" = an illusion = blue pill.

  Afterwards, his shadow that was hidden among the crowd takes over and everything turns red as he faces his true hidden self = harsh reality = red pill.

What is the shadow? In short, the shadow is the unknown side. The shadow represents all the personal traits we have ignored, denied, or cut off from ourselves. Because one tends to reject or remain ignorant of the least desirable aspects of one's personality, the shadow is largely negative. There are, however, positive aspects that may also remain hidden in one's shadow (especially in people with low self-esteem, anxieties, and false beliefs). Being LGBTQ would fit into this last case as it’s not negative in nature. Jung’s concept is that the aim of one’s life, psychologically speaking, should be not to suppress or repress, but to come to know one’s other side, and so both to enjoy and to control the whole range of one’s capacities; i.e., in the full sense, to “know oneself.” That process is called “individuation” and a necessary step is to become aware of the shadow and integrate it’s hidden aspects into the consciousness.

At first the blinking blue light suffocates Tae who can be seen suffering, running around and hugging himself. Something in his interior wants to be set free.

At the end of the VCR Tae is finally standing calmly as he faces his truth, accepting it (red) -

That’s what Sinclair does in the book “Demian” that BTS based their series “Wings” on. He recounts his experiences with the two realms, two worlds of which he was aware at the time—one of darkness, and one of light, one of day and one of night. The realm of day was everything "good", straight, and Christian. The realm of night was the world of scandal and mystery, drunkenness and murder, deceit and illegal activity. The realm of light was the world of Sinclair's parents and sisters. Though living in the realm of light, he was curious about and attracted to the realm of darkness. He was tempted by Demian, who acted like an inner voice leading him to self-discovery and individuation. In the Below pic the black ink represents temptation and “sin”. Jk takes it to his mouth (in this 2016’s trailer for the Wings tour, other members use different symbolism like sinful apples, blindfolds, curtains, etc).

Jk takes a taste of this world of darkness in BS&T. The world of the previously unknown and denied shadows.

Dialogue from “Demian” that played in this scene from BS&T: “He too was a tempter. The evil world with which I no longer wanted to have anything to do”. The balloon is let go which represents lost innocence - surroundings covered in red.

As I said, the shadow is not always inherently negative, but it’s always perceived as such by either society, the individual, or both. The intro for “Wings” was “Boy Meets Evil”. When the lyrics give into the temptation the walls are painted red.

When performing this song in MAMA 2016 we can see the two realms on opposite sides. When we mix them we get a purple color representing the whole, the dichotomy of human nature (which tormented Sinclair until he accepted himself).

What are they trying to convey with this picture below?

Well, other members are letting their shadows be seen, but Taekook are showing us their carefully drafted public persona, hiding their truth. All of them do this to some extent, but this image implies Taekook’s real self drastically contrasts with the illusion that they create by wearing their masks. They have to conceal more than the rest, even if they already accepted themselves.  What you see is a pretty lie = blue. They only show us their “good” side. Just like “Fake Love’s” lyrics (a song directed to army): “Mold a pretty lie for you”, “Try to erase myself and make me your doll”.  Also, In Singularity Tae sings about silencing his voice and trapping himself into a frozen BLUE lake.

He wears a mask. The red part of his head (shadow, hidden truth) has an earring that reads “loved”. Forbidden, secret love?

Yoongi recently talked about this topic while In The Soop. He said that he talked with Bang pd nim and that, if someone has to do it (for a greater good), he himself would choose the red pill. He would sacrifice. The matrix is an ongoing theme.

About the latest VCR’s where TK have black paint, I basically agree with Kayla. They were introducing the shadow-themed section of the concert so every member was portraying the shadow in different ways but it’s definitely interesting that Taekook represented the shadow with the exact same symbolism put back to back - arguably the most visually impactful out of them - placed near the end of the VCR as it reaches it’s peak in intensity before slowly falling into quietness again. Taekook share a common aspect of themselves that is considered negative and carries a stigma and therefore - as their blue public colors indicate - is part of their red hidden shadow. They really highlighted Taekook’s scenes, so it indicates their shadow is of greater significance. It’s a bigger deal. As mentioned earlier, the black ink is related to sin.

Now JK’s VCR that introduced his song. “My time” by Jk is certainly about his crazy life while growing up in the spotlight. It’s not only about his lost childhood, but also about a “limited love”, losing the capacity to love freely during his teens and beyond. The chorus - the part of the song that delivers the main message - sings about a relationship with many physical limitations. The chosen words are pretty romantic: hold, touch, etc (discard fans as it’s a personal song). Since we talk about the spotlight, it can be understood that they can’t do those things while having eyes on them. He says “happy that we met each other” so it’s not about his family. He’s waiting for “the time” they’ll be able to love freely which he has promised will come (“I will hold ya and you know”). If we take the previous VCR’s into account it’s quite suspicious that Taekook’s clocks are placed right next to each other in the most important spot angle-wise. It does seem like a connection between Jk’s song and Taekook. 

What does all this ultimately mean? What’s the purpose of showing these hints? Well, not sure. Could be related to them coming out in the future and finding their time to live their lives as a couple without pretending, taking off their masks and revealing their truth. For the time being a TK subunit would be neat though :P 

#discussions #taekook #taekooktimeline #theories #vcrs

[idreamtofmanderleyagain]

Hellraiser Fandom and the Invisibility of Women’s Abuse

I’m starting to come to terms with why the Last Drive In interviews stuck with me in a bad way.

It kind of eluded me for a while, but to give you guys the emotional lead-up to what was underlying my sense of discomfort and irritation, let me explain a few things. When I heard the interview was going to happen, I watched some portions of a different Last Drive In episode to get a sense of what the whole thing was about. It’s your standard hosted horror movie show. 

