How do you feel about Leah Sava Jeffries as Annabeth Chase, and why should we throw Leah a huge parte for being the annie we always deserve but never got much of
HELL YEAH ARE YOU KIDDING ME LEAHBETH IS THE BEST THING THATS EVER HAPPENED TO ME THIS ENTIRE YEAR OH MY GODS AND GODDESSES im fully self aware that "i look like i would have been an annabeth kid" and its because i FOR SURE WAS WHY WOULDNT ANYONE BE she is The Character the MOMENt the ICON of the AGES and leah is adapting her energy to screen so ???? perfectly ?????? like did rick just shake the book and she fell out ??????? what sorcery is this?? ??????
no but in all seriousness leah is killing it as annabeth and its super clear that she did her research and understands the character (in interviews she talks about how she read annabeth povs in later books and did research on greek mythology and athena so she could understand the lightning thief not just from percys pov but from annabeth 🥺🥺 she so annabeth coded irl i adore her) and it genuinely shows like ive microanalyzed all her expressions because her facial acting has so much DEPTH and LAYERS and OH MY GODS leah deserves all the parties and we are so privileged to have her as our annabeth chase <3 imagine being that talented at like 13
im super excited to see what additions she makes to the character in this adaptation!!! already i think she's really highlighting annabeth's battle strategy smarts over just booksmarts which EVERYONE ALWAYS FORGETS ABOUT SHES NOT JUST A BOOK NERD SHES A FUCKING GENERAL HEAD OF THE ATHENA CABIN MOST FORMIDABLE DEMIGOD AT CAMP AS A 12 YEAR OLD the duality is giving me LIFE and i love how she gets to boss around percy and grover (leah also talked about loving to get to be in charge and competitive as annabeth which shes SO REAL FOR THAT shes such an annabeth type) BUT ALSO YOU ALREADY GET TO SEE HER VULNERABILITIES AND INSECURITIES AND THE WAY SHE CARRIES HERSELF THAT MAKES HER SIMULTANEOUSLY COOL BUT ALSO IS A REFLECTION OF TRAUMA AND POOR EMOTIONAL COPING yeah basically shes not just giving us annabeth shes giving us annabeth but MORE and its making me understand her character BETTER and in a NEW way (and if you have anything to say about her portrayal in the show i will genuinely pull up with a full ass powerpoint slideshow because IF YOU MEDIA COMPREHEND FOR TWO SECONDS AND KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HER CHARACTER IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE AND ITS SO JUICY AND JALKDJFKBL)
i think about that shot of her looking at percy using medusas head through the screen porch ALL THE TIME. and her delivery of "grover can you tell your friend to pull himself together" LIKE THATS WHEN SHE TURNS TO HER PROTECTOR FOR HELP AND IT HAS A LITTLE BIT OF A SASSY IM-BETTER-THAN-YOU-PERCY VIBE TO IT BECAUSE SHES HIDING THE FACT THAT SHES SCARED AND UNCOMFORTABLE TO TALK ABOUT HER RELATIONSHIP WITH HER UNAVAILABLE MOM (and percy sees right through that just as she sees right through percy and oh my gods if i get started on percabeth ill never shut up)
anyways thanks for giving me an opportunity to go on a mini rant about leahbeth i could say so much more because when i say ive analyzed every frame my girl is in i am NOT joking
but ill just end by saying that anyone who is upset by show annabeth being black literally did not understand her as a character or the percy jackson books in general so they can stfu and get their little butthurt wrong opinions out the door bc they dont belong here anyway <3 rick and becky also talked about how they hired black sensitivity readers to help write annabeth's blackness more authentically into her character in the show so very much hoping that they do that well! and im overall just super excited to see what changes they make to adapt my favorite character to a new era, a new medium, and a new audience!
go treat yourself to some leah interviews because i actually adore her and will protect her and annabeth (though arguably theyre one and the same) with my life <3
41 notes
·
View notes
I can't tell if jamarr exaggerates his stories to an extreme amount or if joe justhas to constantly tell him to chill haha. but based on tee confirming that jamarr does buy joe clothes ocassionally and he did buy him a chain - im going to say joe just likes privacy lol
ALWAYS THRILLED TO BE ASKED ABOUT UNRELIABLE NARRATOR JA’MARR!!!
more under the cut because literally i could talk about this all day and i don’t need to subject anyone to that.
