Consider this: ghosts are actually exactly what the Fentons think they are.
They're snapshots of a longing so strong, unfinished business so deep it reaches out beyond life. Lingers just a bit longer. And if it happens to meet a dense cloud of ectoplasm (invisible to the naked eye, but omnipresent even in the mortal realm), it coalesces. The ectoplasm fits into the shape of it. Which, when the desire is strong enough, it's got a rough idea of its self-image. This tends to mean a more humanoid figure, though it's more often warped in some way–a self-reflection, skewed by said desire. The warping varies on the dead soul’s perception of themselves, the intensity of their desire, how much time passed after death, and how much ectoplasm was present.
In short… no matter how “normal" a ghost looks or acts, it really, truly isn't human. It's animated ectoplasm with a single goal: an obsession. Nothing else. They're more akin to plants than animals, following a single drive with no emotion. They react to stimuli, recognize threats (including other ghosts), and can even imitate human speech and mannerisms to obtain fulfillment of their obsession.
Not “evil" by any stretch, but they're entirely driven by instinct. A tree doesn't pause to consider the rocks it breaks with its roots. A cordyceps doesn't torture its host for fun, or kill with malice. It just does. It follows code in its DNA to survive and multiply–And ghosts just follow the code in its ectoplasm to fulfill its obsession. The more powerful a ghost, the better it's able to overcome obstacles preventing this–whether through brute force, or manipulation. This power is always directly proportional to the amount of ectoplasm present at the time of formation, and how much time passed since death.
What then, does this mean for Danny? Danny, who's previously come to the conclusion that he's only half-ghost, which surely explains how he retained his mind? His independent thoughts and emotions?
What does this mean for Phantom, who experienced an entire world’s worth of ectoplasm condensed as a singularity, at the exact time of his death? Whose strength only grows and begins to exceed every limit they previously thought possible?
If a ghost was as strong as him… could it mimic a human perfectly? Down to a molecular level?
Could it, in its desire to fill an obsession… trick its own fake mind into thinking it was still human? Or half-ghost?
893 notes
·
View notes
do you have any thoughts on zelda not staying as a dragon? me personally I like it and am very cool with it mostly because I think zelda should get to be happy forever (and because I'm smart enough to know she changed back because of recall and not some ambiguous power of love lmao) but a lot of people seem to dislike that it made the draconification inconsequential?
i think there's like. some valid concerns surrounding inconsequentiality/"curing" the physical problems characters have as a way of giving them a "happy ending" but I think those concerns don't necessarily apply to totk in the way people seem to be applying them, especially irt zelda's draconification and link's arm.
most of the time when the criticism of this "magic cure" trope is applied to media, it's because the trope is used as a cure-all to erase a character's suffering or trauma and make them "normal" again, and often ignores the character development or themes of the story in favor of giving the character a happy ending. I don't think that applies to totk, though, because the "curing" link and zelda experience is both within the realm of possibility given the worldbuilding present in the game (recall could easily have done it, as you mentioned) AND thematically consistent with the rest of the game. One of if not the most important central themes of totk is the idea of failure and second chances. we see a hyrule that has been given a second chance after link's initial failure with the calamity brought it to the brink of destruction. we see characters who were deeply unhappy and entrenched in the shame of their precalamity mistakes like purah and zelda become active, beloved members of their communities. we see the people of lurelin village take back and rebuild their destroyed home. we watch this kingdom and its people make an unprecedented comeback after a century of struggle and ruin.
Similarly, totk's gameplay is LINK's second chance, his comeback from the initial mistake of losing zelda, of specifically being unable to reach her with his injured hand when they fell. The consequences of that--the master sword's corruption, the loss of his arm, and zelda's draconification, are all supposed to SEEM irreversible, because that's how LINK initially sees them. he believes that he doomed both himself and zelda all because of that SINGLE moment in which he wasn't enough, a viewpoint which is obviously left over from the pressure he experienced to perform to an impossible standard of perfection pre-calamity. The story of totk is about deconstructing that belief and proving it wrong. the mistake he made caused harm, but it's never too late to repair things. he can fix the regional phenomena ganondorf causes and rebuild those communities. he can revitalize the master sword. he can GET ZELDA BACK, with his own arm, uninjured and able to reach her this time. no matter how impossible those things may initially seem, no matter the perceived finality of his mistakes and their consequences, there is always hope. there is always a second chance. no one person's single mistake can doom an entire kingdom for eternity. the fate of hyrule was NEVER resting on link's shoulders alone. he was never their final hope. there was always going to be an after. the whole POINT of the draconification and the loss of link's arm is that they AREN'T final. they ARE inconsequential, because they were born of one mistake and ONE MISTAKE IS NOT THE END ALL.