It’s also awkwardly sexist. They have a character on it, Darcy The Mail Girl, who as far as I could tell in my first viewing, basically exists on the show to be ogled and be the butt of sexual humor. The men filming would even break the fourth wall to snicker and whistle when she would say something sexual. In 2020, it was extraordinarily cringe-worthy to watch, and I’m at a loss that we’re still living in a world where this is normalized. It was like watching something from the 80′s. She is extremely objectified on the show. 

I don’t blame her for this. Apparently, she was the victim of some awful bullying and body-shaming fairly recently, and I don’t want to put more suffering on that girl’s shoulders. I respect her. I think she respects herself. The circumstances surrounding a woman being in a position like this are complicated, and I do not pretend to understand her situation. She’s also allowed her own feelings about what she can and cannot handle, and what is and is not okay with her.

Nevertheless, the segment I saw in that other episode with Darcy was alienating and even rather upsetting. I felt a second-hand humiliation and pain. I didn’t feel like Darcy was put in a position where she was in control of her own sexual expression. Perhaps Darcy’s actress disagrees with me, and that’s fine. But as a female audience member, I was already feeling a sense of unease and unwelcome.

So I was obviously primed for discomfort before the interviews even started.

Joe Bob Briggs (the host) said a few things that did not sit quite right with me. Quite frankly, he repeated some more annoying fanboy statements that tend to stick in my craw. His rather basic interpretation of the film, juxtaposed against the awkward, stifling feeling of watching Doug and Ashley try to explain the deeper concepts that eluded him reminded my of my own frustrations listening to the male fans of these films’ constant comprehension failure.

How many times does Doug have to repeat the words he’s basically memorized by heart regarding the tragedy and complex nature of Pinhead? Why does this get forgotten, glossed over, even retconned so much?

Why does it always feel like Ashley gets disregarded? Every time we see an interview with her (which is comparatively rare), nobody really speaks to the deeper thoughts she expresses on her character or the narrative, but every man in the comments has something to say about her hotness level.

When we got to the point that Ashley tried to explain to Briggs that she thought Pinhead was fair in a certain scene, and that Pinhead was speaking to Kirsty’s accountability for her own desires, Briggs responds incredulously; “You think Kirsty OWES Pinhead?!” 

Ashley had spent a portion of the interview having to dismiss the relevance of characters like Steve and Kyle in Kirsty’s life, and was now suggesting a deeper subtext in her interactions with Pinhead that both A) did not cast Kirsty as pure and sexless and without culpability, and B) did not cast Pinhead as her aggressor but as her psychological mirror. 

This is the subtext that is most often disregarded by casual fans and some hardcore fans alike, that Kirsty may not be the innocent and sexless Final Girl, and that Pinhead may not be the predatory Slasher monster intent on using a sharp weapon to penetrate her violently for his own gratification, and that dynamic may not be the be-all-end all of their relationship for the rest of time.

I’ve been turning Brigg’s incredulous response around in my brain for a while. And it’s made me realize something about how men experience Hellraiser’s narrative, and why it differs so greatly for many women.

Doug has more than once spoken to the fact that women react to Pinhead very differently than men. He was of course speaking of the sexual interest he would get, but he has remarked upon the fact at least once that he’s not entirely sure why that is, exactly.

It’s...not that strange to me that women desire rather than fear the character, or that Ashley would have a more positive response to Kirsty’s relationship with him rather than her relationships with the seemingly benign boys of the films. 

There is an order to which women first learn about sex. For some it’s a little different but I believe this is a fairly common experience: The very first thing we learn is that it’s going to hurt (but maybe also feel good after). The second thing we learn is that boys will want to take it from us and will manipulate and lie to us to get it, but that it’s supposed to happen in a loving relationship. The third thing we learn is that we want it too, but we aren’t supposed to because it’s dirty and wrong for us to want it. 

Women grow up with an inherent anxiety around sex, an anxiety that is complicated by our own desires.

Everything in Hellraiser is perfectly reflective of a reality that men clearly do not have the context to fully comprehend, because women’s real experiences of desire, and of male violence, are a blind spot.

The men who hurt women don’t have pins in their head and wax gothic poetry about suffering. They don’t wear dark capes and turn into bats and hypnotize women from their windows to drink their blood. 

The men who hurt women look like Frank, or J.P. Monroe, or Trevor, or Channard, or every bumbling aggressive fool Julia seduced home. 

They look like Larry and Steve. 

Larry let his wife scream “no” and “stop” several times before he responded, regardless of the true reasons she was screaming those words. And when he finally did stop, it was out of anger rather than concern. This is, as far as I’m aware, the most common form of sexual violence a woman can experience - a man they give their trust to suddenly doesn’t respect a “no.”

So, so many times, I have heard men say how badly they felt for Larry, how innocent poor Larry was. 

Men live in a fantasy world where it’s more comfortable for them to imagine characters like Larry as good man, a victim of Julia’s callousness who isn’t in Hell not because he never touched the box, but because he is inherently innocent. They live in a fantasy world where it’s odd that Steve abandoned Kirsty the minute something deeply traumatic happened to her (Briggs remarked upon this). Raise your hand if a man has done the same to you when the cards where down.

Steve’s response to Kirsty getting too drunk to stand properly was to “jokingly” tell her to lie down in this sleazeball way that indicated he was insinuating taking advantage of her intoxicated state. Also one of the most common forms of sexual violence a woman can experience.

The men who Julia took home would respond aggressively when she chickened out of sex, either blindly or in an attempt to shame and guilt her into proceeding.

Should we talk about the fact that Kyle is a psychiatrist who shouldn’t be romancing a traumatized patient in his care who’s parent was just fucking brutally murdered? Or does that feel too petty in comparison?

The men who hurt women are more typically their friends, their fathers, their uncles, their boyfriends, their husbands.