Honestly I think it’s a combination of both? Ja’Marr exaggerates, says one thing then immediately another contradicting thing, doesn’t seem to have much of a filter, however you want to categorize it. Which I think is such a funny contrast to Joe - who is (almost) always very careful about how he expresses himself and how he wants to be portrayed.
The “Ja’Marr Buys Joe Clothes Except No He Doesn’t Except Wait He Definitely Does” saga is probably my favorite thing in the world because what on earth is ANYONE talking about in this situation. Like, first Ja’Marr claims in the GQ interview:
"Joe literally won’t buy his own clothes. He always asks me to shop for him and drop it off at the house.”
Which is almost definitely an exaggeration. I am sure Joe buys plenty of his own clothes (although loving the idea of Ja’Marr literally filling Joe’s closet with things he thinks he’ll like).
And then, bringing it up completely unprompted in an interview a week later he says that actually that was “kinda” a lie, and that he hasn’t bought Joe anything but dinner - although now he’ll “have to [buy joe clothes] since that’s out now”. like ?????? First of all just because you “kinda lied” about buying Joe clothes does not mean that you now have to actually buy him clothes? And why did you lie about it in the first place? How badly do you want to buy this man clothes??? 🤨🤨🤨
So we spent the rest of the season completely confused about this story but just kind of accepting that Ja’Marr just says shit sometimes, who knows… and THEN in a groundbreaking (to me) interview with Tee, we learn that actually Ja’Marr has in fact bought Joe clothes:
“Chase definitely gets Joe right. I’ve seen him buy clothes for Joe multiple times.”
MULTIPLE TIMES??? and Tee has seen it for himself?? Which at this point means that Ja’Marr has now potentially lied about lying about buying Joe clothes?? For what purpose???
I have imagined and talked with beloved mutuals about what could be going on in this situation, presented here with varying levels of realism and hilarity:
Ja’Marr has never bought Joe clothes and all the receivers are in on a big joke where they’re claiming that Ja’Marr buys Joe clothes just to fuck with him. Because it’s funny and why not.
Ja’Marr hadn’t bought Joe clothes before the interview, but had been planning on doing it and was so excited by the idea that he got ahead of himself and told GQ he was already doing it. And then “since it was out there” he had an excuse to start buying Joe clothes, with Tee as a witness.
Finally back to the point of your ask (so sorry for all my rambling) and probably the most likely scenario - Ja’Marr tends to exaggerate and Joe tends to value his privacy.
What I imagine is this, Ja’Marr has probably bought Joe clothes a few times. We already know that he’s bought him grills and he mentioned in a few interviews last season that he had bought Joe some pants. And probably a few more instances we don’t have details on. The man likes fashion and he likes Joe and it seems like he has a gift giving love language! He probably got excited and exaggerated a bit in the GQ interview because again, I’m sure Joe does not “always” ask Ja’Marr to shop for him lmao. And I wonder if the exaggeration is the part that Joe took exception to (if he even did! Joe’s never said anything about any of this! all we have is Ja’Marr’s word which we can NOT trust) - Joe likely doesn’t want the whole world thinking Ja’Marr buys ALL his clothes, he likes fashion too and I’m sure puts a lot of work into those game day outfits, even if Ja’Marr does help out sometimes. Plus he really doesn’t like sharing details about his relationships, even one as public as his friendship with Ja’Marr. (All he says is that he’s one of his best friends and they hang out all the time, Ja’Marr is the one giving details about UFC moves and going to Vegas together and keeping his stuff at his place etc etc).