231 notes
·
View notes
people actually went on about how game of thrones made it socially acceptable to be a fantasy nerd, as though the lord of the rings movies hadn't been released less than a decade earlier and left far greater cultural ripples and i am just
got may have made the adults feel better about liking fantasy, but lotr got into the kids' heads when they (we) were just young and impressionable enough to be absolutely transported and emotionally rewritten by don't you leave him, samwise gamgee and my brother, my captain, my king and and rohan will answer
lotr was rewriting entire generations' brain chemistry long before asoiaf and so obviously it's not fair to compare any post-lotr fantasy novel to it, and each book series was trying to do different things within their own spheres and so that also is not a fair comparison, but in terms of the cultural impact of the adaptations that came out within a decade of each other, saying that it was game of thrones that made fantasy mainstream is baffling
game of thrones could only run because the lord of the rings movies laid the path, and i will die on this hill
117 notes
·
View notes
one of the great tragedies of sam and dean to me is. sam's violent pit of self-loathing and desire for purity/perfection always pushing him to the brink of destruction. dean loving him so painfully, to the point of obssession - his brother's saviour yet frightened by his brother - doesn't know how to save sam from himself. his worst obstacle to loving and keeping sam safe is sam. so dean blames him for it! and in doing so just keeps feeding the monster living in sam's head telling him he's bad and rotten beyond saving. cue sam_marytrdom.exe
21 notes
·
View notes
One fun thing about bg3 vs dragon age games is that in dragon age, I can't think of a single character I didn't like off the bat, or at least wasn't vaguely interested in. Like yeah some of them are jerks, ogrens a little annoying sometimes, they all do bad things, but they're all easy to get attached to, then it's later on that some make decisions that hurt or disappoint you. But with balder's gate? I genuinely disliked several party members immediately. They were uninteresting, mean, annoying. But you keep playing, and you learn about them, and suddenly you realize they've grown on you like fungus and they have very deep and cool lore and thought and emotion and you get to slowly see them open up!! Both are so much fun!!!
Then again I've barely started my bg3 playthrough so who's to say ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
65 notes
·
View notes
Playing devil's advocate here since I don't disagree the editing was subpar but part of me always thinks, what's the point? Why are we here?
We expect Tharn to be the voice of reason because he's cooler-headed and the sane one in the relationship, but what if he's not?
Tharn has been on a frayed string this whole entire episode, taking hit after hit after hit. He's been alone, worrying about Phaya, trying to be strong for Phaya, trying to find information on his father's killer and he's lost his job. Then Phaya comes to him offering him not only sweet words but escapism. Escape from this god awful situation, these god awful feelings and instead to feel close and connected to the person he loves. He chooses to lose himself in Phaya because he's offering it.
Tharn is imperfect, the same way Phaya is. He's allowed to be so. Better editing could have brought clarity for sure, but I think Tharn's need to fall into Phaya was just as powerful if not more so than Phaya's revelation.
These two don't know how to function on a normal level. They're soulmates. It would not surprise me if Tharn had magic fic cock tbh. I'm trying to rationalize the irrational but it's fun.
33 notes
·
View notes
Dude, I meant to not judge the characters as good or bad, not to stop analyzing them. Ed Edd and Eddy was filmed in "ancient times", when shows based on violence and how everyone was bad was the norm. Every single character behaves meanly for the sake of humor.
i mean true, i do sometimes feel like we're going in circles a bit here with who's bad who's good and why. i personally couldn't care less. you're talking to an eddy enjoyer here... the morality of a character, lack thereof, whatever, has no influence on whether i like them or not, but it matters to some people i guess. and it can certainly play a role in someone's analysis of a character when looking at why they do the things they do, etc. i wouldn't call the tripe i post here analysis but we have fun. or at least try. idk i just answer questions i get sent. it's nothing to get heated about! all the characters are "bad" in their own way, just like real people are. it's a silly slapstick cartoon indeed, but it holds a lot of meaning to me and a bunch of other folks on here. i try to avoid being dismissive about it for that reason.
15 notes
·
View notes