What’s so funny about all of this is that Pinhead somehow does better at consent than these men, at least in a manner of speaking. He’s the only man who legitimately listens to Kirsty, and responds to her “no.” No matter what he threatens, he always stops to hear her out, lets her do what she wants, is always talking about her desires and pleasure, and in the end always ends up destroying the men abusing her rather than going through with ever harming her. 

Briggs seemed keen on viewing Pinhead as a Satanic figure. Historically, what is the role of women who are in a position to encounter the devil? Usually, they are witches, wanton women who gain magical power through sexual communion with the devil. A framework of propaganda that men have historically used to persecute women.

The men who hurt and oppress women in real life don’t look or act like Satan, but they sure as hell are ready to write narrative after narrative of Satanic figures menacing women while they save the day, and they sure as hell like to blame women for preferring “bad boys” and “assholes” over the “nice guy.” 

It’s more comfortable for men to imagine Pinhead as this cool figure of pure evil with no feelings or capacity for mercy, because they can live vicariously through his violence (particularly when they’re writing him doing it to half-naked women, looking at you H3) and yet simultaneously distance their moral identities from him. 

It’s more comfortable to compartmentalize what good vs. predatory masculinity looks like in a way that benefits their self-image and the status quo. This is a lie men tell themselves.

It’s safer for men to point to Pinhead and say, “this is what a predator looks like,” while curiously never speaking of the callous, scummy and predatory behavior of every single other man in the films, even to the point of occasionally discussing the perceived tragedy of fucking Frank’s spiral into darkness long before they can feel entirely comfy imagining Pinhead as having a past where he was a good man with sad feelings, or regard his act of self-sacrifice for Kirsty as anything but a moment of weakness that was “bad writing” and therefore should never have happened.

There is an extraordinary irony in a man arguing with Pinhead’s own actor over the nature of his evil, while running a show where a female character’s fuckability is her main characteristic and it’s okay to behave as if she doesn’t even have real feelings.

All this nonsense in the spaces I go to have fun, while we’re dealing with the background radiation of a President who’s sexual abuses are swept under the rug, his masculinity praised regularly and his violence against our people gaslighted. While we’re dealing with the mass-recorded aggressive violence of police - white men in positions of authority whom we are supposed to trust to keep us safe. While men make other men laugh about the violation of girls so they don’t have to deal with the reality of one of the “nice” funny guys being a predator.

Fuck you. I’d rather burn.

#Hellraiser #rape cw #abuse cw

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Psycho Analysis: Count Dracula

(WARNING! This analysis contains SPOILERS!)

So, in all my time doing Psycho Analysis, there have been a few villainous characters that, while extremely obvious, have such large and daunting scopes that it seems a bit scary to think I could accurately analyze them. Characters like Disney’s Pete or Bowser come to mind. Both are obvious 11s, but where to even begin with them? And that is a similar problem I faced with the villain who is arguably the single most important foe to ever grace fiction: Count Dracula.

How on Earth is one supposed to talk about a character who has spanned so much media and has remained an enduring fixture of pop culture for over a century? The guy has been in movies, comics, books, video games, plays, cartoons, musicals, songs… and he hasn’t even been a villain in all of them! How does one talk about such a villain with such a broad, all-encompassing scope?

The obvious answer is, of course, to talk about him in a broad sense and how he has affected culture, of course! This one’s going to be a little different than usual since I’m focusing more on the concept of Dracula than one single version, so there’s a lot of Dracula’s to go over here:

Performance: Throughout the years, Dracula has had many actors take a shot at him, though I think the finest takes are courtesy of Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. The former is basically what cemented Dracula as a sexy, Gothic horror icon, changing the far less attractive man from the book into a seductive monster that would color numerous adaptations after. Lee’s take brings the sexy, but is also far more violent and monstrous, mostly because Hammer horror films were all about that bright red blood, so gotta have someone spill it all!

If you’re looking for more flamboyant, hammy Draculas, Richard Roxbourg of Van Helsing and Duncan Regehr of The Monster Squad have you covered, playing Dracula at his most deliciously, monstrously evil. However, the hammiest (and thus most amazing) Dracula was Michael Guinn’s take in Symphony of the Night, with the entire opening exchange between him and Richter Belmont being a testament to the joys of chewing the scenery.

More comedic takes on Dracula have popped up over the years, with the most notable ones being Adam Sandler’s lovable, fatherly take on the character in the Hotel Transylvania films and Phil LaMarr’s performance on Billy and Mandy, where he plays a ridiculous, possibly senile version of Dracula who is abrasive and hilarious in equal measure.

Basically, when it comes to Dracula, you can easily find any sort of performance to suit your needs and give you what you’re looking for.

Best Scene: Over the years, Dracula has had a great many fantastic moments under his belt, so many fantastic scenes and boss battles… but for my money, the single greatest moment Dracula has ever been in is the opening battle of Symphony of the Night. Just watch this cheesy melodrama unfold and try and disagree with me:

Though, of course, his death in the animated series sure is a contender:

Best Quote: From the above scene, we have “What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets!” among moany other meme-worthy bits of dialogue from Dracula. 

On the subject of Castlevania, from the TV show we have Dracula at his most tragic and pitiable, especially when he delivers these fantastically tragic lines like “ It's your room... My boy... I'm- I'm killing my boy... Lisa... I'm killing our boy. We painted this room. We... made these toys. It's our boy, Lisa... your greatest gift to me... and I'm killing him. I must already be dead.” and “Your greatest gift to me... and I'm killing him." as he does battle with his son, Alucard.

Then of course, we have the legendary moment from The Monster Squad where Dracula drops any pretense and starts strangling a little girl, screaming in her face "Give me the amulet, you bitch!" It’s so deliciously, horrendously evil!