Joe likely gave Ja’Marr shit for how he phrased it and honestly sharing it with the world at all. Plus!!! I am always thinking about the timing of the article, coming out right when Joe’s appendix burst. I bet Ja’Marr was worried about his friend, felt bad about sharing some exaggerated details of their relationship, and simply decided to take ALL of it back. Because again, he really seems to only operate in extremes. So to make Joe feel better, instead of just clarifying his quote, he just decided to say ‘nope, sorry, that was a lie, never bought that man clothes in my life 😊' while Tee was probably at his locker listening to the interview like 🤨???
Anyway. that’s WAY TOO MANY words to answer your ask but please know I so appreciated getting it. Any excuse to ramble about these two as you can see!!
35 notes
·
View notes
i do think the key to how things will fall out regarding death on remnant is the jabberwalker, bc like
the brothers created death by creating him
the god of light, fearing they had disrupted the balance, tried to get rid of him. the god of darkness refused to countenance this, and they fought about it.
they leave the ever after. jabber remains, implying one of three possibilities: 1. dark ‘won’ the argument and both brothers agreed to let jabber live, 2. dark recreated jabber one last time in secret before they left, or 3. jabber came back later a la modern humans. given light’s general inflexibility my inclination is 2 or 3.
in any case the tree seems to accept jabber as part of the ever after and the presence of his figurine on the blacksmith’s worktable implies that he will continue to exist in some form.
during the creation of remnant, the brothers agree that death will be permanent. their reasons are not yet fully clear, but light was the only one concerned about enforcing this rule; i think it is almost certainly a rule that originated with the god of light.
“but balance cannot be restored by force or calculation; true balance finds its own equilibrium”
force = destroying jabber. calculation = creating a new world with permadeath.
—
the god of light conceives of balance as a fragile order that must be meticulously maintained or else fall apart: his purpose, as he sees it, is to maintain order. everything he does comes from this. he cannot tolerate change because he lives in abject fear of ‘disrupting the balance’ again—as he believes they have already done once, by creating jabber.
so there is a certain narrative equivalency being drawn here between removing jabber and making death permanent for remnant. both decisions are predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of what balance is.
thus the problem of death is not that it exists, per se. the problem is that death is the locus of light’s anxiety about change.
he first attempts to fix the ‘problem’ by getting rid of jabber, eliminating death. but he can’t, because dark won’t let him. so plan b is to leave the ever after and create a new world where death is part of the design—which isn’t contradictory at all if the intention is to prevent disruption of the existing order.
and something to keep in mind here is that 1. the cat and the jabberwalker were both deathless and unable to ascend, and 2. the brothers created death by mistake. for light these are crucial factors that must be accounted for in the new design. the only way to ensure that the disruptive introduction of death can never happen again is to include death from the start, transforming the accident into a deliberate choice.
which is all well and good except for one teeny, tiny wrinkle: for humans, death is not actually annihilative. they don’t simply cease to exist when they die.
i think it’s extremely likely that wasn’t supposed to happen. in a system where death is final and forever, spiritually immortal humans pose an obvious risk of disruption—and the ‘afterlife’ is evidently just permanent unconscious stasis, so it doesn’t seem like human souls were preserved for any purpose.
if your aim is to design an orderly system that can be maintained exactly as-is forever, and one of your core building blocks is that death is permanent, no exceptions, then why would you ever create beings capable of rising from the dead? you wouldn’t!
but once humans with immortal souls exist you’re sort of stuck with them, aren’t you? and i think that dilemma makes the most sense of why light’s afterlife is… like that. the souls of the dead ‘resting’ in everlasting oblivion in another realm that living humans cannot enter is the same in practice as annihilative death as long as every being capable of reaching the afterlife follows the stated rules.