Final Thoughts & Score: It’s very strange to think of how much all of fiction owes Dracula. The original book invented a lot of traits (the lack of reflection being one) and popularized others (such as shapeshifting and weakness to garlic), but at the same time also predates a lot of things modern vampire fiction takes for granted. The Dracula of the book has no weakness to sunlight and gets younger as he drinks blood, starting as an old man; in fact, Dracula in the book is entirely lacking in the Gothic sex appeal that almost every adaptation of the character after would give him. He was also not very seductive, instead outright attacking women if he wasn’t hypnotizing them. Hell, he wasn’t even explicitly Vlad the Impaler in the books!

More than any other villain I’ve covered so far, Dracula is truly deserving of an 11/10. Even Count Orlok owes him a debt, seeing as Nosferatu was just a blatant ripoff. Hell, aside from villains from old mythology, I don’t think any villain can lay claim to the sort of scope Dracula has, having forever altered vampire fiction even as certain elements of him become lost in translation.

But what of some of his other incarnations over the years? How do they fare in terms of score? Well, I’m certainly not going to be incredibly thorough and list every Dracula ever, but here are a few I’ve encountered:

Obviously it’s unfair to give the Bela Lugosi incarnation anything less than an 11/10, mainly because this is the Dracula who pretty much inspired most other interpretations of Dracula after him. He’s suave, Gothic, attractive in that dark and mysterious way… it’s no wonder Lugosi’s Dracula became such an iconic fixture of cinema. Then we have the other classic Dracula, Christopher Lee’s take. I think he’s only a 10/10 because I feel like Lee’s tenure is a bit more overlooked and Lugosi tends to supplant him in terms of iconic status.

Castlevania as a franchise is specifically built qround defeating Dracula as the heroic Belmont clan or some adjacent vampire hunter. So you’d better hope that the big bad and master of the magical castle the game takes place in is impressive, right? Well he most certainly is; while he’s not completely fleshed out in every appearance he has some, like his iconic portrayal in Symphony of the Night, really help sell the idea this incarnation of Dracula is a rather tragic villain, though at other times in the series he seems to revel in being a monster far more than that interpretation would allow. Notably, the Castlevania show went with the more tragic approach to great effect, with Graham McTavish delivering a fantastic performance that swings from being genuinely terrifying to hauntingly emotional (just watch the scene where he breaks down upon fighting Alucard and realizing he’s killing his own son). Both game (in a broad sense) and show Dracula get a 10/10, for different reasons.

Duncan Regehr portrayed the Dracula in The Monster Squad, and it is quite obvious he’s having a hell of a time. He’s just wonderfully hammy, and he might be one of the most evil Draculas ever seeing how he called a little girl a bitch and tried to slaughter children with dynamite. This one’s a 9/10 for sure. I honestly think he’s the best take on the character, but his movie is sadly too obscure to really give him that push to being a truly iconic portrayal. He just captures the menace and charisma of Dracula so well, it’s a shame more people don’t know about him.

Van Helsing had a Dracula, played to hammy perfection by Richard Roxburgh. Say what you will about the rest of the film, but any Dracula movie that features evil bat monster Dracula fighting fallen angel werewolf Hugh Jackman in a battle to the death over Frankenstein’s atomic heart is worth at least an 8/10. For a more minor role, we have the Dracula who appeared in the blaxploitation classic Blacula. While he only appears for a bit at the start, long enough to curse an African prince with vampirism and dub him “Blacula,” this Dracula firmly cements himself as one of the most evil Draculas ever, gleefully participating in the slave trade. I believe that’s another 8/10 right there. On a related note, Blacula serves as a chief inspiration to the Billy and Mandy incarnation of Dracula, who is a cranky old black man with a big mustache and lots of sass (in fact, he’s accidentally closer to the original book’s depiction than most other Draculas). Sadly, as a more neutral chaotic comedic figure, I can’t give him a rating, but boy is he a riot.

Scooby-Doo and the Reluctant Werewolf features a more comedic and zany Dracula, one who participates in some good-old-fashioned Wacky Races cheating in an attempt to keep Shaggy as a werewolf forever. He’s mostly amusing for a oneshot villain, so I’d say 7/10 is fair. Speaking of oneshot villains, Dracula also showed up in an animated straight to video movie for The Batman, where he did things such as turn Joker into a vampire and get killed by Batman. He’s probably a 7/10 as well.

And then there are all the heroic takes on Dracula, such as the version from Dracula Untold or the “overbearing but endearing father” take on the character from the Hotel Transylvania movies (though that rap Adam Sandler does at the end of the first movie is pretty heinous).

And this is not an extensive list by any means. There are so many Draculas I haven’t watched yet, so many different takes I haven’t read the adventures of. And that, I think, is what makes Dracula such a great villain. He is a character who any writer can bend and shape to fit a plot, a villain who can serve almost any purpose and who can fit in almost any fantasy story imaginable. Dracula is incredibly versatile, and whenever he shows up in a work, things almost always get better for a bit. And keep in mind, this is a character who has been around since the year 1897, and yet he is still a household name that even people who have never read the books or seen the movies can accurately describe and recognize.

Is Count Dracula the greatest villain in all of human history? It’s debatable for sure, but I don’t think there’s any denying he’s up there considering his scope and influence and how he helped mold modern vampire fiction into what it is today. If nothing else, Dracula is still wildly influential.

#Psycho Analysis #Dracula #Count Dracula #The Monster Squad #Bram Stoker #Van Helsing #Hammer #Christopher Lee #Bela Lugosi #Adam Sandler #Hotel Transylvania

[adventure-hearts]

I was asked about this topic recently, and, being bored out of my mind, I felt inspired to use it as a starting point for a new series! I hope to share my current headcanons about the personality types of the Digimon Adventure universe’s main characters, according to different personality systems: astrology, Enneagram, MBTI... feel free to suggest any other typologies you’d like me to explore in the future.

In this first post, I’ll try to explain which of the Sun Sign personality archetypes I find more likely and interesting for each character. Consider this this an update of my previous headcanons, post-tri. (and post LAST EVOLUTION Kizuna).

1: DIGIMON ADVENTURE + ZODIAC SIGNS

Taichi - Aries

Yamato - Aries

Sora - Pisces [semi-canon]

Koushirou - Aquarius

Mimi - Leo

Jou - Virgo 

Takeru - Libra

Hikari - Pisces

Daisuke - Sagittarius

Miyako - Gemini [canon]

Iori - Capricorn

Ken - Cancer

Meiko Mochizuki - Virgo/Libra

Maki Himekawa - Scorpio

Daigo Nishijima - Leo

Note: Every single headcanon is highly subjective and even I will probably change my mind about it. This is only a PROPOSAL.

If you’re interested in my interpretation and methodology, read on!

Canon Clues 

Although there are no official birthdays for the characters, several Adventure materials have provided “goalposts” where we can fit some characters’ birthdays. I strive to make my HCs as canon-compliant as possible, so it’s important for me to take this info into account.

Miyako is stated to be a Gemini in 02.

The official synopsis of tri. Indicates that Taichi is 17 years old during the series, suggesting the has an April-June birthday.

Sure, you’re free to ignore this little nugget if you prefer, but I personally like to think there’s a reason they mentioned Taichi’s age explicitly — something they never did before. They also never mentioned the explicit age of any of the other characters.

Funnily enough, the DALEK official website and novel lists the character’s ages during the events of the film. Since the film takes place in the summer of 2010, taking those numbers at face-value would require us to believe all 8 characters have birthdays in the first half of the year. 

This contradicts the explicit on-screen information about Jou’s age in the original series (see below). 

I’m proposing this should be interpreted as their “average” ages, rather than precise ages at this specific moment in time — after all, in Kizuna it’s more difficult to identify the characters by their school year, like they always did before.

Sora’s birthday is canonically before the events of Our War Game. The film takes place during the spring holidays, which typically begin around the third week of March.

Sora having a March birthday is so universally accepted by Japanese fans that it’s even on her Wikipedia page. I wouldn’t be surprised if more recent writers took that information into account, post-OWG, and portrayed her accordingly. 

Notice that Pisces is only the more likely option considering the canon timeline and Sora’s personality — Aries (late March) and Aquarius (mid-February) could fit as well. Hence why I consider this choice [semi-canon].

Jou, who is a 6th-grader, mentions he’s 11 years old during Adventure. This suggest his birthday would be after August 1.

Ken is supposed to be 9 years old in August 2000, when he’s in Year 3, suggesting he has an April-August birthday.

This is different from other guidebooks which only list the characters “average” ages, because this lists Ken’s precise age during a specific event.

I believe Ken being exactly 9 years old went to the Digital world is deliberate, since Osamu is stated to be 3 years older than Ken, hadn’t yet turned 12 when he died.

Again, except for Miyako, Sora, and Jou birthdays, I can understand why fans chose to ignore any of this.

Personal Notes

My method isn’t about finding a putative “Official / True Birthday” — that never existed, at least for the Adventure eight. It’s about finding birthdays that work within the limitations of canon (see previous section). 

My HCs are based on the personality / character archetypes represented by the the zodiac signs. In theory, any Chosen Child could be understood as representing a specific symbolical archetypes.

The problem is that the Adventure characters are quite complex and often deconstruct traditional archetypes. This explains why it’s so hard for fans to agree on which sign they are supposed to represent. I should also note that anime series seem to understand astrological archetypes slightly differently from the Western mainstream tradition, which explains why typical anime zodiac signs sometimes feel a bit “off”. 

Nevertheless, some archetypes are so strong that most of the fandom seems to have reached a consensus: Jou/Virgo and Koushirou/Aquarius, for example. Then you have textbook examples of archetypes like Gemini/Miyako (unsurprisingly canon), Taichi/Aries, and Hikari/Pisces. But even there is a lot of room for disagreement and subjective interpretation!

*

The 02 writers clearly intended Daisuke to symbolise Fire, Miyako Air, Iori Earth and, due to the Dark Ocean connection, Ken Water. In fact, it’s super easy to place those four characters into any traditional 4-group personality types, such as the four temperaments, Jung’s types, blood types, ABCD personality, etc. 

My HCs respect this, and ended up creating two polar opposites within the team: Daisuke/Miyako (mutable) and Ken/Iori (cardinal).  

*

It’s tempting to ascribe 12 main characters = 12 signs, but post-tri. I’m inclined to do something different and not put myself into such a limiting framework.

For this reason I repeat some signs, and I don’t have any Taurus character (sorry!).

*

My MAIN innovative choice is that I suspect Taichi and Yamato might represent the same sun sign.

Now, I understand this is an extremely controversial opinion. It isn’t a possibility I thought about until quite recently.

But Taichi and Yamato being “different but the same / two sides of the same coin” is incredibly well represented if both of them correspond to the Aries personality archetype. 

After all, they’re the leaders, the heroes, the Knights in shining armor. This explains their incredible similarities, despite superficial differences. as well as their love-hate dynamic: the rivalry, the union, the way they complement and balance each other out in an almost instinctive way.

Here are some examples of the Aries/Aries dynamic from the literature... 