the instant dark decides to make an exception, the whole system collapses. it reveals to salem that death isn’t inherently final or forever—that this is an arbitrary rule that the brothers decided, and one of them is open to the idea of changing those rules. then the gods make her immortal and light reprimands her for failing to understand how important his rules are (rules his brother just broke with no consequence except that light got mad), but ultimately what she learns is that the brothers are fallible and their rules can be changed. her rebellion is underpinned by this revelation.
the divine order suffers one small disruption and almost immediately, catastrophically fails, just as the god of light feared.
but that failure did not happen because of the disruption; the system failed because it was artificial. the brothers designed it a certain way and then light focused all of his efforts to keeping it that way, unchanging, forever—because their world wasn’t an ecosystem so much as it was a lawn in arizona. that lawn can only exist for as long as someone is doing the work to keep it on life support.
anyway the point i’m getting to is that remnant still isn’t in stable equilibrium, largely because of salem’s immortality and ozma’s reincarnations but also in the more general sense: the people of remnant are spiritually immortal but made to spend the vast majority of their existence essentially comatose because One God is afraid of change.
you can’t bring remnant into equilibrium by eliminating death: killing the jabberwalker isn’t the right answer. and you can’t restore balance by restoring the old system of divine rule and rigid adherence to the original design, because that system was a spindly papier-mâché machine that imploded the second somebody breathed on it wrong. and you can’t just yank the dead back to ameliorate your grief because that isn’t your choice to make, that’s an ethical position the narrative has made very clear.
which… really leaves changing the nature of the afterlife as the likeliest direction. death isn’t the problem, the afterlife of eternal stasis is. death isn’t the problem, light’s refusal to allow beings with immortal souls to keep going after their first life ends because the rules say death is final is the problem. because that finality is just… not reality. a person’s soul persists after death, ipso facto death isn’t the end.
but the reverse idea that death shouldn’t happen at all is not reality either. salem can’t die and her immortality is isolating and endlessly painful. ozma can’t stay dead and it’s eroded him down to a miserable shell of who he used to be. afterans choose to leave their memories behind when they ascend—nothing can happen to you in the tree except what you want to happen. without destruction, creation stagnates. death is part of life, not its enemy.
i doubt very much that the endgame here is for afteran ascension to be directly ported over into remnant—these are different worlds, different peoples, different systems, and while people from remnant can spiritually connect with the tree they are still fundamentally not part of it. afterans are emanations of the tree; humans and faunus are not. when afterans ascend they return to the roots of the tree and flow upward to blossom again from its crown, and that is, to put it mildly, not a system of reincarnation that physically makes sense for remnant, where things reproduce and have babies instead of new lives budding from the cosmic tree. if reincarnation brings equilibrium to remnant then it will presumably happen in a manner more natural to remnant’s people, and may not even involve passage through the tree at all.
it’s also not the only possibility: for example, there’s no reason that remnant’s afterlife has to be eternal sleep. it could just be… a new realm, a new world to live in after your life on remnant is ended. the brothers’ departure from the ever after into the boundless potential of the unknown is as likely a model as ascension. maybe remnant’s dead can’t return except by an act of god, but “gone from remnant forever” can coexist with the afterlife being… alive, as opposed to cold storage for inconveniently immortal souls.
basically the narrative setup isn’t toward rejecting death, it’s toward rejecting the state of affairs where you die and then millions of years later a god wakes you up and you have no awareness or memory of your existence since the moment of your death because you were kept unconscious until that god needed a servant. the point is that death isn’t the natural end of existence (because souls are immortal, on remnant as in the ever after) and remnant’s dead shouldn’t be held in stillness by light’s futile effort to make the facts of reality conform to his intended design.
the jabberwalker has existed for eons without bringing the ever after to ruin; the balance shifted, things changed a little, and life went on. remnant is existentially threatened by the factual reality of life-after-death only because light is so convinced of this danger that he is determined to prohibit it by any means necessary, including “demolish everything and start over from scratch.”
even a god can tilt at windmills.
33 notes
·
View notes