Both of you are independent individuals and you don’t like feeling “owned” by anyone. Neither of you can tolerate being dominated or bossed by anyone else, so you probably make your own decisions, and direct your own lives. You respect one another’s autonomy, and a relationship that is based on constant togetherness and dependency wouldn’t suit either of you. Sometimes, however, there is too much emphasis on individualism rather than on being close and nurturing the relationship. You both have proud egos, and are sensitive to criticism. Almost inevitably you will compete with each other, and in small doses this can be invigorating. But it easily becomes nasty, and one of you is likely to get hurt. If you’ve ever seen two rams locking horns, you know what I mean! You either respect one another immensely or detest one another – rarely anything in between. (X)

If your relationship has been built on the basis that you are equals, the fire element produces tremendous vision and industriousness. Your combined power and effort could well be a force to be reckoned with — but again, only if you both learn to subdue your own ego in the service of each other. Remember, you can’t always be right. You need to try hard to see things from each other’s perspective; this will help the two of you become a great partnership over time. (x)

When Mars clashes with Mars, the result can be full-scale war, with all flags flapping, bravely and colorfully. Occasional flare-ups are bound to occur when these two are thrown into close, daily proximity, without the relief of some separateness in their association. But there will also be some glorious Highs to offset these Lows. (...)  It's been said that Aries people have a way about them. They do. Their own way. Yet, despite that sometimes antagonistic Martian exterior, they'll sense each other's desperate need to be appreciated and liked. When they get together, they may struggle for leadership, but the experience will supply some well-needed lessons. The shock of living with someone - or being around some- one - as innocently thoughtless, selfish and aggressive as one's self, is sure to soften any battering Ram, although there may be a few scars to show for the les- sons in living thus mastered. Aries hearts always carry more scars than the Rams ever show, or openly discuss. (x)

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? The more you read, the more this pattern begins to make sense. Try to watch the Dark Masters arc, the Agumon-is-kidnapped mini arc, tri., and even Kizuna with this possibility in mind, and you’ll understand what I mean.

Sure, order to accept this theory, you have to understand Yamato as a more atypical reserved / sensitive Aries (influenced by a Cancer Moon, perhaps?) and Taichi as a more “pure” Arien type. Yamato is more like a baby lamb, right? (don’t tell it to his face).

You can make a very strong argument for Leo!Taichi (that was my initial HC as well) or Yamato as almost anything else. I wouldn’t disagree. But why not come up with a fresh perspective to explain these two? 

Oh, and in case you’re curious, their (canon) Japanese Zodiac is also the same: Dragon, the direct equivalent to Aries. 

*

A note about tri.: typing Maki and Daigo seemed straightforward enough. Maki is the stereotypical Scorpio antagonist, and Goggle Boy Daigo’s partner evolved into a literal lion.

I couldn’t resist the idea of making Meiko a Libra, considering her digimon partner is literally the Libra and Meiko is the 9th member of the group. But  personality probably fits other signs better — it’s very tempting to type her a Virgo, the polar opposite of Hikari. She could also be the missing Taurus element (Mei as the literal May Queen). 

The truth is... I can’t decide!

*

Disclaimer: There is zero scientific evidence for astrology and, as far as I’m concerned, it’s only interesting as a tool to analyze fictional characters in symbolic /archetypal terms. My headcanons are based on extensive reading about astrology, its symbolism and psychological profiles; I’m happy to share my sources (they’re not from pop astrology). But I’m also aware of the Barnum effect. We are all biased; there are no right or wrong options. Everyone’s conflicting headcanons are equally valid.

Feel free to ask questions or request more in-depth explanations for my suggestions, but FFS don’t start arguing with me and insisting I’m “wrong” based on other people’s equally subjective and disputable headcanons.

*

BONUS: Sun sign Archetypes / Personality Keywords

Aries

Aries at its best : Brave, assertive, pioneering, quick, determined

Aries on a bad day: Aggressive, hard-headed, selfish, impulsive, impatient, brutal

The Aries archetype : Prince Lancelot, the brave and romantic rock star of King Arthur’s court

The Aries stereotype : The rage-a-holic in the pickup truck who just gave you the finger after cutting you off on the freeway

Gemini

Gemini at its best : Curious, inquisitive, quick witted, communicative, inventive, clever, adaptable

Gemini on a bad day : Verbally cruel, deceptive, disloyal, restless, doesn’t follow through”

“The Gemini archetype : The jester; clever and mischievous, your wit and agility are your best defense

The Gemini stereotype : The meddlesome neighbor, snooping and eavesdropping

Cancer

Cancer at its best : Family-oriented, nurturing, intuitive, domestic, maternal, sensitive, sympathetic, emotional, patriotic, retentive, traditional

Cancer on a bad day : Moody, touchy, oversensitive, negative, manipulative, overly cautious

The Cancer archetype : The universal mother

The Cancer stereotype : The smothering mother

Leo

Leo at its best : Regal, creative, magnetic, performer, generous, inspiring

Leo on a bad day : Vain, domineering, attention seeking, insecure”

The Leo archetype : The benevolent monarch

The Leo stereotype : The shallow playboy or party girl

Virgo

Virgo at its best : Discriminating, thorough, scientific, clean, humane, scientific, analytical

Virgo on a bad day : Picky, critical, petty, self-centered, hypochondriac, gloomy, pedantic

The Virgo archetype : Sherlock Holmes, with his staggering powers of perception and analysis and his earthy tweed jacket

The Virgo stereotype : The quiet, slightly geeky scientist or secretary with horn-rimmed glasses and a repressed manner

Libra

Libra at its best : Refined, artistic, diplomatic, sociable, peace loving, persuasive, just

Libra on a bad day : Fickle, over accommodating, argumentative, indecisive, insincere

The Libra archetype : The diplomat

The Libra stereotype : The gigolo or “kept” man or woman”

Scorpio

Scorpio at its best : Determined, probing, brave, passionate, insightful, empathetic, penetrating, investigative, powerful

Scorpio on a bad day : Jealous, suspicious, sarcastic, secretive, vengeful, manipulative

The Scorpio archetype : The magician, able to transcend the laws of nature to achieve transformation

The Scorpio stereotype : A secret agent, skilled at investigative work and most comfortable working behind the scenes”

Sagittarius

Sagittarius at its best : Philosophical, adventurous, freedom loving, scholarly, funny, honest, athletic, traveler

Sagittarius on a bad day : Crude, blunt, know-it-all, arrogant, superior, intolerant

The Sagittarius archetype : The wayfaring stranger who transforms a community with his knowledge and wisdom before moving on

The Sagittarius stereotype : The clown who trips over his gigantic shoes and throws pies in your face

Capricorn

Capricorn at its best : Responsible, authoritative, traditional, pragmatic, hardworking, economical, serious, mature, ethical

Capricorn on a bad day : Domineering, stubborn, inhibited, unfeeling, fatalistic, judgmental, unforgiving”

“The Capricorn archetype : The wise elder

The Capricorn stereotype : A cranky old man or woman who keeps yelling at kids to “stay off my lawn!”

Aquarius

Aquarius at its best : Independent, genius, iconoclastic, rebellious, logical, scientific, progressive, intellectual, humane

Aquarius on a bad day : Eccentric, temperamental, unpredictable, cold, opinionated, radical”

“The Aquarius archetype : The charismatic rebel who wins over his fellow men by thumbing his nose at authority

The Aquarius stereotype : The mad scientist

Pisces

Pisces at its best : Sympathetic, compassionate, emotional, intuitive, musical, artistic

Pisces on a bad day : Impractical, timid, procrastinator”

The Pisces archetype : The mystic

The Pisces stereotype : The flake

from Kent, April Elliott. “The Essential Guide to Practical Astrology: Everything from zodiac signs to prediction, made easy and entertaining”.

#series: typing the chosen #digimon #headcanons #personality types #astrology #this is a series but I cannot promise timelines!

[ramblesrantsmusings]

Thoughts on Tony?

Ohhhh...this is a doozy. I am not sure what you're looking for but mind you my answer is going to be based on MCU Tony Stark so...

Tony, purely as a character, is someone who has had the most screen time, the most story/plotline in all the ensemble films and, to top it all off, had his trilogy complete before Marvel was completely integrated into Disney. So all the predictability of the plot and adhering to the larger storyline of the Infinity Saga wasn't a priority for his films. And due to his pull, he was always the main focus in whichever film he was in.

I think Tony is a deeply-flawed but earnest character who has been through a lot, has made a lot of mistakes, hasn't really faced any repercussions (you might disagree, but this is my opinion), but has tried (to the best of his ability, maybe?) to make up to them. His trauma and loss comes with being a superhero and this can be said of all other Avengers. However, he was lucky to be the only one who had it portrayed on the big screen.  Moreover, he was played by a charismatic and accomplished artist and honestly, it would not really have worked without him (we won't ever know till they inevitably make another IM).

Due to this, when we look at MCU/Marvel fandom, it largely comprises Tony fans or at least fans who like several characters but Tony is always at the top. You can see it in the amount of fanfics with ships that feature him and all other fandom-related art, discourse, accounts etc. And a lot of what we associate with him is largely based on artworks, fics and head canons. This is true of every character but I would say when a character is really popular among fans, like Tony Stark is, a lot of our interpretations of them is based on our own perceptions and of the people we agree with than what is actually in the canon.

Do I like him? Oh yes. Is he at the top of my favourite list of Marvel characters, no. He is definitely part of my most favourite ship. 🙂

#asks #musings #princenasim02

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous asked: I hugely appreciate how educated you are with your education in the Classics (at either Oxford or Cambridge I think) but I ask with sincere respect how does any of it inform your privileged life in this day and age? It’s easy to say how much we should value our European traditions and heritage it is quite another to live it out don’t you agree? What do you personally get from it?

This is a very relevant question and I apologise if I have stalled in answering it as I was busy with work and life to formulate a worthy reply. But your question is an important one indeed for anyone who harkens to the past as a guide for the present and the future.

I won’t waste space here and tick box all the purely academic reasons why the Classical world is still relevant for us today. I think you can find that in easy to read books and articles written by eminent Classicists who do an admirable service in making the Classical World come alive for the general public (Mary Beard, Bettany Hughes, Emily Wilson, Edith Hall, Peter Jones, Bernard Knox, Robin Lane Fox, Paul Cartledge, and Donald Kagan amongst others that come to mind). But it’s an uphill battle to be sure.

Classics - at least in United Kingdom - has been regressively marginalised with each passing generation starting from school up to university entry. It has an image problem. Few pay much attention to scholars of Latin and Greek. The impression is that Classicists are snobbish and is the education of privileged elitists who master languages that are not spoken. They learn to write them only to read them better. They slap your hands when you write a Latin word common in Sallust or Livy, rather than in Cicero. There is some truth to that sadly. To a large extent Classicists themselves have not been a good advertisement for why anyone should appreciate let alone study the classical world.

At one end those educated in the Classics can come across as encouraging elitism, snobbish pedantry and a sniffy social superiority and at the other end those not versed in Classics but through Hollywood (any sword and sandal film like Gladiator etc) and PC white washed TV series (BBC’s Troy is a good example) have formed a romantic attachment to the ‘heroic’ past by having blue pilled themselves into escapism. Both extremes makes Classics a fetish rather than a guide for life through the beauty and power of the language and culture of the singular Greeks and Romans.

The study of Classics can become the proverbial dog who can dance on two legs, but for what practical purpose? There is the rub. Classics, at its best, offers the historical, philological, and literary foundation and discipline to apply a critical method to every general aspect of learning - and living.

I was fortunate that I had Classicists - both within my family and also my teachers - who were cultured and had led such interesting lives and were able to marry their Classicist mind to their life experiences (often through the experience of war). So learning European languages was not just to get one’s head around arid esoteric articles by 19th-century Frenchmen on the Athenian banking system or Demosthenes’ use of praeteritio and apophasis, but also to appreciate the genius of Dante,Voltaire and Goethe. Classics should never just be about philology though because it can result in a life mostly missed.

Perhaps others might call it privileged but I consider my childhood blessed because I was surrounded by family members who were educated in the Classics - more rare than one might suppose. Through my great aunts and grandmother they instilled the discipline that the mastery of Latin and Greek fuelled the ability to speak and write good English -- and why the latter mattered as much or more than the former.

By the time I left both Cambridge and Oxford behind, I could cite passage numbers in Greek texts of what Thucydides and Plutarch thought of Nicias. But it was only when I went through Sandhurst to pass out as a commissioned army officer did it truly jump off the page and become alive for me.

Moreover having had long fire side conversations with both my grandfather and father - both Oxbridge educated Classicists and both served in distant different types of wars as swashbuckling officers - did I use that learning to understand why for example was Nicias such a laughably mediocre general of the Peloponnesian War. And this was essentially the practical point of reading Thucydides and Plutarch about Nicias in the first place.

I spent many hours in my down time during my service in Afghanistan between missions re-reading dog earred favourite Classicist texts. I began to see the ghosts of the Greeks in the characters of those with whom I was serving. Some began to resemble Sophoclean characters - especially the less well-known ‘losers’ like Ajax and Philoctetes - the sort of tragic heroes whom we root for but the odds are against them - think of any American Western film or the more pathological Tarantino films. Like Sophocles I saw majestic characters (some special forces operators) out of place in a modernising world who would rather perish than change - but in a context where their sacrifice schools the lesser around them about what the old breed was about and what was being lost.

A running thread from a childhood spent in many other countries - from South Asia to the Far East - to the present day is learning to appreciate our landscape as the Ancient world did. The cultivation of curiosity of cultures was seeded in childhood. Respecting and even admiring other cultures - Indian, Iranian, Chinese and Japanese primarily come to mind - led me to appreciate and treasure my own cultural heritage and traditions. The DNA of both the Roman and Greek world went far and wide and so teasing out their fingerprints was fun. In northern Pakistan, we came across ‘Alexander’s children’ - children with blonde and blue eyes who were said to be descended from Alexander the Great’s time in Afghanistan and India - and wandering around the banks of the Jhelum river imagining how Alexander beat his respected foe (later ally) King Porus at the Battle of Hydaspes in 326BC.

These days despite having a busy corporate career I help support running a French vineyard managed foremost by two exceptional cousins and their French partners. As such the Classics still resonate in how I look at the land beyond the vineyard - bridges, roads, towers, walls  - and imagine the Greeks not with ink and papyrus but as men of action, farmers and hoplites, in a rough climate on poor soils. I suddenly envision them pruning and plowing in Laureion, the Oropos, and Acharnae, more like the rugged local farmers with whom come harvest time I roll my sleeves up and get my hands dirty in the vineyards than as the professors in elbow patches who had claimed them.

Knowing and learning about the Classical roots of our Western heritage isn’t just a question of culture it’s also about what personally motivates us in life and how that determines how we make consequential choices in life.

I live in fear of one Greek word  ‘akrasia’. Ancient Greek philosophers coined the term to explain the lack of motivation in life. Most of the philosophical conundrums explored by contemporary philosophers were already explored in Ancient Greece. In fact, Ancient Greek philosophers laid the solid foundation for all philosophical approaches that appeared throughout history: theories of Kant, Hegel or Nietzsche would never exist without Socrates, Plato or Aristotle.

Among the many problems that baffled the Ancient Greeks, one of them gets quite a lot of attention today. Why don’t we always do what’s best for us? Why do we abandon good decisions in favour of bad ones? Why can’t we follow through on our plans and ideas?

Many people would say that the answer is simply laziness or decision fatigue, but Ancient Greek philosophers believed that the problem lay much deeper, in human nature itself. ‘Akrasia’ describes a state of acting against one’s better judgement or a lack of will that prevents one from doing the right thing. Plato believed that akrasia is not an issue in itself, because people always choose the solution they think is the best for them, and sometimes it accidentally happens that they choose the bad solution because of poor judgement. On the other hand, Aristotle disagreed with this explanation and argued that the fault in the human process of reasoning is not responsible for akrasia. He believed that the answer lies in the human tendency to desire, which is often far stronger than reason.

As with almost all philosophical concepts, a consensus has never been reached and akrasia remains open to interpretation. But its practical consequences are all too real in today’s world. Motivation is what makes us unpredictable and persistent, and the life circumstances of the modern world often make motivation disappear.

Today - regardless how old or young one is - many are more and more tempted to exchange a long-term goal for an immediately available pleasure in all its forms from the emotional band aid of porn from a lifeless relationship (or a lack of one) to escaping loneliness for the false intimacy of social media friendship. The lack of motivation can cause us to reduce ourselves to someone else’s standards when we know we can be or do better. 

The Greeks felt that the way you think and feel about yourself, including your beliefs and expectations about what is possible for you, determines everything that happens to you. When you change the quality of your thinking, you change the quality of your life. I’ve been deeply influenced by Aristotle’s idea that virtue is a habit, something you practice and get better at, rather than something that comes naturally. “The control of the appetites by right reason,” is how he defined it. Another way to reframe this is to say, “Virtue is knowing what you really want,” and then building the intellectual, spiritual, and moral muscle to go after it.

To be cultured - as opposed to be merely educated - is how you put what you’ve learned to work in your own life, seeing the world around you more deeply because of the historical, literary, artistic and philosophical resonances that current experiences evoke. This is the privilege of being cultured. For me Classical stories come often to my mind, and some times provide guides to action (much as Plutarch intended his histories of famous men to be guides to morality and action). The classics then are a part of my mental toolset and the context I think with some of the time. I see that as the real blessing in my life.

Thanks for your question.

#question #classics #education #life #personal #bio #library